What is so objectionable about Limbo?

[TomD123]

No Church documents that explicitly say that infants can have Baptism of Desire come to mind, but if I find one I’ll post it. At the same time, there are also none that come to mind that say they cannot. I am not aware of any doctrine that says that an adult can be saved by Baptism of Desire, but that those under X age cannot.

This is a good point, how do we know that God does not give the grace neccessary for infants who die w/o water baptism to have a desire for baptism?

This alledged desire of God on the part of infants, I admit, is your best argument so far. And if it were not for the fact that traditionally it has generally been held that Baptism of Desire **cannot **be applied to infants, I would perhaps be swayed by it. If you were to provide some proof that Baptism of Desire has been traditionally applied to infants, that would impress me. But I very much doubt you can do such a thing.

I don’t think there are any traditional Church documents that prove BoD for infants but I also would say that this does not contradict the CCC. The CCC gives us reason to hope for the salvation of the unbaptized infants because it may be possible that the way they are saved has not been revealed, and therefore it is not part of Sacred Tradition. Although I think that it is important to keep the salvation of unbaptized infants as only speculation because that is what it is.

With all due respect, he has provided out of context snippets with no regard to the historical situation selected with his preexisting bias, coupled with disregard for the Catechism. Hardly an air-tight argument.

I think this is unfair to Gregory, his council texts are not out of context I don’t see what more context they need to make sense.

 

[Gregory_I]

Tommy, I have a project for you:

Take three of my most rigorist quotes, especially the one by POpe St. Gregory I, and you provid eme with the true context.

“The infant of a single day is not pure in his sight.”

You constantly complain about “out of context” but make no move to show me another feasible context. DO this, and I might take you more seriously. As it is, you just continue to be insulting and provide no support for your ideas, at least they do not reflect any serious thought.

God ina box???

Didn’t God put himself in a box when he limited himself to the incarnation?

How much more of a BOX could God be in than our own mortal frame?

GOd desires all to besaved.

But he doesn’t desire to contradict his nature. It is ontologically impossible for God.

THerefore, what he establishes he upholds.

Why don’t you give me a single example from the Bible where GOd made a requirement for his people then decided it was no longer relevant?

“Likewise, whoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that Sacrament (Baptism) are alive in Christ, **certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration and condemns the *universal ***Church, in which it is the practice to loose no time and run in haste to administer Baptism to infant children, because it is believed as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ.”
-Saint Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church, Epistle 167, AD 415

"If you want to be a Catholic do no believe, do no say, and do not teach that infants carried off by death before they are baptized can attain the remission of original sin."
-Saint Augustine, Father, Doctor, and Bishop of the Church, On the Soul and its Origin Book II

“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

P.S. Atguments of Absence and from Silence are Fallacious. WE should not presume MORE than what has been revealed, this is called spiritual arrogance.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

A couple of thoughts…

This thread disturbs me. I believe in a God of love & mercy.
Yes, I believe that I will, one day, be judged, but it will not be by anybody here on this earth.
And I believe that the judgement given me with also be tempered with that same mercy and love.

Putting God into a box and saying He can only operate in this particular set of parameters, to me,
is a ridiculous concept and is totally contrary to the virtue of hope.
I cannot say what God will do or not do,
nor do I want to even presume that I can/could!
I have never said that baptism is not necessary.
What I (and the Church, for that matter) am saying is that
God is not bound by the sacraments.
We can not and should not say, with any authority,
what happens to a child who dies before being baptised,
that decision belongs to God and God alone.

I leave this thread with this,

***Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you. ***

If God could do it once, who’s to say he couldn’t do it again!

 

[Gregory_I]

Do you believe in the effects of original sin?

I will assume a yes on your part, you obviously want to be a faithful Catholic, and for all intents and pruposes are.

Do you realize original sin consists of being born Guilty of Adam’s Sin and under the wrath of God and justly condemned as a cohort and slave of the Devil and that the church teaches this INFALLIBLY using this same language?

THerefore do you realize that all who are human, the blessed mother excepted, are born justly condemned to hell bo original sin alone.

THerefore none are born innocent, fully.

And if God chooses not to extend his grace to some, and withholds it from others, he is not a monster, he is not unjust. THe just thing would be for us all to be in hell. BUt in his mercy, and by his death, he opened up the way of redemption, which is so precious, that if the world could understand the depths of the mystery of the incarnation, they would die of love.

But, those who do not appropriate his grace, do not receive its benefits. Infants who die without baptism do not appropriate its grace, bwcause the Church teaches in her Magisterium, which is AUthentic and Universal that there is no other way for Children to be saved than by baptism.

Now, do you realize the gravity of Original sin? It is no mere inconvenience. THat is Semi-pelagianism, a heresy. It is Damning. TO believe less is to subscribe to the heresy of Pelagius, and to deny the significance of Christ’s unique and precious death.

Yes, I will admit GOd works within limitations, but these are SELF-imposed. God doesn’t do just ANYTHING. ONLY those things in accord with his Nature. God CANNOT do just ANY OLD THING we think he SHOULD do, nor can we impute injustice the source of justice, nor a lack of mercy to the all-merciful.

We cannot judge GOd. He is just, therefore all he does is just, even if it does not appear just. He is mercifull, therefore all he does is merciful even if it doesn’t appear as such. He is love. THerefore all he does is loving, even if it appears contrary to love.

THerefore, I accept that God allows us to suffer the consequences for our sins, Mortal, and Original and Venial, and the appropriate punishment each, and this is not inconsistent with his Justice and mercy and love.

And the Consequences for those who die in original sin alone have been defined by the Church: THey descend to hell where they are punished, but differently than those who die in mortal sin.

This is the teaching of the church, from which there is no escaping. It must be faced, and dealt with. Not shrugged off, not ignored. It calls for a fair treatment, and an honest reckoning with our consciences: “The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away; blessed be the name of the Lord.”

Your ideas oneofthewomen contradict what GOd has revealed about himself: THe punisher of wickedness, and the rewarder of righteousness, and wicked acts and righteous ones are clearly delineated in scripture, the Catechism, etc.

 

[TomD123]

P.S. Atguments of Absence and from Silence are Fallacious. WE should not presume MORE than what has been revealed, this is called spiritual arrogance.

I contend that they may be saved, but it will be in the ressurection.

To me, this sounds like “More than what has been revealed” if unbaptized infants may be saved at the ressurection from an act of faith, why not at the moment of death from an act of faith?

Both are more than what has been revealed, both include the wiping out of original sin and the infusion of grace, same basic concept, different times, both theological speculation allowed by the CCC.

 

[Gregory_I]

Good call TomD123. I don’t want to be hypocritical, so I retract my theory on them being saved in the ressurection.

It was not my belief however, it was Cajetan’s I believe…

INfants cannot make an act of faith, and death is the severing point for repentance, as the Church teaches:

“With death the possibility of merit or demerit or conversion ceases.” (Sent. certa.)

“Immediately after death the particular judgment takes place, in which, by a Divine Sentence of Judgment, the eternal fate of the deceased person is decided.” (Sent. fidei proxima.)

IF either of these are denied, the denial is a mortal sin, for Sentitia Certa is a certain knowledge, And Sentitia Fidei Proxima, is a Certain knowledge of something that has proximity to faith.

I understand what you hope for is a drawing out of the state between life and death, but NO NDE confirms that this actually happens, and none have ever said THey were evangelized by the holy angels or CHrist himself.

All NDE if you are to believe them, say that they found themselves immediately experiencing either blessedness, or torment. There was no attempt to convert them.

Maybe you could describe a single case of “TIme-lapse” conversion on the point of death in someone who clinically died and was allowed to return as a witness?

 

[Gregory_I]

IN addition, The CCC lists Jesus’ saying of “let the little children come to me” as some how justifying that they may be saved without baptism.

OTC (On the Contrary):

The ROman Catechism, the one binding on all Catholics up until 1992 and promulgated by Pope St. Pius V says this:

Infant Baptism: It’s Necessity

"That this law extends not only to adults but also to infants and children, and that the Church has received this from Apostolic tradition, is confirmed by the unanimous teaching and authority of the Fathers.

Besides, it is not to be supposed that Christ the Lord would have withheld the Sacrament and grace of Baptism from children, of whom He said: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me; for the kingdom of heaven is for such; ° whom also He embraced, upon whom He imposed hands, to whom He gave His blessing."

So we see that originally this verse was taken to indicate that Christ would want children to receive the grace of baptism, as it is the only they can be saved.

NOW we are told that this verse should mean that Christ’s disposition is such that even if they are NOT baptized, he might save them anyway!

Contradicitur!

 

[TomD123]

I understand what you hope for is a drawing out of the state between life and death, but NO NDE confirms that this actually happens, and none have ever said THey were evangelized by the holy angels or CHrist himself.

All NDE if you are to believe them, say that they found themselves immediately experiencing either blessedness, or torment. There was no attempt to convert them.

Maybe you could describe a single case of “TIme-lapse” conversion on the point of death in someone who clinically died and was allowed to return as a witness?

1. No NDEs confirm this, but I would say the CCC permitting us to hope in salvation of the unbaptized along with the last 2 Popes I think is of a heavier weight than an NDE
2. There are no NDEs of unbaptized infants but St. Faustina’s visions briefly talk about God giving a last chance to people in mortal sin. Now this is a private revelation and it does not even talk about infants BUT if God were to give adult sinners who deserve Hell (pain of loss AND SENSE) b/c of mortal sins (plural) one last chance before the moment of death to be saved, I think it would be only logical if God would give children guilty of no actual sins and deserving of only the loss of the Beatific Vision through Adam’s fault a chance to get to heaven before being judged.

Although, I will say again I do not want to put my hope anywhere near the level of dogma because up until 1992, virtually no Catholic believed an infant who died without baptism would be saved

*additional question (just curious if anyone knows): What do the Orthodox Christians believe about infants who die w/o Baptism?

 

[TomD123]

Additional question:

I have heard (forget where, but this situation seems like it probably exists or at least it could) that in some places there are human embryos stored in labs from an in-vitro fertilization frozen. Now, if this is the case, they cannot be discarded (murder) and I don’t think the Church would permit implanting them in a mother so the best solution would seem to do nothing. But if this is the case, would there be anyway to baptize them? because if not, the only option seems to be allowing a bunch of humans to eventually die and go to hell (ie limbo) a little off topic but still interesting to think about…

 

[Leo_The_Great]

Well, Tom, The Church has said herself this is an intolerable situation, and there really is no way of resolving it. at least that is what I think I heard…

Gregory I, I just want to say, keep at it. You are hitting the target right between the eyes, and some folks are just not listening. Pelagius would be having a field day if he were here. lol.

I don’t think I have seen anyone here except you and maybe one or two others, maybe Shin and Pug say that Original Sin involves inheriting the guilt of Adam’s sin, and this is explicitly taught by the Church!

I am in the middle of gathering opinions on Original sin and hope to write an essay showing that the modern understanding is either in line with what has been infallibly decreed, or askew.

Just from browsing around, I can tell you, something is definitely askew…especially with the women. What’s with all the women coming here and demanding how merciful God is? It’s really funny to see, I mean I could almost caricturize them, either their almost in tears, or they’re so convinced of their own ideas of an effiminate Christ and a gutless God, that who is SOVEREIGN and can do with us as he pleases, that they just make themselves sound ridiculous…

“Don’t judge, Don’t judge!”

We’d never have any Ecumenical councils or resolve any Catholic doctrine without judging.

I can’t know anyone’s heart, much less God’s mind. But I can know what other people say, and judge them on that basis, for out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks, and I can also know what God has revealed about himself either directly or through his Church, which is the Oracle of God, his voice on earth!

I like My Roman Catholicism with its boots on. Oooorah!

 

[TomD123]

“Pelagius would be having a field day if he were here”

I agree that in the Church today, the neccessity of any grace has been forgotten, although to be fair, for the most part, those on this thread have not stated that sanctifying grace is not necessary for salvation. Believing that infants who die w/o baptism of water go to heaven is not itself Pelagian, (I admit it can be borderline Pelagian depending on how it is presented) because otherwise the CCC and the last two Popes have been guilty of heresy!!

 

[Gregory_I]

Well, that’s not impossible, though I won’t say it’s so.

 

[Pug]

I don’t think I have seen anyone here except you and maybe one or two others, maybe Shin and Pug say that Original Sin involves inheriting the guilt of Adam’s sin, and this is explicitly taught by the Church!

Adam left not only death and suffering to all his descendants, but also sin, the death of the soul. (but still, O Happy fault!) i.e. By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

Or, if you like other words, he lost original holiness and justice for us.

 

[TomD123]

Well, that’s not impossible, though I won’t say it’s so.

is this in response to the below quote?

because otherwise the CCC and the last two Popes have been guilty of heresy!!

Assuming limbo does exist (not saying it doesn’t here are just some thoughts):

1. Who before the time of Christ (or even before Abraham) could escape limbo and how?
2. Why would a God who desires to save all men (NOT that ANY of us deserve to be saved) make the means of salvation impossible for some?
3. When dealing with the question of “how would somebody who has family members in Hell be happy?” usually a response (that makes sense to me at least) that I have seen often is “we will see things through the eyes of God’s justice and how somebody’s choice led them to hell” but I do not see how somebody who say had a son in limbo could be happy in heaven if their son had no choice in the matter and it was really natural causes which caused the boy to end up in limbo (miscarriage maybe) because it would be hard to see how God would not simply allow the child to live until baptism

and lastly:
4) It seems impossible on God’s end to forgive abortion because it led a person away from the beatific vision (not in the same way scandal does) so if somebody had an abortion they could be in heaven while the one they killed would not be? that seems like a flaw

and in addition to this, even if God could forgive the sin, it would seem impossible to forgive yourself because then you would be the 1 and only direct cause of another human (your own child) in hell (limbo) and that would be unbearrable

 

[Gregory_I]

Assuming limbo does exist (not saying it doesn’t here are just some thoughts):

1. Who before the time of Christ (or even before Abraham) could escape limbo and how?
2. Why would a God who desires to save all men (NOT that ANY of us deserve to be saved) make the means of salvation impossible for some?
3. When dealing with the question of “how would somebody who has family members in Hell be happy?” usually a response (that makes sense to me at least) that I have seen often is “we will see things through the eyes of God’s justice and how somebody’s choice led them to hell” but I do not see how somebody who say had a son in limbo could be happy in heaven if their son had no choice in the matter and it was really natural causes which caused the boy to end up in limbo (miscarriage maybe) because it would be hard to see how God would not simply allow the child to live until baptism

and lastly:
4) It seems impossible on God’s end to forgive abortion because it led a person away from the beatific vision (not in the same way scandal does) so if somebody had an abortion they could be in heaven while the one they killed would not be?..

Yeah, that was in response to what you said. But I will not say any Pope is a heretic, except those who have been condemned as such. But I will say we can know what heresy IS and we can definitely know who teaches it through reading…and I will leave it there.

Your concerns are notable, so I will simply say what I have learned from the Church:

1. Let’s simplify here, Limbo is a part of Hell, and before Christ, hell included not only the unrighteous, but also righteous dead, although there were clear divisions of just from unjust, as Christ demonstrates in the Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus. I think that Parable should be sufficient. The Faithful Jew obtains blessedness and rest in a state of Preternatural Happiness, and the Wicked are punished with hellfire. We assume all the consequences to those who die in original sin alone to apply, because original sin didn’t change with Christ’s coming: Therefore uncircumcised infants definitely descended to be punished in line with the Church’s teaching on the effects of dying in Original sin alone. Circumcised infants who would die would presumably go to the realms of blessedness, having been made members of the covenant of Abraham, which was sufficient to obtain paradise before Christ, but not supernatural happiness.
2. I honestly think I address this pretty well in the predestination thread, but to say it here: To show forth his justice and his mercy so that he may be glorified.

Let’s take it logically: If God wants to show forth his justice and his mercy, as basically all of Romans 9 teaches, then some things need to be established:

a. If God saved none he would not show forth his mercy. Man would know him as master, not Father.
b. If God saved all, he would show forth neither justice, in allowing some to come to their just end, damnation; nor would he show mercy, for we could not know his merciful disposition when there is no justice, and not knowing the threat posed to our soul by sin, would fail to understand how much we do not DESERVE mercy, which understanding is what gives mercy its value.
c. If God chooses to save some, and not others, he shows both his justice, and mercy, and is praised for both. It keeps our disposition toward God proper too, For if God was “a” we would despair of salvation, if he was “b” we would act in presumption and try to take advantage of him, but since he is “c” it keeps our disposition toward God proper=humble respect and gratitude.

Please remember, those who he reprobates do not desire him. They are not “missing out” in their mind. They have rejected God, and so it is not unfair if they are never saved.

1. The key to happiness is to recognize God’s goodness and justice not just in external circumstances, but IN GOD HIMSELF. We cannot and do not hold God to our idea of justice; we acknowledge all his works and permissions as just. A failure to understand is OUR failure, not God’s. In heaven, we will praise God for his just judgements.

Plus, a fundamental flaw in this thinking is placing our happiness as contingent on some creature, of whom God can dispose of in whatever way he thinks best. Our happiness should rest in GOd alone, not in created things or persons. To say “I can’t be happy without my son in heaven!” shows that you do not desire Christ, the kingdom of God, or his righteousness, you desire a creature, conceived in sin, born in sin, and sinful from youth, incapable of being supernaturally pleasing to God and a slave to the devil;unregenerate; and maybe one day you will have him, but it will not be in heaven.

1. This position is flawed: God can and does forgive abortion, and even though the parent may be guilty of a horrific crime, it is not the parent who separates the child from God, it is Original Sin in the soul of the Child that makes it unfit to be in God’s presence.

But another similar scenario: In a crusade against Muslims, did the Knights Templar sin in this way when they killed Muslims who were slaying innocent Christian pilgrims? Did the Knights send them to hell, or were they “condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son.”?

Because of this, you can forgive yourself of the act of killing, but you need not forgive yourself for the Child being deprived of the vision of God, because this would have happened if the Child would have died in some other way, like SID’s, Sudden Infant Death syndrome. The condition of their soul is not your fault, but your actions are negligent and homicidal. But God forgives negligence and homicide, and you are not greater than God, therefore you should forgive yourself of these.

 

[TomD123]

Yeah, that was in response to what you said. But I will not say any Pope is a heretic, except those who have been condemned as such. But I will say we can know what heresy IS and we can definitely know who teaches it through reading…and I will leave it there. **I think it is best to say that JPII is far from heresy in his teaching, this is because he is going to be a Saint, so regardless of what we think as humans, we should submit to Church authority and accept him as a Saint who is not guilty of heresy **

Your concerns are notable, so I will simply say what I have learned from the Church:

a. If God saved none he would not show forth his mercy. Man would know him as master, not Father.
b. If God saved all, he would show forth neither justice, in allowing some to come to their just end, damnation; nor would he show mercy, for we could not know his merciful disposition when there is no justice, and not knowing the threat posed to our soul by sin, would fail to understand how much we do not DESERVE mercy, which understanding is what gives mercy its value.
c. If God chooses to save some, and not others, he shows both his justice, and mercy, and is praised for both. It keeps our disposition toward God proper too, For if God was “a” we would despair of salvation, if he was “b” we would act in presumption and try to take advantage of him, but since he is “c” it keeps our disposition toward God proper=humble respect and gratitude.
God may want to show forth his goodness, but this seems to arbitrary- saving just to save rather than saving out of love

1. This position is flawed: God can and does forgive abortion, and even though the parent may be guilty of a horrific crime, it is not the parent who separates the child from God, it is Original Sin in the soul of the Child that makes it unfit to be in God’s presence. Ok then it seems as though it would be hard to forgive Adam becuase through his own selfishness he blocked heaven for billions of innocent children

But another similar scenario: In a crusade against Muslims, did the Knights Templar sin in this way when they killed Muslims who were slaying innocent Christian pilgrims? Did the Knights send them to hell, or were they “condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son.”? This is different, the Muslim has the use of reason and he has free will to sin or not too, it is his fault if he is damned

Because of this, you can forgive yourself of the act of killing, but you need not forgive yourself for the Child being deprived of the vision of God, because this would have happened if the Child would have died in some other way, like SID’s, Sudden Infant Death syndrome. The condition of their soul is not your fault, but your actions are negligent and homicidal. But God forgives negligence and homicide, and you are not greater than God, therefore you should forgive yourself of these.

Although original sin sent the infant to hell, it was the neglect that allowed the original sin to do so. It is like if a parent recognized a lump on their newborn and they didn’t even ask the doctor about it. No- the neglect didn’t kill the baby, the tumor did, but the neglect allowed for the tumor to kill the baby- so the neglect is partially to blame for the child’s death and its spiritual death when discussing abortion/limbo

 

[TomD123]

"Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and the desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire—Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire—H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering—H. Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. "

I found this quote from Ott’s book
its basically what I have been saying, I see no reason to deny this as heresy considering the last 2 Popes would agree (one of whom GOD chose to be a Saint) and the CCC would agree, more important than any of our own interpretations of past dogmatic definitions, only the Church should tell us what we are permitted to believe in light of their doctrine. If
“All who die in original sin alone descend into Hell” is dogma, then I agree. Well, it is dogma, so I agree. However, The Church seems to say that although the only way we can free somebody from original sin is baptism, and that is the only known method, it is untrue to say that God does not chose to save infants who die w/o water baptism in another way. Rather than deciding on our own that we must accept water baptism as absolutly the only means for an infant to obtain forgiveness, lets listen to the soon to be Bl. JPII on this matter, he carries a lot more weight than anyone debating limbo vs. heaven.

 

[Gregory_I]

i Want to make it clear I do not think Pope Benedict or JPII are heretics.

And I SEE what you are saying, but dogma can only apply to real life scenarios, and the only feasible real life Scenario for Florence’s dogma is an infant or mentally handicapped person dying before baptism.

Therwise, it’s abstract speculation, but that is not what dogma is.

 

[TomD123]

i Want to make it clear I do not think Pope Benedict or JPII are heretics.

And I SEE what you are saying, but dogma can only apply to real life scenarios, and the only feasible real life Scenario for Florence’s dogma is an infant or mentally handicapped person dying before baptism.

Therwise, it’s abstract speculation, but that is not what dogma is.

Ok, I see your point but is there any evidence that this is the case, in other words, how do we know that a dogma must actually occur in real life? Why can’t we say that the Council of Florence’s pronouncement is only hypothetical? The dogma would not be in vain because it would explain the importance of baptism and the fact that original sin is a complete lacking in God’s friendship. Also, the dogma would not be abstract speculation because it would be real in that if someone were to die in original sin alone, they would go to hell- not maybe would go to hell. But that is not completely satisfactory and so maybe only some of the infants who die w/o baptism are saved, making the dogma still applicable to real life. (for example, if the infants were given a choice at the moment of death, some would chose “no” and die in original sin alone)

 

[Gregory_I]

I think you would have to demonstrate that DOgmas can be understood then in a hypothetical sense: But that which is hypothetical is only possible, it may or may not be true: But dogmas are proposed for Truth and for the adherence of the Faithful as Factual and real statements:

“Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.””

So, Dogmas cannot mean other than what they say.

The Church intends to TEACH when it presents Dogmas, not philosophize. THerefore those dogmas must pertain to real life.

Can you list any Dogma other than the one in question that is considered only hypothetical or theoretical and not ACTUAL in its implementation?