What is so objectionable about Limbo?

[Gregory_I]

Of course. But this can never override his justice. He longs to give more mercy to those who will accept mercy: But in the absence of willing acceptance, there only remains a prospect of dreadful judgement. Too many Catholics are forgetting this…

We are not all saved de facto, but condemned. Humanity is a mass of damnation going to hell in a handbasket. GOd wills to save some to manifest his mercy, and not others to manifest his justice. If all were damned we would never know his mercy. If all were saved we would never know his justice.

Some are therefore saved. Some are not.

 

[coconutty]

Is Limbo just for unbaptized babies, or unbaptized adults also, as long as they are not in a state of mortal sin?

---

Ora pro nobis, Nostrum Eternus Era!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JnSrxGjaqnQ/TBKwwEBET3I/AAAAAAAACKs/39JnimkbUO8/s400/immaculateheart1.jpg

 

[Gregory_I]

The Church teaches that those who die in original sin alone go to hell. THere, they are punished, but differently than those who die in mortal sin.

Generally, we can call that part of hell where those whoa re guilty of original sin are punished “Limbo.” This does not imply it is a third state, it is a state of condemnation.

So, if an adult could somehow make it into his early 20’s and somehow never choose to commit a mortal sin, but die unbaptized, then they would be punished with the same punishment that the unbaptized infants receive.

Remember, God owes no one heaven, Original sin condemns us to hell, there is no way to be saved apart from baptism, or the Vowed intention to receive it, and ignorance has a quality of sin according to Pope Innocent III and St. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine and Plato and Aristotle and a gazillion others. Put it all together: ANd you get Augustinianism.

 

[meltzerboy]

The Church teaches that those who die in original sin alone go to hell. THere, they are punished, but differently than those who die in mortal sin.

Generally, we can call that part of hell where those whoa re guilty of original sin are punished “Limbo.” This does not imply it is a third state, it is a state of condemnation.

So, if an adult could somehow make it into his early 20’s and somehow never choose to commit a mortal sin, but die unbaptized, then they would be punished with the same punishment that the unbaptized infants receive.

Remember, God owes no one heaven, Original sin condemns us to hell, there is no way to be saved apart from baptism, or the Vowed intention to receive it, and ignorance has a quality of sin according to Pope Innocent III and St. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine and Plato and Aristotle and a gazillion others. Put it all together: ANd you get Augustinianism.

So, according to Catholicism, one is born “guilty,” so to speak, and one MUST be baptized to remove or purify the original sin. And even if an adult believes in Jesus with all heart and soul, but is not baptized, s/he is not going to heaven according to Catholic teaching? Is being a “born-again” Protestant considered an acceptable form of baptism for salvation according to Catholicism, or does the baptism require a sacramental form of some kind, or specifically a Catholic baptism is required?

 

[Gregory_I]

So, according to Catholicism, one is born “guilty,” so to speak, and one MUST be baptized to remove or purify the original sin. And even if an adult believes in Jesus with all heart and soul, but is not baptized, s/he is not going to heaven according to Catholic teaching? Is being a “born-again” Protestant considered an acceptable form of baptism for salvation according to Catholicism, or does the baptism require a sacramental form of some kind, or specifically a Catholic baptism is required?

Baptism is necessary for salvation. THere is no way around that for Catholics. THere are many people who tout invincible ignorance, as if ignorance and God’s grace are synonymous; they are not.

The best way for me to describe it, is that Jesus said that unless a man is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus told this to Nicodemus, who was a Pharisee, in John Chapter 3.

The Ecumenical Council of Trent, which speaks on behalf of the whole church and therefore is binding on the whole church, has infallibly equated Jesus’ statement in John 3 with Sacramental Water Baptism: COuncil of Trent Session 7, On Baptism, Canon 2.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

Clearly The Council envisions Christ’s Plain meaning: “Those who are not baptized cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven.” As Applies to John Chapter 3.

However, the only Notable exception which has some basis in an ecumenical council is What Trent had said earlier in the decree on Justification: Session 6 Chapter iv:

CHAPTER IV.

"A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

Many People try and say “See, baptism of desire, a person in goodwill can be saved if they had known about baptism, therefore GOd must offer them the oppurtunity to somehow be miraculously baptized or have the effects of baptism applied post-humously.”

That is not what is said. There is no way to be saved except baptism, or the vowed intention to receive it. TO desire it, you have to know about it; TO know about it you have to hear about it; to hear about it, you must be dispelled from ignorance.

So, no, THe Jesus-only individualistic, Protestant “Born-again” experience is not conducive to salvation, because it is not loving GOd on his terms as established through the Church, it is loving God on MY terms.

COuld he be a Jew in SPirit who was not circumcised? COuld he take parts of the law and not the whole and claim to be a follower of Mosse and Yod Heh Waw Heh?

No. Half-measures only get you half-way. And halfway is not home.

 

[fbl9]

Excuse me if this has already been covered:
What of the baptism of blood? Could this be applied only to aborted children?in their directly obtaining heaven.

 

[Gregory_I]

Baptism of blood could be applied to a child that was EXPLICITLY killed for the faith of Christ. However, this has only ever been the case with the Holy Innocents, that I know of in terms of canonized saint; and it was before Baptism was made obligatory on man by Christ. But they are considered Martyrs.

But not all aborted Children are aborted explicitly on account of Christ.

This Part is not speculation, but dogma:

Therefore they die in original sin alone. Therefore, according to the Church, they descend to hell, to be punished, but differently than those who die in mortal sin.

This Part is Theologically Certain:

The Punishment for dying in original sin alone is not The physical torments of hellfire, but the loss of the Vision of God.

This last part is General Theological Speculation:

The Place where this Torment of Loss takes place would be called limbo: But it is no third place, it is a part of hell, but removed from the Torment of Fire.

 

[meltzerboy]

Baptism is necessary for salvation. THere is no way around that for Catholics. THere are many people who tout invincible ignorance, as if ignorance and God’s grace are synonymous; they are not.

The best way for me to describe it, is that Jesus said that unless a man is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus told this to Nicodemus, who was a Pharisee, in John Chapter 3.

The Ecumenical Council of Trent, which speaks on behalf of the whole church and therefore is binding on the whole church, has infallibly equated Jesus’ statement in John 3 with Sacramental Water Baptism: COuncil of Trent Session 7, On Baptism, Canon 2.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

Clearly The Council envisions Christ’s Plain meaning: “Those who are not baptized cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven.” As Applies to John Chapter 3.

However, the only Notable exception which has some basis in an ecumenical council is What Trent had said earlier in the decree on Justification: Session 6 Chapter iv:

CHAPTER IV.

"A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

Many People try and say “See, baptism of desire, a person in goodwill can be saved if they had known about baptism, therefore GOd must offer them the oppurtunity to somehow be miraculously baptized or have the effects of baptism applied post-humously.”

That is not what is said. There is no way to be saved except baptism, or the vowed intention to receive it. TO desire it, you have to know about it; TO know about it you have to hear about it; to hear about it, you must be dispelled from ignorance.

So, no, THe Jesus-only individualistic, Protestant “Born-again” experience is not conducive to salvation, because it is not loving GOd on his terms as established through the Church, it is loving God on MY terms.

COuld he be a Jew in SPirit who was not circumcised? COuld he take parts of the law and not the whole and claim to be a follower of Mosse and Yod Heh Waw Heh?

No. Half-measures only get you half-way. And halfway is not home.

Thank you for the detailed information on this issue. I had thought that Catholics were deeply divided on the notion of salvation with or without baptism, some even claiming that non-Christians can be saved due to their ignorance of Jesus as well as their good works in lieu of faith. However, that would still mean they are not baptized. I suppose the traditional viewpoint is in keeping with baptism. That does rule out though a large number of Christians who are Protestants, does it not? Or are many Protestants also baptized? And Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus don’t have any chance of salvation since lack of baptism trumps ignorance of Jesus?

 

[fbl9]

Thank you for the detailed information on this issue. I had thought that Catholics were deeply divided on the notion of salvation with or without baptism, some even claiming that non-Christians** can** be saved due to their ignorance of Jesus as well as their good works in lieu of faith. However, that would still mean they are not baptized. I suppose the traditional viewpoint is in keeping with baptism. That does rule out though a large number of Christians who are Protestants, does it not? Or are many Protestants also baptized? And Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus don’t have any chance of salvation since lack of baptism trumps ignorance of Jesus?

“can be saved” does not nescessary mean they are savedrather they are entrusted to the mercy of God.
Regarding the baptsim of protestants if they are baptised using the tritarine (sic?) formula they are considered baptised.
Personally it seems to me that Jews don’t really have an “ingorance” of Christ.Considering , as a christian, that Christ is the promised messiah whom was first promised to the Jewish peoples then to the gentiles.
As for the Muslims they are gentiles who have made Christ into what He is not.Personally i can not say they have not a chance of salvaltion.
The others could have a chance at the claim of invincalbe ignorance.

 

[meltzerboy]

“can be saved” does not nescessary mean they are savedrather they are entrusted to the mercy of God.
Regarding the baptsim of protestants if they are baptised using the tritarine (sic?) formula they are considered baptised.
Personally it seems to me that Jews don’t really have an “ingorance” of Christ.Considering , as a christian, that Christ is the promised messiah whom was first promised to the Jewish peoples then to the gentiles.
As for the Muslims they are gentiles who have made Christ into what He is not.Personally i can not say they have not a chance of salvaltion.
The others could have a chance at the claim of invincalbe ignorance.

Thank you for the interesting information. It seems then that, according to Catholicism, belief in Jesus is necessary but NOT enough for salvation: the baptism ritual is absolutely required as well. (Or has the argument been made that if one is not baptized, one does not truly believe in Jesus?) On the other hand, for many Protestants, belief in Jesus is virtually ALL that is required for salvation. Is that your understanding of one of the key differences (I know there are several others) between these two branches of Christianity?

 

[Gregory_I]

THere are certain dispositions in those capable of rational thought that are required for baptism to be effective:

1. YOu must have a firm understanding of what the Church teaches about the person of Christ, the Trinity.
2. YOu must assent to that teaching.
3. YOu must approach at LEAST with an internal disposition that presents no obstacles to the faith of the church. YOu have to be WILLING to believe everything, even if you do not KNOW everything.
4. YOu must express sorrow for your sin, and desire to change, and you must exhibit christian charity.

If a person was baptized as an adult, and they accepted that baptism, even if they did not have full knowledge of everything they were getting into, but were docile to the faith; that baptism was valid AND efficacious.

If a person was baptized as an adult simply because everyone else was, and had no inkling of faith, they just went through a ritual for social standing (Like the Jews and Muslims in Spain in the 15th century who were baptized but secretly practicing their religion) It would be valid: IT would leave a sacramental mark and character on the soul, but the person would derive no graces from it.

Your intention matters. You must be at least docile to the Faith and open to it.

Once again: Sanctifying grace is absolutely necessary to salvation. THere is no other way the Church knows of to convey sanctifying grace apart from Baptism. GOd has willed the means of salvation, and GOd is unchanging.

Invincible ignorance does not mean they are not punished for sin: It means they are not guilty of one particular kind of sin: Unbelief. But there are a million other sins to commit which damn a person in invincible ignorance. Plus, consider that the means of salvation are what they are by Christ’s command, and to (not saying you are) look for excuses as to why people do not need the whole truth to be saved is unfair to them, in refusing them the whole truth, and unfair to the Church, which knows no salvation apart from Baptism, or the Intention to receive baptism, after having heard of it.

Yes, it is rigorist, but we need it. When the church suffers moral Crises, it doesn’t get better when people are encouraged in their laxity: Rigor is what leads to vigour. People need to wake up to that. It was when they were being PERSECUTED and KILLED BY THE SCORES that Christian penance was so incredibly difficult.

In this world where we make salvation so easy, it seems what we can use is a return to greater vigour, through greater rigor. Like Blaise Pascal said: “Never have confessions been so frequent, and communions so frequent…and sin so rampant.”

 

[Pug]

Thank you for the interesting information. It seems then that, according to Catholicism, belief in Jesus is necessary but NOT enough for salvation: the baptism ritual is absolutely required as well. (Or has the argument been made that if one is not baptized, one does not truly believe in Jesus?) On the other hand, for many Protestants, belief in Jesus is virtually ALL that is required for salvation. Is that your understanding of one of the key differences (I know there are several others) between these two branches of Christianity?

The ritual itself (the proper words and the water) is not absolutely required for all. For example, a person who is preparing to be Catholic, who intends to be baptized soon but dies suddenly, such a person is not without hope. Their desire to be baptized suffices in that case. Note that there remains a reference to baptism in my description of the situation. The person *desired *baptism.

I think some Protestants would say that the Catholic teaching on baptism is very bothersome to them. It might be better to classify the difference as one concerning “sacraments”, what they do, how they work, their institution, their usefulness and meaning. Sacraments do seem to represent a genuine difference. Remember, though, that it is difficult to treat Protestants as one group in some ways. For a simple example, some will baptize infants and some won’t.

 

[meltzerboy]

THere are certain dispositions in those capable of rational thought that are required for baptism to be effective:

1. YOu must have a firm understanding of what the Church teaches about the person of Christ, the Trinity.
2. YOu must assent to that teaching.
3. YOu must approach at LEAST with an internal disposition that presents no obstacles to the faith of the church. YOu have to be WILLING to believe everything, even if you do not KNOW everything.
4. YOu must express sorrow for your sin, and desire to change, and you must exhibit christian charity.

If a person was baptized as an adult, and they accepted that baptism, even if they did not have full knowledge of everything they were getting into, but were docile to the faith; that baptism was valid AND efficacious.

If a person was baptized as an adult simply because everyone else was, and had no inkling of faith, they just went through a ritual for social standing (Like the Jews and Muslims in Spain in the 15th century who were baptized but secretly practicing their religion) It would be valid: IT would leave a sacramental mark and character on the soul, but the person would derive no graces from it.

Your intention matters. You must be at least docile to the Faith and open to it.

Once again: Sanctifying grace is absolutely necessary to salvation. THere is no other way the Church knows of to convey sanctifying grace apart from Baptism. GOd has willed the means of salvation, and GOd is unchanging.

Invincible ignorance does not mean they are not punished for sin: It means they are not guilty of one particular kind of sin: Unbelief. But there are a million other sins to commit which damn a person in invincible ignorance. Plus, consider that the means of salvation are what they are by Christ’s command, and to (not saying you are) look for excuses as to why people do not need the whole truth to be saved is unfair to them, in refusing them the whole truth, and unfair to the Church, which knows no salvation apart from Baptism, or the Intention to receive baptism, after having heard of it.

Yes, it is rigorist, but we need it. When the church suffers moral Crises, it doesn’t get better when people are encouraged in their laxity: Rigor is what leads to vigour. People need to wake up to that. It was when they were being PERSECUTED and KILLED BY THE SCORES that Christian penance was so incredibly difficult.

In this world where we make salvation so easy, it seems what we can use is a return to greater vigour, through greater rigor. Like Blaise Pascal said: “Never have confessions been so frequent, and communions so frequent…and sin so rampant.”

Thank you again for your detailed explanation. Love Pascal’s “Pensees” by the way.

 

[meltzerboy]

The ritual itself (the proper words and the water) is not absolutely required for all. For example, a person who is preparing to be Catholic, who intends to be baptized soon but dies suddenly, such a person is not without hope. Their desire to be baptized suffices in that case. Note that there remains a reference to baptism in my description of the situation. The person *desired *baptism.

I think some Protestants would say that the Catholic teaching on baptism is very bothersome to them. It might be better to classify the difference as one concerning “sacraments”, what they do, how they work, their institution, their usefulness and meaning. Sacraments do seem to represent a genuine difference. Remember, though, that it is difficult to treat Protestants as one group in some ways. For a simple example, some will baptize infants and some won’t.

Interesting, but I wonder whether others would agree with you regarding the intention and desire to be baptized is sufficient if the baptism did not actually occur. It makes sense to me, but you know how particular our religions are about actually performing the rituals as well as believing them, of course. Yes, I am aware of the multitude of Protestant denominations and their varying practices and beliefs. Thank you for the information.

 

[Pug]

Interesting, but I wonder whether others would agree with you regarding the intention and desire to be baptized is sufficient if the baptism did not actually occur. It makes sense to me, but you know how particular our religions are about actually performing the rituals as well as believing them, of course. Yes, I am aware of the multitude of Protestant denominations and their varying practices and beliefs. Thank you for the information.

I would be highly surprised if Gregory I or some of the others disagreed about the possibility of baptism of desire. Naturally you must wait to hear from them, but on this particular board, the traditional board, the Baltimore Catechism is likely to be accepted among the Catholic inhabitants. Here are some quotes from Baltimore Catechism #2:

157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
**161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?**A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Less traditional folks would perhaps quote the newer Catechism. Please note this vocabulary, a catechumen is a person preparing to be baptized. I was assuming the proper disposition of heart, of course, which this passage mentions:

**1259 **For *catechumens *who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

In case if you are not familiar with what a “catechism” is, these are books that are designed to pass on or teach the faith.

 

[StTommyMore]

I would be highly surprised if Gregory I or some of the others disagreed about the possibility of baptism of desire. Naturally you must wait to hear from them, but on this particular board, the traditional board, the Baltimore Catechism is likely to be accepted among the Catholic inhabitants. Here are some quotes from Baltimore Catechism #2:

157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
**161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?**A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Less traditional folks would perhaps quote the newer Catechism. Please note this vocabulary, a catechumen is a person preparing to be baptized. I was assuming the proper disposition of heart, of course, which this passage mentions:

**1259 **For *catechumens *who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

In case if you are not familiar with what a “catechism” is, these are books that are designed to pass on or teach the faith.

Between the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Catechism itself, there is no reason that one would need to rely on the older Catechisms. In fact to do so actually implies that there is something erroneous with the Catechism.

 

[Pug]

Between the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Catechism itself, there is no reason that one would need to rely on the older Catechisms. In fact to do so actually implies that there is something erroneous with the Catechism.

I will disagree in a friendly way. I think one often relies upon what one has memorized already. I do not see this as indicating something erroneous about the book with the more recent publication date. It is simply a fact of how our brains work.

Aside from my mind immediately producing, “there are three kinds of baptism,…”, I think it can be helpful to quote something with which the audience is the most familiar. By audience here, I mean the Catholics populating the Traditional board, not our Jewish visitor. That way there is less chance of my point being taken to be some other point than the one I intended.

BTW, I am hoping to catch a glimpse of this newly rumored youth catechism. I am interested to see if the answers are super short and concise. That is one of the main appealing factors of the BC for me.

 

[Gregory_I]

Actually, that is totally ridiculous. Pope John Paul CANNOT abrogate any former Catechism that is proulgated by the Magisterium; No pope can, because to do so would break with the Church’s constant teaching.

Pay attention, read the beginning of your Catechism in his apostolic decree Promulgating the Catechism (WHich uses no binding language, just basically offers it as a good suggestion)

“This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine.”

 

[StTommyMore]

I will disagree in a friendly way. I think one often relies upon what one has memorized already. I do not see this as indicating something erroneous about the book with the more recent publication date. It is simply a fact of how our brains work.

Aside from my mind immediately producing, “there are three kinds of baptism,…”, I think it can be helpful to quote something with which the audience is the most familiar. By audience here, I mean the Catholics populating the Traditional board, not our Jewish visitor. That way there is less chance of my point being taken to be some other point than the one I intended.

BTW, I am hoping to catch a glimpse of this newly rumored youth catechism. I am interested to see if the answers are super short and concise. That is one of the main appealing factors of the BC for me.

One of the reasons I like the COmpendium is that it does provide memorizable paragraphs, but I have my reservations about the Catechetical use of rote memorization.

 

[StTommyMore]

Actually, that is totally ridiculous. Pope John Paul CANNOT abrogate any former Catechism that is proulgated by the Magisterium; No pope can, because to do so would break with the Church’s constant teaching.

Pay attention, read the beginning of your Catechism in his apostolic decree Promulgating the Catechism (WHich uses no binding language, just basically offers it as a good suggestion)

“This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine.”

Why the knee-jerk defensiveness? The Holy See most definitely does have the authority to issue new Catechisms and replace older ones. At any rate, the current Catechism would hold higher authority than the BC, as it was not universal, but in use in North America.