Vote for or against Limbo Poll

[cascherman]

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!

wait, wait… it says in that quote, supposing it is correct that Pope Eugene IV defined ex cathedra that a soul in original sin (unbaptized babies) go to a place of punishment (assuming limbo). and now that has been revoked as just a theory?! someone PLEASE save me here, because I’m seeing all this faith in an infallible Pope, when in ex cathedra, go down the drain.

 

[Johndigger]

wait, wait… it says in that quote, supposing it is correct that Pope Eugene IV defined ex cathedra that a soul in original sin (unbaptized babies) go to a place of punishment (assuming limbo). and now that has been revoked as just a theory?! someone PLEASE save me here, because I’m seeing all this faith in an infallible Pope, when in ex cathedra, go down the drain.

Where in your quote does it revoke an ex-cathedra teaching?

The first quote from Pope Martin V was not ex-cathedra and yes it was condemned.

The second from Pope Eugene IV is ex-cathedra and is not condemned.

What’s the problem?

JD

 

[cascherman]

Where in your quote does it revoke an ex-cathedra teaching?

The first quote from Pope Martin V was not ex-cathedra and yes it was condemned.

The second from Pope Eugene IV is ex-cathedra and is not condemned.

What’s the problem?

JD

the idea of limbo has been since considered just a theory. at least one of my RCIA speakers has said its only thought of as a theory, and most now believe otherwise, that unbaptized babies go to heaven. so, if it was defined ex cathedra, and now its only a theory then…? see where im going here?

 

[VociMike]

the idea of limbo has been since considered just a theory. at least one of my RCIA speakers has said its only thought of as a theory, and most now believe otherwise, that unbaptized babies go to heaven. so, if it was defined ex cathedra, and now its only a theory then…? see where im going here?

But what you quoted does not demand limbo, in the sense that any infant who dies without water baptism goes there. The key point is that it says nothing as to whether God may provide a way to remove the stain of original sin through some form of baptism.

It’s like saying, “If you land on a desert isle and can’t find anything to eat, you will die.” Fine and true, but what it does not say is “If you land on a desert isle you will not find anything to eat.”

 

[Johndigger]

Well, the ex cathedra statement doesn’t deal with limbo.

It only says that people in a state of original sin or mortal sin go to hell. It doesn’t specifically deal with limbo. It just says that people in hell are punished differently.

JD

 

[cascherman]

*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)

is this not defining limbo? saying a person with unbaptized original sin will go to a place of punishment of different kind. is this not limbo? am i missing something?

 

[mtr01]

Where in your quote does it revoke an ex-cathedra teaching?

The first quote from Pope Martin V was not ex-cathedra and yes it was condemned.

The second from Pope Eugene IV is ex-cathedra and is not condemned.

What’s the problem?

JD

The first quote was incorrectly labeled as a quote by Pope Martin V. It is actually one of the articles of John Wycliffe that was condemned at the council.

 

[Image_of_God]

But what you quoted does not demand limbo, in the sense that any infant who dies without water baptism goes there. The key point is that it says nothing as to whether God may provide a way to remove the stain of original sin through some form of baptism.

It’s like saying, “If you land on a desert isle and can’t find anything to eat, you will die.” Fine and true, but what it does not say is “If you land on a desert isle you will not find anything to eat.”

That is a good post!!!

 

[Image_of_God]

is this not defining limbo? saying a person with unbaptized original sin will go to a place of punishment of different kind. is this not limbo? am i missing something?

The council never defines if an unbaptized baby dies in original sin. Their is no Church teaching that defines that. Who knows if an unbaptized baby or person is baptized in another way and therefore does not die in original sin?

 

[cascherman]

mmmmmmmmk

 

[bilop]

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?

Obviously we can’t be sure of all the details, but they could know God like Adam and Eve knew him, or like we know him, imperfectly. They could know of God, but not have the Beatific Vision, the perfect knowledge of God and his greatness.

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.

The most likely answer is that they don’t get the chance to repent because they didn’t sin personally. They are not able to get to Heaven, but also, they do not face the risk of going to the Hell of the damned. In a sense they are worse off than we are, because they can’t go to Heaven, but they are also better off in a sense, because they can’t go to Hell (of the damned).

A major problem I have with the rejection of Limbo, is that the aborted babies are better off than the born. If they go straight to Heaven, why is Abortion so bad. It verges on Catharism. Kill those in a state of grace so they go to Heaven.

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?

The principal that Baptism is required for salvation. If all murdered babies go to Heaven, why are the Holy Innocents singled out as Saints? I think there example points to something unique about their deaths, versus any other babies that die w/o Baptism.

I would like to believe that all those babies go to Heaven, just like it would be nice to believe that Hell is practically empty, but to me, it just doesn’t jive with catholic theology and the words of Scripture.

God Bless

 

[Teflon93]

I would just like to know the view of people

I voted no. Limbo was to my mind an attempt to reconcile the fact that pre-baptismal infants are innocent save for original sin and the thought of them being banished to Hell is unbearable, particularly for the parents every Catholic priest has witness confront this theological implication. This was clearly theological theory, not infallible proclamation, and so was guided by Christian charity and not revelation.

Better to trust to God’s mercy, and to His judgment.

 

[Joero]

I would just like to know the view of people

Let us remember first that Jesus Christ has not committed any sin and never lies ( 1 Peter 2: 22 ). In His statement according to apostle John He said that no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). And St. Peter attested to the right interpretation of this by saying that each one of you must turn away from your sins and be baptized so that your sins will be forgiven; and you will receive God’s gift, the Holy Spirit. For God’s promise was made to you and your children, and to all who are far away - all whom the Lord our God calls to himself (Acts 2: 38-39).

From these passages, we can not negate that there is a need for baptism by water in order to enter God’s kingdom. But what about those children who died (in the womb or after birth) without getting the sacrament of baptism? What sin have they? In Psalms 51:5 it says “I have been evil from the day I was born; from the time I was conceived, I have been sinful.” St. Paul clarifies this by saying “Sin came into the world through one man, and his sin brough death with it. As a result, death has spread to the whole human race because everyone has sinned.” (Romans 5: 12)

From this point of view, the Catholic church called it " the original sin" (You, n-Cs, you may named it as you wish), for the true church of God is given wisdom ( Ephesians 3: 10-11) for this church is the pillar and the foundation of truth ( 1 Timothy 3: 15).

We know that nothing impure can enter heaven (Rev. 21: 27).
We know that hell are for grievous sins of impenitent people and the punishment is forever. (Mat. 25:41, 46).
We know that “purgatory” [This is again another name given by the church for the punishment of venial sins and the suffering has limitations, depending on God’s will or the prayers done by the body of Christ - the church.(You, n-Cs, you may named it as you wish)] basing upon (1John 5: 17) and (1 Corinthians 3: 15).

These poor souls of the unbaptized babies who died, where will they go? They have not committed any grievous sin or venial sin but can not enter heaven basing on ( Psalms 51: 5 & Romans 5: 12). If YOU are the LORD where will you dumped these souls?
(sorry for using this word “dumped” for God is so merciful that he gave His own son to the world for the salvation of all men) (John 3: 16). The state of spiritual life here is what the early theologians called “limbo” (again, you, n-Cs, you may call it as you wish) and since this term is not yet a dogma, it can be changed, because dogmas are forever like diamonds. It is not a “nice hell” ! There’s nothing nice in hell !

 

[VociMike]

A major problem I have with the rejection of Limbo, is that the aborted babies are better off than the born. If they go straight to Heaven, why is Abortion so bad. It verges on Catharism. Kill those in a state of grace so they go to Heaven.

Then I could just as easily say that all baptized babies should immediately be killed, so they will have no chance to end up in hell. If you have a problem with the rejection of limbo, you should also have a problem with allowing baptized babies to live. Tell me how the situations are different?

In fact, the case is much stronger that baptized babies should be killed, for they are assured heaven. Nobody is claiming that unbaptized babies are assured heaven. The only question at hand is whether God might not offer them the means of salvation - not whether God assures them of heaven.

The principal that Baptism is required for salvation. If all murdered babies go to Heaven, why are the Holy Innocents singled out as Saints? I think there example points to something unique about their deaths, versus any other babies that die w/o Baptism.

That’s not a principle, that’s a rule. I want to know what is the principle behind the rule. How does allowing innocent babies to spend eternity in “nice hell” reflect the mind and will of God as it has been revealed to us? How does it fit in with everything else we know about God?

I cannot see any connection whatsoever between the concept of limbo for infants, and everything else we know about God. There is a total disconnect there in my mind.

 

[DJim]

“Let the children come to me and do not hinder them…for it is to just such as these that the Kingdom of God belongs.”
It would be worth noting that the children to whom Jesus referred presumably had not been baptized.

Do we not already know the “mind” of Jesus on this issue, even if we can only go so far as to “entrust” unbaptized infants to the “mercy of God”? Doesn’t this quote reveal to us the “mercy of God”?

DJim*

 

[Teflon93]

“Let the children come to me and do not hinder them…for it is to just such as these that the Kingdom of God belongs.”
It would be worth noting that the children to whom Jesus referred presumably had not been baptized.

Do we not already know the “mind” of Jesus on this issue, even if we can only go so far as to “entrust” unbaptized infants to the “mercy of God”? Doesn’t this quote reveal to us the “mercy of God”?

DJim*

I certainly think so.

As for these children being “better off” than those who live, let’s keep in mind the example of the martyrs. Is it not better to be martyred? Do we not revere the martyrs?

Are there any better candidates for martyrdom than babies slaughtered in utero? Is any man today more innocent other than at the moment of his baptism than a child in the womb?

 

[Gardening_Mommy]

As someone previously pointed out in this thread, limbo for infants has never been formally taught by the Church.

However, it has been taught as a theological hypothesis for nearly a thousand years, so it needed to be addressed.

All the Pope has said is that, truly, we don’t know, and we need to admit that. We can guess at what happens to unbaptised infants, but, at present, it’s only a reasoned guess.

While the Church and baptism are necessary for salvation, Dominus Iesus also says that we do not know entirely how that may work in God’s plan. It may be that our prayers for the conversion of people will be used to effect a baptism of desire for those who will never hear the Gospel in this life.

In the meantime, it is also good to remember that we DO know the requirements God has laid out for us, and are therefore obliged to keep them. Intentionally neglecting to baptise an infant may or may not jeopardize their chance of Heaven, but it would certainly weigh as a sin on the parents’ souls if they knew baptism is required of us.

Water baptism and formal membership in the Catholic Church are the normal means of salvation; rejecting these when we understand them to be required puts our souls in danger (see Scott Hahn’s conversion story where he talks about his urgency to enter the Church without delay once he really understood it; he was deeply convicted that delayed obedience would be sin).

God may use extraordinary measures in certain cases (somehow working through the Church, which we know is necessary for salvation). We can hope for the extraordinary measures for those who need them, but, at the same time, we are not to presume upon them. So, we still evangelize, and we still baptise infants as soon as practicable after birth.

 

[Proletarian]

God may use extraordinary measures in certain cases (somehow working through the Church, which we know is necessary for salvation). We can hope for the extraordinary measures for those who need them, but, at the same time, we are not to presume upon them. So, we still evangelize, and we still baptise infants as soon as practicable after birth.

Well said!