What is so objectionable about Limbo?

[TomD123]

There is no other way. And it seems totally in conformity with scripture, tradition and the magisterium.

I mean, think about it, is it NOT more reasonable that those who implicitly desire the truth will have it revealed to them by God? If this were true, NOT ONE PERSON in the Americas before about 1500 would have accepted Christianity? That he will not allow them to die in a false religion that leads to death? That he will bring the sheep “Not of this fold” and make them of “the one fold.”

This idea does fit the Church’s teachings and does not contradict anything, however, the Church does allow for Baptism of implicit desire, therefore, we do not have to believe that God must bring those invincible ignorant people to the official Catholic Church.
It may be reasonable from our point of view for God to bring those who desire the truth into the CC BUT, God does not necessarily work in that way. God in many instances uses what we give him, and he works with the situation of the world to save people. So although God Could bring those to Christ the question is does he? Well he seems to allow them to be saved through implicit baptism of desire and the Church supports this. I have to point out that if you believe that all non-catholics (visibly) are going to hell, then you are saying that not a single devout Jew, Non-Catholic Christian, or even those who have never heard of Christianity could be saved, that does not seem fair. And the Church would agree currently.

As for the infants, why would God limit himself with water baptism, KNOWING all of the miscariges, abortions, etc. that would take place? It would make more sense for God to use another way to save infants if they do not receive water baptism.

 

[Gregory_I]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregory I
There is no other way. And it seems totally in conformity with scripture, tradition and the magisterium.

I mean, think about it, is it NOT more reasonable that those who implicitly desire the truth will have it revealed to them by God? If this were true, NOT ONE PERSON in the Americas before about 1500 would have accepted Christianity? That he will not allow them to die in a false religion that leads to death? That he will bring the sheep “Not of this fold” and make them of “the one fold.”

Yes, unfortunately, this is the conclusion we have to reach from what has been revealed. Why do you think sin is such a big deal? At the very least they would have died in original sin, and the mortal sins they commit against the law of God inscribed in their hearts which they did not seek to follow. THis alone is enough to condemn someone to hell. And, as Jesus says, “Unless a man be born of water, and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” “He that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten son.” Those lost in unbelief are condemned.
If by some miracle of grace any WERE saved, they were saved as Catholics, not as heathens, because without faith it is impossible to please God, and the sacraments are necessary for salvation. This is what the church currently teaches.

This idea does fit the Church’s teachings and does not contradict anything, however, the Church does allow for Baptism of implicit desire, therefore, we do not have to believe that God must bring those invincible ignorant people to the official Catholic Church.

**Yes, we do. Baptism of desire is not a dogma, it is an opinion, just like limbo. However, it is true that a person who has received from God a divine and Catholic faith and has manifested charity and at LEAST implicitly would desire the sacraments, could attain to justification. But the obligation to receive sacramental baptism remains, for this person is made just, but he does not have the special character of baptism or the remission of all his past sins and their temporal penalties.

But justification is not final glorification. It is being made right with God, but it is not the end of the story. A just man may sin, and he may lose his justification; and if a miraculous case convert were to sin, how can he be forgiven? For sins are not remitted to any but the baptized.**

It may be reasonable from our point of view for God to bring those who desire the truth into the CC BUT, God does not necessarily work in that way.

I am sorry, but he does, for if any were to be miraculously converted and come to a justifying faith, without which it is impossible to please God, They would be united to the Church.

God in many instances uses what we give him, and he works with the situation of the world to save people. So although God Could bring those to Christ the question is does he?

If they want salvation, he will bring it to them. He knows his sheep and his elect, and he gathers them together into a single fold. Outside of this fold, there is no salvation.

Well he seems to allow them to be saved through implicit baptism of desire and the Church supports this.

THere is no dogmatic definition of Baptism of desire: IN the context of the council of Trent it is ONLY described as an explicit desire for the sacraments, without which there is no salvation and HAS TO be preceded by a divine and Catholic faith that works in charity.

I have to point out that if you believe that all non-catholics (visibly) are going to hell, then you are saying that not a single devout Jew, Non-Catholic Christian, or even those who have never heard of Christianity could be saved, that does not seem fair. And the Church would agree currently.

THere is no “currently.” there is truth and there is flasehood. The church always proclaims the truth, though some of the shepherds can poison it and feed us it as falsehood. But I am not naming names here, I would not know where to begin…

**Actually, the church does not agree, according to the dogmas of the council of florence contained in the bull cantate domino by Pope Eugene IV:

**"It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those **not living within **the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

 

[Gregory_I]

“As for the infants, why would God limit himself with water baptism, KNOWING all of the miscariges, abortions, etc. that would take place? It would make more sense for God to use another way to save infants if they do not receive water baptism.”

**By the same token, why would God limit salvation to only those who have faith in Christ? Doesn’t he want all to be saved? Why did he have to send Jesus, couldn’t he have provided us with a more complete general salvation, after all, he knew some would not be saved?

On the contrary: He himself admits the vast majority will not be saved: “But broad is the path that leads to destruction, and narrow is the gate, and few there are who find it.”

No, God has established the means by which we are to Be saved: First by a Faith that is divine and God given, without which it is impossible to please him; that is followed up by the necessary reception of the sacraments that empower us to keep the commandments that are also necessary afor our salvation.

Apart from these, there is no salvation. Those in ignorance are not saved by ignorance, for ignorance is not sanctifying grace which ALONE justifies. Ignorance is either mortal sin itself, or the punishment for sin, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches.

God is unchanging, and he upholds what he has established, therefore, while the sacraments do not bind him, He has bound himself to them and will not work apart from them; because God does not change. Any miracles in this regard will occur in such a way that none of the necessary truths that he has revealed are compromised: THus, those saved without the church’s knowledge are saved as Catholics and really belong to the church: For there is no salvation outside the church. It is an “Enclosed garden” as described in the song of solomon, it is the river of life, it is the enclosed new jerusalem; and it is necessary that those who want salvation come to HER to drink, that they enter through the straight gate; those who climb over the wall are thieves and robbers as declared by the Lord himself.**

 

[TomD123]

Yes, unfortunately, this is the conclusion we(?- you mean you, I have concluded what the CC has concluded) have to reach from what has been revealed.
Yes, we do. Baptism of desire is not a dogma, it is an opinion, just like limbo. However, it is true that a person who has received from God a divine and Catholic faith and has manifested charity and at LEAST implicitly would desire the sacraments, could attain to justification. But the obligation to receive sacramental baptism remains, for this person is made just, but he does not have the special character of baptism or the remission of all his past sins and their temporal penalties. I do not dissagree here, the obligation remains and Baptism of desire does not imprint the special character of baptism.

But justification is not final glorification. I know, we must persevere until the end

If they want salvation, he will bring it to them. He knows his sheep and his elect, and he gathers them together into a single fold. Outside of this fold, there is no salvation.
This is dogma but what we define as the Church is what is in question. From the old Baltimore Catechism: “All are obliged to belong to the Catholic Church, In some way or another in order to be saved.”

THere is no “currently.” - That’s my point, and the CCC which is the most recent summary of Catholic teaching says that Baptism of Implicit desire exists

**Actually, the church does not agree, according to the dogmas of the council of florence contained in the bull cantate domino by Pope Eugene IV:

**

By the same token, why would God limit salvation to only those who have faith in Christ? Doesn’t he want all to be saved? Why did he have to send Jesus, couldn’t he have provided us with a more complete general salvation, after all, he knew some would not be saved? This is different. We must follow Christ, and those who FREELY CHOOSE not too, are subject to the punishment. But baptism is different, an infant neither chooses to BE or NOT BE baptized, therefore, my question remains, why would God not simply add a different form of baptism for the infants who die w/o baptism of water?

Apart from these, there is no salvation. Those in ignorance are not saved by ignorance- There was an article posted on this thread somewhere that talked about this, Baptism of Desire does not mean we are saved BY ignorance, but along WITH ignorance

God is unchanging, and he upholds what he has established, therefore, while the sacraments do not bind him, He has bound himself to them and will not work apart from them; because God does not change.

Do you accept the teachings of the Catechism? These statements are your conclusions about the dogmas of the faith and BoD, not the Church’s. The Church can explain her doctrines, and that is what the Catechism does.

 

[Gregory_I]

Yes, I affirm what is in the catechism, but I do not interpret it in any way that would contradict what previous catechisms taught, like the Catechism of the council of Trent. Why are you saying I am only interpreting my way, when my view is based on what the Councils and previous catechisms taught? The reason why is because we must understand THESE to understand how to interpret the New Catechism, because for SOME reason, they decided they needed to make a Catechism that sounds very different from previous catechisms.

So, when the **Authentic and Ordinary magisterium **says in the CCT:

“The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.”

And then in the CCC1261 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,"64 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.

I have to make a judgement call. Well, ontologically, truth precedes error, so, to err on the side of caution, I affirm the teaching of the ordinary magisterium as expressed by the CCT.
This is not Cafeteria Catholicism, because I accept a teaching of the
Ordinary Magisterium: That infants have no means of being saved other than baptism.

Plus, no one questioned this before the 60’s, so to hold to this new view is ridiculous to me.

And, if you stress the point that Par. 1261 is binding on me as a Catholic, my response is this: If God DOES make salvation available to infants, he does so in a way that does not contradict what has been revealed: Meaning he finds a way, before the soul leaves, to free them of original sin, to infuse sanctifying grace, and give them the gift of faith.

But God has not revealed that this takes place, and the Church says there is no other means for salvation aside from baptism, so I do not see it as possible.

Because God has bound himself to the sacraments.

How do I know? Because in salvation history, God makes covenants with his people in which he BINDS HIMSELF to the oath made in the covenant. Is he free to break it? NO, for in the covenant he made with abraham, he swears by himself that he will do such and such. What is the death of Christ? It is the New COVENANT, to which GOd has sworn and bound himself in Christ. Guess what the word “sacramentum” means? Oath.

In the sacraments we swear to God that we believe, and that we will live a faithful life to the Lord, giving ourselves completely to him. This means every aspect of our life: Sunday’s and Monday through Saturday, the boardroom, the family room and the bedroom. There is to be no picking and choosing which part of our lives we give to Christ. And we will do no picking and choosing as to what part of which sacrament he will enforce, and which part he will bypass. He is GOd, he does not change, and he has bound himself, in the new covenant, to the sacraments.

 

[Gregory_I]

athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2007/04/limbo-in-limbo.html

 

[TomD123]

---

And, if you stress the point that Par. 1261 is binding on me as a Catholic, my response is this: If God DOES make salvation available to infants, he does so in a way that does not contradict what has been revealed: Meaning he finds a way, before the soul leaves, to free them of original sin, to infuse sanctifying grace, and give them the gift of faith.*** This is what I believe

But God has not revealed that this takes place
I also believe this , and the Church says there are no other known, this is what the CCC is basically saying- we can only trust them to the mercy of God–means for salvation aside from baptism, so I do not see it as possible. Which is your view, a permissible one according to the Church

Because God has bound himself to the sacraments.

1. I will admit that although I disagree with you on limbo and the infants, but the CCC does allow for your view and in the past the Church has endorsed it, and it could very well be a reality.
2. God is bound by the sacraments in the sense that they are a covenant. God is not bound by the sacraments in the sense that they are the ONLY way in which he can save people, as you have said, you believe in explicit baptism of desire.
3. The biggest problem I have with what you have said is the idea that no one who is not officially Catholic may be saved. This was why I asked about the Catechism which explicitly states that those who are not officially Catholic may be saved, which is something you disagree with.

 

[Gregory_I]

1. I will admit that although I disagree with you on limbo and the infants, but the CCC does allow for your view and in the past the Church has endorsed it, and it could very well be a reality.

That is all I contend about LIMBO, but in the past posts I was talking about infants who are not baptized not having the beatific vision as dogma. LImbo is speculation on what they DO experience, but this dogma is about what they don’t. Do you know of any class of people besides infants that die in original sin alone?

1. God is bound by the sacraments in the sense that they are a covenant. God is not bound by the sacraments in the sense that they are the ONLY way in which he can save people, as you have said, you believe in explicit baptism of desire.

But I have also said this Explicit desire for baptism is not salvific: Essentially, yes, a man can be justified by it if he is preceded by faith and charity and is properly disposed: But what then? What hope does the ignorant have of remaining justified for more than a few days if Catholics Go to confession every week, and they have the sacraments available? He may Be justified for a short amount of time, but unless he dies before commiting a mortal sin, he will not remain justified; The sacraments are necessary for salvation, and to make an act of contrition that is really heartfelt, no man can ever know if they can do that. So in one sense, the sense put forth by trent, Yes, for the ignorant, An Explicit desire for baptism coupled with divine and Catholic faith can predispose a man to justification (in which case his ignorance is gone), and he may attain to it, but there is no way a man can persevere in grace in such a state without any kind of spiritual support from the sacraments which are necessary for salvation.

1. The biggest problem I have with what you have said is the idea that no one who is not officially Catholic may be saved. This was why I asked about the Catechism which explicitly states that those who are not officially Catholic may be saved, which is something you disagree with.

Those who are unofficially Catholic can be saved. If they become Catholic.

Look, any grace that would come to a person in ignorance would dispell that ignorance so they could receive the gift of faith so they could make an act of faith, by which means they would intend to receive the sacraments. In which case, they would be united to the church. But, in the absence of any ACTUAL sacraments and any sustaining spirituality, it is certain that they would not persevere.

'if the just man is barely saved, what of the unjust?"

"By the way, the theologians who are so sure of how easy it is for those outside the Faith to make a perfect act of love of God when they (the theologians) are talking about salvation, are very difficult persons for you or me to meet in the confessional box when they are talking about absolution from sins. If you said to them, “I made a perfect act of love of God,” they would say to you, “How do you know? That is presumption! No man knows whether he is worthy of love or hate!” They only allow the perfect act of love of God when they want to excuse themselves for not evangelizing Protestants and infidels.

With regard to a perfect act of love of God, the same principle applies in Confession, as in Baptism. If you commit a mortal sin and make a perfect act of love of God, the sin is forgiven. But you must mention this sin in your next Confession. If you do not, you return to the state of mortal sin. Everyone admits that.

Suppose I went to Confession and said, “Bless me, Father, for have sinned. But I am not going to tell you my sins. I committed many mortal sins, but I made perfect acts of love.”

“You had better tell me your sins!” the priest would say.

“Does not a perfect act of love forgive sins?”

“It does for an ignorant native, but not for you!”

That does not sound right, now does it?"

I appreciate the maturity you have shown, alot! Thanks for the resepect, I apologize if I have failed to show you respect.

 

[Gregory_I]

If there’s no limbo, and we are not going to revert to St. Augustine’s teaching on Original Sin and Infant Damnation, we can only conclude one thing: Everyone is born in a state of sanctifying grace!

Then Why are infants baptized?

To be incorporated into the church.

That is one effect, what else?

TO receive sanctifying Grace.

And…?

To be made a Child of God.

Keep going, what else?

…else?

To be freed from the stain and guilt of original sin with its personal Character, and to be rescued from Satan.

Why is this?

Because to die in original sin alone excludes one from the Beatific vision. TO deny this is a mortal Sin.

So if my baby dies without Baptism…?

Yes. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Limbo is no MERE theory or Hypothesis, it is the the constant teaching of Popes and the all the doctors and theologians from Augustine till the present; TO dismiss it, is to dismiss the tradition of the church.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

If there’s no limbo, and we are not going to revert to St. Augustine’s teaching on Original Sin and Infant Damnation, we can only conclude one thing: Everyone is born in a state of sanctifying grace!

Then Why are infants baptized?

To be incorporated into the church.

That is one effect, what else?

TO receive sanctifying Grace.

And…?

To be made a Child of God.

Keep going, what else?

…else?

To be freed from the stain and guilt of original sin with its personal Character, and to be rescued from Satan.

Why is this?

Because to die in original sin alone excludes one from the Beatific vision. TO deny this is a mortal Sin.

So if my baby dies without Baptism…? (But we don’t know if there is any way to intercede for these babies…there could be, The Lord is kind and merciful. We ask Our Lady, to pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, we believe in Divine Mercy we believe in Guardian Angels, we believe in a Timeless God who hears all our prayers. . Couldn’t God hear the prayers of heart broken parents to remove the stain of original sin from our babies through other means. Divine Mercy? None for babies? It isn’t their fault we couldn’t physically baptise them.

Yes. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Limbo is no MERE theory or Hypothesis, it is the the constant teaching of Popes and the all the doctors and theologians from Augustine till the present; TO dismiss it, is to dismiss the tradition of the church.

 

[thistle]

If there’s no limbo, and we are not going to revert to St. Augustine’s teaching on Original Sin and Infant Damnation, we can only conclude one thing: Everyone is born in a state of sanctifying grace!

Then Why are infants baptized?

To be incorporated into the church.

That is one effect, what else?

TO receive sanctifying Grace.

And…?

To be made a Child of God.

Keep going, what else?

…else?

To be freed from the stain and guilt of original sin with its personal Character, and to be rescued from Satan.

Why is this?

Because to die in original sin alone excludes one from the Beatific vision. TO deny this is a mortal Sin.

So if my baby dies without Baptism…?

Yes. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Limbo is no MERE theory or Hypothesis, it is the the constant teaching of Popes and the all the doctors and theologians from Augustine till the present; TO dismiss it, is to dismiss the tradition of the church.

Why do you keep on with these untruths.

Limbo has NEVER been a teaching of the Church.
We have NEVER been obliged to believe in Limbo.

The sacrament of Baptism is the means God gave the Church to communicate supernatural life to unbaptised infants.

God is not bound by his sacraments (this is a Church teaching and anyone who denies this commits heresy). Do you deny this Church teaching? YES or NO?

 

[Gregory_I]

Human beings, babies and adults do not deserve heaven, we are all born in original sin. God is under no obligation to give anyone heave. All who die in original sin alone cannot go to heaven.

If there is no limbo,
And unbaptized babies do not go to hell,
Then everyone must be born in a state of sanctifying grace, without which it is IMPOSSIBLE to see God.

Right? And only our Personal Sins send us to hell, right?

WRONG.

God is not obliged to give heaven to anyone. If anyone, ANYONE were to die right now, and God allowed them to go to hell, it would be just, because none of us deserve heaven, and we are getting what we deserve, thanks to original sin.

The child in the womb, tragic as it is, before baptism, is considered a child of wrath and condemned and sinful. As are all in sin and who commit personal mortal sin.

Babies are baptized to be saved from hell and death and the devil Without it, they are subject to the loss of beatific vision, the wrath of God remains upon them, and they are condemned.

At the moment of death, do not get hung up on the thought that a human being like a baby is in hell. THere are not currently any human beings in hell, There are human Souls in hell. THe human being is the hypostatic composite of body and soul. The Body being left nehind, the soul remains. It is human souls that are in heaven and hell. And the souls of unbaptized babies are without the beatific vision.

Thistle: Are babies born in sanctifying grace? Limbo has been taught by popes, it has been taught by its doctors and saints, it has been taught indirectly at florence and lyons, It has been taught by the Ordinary magisterium of the Church! The Church approved catechisms are part of the ordinary Magisterium.

audiosancto.org/sermon/20070422-Contra-Sedevacantism-and-the-Recent-Document-on-Limbo.html

Thistle, why do you keep insisting on a history you know nothing about apparently? If you knew what you were talking about, you would agree with the fact that unbaptized babies do not have the beatific vision as stated dogmatically by the COuncils of Florence and LyonsII.

Are babies born in sanctifying grace?

 

[Gregory_I]

Here is what POpe Sixtus V Taught in an Apostolic Constitution:

Real Quick, an Apostolic Constitution is a part of the Magisterium, the TEACHING authority of the church: According to Dr. Marcellino D’ambrosio:

"But as we examine the Papal Magisterium, we see that its teaching takes many forms. There are the daily homilies, audiences, and addresses (sometimes called “allocutions”). Then there are documents of various types. Some come from the Pope directly, such as apostolic letters, encyclicals, and ever more solemn “apostolic constitutions.” "

So If you take one of Pope Benedicts Encyclicals as the “Teaching of the Church” and Ordinary Magisterium, you should be prepared to receive the teaching of an "Apostolic Constitution, which is of Graver weight than an Encyclical:

"An apostolic constitution (Latin constitutio apostolica) is the highest level of decree issued by the Pope. The use of the term constitution comes from Latin constitutio, which referred to any important law issued by the Roman emperor, and is retained in church documents because of the inheritance that the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church received from Roman law.

By their nature, apostolic constitutions are addressed to the public. Generic constitutions use the title Apostolic Constitution, and treat on solemn matters of the church, such as the promulgation of statutes or definitive teachings. The forms Dogmatic Constitution and Pastoral Constitution are titles sometimes used to be more descriptive as to the document’s purpose.

Apostolic Constitutions are issued as Papal bulls due to their solemn, public form. The next highest category, after an Apostolic Constitution, is an Encyclical Letter."

Here is how this Apostolic Constitution “Effraenatam”, opens:

"Against those that procure abortions, or give sterility potions, or take them, or help these people, or give them counsel and consent.

SIXTUS V BISHOP

Servant of the Servants of God

For the perpetual memory of the matter.

 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, and has taken away the service to God by His creature? ** who has deprived children of life before they could naturally see light or could be protected by maternal body from ferocious cruelty? Who will not abhor the cruelty and unrestrained debauchery of impious men who have arrived into such a state of mind that they procure poisons in order to extinguish the conceived fetuses within the viscera, and pour them out, trying to provoke by a nefarious crime a violent and untimely death and killing of their progeny."

Please do not say that I teach untruth when the Pope here solemnly teaches with the highest level of decree besides ex cathedra, that the opposite is True. That unbaptized infants do not have the beatific vision.

Pope Sixtus V Clearly teaches that unbaptized children do not have the vision of God: And if it is taught by the pope, it is part of the authentic and ordinary magisterium, meaning it is taught by the church.

 

[Gregory_I]

Here is the Constant teaching of the church in brief:

Augustine:"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

1. Popes of the patristic era accepted as their own the doctrine of Augustine that unbaptized infants have the eternal torments of the damned in the fires of hell, yet suffer the lightest of these torments. We cite Pope Gregory the Great, Pope Zosimus and Pope Innocent I amongst others who taught this.

The teaching of Carthage was approved as a rule of the Faith by Pope St. Zosimus and Pope St. Innocent I and by the ecumenical councils, Specifically Ephesus which were approved by other popes:

“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

If Pope St. Innocent were writing to instruct all the Bishops of the church in this matter, what kind of response do you think the church should give? Hmmm…

“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 the Great (-604) taught the eternal torment of infants in his Moralia on the Book of Job.

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."

1. Pope Innocent III adopted the position of Abelard in the twelfth century that unbaptized infants will have the pain of loss but not the pain of fire.

Pope Innocent III (-1216) adopted the position of Abelard in the twelfth century. Abelard was** the first **theologian to dissent from the defined doctrine of hell fire for unbaptized infants. (Get this; for over 750 years the Roman Catholic Church believed and taught infant damnation. Stop and think. All the doctors of the church who defend it, believe they are defending something de fide. Tell Augustine it didn’t matter. HA!)

According to Pope Innocent III, infants suffer the pain of knowing that they have lost the vision of God but they do not have the pain of fire.

“Pope Innocent’s teaching is to the effect that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer ‘no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God.’ It should be noted, however, that this poena damni incurred for original sin implied, with Abelard and most of the early Scholastics, a certain degree of spiritual torment.” (Toner, Catholic Encyclopedia 1910, Limbo)

“[Those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer] no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God.”
-Pope Innocent III (1160-1216), Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii – Majores

1. Pope Pius X was the first pope to teach that unbaptized infants have no sufferings in his 1905 Catechism.

Remember, a Catechism that is promulagted ny the Pope carries the teaching authority of the Ordinary Magisterium:

“Q. #100 - Where do infants go who die without Baptism?
A. - Infants who die without Baptism go to Limbo where they do not enjoy the sight of God, but also do no suffer. This is because having original sin, and it alone, they do not merit heaven, but neither do they merit purgatory or hell.”
-Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X, first published in 1910 AD

 

[Gregory_I]

Notice the common thread here? All these different positions have a single common element: The unbaptized infant does not have the vision of God. That has been considered the constant teaching of the church. The points where they differ is the theory of limbo, that is where the debate is. There is NO debate however, that the popes unanimously agree that unbaptized infants do not have the beatific vision.

This is the legitimate development of doctrine,as we can see, the core truth Remains the same: Those who die in original sin only are deprived of the beatific vision. The details as to what infants DO experience though, are refined. But up to this point even, limbo has always been placed in hell, so really, infant damnation has never been taken off the table: It’s simply a question of what are the pains they suffer, and in which part of hell.

How is this not the teaching of the Church?

Are not the teachings of the Popes, ESPECIALLY the ones they intended the other Bishops of the Church to believe, teachings of the church? SO, please, do not tell me that the loss of the beatific vision is not part of the magisterium, it s doctrine in the church, and has been defined as dogma. The DETAILS of WHAT LIMBO CONSISTS OF are theory. Not that the unbaptized who die in original sin aloe are denied the vision of God. That is church dogma.

And no, I do not deny that God is not bound by his own sacraments.

I DENY that he has not bound HIMSELF to them! Our God is a God of covenant, and every covenant is an exchange of persons, whereby the persons involved are bound by a solemn oath. Guess what Sacrament means in Latin? Oath. THis reflects the covenantal nature of the sacraments, and hence God having sworn himself to them and to uphold them. GOd not only wills that all be saved, but he wills that all be saved by the MEANS which he has established! If he is changing his mind left and right and making exceptions and excuses, he is not God; for God cannot do anything imperfectly, and in fact, for you to deny that he CAN work in this fashion betrays a lack of faith in his justice, his sovereignty, and his mercy. He is the unchanging God: He is big enough to swear and not change his mind and to dispense mercy and to bring those to him who he will in the MANNER HE HAS ESTABLISHED. THAT is the constant teaching of the Church’s theologians.

That is what the document on the Fate of Unbaptized Children refers to (Which by the way was written by the International Theological Commision, which has NO MAGISTERIAL OFFICE. They are consultands for CDF):

" The theologians who taught, in one form or another, that unbaptised children are deprived of the vision of God generally held at the same time a double affirmation: (a) God wills that everyone be saved, and (b) God, who wills that all be saved, wills equally the dispensations and the means that he himself has established for this salvation and that he has made known to us by his revelation."

So, basically every theologian into the 20th century!

 

[SouthpawLink]

Gregory I,
I most certainly agree with you concerning Limbo (see below), although I must also disagree with you regarding baptism of desire, which has so much support from the Church’s Doctors, Popes and Theologians. I don’t see how it cannot be considered as being part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. It has never been condemned by the Holy See, but rather has been taught with her express approval for the last 450 years (not to mention the pre-Tridentine Doctors and Popes who taught BoD).

“The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell” (Pope Innocent III, III Decr., XLII, 3).

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments” (Second Council of Lyons, Profession of Faith of Michael Paleologus: Dz. 464).

“Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds” (Council of Florence, Laetentur Coeli: Dz. 693).

 

[Gregory_I]

+All I meant by baptism of desire, is that desire must be preceded by faith. And the desire that is referred to by the council of trent is no mere wish. It is an avowed intention to receive the sacrament of baptism. I do not mean to say it does not exist: I simply say that, as the church makes clear: Baptism of desire is an explicit desire for baptism, preceded by that faith, without which it is impossible to please God, enlivened by charity, with the intention of living as Christ has enjoined. THAT is a proper baptism of Desire.

And it can be implicit, but this is less likely;

but some say it is legitimate, say in the case of a guard who was going to kill a Christian and converted on the spot and called themselves a Christian and was martyred. Well, that’s baptism of blood, not an implicit desire for baptism. SO I am not really sure if such a thing can exist…I do not know for sure if the Church officially teaches anything about an IMPLICIT desire for baptism.

TO THE DOGMAS!

If only people realized, the BoD they love so much has the same theological status as limbo, and is justified in THE EXACT SAME WAY, then maybe they wouldn’t be in such a hurry to throw it out.

 

[SouthpawLink]

Gregory I,
Ah, maybe I’ve misunderstood you. I would guess that explicit baptism of desire is practically de fide (although not formally defined), whereas implicit baptism of desire is at least theologically certain, and it most certainly must be accompanied by divine faith (including explicit belief in the Incarnation and in the Blessed Trinity) and perfect charity or contrition.

 

[thistle]

Human beings, babies and adults do not deserve heaven, we are all born in original sin. God is under no obligation to give anyone heave. All who die in original sin alone cannot go to heaven.

If there is no limbo,
And unbaptized babies do not go to hell,
Then everyone must be born in a state of sanctifying grace, without which it is IMPOSSIBLE to see God.

Right? And only our Personal Sins send us to hell, right?

WRONG.

God is not obliged to give heaven to anyone. If anyone, ANYONE were to die right now, and God allowed them to go to hell, it would be just, because none of us deserve heaven, and we are getting what we deserve, thanks to original sin.

The child in the womb, tragic as it is, before baptism, is considered a child of wrath and condemned and sinful. As are all in sin and who commit personal mortal sin.

Babies are baptized to be saved from hell and death and the devil Without it, they are subject to the loss of beatific vision, the wrath of God remains upon them, and they are condemned.

At the moment of death, do not get hung up on the thought that a human being like a baby is in hell. THere are not currently any human beings in hell, There are human Souls in hell. THe human being is the hypostatic composite of body and soul. The Body being left nehind, the soul remains. It is human souls that are in heaven and hell. And the souls of unbaptized babies are without the beatific vision.

Thistle: Are babies born in sanctifying grace? Limbo has been taught by popes, it has been taught by its doctors and saints, it has been taught indirectly at florence and lyons, It has been taught by the Ordinary magisterium of the Church! The Church approved catechisms are part of the ordinary Magisterium.

Thistle, why do you keep insisting on a history you know nothing about apparently? If you knew what you were talking about, you would agree with the fact that unbaptized babies do not have the beatific vision as stated dogmatically by the COuncils of Florence and LyonsII.

Are babies born in sanctifying grace?

It is a Church teaching that God is not bound by his sacraments.
Do you accept or deny this Church teaching and please do not post 10,000 words of quotes to answer.
Just give a yes or no!!

 

[Gregory_I]

Yes, I believe God is not bound by his Sacraments. the sacraments do not have the effect of binding God by anything in them that is more powerful than God.

BUt I deny that he has not bound himself to them of his own free choice and will.See above.