Limbo

[una_fides]

All I can say is that you entirely missed the meaning of what I wrote. " within the boundaries set by divine revelation" covers your objection. I haven’t written anything that that would violate the sense of any doctrin or dogma. Before you accuse of such ignorance you should present the doctrin or dogma that is violated. Christ reveals man to himself. You know what happens after that? Man understands his relationship with God and God in a deeper way. You know what happens after that? We understand ourselves more etc etc. If the sense of doctrin or dogma does suffer a distortion the direction that the theological developement takes is towards a different faith. We must also be aware of when that isn’t happening because if we say it is and it isn’t we may inhibit what the Lord wishes us to know and fail to do and be what God would want. So I ask the sense of which doctrin has been violated by what I’ve posted? If you can’t present evidence for that you shouldn’t bring it up. In fact if we adhered to your perspective concerning doctrin and dogma Catholic theology would not be developemental and would be stagnant. The Church teaches that it’s a worthwhile persuit for theologians to seek a reason to hope that babies that die without water Baptism have a way to heaven. This isn’t the Church seeking a theological reason to believe that all babies who die that way go to heaven but that heaven isn’t impossible .

I never claimed you violated any doctrines specifically in your post. You did, however, use the word “evolve” regarding God’s divine revelation to man, and that word has certain overtones and heretical connections, as the documents I presented demonstrated.

You also said that if we adhered to “my perspective” concerning doctrine and dogma that theology would not develop. When did I present “my perspective” exactly??? I did not say one such thing yet. All I did was post an infallible declaration from Trent as well as an oath instituted by Pope Pius X that used to be mandatory for all who taught the Catholic faith to take in order to guard against modernism. You seem to be missing the distinction between development and evolution of dogmas. When a dogma develops, it does not change. It is merely understood more fully and completely, yet in the same sense, with the same meaning, and the same understanding as it has always been understood. For example, the Trinity is a development of dogma. The word “Trinity” was coined to describe the relationship and unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the three persons in one God. Theologians first took the foundational understanding that the Father was God, the Son was God, and the Spirit was God and that each was a distinct person and combined it with the revelation that there is only one God. Hence through this development of dogma, settled in the General Council of Nicea, we know that there is one God in three divine and distinct persons. The Church can never understand this dogma in a different sense, such as by adding another person to the Trinity or denying that the Son and the Spirit are God, co-equal with the Father, etc… The Church, however, can understand the relationship better between the persons of the Trinity through centuries of pondering this great mystery. This is what is meant when it is said that dogmas “develop.” They do not change, they do not evolve, and they are not revealed in some new and different way to man. That is not stagnant. It is being faithful to tradition.

All that said, limbo has not been defined as a dogma, so it would not fall into this category. I merely brought all this up because your statement worried me and seemed dangerous because it used the word “evolve.” The ones who propose the evolution of dogmas are the same ones who in this debate would conclude that the Church could change her position that the souls that die in original sin only descend into hell, such as I’ve demonstrated earlier that there are modern theologians proposing the denial of that exact teaching. They propose that infants are born and created in a state of grace and that baptism does not wash away original sin. That is heresy, but they believe that the teaching can “evolve.” Do you see the danger, and why I’ve just written at such lengths to warn against it?

 

[Benadam]

• it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands***:***
let him be anathema.
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#4.%20On%20faith%20and%20reason

He said " and understands" because our understanding may develop meaning that doesn’t violate the sense of what was understood.

I inserted the word doctrin in my former post mistakenly. The word doctrin is missing from these pronoundcements for the same reason that “and understands” is added.

 

[Benadam]

I never claimed you violated any doctrines specifically in your post. You did, however, use the word “evolve” regarding God’s divine revelation to man, and that word has certain overtones and heretical connections, as the documents I presented demonstrated.

You also said that if we adhered to “my perspective” concerning doctrine and dogma that theology would not develop. When did I present “my perspective” exactly??? I did not say one such thing yet. All I did was post an infallible declaration from Trent as well as an oath instituted by Pope Pius X that used to be mandatory for all who taught the Catholic faith to take in order to guard against modernism. You seem to be missing the distinction between development and evolution of dogmas. When a dogma develops, it does not change. It is merely understood more fully and completely, yet in the same sense, with the same meaning, and the same understanding as it has always been understood. For example, the Trinity is a development of dogma. The word “Trinity” was coined to describe the relationship and unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the three persons in one God. Theologians first took the foundational understanding that the Father was God, the Son was God, and the Spirit was God and that each was a distinct person and combined it with the revelation that there is only one God. Hence through this development of dogma, settled in the General Council of Nicea, we know that there is one God in three divine and distinct persons. The Church can never understand this dogma in a different sense, such as by adding another person to the Trinity or denying that the Son and the Spirit are God, co-equal with the Father, etc… The Church, however, can understand the relationship better between the persons of the Trinity through centuries of pondering this great mystery. This is what is meant when it is said that dogmas “develop.” They do not change, they do not evolve, and they are not revealed in some new and different way to man. That is not stagnant. It is being faithful to tradition.

All that said, limbo has not been defined as a dogma, so it would not fall into this category. I merely brought all this up because your statement worried me and seemed dangerous because it used the word “evolve.” The ones who propose the evolution of dogmas are the same ones who in this debate would conclude that the Church could change her position that the souls that die in original sin only descend into hell, such as I’ve demonstrated earlier that there are modern theologians proposing the denial of that exact teaching. They propose that infants are born and created in a state of grace and that baptism does not wash away original sin. That is heresy, but they believe that the teaching can “evolve.” Do you see the danger, and why I’ve just written at such lengths to warn against it?

You’ve made your perspective clear if not explicite. It is impossible to find a reason to hope that a baby that dies without water Baptism can go to heaven. The Church does not think it’s impossible or it would forbid theological efforts for such hope. If I’m wrong I apologize but that seems to be the underlying meaning of your arguments.

 

[una_fides]

He said " and understands" because our understanding may develop meaning that doesn’t violate the sense of what was understood.

I inserted the word doctrin in my former post mistakenly. The word doctrin is missing from these pronoundcements for the same reason that “and understands” is added.

In order to understand what the Church intends it’s important to read the entire document. It does reference “doctrine” in the same exact context.

Vatican I
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, **in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding. **
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.h…20and%20reason

 

[Benadam]

In order to understand what the Church intends it’s important to read the entire document. It does reference “doctrine” in the same exact context.

Vatican I
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, **in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding. **
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.h…20and%20reason

Ok, then , how does that change anything? You still accuse of something without providing a reason. The sense of which doctrin or dogma is violated by something I’ve written? Why would you bring up such a basic characteristic of the Catholic faith without providing a violated doctrin or dogma first?

 

[una_fides]

Ok, then , how does that change anything? You still accuse of something without providing a reason. The sense of which doctrin or dogma is violated by something I’ve written? Why would you bring up such a basic characteristic of the Catholic faith without providing a violated doctrin or dogma first?

Like I said, I wasn’t replying to a specific doctrine / dogma you proposed had changed, since you didn’t provide one. I was replying to your comment involving the evolution of divine revelation. I think you just chose the wrong wording in that case, so I was trying to help clarify the Church’s teaching for you regarding whether divine revelation evolves.

 

[simple_soul]

Not sure when it was first officially decided. I know for sure it was set in stone by 1679

Various Errors on Moral Subjects (II) *
[Condemned in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679]
35. It seems probable that every foetus (as long as it is in the womb) lacks a rational soul and begins to have the same at the time that it is born; and consequently it will have to be said that no homicide is committed in any abortion. (Denzinger 1185).

*So I guess my next questions would be what did the church teach before 1679 and why did it take roughly 1300 years to finaly “set it in stone?”

 

[peary]

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.

The “LIMBO OF THE FATHERS” has nothing to do with “mild torments”. It is a NATURAL state of happiness without the Beatific Vision, but a state of happiness nevertheless. A soul is NOT an infant. An infant is a physical body connected to the physical world. Also, aborted babies are considered martyrs, according to an expanded theological awareness.

The Garden of Eden was a natural garden within the realm of the Beatific Vision. Adam and Eve were immaculately conceived. Once they lost their innocence, however, the Garden continued as a natural garden but without the Beatific Vision. The first parents lost their perfect awareness of the Lord and were relegated to “working out their own salvation.”

You must also remember that Christ, after his death, resided in the “abode of the dead” and then threw open the gates to let the righteous into Heaven. The gates are still open, by the way.

 

[Benadam]

Like I said, I wasn’t replying to a specific doctrine / dogma you proposed had changed, since you didn’t provide one. I was replying to your comment involving the evolution of divine revelation. I think you just chose the wrong wording in that case, so I was trying to help clarify the Church’s teaching for you regarding whether divine revelation evolves.

I should have just retieved the quote and let it speak for it’self. sorry.

What can be hoped for within the boundaries set by Divine revelation is expanded as we understand our selves more. This activity between man and God is not fixed but evolving as Christ reveals man to himself.

If you would have read it more carefully you would see that what I said evolved was theology in context of it’s service to things hoped for within the boundaries set by Divine Revelation. I didn’t write nor would I ever believe that what has been Divinely revealed can evolve. Our understanding of what has been divinely revealed does evolve and it’s possible that it discovers a certain theological reason to believe that an unbaptized baby could respond favorably towards God before it’s body and soul parted and merit baptism of desire.

 

[surritter]

The “LIMBO OF THE FATHERS” has nothing to do with “mild torments”. It is a NATURAL state of happiness without the Beatific Vision, but a state of happiness nevertheless. A soul is NOT an infant. An infant is a physical body connected to the physical world. Also, aborted babies are considered martyrs, according to an expanded theological awareness.

“Expanded theological awareness”? What is that? The Church doesn’t teach that aborted babies are martyrs. I think that martyrs have to willingly die for the cause of Christ. (An exception could be the Holy Innocents killed by Herod.)

 

[peary]

“Expanded theological awareness”? What is that? The Church doesn’t teach that aborted babies are martyrs. I think that martyrs have to willingly die for the cause of Christ. (An exception could be the Holy Innocents killed by Herod.)

Theologians are working on an answer. Recently, the International Theological Commission came out with a document, The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised (April 19, 2007), that provides an extensive overview of the matter, and a conclusion:

“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).”

You may be correct in the assessment that aborted babies are not considered martyrs, as I found this:

(From “Observations of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the writings of Mrs Patricia De Menezes and the Community of the Divine Innocence,” included in the “Statement by the Most Reverend Kevin McDonald, Archbishop of Southwark, on the Community of Divine Innocence.”

The Questionable Demand Made Concerning the Status of Aborted Children

[The demand] that the Church proclaim the martyrdom of all the innocent children deliberately killed before birth and acknowledge these unborn children as companion martyrs of the first Holy Innocents, is doctrinally problematic. A martyr is someone who bears witness to Christ. If the victims of abortion were to qualify for martyrdom it would then seem that all victims of any moral evil should be likewise deemed martyrs. De Menezes’ notion of a ‘Baptism of Love’ is not, as claimed, a development of doctrine. Rather it is an innovation which is difficult to harmonize with the teaching of the Church.

It is true that ‘limbo’ is not a Catholic dogma. It is merely a theological opinion and deduction. Still, St. Thomas’s conjecture of limbo is solidly based on a truth that is a Catholic dogma, i.e., the truth that those souls dying in original sin only are “punished” in some way in the next world. This dogma was taught by two ecumenical councils: Lyons II and Florence.

Two thousand years of Catholic tradition assure us that the punishment of those dying in original sin only is deprivation of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision. This deprivation is the worst aspect of the horrendous crime of abortion.

But I also contend that they, as living souls, can actually experience the deprivation of the supernatural happiness of the Beatific Vision and thus desire it because it is God Who has created them. Such a desire for God and being deprived of it because of an unconscionable act of the one who carried them in the womb amounts to - in my opinion - a martyrdom.

 

[simple_soul]

I should have just retieved the quote and let it speak for it’self. sorry.
**
If you would have read it more carefully you would see that what I said evolved was theology in context of it’s service to things hoped for within the boundaries set by Divine Revelation. I didn’t write nor would I ever believe that what has been Divinely revealed can evolve. Our understanding of what has been divinely revealed does evolve and it’s possible that it discovers a certain theological reason to believe that an unbaptized baby could respond favorably towards God before it’s body and soul parted and merit baptism of desire.

*Dear Benadam,

Thank you for sharing. This is what I believe also.

 

[surritter]

Theologians are working on an answer. Recently, the International Theological Commission came out with a document, The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised (April 19, 2007), that provides an extensive overview of the matter, and a conclusion:

“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).”

You may be correct in the assessment that aborted babies are not considered martyrs, as I found this:

(From “Observations of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the writings of Mrs Patricia De Menezes and the Community of the Divine Innocence,” included in the “Statement by the Most Reverend Kevin McDonald, Archbishop of Southwark, on the Community of Divine Innocence.”

The Questionable Demand Made Concerning the Status of Aborted Children

[The demand] that the Church proclaim the martyrdom of all the innocent children deliberately killed before birth and acknowledge these unborn children as companion martyrs of the first Holy Innocents, is doctrinally problematic. A martyr is someone who bears witness to Christ. If the victims of abortion were to qualify for martyrdom it would then seem that all victims of any moral evil should be likewise deemed martyrs. De Menezes’ notion of a ‘Baptism of Love’ is not, as claimed, a development of doctrine. Rather it is an innovation which is difficult to harmonize with the teaching of the Church.

It is true that ‘limbo’ is not a Catholic dogma. It is merely a theological opinion and deduction. Still, St. Thomas’s conjecture of limbo is solidly based on a truth that is a Catholic dogma, i.e., the truth that those souls dying in original sin only are “punished” in some way in the next world. This dogma was taught by two ecumenical councils: Lyons II and Florence.

Two thousand years of Catholic tradition assure us that the punishment of those dying in original sin only is deprivation of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision. This deprivation is the worst aspect of the horrendous crime of abortion.

But I also contend that they, as living souls, can actually experience the deprivation of the supernatural happiness of the Beatific Vision and thus desire it because it is God Who has created them. Such a desire for God and being deprived of it because of an unconscionable act of the one who carried them in the womb amounts to - in my opinion - a martyrdom.

I agree with you on just about everything here. The only issue is this: millions of babies have died without benefit of baptism, and in terms of mental development they were all the same. (Well, some were embryos, others fetuses, and still others were infants, but as for their psychological ability to desire God, they are essentially equal.)

So the issue is that if all of these babies are equal in terms of ability to desire God, why would some of them be considered martyrs, meriting heaven, while others would not, which would consign them to the so-called limbo?

Someone much earlier in the thread proposed that God can see what each soul would have done if he or she have lived to be able to decide freely. But this seems fraught with problems too.

 

[simple_soul]

The “LIMBO OF THE FATHERS” has nothing to do with “mild torments”. It is a NATURAL state of happiness without the Beatific Vision, but a state of happiness nevertheless. A soul is NOT an infant. An infant is a physical body connected to the physical world. Also, aborted babies are considered martyrs, according to an expanded theological awareness.

*Dear peary,

In the part that I put in bold are you saying that an infant has only a physical body?
If that is what you are saying when do they get thier soul’s?

 

[Benadam]

*Dear Benadam, *

*Thank you for sharing. This is what I believe also. *

You’re welcome simple soul. I thank you as well.

Maybe with that understanding an inadequate articulation of my thoughts on a theological reason can be restated.

The deepest communication of knowledge is a union of likeness. In order to know more one must be more like what is known. To know what it is to be a frog one must be a frog.

Adam exclaimed “At last bone of my bone flesh of my flesh” when he recieved Woman from God. This exclamation flows from a union of likeness and the kind of knowing of other it makes possible. Another’s physical presence can offer the experience of oneness because of the knowing that comes from the union of likeness.

So likeness established a Sacramental oneness that also describes God’s union with His people. Christ’s union with His Bride. Every soul is called to this mystical union with God and it’s this union that is experienced by the Saints and the prayerlife of contemplatives.

The Incarnation makes present God to humanity in every stage of bodily developement from conception to adulthood. No matter what stage of developement a dying baby is found there is God in it’s likeness in every way but sin.

In the likeness of human life that lacks experiemental knowledge the knowing of ‘other’ can flow from the spiritual substance of the human soul of the Child Jesus and make Himself experienced and known to the unbaptized baby. Like Adam’s knowing of Eve didn’t primarily flow from recognition of the likeness of their bodies but the likeness of their souls. A theological reason that a baby can possibly know and respond to God even without developed corporeal organs for the powers of the soul to operate through

 

[simple_soul]

You’re welcome simple soul. I thank you as well.

Maybe with that understanding an inadequate articulation of my thoughts on a theological reason can be restated.

The deepest communication of knowledge is a union of likeness. In order to know more one must be more like what is known. To know what it is to be a frog one must be a frog.

Adam exclaimed “At last bone of my bone flesh of my flesh” when he recieved Woman from God. This exclamation flows from a union of likeness and the kind of knowing of other it makes possible. Another’s physical presence can offer the experience of oneness because of the knowing that comes from the union of likeness.

So likeness established a Sacramental oneness that also describes God’s union with His people. Christ’s union with His Bride. Every soul is called to this mystical union with God and it’s this union that is experienced by the Saints and the prayerlife of contemplatives.

The Incarnation makes present God to humanity in every stage of bodily developement from conception to adulthood. No matter what stage of developement a dying baby is found there is God in it’s likeness in every way but sin.

In the likeness of human life that lacks experiemental knowledge the knowing of ‘other’ can flow from the spiritual substance of the human soul of the Child Jesus and make Himself experienced and known to the unbaptized baby. Like Adam’s knowing of Eve didn’t primarily flow from recognition of the likeness of their bodies but the likeness of their souls. A theological reason that a baby can possibly know and respond to God even without developed corporeal organs for the powers of the soul to operate through

*Dear Benadam,

All I can say is WOW! No wonder there is hope!

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts and God bless you and keep you always in His loving care.

 

[peary]

I agree with you on just about everything here. The only issue is this: millions of babies have died without benefit of baptism, and in terms of mental development they were all the same. (Well, some were embryos, others fetuses, and still others were infants, but as for their psychological ability to desire God, they are essentially equal.)

So the issue is that if all of these babies are equal in terms of ability to desire God, why would some of them be considered martyrs, meriting heaven, while others would not, which would consign them to the so-called limbo?

Someone much earlier in the thread proposed that God can see what each soul would have done if he or she have lived to be able to decide freely. But this seems fraught with problems too.

Here is where we part company: the soul is a creation of God and, as such, is immortal. Since it is a unique spiritual entity interwoven with the physical body at any stage, it still would desire God due to its nature.The soul depends on the body and vice versa. The Church believes in infant baptism even though it might appear that babies do not have the psychological ability to desire God. If aborted babies are considered martyrs, then they merit heaven because they themselves desire God (baptism of desire) because they are ensouled with the image of God.

 

[SenorSalsa]

It is my hope that babies that die before baptism go to heaven.

However I think some clarifications should be made here. It would seem to me that there is a difference between a baby dies before the parents have a chance to get him/her baptized, and a baby that dies whose parents have not made some plan (at the very least voicing their intent) to have the child baptized.

My opinion would be that those first would hopefully be welcomed into Heaven, while the latter, which I would wish not to condemn, would be of a different category when we examine God’s mercy and want for all to be saved. I would say it is more likely that those in the second category would go to some “limbo”. It would also seem more likely as time passed, that a child would possibly go to limbo–a baby that is miscarried or dies during birth is, in my thinking, more likely to receive mercy than one of several weeks or months.

Additionally, it should be noted that God knows, and in a sense planned, for that child to die at childbirth, in full awareness that this would likely mean before baptism. It seems (if I may judge God’s actions), unlikely that a soul would be created with no hope for salvation.

Of course, it is my hope that all souls are saved, especially those who have not been able to make a choice, such as those under the age of reason. But in the end, it is impossible for us to know.

 

[Benadam]

Additionally, it should be noted that God knows, and in a sense planned, for that child to die at childbirth, in full awareness that this would likely mean before baptism. It seems (if I may judge God’s actions), unlikely that a soul would be created with no hope for salvation.

.

If that be true then perhaps even a necessary role in salvation.
Hi SenorSalsa, What you wrote here, it seems to me, is able to provide a sound foundation to structure theology supporting a possibility there be a role for the innocent unbaptized in the overall plan of Salvation.

God works within the order He established in the beginning. So far God’s works are not only characterized by profoundly comprehensive knowledge of that order but also making it’s operations profoundly functional, custom fit for man’s salvation.

Limbo seems to lack the characteristics of the works of God as revealed by divine revelation.

 

[sidbrown]

However I think some clarifications should be made here. It would seem to me that there is a difference between a baby dies before the parents have a chance to get him/her baptized, and a baby that dies whose parents have not made some plan (at the very least voicing their intent) to have the child baptized.

My opinion would be that those first would hopefully be welcomed into Heaven, while the latter, which I would wish not to condemn, would be of a different category when we examine God’s mercy and want for all to be saved. I would say it is more likely that those in the second category would go to some “limbo”. .

Why condemn those in the second category. It wasn’t their fault that they were effectively put in a lower caste.