Limbo

[Harmony1988]

This is probably one of those doctrines that I deeply disagree with. Pertaining to limbo of the infants.

I think Augustine may have been high on something here when he came up with this one. I fail to see how a child with no fault of his own is not baptized and will go to this place of limbo? Taking this in the terms of real life, if a man starts to be accused of his father’s sin in 1825, I’m pretty sure you’d be protesting.

Similarly, [edited by Moderator] as it rejects Christ’s love for all, especially for infants who have never sinned, and being in that state where they have never personally sinned they would be all accepting of a baptism if they so understood what it was but haven’t got the chance to go through it because of UNFORTUNATE circumstances may they be through the faults of the parents or a death immediately at birth.

That isn’t justice, and I’m pretty sure God doesn’t think in such a irrational manner. Original sin may hold, but when a child doesn’t get a chance to wash away those sins, it’s not his fault, and to go to hell or some random place of punishment it NEEDS to be someone’s fault.

 

[Mystic_of_God]

Whwhwhwhwhwwhat?

Limbo is not, and never was, a doctrine. There is no official church teaching on the issue. Augustine believed that unbaptized infants went to hell, but the punishment was so light, that it was hardly punishment at all. Thomas Aquinas believed in limbo, neither here nor there. Dante struck a line down the middle. The unbaptized infants fit in to the category of the just heathens, that go to hell, but have the only punishment of the knowledge that it will last forever. In the Inferno, this is the highest level of hell.

I agree with Dante, with one alteration, the baptism of desire on the part of the parents may grant a child entrance to heaven.

Yet there is one massive, fatal flaw in the ointment, that stretches to the practice of infant baptism:

What about the gift of free will? Why would God take it away from a child, that he gave with the price of blood and agony?

This is my difficulty.

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[Harmony1988]

I’m a brown guy, so go ahead call me a nazi. Wouldn’t make people calling me that very smart.

Limbo is there in new advent as well as wiki under Roman Catholicism.

 

[beckycmarie]

There is an article in This Rock on this topic:

Out on a Limbo

In that article, Karl Keating says

Under the older understanding, he noted unbaptized infants who die, whether through miscarriage or abortion, enjoy complete natural happiness but do not see God face to face. They are not in heaven or hell but in a third state, limbo. Under the “novel teaching” of the new catechism, limbo is not mentioned, but it is said we can hope that God has made some provision through which such infants might get to heaven.

The CCC says

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urget is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[Harmony1988]

Ok that’s more like it.

Considering when Jesus addressed people it was rather obvious he addressed people who could actually understand what he was saying.

Mentally handicapped people, children, etc. cannot understand what Christ says, they however can understand love, that is action. They react differently to violence than to love, it shows an understanding. I think that’s more like it.

 

[AlphaOmega]

There is an article in This Rock on this topic:

Out on a Limbo

In that article, Karl Keating says

The CCC says

Ohh, pleasseeeee. Karl Keating doesn’t know what he’s talking about… If he doesn’t think the Council of Trent & Catechism are infallible, and presuming Second Vatican II was not infallible too, then he doesn’t haven an understand on the divine nature of the Church. The Catholic Church was built upon infallible teachings, that an Ecumenical Council promulgated by a Catholic Pope is and will forevermore be valid and infallible.

Well, GK Chesterton is wrong in this instance. Truth can be chronologically determined. There have been truths which have existed and survived since the foundation of the world. Some truths have been passed down and some truths are renewed by the eternal covenant.

Limbo may not be a doctrine, but that does not mean the Church has not believed it. If something is determined by a unanimous consensus of honorable theologians, saints, and fathers, we ought to believe in it as part of the deposit of faith. I don’t see anyone flirting with the idea of throwing away the teaching of guardian angels because it isn’t a doctrine.

Catechisms are not infallible documents. The Roman Catechism may have erred on the fate of unbaptized infants, and it may be that the new catechism, which offers no particular solution but just a generalized hope, is nevertheless closer to the right answer. It might be better to go with the “novel” teaching, which is more vague, and set aside the “traditional” teaching, which, some say, suggests a deficiency in God’s mercy.

I ask that Karl Keating recants his false opinion, and take part in the agreement with the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church, which is the official teachings of the Council of Trent.

 

[beckycmarie]

Can you show where Limbo was ever a doctrine of the church?

 

[AlphaOmega]

Can you show where Limbo was ever a doctrine of the church?

Um… I told you it’s part of the deposit of faith. I said above that it is not a doctrine per se. If you can look it up and if it was theologically taught by more than one Church father, then it is from the mind of the Church. I don’t see how you need any more proof?

Is guardian angel ever doctrinally defined? No. Why do you believe in it? Because it has been faithfully passed down and the Church believes it.

 

[VociMike]

Even the Baltimore Catechism, not exactly a bastion of liberalism, merely says that “it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.”

The issue I have with limbo is that “perfect natural happiness” is impossible for supernatural beings such as we are. It’s an oxymoron. Does the God-shaped hole in the human heart simply disappear in limbo (and if so, is the creature even human any more?), or does it pine for a missing God for all eternity?

 

[AlphaOmega]

Even the Baltimore Catechism, not exactly a bastion of liberalism, merely says that “it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.”

The issue I have with limbo is that “perfect natural happiness” is impossible for supernatural beings such as we are. It’s an oxymoron. Does the God-shaped hole in the human heart simply disappear in limbo (and if so, is the creature even human any more?), or does it pine for a missing God for all eternity?

It is traditionally understood and is Catholic teaching that the day of Final Judgment, there would only be Heaven or Hell. We should look to the day when the Almighty is of Justice and Mercy, but we should not presume that these innocent souls attain beatific vision without any merit of their own, without justification, without sanctifying grace… in the end, it would lead to the watering-down of Original Sin doctrine, as well as Salvation.

No, let me correct that. We are NOT supernatural beings at birth. We are deprived of the SUPERNATURAL state of sanctifying grace. We have immortal souls, and that’s about it. We have the capacity to be restored supernaturally through the grace of Christ. But that is the argument, how can these innocent souls merit the grace of Christ without any participation of their own?

 

[ilovekittens]

Don’t infants still carry Original Sin?

 

[AlphaOmega]

Don’t infants still carry Original Sin?

Why not? Unless they were rejuvenated by ordinary means of salvation, which is water baptism.

All peoples are born with original sin until they are validly baptized into the Catholic Church.

 

[VociMike]

But that is the argument, how can these innocent souls merit the grace of Christ without any participation of their own?

How does any baptized baby participate? How did the Holy Innocents participate?

 

[AlphaOmega]

How does any baptized baby participate? How did the Holy Innocents participate?

At baptism, they are infused with the supernatural virtue of faith, hope, and charity through the acceptance of their parents’ will and consent.

The Holy Innocents were baptized through their blood for Christ’s sake. That is to say only those who are purposefully martyred for Christ are saved by their own desire and blood.

 

[mlchance]

All peoples are born with original sin until they are validly baptized into the Catholic Church.

Not true. I was validly baptized as a Southern Baptist when I was about eleven. I didn’t become Catholic until about 20 years later.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[beckycmarie]

What about the last sentence of CCC #1257:

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Doesn’t this mean that the unbaptized could go to Heaven?

 

[AlphaOmega]

Not true. I was validly baptized as a Southern Baptist when I was about eleven. I didn’t become Catholic until about 20 years later.

– Mark L. Chance.

In order for baptism to be valid, it must be stated as such…"I (person doing the action) baptize you (recipient) in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

If you were baptized validly in another church (physical property), you were baptized into the Catholic Church. Whether or not you knew it, is another story.

 

[mlchance]

If you were baptized validly in another church (physical property), you were baptized into the Catholic Church. Whether or not you knew it, is another story.

Well, I guess that’s one way out of just admitting you erred.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[AlphaOmega]

What about the last sentence of CCC #1257:

Doesn’t this mean that the unbaptized could go to Heaven?

Now you’re going into speculation. The Catholic faith isn’t speculating.

But we are talking about unbaptized babies without actual sins.

 

[VociMike]

At baptism, they are infused with the supernatural virtue of faith, hope, and charity through the acceptance of their parents’ will and consent.

The Holy Innocents were baptized through their blood for Christ’s sake. That is to say only those who are purposefully martyred for Christ are saved by their own desire and blood.

So they didn’t participate in their own salvation, as you seemed to suggest was necessary. That was my point.