What is so objectionable about Limbo?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gregory_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gregory_I said:
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?
Click to expand...
A convincing argument for sure and I would suppose difficult for a Roman Catholic to refute. I wonder whether parents who do delay baptism for their infant child, and the child dies before being baptized, are in any danger of putting their own salvation at risk despite their having been baptized. Is there anything written about that? I would assume being baptized does not ensure salvation although it is necessary for salvation.

We really do have irreconcilable religious differences on this and many other points, since Judaism does not believe in the notion of original sin as it is not part of Torah scripture. And since Protestants, according to my understanding, accept primarily Biblical scripture and not Church doctrine formulated at a later date, some of them also have a different perspective regarding infant salvation as well.
 
I guess the real question metxler, is what did Adam lose for humanity in his sin?

Why cannot man since Adam attain to Adam’s prior perfection?

What is the current Jewish line of thought?
 
I reccomend you read this article.

cantuar.blogspot.com/2008/10/unbaptized-babies-that-die-five.html

I believe in theory #3, that the Blessed Virgin Mary desires baptism of all human children thorugh her maternal love and as the Mother of Christ, and therefore all human children who die in original sin will be adopted by Her, recieve baptism by desire and be saved. Sacramental Baptism is extremely important, but those infants who die without it still have a chance. As someone earlier pointed out, I don’t see how there would be a place such as Limbo when Jesus has already made it possible for all souls to get to Heaven. God has given us all free will: the choice between Hell or Heaven. Babies do not have free will, so it just makes sense to me that someone who has no choice will not be punished.
 
I think those who are in favor of the idea that infants either cannot or may not be saved without baptism take a position based more on the letter of the law than the spirit of the law. Note I am NOT saying they deny the spirit of the law. Nor am I saying the letter of the law is unimportant. Moreover, I recognize that the letter and the spirit of the law are intertwined: indeed, in Judaism, obedience to the minutiae of the law is thought to nourish the spirit. However, there are also cases in which interpretation of the law is needed (which may or may not apply to the present situation). This arises when there is a passage in scripture that is ambiguous or contradicts another passage. What one often does in these instances is search for several other passages which may serve to clarify the meaning of the passage in question. Reason must be used to decipher the intent of the original ambiguous passage so that a just decision can be reached. And sometimes that decision, for it to be truly just, must incorporate mercy.
 
meltzerboy said:
I think those who are in favor of the idea that infants either cannot or may not be saved without baptism take a position based more on the letter of the law than the spirit of the law. Note I am NOT saying they deny the spirit of the law. Nor am I saying the letter of the law is unimportant. Moreover, I recognize that the letter and the spirit of the law are intertwined: indeed, in Judaism, obedience to the minutiae of the law is thought to nourish the spirit. However, there are also cases in which interpretation of the law is needed (which may or may not apply to the present situation). This arises when there is a passage in scripture that is ambiguous or contradicts another passage. What one often does in these instances is search for several other passages which may serve to clarify the meaning of the passage in question. Reason must be used to decipher the intent of the original ambiguous passage so that a just decision can be reached. And sometimes that decision, for it to be truly just, must incorporate mercy.
Click to expand...
To help you understand the centrality of Baptism to Christianity, we regard Baptism as the sign of the New Covenant, much as you regard circumcision as the sign of God’s covenant with Abraham. It is just that with baptism, it is more than a sign, but actually does something, that is, baptism cleanses us of sin, original and personal, and satisfies temporal punishment due to sin. We regard circumcision as a “type” of baptism. But where circumcision is a symbol, and only a symbol, baptism signifies ans underlying reality. Forgive me if I have misunderstood the nature of circumcision, and if my circumcision is indeed wrong, provide a correction.
 
That’s a nice opinion, but it has no basis in anything we know from reality or in any of the dogmas of the faith, or in common sense I think. THe faithful in heaven cannot merit our salvation for us, and they ALL desire our salvation.

After death, judgement is immediate and irrevocable. THat is dogma.

THose who die in original sin ONLY go to hell where they are punished, but differently than those who die in mortal sin.

Because all dogmas pertain to real life, there is a class of people that can die in original sin alone:

And The infallible conclusion that is to be derived, since only two classes of people can be considered as living or dying in original sin alone, INfants and mentally handicapped people, that infants and mentally handicapped people are the subjects of this dogma.
 
meltzerboy said:
I wonder whether parents who do delay baptism for their infant child, and the child dies before being baptized, are in any danger of putting their own salvation at risk despite their having been baptized. Is there anything written about that? I would assume being baptized does not ensure salvation although it is necessary for salvation.
Click to expand...
Being baptized does not make it so that afterward one cannot choose to live an unrepentant, wicked life of foolish disregard for God. So indeed, just because I am baptized does not mean that I cannot end in Hell. There is much written on this, but the topic to pursue is probably “mortal sin” or the “sacrament of reconciliation”, and not baptism.

There is some information available for you regarding your question. Canon Law (that is like Church made laws for its operation, like for the courts, the sacraments, etc.) requires a couple to attempt to secure baptism for their child within a few weeks, or sooner if needed. It is their duty.
Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

§2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.

It would depend on circumstances and intention if a failure in this duty would be an indicator of serious sin. Ignorance changes things. I, for example, would know better and hence be culpable, but not all Catholics would know about this rule (a rule based on love for the child).
 
Pug said:
Being baptized does not make it so that afterward one cannot choose to live an unrepentant, wicked life of foolish disregard for God. So indeed, just because I am baptized does not mean that I cannot end in Hell. There is much written on this, but the topic to pursue is probably “mortal sin” or the “sacrament of reconciliation”, and not baptism.

There is some information available for you regarding your question. Canon Law (that is like Church made laws for its operation, like for the courts, the sacraments, etc.) requires a couple to attempt to secure baptism for their child within a few weeks, or sooner if needed. It is their duty.
Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

§2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.

It would depend on circumstances and intention if a failure in this duty would be an indicator of serious sin. Ignorance changes things. I, for example, would know better and hence be culpable, but not all Catholics would know about this rule (a rule based on love for the child).
Click to expand...
As always, thank you for the explanation and informative sources.
 
meltzerboy said:
I think those who are in favor of the idea that infants either cannot or may not be saved without baptism take a position based more on the letter of the law than the spirit of the law. Note I am NOT saying they deny the spirit of the law. Nor am I saying the letter of the law is unimportant. Moreover, I recognize that the letter and the spirit of the law are intertwined: indeed, in Judaism, obedience to the minutiae of the law is thought to nourish the spirit. However, there are also cases in which interpretation of the law is needed (which may or may not apply to the present situation). This arises when there is a passage in scripture that is ambiguous or contradicts another passage. What one often does in these instances is search for several other passages which may serve to clarify the meaning of the passage in question. Reason must be used to decipher the intent of the original ambiguous passage so that a just decision can be reached. And sometimes that decision, for it to be truly just, must incorporate mercy.
Click to expand...
Just off the cuff here, but your mention of “letter and the spirit” of the law, “obedience”, “just decision”, and “may or may not apply” brings to mind a man or a woman contemplating an action. The law governs the actions of people. So, perhaps one finds someone gathering wood to create a fire knowingly on the Sabbath. Then one contemplates the Law and what to do upon this discovery, and this needs interpretation, delicacy, and indeed, mercy.

God is another matter. There is no letter and spirit. He acts as He acts. When an infant dies, it seems to me that it is God who is there, not us.

Perhaps this is the wrong response on my part, but “letter and spirit” has fairly strong effect upon which type of scenario comes to my mind.
 
Pug said:
Just off the cuff here, but your mention of “letter and the spirit” of the law, “obedience”, “just decision”, and “may or may not apply” brings to mind a man or a woman contemplating an action. The law governs the actions of people. So, perhaps one finds someone gathering wood to create a fire knowingly on the Sabbath. Then one contemplates the Law and what to do upon this discovery, and this needs interpretation, delicacy, and indeed, mercy.

God is another matter. There is no letter and spirit. He acts as He acts. When an infant dies, it seems to me that it is God who is there, not us.

Perhaps this is the wrong response on my part, but “letter and spirit” has fairly strong effect upon which type of scenario comes to my mind.
Click to expand...
I basically agree with you. My comments were with regard to our human understanding of what we believe best serves G-d. After all, we don’t really have much else to rely on except our own perception, hopefully inspired by faith and the Will of G-d. My point is that some of us interpret G-d’s Word more according to the letter of the Law while others are more inclined toward the spirit of the Law. This human way of thinking is IMO a matter of emphasis, not necessarily an all-or-none situation.
 
eternusmatris said:
I reccomend you read this article.

cantuar.blogspot.com/2008/10/unbaptized-babies-that-die-five.html

I believe in theory #3, that the Blessed Virgin Mary desires baptism of all human children thorugh her maternal love and as the Mother of Christ, and therefore all human children who die in original sin will be adopted by Her, recieve baptism by desire and be saved. Sacramental Baptism is extremely important, but those infants who die without it still have a chance. As someone earlier pointed out, I don’t see how there would be a place such as Limbo when Jesus has already made it possible for all souls to get to Heaven. God has given us all free will: the choice between Hell or Heaven. Babies do not have free will, so it just makes sense to me that someone who has no choice will not be punished.
Click to expand...
That’s a lovely theory, and I desperately wish it were true as my little 2 year old brother is unbaptized. I hope Our Lady can give all of those who die in original sin alone a baptism by desire and protect all her children from Hell. But who are we to debate this? We have no idea or right to try and find out what God does to the unbaptized who aren’t guilty of mortal sin. He has chosen not to reveal this.
We can only hope Our Lady will adopt them all.:gopray2:
 
Yes he has. THey descend to hell where they are punished differently than those in mortal sin.
 
Gregory_I said:
Yes he has. THey descend to hell where they are punished differently than those in mortal sin.
Click to expand...
The gospel according to St.Luke 12;48. For he who does not know the master’s will but has done things deserving stripes will recieve few." Could this verse be applied to all those who have not been baptised or does it by the wording exclude infants?
 
fbl9 said:
The gospel according to St.Luke 12;48. For he who does not know the master’s will but has done things deserving stripes will recieve few." Could this verse be applied to all those who have not been baptised or does it by the wording exclude infants?
Click to expand...
Well, first, let’s use a better translation:

From verse 46:

"[46] The lord of that servant will come in the day that he hopeth not, and at the hour that he knoweth not, and shall separate him, and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers. [47] And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. [48] But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more. "

THis WHole passage simply deals with Punishment/Culpability. The more Culpability you had, the more punishment you receive.

It does not directly relate to infants, but indirectly could indicate, that since they have died without baptism and cannot get to heaven, nevertheless, because they have not been given much, much will not be taken from them.

That doesn’t mean they see God: They don’t, according to the dogmas of the Church and the teachings of the ecumenical councils of Trent, FLorence and Lyons and the Ordinary Papal magisterium and Catechisms. It means They will not be punished as severely as others.
 
Gregory_I said:
Well, first, let’s use a better translation:

From verse 46:

"[46] The lord of that servant will come in the day that he hopeth not, and at the hour that he knoweth not, and shall separate him, and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers. [47] And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. [48] But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more. "

THis WHole passage simply deals with Punishment/Culpability. The more Culpability you had, the more punishment you receive.

It does not directly relate to infants, but indirectly could indicate, that since they have died without baptism and cannot get to heaven, nevertheless, because they have not been given much, much will not be taken from them.

That doesn’t mean they see God: They don’t, according to the dogmas of the Church and the teachings of the ecumenical councils of Trent, FLorence and Lyons and the Ordinary Papal magisterium and Catechisms. It means They will not be punished as severely as others.
Click to expand...
I still believe you may be misinterpreting the councils, particularly since the CCC seems to indicate that their fate is unknown, and we can trust in the mercy of God.
 
St.TOmmyMore,

I would appreciate if You read posts 338 and 339 and tell me if you think that is a misinterpretation (?) of the council of Trents position.

The magisterial interpretations of different agendas and issues stand alone: THey are MEANT to be clear and teaching, therefore they can REALLY be understood apart from interpretation and reinterpretation ad nauseam, which really destroys the ability to know anything, and the meaning of language…
 
meltzerboy said:
I basically agree with you. My comments were with regard to our human understanding of what we believe best serves G-d. After all, we don’t really have much else to rely on except our own perception, hopefully inspired by faith and the Will of G-d. My point is that some of us interpret G-d’s Word more according to the letter of the Law while others are more inclined toward the spirit of the Law. This human way of thinking is IMO a matter of emphasis, not necessarily an all-or-none situation.
Click to expand...
Color added by me.

I agree with the colored point. There is the letter, but we also take into consideration other factors. I think you are right that an individual might fall somewhere on the spectrum.
 
Gregory_I said:
Well, first, let’s use a better translation:

.
Click to expand...
Sorry i should have noted that what was in post was not a direct copy.
time was short so i shorted the wording.
IOW this verse could apply to infants but not necesarily so. The use of this verse would be a poor defense for infants being in limbo.
 
It is a good defense that they do not suffer the same torment as those in mortal sin. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top