Too many chefs...thoughts on "Limbo"

[reen12]

quote: Br. Rich SFO

Infants are human beings! “MAN = human being”

As I say, and say again:

I leave it to reader’s of the thread to decide if Jesus
intended infants.

Intended = “intentionality”

I can just hear it now. The Savior of the World, the
Son of God - 6’ tall, maybe? in the full powers of His
manhood, saying to an infant in arms

You!!! infant. Shape up there. Be a man!!! [or a woman]
You know your duty. I demand water baptism.
[see clause 9, paragraph 10]

What do you mean, you don’t read!! Don’t give me* that,*
you infant you. Shape up and fly right. We’re not
talkin’ warm fuzzies here. This is serious. Eternal life is real,
eternal life is earnest. You got a problem with this, kid?
No dripping water, no heaven. Got that, kid?
You’re “man” aren’t you? Well then stop your whining.
Doesn’t cut it with Me, kid. Water or your not gettin’ in.

“He who lives in love lives in God and God in Him.”

reen12

 

[reen12]

I’m still trying to “picture” all this.

Jesus saying to an infant in arms:

So you can’t be a martyr. Listen, kid, if you’re
lucky you will be martyr. That’s on the OK list.
If you’re martyred you get in.
Don’t blame me if you haven’t got a chance to do
good deeds and get to heaven that way. [that’s a loophole
clause that can’t apply to you. You can’t even walk
yet, much less do good deeds.]
It’s not your fault? A grown man or woman didn’t
get you baptized in time? Tough luck, kid. That’s
the way the cards were dealt.
But if they repent not having had you baptized and
they get in to heaven and you’re left in Limbo for
eternity? It’s just the way it goes, little person.
Some luck out, some don’t.
You can’t think yet? Too bad. You might have gotten
in through the “baptism of desire” clause.

But the one thing that I want you to remember in Limbo
is, that I came to do away with legalism. It is all to be
a matter of the heart and soul. I’m here to lift burdens
don’t you know. Oh, you don’t know? Well, you’ll have
plenty of time to learn that I am Love when you read the
books in Limbo’s library. Yes, there’s a library there.
You want to be with your mother and your father? No can do.
But I’ve fixed it up good for you, kid. What are you complaining about? I’m Eternal Wisdom and Eteranl Justice. You’re getting
just what you’ve deserved.

reen

 

[reen12]

And why am I put in mind of what C.S. Lewis wrote?
[paraphrase]

Most people wouldn’t want to be the God that they
envision. They would be more kind loving and understanding.

No warm fuzzies here, folks. We’re talkin’ heaven here.
To be fully in the presence of God for eternity.
We can’t just let anyone in, you know. Especially infants
who have not had loving waters poured over them.

And be sure you say the baptismal formula exactly right.
No slip ups, understand. That could make the whole deal
“invalid” and the poor duped kid would think that he/she
was in My grace but isn’t. Can’t be too careful with these
things. My Father and I are very big on just the right words.
Forget what’s in the heart. The words have to be just right.
I’m a God of love. And don’t you forget it, see?

“What I desire is mercy not sacrifice.”

And, my goodness, those are the words of God in the
Hebrew Scriptures, long before Love Himself was born
into the world.

And why do I think that God will show me mercy to the
same degree that I have shown mercy and understanding
to others?

For the words I do not wish to hear are

Depart from Me. I never knew you.

reen

 

[ncjohn]

I’m not sure I understand the views of some here who seem to be actually defending the concept of limbo, as the responses seem almost schizophrenic.

On one hand it will be acknowledged that it was never an “official” Church teaching, though like many others here I experienced the teaching of it as being “official”. The acknowledgment of it not being so would seem to be in line with the document that found it to be an “unduly restrictive view of salvation.”

But then, at least many of the same posters seem to go on and defend it as if it is in fact a doctrinal and official statement, which says to me that they at least wish it were.

I’m one of those who always struggled with the whole idea, and who is absolutely thrilled to finally see the Church recognize that God will save whom He will, and we can have no way of knowing what exactly His criteria are, at least as regards infants.

I have always held that no logical and rational human would hold someone guilty for the acts of another over which they were incapable of action. If we in our human frailty would not do so, how can we possibly conceive of the “loving Father” described by Jesus doing so? If this God of ours truly would do such a thing, then quite frankly Jesus is a liar, as this would not be a God of infinite mercy and justice.

I know that there are always worries that if the Church backs away from something that it will bring other things into question. But frankly, the Church continuing to stand behind something that is indefensible destroys credibility for far more people. When people sense that something is inherently wrong, and the Church tries to stand behind it anyway–for example the perception that the Church tried to cover up the abuse scandal–they will quickly begin to wonder about the Church’s motivations and the setting of Her moral compass.

This conclusion–that we have every reason to believe that God will be merciful to these innocents–to me is a great step in restoring credibility on an issue where the Church had lost it.

Peace,

 

[reen12]

quote: ncjohn

…the document that found it to be an “unduly restrictive view of salvation.”

Hats off ! :tiphat: to whoever hung those 5 words together.

“…unduly restrictive view of salvation.”

Of course it can be nervous making, when one cannot
pin God down on the “recipe” for salvation.
“It says here, in the contract…”

How inconvenient that the Spirit blows where He will.

I mean, it puts me in mind of the score card used
in minature golf. How can I keep count of my
“points” toward salvation, if God is going to step
in and change the rules? :coffeeread:

And here, all this time, I thought that they had
the dove locked up in a birdcage in the Vatican.
Live and learn.

reen12

 

[reen12]

I’ve had additional thoughts on “Limbo.”
I’ve waited over 50! years for this “teaching”
to get the heave-ho, and I continue to grin in
upstate New York.

RE: “Limbo”

Put a pen in a theologian’s hand, and God is seen to do some mighty straaaange things.
A nursery in Limbo? Saaaaay, works for me.
Baptism of desire?
Yeah. We could say that this infant would have wanted
to be Baptized if she could read the fine print - about what
awaits her if she doesn’t.

Of course, I think that most people of faith should be
granted martrydom status, nolo contendere.
Reading all that flowed from the pens of “theologians” - and into “catechisms” - ought to qualify anyone! who actually paid attention to all their pontificating…not to make a pun.

I’ve Read Quite a Bit but I’m Already Baptized, So it Doesn’t
“Count”*

*See the Papal Bull “When Nolo Contendere Meets Already Baptized: God’s Handicapping of the Golf Game of Salvation” -
in 8 vols.

reen12

 

[reen12]

quote: reen12

Baptism of desire?
Yeah. We could say that this infant would have wanted
to be Baptized if she could read the fine print - about what
awaits her if she doesn’t.

The “fine print.”

“Chapter” 35

newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm

Ain’t that a doozy? An infant has to keep her eye
on the fine print. One slip! and she may end up in
Limbo’s nursery - next to all those other unlucky kids.

Bye bye, Limbo.

Let’s see what *else *gets tossed.

How’s about: an act of “perfect” contrition?

No cheating, now. It doesn’t “count” if there is any
“fear of hell” involved. Try to keep one’s mind on
that! corker, with death staring one in the face and
the flames of hell nipping at one’s toes. ROFL !!!

A “requirement” that is a psychological impossibility!!

Whoaaaa!!! Can’t wait!! to see what goes next.

reen12 :coffeeread:

 

[reen12]

Of course, I’m also concerned about those
“defenders of the faith” who wore themselves
to a nub!! “defending” Limbo.

Maybe we could ask Rome to mint a special
medal for “Valiant Defense of the Indefensible”
for those who wreaked hearty participation in this
theologic “Olympic” event. I mean, it takes
strength! to defend the indefensible.

But then, I forget.

Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est.

Rome has spoken. The matter is ended.

Well, the unbaptized babies will be delighted!!
to hear that.

reen12

 

[reen12]

quote: reen12

*See the Papal Bull "When Nolo Contendere

Meets Already Baptized: God’s Handicapping of the Golf Game of Salvation" - in 8 vols.
Subtitle: Salvation on the Links of Life

Containing:

Avoiding the sandtrap of no perfect contrition.

Negotiating the water-trap on the first link -
aka: types of baptism that qualify

Dogleg on the 8th link? Casuistry is your friend.

Time well spent. A good read.

reen12

 

[reen12]

Hmmmm. I just thought of something.
I hope that no one got a hernia - what
with all that heavy lifting - defending Limbo.

reen12

 

[Memaw]

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.

I can hear it now. But Limbo was never
official Church teaching. Oh, really?
A distinction - without a practical difference -
for millions upon millions who were taught
same for decades.

But then to respect mystery requires
humility and not hubris.

Long live the syllogistic enterprise.

And the hubritic assertion of the *filioque *
has a whiff of apple cider about it, IMHO -
the same apple found in the Garden
by our first parents.

reen

HMMMMMM, I grew up in the same Catholic Church you seemed to have and I don’t have the same critical attitude you have. Wonder why??? I also grew up learning that Limbo was NOT part of revealed Doctrine. If you learn things as a child you also learn to understand them better AS you grow up. I have lost 2 sons before birth, born dead.(one in the early 60’s and one in the 70’s) and I was told by my priest that God loves my baby much more than I and he is in God’s hands. God did not give us a detailed description as to what happens to unbaptized babies that die and we trust in HIS love and Mercy. We DO know they have no actual sins so will NEVER suffer the pains of Hell. Do you have a better answer??? The Catholic Church has NEVER misled us in her teachings and it has always been made clear, to those who ‘listen’ that Limbo is not a doctrine of the Church. There seems to be a lot of anger in your thread, are you just trying to justify your leaving the Catholic Faith as I think you have??? Give it up, there is NEVER a good reason to walk away from the Holy Eucharist, no matter how much we think we know more than Christ’s True Church. Your not the first person that has tried this and I am sure you won’t be the last, but guess what, the Catholic Church has stood strong and tall no matter what!!!, for 2,000 years and SHE will be here long after you and I are gone off the face of the earth. So you have to decide if you want to walk with the TRUTH or keep on ranting against whatever you think you know more that GOD.

Also as far as the Eastern Schism, well, guess who is coming closer all the time to returning to The One, Holy Catholic, Apostolic Church!!! Infallibility lies with Peter, and all future Popes.