Limbo

[Hesychios]

I wasn’t going to post any more here, but if people are going to jump on my posts and misrepresent me after I had intended to leave it behind I have to come back.

So I guess the child doesn’t have a horrible stain from original sin.

I have to ask again, in what sense do you mean stain?

A bloody stain? A filthy stain? … or what?

The whole ‘stain’ thing is an allegory. It makes it look like you are taking sin as a noun, while I think of it primarily as a verb.

God made the world and saw that it was good. Humankind is basically good, but now wounded and weakened. This weakness makes us more prone to sin against God in our own lives as we live these lives out.

For babies who have never actually sinned against God, there is nothing to condemn.

Apparently there’s no need for baptism, then!

I never said that, and never will. It must be easier for you to knock down what you want me to appear to believe, so you put words in my mouth.

In fact it is my position that not one but three sacraments are ideally conferred in infancy. Not just Baptism but Holy Communion and Confirmation as well. The sooner the better! Get these kids into the church, receiving the Body and Blood of Christ while still in their mother’s arms, hearing the Word and worshiping God with the community. Let them soak it all in.

Your concept of the damnation of the infants came about because we have always baptized, and some people questioned why, so they theorized. Saint Augustine, a convert, had a particularly vile opinion of human nature and he incorporated that into his theory. But he was a latecomer.

The church had already always baptized infants and brought them into the full life of the Body of Christ without considering them automatically damned in their own innocence.

The strong medicine of the Holy Mysteries, taken early and often helps and protects new Christians as they grow in Faith.

Since baptism doesn’t remove the effects of original sin such as bodily death or concupiscence, and you think it doesn’t remove any stain that afflicted the soul’s everlasting fate, then it’s really nothing more than a symbolic rite of initiation, eh?

Don’t put words in my mouth. You presumably read all my earlier posts so you know I never said that.

We know that the sacraments are efficacious in their own right, apart from any symbolic value they might also have.

The church itself is a sacrament. Bringing someone into the Body of Christ is anything but merely symbolic, it is life-changing. We do this with Baptism, Holy Communion and Confirmation.

What you are trying to do is damn babies to support a poor concept.

You need to dialog with your Calvinist Protestant buddies, you seem to understand them much better

 

[Hesychios]

Perhaps I should find an Orthodox Forum somewhere and slink around taking potshots at what they believe.

You may do as you please.

I am not slinking, and I am not taking pot shots. I have ten posts on this thread, and many of them require a considerable investment in time and energy.

I also participate in other threads that have nothing to do with this subject.

 

[surritter]

I wasn’t going to post any more here, but if people are going to jump on my posts and misrepresent me after I had intended to leave it behind I have to come back. I have to ask again, in what sense do you mean stain?

A bloody stain? A filthy stain? … or what?

The whole ‘stain’ thing is an allegory. It makes it look like you are taking sin as a noun, while I think of it primarily as a verb.

God made the world and saw that it was good. Humankind is basically good, but now wounded and weakened. This weakness makes us more prone to sin against God in our own lives as we live these lives out.

For babies who have never actually sinned against God, there is nothing to condemn.

I apologize for putting words in your mouth. But since you have given many statements that imply that babies are not out of favor with God, how can we help but say that your position is that baptism is not a true necessity? Heck, what is it saving them from if they are already saved? Please tell us specifically:

A. Does baptism remove anything?
B. What does it remove?
C. If it doesn’t remove anything, then it is not an ultimate necessity, is it?

Humankind is basically good, but now wounded and weakened. This weakness makes us more prone to sin against God in our own lives as we live these lives out.

Then your situation allows a possibility where someone could grow up and never sin. You must admit that this is a theoretical possibility.

This is not putting words in your mouth; I am merely showing you the natural outcome of the logic. In a sense, each person becomes Adam again, undergoing the ultimate test. You are merely saying that each person is now handicapped with the tendency to sin, which Adam didn’t have.

Yet this situation where each person undergoes Adam’s test sets up a system where – theoretically – there could be several human races: some that do not ever sin, and then those that do follow Adam.

So again, where does baptism fit into this if it is not removing anything?

I am not “condemning babies” to support a poor concept. I am trying to get you to piece together the conclusions that you have presented, and see if they make real sense.

I admit that if I answer the three questions above based on my beliefs, I am in the dilemma about the fate of any unbaptized babies – thus the question of limbo. I tend to lean against the idea of limbo, because I propose that God can intervene for their salvation in ways that we do not know.

We each have a dilemma. Did Adam’s sin cause a fall for the whole human race? You say no – only a tendency to fall. That is NOT putting words in your mouth.

 

[thomas_jd]

To paraphrase relevant radio answer by a contributing Priest. “The official Church teaching on Limbo is now in Limbo.”

 

[Hesychios]

Then your situation allows a possibility where someone could grow up and never sin. You must admit that this is a theoretical possibility.

This is not putting words in your mouth; I am merely showing you the natural outcome of the logic.

Now you understand how we view the Holy Theotokos!

To us she is not an exception, she is a great example! We honor her and praise her in this light.

She is nothing less than heroic.

http://www.armorial.ru/maria_feodorovna_icon.jpg
Holy Mother of God Pray for us!

 

[Hesychios]

A. Does baptism remove anything?

Baptism imparts something.

 

[Hesychios]

Then your situation allows a possibility where someone could grow up and never sin. You must admit that this is a theoretical possibility.

This is not putting words in your mouth; I am merely showing you the natural outcome of the logic.

Now you understand how we view the Holy Theotokos!

To us she is not an exception, she is a great example! We honor her and praise her in this light.

She is nothing less than heroic.

http://www.armorial.ru/maria_feodorovna_icon.jpg
Holy Mother of God Pray for us!

 

[surritter]

Now you understand how we view the Holy Theotokos!

To us she is not an exception, she is a great example! We honor her and praise her in this light.

She is nothing less than heroic.

How does that answer my questions?

 

[una_fides]

I would like to clarify something as to the Catholic position on baptism and the “stain” of original sin. We refer to sin as a “stain” by analogy, but in reality sin is not a something. It is a lack of something. To be precise, we err if we think of sin as an actual thing, a blot, dirt, etc. Sin is the lack of God and his grace. When we are baptized, we are “washed” only by analogy. The actual theological and spiritual reality is that at baptism, our dead and empty souls are filled with sanctifying grace, the divine life of God. Prior to baptism, our souls are lacking the extra gift that God had originally given to Adam and which Adam lost for all of us, sanctifying grace. God gives us all the natural gifts and natural means of existence, but sanctifying grace, an entirely undeserved gift, God imparts to us through the sacrament of baptism.

 

[una_fides]

Here is a brief excerpt from the chapter on Baptism in “The Faith Explained” by Leo Trese:
Adam refused God that act of obedience. He chose self in preference to God. He committed the first human sin, the original sin. In rejecting God, Adam cut himself off from union with God. He extinguished in his soul the supernatural life with which God has endowed him. He lost sanctifying grace. He lost it not only for himself but for his posterity forever. Because at the time of his sin Adam was the human race; in him all mankind was potentially present. And sanctifying grace, be it remembered was not something to which man was by his nature entitled. It was (and is) a totally undeserved gift, a tremendous “bonus” which Adam struck from God’s proffering hand.
…
Original sin is not, the strict sense, a “blot” upon the soul. Indeed, original sin is not a “something” at all. It is the *absence *of something that should be there. It is a darkness where there ought to be light.

In order to restore to the soul of this child–the work of his Father’s hands and the object of his Father’s love–his lost heritage, Jesus instituted the sacrament of Baptism. Baptism is the means devised by Jesus to apply to each individual soul the atonement which he made on the cross for original sin (308-309).
For more on this subject, I suggest purchasing the book. It literally is the Catholic faith explained in an easily comprehensible way.

 

[pnewton]

Here is a brief excerpt from the chapter on Baptism in “The Faith Explained” by Leo Trese:
Adam refused God that act of obedience. He chose self in preference to God. He committed the first human sin, the original sin. In rejecting God, Adam cut himself off from union with God. He extinguished in his soul the supernatural life with which God has endowed him. He lost sanctifying grace. He lost it not only for himself but for his posterity forever. Because at the time of his sin Adam was the human race; in him all mankind was potentially present. And sanctifying grace, be it remembered was not something to which man was by his nature entitled. It was (and is) a totally undeserved gift, a tremendous “bonus” which Adam struck from God’s proffering hand.
…
Original sin is not, the strict sense, a “blot” upon the soul. Indeed, original sin is not a “something” at all. It is the *absence *of something that should be there. It is a darkness where there ought to be light.

In order to restore to the soul of this child–the work of his Father’s hands and the object of his Father’s love–his lost heritage, Jesus instituted the sacrament of Baptism. Baptism is the means devised by Jesus to apply to each individual soul the atonement which he made on the cross for original sin (308-309).
For more on this subject, I suggest purchasing the book. It literally is the Catholic faith explained in an easily comprehensible way.

Thanks for this post. It is ponderous.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Trust in the Mercy of God

Although limbo has long been the prevailing theory, some theologians have imagined ways in which God may provide for the salvation of unbaptized infants. St. Gregory of Nyssa, in the fourth century, called the fate of these souls “something much greater than the human mind can g.asp” and found solace in the fact that “the One who has done everything well, with wisdom, is able to bring good out of evil” (qtd. in HS 12).

Cardinal Cajetan, in the sixteenth century, remarked in his commentary on the Summa Theologica (III:68:11), “that children still within the womb of their mother are able to be saved . . . through the sacrament of baptism that is received, not in reality, but in the desire of the parents.” In our own times, Cardinal Ratzinger echoed Cajetan in a 1985 interview with Vittorio Messori. “One should not hesitate to give up the idea of ‘limbo’ if need be,” the future pontiff advised. “A]nd it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed ‘limbo’ also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer” (The Ratzinger Report 147-8).

None of these positions has been officially proclaimed by the Magisterium. Catholics are free to have varying opinions on this matter. Our present Catechism makes no mention of limbo at all, but has this to say regarding infants who die without baptism:
The Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. (CCC 1261)
The Ordo Exsequiarum (Order of Christian Funerals) contains a special rite for children who die before baptism, during which the child’s soul is entrusted “to the abundant mercy of God, that our beloved child may find a home in his kingdom.” Option D of the opening prayer begins, “God of all consolation, searcher of mind and heart, the faith of these parents . . . is known to you. Comfort them with the knowledge that the child for whom they grieve is entrusted now to your loving care.” In the Prayer of Commendation B, the priest says, “We pray that you give [the child] happiness for ever.”

Lex orandi, lex credendi: As we pray, so we believe.

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0710fea4.asp

I told myself I wasn’t going to read this thread. I keep seeing it come up…and I read part of it. :

( I have 2 small children who died before I could baptize them. One died before I could even know of his existance, the same day my pregnancy was confirmed the same day the miscarriage started.)

Does anyone know what dispair feels like? The feeling that your baby will never be with God, ever. Because* I *couldn’t save him. I couldn’t save him, because there was no way to baptize him, because he died before I could know him.

As a little girl, I would light candles and pray for the soul of my uncle who passed away. God heard my prayers? As a little girl, I had no sins, wouldn’t God here me? Why am I encouraged to pray for my uncle, but for my own child not?

But the Lord doesn’t hear my sadness, and my prayers? For the baby He entrusted to me? Lord, I would have baptized him, I would have if I could. Doesn’t God know that?

Thank you Lord, for the holy priests who told me that yes, my babies were saved through my desire to have them baptized.

I’m posting this…and I will probably regret it. Someone once told me I had itchy ears for listening to the priests. I’m supposed to believe that my babies existed for no reason other than to be seperated from God (and me) for eternity.

 

[Shin]

Children in limbo are believe to be happy. Lacking the beatific vision does not mean one does not have the goodness of God in other ways.

My dear, I have more to contribute to this thread on the subject of Limbo, and perhaps you should not read it, if it is too difficult for you and brings you to tears.

I am not going to cease quoting the support of Catholic tradition on this matter because it upsets you, though of course I hate to think of it and grieve at the thought of your grief.

Plenty of people are used to telling people what their emotions want rather than something different even if there’s weight for that being the truth, and plenty of people too who will also dislike people who do not follow this same method… So you put people in an awkward position. I do not like to have to talk about things that may make you cry in public, and have to bear the accusations of whoever will come to your side as a sort of rescue… so I’d like to rescue you ahead of time with the advice to not stay with the thread but to leave it.

If you’re going to contribute to this thread, I’m going to have to ask you not to contribute only your emotions which do not change the truth. I can only ask of course, I’m not a moderator.

Many Catholic women accepted and were told about Limbo, and were raised in it as a truth of the faith and capable of accepting it. They were able to understand the idea of their children being happy in the next life, though not experiencing the unmerited and especial gift of God of the beatific vision, that many adults do not achieve.

It certainly is a better place than many of our family members and friends go, sadly to say. And yet if we go to Heaven ourselves in the next life we will be happy despite this.

I as a Catholic have to get used to the possibility members of my own family may not go to Heaven, and certainly may not go to limbo either at this age. I do what I can to pray for them, but they are free people. I myself may not go to Heaven, I know I do not deserve it. I can only pray, trust and hope, and hope others pray for me.

One of the things we do in our lives is learn what we can handle and what we can’t, and mortify our curiousity, and do not read that which is too upsetting for us – in other words we know our limitations and leave it up to God, with whom all is well eventually, whatever happens to anyone anywhere. We do not have to know and think about everything.

As a man I frequently have to mortify my curiousity because there are near occasions of sin around every corner. I also have to avoid other things that simply are emotionally too much for me until I am ready for them too. That is life. You can read this thread or not… no one here can decide that for you of course… but I just want to suggest the possibility of not for your own sake. You may or may not be able to handle it. What we can’t yet handle, we know as part of good sense not to enter into.

We have to learn to do what is best and not be slaves to curiosity, when with God all ultimately is well, even if all ultimately is not what we think it should be here.

Children in limbo are believed to be happy. Lacking the beatific vision does not mean one does not have the goodness of God in other ways. It does not mean that Heaven does not even perhaps, communicate with those there in other ways.

In Heaven, everyone is happy because God is there, and however many family members are or are not also, we are still happy, and we know this is how it should be.

Peace.

 

[surritter]

Children in limbo are believe to be happy. Lacking the beatific vision does not mean one does not have the goodness of God in other ways.

My dear, I have more to contribute to this thread on the subject of Limbo, and perhaps you should not read it, if it is too difficult for you and brings you to tears.

I am not going to cease quoting the support of Catholic tradition on this matter because it upsets you, though of course I hate to think of it and grieve at the thought of your grief.

But limbo is not part of Catholic Tradition (capital T)…

 

[Shin]

Now I am going to proceed… I also suggest to newcomers to the thread, if you cannot drag yourself away, to start at the beginning so you do not rehash old ground.

Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534) espoused the theory that infants could reach heaven because of the faith of their parents,* but Pope St. Pius V had the passage removed from Cajetan’s works. *

"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 (1303 – 1373 A.D.)

Among others who denied the existence of limbo were the Jansenists, whose theory of selective predestination excluded the need for any mediatorial source of grace, including baptism. They were condemned by Pope Pius VI as teaching something “false, rash and injurious to Catholic education,” because they claimed that it was a Pelagian fable to hold that there is a place “which the faithful generally designate by the name of limbo of children,” for the souls of those who depart this life with the sole guilt of original sin (Denzinger 2626). Pope Pius XII declared that “an act of love can suffice for an adult to acquire sanctifying grace and supply for the lack of baptism; to the unborn or newly born infant this way is not open” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLIII, 84).

The great majority of theologians, approved by the Church, teach that infants who die in original sin suffer no “pain of sense.” They are simply excluded from the beatific vision. Do they grieve because of heaven? St. Thomas Aquinas answers that they do not, because pain of punishment is proportioned to personal guilt, which does not exist here. Rather, “They rejoice because they share in God’s goodness and in many natural perfections” (De Malo, V, 3). It is believed that infants in limbo know and love God intensely by the use of their natural powers, and the enjoy full natural happiness.

Fr. John Hardon’s ‘Modern Catholic Dictionary’ (1980)

 

[spn82756]

But limbo is not part of Catholic Tradition (capital T)…

Exactly. The idea of limbo is merely theological musing. Never has it been doctrine…dogma or in any way insisted on belief by Catholics. As a matter of fact…limbo of the infants is not even discussed in the CCC.

 

[surritter]

Shin – perhaps you were trying to steamroll over me.

I have indeed been here since the beginning. And you are trying to present a THEORY as if it were TRADITION. That’s my point.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

If you’re going to contribute to this thread, I’m going to have to ask you not to contribute only your emotions which do not change the truth. I can only ask of course, I’m not a moderator.

Did you mean me, in my previous post. I included a link and some qutations:

Trust in the Mercy of God

Although limbo has long been the prevailing theory, some theologians have imagined ways in which God may provide for the salvation of unbaptized infants. St. Gregory of Nyssa, in the fourth century, called the fate of these souls “something much greater than the human mind can g.asp” and found solace in the fact that “the One who has done everything well, with wisdom, is able to bring good out of evil” (qtd. in HS 12).

Cardinal Cajetan, in the sixteenth century, remarked in his commentary on the Summa Theologica (III:68:11), “that children still within the womb of their mother are able to be saved . . . through the sacrament of baptism that is received, not in reality, but in the desire of the parents.” In our own times, Cardinal Ratzinger echoed Cajetan in a 1985 interview with Vittorio Messori. “One should not hesitate to give up the idea of ‘limbo’ if need be,” the future pontiff advised. “[A]nd it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed ‘limbo’ also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer” (The Ratzinger Report 147-8).

None of these positions has been officially proclaimed by the Magisterium. Catholics are free to have varying opinions on this matter. Our present Catechism makes no mention of limbo at all, but has this to say regarding infants who die without baptism:
The Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. (CCC 1261)
The Ordo Exsequiarum (Order of Christian Funerals) contains a special rite for children who die before baptism, during which the child’s soul is entrusted “to the abundant mercy of God, that our beloved child may find a home in his kingdom.” Option D of the opening prayer begins, “God of all consolation, searcher of mind and heart, the faith of these parents . . . is known to you. Comfort them with the knowledge that the child for whom they grieve is entrusted now to your loving care.” In the Prayer of Commendation B, the priest says, “We pray that you give [the child] happiness for ever.”

Lex orandi, lex credendi: As we pray, so we believe.

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0710fea4.asp

 

[kbharbert]

**your post is EXACTLY why i get so upset when people want to continually point to this and that ‘rule’ and INSIST there just can’t be another way.
YES there can! God IS the one in charge and if HE wills a child to be conceived, knits it within a mothers womb, then why on earth can he not choose to allow it eternal life within heavens walls?
and why do we pray for the unborn if there is no hope of heaven for them?
i know it’s a childish way of looking at it and thinking about it but i tend to see ‘limbo’ as a sort of purgatory-light. the tiny souls have only the stain of original sin to be cleansed.
i’d much rather imagine the Blessed Mother and a host of angels (maybe even Jesus’ grandmother as well) carrying each child to a special bath and then into heaven for God to give a cuddle.

**

 

[spn82756]

your post is EXACTLY why i get so upset when people want to continually point to this and that ‘rule’ and INSIST there just can’t be another way.
YES there can! God IS the one in charge and if HE wills a child to be conceived, knits it within a mothers womb, then why on earth can he not choose to allow it eternal life within heavens walls?
and why do we pray for the unborn if there is no hope of heaven for them?
i know it’s a childish way of looking at it and thinking about it but i tend to see ‘limbo’ as a sort of purgatory-light. the tiny souls have only the stain of original sin to be cleansed.
i’d much rather imagine the Blessed Mother and a host of angels (maybe even Jesus’ grandmother as well) carrying each child to a special bath and then into heaven for God to give a cuddle.

And the CC does not discount that as being absolutely possible. Only God knows. But another point is well taken. Why bother to pray for unborn children or children that die before baptism if it’s a hopeless case. We pray because as JP II believed…it is not hopeless.