Do you believe in Infant's Limbo?

[jasJis]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Apr 18 2006, 05:30 PM']So, where did the original sin go?!?
[right][snapback]952939[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Seriously. The same place where Mary's original sin went. Do you think God makes a rock so big that if we add a pebble to it, He can't pick it up? The 'salvation' lesson of Mary that Protestant's deny is the belief that God can work beyond human's understanding of time and mete out His perfect mercy and justice as He see's fit. Catholics may call it 'Immaculate Conception' or 'Limbo', but it is essentially God bestowing Mercy and Justice because He really is Omniscient.

[Apotheoun]

No, as a Byzantine Catholic, I do not believe in [i]Limbus Puerorum[/i], but of course Latin Catholics are free to accept it as a theologumenon of the Roman Church.

[Resurrexi]

What do eastern Catholics believe about Infant's Limbo?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

a lot of eastern Catholics seem a bit Phishy....

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='953138' date='Apr 18 2006, 07:31 PM']
What do eastern Catholics believe about Infant's Limbo?
[/quote]
The Byzantine Church has its own spiritual, liturgical, and doctrinal tradition, and the concept of a "childrens limbo" is simply not a part of that tradition.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='953155' date='Apr 18 2006, 09:35 PM']
a lot of eastern Catholics seem a bit Phishy....
[/quote]

It's over most people's heads.

[Peccator]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='953189' date='Apr 19 2006, 04:49 AM']
The Byzantine Church has its own spiritual, liturgical, and doctrinal tradition, and the concept of a "childrens limbo" is simply not a part of that tradition.
[/quote]I've always had a love for the eastern rite. Do you know what their position is on the subject?

[Guest JeffCR07]

I'd like to point out, with regards to the point made concerning "Fathers' Limbo" that this is simply another notion for the Hebrew concept of Sheol. Within Catholic theology, Sheol makes sense and is viable prior to the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, but afterwards must cease to exist.

This is significant because we [i]cannot[/i] equate Sheol with Gehenna. Citing the phrase [i]descendit ad inferos[/i] as proof of the fact that the two were the same, and identical with Hell as we know it is anachronism at its best. There was no single, mainstream, agreed upon notion of Hell during Second Temple Judaism, and it is a great tribute to the Fathers of the Church for clarifying and fleshing out concepts that were unclear before them.

This having been said, Limbo must first and foremost be acknowledged for what it is: speculative theology. The "pros" of Limbo is that it seems incongruent with God's Perfect Mercy to allow a child with no [i]personal[/i] sin, but only [i]original[/i] sin suffer the same degree of punishment as someone who has both. It also contradicts the dogmas concerning Baptism if an unregenerate child were to attain Heaven. Thus, the advocates of limbo find a way out by asserting that while unregenerate infants do not attain the Beatific Vision and are not in perfect communion with God, they do not suffer as those positively condemned for both personal and original sin do.

There are, however, many difficulties with this stance. First, inventing a new "third" eternal state is a novelty, and so the advocates of limbo have been forced to say that limbo is a part of hell. However, Hell is not a place with parts, for, as the Catechism tells us, the "state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'hell.'" Now, because hell is a state of the soul, rather than a place, Hell has no parts. But what has no parts is simple, and what is simple does not admit of degree. Thus, hell cannot (contrary to dante and popular mysticism) have circles or levels, nor degrees of torment. Thus, the argument that limbo is a part of hell becomes highly suspect.

Now the contrary opinion is that God cleanses the souls of the unbaptised infants at the moment of their death through some sort of extraordinary means. Thus, they are not unregenerate and [i]do[/i] attain the Beatific Vision. Some argue that this is impossible because it makes an "extraordinary" form of baptism "ordinary," but this argument fails to properly understand the meaning of the terms "ordinary" and "extraordinary" in this sense. "Ordinary" refers to the way in which the Church confects the sacrament of Baptism, not to the frequency of its use. If there was only one priest alive on earth, and a billion people with the desire for baptism, and he only was able to baptise 1,000, this would not mean that "baptism of desire" would become the "ordinary" mode for the Sacrament. However, the difficulty with the idea that God cleanses the soul of the unbaptised child at the moment of death is that it calls into question the theological basis for Baptising infants, which has been done since the early church. If we really believed that God cleansed the children and that they went to Heaven, there would be no reason to baptise prior to the age of reason (at which point we are said to have the capacity for true sin).

All of this having been said, I maintain that we as individual theologians, and the Church as a whole, are cognatively closed. This is to say that, not only are we unable to know the fate of such children, but that [i]God does not want us to know[/i]. This lack of knowledge serves a multiplicity of purposes. First, it justifies infant baptism. If we are unaware concerning the fate that awaits the unbaptised child, then the Church is right to be careful and baptise infants. Moreover, with this issue taken care of, the other problems also fade. We can [i]hope[/i] in the mercy of God for the infants precisely because an assertion of hope is not an assertion of knowledge. Thus, we do not fall into the problematic of limbo, but we avoid the issues inherent in positively asserting salvation for the infants.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Peccator]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='952916' date='Apr 19 2006, 01:22 AM']
The only defense of limbo, I must say, is the tradition of the Fathers. Otherwise, you have nothing, but there is hardly any question as to where unregenerate babies [b]don't go[/b].. [b]that is heaven[/b]. While baptism of desire and blood are certainly extraordinary means of baptism, it is hardly plausible (in fact less plausible then limbo in my opinion) to think that all babies who are unregenerate are saved by the baptism of desire, because then, not only do we negate the real effects of sin, befuddle exactly what a baptism of desire is, but we also make it an ordinary means of salavation; something which it is not.

God bless,
Mikey
[/quote]What gives you the right to declare thus?

Edited April 19, 2006 by Peccator

[Aloysius]

Jeff,

Limbo does not offer the same punishment for infants with no actual sin and only original sin. An infant with no personal actual sin is not actively punished by God. Anyone with personal actual sin preventing them from going to heaven is actively punished (i.e. "hellfire"). I would argue that limbo does not contradict God's mercy or justice.

I think all speculation of this type actually necessitates some view of a 'limbo', but with variations on the definition thereof. To say that God uses an extraordinary means to cleanse the baby of original sin post-mortum implies and necessitates the soul of the baby to be somewhere that is not heaven but a part of the abode of the dead where this baby is being cleansed. The definition of purgatory-- that it is temporal punishment due to sin-- makes that a place of active punishment and an unbaptized baby does not merit active punishment therefore the baby would not go through purgatory any more than they would go to hell to be actively punished. They are in effect in a "limbo" whilst being "baptized" by God through some extraordinary means.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Peccator' post='953759' date='Apr 19 2006, 06:27 AM']
I've always had a love for the eastern rite. Do you know what their position is on the subject?
[/quote]
In the Byzantine tradition only a man who intentionally commits personal sins without ever repenting of them will go to hell. Thus, an unbaptized baby will experience God's love and mercy through an unending growth ([i]epektasis[/i]) in beatitude for all eternity, because he has committed no personal sins deserving of everlasting punishment.

[Peccator]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='953834' date='Apr 19 2006, 04:44 PM']
In the Byzantine tradition only those who intentionally commit personal sins without ever repenting of them will go to hell. Thus, unbaptized babies will experience God's love and mercy through an unending growth ([i]epektasis[/i]) in beatitude for all eternity, because they have committed no personal sins deserving of everlasting punishment.
[/quote]Then I agree with the Eastern Rite on the matter.

It's a shame there's so eastern Catholic churches near me

[toledo_jesus]

glad to see Apotheoun back

[dspen2005]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='953762' date='Apr 19 2006, 09:29 AM']
I'd like to point out, with regards to the point made concerning "Fathers' Limbo" that this is simply another notion for the Hebrew concept of Sheol. Within Catholic theology, Sheol makes sense and is viable prior to the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, but afterwards must cease to exist.

This is significant because we [i]cannot[/i] equate Sheol with Gehenna. Citing the phrase [i]descendit ad inferos[/i] as proof of the fact that the two were the same, and identical with Hell as we know it is anachronism at its best. There was no single, mainstream, agreed upon notion of Hell during Second Temple Judaism, and it is a great tribute to the Fathers of the Church for clarifying and fleshing out concepts that were unclear before them.

This having been said, Limbo must first and foremost be acknowledged for what it is: speculative theology. The "pros" of Limbo is that it seems incongruent with God's Perfect Mercy to allow a child with no [i]personal[/i] sin, but only [i]original[/i] sin suffer the same degree of punishment as someone who has both. It also contradicts the dogmas concerning Baptism if an unregenerate child were to attain Heaven. Thus, the advocates of limbo find a way out by asserting that while unregenerate infants do not attain the Beatific Vision and are not in perfect communion with God, they do not suffer as those positively condemned for both personal and original sin do.

There are, however, many difficulties with this stance. First, inventing a new "third" eternal state is a novelty, and so the advocates of limbo have been forced to say that limbo is a part of hell. However, Hell is not a place with parts, for, as the Catechism tells us, the "state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'hell.'" Now, because hell is a state of the soul, rather than a place, Hell has no parts. But what has no parts is simple, and what is simple does not admit of degree. Thus, hell cannot (contrary to dante and popular mysticism) have circles or levels, nor degrees of torment. Thus, the argument that limbo is a part of hell becomes highly suspect.

Now the contrary opinion is that God cleanses the souls of the unbaptised infants at the moment of their death through some sort of extraordinary means. Thus, they are not unregenerate and [i]do[/i] attain the Beatific Vision. Some argue that this is impossible because it makes an "extraordinary" form of baptism "ordinary," but this argument fails to properly understand the meaning of the terms "ordinary" and "extraordinary" in this sense. "Ordinary" refers to the way in which the Church confects the sacrament of Baptism, not to the frequency of its use. If there was only one priest alive on earth, and a billion people with the desire for baptism, and he only was able to baptise 1,000, this would not mean that "baptism of desire" would become the "ordinary" mode for the Sacrament. However, the difficulty with the idea that God cleanses the soul of the unbaptised child at the moment of death is that it calls into question the theological basis for Baptising infants, which has been done since the early church. If we really believed that God cleansed the children and that they went to Heaven, there would be no reason to baptise prior to the age of reason (at which point we are said to have the capacity for true sin).

All of this having been said, I maintain that we as individual theologians, and the Church as a whole, are cognatively closed. This is to say that, not only are we unable to know the fate of such children, but that [i]God does not want us to know[/i]. This lack of knowledge serves a multiplicity of purposes. First, it justifies infant baptism. If we are unaware concerning the fate that awaits the unbaptised child, then the Church is right to be careful and baptise infants. Moreover, with this issue taken care of, the other problems also fade. We can [i]hope[/i] in the mercy of God for the infants precisely because an assertion of hope is not an assertion of knowledge. Thus, we do not fall into the problematic of limbo, but we avoid the issues inherent in positively asserting salvation for the infants.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[/quote]

thanx jeff... that is exactly what my dogmatic theology prof told us

[MichaelFilo]

Lets get a little Catholic Councilish on this one, since modernism seems to be the pervaiding air. The first thing to note is that God punishes justly, to each punishmed and rewarded he recieves justly what he deserves. All men who commit unrepentent mortal sin face the flames, and all men who die in a state of grace may live to see the Eternal Gates. However, the Saint is given many rweards for his deads (tenfold I hear) and the man who goes to Church but never goes out of his way to serve the Lord may expect purification in the fires and no real extra blessings (mind you, martyrs receive a second crown, the red one, unlike all who enter heaven, who receive the golden one). Anywho, same for hell, a man who reaps nothing when entrusted with much will have much more to answer for all of eternity than the man who entrusted with little brings forth a little return.

Now, to the Council of Florence: " The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in original sin, immediately descend into hell."

Council of Lyons II: " 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."

Catechism of the Council of Trent: " If then through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This however, cannot be effected otherwise than through baptism. Pastors therefore should inculate the absolute necessity of administering baptism to infants, and of gradually forming their minds to piety by education in the Christian religion..... The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the Church , as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."

Surely, the infalliable councils are saying something... the unbaptized to hell, and to hell they shall rest, for damned is all mankind by the corruption of Adam. So on and so forth. Regardless of what you may think, Limbo is simply a place in hell where those who committing no positive sins reside, forever suffering from being disconnected with God, but suffering not from eternal fires, which are the just punishment for sins, in which variables and intensities change according to justness.

Yes.. so much more to be said from the Popes and Saints.. but the councils ought to leave little room for doubt.. I hope? Note: Limbo is hardly a 3rd place; not that it is an impossibility where which those unbaptized maybe held awaiting the 2nd comming, but then again, that is a terribly unorthodox view of limbo, which simply is the place where one suffers for original sin alone.

God bless,
Mikey