What is going to happen to limbo?

[bear06]

Ignatius:

There is no such thing is Limbo. That was only a theory that some theologins had.

Prove it. Just because it was a theory doesn’t mean it is incorrect. We know that faithful before Christ’s redemption were somewhere before they got to heaven and obviously they weren’t condemned to hell and the Church does not teach it was purgatory.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Matt16_18:

Which is not necessarily an assertion by the Magisterium that souls who depart only in original sin are condemned to eternity in hell.… there is no positive suffering for the babies, for they have no personal guilt. This is confirmed by Pope Pius IX, in Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863 (DS 2866) “God in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.”

This pertains to the hell of the damned, according to Fr. William Most. This does not contradict the teaching that those who die in original sin only are perpetually separated from God, but live without pain.

“The teaching of Pius IX [in Quanto conficiamur moerore] agrees with the teaching of St. Thomas*** in q.5 a.3 ad 4: “The infants are separated from God perpetually, in regard to the loss of glory, which they do not know, but not in regard to participation in natural goods, which they do know… . That which they have through nature, they possess without pain.” So when the Synod of Pistoia taught that the idea of St. Thomas was “a Pelagian fable”, [Pius VI], in 1794, condemned that teaching of Pistoia” (Fr. William Most, Infants who die without baptism)

**Pius VI, ***Auctorem Fidei *(1794):

The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of limbo of the children

) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemend exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who removed the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,–false, rash, injurious to Catholic Schools." (D 1526)

From Pius VI we can conclude that limbo of the children was sententia communis (common teaching) of the Catholic Church. Such magisterial teaching is still considered free opinion, and is not binding upon the faithful as sententia certa (certain teaching) is. Yet, it is magisterial. He is saying that what St. Thomas taught about the limbo of the children is not to be considered Pelagian fable. Yet, he is certainly not making St. Thomas’ view binding above all other contrary views. He’s simply stating that what was being taught by St. Thomas and in various “Catholic Schools,” which the Jansenists falsely characterized as “Pelagian fable,” is acceptable Catholic theology.

Extra-sacramental re-birth is possible for infants before they die (cf. Ott, L., *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *pg. 114), as was held by St. Bernard, Cardinal Cajetan, H. Klee, H. Schell, and others. But Catholic doctrine insists that the opportunity for re-birth cannot occur after death. Thus, the Catechism confirms…

CCC 1022 Each man

receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, – ***or immediate and everlasting ***damnation.

Thus, I tend to agree with Fr. William Most’s speculative theology, here:

Unbaptized Infants by Fr. William Most
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/INFANT.TXT

Our reasoning above tends to show that the aborted babies, and probably other unbaptized babies also, are given grace by God outside the Sacrament of Baptism

, and so do not depart this world in original sin, which is merely the lack of grace that should be there.

 

[Matt16_18]

itsjustdave1988:

But Catholic doctrine insists that the opportunity for re-birth cannot occur after death. Thus, the Catechism confirms…

CCC 1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, – or immediate and everlasting damnation.

The CCC is teaching that no one that is guilty of the eternal punishment due mortal sin can be forgiven that sin AFTER he dies. But note that the CCC teaches here that some that die descend to the dead *, where they do NOT immediately enter the bliss of heaven (i.e. the souls in Purgatory). These holy souls must suffer the temporal punishment of sin in Purgatory before they can enter heaven. Venial sin CAN be forgiven after death, but mortal sin cannot. Souls can be brought to a greater level of sanctification after death.

I personally believe that many infants that die through abortion also cannot immediately enter heaven, because abortion is not a Sacrament of Salvation for unloved children. I believe that such children are in a temporal limbo, where they need the prayers, sacrifices and Masses from the Church Militant before they can enter Heaven. Just as venial sin can be forgiven after death and a person brought to a level of sanctification necessary for the beatific vision aided by the offerings of the Church Militant, so too can an innocent unbaptized child that was murdered by his parents be aided by the offerings of the Church Militant.

I am not saying that anyone can be forgiven the guilt of mortal sin after death. Mortal sin is personal sin. Original sin is not a personal sin, it is a state of being where one deprived of the graces of original justice.*

 

[mosher]

Matt16_18:

The CCC is teaching that no one that is guilty of the eternal punishment due mortal sin can be forgiven that sin AFTER he dies. But note that the CCC teaches here that some that die descend to the dead , where they do NOT immediately enter the bliss of heaven (i.e. the souls in Purgatory). These holy souls must suffer the temporal punishment of sin in Purgatory before they can enter heaven. Venial sin CAN be forgiven after death, but mortal sin cannot. Souls can be brought to a greater level of sanctification after death.

I personally believe that many infants that die through abortion also cannot immediately enter heaven, because abortion is not a Sacrament of Salvation for unloved children. I believe that such children are in a temporal limbo, where they need the prayers, sacrifices and Masses from the Church Militant before they can enter Heaven. Just as venial sin can be forgiven after death and a person brought to a level of sanctification necessary for the beatific vision aided by the offerings of the Church Militant, so too can an innocent unbaptized child that was murdered by his parents be aided by the offerings of the Church Militant.

I am not saying that anyone can be forgiven the guilt of mortal sin after death. Mortal sin is personal sin. Original sin is not a personal sin, it is a state of being where one deprived of the graces of original justice.

That is interesting and worthy of some thought. However, the traditional teaching of the Church on the issue of Lombo is that Limbo is hell and that punnishment is eternal because we are all guilty from our conception through the generational sin of Adam.

To Matt18_16:

The Council of Lyons dogmatically defined and the Council of Florence affirmed (taken from Ott p 113ff Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma):

“Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.”

The Latin for the documents is this:

illorum animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato vel solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas.

translated it is “the souls of those who die in original sin as well as those who dies in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell, but their punishment is very different.”

Even the popes have made decleration in favor of the souls who die with Original Sin still in tact suffer the poena damni.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Matt16_18:

The CCC is teaching that no one that is guilty of the eternal punishment due mortal sin can be forgiven that sin AFTER he dies.

I disagree. It states instead that all are judged immediately upon death. This is true whether they die in original sin only, mortal sin, or venial sin.

You must not ONLY be free from mortal sin when you die to enter heaven, but you must also die in a “state of grace” by being justified by re-birth. This is a dogma of the Catholic Church.

Trent explains the only means for the translation to justification:
“This translation [to justification] however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire”

John 3:5 "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. "

What you suggest is that if you didn’t get justified here on earth (thereby removing original sin) there is a means in which we can be given the grace of justification after death, right? This is contrary to Catholic doctrine.

The Catechism is clear:

Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ…***Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul ***at the very moment of his death (CCC 1021, 1022)

All who DIE in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven…The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification" (CCC 1030)

Those who DIE in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ… By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who DIED after receiving Christ’s holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death, . . .) … since the Ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into heaven - have been, are and will be in heaven (CCC 1023)

IMMEDIATELY at death we are judged in the particular judgement. You may have convinced yourself of a novel means to interpret the Catechism completely contrary to the teachings of the past 2000 years, but no Catholic theology text with an imprimatur is teaching what you propose is the correct interpretation of the Catechism

I personally believe that many infants that die through abortion also cannot immediately enter heaven, because abortion is not a Sacrament of Salvation for unloved children.

I’m not saying abortion is a sacrament. Neither is Fr. Most. No do I assert as you do that they are “unloved children.” They are loved by many of the faithful. Prayer has the power to convey grace ex opere operantis even if the biological parents are not the one’s doing the praying.

I believe Cardinal Cajetan’s thesis is that vicarious baptism can be either due to the faith of the parents or the faith of the Church. To close the possibility of the power of prayer of the Church (vicarious desire for the sacrament) for aborted babies is to deny that the faith of the Church has power which conveys grace ex opere operantis.

I believe that such children are in a temporal limbo, where they need the prayers, sacrifices and Masses from the Church Militant before they can enter Heaven.

What is this place called, according to the Catechism, which you call “temoral limbo” hmmmm? Purgatory, heaven, or hell? Which paragraph in the Catechism speaks of the communion of saints which includes those neither on earth, in purgatory, or in heaven?

In the communion of saints, "a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are ***still pilgrims on earth ***(CCC 1475)

I understand your thesis. I still believe it is contary to Catholic doctrine. Fr. Most’s theology, on the other hand, is not. St. Ignatius of Loyola says that we are to “think with the Church.” Your thesis is completely novel, and unsupported by 2000 years of Catholic tradition, and as I believe, contrary to Catholic doctrine. Heresies and schisms are born when Christians fail to “think with the Church.” Thus, I cannot agree with any thesis that contradicts Catholic doctrine.

 

[biblesound]

OriginalJS:

I read that the Church is going to drop limbo. Anybody else see this or am I late getting the news. I can remember the nuns explaining limbo to us in some detail. It is going away now?

it was never a church doctrine, just a theory.

 

[mosher]

biblesound:

it was never a church doctrine, just a theory.

Theory in this sense is different then a scientific theory. When the Church posits even a theory (theological opinion) for belief then we are bound to assent to it until that same opinion is revoked.

 

[Matt16_18]

itsjustdave1988:

It states instead that all are judged immediately upon death. This is true whether they die in original sin only, mortal sin, or venial sin.

I don’t disagree with that!

You must not ONLY be free from mortal sin when you die to enter heaven, but you must also die in a “state of grace” by being justified by re-birth. This is a dogma of the Catholic Church.

Every one that ultimately enters heaven must die in a state where they are not culpable for eternal punishments due voluntary sin. But were the righteous dead that were dwelling in the limbus patrum living in a state where they had received the grace of the merits of Christ sacrifice on the cross before Christ died on the cross (i.e. had they already been born from above before Christ died)? If they were, why were they dwelling in the limbus patrum, and not dwelling in Heaven?

Trent explains the only means for the translation to justification: “This translation [to justification] however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire”

Agreed. But the desire need not be explicit, it can be implicit, as in the case righteous invincibly ignorant pagans. But no infant has either implicit or explicit desire for the Sacrament Baptism. It is the adult members of the Church Militant that desire that infants receive the Sacramental grace of Baptism, not the infants. I fail to see why you even bring up this quote from Trent.

What you suggest is that if you didn’t get justified here on earth (thereby removing original sin) there is a means in which we can be given the grace of justification after death, right? This is contrary to Catholic doctrine.

We need to define what you mean by “justification”. If by justification you merely mean that a person is not in a state where he is culpable for the eternal punishments due voluntary mortal sin, then I don’t disagree with the assertion that all must be justified (in this narrow sense) before they die, in order to enter heaven. But I am not restricting justification to such a narrow sense of the word, and that is where I think you misunderstand what I am saying. Adam and Eve were justified in the Garden of Eden - the were justified, but they had not yet been born from above. Because they had not been born from above, they were incapable of seeing the beatific vision. Adam and Eve were justified, but they were also capable of being further sanctified, just as the righteous in the limbus patrum were justified but also capable of being further sanctified. Scripture clearly teaches that it is possible for a human being living in a state where he is justified (in the narrow sense), and yet he is also living in a state where he has NOT been born again.

Where does the Magisterium teach that original sin is a voluntary sin the merits eternal damnation? Nowhere. … there is no positive suffering for the babies, for they have no personal guilt. This is confirmed by Pope Pius IX, in Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863 (DS 2866) “God in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.”

Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ…

This is quote irrelevant to the case of infants. Infants are incapable of either accepting or rejecting divine grace, but they are not incapable of being sanctified by grace.

IMMEDIATELY at death we are judged in the particular judgement.

Agreed. But that does not mean that after death that a soul is incapable of receiving sanctifying grace. Are the souls in purgatory sanctified apart from the graces that Christ brought forth by his death and resurrection?

I’m not saying abortion is a sacrament. Neither is Fr. Most. No do I assert as you do that they are “unloved children.”

When I say some victims of abortion are “unloved”, I thought it was clear that I meant they were unloved by their parents. Obviously God loves these abandoned children. And so should the members of the Church Militant.

 

[Matt16_18]

itsjustdave1988:

To close the possibility of the power of prayer of the Church (vicarious desire for the sacrament) for aborted babies is to deny that the faith of the Church has power which conveys grace ex opere operantis.

Nor would I ever deny that the Church Militant has the power to aid aborted infants. That is my point exactly – I have hope that the Magisterium will teach that the aborted infants are not beyond hope of ever seeing the beatific vision - that by offering prayer, sacrifices and Masses for these aborted infants, the Church Militant can bring forth, through her vicarious desire, the immersion of these aborted infants into the death and resurrection of Christ.

What is this place called, according to the Catechism, which you call “temporal limbo” hmmmm? Purgatory, heaven, or hell?

I am well aware that the limbus infanum is never mention by name in the CCC. Is it your contention that all aborted children go straight to heaven? Is that what you are trying to say?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

But were the righteous dead that were dwelling in the limbus patrum living in a state where they had received the grace of the merits of Christ sacrifice on the cross before Christ died on the cross (i.e. had they already been born from above before Christ died)?

Yes. Jer. 1:5 (DR): “Before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee.” Regarding the holy fathers of the OT, St. Thomas Aquinas asserts, “The holy Fathers while yet living were delivered from original as well as actual sin through faith in Christ” (*Summa Theologica *III, 52, 5). Where do you suppose the sanctifying grace came from if not from Christ?

If they were, why were they dwelling in the limbus patrum, and not dwelling in Heaven?

According to St. Thomas, the OT saints although completely justified by the grace of Christ before death, having had their original and actual sins forgiven, were still bound to penalty, just as Christians are who die in a state of grace but have not yet paid the penalty. St. Thomas asserts that the OT saints who died in a state of grace, justified by the grace of Christ were still bound by “the penalty of original sin, whereby they were excluded from glory, since the price of man’s redemption was not yet paid” (ibid.)

no infant has either implicit or explicit desire for the Sacrament Baptism.

Who said it must be the desire of the infant? For sacramental baptism the “desire and intent” is a condition of valid reception, yet for infants, this is provided vicariously by the parents and godparents. St. Bernard (he wasn’t condemned for it, was he?) teaches that the desire could be vicarious, as it is with sacramental baptism. Cardinal Cajetan held that this vicarious desire could be provided by the Church. Even before Trent, this was to be in accord with Catholic doctrine. You you propose is not. You propose a thesis that is contrary to the doctrine on particular judgement. This is explained with *Imrimatur *as follows:

Catholic Encyclopedia - “Particular Judgment”:
newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm

“souls leaving their bodies in a state of grace, but in need of purification are cleansed in Purgatory, whereas souls that are perfectly pure are at once admitted to the beatific vision of the Godhead (ipsum Deum unum et trinum) and those who depart in actual mortal sin, or merely with original sin***, are at once consigned to eternal*** punishment, the quality of which corresponds to their sin (paenis tamen disparibus).”

Your version of how those in Infernum (hell) later find their way to heaven is not explained in any theology text I’ve ever come across. Thus, it seems you simply made it up. If this isn’t correct, please cite the Catholic theology text you learned it from. Does it also have an Imprimatur?

 

[kleary]

On the news show from EWTN that was on television last night it was said that the Pope has called on theologians to further advise him on the teaching of Limbo and its validity or invalidity.

Most likely within this pontificate it should be defined one way or the other, most likely in an infallible decree from the Pope.

Ken

 

[itsjustdave1988]

We need to define what you mean by “justification”.

I mean by “justification” what the Church teaches it means.

From the Council of Trent:

"a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.

This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire"

(ch. IV, Trent’s Decree on Justification)

You cannot simply redefine justification arbitrarily so that your novel thesis is more palatable.

Catholic theology is simple: you die in a state of grace you go to heaven or purgatory. If you die NOT in a state of grace you go to hell eternally, but to suffer differing punishments.

Only those OT saints who died justified, that is, in a state of grace were in the limbo of the father according to Catholic teaching. They were indeed “born again” that is, justified by faith (e.g. Abraham).

Only those NT saints who died justified, that is, in a state of grace, enter purgatory or heaven.

All those who do not die justified, that is, in a state of grace, go to hell eternally.

In NT times, the communion of sains ONLY exist 1) on earth, 2) in purgatory, and 3) in heaven.

Your thesis that some can die NOT in a state of grace (e.g. in original sin), go to hell (not purgatory, but hell), but then afterward receive the first grace of justification after death, that is, initially transition into a state of grace, is contrary to Catholic doctrine and exists nowhere in Catholic theology texts nor the Catholic tradition.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… that does not mean that after death that a soul is incapable of receiving sanctifying grace.

After death, humans are incapable of transitioning to justification (a state of grace), based upon the definition used by Trent. Further graces of sanctification cannot occur for those who are not initially justified. Those in purgatory died in a state of grace, which you say is not necessary for all those who ultimately go to heaven. I say you are wrong. The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on “particular jugdment” is contary to your thesis. Yet, you have NEVER given ANY source that supports your thesis.

Are the souls in purgatory sanctified apart from the graces that Christ brought forth by his death and resurrection?

The souls in purgatory DIED in a state of grace. They were not brought into a state of grace AFTER death. Any further graces come from Christ BECAUSE they were jusitfied BEFORE they DIED. Their further purgation only occurs BECAUSE they died in a state of grace. Is it your thesis that infants who die in original sin die in a state of grace (justified)? Do you see how absurd this would be?

 

[inJESUS]

i read the posts but am still confused

can anyone explain briefly what limbo is? and what happened to the people before Jesus? much appreciated ! God bless you all

 

[bear06]

inJESUS:

i read the posts but am still confused

can anyone explain briefly what limbo is? and what happened to the people before Jesus? much appreciated ! God bless you all

Limbo is a theological theory (at this point). Limbo infantum is thought to be a place where infants who die before baptism go. It is thought to be a place of happiness but without the beatific vision. The faithful who died before Christ’s salvific act were generally thought to be held in the Limbo Patrum (limbo of the Fathers) until Christ retrieved them. Limbo Patrum is thought to have been abolished upon this. All of these theories are based on the fact that we know God is a merciful and just God. Hope I didn’t spell any of these wrong. Didn’t have time to check my spelling.

 

[Matt16_18]

itsjustdave:

Jer. 1:5 (DR): “Before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee.”

I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me.
Psalm 51:7

… souls leaving their bodies in a state of grace, but in need of purification are cleansed in Purgatory, whereas souls that are perfectly pure are at once admitted to the beatific vision of the Godhead (ipsum Deum unum et trinum)

Of course. A person can die in a state of grace, and yet, not be perfectly pure. Those who are not yet perfectly pure need sanctifying grace to become pure, for it is impossible by our own efforts alone to become perfectly sanctified.

and those who depart in actual mortal sin, or merely with original sin, are at once consigned to eternal punishment, the quality of which corresponds to their sin (paenis tamen disparibus).

What magisterial document is the Catholic Encyclopedia quoting when it states that souls that die in original sin only are consigned by God to eternal punishment?

Who, besides those that have not yet reached the age of reason, could possibly depart life with merely original sin? Pope Pius IX has written, “God in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.” How do YOU reconcile your Catholic Encyclopedia quote above with what Pope Pius IX has written? The Father of Vatican II referenced this quote by Pope Pius IX in LG 16, a document of an Ecumenical Council.

You cannot simply redefine justification arbitrarily so that your novel thesis is more palatable.

I am not arbitrarily redefining justification. I am merely pointing out that Adam and Eve were also justified when they were living in the state of original justice. So it is not against Catholic theology to say that a human being can exist in a state where he is justified, and at the same time, be living in a state where he has not yet received all the graces of the Sacrament of Baptism.

Catholic theology is simple: you die in a state of grace you go to heaven or purgatory.

It is not that simple, for if it was, there would be no point in having the International Theological Commission discuss the fate of unbaptized infants!

Your thesis that some can die NOT in a state of grace (e.g. in original sin), go to hell (not purgatory, but hell), but then afterward receive the first grace of justification after death, that is, initially transition into a state of grace, is contrary to Catholic doctrine and exists nowhere in Catholic theology texts nor the Catholic tradition.

That is not my thesis! I never said that aborted infants are culpable for the eternal punishment due sin, which is a state that they would have to be in to merit eternal punishment. I have never said that aborted infants die in a state where they are completely devoid of sanctifying grace. Nor have I ever said that aborted infants could be brought to the light of the beatific vision apart from the atoning sacrifice of the Cross, or apart from the infinite merits of the Cross. I am saying that at the death of an aborted infant, that God does NOT judge aborted infants of being culpable for ANY voluntary sin that merits eternal punishment.

I am also saying that parents that do not love their infants and have them murdered in the womb are not giving to their murdered children a sacrament of salvation at the abortion clinic.

There is a practical conclusion to what I am saying, and that is that it is a good and holy thing to make sacrifices for aborted infants, to pray for the repose of their souls, and above all, to have Masses said for them. If I accept your theology, it would be entirely pointless to do any of these things, since there is no possibility of the Church Militant coming to the aid of these infants after they have been murdered. And this is exactly why the Magisterium needs to speak to this issue. Pastors need guidance to help heal the wounds of millions of men and women that have been involved in the sin of abortion. If there is no point whatsoever of offering prayers and Masses for the souls of aborted infants, then the Magisterium should make this clear, and the Catechism should be revised.**Catechism of the Catholic Church

1283** With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy **and to pray for their salvation. **

 

[inJESUS]

bear06:

Limbo is a theological theory (at this point). Limbo infantum is thought to be a place where infants who die before baptism go. It is thought to be a place of happiness but without the beatific vision. The faithful who died before Christ’s salvific act were generally thought to be held in the Limbo Patrum (limbo of the Fathers) until Christ retrieved them. Limbo Patrum is thought to have been abolished upon this. All of these theories are based on the fact that we know God is a merciful and just God. Hope I didn’t spell any of these wrong. Didn’t have time to check my spelling.

thx it’s clearer now; but deep inside, i believe unbaptized children are with God.

 

[fineca]

When it comes to F.Cantalamessa’s argument, I didn’t enjoy it that much. He argued that if hell consists in not seeing God, limbo is hell. This is pretty flawed, since Jesus himself told us about the womb of Abraham where Lazarus ended up which clearly wasn’t heaven(seeing God) but most certainly not hell either. IT seems logical to me that a person who is not in grace (thus incapable of entering heaven) but hasn’t earned hell either (a baby can’t willfully commit mortal sin, and the righteous ones before Christ) would go to a place of human happiness. Trusting too much on the fact that unbaptised babies go to heaven undermines the need for infant baptism, we could as well be ecumenical then and line up with the pentecostals and baptists on the matter of original sin and infant baptism. Ok I’m being a bit too provocative on purpose, don’t take me too seriously (on this last point at least…but do consider the arguments above)
Emil

 

[Matt16_18]

inJESUS:

thx it’s clearer now; but deep inside, i believe unbaptized children are with God.

Do you pray for the salvation of children that have died without Baptism so that they can be with God?

 

[inJESUS]

Matt16_18:

Do you pray for the salvation of children that have died without Baptism so that they can be with God?

usually i dont specify who my prayers are for coz they dont end but i just ask Jesus’ mercy on all those who need it. Should i specify?