Limbo is a pre-supposition that faith against God is incorrect
Limbo has nothing to do with “faith against God” – after all, in the words of Lumen gentium from the 2nd Vatican Council: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”
So, “faith against God” doesn’t lead to eternal happiness in ‘Limbo’, but to eternal condemnation… :sad_yes:
I’m not sure of the accuracy of this article, and I’m dubious because it does not capitalize “Limbo” nor “Church”, nor am I sure if the Pope was even speaking from his seat as Holy Father (though it clearly is on a matter of faith):
Pope Benedict XVI will tomorrow announce he is scrapping the centuries old Roman Catholic concept of limbo.
According to church teachings, limbo is home to the souls of children who die without being baptised.
It is a state between Heaven and Hell. But the Pope will instead say that unbaptised children go to Heaven.
Personally, I don’t believe in Limbo – but if it were to exist, the only eternal family that exists is the marriage between Christ and His Bride, the Church.
Again, God is all-merciful, and the Gospel of Christ is for the salvation of sinners, and God desires all to be saved (CCC 609, 610)… but these children never even had the potential to personally sin for themselves, and they never had the chance to reject Christ as the Savior of the world (CCC 608) to take away their original sin.
And God in Christ wishes to draw all men to Him (John 12:32), so why wouldn’t He even want these children who never got to experience the love of a parent, or the direct love of God yet?
The Church has NEVER taught that Limbo for Infants exists. It has only ever been a theological hypothesis that Catholics may or may not believe in.
This is the official Church teaching:
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,” 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.
It seems to me that if the Limbo of infants exists, for example, there would be no way to distinguish one who is in Limbo from one who has the Beatific Vision. Limbo was described as a state of perfect natural happiness, but lacking only the Beatific Vision. And the Beatific Vision is not something which is apparent to one merely observing. Jesus experienced the Beatific Vision his entire life, being intimately united to the divine nature, yet an observer could not tell that, unless he somehow revealed it, as in the transfiguration.
Are you sure Jesus experienced the Beatific Vision He was a man like us, was tempted by the devil & felt forsaken by His Father on the cross…so I don’t think he had the Beatific Vision except maybe when the angels ministered to Him in the desert & at the Transfiguration.
Jesus in his Person is the Second Person of the Trinity, who possesses the one divine nature of God. That is the definition of the Beatific Vision, the personal possession of the divine nature. Jesus possessed the divine nature in his own right; he also possessed a human nature, but he was not a human person. As a divine Person, he could not do other than possess the divine nature–i.e., the Beatific Vision. As a human being (but not a human Person), he could experience everything that a human being experiences.
Jesus is the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. That means that Jesus is one Person with two natures. One is His Divinity (God) and the second is the assumed, not absorbed, human nature. “How Is the Son of God Man?” CCC 470-483
I know Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, but He was able to sin in His human nature. If He was constantly experiencing the Beatific Vision…I don’t see how He could actually be able to sin.
Jesus could not sin. Sin is a rejection of God, and Jesus IS God. His human will was always aligned with his divine will. He was both God and man, but not schizophrenic.
What a strange thing to consider.
Here is the Catholic teaching. Paragraphs 464-483 in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
One I would believe whole heartedly that as a saint can visit earth so could one visit limbo.
I would also say that if not before, there is the final judgment. After which whatever place we reside we will have made our choices and will be in one of two places.
The other factor is as horrible as it seems to earthbound humans. Let us assume you have a child whom you love dearly and raise to adulthood. Your child rejects God, but is an otherwise good child to you. So you love them and want to be able to see them when you enter heaven, but they go to hell. Do you think it would feel the same that you think it would now? I mean heaven would be pretty bad if it were full of weeping parents and families lamenting the sorrows of their loved ones.
It is something in seeing God. It is hard to do on earth, to fathom the nature of God on possible family hellboundness. But that is also a sign of love for God in a true for, when His judgments can no longer bother you, and when you are freed from that concern
Thanks for the Catechism…couldn’t find what you want me to read…
The point I was making is Jesus was able to sin BUT did NOT !
The point I was making is Jesus was able to sin BUT did NOT !
If it was Impossible for Jesus to sin…we mere humans would not try to imitate Him. We would give in to every temptation because " we’re not God like Jesus."
This is the suggested link which I use. scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Because I have a non-friendly computer, I have to scroll down a bit to the search function box. It says “enter search string” whatever that is. I enter the word paragraph followed by the number. For example paragraph 464. This brings up paragraph 464. Underneath that there are options like “enter the Catechism at this paragraph.”
has changed and is now beyond my capability that I cannot use it. However, I did see a CAF post which praised it.
Recommended paragraphs are 464-483. If you want to spend the time, check out the cross-references in the margin.
I believe you are missing the fact that mere humans have a rational spiritual soul with intellective free choice.
**CCC 1730 **God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.
I personally believe in Limbo, based primarily on the infallible statements of the Councils of Florence and Lyons 2, which both state in similar wording, “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.” This quote explains the basics of Limbo, that it is a part of hell, and that those there suffer a different punishment than those who committed actual mortal sins. This is the very essence of Limbo even though the word is not used. Therefore the fact that original sin alone eternally excludes one from the Beatific Vision is immutable Catholic doctrine.
What is not defined in doctrine, however, is what this punishment entails and who exactly it is who dies in original sin alone. For that reason Catholics are free to reject the idea of a Limbo of the Infants (or of any other specific group for that matter), but not the concept of Limbo entirely. Many have guessed that only an infant or severely mentally disabled adult dying without baptism would fit this description. Because these have no personal guilt, it is generally conceived that this punishment, in accordance with God’s mercy, consists only of knowing that there is a better state that will never be attained. This knowledge, again through God’s mercy, causes them no great suffering and they are spared the physical torments of hell completely. Furthermore, even though technically damned, they exist apart from the rest of those in hell and even experience a degree of natural peace and happiness.
With all that in mind I have a personal theory, admittedly based on nothing other than my own imagination. I believe that when faced with an unbaptized infant or mentally disabled person (who lacked even the slightest use of reason) who has died, God looks into what their lives would have been under normal circumstances. If they ultimately would have received baptism in some form, I believe that they are granted salvation. If they would have ultimately died without baptism and supernatural faith in Christ anyway, then they are sent to Limbo. Here, their theoretical rejection of Christ serves as sufficient grounds to retain their original sin and deny entry to Heaven, however it is not sufficient to warrant actual torment as they did not commit actual sin. It may also be fitting to imagine a circumstance in which these souls are granted some limited form of communion with any family or other loved ones in Heaven, though themselves still cut off from the general communion of saints. See, I can both believe in Limbo and entrust unbaptized children to God’s mercy . What’s that they say about cake?
Again, that last part is just my conjecture, and I will happily disregard it if in fact it violates some formal teaching. Ron Conte actually wrote an article that disagrees with me, but until I find something more concrete I’ll persist in my delusions.
Actually, the more that I review Ron Conte’s article, he only partially disagrees with me, mostly on my theoretical constructs about what the lives of unbaptized children would have been. He still seems to agree with me on the fundamentals though, that while Limbo exists as a part of hell (even if not thought of by that name), we don’t know who goes there and it is possible that infants do not fit the criteria of dying in original sin alone. He takes it a little further to say that infants are absolutely saved, but the basics are the same.
So the assumption is that an “infallible statement” especially “immutable Catholic doctrine” does not have to specifically name the subject matter especially when it is an addition to the main subject.
Maybe people simply fill in the blanks. Or use similar wording.
When people say they think that unbaptized babies go to heaven, I think they mean that the babies are Cleansed of original sin through some means other than ordinary baptism by water. If that is possible, and if it is not only possible but also actually happens, then the babies wouldn’t have original sin Or personal sin and thus would be unable to go to hell. What do you think? Is that possible?