Limbo

[pnewton]

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.

Forums differ than blogs. They often go in circles and that is allowable, as people come and go.

For me, I readily admit and concede that the majority of the Saints, Doctors and Popes of the Church believed that Limbo existed and that Limbo was the solution to the dilemna of unbaptized infants. It does not answer all the questions, but one should be slow to hold a minority opinion against this majority of the dead. Yet for me, I can not do otherwise. Unless the Church defines this dogma or something new comes to light, I do not believe Limbo exists, at least as it has been defined by most adherents.

 

[MikeDunphy]

I’m supposed to believe that my babies existed for no reason other than to be seperated from God (and me) for eternity.

Who told you that? Your babies cannot be separated from God, Who is everywhere. I do not know whether you and they will meet in the world to come, but that is a different question than whether they will gain the ability to see God as He is.

 

[MikeDunphy]

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.

On the other hand, other catechisms DO say that without baptism, infants cannot achieve the beatific vision. Limbo is more than just an isolated theological musing, it was the common teaching of the Church for several centuries.

 

[MikeDunphy]

You’re absolutely right that we cannot dictate to God what He *must *do or must not do. As far as I can tell, the people in this thread who defend the traditional teaching of the Church on this issue attempt to discern what God *does *do, according to what He has revealed to His Church.

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?

 

[surritter]

Who told you that? Your babies cannot be separated from God, Who is everywhere.

You are forgetting the Catholic doctrine of original sin. By definition, we are all conceived with a state of separation from God. That doesn’t preclude God from intervening on behalf of these babies before they die, but there is indeed an initial separation.

 

[MikeDunphy]

You are forgetting the Catholic doctrine of original sin. By definition, we are all conceived with a state of separation from God. That doesn’t preclude God from intervening on behalf of these babies before they die, but there is indeed an initial separation.

I wonder if the separation from God you refer to could mean our darkened intellects and disordered wills. Or the loss of some grace that was forfeited with the original sin. I do not think that it could mean that the unbaptized are cut off totally and in every way from God.

The Roman Catechism says:

** God Preserves, Rules And Moves All Created Things **

We are not, however, to understand that God is in such wise the Creator and Maker of all things that His works, when once created and finished, could thereafter continue to exist unsupported by His omnipotence. For as all things derive existence from the Creator’s supreme power, wisdom, and goodness, so unless preserved continually by His Providence, and by the same power which produced them, they would instantly return into their nothingness. This the Scriptures declare when they say: How could anything endure if thou wouldst not? or be preserved, if not called by thee?

Not only does God protect and govern all things by His Providence, but He also by an internal power impels to motion and action whatever moves and acts, and this in such a manner that, although He excludes not, He yet precedes the agency of secondary causes. For His invisible influence extends to all things, and, as the Wise Man says, reaches from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly. This is the reason why the Apostle, announcing to the Athenians the God whom, not knowing, they adored, said: He is not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and are.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches similarly in #290, #291, #300 and #301.

 

[surritter]

I wonder if the separation from God you refer to could mean our darkened intellects and disordered wills. Or the loss of some grace that was forfeited with the original sin. I do not think that it could mean that the unbaptized are cut off totally and in every way from God.

No, the darkened intellect and disordered will are some of the effects of original sin. When one is baptized, original sin is wiped away (thus, the separation is removed) but effects such as the darkened intellect and disordered will remain. The better paragraphs from the Catechism regarding this are #402, 404, 405, and 407.

In fact, #407 explicit states that “original sin entails ‘captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil.’” That pretty much sounds to me like a separation from God’s favor.

I do agree that no one is ever separated from God in the sense you are using – we would fail to exist! But when talking about baptism and original sin, the term separation means a loss of sanctifying grace. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

 

[spn82756]

On the other hand, other catechisms DO say that without baptism, infants cannot achieve the beatific vision. Limbo is more than just an isolated theological musing, it was the common teaching of the Church for several centuries.

No it was not. It was an idea tossed about by theologians. That’s why it is not CC doctrine…dogma…or anything else of the sort. Current theologians and popes hold out that there is hope for unbaptized babies or aborted babies. Are today’s theologians…or even popes less capable of trying to understand?

 

[spn82756]

You are forgetting the Catholic doctrine of original sin. By definition, we are all conceived with a state of separation from God. That doesn’t preclude God from intervening on behalf of these babies before they die, but there is indeed an initial separation.

No argument here!

 

[spn82756]

One of the things that bothers me about this thread is that some do not see hope for unbaptized babies being in heaven. But at the same time they have no problem with CCC 841.

 

[Young_Thinker]

One of the things that bothers me about this thread is that some do not see hope for unbaptized babies being in heaven. But at the same time they have no problem with CCC 841.

Please forgive me for my ignorance, but what is CCC 841?

 

[spn82756]

Please forgive me for my ignorance, but what is CCC 841?

No problem…Here it is:

**841 **The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

 

[MikeDunphy]

No, the darkened intellect and disordered will are some of the effects of original sin. When one is baptized, original sin is wiped away (thus, the separation is removed) but effects such as the darkened intellect and disordered will remain. The better paragraphs from the Catechism regarding this are #402, 404, 405, and 407.

Thanks for the correction and the references. I’m convinced!

 

[Shin]

“It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished.”

St. Gregory of Nazianzen [Orat., xl, 23] (329-390 A.D.) Archbishop of Constantinople, Father and Doctor of the Church

Doesn’t look like a recent ‘invention’ to me. Limbo an invention of theologians? What’s this – A Father of the Church…

It’s always been there.

Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet? All of the blocks are in place, except for the name itself. What’s in a name? It is the reality that is the concern.

I suppose some would have the Church failed all those years to reassure parents that their unbaptized children would go to Heaven, and would not allow them to be buried in Catholic graveyards out of an error. Yes… all that time… all those grieving parents with their deceased children…

‘Those who die without baptism are not to be accorded ecclesiastical burial.’

Canon 1239, Code of Canon Law 1917

The 1917 code was based on the earlier canons, which I doubt not were of the same accord, unlike the more recent code of 1983… which does not require it, but makes it optional.

§2 Children whose parents had intended to have them baptized but who died before baptism, may be allowed Church funeral rites by the local Ordinary.

Code of Canon Law of 1983

The New Code also says that baptism must happen in the first few weeks, that infants in danger of death is to be baptized without delay, and may be baptized, -against the will- of the parents.

“. . . no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God”

Pope Innocent III (1160 - 1216 A.D.)

Pope St. Siricius in 385 A.D. wrote warning that baptism for infants must be done swiftly as a matter of conscience, and that his own soul would be in danger if he did not insist on it…

" … lest Our own soul be in danger if, as a result being denied the saving font, … each one of them, on leaving the world, loses both [eternal] life and the kingdom"

A name is a name. But the Council of Florence states plainly what happens to souls that die in original sin alone.

‘We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, **by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? **Who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety of him who will exclude a soul created in the image of God and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ has shed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and is destined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God, and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions (left vacant by the fallen angels), and **has taken away the service to God by His creature? ** who has deprived children of life before they could naturally see light or could be protected by maternal body from ferocious cruelty?’

Pope Sixtus V (1521-1590), Apostolic Constitution, “Effraenatam” (against abortionists)

The audio sermon I linked to criticizes the ITC document.

It is very important to impress people with the necessity of baptizing swiftly, and learning such incredibly important matters as Instructions for baptizing in the case of a miscarriage.

 

[Shin]

Which I hope but fear is not standard knowledge anymore for Catholic doctors and nurses. Not that it is not supposed to be, but little that is supposed to be happens today.

Many Catholics today do not even understand the basics of their faith, we know this. . they are Catholics who go, but do not know. Original sin – What is that? And the priest is not necessarily going to be helpful about it.

So you cannot entirely blame people for not knowing, because after all, you have to look hard to find what you need to know. That is how it is today. Yet also too…

People hear what they want to hear today, rather than what they need to. They are told vague ambiguous feel good words, in the language of the world instead of the Church, and difficult matters are not addressed directly, but only generally if they are addressed at all.

And they need to hear these things. They need to know how to assure their children’s salvation and the danger that exists. They need to know how to baptize as lay people. They need to feel the urgency to have baptism done. They need to know how to baptize in the case of a miscarriage. They need to know how to baptize if an infant is dying, and they are the only ones there – even if the parents hate the Church. They need to be ready to do their duty to their children… this way… and in so many others, they no longer know to do or are taught to do.

They need to fear the urgency for people outside of the Church, and their salvation. They need to feel the urgency for their own salvation and their responsibilities.

How much damage the condemned idea of universal salvation has done!

They do not need to rest on their laurels and hear what they want to hear so they feel they need do nothing at all. In the case of any reasonable doubt over a person’s eternal salvation - you take the position that assures. There is more than reasonable doubt here. So there is no other moral choice than to make sure people know about Limbo and baptism. The papers trumpeted the demise of Limbo. These papers are the same papers that lie about the Church everyday. We don’t run with what they say just like that.

“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.”

Origen, Homily on Leviticus,8:3(c. A.D. 244),in JUR,I:208

“C. Tell me, pray, and rid me of all doubts, why little children are baptized?
A. That their sins may be forgiven them in baptism.”

St. Jerome, Father and Doctor of the Church, Against the Pelagians,3:18(A.D. 415)

 

[spn82756]

“It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished.”

St. Gregory of Nazianzen [Orat., xl, 23] (329-390 A.D.) Archbishop of Constantinople, Father and Doctor of the Church

Doesn’t look like a recent ‘invention’ to me. Limbo an invention of theologians? What’s this – A Father of the Church…

It’s always been there.

Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet? All of the blocks are in place, except for the name itself. What’s in a name? It is the reality that is the concern.

I suppose some would have the Church failed all those years to reassure parents that their unbaptized children would go to Heaven, and would not allow them to be buried in Catholic graveyards out of an error. Yes… all that time… all those grieving parents with their deceased children…

‘Those who die without baptism are not to be accorded ecclesiastical burial.’

Canon 1239, Code of Canon Law 1917

The 1917 code was based on the earlier canons, which I doubt not were of the same accord, unlike the more recent code of 1983… which does not require it, but makes it optional.

§2 Children whose parents had intended to have them baptized but who died before baptism, may be allowed Church funeral rites by the local Ordinary.

Code of Canon Law of 1983

The New Code also says that baptism must happen in the first few weeks, that infants in danger of death is to be baptized without delay, and may be baptized, -against the will- of the parents.

“. . . no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God”

Pope Innocent III (1160 - 1216 A.D.)

Pope St. Siricius in 385 A.D. wrote warning that baptism for infants must be done swiftly as a matter of conscience, and that his own soul would be in danger if he did not insist on it…

" … lest Our own soul be in danger if, as a result being denied the saving font, … each one of them, on leaving the world, loses both [eternal] life and the kingdom"

A name is a name. But the Council of Florence states plainly what happens to souls that die in original sin alone.

‘We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, **by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? **Who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety of him who will exclude a soul created in the image of God and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ has shed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and is destined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God, and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions (left vacant by the fallen angels), and **has taken away the service to God by His creature? **who has deprived children of life before they could naturally see light or could be protected by maternal body from ferocious cruelty?’

Pope Sixtus V (1521-1590), Apostolic Constitution, “Effraenatam” (against abortionists)

The audio sermon I linked to criticizes the ITC document.

It is very important to impress people with the necessity of baptizing swiftly, and learning such incredibly important matters as Instructions for baptizing in the case of a miscarriage.

I guess our current and last pope are just heretics.

CCC841…muslims can go to heaven…but infants of Christians can’t?

 

[Shin]

You’re misreading the quote if you think it directly states Muslims will be saved.

The problem with the ‘language of the world’ ‘conversational’ rather than doctrinal and scholastic?

But that is another thread.

‘We can no more pray for a deceased infidel than we can for the devil, since they are condemned to the same eternal and irrevocable damnation.’

Pope St. Gregory the Great

“In answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved:

‘It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned.’"

The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, Pope St. Pius X, 1907

"Is unbelief a mortal sin? Listen to Our Lord: “If you do not believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins!”

St. Benedict Joseph Labre

“We have come to preach faith in Jesus Christ to you, that you will renounce Mohammad, that wicked slave of the devil, and obtain everlasting life like us.”

St. Francis of Assisi

Food for thought if you want to start that. But I do not know if I will participate.

 

[surritter]

Shin, you’re right in that that paragraph doesn’t say that Muslims WILL be saved. But the Church teaches that they CAN be saved.

On the other hand, you claim that an unbaptized baby of Christian parents CANNOT be saved. That is where the disconnect is…

 

[spn82756]

Shin, you’re right in that that paragraph doesn’t say that Muslims WILL be saved. But the Church teaches that they CAN be saved.

On the other hand, you claim that an unbaptized baby of Christian parents CANNOT be saved. That is where the disconnect is…

THANK YOU! I thought the implication was clear.

 

[Shin]

Incorrect.

I have not excluded the possibility of miraculous last minute baptisms for anyone.

I challenge anyone to find me a tradition saying that one should rely upon these however, or stating they generally occur.