Vote for or against Limbo Poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter napad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
why would an all-knowing God who has infinite love for all his children create a place of’ ‘in-betweenness’? Before He created us He knew us and He knew how long our lives would be. He sent Jesus to die on our behalf when we have sinned more than new babies because He loves us. Of course He wouldn’t send new babies to limbo - they will be taken straight to Him. He loves them.
 
Limbo is just “nice” hell. I don’t believe that God assigns unbaptized infants to “nice” hell.
 
I voted yes!

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.”** -Condemned**

*Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: *“We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

Seems to me that the Catholic teaching here clearly supports a “nice hell” as you guys put it! 😛 🙂
 
bastion said:
I voted yes!

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.”** -Condemned**

*Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: *“We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

Seems to me that the Catholic teaching here clearly supports a “nice hell” as you guys put it! 😛 🙂
Click to expand...
Hear, hear. I refuse to believe that the Church Christ founded could be so wrong for so long (even if it is only a theory). There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures or the writings of the Fathers of the Church to suggest that unbaptised children go straight to heaven.

Those who deny Limbo claim that a just and loving God could not send infants to Limbo; well what happened before Christ opened the gates of Heaven!? Are these people also denying the Limbo of the Fathers?
 
I trust in God’s mercy and wisdom that He would know what to do.
 
I think God has brains enough to be able to avoid the Logical Absurdity of Limbo that arises from the narrow mindedness of man.

If God does desire that all men would be saved–even though some are not for they choose against His will–and if the Infants cannot committ any mortal sin because they do not have that capacity–

Then it seem that would God would do would be to grasnt such infants the grace to have a baptism of desire.

What’s so hard to understand about such a simple eventuality?

God isn’t bound by the worship of the Traditional Hypotheses of Catholic theologians!
 
bastion is promoting a sedevacantist agenda in another thread, just fyi…

DJim
 
Those who die in a state of original sin go to hell, right? Those who die in a state of grace (eventually) get to heaven, right?

I can’t really see limbo fitting in either of these? What state would the soul have to be in to go to limbo?

JD
 
I never could dance under the limbo stick when it got down to about four feet-therefore i vote no.
 
This is were I’m worried. The Church before, seems to say that unbaptized persons cannot be saved. Now, we are saying that they can? I am unsure and confused.
 
Baptism is neccesary for salvation. This is de fide.

Being part of the Chuch is neccessary for salvation and the only way to enter her is through baptism.

A water baptism is *normative but not strictly neccessary *for salvation.

We are limited to only being able to administer a water baptism for initiation into Holy Mother Church (Although, of course, it’s the grace of the Cross and the Holy Spirit that do the real work that the water is a symbol of).

However, the Holy Spirit is not limited to a water baptism. There is a baptism of desire (Where a person, by the grace of God, can make an act of perfect contrition to purge original sin from their souls) and a baptism of blood (Whereby if someone dies for the Faith, they are washed in their own blood and baptised in the Holy Spirit)

JD
 
Johndigger said:
Baptism is neccesary for salvation. This is de fide.

Being part of the Chuch is neccessary for salvation and the only way to enter her is through baptism.

A water baptism is *normative but not strictly neccessary *for salvation.

We are limited to only being able to administer a water baptism for initiation into Holy Mother Church (Although, of course, it’s the grace of the Cross and the Holy Spirit that do the real work that the water is a symbol of).

However, the Holy Spirit is not limited to a water baptism. There is a baptism of desire (Where a person, by the grace of God, can make an act of perfect contrition to purge original sin from their souls) and a baptism of blood (Whereby if someone dies for the Faith, they are washed in their own blood and baptised in the Holy Spirit)

JD
Click to expand...
Yes, but can an infant really desire baptism? How can an infant be murdered for the faith? How is an infant saved from Hell?
 
Image_of_God said:
Well, people are saying the Church is changing its teachings, how do I defend the Church in this case?
Click to expand...
You don’t need to defend the Faith, the faith speaks for itself. The Church has taught as de fide for 2000 years that baptism is ESSENTIAL. The onus is upon the liberals within and outside of the Church to show you where the Church has changed its position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top