What should the Church "drop" besides limbo?

[corvidae]

Tom,
I think the big problem is that none of your points actually require limbo. They could easily be taught without it.

I do not like the idea of limbo, and would rather the Church admit limitation than “invent” a hypothesis that “might” work.

Again, we do not have to assume that all babies are in heaven if there is no limbo, we could just as easily assume they are all in hell. The point is, we do not know where they are, so we use what we do know, that baptism offers salvation, and work from there.

A lone Raven

 

[Tom317]

Tom,
I think the big problem is that none of your points actually require limbo. They could easily be taught without it.

I do not like the idea of limbo, and would rather the Church admit limitation than “invent” a hypothesis that “might” work.

Again, we do not have to assume that all babies are in heaven if there is no limbo, we could just as easily assume they are all in hell. The point is, we do not know where they are, so we use what we do know, that baptism offers salvation, and work from there.

A lone Raven

Limbo is merely a word created by the Church to desribe the possible consequence of babies dying without being baptized. My points do not require Limbo, I agree completely. Yet, my poinst require that the Church takes a “Limb-like” position regarding unbaptized babies. The reason is simple: Unbaptized babies may very well not be saved, we do not know, so it is imperative that the Church takes a very strong “teaching” position regarding the absolute nature of baptism. If evry umpbaptized baby is thought to go to heaven, then there is no need to baptize anyone until much later in life…that is a argument to which no-one can properly debate. Simply put: no consequence for not bapitzing makes baptism not needed for ANY baby.

The Church uses all sorts of huamn contructs to teach the Gospels. Church buildings, altars, tabernacles, etc., all teach truths of the faith and yet they are not strictly required by Jesus. Limbo is a human contruct intended to be used as a teaching tool, a tool to help make sure Catholics know that they MUST baptize their babies and children. If the Church does away with Limbo and makes a statement that it is likely unbaptized babies go to heaven, then Catholics will see that as a form of teaching and will cease baptizing their kids…the Church is supposed to work within the framework of humanity and humans always look for the easy way out.

 

[corvidae]

But if the Church says that we simply do not know what happens to the unbaptized, that there may be hope for heaven, and may be the consequence of hell, then what happens. You are assuming that getting rid of limbo means teaching that all unbaptized go to heaven, when that simply is not the case. The Church can rid itself of the teaching of limbo without softening anything on original sin, as long as it continues to teach the doctrine correctly.

An example would be, oh I do not need to get my child baptized because if they die, it would be perfect earthly happiness, and because that is what I imagine heaven would be like, why baptize.

If instead the teaching was, we do not know what happens, they are not assured heaven, and they may go to hell, that same person may think, whoa, I do not want my child in hell.

Do you see what I mean.

A lone Raven

 

[Tom317]

But if the Church says that we simply do not know what happens to the unbaptized, that there may be hope for heaven, and may be the consequence of hell, then what happens. You are assuming that getting rid of limbo means teaching that all unbaptized go to heaven, when that simply is not the case. The Church can rid itself of the teaching of limbo without softening anything on original sin, as long as it continues to teach the doctrine correctly.

An example would be, oh I do not need to get my child baptized because if they die, it would be perfect earthly happiness, and because that is what I imagine heaven would be like, why baptize.

If instead the teaching was, we do not know what happens, they are not assured heaven, and they may go to hell, that same person may think, whoa, I do not want my child in hell.

Do you see what I mean.

A lone Raven

I do see what you mean, and I know you mean well, as do many others here. Please bear with me.

Here is the problem: We agree that we do not know what happens to the unbaptized babies. Any of several different actions might happen after they die and only God knows what that is. The Church is obviously correct when it says it does not know and it can only hope the babies go to Heaven. The problem lies in the fact that statements like that are never taught fully, and they are never explained so the laity fully understands.

We only need to see the horrible numbers of people going to confession to see what I am saying. The Church still holds that mortal can lead a person to hell and that every Catholic should go to confession at least once a year, yet far less then 10% actually go to confession in this nation, and much less in Europe. The reason for that is Priests and the Chruch are not teaching about the absolute the need for confession and they are not teaching about sin. The Church has entered into a soft approach era in which it does not want to come across as a fire and brimstone Church…yet that attitude has lead many millions to not go to confession, to their eternal detriment.

Now forward that to Limbo. I do not give a whit if the term Limbo goes away, it is a mere human construct. What I care about is that the Church contructs something to place some holy fear into the hearts of the laity regarding the consequence of not baptizing babies. If the Church removes Limbo, and does not replace it with some other strong teachable theory, then baptism for babies and kids will slowly, but surely, disappear just like confession. And, not long after that belief in any consequence for original sin will go the same path, so will many other formal teachings of the faith. It will take little time before the faith would be nearly unrecognizable.

We cannot take a position that each Catholic is responsible to make sure they are properly formed because in the real world that just will not happen. Our faith ancestors knew that very well, and that is why they made human constructs like Limbo to help emphasize divine truths in a human way, it was a way of letting the normal, everyday Catholic know what the boundaries are. If Limbo goes without a replacement theory (and name), so does the need for baptizing babies and here is the reason why:

The vast majority of the laity will NOT hear the entire message, it will only hear (and the media will only say): “That Limbo is gone and unpbaptized babies go to heaven.” That is what they will hear, that is what they will believe, and that will be what all non-Catholic faith groups will say, and the world will proclaim that the Catholic Church no longer thinks infant baptism is a must. Bye bye baptism, bye bye original sin, and abortion then becomes an act of love by unprepared mothers because their aborted babies will go straight to heaven.

It will not matter what the truth is, because the laity will not listen to the truth once they feel they do not have to baptize their babies and kids…they will rejoice in their new freedoms. There are probably a hundred examples of this in the Church today, so many Catholics don’t think the Eucharist is truly Christ (70%), and don’t think missing Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin, etc…

 

[corvidae]

Tom,

It seems that you and I have not actually been having a discussion, but are on the same side, just seeing things slightly differently.

I do not like limbo because I see it as a bad teaching tool, and overstepping the Church’s boundaries.

You like limbo because it is a teaching tool period.

A little background on me, I come from a diocese that is not suffering lack of seminarians (we have more priest per capita than any diocese in the U.S.) and that is not suffering from people not going to confession. There are confessions every saturday for about 2 hours, and probably 30-50 go weekly just at my parish. In addition to this before daily mass there are confessions and probably 3-5 go daily. Now this is a parish of 500 families.

So I come from a background, where even hard Church teachings are taught, and even taught as Church teachings not as simply recommendations.

So it seems that I am coming from a place where I can worry about what is a good teaching tool and what is not.

You however seem to see any teaching tool as a good thing, because maybe, just maybe it will start people teaching.

I think the solution is not in limbo, but in better education of Catholics as to what the Church believes and why the Church believes it. I think that the Church need not fear offending people or driving them away because of too hard of teachings. I think that at least 50% of Cafeteria Catholics are cafeteria Catholics because of ignorance. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum of saints, but The Church should not water down her teachings so that the sinners do not feel as guilty.

Basically, I think the answer is the Church in America especially taking a stand, and starting to act authoritatively, rather than simply trying to squeak by.

A lone Raven

 

[Tom317]

Tom,

It seems that you and I have not actually been having a discussion, but are on the same side, just seeing things slightly differently.

I do not like limbo because I see it as a bad teaching tool, and overstepping the Church’s boundaries.

You like limbo because it is a teaching tool period.

A little background on me, I come from a diocese that is not suffering lack of seminarians (we have more priest per capita than any diocese in the U.S.) and that is not suffering from people not going to confession. There are confessions every saturday for about 2 hours, and probably 30-50 go weekly just at my parish. In addition to this before daily mass there are confessions and probably 3-5 go daily. Now this is a parish of 500 families.

So I come from a background, where even hard Church teachings are taught, and even taught as Church teachings not as simply recommendations.

So it seems that I am coming from a place where I can worry about what is a good teaching tool and what is not.

You however seem to see any teaching tool as a good thing, because maybe, just maybe it will start people teaching.

I think the solution is not in limbo, but in better education of Catholics as to what the Church believes and why the Church believes it. I think that the Church need not fear offending people or driving them away because of too hard of teachings. I think that at least 50% of Cafeteria Catholics are cafeteria Catholics because of ignorance. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum of saints, but The Church should not water down her teachings so that the sinners do not feel as guilty.

Basically, I think the answer is the Church in America especially taking a stand, and starting to act authoritatively, rather than simply trying to squeak by.

A lone Raven

You are in a very, very rare parish and you are truly blessed. The vast majority of parishes simply are not like yours.

I think you misunderstand (or perhaps I mis-stated my views). I think Limbo is a good teaching tool, but it is NOT only a teaching tool, it represents a theological explanation that helps supports formal teachings like original sin. The plain truth is this: if unbaptized babies go to heaven, then there is no reason to baptize babies. The logic of that statement cannot be avoided. If the Church takes a position that there is no consequence (Limbo, or something else) for not baptizing babies, then babies will cease being baptized and abortion will become a loving act by all unprepared mothers. Now, you can counter by saying that the Church will not formally say babies go to Heaven, yet that is already all we are reading and hearing, that the Church is going to get rid of Limbo and that the Pope thinks babies go to Heaven…even though that is not accurate, it is already being sold that way, it is already a mess.

God, through His word, tells us that nothing unclean can enter Heaven…nothing. And, God, through His Word and His Church, tells us that original sin is a very real stain on our souls transmitted to us by Adam and Eve. In order to enter Heaven we MUST have the stain of original sin washed away, so the only way that can happen for unbapitzed babies who die, is if God baptizes them after death. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, does the Church or God’s Word, or Tradition, teach that God baptizes after death.

Therefore, since God chose not to tell us what He does in these cases, we must be extremely careful when speaking about what happens to the unbaptized babies. Limbo explains all this and keeps us focused on the very real possibility that the babies do suffer a loss as result of not being baptized.

We live in a world where the faith is being water-down in so many ways. People think all faiths are equal and can lead them to heaven, they are not equal. People think that God is all loving and would never allow His children to suffer…yet that is false too. Jesus is seen as just another way to Heaven, not “THE” way, and so on. Likewise, if Limbo is removed and not replaced with a very similar theory/teaching, then baptism will just be seen as nice thing to do, but not required.

90% of the Catholics out there do not hold your knowledge, they just do merrily through their lives without a lot a thought to Jesus and His Church. They will leap at the idea that baptism is no longer required for babies or kids, they will rejoice in it.

 

[corvidae]

Why should we let the media teach people about our faith? Why on Earth should we be ok with Catholics getting their information from the media?

The Catholics you are talking about who would jump at the chance to not need baptism have probably not been taught limbo anyway, and if they believe everything the media says, already probably believe that the Church is full of child molesters and homosexuals.

The Catholic Faith is not built upon hypothesis’ that might work, or might fit, or might be what happens, it is built upon the TRUTH. and the Truth is never a soundbite, never a blip on the radar screen, the TRUTH is complex, and often times must be explained before it can be grasped.

Why do we defend the Catholic faith, because it is complex and easily misunderstood, even among Catholics. We must cling to truth, not what the media tells us, or the easiest way (we think) we can explain things, we must cling to TRUTH.

If limbo is not truth, it is not from God and should be cut out of Catholic teaching. If it is truth, the Holy Spirit will not allow it to be dropped from Catholic teaching, else the Gates of Hell would be prevailing. Or it can stand as it is, a tool, not a dogma, not a requirement, but a tool.

A lone Raven

 

[Tom317]

Why should we let the media teach people about our faith? Why on Earth should we be ok with Catholics getting their information from the media?

The Catholics you are talking about who would jump at the chance to not need baptism have probably not been taught limbo anyway, and if they believe everything the media says, already probably believe that the Church is full of child molesters and homosexuals.

The Catholic Faith is not built upon hypothesis’ that might work, or might fit, or might be what happens, it is built upon the TRUTH. and the Truth is never a soundbite, never a blip on the radar screen, the TRUTH is complex, and often times must be explained before it can be grasped.

Why do we defend the Catholic faith, because it is complex and easily misunderstood, even among Catholics. We must cling to truth, not what the media tells us, or the easiest way (we think) we can explain things, we must cling to TRUTH.

If limbo is not truth, it is not from God and should be cut out of Catholic teaching. If it is truth, the Holy Spirit will not allow it to be dropped from Catholic teaching, else the Gates of Hell would be prevailing. Or it can stand as it is, a tool, not a dogma, not a requirement, but a tool.

A lone Raven

I do not think Catholics should take their teaching from the media, I am saying a ton of them do.

TRUTH–TRUTH–TRUTH! Finally we can agree on something. The Catholic faith must teach only the truth and that is precisley what I have been trying to get you tro see.

Original sin: Fact of the faith–it is TRUTH!

Baptism required by Christ for everyone, no exceptions. Fact of the faith–it is TRUTH!

Must be completely pure/clean before entering Heaven. Fact of the faith–it is TRUTH!

God never told us that He baptizes after death. Fact of the faith–it is TRUTH!

We are not allowed to assume God will do things He never said He will do. Fact of the faith–it is TRUTH!

Therefore,

Since those are all true statements, and since God has not revealed to us what He does after death with the unbaptized babies…we are NOT allowed to assume they will go to Heaven, nor are we allowed to assume they will go anywhere else. Limbo takes all of those truths and explains them in a way that makes sense, yet the Church never declares Limbo a formal teaching because it uses Limbo merely as a means to explain the truths I listed above. The Church will not get rid of Limbo, yet if it does, it will be replaced by a theory or teaching that is Limbo in disguise.

Teaching the truths of the faith is worthless if the Church negates the consequence for not baptizing babies.

Answer this:

If babies are baptized by God after death, then why would anyone baptize their babies or kids in this life?

If babies are baptized by God after death, then what is to stop a pregnant mother from aborting her child as an act of love for the child, knowing that child will go directly to heaven?

 

[corvidae]

I know it is not in good taste to answer a question with a question, but

God commanded us to baptize. That is why we should do it. God promises that we will have happiness in him in the next life, does that mean we should try and be unhappy in this one.

And if a mother killed her child just after baptism, out of love, would this be wrong?

I am not saying that babies will be baptized by God after death, I am saying that We do not know. And so why should we claim to know exactly where they are.

A lone RAven

 

[Tom317]

I know it is not in good taste to answer a question with a question, but

God commanded us to baptize. That is why we should do it. God promises that we will have happiness in him in the next life, does that mean we should try and be unhappy in this one.

And if a mother killed her child just after baptism, out of love, would this be wrong?

I am not saying that babies will be baptized by God after death, I am saying that We do not know. And so why should we claim to know exactly where they are.

A lone RAven

Nice duck.

 

[corvidae]

no problem,
The only reason to answer a question with a question is to show absurdity.
That is why I did it.

It is wrong to murder for any reason, for example, I am convinced if I went into a Catholic Church and asked who really believed this, and if they would be willing to die for it, and then shot anyone who said that. I would have made a bunch of martyrs, I would have saved them from the possibility of later losing their salvation.

However, whatever intention I have does not excuse the things I do.

We are commanded to baptize because it is a positive assurance, it is the assurance that the child is a child of God. We do not know what happens if baptism does not happen. We do not have a negative, if you do not do this, you will be damned.

It is not neccessary to have an explicit punishment in order to have a teaching.

A lone Raven

 

[JimO]

I do not believe that limbo is an official teaching of the Catholic Church in the sense of a Catholic dogma. I do believe, however, that limbo is a deduction and a hypothesis that are necessary for the defense of a truth that is a Catholic dogma, i.e., original sin.

I did not vote because I don’t believe in “dropping” any of the dogmas you have listed (if there are any that aren’t official dogma, I stand corrected). The listed dogma cannot be “dropped” any more than we could “drop” the Trinity. I also don’t agree with you that limbo is necessary for defense of original sin. There are exceptions to water baptism - baptism by desire and baptism by blood. Perhaps all aborted children are baptised by blood because, in a sense, they are martyred through rejection of the gift of life offered by God. There is no more basic rejection of the Truth than to reject the gift of life itself. Also, children who die naturally before birth to parents who intended baptism would certainly qualify for baptism by desire. The desire of the parents is relevant for the infant in the same way that the parents’ profession of faith on behalf of a baptised infant is relevant. But this is only MHO because I am no theologian.

My point is that the absence of limbo does not shake my faith at all because without it we are placing unbaptised children into the hands of a merciful Father. There is no better place to be. However, rejection of any dogma would shake my faith, not because of the change in the individual concept expressed in the dogma itself, but because dogma cannot be rejected, without a loss of the claim to infallability. That would be a great problem indeed.

And, the bottom line is this, since limbo is not a dogma and I am not required to hold to it, my belief in it or unbelief won’t change the facts. Our children were baptized early and limbo had nothing to do with that decision. I’ve always viewed limbo as a concept that I was free to agree with or not and I never found it a necessary underpinning of any other dogma.

Blessings

 

[Tom317]

no problem,
The only reason to answer a question with a question is to show absurdity.

Hmm, insults now?

We are commanded to baptize because it is a positive assurance, it is the assurance that the child is a child of God. We do not know what happens if baptism does not happen.

Not true. Jesus said no-one who is not baptized enters the kingdom. Exactly what part of “no-one” is difficult to understand? We are commanded to be baptized because that is part of God’s requirement for us to be saved, not because of some human concept of assurance. Jesus mandated baptism and no amount of us talking about this erases that absolute fact.

Limbo may not exist, yet no-one on earth knows if it does or does not exist. The thing we know is that Jesus was not playing around when He created the mandate to be baptized and He simply did not qualify His command and none of us have any right to qualify His command for Him.

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Fear is a very healthy thing.

 

[Tom317]

I did not vote because I don’t believe in “dropping” any of the dogmas you have listed (if there are any that aren’t official dogma, I stand corrected). The listed dogma cannot be “dropped” any more than we could “drop” the Trinity. I also don’t agree with you that limbo is necessary for defense of original sin. There are exceptions to water baptism - baptism by desire and baptism by blood. Perhaps all aborted children are baptised by blood because, in a sense, they are martyred through rejection of the gift of life offered by God. There is no more basic rejection of the Truth than to reject the gift of life itself. Also, children who die naturally before birth to parents who intended baptism would certainly qualify for baptism by desire. The desire of the parents is relevant for the infant in the same way that the parents’ profession of faith on behalf of a baptised infant is relevant. But this is only MHO because I am no theologian.

My point is that the absence of limbo does not shake my faith at all because without it we are placing unbaptised children into the hands of a merciful Father. There is no better place to be. However, rejection of any dogma would shake my faith, not because of the change in the individual concept expressed in the dogma itself, but because dogma cannot be rejected, without a loss of the claim to infallability. That would be a great problem indeed.

And, the bottom line is this, since limbo is not a dogma and I am not required to hold to it, my belief in it or unbelief won’t change the facts. Our children were baptized early and limbo had nothing to do with that decision. I’ve always viewed limbo as a concept that I was free to agree with or not and I never found it a necessary underpinning of any other dogma.

Blessings

The problem is God has spoken on this issue and He mandated baptism for everyone and He did not qualify His command. We cannot impute onto God things He has not said and He never said He will baptize babies who die without baptism…He just never said it. Yet, He did make baptism very clearly a part of salvation of souls. So, we have absolutely no choice but to assume that babies who die without baptism might suffer a consequence…there is no choice but to conclude that because did not speak about babies, He said everyone must be baptized.

 

[JimO]

The problem is God has spoken on this issue and He mandated baptism for everyone and He did not qualify His command. We cannot impute onto God things He has not said and He never said He will baptize babies who die without baptism…He just never said it. Yet, He did make baptism very clearly a part of salvation of souls. So, we have absolutely no choice but to assume that babies who die without baptism might suffer a consequence…there is no choice but to conclude that because did not speak about babies, He said everyone must be baptized.

Then explain to me the Church’s teachings on baptism by desire and baptism by blood.

 

[corvidae]

That was not meant as an insult. I did not mean to insult you, I simply wanted to show that some of the arguments you were using are absurd if taken to their logical conclusion.

Again, I am not saying that these children are in heaven. I may say I hope they are in heaven, as I hope everyone is, though I do know that there are many in hell, I just do not know who they are.

We do know that there must be a punishment for original sin, this has been proclaimed by the Church. We do not know if that punishment is eternal. Limbo is eternal, at least, it is whenever it has been explained to me.

Do you believe that everything Christ ever said is written in the Bible.

I thought that was why we had Sacred Tradition, because some things He said were not written down. Now Sacred tradition has handed down two forms of baptism that are not of water, that is Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood. It seems that this is qualifying Jesus statement.

If the Church teaches authoritatively that one must believe in Limbo in order to be Catholic, I will be right there, in the words of St. Augustine I believe, “Rome has spoken, the Case is closed”. Until that point, I will try and understand the theory of limbo, and unless something changes, try to show why it is not neccessary.

A lone Raven

 

[Tom317]

Then explain to me the Church’s teachings on baptism by desire and baptism by blood.

Baptism of desire and of blood does not apply here because babies hold nither and also because discussing the validty of those issues would take a separate thread. However, please consider the following excerpt:

***The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed. **

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XI*

 

[Tom317]

That was not meant as an insult. I did not mean to insult you, I simply wanted to show that some of the arguments you were using are absurd if taken to their logical conclusion.

It is insulting to attack my arguments when you did not even answer my challenges. To me that is a sign of a person without a response.

Now Sacred tradition has handed down two forms of baptism that are not of water, that is Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood. It seems that this is qualifying Jesus statement.

You are making my point for me. No matter what we say, the Church makes it clear that baptism in this life MUST take place. We can argue about desire and bllod, yet even if we assume those are forms of baptism, then they fit the bill because it is baptism. In other words, the souls is still saved because it was baptized on THIS side of life, not after death.

We are NOT free to say God will do things that He has not revealed to us either through Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium. God has not said what He does what He will do in this situation, so we must fall back to what He did say, and He said everyone MUST be baptized. It is that simple. Limbo speaks to all of that.

 

[corvidae]

Ok,
I will not answer your response because unless I show it to be absurd, there is no good answer. It is like asking someone, can God make a rock so big He cannot lift it. It is an absurd question.

And baptism of blood does not take place in this life, it takes place at the transition between this life and the next. By definition, you must be killed to have a baptism of blood.

God has not said what He will do. Limbo speaks to what God will do.

That is the long and short of it,

I am saying I do not know,
You are saying that you do know, and that it is limbo

We are not free to presume that God will do something that He has not expressed through Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, and that is exactly what limbo is, it is presuming God will do this, even though it is not and has not been held to be binding on Catholics.

A lone Raven
A lone Raven

 

[JimO]

Baptism of desire and of blood does not apply here because babies hold nither and also because discussing the validty of those issues would take a separate thread. However, please consider the following excerpt:

Tom, that’s fine, but your original response to me definitively excluded baptism by desire or by blood. I stated in my original post that I am no theologian and that what I stated was only my opinion. Since limbo is not a dogma and since baptism by desire and by blood do exist, I am free to speculate/ponder/wonder in good conscience, in the manner that I did. My reason for doing so was to point out alternatives, in the absence of limbo, to all children who die before birth going to hell based on original sin.

Furthermore, the Church recognizes the concept of “Invincible Ignorance”, which isn’t dogma, but leaves open the possibility of heaven for those who have never heard the Gospel. Does this apply to the unbaptised? If not, then all native Americans, Polynesians, Eskimos, Australian Aboriginees, etc., etc., etc. who were born after Christ and were not baptized are in hell.

God’s mercy certainly is bigger than that, but once again I am no theologian and I am only speculating in an area that is not dogmatic.