Limbo

[Lance]

Our 1st daughter, Lisa, only lived about 20 hours. A nurse at the hospital told me she had baptised her. I don’t know if the nurse was Catholic or not. I believe that she is in heaven but on of my wife’s aunts says she is in limbo. I am a convert and do not know about any teaching about limbo. Could any of you help me out?

 

[beng]

Lance:

Our 1st daughter, Lisa, only lived about 20 hours. A nurse at the hospital told me she had baptised her. I don’t know if the nurse was Catholic or not. I believe that she is in heaven but on of my wife’s aunts says she is in limbo. I am a convert and do not know about any teaching about limbo. Could any of you help me out?

Limbo is theological speculation.

 

[JimG]

If the nurse baptised her according to the proper form, the baptism was valid, and she is in heaven. Anyone can baptise, if they use the proper form and intend to do what the church does.

Limbo is or was only a theological speculation about what happens to persons, i.e. babies, with no personal sin, who did not have the opportunity for baptism. It is not a matter of faith.

JimG

 

[ralphinal]

Your aunt-in-law is wrong. An atheist or heretic can baptise if the proper formula and matter (water) is used and there is even the slightest understanding of what the church intends. Your daughter is in heaven and watching over you now. You have a direct line to heaven.

As far as Limbo goes, as posted earlier it was a speculation needed to help “fill in the blanks” in reguards to innocent babies who died before baptism. We now leave their fate in the hands of MERCIFUL God. Your daughter was baptised, she is in heaven. No questions asked.

 

[Lance]

ralphinal:

Your aunt-in-law is wrong. An atheist or heretic can baptise if the proper formula and matter (water) is used and there is even the slightest understanding of what the church intends. Your daughter is in heaven and watching over you now. You have a direct line to heaven.

As far as Limbo goes, as posted earlier it was a speculation needed to help “fill in the blanks” in reguards to innocent babies who died before baptism. We now leave their fate in the hands of MERCIFUL God. Your daughter was baptised, she is in heaven. No questions asked.

Ralphinal,
Thanks for the info, I have believed that since Lisa died I have somehow had a direct line to heaven. I think her mission on Earth was to convert me. I was so impressed with Fr. Diocetes’ concern for my wife and me and his love for Lisa that it was a major reason for my conversion when our 2nd daughter was born. (about 33 years ago).

 

[Scholastic]

Limbo is not just a theological speculation, it’s a theological certitude. It’s existence is not formally proposed for believing by the church, but the necessity of the existence of limbo is known from other teachings of the church. The church defined from the council of florence and of trent that no one who is unbaptized can enter into heaven. If you deny limbo, it implies the denial of this church teaching.

 

[Lance]

Scholastic:

Limbo is not just a theological speculation, it’s a theological certitude. It’s existence is not formally proposed for believing by the church, but the necessity of the existence of limbo is known from other teachings of the church. The church defined from the council of florence and of trent that no one who is unbaptized can enter into heaven. If you deny limbo, it implies the denial of this church teaching.

Could you help me out and point me to some of these teachings? When I went through RCIA it was not even mentioned and as a Protestant I never heard of it.

 

[space_ghost]

Lance:

Our 1st daughter, Lisa, only lived about 20 hours. A nurse at the hospital told me she had baptised her. I don’t know if the nurse was Catholic or not. I believe that she is in heaven but on of my wife’s aunts says she is in limbo. I am a convert and do not know about any teaching about limbo. Could any of you help me out?

if she was baptised with water and using the words Father, son, and holy ghost… mark it down… she’s in heaven… the church says so… if the form was wrong or no water was used we just can’t say for sure… that being said… i believe that she’s in heaven…

 

[Mandi]

Lance:

Ralphinal,
Thanks for the info, I have believed that since Lisa died I have somehow had a direct line to heaven. I think her mission on Earth was to convert me. I was so impressed with Fr. Diocetes’ concern for my wife and me and his love for Lisa that it was a major reason for my conversion when our 2nd daughter was born. (about 33 years ago).

You definately do have a very influential Saint praying for you in heaven … Lucky you!

 

[Trad_Catholic]

Lance:

Our 1st daughter, Lisa, only lived about 20 hours. A nurse at the hospital told me she had baptised her. I don’t know if the nurse was Catholic or not. I believe that she is in heaven but on of my wife’s aunts says she is in limbo. I am a convert and do not know about any teaching about limbo. Could any of you help me out?

No one at all can enter Heaven without a valid Baptism, so speaketh the Church. If your child was baptised validly, then she is certainly in Heaven. That is, if this woman, having the correct intention, saying the proper words, baptised your daughter (saying “I baptise thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” with the intention to do what the Church does, and pouring water over her head, then it was valid). If any of that was lacking at all, your daughter at best is in Limbo, as Baptism by water is necessary for salvation, so saith Our Lord: “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.” (St. John III. 5) Therefore, since it is not feasible that a merciful God would condemn those to Hell who have not commited any sin, save that into which they were born, the doctrine of Limbo is only logical. This is all but defined by the Church, just as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were before they were actually pronounced infallibly. Limbo is, as I said, all but defined by Holy Mother Church. St. Thomas Aquinas explains it in the Summa as the outer layer of Hell, as it were. In this place, however, souls experience a natural happiness free from the pain of sense or loss. Certainly, not knowing God, they could not possibly have a pain of losing Him. God in His mercy defers the temporal punishment of sense for those hwo never rejected Him but merely were not baptised. Anyone who has not reached the age of reason (that is, does not know right from wrong and, therefore, cannot commit sin) cannot go to Hell, so long as Limbo exists. However, as people have said, this is not defined by the Church, but if one rejects Limbo, he is being very cruel by stating that these innocents (as far as actual sin is concerned) will be damned to Hell, for the Church absolutely requires Baptism for salvation, as Christ Himself decreed. This requirement took place after Pentecost. Those who, once reaching the age of reason, are not Baptised, cannot be saved. Many who are very pro-life over do themselves to make themselves think that these unbaptised babies can go to Heaven; however, they that think that babies go to Heaven without Baptism not only deny the doctrine of the Church which requires water Baptism for salvation but also deny reason, for if, as they believe, abortion is such a heinous crime, which it is, then why so if these babies are being saved anyway? Anyone who would not sacrifice his life on earth to merit Heaven is attached to the world infinitely, and it is hard to say that he will ever merit Heaven.

 

[otm]

Scholastica, I think you overstate the case. I am aware of the teachings on the necessity of baptism, but the Church has qualified that from an absolute “no water baptism, no baptism” to include the obvious of baptism of blood (martyred for the faith although not physically baptised) and baptism of desire (no physical opportunity, but would if presented with the opportunity); in particular you might look at the documents of Vatican 2 concerning other religions.
From what I have seen, e.g. the Catechism, the Church has backed away from the issue rather than approached closer, and leaves the child to the mercy of God, with the theological specualtion that the child may be presented with some form of choice to accept or reject God. I don’t see certitude in this at all, and I see nothing that equates lack of belief in limbo as any denial of any other church teaching.

As a further comment, one is not left with any assumption that the only option is hell, as hell requires a direct choice of personal sin.

 

[Trad_Catholic]

Scholastic:

Limbo is not just a theological speculation, it’s a theological certitude. It’s existence is not formally proposed for believing by the church, but the necessity of the existence of limbo is known from other teachings of the church. The church defined from the council of florence and of trent that no one who is unbaptized can enter into heaven. If you deny limbo, it implies the denial of this church teaching.

Frist of all, I am a firm believer in Limbo.

It is not is its essence a denial of Church teaching to say that those who are babies and unbaptised go to Hell. If you say they go anywhere but Hell (if you believe not in Limbo), then YES it is a denial of Church teaching; nevertheless, to say they are condemned with those others what have reached the age of use and have not been Baptised is not against Church teaching. It is not very logical nor would it seem merciful of God’s part; however, it is not against Church teaching. Then again, God does not have any requirement to show mercy, especially to an unbaptised person who has not reached the age of reason. In any event, though, especially since the devotion to the Sacred Heart has become widespread and this private revelation is very commonly held, it would be hard to say that these souls are condemned to Hell for only original sin (as St. Thomas Aquinas says, original sin is the the least detrimental sin anyone has, that is, it is the “best,” if you will of the sins, since no one has free will to choose this sin. Therefore, if you are a Thomist, which I assume all Catholic theologians are if they know what they are talking about, it is next-to-impossible to deny on a theological basis the existence of Limbo.) God bless.

 

[Trad_Catholic]

otm:

Scholastica, I think you overstate the case. I am aware of the teachings on the necessity of baptism, but the Church has qualified that from an absolute “no water baptism, no baptism” to include the obvious of baptism of blood (martyred for the faith although not physically baptised) and baptism of desire (no physical opportunity, but would if presented with the opportunity); in particular you might look at the documents of Vatican 2 concerning other religions.
From what I have seen, e.g. the Catechism, the Church has backed away from the issue rather than approached closer, and leaves the child to the mercy of God, with the theological specualtion that the child may be presented with some form of choice to accept or reject God. I don’t see certitude in this at all, and I see nothing that equates lack of belief in limbo as any denial of any other church teaching.

As a further comment, one is not left with any assumption that the only option is hell, as hell requires a direct choice of personal sin.

There is no Baptism availing to salvation except water Baptism. Often St. Thomas is misquoted when he says that Baptism of Blood is the best Baptism. He presupposes a water Baptism, if you read his writings on water Baptism. What he means by that statement is that those who are martyred for the Faith partake in the best way the Christian life, that is, are most Christ-like, as they, too, were martyred as He Himself was.

“Baptism” of blood and “baptism” of desire are NOT Baptisms DEFINED by the Church to avail one to salvation. It is a complete break with Sacred Tradition to state otherwise, even if many modern Popes have said just that. Vat. II was not infallible, as Paul VI and John XXIII both said. It was merely pastoral and formed no new doctrine, hence, it was not infallible, as discipline is not infallible. Also, the new catechism is far from infallible. It, in fact, has MANY errors, some of which have been corrected recently by the Pope.

 

[Trad_Catholic]

ralphinal:

Your aunt-in-law is wrong. An atheist or heretic can baptise if the proper formula and matter (water) is used and there is even the slightest understanding of what the church intends. Your daughter is in heaven and watching over you now. You have a direct line to heaven.

As far as Limbo goes, as posted earlier it was a speculation needed to help “fill in the blanks” in reguards to innocent babies who died before baptism. We now leave their fate in the hands of MERCIFUL God. Your daughter was baptised, she is in heaven. No questions asked.

Well here are some questions:

Was she baptised with water?
Was it poured over her head?
While being poured over her head, did the one baptising say, “I baptise thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”?
Did the one baptising have the intention to do as the Church does?

Just as a matter of clarification: almost exclusively anyone who is brought into the Church is AT LEAST conditionally Baptised (Baptism in which it is not certain if the person was validly Baptised before), including those who have been “baptised” by protestants/schismatics/heretics. We cannot know if they had the correct intention; therefore, with almost anyone who was baptised by a non-Catholic, he is baptised again in order to be safe.

 

[Scholastic]

In the council of trent’s canons on the sacrament of baptism, the 5th canon reads “Whoever says baptism to be free, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.” So, anyone who goes to heaven must have either a baptism of water, blood, or desire. Baptism of desire can even apply to people who have never heard of christianity. If they desire to do whatever God’s will is, then they implicity, but objectively, desire to be baptized, since it’s God’s will for them to be baptized. Baptism of blood can apply to infants if they are killed because of hate for christ.

 

[John_Higgins]

Before we get to far afield and some slip into Feeneyism here are a few relevant paragraphs from the CCC:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died 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,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

John

PS: A search through the entire Catechism does not mention Limbo once. To me it’s a dance under a bamboo stick!

 

[John_Higgins]

Trad_Catholic:

almost exclusively anyone who is brought into the Church is AT LEAST conditionally Baptised (Baptism in which it is not certain if the person was validly Baptised before), including those who have been “baptised” by protestants/schismatics/heretics. We cannot know if they had the correct intention; therefore, with almost anyone who was baptised by a non-Catholic, he is baptised again in order to be safe.

Sorry, TC, that is simply not true. I’ve been to plenty of Easter vigil baptism/confirmation ceremonies, and NO ONE who had received a baptism received ANYTHING conditionally!

John

 

[Trad_Catholic]

John Higgins:

Sorry, TC, that is simply not true. I’ve been to plenty of Easter vigil baptism/confirmation ceremonies, and NO ONE who had received a baptism received ANYTHING conditionally!

John

Yeah at a NO church where “baptism” of desire is sufficient anyway… I have never seen in a TLM church a convert NOT Baptised conditionally. I have to say that the practice of the Church for 1900 years is much more convincing than that of the modernist era. If you see so much liturgical abuse, why is it a surprise if a Priest does not do what he is supposed to as far as conditional Baptism.

 

[Trad_Catholic]

John Higgins:

Before we get to far afield and some slip into Feeneyism here are a few relevant paragraphs from the CCC:

John

PS: A search through the entire Catechism does not mention Limbo once. To me it’s a dance under a bamboo stick!

Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Church, and he wasn’t even “excommunicated” (whether it was even a valid one) for his bleiefs. He never had to recant, and he was gladly admitted back into the Church. Where does the Catechism talk about gay marriage being wrong? If it doesn’t (I don’t think it does, then again, I’m not accustomed to reading the CCC), does that mean its OK? The catechism does not contain all Truth. In fact, it even contains some (many?) errors.

 

[Trad_Catholic]

Scholastic:

In the council of trent’s canons on the sacrament of baptism, the 5th canon reads “Whoever says baptism to be free, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.” So, anyone who goes to heaven must have either a baptism of water, blood, or desire. Baptism of desire can even apply to people who have never heard of christianity. If they desire to do whatever God’s will is, then they implicity, but objectively, desire to be baptized, since it’s God’s will for them to be baptized. Baptism of blood can apply to infants if they are killed because of hate for christ.

The Church does not teach that anything except Baptism of water can merit one unto salvation. Being killed because of hate of God is not a Baptism of Blood–you didn’t make an act of the will to die, so how are you a martyr? What does the word desire mean? It means to want something. How can you have an “implicit” desire? You want something, yet you do not even know it? Have you ever had an implicit hunger? I would hope not, because you’d die of starvation because you wouldn’t even know you were hungry! Also, even an explicit desire for Baptism does not merit salvation, so say the Church and the Fathers. God bless.