Red Flag Not to Convert: Recent Limbo Thing

[CatherineofA]

It seems the OP put as much effort into researching the topic as they did into creating the title.

I don’t think a sarcastic remark meant to insult was called for in your response.

The title was meant as an attention getter for feedback.

 

[CatherineofA]

There is no definitive teaching on where unbaptized babies goes. And no one really knows much about Limbo, if such a place actually exists.

To base one’s choice of faith on such vague concepts is foolish. There are many more substantial and more controversial issues than these. IF one is looking for some excuse not to join the Church, you can certainly find them.

Disagreeing with Limbo is much more of a red herring than a red flag. On the grand scheme of thing, rejecting the Catholic faith because of Limbo is akin to rejecting Chinese food because you don’t like bitter melon, there are millions of chinese who don’t like those things either.

I see keeping innocent babies out of Heaven a little different than not liking a Chinese side dish. It may be one feature in the big picture of Catholicism, but is a pretty big one.

Since I am not in tune with the church’s view on limbo, th thread has been educational. However, I find it a little hard to understand how the church is not able to come to a conclusion about the souls of infants.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

As soon as I can find two Catholics who agree on what the Church teaches as doctrine I’ll let you know.

Seems to me that we agree on all these doctrinal points at each and every mass.

I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ,
his only Son,
our Lord.

He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.

Amen.

If there was any point where within our universally accepted Catholic liturgy where we explicitly taught something, such as limbo for example, as a solid teaching, then I would say that dissenters of the Catholic faith might have a valid criticism.

As such, thus far, I haven’t really seen anything presented which validates this criticism. It’s an interesting question though. I’ll look into this further to see what I can unearth-- if anything.

 

[Pacbox]

CatherineofA, in regards to the souls of infants who have not been baptized, we are to entrust them into God’s mercy. It is through no fault of their own that they are not baptized. I know this may not be a consolation but remember, with God anything is possible.

 

[chrisb]

Didn’t the Magesterium at Lyons, Florence and Carthage teach limbo? Or the belief that the unbaptised can not enter Heaven? Isn’t that what this is about in the end? Can an unbaptized baby enter Heaven? Previous councils and magesteriums said emphatically no.

Grace and Peace Saint_MIchael,

Yes they did ‘but’ they also recognized baptism by Blood, Suffering and desire as extra-sacramental means of attaining Sanctifying Grace. They are talking about the ‘rules’ not the ‘exceptions’. Honestly, there is room to acknowledge some exceptions to the rules.

Please note that it isn’t the fact the these babies are unbaptized that exclude them from the Beatific Vision it is the fact that they lack Sanctifying Grace due to the stain of Original Sin.

Be aware that Limbus was a position which separated poena damna from poena sensus and argued that there are those who are excluded from the Beatific Vision but are not personally cupable for the state in which they find themselves (i.e. lacking grace). The Greek Fathers and the some of the Latin Schoolmen argued that a Just God would not punish those found in a state lacking Sanctifying Grace due to no fault of their own eventhough revelation is clear that they will not participate in the Beatific Vision (i.e. Heaven). This position was termed Limbus, meaning hem of hell. A state of exclusion from Heaven (poena damna) but lacking sensual punishment and suffering (poena sensus).

Personally I believe in Limbus but I will wait for clarity on what is happening before I get too concerned.

Pax

 

[Eden]

I don’t think a sarcastic remark meant to insult was called for in your response.

The title was meant as an attention getter for feedback.

I wasn’t being sarcastic.

From the information provided in your opening post on this thread, it was clear that you did not research the topic of the “Recent Limbo Thing” before raising the red flag for potential converts.

All you provided was a link to a BBC article and a later admission that you didn’t really know much about the Church teaching on Limbo.

I think one should research the topic before they attack the Church with an attention-getting title. Is that not a fair statement?

 

[Mickey]

In religious terminology, limbo is the temporary status of the souls of good persons who died but did not go to Heaven. In Roman Catholic theology, while awaiting the Resurrection of Jesus they remain in the Limbo of the Fathers. The word limbo has also been used to refer to the permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy without having committed any personal sins, but without having been freed from original sin (the Limbo of Children), though the latter use has never received official approval.
Limbo comes from the latin limbus meaning a hem or an edge or a boundary. While “limbo” is often popularly understood to be a “place where souls go”, the term also describes and reflects theological uncertainty. As such, the limbo of children is not part of the Catholic religion’s official doctrine (compared to purgatory, which is a part of Roman Catholic doctrine). Official Church teaching remains that the status of these souls (who do not seem to deserve hell, yet cannot follow the divinely-revealed path to heaven) is in limbo — **in other words, their fate cannot be determined by any but **God.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

 

[christianley]

In religious terminology, limbo is the temporary status of the souls of good persons who died but did not go to Heaven. In Roman Catholic theology, while awaiting the Resurrection of Jesus they remain in the Limbo of the Fathers. The word limbo has also been used to refer to the permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy without having committed any personal sins, but without having been freed from original sin (the Limbo of Children), though the latter use has never received official approval.
Limbo comes from the latin limbus meaning a hem or an edge or a boundary. While “limbo” is often popularly understood to be a “place where souls go”, the term also describes and reflects theological uncertainty. As such, the limbo of children is not part of the Catholic religion’s official doctrine (compared to purgatory, which is a part of Roman Catholic doctrine). Official Church teaching remains that the status of these souls (who do not seem to deserve hell, yet cannot follow the divinely-revealed path to heaven) is in limbo — **in other words, their fate cannot be determined by any but **God.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

That, of course, is true of everyone.

 

[tequilamac]

Yeah right I couldn’t even get time with my Parish priest before deciding to leave the Church.

I say again as soon as I can find some sort of logical guide as to what is actually Catholic doctrine, maybe I’ll have an easier time when the Church wants to ditch something it’s taught in Catechisms, in papal bulls, and Bishops councils for nearly 2 millenia.

I’m out this will go no where, and is going off topic anyway.

Why should you get time with your priest before deciding to leave? No one does. For instance when my husband was 17, he told the nun in charge of confirmation classes that he just could not believe such and so and this and that. He asked her if she could help him and she said yes and showed him the door. Of course he was back in two years, greatly embarrassed, but it is never a Catholic’s responsibility to try and dissuade the guy who is obstinate in sin. It is called obstinancy for a reason- it is a conscious decision. Just as a person does not receive the gift of faith by magic, one does not lose it magically either. It is a conscious decision to lose faith in the Church and the Church in wisdom knows there is no sense in defying the free will of the person who has chosen to give up his faith. There is no magic in Catholicism- none. Entirely due to free will. If you want magical faith receipts and losses, denying your free will choice to give into temptation you should try attending a non free will Church. They
are out there you know. But complain about the priest? What exactly did you think he was going to do for you once you had made the decision to lose faith? Once you did not realize the temptation from the evil one and instead opted to give into misgivings and doubts, what good would anytime spent with a priest do you? It might have done some good for him. It would be a charitable act on his part to show care for the person who has decided not to care for himself, but usually it is more like a waste of time.

 

[rr1213]

Why should you get time with your priest before deciding to leave? No one does. For instance when my husband was 17, he told the nun in charge of confirmation classes that he just could not believe such and so and this and that. He asked her if she could help him and she said yes and showed him the door. Of course he was back in two years, greatly embarrassed, but it is never a Catholic’s responsibility to try and dissuade the guy who is obstinate in sin. It is called obstinancy for a reason- it is a conscious decision. Just as a person does not receive the gift of faith by magic, one does not lose it magically either. It is a conscious decision to lose faith in the Church and the Church in wisdom knows there is no sense in defying the free will of the person who has chosen to give up his faith. There is no magic in Catholicism- none. Entirely due to free will. If you want magical faith receipts and losses, denying your free will choice to give into temptation you should try attending a non free will Church. They
are out there you know. But complain about the priest? What exactly did you think he was going to do for you once you had made the decision to lose faith? Once you did not realize the temptation from the evil one and instead opted to give into misgivings and doubts, what good would anytime spent with a priest do you? It might have done some good for him. It would be a charitable act on his part to show care for the person who has decided not to care for himself, but usually it is more like a waste of time.

I’m sorry, but this does not make sense to me at all. If you have questions about your faith, who but the priest or the pastor should you go? I know Catholics have big churches, but time needs to be made by the shepherd for his flock.

 

[tequilamac]

I’m sorry, but this does not make sense to me at all. If you have questions about your faith, who but the priest or the pastor should you go? I know Catholics have big churches, but time needs to be made by the shepherd for his flock.

Sincerity is the key here. A person who honestly has questions about his faith should and can access either his priest or the one next door. Or the Catechism, or the Bible, or prayer or a fellow parishioner or attend the local RCIA. Having honest questions about the faith is different from allowing onesself to doubt the faith, to ponder whether it is true, to entertain the idea that the Eucharist is not really the Real Presence of Christ. These actions are of the devil and if a person does not work quickly to disspell the doubts, then yes faith erodes. And no priest or person can stop that for it is a conscious decision on the part of the person to allow the doubts. These types of things are the temptations that should have been confessed in the confessional years before the poster decided to leave the Church. To not do so is part of the sin of sloth. Sloth unchecked always leads to loss of faith. Does this help you to understand? We are and always are individually the primary guardians, the first keepers of our own souls. If we are careless with our own souls, there is not much anyone else can do about it. It was the poster’s responsibility first to safeguard his faith but he did not. Now he chooses to blame the Church because he did not. While it is common, it is not a truth. Back in my day, when thoughts that were doubting of the Church or the faith entered one’s head we were counseled to quickly pray the Hail Mary and the act of contrition, and most certainly not to entertain and grow the doubt. People have forgotten that we have another sin of blasphemy- that which is against the Church.

 

[pro_universal]

Forget it guy, you’ve all successfully avoided the actual meat of my posts which is that limbo was taught by the Council of Bishops, by Popes, endorsed in Papal Bulls.

Now all you can do is start the ad hominem attacks, it’s transparent, and I honestly believe most lurkers and contributors will see through that clearly.

Why don’t YOU provide me a list of all Catholic doctrines, and a list of what’s been infallibly declared through Church history if it’s that easy?

I had exactly the same question. It seems to me that the primary test for figuring out whether or not a doctrine was infallible is whether or not it’s currently acceptable to teach it.

If it’s embarrassing, it will be declared “not infallible, never part of the teaching of the magesterium,” no matter how many Popes, councils, and other authorities taught the doctrine.

 

[cestusdei]

That’s because you don’t understand what infallibility is.

 

[Image_of_God]

Everyone always says that, but the Catholic encyclopedia says:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.”

I mean we have limbo being the predominant doctrine for 1,000 years, taught by Popes, put forth as teaching in multiple councils, Papal Bulls regarding the teaching of limbo, put in the Catechism until about 15 years ago. How do Catholics justify saying that it was never doctrine? What is a doctrine then? Was the Immaculate Conception not a doctrine until the 1800’s?

The only fall back is saying “limbo was never a doctrine”, but based on the fact it was taught for better of 1,000 years, endorsed by Popes, Papal Bulls, and endorsed in multiple councils, I don’t see how limbo was never a doctrine.

I actually asked for help because I ran into this on another site, and I have found nothing to convince limbo wasn’t a doctrine, but plenty to convince me it was. The only apologetics I’ve found on it were “limbo was never a doctrine”, they don’t bring up the Council of Lyons and argue against it, they don’t address any of the meat. And that’s all I hear Catholics repeat “oh limbo was never a doctrine”. My mother is in her 60’s she laughed hysterically when I told her that. I feel like the Mormons who say oh Adam/God theory was never a doctrine, God is a man was never taught. I feel like I would lying to myself, limbo was most definitely a doctrine.

You need to give a place of where you got your quote, so it can be examined.
It is possible that you have taken all of these bulls out of context, and in fact there is Catholic Encyclopedia article saying that Limbo is a famous Catholic “notion.” I am sorry, but I need actual reference to quotes on this topic in order to accept your point.

 

[inJESUS]

That’s because you don’t understand what infallibility is.

ever knew a Muslim who did?

 

[Image_of_God]

If you are still concerned , I think you should read the findings from an expert, rather than go on your own interpretions, especially since you are already in doubt with the Church.
ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/ZLIMBO.HTM

 

[inJESUS]

You need to give a place of where you got your quote, so it can be examined.
It is possible that you have taken all of these bulls out of context, and in fact there is Catholic Encyclopedia article saying that Limbo is a famous Catholic “notion.” I am sorry, but I need actual reference to quotes on this topic in order to accept your point.

from here maybe:

ourcatholicfaith.org/sacraments/baptism.html

under : unbaptized children, in the middle of the article.

 

[inJESUS]

all this limbo thing is strange to me. I was never taught neither heard of it .

 

[Image_of_God]

But the article also says:
As to the question, whether in addition to freedom from the pain of sense, unbaptized infants enjoy any positive happiness in the next world, theologians are not agreed, nor is there any pronouncement of the Church on the subject, Many, following St. Thomas
I do not think it would be apt for him to quote from a place if it had contradicting opinions.

Thank you for the cite.

 

[Image_of_God]

all this limbo thing is strange to me. I was never taught neither heard of it .

That is because it is not a dogma, fully proclaimed by the Church. And anyone who claims that the Church has made limbo an infallible dogma is falsly accusing the most holy Catholic Church of misleading people.

I KNOW that limbo is NOT an infallible dogma, and it makes me a little mad when people say the Church is lying!