Too many chefs...thoughts on "Limbo"

[reen12]

“For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound,
who shall prepare himself to the battle?”

1Cor. 14:8

And what would God have us do? Follow uncertain trumpets?
For if these theological luminaries were in error in this particular
theological “speculation” - where else did they err?

And it has taken 8 centuries for this “concept” - taught
over and over - to be set aside. I haven’t got 8 centuries
to wait to find out what else will be set aside, eventually.

Infallibilty? Replaced by humility? Might be a good start.

reen12

 

[lsusportsfan]

Continuing

And, again, while I’m at it, could it be? that only a gaggle of celibates - who do not bring children into this world - could have “concocted” a place like “limbo” …apparently unconcerned
about the suffering of heart mind and soul that might well be the
lot of those who accepted this odious “construct.”

One of your offspring will not be joining you in heaven?
Hey! as long as the syllogisms hold together.
Can’t make an omlet…

Perfectly charming.

in Fact Double

As you say we should all just return to the Bible and look at the stories and all is solved. Well let me say that even when we do this it is not clear what happens to unbaptized Babies or children. THAT WAS THE PROBLEM.

As Pointed out by this Blogger “Limbo is a theological attempt to provide a merciful answer to a very upsetting question.
So why not just deduce that they are saved? Is that not more appropriate to God’s mercy? And here comes the difficulty - we can only talk about the afterlife to the extent that God has revealed details to us - and in terms of the solution of this problem, there is very little in Scripture and the Tradition that allows for a definitive answer.”
zadokromanus.blogspot.com/2007/04/and-you-think-english-language-religion.html

This far from being odious. Also , despite being celibate, they were human beings. They had Mothers that perhaps dies in Childbirth as well as maybe brothers and sisters that died too. There was high rates of infant mortality. They were aware of death and suffering in more ways than you or living in this 21 st Century can.

Ditto for the rest of this particualr post and your thoughts. I am sorry but for theolgiansand people trying to understand God’s word in those days of Plague and other everydays horros I am not going to assume the worst about them or that they viewed things through some cold Academic lens. On the contrary they seemed to be resonding to a pastoral need

TO be cont in another post

 

[DustinsDad]

“For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound,
who shall prepare himself to the battle?”

1Cor. 14:8

And what would God have us do? Follow uncertain trumpets?
For if these theological luminaries were in error in this particular
theological “speculation” - where else did they err?

We go by what is certain - that Christ revealed to us that Baptism is necessary for Salvation. That we should baptize as early as possible. Other than that, we can merely hope for God’s mercy on those infants who die prior to being baptized - realizing of course that no one deserves the Beautific Vision, and that unbaptized infants wont be punished the torments of Hell since in them there is no actual sin. Looks like we’re back to Limbo again. Maybe those early Church fathers actually thought this thing out after all.

Mostly, we have to just trust that whatever the Good Lord decides to to in these cases is entirely His perogative. And it will be perfect. What, are you going to stand in judgement of the Creator of the universe?

DustinsDad

 

[reen12]

And I invite readers of the thread, once again, to read the
words of the Angelic Doctor himself.

“Chapter” 35

newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm

Goodness. Could Thomas have gotten it wrong?
And I have to ask: What kind of “vision” of God
did this gentleman of the syllogism* have* - to have even been
able to mentally conceive the grotesquerie that was “limbo?”
What kind of God did Thomas see?

And if may be of interest that Thos. Aquinas apparently
stopped writing all togther, in his late forties. He had had
an experience of God that let him see that all that he
had written was as straw.

I couldn’t agree more, Thomas. And now that you are
in His presence, it must seem more like straw than ever.
Do you see now, Thomas, that reflecting on the images
provided by your Creator and ours would have been time
better spent?

I urge philosophers and "theo"logians - leave God out of it,
will you please? He doesn’t require dancing philosophers
and theologians to make the case for Him.

He’s already done that. He gave us His word and then,
in the fulness of time, His Word - Who told us even more
stories, to cheer and comfort our hearts as we make our
way home to Him. All of us - even upbaptized babies.

reen12

 

[rwoehmke]

If not all infants de-facto go to Heaven, then some infants de-facto go to hell. And if limbo is no longer theologically plausible given our wonderful modern sensibilities (which is what everyone seems to be saying), then they go to the actual fire and brimstone torments of hell. DustinsDad

I would say that is a mighty big IF, but I wouldn’t disagree that human nature being what it is that there are those that will easily slough off any feeling of need to Baptize their Children or Evangelize the heathen after or even before hearing this news. While it is comforting to depend on the Lord’s mercy, it would seem prudent to follow the normative path. In my estimation it is not to far distant an assumption from the NC notion of OSAS. As the saying goes in raising a garden, “Pray to the Lord for a good harvest, but chop weeds to beat the band” or something like that.

 

[lsusportsfan]

The teaching on “limbo” - that held sway for
centuries - and now the attempt to make this whole
unlovely episode in Church history go away…
by rushing to state that this was never “official”
teaching. Most interesting to follow, I must say.

I’m trying to locate, online, the Catechism of the Council of Trent,
so that I may post the reference to what that body of
gentlemen held - with regard to limbo.

Once again, it was the heartlessness in all of this
that I find appalling.

Again as I pointed out before the Theory of Limbo need not come from f"heartlessness" but Compassion. I know it disturbs people that the Church doesnt know all things and has answers for everything but sometimes it doesn’t. I am amazed that Church Liberals who hate the Church making Pronouncements that are binding think the Church should say we are 100 percent “All Babies go to Heaven” when as it admits it doesn’t know.

As to the Council of Trent look if you wish but Limbi is not mentioned. I know that must be disappointing but there will be no Gotcha moment for the Church regarding that Council.

I urge you to consider this
In his book Limbo: An Unsettled Question (1964), George J. Dyer surveys the history of theological reflection on the question of the salvation of unbaptized infants. He concludes:

During the centuries of the limbo controversy the Church refrained from taking sides. She stepped into the dispute repeatedly, but only to lay down certain rules. Limbo might be defended; it might be rejected; the Church made it clear that neither the defenders nor the opponents of limbo had the right to censure their antagonists. The Church’s action may seem indefinite, but actually it brought an end to the long dispute. But insisting on the orthodoxy of both Augustinians and limbo theologians the Holy See robbed the question of much of its forensic value. … The papal decisions of 1758 and 1794 drew the sting from the controversy, and the dispute itself did not long survive. The Church treated the doctrine of limbo and the denial of limbo simply as “opinions” of theologians; she has been content with her decision to the present day. (pp. 88-89)

Also the very the very Orthodox and Traditional Ott

the early 1950s, for example, the respected manualist Ludwig Ott listed the following as legitimate Catholic views:

The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism of the children of Bethlehem). Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire—Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire—H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering—H. Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 114)

catholica.pontifications.net/?p=2039

 

[lsusportsfan]

Cont

I would like to add a personal observation here. I keep hearing that people were taught this blah blah and it was offical doctrine. Well as we can see from Stanley Otts works in the 50’s it appears his ignorance was not universial.

This reminds me of again a similar example. I keep hearing ex Catholics and Catholics wail on how they were taught that all Non Catholics were going to hell. What is interesting is that many of these Catholics that state this were alive around the same time as the Father Feeny/ Boston controversry. There Father Feeny said all those not baptized into the Catholic Church were damned to hell no exceptions. The Pope said no no no that is not Church teaching and please stop saying that. Well he didnt and partly for these views he was excommunicated. This case was well known and was in much of the media. But it seem everyone I mention this too profess ignorance of this.

Anywho
“All of which puts me in mind of the Jesus Who
excoriated those - who “added” to what His Father
had given.”

Wow, but yet you want the Church to proclaim that all Unbaptized Children go to HEaven. Where is that in God’s word exactly. I notice that you seem to like all these Dogmas and Infalliable statement. I hate to say it but to which what you want to happen (All Unbaptize Babies) go to heaven the Chruch would have to do this. It is not clear in scripture and it appears not that clear in tradition. By the way where does Chruch tradition come into all this?

And while I’m at it - the “official” teaching
on the filioque is just such a theological
“construct.”

The fact that this speculation was offered
in the “must accept” category stuns me.
And, apparently, it stunned the Eastern
Church as well. Stunned them enough
to divide Christendom - close to a thousand years
ago.

If you think the real reason we had this divide was the Filoque then I believe you are mistaken. The Eastern and Westerns views can compliment each other and in fact show a greater truth. I see that looking at this. Oh by the way for the truth on this issue go here
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/catholic-orthodox-dialogue-on-filioque.html

 

[reen12]

“He cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”

Council of Trent

DECREE CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN

Point 4

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

But, remember! - this was never “officially” taught.

So what were the Fathers of the Council of Trent doing?
Talking to themselves?

What part of “cannot enter” is unclear, here, as an “official” teaching?

…fas-cin-ating. An “official” unofficial statement. :coffeeread:

reen12

 

[lsusportsfan]

oh what about this

Pius IX, Quanto conficiamur moerore (DS 2866, in Encyclical of August 10, 1863): “God. . . in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.”

Good Grief 1863. This is like Stonewall jackson and Sherman and Grant and the seige of Vicksburg time

 

[Church_Militant]

“He cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”

Council of Trent

DECREE CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN

Point 4

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

But, remember! - this was never “officially” taught.

So what were the Fathers of the Council of Trent doing?
Talking to themselves?

What part of “cannot enter” is unclear, here, as an “official” teaching?

…fas-cin-ating. An “official” unofficial statement. :coffeeread:

reen12I don’t see a single thing in there that says 'Limbo" anywhere.

Does it affirm that infants need baptism to wash away original sin? Yep!

Does it say anything as to the fate of those infants that die unbaptized? No.

The object of that particular canon is clearly to refute those who attacked infant baptism, to seek to use it as a point of reference concerning something that (again) was never Catholic dogma or doctrine, is to try to use it to say something that the authors plainly were not talking about.

Limbo, at best, was some sort of folk theology that someone probably devised to console grieving parents instead of honestly saying what the Church has said all along.

We know infants need baptism.
We don’t know how God will deal with those infants that die without the sacrament.
We know that God is merciful, compassionate, and just, and that we can trust Him to deal with these little souls accordingly.

What more one could reasonably ask for, I don’t know.

 

[reen12]

Let’s see. It will be 49 years since my eyes first narrowed
with suspicion.

Truly innocent of heart, I really did think that the Church was
the custodian of all “revealed” truth - and the “interpretation” of same.

We had been studying the English penal code in history,
that year, and I asked the individual who was teaching
religion class - truly expecting to have my question answered:
[And I asked this respectfully, mind you:]

“I don’t understand. We are being taught that not holding the children
responsible for the father’s indebtedness was held to
be a step forward toward justice. How come God holds
all of us responsible for the individual sins of Adam and Eve?
Does this mean that English law is superior to God’s own
sense of justice?”

Needless to say, I did not receive sufficient information to
waylay my doubt. And, at age 12, for the first time,
my eyes narrowed with suspicion. Could it be that what
was clear to human beings was not “clear” to God Himself?

Hmmmmm…:coffeeread:

My conclusion, short of 50 years later?

No religion on earth “captures” Who God is. All are
approximations of a knowledge of Godhead.

Advancing on age 61, I am surely a lot closer to finding out
the reality than many who are decades behind me.
And someday, I shall go with a clear conscience. I will
not tell God that I could believe all that was claimed by
His soi disant spokesmen. I could not do that and look Him in the eye.
He would know that I was not telling the truth.

And somehow I think that God values truth - the truth about
Him, and the truth about each of us, individually.

And His Son said “I am the…Truth.”

But He didn’t say a thing about Limbo…or purgatory. :coffeeread:

Oh well, I’ll just have to wait and see someday.

reen12

 

[lsusportsfan]

“He cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”

Council of Trent

DECREE CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN

Point 4

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

But, remember! - this was never “officially” taught.

So what were the Fathers of the Council of Trent doing?
Talking to themselves?

What part of “cannot enter” is unclear, here, as an “official” teaching?

…fas-cin-ating. An “official” unofficial statement. :coffeeread:

reen12

Yes Origianal Sin. Amen it is a doctrine . Amen. It is the truth. That has not gone away. One cannot Sin and be in the presence of God. THis doesnt change that in the list.

The Church has always taught that God is not bound by his Sacraments. That is God can if he choses save those outside the requirements of water Baptism etc. This is what this is all about

Cajetan’s view on vicarious baptism of desire was discussed by the Tridentine fathers during their deliberations on baptism in February 1547. Thanks in large part to the arguments of Cardinal Seripando, the fathers refused to condemn Cajetan and left the question of waterless baptism dogmatically open (see comment by Dr Thomas Pink).

The principle at work here has been well stated by the Catholic Catechism: “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments” (1257). Recognition of the freedom of God has allowed the Catholic Church to affirm the possibility of salvation outside the sacramental bounds of the Catholic Church:

catholica.pontifications.net/?p=2024

Good Grief the Holy Spirit working through Councils who would have thunk

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Additionally, “Limbo” was wholly
non-scriptural and a concept that - to me -
flew in the face of the mercy of God that
Jesus so often spoke of. Indeed, if He
was the Son of God, He was and is
Mercy itself.

How generations of Catholics
stood still for this wholly unpalatable
speculation is the real mystery to me.

““Limbo” was wholly non-scriptural…”

Um wrong, The Idea, not teaching, for Limbo of the Infants is found in our Lords words, John 3:3 "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"

Nicodemus asks him how this can be?

Jesus sayes it again more clearly with the explicit addition of “Water” Jo 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

The Church TEACHES in many Councils the necessity of Baptism based on this passage.

 

[lsusportsfan]

As toi Augustian and those of us that wish to be critical of his writings. I oofer this Pleas he had to his readers in his work on the Trinity

1. Further let me ask of my reader, wherever, alike with myself, he is certain, there to go on with me; wherever, alike with myself, he hesitates, there to join with me in inquiring; wherever he recognizes himself to be in error, there to return to me; wherever he recognizes me to be so, there to call me back: so that we may enter together upon the path of charity, and advance towards Him of whom it is said, “Seek His face evermore.”21

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.i.iii.iii.html

 

[reen12]

Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît pas.

The heart has it’s reasons, which reason knoweth not.

And one could argue all the day long -

This was never official Church teaching.
Note how this is presented in the “new” Catechism.

-does such reasoning touch the heart?

Have men and women who have brought children into this world - have some of them known across the centuries what given theologians never knew?

Not all of logic arrayed in battle will touch the hearts
of parents - some of whom may well have known in their
own day that such a “speculation” did not comport with
their parental understanding of a God of love - or with the Fatherhood of their Creator.

Nor could Aquinas - arrayed in all his considerable gifts syllogisitc -
even begin to comprehend the truly odious nature of such speculation
in the face of Love Himself.

Do some of His children, with innocent hearts, say:

“In this instance, the Emperor has no clothes.”

Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît pas.

reen12

 

[reen12]

And I bring to a close my thoughts for the day on the
unlovely “Limbo” by repeating:

quote: reen12

And when this is done, humility is forfeit. We no longer have both feet on the humus of God’s creation. Instead, theological “head-trips” are the order of the day, as we try to go beyond the beautiful and sustaining imagery given to us by the
Master of the Universe Himself.

Too many chefs spoil the broth.

reen12

 

[reen12]

Br. Rich SFO

““Limbo” was wholly non-scriptural…”

Um wrong, The Idea, not teaching, for Limbo of the Infants is found in our Lords words, John 3:3 "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God"

I leave it to reader’s of this thread to decide if
Jesus Christ intended “infants” - when
He uttered the words quoted in the quote above.

The teaching on Limbo was a grotesquerie.

reen12

 

[reen12]

“Let the little children come unto Me.”

Apparently not, unless they are dripping
with the waters of Baptism.

I’m sure that I can round up a whole group of people who will
“justify the ways of God to man” a la Milton.
Oh, you’re not a man, you’re only an infant?
Wish I could work something out.

reen12

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Br. Rich SFO

I leave it to reader’s of this thread to decide if
Jesus Christ intended “infants” - when
He uttered the words quoted in the quote above.

The teaching on Limbo was a grotesquerie.

reen12

Infants are human beings! “MAN = human being”

I know some will say they are not a human being until they are born, or until they are seven years old, but that is another thread.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Not all of logic arrayed in battle will touch the hearts
of parents - some of whom may well have known in their
own day that such a “speculation” did not comport with
their parental understanding of a God of love - or with the Fatherhood of their Creator.

If you base your theology on warm n’ fuzzies you are traveling down a very dangerous path. The Lord hath given, the Lord hath taken away-blessed by the name of the Lord.