What should the Church "drop" besides limbo?

[corvidae]

Tom
The thing is the Catholic Church is ok being vague on things it does not know about. For example suicide, suicide is grave matter for a mortal sin, and it used to be considered that anyone who committed suicide was in hell. Now we say they are entrusted to God’s mercy. We simply do not know what God knows.

The Catholic Church could and often does say of infants, we entrust them to God’s mercy. That is not the same as saying they are in heaven, it is saying, we do not know.

As a Catholic, I am ok with limits to the Catholic Church’s knowledge. The mysteries of our Faith. I will never understand the Trinity, nor will any Catholic until we enter heaven. I am ok with the Church being honest and saying we do not know.

A lone Raven

p.s.- I would like to try and use paschal’s wager on this. If we believe there is a limbo, and there isn’t one, the Church has possibly taught error, even non-infallibly and error is antithical to God. If the Church teaches we do not know, and there is a limbo, the Church has taught nothing wrong. Which would you rather wager on.

 

[mchale]

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.

And how is Limbo not a guess? Both are attempts to reconcile the fact that infants who died unbaptisied are not deserving of Hell because of the fact that they are incapable of committing personal sin. Trusting to God’s mercy to either allow the infants to receive a baptisim of desire or to save them in some other way is in fact less of a guess because we are trusting in the possibility of God’s mercy, not in fact inventing a new destination for the Soul.

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.

Right, but then again, we realized that the Patriarchs and the Profits were never baptisied so we understood that besides a baptisim of water, there must also be a baptisim of desire. Is it too much of an extension to hope that God might allow infants to receive a baptisim of desire, even as the Patriarchs did?

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…

The Church is not moving to teaching that the unbaptized go to heaven. It is teaching that they might be able to go to heaven. Further, we are not arguing about Limbo being a possible explanation; I doubt the church would ever forbid one to consider Limbo as a possible alternative. We are however arguing over whether the Church should teach Limbo. Ultimately Limbo is present neither in Scripture or Tradition; it is an invention to try to resolve a difficult theological problem. Instead of the invention we should be content to say we don’t know and trust in God’s mercy.

–
Bill

 

[Tom317]

Tom
The thing is the Catholic Church is ok being vague on things it does not know about. For example suicide, suicide is grave matter for a mortal sin, and it used to be considered that anyone who committed suicide was in hell. Now we say they are entrusted to God’s mercy. We simply do not know what God knows.

The Catholic Church could and often does say of infants, we entrust them to God’s mercy. That is not the same as saying they are in heaven, it is saying, we do not know.

I agree to a point. The thing is, the Church’s main task is to help souls get to Heaven. In that mission it must not make statements that cause people to have a false sense of security. If the Church says too boldly that unbaptized babies go to Heaven, then it is simply a matter of time before Catholics cease worrying about getting their infants baptized. Likewise, it is a simple matter of time before pro-abortion Catholics start to justify the slaughter of the unborn by saying that it is an act of love to kill them because the Church says they will go to Heaven. Then, it is a matter of time before Catholics start thinking that original sin is nothing at all to worry about…it is a snowball that would soon get out of control.

By leaving the options for a post-life consequence on the table (Limbo), Catholics are then forced to take baptism seriously. If Catholics think there is NO post-life consequence for not baptizing their babies, then Catholics will not worry about getting their kids baptized and in many case will just not do it. Let’s not even talk about whether those parents are well formed or not, because ultimately we are concerned about the eternal well being of the baby’s soul in this scenario.

The Church cannot teach falsehoods, yet it must also be careful to direct people to salvation within the truths it does know. The Church knows Jesus mandated baptism–period, He made it an absolute and anything lese the Church says is just guesswork that can lead to problems that are unspeakable.

The only thing the Church can say is that it “hopes” unbaptized babies will go to Heaven, but it must also say that it does not know and that since it does not know, we MUST baptize every baby and every person, and since it does not know we must assume there might be a post-life consequence for those killed in abortions, or miscarriages, or any other form of death before being baptized. If the Church does not do that, then baptism falls into the nice, but not required category (which sadly is already happening with confession because most Catholics think it is not required).

 

[Tom317]

And how is Limbo not a guess? Both are attempts to reconcile the fact that infants who died unbaptisied are not deserving of Hell because of the fact that they are incapable of committing personal sin. Trusting to God’s mercy to either allow the infants to receive a baptisim of desire or to save them in some other way is in fact less of a guess because we are trusting in the possibility of God’s mercy, not in fact inventing a new destination for the Soul.

Limbo is a guess, no doubt, which is why it has never been a formal teaching of the Church. Yet the Church in the past understood the importance of putting that guess out there, it understood that if the Church takes away a post-life consequence for not being baptized, then baptism becomes irrelevant…there is not getting around that no matter how much you want to. Saying we trust those souls to God’s mercy is obvious, yet it is misleading because Catholics then will assume that it is somehow “safe” to trust those souls to God’s mercy and it is NOT safe to trust God’s mercy regarding unbaptized babies because God never said anything about it. Limbo is a human guess, yet it keeps Catholics honest about baptism and salvation of souls is the Church’s major mission…it must keep souls on that path, not take them off the path.

Right, but then again, we realized that the Patriarchs and the Profits were never baptisied so we understood that besides a baptisim of water, there must also be a baptisim of desire. Is it too much of an extension to hope that God might allow infants to receive a baptisim of desire, even as the Patriarchs did?

Or, those Patriarchs went to Limbo or to a Paradise that is not the beatific vision we all hope for. The Bible, and Jesus, never spoke of a baptism of desire, that is a human guess only.

The Church is not moving to teaching that the unbaptized go to heaven. It is teaching that they might be able to go to heaven. Further, we are not arguing about Limbo being a possible explanation; I doubt the church would ever forbid one to consider Limbo as a possible alternative. We are however arguing over whether the Church should teach Limbo. Ultimately Limbo is present neither in Scripture or Tradition; it is an invention to try to resolve a difficult theological problem. Instead of the invention we should be content to say we don’t know and trust in God’s mercy.

That is the point: We “cannot” trust souls to God’s mercy because God did not give us that option, and no amount of debating changes that. We can love God, and hope He saves souls outside of the sacraments and even outside of the Church, but we simply do not know if God does that–in fact guessing that God works outside of His Church and His sacraments is a huge guess made by humans, it does not come from God. God make one thing very clear: no-one who is not baptized will enter the kingdom, anything else is mere human speculation (including Limbo and including guesses that God works outside of the saraments). IMO, these notions are the very reason the Church has so many challenges today, it has lost its way regarding the one true faith Christ gave the world.

–
Bill

 

[Evan]

Here’s a speculation of the destiny of people who die without baptism and without personal sin.

Assume there is no Limbo.

When one dies, he comes to God’s judgment seat. Having no sin, he is given a test. Probably True False, but there may be some essay questions. Also given the knowlege of reading and writing.

The test is a series of ethical dilemmas and relational situations.

The test is graded and the deceased is then judged… Heaven for 80% or better. Hell for anything below 60%. In between… spend your eternity with the Leprechauns who also never made a choice in the big battle between Satan and Michael.

Happy Halloween.

ps…where is ‘none of the above?’

 

[corvidae]

I agree to a point. The thing is, the Church’s main task is to help souls get to Heaven. In that mission it must not make statements that cause people to have a false sense of security. If the Church says too boldly that unbaptized babies go to Heaven, then it is simply a matter of time before Catholics cease worrying about getting their infants baptized. Likewise, it is a simple matter of time before pro-abortion Catholics start to justify the slaughter of the unborn by saying that it is an act of love to kill them because the Church says they will go to Heaven. Then, it is a matter of time before Catholics start thinking that original sin is nothing at all to worry about…it is a snowball that would soon get out of control.

By leaving the options for a post-life consequence on the table (Limbo), Catholics are then forced to take baptism seriously. If Catholics think there is NO post-life consequence for not baptizing their babies, then Catholics will not worry about getting their kids baptized and in many case will just not do it. Let’s not even talk about whether those parents are well formed or not, because ultimately we are concerned about the eternal well being of the baby’s soul in this scenario.

The Church cannot teach falsehoods, yet it must also be careful to direct people to salvation within the truths it does know. The Church knows Jesus mandated baptism–period, He made it an absolute and anything lese the Church says is just guesswork that can lead to problems that are unspeakable.

The only thing the Church can say is that it “hopes” unbaptized babies will go to Heaven, but it must also say that it does not know and that since it does not know, we MUST baptize every baby and every person, and since it does not know we must assume there might be a post-life consequence for those killed in abortions, or miscarriages, or any other form of death before being baptized. If the Church does not do that, then baptism falls into the nice, but not required category (which sadly is already happening with confession because most Catholics think it is not required).

Exactly, but by saying that they god to a perfect earthly happiness in limbo is saying we know something that we just plain do not know. We must baptize because that guarentees a chance to enter heaven, we know this. Why do we have to assume there must be (eternal) post-life consequences for those who have “through no fault of their own” not been baptized. We do not believe this for those who came before Christ, nor do we believe it for those who are in invincible ignorance. Why are babies different.

We baptize because we are commanded to and because it is the only way to be sure. We evangelize because we are commanded to and it is the only way to be sure. But there are things that we do not know, and it is not wrong to say we do not know.

A lone Raven

 

[Tom317]

Exactly, but by saying that they god to a perfect earthly happiness in limbo is saying we know something that we just plain do not know. We must baptize because that guarentees a chance to enter heaven, we know this. Why do we have to assume there must be (eternal) post-life consequences for those who have “through no fault of their own” not been baptized. We do not believe this for those who came before Christ, nor do we believe it for those who are in invincible ignorance. Why are babies different.

We baptize because we are commanded to and because it is the only way to be sure. We evangelize because we are commanded to and it is the only way to be sure. But there are things that we do not know, and it is not wrong to say we do not know.

A lone Raven

It is the only way to know for sure, that is why we baptize–period! No-one would be baptized if God had not mandated it.

We do not believe that those who came before Christ went to Heaven and God never said unpbatpized babies go to Heaven, saying they go to Heaven is placing something in God’s words that He never said.

 

[CRW]

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]

**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. **

Luke 23 - 39 “How about the criminal that was hanged with Jesus? Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” This occurred after Jesus teachings on baptism and the criminal, to the best on my knowledge, was not baptized. No Limbo or purgatory for him.

 

[Evan]

Luke 23 - 39 “How about the criminal that was hanged with Jesus? Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” This occurred after Jesus teachings on baptism and the criminal, to the best on my knowledge, was not baptized. No Limbo or purgatory for him.

This is more along the lines of justifing a Baptism of Desire. He wanted to follow Jesus but there was no opertunity for a Baptism of Water. So Jesus allowed an exception in such a scenario. This goes along with the church’s teaching if a Catechumen should die before being formally inducted into the Church through Baptism.

 

[Tom317]

Luke 23 - 39 “How about the criminal that was hanged with Jesus? Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” This occurred after Jesus teachings on baptism and the criminal, to the best on my knowledge, was not baptized. No Limbo or purgatory for him.

Yes, and I have never heard the Church proclaim it knows exactly what/where that paradise is…it could be Heaven, it could be a place where the souls of the OT resided, or it could be Limbo, in which souls are thought to experience great happiness.

 

[Tom317]

When Jesus spoke of paradise, we do NOT know He was speaking of Heaven.

 

[CRW]

This is more along the lines of justifing a Baptism of Desire. He wanted to follow Jesus but there was no opertunity for a Baptism of Water. So Jesus allowed an exception in such a scenario. This goes along with the church’s teaching if a Catechumen should die before being formally inducted into the Church through Baptism.

So Jesus allowed an exception in such a scenario. I think an aborted baby, a still birth, etc, follow the same guidelines of no opportunity for a Baptism of Water. Who knows if Jesus, seeing the event, Baptized the unborn by the water of the mothers womb? When the Blessed Mother approached the mother of John, Elizabeth, the Holy Spirit came upon her and the baby leap in her womb. Was this a spiritual baptism of John; giving him the authority to baptize?

 

[corvidae]

It is the only way to know for sure, that is why we baptize–period! No-one would be baptized if God had not mandated it.

We do not believe that those who came before Christ went to Heaven and God never said unpbatpized babies go to Heaven, saying they go to Heaven is placing something in God’s words that He never said.

How then is God the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of David, and God is the God of the living and not the dead.

We do believe that the patriarchs are in heaven.

A lone Raven

p.s.- STILL NO ONE IS SAYING THEY GO TO HEAVEN. WE ARE SAYING WE DO NOT KNOW. Just because there is no teaching of limbo does not mean we say they are in heaven.

A lone Raven

 

[Tom317]

How then is God the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of David, and God is the God of the living and not the dead.

We do believe that the patriarchs are in heaven.

A lone Raven

Yes, God is the God of the living and not the dead. Yet, we do not know whether or not the Patriarchs enjoyed the beatific vision in Heaven before Christ saved the world. They might very well have been placed in “paradise,” or “Limbo.” Many theologians theorize that Enoch and Eljiah are still waiting in “that” place for the time in the end when God calls upon them to complete their mission in salvation history.

Again, we can hope, but we cannot say the babies go to Heaven, and since we cannot say they go to Heaven, we MUST assume they might face some other post-life fate (i.e. Limbo, paradise, or some other state/place).

 

[corvidae]

We must assume?

Why must we, why can we not say we do not know? I do not see the reasoning for why we must assume things.

We can and do say that it is up to God’s mercy, and that is enough for me. Teaching something that we do not know and that has no basis in scripture or tradition (like early churhc fathers) I think is irresponsible.

In addition to this, I am not saying that the patriarchs enjoyed the beatific vision before Christ saved the world. However, we do know that the patriarchs are in heaven now, despite not being baptised.

I have no problem with saying that they may not be in heaven, but to teach authoritatively something you do not know is dishonest and irresponsible. I have a problem with limbo as a teaching. I also have a problem with assuming that all unbaptized children are in heaven, and for the same reason. WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW.

A lone Raven

 

[Tom317]

We must assume?

Why must we, why can we not say we do not know? I do not see the reasoning for why we must assume things.

We can and do say that it is up to God’s mercy, and that is enough for me. Teaching something that we do not know and that has no basis in scripture or tradition (like early churhc fathers) I think is irresponsible.

In addition to this, I am not saying that the patriarchs enjoyed the beatific vision before Christ saved the world. However, we do know that the patriarchs are in heaven now, despite not being baptised.

I have no problem with saying that they may not be in heaven, but to teach authoritatively something you do not know is dishonest and irresponsible. I have a problem with limbo as a teaching. I also have a problem with assuming that all unbaptized children are in heaven, and for the same reason. WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW.

A lone Raven

We must assume that there is a post-life consequence for not being baptized for two reasons: (1) Jesus made it very clear that no-one who is not baptized will enter the kingdom (He said no-one). (2) It is safer for all concerned to assume that unbaptized babies might face a now Heaven fate after this life.

Yes, the Patriarchs are in Heaven now, after Jesus did His saving work. Yet, prior to Christ they were somewhere else, not Heaven. That somewhere else might have been “paradise,” or “Limbo,” or some other place only God can know.

You have the assumptions wrong, imo. I am saying we must assume that Jesus meant it when He said no-one enters the kingdom unless they are baptized, which means no-one. Jesus did not qualify His statement and we cannot qualify it for Him. All we can do is hope God saves the babies, yet God might save the babies by placing them in Limbo, or paradise, or some other now Heaven, non-beatific vision place. We do not know, so we cannot assume that any unbaptized baby goes to Heaven, we can assume they might not.

 

[CRW]

When Jesus spoke of paradise, we do NOT know He was speaking of Heaven.

Was this not just a necessity awaiting the resurrection of Christ and the gates of Heaven to open on the third day.

REV: Chapter 7: Then one of the elders addressed me saying, "Who are these, clothed in white robes, and whence have they come? I said to him, “Sir, you know,” And he said to me, "These are they who have come out of the the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

 

[Evan]

So Jesus allowed an exception in such a scenario. I think an aborted baby, a still birth, etc, follow the same guidelines of no opportunity for a Baptism of Water. Who knows if Jesus, seeing the event, Baptized the unborn by the water of the mothers womb?

There is some speculation along this line if the mother had the intent of baptizing the infant soon after birth. But in the case of a child not born to a Christian mother, even the mother would not have desired the baptism of the child AND the child was not capable of making such a decision. So the assumption of Baptism of Desire does not come into play.

 

[Tom317]

Was this not just a necessity awaiting the resurrection of Christ and the gates of Heaven to open on the third day.

REV: Chapter 7: Then one of the elders addressed me saying, "Who are these, clothed in white robes, and whence have they come? I said to him, “Sir, you know,” And he said to me, "These are they who have come out of the the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Sure, it could very well be that after Jesus rose from the dead he was taken into heaven, we just do not know.

 

[dessert]

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

None of the Above!

The cafeteria is CLOSED!:getholy:

:tiphat:
I AGREE DROP NADDA