What happened to Limbo?

[Stylites]

First, thanks for all your answers and comments.

Second, I’m going to go ahead and continue to believe in limbo, while understanding that the possibility exists that these souls were saved in a way we cannot understand and not revealed to us by God.

Glad you got an answer to your question. Would that others here could also receive an answer instead of giving answers.

 

[Will_S]

I am **not **denying the need for baptism but questioning it as a universal principle that even God cannot transcend!.

Wherever there is doubt God’s infinite love should be our guide…

We have no knowledge that God gives the gift of sanctifying grace outside of baptism. No one asserts that God cannot do so, but it is erroneous to assume that He does.

 

[Will_S]

I bet you would prefer** to be with them** in Limbo rather than eternally separated from them in heaven!

Anyone who would prefer such a thing deserves to spend eternity in hell.

 

[sojo]

So then what would be the reason for the Church, her sacraments, good works, and the rest of the requirements for salvation if all I have to do is accept Christ’s love?

Is this not what the Good Thief did? And the result? He got to be with Jesus in heaven!

There’s a story about the workers who toiled all day resenting the workers who toiled only a short while getting the same pay. How unfair by man’s reckoning, but that is how God works. Who are we to question?

And the prodigal son’s brother had a bit of a problem with this same thing.

 

[Will_S]

If infants are baptized with water based on the faith of their parents, could they not be baptized by desire based on the faith of their parents? Personally, having lost a child through miscarriage, and based on the opinions of several traditional and orthodox priests I’ve chosen to discuss such a personal subject, I will continue to hold on to the hope that I have a son or daughter ready to welcome me into Heave so that we may enjoy the Beatific Vision.

Baptism of desire is based on the personal desire of a person to be baptized at the next possible opportunity. Infants do not have such a desire.

Infants can be baptized with water unto salvation because the sacrament gives grace on the basis of the action being correctly performed with the correct intention. The explicit desire for baptism on the part of the infant is unnecessary.

 

[Will_S]

But, we must understand the doctrine of Original Sin. I do truly believe that baptism is necessary for the Beatific Vision. But, the Church, in Her great understanding of revelation, has defined Baptism by Water, Blood, and Desire. If, when an infant is baptized, and unable to make a profession of faith, it is proceeded upon the faith of their parents and Godparents. I certainly do not see anything standing in the way of baptism by desire, taken in the same faith of the infants parents or Godparents.

Once again, the baptism of desire is predicated upon the explicit desire of an individual for baptism as soon as possible. A third party cannot effect a baptism of desire for an individual who has no desire to be baptized.

 

[dsmantz]

Baptism of desire is based on the personal desire of a person to be baptized at the next possible opportunity. Infants do not have such a desire.

Infants can be baptized with water unto salvation because the sacrament gives grace on the basis of the action being correctly performed with the correct intention. The explicit desire for baptism on the part of the infant is unnecessary.

Will, I greatly respect your opinion and desire to express it. I will, however, remain with the opinion of the priests I consulted on the matter. I hope you understand.

 

[wanner47]

Once again, the baptism of desire is predicated upon the explicit desire of an individual for baptism as soon as possible. A third party cannot effect a baptism of desire for an individual who has no desire to be baptized.

Are you of the opinion, then, that infants should not be baptized at all, given that they cannot desire baptism for themselves?

 

[ajpirc]

I am on your side Will. I agree with everything that you have said so far.

You have given Church teachings from ecumenical councils, but many on this thread are rejecting what the Church is teaching on this issue and wanting to believe what makes them happy. Did Christ not institute the Church to teach us the truth? He did. Did Christ establish the Catholic Church to teach something just to have people believing in what makes them feel good? I think not.

Those of you who reject Will’s posts, do you know what has happened for the past 500 years because people have chosen what they WANT to believe because they didn’t agree with what the Catholic Church taught? Thousands of split churches that began with a so called ‘reformation’ of their beliefs.

If you are a Catholic, I’m pretty sure that we must believe what the Catholic Church teaches because God has revealed it to us. If you don’t want to agree with the Catholic Church, I would say you aren’t a real Catholic.

I will also say one more time: Will, I support what you are saying.

 

[Will_S]

Are you of the opinion, then, that infants should not be baptized at all, given that they cannot desire baptism for themselves?

I have not said that. Water baptism does not require an explicit desire for baptism for efficacy. Here is the Council of Trent again:

“If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, let him be anathema.” – Council of Trent, Session 5

 

[wanner47]

I am on your side Will. I agree with everything that you have said so far.

You have given Church teachings from ecumenical councils, but many on this thread are rejecting what the Church is teaching on this issue and wanting to believe what makes them happy.

Church teaching is that Limbo MAY exist, but that we have reason to hope that God has been merciful to children who have died without baptism.

Who in this thread has disputed that teaching, other than those who have insisted that Limbo’s existence is fact and not theory?

 

[wanner47]

I have not said that. Water baptism does not require an explicit desire for baptism for efficacy. Here is the Council of Trent again:

“If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, let him be anathema.” – Council of Trent, Session 5

Right, but your are insisting that baptism of desire wouldn’t work for infants, since the infants THEMSELVES would have to desire baptism (even though they are baptized without having this desire, as the desire of their parents suffices). If that’s the case, why don’t infants have to also desire water baptism?

 

[ajpirc]

Church teaching is that Limbo MAY exist, but that we have reason to hope that God has been merciful to children who have died without baptism.

I don’t know if you even can hope for their salvation. One of those councils have clearly stated that without baptism, one directly goes to eternal damnation after death because of the sin of Adam and Eve. Why would God not be just by teaching one thing, yet doing the exact opposite of what He taught? Does God’s mercy overthrow His teachings?

 

[TedDC]

I don’t know if you even can hope for their salvation. One of those councils have clearly stated that without baptism, one directly goes to eternal damnation after death because of the sin of Adam and Eve. Why would God not be just by teaching one thing, yet doing the exact opposite of what He taught? Does God’s mercy overthrow His teachings?

God didn’t teach that. Men did, mere men claiming to speak for God.

 

[Will_S]

Right, but your are insisting that baptism of desire wouldn’t work for infants, since the infants THEMSELVES would have to desire baptism (even though they are baptized without having this desire, as the desire of their parents suffices). If that’s the case, why don’t infants have to also desire water baptism?

Because the sacrament instituted by Christ is the water baptism, which like all sacraments works “ex opere operato” - when the action is performed with the correct intent, the grace is given. (catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33474)

The baptism of desire is a secondary construct to handle the case of a catechumen who dies before he is permitted to receive the sacrament. It assumes that the catechumen desires to be baptized immediately but it made to wait by the Church. Since it is the Church itself that is the cause of the lack of baptism of this person, the sacramental grace is supplied as necessary.

 

[ajpirc]

God didn’t teach that. Men did, mere men claiming to speak for God.

As a former Catholic, you most likely only saying that because the Church didn’t teach what you wanted to believe. But, as those men teach those dogmas, there is the Holy Spirit to protect those men from human error. Everything that the Catholic Church teaches as dogma is what Christ is continually teaching through her. When mere men teach what they believe is the truth, you have 30,000 denominations in 500 years.

 

[Will_S]

God didn’t teach that. Men did, mere men claiming to speak for God.

Anti-Catholic potshots from apostates aren’t necessary or useful.

 

[Indyann]

I don’t know if you even can hope for their salvation. One of those councils have clearly stated that without baptism, one directly goes to eternal damnation after death because of the sin of Adam and Eve. Why would God not be just by teaching one thing, yet doing the exact opposite of what He taught? Does God’s mercy overthrow His teachings?

What you are saying is contradicting the Cathechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[wanner47]

What you are saying is contradicting the Cathechism of the Catholic Church.

Exactly. And has been pointed out several times, Limbo was never doctrine.

I find it so puzzling how so many can believe that God is limited by His own sacraments. Baptism is the ordinary means of salvation for those below the age of reason, but it is possible that there are extraordinary means as well. Baptism of desire and baptism of blood are two such extraordinary means. I don’t consider it impossible for God to extend baptism of desire to unborn children who die without baptism, if their parents sincerely desired baptism for them.

Is it possible that Limbo exists? The church says yes. But She also says it’s even more likey that our all-powerful, loving God has mercy on those children who die before birth or shortly thereafter, and works outside of His ordinary means of salvation to save them as well. I really don’t see why others believe that is so impossible for God to accomplish.

 

[tonyrey]

The Council of Florence stated that all those who die in original sin alone “go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”

So it is well supported that unbaptized infants “go down straightaway to hell to be punished.”

If we then speculate that they, being free from the guilt of actual sin, suffer no punishments of sense, but suffer only the loss of the Beatific Vision (“but with unequal pains”) then we call that Limbo.

Of course you are right that that speculation could be wrong. They could be suffering the torments of Hell, as St. Augustine believed.

To believe unbaptized infants could be suffering the torments of Hell is alien to the teaching of Jesus that God is our loving Father and merely serves to bring Christianity into disrepute.