Limbo And Extra Ecclesiam

[goldenchild17]

Basically what I'm saying from my sources is that Limbo itself has not been officially defined as infallible itself. It is technically okay to deny the existence of Limbo. But if one does this then he is required by other infallible teachings to believe that all infants who do not get cleansed of original sin are damned to hell. When you think about it, belief in Limbo is actually a far more forgiving and pleasant belief regarding the death of infants who do not get cleansed somehow of original sin than the only alternative option which puts the infants in the pains and suffering of hell.

Edited May 8, 2008 by goldenchild17

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Altari' post='1522039' date='May 8 2008, 01:52 AM']No it's not. I think that's why many Protestants have a hard time wrapping their mind around CC theology. Christ came to remove our eternal punishment for sin. Only those who have brought sin upon themselves must seek forgiveness. A child, who has brought no sin on themselves, is no longer bound by "original sin" through their lineage, as Christ's death has freed them. To think that children, who were held in such esteem by Christ himself, would be subjected to the torments of Hell for failing to be baptized (an action that, in Christ's time, was taken by one's own free will) is unfathomable from a loving God.[/quote]
Christ's death is applied by baptism. Catholic theology allows for the idea that those who die before having a chance to be baptized may have the merits of baptism applied to them by an act of God's mercy.

original sin is not something which one is culpable for, it is a defect in our nature. you act as if Christ's death made every single human being no longer have the defect of original sin. if this were the case, there would no longer be a tendency towards sin. as it stands, baptism undoes our original sin by applying Christ's merits whereas actual sins cloud the graces of baptism and make us again tend towards sin.

the Bible itself teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation... Mark 16:16 and John 3:3-5 are a couple verses that show this... you must be born again of water and the spirit, not just the spirit.

everyone is born with a defect in their nature caused by Adam's fall. Christ redeems us by bringing us into His Church which is His body... we are not born into His Church we are baptized into His Church.

again, the Church says that those who die without having a chance at baptism might have the effects of baptism applied to them by God through some extraordinary means. there is also the theological theory of limbo, a theory which could allow for the idea that as Christ descended to hell to free the just souls of the Old Testament times (who also were kept out of heaven solely on the basis that they had original sin, a defect in their nature which made them incapable of entering heaven) He might descend in the second coming and free the souls there who died in original sin but were not culpable for any actual sin.

the idea that Christ's sacrifice has rendered original sin null and void for all humanity is unbiblical and unchristian. it has given us power to become Sons of God through baptism, which the Bible teaches as necessary for salvation, but the defect from Adam's sin remains part of our fallen nature... it's what we fight by the sacramental grace which He left for us.

you fall into the trap of viewing heaven as something we deserve or merit of our own accord... we do not. it is through Christ that we are made to merit an end which is above our own nature... without Christ, who is given to us in baptism and through membership in His body which is the Church, we are not made to merit an end which is above our own nature. either Christ mystically baptizes them, or their end is only something according to their own nature and not the supernatural end of heaven (unless that end is temporary until Christ comes to free them from their wait)

I am not proposing that unbaptized babies go to hell, I am merely saying that if you want to figure out how God might bring them into the plan of salvation, you have to view it in light of Biblical facts such as the fact that baptism by water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is necessary for us to die with Christ and rise with Him and therefore God must find some way of applying the merits of baptism to them if they are to enter into heaven.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1522050' date='May 8 2008, 02:24 AM']Basically what I'm saying from my sources is that Limbo itself has not been officially defined as infallible itself. It is technically okay to deny the existence of Limbo. But if one does this then he is required by other infallible teachings to believe that all infants [b]who do not get cleansed of original sin [/b]are damned to hell. When you think about it, belief in Limbo is actually a far more forgiving and pleasant belief regarding the death of infants who do not get cleansed somehow of original sin than the only alternative option which puts the infants in the pains and suffering of hell.[/quote]
yes, and the current Vatican position, which I know you disagree with (as golden is not a Catholic in good standing with the Church of his holiness Pope Benedict XVI, for those who do not know), is that there is a possibility that infants who die before a chance baptism might be extraordinarily cleansed of original sin by some means known only to God. so those of us who acknowledge Pope Benedict XVI are free to hold and thus debate the following positions:

1) unbaptized babies go to hell
2) unbaptized babies go to limbo
3) unbaptized babies are extraordinarily baptized by God and go to heaven

number 1 is obviously the harshest but it cannot be written off as just mean, it's gotta be taken for what it is: a possible logical conclusion based upon everything scripture teaches about baptism's necessity... those who hold it might say that the justice of God is far above the justice of man and as such though we do not understand why it is just, it may be just from God's viewpoint... only God can know all potential possibilities and know if it is just that those who die before baptism go to hell or not. I do not subscribe to the first possibility, I hold the second possibility but define it in a unique way wherein I do not hold limbo to be an eternal place like some might, but a place of waiting for the second coming. The third position is probably the most commonly held by Catholics nowadays (the second one being the one most commonly held by Catholics fifty + years ago) and has recently been officially supported by the findings of a committee which the Pope commissioned to study the issue from the standpoint of what the Church has taught and what the scriptures teach.

as far as all of this goes: I would very much recommend everyone interested in this topic to read the Vatican's recent document about it:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...infants_en.html[/url]

this quote from that document pretty much sums up what I've been saying:
[quote]This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.[/quote]

and I like this little snippet at the end about the theory proposed by this document:
[quote]What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.[/quote]

baptism remains a necessary imperative for the Christian Church, it remains as it is taught by the scriptures to be: essential for salvation.

[Altari]

We possessed a sinful nature before the occurrence of original sin; otherwise, man would have never fallen. Christ's death does not render our sinful nature somehow pure, but it does remove the culpability for original sin. Christ's sacrifice, in essence, holds humans accountable for their own sins alone and not the sins of their fathers. This is a basic tenet of Protestant theology and why most Protestant denominations abhor infant baptism. Baptism is a personal decision made to show faith in Christ and solidify one's relationship with him.

In the passages you reference, adults are being addressed. Adults must choose to be baptized and choose to be saved. Parents can not do this for their children and pull them into the fold. It is a highly personal decision that only the person being baptized can make. Infant baptism is not only redundant - as Christ has already cleansed us of our inherited sin - it is also un-Biblical. Christ was all about personal choices. The idea that parents can, somehow, preemptively, make a decision for their child is contradictory to his teachings.

[KnightofChrist]

Adam and Eve did not have sinful natures until after they choose to rebel against God. You are confusing freewill with sinful nature.

[Aloysius]

KoC is correct.

in Acts of the Apostles, entire households are baptizes. when one man converted, he had his entire family baptized into the new religion. This included women, children, and slaves, that's what the Greek word refers to.

protestant theology is unbiblical in this regard, and is simply a corruption by a society which is disconnected from the culture of first century Palestine and has begun to assert the concept of individualism. if you were to say this type of stuff to a Christian in first century Palestine, he would look at you like you were nuts. they were a tight-knit culture who understood covenants as being not individualistic deals with God, but collective deals of an entire community with God. and they most certainly and definitively believed that those who died before Christ came and had only original sin had been kept out of heaven until Christ's coming; and they believed that anyone who died without being baptized would not enter eternal life. The scriptures never say anything about baptism being about individualistic choice... the concept would be entirely foreign and repulsive to a first century Palestinian Hebrew Christian.

this is the best compilation of scripture verses to back up the concept that baptism was not an individualistic choice in the way a modern protestant might imagine it was: [url="http://scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html"]http://scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html[/url]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Altari' post='1522076' date='May 8 2008, 01:41 AM']In the passages you reference, adults are being addressed. Adults must choose to be baptized and choose to be saved. Parents can not do this for their children and pull them into the fold. It is a highly personal decision that only the person being baptized can make. Infant baptism is not only redundant - as Christ has already cleansed us of our inherited sin - it is also un-Biblical. Christ was all about personal choices. The idea that parents can, somehow, preemptively, make a decision for their child is contradictory to his teachings.[/quote]

Paul would baptize whole houses, children where not in these houses?

[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III[/url]

Matthew 19:13-15 "Then were little children presented to him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and [b]forbid them not to come to me[/b]: for the kingdom of heaven is for such. And when he had imposed hands upon them, he departed from thence. "

[Aloysius]

haha well... overlap there huh?

btw, I didn't realize you weren't Catholic when I first responded to you... so if I sounded curt or something, I thought I was correcting a fellow Catholic so it seemed appropriate to directly point out the statement as not Catholic theology (the penguin dressed like a pope threw me off ), sorry

[Altari]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1522077' date='May 8 2008, 02:48 AM']Adam and Eve did not have sinful natures until after they choose to rebel against God. You are confusing freewill with sinful nature.[/quote]
If one does not have a sinful nature, one cannot freely choose to sin. Eve would have been unable to take an action that she knew was contradictory to God's will if she did not have a sinful nature. You're confusing actions with intentions. The act of taking the fruit was not the sin. It was the conscious and willful disregard for a direct command from God that was her sin. Sin is a mental state of repudiation of God's commands. The action is simply an outward sign that we have disregarded his commands. It is the difference between thinking, "I shouldn't do that, it is wrong"; and thinking, "I want to do that, and no one will know." Both involve contemplating an action, but only one involves a mental acceptance of sinful behavior.

I'm also wondering if you're asserting that the Genesis account is historically accurate.

[Altari]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1522082' date='May 8 2008, 03:09 AM']btw, I didn't realize you weren't Catholic when I first responded to you... so if I sounded curt or something, I thought I was correcting a fellow Catholic so it seemed appropriate to directly point out the statement as not Catholic theology (the penguin dressed like a pope threw me off ), sorry [/quote]
It's all good. I'm a Pentecostal, so my beliefs vary widely from those of the Catholic Church.

And to parry the aforementioned Catholic article on the appropriateness of infant baptism, I submit a Protestant article on why it is wrong. =)
[url="http://www.biblestudy.org/question/should-babies-be-baptized.html"]http://www.biblestudy.org/question/should-...e-baptized.html[/url]

[Aloysius]

the historicity of the genesis account is not relevant to the discussion, and when speaking of original sin it is best to speak about the actions as if they are literally what occurred (ie, it would be far too annoying and confusing to constantly say something like: "when eve did the action that eating the apple symbolizes"

but Catholics believe that scripture is inerrant in what it intends to say. we believe that scripture does intend to say that our first ancestors were given a choice about sin prior to having sinful natures and that they chose sin.

a sinful nature is not required to choose a sinful act: free will has the capacity to choose to remain free will, or choose to become enslaved to sin and cease to be free will. in this case, it chose to become enslaved to sin.

a sinful nature makes one predisposed towards choosing the sinful act rather than the good act. Eve was not predisposed towards the sinful act, she had an even chance... however her descendants now have a predisposition towards choosing the sinful act because we have inherited the damage caused to human nature. we are not culpable for a sin that we did not choose, we are affected by its ramifications.

protestant theology too often ignores the difference between the sin and the effects of sin. a sin can be forgiven while the effects of it remain... if you break your neighbor's window and your neighbor forgives you, the window is still broken. baptism remits original sin, which is a defect in our nature that keeps us out of heaven, it's a broken window and heaven is the state of insulation for the house... while we have the broken window, our house will not be insulated... unless the broken window is fixed, our air conditioning is going out into the world. ie, unless original sin is cleansed, we cannot enter heaven.

[Altari]

Ahhh the semantics, and various unknowns of Catholicism, are making my head hurt. It's been fun, but I'm out. I'll stick to theological debates with fellow Protestants. At least we're all on the same page.

[Aloysius]

The term used in Acts 16:15 for who St. Paul baptizes is ΟΙΚΟΣ. There is absolutely no way that term would have been used to refer to only part of a household, the term was only used and understood t

This is why the Greek Fathers of the Church, who understood the New Testament better than anyone because it was written in their native tongue, never had a problem with infant baptism; the term ΟΙΚΟΣ clearly means, to one who spoke and understood Koine Greek, the entire household: parents, children, infants, slaves, everyone. You don't use that term if that's not what you mean, it'd just be ridiculous. you could say the men of the house or the adults of the house or the citizens of the house, or those who chose to have it done if you want to introduce this individualistic choice concept to a different society, but you would not say "household" you would not say "ΟΙΚΟΣ"

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Altari' post='1522087' date='May 8 2008, 04:30 AM']Ahhh the semantics, and various unknowns of Catholicism, are making my head hurt. It's been fun, but I'm out. I'll stick to theological debates with fellow Protestants. At least we're all on the same page. [/quote]
ahhh come on... not everyone spins himself around in circles as much as me... some people will actually probably come in with simple and understandable posts lol

and all protestants being on the same page? haha... well, that's an interesting fable :

(although, on the other hand, the topic has been clearly derailed from dairygirl's initial intent... )

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1522074' date='May 8 2008, 01:20 AM']yes, and the current Vatican position, which I know you disagree with[/quote]

maybe, though I don't believe I've articulated here any position for or against the post-Vatican II position on Limbo as it is not appropriate territory on the forum. Or maybe you were referring to the current magisterium overall? Just clarifying.

[quote](as golden is not a Catholic in good standing with the Church of his holiness Pope Benedict XVI, for those who do not know), is that there is a possibility that infants who die before a chance baptism might be extraordinarily cleansed of original sin by some means known only to God. so those of us who acknowledge Pope Benedict XVI are free to hold and thus debate the following positions:

1) unbaptized babies go to hell
2) unbaptized babies go to limbo
3) unbaptized babies are extraordinarily baptized by God and go to heaven[/quote]

I'm not sure this refers to only those who accept Benedict as my pre-vat sources say the same thing I believe. At any rate, I agree up to this point. My personal belief is that for the vast majority of them they go to Limbo. I personally don't subscribe so much to the idea that so very many of the infants are able to attain the sort of extra-ordinary baptism necessary for salvation. But I agree it is technically possible as my source wrote and not to be written of as a heretical belief. All I would say here is that I think it is not up for debate the fact that unbaptised babies who do not somehow recieve extra-ordinary baptism do not go to heaven.

[quote]number 1 is obviously the harshest but it cannot be written off as just mean, it's gotta be taken for what it is: a possible logical conclusion based upon everything scripture teaches about baptism's necessity... those who hold it might say that the justice of God is far above the justice of man and as such though we do not understand why it is just, it may be just from God's viewpoint... only God can know all potential possibilities and know if it is just that those who die before baptism go to hell or not. I do not subscribe to the first possibility, I hold the second possibility but define it in a unique way wherein I do not hold limbo to be an eternal place like some might, but a place of waiting for the second coming. The third position is probably the most commonly held by Catholics nowadays (the second one being the one most commonly held by Catholics fifty + years ago) and has recently been officially supported by the findings of a committee which the Pope commissioned to study the issue from the standpoint of what the Church has taught and what the scriptures teach.[/quote]

I also believe the second position though I am VERY hesitant to believe that it is only a temporary situation. I do believe that at the end of time Purgatory will disappear and only heaven and hell will remain but as I believe Limbo is technically a part of hell I'm not convinced Limbo won't remain with its subjects still there. Though on the other hand I do recognize that the Limbo as it was regarded in the Old Testament was opened and the Old Testament subjects were released to heaven. Yet again on the contrary this was before the gates of heaven were opened and they were released from limbo into heaven after the gates were opened. As the gates to heaven are already open now I'm not sure the current aspect of Limbo applies. Personally I think that since it is generally accepted by the theologians that after we die our fate is sealed (either heaven or hell), as a result we will not likely have a chance after our death to make our decision. Whether an infant can somehow obtain a form of baptism extra-ordinarily is debatable, but I do believe this happens before one has "officially" expired dead and gone and if it does not happen the infant goes to Limbo (I believe a part of hell, without pain and suffering).


[quote]as far as all of this goes: I would very much recommend everyone interested in this topic to read the Vatican's recent document about it:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...infants_en.html[/url]

this quote from that document pretty much sums up what I've been saying:
and I like this little snippet at the end about the theory proposed by this document:
baptism remains a necessary imperative for the Christian Church, it remains as it is taught by the scriptures to be: essential for salvation.[/quote]

Some interesting text there. I remember reading it some months ago. I probably should again.

Edited May 8, 2008 by goldenchild17