L
LoyalViews
Guest
No, not the stick. Do you believe in limbo?
(This will explain what limbo is if you don’t know
(This will explain what limbo is if you don’t know
- Status
I
Innocent3
Guest
I can’t vote yet but, if I could have voted I would have voted yes.
J
Janet1983
Guest
I personally do not believe in the “limbus infantium”.No, not the stick. Do you believe in limbo?
(This will explain what limbo is if you don’t know
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.
C
Catholic1954
Guest
I have no opinion. Eternal life is for God to know, and me to find out!
M
Michael_Vernon
Guest
I don’t see how a Catholic could not have an opinion about Limbo. I believe it is RCC Doctrine, although I understand that the Pope has asked a committee to consider the possibility that unbaptized infants may not be subject to any torments, but “simply” be deprived of the Beatific Vision. So I guess it’s a kind of open doctrine. My understanding is that this doctrine says that these infants will enjoy a kind of innocent Garden of Eden existence without end. It’s rather unlikely that any Catholic will not ever cross paths with someone who has lost an unbaptized infant, and unless we simply don’t discuss anything meaninful at all, we’re going to have to talk about the fate of that infant. I guess we could simply say “I don’t know”, but that isn’t spiritually satisfying, and the Church doesn’t just say “We don’t know.” The Church has always had an answer, though it has changed somewhat over the centuries. I am the father of a deceased, unbaptized infant, and I can occasionally say, “I don’t know, but I trust GOD to be both Just and Merciful”, but my thoughts cannot simply rest there indefinitely. Ask any parent who has lost a child of any age if he/she can simply be satisfied with not knowing what happened to that child!
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Limbo is not a doctrine, it is a theological speculation.
I do not see how a Loving God could condemn those who had no choice an eternity without the Beatific Vision. To do so would be unjust in my mind and God, by definition, can not be unjust.
I do not see how a Loving God could condemn those who had no choice an eternity without the Beatific Vision. To do so would be unjust in my mind and God, by definition, can not be unjust.
S
Shin
Guest
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.
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.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
You are placing limitations on God that I do not recognize, nor do many in the Church.
Feelings do not play a role in this for me but I understand how it is easier to dismiss me if you believe so. This is all a matter of Justice.
Please explain the Justice in punishing someone for a choice they never were able to make?
All those in limbo before Christ’s resurrection died without sanctifying grace and without baptism but Christ welcomed them into Heaven.
M
malphono
Guest
As ByzCath said, limbo is not a doctrine, it is a theological speculation. And it certainly isn’t dogma.
I recall many years ago (in pre-conciliar times), Mère Marie-Christine saying that the idea of “limbo” is akin to the “Bosom of Abraham” in the OT, a place for the souls of the righteous unbaptized. There was no “fire” or “torment” involved, but those souls would never experience the Beatific Vision. In a sense, then, I suppose it can be said to be “heaven for the unbaptized” since it is by Baptism that a soul becomes aware of the possibility of the Beatific Vision. Taking that position, those who are unbaptized are not exactly “deprived” of it since they did not know of it in the first place. It’s kind of like “ignorance is bliss” taken to the n-th degree.
I recall many years ago (in pre-conciliar times), Mère Marie-Christine saying that the idea of “limbo” is akin to the “Bosom of Abraham” in the OT, a place for the souls of the righteous unbaptized. There was no “fire” or “torment” involved, but those souls would never experience the Beatific Vision. In a sense, then, I suppose it can be said to be “heaven for the unbaptized” since it is by Baptism that a soul becomes aware of the possibility of the Beatific Vision. Taking that position, those who are unbaptized are not exactly “deprived” of it since they did not know of it in the first place. It’s kind of like “ignorance is bliss” taken to the n-th degree.
C
cathguy
Guest
Umm… no…
It is NOT enough to make this statement without support. Are you referring to the Council of Florence?
Could you please provide the quotes from the Council that show the existence of limbo so that we can discuss them here?
The Church’s teaching cannot change friend, and the Church’s teaching on Limbo has NOT changed. Limbo has always been a theological speculation, albeit one that is rational and very possible to support.
Umm… no…
God gives us the sacraments as the ordinary means of salvation. But God is greater than the sacraments and is not BOUND by them. He can save whom He wills to save.
For instance, lets say one was imprisoned by Communists and had no means of access to the sacraments, but one failed in captivity due to so many factors and sinned.
Would salvation for such a person be impossible because of a lack of access to the sacrament of penance? Is God BOUND by the sacraments?
Careful here…
TRUE… by GOD… He normally works through the Sacraments. I take nothing away from the fact that He founded a Church for the salvation of souls. I am a traditional Catholic.
But GOD transcends the Sacraments, and is not bound by them.
True enough, but theology requires a great deal of study. From what I can perceive, none of us here are theologians.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.
But many of us do profess error… pretty regularly.
Limbo is NOT a doctrine of the Church, and the Church did not “change her teaching” when she said that we can hope for the salvation of unbaptized babies.
Limbo is now, and has always been, a speculation, one that is approved by the Church. It is a rational and well-formulated speculation, one that has been taught in catechisms and is reasonable.
BUT it IS NOT Doctrine.
Another example is the universally celebate priesthood. This is a discipline, not a dogma. If the Church were to change this discipline, Her teaching would not have changed.
Similarly with Limbo. It is a speculation, not a doctrine, and is not a part of the deposit of faith. Contrary to your assertion, it is NOT explicitly taught in the Council of Florence as far as I can tell, although I welcome correction from the text if you have it.
S
Shin
Guest
Because going Heaven is not something that we deserve by default, it is a gift, therefor if we do not go, we have nothing to say in complaint against God.
If in fact, we could all go to Heaven by default, even the angels would not have been put to the test, but would have been created in it already.
Do you want me to quote catechisms, scripture, and God himself, or have you not read all these already and still gone against them? Is it not useless in your case, because you have closed your mind on the subject and these materials?
If in fact, we could all go to Heaven by default, even the angels would not have been put to the test, but would have been created in it already.
Do you want me to quote catechisms, scripture, and God himself, or have you not read all these already and still gone against them? Is it not useless in your case, because you have closed your mind on the subject and these materials?
S
Shin
Guest
“the souls of those dying in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone go down at once (mox) into Hell, to be punished, however, with widely different penalties.”
The Ecumenical Council of Florence
[Note: No one dies in original sin alone except the unbaptized before the age of reason, that is infants and small children. Thus here is Limbo which means ‘the edge’. That is the edge of Hell.]
“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”
Council of Lyons II, 1274 (Denzinger 464)
“Those who claim, that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this— Condemned.”
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415
“If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin
Q. When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptised?
A. Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptised as soon as possible.
Q. Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?
A. There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptised because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.
Q. Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism, or who defer it?
A. Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it.
A. To a part of hell, where they endure the pain of loss, but not of sense, and shall never
see the face of God.
Q. 828. How prove you that?
A. Out of John iii. 5. “Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
St. Jean Marie Vianney
The Ecumenical Council of Florence
[Note: No one dies in original sin alone except the unbaptized before the age of reason, that is infants and small children. Thus here is Limbo which means ‘the edge’. That is the edge of Hell.]
“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”
Council of Lyons II, 1274 (Denzinger 464)
“Those who claim, that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this— Condemned.”
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415
“If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin
Q. When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptised?
A. Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptised as soon as possible.
Q. Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?
A. There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptised because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.
Q. Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism, or who defer it?
A. Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it.
- The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X
A. To a part of hell, where they endure the pain of loss, but not of sense, and shall never
see the face of God.
Q. 828. How prove you that?
A. Out of John iii. 5. “Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
- The Douay Catechism of 1649
St. Jean Marie Vianney
S
Shin
Guest
And lastly here is a good sermon on the subject… it deals with all the recent issues and statements and puts them in their proper context.
The part on the doctrine of Limbo starts at 6:40 in.
"By reason of my tender love, I even show mercy to the infants of pagans.
If any of them die before reaching the age of discretion, given that they cannot come to know me face to face, they go instead to a place that it is not permitted for you to know but where they will live without suffering. Those who have advanced from the one road reach those two roads, that is, the age of discretion between good and evil. It is then in their power to choose what pleases them most. Their reward will follow the inclination of their will, since by that time they know how to read the sign written at the crossroads telling them that it is better to experience a little pain at the start and joy ready and waiting for them than experience joy at the start and pain at the end."
The Lord Jesus Christ, to St. Bridget of Sweden
The part on the doctrine of Limbo starts at 6:40 in.
"By reason of my tender love, I even show mercy to the infants of pagans.
If any of them die before reaching the age of discretion, given that they cannot come to know me face to face, they go instead to a place that it is not permitted for you to know but where they will live without suffering. Those who have advanced from the one road reach those two roads, that is, the age of discretion between good and evil. It is then in their power to choose what pleases them most. Their reward will follow the inclination of their will, since by that time they know how to read the sign written at the crossroads telling them that it is better to experience a little pain at the start and joy ready and waiting for them than experience joy at the start and pain at the end."
The Lord Jesus Christ, to St. Bridget of Sweden
S
sancte_joseph
Guest
Isn’t Limbo hell? but where there is the least suffering?
S
Shin
Guest
Yes, in the strict sense it is Hell, in that all of the afterlife where one never enters into Heaven is considered Hell.
From what I understand of the speculative part the tendency is to say that the suffering is the lack of the beatific vision, in the sense that it is not there, and so that is a suffering, but there is no actual pain.
Instead, since they cannot achieve supernatural happiness in the beatific vision they have perfect natural happiness.
It’s interesting that in Purgatory some parts are very like Hell or described as parts of Hell, and others could be called a part of Heaven, except the beatific vision is lacking.
The sermon above goes into it.
J
Janet1983
Guest
So your God is more forbearing towards a heathen who is sincerely seeking God in a tribe that has never heard of Him than He is towards infants and the unborn? I mean the heathen can claim invincible ignorance. (“Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin.”)
How come you disagree with an innocent child getting into heaven while an uncatechized heathen can claim ignorance?
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
Lumen Gentium said:
S
Shin
Guest
I don’t really understand what point you are trying to make?
The quotes don’t coincide with your first statement?
Invincible ignorance is not salvific.
“It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder.”***
The grace of baptism is still necessary in such cases for Heaven.
Limbo with original sin alone, Heaven with baptism (forgiveness of original and personal sin) or Hell with a personal sin unforgiven.
After the age of reason, the will inclines one way or another… so a decision will be made to accept or reject grace.
The quotes don’t coincide with your first statement?
Invincible ignorance is not salvific.
“It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder.”***
The grace of baptism is still necessary in such cases for Heaven.
Limbo with original sin alone, Heaven with baptism (forgiveness of original and personal sin) or Hell with a personal sin unforgiven.
After the age of reason, the will inclines one way or another… so a decision will be made to accept or reject grace.
J
Janet1983
Guest
You are right in saying that the quote and argument on my second post does not coincide with the argument I made in my initial post in this thread.I don’t really understand what point you are trying to make?
The quotes don’t coincide with your first statement?
Invincible ignorance is not salvific.
“It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder.”***
The grace of baptism is still necessary in such cases for Heaven.
Limbo with original sin alone, Heaven with baptism (forgiveness of original and personal sin) or Hell with a personal sin unforgiven.
After the age of reason, the will inclines one way or another… so a decision will be made to accept or reject grace.
I am an ex-Catholic. My own opinion is expressed in my first post.
For my second post I tried to argue from your perspective, using Catholic material and teaching. Even using Catholic sources and the following logic I could not deduce the existence of a thing called limbo.
Whether or not I was arguing from my personal perspective or from a Catholic perspective did not make too much of a difference to me. I believe it to be cruel and unjust to deny children heaven because of their inability to bring about a Catholic baptism before they passed on. I find it rather irritating that it is comparatively easy to argue for the salvation of a God-seeking heathen while a child ends up in the front court of hell.
Let me argue the Catholic position again…
Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
As a Catholic by the way you are free to choose which to believe as much as I am by the way.
S
Shin
Guest
I think the ‘not bound by his sacraments’ statement is often misunderstood and misread.
Baptism causes the removal of original sin and forgiveness of all personal sin (if it is repented). One is through this placed in a state of what is called sanctifying grace.
If you are in this state when you die you may go to Heaven. If you are not, you do not.
It is as simple as that.
It is not unjust for a person not to go to Heaven because God does not owe anyone the rewards of Heaven and His beatific vision, that is the intimate union with Him.
All the things He created please Him ultimately, wherever they are – The devils in Hell, the saints in Heaven, all His Creation pleases Him, whether we as individuals are in one place or another… from our perspective it is best to be in Heaven, and He makes this clear to us… it is what we are truly created for… but we may choose other paths that too will ultimately fit in His Providence.
Adam and Eve, the angels, nothing we know of in existence that God has created in fact, was ever born by default in the beatific vision, in Heaven. No one, no where, no way, no how.
If it is unjust for infants not to go to Heaven by default, it is unjust for all. We might as well all be born in that state and grow up in that state.
Yet we are not.
Nobody gets Heaven by default. Ever. This is the perspective to start from… Not in all Creation has this happened, a person been born in Heaven.
Furthermore, we are informed in Heaven there are no marriages and so no children. Neither do the angels have them.
Now what is Limbo? Natural happiness… not supernatural… i.e. not the beatific vision…
In this life we know what natural happiness is to a small degree… and we also know it never lasts… we can imagine that it might be far greater than what we have now too… What if it always lasted?
One of the reassuring things about being Catholic is that we have our Catholic history and tradition of teachings handed down to us from the beginning… It does not matter truly what our feelings or preferences are… the truth is what it is… and so thankfully we can convert and come to God, rather than always choosing for ourselves what is good and evil… like Adam and Eve.
Baptism causes the removal of original sin and forgiveness of all personal sin (if it is repented). One is through this placed in a state of what is called sanctifying grace.
If you are in this state when you die you may go to Heaven. If you are not, you do not.
It is as simple as that.
It is not unjust for a person not to go to Heaven because God does not owe anyone the rewards of Heaven and His beatific vision, that is the intimate union with Him.
All the things He created please Him ultimately, wherever they are – The devils in Hell, the saints in Heaven, all His Creation pleases Him, whether we as individuals are in one place or another… from our perspective it is best to be in Heaven, and He makes this clear to us… it is what we are truly created for… but we may choose other paths that too will ultimately fit in His Providence.
Adam and Eve, the angels, nothing we know of in existence that God has created in fact, was ever born by default in the beatific vision, in Heaven. No one, no where, no way, no how.
If it is unjust for infants not to go to Heaven by default, it is unjust for all. We might as well all be born in that state and grow up in that state.
Yet we are not.
Nobody gets Heaven by default. Ever. This is the perspective to start from… Not in all Creation has this happened, a person been born in Heaven.
Furthermore, we are informed in Heaven there are no marriages and so no children. Neither do the angels have them.
Now what is Limbo? Natural happiness… not supernatural… i.e. not the beatific vision…
In this life we know what natural happiness is to a small degree… and we also know it never lasts… we can imagine that it might be far greater than what we have now too… What if it always lasted?
One of the reassuring things about being Catholic is that we have our Catholic history and tradition of teachings handed down to us from the beginning… It does not matter truly what our feelings or preferences are… the truth is what it is… and so thankfully we can convert and come to God, rather than always choosing for ourselves what is good and evil… like Adam and Eve.
S
Shin
Guest
Well, except for Christ of course, strictly speaking, but we’re not talking about that.
- Status