What is so objectionable about Limbo?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gregory_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Five Opinions on the Penalty of Original Sin [St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church]

’ . . Let us begin with those who die unbaptized in infancy, and bring with them no other guilt than that of original sin. There are five several opinions concerning the punishment [supplicio] of such infants, ranging gradually from the utmost mildness to the utmost severity.

1.- The first opinion was that of those who dared to promise the Kingdom of Heaven to unbaptized children, even though they admitted them to be conceived and born in original sin. So held a certain Vincentius, whom St. Augustine refutes. . . Zwingli, in our age, fell into the same error . . . and this error, so far as concerneth the children of the faithful, is followed by many sectaries, as Bucer, Peter Martyr, and Calvin, whom I have refuted in my book on Baptism, chapter IV.
    • The next is indeed rather less liberal, yet very mild. It is that of those who, though excluding unbaptized infants from the Kingdom of Heaven, and from the blessed life promised to the saints, yet did grant them eternal life, and a natural happiness without any uneasiness or pain outside the Kingdom of Heaven, and far away from the prison of the damned; that is, midway between hell and heaven; which place can scarcely be imagined elsewhere than this terrestrial globe. St. Augustine, in chapter 85 of his book Of Heresies, teacheth that the Pelagians of old held this opinion: “For,” saith Augustine, “even to the unbaptized they promise a sort of life of their own, outside the Kingdom of God yet happy and everlasting.” . . . Thus the Pelagians promised to unbaptized infants not everlasting life in its simple sense [of Heaven] but, as Augustine saith, “a sort of everlasting life of their own.” The nearest approach to **this error **seems to have been made [among Catholics] by Ambrosius Catharinus in his book Of the State of Children that die unbaptized, by Albertus Pighius in his first Controversy, and by Jerome Savonarola in his Triumph of the Cross. For these teach that unbaptized infants, after the Last Judgment, shall be happy with a natural happiness [beatos natiirali beatitudine], and that they will live in perpetual felicity in a sort of Earthly Paradise.
3.- The third opinion, somewhat more severe, teacheth that infants dying unbaptized are condemned to eternal death in hell, but that they are thus punished by the lack of the Vision of God, which is called the penalty of loss, so that they suffer no pain whatsoever, whether outward or inward. So St. Thomas teaches in his De Malo (Q.V., art. i, 2 and 3) and not only he but some other scholastic doctors in their commentaries on [Peter Lombard’s] Sentences, Bk. II, dist. g.
    • **The fourth, yet more severe, doth indeed free the children from the torment of fire, and from that worm **of Mark ix, 44, “their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched,” which is properly called the penalty of sense, but it doth not free them from that inward pain which followeth from the loss of the blessedness of eternal felicity. This is the teaching of Peter Lombard {Sentences, Bk. II, dist. 33) and he is followed by some others, as enumerated by St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, Gregory of Rimini, and others in their commentaries on that passage.
  2. -** The fifth and extremest is the opinion of those who hold that infants, by reason of original sin, are tormented for ever in hell** both by poena damni and by poena sensus; that is the opinion to which Gregory of Rimini openly inclines in his comment on Sentences, II, 33, and John Driedo in his Grace and Free Will, Bk. I, tr. iii, c. 2.’
The heretics of our times delight specially in extreme opinions, wherefore they either place unbaptized infants with the blessed in heaven, as Zwingli and Calvin, or condemn them to everlasting fire, as may be plainly gathered from Luther, Melanchthon and others . . .

Of these aforesaid opinions, the first and second must be judged not only false but even heretical; as against them we must hold, by the Catholic faith, that infants dying unbaptized are absolutely condemned, and shall for ever lack not only heavenly but even natural happiness. And here it seems that we should note, by way of preface, that our own pity for dead infants doth avail them nought; nor, again, do we in any way harm them by the severity of our opinion; on the other hand, it is great harm to ourselves if, through a useless pity for the dead, we defend pertinaciously any opinion which is against Scripture or the Church; wherefore we must not here follow a certain human affection whereby many are commonly moved; but rather we should consult and follow the verdict of Scripture, the Councils, and the Fathers.’

St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church
 
Of these FIve points, I would say I hold to point 3.

3.- The third opinion, somewhat more severe, teacheth that infants dying unbaptized are condemned to eternal death in hell, but that they are thus punished by the lack of the Vision of God, which is called the penalty of loss, so that they suffer no pain whatsoever, whether outward or inward. So St. Thomas teaches in his De Malo (Q.V., art. i, 2 and 3) and not only he but some other scholastic doctors in their commentaries on [Peter Lombard’s] Sentences, Bk. II, dist. g.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
Gregory I,
Here is a very interesting article by Fr. John Hardon, SJ.

In light of this thread, what is your response to his message?
Click to expand...
Well, if Fr. Hardon is still exchanging Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide, his opinion is far to recent for some people on this thread.
 
I said I mostly agree with his opinion. I would simply clarify DOGMAS does NOT develop. DOctrines develop into dogmas, and there they are crystallized as final definitive statements on one facet of a particular doctrine. DOgmas irreformable by their nature and CAN be re-worded and such, but they can never be taken to mean the OPPOSITE of what they clearly delineate.

If everything is subject to re-interpretation constantly, how does the church teach clearly, as necessary to her office? 😉

Tommy, ad hominem is usually the last fallacy offered before people admit to having nothing to say. What are you saying? 🙂
 
Gregory_I said:
I said I mostly agree with his opinion. I would simply clarify DOGMAS does NOT develop. DOctrines develop into dogmas, and there they are crystallized as final definitive statements on one facet of a particular doctrine. DOgmas irreformable by their nature and CAN be re-worded and such, but they can never be taken to mean the OPPOSITE of what they clearly delineate.

If everything is subject to re-interpretation constantly, how does the church teach clearly, as necessary to her office? 😉

Tommy, ad hominem is usually the last fallacy offered before people admit to having nothing to say. What are you saying? 🙂
Click to expand...
I am saying that you are not the final authority on the understanding of what a dogma means. No one here is denying NAY dogma, we reject yor interpretation of said dogma. We prefer to rely ion the living Magesterium of the Church as summarized in the Catechism.
 
StTommyMore said:
Well, if Fr. Hardon is still exchanging Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide, his opinion is far to recent for some people on this thread.
Click to expand...
Fr. John Hardon died about 10 years ago. He lived a long, fruitful life of service to the Church.
 
Gregory_I said:
(Snipped for space)
Five Opinions on the Penalty of Original Sin [St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church]

’ . . Let us begin with those who die unbaptized in infancy, and bring with them no other guilt than that of original sin. There are five several opinions concerning the punishment [supplicio] of such infants, ranging gradually from the utmost mildness to the utmost severity.

1.- The first opinion was that of those who dared to promise the Kingdom of Heaven to unbaptized children, even though they admitted them to be conceived and born in original sin. So held a certain Vincentius, whom St. Augustine refutes. . . Zwingli, in our age, fell into the same error . . . and this error, so far as concerneth the children of the faithful, is followed by many sectaries, as Bucer, Peter Martyr, and Calvin, whom I have refuted in my book on Baptism, chapter IV.
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church
Click to expand...
I am going to make a few brief comments, then I am leaving this thread.

First and foremost, Gregory I, did you actually read the title of what you posted in your last post- it’s ***Five Opinions ***on the Penalty of Original Sin.
While St. Robert Bellarmine is a Doctor of the Church, he is not the Magisterium, therefore this is only his opinion!

Secondly, I have never said that the Kingdom of Heaven is promised to unbaptized infants.
Actually, the Kingdom of Heaven is promised to NO ONE!
It is only through God’s mercy that any of us will ever see Him face to face.
What I have said is that it is not for me, or anyone else to say unequivocally what will and will not happen to anyone.
God can do whatever He pleases and is not bound by the sacraments.

I have talked to 4 different priests, 2 deacons, 1 Bishop, a number of religious men & women and many members of the lay faithful. They all concur that much of what you have stated in this thread, while all true,
needs to be looked at in the context of which it was said, and to whom, and not as blanket instructions for all time.
The Church is a living, breathing entity, who must maintain her traditions while still reaching out to all who have not yet accepted the Good News.
If I were new to the faith, or was questioning whether or not to become Catholic, I would run, screaming in the other direction, if I met people like you, who try to put limits on God.😦
 
I love BIology, Time for dissection: 🙂

“What I have said is that it is not for me, or anyone else to say unequivocally what will and will not happen to anyone.”

**Patently False, God has clearly said what the consequences are for certain types of sin, and these apply to actual people. I do not presume to judge anothers heart, I say what the church has said:

“Those who die in mortal sin, or in originla sin alone, descend to hell, where they are punished, but with different punishments.”

That is a difinite end for a definite condition. Not my fault. If I saw you kill someone, and you died without offering repentance, I could say with moral certainty you are in hell.
If a child died without baptism and before reaching the age of reason, I can say with moral certainty this dogma applies to them, because they are the only REAL situation this dogma could apply to! And the mentally handicapped.**

“God can do whatever He pleases and is not bound by the sacraments.”

**Totally true. 100%, I applaud for knowing the greatness of God’s omnipotence…

…which is SO great, that when our great God acts in a covenantal relationship and willingly binds himself to us for oursake with conditions he sets forth and promises he makes, his omnipotence suffers no dimunition. Or is God not powerful enough for that?**

“I have talked to 4 different priests, 2 deacons, 1 Bishop, a number of religious men & women and many members of the lay faithful. They all concur that much of what you have stated in this thread, while all true, needs to be looked at in the context”

What context? What possible excuse for context could end up making a dogma that is TRUE (yet nobody wants to espouse and make their own in the only real way it CAN be applied) mean something other than what it clearly says? This is our church. This is what we believe. We can cry about it being unfair or we can say “The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.” "All his judgements are just."

“of which it was said, and to whom, and not as blanket instructions for all time.”

**How can to whom it was said matter? It was said, and it was taught, and that is that. What possible difference could it make who the audience was? Is 2+2 not 4 simply because the CONTEXT was that it was mentioned in an english class, and not a math class for example? Context is virtually irrelevant. The dogmatic truths and the constant teaching of the church are absolute truths which can be spoken of to anyone without any change in meaning.

***The problem with this line of thinking is it robs the church of its ability to TEACH! ***What good is it if you subject everything to change and reinterpretation? It’s a fallacy and contradicts the Church’s TEACHING on teaching: I will do a Favor and Actually quote Lumen Gentium, THe DOGMATIC Constitution on the Church:

"[The Pope] confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.

“…But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church. **The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents; *but a new ***public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.” LG 25]
**

“The Church is a living, breathing entity, who must maintain her traditions while still reaching out to all who have not yet accepted the Good News. If I were new to the faith, or was questioning whether or not to become Catholic, I would run, screaming in the other direction, if I met people like you, who try to put limits on God.”

**Uh, every magisterial document was once an act of the “living” magisterium, and every current reference to it in a magisterial document is the “living” magisterium.

What limits? Expecting him to keep his promises? Depending on his unchangable nature? Knowing that he did not establish his requirements in vain? Knowing that not only does he want all to be saved, but to be saved HIS WAY?

Did God limit himself when sending Christ? Would it not be enough for him to just sweep his hand and save us? No. It would not. and yes, he did limit himself to Christ, who limited himself to our humanity, because God acts to fulfill perfect justice, and he does all things in the BEST way. And if the only way to be saved is the sacraments, it is the BEST way.

Your perspective actually limits God, because it subjects him to doing what you perceive as just ; not what he has promised and chosen to do in accord with the CONSTANT teaching of the church, which is irreformable.**

The Church speaks for itself, it needs no interpretation, I simply present it. I do not interpret anything, I simply say what has been said. I take the Church’s voice as my own.
 
although some may believe that infants go to limbo, which as i have said before may very well be the case, it is not dogma. If it were dogma the Catechism would be denying dogma. I do not claim that the Catchism is perfect, a of dogma, infallible, or even perfectly holy and accurate I simply state that the Catechism does not TEACH heresy. If it is dogma that infants who die without water sacramental baptism go to hell (limbo) then the Catechism permits a heretical belief, making the catechism heretical and a danger to the faith???
 
I won’t talk past you Tom. I do not believe the CCC to be heretical. I do not believe that it teaches rror. I believe that where it expounds doctrines and dogmas, it does so faithfully. I do believe though that certain opinions of theologians have crept in that are not of faith, and taken the history of the church as a whole, are even novel. 1261 is a case in point, for it references no magisterial documents to back its claim for “hope.” The wider tradition of the church at large should “interpret” the Catechism: It MUST be read in the light of what has gone before. And plainly, this fact is ignored.

Robert Bellarmines “opinions” on the effects of original sin I gave above list the DETAILS as opinon: The unerlying doctrine which is fundamentally rooted in dogmas can plainly be seen, except in the case of number 1. And that is : Unbaptized children who die do not see the face of God.
 
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.:hmmm:
 
Well, Maria, what are the effects of Original Sin? DO they apply to everyone? Does anyone deserve heaven? Why would an infant deserve heaven?

We are all born condemned, and God doesn’t owe us.

So why should unbaptized children go to heaven?

No one is born innocent.

WE are all under the wrath of God, and are sinners who are deprived of sanctifying grace. What you say was taught by the heretic pelagius as well as the heretics Zwingli and John Hus.

Without baptism, Children cannot obtain the remission of original sin. The Saints, theologians, doctors, and dogmas of the church assert this.
 
Gregory_I said:
Well, Maria, what are the effects of Original Sin? DO they apply to everyone? Does anyone deserve heaven? Why would an infant deserve heaven?

We are all born condemned, and God doesn’t owe us.

So why should unbaptized children go to heaven?

No one is born innocent.

WE are all under the wrath of God, and are sinners who are deprived of sanctifying grace. What you say was taught by the heretic pelagius as well as the heretics Zwingli and John Hus.

Without baptism, Children cannot obtain the remission of original sin. The Saints, theologians, doctors, and dogmas of the church assert this.
Click to expand...
I am not sure we worship the same God. My God tempers His divine justice with mercy. I do not see any evidence of mercy in your God.
 
Uh, what’s that I said about ad hominem…

Use intelligence.

Does anyone deserve heaven by right?

What are the effects of Original Sin?

What does GOd have to do with the effects? He doesn’t cause them.

What is the infallible teaching of the church?

Why are infants baptized?

You hold to the heresy of Pelagius apparently.

Session 5 canon 4 Council of Trent.

"4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that** they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting**,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it.** For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. **

The last phrase is said in a canon about infants, for infants, and thus applies to infants, making it infallible in this context. Without baptism they cannot enter heaven.

Trent said it.
 
ad hominem: “against the man.” Ad ad hominem addresses the person, rather than the argument. My statement is about your depiction of God as wrathful and vengeful. IMy post was pretty much the opposite of an ad hominem.
 
Gregory_I said:
The last phrase is said in a canon about infants, for infants, and thus applies to infants, making it infallible in this context. Without baptism they cannot enter heaven.

Trent said it.
Click to expand...
As far as has been revealed, but God has not bound Himslef to the Sacraments. I have a book for you to read. Foundations of Christian Faith by Karl Rahner. It isn’t easy reading, unless you have a strong background in philosophy. Read it with an open mind, and listen to Rahner’s arguments of what grace truly is: God’s self-revealing love to all of humanity.
 
StTommyMore said:
I am not sure we worship the same God. My God tempers His divine justice with mercy. I do not see any evidence of mercy in your God.
Click to expand...
But Gregory I believes (and so do I) that Jesus came and died for our sins. Is this not evidence of mercy?
 
THat we are Children of Wrath is the Teaching of the Church:
  1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
  2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
  3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be [Page 23] saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.
Adam INcurred wrath and indignation and guilt: He passed it on to us, we are born under the wrath and indignation of God, and we are GUILTY OF ADAM’S SIN, so none are born wholly innocent.

THerefore none desrve Heaven.

God is not under any obligation to give anyone heaven.

THerefore those who die under the wrath of God, justly condemned, and without grace cannot see the face of GOd, as per florence, ad nauseam.

You say I do not take into account GOd’s mercy. I say I do, he does not allow unbaptized children to be punished the same as those who are guilty of Mortal sin: THey simply are not in his presence.

You say God is all merciful and just, yet you offer no example of his justice. How is it just for God to open up heaven to those whom the church teaches don’t belong there? How is it just for those who are guillty and uncleansed of sin, for which an eternal penalty must be payed, to be allowed entry into eternal reward?
 
Gregory I-
I am assuming you are quoting from Trent.
It would be nice if you posted a link, so that others may read what you are quoting in it’s full context.

Here is a post from another thread in this forum. I humbly suggest that you really read what Br. JR is saying and pray about it.

The CCC states:
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” ***God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself ***is not bound by his sacraments.
Click to expand...
I am really not sure why you think that it is OK to not believe this?🤷
Gregory_I said:
THat we are Children of Wrath is the Teaching of the Church:
  1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
  2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
  3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be [Page 23] saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top