Limbo

[pnewton]

I await an apology for the term “modernist” if you ever wish to have a reply from me again.

Do not take it personal. I think everyone who has posted much here has had this insult leveled at them. It is the Catholic version of “liberal”, that is to say, a term used so loosely, so as to be devoid of meaning.

 

[palmas85]

Not that it is any of your business but at this time I really do not think limbo, as stated by you and your group (won’t stoop to name calling as some other individual seem to love to do).

I have not really studied the matter nor do I care to at this time.

My main point, which you seem to continue to avoid, is that Limbo is not a dogma of the Church so we are free to believe as we wish regardless of what some anonymous user on an internet form thinks.

I await an apology for the term “modernist” if you ever wish to have a reply from me again.

At first you said Limbo did not exist. Then you said you didn’t know if you were ready to buy into the concept. Now you say that you haven’t studied the matter and don’t care to…

Do you believe anything at all or is it just a long series of shifting tides with you?. I mean that is basically what modernists do, shift ideas and opinions around as the wind blows. They reject tradition and traditional ideas and concepts, ie:Limbo, , just as you have. In fact, everything is relative to the here and now and nothing needs to remain static. They believe as it seems that you do that doctrines can evolve. and that it is possible to believe that the old teachings of the Church and new often contradictory teachings are both correct with each having their own time and place. The synthesis of all heresies.

I never said that Limbo was dogma. Never not even once. But it does make a good deal of theological sense. In fact it never entered into dogma as stated by the Magisterium, even though the Magisterium did often mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It was only after that Council with it’s overriding goal of ecumenism that the theory came under serious attack. I mean after all, the Orthodox don’t believe in it, and their view of Original Sin is different as well and the protestants don’t believe in it and don’t believe in Original Sin at all. It is a hard teaching, very hard, so why not just let it die? Then everyone could be happy.

No apology is needed when one points out an uncomfortable truth. But if I have made you uncomfortable by being blunt I do apologize for that. As far as saying that your opinions seem to be modernist in nature, they do… That is not my fault.

Oh and had you completed your first sentence it would have made a lot more sense. It was rather truncated and unintelligible.

And you can believe anything you want to believe. Modernists do that all the time:thumbsup:

 

[surritter]

Ouch.

This is all speculation, of course, since it isn’t a dogma. But I didn’t know how many people are clamoring for it to be declared dogma! Shouldn’t we let the Church decide? And it has said that we can hope for an unseen way for God to save those infants. That’s not an infallible statement; it’s just buying time for IF and when the Holy Spirit directs the Church to make a formal statement.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

At first you said Limbo did not exist. Then you said you didn’t know if you were ready to buy into the concept. Now you say that you haven’t studied the matter and don’t care to…

I am not sure I used any exact words to state my beliefs but if I did it really does not matter as Limbo is a theological speculation so I think it if fine ones beliefs fluctuate on it, especially as they receive more information.

Modernists do that all the time:thumbsup:

Your constant need to label me is humorous and childish. Something that I will not resort to but the mods have been alerted.

Now to the ignore list.

 

[simple_soul]

*Speeking about letting the church decide here are a few quotes and the Link to where I got the quotes from.

These quotes are taken from a document that I found at the Holy See web site and found to be very enlightening. It is titled:

                       International Theological Commission

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*

1. Reflecting on the question of the destiny of infants who die without Baptism, the ecclesial community must keep in mind the fact that God is more properly the subject than the object of theology. The first task of theology is therefore to listen to the Word of God. Theology listens to the Word of God expressed in the Scriptures in order to communicate it lovingly to all people. However, with regard to the salvation of those who die without Baptism, the Word of God says little or nothing. It is therefore necessary to interpret the reticence of Scripture on this issue in the light of texts concerning the universal plan of salvation and the ways of salvation. In short, the problem both for theology and for pastoral care is how to safeguard and reconcile two sets of biblical affirmations: those concerning God’s universal salvific will (cf. 1 Tim 2:4) and those regarding the necessity of Baptism as the way of being freed from sin and conformed to Christ (cf. Mk 16:16; Mt 28:18-19).

1. Without responding directly to the question of the destiny of unbaptised infants, the Second Vatican Council marked out many paths to guide theological reflection. The Council recalled many times the universality of God’s saving will which extends to all people (1 Tim 2:4).[61] All “share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all humankind” (NA 1, cf. LG 16). In a more particular vein, presenting a conception of human life founded on the dignity of the human being created in the image of God, the constitution Gaudium et Spes recalls that, “[h]uman dignity rests above all on the fact that humanity is called to communion with God,” specifying that “[t]he invitation to converse with God is addressed to men and women as soon as they are born” (GS 19). This same constitution proclaims with vigour that only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of the human being take on light. Furthermore, there is the renowned statement of the Council which asserted: “since Christ died for all, and since all are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (GS 22). Although the Council did not expressly apply this teaching to children who die without Baptism, these passages open a way to account for hope in their favour.[62]

1. b) God does not demand the impossible of us.[108] Furthermore, God’s power is not restricted to the sacraments: ‘Deus virtutem suam non alligavit sacramentis quin possit sine sacramentis effectum sacramentorum conferre’ (God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament).[109] God can therefore give the grace of Baptism without the sacrament being conferred, and this fact should particularly be recalled when the conferring of Baptism would be impossible. The need for the sacrament is not absolute. What is absolute is humanity’s need for the Ursakrament which is Christ himself. All salvation comes from him and therefore, in some way, through the Church.[110]

3.6. Hope

1. Within the hope that the Church bears for the whole of humanity and wants to proclaim afresh to the world of today, is there a hope for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism? We have carefully re-considered this complex question, with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the Church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today. Reflecting within the one tradition of faith that unites the Church through the ages, and relying utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead his followers “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13), we have sought to read the signs of the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel. 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).

1. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.

The document is a long read but it is well worth it.

This is the link vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[Shin]

Yes that little document is what the audio sermon I linked to above talks about and have encouraged everyone to listen to, so as to understand the true nature and weight of it.

6:40 minutes in, if you’re in a rush.

 

[pnewton]

Yes that little document is what the audio sermon I linked to above talks about and have encouraged everyone to listen to, so as to understand the true nature and weight of it.

6:40 minutes in, if you’re in a rush.

Speaking of weight, the great thing about linking directly to the Vatican is that you know from whence comes the authority and authorship. So much on the internet is anonymous and undocumented.

 

[Shin]

Just because something is an old teaching does not make it true nor a new teaching make it false. Nevertheless, Catholics follow Tradition, which means what has been handed on. Never in the 2000 years of Church history has the Catholic Church taught that unbaptized infants can attain the beatific vision. On the contrary, for 2000 years it has taught that they cannot attain the beatific vision on account of their state of original sin, which without baptism, the Church has always taught, they cannot become children of God. Scripture teaches that we are all “by nature children of wrath” (Eph 2:3). The ones who taught that unbaptized infants could be saved and attain heaven were the Pelagians, who were excommunicated as heretics in a General Council and in the Council of Carthage (the same Council that first canonized Scripture–howbeit a local Council) this very proposition was anathematized.

Yes, this is exactly it. Babies going to Heaven. It’s simple. Who in the world would teach against it unless they had to? It’s a no brainer – babies going to Heaven. If they were, the Church would teach it clearly, explicitly, and there wouldn’t be the slightest controversy about it, wouldn’t you think?

But it is just the opposite. 2,000 years.

Speaking of weight, the great thing about linking directly to the Vatican is that you know from whence comes the authority and authorship. So much on the internet is anonymous and undocumented.

That’s exactly why I like to quote catechisms, saints, and so forth. And the good priest in the sermon who gives an example of what has weight and what is weightless, and simply verbiage from a commission.

“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Consequently it became necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred damnation through Adam so in a second birth they might obtain salvation through Christ. Moreover it was fitting that children should receive Baptism, in order that being reared from childhood in things pertaining to the Christian mode of life, they may the more easily persevere therein; according to Proverbs 22:5: “A young man according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from it.” This reason is also given by Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii).

St. Thomas Aquinas

Infants that are born and die, and who do not receive Baptism, will they be saved?

No, they cannot be saved; for there is only one means of being incorporated with Jesus Christ and of receiving His grace, without which there is no salvation among men (LXVIII.3).

• The Catechism of the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Fr. R.P. Pegues

 

[Young_Thinker]

If a unbaptized child go to Limbo and he later accepts Christ, why cannot, say, St. Michael baptize him?

 

[Genesis315]

Yes, there is a Limbo. It’s Traditional Church doctrine since apostolic times.

If there’s no Limbo, and unbaptized babies aren’t going to hell proper, then everyone is born in a state of grace.

No, this is missing the main point of the argument–not that infants are conceived in the state of grace, but rather whether we can hope that infants can be cleansed of original sin in some other way not revealed to us if Baptism is impossible. Such possibilities have existed (e.g. Holy Innocents, St. John the Baptist). In my previous post in this thread, I also provided a passage from Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, providing other possibilites, none of which have been censured by the Magisterium.

But we no everyone is born with original sin. Baptism initiates us into the Church and wipes away the stain of original sin. Otherwise, what do we need Baptism for?

Water Baptism has never been considered absolutely necessary for salvation and this has never been seen to derogate from the importance or general necessity of Baptism. Plus, Baptism is the only way revealed to us that will certainly cleanse original sin in an infant’s soul so it should not be neglected, but that doesn’t preclude some other extraordinary possibility.

 

[PAboy57]

Wow. Some very great posts by so many. This subject is a gut wrencher to say the least. Part of me wants to say God wouldn’t do that to a baby but then that takes away the power of baptism.

Jesus says it, St. Thomas says it, Popes say it. I have to say it is as they say. If at some point God wants to change His mind so be it. For now – get your children baptised.

Thanks for all the qreat info and quotes. A deep learning experience.

 

[pnewton]

Part of me wants to say God wouldn’t do that to a baby but then that takes away the power of baptism.

Therein is the dilemna. God has not yet revealed the solution to this problem to the world. We grab at straws in the dark, but ultimately, we must trust in the mercy of God until the day that we no longer look through the glass darkly.

 

[simple_soul]

Therein is the dilemna. God has not yet revealed the solution to this problem to the world. We grab at straws in the dark, but ultimately, we must trust in the mercy of God until the day that we no longer look through the glass darkly.

Aaah, if we could just quite grabbing at straws and just put our complete Trust in God and His Divinely inspired Word…and start reflecting within the one tradition of faith that unites the Church through the ages, and relying utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead his followers “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13),… … what peace we may find there…and just maybe… if it is His Will… we will no longer be looking through the glass darkly.

 

[pnewton]

• … what peace we may find there…and just maybe… if it is His Will… we will no longer be looking through the glass darkly.*

According to St. Paul, this only happens in the beatific vision. I was alluding to 1 Corinthians 13.

For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.

 

[una_fides]

It is God’s justice, not his mercy, that gives me pause to accept Limbo. He Himself said:

From the discourse in Ezekiel 18

Perhaps some place like Limbo exists. Maybe it is permanent, maybe not. I am not inclined to believe it likely at this point.

That verse is referring to actual sin not original sin. You can’t just interpret Scripture alone without the Church and apart from her tradition. We ourselves sinned in Adam, so it’s not just that we inherited his original sin; we inherit his defective and infected human nature, a nature entirely lacking of sanctifying grace. We do not inherit the sin of our father because we are not guilty of his actual sins, but we do inherit the sin of Adam by inheriting his stained human nature. There is an important distinction that must be understood. Hope this helps.

 

[una_fides]

Not that it is any of your business but at this time I really do not think limbo, as stated by you and your group (won’t stoop to name calling as some other individual seem to love to do).

I have not really studied the matter nor do I care to at this time.

My main point, which you seem to continue to avoid, is that Limbo is not a dogma of the Church so we are free to believe as we wish regardless of what some anonymous user on an internet form thinks.

I await an apology for the term “modernist” if you ever wish to have a reply from me again.

Limbo is not a dogma, but it is a dogma that those who die in original sin only descend into hell. Whether you view that hell as limbo or as a painful fiery hell is up to you. I think belief in limbo, however, is a much more preferable conclusion.

 

[una_fides]

If a unbaptized child go to Limbo and he later accepts Christ, why cannot, say, St. Michael baptize him?

Because the Church has defined that once the soul leaves the body, there’s no more chances given and the soul’s eternal destiny has been set at the moment of death. That’s why we ask our Lady to pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

 

[simple_soul]

Dear pnewton,
I believe I am in agreement with you. But then I could be wrong.

According to St. Paul, this only happens in the beatific vision.

I was alluding to 1 Corinthians 13.

For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.

This is the rest of the verse

So, in a word, there are three things that last for ever: faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of them all is love.

I was just trying to suggesting that maybe we should be focusing more on these three things and what God teaches us about them through His Divinly Inspired word.

 

[surritter]

So Una, what about the common proposition that there are four last things: Death, judgment, heaven, hell? By insisting on a limbo, are you positing that there are five?

Or would you say that there are only four, and that unbaptized babies are simply disqualified from the “game,” as it were?

 

[palmas85]

So Una, what about the common proposition that there are four last things: Death, judgment, heaven, hell? By insisting on a limbo, are you positing that there are five?

Or would you say that there are only four, and that unbaptized babies are simply disqualified from the “game,” as it were?

I see that you have omitted Purgatory from your list. Is there a reason for such an omission or just a slip up of some sort?