Limbo

[palmas85]

I cannot nor will not argue with that! BTW…we are all here to learn. I doubt I am in any better position on theology than you!

Agreed:thumbsup:

 

[ChurchTorch]

Limbo has been stated as existing in an Ecumenical Council and multiple catechisms… . or to put it precisely it’s ‘the edge’ of Hell, when Hell is understood as simply being forever without the beatific vision in the afterlife.

And Limbo is understood because we are not born in sanctifying grace… but as scriptures say ‘children of wrath’, outside of the grace of God, on account of our first parents.

If you die without sanctifying grace, without baptism, you cannot go to Heaven.

No one went to Heaven at all for all of human history until 33 A.D.

Heaven is not our default deserved destination, but a gift we can be given, or not be given.

Since feelings aren’t Revelation or theology, feeling bad about this and deciding it doesn’t exist is a bad approach towards believing whether something exists or not, rather like feeling bad about drugs being bad for your health, so deciding they’re fine, or bad that cliffs exist so they must not, because God would not create cliffs that people fall off of.

Actually whose soul is saved or lost for eternity is entirely up to God. If someone is not baptized it would be ridiculous for us to say we know their soul is in Hell. The Jews – the chosen people are one group that come to mind that do not require baptism for being eligible for eternal life in Heaven.

I also believe that any aborted baby is a martyr baptized by the shedding of their own blood.

 

[palmas85]

Actually whose soul is saved or lost for eternity is entirely up to God. If someone is not baptized it would be ridiculous for us to say we know their soul is in Hell. The Jews – the chosen people are one group that come to mind that do not require baptism for being eligible for eternal life in Heaven.

I also believe that any aborted baby is a martyr baptized by the shedding of their own blood.

I can see the argument for the aborted. They might be the exception to the general rule. I cannot however see it for unbaptized children as a whole.

It is not ridiculous to say that one who is unbaptized is in Hell. In fact it is sound theology. Unbaptized are stained with original Sin. They are unclean. Nothing unclean can enter Heaven. Therefore they must be somewhere else. Limbo, Purgatory or Hell are the choices. I am not sure that Purgatory would apply in most of their cases and neither would Limbo. That leaves Hell.

As far as those of other faiths if they die not knowing of the Christian religion then they can be saved. If they are obstinate in their refusal to accept Christianity then I have to go with what the Church has consistently taught and by what Jesus Himself said:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’"

 

[simple_soul]

Is that an ad hominem attack? I think it is.

Dear Shin,
I do not know what an “ad hominem” attack is. But, I do know that I did not intend it to be an attack of any nature. If it came across as an attack please forgive me. It is only a question you raised in my mind.

Certainly not… as I stated earlier that is why I quote… I quote authorities rather than asking people to rely on my own, which is nonexistant and I am glad of it.

If you wish, read only what I have quoted… and do not listen to me at all and the context I place it in… I do not think you will see much difference. Go ahead, if you do, good too.

The priest in the sermon above quoted authorities and references too.

*What I do not understand and what I will have to leave in God’s hands is why you “seem” to pick and choose to quote who and what best suites your point. This, I believe, is what you are saying and implying what the International Theological Commission has done. Why would I believe your quotes and references, or the priest’s, over theirs? *

What do you do when there are contractions in letter or in spirit?

I look to our Blessed Mother Mary and pray that I follow her example of putting my complete trust into God and His will and Divinely Inspired word and ponder it in my heart until God wills I understand His Truth more clearly.

We don’t choose the truth based on favoritism or feelings.

Truth is Truth regardless of feelings or favoritisms.

Are you a saint? Do you know more than saint Augustine? Do you love more than he did? These are questions I don’t want answers to but** I want you to ask yourself to put yourself in the context of the quotations from the people here in Heaven**.

Since you do not want answers I wont answer. But could you please clarify what you mean regarding what I bolded

One last question that I have, and I pray you do not think of it as an attack again, what is the one Tradition of Faith that Unites the Church through the ages?

 

[spn82756]

I also believe that any aborted baby is a martyr baptized by the shedding of their own blood.

Now that may be one of the more profound reasons for them to be in heaven. Bring the little children to me said Jesus!

 

[Shin]

But could you please clarify what you mean regarding what I bolded

I think expressing quotations that agree with one another over a vast swath of Church history and contrasting them with a committee that has no binding authority’s paperwork, is not picking and choosing my beliefs.

In answer to your questions, I asked you to put yourself in the shoes of the saints who made those quotes, and see if you can express them while loving God some little bit like they did and finding no deficiencies in their love.

In answer to your second question, Christ, the unchanging Truth is what unites the faith. In His body we are one together. I found the Catholic Church by searching for unchanging moral truth.

If I may say so – You like to ask leading questions a good deal. Do you think I cannot see what you are doing? You can do what you like but I’d prefer you speak plainly. Your method doesn’t seem to quite fit your username. I already spoke about the different weights of authority here, did you not believe me? I do not hold what is newer and of less authority according to the teachings of the Church as superior to what is older and of greater authority according to the teachings of the Church.

People who try to give authority to that which has none and place it above that which has infallible authority have a problem with the Church. Not people who quote authority and carefully weigh it according to its true nature.

I will also note what is new often gets revised and corrected a few times as time passes.

This happened to the CCC recently, and the U.S. Catechism.

I pray to be corrected and not make mistakes. I am happy to be so. Who wants to live with any mistaken beliefs or telling anyone these? It’s a horrible thought. We can only prudently and respectfully do our best.

‘It never was, is, or shall be lawful for Catholic Christians to teach any doctrine except that which they have received once and for all time; and it always was, is, and shall be their duty to condemn those who do.’

‘To detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they arise, and to continue whole and sound in the Catholic faith, we must, God help us, fortify our own belief in two ways: first, by the authority of Divine law, and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.’

‘He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, who loves the Church, who loves the Body of Christ, who esteems Divine religion and the Catholic faith above everything: above the authority, the regard, the genius, the eloquence, the philosophy of every man whatsoever. He is a genuine Catholic who continues steadfast and well-founded in the faith, who resolves that he will believe those things – and only those things – which he is sure the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times.’

‘It is therefore an indispensable obligation for all Catholics who are eager to prove that they are true sons of Holy Mother the Church to adhere to the holy faith of the Fathers, to preserve it, to die for it, and, on the other hand, to detest the profane novelties of profane men, to dread them, to harass them, and to attack them.’

‘The rule of piety admits nothing new. All things are to be delivered to those who come after us with the same fidelity with which they were received by us. It is our duty to follow religion, not make religion follow us.’

‘All novelty in faith is a sure mark of heresy.’

St. Vincent of Lerins

 

[simple_soul]

Dear Shin,
I do not have the knowledge nor the wherewithal to address everything you have said in here. But I will address the following:

In answer to your questions, I asked you to put yourself in the shoes of the saints who made those quotes, and see if you can express them while loving God some little bit like they did and finding no deficiencies in their love.

I would never dream of putting myself in a saints shoes. They are to big for me to fill. I only concentrate on my shoes and how God wants me to fill them. And yes, I look to Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother Mary, and all the saint’s examples that I can learn about to help me try and fill my shoes. But I understand that my feeble attempts can not achieve this. Only God can completely fill them for me and I pray with every breath I take that I let Him.

In answer to your second question, Christ, the unchanging Truth is what unites the faith. In His body we are one together. I found the Catholic Church by searching for unchanging moral truth.

*OK, now how does the document
“THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTIZED”
go against Christ, the unchanging Truth.
This, I believe, is what I do not understand and am having a hard time grasping.
*

If I may say so – You like to ask leading questions a good deal. Do you think I cannot see what you are doing? You can do what you like but I’d prefer you speak plainly. Your method doesn’t seem to quite fit your user name.

*I do not know what you are implying. But if it reassures what ever you are implying I took the name “simple soul” because it is what I strive to be. God knows I do not think or “feel” like one.
I believe the reason I ask leading questions is because I have had a very informal education and get lost trying to understand the immense amount of what goes into what is said around here. But, I want to learn, so I try to break things down so that I my little brain can understand God’s Truth more clearly. *

I pray to be corrected and not make mistakes. I am happy to be so. Who wants to live with any mistaken beliefs or telling anyone these? It’s a horrible thought. We can only prudently and respectfully do our best.

I can agree with you on this 100%

‘It never was, is, or shall be lawful for Catholic Christians to teach any doctrine except that which they have received once and for all time; and it always was, is, and shall be their duty to condemn those who do.’

‘To detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they arise, and to continue whole and sound in the Catholic faith, we must, God help us, fortify our own belief in two ways: first, by the authority of Divine law, and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.’

‘He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, who loves the Church, who loves the Body of Christ, who esteems Divine religion and the Catholic faith above everything: above the authority, the regard, the genius, the eloquence, the philosophy of every man whatsoever. He is a genuine Catholic who continues steadfast and well-founded in the faith, who resolves that he will believe those things – and only those things – which he is sure the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times.’

‘It is therefore an indispensable obligation for all Catholics who are eager to prove that they are true sons of Holy Mother the Church to adhere to the holy faith of the Fathers, to preserve it, to die for it, and, on the other hand, to detest the profane novelties of profane men, to dread them, to harass them, and to attack them.’

‘The rule of piety admits nothing new. All things are to be delivered to those who come after us with the same fidelity with which they were received by us. It is our duty to follow religion, not make religion follow us.’

‘All novelty in faith is a sure mark of heresy.’

St. Vincent of Lerins

*The rest of what you say here, some of it I may agree with you on and then again maybe not. Like I said before, I do not have the wherewithal to address everything you say here adequately. So I will continue to pray and ponder about it and leave it to more knowledgeable hands to address.

 

[ServantofMary]

That said, and depending on what the real truth is regarding limbo, my intellect and sense of reasoning just can’t comprehend a loving, just, and merciful GOD denying a completely innocent child (be it an embryo, fetus, newborn etc.) the complete and utter fullness of heaven when it dies without having been baptized. Whether the child’s death was natural, an abortion, a miscarriage, or murder, these are the ultimate most innocent of all, and the most deserving of all that heaven has to offer. I would think that by virtue of their sheer innocence, at the moment of their deaths, they go to heaven so fast it would make one’s head spin !

The problem with what you wrote is that because of original sin, we are not born “completely innocent.” In fact, we are conceived void of original holiness, separated from God, and with a tendency towards sin. Infants may not be guilty of actual sin, but that doesn’t mean that they are considered innocent before God.

 

[una_fides]

What happened to Moses? He was never baptised.

Was the sacrament of baptism initiated during the lifetime of Moses? Have you read what the Church has taught concerning the salvation of the OT saints? They were saved through their faith in Christ to come. (A sort of baptism of desire, but the sacrament had not yet been initiated.)

 

[una_fides]

All right; however, a very young child would not “have the chance.” So, could not it be different for children(remember Christ’s saying about them inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven)?

I think children fall under the “all humans” category, so yes.
Jesus most certainly bids the little children to come to him, and we know he saves them and unites them to himself through baptism.

 

[una_fides]

I know that it is not dogma. I also know that I along with hundreds of millions of others were taught that it was a fact. Not by laypeople as is done today, but by Priests, Brothers and Sisters. The Church knew that we were being taught this as fact and were quite comfortable with it being so. How can it be explained that it went on for hundreds of years if the Church did not approve of the teaching? They must have approved of it.

And I ask, what has happened since the Vatican II Council that was so earth shattering that the Church now chooses to disavow that which they taught for hundreds and hundreds of years as fact? I can see only two reasons, both of which don’t really hold water. One is the comfort of bereaved parents and giving them hope that they will one day see their children. Noble but yet not necessary. A person who dies in a state of Moratl Sin will go to Hell. His family will no doubt suffer as well. What about them? Don’t they also deserve the same consideration?

The theological commission on limbo actually comes forward and states that this is the reason for its new teaching: to appease and comfort those who have lost children that died without baptism. Redefining and reinterpreting the truth in order to make people feel better seems like dangerous business to me.

The second is purely ecumenical in nature. The Protestants and the Orthodox don’t believe in it. It is a hard, indeed, a very hard and quite frankly an ugly theory to wrap ones self around. Lets just jettison it. No one will miss it and it will pave the way for better relations with the other Christian groups.

The only problem with that is Original Sin.:bigyikes:

Very true! Original sin is a big problem because the Church anathamatized the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian positions in the Council of Trent. You cannot deny that infants are born outside a state of grace or that they do not inherit original sin, a fallen nature, and still be Catholic. If you deny this truth, you are excommunicating yourself as a heretic! That is very serious and non-negotiable business.

 

[una_fides]

Actually whose soul is saved or lost for eternity is entirely up to God. If someone is not baptized it would be ridiculous for us to say we know their soul is in Hell. The Jews – the chosen people are one group that come to mind that do not require baptism for being eligible for eternal life in Heaven.

I also believe that any aborted baby is a martyr baptized by the shedding of their own blood.

Do you**… firmly believe, profess, and proclaim that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.** ???

If you don’t agree with that statement above, then you do not agree with an infallible declaration from the General Council of Florence.

 

[Lycorth]

I suspect there’s no such thing as limbus infantum and that the souls of the unbaptized (depending on God’s grace for each individual person) enter into Purgatory, including those of infants, to endure perhaps the most mild discomfort, even if for a brief or even immeasurably short time.

But, that too is just speculation on my part, much like limbus infantum. Only God knows, and I trust in a God who is both just and merciful, who will treat the innocent dead in a truly just and merciful fashion.

 

[pnewton]

I only know what I was taught. And that is that it was a place of perfect bliss and contentment.

I ususally hear that Limbo is on the edge of Hell, not on the edge of Heaven. I have never heard that it was perfect bliss. If it is like Heaven, only not Heaven, then I guess that would be a viable speculation. I do not see the point of it though.

Man is designed to be with God. As St. Augustine put it, “Our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee.” I am largely of the opinion that no on is created without the possibility of salvation. In fact, double predestination is not a legitimate opinion for a Catholic to hold, or so I’ve been told. Rather each person is given at least enough to grace to turn to God, thereby making all those condemned to Hell justifiable condemned.

If there are souls that can be “condemned” to Limbo as it were, yet in that state reach the pinnacle of all happiness they have been created to receive, would it be right to consider their souls even human, as that is not the natural state of the human soul?

I find speculation concerning the afterlife intriguing, I guess that is my human nature. Yet I have to acknowledge that very little of God’s plan after death has been revealed. The vast majority of divine revelation is given for this life. Limbo or not, I will always plan for the worst (baptize early) and pray for the best. The rest is in greater hands than mine.

 

[sidbrown]

Do you**… firmly believe, profess, and proclaim that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock;** and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. ???

If you don’t agree with that statement above, then you do not agree with an infallible declaration from the General Council of Florence.

This was the teaching before, but this teaching has been changed because it is now taught that Jews and Eastern Orthodox can attain salvation. In fact, Eastern Orthodox who are at least schismatics, and who deny the infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the Pope, and as well appear to reject many other Roman Catholic teachings, are allowed to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church under certain circumstances.

 

[una_fides]

This was the teaching before, but this teaching has been changed because it is now taught that Jews and Eastern Orthodox can attain salvation. In fact, Eastern Orthodox who are at least schismatics, and who deny the infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the Pope, and as well appear to reject many other Roman Catholic teachings, are allowed to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church under certain circumstances.

I wouldn’t doubt this to be correct today with the whole “ecumenical” attitude, but can you post the official document that explains under what circumstances they might be permitted to receive? Thanks.

 

[una_fides]

I suspect there’s no such thing as limbus infantum and that the souls of the unbaptized (depending on God’s grace for each individual person) enter into Purgatory, including those of infants, to endure perhaps the most mild discomfort, even if for a brief or even immeasurably short time.

But, that too is just speculation on my part, much like limbus infantum. Only God knows, and I trust in a God who is both just and merciful, who will treat the innocent dead in a truly just and merciful fashion.

I find this view more unjust than limbo. This view has children suffering. Limbo has them in a state of eternal bliss and perfect natural happiness.

 

[LoyalViews]

I find this view more unjust than limbo. This view has children suffering. Limbo has them in a state of eternal bliss and perfect natural happiness.

Yes, what I have read about limbo, it seems to be a state of happiness for unbaptized chuldren.

 

[sidbrown]

Yes, what I have read about limbo, it seems to be a state of happiness for unbaptized chuldren.

I thought that limbo was a part of hell.

 

[pnewton]

I thought that limbo was a part of hell.

As it is a speculative place, there are divergent views on what it would be like, if it existed. Tradition has it as a part of Hell, but a happy part.