Limbo? I don't understand

[VociMike]

By this I believe that refer to the Limbo of the Father. Only the just hebrews went there, not everybody who did not know the one God made it. the Philistines and the others did not make it.

Then you make all of the missionaries whose lives were ended that unbelievers might believe to be vain.

No life lived in the service of God is in vain. Every Catholic should affirm that.

Anyway, if people want to believe that God does not offer sufficient grace for salvation to every person, but that some people will be denied salvation through no choice of their own, then they are free to believe that.

But they really should become Calvinists.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

No life lived in the service of God is in vain. Every Catholic should affirm that.

Anyway, if people want to believe that God does not offer sufficient grace for salvation to every person, but that some people will be denied salvation through no choice of their own, then they are free to believe that.

But they really should become Calvinists.

According to the Catholic Church, the merits of Our Lord’s crucifixion must be sacramentally applied to one to have sactifying grace which is necessary to salvation.
St. Paul says that those to whom the gospel is not communicated are lost. But in our day the Church is in almost every part of the world, making it hard to be so ignorant as you put it.

But you still have not answered my question.
What then of Original Sin? These people still have it, are you saying they will obtain salvation in a way which is not defined by God almighty?
Are you saying that the remission of original sin can be remitted through ignorance even though the Church has repeatedly stated that only baptism removes original sin?

Regarding BOD, for this, one must desire it, referring to the catechumen, babies and pagans are not catechumens.
The Church has defined that those in original sin only go to Hell, but suffer not the pains of Hell, but merely separation from God.

According to you, Our Lord’s command to teach and baptise all nations is rubbish and in vain.

 

[VociMike]

According to the Catholic Church, the merits of Our Lord’s crucifixion must be sacramentally applied to one to have sactifying grace which is necessary to salvation.
St. Paul says that those to whom the gospel is not communicated are lost. But in our day the Church is in almost every part of the world, making it hard to be so ignorant as you put it.

But you still have not answered my question.
What then of Original Sin? These people still have it, are you saying they will obtain salvation in a way which is not defined by God almighty?
Are you saying that the remission of original sin can be remitted through ignorance even though the Church has repeatedly stated that only baptism removes original sin?

Regarding BOD, for this, one must desire it, referring to the catechumen, babies and pagans are not catechumens.
The Church has defined that those in original sin only go to Hell, but suffer not the pains of Hell, but merely separation from God.

According to you, Our Lord’s command to teach and baptise all nations is rubbish and in vain.

Fine, I give you permission to believe that God denies many (most?) people even the possibility of salvation, through no fault or act of their own. I find such a belief (which is not taught by the Church) to be repugnant and God-dishonoring, so I won’t be taking part in the discussion any further.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

Fine, I give you permission to believe that God denies many (most?) people even the possibility of salvation, through no fault or act of their own. I find such a belief (which is not taught by the Church) to be repugnant and God-dishonoring, so I won’t be taking part in the discussion any further.

Would you then show me my error from the Church, before the Council of Florence?

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

Baptism of blood and desire. Do you claim these are not dogmas? I invited you previously to so assert. I’ll be happy to provide you with the evidence that they are.

Would you then show me a concilliar definition from before the Council of Florence?

 

[tdgesq]

First of all I have made no assertion on BOD, or BOB, which in any case do not refer to this topic.

Except to the extent that one claims there isn’t any way to receive the grace of baptism other than through the sacramental process, leading to the conclusion that limbo must exist.

Second, My source is in hard copy, Denzinger, Sources of Catholic dogma.

Okay, so let me get this straight. You own Denzinger in hard copy, and this is where you got the quote referring to Lyons II. Is this correct?

Since it appears you own it, what does Denzinger have to say about the theological degree of certainty of children’s limbo?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

All original sin is is the privation of sactifying grace.

God is love. Is His love big enough to provide sancitfying grace?

He did it for Mary. Why wouldn’t He do it for innocent children?

I’ll tell all you original sin cherishers this–if God allows the innocent who have never committed one single mortal sin to Hell what does that say about the Justice of God?

Now of course we don’t know how God judges but He has revealed to us much of his justice in the bible. He has given us a brain to see further than what is directly in our gaze–if not we would not have faith.

If God condemns infants to Hell who have never committed one single mortal sin how does that make him any better than the Greek or Roman false pagan capricious gods?

The real question is is God capricious and unjust to satisfy His own vanity by allowing such infants to burn in Hell or does He have the intelligence to get around the Oridginal Sin problem?

Just because humans can’t get around the original sin problem–don’t think that the Infinite God of Justice and Mercy is also likewise not Infinitely Intelligent to get around the problem.

God will forever be larger than the small minds of such closed minded theologians who don’t know what God is all about.

If they truely knew of God’s Mercy and Justice and Intelligence they wouldn’t reduce Him to being such on ogre and certainly wouldn’t pat themselves on the pack with artifically produced theological speculations such as Limbo!

Limbo is a crock!

Pope Benedict XVI knows it. How long will it take the close minded people to understand that?

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

All original sin is is the privation of sactifying grace.

God is love. Is His love big enough to provide sancitfying grace?

He did it for Mary. Why wouldn’t He do it for innocent children?

I’ll tell all you original sin cherishers this–if God allows the innocent who have never committed one single mortal sin to Hell what does that say about the Justice of God?

Now of course we don’t know how God judges but He has revealed to us much of his justice in the bible. He has given us a brain to see further than what is directly in our gaze–if not we would not have faith.

If God condemns infants to Hell who have never committed one single mortal sin how does that make him any better than the Greek or Roman false pagan capricious gods?

The real question is is God capricious and unjust to satisfy His own vanity by allowing such infants to burn in Hell or does He have the intelligence to get around the Oridginal Sin problem?

Just because humans can’t get around the original sin problem–don’t think that the Infinite God of Justice and Mercy is also likewise not Infinitely Intelligent to get around the problem.

God will forever be larger than the small minds of such closed minded theologians who don’t know what God is all about.

If they truely knew of God’s Mercy and Justice and Intelligence they wouldn’t reduce Him to being such on ogre and certainly wouldn’t pat themselves on the pack with artifically produced theological speculations such as Limbo!

Limbo is a crock!

Pope Benedict XVI knows it. How long will it take the close minded people to understand that?

Obviously you have not read this thread and do not know what Limbo even is. The concept of Limbo is that children who are not baptised merely suffer separation from God, because of their original sin, God cannot behold original sin for all eternity, and we must remember, that heaven is a reward, it is not for everyone who does’nt know about punishment, this is like the cartoons of old, where the cartoon characters did not fall until they knew that they had run off a cliff, or that they did not fall because they never studied law, even though they knew that it defied gravity.

Physical and spiritual things and laws are alike in many ways, they are one the spiritual and physical as our bodies are endowed with a soul, so it is logical, that one may not know they have died in their sleep, and still be dead. Consequences exist, whether we like it, or know of it.
God set the standard, not me, or any theologian.

Babies, do not suffer the fires of Hell, because they have no actual sin.

Regarding Denzinger, I have read it, and I have taken many excerpts from it, it belongs to a family member, not myself, but nevertheless, the quotations from it still hold the same weight as if I did, because it is actually from the councils of the Church, which can be found at the links I have provided, particularly this one.

 

[VociMike]

Obviously you have not read this thread and do not know what Limbo even is. The concept of Limbo is that children who are not baptised merely suffer separation from God

What other definition of hell is there, besides separation from God?

 

[Walking_Home]

No life lived in the service of God is in vain. Every Catholic should affirm that.

Anyway, if people want to believe that God does not offer sufficient grace for salvation to every person, but that some people will be denied salvation through no choice of their own, then they are free to believe that.

But they really should become Calvinists.

---

Are you saying that the multitude of Catholics who died believing in limbo should have been Calvinists. The teaching of limbo came thru the Church—so are you saying the Church was teaching Calvinism.

 

[down_under]

Fallen angels made the choice not to be with God, the reason the ‘rule’ in hell is because they are bigger and stronger then we are. The bully on the playground.

The fire? I would say that the pain of feeling separated from God could be described as a fire. I won’t go into too much, but I have felt the feeling I am talking about. It was a much smaller degree then what someone would feel in hell, but I believe that at a point in my life (I’m not going to go into details) I felt a very deep separation from God, and in all honesty I can imagine no worse feeling.

Thank you for correcting my spelling now let me help you with your theology. In hell you fell physical pain. Both because of the lack of the presence of God, AND because you are constantly punished by the deamons who reside there who HATE you. They constantly torment you PHYSICALLY. Not just “bad feeling” real physical pain like you have never come close to feeling in this world.

 

[tdgesq]

Regarding Denzinger, I have read it, and I have taken many excerpts from it, it belongs to a family member, not myself, but nevertheless, the quotations from it still hold the same weight as if I did, because it is actually from the councils of the Church, which can be found at the links I have provided, particularly this one.

Let’s try this one more time. So you’ve read Denzinger, but you don’t own it and don’t currently have possession of it. That being the case, where did you get this quote that you posted today:

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

Where did you pull this from? It wasn’t straight from Denzinger because you don’t have it with you. I mean, this is a simple question that I’ve had to ask multiple times now. If you pulled that quote from another book you have or from a website, please cite to it.

Would you then show me a concilliar definition from before the Council of Florence?

Before you stated that baptism of blood and desire had no place in this debate. Apparently you’ve change your mind. Why would it make any difference if it’s a dogma that comes from an ecumenical council before Florence? In any case, I’ll provide it once you’ve given me the source where you actually pulled the language you quoted today.

 

[VociMike]

---

Are you saying that the multitude of Catholics who died believing in limbo should have been Calvinists. The teaching of limbo came thru the Church—so are you saying the Church was teaching Calvinism.

Whatever else Limbo is, it is not salvation. It is eternal separation from God, the very opposite of heaven. Now I very much doubt that most of those Catholics really thought it through - I know I didn’t. But if one insists, today, and in contradiction to the Church as expressed in the CCC, that there can be no hope of salvation for those not baptised, then I would say they are being more Calvinist than Catholic in their thinking.

 

[Walking_Home]

Whatever else Limbo is, it is not salvation. It is eternal separation from God, the very opposite of heaven. Now I very much doubt that most of those Catholics really thought it through - I know I didn’t. But if one insists, today, and in contradiction to the Church as expressed in the CCC, that there can be no hope of salvation for those not baptised, then I would say they are being more Calvinist than Catholic in their thinking.

---

One thing that cannot be denied----the teaching came from the Church. So in essence from what you say—the Church was teaching Calvinism.

The contradiction is —the Church teaching limbo—and now teaches other.

 

[clmowry]

Well skip to 2007 and read the document commisioned and published by the Vatican on the subject that you are so sure I’m wrong about.

The scholars involved seem to think that “Limbo” is still valid “theological speculation” and it is therefore not a “dogma” of the Church.

Interestingly enough, they reference all of the writings of the Church fathers and Councils that you reference, but come to a totally different conclusion.

It is “your” opinion that an ex cathedra papal pronouncements has been made asserting that “limbo” is a dogma of the church that I am questioning.

It’s not the validity of ex cathedra papal pronouncements I doubt.

Exactly how many of those do you think there have been anyway? Ive never seen a list myself. Maybe you could point me to an official Church source that lists them?

Chuck

So, their opinion is greater than ex cathedra papal pronouncements?

Show me where I have posted my unsubstantiated opinion.
You here imply that what I have posted regarding ecclesiastical documents is reduced to that of a personal opinion or liking.

In my study of ecclesiastical doctrine, I am still in the middle of Pius XI, so I guess not.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

It’s from Denzinger 464.
If you’re using an internet source, those all come from a different work titled The “Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils” edited by Norman P. Tanner, and that is why the inconsistency.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

---

One thing that cannot be denied----the teaching came from the Church. So in essence from what you say—the Church was teaching Calvinism.

The contradiction is —the Church teaching limbo—and now teaches other.

Consider this, scripture must be read in the light of Tradition, and the New Testament must be read in the light of the old.
In the Old Testament, only people in the Hebrew nation could be saved, the rest of the world excluded, thus, are you then to judge God?
In the New Testament, only people in the Church can be saved, as Israel was a prefigurement of the Church, and the Church functions in the same manner. We are not to judge God’s justice, as it is He who lays down that standard, and has revealed to us the means for salvation which he has provided, speculations are not the indefectible teaching of the Church, but that which is defined, as I have shown from the magisterial teachings, the dogma of Limbo.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic… But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism.”

To deny Limbo is to say that all are people are born in the state of grace.
This is a direct denial of the Council of Trent’s teaching on Original Sin.
It is to deny that all are born in a state of original sin contracted from Adam.
The Lord laid down the requirement for all mankind, even infants, must be baptised for salvation. He declared: “Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
We know that Baptism is necessary because Pope Eugene IV proclaimed at the Council of Florence in Session 8 on November 22, 1439 that Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. He then goes on to say " The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God. But notice he speaks of the Baptised going to the vision of God.

Then the Council of Trent declares Pope Paul III: “If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation(cf. Jn 3:5): let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Canon 5 on the sacrament of baptism, ex cathedra)
The Early Church Fathers preached the necessity of the sacrament: “'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is expected: not the infant,** not the one prevented by necessity.**” Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387).

 

[tdgesq]

It’s from Denzinger 464.

I don’t care if it’s from Denzinger 464. You didn’t get it from Denzinger 464 because you don’t have a copy in your possession. So it’s from The “Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils” edited by Norman P. Tanner now? Just tell me. A simple, straightforward question. Give me the name of the source, the author, and the page number of the source where you got this quote today. Or, give me the internet link where you found it today.

This is just basic scholarship. If you can’t or won’t show me where you pull your quotes, then it is a waste of my time and everyone else’s time engaging with you any longer.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

I don’t care if it’s from Denzinger 464. You didn’t get it from Denzinger 464 because you don’t have a copy in your possession. So it’s from The “Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils” edited by Norman P. Tanner now? Just tell me. A simple, straightforward question. Give me the name of the source, the author, and the page number of the source where you got this quote today. Or, give me the internet link where you found it today.

This is just basic scholarship. If you can’t or won’t show me where you pull your quotes, then it is a waste of my time and everyone else’s time engaging with you any longer.

Like I said, I took many excerpts from Denzinger, this is such an excerpt.
Go look it up in Denzinger for your self.
I never said it was from Tanner, but that all of the internet sources of the councils are from this work, that is why you cannot find it.
There you have it, solved, end of discussion on the source.