Article on Ignorant Native
#21
I don't think natural happiness and the eternal, unfathomable torments of Hell are compatible. I think of Limbo as being similar to the natural happiness experienced by Adam and Eve before the Fall.
Reply
#22
Different aspects of hell, but hell nonetheless. What does the Creed say? "He descended into hell..." Jesus went to the Limbo of the Fathers. In His parable about Lazarus and the Rich Man, Lazarus goes to this Limbo, aka Abraham's Bosom, and is seperate from the Rich Man who is burning in hell and asks for water to cool his throat. We know from Scripture itself that Lazarus was in the hell that Jesus went to, but that it was seperate from the torments.

So yes Limbo of the Infants is hell, but a different aspect of hell.
Reply
#23
Those are two completely different, but traditional, referents of the word "Hell" there. Christ did not descend to the damned. Damnation is a permanent separation from God.
Reply
#24
Quote:Damnation is a permanent separation from God.
and does that not accurately describe the Limbo of the Infants?
Reply
#25
I've never thought so. I mean, we currently lack the Beatific Vision, but we are not (fully) separated from God in this world.
Reply
#26
Yes, cause at this moment we're only temporarily seperated from God. Infants in limbo are permenatly.
Reply
#27
(08-09-2009, 02:21 PM)didishroom Wrote: Yes, cause at this moment we're only temporarily seperated from God. Infants in limbo are permenatly.

You know this? Or is this your conclusion?

This is what I mean. The difference between dogma and opinion with you people is nonexistant. With the current teachings of the Church, the fate of infants is unknown. They could be in Hell for all you know, with the demons and Spongebob fans. The Church has not said what the fate of such people is, so you should not tell people what it is.
Reply
#28
Quote:You know this? Or is this your conclusion?

This is what I mean. The difference between dogma and opinion with you people is nonexistant. With the current teachings of the Church, the fate of infants is unknown. They could be in Hell for all you know, with the demons and Spongebob fans. The Church has not said what the fate of such people is, so you should not tell people what it is.

We were not debating the existence of Limbo but terminology based on the traditional teaching of Limbo. We could have been having a similar discussion on whether or not Spongebob Squarepants is a kid or an adult, even though he does not exist.

And "you people?" Excuse me? Is this part of your whine fest about us discussing Church dogma(heaven forbid!)? "The difference between dogma and opinion" is nonexistant? Where do you get off saying that? When I have discussed this sensitive topic of salvation I always back it up with the Magisterium of the Church unlike you and others who would rather rely on emotions and feelings! If you disgaree with what I say, then prove me wrong! Don't make snide comments accusing me something that is simply not true.

We've had these debate son the topic before, and while the term "Limbo" has never been defined, the fate of unbaptized infants HAS! Yet whenever this has been brought up and dogmatic definitions provided for proof you always seem to brush it off with a wish wahsy "we don't know what happens to them."

So if you think we're wrong in our conclusions, say how. 
Reply
#29
(08-09-2009, 02:21 PM)didishroom Wrote: Yes, cause at this moment we're only temporarily seperated from God. Infants in limbo are permenatly.

Well, I think Limbo might involve a degree of separation from God, one that is compatible with actual happiness. The damned would have a greater degree of separation from God, but if I understand correctly, it is not total, otherwise they would cease to exist.

This might be analogous to the degrees of blessedness in Heaven, with no unhappiness or misery implied for those who have not attained the highest degree of blessedness. People in heaven will be just as happy as they are capable of being, and the same would hold for infants in Limbo.

Reply
#30
(08-09-2009, 02:36 PM)didishroom Wrote: We were not debating the existence of Limbo but terminology based on the traditional teaching of Limbo. We could have been having a similar discussion on whether or not Spongebob Squarepants is a kid or an adult, even though he does not exist.
Ok, I'll present a few scenerios, and you tell me if they are possible considering Church teachings. Ok?

* The unbaptised go to Hell
* The unbaptised are able to obtain the grace necessary through some other means, and can go to Heaven
* The unbaptised go to what is termed Limbo of the Infants
* The unbaptised are, before leaving this world, are presented a choice by an angel to be baptised which they can accept or reject
* The unbaptised who do not have the will to make choices are automatically baptised by an angel (probably their guardian angel)

Are any of those scenerios possible?

Quote:And "you people?" Excuse me? Is this part of your whine fest about us discussing Church dogma(heaven forbid!)? "The difference between dogma and opinion" is nonexistant? Where do you get off saying that? When I have discussed this sensitive topic of salvation I always back it up with the Magisterium of the Church unlike you and others who would rather rely on emotions and feelings! If you disgaree with what I say, then prove me wrong! Don't make snide comments accusing me something that is simply not true.
I have not stated what I feel. I could very well agree with your conclusions. I do not think discussions like this are productive and I've seen them cause harm.

"you people" refers to those who insist on discussing them without regard to consequences.

Quote:So if you think we're wrong in our conclusions, say how. 

I don't think your conclusions matter, as long as they are possible with Church teachings, however, I do think how they are discussed is wrong and not productive.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)