What is so objectionable about Limbo?

[COLOS]

Maybe look at it from a different perspective. Comparing original sin with actual sin (like murder) is inaccurate.

Original Sin isn’t anything less than the absence of sanctifying grace. We speak in terms of “washing away”. We use the analogy of a “stain” on the soul. In reality it isn’t so much a stain as it is an absence of grace, but these are the words we use to describe what is wrong. Original sin is the absence of sanctifying grace.

If you do not possess sanctifying grace, you are not alive.

These unbaptised infants are not alive (spiritually).

If you do not possess the life of God in your soul, you cannot see God or partake in His glory. They are dead. They cannot partake in His glory.

They are dead, but they do not have any actual sins to condemn them to eternal punishment.

Limbo is the mercy of God for them. An incredible mercy, though we aren’t completely sure what the state of “limbo” fully entails.

 

[dje101]

Maybe look at it from a different perspective. Comparing original sin with actual sin (like murder) is inaccurate.

Original Sin isn’t anything less than the absence of sanctifying grace. We speak in terms of “washing away”. We use the analogy of a “stain” on the soul. In reality it isn’t so much a stain as it is an absence of grace, but these are the words we use to describe what is wrong. Original sin is the absence of sanctifying grace.

If you do not possess sanctifying grace, you are not alive.

These unbaptised infants are not alive (spiritually).

If you do not possess the life of God in your soul, you cannot see God or partake in His glory. They are dead. They cannot partake in His glory.

They are dead, but they do not have any actual sins to condemn them to eternal punishment.

Limbo is the mercy of God for them. An incredible mercy, though we aren’t completely sure what the state of “limbo” fully entails.

So what does the church say that limbo is? Hell? Or a type of sub-heaven.

 

[COLOS]

As I recall, it is a place a perfect natural happiness as described by theologians. In justice, they can’t be tormented forever because they didn’t commit any actual sins. By Divine revelation we know that they are excluded from the Beautific Vision of eternal blessedness in the life of the Most Holy Trinity because they were not Baptised.

I don’t recall whether or not limbo has been dogmatically defined. I don’t think it has been.

Take a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on limbo:
Limbo <—clicky
Your questions are covered in section II: Limbus Infinatum.

Note the difference between the supernatural happiness of the blessed in Heaven as opposed to the natural happiness of those who died in original sin but had no actual sins.

Being only “naturally happy” forever isn’t such a horrible punishment for the unbaptized babies, now is it?

In the end, there is only Heaven and Hell. Heaven is for the blessed. Hell is for all the rest. In Hell there are varying degrees of torment. I wonder if perhaps what we call limbo rests at the top of Hell. I don’t know, really. Until a dogmatic council defines exactly what and where Limbo is, no one can say with perfect certainty.

 

[dje101]

As I recall, it is a place a perfect natural happiness as described by theologians. In justice, they can’t be tormented forever because they didn’t commit any actual sins. By Divine revelation we know that they are excluded from the Beautific Vision of eternal blessedness in the life of the Most Holy Trinity because they were not Baptised.

Don’t worry about them so much. It’s good to want to understand, but you don’t have to worry that Catholics somehow believe that the Lord God isn’t perfect justice and mercy.

I don’t recall whether or not limbo has been dogmatically defined. I don’t think it has been.

Take a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on limbo:
Limbo <—clicky
Your questions are covered in section II: Limbus Infinatum.

Note the difference between the supernatural happiness of the blessed in Heaven as opposed to the natural happiness of thos who died in original sin but had no actual sins.

Being only “naturally happy” forever isn’t such a horrible punishment for the unbaptized babies, now is it?

If that is how it is then I won’t have such a problem with it. The other guy was saying that they will endure punishment that will not be equal to Hell, but still punishment.

Would we still be able to interact with them? Or would they be eternally separated from everyone else as well?

 

[COLOS]

[edited my previous post to add in the last paragraph real quick like]]

Well, look at it from the perspective of the Blessed in Heaven. Anything less than the eternal possession of the Most Holy Trinity forever in our souls, in our sight, anything less than that would be torment. True and real torment. It would be the loss of our God.

But the unbaptized babies never knew our God. They do not know what they’ve lost, I suppose. Perhaps that is the punishment, in a sense, which is theirs…I don’t know for certain. But I do know that they abolutely will not be punished for things which they haven’t done.

 

[fred_conty]

As I recall, it is a place a perfect natural happiness as described by theologians. In justice, they can’t be tormented forever because they didn’t commit any actual sins. By Divine revelation we know that they are excluded from the Beautific Vision of eternal blessedness in the life of the Most Holy Trinity because they were not Baptised.

I don’t recall whether or not limbo has been dogmatically defined. I don’t think it has been.

Take a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on limbo:
Limbo <—clicky
Your questions are covered in section II: Limbus Infinatum.

Note the difference between the supernatural happiness of the blessed in Heaven as opposed to the natural happiness of those who died in original sin but had no actual sins.

Being only “naturally happy” forever isn’t such a horrible punishment for the unbaptized babies, now is it?

In the end, there is only Heaven and Hell. Heaven is for the blessed. Hell is for all the rest. In Hell there are varying degrees of torment. I wonder if perhaps what we call limbo rests at the top of Hell. I don’t know, really. Until a dogmatic council defines exactly what and where Limbo is, no one can say with perfect certainty.

The church actually remains mute about the innocent children after death. I know of nothing anywhere where it has defined limbo for children or somewhere else for that matter.

However there are many sources of theological opinion, but only opinions. We have no knowledge thru revelation about this. Bottom line, we really don’t know.

Having said that, we know Jesus is merciful, and said, let the little chirdren come to me." I do believe we can trust Jesus for loving them more than we ever could, both in this life and in the next. “Go and multiply.” If we do our best, He will do the rest. In the next world, I know we will be happy how it all turns out because He is wonderful, consoler, the mighty one.

But if I were a parent, I would do as Mary did, and bring the child to church as soon as possible. Which also happens to be the Church’s law (His will) for the child’s good, and ours.

 

[COLOS]

Yeah, the last paragraph of the page on Limbo:

Those dying in original sin are said to descend into hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned, i.e.,** they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty**. Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children’s limbo, while from the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregroy of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can he reconciled with a worthy concept of God’s justice and other attributes.

An interesting read.

 

[COLOS]

The church actually remains mute about the innocent children after death. I know of nothing anywhere where it has defined limbo for children or somewhere else for that matter.

However there are many sources of theological opinion, but only opinions. We have no knowledge thru revelation about this. Bottom line, we really don’t know.

Having said that, we know Jesus is merciful, and said, let the little chirdren come to me." I do believe we can trust Jesus for loving them more than we ever could, both in this life and in the next. “Go and multiply.” If we do our best, He will do the rest. In the next world, I know we will be happy how it all turns out because He is wonderful, consoler, the mighty one.

But if I were a parent, I would do as Mary did, and bring the child to church as soon as possible. Which also happens to be the Church’s law (His will) for the child’s good, and ours.

Yup, I recognize the fact that it is not dogmatically defined and as such all of this is nothing more than theological opinion; however, that doesn’t prevent a faithful Catholic from considering the fate of the unbaptized.

Knowing the mercy of God, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some piece of knowledge that the theologians hadn’t considered when arguing their points of view. Who knows for certain what will become of those babies? Until a dogmatic council rules, I don’t know.

But for the time being, in my freedom to hold a theological opinion on a subject that hasn’t been dogmatically defined, I tend to side with St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Gregory_I]

COLOS, I like what you are saying.

I would like to emphasize something though:

Original sin is not ONLY the loss of sanctifying grace. According to the church, it is the loss of the original justice and holiness that Adam had. in addition, it is actually BEING GUILTY of Adams sin. THis is defined by the Church: Original sin is in each person as their own sin. Also, we must remember that those born in original sin ARE NOT GOD’S FRIENDS. The wrath of God abides upon them. THey are slaves: TO sin, which is really in them, and to the devil, who has a grip on their soul.

Please read what the COuncil of Trent Taught on Original Sin in Session 5. It is not too lengthy and is pretty clear.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

 

[COLOS]

COLOS, I like what you are saying.

I would like to emphasize something though:

Original sin is not ONLY the loss of sanctifying grace. According to the church, it is the loss of the original justice and holiness that Adam had. in addition, it is actually BEING GUILTY of Adams sin. THis is defined by the Church: Original sin is in each person as their own sin. Also, we must remember that those born in original sin ARE NOT GOD’S FRIENDS. The wrath of God abides upon them. THey are slaves: TO sin, which is really in them, and to the devil, who has a grip on their soul.

Please read what the COuncil of Trent Taught on Original Sin in Session 5. It is not too lengthy and is pretty clear.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html

You make good points on the whole; however, I call to mind the primary importance of the privation of sanctifying grace:

Several theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, neglecting the importance of the privation of grace in the explanation of original sin, and explaining it only by the participation we are supposed to have in the act of Adam, exaggerate this participation. They exaggerate the idea of voluntary in original sin, thinking that it is the only way to explain how it is a sin properly so-called. Their opinion, differing from that of St. Thomas, gave rise to uncalled-for and insoluble difficulties. At present it is altogether abandoned.
Catholic Encyclopedia: Original Sin

It does make perfect sense to me to see the loss of sanctifying grace described as the “death of the soul”. In the death of the soul you have the loss of every good thing which God gave to our first parents. While I think that I understand that the effects of Original Sin are not solely defined as a lack of sanctifying grace, I also understand that this privation of grace is of primary importance in knowing what original sin actually entails.

…but I am no theologian, so I could be wrong in this emphasis.

I would point out that as a convert the emphisis on the privation of sanctifying grace in defining what original sin actually is, helped me come to a comfortable knowledge of this dogma while converting; otherwise, I may have become lost in the depths of Catholic theology, lol.

I like your thread, though.

 

[Gregory_I]

I am a convert too!, from reformed baptist church.

 

[COLOS]

I am a convert too!, from reformed baptist church.

Sweet!


Don’t ya just love being Catholic? It’s the only religion that I know of where you can ask the hard questions and get real answers. Sure, sometimes the answers are hard too, but at least they are real answers instead of platitudes, lol.

Glad to see another convert roaming around!

 

[Shin]

Don’t ya just love being Catholic? It’s the only religion that I know of where you can ask the hard questions and get real answers. Sure, sometimes the answers are hard too, but at least they are real answers instead of platitudes, lol.

Yes, the real answers, instead of platitudes, thanks be to God.

I would point out that as a convert the emphisis on the privation of sanctifying grace in defining what original sin actually is, helped me come to a comfortable knowledge of this dogma while converting; otherwise, I may have become lost in the depths of Catholic theology, lol.

Very worth thinking over!

 

[Gregory_I]

I suppose I gravitate toward this view which is essentially Augustinian because Calvin was big in my Church; and despite his errors, he DID claim to be a follower of St. Augustine. SO Augustine has always been foremost in my mind as the epitome of Catholic THeology, as acknowledged by the church.

 

[Gregory_I]

It just seems to me that the DOctrine about Baptism of Desire which basically hinges on our understanding of What constitutes a valid baptism, is very poorly understood.

I mean, I am no Augustine, but after reading Sessions 5, 6, and 7 of the COuncil of Trent, it is much more nuanced.

I mean, the real watchword with BOD is “Invincible ignorance.” Most people interpret that term to mean “Invincible Culpability.” As if the Person is not capable of damning themselves through their sinfulness. I mean, the Invincibly ignorant person still has a conscience which he is accountable to, if not the law of the gospel and the Church of Christ; and this conscience can, and I believe IS without fail violated in the lives of every person at some point. THis is enough to send a person to hell, if its serious and grave matter.

But all invincible ignorance means is that they are not Culpable for the sin of Unbeliefe. THat is one particular individual Sin that they are not culpable for; It doesn’t mean they are not culpable for a lifestyle of sin (How about the Mayans who sacrificed to the Sun god?).

We need to remember there are conditions for BOD; because BOD can justify a person in the Absence of Sacramental Water Baptism, but it is all very clearly layed out what disposition is required in the Heart of Man to be made Just: He must first respond to the grace of God calling him.

First, how can an ignorant person do that if they do not even know what they are being called to?

But say they do: THey must Exhibit Sorrow for Sin out of the love for God, Perfect Contrition, which is absolutely necessary for salvation. THey must Have the grace of Charity toward their Neighbor, which is also absolutely necessary for salvation. THey must have the gift of faith to make an act of Faith which is also absolutely necessary for salvation: For without Faith it is impossible to please God.

But this Fiath is not sufficient as a half-full faith (Like Judaism) because in the BIble God appeared to the God-fearing but ignorant Cornelius and sent him his angel to lead him to the Church. Similarly, GOd was not content to leave the Ethiopian Eunuch as a Good Falasha (Ethiopian Jew), But brought him to the Church, and to the waters of Baptism.

How then can we say that a half-dim faith in a person with no one to instruct them in the faith is capable of saving: THey do not know what to believe unless GOd manifests it: But to do that is to dispel ignorance!

THerefore, THe invincibly ignorant can be saved If they have their ignorance dispelled and acknowledge fully the Faith of the Church, outside of which absolutely no one is saved. Does that make sense?

And for all these reasons, an infant who is not baptized cannot be saved. No will, no act of faith.

 

[agbasinger]

It just seems to me that the DOctrine about Baptism of Desire which basically hinges on our understanding of What constitutes a valid baptism, is very poorly understood.

I mean, I am no Augustine, but after reading Sessions 5, 6, and 7 of the COuncil of Trent, it is much more nuanced.

I mean, the real watchword with BOD is “Invincible ignorance.” Most people interpret that term to mean “Invincible Culpability.” As if the Person is not capable of damning themselves through their sinfulness. I mean, the Invincibly ignorant person still has a conscience which he is accountable to, if not the law of the gospel and the Church of Christ; and this conscience can, and I believe IS without fail violated in the lives of every person at some point. THis is enough to send a person to hell, if its serious and grave matter.

But all invincible ignorance means is that they are not Culpable for the sin of Unbeliefe. THat is one particular individual Sin that they are not culpable for; It doesn’t mean they are not culpable for a lifestyle of sin (How about the Mayans who sacrificed to the Sun god?).

We need to remember there are conditions for BOD; because BOD can justify a person in the Absence of Sacramental Water Baptism, but it is all very clearly layed out what disposition is required in the Heart of Man to be made Just: He must first respond to the grace of God calling him.

First, how can an ignorant person do that if they do not even know what they are being called to?

But say they do: THey must Exhibit Sorrow for Sin out of the love for God, Perfect Contrition, which is absolutely necessary for salvation. THey must Have the grace of Charity toward their Neighbor, which is also absolutely necessary for salvation. THey must have the gift of faith to make an act of Faith which is also absolutely necessary for salvation: For without Faith it is impossible to please God.

But this Fiath is not sufficient as a half-full faith (Like Judaism) because in the BIble God appeared to the God-fearing but ignorant Cornelius and sent him his angel to lead him to the Church. Similarly, GOd was not content to leave the Ethiopian Eunuch as a Good Falasha (Ethiopian Jew), But brought him to the Church, and to the waters of Baptism.

How then can we say that a half-dim faith in a person with no one to instruct them in the faith is capable of saving: THey do not know what to believe unless GOd manifests it: But to do that is to dispel ignorance!

THerefore, THe invincibly ignorant can be saved If they have their ignorance dispelled and acknowledge fully the Faith of the Church, outside of which absolutely no one is saved. Does that make sense?

And for all these reasons, an infant who is not baptized cannot be saved. No will, no act of faith.

For some people the objection stems from the fact that God creates a life, and takes a life, and sends the child to Limbo, all the while there is no visable evidence that the child did anything objectionable.

A second argument comes from “a baby cries because it is selfish therefore it is proof it is born in sin” really doesn’t help forward the argument either.

 

[Gregory_I]

But this action is not outside God’s sovereignty, and it would not be wrong, it would be just: For God is the EPitome and SOurce of Justice and Mercy. He qualifies all his actions as moral and the highest good simply by doing them. He is beyond questioning, as Job found out.

As Romans 9 says:

"11For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,)

12Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written: **Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.**

14What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.

16So then** it is not of him that willeth**, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17For the scripture saith to Pharao: To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may shew my power in thee, and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

18Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth.

***19Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? for who resisteth his will?***

20O man, **who art thou that repliest against God? **Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus?

21Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

*** 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction,

23That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory?***

24Even us, whom also he hath called, nor only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles.

Basically God does what he wants to show forth his glory so that we may be in awe and love him for his unfathomable wisdom. He saves who he wants, and allows those others to be condemned by their own sinfulness.

 

[agbasinger]

But this action is not outside God’s sovereignty, and it would not be wrong, it would be just: For God is the EPitome and SOurce of Justice and Mercy. He qualifies all his actions as moral and the highest good simply by doing them. He is beyond questioning, as Job found out.

As Romans 9 says:

"11For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,)

12Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written: **Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.**

14What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.

16So then** it is not of him that willeth**, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17For the scripture saith to Pharao: To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may shew my power in thee, and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

18Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth.

***19Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? for who resisteth his will?***

20O man, **who art thou that repliest against God? **Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus?

21Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

*** 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction,

23That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory?***

24Even us, whom also he hath called, nor only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles.

Basically God does what he wants to show forth his glory so that we may be in awe and love him for his unfathomable wisdom. He saves who he wants, and allows those others to be condemned by their own sinfulness.

I agree that God can do whatever he wants as he is not bound to anything but himself.

However, you ask what was so questionable about children being sent to limbo. I think that those of who have children who passed away at or near birth might have trouble chalking up the situation as God having his way.

 

[COLOS]

I agree that God can do whatever he wants as he is not bound to anything but himself.

However, you ask what was so questionable about children being sent to limbo. I think that those of who have children who passed away at or near birth might have trouble chalking up the situation as God having his way.

I tend to wonder if there is another side to Baptism of Desire where if the miscarried child would have been born instead, the parents absolutely would have baptized him/her, and so perhaps the effects of baptism might be given to the child based on the firm desire and Christian purpose of the parents.

I have absolutely no idea if that is correct, but I do wonder about the possibility.

All is in the mercy and justice of God, so there are no worries for His children.

 

[Gregory_I]

I think BOD only works when the person can assent with the will…no?