Vote for or against Limbo Poll

[GandalfTheWhite]

Here are my :twocents:.

I neither strongly believe in it nor deny it. In fact it’s one of the issues on which I still haven’t made up my mind and I find the answer to the question quite unimportant.

What I however disagree with is when people claim that unbaptised infacts go to heaven. We can’t say that! We have been revealed that baptism is a necessary condition for heaven and that’s all we know. Naturally this is all we can say and that’s what the Church believes. I don’t think it’s very orthodox to make such statements but I definitely understand that these statements are made out of love and hope.

This is the next thing I want to touch. The Church teaches that regarding unbaptized infants, she trust in God’s mercy (I don’t have time to search the catechism for the quote). It seems that some people interpret this statement as if it implied that they will go to heaven for only this is merciful. But this would imply that we can a) understand God’s ultimate justice and mercy* and b) that if God doesn’t send them to heaven he is unmerciful and perhaps even unjust. As we can see, this is not what the Church is saying. I firmly believe that She is rather saying that whatever God does, it will be merciful and thus She trusts Him that He will make the perfect decision whatever it is. This could mean that He has another plan hidden plan through this plan they will enter heaven or that they will not enter heaven.

So, basically, while I can’t say that God will not take unbaptized children to heaven I have to accept that we don’t have a solid foundation on which to make such claims. In this case limbo is probably the next (and probably more sound) option.

 

[VociMike]

Yes, but can an infant really desire baptism? How can an infant be murdered for the faith? How is an infant saved from Hell?

We have the example of John leaping in the womb at the presence of Jesus and Mary. That gives us hope that an infant may indeed recognize and desire God.

If we teach that God sends all aborted babies to the “nice hell” of Limbo while offering the abortionist the chance of heaven through deathbed conversion, we teach something that is instinctively and deservedly repugnant to the human mind and soul.

 

[Gardening_Mommy]

Could you show me where in Dominus Iesus our Holy Father contradicts these two things?

1. Baptism is neccessary for salvation
2. Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

I thought that both of these statements were infallible have been held pretty much since the beginning of the Church.

However, we must interpret them as the Church interprets them not as we understand them.

Answer to 1 & 2: yes, but with caveats…

Edited for length, here are the pertinent parts of Dominus Iesus. Yes, individuals within the Church *used to *teach that everyone who wasn’t Catholic was damned; that was their interpretation. Some still teach this. The Church, however, has never officially taught that. In recent years, this teaching has even been directly refuted.

From Dominus Iesus (www.vatican.va) (emphasis mine)

VI. THE CHURCH AND THE OTHER RELIGIONS
IN RELATION TO SALVATION

1. …Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation… [Christ] himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5)… This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.78

…For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ…”;81 it has a relationship with the Church…

1. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that **God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.83… **
2. … Thus, the certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ.

[end quote]

We who know and understand that baptism and participation in the Catholic Church are mandated by God are held by that law, as I said in my previous post.

Those who, through no fault of their own, are not baptised and/or do not belong formally to the Catholic Church may yet be saved. This salvation will be worked out by God through the Church in some way.

Back to the original subject, this seems to leave us room to hope that babies who die without being baptised may be allowed to enter Heaven, even though they were not baptised in the regular way.

 

[Johndigger]

On first glace you seem be contradicting yourself a little, here. In the first post you state that:

Yes, the Church teaches that the normal means of salvation is by baptism and membership in the Catholic Church.

However, Dominus Iesus clearly refutes the assumption that anyone not baptised or not Catholic is therefore damned to Hell.

This is wrong, it is not just the normal means. It is the ONLY means. As you point out in your second post:

“the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation… [Christ] himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism

Thanks for clarifying your position, though, in the latter post, as in the first post you are clearly talking about formal membership of the Catholic Church through water baptism etc

I agree that formal and visible membership of the Catholic Church isn’t neccessary for salvation.

JD

 

[Image_of_God]

I am not condemning the idea that unbaptized infants won’t get to see God, but I am advocating the belief that God can do anything, if he wanted to. Catholic teaching, so far as I have seen it, does not condemn the existence of baptisms other than those of desire, water and blood.

The bible says three main things concerning this issue.
*God wills to save all men.
*That those not born of water and Spirit cannot be saved.
*All things are possible for God

St. Thomas Aquinas also said that God is not bound to his own sacraments, meaning that he is not bound to the formal baptism of water, etc.
I believe and still hope that God will bring babies to eternal beatitude. I’m not saying that God will save them, but I’m saying it is a possibility.

 

[bilop]

If we teach that God sends all aborted babies to the “nice hell” of Limbo while offering the abortionist the chance of heaven through deathbed conversion, we teach something that is instinctively and deservedly repugnant to the human mind and soul.

Your thinking shows a misunderstanding of Limbo Infantum. From the old Catholic Encyclopedia.

The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being “born again of water and the Holy Ghost” (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see BAPTISM, subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul’s teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Romans 5:12 sqq.). On the other hand, it is clear from Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq., 2 Corinthians 5:10; see also APOCATASTASIS). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, **we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the “children’s limbo.” **

I say it again “perfect natural happiness”. Limbo Infantum is only part of Hell in the sense that they are separated from the Beatific Vision. It is not the Hell of the damned; there is no eternal suffering, no suffering at all.

How is this not merciful? I think on Judgement Day, there will be plenty of people who wish this was an option for them.

As for your second comment, would you offer no hope of redemption to abortionists? Can they never repent? This is not a very Catholic sentiment. Let’s hope they will repent, and their sins, and ours can be forgiven.

God Bless

 

[batteddy]

No one can “believe” in limbo (ie, give credenda or tenenda) because it is speculation on an unrevealed and extraordinary issue outside the Church’s sphere (which is to proclaim the objective requirments of salvation and the ordinary normative truths of the christian life).

One can think it to be true or a fact, but not give supernatural Faith to the idea.

But I dont really think it makes sense. God is not bound by the requirements He puts on us. And he is merciful. I have good hopes for the salvation, by unrevealed and extraordinary means, of any innocent unbaptized people. But it is only a private hope, I may not give it the assent of Faith, nor presume it.

 

[MyLittleFlowers]

I agree with the posters who say God, in his infinite mercy, can make special allowances for those not given the opportunity of baptism. I don’t buy into the limbo thing.

 

[VociMike]

Your thinking shows a misunderstanding of Limbo Infantum. From the old Catholic Encyclopedia.

No it doesn’t. My understanding is just fine.

I say it again “perfect natural happiness”. Limbo Infantum is only part of Hell in the sense that they are separated from the Beatific Vision. It is not the Hell of the damned; there is no eternal suffering, no suffering at all.

Perfect natural happiness for supernatural beings. Separation from God for all eternity, for beings who were made to be united to God. Frankly, even the concept of “natural happiness” after this life is meaningless. It’s just a phrase without meaning.

And these innocent babies, will they know of God’s existence, or will part of their “natural happiness” be that God declines to even reveal his existence to them? Will they be “naturally happy” because God keeps his existence an eternal secret from them? In which case, why wouldn’t they create pagan religions to fill the need that exists in them by the very fact of their humanity?

As for your second comment, would you offer no hope of redemption to abortionists? Can they never repent? This is not a very Catholic sentiment. Let’s hope they will repent, and their sins, and ours can be forgiven.

My comment simply (and clearly, I think) asks why God would not provide the same opportunity to innocent babies as to guilty adults? What is your answer to that question? If God would allow an opportunity for an abortionist who has murdered thousands of innocent babies to be with him for all eternity, why would he not allow that opportunity for the murdered babies? I need an answer from limbo supporters to that question.

What nobody can explain in this limbo discussion is why God (who is Love) would choose to keep these innocent babies from him, through absolutely no choice or fault of theirs. What principle is involved?

 

[batteddy]

Separation from God for all eternity, for beings who were made to be united to God.

Well, I dont really buy into the idea of an infant’s limbo…

But technically…they wouldn’t necessarily be “seperated from God” according to the theory.

They would not have the Beatific Vision, true. But they would possibly have grace and the natural communion with God that Adam and Eve had originally in the garden of Eden, which is not the same as heaven or glorification.

 

[japhy]

“Limbo of the Fathers” and “Unbaptized Infant Limbo” are two entirely different concepts. Infant Limbo isn’t even mentioned in the Roman Catechism (of Trent), nor the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, and it’s mentioned only as a possibility in Baltimore Catechism #4: “[Limbo] does not exist now, or, if it does, is only for little children who have never committed actual sin and who have died without Baptism. They will never get into Heaven or see God, but they will not have to suffer pains as they who are in Purgatory or Hell endure.”

 

[Tracyms1974]

I voted no because babies don’t have the know-how or the ability to sin. I do however wonder if there needs to be an age limit (like one year old, two years old.) in this regard. I would guess that a child psychologist would be of help in deciding this age since they would know what a child is capable of at what age. Just my two cents.

 

[Johndigger]

I voted no because babies don’t have the know-how or the ability to sin. I do however wonder if there needs to be an age limit (like one year old, two years old.) in this regard. I would guess that a child psychologist would be of help in deciding this age since they would know what a child is capable of at what age. Just my two cents.

It is true that babies cannot commit actual sin as that requires free will.

However, by the willful and original sin of Adam he turned the destination of the human race towards hell.

We are created without sanctifying grace in our souls, we are born with original sin.

Sanctifying grace is required that we get into heaven, original sin is only washed away in baptism. So, unbaptised babies go to hell.

JD

 

[VociMike]

Sanctifying grace is required that we get into heaven, original sin is only washed away in baptism. So, unbaptised babies go to hell.

All correct. The only question remaining is whether God offers the grace of baptism (or simply, offers baptism) to those babies in a manner which we do not know.

 

[Tracyms1974]

I voted no because babies don’t have the know-how or the ability to sin. I do however wonder if there needs to be an age limit (like one year old, two years old.) in this regard. I would guess that a child psychologist would be of help in deciding this age since they would know what a child is capable of at what age.

I have been reading some of the other posts, and I am surprised to see that it is actually Church doctrine that Baptism is absolutely required for Heaven. I did not know this, and I’ve been Catholic since birth. This opens up the question for me personally, though. Forget about infants, what about those who don’t know God through no fault of their own? (Think remote aboriginal tribes.) Plus, we all know that there are grossly irresponsible parents out there who abuse their children or neglect them or just simply don’t take them to church. What do we say to the poor eight-year old who has no opportunity to go to church and who certainly hasn’t been Baptised, perhaps for one of the above reasons? What if such an eight-year old were to die in a car wreck? This may be a little off topic, but I wouldn’t mind knowing what the more experienced folks had to say. It has always been my opinion that such people would get some kind of special consideration, maybe spend a very short amount of time in purgatory and then go to Heaven, or something, anything to reflect the fact that their religious state is of little responsibility on their part.

Tracy

 

[Johndigger]

All correct. The only question remaining is whether God offers the grace of baptism (or simply, offers baptism) to those babies in a manner which we do not know.

Exactly. And as Jesus in His Holy wisdom has not chosen to reveal it through His Bride, The Church, we don’t really know.

JD

 

[Tracyms1974]

i tried to edit my post, but it timed out. sorry, y’all.

Unbaptised babies go to Hell. what a lovely thing to say. You say that as if they deserve it. Unbelieveable. I think that’s rude! i don’t care how “right” you are.

 

[Image_of_God]

I voted no because babies don’t have the know-how or the ability to sin. I do however wonder if there needs to be an age limit (like one year old, two years old.) in this regard. I would guess that a child psychologist would be of help in deciding this age since they would know what a child is capable of at what age.

I have been reading some of the other posts, and I am surprised to see that it is actually Church doctrine that Baptism is absolutely required for Heaven. I did not know this, and I’ve been Catholic since birth. This opens up the question for me personally, though. Forget about infants, what about those who don’t know God through no fault of their own? (Think remote aboriginal tribes.) Plus, we all know that there are grossly irresponsible parents out there who abuse their children or neglect them or just simply don’t take them to church. What do we say to the poor eight-year old who has no opportunity to go to church and who certainly hasn’t been Baptised, perhaps for one of the above reasons? What if such an eight-year old were to die in a car wreck? This may be a little off topic, but I wouldn’t mind knowing what the more experienced folks had to say. It has always been my opinion that such people would get some kind of special consideration, maybe spend a very short amount of time in purgatory and then go to Heaven, or something, anything to reflect the fact that their religious state is of little responsibility on their part.

Tracy

The Church has not ruled out the possibility of baptism for those who cannot be baptized. Certainly, a child of 8 years can desire baptism. I am pretty sure that even a 8 year old can be moved by the Spirit and a good baptism. There is a possibility that there are forms of baptism we don’t know of. But, the bible teaches that some type of baptism is necessary for salvation.

 

[Johndigger]

Unbaptised babies do go to hell and they do deserve it. The human race has no fundamental “right” to go to heaven - it is a gift of grace from God.

I don’t aim to say it uncharitably, but to deny either of these things is to deny God’s wisdom and His infinite justice.

Baptism is neccessary for salvation. This is the infallible teaching of the Church. A water baptism is normative but not strictly neccessary.

People who through no fault of their own, that have not heard the Gospel, can still be baptised, by the grace of God and by obeying the natural law that is written on all men’s hearts.

I hope that all men are saved but, as Catholics, we cannot deny that the unbaptised go to hell.

JD

 

[Nevarlander]

I voted “no”, because I’m just letting God take care of it because whatever he does is what’s best for these babies. I dunno how it works, but there are a lot of things I don’t know how they work but I trust them anyway.