B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
It says that no person who dies with only Original Sin and no personal sins is not condemned to the Hell of the damned. DS 1526
- Status
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
Br. Rich SFO:
Can you cite your source for your quote above please?
From what I see, Denzinger 464 states:
" souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”
If I am reading this correctly, it is saying that both souls in mortal sin and original sin go to hell.
Can you reconcile this for me please?
Br. Rich,
Can you cite your source for your quote above please?
From what I see, Denzinger 464 states:
" souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”
If I am reading this correctly, it is saying that both souls in mortal sin and original sin go to hell.
Can you reconcile this for me please?
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
Br. Rich,
I am trying to find out if there are 2 different kinds of “hells”.
We know that the damned are punished with different punishments than those in original sin only.
Is the hell of the unbaptized eternal?
This, i don’t know.
I am trying to find out if there are 2 different kinds of “hells”.
We know that the damned are punished with different punishments than those in original sin only.
Is the hell of the unbaptized eternal?
This, i don’t know.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
The quote is 493a in my copy of Denzinger. In reading commentaries on these there seems to be a generic use of the word Hell. When there is an understanding that there are I believe two or three different understandings. Sheol, Gehenna, ?
I think that I will just wait for the Church to speak and answer this for me!
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
Br. Rich,
Thanks for the clarification. I’ll have to look that up in my copy of Denzinger when I get home tonite.
There aren’t different versions of Denzinger are there, with different notes?
At least i hope not.
Thanks for the clarification. I’ll have to look that up in my copy of Denzinger when I get home tonite.
There aren’t different versions of Denzinger are there, with different notes?
At least i hope not.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Consider this hypothetical example. There is a five-year-old child that is not baptized. One day the child is beaten to death by his father. Does the child go straight to heaven?
Where does scriptures teach that savagely beating a child to death is a means of administering sanctifying grace to the child? If the Catholic Church begins to teach that aborted children go straight to heaven, then she is also teaching that abortion is a Sacrament of Salvation.
In my opinion, the question is not whether aborted and murdered children go to limbo, but whether aborted and murdered children can be set free from limbo by the prayers, sacrifices and Masses offered by the Church Militant for these unfortunate victims of violence.
Let us go back to my hypothetical example. Suppose the father of the murdered infant becomes sorrowful for his sin and goes to confession to be forgiven. He begs God for mercy for his child, does acts of reparation for his sin of murder, seeks to gain indulgences for his child and beseeches God to apply these indulgences towards his child. The father dies in a state of grace and goes to heaven.
Do you think that God would allow the father to see the beatific vision but deny the beatific vision to his child?
Where does scriptures teach that savagely beating a child to death is a means of administering sanctifying grace to the child? If the Catholic Church begins to teach that aborted children go straight to heaven, then she is also teaching that abortion is a Sacrament of Salvation.
In my opinion, the question is not whether aborted and murdered children go to limbo, but whether aborted and murdered children can be set free from limbo by the prayers, sacrifices and Masses offered by the Church Militant for these unfortunate victims of violence.
Let us go back to my hypothetical example. Suppose the father of the murdered infant becomes sorrowful for his sin and goes to confession to be forgiven. He begs God for mercy for his child, does acts of reparation for his sin of murder, seeks to gain indulgences for his child and beseeches God to apply these indulgences towards his child. The father dies in a state of grace and goes to heaven.
Do you think that God would allow the father to see the beatific vision but deny the beatific vision to his child?
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
Well, Matt, that is a good question.
As I look at my own 16 month old daughter, all I see is love. Now, she is baptized of course, but if she were to die before we baptized her, and seeing how love is a gift from God, does God love her less than us because I would do whatever I could for her salvation? I think, if anything, God loves her more than I could, for God’s capacity to love is far greater than mine.
It seems to me that this reasoning is the crux of why Limbo is not a permanent place. It may be a temporary place, but I can’t see how it can be a permanent separation of the beatific vision considering my desire to be with my child and love her.
I know, my explanation is not a theological one. It is an explanation based in love. And God is love.
So unless my notion of love is wrong, and the immense love I have for my daughter is somehow off kilter with the type of love that God has for us and shows us, it seems to me that there has to be a way for those unbaptized infants to be saved.
Problem is, is that our theology doesn’t give us any assurance of Faith. It only gives us the assurance of Hope.
And Hope certainly is a virtue, for we can always count on God to keep His promises.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
You can be sure of that!
In thee the orphan finds mercy.
Hosea 14:3
J
JimG
Guest
Since Limbo is a theological hypothesis, let me offer my own hypothesis.
CCC #634: “The gospel was preached even to the dead.” The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.
We are not told very much about this aspect of Jesus’ mission—his “descent into hell” or what we would call the abode of the dead, or the bosom of Abraham, or the Limbo of the Fathers.
We believe that He went in effect to preach the gospel to those who had gone before, those such as Moses, Abraham, and others who were not deserving of damnation but could not enter heaven until the Savior had come. They were in a ‘state’ of limbo, awaiting the salvation of the Messiah.
Now, we know that the dead are not subject to the timelines of history. The soul, having departed from the body, does not exist in the same timeline as do those living on earth.
If all the just men of the Old Testament were in the Limbo of the Fathers, perhaps the unbaptized, deceased infants of any generation, were also there—including those who died this year, or next, or next century. Perhaps the unbaptized infant of today goes to the same limbo as did Moses, and is subject to the same visit of Christ during his descent to the dead.
I think it is something we will not know for certain till we are ourselves in heaven.
CCC #634: “The gospel was preached even to the dead.” The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.
We are not told very much about this aspect of Jesus’ mission—his “descent into hell” or what we would call the abode of the dead, or the bosom of Abraham, or the Limbo of the Fathers.
We believe that He went in effect to preach the gospel to those who had gone before, those such as Moses, Abraham, and others who were not deserving of damnation but could not enter heaven until the Savior had come. They were in a ‘state’ of limbo, awaiting the salvation of the Messiah.
Now, we know that the dead are not subject to the timelines of history. The soul, having departed from the body, does not exist in the same timeline as do those living on earth.
If all the just men of the Old Testament were in the Limbo of the Fathers, perhaps the unbaptized, deceased infants of any generation, were also there—including those who died this year, or next, or next century. Perhaps the unbaptized infant of today goes to the same limbo as did Moses, and is subject to the same visit of Christ during his descent to the dead.
I think it is something we will not know for certain till we are ourselves in heaven.
A
Agricola
Guest
Dear Jim,
Good post. Clear and concise. I agree with what you say.
God bless,
Agricola
Good post. Clear and concise. I agree with what you say.
God bless,
Agricola
B
batteddy
Guest
That, clearly, is the doctrine of the Church. Souls who die in mortal sin go to the Hell of Damnation. Souls who die in Original Sin only go to that “hell” Christ went in the Creed: Abraham’s Bosom, Limbo of the Fathers, Sheol, Hades…etc…
The real question is: After the coming of Christ, is it any longer possible to die in Original Sin only without also being in Mortal Sin?
Those who died only in Original Sin before Christ merited the graces of salvation went to “hell” because you need supernatural life to enter heaven but “their lot was not identical”…they had perfect natural happiness…and then when Christ opened the gates of heaven they went in.
But after Christ came, what happens to those unbaptized people who die not in mortal sin? Is it possible to not be in mortal sin and still die in original sin. Or, if you are not in mortal sin, do you recieve the graces of salvation won by Christ in an extraordinary manner at the last moment of your life as long as you do not put up an impediment, which would be mortal sin? That is the crux of the question.
If you die only in original sin, you descend to hell, but the hell with different punishments…simply being deprived of the Beatific Vision but having perfect natural happiness. This is what happened to the Old Testament saints…but the question is, does God let anyone die only in Original Sin anymore, or once Christ won the graces…does God give them to you at the last moment of life as long as you do not put up an impediment?
I doubt it. Although no longer being in a space-time body and therefore no longer subject to “time” as we know it…the souls of the dead still exist in “aeviternity”. Which means, though not experiencing an evenly flowing “time”…their events can still be logically dependent other events allowing “before and after” to be annexed to it on which events logically depend on others. You cannot pray to a Saint, once you are already baptized, “I pray that I would be baptized in the past” because that prayer still logically depends on you being baptized.
Here:newadvent.org/summa/101005.htm
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I’d love to know from what document Pius X is quoted above. I’ve searched and have not found such a document. I believe it to be a spurious quote.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
The word ‘LIMBO’ is not used in any universal magisterial text that I have found. However, the teaching that those who die in original sin descend immediately to hell, but to undergo a punishment different than that of the wicked, is taught universally in several magisterial texts.
Innocent III, Ex parte tua, Jan 12, 1206:
Innocent III, Ex parte tua, Jan 12, 1206:
Council of Lyons II, 1274
John XXII, Nequaquam sine dolere, Nov 21, 1321:
Council of Florence, 1438-1445:
K
Kotton
Guest
I don’t know if this has anything to do with it or not but:
1 Corinthians 7 v 14 “For the unbelieving husband is made acceptable to God by being united to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made acceptable to God by being united to her Christian husband. If this were not so, their children whould be like pagan children: but as it is, they are acceptable to God.” This seems to indicate that the children of Christian’s are different then the pagan children- they are acceptable to God because of the Faith of the Parent-even if it is only one parent???
1 Corinthians 7 v 14 “For the unbelieving husband is made acceptable to God by being united to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made acceptable to God by being united to her Christian husband. If this were not so, their children whould be like pagan children: but as it is, they are acceptable to God.” This seems to indicate that the children of Christian’s are different then the pagan children- they are acceptable to God because of the Faith of the Parent-even if it is only one parent???
M
Matt16_18
Guest
And yet, not one of these quotes says that an aborted infant would be eternally deprived of the beatific vision.
I understand these magisterial quotes this way: aborted infants do NOT go straight to heaven. These unfortunate souls are suffering in some manner because they have been denied the milk of human kindness. These murdered children need help from the Church Militant, and that is why we should offer up prayers, personal sacrifices and Masses for these poor abused children - so that they can be healed of the wounds that have been inflicted upon them.
A hardcore Feeneyite won’t offer a Mass for aborted children, and a person that believes that aborted children go straight to Heaven won’t bother either. It seems to me that both groups are doing exactly what Satan would desire.
S
stanley123
Guest
Both the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 and the Council of Florence held between 1438 and 1445, taught that: “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with only original sin soon go down into hell, but there they receive different punishments” (Denziger 464, 693). Now if all infants who die without Baptism achieve Heaven, then why bother with Baptism in the first place since infants are saved anyway? My reading is that the Church did not teach that unbaptised infants who died would suffer punishment in hell as do mortal sinners, but that they would be excluded from the Beatific Vision. At least that’s what I was taught. Of course, I was also taught that capital punishment was justifiable, which is not what I am hearing from the pulpit these days.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
I don’t think the question is about whether aborted infants go straight to Heaven to behold the beatific vision. It seems to me that it is pretty clear that the Church teaches that they do not. I would be highly surprised to learn that the Catholic Church is going to begin teaching that abortion is a means of bestowing sanctifying grace to unwanted children!
IMO, the real questions are these: Will aborted children be eternally deprived of the beatific vision?
Does the Church Militant have at her disposal the means of helping the infants that have been murdered and abandoned by their parents?
Why should we bother offering Masses for unbaptized infants if these Masses make no satisfaction for sin, and are not a means of bringing efficacious grace to the children for whom the Masses are being said?
N
Neithan
Guest
This is a good question, although I would hesitate to offer up sacrifices/penances/indulgences for souls whom are technically in Hell… but by all means I don’t think it can do any harm to plead to God for them in some way.
From *De Fide *documents we must accept that ‘Limbo’ where the unbaptised, and the invincible ignorant go, is a part of Hell. But isn’t Purgatory technically a part of Heaven? It is not in the Beatific Vision, but it is the ‘entryway’ and all those souls will eventually attain it. Can we not think of ‘Limbo’ this way? It is in Hell, but perhaps it is a temporary place, where souls will eventually go to the Hell of damnation or be saved by the Grace of God.
In Dante’s Inferno, Limbo is the first level of Hell, a place of natural happiness without suffering. I think he was right on the money. Limbo is outside of salvation, but it is not punishment, and I would venture to hypothesise that it is not eternal.
This is the miracle of Baptism! It is a great and merciful gift of God. We have to avoid taking the power out of this Sacrament by saying that all unbaptised/unborn infants go immediately to Heaven by implicit desire. This makes infant Baptism completely superfluous.
Unbaptised/unborn infants go to Hell. This is a Church teaching, and intensifies the great tragedy of abortion; however, as we know, the old covenant righteous were sent to ‘Abraham’s Bosom,’ a place technically in Hell but neither punishment nor eternal. I would venture to hypothesise that this is the ‘Limbo’ where unbaptised/unborn infants and ignorant adults now go after the Particular Judgement, and there make their decision for or against God. Eventually, at the General Judgement, they will either be saved or damned.
My guess is that Limbo functions much like Purgatory: it is a temporary place. Souls who end up there (unbaptised\unborn\ignorant) are deprived of the Beatific Vision, but will be given sufficient reason and revelation in order to accept or reject the salvation of Christ. At the Last Judgement, these souls will enter the glory of Heaven or suffer the torment of Hell for eternity.
I suppose we can pray for souls in Limbo, but we must keep in mind that these have no satisfactory value, as these souls are not being purged. We can hope that our unborn/unbaptised children and the invincible ignorant will eventually enter into Heaven with us after the General Judgment, but my opinion is this is ultimately up to the decision they each will make in Limbo and the mercy of God. Until then, we can rest assured that they do not suffer.
Of course, I eagerly await any official enlightenment by the Church!!
G
Ghosty
Guest
Because the debate is whether or not that same state exists after the Resurrection of Christ. Some argue it was just the natural state for those pious people awaiting the Incarnation, and that it no longer exists as such afterwards. Others argued that it remained as a place for those who, like the pious of the ancient times, were good but did not have the Life of God in them.
Peace and God bless!
B
batteddy
Guest
It would still be urgent to baptize infants, because the ordinary, natural way to recieve sanctifying grace is baptism. To not baptize them would be to force God to do something abnormal. It would let the infant die outside the visible bonds of the Church, tearing up Christ’s mystical body by allowing their to be all these people in “partial communion” which is not what God intended and which wounds Christ’s Church.
The reason for the urgency may no longer be for the sake of infant’s soul (which some would say seems superstitious at times) but for the soul of the one who could have baptized a dying infant and did not, thus committing a mortal sin of sacrilege, allowing someone to die not in the communion with the Church God intended as the normal and natural way, even if they are extraordinarily saved.
The reason for the urgency may no longer be for the sake of infant’s soul (which some would say seems superstitious at times) but for the soul of the one who could have baptized a dying infant and did not, thus committing a mortal sin of sacrilege, allowing someone to die not in the communion with the Church God intended as the normal and natural way, even if they are extraordinarily saved.
- Status