What is so objectionable about Limbo?

[Indyann]

When you decide to post without the condesension, I may or may not respond to you. “Do you understand”?

When you decide to stop playing Pope, I may or may not respond to you. “Do you understand”?

When I decide to read Magisterial Documents, I will go to the Vatican Website, not some cut and paste from a decidedly biased internet poster. “Do you understand”?

I was raised on the Baltimore Catechism, not the Catechism of Trent. I have been Catholic for more than 60 years, so I am quite cognizant of pre-VatII Catholicism. “Do you understand”?

I hope that you lose enough of your rigidity, condescensiion and pompousness that you will be able to carry on a conversation in a meaningful manner. “Do you understand”?

 

[StTommyMore]

When you decide to post without the condesension, I may or may not respond to you. “Do you understand”?

When you decide to stop playing Pope, I may or may not respond to you. “Do you understand”?

When I decide to read Magisterial Documents, I will go to the Vatican Website, not some cut and paste from a decidedly biased internet poster. “Do you understand”?

I was raised on the Baltimore Catechism, not the Catechism of Trent. I have been Catholic for more than 60 years, so I am quite cognizant of pre-VatII Catholicism. “Do you understand”?

I hope that you lose enough of your rigidity, condescensiion and pompousness that you will be able to carry on a conversation in a meaningful manner. “Do you understand”?

You have to understand, what we call condescension, pontificating, and berating, he calls “catechesis”

 

[Indyann]

You have to understand, what we call condescension, pontificating, and berating, he calls “catechesis”

oh, yeah, I forgot

 

[Gregory_I]

When you decide to post without the condesension, I may or may not respond to you. “Do you understand”?

When you decide to stop playing Pope, I may or may not respond to you. “Do you understand”?

When I decide to read Magisterial Documents, I will go to the Vatican Website, not some cut and paste from a decidedly biased internet poster. “Do you understand”?

I was raised on the Baltimore Catechism, not the Catechism of Trent. I have been Catholic for more than 60 years, so I am quite cognizant of pre-VatII Catholicism. “Do you understand”?

I hope that you lose enough of your rigidity, condescensiion and pompousness that you will be able to carry on a conversation in a meaningful manner. “Do you understand”?

I am not posting with condescension friend, I am merely attemptimng to convey my incredulity at your seeming lack of appreciation for historical Church teaching and the documents put out by POpes, Bishops, THeologians, of a consistent Nature since the Time of St. Augustine: And that is, that unbaptized CHildren who die do not have the vision of God.

Is it so incredible to ask another Catholic to take the Historical teaching position of his Church seriously? And please, enough of the Mockery. For someone who is a senior, I expect a more mature attitude.

Call it Pontificating all you want, I call it merely repeating what the Church has taught: You won’t find any original thoughts of mine in this thread, thank the Lord.

IF you perhaps listened to what I was talking about, instead of getting fired up over something like me asking you if you understand the significance of your basically dismissing the Magisterial teaching of the Church, we could have a nice discussion!

TO me, a nice discussion is Frank, polite, informative and free from the blinding passions of sentimentality. If you want to continue this in a more intelligent vein, I would be happy to Listen, to either one of you. IN fact, let me reopen the door: What is your objection to the DOgma that those who die in original sin alone (Infants and mentally handicapped) do not see the face of God?

 

[StTommyMore]

Call it Pontificating all you want, I call it merely repeating what the Church has taught: You won’t find any original thoughts of mine in this thread, thank the Lord.

Original thought is not a bad thing. In his day, St. Thomas Aquinas was thought quite radical. It is a poor theologian who is afraid to find new ways to articulate the truths of the faith.

 

[Gregory_I]

Original thought is not a bad thing. In his day, St. Thomas Aquinas was thought quite radical. It is a poor theologian who is afraid to find new ways to articulate the truths of the faith.

This “fear” is what keeps the faith of the church intact against the encroaching mindsets of liberals and modernists (not you) who want to undermine the Church’s AUthority.

THe best place to do that is by weakening the foundation. How? By opening the dogmas of the Church to reinterpretation, when they themselves are the final interpretation,a nd are not subject to reinterpretation:

IN a world of constantly changing terms and ideas, the people who refuse to compromise the terminology are the ones who will most clearly deliver the sense of what the CHurch teaches. And any legitimate development will not encroach upon ancient definitions, but merely enrich them saying “IN the past this was said. and it is true. And in addition, we have come to realize that the implication for this truth, is this other truth. THerefore, we define this Truth as has always been defined, recognizing the implications that have always been latent in the terms.”

POpe St. Pius X said it was traditionalists who were the friends of the people.

 

[StTommyMore]

This “fear” is what keeps the faith of the church intact against the encroaching mindsets of liberals and modernists (not you) who want to undermine the Church’s AUthority.

THe best place to do that is by weakening the foundation. How? By opening the dogmas of the Church to reinterpretation, when they themselves are the final interpretation,a nd are not subject to reinterpretation:

IN a world of constantly changing terms and ideas, the people who refuse to compromise the terminology are the ones who will most clearly deliver the sense of what the CHurch teaches. And any legitimate development will not encroach upon ancient definitions, but merely enrich them saying “IN the past this was said. and it is true. And in addition, we have come to realize that the implication for this truth, is this other truth. THerefore, we define this Truth as has always been defined, recognizing the implications that have always been latent in the terms.”

POpe St. Pius X said it was traditionalists who were the friends of the people.

I don’t think he was talking about people who thought that Catholics were not supposed to think.

 

[Gregory_I]

OF course Catholics are supposed to think! THis whole thread is my reflectioin on the Teachings of the Church isn’t it? That would be hypocrisy for me to say other Catholics ar enot supposed to think.

They cannot and may not set their own thpughts up against the teaching of the Church, violating any of the principles established by Christ and upheld by the CHurch however: ANd the fundamental Principle in this case is that Original sin REALLY separates a person from God. ANd for a person to die in original sin alone is to be separate from God. ANd unbaptized infants die in Original sin alone. THerefore, they are separated from God for all eternity.

TO deny it, is tantamount to denying the doctrine of original sin: How can filth exist in the presence of GOd? It demolishes the existence of Purgatory.

You see how it is all interrelated?

 

[StTommyMore]

OF course Catholics are supposed to think! THis whole thread is my reflectioin on the Teachings of the Church isn’t it? That would be hypocrisy for me to say other Catholics ar enot supposed to think.

They cannot and may not set their own thpughts up against the teaching of the Church, violating any of the principles established by Christ and upheld by the CHurch however: ANd the fundamental Principle in this case is that Original sin REALLY separates a person from God. ANd for a person to die in original sin alone is to be separate from God. ANd unbaptized infants die in Original sin alone. THerefore, they are separated from God for all eternity.

TO deny it, is tantamount to denying the doctrine of original sin: How can filth exist in the presence of GOd? It demolishes the existence of Purgatory.

You see how it is all interrelated?

Actually, by your own admission, you haven’t thought. All you have done is repeated what you have been told like a human tape recorder. Saying that Limbo may not exist DENIES NOTHING. I would really like to see you in my Theological Foundations class. There we are challenged to think. We examine and critique what other theologians have said. Simple regurgitation is not acceptable.

 

[Gregory_I]

Actually, by your own admission, you haven’t thought. All you have done is repeated what you have been told like a human tape recorder. Saying that Limbo may not exist DENIES NOTHING. I would really like to see you in my Theological Foundations class. There we are challenged to think. We examine and critique what other theologians have said. Simple regurgitation is not acceptable.

What I admitted was no NOvelty in thought. THat is what I meant by original idea.

I Trust the Teachings of THeologians like St. THomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, because the Church has repeatedly accepted them as her own stance on the issues of grace and freewill and salvation. THUs, I will continue to use them, even if they go out of style, because GOd illuminated the minds of men greater than you and I combined to have deep insights into the faith, which is acknowledged by the Church:

ANd when the members begin to slip away and waver and are tempted by this that and the other new teaching, and like St. Jude says, “tossed back and forth by every wave of doctrine” I will remind them what they have abandoned, and whom they have left behind: And if people will not listen, Oh well. Fidelity to Christ is fidelity to the Church. Fidelity to the Church is Fidelity to the CHurch’s teaching. Her constant and ancient universal teaching which is best articulated, by her own admission through her greatest saints: St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[StTommyMore]

What I admitted was no NOvelty in thought. THat is what I meant by original idea.

I Trust the Teachings of THeologians like St. THomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, because the Church has repeatedly accepted them as her own stance on the issues of grace and freewill and salvation. THUs, I will continue to use them, even if they go out of style, because GOd illuminated the minds of men greater than you and I combined to have deep insights into the faith, which is acknowledged by the Church:

ANd when the members begin to slip away and waver and are tempted by this that and the other new teaching, and like St. Jude says, “tossed back and forth by every wave of doctrine” I will remind them what they have abandoned, and whom they have left behind: And if people will not listen, Oh well. Fidelity to Christ is fidelity to the Church. Fidelity to the Church is Fidelity to the CHurch’s teaching. Her constant and ancient universal teaching which is best articulated, by her own admission through her greatest saints: St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas.

As a student at Franciscan University, I would be falling short if I did not remind you of St. Bonaventure.

 

[Gregory_I]

Of Course.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Ladies and Gentlemen:

You may disagree with each other. You may not speak about each other. You may not condemn each other. When another poster tells you that you’re offending them, you MUST back off. Arguing and rudeness toward each other does not answer a question and it takes the fun out of being on TC Forum.

This is a forum, not a theology classroom. Keep the intensity to a minimum. You’re here to share, learn and to relax, not to win a debate or prove your point.

If this behavior does not improve there will be more suspensions and the thread will be closed.

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[Hadrianus]

Does St Bonaventure have an opinion on limbo? I for one would be interested to know what it is.

 

[Gregory_I]

Well, he was the contemporary and friend of Aquinas I believe, so I would assume it was probably similar.

Catholic Encyclopedia

"At the Reformation, Protestants generally, but more especially the Calvinists, in reviving Augustinian teaching, added to its original harshness, and the Jansenists followed on the same lines. This reacted in two ways on Catholic opinion, first by compelling attention to the true historical situation, which the Scholastics had understood very imperfectly, and second by stimulating an all-round opposition to Augustinian severity regarding the effects of original sin; and the immediate result was to set up two Catholic parties, one of whom either rejected St. Thomas to follow the authority of St. Augustine or vainly try to reconcile the two, while the other remained faithful to the Greek Fathers and St. Thomas. The latter party, after a fairly prolonged struggle, has certainly the balance of success on its side.

Besides the professed advocates of Augustinianism, the principal theologians who belonged to the first party were Bellarmine, Petavius, and Bossuet, and the chief ground of their opposition to the previously prevalent Scholastic view was that its acceptance seemed to compromise the very principle of the authority of tradition. As students of history, they felt bound to admit that, in excluding unbaptized children from any place or state even of natural happiness and condemning them to the fire of Hell, St. Augustine, the Council of Carthage, and later African Fathers, like Fulgentius (De fide ad Petrum, 27), intended to teach no mere private opinion, but a doctrine of Catholic Faith; nor could they be satisfied with what Scholastics, like **St. Bonaventure **and Duns Scotus, said in reply to this difficulty, namely that St. Augustine had simply been guilty of exaggeration (“respondit Bonaventura dicens quod Augustinus excessive loquitur de illis poenis, sicut frequenter faciunt sancti” — Scots, In Sent., II, xxxiii, 2). Neither could they accept the explanation which even some modern theologians continue to repeat: that the Pelagian doctrine condemned by St. Augustine as a heresy (see e.g., On the Soul and its Origin II.17) consisted in claiming supernatural, as opposed to natural, happiness for those dying in original sin (see Bellarmine, De amiss. gratiae, vi, 1; Petavius, De Deo, IX, xi; De Rubeis, De Peccat. Orig., xxx, lxxii). Moreover, there was the teaching of the Council of Florence, that “the souls of those dying in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone go down at once (mox) into Hell, to be punished, however, with widely different penalties.”

THis fairly well explains the Difficulty I have with the modern sentimentalist ideas which seem out of step with the CHurch Fathers, and the Greater Part of Church History.

However, in answer to the above question, it indicates St. Bonaventure adopted the Thomist view of Limbo. I admit, that when it comes to what infants positively suffer, I may have alot of ground for believeing it, but is an opinion. I do not contend however that it is a mere opinon that they do not see God. I believe Augustine and the later Fathers intended to defend what they saw as Church doctrine.

 

[dje101]

Purgatory = temporary

Limbo for infants who die without baptism = billed by *most *people who hold to Limbo as permanent

Limbo of the Fathers (the limbo where the righteous dead had awaited the passion, death, resurrection of our Lord to come open the gates of heaven) = temporary

So, if I had a kid who died from SIDS without being baptized, he’d go to Limbo and even if I get to Heaven I would never get to seem him/her again?

 

[Gregory_I]

Correct. BUt your greatest happiness consists in the Beatific vision of God; for we can only love one another properly by lovng God above all.

There is hope that unbaptized Children do not suffer the pain of hellfire. THat can be legitimately hoped for I think. BUt I think to hope to see an unbaptized infant in heaven is a stretch: For original sin condemns a person to hell.

 

[Pug]

So, if I had a kid who died from SIDS without being baptized, he’d go to Limbo and even if I get to Heaven I would never get to seem him/her again?

Remember, according to the Baltimore Catechism, Limbo is a “common belief” concerning infants. Let me provide the quote, so you can assess in what way it means that:
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
So, the exact fate of such infants is not quite known for sure. The understanding of Limbo is that the child who is there will not see God in the Beatific Vision. That doesn’t say anything about your viewing of the child. If I correctly recall, at least one medieval opinion is that the just in Heaven will see the souls in Hell. I see no reason why this ability to see into Hell wouldn’t be accompanied by a corresponding ability to see into Limbo.

I do know that in heaven our tears will be wiped away, so however our minds will understand the situation in the future, it won’t cause those in heaven the sort of sorrow that you might imagine now.

As terrifying as it may seem, I think we need to trust God to take care of these things in the right way, His right way, not ours. His way will be best, even if we have to accept not fully knowing or understanding his way for right now.

 

[dje101]

Correct. BUt your greatest happiness consists in the Beatific vision of God; for we can only love one another properly by lovng God above all.

There is hope that unbaptized Children do not suffer the pain of hellfire. THat can be legitimately hoped for I think. BUt I think to hope to see an unbaptized infant in heaven is a stretch: For original sin condemns a person to hell.

What about the thief on the cross? He most definitely was not baptized yet Christ said that he will be in paradise. Why not the same for children that could not have been baptized yet?

 

[dje101]

Remember, according to the Baltimore Catechism, Limbo is a “common belief” concerning infants. Let me provide the quote, so you can assess in what way it means that:
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
So, the exact fate of such infants is not quite known for sure. The understanding of Limbo is that the child who is there will not see God in the Beatific Vision. That doesn’t say anything about your viewing of the child. If I correctly recall, at least one medieval opinion is that the just in Heaven will see the souls in Hell. I see no reason why this ability to see into Hell wouldn’t be accompanied by a corresponding ability to see into Limbo.

I do know that in heaven our tears will be wiped away, so however our minds will understand the situation in the future, it won’t cause those in heaven the sort of sorrow that you might imagine now.

As terrifying as it may seem, I think we need to trust God to take care of these things in the right way, His right way, not ours. His way will be best, even if we have to accept not fully knowing or understanding his way for right now.

I don’t understand how God could deprive an infant of the happiness of God and Heaven because of something that is not their fault: inheriting original sin and not being baptized.

God, being the all-power, all-knowing being that he is, would know ahead of time that the child would die and would not be baptized. So why couldn’t he provide them with the same birth as Mary…born without original sin?