What is so objectionable about Limbo?

[Gregory_I]

I do not belive the sacraments have the power to bind God. They are not more powerful than him.

I believe that he not only wills salvation, but he wills it IN THE WAY HE HAS ESTABLISHED IT and not otherwise, why else would he create conditions for salvation?

God always works by covenant. And a covenant is something that two people bind THEMSELCES to. God promised Noah that he would never flood the earth again. Can he? No. Because he will not contradict himself.

He promised Abraham that his descendants would be numerous as the stars, and that the messiah would come from his line. Can he abrogate it? No. Because he cannot contradict himself.

With Moses, he made a covenant in the form of the law. DId he contradict it? No, he fulfilled it in Christ, who came “Not to abolish the law and the prophets, but that they may be fulfilled.”

With David he made a covenant that he would always have descendant son the throne in perpetuity. Did he abrogate or work around it? No, for Christ is the SOn of David, eternally enthroned.

In Christ, GOd made a covenant in his own blood with man, and instituted means of entering into and renewing that covenant and receiving the graces of it. Now, can he contradict himself? No.

THerefore no one is saved apart from the means that Christ has established. He is the God who does not change.

 

[Gregory_I]

The Council of Trent history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

 

[Gregory_I]

The Council of Trent history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

 

[santodomingo]

The Roman Catholic Church has not made Limbo an obligatory teaching.
Personally, I think children who die without the Sacrament of Baptism, as well as babies who were aborted, miscarried, or stillborn enter Heaven under the protection of Our Blessed Lady, The Holy Trinity and angels and saints. I’m sure born children still go to Purgatory, but I mean, especially with our prayers, God will clearly give them His Mercy and warmly welcome them!What is the worst sin a child could commit?
Jesus loved children more than anyone. Mary is the Mother of Mercy, our Queen who looks upon all with care. The saints and angels will most lovingly pray for the salvation and grace for those who have not met Jesus through Baptism, especially if we ask them too. The unbaptized youngsters who die are going to be in Heaven - why would God send them to Hell if he is the Father of Love and Forgiveness who wants everyone with Him up there?And the ones who never take their first breath most definitely go to Heaven with no waiting or punishment - they are the most innocent of souls, knowledge-free, and in need of their Family in Heaven. They shall reunite with their human families someday.
I may be comitting a sin by saying this, but if we did discover God sent children to Hell because they didn’t recieve a Sacrament they had no control over, I wouldn’t find it ethical to worship God anyway.

I find your last sentence worrying!

Let me first state that I wholeheartedly agree with Gregory I on this (great nick, BTW). The reason why it´s so hard for even devout catholics to accept that unbaptized babies cannot enter Heaven is the acritical assumption of the modern mentality of the Rights of Man, spawned from the anticlerical French Revolution of 1789.

When we start to believe that catholics (or any other people) have a RIGHT to Eternal Salvation, we are very much on the wrong track. No one has a RiGHT to enter Heaven, and if any mere mortal can enjoy the Beatific Vision, the Blessed Virgin included, it is thanks exclussively to God´s infinite mercy. That should be our starting point.

From that premise we can understand that if unbaptized babies remain in Limbo, which strictly speaking is a part of Hell, it is only a logical consequence of our Religion. The Church Fathers and many great theologians have spoken about the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood. Yet these cannot apply to babies, because they have no awareness of these things, and cannot possibly “desire” baptism, and it is difficult to see how they could shed their blood as martyrs for Christ.

Many modernist theologians have argued that if the babies parents desire baptism for the baby, it may be thus saved without sacramental baptism. This is a falacy, however, because one cannot will someone else´s salvation. Our salvation must be worked out individually, not vicariously. If that were the case, there would be little point converting to catholicism, as there would always be someone wishing you were baptised!

I read in Canon Ripley´s great book, “This is the Faith” that a baby in Limbo would no more long for the Beatific Vision than we would for a cottage on the moon. I don´t see any injustice or lack of mercy for unbaptised babies to end up in Limbo. As I say, I see it as an inevitable consequence of our Religion.

 

[StTommyMore]

This is a falacy, however, because one cannot will someone else´s salvation. Our salvation must be worked out individually, not vicariously.

If this were the case then infant baptism would be of no effect. If one is above the age of reason, they cannot be baptized without a statement of faith. However, Infants that are baptized are baptized in the faith of the Church, It is this same reasoning applies to baptism of desire to those who were fully intended to be baptized, but it was absolutely imposable for such to happen.

 

[santodomingo]

If this were the case then infant baptism would be of no effect. If one is above the age of reason, they cannot be baptized without a statement of faith. However, Infants that are baptized are baptized in the faith of the Church, It is this same reasoning applies to baptism of desire to those who were fully intended to be baptized, but it was absolutely imposable for such to happen.

That´s not correct. Even though infants have no conscious understanding of the sacrament they receive, they nevertheless receive the full grace in conveys. They receive it themselves, not vicariously, even though of course they must be taken to the Church and they are received into the faith of their parents.

The principle effect of baptism is the wiping out of Original Sin. This is constantly ommitted in modernist theology, becuase modernists deny the dogma of Original Sin, and so they do everything they can to avoid mentioning it.

 

[StTommyMore]

That´s not correct. Even though infants have no conscious understanding of the sacrament they receive, they nevertheless receive the full grace in conveys. They receive it themselves, not vicariously, even though of course they must be taken to the Church and they are received into the faith of their parents.

The principle effect of baptism is the wiping out of Original Sin. This is constantly ommitted in modernist theology, becuase modernists deny the dogma of Original Sin, and so they do everything they can to avoid mentioning it.

Baptism of desire does not speak against Original sin, and at any rate is simply speculation. And furthermore, Baptism does more than simply wash away Original Sin. I would assume you include Karl Rahner in the group you label as “modernist theologians” (he frequently is unjustly assigned this label). In no way does he deny the dogma, yet supports baptism of desire.

 

[santodomingo]

Baptism of desire does not speak against Original sin, and at any rate is simply speculation. And furthermore, Baptism does more than simply wash away Original Sin. I would assume you include Karl Rahner in the group you label as “modernist theologians” (he frequently is unjustly assigned this label). In no way does he deny the dogma, yet supports baptism of desire.

Wait a minute. I think we agree on more than you realize. Perhaps it´s just me not explaining myself clearly…

I don´t know for sure if baptism of desire is true. St. Augustin believed it was, but you are right in that it is not official Church doctrine. You don´t have to believe it in order to be catholic.

However, my argument does not rest on baptism of desire. It rests on the absolute necessity of baptism, WHATEVER TYPE. I didn´t invent this, it´s the Word of God, and the Church has always insisted on it. The Lord said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” John 3:5.

I argued that since infants who have not received the normal sacramental baptism cannot either receive baptism by desire or by blood, it follows that they cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Is that any clearer?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Wait a minute. I think we agree on more than you realize. Perhaps it´s just me not explaining myself clearly…

I don´t know for sure if baptism of desire is true. St. Augustin believed it was, but you are right in that it is not official Church doctrine. You don´t have to believe it in order to be catholic.

However, my argument does not rest on baptism of desire. It rests on the absolute necessity of baptism, WHATEVER TYPE. I didn´t invent this, it´s the Word of God, and the Church has always insisted on it. The Lord said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” John 3:5.

I*** argued that since infants who have not received the normal sacramental baptism cannot either receive baptism by desire or by blood, it follows that they cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Is that any clearer?***

OK, so here is my question-
A family is on the way to Mass to have their infant baptised.
They family is involved in a crash, and unfortunatly, the baby dies instantly as a result.

Based on my understanding what you and Gregory I are saying is that this child, will forever be denied heaven, because the proper rite was not followed?

If it is, I believe (based on several discussions with priests, deacons, a bishop and a number of lay theologians) that you are mistaken, and I will pray for both of you to gain a richer understanding of the mercy and love that God has for each of us.

I would like to see magisterial proof for this assumption. And the catechism from Trent does not count, because, as posted numerious times in this thread- that CCC states unequivocally that while the sacrament of baptism in the norm- God is not bound by his sacraments!

I really don’t understand why this is so difficult for you to comprehend.
Man is not God, never can be, never will be, therefore not one of us can say what God will or will not do.

 

[Indyann]

Wait a minute. I think we agree on more than you realize. Perhaps it´s just me not explaining myself clearly…

I don´t know for sure if baptism of desire is true. St. Augustin believed it was, but you are right in that it is not official Church doctrine. You don´t have to believe it in order to be catholic.

However, my argument does not rest on baptism of desire. It rests on the absolute necessity of baptism, WHATEVER TYPE. I didn´t invent this, it´s the Word of God, and the Church has always insisted on it. The Lord said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” John 3:5.

I argued that since infants who have not received the normal sacramental baptism cannot either receive baptism by desire or by blood, it follows that they cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Is that any clearer?

What is it about God’s mercy that you cannot understand? Is it that you just do not trust and abide by the CCC?

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[santodomingo]

OK, so here is my question-
A family is on the way to Mass to have their infant baptised.
They family is involved in a crash, and unfortunatly, the baby dies instantly as a result.

Based on my understanding what you and Gregory I are saying is that this child, will forever be denied heaven, because the proper rite was not followed?

If it is, I believe (based on several discussions with priests, deacons, a bishop and a number of lay theologians) that you are mistaken, and I will pray for both of you to gain a richer understanding of the mercy and love that God has for each of us.

By all means pray for me to gain a richer understanding of the mercy and love that God has for each of us! Whether I´m right or wrong on this issue, I´m always glad of prayer!

I would like to see magisterial proof for this assumption. And the catechism from Trent does not count, because, as posted numerious times in this thread- that CCC states unequivocally that while the sacrament of baptism in the norm- God is not bound by his sacraments!

Baptism of desire IS already extra-sacramental, so I agree that God is not bound by his sacraments. Baptism of desire can in theory be applied to someone who has never set foot in a catholic church. St. Bellarmine defined it thus:

“Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire, and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism” (De Sacramento Baptismi, Liber I cap. VI).

Therefore it is false to say that all non-catholics will go to Hell. They have a much more difficul road to Salvation, but there is nevertheless hope for them. This is Baptism of Desire, which is, as I said, extra-sacramental.

Having said that God is NOT bound by His sacraments, however, you must admit that God IS bound by His word, because He can never speak a falsehood. And therefore, if an infant is not baptised, neither by water, by desire (impossible) or by blood (also hard to imagine), he or she CANNOT enter Heaven.

I really don’t understand why this is so difficult for you to comprehend.
Man is not God, never can be, never will be, therefore not one of us can say what God will or will not do.

I am not saying what God will or will not do. I am merely trusting His word. He says that no one may enter the Kingdom of Heaven without baptism. If you don´t believe that, you are doubting God´s Word, not mine.

 

[ThankUMaria]

Of course we can’t be sure of what happens to unbaptized kids and ones who die before they are born, but we can assume that God is not going to damn them to Hell forever because of something that was out of their control. We have a duty to pray for them and ask Mary, and the saints to as well to welcome them into Jesus’ kingdom.

 

[TomD123]

I don´t know for sure if baptism of desire is true. St. Augustin believed it was, but you are right in that it is not official Church doctrine. You don´t have to believe it in order to be catholic.

I think that explicit baptism of desire is pretty much dogma. All of the fathers ive ever seen talk about it support it, it is logical, it fits in with scripture, Aquinas believed it, Many other saints supported it, Trent basically defined it, and every catechism I have ever read supports it so I think its not optional, implicit baptism of desire on the other hand I think is more speculation both to if it exists and if it does, how much faith is neccessary in order to have it but thats a little off topic…

OK, so here is my question-
A family is on the way to Mass to have their infant baptised.
They family is involved in a crash, and unfortunatly, the baby dies instantly as a result.

Based on my understanding what you and Gregory I are saying is that this child, will forever be denied heaven, because the proper rite was not followed?

This is pretty convincing. Maybe desire of the parents does work for the salvation of the infants? In a similar situation:how could God deny an infant salvation because of a technicality like say a baptism was conducted invalidly in some slight phrasing of the formula, the water was technically not proper matter because of some reason, etc.

Having said that God is NOT bound by His sacraments, however, you must admit that God IS bound by His word, because He can never speak a falsehood. And therefore, if an infant is not baptised, neither by water, by desire (impossible) or by blood (also hard to imagine), he or she CANNOT enter Heaven.

I am not saying what God will or will not do. I am merely trusting His word. He says that no one may enter the Kingdom of Heaven without baptism. If you don´t believe that, you are doubting God´s Word, not mine.

God does bind himself to baptism, that is why if anyone recieves baptism with the proper intentions, he will be forgiven of his sins, his punishment will be remitted, etc. etc. This does not mean the God has limited himself to the sacraments- limiting yourself and binding yourself are different— God is bound to baptism, not limited by it as we can see for adults, so I believe it is reasonable to speculate the same thing for infants in some instances.

 

[Gregory_I]

In that car crash, the baby would be denied the beatific vision, because the baby is a slave to original sin, under the wrath of GOd, and justly condemned as being a slave of the devil.

THese are the effects of original sin!

Just because it looks cute does not make it innocent. NO one is born into this world free from sin, therefore no one is born into this world free from the just punishment due to sin.

If you want magisterial documentation, read the first 10 pages of this thread! lol.

Dogma: “All those who die in mortal sin, or original sin ALONE descend to hell, where they are punished, but with different kinds of punishment.”

Bull “Cantate Domino”, pope Eugene iv given at the council of Florence, 1438. Infallible and irreformable by its very nature. The only way to understand it is in how it is worded, the church does not teach obscurely, but clearly.

Now, for a dogma of the church to have any real value, it has to have real world application. THerefore there must really be those who die in original sin alone who descend to the punishment of hell, but ar epunished differently than those in mortal sin, otherwise this dogma is meaningless.

But in the REAL WORLD, what kind of a person can die in original sin alone? Anyone who dies without the use of reason: Infants! And Mentally Handicapped! THere is no other option or way to read this that mitigates this conclusion.

A parents faith is not what saves an infant: THe sacramen tof baptism conveys the gift of faith to those incapable of responding to it: I.e. Infants, and mentally handicapped. A Parents desire does not act as the child’s faith. In the liturgy of baptism, we do not profess a personal faith on the child’s behalf we respond on the child’s behalf to the questions put to us so the child can RECEIVE the gift of faith and sanctifying grace in baptism, without which it is impossible to see the face of God.

Magisterial Documents:

Pope St. Innocent I : “The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life without even the grace of baptism is utterly foolish.”
-Pope Saint Innocent I, Letter to the Bishops of the Church, 417 AD

Council of Carthage XVI (Ratified by Pope Zosimus as the Apostolic Sees own faith and promulgated in his “Tractoria” Which in turn was ratified by the ecumenical council of Ephesus, it should therefore be considered infallible)

It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions”: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [cf. Matt. 25:41,46].

Pope St. Gregory I: "St. Gregory the Great: “For there be some that are withdrawn from the present light, before they attain to shew forth the good or evil deserts of an active life. And whereas the Sacraments of salvation do not free them from the sin of their birth, at the same time that here they never did aright by their own act; there they are brought to torment. And these have one wound, viz. to be born in corruption, and another, to die in the flesh. But forasmuch as after death there also follows, death eternal, by a secret and righteous judgment ‘wounds are multiplied to them without cause.’ For they even receive everlasting torments, who never sinned by their own will. And hence it is written, Even the infant of a single day is not pure in His sight upon earth. Hence ‘Truth’ says by His own lips, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Hence Paul says, We were by nature the children of wrath even as others. He then that adding nothing of his own is mined by the guilt of birth alone, how stands it with such an one at the last account, as far as the calculation of human sense goes, but that he is ‘wounded without cause?’ And yet in the strict account of God it is but just that the stock of mortality, like an unfruitful tree, should preserve in the branches that bitterness which it drew from the root. Therefore he says, For He shall break me with a tempest, and multiply my wounds without cause. As if reviewing the woes of mankind he said in plain words; ‘With what sort of visitation does the strict Judge mercilessly slay those, whom the guilt of their own deeds condemns, if He smites for all eternity even those, whom the guilt of deliberate choice does not impeach?’” (Moralia 9: 32)

 

[Gregory_I]

MAgisterial Documents, cont’d:

“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, … but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently…”
-Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, February 4, 1442

Pope Sixtus V Apostolic Constitution Effrenatam.(Greater in weight than an encyclical)proclaims on the issue of abortionists:

“Noticing that frequently by various Apostolic Constitutions the audacity and daring of most profligate men, who know no restraint, of sinning with license against the commandment “do not kill” was repressed; We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? Who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety of** him who will exclude a soul created in the image of God** and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ has shed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and is destined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God, and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions (left vacant by the fallen angels), and has taken away the service to God by His creature?”

Council of Trent: "Session 6 – Decree Concerning Justification (extracts)

The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

THis is the constant teaching of the church:

Sin has consequences.
Infants are born in sin, therefore if they die before being cleansed, they suffer the consequences of Sin, for original sin is “in each as his own.” AS Trent says.

AS Pope St. Gregory I says: “Not even an infant of a single day is pure in his sight.”

 

[StTommyMore]

I think I will just stick with the Catechism’s interpretation of the documents, i. e., we place our trust in the mercy of God, and that God is not bound by the Sacraments.

 

[Gregory_I]

So, then you deny, TOmmy, that any previous magisterial documentation, which is not subject to reinterpretation, has no place in your Catholic faith?

How can you say this and remain Catholic? I acknowledge the CCC, and even though I do not interpret it in the way the modern liberals do, I interpret it in the light of the Church’s continuous magisterial teaching, I do not lump it out.

I simply choose not to entertain the hope the Catechism says we MAY entertain because I do not see it as feasible.

 

[StTommyMore]

So, then you deny, TOmmy, that any previous magisterial documentation, which is not subject to reinterpretation, has no place in your Catholic faith?

How can you say this and remain Catholic? I acknowledge the CCC, and even though I do not interpret it in the way the modern liberals do, I interpret it in the light of the Church’s continuous magisterial teaching, I do not lump it out.

I simply choose not to entertain the hope the Catechism says we MAY entertain because I do not see it as feasible.

Quote where I said, or implied, such a thing. I simply choose the interpretation over the Catechism over YOUR interpretation.

 

[Gregory_I]

Ok, you are laboring under the delusion that magisterial teaching is subject to interpretation IT IS NOT.

Dogma is not subject to interpretation because when the church TEACHES it teaches CLEARLY and not vaguely (at least it used to).

Do to the fact that the magisterial teachings I have shown you are part of the Church’s constant teaching, I would say you should be bound to accept it.

But you say you are not. IN all but words.

SO I guess I gotsta ask you: DOes the church teach clearly when it teaches, or is its teaching set forth in magisterial documents subject to reinterpretation ad infinitum?

According to your way of thinking, we can never ultimately know WHAT the church teaches because you keep appealing to some authority within the church to interpret what the church has TAUGHT.

But that is Non-sensical becausze MAGISTERIAL teaching is TEACHING. It is meant for you to absorb*** as it is presented.*** That ***IS ***THE Interpretation of previously unclear teaching!

If someone asked you if you learned anything in a math class, would you say “It depends on how you interpret what was taught.”

THat is just silly. THere is only ONE way to acknowledge church teaching: AS IT IS PRESENTED.

Do you understand the principles of teaching and learning? YOu are taught, and you leanrn what you are taught AS YOU ARE TAUGHT IT.

It’s not my interpretation, it is the First Vatican Council’s, feel free to look it up.

 

[StTommyMore]

Ok, you are laboring under the delusion that magisterial teaching is subject to interpretation IT IS NOT.

Dogma is not subject to interpretation because when the church TEACHES it teaches CLEARLY and not vaguely (at least it used to).

Do to the fact that the magisterial teachings I have shown you are part of the Church’s constant teaching, I would say you should be bound to accept it.

But you say you are not. IN all but words.

SO I guess I gotsta ask you: DOes the church teach clearly when it teaches, or is its teaching set forth in magisterial documents subject to reinterpretation ad infinitum?

According to your way of thinking, we can never ultimately know WHAT the church teaches because you keep appealing to some authority within the church to interpret what the church has TAUGHT.

But that is Non-sensical becausze MAGISTERIAL teaching is TEACHING. It is meant for you to absorb*** as it is presented.*** That ***IS ***THE Interpretation of previously unclear teaching!

If someone asked you if you learned anything in a math class, would you say “It depends on how you interpret what was taught.”

THat is just silly. THere is only ONE way to acknowledge church teaching: AS IT IS PRESENTED.

Do you understand the principles of teaching and learning? YOu are taught, and you leanrn what you are taught AS YOU ARE TAUGHT IT.

It’s not my interpretation, it is the First Vatican Council’s, feel free to look it up.

I tire of your copying and pasting passages out of context. I tire if your constant berating of individuals whose only crime ts to follow the teachings laid out in the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, which is binding on all Catholics. I will no longer be party to this discussion, nor will I communicate with you at any time in the future.