Limbo

[Shin]

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

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.

Or ignore everything I quoted and follow your own opinion and see how far that gets you ultimately.

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

The Cardinal quoted above over 25 years ago did not.

And if Pope Saint Innocent I says something authoritatively… and Saint Popes’ Catechisms say the same… and a cardinal or other Pope says something in a personal capacity… what are -you- going to do my dear? Are you going to tell me they have equal weight? That what is newer is always better?

Is a Pope who is a saint better than a cardinal who is not? Do all Popes perform in their jobs equally well? Do they all go to Heaven? Do they ever make mistakes?

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

Or when people twist and misuse new statements and do not read them in the light of the past?

Would you want all your statements personally to be taken as Gospel I might add? I certainly do not think so. I don’t. I don’t think some others here mentioned do either.

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

And I don’t think you, or anyone else here today is more loving towards infants than the saints and popes of the past 2,000 years, many of whom were martyrs and shed their blood for God and spoke to Him face to face. I know I’m not.

So the ‘it’s more loving’ argument I do not agree with and frankly consider often based in pride and a condemnatory judgement on the Church and the saints.

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.

 

[pnewton]

And I don’t think you, or anyone else here today is more loving towards infants than the saints and popes of the past 2,000 years, many of whom were martyrs and shed their blood for God and spoke to Him face to face. I know I’m not.

So the ‘it’s more loving’ argument I do not agree with and frankly consider often based in pride and a condemnatory judgement on the Church and the saints.

This is one thing that I agree should be left out of all argument. Whether there is a Limbo or not is not dependant upon whether we love children more or less. It is an irrelevant consideration.

 

[Shin]

I believe I was somewhat too strict in the reply above. My apologies.

What is true sometimes need to be said a different way, or at a different time, I’m not saying I said anything untrue in the points as far as I can tell, but that I think it was too strict or antagonistic a response.

It’s difficult to leave that out of the argument isn’t it though? Because is it not the fundamental reason for it in the first place for many? Searching their hearts?

I wish it to be left out, but is this not the case?

 

[Janet1983]

Neither mentioned were Purgatory, the Holy Trinity, the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Concepcion and other assorted dogma and doctrines of the Catholic faith. Yet they are no less valid just because they are not mentioned.

Purgatory… you said it wasn’t in the Bible (don’t blame it on me)…
Assumption of Mary… you said it wasn’t in the Bible (don’t blame it on me)…
Immaculate Conception… you said it wasn’t in the Bible (don’t blame it on me)…

Considering the Trinity I don’t need to convince you of its truthfulness so I will keep it short.
Trinity… not the word, but the concept.

First of all there is only one God
Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5

Secondly the Trinity consists of three Persons
Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14
The noun that is used for God is plural (“Elohim”) and God uses the plural to describe Himself or what He is doing. The plural refers to a number greater than 2
Genesis 1:1, 1:26, 3:22, 11:7; Isaiah 6:8

Thirdly the members of the trinity are mentioned individually and distinguished from each other in Scripture.
God the Son / God the Father
Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9
In John 14 Jesus said that He is going to talk to the Father to send them a Helper, the Holy Spirit. Clearly He did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit (otherwise this would not have made any sense). Jesus also talks about the Father a lot.

Fourth: Each member of the Trinity is God:
Father: John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2
Son: John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20
Holy Spirit: Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16

Fifth: Even though they are mentioned individually and apart from each other they are one.
John 10:30

And last but not least we find trinitarian formulas too:
Matthew 28:19
2 Corinthians 13:14
1 Peter 1:1-2

And my own personal :twocents:
I do believe in the Trinity.
I do not believe in Limbo, Purgatory, the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Janet1983]

That was before Christ came. He and others apparently went into “Abraham’s Bosom”(the first purgatory).

Purgatory? Lazarus went there and he was pretty happy.

 

[Shin]

Many things are in the Bible implicitly, in substance, explicitly, through deduction based on the various truths, and so forth.

When you speak generally and say, ‘it’s not in there’… well. . Some people then just run with that as if in fact it were something one could run with that responsibly as a guiderule of some kind.

Not that we can’t speak generally. There will always be the latter.

Purgatory is in the scriptures I would say, in substance, simply not under that name. The Assumption of Mary, too. The Immaculate Conception too.

And as for Limbo… in scripture and Church teaching? Well… now… think on the above… and think on it… using the same methodology… save applied to all Catholic doctrine and not just the scriptures…

 

[palmas85]

Purgatory… you said it wasn’t in the Bible (don’t blame it on me)…
Assumption of Mary… you said it wasn’t in the Bible (don’t blame it on me)…
Immaculate Conception… you said it wasn’t in the Bible (don’t blame it on me)…

Considering the Trinity I don’t need to convince you of its truthfulness so I will keep it short.
Trinity… not the word, but the concept.

First of all there is only one God
Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5

Secondly the Trinity consists of three Persons
Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14
The noun that is used for God is plural (“Elohim”) and God uses the plural to describe Himself or what He is doing. The plural refers to a number greater than 2
Genesis 1:1, 1:26, 3:22, 11:7; Isaiah 6:8

Thirdly the members of the trinity are mentioned individually and distinguished from each other in Scripture.
God the Son / God the Father
Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9
In John 14 Jesus said that He is going to talk to the Father to send them a Helper, the Holy Spirit. Clearly He did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit (otherwise this would not have made any sense). Jesus also talks about the Father a lot.

Fourth: Each member of the Trinity is God:
Father: John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2
Son: John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20
Holy Spirit: Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16

Fifth: Even though they are mentioned individually and apart from each other they are one.
John 10:30

And last but not least we find trinitarian formulas too:
Matthew 28:19
2 Corinthians 13:14
1 Peter 1:1-2

And my own personal :twocents:
I do believe in the Trinity.
I do not believe in Limbo, Purgatory, the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception.

You lost me on this one. The things I mentioned are not stated expressly in the Bible much the same as the poster I was referring to said about Limbo. He was apparently using that lack of direct mention as a way to say that Limbo isn’t mentioned so therefore it does not exist.

I was merely pointing out that a lot of what we as Catholics believe is not expressly stated in scripture. That fact does not make these beliefs any less valid.

I don’t know what you got out of the post but the above was my intent.

 

[spn82756]

**Not sure if this was posted. From the Catholic Encyclopedia. (sorry for bold…I couldn’t get rid of it)
**

**
**

Limbus infantium

The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being “born again of water and the Holy Ghost” (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see BAPTISM, subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul’s teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Romans 5:12 sqq.). On the other hand, it is clear from Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq., 2 Corinthians 5:10; see also APOCATASTASIS). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the “children’s limbo.”
The best way of justifying the above statement is to give a brief sketch of the history of Catholic opinion on the subject. We shall try to do so by selecting the particular and pertinent facts from the general history of Catholic speculation regarding the Fall and original sin, but it is only right to observe that a fairly full knowledge of this general history is required for a proper appreciation of these facts.

 

[Janet1983]

You lost me on this one. The things I mentioned are not stated expressly in the Bible much the same as the poster I was referring to said about Limbo. He was apparently using that lack of direct mention as a way to say that Limbo isn’t mentioned so therefore it does not exist.

I was merely pointing out that a lot of what we as Catholics believe is not expressly stated in scripture. That fact does not make these beliefs any less valid.

I don’t know what you got out of the post but the above was my intent.

Well the Trinity is mentioned in its concept. The others aren’t mentioned (as you said).

 

[PJM]

=LoyalViews;6373041]No, not the stick. Do you believe in limbo?
(This will explain what limbo is if you don’t know

Limbo [the place, not the dance] might be compared to a holding pattern for air planes.

With the Commission of the First Mortal sins; Adam and Eve caused access to heaven to be denied to even the just and deserving [of which there were many.]

It was not until the Sacrifice of the New Adam [essential] and New Eve [Mary, not essential but warranted through the Divine merits of Christ] that Heaven was once again made accesible.

Because the reality is that we are speaking here of SOULS [Spiritual Things] not bodies, physical things; Limo is a Thelogical Term for a state of existence; not a physical place. And in this sense; yes I do believe in its existence.

Love and prayres,
Pat

 

[spn82756]

Limbo [the place, not the dance] might be compared to a holding pattern for air planes.

With the Commission of the First Mortal sins; Adam and Eve caused access to heaven to be denied to even the just and deserving [of which there were many.]

It was not until the Sacrifice of the New Adam [essential] and New Eve [Mary, not essential but warranted through the Divine merits of Christ] that Heaven was once again made accesible.

Because the reality is that we are speaking here of SOULS [Spiritual Things] not bodies, physical things; Limo is a Thelogical Term for a state of existence; not a physical place. And in this sense; yes I do believe in its existence.

Love and prayres,
Pat

That sounds like quite a reasonable explanation. Simple and to the point. Of course…is there still a limbo of the infants? That is what the church has never thought of or taught as doctrine. Merely theological speculation. It seems to be loosing ground in current teaching.

 

[Shin]

Oh it can be a place too.

Just like Hell is a place…

Spirits like to be in places you know… it gives a fellow something to do with your time…

It would hardly be fitting besides, you know, for example all the damned souls of Hell to be roaming around in Heaven (the place), and while you were having a cup of tea with the Blessed Virgin Mary (splendid privilege) to have them interrupt you cursing and screaming while being scorched by their assigned devil.

It wouldn’t trouble you of course, being in imperturbable eternal bliss, but it would simply not be cricket.

No it’s quite fitting they’re chained in a particular place as well as in a particular state.

As for those in Limbo? Tradition has it as a place as well as a state.

And there is the resurrection too.

 

[palmas85]

You are correct about the Assupmtion of Mary (which hadn’t happened yet at the time Jesus taught). The other three are taught in the Bible, but not given a name. I just said it was evidence (and factual), not proof of anything. It is just something to bear in mind, like the words of St. Thomas and the logic behind the idea of Limbo is something to bear in mind.

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

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 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:

If we believe in Original Sin, as the Church teaches it then we know that the unbaptized, in most situations cannot ever enter Heaven. There are exceptions to be sure, but in the overwhelming majority of the cases that is true.

Now our good friends the Orthodox believe differently. They believe that while man inherited the consequences of that long ago event, sin and death for example, he did not also inherit the guilt associated with it. The various protestant sects scrap the idea altogether as being totally incompatible with a loving God. How many times have I heard that one brought up here? Way too many to mention.

Simply put you cannot square the theory of Original Sin with the non existence of a place where those uncleansed go upon death. . The only way the theory of not having an intermediate state works is if we also deny Original Sin.

Quite simply God has rules. We may not agree with them, but they do exist. Sometimes they are harsh. harsh indeed. That does not in any way shape or form change their validity. And yes, I know that someone will say that God is not bound by those rules. Quite correct.

BUT WE ARE

The concept of Limbo came about as the result of careful thought into all of the issues involved and is a logical, highly logical and workable theory. In fact it was endorsed bu numerous Church Councils and noted theologians. So I will ask the following question. Have we learned so much more of God in these past two hundred years that we are now ready to throw out Augustine and Thomas Aquinas? Or is it merely that we as humans in our limited intellect:bigyikes: cannot comprehend this situation and why it would happen? Or is it maybe, just maybe that the concept is just to hard to accept. To definite in its statements. Too unfeeling and too cold? Unfeeling and cold. Not for the infants. They have eternal bliss and happiness. For the parents, probably yes. But that too is more than likely another of the consequences that we have to carry as the result of Original Sin.

I find it most telling that the great degree of speculation that exists today about the existence or non existence of Limbo came about in the late 1700 to early 1800’s and is contemporaneous with the development of Modernism, Rationalism and Relativism, when virtually everything about Christianity, Jesus and Scripture came to be questioned.

 

[palmas85]

That sounds like quite a reasonable explanation. Simple and to the point. Of course…is there still a limbo of the infants? ** That is what the church has never thought of or taught as doctrine. Merely theological speculation. It seems to be loosing ground in current teaching**.

But it was taught. Taught and endorsed by numerous Church Councils:bigyikes: and theologians. Taught, not as speculation in thousands of classrooms around the world by Brothers Sisters and Priests and from the pulpit in many sermons, but as a reality. One that we needed to be prepared for and accept.

Those are the facts. Lets not deceive ourselves by saying anything differently.

Many things are or were losing ground in current teaching as well. That fact in no way validates that current teaching is correct and the older teachings were wrong.

 

[spn82756]

But it was taught. Taught and endorsed by numerous Church Councils:bigyikes: and theologians. Taught, not as speculation in thousands of classrooms around the world by Brothers Sisters and Priests and from the pulpit in many sermons, but as a reality. One that we needed to be prepared for and accept.

Those are the facts. Lets not deceive ourselves by saying anything differently.

Many things are or were losing ground in current teaching as well. That fact in no way validates that current teaching is correct and the older teachings were wrong.

Hi…I don’t want to argue the point…but it just has never been doctrine. And things that are not doctrine are subject to change as the Church develops a better understanding through the Holy Spirit. The limbo of the infants hasn’t been completely thrown out…but JPII has said (as well as other theologians) that we do not know how God may include the un-baptized…but that it is certainly within His prerogative. As Jesus said…bring the little children to me.

One thing that is certain…if limbo does exist for infants…it is not a place of suffering…but of eternal bliss…minus the beatific vision.

Peace
Steve

 

[pnewton]

Quite simply God has rules. We may not agree with them, but they do exist. Sometimes they are harsh. harsh indeed. That does not in any way shape or form change their validity.

Harsh, but always just. Therein is the rub.

 

[palmas85]

Hi…I don’t want to argue the point…but it just has never been doctrine. And things that are not doctrine are subject to change as the Church develops a better understanding through the Holy Spirit. The limbo of the infants hasn’t been completely thrown out…but JPII has said (as well as other theologians) that we do not know how God may include the un-baptized…but that it is certainly within His prerogative. As Jesus said…bring the little children to me.

One thing that is certain…if limbo does exist for infants…it is not a place of suffering…but of eternal bliss…minus the beatific vision.

Peace
Steve

The difference here being this better understanding came about, I believe, through the evolution of relativistic, rationalistic and modernist thought and not from the Holy Spirit. I refuse to believe that the Holy Spirit would allow us to flounder around in ignorance for thousands of years until modernism raised its ugly head in the 1800’s and graciously showed us the new truth and the new light.

Yes God certainly does have that ability. And quite frankly we do not know exactly what happens to these poor souls after death. I, not being as well educated as many here, don’t really have a concept of exactly what Limbo is. I only know what I was taught. And that is that it was a place of perfect bliss and contentment. I also believe that Augustin and Thomas Aquinas are just slightly above John Paul II on the theological scale.

 

[palmas85]

Harsh, but always just. Therein is the rub.

And if I could ask, exactly what is unjust about the concept of Limbo?

 

[spn82756]

The difference here being this better understanding came about, I believe, through the evolution of relativistic, rationalistic and modernist thought and not from the Holy Spirit. I refuse to believe that the Holy Spirit would allow us to flounder around in ignorance for thousands of years until modernism raised its ugly head in the 1800’s and graciously showed us the new truth and the new light.

Yes God certainly does have that ability. And quite frankly we do not know exactly what happens to these poor souls after death. I, not being as well educated as many here, don’t really have a concept of exactly what Limbo is. I only know what I was taught. And that is that it was a place of perfect bliss and contentment. I also believe that Augustin and Thomas Aquinas are just slightly above John Paul II on the theological scale.

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!

 

[Lormar]

I voted yes because that it what I was taught by the excellent Dominican Sisters I had. Limbo was in our Baltimore Catechism.

I agree with what Palmas said about the Holy Spirit letting us flounder for centuries until the “age of enlightenment.” If the Church was wrong for centuries in what She taught, why should I listen to Her now if She couldn’t get it right then? Regardless of whether Limbo was a theological “opinion” or not, it was in our catechism.