Limbo - who is it for?
#51
(08-05-2010, 07:56 AM)Melkite Wrote: if souls in limbo have the same inclination toward God that adam and eve had, wouldn't this mean they had been cleansed of original sin?  if not, why is it not unjust for God to give them an unearned reward, inclination toward him, whose ultimate goal, vision of him, is perpetually unrealisable?  wouldn't the eternal frustration of that inclination itself be torment, and thus suffering?


I don't think it would be....we just have to wait and see what He decides to do with them.  I would suspect that since everyone thinks it would be good to have them along for the ride, at some point he would just invite them up....



I'm late to the discussion and did not read any of it so if I got in the way I apologize....I'm out again.
Reply
#52
(08-05-2010, 07:56 AM)Melkite Wrote: if souls in limbo have the same inclination toward God that adam and eve had, wouldn't this mean they had been cleansed of original sin? if not, why is it not unjust for God to give them an unearned reward, inclination toward him, whose ultimate goal, vision of him, is perpetually unrealisable?  wouldn't the eternal frustration of that inclination itself be torment, and thus suffering?

I'm sorry, did I say that in my post? I did not mean to. I meant to say that the baptized souls who are in a state unable to effect their will enjoy the same state as did Adam and Eve.

I will re-read my post.
Reply
#53
(08-05-2010, 07:56 AM)Melkite Wrote: if souls in limbo have the same inclination toward God that adam and eve had, wouldn't this mean they had been cleansed of original sin?  if not, why is it not unjust for God to give them an unearned reward, inclination toward him, whose ultimate goal, vision of him, is perpetually unrealisable?  wouldn't the eternal frustration of that inclination itself be torment, and thus suffering?

Okay, I see what you mean; I made a mistake last night when I substituted the wrong privilege into the parentheses.

What I meant to say inside the parentheses was ("a state of perfect natural happiness").

So it should read:

(08-05-2010, 01:40 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
Melkite Wrote:Also, Adam and Eve were given an unearned reward of initial inclination toward God.  If God could give them an unearned reward in this instance, why is it inherently impossible that God could do the same for those who die unbaptized? From the Latin perspective, is it that it is a logical impossibility, or just that the Church Fathers have never taught such a possibility existed?  If the latter, how does this reconcile with God's mercy?  Limbo can't then be merciful, because there is no mercy in preventing someone from experiencing an undeserved punishment.  Granted, no one in Limbo would have a right to God's mercy, but does anyone such a right?


Another good question. The reason that they do not receive the same reward is that the undeserved reward God gave Adam and Eve is not the same as the reward of the Beatific Vision, a deserved reward, an earned reward. The undeserved reward that God gave Adam and Eve (a state of perfect natural happiness) is the same enjoyed by those souls in Limbo. The difference is that the souls in Limbo can't have what Adam and Eve could have: the Beatific Vision. This is how it balances. Adam and Eve were given an undeserved reward, and so were the souls in Limbo (though, balanced by the loss of What they can't have), but Adam and Eve were also given the chance of a greater reward: the sight of God. This reward they had to earn by not abusing their free will. This reward is one that the souls in Limbo cannot have. So in this way, their states are different. The state of the souls in Limbo is static and inert while the state of Adam and Eve was animated by an active potentiality. Adam and Eve enjoyed the active potential for a greater reward; and it was to be given to them if they simply refrained from separating themselves from God. The souls in Limbo, however, do not enjoy any potential sight of God. Perhaps He exists with them, however, substantially as He does, for example, under the sacramental veils of bread and wine in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. That, however, is not Church teaching; it is only my senseless musings.

I apologize if I have confused the issue by my hasty post last night.

I will change my former post.
Reply
#54
ok, that makes more sense now, thanks for clarifying.  but, still, why couldn't there be a harrowing of the limbo of infants just like there was a harrowing of the limbo of the fathers?  i don't remember who posted it, but it sounds reasonable that God gives everyone a choice for him or against him.  those souls who are in limbo if it exists were never given that choice.  does the church really teach that they will not be given that choice and will remain in limbo for all eternity, or does it just teach that they cannot go to heaven without being baptized?  if they will be there forever, what will happen to them at the resurrection?  they all have bodies, and the bible does say that at the resurrection all will rise, some to life and some to death.  this would seem to indicate that limbo is not a permanent state.  prior to the idea of limbo, the fathers believed that unbaptized infants went to hell, and there are still some today that say limbo is a part of hell and not a separate state.  so, at the resurrection, then, from church teaching, wouldn't it be the most accurate hypothesis that, if the souls in limbo are not given a choice, then they will indeed be raised to life, but necessarily for hell, since that's technically where they are anyway?  what then of perfect natural happiness?  would this imminent resurrection to eternal death still be just?  if so, why?
Reply
#55
(08-05-2010, 06:31 PM)Melkite Wrote: ok, that makes more sense now, thanks for clarifying. 

You're welcome.

Quote: but, still, why couldn't there be a harrowing of the limbo of infants just like there was a harrowing of the limbo of the fathers?

I don't think the Church has said that there couldn't. It simply says that this is what happens to them after they die. Since this state is logical, it wouldn't be against reason for it to continue for eternity, but it is possible that God could intervene in some way as to bring Limbo to an end. See below...


Quote:  i don't remember who posted it, but it sounds reasonable that God gives everyone a choice for him or against him. 

Is this Church teaching or a theory?


Quote: those souls who are in limbo if it exists were never given that choice.  does the church really teach that they will not be given that choice and will remain in limbo for all eternity, or does it just teach that they cannot go to heaven without being baptized? 

It teaches the latter, and I have tried to provide the reasons to explain why She teaches this. This is not to say that they will not be given a choice in Limbo to be baptized or not to be baptized. We cannot say at this time. There are some things that God intentionally keeps us from knowing (and with good reason). For all else, there is the Church.

Quote: if they will be there forever, what will happen to them at the resurrection? 

I don't know, and I don't think the Church has declared what will happen to them at the final resurrection.

Quote: they all have bodies, and the bible does say that at the resurrection all will rise, some to life and some to death.  this would seem to indicate that limbo is not a permanent state. prior to the idea of limbo, the fathers believed that unbaptized infants went to hell, and there are still some today that say limbo is a part of hell and not a separate state. 

Possibly, but technically speaking, anything that is not in God's presence is in "hell", for that is what hell is: the absence of God. So the "hell" of Limbo could simply be an absence of God but a state of perfect natural happiness. This would still be "hell" and so it could be said they would "rise to death". However, in the case of Limbo, death wouldn't quite be as bad as many picture when they associate "hell" with the hell of suffering, the hell of the damned.

Quote: so, at the resurrection, then, from church teaching, wouldn't it be the most accurate hypothesis that, if the souls in limbo are not given a choice, then they will indeed be raised to life

One thing that's important to consider in this question is that God is not only all just; His essence is characterized by yet another quality: He is all merciful. Mind you, this complex essence does not include "all punishing". Yes, God does punish when justice demands it, but only when justice demands it.

God is all just and all merciful. This means that his justice - the rewarding of good and the punishing of bad - is balanced by his infinite mercy. There is no quality of "all punishing" to prevent His mercy from intervening where justice can neither provide a sentence nor grant a reward. So, it would not be explicitly against God's nature to intervene with His infinite mercy.

That is a round-about way of saying, yes, I agree with you.  :)

Quote:what then of perfect natural happiness?  would this imminent resurrection to eternal death still be just?  if so, why?

It would be just because, as much as their happiness is undeservedly provided, the presence of God was never deservedly earned.

Perhaps that doesn't answer your question. If this post (in general) hasn't answered the last question, would you be so kind as to restate your question? I admit, I do not know what you are asking.

Still, I think that the knowledge of God's essence, specifically, His infinite mercy, should provide a satisfying possibility which, though not explicitly taught by the Church, is not impossible with God, either.
Reply
#56
Like I said, after the final resurrection there will be, according to Scripture, two things: heaven (the beatific vision) and hell (loss of beatific vision, wailing and gnashing of teeth). There will be no purgatory. I cannot see how there can be a limbo when hell is cast into the Lake of Fire, prepared for the devil and his cronies. Limbo as a state of "natural happiness" presents a problem for me, because nowhere in the New Testament is hell described as anything but a state of torment.

Which brings me to a side issue: magisterium, tradition, and scripture. We get our teaching from all three. We are not sola scriptura, we are not sola ecclesia, we are not sola tradition. But many traditionalists act like they can ignore the magisterium and the Bible if tradition alone supports a certain teaching. For example: They will say that the Vatican II document on religious liberty is against tradition. Therefore we either need to find a way to reconcile it with tradition, or throw the teaching out! But if a teaching or tradition (like Limbo) seems to be totally unsupported in Scripture, it's okay?

I ask you -  how come? Now I understand the necessity of baptism is clearly taught in Scripture. Which brings me to another aside: the Slaughter of the Innocents by King Herod. Could not aborted babies be considered a baptism of blood? I know they are not "martyrs" in the conventional sense, nevertheless they died unjustly and before the age of reason, and the Church commemorates liturgically the Slaughter of the Innocents. Please don't tell me that they were allowed to slide in the backdoor of heaven because they were "fortunate" enough to be born before the institution of baptism! If anything, that should make two strikes against them. Yet these babes are glorified by the Church herself.

Now if what Herod did was horrific, how much more horrific the murder of innocents by their own mothers? Did God not say: "Can a woman forget her infant, so as not to have pity on the son of her womb? And if she should forget, yet will not I forget thee (Isaiah 49: 15). Couple that with Jesus' love for children, and I don't think Limbo has a leg to stand on. But that is only my opinion, and I am aware that Augustine and Aquinas disagree, and I am totally open to the idea that I could be wrong.

Baptism is the ordinary means of salvation. That's Divine Revelation and that's all we can go on.

Pardon my ramblings.
Reply
#57
(08-05-2010, 07:56 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Pardon my ramblings.

Think nothing of it. Though, you do sound a little frustrated by the possibility of Limbo. I admit, it is hard to understand and most do not find it palatable, but I do think it is a logical and reasonable teaching.

Quote:Like I said, after the final resurrection there will be, according to Scripture, two things: heaven (the beatific vision) and hell (loss of beatific vision, wailing and gnashing of teeth). There will be no purgatory. I cannot see how there can be a limbo when hell is cast into the Lake of Fire, prepared for the devil and his cronies. Limbo as a state of "natural happiness" presents a problem for me, because nowhere in the New Testament is hell described as anything but a state of torment.

Yes, but I have already mentioned the possibility in my last post that Limbo exists only as a temporary satisfaction of justice during the existence of time, after which the infinite mercy of God intervenes. See below...

Quote:Which brings me to a side issue: magisterium, tradition, and scripture. We get our teaching from all three. We are not sola scriptura, we are not sola ecclesia, we are not sola tradition. But many traditionalists act like they can ignore the magisterium and the Bible if tradition alone supports a certain teaching. For example: They will say that the Vatican II document on religious liberty is against tradition. Therefore we either need to find a way to reconcile it with tradition, or throw the teaching out! But if a teaching or tradition (like Limbo) seems to be totally unsupported in Scripture, it's okay? I ask you -  how come?

I think the difference would be that, to these people, the teachings of Dignitatis Humanae seem to contradict Scripture; the teaching of Limbo, though not found in or supported by Scripture, does not contradict it either.

Quote:Now I understand the necessity of baptism is clearly taught in Scripture. Which brings me to another aside: the Slaughter of the Innocents by King Herod. Could not aborted babies be considered a baptism of blood? I know they are not "martyrs" in the conventional sense, nevertheless they died unjustly and before the age of reason, and the Church commemorates liturgically the Slaughter of the Innocents. Please don't tell me that they were allowed to slide in the backdoor of heaven because they were "fortunate" enough to be born before the institution of baptism! If anything, that should make two strikes against them. Yet these babes are glorified by the Church herself.

Yes, they very well could be considered martyrs.

We must wonder, however, why Satan would inspire such infanticide (abortion) if the souls go to see God. The only way to explain this would be to consider the fact that Satan does not have all knowledge. So perhaps God does not allow him to know that the souls are going to see Him. But then again, if the souls do not descend into hell with him, he knows they must be going somewhere. Once again, the teaching of Limbo provides a solution because if these souls are trapped in Limbo until after the destruction of the world, Satan thinks this infanticide is preventing these souls from entering heaven, when in reality, he is actually putting them directly into the arms of Our Loving Saviour, though after a short stay in a state of perfect natural happiness. Again, this reconciles with God's infinite mercy and justice.
Reply
#58
(08-05-2010, 07:56 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Like I said, after the final resurrection there will be, according to Scripture, two things: heaven (the beatific vision) and hell (loss of beatific vision, wailing and gnashing of teeth). There will be no purgatory. I cannot see how there can be a limbo when hell is cast into the Lake of Fire, prepared for the devil and his cronies. Limbo as a state of "natural happiness" presents a problem for me, because nowhere in the New Testament is hell described as anything but a state of torment.

Which brings me to a side issue: magisterium, tradition, and scripture. We get our teaching from all three. We are not sola scriptura, we are not sola ecclesia, we are not sola tradition. But many traditionalists act like they can ignore the magisterium and the Bible if tradition alone supports a certain teaching. For example: They will say that the Vatican II document on religious liberty is against tradition. Therefore we either need to find a way to reconcile it with tradition, or throw the teaching out! But if a teaching or tradition (like Limbo) seems to be totally unsupported in Scripture, it's okay?

I ask you -  how come? Now I understand the necessity of baptism is clearly taught in Scripture. Which brings me to another aside: the Slaughter of the Innocents by King Herod. Could not aborted babies be considered a baptism of blood? I know they are not "martyrs" in the conventional sense, nevertheless they died unjustly and before the age of reason, and the Church commemorates liturgically the Slaughter of the Innocents. Please don't tell me that they were allowed to slide in the backdoor of heaven because they were "fortunate" enough to be born before the institution of baptism! If anything, that should make two strikes against them. Yet these babes are glorified by the Church herself.

You go girl! You make awesome points!

First, when it comes to The Holy Innocents, we must realize that the necessity of theSacrament of Baptism was not yet instituted - after all, Our Lord Himself was still an infant at that time.

So The Holy Innocents stayed in the "Limbo of the Just" with all the other OT saints till the Ascension of Our Lord into Heaven - then they went to heaven with the rest of the OT saints.

Personally, I was taught from a babe that Limbo is where unbaptized infants went, yet I cannot accept that completely - mainly because of all the abortions that are committed - and we can be sure that the sin of abortion comes straight from Hell. I believe that somehow the devil is claiming the aborted but my brain finds that a very tough pill to swallow.



Reply
#59
INP Wrote:Though, you do sound a little frustrated by the possibility of Limbo.

I do get a little frustrated, which is why I usually avoid threads about Limbo and EENS. But now and then I feel an itching to get in the ring. lol

INP Wrote:Yes, but I have already mentioned the possibility in my last post that Limbo exists only as a temporary satisfaction of justice during the existence of time, after which the infinite mercy of God intervenes. See below...

I will! and did! Don't know how I passed that up. See my enthusiastic response at the end.

Stubborn Wrote:You go girl! You make awesome points!

Thank you, Stubborn.  ;D

Stubborn Wrote:Personally, I was taught from a babe that Limbo is where unbaptized infants went, yet I cannot accept that completely - mainly because of all the abortions that are committed - and we can be sure that the sin of abortion comes straight from Hell. I believe that somehow the devil is claiming the aborted but my brain finds that a very tough pill to swallow.

I was taught that too - by the nuns (er, religious sisters) in grade school. Some made Limbo sound idyllic! One Sister even had Our Blessed Mother going back and forth from heaven to limbo and playing with the babies. But then I grew up. And I realized that the Sisters who taught me are not "the magisterium." I realized that someone taught this to them; a result of centuries of pious belief, which isn't a bad thing. I also realized that Scripture taught of a great chasm between heaven and hell, "so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so" (Luke 16:26 ).  I agree with you that abortion is inspired straight from the pit; so are many sins. But the devil cannot "outsmart" God. Remember the story of God and the devil and Job. God allowed the devil only so much room with the leash, but God is always in control of destiny.  And, as INP said, the devil does not have all knowledge. See INP's excellent summary:

INP Wrote:We must wonder, however, why Satan would inspire such infanticide (abortion) if the souls go to see God. The only way to explain this would be to consider the fact that Satan does not have all knowledge. So perhaps God does not allow him to know that the souls are going to see Him. But then again, if the souls do not descend into hell with him, he knows they must be going somewhere. Once again, the teaching of Limbo provides a solution because if these souls are trapped in Limbo until after the destruction of the world, Satan thinks this infanticide is preventing these souls from entering heaven, when in reality, he is actually putting them directly into the arms of Our Loving Saviour, though after a short stay in a state of perfect natural happiness. Again, this reconciles with God's infinite mercy and justice.

I like that a lot, INP. In like manner, Satan must have thought he was "winning" when he inspired Judas and the Pharisees to send Christ to the Cross. But, in reality, he was losing. The death of Christ opened the gates of heaven instead. Very good, insightful post! 
Reply
#60
(08-05-2010, 09:05 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: I was taught that too - by the nuns (er, religious sisters) in grade school. Some made Limbo sound idyllic! One Sister even had Our Blessed Mother going back and forth from heaven to limbo and playing with the babies. But then I grew up. And I realized that the Sisters who taught me are not "the magisterium." I realized that someone taught this to them; a result of centuries of pious belief, which isn't a bad thing. I also realized that Scripture taught of a great chasm between heaven and hell, "so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so" (Luke 16:26 ).  I agree with you that abortion is inspired straight from the pit; so are many sins. But the devil cannot "outsmart" God. Remember the story of God and the devil and Job. God allowed the devil only so much room with the leash, but God is always in control of destiny.  And, as INP said, the devil does not have all knowledge. See INP's excellent summary:

INP Wrote:We must wonder, however, why Satan would inspire such infanticide (abortion) if the souls go to see God. The only way to explain this would be to consider the fact that Satan does not have all knowledge. So perhaps God does not allow him to know that the souls are going to see Him. But then again, if the souls do not descend into hell with him, he knows they must be going somewhere. Once again, the teaching of Limbo provides a solution because if these souls are trapped in Limbo until after the destruction of the world, Satan thinks this infanticide is preventing these souls from entering heaven, when in reality, he is actually putting them directly into the arms of Our Loving Saviour, though after a short stay in a state of perfect natural happiness. Again, this reconciles with God's infinite mercy and justice.

I like that a lot, INP. In like manner, Satan must have thought he was "winning" when he inspired Judas and the Pharisees to send Christ to the Cross. But, in reality, he was losing. The death of Christ opened the gates of heaven instead. Very good, insightful post! 

While I completely agree that there is every possibility that Satan does not have full knowledge, I also understand that after some 6000 years, he ain't no nitwit either............not by any stretch of the imagination.

I often think the same things about this subject and reference Judas, the Crucifixion etc - - - in fact, Bl. Mary of Agreda's The Mystical City Of God goes into some awesome detail on that exact subject of Satan's lack of knowledge.

But is it at all probable that the devil did not learn by his mistake? Is it at all prudent of us to assume at this time that he does not know what he is doing in regards to abortion?

 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)