What is so objectionable about Limbo?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gregory_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fbl9 said:
To my view Limbo is a just teaching.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think so, and so does everyone from Augustine until 1965.

See, here’s the thing.

Yes, limbo is a theological opinoin.

But that is a vague statement.

Is the whole and entire teaching of limbo something Scholastics just came up with?

Or is it a Teaching that is dogmatic at its foundation with a few little theological insights as well?

I contend the Latter.

Limbo is based entirely on these Dogmas:
  1. The Consequence for Original sin is separation from God.
  2. Those Who die in Original sin alone descend to hell where they are punished, but differently than those who die in mortal sin.
  3. TO be born in original sin is to be guilty: Guilty of the sin of Adam, as dogmatically defined by Trent. We are guilty of Adams sin, we do not have sanctifying grace, we are incapable of being supernaturally pleasing to God, and we are children of wrath.
  4. Our just judgement and penalty is hell.
SO the dogmatic part is that those who die in original sin alone (Infants and Mentally handicapped) cannot see God.

NOW here is where the OPINON begins
  1. An infant has never actually sins and is therefore not punished in the same manner as those who do sin. This is as Far as St. Augustine would take it.
  2. Peter Abelard was the First to sugest that those who die in Original Sin alone suffer the “Pain of loss” but not any Hellfire, the “Pain of Sense” in the 12th century. Meaning, that for 700 years, the CHurch accepted and taught and maintained Augustine’s view of Infant damnation. INCLUDING St. Bernard of Clairvaux, all aledged quotations aside.
  3. Aquinas Further Stipulated that infants who die without baptism do not see the face of GOd: But just because they have no knowledge of any supernatural goods (THe beatific vision), and because they never sinned, it follows that they would still be able to participate in Natural good. THus entered the realms of peace for infants in the THomistic view. However, this had the effect of removing limbo from Hell, and creating a third Middle State. THIS is usually what modern theologians misunderstand and get hung up about. Limbo is NOT a middle state: It is a state of damnation: Limbo exists in hell. BUt it is the mildest kind. For this reason I do not incline toward Aquinas’s view of Limbo, but Abelard’s, Where infants are definitely not tormented by Hellfire, but they feel the loss.
So Notice something: Limbo is speculation on what infants DO experience: BUt its underlying presuppositions are simple and dogmatic: Virtually no theologian EVER taught that unbaptized infants directly entered into the beatific vision: THey are all denied God’s face.

And for the naysayers: It’s possible there is no Limbo at all, I agree!

THere is probably infant damnation if there is no Limbo.

Until the 1960’s it was the HERETICS Like Pelagius and John Hus who maintained there was Positive salvation for infants. And Hus’s beliefs are condemned.

What does this mean? It means you need to read Augustine and Aquinas and basically ALL of Church history: THose who want to put unbaptized Children into heaven are the extreme minority when stacked against the CHurch’s COuncils, magisterial teaching, Popes and Saints visions.

It’s also the sign of something deeper: THere are some who are clearly denying the reality of the effects of Original sin. And with this (denial of the effects of Original sin) returns Pelagius and Semi-pelagianism.

We need Augustine to reincarnate. 😉
 
Great. Now everyone who disagrees with you is a heretic. It is not the purpose of this forum to try to establish yourself as the voice of the Magisterium.
 
I didn’t say that. Not everyone who disagrees with ME is a heretic. My opinion has little value.

BUt the CHurch is everything, and her views are clear, and those who deny any dogma of the Church are to be regarded as heretics.

I make no claims on any person. I Say: This is the dogma of the Church. This is also speculation.

YOu are free to disregard SOME elements of one, but not the other.

YOu can disagree with ME until the cows come home, but it’s not on THIS basis that a person is a haretic.

It would be If they denied the REALITY of the Dogmatic Teaching of the CHurch as REVEALED by the Ordinary and Universal magisterium and the CLEAR teachings of the Ecumenical COuncils of Trent and Florence.

IF SOmeone said: I reject that.

THen yeah, I’d call them a heretic. Not because they reject MY interpretation, but because they are blinded by their lack of knowledge of the truth and have rejected it. Did you read those posts?

I am not the VOice of the Magisteium.

BUt I can quote it! ANd THAT is truth and must be abided by. Not because I say so, but because truth compels us to submit our hearts and our minds to the reality of the Church’s teaching, Her CONSTANT and universal dogmatic teaching.

Please do not make flippant remarks when you have not made any attempt to understand or be understanding of the Church’s position on this issue. You have come on here and been doing nothing but saying “You’re wrong, You’re wrong!” From day one without any hint of an intelligent conversation.

Please refrain, or talk to me like a smart person. I know you are, I have been to your links. JUst apply that here and now.

God bless you Tommy, you keep me on my toes! 🙂
 
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.
 
Gregory_I said:
  1. Aquinas Further Stipulated that infants who die without baptism do not see the face of GOd: But just because they have no knowledge of any supernatural goods (THe beatific vision), and because they never sinned, it follows that they would still be able to participate in Natural good. THus entered the realms of peace for infants in the THomistic view. However, this had the effect of removing limbo from Hell, and creating a third Middle State. THIS is usually what modern theologians misunderstand and get hung up about. Limbo is NOT a middle state: It is a state of damnation: Limbo exists in hell. BUt it is the mildest kind.** For this reason I do not incline toward Aquinas’s view of Limbo, but Abelard’s, Where infants are definitely not tormented by Hellfire, but they feel the loss.**
Click to expand...
I didn’t intend to get back into this thread discussion but I saw this post and I had to comment: I cannot see this opinion in line with how God treats us. God loves us and desires our salvation. God is a God of mercy. God does not owe any of us heaven, so limbo is just, but damning infants to suffer in hell? This is the same God who came down for heaven and died on the cross. I cannot picture a little child who has done nothing personally wrong standing before God’s judgment seat and God saying “depart from me to suffer for all of eternity” and I cannot see this loving God throwing this child out while the poor child is screaming crying. This is a disturbing picture mentally. Although infants are in the state of original sin, they ARE innocent in terms of personal sin. I cannot see a good God allowing one who has done no wrong personally to suffer for all of eternity. God creating this child would be creating him or her knowing that he/she would die w/o baptism and therefore God would create the child just for hell. This is unfair and unloving.

Also: I would like to add that when presenting the faith to other religions, infant damnation in the sense that children actually suffer in hell for not being baptized seems legalistic and cruel. Limbo is more palatable because it fins in better with a just and merciful God. Now, there are tough doctrines in Catholicism and they should not be ignored because they are true. So for example, we should not say when talking about Catholicism to others “Artificial contraception is not a sin, use your conscience, God loves you where you are” because that is simply false. However, when there is room for opinion, it is probably best to express Catholicism in the best light possible so for example, for someone who came from a sola scriptura church, it would be smart to explain Catholicism too them using the Bible, but if someone was an atheist, a totally different approach would be used. In other words, people have to be attracted to Catholicism, so when talking about it, I think it is best to use Aquinas’s opinion, as it caught on after much more than Augustine’s.
 
I understand you do not want to get hung up TOm, so I will keep it brief:

THe error lies in picturing Christ judging Babies. He is not. He is judging human souls, not infants.

THere is no judgement where cute and cuddly babies are being thrown into fire. THe soul is spiritual and does not have the same appearance as the body.

Original sin is damning by its nature.

The second error is the assumption, which goes against Church teaching, that Children are born innocent: THey are not. THey have in them the guilt of Adam’s sin. THat marks them as deprived of original justice, sanctifying grace, and as slaves to the devil and under the wrath of GOd. Read all of Session 5 of the Council of Trent, and the First half of Session 6: THe decrees on Original sin and Justification.

As Pope St. Gregory the Great has said: “Even the infant of a single day is not pure in his sight.”

Sentimentalism clouds judgement sometimes: There is nothing innocent about babies. They are cute, and cuddly, and weak and defenseless and deserve our protection, and are loved by God: But these Children are born guilty. Their souls are dead, as are all of ours before we are justified.

COuncil of Trent Session 5 paragraph 4:
  1. 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.
THere were conversions between Augustine and Aquinas: Massive ones. People are not afraid of hard truths. I have no problem with the rigorist understanding because I understand that NO ONE deserves heaven. THat means God’s mercy is worth so much more than the cheap mercy we come to expect each SUnday at mass.

I think people WANT meat and substance: WE have been milked enough this past century.
 
Trent did not bind God to Baptism, but establish beyond question that Baptism is the normative means of receiving salvific grace. Trent did not even hint that salvific grace could not be dispensed under extraordinary circumstances. By absolutizing baptism (as you have done), you also remove any hope of salvation from any under any of the previous covenants. If GOd could save Abraham or Moses, who acted in faith according to the grace given them, but were not born in a time or place where they could be baptized, then God can save any who He wishes that are denied Baptism, but who respond to the grace given them. If we can hope for the salvation of adults, who without Baptism, respond to the grace given them, but who have personal sin, how much more then can we hope for the salvation of infants, who have no personal sins charged agiast them, provided they are born in circumstances where the Sacrament of Baptism is denied them (such as in a Baptist household.) This is not heresy, as it does not go against Trent or the dogma of Original Sin. You must remember that modern Protestants are not in the same position as 16th century Protestants. Many are raised with the understanding that their church possesses the Truth, with the added grace of putting faith in Jesus Christ as savior. This is a completely different situation that the 16th Century, where people consciously chose to separate themselves from Rome.
 
But I didn’t absolutize baptism for everyone: Only infants. AS the Church herself acknowledges, there is no known way for them to receiving sanctifying grace, because they do not have the ability to express any kind of will, which the whole Idea of extraordinary means for salvation hinges on:

THe manifest intention of THE WILL.

Infants cannot manifest their will, therefore they are ABSOLUTELY bound to Baptism as the means of Salvation.

However, those who have reached the age of reason are not:

As trent says, a person can be justified by the vowed intention to receive baptism.

A person who has no knowledge of the Catholic faith, but CHOOSES to respond to any grace God may be sending their way MIGHT attain to eternal salvation: Like in the book of Acts, how the Gentile Cornelius manifested his love for the one true GOd, an angel was sent to reveal to him how to obtain the One true faith:

"Acts 10
Cornelius Calls for Peter
1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. 3 One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!”
4 Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked.

The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. 5 Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. 6 He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea.”

7 When the angel who spoke to him had gone, Cornelius called two of his servants and a devout soldier who was one of his attendants. 8 He told them everything that had happened and sent them to Joppa."

SO you see, God did not save Cornelius in his IGNORANCE, but he miraculously made the implicit faith of Cornelius Explicit. From there, Cornelius went to receive Baptism from Peter.

But I do not believe God saves a person in their ignorance: For there is no salvation outside the Church. All who are saved “Outside the church” MUST choose in some way to be related to the Church, so none are saved as buddhists or muslims or Jews, but as Catholics in their relation to Christ and his Church: FOr none of these religions can offer sanctifying grace.

Let me make this theological principle which is timeless very clear:

God, who does not desire the death of the sinner, but his conversion, Desires men to be saved through the means he has established as necessary; For God does not do anything that is pointless or without reason.

Therefore, any who are saved miraculously, will be miraculously saved as Catholics.

I am not a feenyite.

I am more Rigorist, true, but I choose to exist in the Catholic spectrum based on Tradition, Scripture and the CONSTANT Teaching of the Church; Not the theological opinions of the past 40 years that apparently contradict the Timeless teaching of the church. Notice I said OPINIONS.
 
Man, this thread is very deep! Wouldn’t it be cool if the real thomas aquinas could post on here! 🙂

I can solve this in one sentence…A person needs to be baptized or they won’t see God.
 
But, once Again, Aquinas rues the dat:

As regards Pelagius’ problem of people of good will who lived at the ends of the earth and who had never heard of Christ, St. Thomas taught that it pertained to Divine Providence to furnish all such with the means of salvation, provided there was no hindrance on their part:

“Is It Necessary to Believe Explicitly?

“Difficulties: It seems that it is not, for 1. We should not posit any proposition from which an untenable conclusion follows. But, if we claim that explicit Faith is necessary for salvation, an untenable conclusion fol*lows. For it is possible for someone to be brought up in the forest or among wolves, and such a one cannot have explicit knowledge of any matter of Faith. Thus, there will be a man who will inevitably be damned. But this is untenable. Hence, explicit belief in something does not seem necessary…

“Answer to Difficulty No.1:

“Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that **God would either reveal to him through internal inspira*tion what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the Faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius **(Acts 10:20).

IN other words, a partial Faith is not enough. It must explicitly be the Catholic Faith, but God can furnish a preacher out of thin air for those who would be saved if he has to.

If he doesn’t furnish such a preacher for the ignorant, we must simply conclude that those in question don’t want it enough, and are thus Punished with ignorance.
 
it means any human being must be baptized if they are to enter heaven. if they are NOT they will enter a part of heaven where they will have happiness but not be able to see the
Beatic vision.
 
chrisetree said:
it means any human being must be baptized if they are to enter heaven. if they are NOT they will enter a part of heaven where they will have happiness but not be able to see the
Beatic vision.
Click to expand...
This statement is too dependent on the Church as Institution, and all but ignored the Church as Mystical Communion. But I do prefer tha articulation of Limbo as a part of Heaven rather than as a part of Hell. But as it stands the idea of Limbo is a not a de fide teaching of the Church.
 
That is correct Tommy, limbo is not de fide:

But it’s platform is.

Do you agree that Limbo is only the THeological speculation built on the DOgma defined by Lyons and Florence and Trent?
 
well i guess do you beleive every human being has original sin on his/her soul?

it must be cleansed before the person can stand in the presence of the Lord Almighty.
 
Gregory_I said:
That is correct Tommy, limbo is not de fide:

But it’s platform is.

Do you agree that Limbo is only the THeological speculation built on the DOgma defined by Lyons and Florence and Trent?
Click to expand...
The problem is Trent and Florence do not say what you think they do. The established NORMS, bit they do not prohibit salvation without Baptism as an absolute. It is this kind of misinterpretation that leads to Feeneyism. You must stop thinking of the Church as strictly a visible institution. Although there is a visible institution, it is not ONLY a visible institution. But absolutizing baptism reduces it to simply that. If the Church is strictly institutional, then it is human only, without a divine component. BAptism is the normative means by which one is given salvific grace. But as God is not bound by the Sacraments, He may give this same grace to any whom He choses, baptized or not.
 
chrisetree said:
well i guess do you beleive every human being has original sin on his/her soul?

it must be cleansed before the person can stand in the presence of the Lord Almighty.
Click to expand...
I have never denied the reality of Original Sin. However, God is not bound by the Sacraments.
 
Where does the Church teach that POV Tommy?

Where does the Church teach that DOgmas are only norms and not binding definitions and articles of Faith?

ALso Tommy, what is your definition of Original Sin? What does it entail?
 
Gregory_I said:
Where does the Church teach that POV Tommy?

Where does the Church teach that DOgmas are only norms and not binding definitions and articles of Faith?

ALso Tommy, what is your definition of Original Sin? What does it entail?
Click to expand...
I am tired of your arrogance. Even though you do have adopted “GergoryI” as your handle, that does not give you the same authority as he. You and I will no longer be in direct communication.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top