Limbo - who is it for?
#1
I did a web search - seems this is the latest from the NO: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ts_en.html

That link basically says that the International Theological Commission (ITC) has no clue.

It goes on to say: It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. 

They (ITC) NEVER mention, let alone quote specific said  "traditional teachings" on the subject - yet they are bold enough to say Limbo is  a "theory".

They (ITC) do go out of their way to tell us that the NO catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God - whatever that means.

So, first they have no clue, then, like the true NOers they are,  they dictate a way out without coming right out and saying so.

Anyone out there have access to and can post specific pre-V2 teachings regarding the fate of unbaptized infants?
Reply
#2
The have no conscience, so there is three possibilities

- When God resurrects their body it leaves as it is, without conscience. In this case does not matter where they are, they are no capable of any vision or understanding their status

- At the resurrection God gives them conscience, and with that the punishment of the lack of the beatific vision. This is against Gods justice

- They are saved through the merits of Jesus Christ and the Church, which both wants them to save
Reply
#3
Quote: They (ITC) do go out of their way to tell us that the NO catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God - whatever that means.

So, first they have no clue, then, like the true NOers they are,  they dictate a way out without coming right out and saying so.

Anyone out there have access to and can post specific pre-V2 teachings regarding the fate of unbaptized infants?

First, I'm surprised that you don't understand the "mercy of God" in this context. The Heavenly Father is more fatherly and merciful than any earthly father. "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father from heaven give the good Spirit to them that ask him?" - Luke 11: 13

Secondly, you can find plenty of "teachings" about the fate of unbaptized, but can you find Limbo solemnly defined? Limbo was always a theological opinion, to my understanding. It was a way for theologians to explain the fate of innocent unbaptized babies and good pagans.

Thirdly, the new catechism states:

Quote: 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

The Church is silent on certain details. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." Does the Holy Spirit have to reveal everything? And where the Church is silent can we not appeal to God's mercy?

It all comes down to EENS again. A strict interpretation will have the unbaptized (stillborn babies and miscarriages included) in hell or Limbo. I have to confess this is one area I tip-toe around as a Catholic. I might need a cafeteria pass. I never liked it because it seems to contradict the love of Jesus for little children. But then maybe I'm allowed to embrace a more liberal interpretation of EENS.
Reply
#4
Hello Lisa!

Well, lets start here:
(07-31-2010, 06:36 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: First, I'm surprised that you don't understand the "mercy of God" in this context. The Heavenly Father is more fatherly and merciful than any earthly father. "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father from heaven give the good Spirit to them that ask him?" - Luke 11: 13

I have no misconceptions concerning that verse, yet God is explicitly specific regarding being Baptized with water re: John 3:5 as a requirement. I have no scruples with that whatsoever. Nor do I argue that God, being so much more merciful and generous than man can and will distribute His Mercy as He wills.

I do, however seek the specific pre-V2 Church teachings called "theories" by the ITC in regards to the salvation of unbaptized infants. 

I am not the least bit interested in what the NO catechism (CCC) says in regards to the fate of the unbaptized unborn - afterall, didn't the ITC already say they have no clue?

(07-31-2010, 06:36 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: The Church is silent on certain details. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." Does the Holy Spirit have to reveal everything? And where the Church is silent can we not appeal to God's mercy?

Well, when the ITC was given specific direction - YES, there is something wrong with dropping the ball.
There are more unbaptized infants entering eternity these days than any time in the history of creation and while a "I don't know" answer is business as usual for the NO, that answer is totally and completely unacceptable to  those seeking THEE answer. For everyone else, it's just fine, after all, the Church doesn't know everything hey?


(07-31-2010, 06:36 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: It all comes down to EENS again. A strict interpretation will have the unbaptized (stillborn babies and miscarriages included) in hell or Limbo. I have to confess this is one area I tip-toe around as a Catholic. I might need a cafeteria pass. I never liked it because it seems to contradict the love of Jesus for little children. But then maybe I'm allowed to embrace a more liberal interpretation of EENS.

For me, EENS in this particular situation does not really mean much, but the baptism with water does.

A child - let alone an infant, let alone a fetus, cannot possibly desire baptism. As such, I am looking specifically for those very "theories" the ITC mentions -  but does not reference in regards to Limbo.

Reply
#5
(07-31-2010, 07:12 PM)Stubborn Wrote: For me, EENS in this particular situation does not really mean much, but the baptism with water does.

What about the Old Testament men and the baptism with water?
Reply
#6
(07-31-2010, 08:28 PM)glgas Wrote: What about the Old Testament men and the baptism with water?

There was no such thing as baptism with water in the Old Testament.
Reply
#7
So, Adam, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Mozes, Aron, David, Izaias, Jeremias and all the other are in the hell?


John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.



(07-31-2010, 08:36 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(07-31-2010, 08:28 PM)glgas Wrote: What about the Old Testament men and the baptism with water?

There was no such thing as baptism with water in the Old Testament.
Reply
#8
(08-01-2010, 08:24 AM)glgas Wrote: So, Adam, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Mozes, Aron, David, Izaias, Jeremias and all the other are in the hell?


John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Baptism, as well as the 6 other sacraments were not instituted till Our Lord Himself instituted them in the New Testament,  no matter what the New Order teaches, this is how it is.



Reply
#9
Please consult Denzinger 464 ( Lyons II), 693 (Florence), 493a (Pope John XXII's Epistle to the Armenians) and 410 (epistle of Pope Innocent III). The unbaptized and mortal sinners both go down to hell, but suffer different punishments. Mortal sinners suffer both the pain of loss and of sense, whereas the unbaptized suffer the pain of loss only.
Reply
#10
(08-01-2010, 09:47 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Please consult Denzinger 464 ( Lyons II), 693 (Florence), and 493a (Pope John XXII's Epistle to Armenians).

I did, first time in 1959. All are theological opinions.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)