Limbo

[Benadam]

If that is the case, then why has the Church taught that the only way that a soul can be cleansed from original sin is by baptism? If it’s just through similarity with Christ that a soul is cleansed from original sin and filled with sanctifying grace then we would all be conceived without sin and thus we would deny Adam’s transmission of original sin to his descendants. The Church has always taught that we inherit this original sin through our human nature that lacks the gift of sanctifying grace at its conception. Furthermore, the Church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary received a singular grace of being preserved from original sin; she was the only one. The end result of this new theology that is not rooted in the handed down tradition is a denial of original sin itself and its transmission to us. We all become “baptized” by Jesus in the womb just by likeness and no longer need water baptism. Do you see the destructive nature and how it results in denying what the Church has always taught cannot be denied? The sources have already been demonstrated earlier in this thread; otherwise, I would re-post them all again myself.

You’re misunderstanding what I mean. I’m sorry. Forgive me for using this discussion as a developemental tool.I’m presenting the union of likeness as a means to present Christ to dying souls that have not even flexed their faculties higher or lower. That the experience would cause a reflex response of will. I am thinking current theology would call that response their ‘fundamental option’?
A process that would lead them to desire God, or not, and consequently Baptism, or not, if they were able to know what it was.

 

[una_fides]

right or wrong, i stand by what i said. to deny a child heaven would be cruel.

Hi! Thank you for sharing your opinion. I think what Shin was trying to say that bad things happen in life but we do not blame God for them as if he was the cause. For example, if a women gets raped and tortured and murdered or if it happens to thousands of women, (which it has) and God permits it, does that mean that God is cruel or that God caused it to happen? Did God condone it? Of course not. Why does God permit evil in the world? Because it produces a greater good, our sanctification. God did not make Adam choose to eat from the tree, and we cannot blame God for the decision that Adam made for all of his descendants. Adam chose for all of us to be spiritual enemies of God by our very nature through his rebellion against God. Adam had perfect knowledge of Good and evil. He knew what he was doing, and he chose to do evil, he chose pride, he chose to be an enemy of God and made this choice for all of us who inherit his nature. We are born in his spiritual lineage as enemy combatants in the war of good and evil. It is essential that we see it as God sees it and not as we humans do. When we look at a child we do not see the state of his soul just as we look at a beautiful or attractive person and do not think that such a person could end up in hell for their secret sins. The point is that God’s ways are so far above ours, and we have to see things from his perspective.

Hope this helps.

 

[una_fides]

You’re misunderstanding what I mean. I’m sorry. Forgive me for using this discussion as a developemental tool.I’m presenting the union of likeness as a means to present Christ to dying souls that have not even flexed their faculties higher or lower. That the experience would cause a reflex response of will. I am thinking current theology would call that response their ‘fundamental option’?
A process that would lead them to desire God, or not, and consequently Baptism, or not, if they were able to know what it was.

Which Church fathers taught such a thing? Saints? Doctors of the Church?

 

[Hesychios]

I’ll have to correct what I said above, my apologies, I said the sermon called limbo doctrine – that was incorrect listening to it again as far as I can tell, it seems I misheard/misrecalled – it is said that *it is doctrine that those who die in original sin are deprived of the beatific vision. *

Interestingly, some Christians (myself included) do not accept that a beatific vision is actually possible.

No one can see God in His essence.

Therefore, if children in Limbo are merely denied that, they are denied nothing.

 

[Hesychios]

There is on more difference, that of substantial importance between Limbo and these other four items. These things you mentioned are dogmas, infallibly defined Truth. Limbo is not.

Since belief in Limbo is being challenged and begs clarification, it is theoretically possible for a future Pope to Infallibly define that there actually IS a Limbo.

If he did so, would that clinch it for you? Would you believe it?

Just curious.

 

[pnewton]

Since belief in Limbo is being challenged and begs clarification, it is theoretically possible for a future Pope to Infallibly define that there actually IS a Limbo.

If he did so, would that clinch it for you? Would you believe it?

Just curious.

Of course. I have admitted I know little about the afterlife. Likewise if it were defined that Limbo did not exist it would clear it upr for every faithful Catholic. But specualting about future understanding of such things is even speculative than the topic to begin with.

 

[karoleck]

I looked up the index of The Catechism of The Catholic Church and looked for “Limbo”—nothing there!! Why? Because it is not a doctrine that Catholics believe in, as an act of faith.What happened was that the Doctors of The Church wanted to highlight the need for Baptism.

Christ insisted that “he who believes and is baptised will be saved who does not will be condemned” So parents are encourged by the Church to baptize their babies ASAP or sooner in danger of death,as it is the normal means to remove original sin and open the doors of eternal life.

So then these" doctors of the Church" had to work out what happens to babies who die in the womb,aborted babies and those who die before reaching the age of reason and were not baptised…All these three examples are not in the control of the babies!!

The problem with highlighting the need for baptism–which is a wonderful focus–is that these babies are left in “limbo” ;as there is no direct message or revealed truth from Christ what exactly happens to these babies.

There is a danger that extreme positions can be extrapolated from the ideas of 'limbo" which is totally unfair to parents who already suffer from the natural loss of their baby.From untrue statements that their baby is now suffering,that they are not with God and they will never see their babies again;because they are not in Heaven etc.etc.The fact is WE DO NOT KNOW!

My own personal GUESS is that yes,I believe these unbaptised babies are in the hands of God;no torment can touch them! Since they never committed a deliberate sin,ever ,they cannot have anything to be punished or purified from! Yes their souls were conceived in original sin and not baptised.

So they are like the Choosen People before the coming of Christ–who were in "sheol’ or “the underworld”.It is where Christ visited after He died on the cross-to free the souls like David.Moses,Ester etc.who were awaiting the door of Heaven to be opened.I GUESS that is in the state that these unbaptised souls are at and it would not surprise me, if these babies enter Heaven after the final judgement.

But Gods’ ways are not my ways,so firstly I through the Mercy of God look farward to what “God has prepared for those who love Him” as for the souls in the state of “limbo” (neither Heaven,Purgatory or Hell)-well, they are in The Hands of Our Loving Heavenly Father!!

 

[kbharbert]

**thank you. that is my GUESS as well; i just couldn’t put the words together to explain what i meant. **

 

[Southerncross]

There once was a Limbo - thats where the souls of the just were detained who died prior to Our Lords Redemptive Sacrifice .
[SIGN]Pax et Bonum[/SIGN]

 

[Hesychios]

There once was a Limbo - thats where the souls of the just were detained who died prior to Our Lords Redemptive Sacrifice .
[sign]Pax et Bonum[/sign]

Limbus Patrum.

Limbus Infantum as a theory could possibly be the same place, or another place entirely.

 

[Hesychios]

My own personal GUESS is that yes,I believe these unbaptised babies are in the hands of God;no torment can touch them! Since they never committed a deliberate sin,ever ,they cannot have anything to be punished or purified from! Yes their souls were conceived in original sin and not baptised.

Just curious, do you have another concept of Original Sin, apart from what the Catholic church normally teaches? Or would you say that your concept of Original Sin matches what the Catholic church teaches?

Some important Catholic teachers of the past (quoted elsewhere) have suggested that the very presence of Original Sin justifies damnation. You seem to disagree and propose that the presence of this sin alone does not in fact justify damnation.

So they are like the Chosen People before the coming of Christ–who were in "sheol’ or “the underworld”.It is where Christ visited after He died on the cross-to free the souls like David.Moses,Ester etc.who were awaiting the door of Heaven to be opened.I GUESS that is in the state that these unbaptised souls are at and it would not surprise me, if these babies enter Heaven after the final judgement.

This sounds like Limbo, all over again, except that you speculate it might be temporary.

Interesting.

 

[karoleck]

Just curious, do you have another concept of Original Sin, apart from what the Catholic church normally teaches? Or would you say that your concept of Original Sin matches what the Catholic church teaches?

Some important Catholic teachers of the past (quoted elsewhere) have suggested that the very presence of Original Sin justifies damnation. You seem to disagree and propose that the presence of this sin alone does not in fact justify damnation.
This sounds like Limbo, all over again, except that you speculate it might be temporary.

Interesting.

I would reply to this first question on Original Sin,that there is a development of this doctrine over time.The Teaching of the Catholic Church remains the same,yesterday,today and tomorrow; BUT our understanding of it does increase.

For instance we now know that “the holy innocents” are just that–though they never were baptised .the Church celebrates them as Saints in Heaven;as they gave up their lives as a fragrant witness to The Baby Christ Child.So using your rather harsh judgement–they should be punished or sent to damnation (to use your term instead) ;as they did not go through a ritual baptism of water–or to turn the question back on you–have you got another concept of Original Sin–different from what the Church teaches--instead of “damnation” of the Holy Innocents–It confirms their souls are in Heaven!

We then further learnt that the souls who were not baptised ;but intended to be and were killed for their faith in Christ—are in Heaven by the fact of BAPTISM OF DESIRE! So all this is an increased knowledge of our understand of Original Sin.

Then The Holy Father,in union with all the Bishops throughout the world ;also point out in the wonderful Dogmatic Teachings of Vatican II ,that The Roman Catholic Church is the only means of salvation founded by Christ,on the Rock of St.Peter.It further stated that those who through INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE,by leading worthy lives–through NO FAULT of their own have the possibility of being “saved” through the Passion and Death and Ressurection of Christ.Sure the obligation remains on people of GOOD WILL; to seek the Truth,believe in Christ and be baptised within The One Holy and Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I would GUESS that maybe “the punishment” of not being baptised (through no fault of their own) is a **temporary stay **in a state called “limbo”.Perhaps this is what purifies them until the last day.?I would GUESS that maybe aborted babies(who normally are not baptised) spend their “limbo” suffering in the sense of not being fully united with The Truine God in Heaven–I say perhaps they like the “holy innocents”,victims of sin and shame–might somehow influence those involved in their untimely deaths to a conversion of heart.? I use the term influence ,as they cannot earn merrit as such–just a though!!

Remember how the rich person in Hell, asked Christ to send a message to his other brothers not do do as he did–Jesus did not deny that he had the power to do just that–however He retorted that they would not believe–even if someone rose from the dead.Sorry off the thread a bit!

I never denied the state of “Limbo” does not exist— by the way–we carry the STAIN of original sin which Adam & Eve committed–I just do not hold it as a doctrine to be believed as an article of faith–neither does the Church.(except you perhaps!)you are right that “Original Sin” deserved punishment—that is what The Easter Triduum is all about surely—Jesus suffered the most horrible,severe punishment that my sins caused–intead of me being punished forever in Hell–Jesus died instead for me!! So instead of DAMNATION–which you seem to focus on my brother–I look towards Mercy,Forgivess of my sins and the Joys of Everlasting Life!!

Two men looked through the iron bars—one saw mud and the other saw stars!! God Bless you ,my brother/sister in Christ.

 

[karoleck]

Just a little post script–I was refering to Limbo as not an article of faith,naturally the Doctrine of Original Sin certainly is!! I just got the sentence worded wrongly. In the last previous paragrath,though it is true that Adam & Eve commited Original Sin–we had the stain of original sin before our baptism.,Which meant that the Gates of Heaven were closed.But as the cry in the Exultat goes “Oh Happy Fault” Why is it called that–because God the Father sent us a Savior to take way our DAMNATION!!
Our Lady was the only one conceived free from original sin,through the prevision of the merits of the Passion and Death of Christ.
Oh Mary Conceived without Original Sin,pray for us who have recourse to You and for those who do not ,the churchless millions.Amen.

 

[John21652]

I personally do not believe in the “limbus infantium”.
Limbo would include that those infants who die without a Catholic baptism would not see heaven, but enter into a place that has only the mildest torments because of original sin. I can’t see how any torments would be justified and how God would inflict this upon infants and aborted children. As the Bible does not mention such a thing I refuse to believe that this kind of an injustice truly exists.

Well said.

My God is supposedly merciful, all loving and forgiving. What could a stillborn child have ever done to warrant punishment? Or an aborted baby, cruelly denied the right to life and killed in a horrible fashion? Meanwhile, those who misuse their free will and committ outrages of all types are free to repent on their death beds and be forgiven.
C’mon now…

 

[Shin]

The Holy Innocents died before baptism was instituted.

The Old Law’s requirements were different, but similar.

The Church does not teach that infants can receive baptism of desire.

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is taught in these words, this is how it was proclaimed: “The Most Holy Virgin Mary was, in the first moment of her conception, by a unique gift of grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of mankind, preserved from all stain of original sin.”

Ott’s explains: “Mary’s freedom from original sin was an unmerited gift of God (gratia), and an exception from the law (privilegium) which was vouchsafed to her only (singulare).”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is taught in these words, this is how it was proclaimed: “The Most Holy Virgin Mary was, in the first moment of her conception, by a unique gift of grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of mankind, preserved from all stain of original sin.”

Ott’s explains: “Mary’s freedom from original sin was an unmerited gift of God (gratia), and an exception from the law (privilegium) which was vouchsafed to her only (singulare).”

Actually this is the english translation, the official document is in Latin and Ott’s explaination is that of one theologian.

 

[palmas85]

Well said.

My God is supposedly merciful, all loving and forgiving. What could a stillborn child have ever done to warrant punishment? Or an aborted baby, cruelly denied the right to life and killed in a horrible fashion? Meanwhile, those who misuse their free will and committ outrages of all types are free to repent on their death beds and be forgiven.
C’mon now…

Original Sin. It does not seem at all fair that the entire human race carries it. Yet we do. We are all born carrying it. None of us escape it. Our souls are stained with it from the moment of conception.

Original Sin. The consequences and guilt of that long ago act, whatever it may have been, that neither you nor I nor anyone else alive today had anything at all to do with. Yet we carry it until the day that our souls are cleansed through Baptism, which was deemed necessary by no less an authority on the subject than Christ Jesus. I think that He probably knew what he was talking about.

Original Sin. Why does it exist? What is the possible rationale behind it? Why is an entire species guilty of this? Why why why? An enigma wrapped in a riddle. If God so loves us why do we carry this horrific burden on our souls? Why are we so stained and so condemned and so unclean before God?. Not because of something we did. Something that someone else did thousands of years ago. Why not just forget it? Let it go. Forgive us of it without having to go through the whole business of Baptism. Better yet, why not just do away with it completely? Surely God could do that.

Original Sin. The ultimate stumbling block to the theory, apparently subscribed to by many, that the unbaptized except in certain situations, fairly clearly defined situations by the way, can be saved and achieve paradise.

Maybe we will never understand why. Probably never understand why. I know that I won’t. But whenever it troubles me as when other things trouble me, I remember a passage from Isiah, Isiah 55:8 actually, that my mother taught me oh so many years ago when I couldn’t wrap my limited intellect around a concept that seemed too cruel, even barbaric for anyone civilized to accept let alone be sanctioned and condoned by a loving God.

**For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. . **

I think that all would do well to remember that. We are not God and our thoughts are not His. Hard to accept. hard to deal with. Something we may never understand. But we really don’t have to understand the why. We just have to accept it.

 

[simple_soul]

**For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. . **

I think that all would do well to remember that. We are not God and our thoughts are not His. Hard to accept. hard to deal with. Something we may never understand. But we really don’t have to understand the why. We just have to accept it.

Amen, and may we never forget that His ways are His ways and that we DO learn to accept how He reveals His ways to us.

 

[karoleck]

The Holy Innocents died before baptism was instituted.

The Old Law’s requirements were different, but similar.

The Church does not teach that infants can receive baptism of desire.

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is taught in these words, this is how it was proclaimed: “The Most Holy Virgin Mary was, in the first moment of her conception, by a unique gift of grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of mankind, preserved from all stain of original sin.”

Ott’s explains: “Mary’s freedom from original sin was an unmerited gift of God (gratia), and an exception from the law (privilegium) which was vouchsafed to her only (singulare).”

You are correct in what you say–I am old enough to be included to have been raised as a Traditional Catholic–something to thank God -especially to the Religious Sisters and Brothers who not only taugh the faith; but were living examples of it.SO Limbo was taught as a place where souls went before Christ and yes, those souls who died as infants,abortions or in the womb.However----I do think that there has been a shift away from the concept of an 'everlasting limbo".

The "old catechism’certainly mentioned Limbo-though it primarily referred to the “good chosen people’s abode” when they died before the coming of Christ.Though I cleary remember infant limbo being taught.I then looked up the Teachings of Christ–it stated that the concept of infant limbo(those who died without receiving baptism) surfaced around the thirteeth centuary–St.Thomas wrote and expanded on it.The Teachings of Christ then went on to say that contemporary writers shift towards a temporary limbo ;where on the Last Day they will through the Baptism of desire enter Heaven.As I stated before the new Catechism does not mention it–Vatican II expanded the notion of salvation ,as already stated in my previous posting .Cannon Law just re affirmed the duty of parents to baptise their children asap after their birth-nothing else.

Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta once spoke about some of her dying “untouchable” 'friends which she loved with the compassion of Christ.She remarked that these unbaptised adults,who only suffered all their lives,never really lived did any evil–she maintained that SUFFERING purified them and they went peacefully to Heaven!! Sure it was only her opinion but I tend to believe her!!

Christ was both Priest and Victim–maybe it is the sufferings or Victimhood of aborted babies that purifies them ,similar to Mother Theresa’s example.?

I just wonder if the idea of “infant limbo” gives a wrong message about the sacredness of human life.In the old catechism the question was asked.Why were you made–answer was “to know,love and serve God here on earth and be happy with Him forever in Heaven”
But then unborn infants according to the permanent limbo proponents are in this case not made for Heaven!! So the conclusion perhaps could be inferred that infants in the womb are lesser beings ?

Someone asked in this thread "would you believe in a permanent limbo if the Church said it was?Even if the Church did–what difference would it make to the aborted babies,the ones dying in the womb,the unbaptised infants before reaching the age of reason.?Are they all going to read up on it?The obligation would still remain to seek baptism by the parents,the doctrine of Original Sin would still be unaltered,the need for belief and baptism would still be a condition to enter eternal life.Now, we do not know Gods’ ways,in Heaven we will know all–our curiosity will be quenched!

Perhaps our energy would be better spent on what we do know–and that is to “Go out to all the world and tell the good news,he who believes and is baptised will be saved,he who does not believe will be condemned!!”

 

[surritter]

I just wonder if the idea of “infant limbo” gives a wrong message about the sacredness of human life.In the old catechism the question was asked.Why were you made–answer was “to know,love and serve God here on earth and be happy with Him forever in Heaven”
But then unborn infants according to the permanent limbo proponents are in this case not made for Heaven!! So the conclusion perhaps could be inferred that infants in the womb are lesser beings ?

Interesting thoughts! However, I would disagree with the conclusion you draw in the section that I have quoted.

ALL of us were made to know, love, and serve God. Even those still in the womb. But you are forgetting Adam’s sin, which means that what we were made for is not an automatic reality. Even though I doubt there is a limbo, that would not take away the purpose for which a person is made; the preborn are certainly made for heaven.

Here’s a similar thought: we were all made to live without sin, fear, or physical discomfort. Yet we suffer from those things because of Adam and Eve. So there’s a difference between what we were made for and what we are burdened with due to original sin.