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

[TOmNossor]

You must remember, this is during a time when the known world was considered to have heard the Gospel message, and to reject it meant condemnation, with no appeal to invisible ignorance.

I have a few thoughts on this, but let me just offer this for now.
I do not believe that it is possible for a Pope or an EC to be Infallible in their decrees unless there is a supernatural engagement with their decrees. I see only a very little evidence this supernatural action (Patrick Madrid offered Sixtus V), but do you disagree that supernatural action is required to make a council infallible?
If this is true, then how could the ignorance of the New World be used to justify an infallible decree that is later changes (rather in this case subject to question). God knew of the volume of folks of which the council did not.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

I have a few thoughts on this, but let me just offer this for now.
I do not believe that it is possible for a Pope or an EC to be Infallible in their decrees unless there is a supernatural engagement with their decrees. I see only a very little evidence this supernatural action (Patrick Madrid offered Sixtus V), but do you disagree that supernatural action is required to make a council infallible?
If this is true, then how could the ignorance of the New World be used to justify an infallible decree that is later changes (rather in this case subject to question). God knew of the volume of folks of which the council did not.
Charity, TOm

Catholics do not hold a view that God does not act in history. Also, this either/or proposition is not logical. God can and does act in history. Surely, you’ve heard any number of Catholics say, “God meets us where we are at.”?

 

[TexanKnight]

TOM:
Just curious…what are you trying to do?
Become a theologian?
Prove one religion “better” than another?
Justify converting to catholicism?

he is trying, and I am embarrassed for him, to compare popes to lds prophets. Somehow, he believes that people who claim to get direct conversations from God should not know any more than Popes who do not make that claim. Further, he believes that people who speak directly to God and get direction straight from God’s mouth should not be incorrect any more than people who do not make that claim.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOM:
Just curious…what are you trying to do?
Become a theologian?
Prove one religion “better” than another?
Justify converting to catholicism?

My most noble purpose, which is a true and valid purpose within the complex of my warped mind, is to compare the best to the best.

Earlier I related a question I solved long ago. In Catholic thought all humans are subject to original sin and Mary is a human yet she is called sinless. Somewhere I read how Christ’s atonement was applied to Mary to prevent the imputing of original sin to her (don’t tell me where I read this, because I will use it in a LDS apologetic argument ). As I reviewed the ECFs witness of Mary, I had little trouble believing that Mary was “full of Grace” in Catholic Tradition and given quite an important place. I had little trouble believing that Catholics embrace the teachings on original sin and the Bible’s teaching on “all humans sin.” But the need for this resolution was present and provided and sufficiently satisfying to me.

I have found a way to resolve “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” and Vatican II’s teaching, but I do not find it as satisfying as the Mary explanation.

The solution to the current question I have in mind is less satisfying to me than either.

A less noble purpose, is that I find it simple to believe most of the folks who condemn my church do not do so without any intention of comparing best to best. For me to take extraordinary solace in the comfort this brings me I must consistently compare best to best. I know this is not noble, but it is honest.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;11786399:

RebeccaJ;11786326:

You must remember, this is during a time when the known world was considered to have heard the Gospel message, and to reject it meant condemnation, with no appeal to invisible ignorance.

I have a few thoughts on this, but let me just offer this for now.
I do not believe that it is possible for a Pope or an EC to be Infallible in their decrees unless there is a supernatural engagement with their decrees. I see only a very little evidence this supernatural action (Patrick Madrid offered Sixtus V), but do you disagree that supernatural action is required to make a council infallible?
If this is true, then how could the ignorance of the New World be used to justify an infallible decree that is later changes (rather in this case subject to question). God knew of the volume of folks of which the council did not.
Catholics do not hold a view that God does not act in history. Also, this either/or proposition is not logical. God can and does act in history. Surely, you’ve heard any number of Catholics say, “God meets us where we are at.”?
I am not sure you answered my question unless you are suggesting that the doctrine of “invincible ignorance” was also postulated in response to the finding of the New World. I have not researched this, but I was under the impression that I could find early roots for this. And even if this is your point, I am not sure you are answering my question.

My point is that the infallibility of the council must source in God’s perfection so a decree from an infallible council cannot be excused because of global ignorance of as yet undiscovered peoples in North and South America. God was not ignorant. He either participates in the protection of the council’s decrees or he does not. My understanding of Catholic teaching is that he participates.

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am not sure you answered my question unless you are suggesting that the doctrine of “invincible ignorance” was also postulated in response to the finding of the New World. I have not researched this, but I was under the impression that I could find early roots for this. And even if this is your point, I am not sure you are answering my question.

My point is that the infallibility of the council must source in God’s perfection so a decree from an infallible council cannot be excused because of global ignorance of as yet undiscovered peoples in North and South America. God was not ignorant. He either participates in the protection of the council’s decrees or he does not. My understanding of Catholic teaching is that he participates.

Charity, TOm

No, to both of your assertions.

Yes, God participates, and yes, God is all knowing. Why do you believe God cannot provide what is needed for that moment? Catholics have a strong sense of the will of God unfolding, like the blossoming of a flower. It blooms into what God meant it to be.

We are a pilgrim Church, journeying towards the fullness of the Kingdom of God. We hold no ideas that we have fully blossomed. This does not infer that we deny God’s hand in history.

I am not making excuses for an infallible council. The Council of Florence decrees still stand. As I said, the Church DOES NOT teach today that the unbaptized are in heaven. It teaches their fate is left to God, which aligns to Catholic doctrine. Jesus Christ is our final Judge. We believe in both the Justice and Mercy of God. The Council of Florence ALSO aligns to Catholic doctrine, in regards to the necessity of baptism.

What history brought less than 100 years later, is a meeting of the two doctrines. God’s Justice, and God’s Mercy, and a more well defined question arose as to the effect of both doctrines on the circumstances of the time.

But, it has NEVER been Catholic doctrine that a person is judged based on what they don’t know.

 

[MacQ]

My most noble purpose, which is a true and valid purpose within the complex of my warped mind, is to compare the best to the best.

Earlier I related a question I solved long ago. In Catholic thought all humans are subject to original sin and Mary is a human yet she is called sinless. Somewhere I read how Christ’s atonement was applied to Mary to prevent the imputing of original sin to her (don’t tell me where I read this, because I will use it in a LDS apologetic argument ). As I reviewed the ECFs witness of Mary, I had little trouble believing that Mary was “full of Grace” in Catholic Tradition and given quite an important place. I had little trouble believing that Catholics embrace the teachings on original sin and the Bible’s teaching on “all humans sin.” But the need for this resolution was present and provided and sufficiently satisfying to me.

I have found a way to resolve “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” and Vatican II’s teaching, but I do not find it as satisfying as the Mary explanation.

The solution to the current question I have in mind is less satisfying to me than either.

A less noble purpose, is that I find it simple to believe most of the folks who condemn my church do not do so without any intention of comparing best to best. For me to take extraordinary solace in the comfort this brings me I must consistently compare best to best. I know this is not noble, but it is honest.

Charity, TOm

I see. Thanks for the reply.
Personally, I am not interested in theologic arguments and comparisons…
You might want to tackle that angels and pin head thing next.

I will say that all of the Mormons I have known were living charitable, loving, Christian lives, and I’m have no doubt they’ll be in heaven someday. As Catholics, we try not to criticize other religions, but to reach out in peace.

As far as the original question of this thread (limbo and unbaptized infants), suffice it to say that our actual Church teaching leaves babies (and others) to God’s hands, baptized or not.

 

[TOmNossor]

RebeccaJ:
I am not making excuses for an infallible council. The Council of Florence decrees still stand. As I said, the Church DOES NOT teach today that the unbaptized are in heaven.
I think this is a true statement, but doesn’t the Council of Florence infallibly teach that those with ONLY original sin are in hell?
And if this is something that is infallibly taught, why is it something that is so popularly speculated against?
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think this is a true statement, but doesn’t the Council of Florence infallibly teach that those with ONLY original sin are in hell?
And if this is something that is infallibly taught, why is it something that is so popularly speculated against?
Charity, TOm

The way I view it, is the souls of unbaptized innocents at the time of death enter a type of hell. Hell, theologically defined as “separated from God”. Our hope in Christ, is that they don’t stay there. For me, it’s like a mixing of the hell of limbo and the hell of purgatory, ie, the Church teaches both. Purgatory, obviously is more defined because revelation regarding purgatory is clearer. The souls in purgatory eventually are in heaven. We have the Hope that the souls in the limbo of infants, are by the mercy and grace of Jesus Christ, in heaven.

That is my untrained and unofficial thought. The limbo of infants has never been removed as a teaching of the Church. I think you and I are living in a time of “seachange”, where two theological analysis have yet to be combined and clarified (theologically speaking).

 

[TOmNossor]

I see. Thanks for the reply.

Personally, I am not interested in theologic arguments and comparisons…
You might want to tackle that angels and pin head thing next.

I will say that all of the Mormons I have known were living charitable, loving, Christian lives, and I’m have no doubt they’ll be in heaven someday. As Catholics, we try not to criticize other religions, but to reach out in peace.

As far as the original question of this thread (limbo and unbaptized infants), suffice it to say that our actual Church teaching leaves babies (and others) to God’s hands, baptized or not.
I could see myself arguing about the angels on the head of a pin.

Before I get back to that, let me tell you a joke (one I bet Joseph Smith would use to pull a small minority of my co-religionist out of their incorrect understanding of their faith if Joseph were around).

A man died and found himself in heaven with St. Peter. As he was being toured around he saw a large group of Lutherans worshiping God and a large group of Catholics worshiping God and … Then he came to this set of high walls. He could barely make out that on the other side of walls there was loud worshiping going on similar to the previous groups he saw. The man asked St. Peter what was up. St. Peter said, “Oh, those are the Mormons they think they are the only ones here.”

I do not remember who the above joke was about when I first heard it (it was neither Catholics nor Mormons), but I usually make myself the punch line.

I think folks who have definitive thoughts on who will not be in heaven are almost certainly going to be surprised.

Now, back to that angle on the head of a pin thing.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The way I view it, is the souls of unbaptized innocents at the time of death enter a type of hell. Hell, theologically defined as “separated from God”. Our hope in Christ, is that they don’t stay there. For me, it’s like a mixing of the hell of limbo and the hell of purgatory, ie, the Church teaches both. Purgatory, obviously is more defined because revelation regarding purgatory is clearer. The souls in purgatory eventually are in heaven. We have the Hope that the souls in the limbo of infants, are by the mercy and grace of Jesus Christ, in heaven.

That is my untrained and unofficial thought. The limbo of infants has never been removed as a teaching of the Church. I think you and I are living in a time of “seachange”, where two theological analysis have yet to be combined and clarified (theologically speaking).
Two things.
Is there any reason to believe that “Hell” as spoke on in the Council of Florence is not a PERMINANT place? Is there anything in Catholic thought that allows for something called “Hell” to not be a place to spend eternity?

And second, that temporary hell sounds a lot like the hell in LDS thought. LDS take statements about hell in the Bible and turn them into a temporary hell. There are parallels I immediately drew to Purgatory when I first investigated the CoJCoLDS, but the parallels are stronger in what you describe.
Charity, TOm

 

[TK421]

Hell is a separation from God and is always eternal, thus Purgatory cannot be described as part of Hell. Purgation cleanses a soul, and although not yet in the fullness of the Beatific Vision, they have already been judged and are part of the elect destined for Heaven. They are not irrevocably in mortal sin. The eternity of Heaven and Hell are doctrine, and doctrines do not change.

Sheol, the abode of the dead prior to Christ’s ascension, is also sometimes translated as “Hell” but this is separate from the ultimate doom of the wicked. When Christ “descended into Hell” it is referring to him going to the abode of the dead to bring the righteous that came before him to his kingdom.

 

[Stephen168]

All that being said, my read of Catholic history is that when SOME controversies arose, General Councils resolved those controversies. After the resolution of those controversies, the issue was solved and those who did not accept the resolution ceased to be Catholic. Old Catholics are Vatican I deniers. Oriental Orthodox Christians are Chalcedon deniers. One day Vatican II deniers may consider themselves outside the Catholic Church (today they usually believe Vatican II was not sealed by Papal Authority, and some believe there is no pope.

Ezra Taft Benson 13th Mormon ‘Prophet’:

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to His prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven’t yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate in any subject, but as someone said, “A prophet may not have his Ph.D. but he certainly has his LDS.” We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet, and you’ll be blessed and time will vindicate you.

Wilford Woodruff 4th Mormon ‘Prophet’:

I also herd [sic] President Joseph Smith, jr., declare in the presence of F. Williams, D. Whitmer, S. Smith, W. Parrish, and others in the Deposit office that HE HAD RECEIVED THAT MORNING THE WORD OF THE LORD UPON THE SUBJECT OF THE KIRTLAND SAFETY SOCIETY. He was alone in a room by himself and he had not only [heard] the voice of the Spirit upon the Subject but even an AUDIBLE VOICE. He did not tell us at that time what the Lord said upon the subject but remarked that if we would give heed to the commandments the Lord had given this morning all would be well.

Joseph Smith 1st Mormon ‘Prophet’ recorded as Mormon Scripture:

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.

 

[MacQ]

I could see myself arguing about the angels on the head of a pin.

Before I get back to that, let me tell you a joke (one I bet Joseph Smith would use to pull a small minority of my co-religionist out of their incorrect understanding of their faith if Joseph were around).

A man died and found himself in heaven with St. Peter. As he was being toured around he saw a large group of Lutherans worshiping God and a large group of Catholics worshiping God and … Then he came to this set of high walls. He could barely make out that on the other side of walls there was loud worshiping going on similar to the previous groups he saw. The man asked St. Peter what was up. St. Peter said, “Oh, those are the Mormons they think they are the only ones here.”

I do not remember who the above joke was about when I first heard it (it was neither Catholics nor Mormons), but I usually make myself the punch line.

I think folks who have definitive thoughts on who will not be in heaven are almost certainly going to be surprised.

Now, back to that angle on the head of a pin thing.
Charity, TOm

I believe Catholics are the usual butt of that joke…but it can be told about any particular tradition, I reckon.
I agree that many may have surprises after death. After all, life itself is full of them.
We should all hope to be surprised.

As for children who die unbaptized, the catholic teaching is clear in the catechism: we entrust them to the mercy of God.
**Anything else anyone posts is pure speculation. **

(I’d add that the more people speculate, the more surprises they may be in for.
But that’s just speculation)

 

[Stephen168]

Is there any reason to believe that “Hell” as spoke on in the Council of Florence is not a PERMINANT place? Is there anything in Catholic thought that allows for something called “Hell” to not be a place to spend eternity.

Is there anything in revelation that allows for sins to be forgiven without baptism?

 

[Stephen168]

Is there anything from Thomas Aquinas or earlier to suggest that the fate of the unbaptized is not hell (hell being at the least a denial of the beautific-vision for eternity).

I think this is a true statement, but doesn’t the Council of Florence infallibly teach that those with ONLY original sin are in hell?
And if this is something that is infallibly taught, why is it something that is so popularly speculated against?

Are you assuming these questions are the same?

Is there any reason to believe that “Hell” as spoke on in the Council of Florence is not a PERMINANT place? Is there anything in Catholic thought that allows for something called “Hell” to not be a place to spend eternity?

Again, Is there anything in revelation that allows for sins to be forgiven without baptism?

I admitted that Trent didn’t offer the certainty I had thought it did. I think Florence offers this certainty,…

Do you still have certainty about your quote from the Council of Florence?

 

[TOmNossor]

Are you assuming these questions are the same?

Again, Is there anything in revelation that allows for sins to be forgiven without baptism?

Do you still have certainty about your quote from the Council of Florence?

Stephen,
I am not sure what you want out of me.
As I have engaged this question and reflected upon the teachings of Vatican II, I have stated in this thread, “the solution I have in mind is less satisfying.”
The only reason I have a solution in mind is because I do what it seems to me you never do which is engage Catholicism (the religion I do not embrace) with as much charity as I can muster when attempting to assess the best Catholicism has to offer.
Your engagement of my faith has a rather direct parallel to my creative solution to the Catholic problem. A parallel you in your most recent engagement of the issue declined to actually read. A parallel however that satisfied no Catholics when I offered it.
So, I would suggest consistency requires you to reject my solution, but I would rather believe this solution and the even greater weakening of the concept of Catholic Tradition than the alternative that to be Catholic I must believe unbaptized babies are not in heaven.

So here goes:
“** But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”**
But…
By a special grace the original sin is forgiven in aborted babies and children before the age of accountability. This “special grace” comes ONLY to those who die with some form of invincible ignorance, like they died before the age of accountability and it come BEFORE death.

Accepting the above view IMO has a large “weakening” effect on the concept of Tradition as I have little doubt the above view would be rejected as anathema if it was offered during the Council of Florence or Lyons II. However, the above view threads a needle between the horror that all unbaptized babies are in hell and the view that ECs are infallible.
The best version of Catholicism I could embrace is the version were Tradition is further weakened, but I am not obligated to believe unbaptized babies spend eternity in hell. There are ultra-Trads that would find the above further weakening of Tradition worse than Limbo or … I am not going to be one of them and thus that is not the BEST of Catholicism IMO.

In addition to having rather direct parallels to a LDS apologetic I offered here that satisfied zero Catholics, the above view moves Catholicism closer to the LDS view on origin sin and the atonement of Christ (of course this is not the only example of such a move, and to be fair LDS thought moves toward non-LDS, even Catholic thought too).

This thread was started with me not remembering Trent. I then remembered Trent. I then found Florence and Lyons. I then reflected upon the special grace afforded Mary and the Vatican II solution to “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.” This is how I came to the above. You may take it or leave it.

Alternatively you may not really be looking for my solution, but instead looking to say something in response to something.
I will await your response.
Charity, TOm

 

[MacQ]

So, I would suggest consistency requires you to reject my solution, but I would rather believe this solution and the even greater weakening of the concept of Catholic Tradition than the alternative that to be Catholic I must believe unbaptized babies are not in heaven.

So here goes:
“** But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”**
But…
By a special grace the original sin is forgiven in aborted babies and children before the age of accountability. This “special grace” comes ONLY to those who die with some form of invincible ignorance, like they died before the age of accountability and it come BEFORE death.

Charity, TOm

Where did you get the idea Catholics think unbaptized babies need punishment or are in Hell.
Which part of leaving them to God’s mercy don’t you get?
That is catholic. That’s what the catechism says for cryin’ out loud.
You seem to be searching for the worst of isunderstood catholicism.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Amen to that! Why do some want to condemn millions of innocent children to hell ? Jesus is the Divine Mercy. He came to save everyone, He who forgave a criminal on calvary is certainly not going to reject the innocent,

Because of the Western theological propensity to view God as Megatron.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;11789662:

Stephen,
…
So, I would suggest consistency requires you [Stephen] to reject my solution, but I would rather believe this solution and the even greater weakening of the concept of Catholic Tradition than the alternative that to be Catholic I must believe unbaptized babies are not in heaven.

So here goes:
“** But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”**
But…
By a special grace the original sin is forgiven in aborted babies and children before the age of accountability. This “special grace” comes ONLY to those who die with some form of invincible ignorance, like they died before the age of accountability and it come BEFORE death.
…
Charity, TOm
Where did you get the idea Catholics think unbaptized babies need punishment or are in Hell.
Which part of leaving them to God’s mercy don’t you get?
That is catholic. That’s what the catechism says for cryin’ out loud.
You seem to be searching for the worst of isunderstood catholicism.
(added a little to the way MacQ quoted me)

MacQ,
For you to be consistent you do not need to reject what I said. That was specifically to Stephen168. Is that where we misunderstand each other? Stephen168’s treatment of my faith IMO requires that he does not allow the Catholic nuance I offer in my post.
To you who I have seen say very little dogmatic about what I must believe and … I do not believe consistency demands you reject what I have offered.
If that is where the misunderstanding comes from then I am sorry.

I do believe that the concept of DOGMATIC TRADITION is weakened by adopting the view I espouse, but I am guessing that is not as big of a problem for you as it is for my Ultra-Trad friends (and there is a line that the Ultra-Trads are on the WRONG side of IMO and you are on the right side of that line IMO).

This is what I am trying to say to those who have not staked out such dramatic dogmatism when they condemn my religion (which has much less dogmatism that Catholicism anyway).

I am trying to explain how it is possible for an irreformable council to say, “** But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”**
And yet the majority of current Catholics teach that we leave them to the mercy of God. Leaving the unbaptized to the mercy of God is not something that the Father’s at Lyons or Florence or Trent taught. Based on their words, I find it quite likely that they would condemn as heretics anyone who did teach that**. But, they didn’t** condemn as heretics those who taught that probably because nobody did teach it.

It is my attempt to align the current teaching of the Catholic Church with the irreformable dogma defined at Florence (and to stake out a Catholic position I could embrace since I do not believe unbaptized babies are in hell and I find that belief to be difficult to align with God’s love)

Charity, TOm