Questions on Limbo or more importantly the Fate of the Unbaptized Baby

[RebeccaJ]

I am not quite so one dimensional as you claim.
Within the Trinity controversy there are some very complex interactions that MIGHT be what I call a “fatal flaw.” Generally this would be a statement made by an EC that is contradicted by another EC. As I alluded to above, there are even more complex conditions for this such that the “acts of the council” (I think) are not irreformable.
I truly was listening to Catholic Answers. I truly thought that the Baltamore Catachism spoke of limbo (and it does, but far more tentatively then I thought it would). But what was obvious was that limbo was an option to rescue the unbaptized baby from obvious alternative hell. I studied this more than a month ago.
I stated and nobody has denied that there was a SEA-CHANGE that occurred sometime long after Aquinas toward the rejection of theological certainty concerning the fate of the unbaptized (be that hell or limbo). If that was ALL I wanted to show I think it is well accepted by all posters here.
That being said, I am truly committed to comparing the BEST view of Catholicism I could embrace to the BEST views of alternate theologies. I think it is possible that this statement: “2) Everyone suffering in Hell has actual sin to account for.”
With the presence of this in the ECF, I think there is much room for either Limbo or something other than hell. Without that I am still undecided, but I am open to being persuaded. The Trent statement by itself does not create the certainty that I had originally thought.
So, not after “fatal flaw” in this line of exploration.
Feel I have demonstrated changes in teaching (doctrine being another name for teaching), but I am not trying to demonstrate a change in binding doctrine.
And looking for the BEST Catholicism has to offer.
Charity, TOm

From the Old Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Hell (infernus) in theological usage is a place of punishment after death. Theologians distinguish four meanings of the term hell:

hell in the strict sense, or the place of punishment for the damned, be they demons or men;
the limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment;
the limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum), in which the souls of the just who died before Christ awaited their admission to heaven; for in the meantime heaven was closed against them in punishment for the sin of Adam;
purgatory, where the just, who die in venial sin or who still owe a debt of temporal punishment for sin, are cleansed by suffering before their admission to heaven.

You are focusing on the limbo of infants, which as you can see is vague.

Personally, I don’t see that this teaching has changed, what has been added is we have hope that infants are saved.

Something like this:

the limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment; The possibility for their Salvation in Christ is our hope.

Of course, you must understand Christian hope is not one of wishing, such as hoping your favorite sports team wins. It is a sure hope, as in the hope you have that a loved one is returning this Sunday. See the encyclical Spe Salve. I think if you understand this, alone, about Catholics you will understand a lot about us. Including why we are unable to believe Christ’s Church has ever failed.

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello again.
I considered not continuing this discussion beyond this post, but there are two things in this thread that moved me (intellectually) and perhaps I can be moved more. There is also something said in this thread that is begging me to comment on it so perhaps it is evil I seek.
I will finish this post with “the two things.” (now a set of posts)
First, I want to comment less than directly to a single person and more generally.
It has been a long time since I thought I might return to Catholicism, but when I did one of the things I could see myself doing was worshiping God in an adoration chapel. What a wonderful way to be present with Christ. How glorious is His sacrifice for us. Some Catholics describe the wings they fly upon when they spend one or more hours with God. As a non-Catholic I have gone a couple of times and it was a peaceful place to pray. I find no reason to deny God’s contact through the Eucharist with His loving children.
God loves us and He speaks that love to us. He comes to us in our pain and heals us. It is amazing to me how He can turn some of my greatest horrors in life into an opportunity to feel His love and see His hand.
I once thought of myself as “spiritually handicapped” because so much or my religious walk was logical propositions (there is a lot of this in me still so now I am “the one who formerly called himself ‘spiritually handicapped.’”) I have felt God‘s love for me. I have experienced His rescue of me in my sins. I have participated in His use of me in the little imperfect way I can be used (weakly allow Him to use me). God is much more than reasoned propositions or logically necessity. We do not worship the God of propositions, but the God who loves.
These experiences are wonderful parts of our walk with God and they communicate with us. We can reason from them to logical propositions, but that is not the main reason for them. I honestly think the Atheist is most vulnerable in his reasoning when he attempts to explain these away. In a different tactic, the Atheist thinks he has won the day when he points out that some who follow God believe He calls them one way and others another. I do not think this is such a good point either. God loves all of us and we experience this love. The reasoning attach to God’s love is perfect and flawed because we are flawed, but His love is real and perfect. I want to say that I appreciate God’s love and when it is expressed by His children.
…
Now, I will return to “logical propositions…” as best my flawed faculties can offer them.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Steido01,
I think there is much within scripture to recommend the view that Baptism is not absolutely necessary and much to suggest it is. Catholics and Evangelicals have been using scripture to make both cases for a long time. The early reformers relied upon the traditional (maybe even Traditional) reading of scripture in most of their theology, and would be quite unhappy to see the unmooring of scripture from tradition that has occurred within some modern evangelical congregations (not as big of a problem for your congregation as it is for some, one could make the case as it is in mine).
All that being said, I am trying to explore what a Catholic must/should believe. The source of that is Scripture and Tradition (and to a lesser extent perhaps tradition).
Before my searching yesterday, I was already convinced that it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to authoritatively define anything positive concerning the fate of the unbaptized. But is there good reason to teach there is hope?
Charity, Tom

 

[TOmNossor]

Concerning God takes care of them and we do not need to worry:
I have said that Calvinism could be true, I could be non-elect, and my faculties may be unregenerate such that I cannot see how God’s freedom to predestine some who seem to truly seek Him to hell is compatible with His love. Together with this, my pride might not allow me to believe God’s ways are so far above mine that He can be both loving of all and absolutely predestine some to eternal torment (since I am on a Catholic board and I am not trying to create conflict, let’s call this “double predestination.”)
I think there are biological roots for homosexual feelings(and environmental). I think it would be tough to choose celibacy instead of intimacy, but I also think God’s position on sex outside of marriage between a man and woman is pretty clear. I think a similar case could be made by the person in a homosexual relationship or the homosexual sympathizer. Were I an individual interpretation of scripture (a radical form of sola scriptura), I might (probably would) make the case that prescriptions against woman not wearing hats in church and against homosexual marriage is a product of the culture and not the gospel. After all, God loves all His children.
So, all of the above is to say that I recognize no absolutes when it comes to making an appeal to what we think God should/would do.
And again, this is about the best Catholicism has to offer. It is not appropriate to say that I think God will take care of the question of female priests and we can know this is coming (theological speculation on married priests is a different subject because that could and does exist).
Charity, Tom

 

[TOmNossor]

Concerning the CCC:
Thanks for the responses. For In Servitude, not only do I not know what direction you thought I erred, but I now think “ordinary magisterium” was the correct term to use. I would rather be corrected than wrong though.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Finally, the two things:

1. Everyone suffering in Hell has actual sin to account for.

In searching for a source of this, I found that Aquinas offered this as an argument for why there MUST be a Limbo for children that is part of hell, but does not involve suffering (other than the denial of the beautific vision).
I have not found any ECF who spoke like this. That would help.

Next:

I harkened back to my understanding of Mary’s sinlessness in Catholic thought. It is still the merits of Christ that removes the original sin of Mary, it is only the merits of Christ applied to Mary before original sin is imputed to her human nature. I am not sure which Catholic thinker first formulated this, but I am certain that veneration of Mary has very early roots AND that Original Sin has ECF roots (Augustine primarily, but that is a discussion for some other time).
So when I read what you wrote I thought of my learnings on Mary. I wrote:

TOmNossor:
The Trent statement by itself does not create the certainty that I had originally thought.
It is true that the Trent statement does not create the type of certainty I thought it did upon first review.
While looking, I have found other things that I think are more clear than Trent, that I will offer in the future.

For now, I still think it would be interesting to find a statement about " Everyone suffering in Hell has actual sin to account for" coming from some ECF, the best I have so far is that it comes from Aquinas and is used to justify his theological speculation of “limbo for infants.”
Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

This is a way for Tom to try to compare Popes, who do not claim to speak face to face with God and who do NOT claim to be prophets and therefore will speculate with lds “prophets” who claim to speak directly to God and call themselves “prophets, seers and revelators”

 

[dronald]

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them. For limbo belongs to such as these.”

 

[dronald]

Two pages in and no one has bothered to quote Holy Scripture?

To answer your question, we can go literally thousands of years before Aquinas to learn about the fate of the unbaptized. I think 2 Samuel 2:15-25 is relevant here. It has granted words of comfort to others. In the passage, David’s son is born very ill; David weeps and prays for his recovery, but his child passes away on the seventh day (before a child would be baptized/circumcised). Yet when the child passes away, David immediately stopped grieving:

I bolded the most important part of that passage. David states that someday, he will go to his son - his son is with the Lord! The child is not experiencing any of the pains of earthly life. We have a loving and merciful God, one who wants His people to be saved, one who says, “Let the little children come to Me.”

This irks me, when Scripture claims something but we need to get overly philosophical trying to figure out an alternative. I have no reason to believe an unbaptized baby goes to a type of Hell.

Also Ezekiel 18:19 "Yet you say, 'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father? ’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live.

20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

 

[Horton]

Tom - “All that being said, I am trying to explore what a Catholic must/should believe. The source of that is Scripture and Tradition (and to a lesser extent perhaps tradition).
Before my searching yesterday, I was already convinced that it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to authoritatively define anything positive concerning the fate of the unbaptized. But is there good reason to teach there is hope?
Charity, Tom”

(Bolding mine)
Those of the Catholic faith don’t live in a world of must/should. We believe we all have free will to choose to believe and therefore live our faith. I know for me personally the beauty of the Catholic Church is the wealth of knowledge, teachings, and most of all the FREEDOM to search for ourselves. I am perfectly at peace with the idea there are many things we do not know because God has not blessed man with the knowledge. I believe God is a God of love & mercy.

As far as a reason to hope for the unbaptized, many folks have addressed this in previous posts on this thread. Did you not read all the posts?

I think you struggle with this Tom because you choose a church made by man and Catholics remain in the Church made by God.

 

[Della]

This irks me, when Scripture claims something but we need to get overly philosophical trying to figure out an alternative. I have no reason to believe an unbaptized baby goes to a type of Hell.

Also Ezekiel 18:19 "Yet you say, 'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father? ’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live.

20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The Church does not teach that original sin is “the sins of the father” or anyone else, so this is a strawman, just saying.

Original sin is a stain upon the soul due to the fall of man. It is not actual sin–actual sins are those that we chose to do, no infant can chose to do sin, so no infant is guilty of actual sin.

Having the stain of original sin means that we are not perfect in God’s eyes, and only the perfect can be admitted to the Beautific Vision. And so the dilemma of unbaptized babies and infants.

When Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me for of such are the kingdom of heaven” he was not saying that children are perfect angels. He was simply saying that they are open to God because they have far less self interest that adults. He was not giving children a free pass into heaven. Children above the age of reason are capable of knowing right from wrong, and so are capable of committing actual sin.

What the Church teaches is that we commend the unbaptized to God’s mercy knowing that he can grant his saving grace outside of the sacraments because he is not bound by the sacraments. So, we have a good hope of their salvation. The only reason we cannot be absolute is two-fold, firstly in that God has not revealed it to us, and secondly in that God alone is the judge, not only of infants but of every human being no matter his age or baptismal status.

 

[dronald]

The Church does not teach that original sin is “the sins of the father” or anyone else, so this is a strawman, just saying.

Original sin is a stain upon the soul due to the fall of man. It is not actual sin–actual sins are those that we chose to do, no infant can chose to do sin, so no infant is guilty of actual sin.

Having the stain of original sin means that we are not perfect in God’s eyes, and only the perfect can be admitted to the Beautific Vision. And so the dilemma of unbaptized babies and infants.

When Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me for of such are the kingdom of heaven” he was not saying that children are perfect angels. He was simply saying that they are open to God because they have far less self interest that adults. He was not giving children a free pass into heaven. Children above the age of reason are capable of knowing right from wrong, and so are capable of committing actual sin.

What the Church teaches is that we commend the unbaptized to God’s mercy knowing that he can grant his saving grace outside of the sacraments because he is not bound by the sacraments. So, we have a good hope of their salvation. The only reason we cannot be absolute is two-fold, firstly in that God has not revealed it to us, and secondly in that God alone is the judge, not only of infants but of every human being no matter his age or baptismal status.

Thank you. I understand what you believe, I just don’t see how any of that makes sense. It all seems crazy to me, especially considering the passages provided.

Also Matthew 18:10 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

There’s no reason anyone should doubt that those who died without Baptism go to Heaven based on Jesus’s words.

 

[TRH1292]

Thank you. I understand what you believe, I just don’t see how any of that makes sense. It all seems crazy to me, especially considering the passages provided.

Also Matthew 18:10 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

There’s no reason anyone should doubt that those who died without Baptism go to Heaven based on Jesus’s words.

A lot of people would look at the same words and say that not baptizing children is crazy in light of them.

 

[dronald]

A lot of people would look at the same words and say that not baptizing children is crazy in light of them.

Indeed my friend. And yet, the Catholic idea that we can leave the children up to the mercy of God is not something I am opposed to. I agree with that, but I also believe in the case that a child cannot be Baptized that there is no reason to think the child will be damned in any way.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom - "All that being said, I am trying to explore what a Catholic must/should believe

. The source of that is Scripture and Tradition (and to a lesser extent perhaps tradition).

Before my searching yesterday, I was already convinced that it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to authoritatively define anything positive concerning the fate of the unbaptized. But is there good reason to teach there is hope?

(Bolding mine)
Those of the Catholic faith don’t live in a world of must/should. We believe we all have free will to choose to believe and therefore live our faith. I know for me personally the beauty of the Catholic Church is the wealth of knowledge, teachings, and most of all the FREEDOM to search for ourselves. I am perfectly at peace with the idea there are many things we do not know because God has not blessed man with the knowledge. I believe God is a God of love & mercy.

As far as a reason to hope for the unbaptized, many folks have addressed this in previous posts on this thread. Did you not read all the posts?

I think you struggle with this Tom because you choose a church made by man and Catholics remain in the Church made by God.
Hello Horton,
My first thought as I read your post was, “Cafeteria Catholic!”
Then I read how you claim I choose a church made by man and I was a little put off.

I have returned to my senses. Of course you think my church is made by man, and I doubt you would be posting here if you were a cafeteria Catholic.

Let me share a little with you that is less important and then the most important thing I think you should recognize in the way I deal with Catholicism (as compared to the way you deal with Catholicism).

The little:
I left Catholicism long ago, but in response to an invitation from a committed Catholic (and some dialogue with an evangelical who for a time I convinced to return to Catholicism BTW), I seriously considered returning to Catholicism. Now online Catholics (some of whom I have met IRL) invited me to Catholicism, but IRL this was the fellow. The majority of Catholics I knew IRL kept to themselves. Well, at the time this Catholic began telling me of the importance of returning to Catholicism he was attending mass at the SSPX parish. He is now a Sedavacantist, and still he is among the few IRL, only, who tell me of the importance of becoming Catholic.
My home parish growing up 10-18 years old was very liberal. I have attended mass there a couple of times in the last 2 months and there are a few nuns one who I think is an advocate of female priests and I think she spoke of divine feminine with my mother. The priest is WONDERFUL man, but the epitome of all that is good and all that is not so good in the term “pastoral.” I love him, but two Mormons, an agnostic, and a Hindu should not partake of the Eucharist.
So “Cafeteria Catholicism” is a very real thing for me. When I say, “there are things a Catholic must/should believe,” I am not talking about the oppressive regime in Rome imposing beliefs upon the poor peasants dispersed throughout the world. I am saying, that I have no intention of being a Catholic who is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, doesn’t believe the Eucharist is transubstantiated, doesn’t think communion is a shared meal between the friends of God or … Being a Catholic is recognizing that the Catholic Church is God’s church and the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. Knowing that makes choosing to follow the teachings a powerful exercise of embracing God’s will.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

The most important thing:
I do not believe I am Catholic. I have not attended Catholic mass as a Catholic for almost 20 years. When I engage Catholic beliefs as propositions it is for the purpose of understanding what it is to be a Catholic. If being a Cafeteria Catholic was a viable option in my mind, then I would pick the belief I like and reject the beliefs I don’t. But I think to embrace Catholicism as God’s church and the Pope as the Vicar of Christ is to believe what Catholics believe.
I must believe that that Christ is consubstantial with me and consubstantial with God (I like mentioning that one). I can be a Molinist or a Thomist (I would be Molinist). I must reject double predestination and can reject single predestination in some of its forms. I would. I have noted that Limbo is no longer a popular Catholic belief. I think however it is something a faithful Catholic can believe. I have been collecting thoughts and evidence concerning a more positive view.
Dronald thinks it is crazy to be fearful for the fate of the unbaptized infant. I am sympathetic to this view. I would suggest that for Dronald or me to leave our traditions for Catholicism would involve two choices. Being a cafeteria Catholic and holding whatever view we think scripture teaches on infant baptism and xyz OR being a Catholic who CHOOSES to align our views to the views taught authoritatively by Catholicism. I see little value in being a Cafeteria Catholic, I expect you do not think that is valuable either.
So I can see how you think my engagement with Catholic beliefs is predicated upon human understanding, but it is precisely because I reject the idea that God has guided Catholicism to truth that I treat your views this way. I think my church is the one with God at its head. I have not for a long time thought there was/is a change on the horizon for me, but I do not intend to have a barrier to Catholicism because Catholics offer Latria worship to Mary.
The last sentence above is particularly appropriate. I have heard more than once on Catholic Answers (or The Journey Home) where a former Protestant struggled with Catholic views on Mary. Latria/Dulia/Hyper-Dulia helped them to resolve this struggle. They are now happily Catholics so I do not think it is a church by man vs. church by God problem.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

If being a Cafeteria Catholic was a viable option in my mind, then I would pick the belief I like and reject the beliefs I don’t. But I think to embrace Catholicism as God’s church and the Pope as the Vicar of Christ is to believe what Catholics believe.

Yet, you are a cafeteria Mormon. You have your own personal beliefs and call yourself Mormon. You are holding a standard for Catholicism that you don’t hold for Mormonism, which makes it hard for me to take you seriously.

 

[TRH1292]

Indeed my friend. And yet, the Catholic idea that we can leave the children up to the mercy of God is not something I am opposed to. I agree with that, but I also believe in the case that a child cannot be Baptized that there is no reason to think the child will be damned in any way.

I am not really sure I believe in Limbo, but I am not sure a Thomistic limbo could be considered “damned” in any possible way, considering it would be a lot better than conditions on earth.

 

[TexanKnight]

Again, this is just Tom trying to compare lds prophets to Catholic Popes. It is how he deflects from the plethora of untruths of his church

 

[TOmNossor]

Yet, you are a cafeteria Mormon. You have your own personal beliefs and call yourself Mormon. You are holding a standard for Catholicism that you don’t hold for Mormonism, which makes it hard for me to take you seriously.

First let me ask, is your point that I should become a Cafeteria Catholic? I expect not.

To be a Catholic is to recognize Dogma and irreformable declarations of truth. To be a cafeteria Catholic IMO is not to be a Catholic at all.

Second, I suspect you are referring to my rejection of the opinions of past LDS leaders on geography and science. It would be inappropriate for me to weigh Catholic truth claims based on a version of Catholicism that requires me to embrace teachings of Popes on orbital motion or even non-ex_cathredra speculations on faith and morals. Do you disagree?

I just evaluate my faith by the tenets of my faith and yours by the tenets of yours as best my fallible mind can discern them. I wish others would do the same. *When others fail to do the same it doesn’t give me license to follow their poor examples.

Catholic popes fail when tested by LDS expectations. Some of my co-religionist think this is the death blow to Catholic truth claims. I disagree.

I try to be consistent as best I can!

Charity, TOm*