What is so objectionable about Limbo?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gregory_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
The compendium has paragraphs, not one sentence answers. For the raw beginner, one sentence alone can be a helpful thing. I like that the compendium has Q&A. That is a good feature. It is almost like the questions themselves tell me something. They indicate what is important, and how information is organized in a Catholic’s brain (recall I am a convert). In some ways I think I would have found it more enlightening to have encountered the compendium before I encountered the CCC.
 
The compendium has paragraphs, not one sentence answers. For the raw beginner, one sentence alone can be a helpful thing. I like that the compendium has Q&A. That is a good feature. It is almost like the questions themselves tell me something. They indicate what is important, and how information is organized in a Catholic’s brain (recall I am a convert). In some ways I think I would have found it more enlightening to have encountered the compendium before I encountered the CCC.
Also, the “in brief” sections in the CCC are good for short memorizable passages that give the “nuts and bolts.” But as i said before, simple memorization has limited use for catechesis. It is one thing to memorize a couple of sentences, and quite another to really understand the truth being conveyed.
 
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.
THere is no knee-jerk here. Simply a reaction to a false notion: The current Catechism abrogates all other former Catechisms:

False.

THe ROman Catechism as Promulgated by the COuncil of Trent was binding until 1992, and is STILL binding in the order of truth. THat is more than 440 years.

Nobody said anything about the Baltimore Catechism, although I think it does a better job at the basics than the CCC, because it teaches clearly and consistently using the traditional Scholastic language.
 
THere is no knee-jerk here. Simply a reaction to a false notion: The current Catechism abrogates all other former Catechisms:

False.

THe ROman Catechism as Promulgated by the COuncil of Trent was binding until 1992, and is STILL binding in the order of truth. THat is more than 440 years.

Nobody said anything about the Baltimore Catechism, although I think it does a better job at the basics than the CCC, because it teaches clearly and consistently using the traditional Scholastic language.
The Baltimore Catechism was the issue. Read the posts again. The Roman Catechism was not promulgated by Trent, but rather came out after Trent to help settle the ensuing confusion. After every council there was a period of confusion with regards to what was taught. All I see form your posts is a distrust ov anything that came out of the Vatican in the last 50 years.
 
That’s because it’s vague and ambiguous and does not serve to correct error, in fact, it serves to muddle the issues at hand.

I won’t say the documents that came out after the Vatican II were heretical, nor the encyclicals of any of the popes; THey’re not clear enough for that.

Instead, we live in an era where seemingly pointless deviations from past practices which are not “wrong” in themselves produce “Tendencies.”

THe Promulgation of Frequent COmmunion for example has a TENDENCY to produce laxity in regards to the most blessed sacrament. All though it does not do so in ALL, it does in most. Just read the statistics. Less than 30% of the Faithful (IF you can call them that) believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. That’s what I heard anyway.

Look at the Promulgation of the New mass in its HIJACKED form in the Vernacular COMPLETELY and facing the People. NOthing intrinsically evil there surely. Except it produces a TENDENCY to focus on the Priest’s person, and not the person of Christ acting in the priest, it is plainly banal (Not elevated or lofty), Vulgar (Common and everyday language), and profane (Makes use of musical settings and instruments that are profane, i.e. Outside the temple, which is the definition of profane).
The Massi is the Offering of Christ to be sure, but it is NOt only what the Priest offers on our behalf, but it is also WHAT WE BRING TO GOD.

And lately, we haven’t brought him squat compared to what we used to. We have brought him a bunch of bumbling and mumbling and bana;ity, vulgarity and profanity and we have introduced it into the mass!

Notice, I do not resent the Novus Ordo mass properly celebrated, i.e. in its proper context, which is the tridentine mass. THat’s the Gauge of a PRoper Novus Ordo mass: It should be a tridentine mass, minus some prayers. THat’s about it. THat’s all the council called for.

Religious liberty: NOthing intrinsically evil there, right? People should be allowed to have their own opinion, right? EXCEPT it produces the TENDEDNCY toward latitudinarianism or indifferentism which leads to a loss of faith.

SO the Hallmark of the last 50 years of Church life?

Not heresy: Tendencies in the actions of the hierarchy that inhibit the Catholic mind and lead toward thought patterns that are not conducive to Catholicism, which if watered for about a month or so, bloom into heresies and atheism.

DO you see what I mean?

P.S. My mistake, THe Catechism of the COuncil of Trent as Promulgate by POpe St. Pius V.

I guess I should ask you this again, since there seems to be some inconsistency in one of our thoughts:

Is a Catechism a Magisterial document in and of itself, or is it a document promulgated by the magisterium?

If it is a magisterial document, then do you object to me referencing the ROman Catechism of Pope St. Pius V?

If a catechism in and of itself is not a magisterial document, do object to me refraining from using the CCC while not denying its authenticity?
 
It does not matter which catechism, all three support my point to meltzerboy about Catholics and beliefs about baptism of desire. Here is the Roman Catechism, saying the same thing, although to be sure the reader is not confused, even more surrounding context than I provide below might be necessary:
On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

I’m getting worried here that an unfortunate visitor might figure that the catechisms disagree on my original point (catechumens and dying short of water baptism), but they do not disagree.
 
No, all the Catechisms agree that those who die with the intention of being baptized can, and most likely WILL be saved. I believe that.
 
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.
Thanks again. Yes, it looks official! I’m receiving a good Catholic education on this forum from enlightened people such as yourself.
 
Sorry for ranting Meltzer: I am not an angry person: I just see so much milk-toast Catholicism that I feel I should at least do my part to stand up in arms about it and not shirk the truth as I know it.

However, I have a hard time discerning “Hard-truths” from instigating remarks.😊

Sorry if I offend. I do not mean to. 🙂
 
Suppose an infant is born with a severe congenital deformity (the term for such a child used in medicine–which I intensely dislike–is a “monster”) or develops a terminal cancer, and then dies. Not only is it very difficult for any rational person to come to terms with the fact that a loving G-d would allow this to happen in the first place, but would G-d then require that infant or child to go to limbo before heaven according to Catholic teaching? I’m afraid I would have to agree with Billy Graham on this one, that an innocent child who dies goes straight to heaven.
 
Suppose an infant is born with a severe congenital deformity (the term for such a child used in medicine–which I intensely dislike–is a “monster”) or develops a terminal cancer, and then dies. Not only is it very difficult for any rational person to come to terms with the fact that a loving G-d would allow this to happen in the first place, but would G-d then require that infant or child to go to limbo before heaven according to Catholic teaching? I’m afraid I would have to agree with Billy Graham on this one, that an innocent child who dies goes straight to heaven.
I am inclined to agree with you, of for no other reason than the redemptive aspect of suffering.
 
Suppose an infant is born with a severe congenital deformity (the term for such a child used in medicine–which I intensely dislike–is a “monster”) or develops a terminal cancer, and then dies. Not only is it very difficult for any rational person to come to terms with the fact that a loving G-d would allow this to happen in the first place, but would G-d then require that infant or child to go to limbo before heaven according to Catholic teaching? I’m afraid I would have to agree with Billy Graham on this one, that an innocent child who dies goes straight to heaven.
The idea of a temporary stop on the way to heaven is found in more than one place in Catholic teaching. Before Christ came, there were righteous people in the abode of the dead. They were in the “Limbo of the Fathers”. You can read about it here, and I will paste some Baltimore Catechism #3 stuff concerning it below this post. I do not find this teaching objectionable. So from my perspective, if it was good enough for people like Abraham to wait around for awhile, then it would be fine enough others, such as a wee one. To wait for Our Savior doesn’t seem far from the typical human condition.

A word of warning, though. Most Catholics who propose the idea of a limbo for infants do not propose it to be temporary. It is normally proposed as permanent.

Q. 401. Whither did Christ’s soul go after His death?
A. After Christ’s death His soul descended into hell.
Q. 402. Did Christ’s soul descend into the hell of the damned?
A. The hell into which Christ’s soul descended was not the hell of the dammed, but a place or state of rest called Limbo, where the souls of the just were waiting for Him.
 
The idea of a temporary stop on the way to heaven is found in more than one place in Catholic teaching. Before Christ came, there were righteous people in the abode of the dead. They were in the “Limbo of the Fathers”. You can read about it here, and I will paste some Baltimore Catechism #3 stuff concerning it below this post. I do not find this teaching objectionable. So from my perspective, if it was good enough for people like Abraham to wait around for awhile, then it would be fine enough others, such as a wee one. To wait for Our Savior doesn’t seem far from the typical human condition.

A word of warning, though. Most Catholics who propose the idea of a limbo for infants do not propose it to be temporary. It is normally proposed as permanent.

Q. 401. Whither did Christ’s soul go after His death?
A. After Christ’s death His soul descended into hell.
Q. 402. Did Christ’s soul descend into the hell of the damned?
A. The hell into which Christ’s soul descended was not the hell of the dammed, but a place or state of rest called Limbo, where the souls of the just were waiting for Him.
In Judaism, there is the Gehenna, which, for some, is the place where wicked souls go after death to be cleansed if possible, and if not possible, they are separated from G-d (there is no oppressive Hell, however); and for others, is the place where ALL departed souls go for atonement before going to Heaven.
 
In Judaism, there is the Gehenna, which, for some, is the place where wicked souls go after death to be cleansed if possible, and if not possible, they are separated from G-d (there is no oppressive Hell, however); and for others, is the place where ALL departed souls go for atonement before going to Heaven.
Yes. I have heard similar before, and associate part of that with Purgatory in my mind. Many average Catholics will have sinned and repented during their lifetime, and perhaps die needing some cleansing. They are classified as undergoing purification after death, and this is named Purgatory. People who undergo Purgatory end in Heaven. Catholics pray for the people who have died, and this is for the ones undergoing Purgatory.

For Catholics, being separated from God is the chief pain of Hell. We conceive of that as painful, calling it the “pain of loss”. I conceive of that in itself as being unacceptably awful, in human terms.
 
The question stands: What are the effects of original sin?

No child is innocent. THey look cute.
 
What atonement is required for infants? What are they guilty of?
How are they atoned?
I don’t personally believe infants are guilty of anything. That may very well be the exception. See mine and others’ posts under the topic of Purgatory.
 
Atonements are guilty of the original sin of adam, the consequences of which are the loss of original holiness and justice, spiritual death, No sanctifying grace, being a slave to sin, death and the devil, justly condemned, and the wrath of GOd abides upon them.

Infants and all of us have original sin in us, the prevarication of Adam, as though it were our own, as defined by the council of Trent and the ecumenical council of Florence. THe COuncil of Trent also defined that infants cannot be saved apart from baptism.

A. Original sin has a personal quality and the nature of guilt: Session Five, paragraph 3.
  1. 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.
Council of Trent Session Five, Paragraph 5.
"5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which **has the true and proper nature of sin **is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema.

Council of Trent session 6, Chapter 2:
“The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary [Page 31] that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas **all men had lost their innocence **in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.”

Council of Trent Session 6 Chapter 3:

"But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His [Page 32] death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just. For this benefit the apostle exhorts us, evermore to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins.

Trent, by manner of Syllogism, has declared there is no other means of Salvation for infants than Sacramental water Baptism:
  1. It is infallibly defined that Christ was speaking of Sacaramental Water Baptism in John 3:5 when he said “Unless a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven.”
Council of Trent, Session 7, On Baptism, Canon II.

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.
  1. Trent applied our Lord’s restriction to infants, when in session 5, paragraph 4 was defined:
“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.” ***

Note that this last phrase is applied in an infallible statement by an ecumenical council in a context that is about one subject: Infants and their baptism.
 
Therefore, to read this canon consistently and in the same light of thought as the council itself, we must read that infants are born in all the previously listed conditions. We must also recognize that those conditions can only be expiated in them by baptism, on our Lord’s word, as it was defined by Trent. And finally, we must realize that the Council applies our Lord’s restrictive terminology, and therefore its own understanding of that terminology to these children who are not baptized in a definitive canon which comes from the XVI Council of Carthage in the 5th century.

Therefore infants cannot be saved in any other way than by baptism, The Ecumenical and infallible Council of Trent proclaiming and bearing witness.

This interpretation can be seen in the Catechism issued by Pope St. Pius V in the following years after the council’s close, which demonstrates the mind and heart of the council.

Catechism of the Council of Trent: On Baptism: The Necessity of Infant baptism:

“Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed
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.”

please read the previous post before commenting.

P.S. In Reference to Tommy’s post: Suffering has no redemptive value apart from an act of the will, which children cannot offer: That is the altar of the redemptive act of suffering; The will. IF you contend otherwise, then I contend, since an infant cannot will, then in what way is the suffering redemptive, and who is offering the suffering?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top