Limbo

[simple_soul]

Hi stillwondering,

You are right we are created with a natural desire for God in that it is a desire for happiness that isn’t satisfied by earthly pleasure but by the good that comes from God.

The human soul requires that it be presented with what it desires for it to experience and know desire. For it to actively desire God it would have to know that God is. The problem is, is that possible and if so how? If it is possible then a Baptism of desire becomes a certain theological possibility.

*Dear Benadam,

Do you believe it is possible for God to make himself known and understood to a soul and that soul not really know and understand what it has been allowed to know and understand? And in this knowing and understanding the soul clings to it desiring nothing else and sacrificing everything else to this knowing because of the completeness and serenity that it has found in this knowing?

 

[una_fides]

Sorry to jump in on you two, but this approach really doesn’t work, Una. To interpret this Gospel verse in the manner that you are doing is to shove aside the authority of the Church.
It is not true that one be born of water and the spirit in the sense that you are presenting. We know this because of the Church-defined methods called baptism by desire and baptism by martyrdom.

Elsewhere, Jesus says that anyone who does not eat His flesh and drink His blood will not have everlasting life. Yet the Church does not teach that in an absolutist manner – children who are baptized but have not yet received Holy Communion are obviously eligible for Heaven.

You need to allow room for the Church to interpret things for you. And while it hasn’t spoken definitively against limbo, I find myself constantly reminding you that it hasn’t spoken definitively in favor of it, either. So use caution about finding a Bible verse that seems to make yours an airtight case.

surritter,
The only one who is “shoving aside the authority of the Church” would be one who keeps ignoring the repeated quotes from the Magisterium in favor of limbo and that definitively interpret the verse I cited above to refer to the reception of baptism. If you’d actually take enough time to read my other posts or any of the many quotes from previous popes and catechisms, you would not be saying what you just did. I ask one thing of you. If you really want to learn about this teaching, please re-read through this thread. Look at the many teachings of the Church throughout the centuries on this matter, and then comment. Also please read my posts as well instead of one taken in isolation. No where did I say what you are implying I said. In fact, I’ve explicitly stated many many times on this thread the nature of the reception of baptism is either by water or by desire only, as the Council of Trent has infallibly defined. Before accusing me of such things, I would appreciate you at least take the time to read what I’ve written. My approach is to follow the authority of the Church as she has always taught on this matter. Again for the 100000th time on this thread I will say that at no time in her 2000 year history has she ever taught that unbaptized infants can be saved. She has in fact taught the contrary with her Magisterial authority just without making an infallible declaration of such.

 

[Benadam]

Dear Benadam,

*Do you believe it is possible for God to make himself known and understood to a soul and that soul not really know and understand what it has been allowed to know and understand? And in this knowing and understanding the soul clings to it desiring nothing else and sacrificing everything else to this knowing because of the completeness and serenity that it has found in this knowing? *

Beautifull way to put it Simple Soul.
I am sure there are some people who have habitually responded favoreably to the promptings of the Holy Spirit and had a sacrificial love for Truth yet died having never been exposed to the Gospel or the One God. I think they would have come to a personal understanding of the One God if they lived long eneough. Even if they died before that inspiration, their love for the good of God was always directed toward Christ. No matter how well they understood who they loved what they were loving was the One God.

For an unbaptized infant I think their response, if it’s possible, would be similar to an angel’s. Like an angel created with the knowledge required to carry out it’s mission the infant, with a single response to God, merits Baptism and eternal life with God in glory in the knowledge that won them that reward and whatever else God has for those who are with Him in heaven.

 

[una_fides]

It is divinely revealed that Our Blessed Mother remained a Virgin. She was known as the Blessed Virgin Mother. As the Father’s fought various heresies a more developed Christology led to the title Mother of God. This is an example of what I mean. This is how it applies to dogma. I’m wondering what part of the theology I’ve proposed is bothering you. Apply the guidelines you posted to the theological concepts and ideas I presented and explain how they violate those guidelines.I’ve presented various theological concepts that you could question. That would be more constructive than pointing out guidelines that I’m not violating. It would be better if you would point out errors in the theology and if you can’t then assume the guidelines are understood and you aren’t grasping what’s being posted.

The blessed Mother being defined the Theotokos is a development not an evolution in the sense of a change. Dogmas do not change nor does our understanding of them change. The Church never previously understood the Blessed Virgin as only being the bearer of the man Jesus and not his divinity and then later evolved into believing that she was the mother of God. Make sense? Dogmas and the understanding of them do not evolve and change from one meaning to another. That’s all I’m trying to say. Our understanding of the blessed Virgin as the bearer of God cannot later evolve into saying that she only bore God “spiritually” and not physically, etc. We must understand that she gave physical birth to God the Son and bore his body and divinity within her. She nurtured the life of our Lord within her, and never will the Church understand it in any different sense than as she has always understood it. That is my point. Dogmas and their understanding do not evolve. The Council of Trent was explicit on this matter. As I earlier stated, Limbo was never defined as a dogma, so it can be further developed and understood. Nevertheless, the Church has defined as a dogma that anyone who dies in original sin only descends into hell, and she has taught according to her ordinary Magisterium universally for 2000 years that anyone who dies before the age of reason without baptism falls into that category. The only ones who taught differently, the Pelagians, were excommunicated in the early Church.

 

[una_fides]

Una fide. Evolve doesn’t exclusively apply to species. Words evolve, the colors of the sky evolve, Chevy Camaro’s have evolved. look:

You’re arguments are tainted with bias brother. Evolve isn’t necessarily a dirty word if attached to theology.
I can exchange the word evolve with ‘develop’ if that works better for you. It doesn’t change what I meant at all.

Actually my arguments are based solely on infallibly defined dogma here. Where do you find the Church teaching that understanding of dogmas can evolve?

Can you make this profession of faith?
I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.

If not, then Pope Pius X would not have permitted you to teach the Catholic faith in any capacity, and you would have been labeled a modernist heretic.

That said, we are getting off topic. I made my initial statement out of brotherly charity hoping that when presented with Church teaching you would have clarified and retracted the notion that dogmas evolve or that the understanding of dogmas evolves, but instead you continue to defend this idea. If you want to continue this specific discussion which is off topic, I feel it would be best for us to start another thread or send private messages because it seems we are not getting anywhere, and we are certainly straying from the topic of limbo.

 

[Shin]

The Council of Florence, cited here:

As for children, because of the danger of death, which can happen often, since no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism, by which they are delivered from the domination of the devil and adopted as children of God, [the Council] warns that one ought not to delay the sacred Baptism for forty or eighty days or another time according to certain customs, but it should rather be conferred as soon as fittingly possible; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman. . .

Is, citing St. Thomas Aquinas here, note the italics. The exact same phrase is found here:

Whether Baptism should be deferred?

I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death,* for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.* On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above (A.2, see p.73). And baptism should not be conferred on adults as soon as they are converted, but it should be deferred until some fixed time.

(Summa Theologica, III, Q.68, A.3)

As you can see St. Thomas states plainly that baptism of desire is not available for infants. This is because it is understood to require rational thought.

St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa is held in high regard by more than one Ecumenical Council. During the Ecumenical Council of Trent it was placed on the altar besides the Bible.

The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell.

(Maiores Ecclesiae causas, Dz 780)

I wish to note for the record, that one third of the entire angelic host in all its uncountable numbers, fell into Hell eternally and forever, instantly, and none of them was conceived in original sin, but instead all were pure from the beginning like Adam and Eve.

They also beheld God like Adam and Eve did from the beginning, while not in the beatific vision, we have more than one statement to the effect the vision was infinitely beyond compare to anything at all ever else.

All the children of Adam and Eve however, are today conceived in original sin, separated from God, with all the deprived grace and desires inherent.

“. . . in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were ***by nature ***children of wrath, even as the rest:”

Ephesians 2:3

 

[Benadam]

Una fide,this is what I wrote in post number 416

I can exchange the word evolve with ‘develop’ if that works better for you. It doesn’t change what I meant at all.

Truth never violates Truth.

I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.

I say yes to this. Furthermore would hope that if I ever include or God forbid, accept something that unknownst to me isn’t what the Church means or teaches that I am corrected and that I accept it with humility.

 

[surritter]

I will take the time to reread as much as I can. But there is one simple question for you:
If you are SO certain about the absolutist position of baptism and therefore the CERTAINTY of limbo, why have recent popes – who presumably would be as well versed in Church teaching as you – be writing of such a thing as hope for the unborn?

If I could receive a satisfactory answer to that, then it would save me much time in rehashing this entire thread! (And a satisfactory answer is not one that insinuates that our Church is now rife with Modernist leaders…)

 

[Benadam]

The Council of Florence, cited here:

As for children, because of the danger of death, which can happen often, since no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism, by which they are delivered from the domination of the devil and adopted as children of God, [the Council] warns that one ought not to delay the sacred Baptism for forty or eighty days or another time according to certain customs, but it should rather be conferred as soon as fittingly possible; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman. . .

Is, citing St. Thomas Aquinas here, note the italics. The exact same phrase is found here:

Whether Baptism should be deferred?

I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death,* for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.* On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above (A.2, see p.73). And baptism should not be conferred on adults as soon as they are converted, but it should be deferred until some fixed time.

(Summa Theologica, III, Q.68, A.3)

As you can see St. Thomas states plainly that baptism of desire is not available for infants. This is because it is understood to require rational thought.

St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa is held in high regard by more than one Ecumenical Council. During the Ecumenical Council of Trent it was placed on the altar besides the Bible.

The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell.

(Maiores Ecclesiae causas, Dz 780)

I wish to note for the record, that one third of the entire angelic host in all its uncountable numbers, fell into Hell eternally and forever, instantly, and none of them was conceived in original sin, but instead all were pure from the beginning like Adam and Eve.

They also beheld God like Adam and Eve did from the beginning, while not in the beatific vision, we have more than one statement to the effect the vision was infinitely beyond compare to anything at all ever else.

All the children of Adam and Eve however, are today conceived in original sin, separated from God, with all the deprived grace and desires inherent.

“. . . in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were ***by nature ***children of wrath, even as the rest:”

Ephesians 2:3

Makes one wonder why the Church bothers to entrust them to God’s Mercy or hope that there be a means for them to reach heaven. Like the Church, I would assume St Thomas knew theology surrounding the issue wasn’t definitive.

 

[Shin]

I feel it would be best for us to start another thread or send private messages because it seems we are not getting anywhere, and we are certainly straying from the topic of limbo.

I’m beginning to be rather impressed with how on topic this thread is managing to maintain itself.

I will take the time to reread as much as I can. But there is one simple question for you:
If you are SO certain about the absolutist position of baptism and therefore the CERTAINTY of limbo, why have recent popes – who presumably would be as well versed in Church teaching as you – be writing of such a thing as hope for the unborn?

If I could receive a satisfactory answer to that, then it would save me much time in rehashing this entire thread! (And a satisfactory answer is not one that insinuates that our Church is now rife with Modernist leaders…)

Ask those who commented what their internal intentions are yourself.

And make sure you understand what authority they were commented on, whether they actually existed or not, and whether they were personal views or not or are even now decades later still held.

I have noted before that I have hope for the unborn too. I hope that someone will baptize them. I even hope for miracles. I do not however think people are assured on their automatic worldwide occurrence without any past teaching, nor do I think people should ever generally go against traditional teaching based on non-authoritative and ambiguous unclarified statements.

There is nothing new under the sun in the Church. There are no new teachings, it has to have been always believed throughout Church history. It can only then be defined to be made further clear for all the faithful.

While I am not going to divert into that part of the discussion, very nice how on track the thread has been managed to be kept…

I will comment briefly on your Modernist comment.

I think most people nowadays who are familiar with Catholic teaching are quite aware that the Church is now rife with all sorts of problems. The liturgical abuse threads witness it well. And anyone familiar with the St. Joseph Foundation knows how little canonical complaints actually are addressed.

St. John Chrysostom speaks his fears of how few priests and bishops go to Heaven. The majority do not. (And saints have much to say about the majority of mankind this way)

And so many here know know there are people on all levels who simply are not willing to teach hard truths but prefer to teach ambiguously, personal theology rather that Church teaching or -as- Church teaching (very very common substitution for authority), and good feelings. Simply that. Things that make people feel good to hear rather than in fact cause them to change their lives.

An example of this would be the theological commission that advised Pope Paul VI about contraception. They in majority were in favor of Catholics being free to use it. We know this is a great sin. Bishops and Cardinals still favor it. They work in places like the Vatican and Bishop’s Conferences, and produce documents for our edification, all the while holding their views and trying to get them across one way or another.

If a document lacks authority, or is not infallible, this is a way.

So it is very important we see the present through the eyes of the entire Church, including the past, and not be people who read only what comes out recently and view it through the eyes of the current worldview of man. A double-error if ever there was one that does not produce the actual Catholic Faith.

We have to pray for our popes to deliver hard teachings.

If I’ve said anything erroneous, I might add, I repent it and hope to be corrected and see the virtue of that correction. I am only a human being, who likes to refer to authorities through quotations. People should learn to weigh authority and understand the weight of the various parts of what they read, and I pray they will.

 

[Shin]

Honestly, just to clarify further… I do believe people should pray for the salvation of unbaptized infants, and hope and have faith that their prayers can achieve that baptismal grace (before they die), that saving grace for those infants miraculously.

I also believe in Limbo and that this is the destination for infants who die in original sin, and the necessity of baptism in all cases especially miscarriage, because we are not guaranteed miracles by God.

God only knows the grace required for these miracles to occur.

Both can go together.

 

[Benadam]

But the language the Church uses implicates that operations within the order established by Christ is what is hoped for. The same miracle of Grace that enables faith that leads to Baptism. Hope for a ‘way’ or a ‘means’ I’ve read from Popes doesn’t seem to mean it’s a hope for the miraculous but something ordered.

 

[una_fides]

I will take the time to reread as much as I can. But there is one simple question for you:
If you are SO certain about the absolutist position of baptism and therefore the CERTAINTY of limbo, why have recent popes – who presumably would be as well versed in Church teaching as you – be writing of such a thing as hope for the unborn?

If I could receive a satisfactory answer to that, then it would save me much time in rehashing this entire thread! (And a satisfactory answer is not one that insinuates that our Church is now rife with Modernist leaders…)

Is it possible for popes to err when not teaching infallibly? Also as Shin rightly pointed out, we must weigh the degree of authority in which statements were made. General Councils are infallible. Modern popes are not infallible in their ordinary teachings or speculations. When you also have a plethora of popes before who believed and taught contrary then the weight of authority of 2000 years of teaching tradition should certainly hold to a much greater degree than modern teachings founded on speculation rather than revelation. You can hope all you want, but hope doesn’t save unbaptized infants. Baptism does. That’s what they need. They have no other remedy available, as the Council of Florence clearly stated.

 

[una_fides]

Let’s do a quick Bible study on this verse:
**John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. **

How has the Church understood this verse, and how have heretics understood it?

Lapide’s Commentary: (About Lapide)
Ver. 5.—Jesus answered, &c. Calvin, in order to detract from the effect of justification by baptism, and therefore from the necessity of baptism (for he maintains that the children of believers are justified in the womb simply because they are the children of believers), denies that baptism is here spoken of. He says that by water is to be understood, but the Holy Ghost, who, through faith, cleanses like water those who believe in Christ. He explains as follows, “unless any one be born again of water, and (that is, of) the Holy Ghost.” Thus he says it is similarly spoken (S. Mat_3:11), He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire, i.e., with the Holy Spirit, who, like fire, shall inflame you with the love of God. But all this is absurd and perverse, and condemned by the Church as heretical.
There is nothing new under the sun. Calvinist heretics taught a form of “believer’s baptism” in the womb. Same teaching is sprouting its head up again just in a different form.

The commentary continues:
For, in the first place, why does Christ here make mention of water, if not men, but only fishes, are born again of water? Why did He not say briefly and simply to Nicodemus, who was ignorant of Christian doctrines (whom He here catechises and instructs like a child), except any one be born again of the Holy Ghost?
2. Because in a similar way S. Paul, alluding to this conversation, (Tit_3:5), calls baptism the laver of regeneration. There in this spiritual birth we are born again of water, and are made sons of God, who before were children of the devil and wrath (Eph_2:3).
3. If it be lawful with Calvin to wrest this passage, then we may do the same with every other passage, and so pervert the whole of Scripture. No commandment will survive, not even the institution of baptism itself.
…
5. All the Fathers and orthodox interpreters explain the passage in the same way as the Council of Trent (Sess. 7, Can. 2). Nor are the words in S. Matthew, “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” any contradiction. For there real fire is to be understood, as here true water. For there the day of Pentecost was referred to, when the Holy Ghost came down upon the apostles in the likeness of tongues of fire. …
From this passage S. Augustine (lib. 1, de peccat. c. 10) proves, against Pelagius, that infants are born in original sin. For that is the reason why they must be born again in baptism, that they may be cleansed from that sin. And he exposes the folly of the Pelagians, who, in order to elude the force of this passage, said that infants dying without baptism would enter into the kingdom of heaven and eternal life, but not into the kingdom of God; as if the kingdom of God were something different from the kingdom of heaven.
Lastly, born of water ought here to be understood either in actual fact, or by desire. For he who repents of his sins, and desires to be baptized, but either from want of water, or lack of a minister, is not able to receive it, is born again through (ex) the desire and wish for baptism. So the Council of Trent fully explains this passage (Sess. 7, Can. 4).

 

[una_fides]

Here St. Augustine explains the view of the Pelagian heretics:
AUG. Because He does not say, Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he shall not have salvation, or eternal life; but, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God; from this, some infer that children are to be baptized in order to be with Christ in the kingdom of God, where they would not be, were they not baptized; but that they will obtain salvation and eternal life even if they die without baptism, not being bound with any chain of sin. But why is a man born again, except to be changed from his old into a new state? Or why does the image of God not enter into the kingdom of God, if it be not by reason of sin? (Catena Aurea, John 3:5).

 

[Javl]

I’m beginning to be rather impressed with how on topic this thread is managing to maintain itself.

Ask those who commented what their internal intentions are yourself.

And make sure you understand what authority they were commented on, whether they actually existed or not, and whether they were personal views or not or are even now decades later still held.

I have noted before that I have hope for the unborn too. I hope that someone will baptize them. I even hope for miracles. I do not however think people are assured on their automatic worldwide occurrence without any past teaching, nor do I think people should ever generally go against traditional teaching based on non-authoritative and ambiguous unclarified statements.

There is nothing new under the sun in the Church. There are no new teachings, it has to have been always believed throughout Church history. It can only then be defined to be made further clear for all the faithful.

While I am not going to divert into that part of the discussion, very nice how on track the thread has been managed to be kept…

I will comment briefly on your Modernist comment.

I think most people nowadays who are familiar with Catholic teaching are quite aware that the Church is now rife with all sorts of problems. The liturgical abuse threads witness it well. And anyone familiar with the St. Joseph Foundation knows how little canonical complaints actually are addressed.

St. John Chrysostom speaks his fears of how few priests and bishops go to Heaven. The majority do not. (And saints have much to say about the majority of mankind this way)

And so many here know know there are people on all levels who simply are not willing to teach hard truths but prefer to teach ambiguously, personal theology rather that Church teaching or -as- Church teaching (very very common substitution for authority), and good feelings. Simply that. Things that make people feel good to hear rather than in fact cause them to change their lives.

An example of this would be the theological commission that advised Pope Paul VI about contraception. They in majority were in favor of Catholics being free to use it. We know this is a great sin. Bishops and Cardinals still favor it. They work in places like the Vatican and Bishop’s Conferences, and produce documents for our edification, all the while holding their views and trying to get them across one way or another.

If a document lacks authority, or is not infallible, this is a way.

So it is very important we see the present through the eyes of the entire Church, including the past, and not be people who read only what comes out recently and view it through the eyes of the current worldview of man. A double-error if ever there was one that does not produce the actual Catholic Faith.

We have to pray for our popes to deliver hard teachings.

If I’ve said anything erroneous, I might add, I repent it and hope to be corrected and see the virtue of that correction. I am only a human being, who likes to refer to authorities through quotations. People should learn to weigh authority and understand the weight of the various parts of what they read, and I pray they will.

A good post. I would like to add that we really should not accept anything as fact unless it is issued by the Magisterium of the Church. Then, and only then, is it a valid teaching.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Janet1983]

A good post. I would like to add that we really should not accept anything as fact unless it is issued by the Magisterium of the Church. Then, and only then, is it a valid teaching.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Well that is why we are so divided over the issue. There is no clear statement and I see Catholics on both sides arguing for or against Limbo.
I personally do not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, taking the basis for Limbo away… but that is just my personal opinion and what I read from Scripture…

 

[Benadam]

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=432

Good explanation about the nature infallibility:

 

[SenorSalsa]

Well that is why we are so divided over the issue. There is no clear statement and I see Catholics on both sides arguing for or against Limbo.
I personally do not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, taking the basis for Limbo away… but that is just my personal opinion and what I read from Scripture…

I would be careful how you word that. I think in ordinary cases, baptism is a requirement, which God has put in place for us. I think in extraordinary circumstances, He can “bend” the rules, to the extent that the ordinary way (baptism) was unavailable.

 

[una_fides]

I would be careful how you word that. I think in ordinary cases, baptism is a requirement, which God has put in place for us. I think in extraordinary circumstances, He can “bend” the rules, to the extent that the ordinary way (baptism) was unavailable.

Again from the Council of Trent:
**CHAPTER IV
**** A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE
**In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
There is no question. As St. Peter clearly teaches, “baptism now saves you.” Without reception of this sacrament at least by desire one cannot be saved.

I think some people misunderstand what is meant by “ordinary” vs. “extraordinary” means of salvation. The ordinary means of baptism is by water. An extraordinary reception would be by desire. Either way, the sacrament is received and without this sacrament’s reception, one cannot enter the kingdom of God. This is a matter that must be accepted by faith per the Council of Trent.