What should the Church "drop" besides limbo?

[Steve_O_Brien]

Actually, it does not impact the doctrine of Original Sin any more so than the general exception to the No Salvation outside the Church does. I agree that the concept of Limbo is certainly one resolution to the necessity of Baptism. However I think we need to keep in mind some basic points.

1. Actual physical baptism is not strictly speaking necessary. Under extreme circumstances, one can receive baptism by sincere desire to receive baptism.
2. Infants are incapable of formulating that sincere desire.
3. The Church however, allows that those who are not formal members of the Church because of ignorance but who seek God with a sincere heart may be saved by being mystically linked to the Church.

Now on point 3. As far as I can tell, this path is at least technically open to all, even those without an explicit knowledge or belief in Christ and therefore baptized.

Now, we know that God is both Just and Merciful, moreover, he is perfectly just and merciful. If the Church teaches that Invincible Ignorance does not prevent someone from being within the mystical church, it should certainly be the a legitimate defense for a child who dies prior to baptisim. It is certainly true that a child in infancy is incapable of being guilty for their ignorance. Likewise one could argue that they have an innate desire for God, even if they cannot articulate that desire. Therefore, it seems, to me anyway, that arguing that such infants are saved in the fullest sense does not argue against the doctrine of Original Sin, but rather argues for both God’s Justice and his Mercy.

Mind you this does not mitigate the need to be baptized any more than desiring the eucharist mitigates the need to actually receive it. Actual reception of baptism will strengthen us spiritually to resist the temptation of sin.

Bill

Bill, the problem with the above reasoning is that it doesn’t take into account the following Catholic dogma:

"But the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only descend without delay into hell, to be punished, however, with different kinds of punishments" (Councils of Lyons II and Florence; DS 858 and 1306).

Christ is speaking to us through this dogma, as he speaks to us through every dogma of the Church. For this reason, in trying to uphold the truths of God’s goodness, mercy, love, and universal salvific will, we cannot, as Catholics, deny that there is a next-world penalty of some kind for original sin. This penalty, as Pope Innocent III taught (DS 780), is the loss of the beatific vision–something to which no human being can claim a strict right. On the contrary, the beatific vision is a gift–a stupendous gift.

If all unbaptized infants go to heaven, then where is the penalty for original sin?

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[frnate]

Without turning this into a huge theological debate.

How did those who died before Christ get into heaven without baptism?

Faith

Peace,
+Nathan

 

[mchale]

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

Baptism is an absolute, and Jesus made water Baptism an absolute, and the Church has always held that baptism is absolutely required for salvation. Now, as you say, God can work outside of His own rules, yet by doing so in the case of baptism it would lead to people no longer being baptized by choice, and original sin would no longer mean anything since people would come to believe that God will wash them clean no matter what they do…it is snowball effect on the faith.

I would be careful about saying that water baptisim is an absolute in the sense that there are no expceptions. It is an absolute in the case that a person knows the requirement and has an opportunity to receive it. I am pretty sure the Church has always allowed for reception by desire in the case of emergencies. For example, lets say you were an adult when you decided you wanted to become Catholic and were on the way to the Church to be baptized when you were hit by a bus. I am pretty sure the Church would consider your sincere desire for baptism.

This is not the slippery slope you imply it is. As an adult, with full knowledge of and belief in the teachings of the Catholic Church, I would have no excuse in not being baptised or at least being on the path to baptism.

Further, saying that they may be saved is not the same as saying they are saved. My basic point here is that God in his mercy, and consistent with the Church’s teaching on Invincible Ignorance, may choose to forgive the original sin of those who have not been baptised because of their own fault. I am not willing to place limits on God’s mercy.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

Bill, the problem with the above reasoning is that it doesn’t take into account the following Catholic dogma:

"But the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only descend without delay into hell, to be punished, however, with different kinds of punishments" (Councils of Lyons II and Florence; DS 858 and 1306).

Well, being my theological training is limited to just a few classes in College and Grad School, and some books I have read sense then, I am not sure I am qualified to properly interpret the specific statement from those councils. However, I think we need to be careful not to focus on a couple of lines in a document and assume that it represents the totality of the Church’s teaching on the matter. Further, I think it is also important to remember that we have to allow for the fact that in the intervening 500 years or so since the last of those councils, that there has been some development of that doctrine.

I will certainly grant that one who has reached the age of reason, who understands the teaching to the Church but chooses not to be baptised is subject to the above teaching. I am just not sure that the other teachings of the Church don’t allow for a possible exception to the above teaching.

The other thing we need to consider is that Limbo was generally not thought of as Hell, but rather as an intermediary state between Heaven and Hell. That concept would also at least on the face of it, violate the teachings of the Councils you referenced above.

Christ is speaking to us through this dogma, as he speaks to us through every dogma of the Church. For this reason, in trying to uphold the truths of God’s goodness, mercy, love, and universal salvific will, we cannot, as Catholics, deny that there is a next-world penalty of some kind for original sin. This penalty, as Pope Innocent III taught (DS 780), is the loss of the beatific vision–something to which no human being can claim a strict right. On the contrary, the beatific vision is a gift–a stupendous gift.

There is a penalty for all sin, including original sin, but I think that we must allow that God in his justice in mercy might insure that all have a legitimate chance to at least receive a baptism by desire if not a baptism by water. There is actually a question and answer about this on the catholic answers website catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411qq.asp

I agree that the beatific vision is a gift, not a right. But it is a gift that God surely desires all his Children to have. It is only by our rejection of it that we are denied it.

If all unbaptized infants go to heaven, then where is the penalty for original sin?

Keep and spread the Faith.

I would suggest that we don’t actually know what happens to unbaptized infants. I would like to think that they go to heaven or at least are given the chance of choosing God and therefore attaining heaven. So I have hope in God’s mercy for the infants, but I don’t know. That being said, lets assume for a moment that all unbaptised babies who die in infancy do go to heaven. How does God making a special exemption for them lessen the penalty for original sin? Certainly all those who live past infancy are subject to the weakness or spirit that Original Sin causes, and if not baptised in infancy, we have the requirement to seek out baptism as adults. If I were unbaptised and somehow managed to survive into adulthood without committing any Mortal Sins, I would definitely be answerable to God for not being Baptised. As I pointed out earlier, the possiblity of receiving a sacrement by sincere desire for the sacrement does not lessen the requirement to actually receive it if it is at all possible to do so.

–
Bill

 

[Tom317]

I would be careful about saying that water baptisim is an absolute in the sense that there are no expceptions. It is an absolute in the case that a person knows the requirement and has an opportunity to receive it. I am pretty sure the Church has always allowed for reception by desire in the case of emergencies. For example, lets say you were an adult when you decided you wanted to become Catholic and were on the way to the Church to be baptized when you were hit by a bus. I am pretty sure the Church would consider your sincere desire for baptism.

This is not the slippery slope you imply it is. As an adult, with full knowledge of and belief in the teachings of the Catholic Church, I would have no excuse in not being baptised or at least being on the path to baptism.

Further, saying that they may be saved is not the same as saying they are saved. My basic point here is that God in his mercy, and consistent with the Church’s teaching on Invincible Ignorance, may choose to forgive the original sin of those who have not been baptised because of their own fault. I am not willing to place limits on God’s mercy.

–
Bill

I agree with your statements about baptism of desire. It is the same with confession, if one truly desires to go to confession and yet something happens on the way, that desire is imputable to their soul. Mnay people do not understand desire in this context. The person must be filled with the intention of receiving baptism, not just “thinking” it is a good idea.

However, unborn babies, born babies and young children are not capable of a desire for baptism because they do not have a clue what baptism is or does. Yet, Jesus and the Church makes it brutally clear that baptism is a requirement of salvation. So, as we all know, this is where the dilema lies. On one hand it seems clear we must be baptized, on the other hand it seems unfair not to allow babies to go to heaven and yet all of these “feelings” come from a human perspective, and if those “feelings” are correct then that means baptism is NOT as important as the Church has held for 2,000 years. Further, it implies that original sin is not as big a deal as we have been taught, and it also implies that babies who are aborted suffer zero consequences for being aborted, so why should we bother trying to outlaw abortions?

For that matter, if the Church was wrong about baptism abd original sin and abortion, then it can be wrong about everything.

 

[mchale]

I agree with your statements about baptism of desire. It is the same with confession, if one truly desires to go to confession and yet something happens on the way, that desire is imputable to their soul. Mnay people do not understand desire in this context. The person must be filled with the intention of receiving baptism, not just “thinking” it is a good idea.

However, unborn babies, born babies and young children are not capable of a desire for baptism because they do not have a clue what baptism is or does. Yet, Jesus and the Church makes it brutally clear that baptism is a requirement of salvation. So, as we all know, this is where the dilema lies. On one hand it seems clear we must be baptized, on the other hand it seems unfair not to allow babies to go to heaven and yet all of these “feelings” come from a human perspective, and if those “feelings” are correct then that means baptism is NOT as important as the Church has held for 2,000 years. Further, it implies that original sin is not as big a deal as we have been taught, and it also implies that babies who are aborted suffer zero consequences for being aborted, so why should we bother trying to outlaw abortions?

Lets start with a basic fact, the Cathechism currently indicates that we don’t know the fate of unbatisied infants, only that we may hope for God’s mercy that they will be saved. I am not arguing that all of them go to heaven, but that is a possibility. Therefore baptisim is still a neccessity because it is the only way to be sure. In addition, while it is true that infants cannot normally have a clear desire for baptisim, we really don’t know what happens at the moment of death. Perhaps at the moment of death they are given the capacity and the knowledge by God to make that choice if they have not been baptisied and therefore receive a baptisim of desire.

Original Sin remains an extremely big deal because as I pointed out, we don’t know for sure that God makes an exception for infants. Further those of us who live through infancy have to live with the effects of Original Sin, which sperates us from God. Receiving baptism not only purifies us of that sin, but also helps to strengthen us in faith.

Regarding abortion, frankly I find your argument lacking. Abortion would still be intrinsicly wrong just as killing anyone still wet with the waters of baptism would be intrinsicly wrong. Abortion violates both natural law and God’s order to not kill.

For that matter, if the Church was wrong about baptism abd original sin and abortion, then it can be wrong about everything.

The Church is wrong about none of these things. All I am saying here is that limbo is not the only way to defend the necessity of them. Further, everything I have read, and been taught by the Church for the last 30 years has been that Limbo is not and never was a doctrine of the Church but rather a hypothesis. I have no problems with people maintaining that hypothesis, but I do think that we should be careful not to maintain that it is the correct position for a Catholic to hold.

–
Bill

 

[Tom317]

Lets start with a basic fact, the Cathechism currently indicates that we don’t know the fate of unbatisied infants, only that we may hope for God’s mercy that they will be saved. I am not arguing that all of them go to heaven, but that is a possibility. Therefore baptisim is still a neccessity because it is the only way to be sure. In addition, while it is true that infants cannot normally have a clear desire for baptisim, we really don’t know what happens at the moment of death. Perhaps at the moment of death they are given the capacity and the knowledge by God to make that choice if they have not been baptisied and therefore receive a baptisim of desire.

Original Sin remains an extremely big deal because as I pointed out, we don’t know for sure that God makes an exception for infants. Further those of us who live through infancy have to live with the effects of Original Sin, which sperates us from God. Receiving baptism not only purifies us of that sin, but also helps to strengthen us in faith.

Regarding abortion, frankly I find your argument lacking. Abortion would still be intrinsicly wrong just as killing anyone still wet with the waters of baptism would be intrinsicly wrong. Abortion violates both natural law and God’s order to not kill.

The Church is wrong about none of these things. All I am saying here is that limbo is not the only way to defend the necessity of them. Further, everything I have read, and been taught by the Church for the last 30 years has been that Limbo is not and never was a doctrine of the Church but rather a hypothesis. I have no problems with people maintaining that hypothesis, but I do think that we should be careful not to maintain that it is the correct position for a Catholic to hold.

–
Bill

I get your points, yet I sincerely feel you do not grasp how important this issue is. The fact that Church does not know what happens to unbaptized is precisely why Limbo, or something similar to Limbo, must always be held in some form by the Church…if not, people will simply think there is no real consequence for not baptizing babies and the Catholic Church then falls into the Protestant model of preferring to baptize adults, or young adults only. Since we do not “know” what God does with unbaptized babies, we are NOT free to say they will go to Heaven, we can only say (as the Church does), that we hope they will be saved, yet we do not know by what means or through what path…in other words we absolutely must teach there this is a consequence for not baptizing babies, or else there is no reason to do so.

I think you are not forwarding these points to abortion. While getting an abortion is always a mortal sin, mothers could now view it as an act of love because they would be sending their baby directly to heaven without walking through this life, and trust me many thousands (if not millions) of women and all abortion groups would attach themselves to that in a big way.

Original sin means nothing to us if we do not “have” to be baptize to wash away its impact on our souls.

 

[mchale]

I get your points, yet I sincerely feel you do not grasp how important this issue is. The fact that Church does not know what happens to unbaptized is precisely why Limbo, or something similar to Limbo, must always be held in some form by the Church…if not, people will simply think there is no real consequence for not baptizing babies and the Catholic Church then falls into the Protestant model of preferring to baptize adults, or young adults only. Since we do not “know” what God does with unbaptized babies, we are NOT free to say they will go to Heaven, we can only say (as the Church does), that we hope they will be saved, yet we do not know by what means or through what path…in other words we absolutely must teach there this is a consequence for not baptizing babies, or else there is no reason to do so.

I agree we are not free to say they are go to heaven. If that is what you mean when you use the term limbo; i.e. that we can’t know what happens. I agree with you. That being said, almost no one uses the term Limbo in that sense these days. To most people, theologically speaking, Limbo is a specific destination for the soul that is neither heaven nor hell.

The Church cannot, ever, teach something simply because it motivates people to do the right thing. It must teach the truth. Limbo is not and never has been a doctrine in the Church.

Sincere Catholics will always baptise their babies. Most will do it not from fear that their babies will be doomed to hell should they die in infancy but from a sincere desire that their children should be part of the Church and that they might participate in the real graces that flow from the reception of the sacrement. If I am ever gifted by God with children, they will be baptisied because I hope they will live a long life serving God on Earth before they are happy with them in the next.

I think you are not forwarding these points to abortion. While getting an abortion is always a mortal sin, mothers could now view it as an act of love because they would be sending their baby directly to heaven without walking through this life, and trust me many thousands (if not millions) of women and all abortion groups would attach themselves to that in a big way.

Actually I think rather not for the exact same reason that such an argument would also argue for infanticide and I don’t know of many even militant pro-abortion groups that are advocating infanticide. Further, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, the most proper thing to do would be to kill the child immediately upon the completion of his or her baptisim because it is the only way to be sure that they will be saved!

Original sin means nothing to us if we do not “have” to be baptize to wash away its impact on our souls.

As I have always said, we do have to baptise. We are unsure of the state of the unbaptisied infants, but we are sure of the fate of those who refuse baptisim as adults.

Just remember that when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict spoke out against the notion that Limbo exists.

–
Bill

 

[Tom317]

Sincere Catholics will always baptise their babies. Most will do it not from fear that their babies will be doomed to hell should they die in infancy but from a sincere desire that their children should be part of the Church and that they might participate in the real graces that flow from the reception of the sacrement. If I am ever gifted by God with children, they will be baptisied because I hope they will live a long life serving God on Earth before they are happy with them in the next.

I strongly disagree. The vast majority of Catholics take the easy way in this life, it did not use to be that way, yet sadly it is very true today. A ton of Catholics will simply conclude that baptism is not required for the young and then wait until later…and they would be following the teachings of the Church in doing that because if unbaptized babies go to heaven, then there is NO reason to baptize the young, which is a very Protestant notion (perhaps full submersion will be next?).

I agree the Church cannot teach something that is not true, and if the Church concludes there is no Limbo, then it cannot say there is Limbo just to motivate people. However, the Church CANNOT say there is no Limbo because it really does not know, it has not been revealed by God. The Church also cannot say that an unbaptized baby does or does not go to Heaven. Since the Church can only propogate what it knows, then it must propogate the fact that Jesus tied salvation to baptism and Jesus did NOT qualify the command, in John 3:5 we read Jesus telling us that no-one can enter the kingdom of God (Heaven). Since Jesus did not qualify that absolute statement, neight can the Church. Baptism is an absolute (no-one means no-one).

I personally feel these quotes speaks volumes:
Origen

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin . . . In the Church baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. **If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” **(Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 244]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. **The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries [sacraments], knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” **(Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244]).

If Limbo is gone, and nothing takes its place, and if the Church simply says babies likely go to heaven, then people will stop baptizing babies. That is where the problem is and that problem will also impact many other formal truths of the faith.

 

[Stu]

None of the above.

(And I am surprised you even got some answers. Pity.)

 

[SORROWS]

I wouldn’t even vote in a poll like this.

None of the Above!

The cafeteria is CLOSED!:getholy:

 

[Syele]

…and they would be following the teachings of the Church in doing that because if unbaptized babies go to heaven, then there is NO reason to baptize the young, which is a very Protestant notion (perhaps full submersion will be next?).

As a p rotestant, I’m curious why full immersion is bad.

(If I’m off topic, a PM is fine for my answer)

 

[CRW]

As a p rotestant, I’m curious why full immersion is bad.

(If I’m off topic, a PM is fine for my answer)

Canon Law: Catholic baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring, in accordance with the provisions of the Bishop Conference.

Each parish Church is to have a baptismal font. Infants are normally baptized during the 1st month of birth which makes immersion impractical. Also, many of the Church baptismal fonts are to small for immersion for adults. But is is lawful. God Bless

 

[LeahInancsi]

The one thing that I like most about the Church is that it doesn’t change. It’s rock solid.

Of all the things listed in the poll, original sin seemed to be most benign.

 

[Tom317]

As a p rotestant, I’m curious why full immersion is bad.

(If I’m off topic, a PM is fine for my answer)

Not bad, just not required.

 

[mchale]

I strongly disagree. The vast majority of Catholics take the easy way in this life, it did not use to be that way, yet sadly it is very true today. A ton of Catholics will simply conclude that baptism is not required for the young and then wait until later…and they would be following the teachings of the Church in doing that because if unbaptized babies go to heaven, then there is NO reason to baptize the young, which is a very Protestant notion (perhaps full submersion will be next?).

I am sorry I really don’t see this happening. First of all, I think you slander many Protestants by equating the non baptisim of the young with Protestantism. Yes it is very true of the Baptists, but not at all true of the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians. Consider also that the Orthodox don’t hold to Limbo, yet they not only baptise but also confirm and give the infant its first eucharist.

I agree the Church cannot teach something that is not true, and if the Church concludes there is no Limbo, then it cannot say there is Limbo just to motivate people. However, the Church CANNOT say there is no Limbo because it really does not know, it has not been revealed by God. The Church also cannot say that an unbaptized baby does or does not go to Heaven. Since the Church can only propogate what it knows, then it must propogate the fact that Jesus tied salvation to baptism and Jesus did NOT qualify the command, in John 3:5 we read Jesus telling us that no-one can enter the kingdom of God (Heaven). Since Jesus did not qualify that absolute statement, neight can the Church. Baptism is an absolute (no-one means no-one).

The Church cannot say there is no Limbo, but on the flip side, it can’t say there is one either. It is just as wrong to teach about something we know don’t know exists as it is wrong to teach about something we know doesn’t exist! Further, the Church is not teaching that all unbaptised infants go to heaven, it is teaching that we might hope that God will find a way to save them. Yes it is true that baptisim is an absolute but as we have discussed elsewhere, baptism of desire counts when water baptism is impossible. As I have pointed out earlier, God may well give unbaptisied infants the ability and the knowledge needed to receive that baptisim of desire at the moment of death.

I personally feel these quotes speaks volumes:
Origen

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin . . . In the Church baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. **If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” **(Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 244]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. **The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries [sacraments], knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” **(Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244]).

I think these quotes show you are completely missing my point. I have never and would never make the claim that original sin is not real and that baptisim is necessary to cleanse us of original sin. Rather, I am pointing out that 1. Limbo is not at all necessary to support those positions. 2. That God’s mercy might find a way to grant baptisim to innocents who did not receive baptisim through no fault of their own.

If Limbo is gone, and nothing takes its place, and if the Church simply says babies likely go to heaven, then people will stop baptizing babies. That is where the problem is and that problem will also impact many other formal truths of the faith.

Again, this line of argument bothers me. Limbo as an idea needs to stand on its own merits, not on the potential way that people will react if the Church drops it. Frankly most Catholics these days don’t believe in Limbo anyway and yet they still get their kids baptised and they still have them receive the other sacrements, etc.

Dropping Limbo will not impact a single truth of the faith because those truths do not depend on Limbo.

–
Bill

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Dropping Limbo will not impact a single truth of the faith because those truths do not depend on Limbo.

–
Bill

On the contrary, “dropping” limbo would cause the entire edifice of Catholic doctrine to collapse.

“Abolishing” the deduction of limbo inevitably implies that all unbaptized infants go, or may go, to heaven despite their having been conceived in original sin. Accordingly, this “abolition” can’t fail to jeopardize five dogmas:

1. The existence and gravity of original sin (CCC 402-406)
2. The next-world penalty of those dying in original sin only (implicitly referenced in *CCC *1022, footnote 594, which refers to the Lyons II-Florence dogma enunciated in DS 858 and 1306)
3. The urgent necessity of infant Baptism (CCC 403 and 1250)
4. The Blessed Virgin Mary’s freedom from original sin (CCC 490-493)
5. The infallibility of the Catholic Church, which has declared dogmas #1-4 to be unchangeable, irrevocable truths (*CCC *889-891)

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Saint_Sinner]

On the contrary, “dropping” limbo would cause the entire edifice of Catholic doctrine to collapse.

“Abolishing” the deduction of limbo inevitably implies that all unbaptized infants go, or may go, to heaven despite their having been conceived in original sin. Accordingly, this “abolition” can’t fail to jeopardize five dogmas:

1. The existence and gravity of original sin (CCC 402-406)
2. The next-world penalty of those dying in original sin only (implicitly referenced in *CCC *1022, footnote 594, which refers to the Lyons II-Florence dogma enunciated in DS 858 and 1306)
3. The urgent necessity of infant Baptism (CCC 403 and 1250)
4. The Blessed Virgin Mary’s freedom from original sin (CCC 490-493)
5. The infallibility of the Catholic Church, which has declared dogmas #1-4 to be unchangeable, irrevocable truths (*CCC *889-891)

Keep and spread the Faith.

The relavant section of the CCC…

1261:
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 **allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation **for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

This just says we don’t know what happens and we hope that God will be merciful. How is this a sea change?

 

[Tom317]

I am sorry I really don’t see this happening. First of all, I think you slander many Protestants by equating the non baptisim of the young with Protestantism. Yes it is very true of the Baptists, but not at all true of the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians. Consider also that the Orthodox don’t hold to Limbo, yet they not only baptise but also confirm and give the infant its first eucharist.

The Church cannot say there is no Limbo, but on the flip side, it can’t say there is one either. It is just as wrong to teach about something we know don’t know exists as it is wrong to teach about something we know doesn’t exist! Further, the Church is not teaching that all unbaptised infants go to heaven, it is teaching that we might hope that God will find a way to save them. Yes it is true that baptisim is an absolute but as we have discussed elsewhere, baptism of desire counts when water baptism is impossible. As I have pointed out earlier, God may well give unbaptisied infants the ability and the knowledge needed to receive that baptisim of desire at the moment of death.

I think these quotes show you are completely missing my point. I have never and would never make the claim that original sin is not real and that baptisim is necessary to cleanse us of original sin. Rather, I am pointing out that 1. Limbo is not at all necessary to support those positions. 2. That God’s mercy might find a way to grant baptisim to innocents who did not receive baptisim through no fault of their own.

Again, this line of argument bothers me. Limbo as an idea needs to stand on its own merits, not on the potential way that people will react if the Church drops it. Frankly most Catholics these days don’t believe in Limbo anyway and yet they still get their kids baptised and they still have them receive the other sacrements, etc.

Dropping Limbo will not impact a single truth of the faith because those truths do not depend on Limbo.

–
Bill

The point you seem to ignore is that Jesus personally mandated baptism for every person. All this talk about God being able to work outside His sacramenta is silly imo, because God did not tell us that He will work outside of the sacraments…that is a guess, nothing more.

The only thing (in this issue) that we know for sure is that Jesus taught that no-one gets into the kingdom without baptism, and Jesus never said He will save those who are not baptized.

With God all things are possible, yet we just flat cannot assume God will save the unbaptized babies, and that is where Limbo comes into play. Limbo simply “attempts” to give a possible explanation as to what happens in these cases. Yet, if the Church moves towards actually declaring unpbaptized babies go to Heaven, then many formal teachings come crrashing down, including original sin, baptism, salvation, the sacraments, etc…

[btw, I was not slandering Protestant Churches, I was merely trying to say the RCC cannot become Protestant]

 

[Tom317]

I am sorry I really don’t see this happening. First of all, I think you slander many Protestants by equating the non baptisim of the young with Protestantism. Yes it is very true of the Baptists, but not at all true of the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians. Consider also that the Orthodox don’t hold to Limbo, yet they not only baptise but also confirm and give the infant its first eucharist.

The Church cannot say there is no Limbo, but on the flip side, it can’t say there is one either. It is just as wrong to teach about something we know don’t know exists as it is wrong to teach about something we know doesn’t exist! Further, the Church is not teaching that all unbaptised infants go to heaven, it is teaching that we might hope that God will find a way to save them. Yes it is true that baptisim is an absolute but as we have discussed elsewhere, baptism of desire counts when water baptism is impossible. As I have pointed out earlier, God may well give unbaptisied infants the ability and the knowledge needed to receive that baptisim of desire at the moment of death.

I think these quotes show you are completely missing my point. I have never and would never make the claim that original sin is not real and that baptisim is necessary to cleanse us of original sin. Rather, I am pointing out that 1. Limbo is not at all necessary to support those positions. 2. That God’s mercy might find a way to grant baptisim to innocents who did not receive baptisim through no fault of their own.

Again, this line of argument bothers me. Limbo as an idea needs to stand on its own merits, not on the potential way that people will react if the Church drops it. Frankly most Catholics these days don’t believe in Limbo anyway and yet they still get their kids baptised and they still have them receive the other sacrements, etc.

Dropping Limbo will not impact a single truth of the faith because those truths do not depend on Limbo. Bill

The point you seem to ignore is that Jesus personally mandated baptism for every person. All this talk about God being able to work outside His sacramenta is silly imo, because God did not tell us that He will work outside of the sacraments…that is a guess, nothing more.

The only thing (in this issue) that we know for sure is that Jesus taught that no-one gets into the kingdom without baptism, and Jesus never said He will save those who are not baptized.

With God all things are possible, yet we just flat cannot assume God will save the unbaptized babies, and that is where Limbo comes into play. Limbo simply “attempts” to give a possible explanation as to what happens in these cases. Yet, if the Church moves towards actually declaring unbaptized babies go to Heaven, then many formal teachings come crashing down, including original sin, baptism, salvation, the other sacraments, etc…

[btw, I was not slandering Protestant Churches, I was merely trying to say the RCC cannot become Protestant]