The document that the International Theological Commission has been working on concerning limbo has now been published.
AS ANTICIPATED, it casts doubt on the doctrine of limbo without claiming anything certain regarding the fate of infants dying without baptism, instead encouraging an attitude of hope regarding their salvation.
This is in line with the development of Catholic thought in the last few decades regarding the fate of such children, as well as the discussion of their fate in the Catechism.
That hasn’t stopped the MSM from portraying this in sensationalistic and inaccurate terms, speaking of the pope bucking Catholic tradition or changing Church teaching.
In fact, the International Theological Commission is not an organ of the magisterium but an advisory body. Its documents, even when their publication is approved by the pope, do not have magisterial force. What the pope did in this case was allow an advisory document to become public. That’s not the same thing as changing Church teaching.
Shame on the MSM for not being competent enough to get the basic facts of the story straight.
CATHOLIC NEWS SEVICE’S PIECE IS PRETTY GOOD, THOUGH.
BACKGROUND (LINK FIXED).
The majority opinion of a commision, to advise Pope Paul VI, on the issue of artificial birth control, advised that he should change the church’s teaching. The minority opinion, led by then Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, advised that the church should not change it’s teaching.
So much for the advice of papal commisions. It’s not over till the fat lady sings….and she’s just warming up.
Limbo and the Church’s teaching on contraception aren’t even in the same ballpark when it comes to doctrinal value. The former was a long-held theological opinion, the latter a perennial moral teaching held by all Christians until the twentieth century (and, in fact, was restated back in 1930 as well as in 1968). It would be very wrong to assume that the Pope is going to come out against the Limbo report and that if that doesn’t happen every real doctrine would be up for grabs.
However, in this case B16 apparently prodded the theological commission in precisely this direction, as per Jimmy’s earlier post.
My local paper carried the following Gledhill-worthy headline: “POPE BUCKS CHURCH TENETS ON FATE OF UNBAPTIZED KIDS.” So, yeah, take the MSM reporting with a whole salt lick!
“Doctrine” of limbo?
This is a good example of how the Catholic church “reformulates” its previous teaching rather than dropping it.
“No salvation outside the church” remains the teaching, but “church” includes just about everyone from Bultmannian protestants to Mohamadens; “Biblical inerrancy” means that the Bible is inerrant in its intent, but it doesn’t intend to be factually or theologically accurate (there are at least 3 Isaiahs according to Benedict). JP even hinted that he accepted von Balthasar’s gibberish on universal salvation.
The whole tenor of this report (if the news story can be trusted) is that modern man can’t handle the idea of unbaptized children in hell, so let’s dumb the doctrine down. As someone once said, “God is not so mad and man isn’t so bad.”
So Was St Augustine a bumbling idiot to say that unbaptised infants go to limbo?
What other dunder-headed declarations did he make?
If he,the greatest Father of the Church was wrong about this,what else was he wrong about?
Until the Holy Father pronounces The Limbo of the Infants non-existant,from the Chair of Peter,we are not obliged to believe that what has been taught for over one thousand years by Popes and Fathers is no longer true.
God bless you.
What is MSM?
MSM = “main stream media.” The leftist pukes who deliver 90% of the news.
So Was St Augustine a bumbling idiot to say that unbaptised infants go to limbo?
Actually, St. Austine taught that unbaptized infants suffer the worst pain, the pain of loss, in Hell. They might have been spared some physical pain, thus that is what Limbo meant to him, but that’s hardly significant. And no, Augustine doesn’t have to have been a bumbling idiot to be quite wrong about this.
This is a good example of how Jeb Protestant “reformulates” facts to fit his anti-Catholic worldview.
Any honest Protestant who has spent as much time as you have reaching Catholic apologetics, Jeb, knows by now that limbo was never church teaching, only theological speculation.
If you insist on describing it as “teaching” anyway, I can only conclude that it’s not for lack of clear information, but lack of intellectual honesty and basic fairness toward a theological system you disagree with.
It would be easy to refute your additional comments, but hardly worthwhile, unless you prove yourself more willing to dialogue in honesty than you’ve been willing to in previous discussions.
JP is back, desperately grasping at any club with which to bash the Church, as is his usual knee-jerk behavior.
P.S.
This only shows your ignorance of the history of the idea of limbo, which was origianlly proposed precisely because the Church clarified centuries ago that unbaptized babies could not be in hell, because only personal sins, not original sin, damns people to hell.
So it’s got nothing to do with “modern man” not being able to accept the idea of unbaptized children in hell. Medieval man knew that too. But they couldn’t see how they could get to heaven either, so they proposed the idea of limbo.
I happen to agree with B16 that there is good reason to hope that unbaptized babies do go to heaven, so the construct of limbo seems dubious at best.
Actually, Augustine believed they went to hell, not limbo. He lived too early to benefit from the Church’s later clarity on original sin not damning anyone. So while he was not a dunderhead, he did the best with what he knew at the time, but he was wrong.
“…that what has been taught for over one thousand years by Popes and Fathers is no longer true.”
Sigh. Limbo was *never* taught as being “true”.
I was watching some lefty bozo on TV last night and he was arguing that if the Catholic Church (the CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR GOD’S SAKE!!!) can change its doctrine on unbaptized babies going to Hell, then Bush (sic) can change his policy in Iraq. I’ve been wondering why the MSM has been making such a big deal out of this relatively obscure theological issue. Now I know. It provides those with a revolutionary ecclesial agenda with the appropriate rhetoric for challenging the Church on her real doctrines and dogmas. See! The Church can change long-established doctrine. If the pope can abolish limbo, he can certainly abolish the all-male priesthood. Predictable. Sadly, sadly predictable.
Fr. Philip, OP
So far, we are still allowed to believe in the limbo of the infants.
God bless you
So far, we are still allowed to believe in the limbo of the infants.
And, so far as I know, we are still allowed to believe that unbaptized babies are chucked into the fiery river. What’s your point?
Sure. FWIW, though, I agree with the following from Pre‑16, cited in Jimmy’s earlier post:
Actually, AFAIK this is not the case. Only those guilty of personal sin are damned to hell. Original sin alone will not get you to hell. So the only question is whether unbaptized babies get to heaven or whether God does something else with them, which we call limbo.
Jimmy–you expected anything better? 😉
As for limbo, I think it’s an article of faith or nearly so that the limbo of the fathers [i]did[/i] exist. I’m inclined to think there’s a good argument that the limbo of infants [i]does[/i] exist. What gives me pause is the question of what [i]will[/i] exist come the eschaton–I can’t see Limbo fitting into the new heavens and the new earth.
I once saw a speculation online (I think it was by Edwin Tait, an Anglican on Steve Ray’s message board) that the Harrowing of Hell might have been transtemporal–affecting those born [u]after[/u] the Redemption in time who were unbaptized or invincibly ignorant. There might be something to that . . .
Doesn’t the Commission itself recognize that extra ecclesiam nulla salus “needs interpretation?” And how does this not resonate pretty squarely with Jeb’s concerns?
I was first introduced to real Catholicism by Catholic Answers back when I was in junior high school, and I was and remain incredibly impressed by their tours de force on just about every apologetical issue– except this one. I hope someone can point me to a satisfying treatment of it.
The teaching on Limbo was universally accepted as true in the Catholic Church for many centuries, and only began to fall out of favor last century. As late as the 1950s, the Holy Office condemned the proposition that all unbaptised babies go to heaven. So, while it may not be a teaching of the infallible magisterium, it’s wrong to downplay it as “nothing more than a popular theological speculation.” Until last century, just about the only doubt Catholics had about Limbo was whether or not the souls there suffered pain, or rather existed in a state of natural happiness.
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html
“Only those guilty of personal sin are damned to hell. Original sin alone will not get you to hell.”
No, SDG, the Catholic faith is that even original sin alone would send someone to hell. This is found in the creed that Pope Clement had Emperor Michael Palaeologus sign in 1274 at the Second Council of Lyons. It was then reiterated by Pope John XXII in 1321, and was formally promulgated by the Oecumenical Council of Florence in 1439.
Until last century, just about the only doubt Catholics had about Limbo was whether or not the souls there suffered pain, or rather existed in a state of natural happiness.
Which, if the position that they do feel pain were permissible, would mean that we were at least then allowed to believe that unbaptized babies are chucked into the fiery river. Remember: Limbo is technically a part of Hell. The word means borderland or margin and since it involves lack of the beatific vision…
Bottom line here is that;No one gets to Heaven without removal of Original Sin.
God bless you.
Contrary to what anyone else says on the topic, the Catholic Church has NOT changed it’s teaching on Limbo. The official position is as it has always been: limbo exists and to deny it is to adhere to heresy. The paper issued on Friday by the International Theological Commission is has absolutely no bearing on Church teaching because (1) the commission itself is only an advisory panel with no official teaching office in the Catholic Church, and (2) Church teaching on limbo is a doctrinal fact which has been infallibly declared on many occasions throughout history. Please allow me to refer you to a discussion on the topic by a Catholic priest who makes numerous quotes of historical Church teaching affirming the existence and reality of limbo:
http://www.audiosancto.com/audio/20070422_Sermon_GoodShepherdSunday_OnLimbo.mp3
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus has always been subject to various caveats and asterisks, e.g., baptism of desire, baptism of blood, baptism of heretics to name a few.
The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to Father Feeney puts the Church’s teaching in perspective in a way that puts a very different face on things from Jeb’s sneering comments about the Church “including everyone from Bultmannian protestants to Mohamadens [sic]” (which it does not, though we may still hope that they can be saved).
Cf. also of course Lumen Gentium 15-16 and CCC 1257-1261 (LINK FIXED) as well as Dominus Iesus.
References/quotations, please.
Any time anyone calls the Bishop of Rome a heretic, I have no trouble knowing whom I’m going to listen to. Thanks for playing.
No, original sin does damn a person. There are two punishments in hell, the poena damni, or separation from God, which is the punishment of original sin; and the poena sensus, the punishment of the senses, which is the punishment for actual sins. The limbo postulation basically says that unbaptized infants suffer the pain of separation because they are in original sin, but that they do not suffer the pain of the senses because they have no personal sins.
I also think its proper to point out that the document is not saying that all unbaptized infants go to heaven. It explicitly says that the fate of unbaptized children is not a matter of public revelation – which does imply that limbo is not de fide. It simply calls into question the existence of the limbo of children as an answer to the question of their fate and says that there are good reasons to think that God saves them. Again, how this happens we do not know, as it is not a matter of public revelation.
Of course this will be taken to mean that all unbaptized children go to heaven, which while this is a possibility of this theology, is not the necessary result. The real danger of this is not the loss of a particular theological opinion, but that people will become lax in baptizing their children.
The article on Limbo in the original Catholic Encyclopedia, in the volume published in 1910, concludes, “Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children’s limbo, while from the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God’s justice and other attributes.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
Note that children’s limbo is referred to as, “the prevailing Catholic notion”, not as defined dogma.
Wikipedia contains a long list of apparently-infallible statements of “extra ecclesiam” that don’t seem to include any exceptions at all. I guess this is what I’m looking for an explanation of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_Nulla_Salus
Bottom line here is that;No one gets to Heaven without removal of Original Sin.
Certainly. The question is simply under what circumstances original sin can be removed from individuals who remain outside the Church.
Among these can certainly be counted the martyrdom of catechumens, the desire for baptism of catechumens who die without the sacrament, and those who receive the baptism of heretics.
The deaths of the Holy Innocents would seem to count, and victims of the abortion holocaust seem to me to have a similar claim.
In my personal opinion, the proposal that in their deaths unbaptized babies are united with Jesus’ saving death as they would be through baptism is more consistent with fundamental dogmatic theology than the speculation of limbo.
From the Second Vatican Council and Papal teaching we know that adults who have not explicitly professed Jesus as their Lord in this life can be saved.
If we can hope that unbaptized adults who have personally sinned can enter heaven, then our hope for unbaptized infants who have not personally sinned must be greater.
The widely-held but ‘unofficial’ pious hope of Limbo (rather than Hell) has developed into a better hope.
The mass media ought to be glad that the Catholic Church was claiming that more people were in Heaven. They would certainly have complained if Limbo or Hell for unbaptized infants was affirmed. But for some, even good news is a stick with which to beat the Church.
The Bible itself contains infallible statements about salvation that must be understood as carrying implicit exceptions, even though there is no mention of such.
Take John 3:18: “He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
Interpreted strictly, this verse would seem to imply that anyone at all who “does not believe” — i.e., anyone who lacks personal faith — is “condemned already.” This would even include baptized babies, who lack personal faith.
JIMMY AKIN:
The BACKGROUND link seems to be broken.
Any chance of fixing it?
THANKS!!!
Link fixed. (It’s the same as the “AS ANTICIPATED” link on top.)
Thanks Jimmy as always!!!
References/quotations, please.
They are found here (the 1274 reference I added in a comment at the bottom):
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/10/roman-church-teaches.htm
Let me make clear, however, that I am not opposed to theological speculation that God can remit the original sin of unbaptised babies through extraordinary means. The Church isn’t opposed to such speculation, so there’s no basis for my raising any objections to it. I do, however, think the traditional teaching on Limbo is solidly grounded, even though it’s not an infallible doctrine of the faith.
“No, original sin does damn a person.”
On the contrary:
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with only original sin soon go down into hell, but there they receive different punishments.” (Creed signed by Emperor Michael Palaeologus, written by Pope Clement during the Second Council of Lyons, 1274)
“The Roman Church teaches … that the souls of those who depart in mortal sin or with only original sin descend immediately to hell, nevertheless to be punished with different punishments and in disparate locations…” (Pope John XXII, Nequaquam sine dolore, 1321)
“… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.” (Laetentur Caeli, Council of Florence, 1439)
There is no question that the souls of those who die in original sin go to hell. The question is whether or not God has extraordinary means to remit the original sin of unbaptised babies. We don’t know if He does, but the International Theological Commission advises that it is good to hope that He does.
Sorry, Josh, my brain wasn’t working just now. Just delete the words “on the contrary.” I was agreeing with you, not disagreeing.
Jordan Potter:
Could it be that it was not ‘Hell’ that was meant but ‘Sheol’?
I just can’t imagine that there are different regions in Hell with differing punishments.
Also, I cannot accept that a merciful God, such as He who sent us His Son for our very salvation, would actually send innocent babies to Hell.
I mean, I can accept folks who’ve lived a life of Sin and Evil — these send themselves to Hell.
But I cannot fathom innocent babies who have committed no actual sin of their own to be sent to the same fate.
Esau, those who have the stain of original sin are not innocent. We all need Jesus to save us, even babies who have not committed actual sin.
Anyway, no, there is no chance that they were referring to “Sheol” rather than “Gehenna,” the hell of the damned. There is no other way to interpret those words — those who die in original sin go to hell, but the damned do not all experience the same punishments. For some it is worse than others. Traditionally it was suggested that for unbaptised babies, there was no pain at all, but even a state of natural happiness. No, not heaven, but the mildest of hells imaginable.
Traditionally it was suggested that for unbaptised babies, there was no pain at all, but even a state of natural happiness.
Jordan Potter:
I really appreciate all your info!
But, how can there even be a state of natural happiness when there is a separation from God?
It just doesn’t seem theologically acceptable.
Isn’t one of the reasons why the souls in Hell suffer so is due to their separation from God, which, thus, results in apparent pain?
Thanks for responding, Jordan. Some clarifications:
First, I’ve been doing some further research, and even before you posted I realized that my earlier statements about original sin and damnation were too strong, and you and Josh have a point.
It is certainly true that original sin alone does exclude the soul from the beatific vision. Thus, as Dan Hunter said and I agreed with above, no one gets to heaven without the removal of original sin.
On the limbo postulate, unbaptized infants are excluded from the beatific vision, and are thus in a sense on the “border” (limbo) of hell.
Josh is also correct as regards the traditional distinction between the poena damni and the poena sensus.
If limbo postulate is understood to exclude positive punishment in the sense of the poena sensus, then it seems that Augustine taught that unbaptized infants go to hell, not limbo, since he held that they do suffer positive punishment, though in a very mild degree.)
However, apparently the prevailing understanding of limbo has been that unbaptized infants neither suffer poena sensus nor experience exclusion from the beatific vision as a painful privation (poena damni).
On this view, though objectively excluded from the beatific vision, subjectively they do not experience this as punishment or suffering. Rather, they experience perfect natural happiness. One version even holds that these souls will be raised with glorified bodies and will occupy the new earth in eternity, what might be called a quasi-beatific state.
When I said that original sin does not send anyone to hell, I should have said something like “Those who die in original sin only do not suffer eternal punishment.” Even though the magisterial teachings cited above speak of punishments, apparently this is widely understood to refer to the objective exclusion from the beatific vision rather than any experience of suffering, spiritual or otherwise.
Looking back at Jimmy’s earlier post, I see I’ve already written at length on my own ideas about the regeneration of the unbaptized, from martyred catechumens to catechumens who die naturally to the Holy Innocents to victims of abortion to unbaptized infants who die naturally.
FWIW, I’m gratified to note that some of the theological considerations mentioned in my earlier post seem to have been cited also in the ITC’s document.
No, apparently what is meant is separation from God.
I don’t know about regions, but I’m confident that there are differing punishments, at any rate. Some of the damned surely suffer more grievously than others, just as some of the Blessed are more glorious and honored than others.
Neither have most Catholic theologians, at least where hell is understood as positive suffering.
The second statement is true, but not the first. Even babies who have not committed actual sin need Jesus to save them, but it’s also true that even in original sin they are innocent, i.e., without personal guilt.
With God all things are possible. Like you, I don’t find it a fitting fate for a creature made in God’s image and called to know and love Him forever; but there’s no question that God could make us happy forever without Him, if He wanted to.
Hardon defines doctrine as “Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful.” Limbo isn’t and never has been “doctrine”.
“But, how can there even be a state of natural happiness when there is a separation from God?”
Those on earth today who are still in their sins can experience natural happiness: joys and pleasures, even if they are fleeting. The traditional teaching on Limbo suggests that because babies cannot know that they have been deprived of supernatural happiness, and because they had not committed any actual sin, they would exist eternally in a state of natural happiness. They would never get to enjoy heaven, but as SDG has said, their punishment would be nothing mnore than being deprived of the Beatific Vision.
Even St. Augustine couldn’t bring himself to admit anything worse for unbaptised babies than the mildest of pains in hell. Subsequent theologians wouldn’t even go that far: no pain at all, just exclusion from heaven. That’s why it is called “limbo” — “fringe” or “hem.” It’s conceived of at the outermost “region” of hell, where there is separation from God but no pain.
Of course we know that this idea on Limbo is not new, but reading the media spin, which is what most americans and I guess the rest of the world will go by, it sure seems to me that there will be even FEWER baptisms of babies –and subsequent teaching and passing on the faith to those children–than ever before. If it is all just “theological opinion”, I think it was very imprudent on the pope’s part to announce this as he did.
Yes, I know he had abortion in mind, but I mean, really, didn’g he realize what every devout catholic mom and dad already knows: That if you teach that definitely unbaptised children go to heaven anyway, your average person will assume that means there is no original sin, therefore no need for baptism, therefore no need to be catholic, therefore no need to go to Mass, etc, etc, etc.
And if you push this thinking (as a lot of people will do) it sorta makes the abortive woman and the abortion doctors a bunch of “mystical heroes” ; afterall, they are sending 5000 souls to heaven each day, helping them to avoid any chance of commiting one mortal sin and going to hell! In fact, they are actually saving souls, if you think about it; they could be saving the world from another stalin or hitler, and sending that little hitler straight to heaven while they are at it– “so, what’s wrong with abortion?”
What WAS the pope thinking? sigh.
“Even babies who have not committed actual sin need Jesus to save them, but it’s also true that even in original sin they are innocent, i.e., without personal guilt.”
Okay, if by innocent we mean “without personal guilt of actual sin,” then yes, babies are innocent. I was referring to their lack of justifying grace, however.
Catholic Mama, I do hope that Pope Benedict forcefully urges the need to baptise babies. If we don’t know that God has extraordinary means of saving unbaptised babies, but can at best only hope He does, then we must be safe and not presume on God’s mercy: parents, bring your children to the font of life with all speed!
“And if you push this thinking (as a lot of people will do) it sorta makes the abortive woman and the abortion doctors a bunch of ‘mystical heroes’ ; afterall, they are sending 5000 souls to heaven each day, helping them to avoid any chance of commiting one mortal sin and going to hell!”
Yes, there are those who would make such twisted arguments. But the Catholic faith affirms that we may NEVER do evil that good may come of it.
This was an appeasement to the growing third world catholic countries, where catholics, at least by birth (not by practice) have a high birth rate (not to mention one man with countless wives but that is for another thread where the church looks the other way) and a huge infant mortality
St Augustine was clearly teaching defined dogma, as defined in as defined in several Dogmatic Councils: that the sin of Adam and Eve, the earlies of the human race, mankind lost grace through the Original Sin and that this sin dwells in every unbaptized human soul.
Therefore souls, such as the unborn who die in the state of Original Sin are excluded from the the vision of God.
This teaching was codified at the Sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418, the Second Council of Lyons in 1274, the Council of Florence in 1438-1445, and finally the Council of Trent (1546) and is based on the dogma of Original Sin.
But once again the church of Vatican II, under immense pressure from the only part of the world where catholics are growing, turns the other way and appeases the secular world instead of “holding fast to faith and tradition” and asking these secular world to be in line with Catholic teaching
Maybe having a catholic priest or someone to baptise these infants upon birth immediately would be the answer, but I guess that would just make to much sense for a church now bent on Modernism
SDG:
Thanks for many of your insights and info above!
You and Jordan Potter have provided me with a lot of info to reflect on.
But, in regards to your comment:
…there’s no question that God could make us happy forever without Him, if He wanted to.
And Jordan’s:
…there was no pain at all, but even a state of natural happiness.
Though I know, just as you’ve mentioned, with God, all things are possible.
It’s just I often thought that the very pains suffered by those in Hell were actually due to their being physically/spiritually separated from God.
If babies do go to Hell, even in a lesser region, I cannot imagine that they can actually experience even an imperfect form of happiness since, being in Hell, they are separated from God and would, therefore, suffer similar pains.
A Catholic Mama:
And if you push this thinking (as a lot of people will do) it sorta makes the abortive woman and the abortion doctors a bunch of “mystical heroes” ; afterall, they are sending 5000 souls to heaven each day, helping them to avoid any chance of commiting one mortal sin and going to hell! In fact, they are actually saving souls, if you think about it; they could be saving the world from another stalin or hitler, and sending that little hitler straight to heaven while they are at it– “so, what’s wrong with abortion?”
This makes as little sense as saying that our belief that children under the age of reason can be baptized encourages infanticide.
“It’s just I often thought that the very pains suffered by those in Hell were actually due to their being physically/spiritually separated from God.”
Again, since babies have no awareness of what they have lost, the pain of loss and separation would not be something they would experience. That is how it has traditionally been explained anyway.
Oh, and Esau and everyone, our old friend John has chimed in with his stale old church bashing rhetoric. For once could we all please just ignore him?
In the first place, I doubt very many people are going to argue along these lines. In general, I think anyone seriously thinking about the question “Where do aborted babies go when they die?” has already admitted the personhood and divine image of the fetus, and is not going to be making a principled argument for abortion.
On the contrary, I think the new declaration is actually much more likely to be a source of comfort to repentant and grieving mothers who have committed abortion in the past, than to encourage anyone to commit abortion in the future.
Just think if you were a repentant mother who had an abortion how much better you would feel if you could hope that someday you might meet your baby in heaven. (Maybe the pope was thinking of that!)
In the second place, the argument is too patently flimsy. For one thing, it would equally justify and even encourage murder of children up to the age of reason.
For another, the possibility of “saving the world from another Hitler” would have to be weighed against the danger of depriving the world of another St. Francis or Mother Teresa.
Most importantly, God creates souls in this world, not to be sent willy-nilly to heaven, but to exercise freedom and ideally to exercise heroic virtue and glorify God in this life and win eternal glory for themselves in the next.
Even if aborted babies go to heaven, which I believe they do, they are deprived of all opportunity to merit, to have something of their own to offer their Creator. Thus, although perfectly happy in heaven, they are deprived of the happiness of having pleased God by their works.
That is an offense against the fetus for which everyone who cooperates in abortion must beg their victim’s forgiveness, even if in so doing they have sent them to heaven.
Eileen R:
Ah, but infanticide is not legal, whereas abortion, sadly, is.
Perhaps you have never encountered pro-abortion fanatics; I think they will use this.
SDG:
I wish that most people in our culture today did look at the potential good that each person has, as you point out, the good that a child can do which he can later offer to the glory of God in Paradise. Unfortunately, in this cutlure of death, most people only look at the potential bad.
Ooops, that last anonymous response was from me.
Jordan Potter:
Thanks for the Info yet again!
About the HH — agreed, no response here.
SDG:
This was very well-said:
Most importantly, God creates souls in this world, not to be sent willy-nilly to heaven, but to exercise freedom and ideally to exercise heroic virtue and glorify God in this life and win eternal glory for themselves in the next.
I really, really doubt this. Pro-abortion fanatics do not want to come within a million miles of admitting that the fetus has a soul that “goes” anywhere at death, or even that “death” is occurring at all. It’s just a pregnancy being terminated. Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
Unfortunately, in this cutlure of death, most people only look at the potential bad.
Actually, one of the biggest problems is that they see the baby as an object (to be done away with according to the wishes of the ‘owner’) and, even worse, an inconvenience.
Pro-abortion fanatics do not want to come within a million miles of admitting that the fetus has a soul that “goes” anywhere at death, or even that “death” is occurring at all. It’s just a pregnancy being terminated.
SDG:
Right On!
Actually, to even admit that ‘it’ has a ‘soul’ would be too much an inconvenient truth!
(sorry… just had to work that in) ;^)
SDG:
Yes, as I meant to say in my first post, I know that comforting those who regret abortion was the intention of the pope’s announcement. I am lamenting the outcome of its spin in the media and how I know that majority of the world will, and is, interpreting it.
As Jordon Potter (above) points out, let us hope that the Holy Father will reiterate the importance of infant baptism (and the potential spiritual danger of presumption) and that Original Sin is a defined doctrine.
Esau,
Apparently you have never encountered pro-abortion “Catholics”–including nuns and priests. They do indeed think this way.
Oops again…my last comment was meant for SDG
Apparently you have never encountered pro-abortion “Catholics”–including nuns and priests. They do indeed think this way.
You’ve got to be kidding me?
There are actually nuns and priests who are pro-death?
Never heard of such folks. All the ones I know are active Pro-Life folks who even march Pro-Life and engage in various Pro-Life activities.
John,
I thought that if the child died before baptism the desire of the mother to have her infant baptized sufficed.
Esau:
Yep, hate to burst your bubble, but there are lots of wolves in sheep’s (or is that shepherd’s?) clothing.
I envy your innocence! 🙂
Wow, what great timing for this discussion (for me). My wife and I are preparing another group of parents Wed night for the baptism of their children. Here I had been debating taking out the discussion on Original sin (due in part to a comment made by someone in clergy). Instead methinks it bears even lenghthier discussion based on this topic.
Thanks as always to those here that provide an intelligent and helpful dialogue about meaningful topics.
Is there a “limbo of the journalists” where even those journalists unworthy of eternal damnation experience only natural sufferings for all eternity?
If there is even a chance that an unbabtized infant would go to hell or be deprived of the beatific vision why don’t we have a priest waiting in the labor room to baptize as soon as the baby is born?
Fr. Brian Harrison O.S. in 2005 wrote a very interesting article on Limbo. I quote
“…It should be clear from the above survey of relevant Catholic magisterial statements that those who now talk about Limbo as only ever having been a mere “hypothesis”, rather than a doctrine, are giving a very misleading impression of the state of the question. They are implying by this that the pre-Vatican II Church traditionally held, or at least implicitly admitted, that an alternate ‘hypothesis’ for unbaptized infants was their attainment of eternal salvation — Heaven. Nothing could be further from the truth. Limbo for unbaptized infants was indeed a theological “hypothesis”; but the only approved alternate hypothesis was not Heaven, but very mild hellfire as well as exclusion from the beatific vision! In short, while Limbo as distinct from very mild hellfire was a ‘hypothetical’ destiny for unbaptized infants, their eternal exclusion from Heaven (with or without any ‘pain of sense’) — at least after the proclamation of the Gospel, and apart from the ‘baptism of blood’ of infants slaughtered out of hatred for Christ — this was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis. No, it was never dogmatically defined. But the only question is whether the doctrine was infallible by virtue of the universal and ordinary magisterium, or merely “authentic”. ”
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html
If there is even a chance that an unbabtized infant would go to hell or be deprived of the beatific vision why don’t we have a priest waiting in the labor room to baptize as soon as the baby is born?
Of course, anyone can baptize in an emergency. I know a number of emergency hospital baptisms when it was feared the infant wouldn’t survive.
Most parents wait 4-6 weeks before baptizing their child. There can be some unforeseen circumstances where the child dies. Why take that chance? Why not baptize as soon as the child is born, right after you cut the cord? In fact, if there is a chance that unbaptized children go to limbo, why aren’t Catholics lined up outside of hospitals to baptize every non-catholic child as they go home and save them from possible hell?
Esau,
I personally know one priest who thinks abortion should stay legal, though I think he is “personally opposed” to abortions. I know however that there are many downright pro-death priests and religious. It’s a sad state of affairs.
But this doesn’t really answer the question. Why is it only when there is a specific reason to fear for the infant’s survival that we baptize immediately? Just because there’s no known medical emergency doesn’t mean the child won’t die suddenly on the way home from the hospital, say.
Just think, if the whole family dies in a car crash, you could have spent enternity with your baby if you had it baptized in the delivery room, but now, oh well, your child is IN HELL because you assumed that you could get it safely to church within a week or two.
To delay baptism by a single day or a single hour if there is risk of eternal damnation seems an intolerable dereliction of parental duty. Yet AFAIK the Church has never remotely encouraged parents to insist on baptism on the delivery bed; instead, parents are encouraged to have their child baptized within the first few weeks of life.
It is hard for me to see how this practice is defensible unless we are to assume that we can safely entrust the souls of our unbaptized children during those weeks to the mercy of God, rather than fearing that they are a heartbeat away from eternal perdition.
Why is it only when there is a specific reason to fear for the infant’s survival that we baptize immediately? Just because there’s no known medical emergency doesn’t mean the child won’t die suddenly on the way home from the hospital, say.
SDG:
Isn’t it that unless there are extreme circumstances (such as immediate death) one (i.e., a lay person) cannot baptize the baby and that as a normal course of action, it should only be performed by a priest?
Here’s a citation:
“The bishop, priest or deacon is the usual minister of Baptism, but when a person is in danger of death anyone may and sometimes should baptize. No one, however, may baptize him or herself. (1256)”
You’re right Esau, only a priest can perform a babtism unless there is danger of death, but you are missing the point. If the loss of contact with God is at stake why do we have to have immediate danger of death? The family could drive head on into an 18 wheeler on the way home and everybody could die in an instant. There would be no chance to baptize the infant and he/she would be lost forever. To delay baptism for even one second is too much of a chance if limbo is a real possibility.
Well, in the first place, if I were truly afraid that my baby was in danger of hell until I got it baptized, why wouldn’t I arrange to have a priest (e.g., a hospital chaplain) available to baptize it in the delivery room? Why wouldn’t that be the Church’s standard practice?
In the second place, if I were truly afraid that my baby was in danger of hell until I got it baptized, I don’t think I would dare to drive it home in a car just because a priest wasn’t available. I would probably consider that practically a violation of conscience, and have no choice but to perform the baptism myself rather than risk my child’s eternal soul on my own driving and the driving of everyone on the road at the same time as me.
My point is that the fact that the Church’s practice is for parents to make arrangements for baptism to take place within the first few weeks of life points toward having confidence that during those weeks we can safely entrust the souls of our unbaptized children to the mercy of God rather than fearing that they are a heartbeat away from eternal perdition.
To delay baptism for even one second is too much of a chance if limbo is a real possibility.
Paulo:
I’m not saying that there was actually something wrong with SDG’s intention.
I was merely giving answer to him as regards: Why is it only when there is a specific reason to fear for the infant’s survival that we baptize immediately.
I was only pointing out that a lay person (that is, ‘we’) aren’t supposed to baptize our children ourselves (or anybody else for that matter) unless there is imminent danger of death, as pointed out by the citation.
Now, SDG’s most recent comment of actually having the hospital chaplain baptize the baby in the delivery room is a splended suggestion!
So, let me get this straight. If a baby dies without being baptized, he goes to limbo (according to those who subscribe to this view.) Limbo is forever without the Presence of God. That’s supposed to be God’s mercy, right.
I thought the worst pain of Hell was eternal separation from God. How is this view of Limbo any different from St. Augustine’s hypothesis that unbaptized infants go straight to Hell?
No One Father is Infallible. St. Augustine was wrong.
I thought the worst pain of Hell was eternal separation from God.
Dr. Eric:
EXACTLY!!!
That’s precisely the point I was alluding to in my earlier remarks.
I often thought, from things read (of course, this was way back from my early days in casually studying such topics), that the pains suffered by those in Hell was the result of actually being separated (physically/spiritually) from God.
Dr. Eric,
St. Gregory the Great and other Fathers who were Popes were infallible :-p
Anyway, in hell there is a complete absense of God. Perhaps in Limbo there is a presence of God to the person, just not the complete beatific vision. Some ideas at least of Limbo had it as something of an earthly paradise, with great natural happiness just no beatific vision.
Also, some believed that Limbo was only temporary, and that at the Second Coming they would go to heaven.
And my reply is that if our unbaptized babies are all a heartbeat away from hell, then that is an unconscionable precept. If unbaptized babies go to hell, it is imperative to baptize them immediately. No other principle, including the priest’s role as ordinary minister of the sacrament, should be permitted to keep a child in danger of eternal perdition for a single hour, let alone weeks on end.
And while having a hospital chaplain in the delivery room to perform the baptism may seem to you like a splendid idea, it’s not one the Church has advocated in any vocal and consistent way — which, again, would be unconscionable unless we may safely entrust the souls of our unbaptized babies to the mercy of God.
Because I do not believe that the Church’s practice is unconscionable, I conclude that we may safely entrust the souls of our unbaptized babies to the mercy of God.
When I had a miscarriage in December of 2006, my priest assured me that our baby was indeed in heaven, because s/he had been baptized via baptism of desire given that both my husband and I had fully intended to have the baby baptized very shortly after his/her birth.
As the Catechism says:
Regardless of Limbo’s existance, I believe my baby is in heaven with God right now. I ask him/her to pray for us daily.
J.R. Stoodley,
I would be more willing to accept some of the ideas you laid out in your comments.
That’s why I originally envisioned it more like ‘Sheol’.
Though Jordan Potter made a reasonable assertion that it cannot be ‘Sheol’.
It was said that limbo was actually a part of Hell, except that it was perhaps a lesser region with milder forms of punishment.
I’d more likely defer to those with greater knowledge on Limbo such as perhaps Jordan Potter and the like.
Hey John,
I was wondering how long it would take you to weigh in with anti-V2 sentiments. You never fail to disappoint *grin*. However, now that I know the truth about you (you’re staying true to the Church via indult masses), I just don’t have it in me to get upset about it any more. Your gnarled exterior belies the fact that you are just another Catholic trying to muddle through like the rest of us.
Pax,
Tim
I trust Joseph Ratzinger, but I WISH, WISH, WISH that if the Church is going to do these seeming u-turns she would EXPLAIN them first. This sort of thing is precisely what caused so much of the unsettled difficulties about religious freedom and other doctrines at Vatican Two.
We believe not just in infallible definitions but in Tradition and the ordinary magisterium of the Church, which is just as infallible as any definition. I’d like to see the study to see if it takes the previous teaching seriously.
Here are some rather official and high level teachings of Pope and Council on the question which if they are in fact NOT infallible (and they sound to me as if they might just be) are certainly solemn and definitional in character:
The Roman Church teaches […] that the souls of those who depart in mortal sin or with only original sin descend immediately to hell, nevertheless to be punished with different punishments and in disparate locations…
Nequaquam sine dolore
John XXII
November 21, 1321
…the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.
Decree for the Greeks (Laetentur Caeli)
Ecumenical Council of Florence
July 6, 1439
(note that this was REQUIRED by an ecumenical council of the Church as a matter of doctrine necessary for unification of Greeks and Latins)
[Errors of the Synod of Pistoia.] The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire […] is false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.
Auctorem Fidei
Pius VI
August 28, 1794
(Note the date on this papal condemnation).
I don’t mind believing that the black that I see is white if the Hierarchical Church tells me that it is so, but I wish she would make these shifts a little easier by explaining fully their relation to earlier teaching before launching out into the deep.
I wonder if the commission examined this issue?
To put this topic from another perspective, let me ask a few questions,
Is the theological commission positing the possibility that no infant can ever die with original sin, simply because God is too merciful to let that happen?
If the answer is in the affirmative, this unleashes a whole other set of theological problems that theologians and apologists would have to consider.
For starters, what would be the point of the Church’s constant emphasis (reaffirmed by the theological commission itself) on the urgency of having infants baptized as soon as possible? Isn’t this superfluous if God in reality infuses sanctifying grace every single time an infant were to die without actual baptism?
Secondly, in what sense would water baptism be the “ordinary means of salation” when God, in fact, infuses sanctifying grace (again) every single time an infant were to die without actual baptism? As the theologian Fr. William Most notes: “extraordinary graces are extraordinary, God cannot, without self-contradiction, make the extraordinary to be ordinary. So He does not routinely give the miraculous graces” (“Americans to Hell?” Paragraph 30).
And lastly, in what meaningful way can we interpret Our Lord’s words in John 3:5, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”, when in reality an infant’s soul is infused with sanctifying grace by default simply because he dies? You see, traditionally the Church has always interpreted John 3:5 to include both baptism by water and baptism by desire or blood (the later two exemplifies the truth that God is not bound by the sacrament itself). Baptism of blood is considered martyrdom for the faith — meaning, someone is not baptized by blood just because he suffers death. This, then, leads to the question of how we could consider other forms of deaths that infants suffer from as true forms of martyrdom (an example of such a case would be an unbaptized infant dying in a car accident – how is he a martyr?).
The above questions are just some of the problems that the possibility of all non-baptized infants receiving sanctifying grace, raises.
On the other hand, if the theological commission did not mean to open up the possibility that no infant can ever die in the state of original sin, what then happens to those who do? And since the Church teaches that original sin alone can exclude a soul from heaven — I ask, what is truly the more ‘restrictive’ view: that such souls go to hell (there to suffer with the company of the damned and the demons), or limbo (a place of natural happiness – happiness, theologians have taught, which is far superior to the kind we can experience here on earth)?
If unbaptized babies go to hell, it is imperative to baptize them immediately. No other principle, including the priest’s role as ordinary minister of the sacrament, should be permitted to keep a child in danger of eternal perdition for a single hour, let alone weeks on end.
That’s why I agreed with the sentiment that babies should be baptized immediately.
Because I do not believe that the Church’s practice is unconscionable, I conclude that we may safely entrust the souls of our unbaptized babies to the mercy of God.
That’s EXACTLY the reason I had stated earlier today:
Also, I cannot accept that a merciful God, such as He who sent us His Son for our very salvation, would actually send innocent babies to Hell.
True, but many Catholic theologians have supposed that the souls of unbaptized infants, though in fact separated from the Beatific Vision, do not experience this as a painful privation. God is omnipotent; if he wants to give such souls perfect natural happiness without the Beatific Vision, He can do so.
I do question, though, whether this is a fitting eternal destiny for souls created in the image of God and sharing the human nature assumed and redeemed by Jesus Christ.
Even perdition in a way is more consistent with human dignity, since it turns on the freedom of those who abuse God’s gift to reject His love, that is absent in the concept of limbo. Limbo seems to me to reduce human persons to a subhuman state. Perfect natural happiness is a fitting state for animals, not for men. (I don’t say it would be contrary to God’s justice to leave such souls in limbo, only that it seems to me not fitting. That’s a personal opinion, not a theological fact.)
But, again, the Church doesn’t seem to consider it as urgent as all that.
If any connection can be drawn between Sheol and Limbo I suppose it would be that they are the same place, a place where those separated from God by original but not personal mortal sin go, which was emptied by the decent of Christ into hell but now is filling up again.
It makes more sense to me than a separate place just for babies, but it’s counterintuitive that after the storming of hell and release of the prisoners in Sheol that God would allow people to go there again, temporarily much less for eternity. The whole point of the decent into hell I thought was so that those with origial but no personal mortal sin would go to heaven ultimately.
Also, I recall encountering a quote from Pope Pius IX saying that God makes sure no one goes to hell who has not freely chosen to do so by personal rejection of God. If Limbo is the fringe of hell certainly no innocents go there.
When I had a miscarriage in December of 2006, my priest assured me that our baby was indeed in heaven, because s/he had been baptized via baptism of desire given that both my husband and I had fully intended to have the baby baptized very shortly after his/her birth.
JoAnna:
I believe this was what David B. was alluding to in his remarks to John earlier today.
Mr. Akin, as an “MSM” reporter who sought your help on a story regarding the Mass and never received the courtesy of a reply, your “shame on the MSM” cracks grow pretty tiresome.
But, again, the Church doesn’t seem to consider it as urgent as all that.
SDG:
But that’s just it — parents are encouraged to have their child baptized within the first few weeks of life.
They are merely providing a guideline — a guideline that falls under normal circumstances.
The very fact that the Church allows Baptism to be performed by a lay person under severe circumtances speaks to how significant the Church feels about this important Sacrament.
The Church’s Code of Canon Law states that for an infant to be baptized licitly:
So does limbo only apply to Catholic babies, and Protestant babies go straight to hell?
I don’t think so.
I would agree with previous posters in that the same God who sent his Son to die for us would not consign innocent babies, who through no fault of their own have never had a chance to hear the Gospel and learn about Jesus, to hell OR limbo. Theologically, it does not make sense.
JoAnna —
When I said earlier this morning:
Also, I cannot accept that a merciful God, such as He who sent us His Son for our very salvation, would actually send innocent babies to Hell.
It didn’t apply to just CATHOLIC babies.
Also, the Sacrament of baptism is also valid under certain some Protestant denominations as well (specifically, those who baptize in the name of the Trinity).
This notion of yours that seems to present the Church as being bent on sending Protestants to Hell is unfounded.
Esau – maybe I’m not being entirely clear, but I completely agree with you. I don’t think God sends any babies to hell, Catholic, Protestant or any other religion.
Good question. My answer is: No, it would not be superfluous.
Let’s say that whether my baby dies the day before it is baptized or the day after, it goes to heaven either way. In that sense, perhaps my child winds up the same whether it makes it to baptism or not — if it dies.
Yet what about the state of our living child? As a father, I don’t want my baby living in original sin — I want it to have sanctifying grace as soon as possible (i.e., within the first few weeks of life). I want Jesus living in my baby’s soul. I want the Holy Spirit and the theological virtues in my baby’s soul. I want my baby to be a Christian, to be a member of Christ’s body.
Thus, I am not going to be complacent about baptism and say, “Sure, my baby may be dead in original sin now, but as long as I can trust Jesus to give it sanctifying grace at the moment of death.” Jesus has provided the means for the Church to give that child sanctifying grace as soon as possible (again, within the first few weeks). As a father, I am constrained by love and duty to bring my child to Jesus.
All graces, whether sacramental or otherwise, are miraculous, to begin with. That seems a rather sloppy bit of writing from a good theologian.
In any case, baptism is the normative means of salvation, and certainly among Catholics it should be the exception rather than the rule that a child dies without baptism. So in that sense it would be extraordinary for a child to need salvation at death. I do not think it can be inferred that the ordinary or usual fate of an unbaptized baby is to be denied entrance to heaven.
“I thought the worst pain of Hell was eternal separation from God.”
It would be, for those who are capable of sensing such a pain.
“How is this view of Limbo any different from St. Augustine’s hypothesis that unbaptized infants go straight to Hell?”
The hypothesis that souls in limbo suffer pains of sense and of soul would not be different from St. Augustine’s hypothesis. However, most Catholics came to believe that souls in limbo do not suffer any torments.
“St. Augustine was wrong.”
Very probably, at least about the souls of unbaptised babies suffering mild pains in hell.
“So does limbo only apply to Catholic babies, and Protestant babies go straight to hell?”
Not sure what you mean. Limbo is said to be the outermost fringe of hell, so any baby that goes there would “go straight to hell.” Also, a baby that is not baptised would in one important sense not be either a Catholic or a Protestant, but would still be a pagan, so it is nonsense to distinguish between a Catholic unbaptised baby and a Protestant unbaptised baby.
“The Church’s Code of Canon Law states that for an infant to be baptized licitly: there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion;”
Correct: that applies to “licit” baptism. However, even an illicit baptism is a valid baptism. So the Church is saying please don’t baptise if there’s no real chance the infant will be raised a Catholic, but is not saying that the baptism doesn’t remit original sin in such cases.
“And while having a hospital chaplain in the delivery room to perform the baptism may seem to you like a splendid idea, it’s not one the Church has advocated in any vocal and consistent way.”
Indeed, although in the past haven’t there been womb baptisms when it was believed the baby would be stillborn?
“I do not think it can be inferred that the ordinary or usual fate of an unbaptized baby is to be denied entrance to heaven.”
SDG, I think it’s not quite right to use “ordinary” as another word for “usual.” “Ordinary” in a theological sense should imply something that has been “ordered” by God, and in that sense the “ordinary” fate of an unbaptised baby would be to be denied entrance to heaven. Thus, baptism is the “ordinary” means by which original sin is remitted, but not the only means — there are extraordinary means for those who have attained the age of reason, and, one hopes, for potentially all of those who have not yet attained the age of reason. (We know, for example, that Baptism of Blood can apply to unbaptised infants. Baptism of Desire, though, that’s a bit harder to reason through.)
Now, if we say, “I do not think it can be inferred that the *usual* fate of an unbaptized baby is to be denied entrance to heaven,” then I would not quibble with that. It’s possible, surely, but we can’t say that with certainty.
“The whole point of the descent into hell I thought was so that those with original but no personal mortal sin would go to heaven ultimately.”
Actually, I was under the impression that Christ’s descent into hell liberated the souls of the righteous pre-Christians: the Old Testament saints or the righteous Gentiles such as, arguably, Socrates. I had never heard anything about a liberation of all souls that had died with only original sin but no mortal sin. My understanding it that it applied to those who had reached the age of reason. But I will be very happy to be better informed on this matter.
“Regardless of Limbo’s existance, I believe my baby is in heaven with God right now. I ask him/her to pray for us daily.”
And I very much hope you are right, and I wouldn’t want anybody to ever dare tell you not to seek your baby’s intercession.
Jordan Potter:
Great post above!
Although regarding the following:
Actually, I was under the impression that Christ’s descent into hell liberated the souls of the righteous pre-Christians: the Old Testament saints
I thought that ‘hell’ used in the sense above was actually ‘sheol’, which is what led me to think likewise in terms of your utilization of ‘hell’ as regards the fate of babies.
The reason being is that I thought Jesus had actually gone to sheol to free the Old Testament Patriarchs in order to grant them entry into Heaven.
However, in the early Church, the Latins had translated that word (at least, that’s what I thought) to ‘Hell’ when it came across to the Creed.
No answers here (still trying to digest all of the above)but a few reflections … Is the Limbo glass half full or half empty? Is Limbo a special part of Heaven or a special part of Hell? Do we really know enough about Heaven or Hell to be able to say where Limbo is? Didn’t Jesus descend into Hell and free those worthy of heaven, baptised or not? Can’t we compare unbaptized children to the unbaptized of the OT? Just thoughts on a subject I’ve never thought about before.
By the way, baptizing in the hospital would really put a dent in the baptism industry … cards, clothes, gifts, caterers, photographers, baptismal font manufactures, etc.
By the way, baptizing in the hospital would really put a dent in the baptism industry … cards, clothes, gifts, caterers, photographers, baptismal font manufactures, etc.
Come on people, that’s almost as ridiculous as those folks who said the Church mandated eating fish during Lent due to a deal made with the Fish Industry.
In that case, I’m still wondering which bread company the Church made a deal with in terms of inserting the line “Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread” in the Our Father!
Help me out, where are you going for “ordinary”? I agree that baptism is not simply the “usual” means of salvation, it is the normative means. Baptism is mandatory, not optional; it is gravely incumbent upon every human being who has the opportunity to do so to receive baptism and to procure baptism for children for whom he/she has responsibility.
Any time a soul is saved without baptism, whether in the case of catechumens justified through the baptism of blood or baptism of desire, or whatever other cases there may be, it is saved outside the normative means established by God. I think it makes sense to call such cases extraordinary, even if catechumens were being martyred every day of the year, and even though pagan babies die every day.
Yet in adult catechumens I think that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are really two different names for what is essentially the same thing, dying with the desire for baptism but not the sacramental reality.
One baby dies because King Herod is trying to kill the Christ child, another in a genocidal war. One baby dies of disease, another from a biological attack perpetrated by terrorists. One dies in a WMD attack on a civilian population, another is an unavoidable collateral victime of a proportionate use of force. One dies in a fire caused by arson, another in an accidental fire. One is aborted, another dies in an attack on the mother.
All suffer innocently. Granted that God can do whatever He wants, it seems to me perverse for us to posit that He metes out different fates to different babies depending on the killers’ motives, or whether there was a direct killer or not.
The “baptism industry” was tongue-in-cheek. Sorry, Esau.
P.S. Again, here are my earlier thoughts on the subject.
Could the Church’s long-standing practice of not immediately baptizing infants who aren’t in immediate danger of death as an implicit vote against the actuality of Limbo?
Going back a little ways:
Perhaps you have never encountered pro-abortion fanatics; I think they will use this.
I really, really doubt this. Pro-abortion fanatics do not want to come within a million miles of admitting that the fetus has a soul
I’ve heard pro-abortion folks try to make the argument that being pro-life is cruel because it would deny thousands of children a day the opportunity to go straight to heaven. They weren’t above taking the Church’s arguments and trying to make them look inconsistent.
I wonder, if they did meet a utilitarian Catholic who was willing to “spare” three thousand children a day from the pain and suffering of a long life, if only they could also be anesthetized from the dismemberment or saline, would they be willing to acknowledge that the fetus was something that deserved not to suffer?
As regards the conciliar statements that those who die in original sin only go immediately into Hell, I don’t think the ITC statement would contradict this at all. The ITC seems to be saying that there may well be some unrevealed way in which God remits Original Sin BEFORE death. Thus the infant would not be in Original Sin.
TheOther:
Some modern theologians have posited the theory that, in a way known to Himself, God permits the infant the full use of his reason before he dies so that he may make a choice for or against God. In making the choice for God, then, this would seem to involve some kind of baptism of desire. The negative aspect of this theory is it strikes me as highly speculative – though I imagine the idea of Limbo was highly speculative when the idea that the unbaptized infants went to Hell was current. I think there are several positive things to recommend it, though. On one hand, I think it does justice to the notion of free will; even when having life cut short before the use of reason would naturally develop, God respects the free will he has given man enough to allow even the infant to exercise it. Also, it resolves, or at least lessens, the difficulties in assuming that ALL unbaptized infants without exception go to Heaven.
The important thing to remember is that thinking they go to Heaven, or Limbo, or Hell, or are miraculously given the use of reason, etc., are ALL speculation about something that is not a matter of public revelation. Even though we trust God’s mercy and justice for the salvation of these infants, we must still operate under the assumption that God does not use extraordinary, unrevealed means. Thus we must follow the revealed commandment to baptize and bring our children to the sacrament of baptism without delay.
However, in the early Church, the Latins had translated that word (at least, that’s what I thought) to ‘Hell’ when it came across to the Creed.
Actually, it was translated as inferos (i.e., the dead) in the Apostle’s creed, not infernos (hell).
What bugs me is how many Catholics seem to reason like Protestants about this whole thing:
“I just KNOW that Jesus is merciful and he would NEVER…” etc., etc.
Gee whiz! Why not act and think like Catholics? Why not start by assuming that Catholic teaching is all one and doesn’t change and that we should try to find out what Catholic tradition says on the matter and what the Magisterium has said? Instead of just trying to justify our own private thoughts on the matter…
A Catholic Mama:
Ah, but infanticide is not legal, whereas abortion, sadly, is.
I’m afraid that’s not exactly true. It applies in American law but infanticide for disabled children is legal in some countries, and semi-official in others, including my own Canada.
Perhaps you have never encountered pro-abortion fanatics; I think they will use this.
I’ve encountered them far too often to believe that there’s anything they won’t stoop to use, and I really don’t think it matters. Joyce Arthur, the head of the Pro-Choice Action Network in Canada, once wrote a sadly hilarious article about how abortion was justified biblically. You can read it here if you want to waste a few braincells. She included as evidence.
Ironically, in spite of God giving divine [sic!] status to the prophet Jeremiah while he was in the womb, Jeremiah emphatically rejects this for himself. Later in his book, he wishes he had been aborted! The following passage is a lamentation by Jeremiah:
“’Cursed be the day on which I was born! The day when my mother bore me, let it not be blessed! Cursed be the man who brought the news to my father, ‘A son is born to you’, making him very glad. Let that man be like the cities which the Lord overthrew without pity; let him hear a cry in the morning and an alarm at noon, because he did not kill me in the womb; so my mother would have been my grave, and her womb for ever great.’ (Jeremiah 20:14-17)
Yep, Jeremiah should have been aborted! Proof, abortion is just fine with God.
When you’re dealing with people who are capable of such bizarre contortions, the best thing to do is not to worry about what they’ll dream up next.
Jesus said, “Woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”
Who hasn’t betrayed the Son of Man?
I am glad the document came out…I have always struggled with the issue of limbo.
I am glad the document came out…I have always struggled with the issue of limbo.
Christine
TheWorld…IMHO
The “doctrine of limbo” is in limbo.
Ed S:
No prob!
Unfortunately, what I mentioned is actually true — some people do think that the Church imposed the Lenten Fish thing due to some ridiculous contract the Church made with the Fish Industry.
The president of KFC sent a letter to the Vatican, asking Pope Benedict XVI to bless the company’s new “Fish Snacker Sandwich.” $$$$$$$$$$$
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7570935
I added this over at Professor Blosser’s Blog:
“Removing the concept from church teaching would lessen baptism’s importance and discourage the christening of infants, said Kenneth J. Wolfe, a Washington-based columnist for the traditionalist Catholic newspaper the Remnant.
“It makes baptism a formality, a party, instead of a necessity,” Wolfe said. “There would be no reason for infant baptisms. It would put the Catholic Church on par with the Protestants.”
i.e. if limbo goes officially via B16’s blessing, so goes original sin so maybe he will drag his feet on it for another couple of years.
Of course, original sin (as noted many times) has already been invalidatd by many Catholic theologians.
To repeat once again:
As per my theology professor friend,
“Original Sin as symbolic of the sins of our origins — in our families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person profoundly. The “sins of our origins” approach helps to account for certain
patterns of sin in particular families and societies.
Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. The old “laundry of the soul,” approach to Baptism is no longer accepted.
Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home.
Baptism is now celebrated at Sunday Eucharist, all the members of the parish family are encouraged to pledge their support and care for the faith life of the newly baptized. (A manifestation of this is
persons volunteering to teach other people’s kids the basics of Catholicism.)”
Excuse my theological ignorance, but don’t we have hope for the gentiles of old testament time who didn’t have the Law but lived according to the Word of God in their hearts? And don’t we have hope for those today who do the same but have never heard the Gospel? Why should it be any different for infants who committed no personal sins but died without the opportunity to be baptized?
To me this document isn’t outright saying that all unbaptized infants go to heaven, merely that we can have hope in the mercy of God. Yes, you can make the argument that people will misconstrue this document. But people who choose not to accept the authority of the Church already do that with every other subject anyway.
TheOther:
Your post above is brilliant!! In a much more articulate and theologically-educated way, you make the points I tried to make in my very first remark.
EileenR:
Yes, they will surely use this same logic to justify infanticide in those places where infanticide is legal. Unfortunately this type of thinking is NOT rare. I come up against many different people every day who say precisely these types of things — “Catholics” at that. Unfortunately, these types of Catholics make up the majority in this world and unfortunately, they turn to the mass media as their primary means of educating them in their faith.
I’m not sure if anyone else has mentioned it, but one of the biggest problems I see with this entire document is, so far as I understand it, the very basis for their suggestions, namely, that (to paraphrase) ‘we now better understand that God is merciful and desires every soul to go to Heaven.’
To me, the statement absolutely rings of absurdity. The early Christians didn’t realize this? The Church throughought the ages never realized quite how merciful Christ is until the last few decades? It would seem to me that, apart from being absurd on its face, this is contradicted by the witness of history.
I agree with those who have said that eilimnating the idea of Limbo creates an entire host of theological problems, the most difficult of which is simply figuring out how you can possibly do so without seriously demeaning baptism.
I agree with TheOther’s post, and will add a few more questions. Clearly, if God simply sends all unbaptized infants to Heaven, then it completely contradicts the Church’s teachings on the importance of Baptism and takes a really big chunk out of the importance of Baptism. It seems almost altogether unworkable as a theological idea.
On the other hand, if God does not simply send all unbaptized infants to Heaven, why does He send the ones that He does and ignore the others? On what basis? All of a sudden, we have the rather arbitrary, hard to classify as “merciful” God of Calvin.
What’s more, why should we even baptize infants at all? The saints have taught that the baptismal mark hurts the most in Hell, so if unbaptized infants can go to Heaven without Baptism, wouldn’t it make sense to leave them without Baptism until they have chosen to strive for Heaven instead of cursing them to a greater torment in Hell should they choose to reject their calling as children of God?
One could even argue in a very secular way from this point, suggesting that we not “force” infants into a religion but, since we don’t think it matters to their souls anyways, let them have the “freedom” to choose their own faith when they become teenagers?
I am hardly a person who rejects Vatican II or such a thing. I am simply your average ‘modern’ but Orthodox Catholic who understands a good bit of theology and finds the idea of Limbo to make an awful lot of sense. I believe it has magisterial support, as others have already quoted from Florence and John XXII. I would add to those quotes, actually, that both Florence and John seem to take it quite for granted in their statements that there are souls who die in Original Sin only. It doesn’t seem to be a question for them.
In fact, even the idea that God sends all unbaptized infants to Heaven can’t satisfy His mercy and/or justice. Souls achieve greater joy in Heaven because of their cooperation with God’s Grace in this life. Unbaptized infants, however, must all be relegated to [one of] the farthest most regions of Heaven, unable to progress due to not having lived. This situation itself ends up being very much like Limbo – all the unbaptized infants of the world brought to a place of some happiness, but never having been able to achieve the greater happiness for which the rest of the souls had the opportunity. They have the beatific vision, of course, which is more than those in Limbo would, but it really still has the same sense of what some may call injustice for which Limbo is called into question.
Such touching faith you have in Catholic theologians, Realist. What exactly makes you feel that they can “invalidate” anything, especially a defined dogma of the faith?
Of course you’re confusing ground and consequence. Limbo depends on original sin; original sin does not depend on limbo. If original sin were rejected, limbo would go with it, but increased skepticism about the idea of limbo has no effect at all on the dogma of original sin.
You know perfectly well that the Church has committed herself to the dogma of original sin, in a way that she never did with limbo. She will never change that. I can understand your disagreeing with the Church and thinking the dogma is wrong, but I can’t understand why it pleases you to induge in the fantasy that the Church’s teaching on this point will change, unless it’s simply to irritate devout Catholics (it doesn’t irritate me, but it might irritate some).
As one who has always been seriously skeptical of limbo and yet has been scrupulous about getting his five children baptized as early as possible, I can’t say I agree.
Babies are born dead in original sin. How could any loving and devout parent choose to leave his child dead, if it was in his power to give that child life? Even granted that Jesus will give that child life if he dies, why would I not want my child to have life even if he lives? After all, most children don’t die before attaining the age of reason! I’m not just concerned about what happens to my children if they die, I’m concerned about their well-being right now, even in their earliest weeks and months.
Our nine-month-old has known his mama and me for months. He’s probably known his mama from the day he was born. How could we possibly be indifferent to whether his soul knows his Redeemer? How could I not care whether my child grows up with or without the life of sanctifying grace, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the infused theological virtues, etc.?
Yes, I know, there are parents who are apathetic, who put off baptism, even with the threat of limbo hanging over their heads. That doesn’t make it true, and I’m not sure the threat of limbo is the right way to motivate them, especially if it isn’t true.
Well said, SDG.
I’m surprised that I didn’t see a single reference to Divine Mercy in this post and the comments.
SDG,
I agree with you that reasons such as desiring an infant to have sanctifying grace within weeks of life, as well as desiring the infant to have the theological virtues and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit etc., are all valid reasons to administer the sacrament of baptism as soon as possible. But I don’t think these reasons account entirely for the solicitude of the Church on this matter.
The question, more precisely, was why the Church always emphasized the need to baptize an infant — going so far as to even override the will of the parents in cases where the infant is in danger of death. I think the answer to this is partly reflected in the catechism: “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.” (paragraph 1257). The Church seems to be erring on the side of caution here, rather than on the side of hoping that God will somehow give all unbaptized infants who are about to die sanctifying grace (a theory even more without foundation than Limbo).
Furthermore, the Church has not shown the same urgency in administering the other sacraments which bring Jesus to the soul — for instance, the sacrament of the Eucharist. As great as the sacrament of the Eucharist may be, the Church doesn’t see it as pivotal to the salvation of a soul as baptism is. But if we were to find out all of a sudden that unbaptized infants never do die in original sin, this would indeed make the Church’s urgent emphasis on getting infants baptized, superfluous; which is why in Jimmy Akin’s post, “Limbo on Limbo”, he ended with a speculation that canon 868. §2 might be revised.
That is a fair point. At the same time, as noted above, it seems to me that there is a comparable point to be made in the opposite direction as well. If we posit that unbaptized babies are saved, the comparative urgency of the Church’s historic stance on the necessity of bringing babies to baptism may seem incongruous; but if we posit that babies are not saved unless baptized, the comparative lack of urgency of the Church’s stance (not insisting on baptizing at birth, but permitting it to be deferred for several weeks) will also seem incongruous.
In fact, it seems to me that it may be easier to understand the Church’s comparative urgency from a limbo-skeptical POV than the comparative lack of urgency from the opposite POV.
Somehow, wherever we come down, we have to account for the following principles:
1. Baptism is very important.
2. We should administer baptism to babies as soon as possible.
3. “As soon as possible” does not mean “at birth” or “in the delivery room.” Within the first few weeks is fine.
4. If a baby is in particular danger of death, it must be baptized at once, even by a layman and if necessary without or even against the parents’ wishes.
5. If a baby is not in particular danger of death, the ever-present possibility of sudden or unexpected death does not seem to pose so dire a possibilty as to require baptizing at once, or to make a delay of a number of weeks inadvisable.
“I’m surprised that I didn’t see a single reference to Divine Mercy in this post and the comments.”
Well, why not make one?
You know, the word “limbo” brings to mind the game where you try to go under the bar and it gets lower and lower… certain parallels to “progessive” theology come to mind; be prepared to sink progressively lower…
AND;
It helps to be spineless.
“Let’s do the ‘LIMBO'”
This is a bit of speculation on my part, but I would like to throw this out and see what kind of comments come back. I have always understood Limbo to be a speculation that tries to reconcile all of the information that has been revealed in Scripture (requirement of baptism to be saved…) with a situation that to our feeble minds seems to violate the spirit of what Christ did for us. But as has been pointed out in this thread, Limbo wasn’t the only speculation. The parameters of this must include the facts that we know from Scripture and Sacred Tradition, but it also seems that it can’t violate the nature of the Lord either – God loves us all infinitely and wills that all men be saved. The only way that one is damned is by their own choice.
Now, working within these parameters (granted, it is only a summary of them, and I’m undoubtedly missing something), here is another possibility: at the moment of death, every possible experience that the baby could have had is presented to that child’s soul. They still have the stain of original sin, but they are given the same sufficient grace to actively choose God or themselves, based on which experiences they are drawn to. And just like us, they will reach a point where they make that choice; then the babies soul has either reached the point of a “baptism by desire” or not, and they receive the Beatific Vision, or not.
This seems to me to avoid the whole issue of Limbo, doesn’t remove personal freedom from the child as an option (if God simply takes them to Heaven, they would be denied even the dignity of choosing it), doesn’t guarantee Heaven to babies before baptism (so it encourages parents to baptize) and offers hope to those who have lost their children to death before they had them baptized. It leaves the responsibility with the parents to do what is in their power, following the Church’s directions, to get the child baptized, but doesn’t make them ultimately responsible for the child. God offers the choice to the child in mercy for the parent’s failure and in love for the human soul that he gives free will to.
Note that based on this I don’t *know* that any particular infant is in Heaven, but I can have *hope* for them and I can *pray* for them, which seems to be exactly what the Catechism says. It doesn’t guarantee anything, but then, ultimately neither does infant baptism (unless the child dies before reaching the age of reason)
Hope this wasn’t too long and isn’t considered a rant; I just wanted to lay the idea out as well as possible to get some feedback. It seems to me that I’ve heard this somewhere and digested it, as opposed to coming up with it on my own, but it seems to me to not violate any of the Church’s teachings that have been quoted in this thread and to give a plausible explanation showing how God’s mercy could work around the apparent limitations that we experience when dealing with this topic.
Welcome to the world of common sense i.e. limbo and original sin are “toast”.
I’m not sure if Realist’s comments were addressed to my post, but if so I would point out that nowhere did I say original sin was “toast”; in fact I explicitly noted it. In the scenario I describe, the child’s soul still has the stain of original sin, therefore is fallen, and therefore can choose wrongly because of selfishness, or fear, or any other of the effects that original sin has on us.
In this scenario, one could imagine baptized infants being given the choice as well, granting them the dignity of choosing God. The difference would be that they would have been freed from original sin by their baptism and would choose God out of their freedom, for there would be no tempter there (unlike the garden) to get in the way.
Original sin is *not* “toast”; but we are if we ignore it…
The difference would be that they would have been freed from original sin by their baptism and would choose God out of their freedom, for there would be no tempter there (unlike the garden) to get in the way.
Is a tempter certainly necessary for a fall? If so, how did the Evil One fall?
Don’t worry. Realist doesn’t generally address comments to other people’s posts. He’s having his own side conversation with his own pet issues.
Speaking of which, Realist, I’m still waiting for an answer to my question about man’s tendency to sin if there is no original sin. Your response at best speaks to the possibility of sin, not the tendency to sin.
If it’s just a matter of freedom with no disposition one way or the other, you would at most expect some people to use their freedom for good and others for evil. Yet we all sin. Why is that, Realist?
BTW, your suggestion about taking a theology course or talking to a Catholic university theology professor is a little redundant. I have a graduate degree from St. Charles Borromeo Seminary, so I’ve taken a few classes and talked to a few professors.
I already know what the Church teaches, Realist. I want to know what you think. 🙂
“Is a tempter certainly necessary for a fall? If so, how did the Evil One fall?”
Obviously not. All that’s needed is an abuse of free will. However, the possibility that a Tempter is not NECESSARY to the economy of sin (so to speak) does not mean there ISN’T one. Again, obviously there is, based on the constant hammering of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. A LOT of things exist that needen’t “necessarily” exist.
Original sin needs no proof… it’s everywhere. And if sin had a beginning, we sure can’t find it in history, or even what we know of human pre-history. Every record of human activity, every bit of evidence points to a race well aquainted with sin, and there has never been a civilization untainted by it. Murder has been a constant in human society.
What’s the big objection to the idea of Lucifer? Does it require some to step outside their little materialistic comfort zones? He is delighted for you to refuse to believe he exists.
However, the possibility that a Tempter is not NECESSARY to the economy of sin (so to speak) does not mean there ISN’T one
I never meant to imply that there isn’t. The post I was responding to implied that if baptized infants were given a choice, they’d certainly choose in favor of God since they’d be free of both a tempter and of original sin. I’ve seen that argument before (WRT unbaptized babies as an argument why they all certainly go to Heaven) and it has never quite made sense to me.
“I never meant to imply that there isn’t.”
‘Kay. My bad… it’s a knee jerk response to certain anticipated objections from loonier quarters. My apologies.
Right off hand I’m of the opinion that baptized infants wouldn’t have to choose anything. They would be rid of the stain of original sin, and lacking the capacity to make a reasoned choice to reject God’s grace in this life, they would, at worst – theoretically – have post-baptismal venial sins to deal with (I’m just winging it here… maybe he/she was a grumpy, demanding sort of infant… who remembers what it was like? If even venial sins are impossible for infants, then I defer to better informed minds).
Ditto that.
Baptized babies don’t choose. If they die, they’re bundled off straight to heaven, no questions asked. They lack the use of reason, they haven’t yet attained moral responsibility, they get no say.
They do still have the disordering effects of concupiscence on the appetites and faculties, though, and thus the inclination to sin which will, as they attain the use of reason and moral responsibility, inevitably lead them into sin. (At least some of a baby’s grumpiness and demandingness can, I think, reasonably be attributed to the disordering effects of concupiscence, though of course even a perfect baby would still have rightly ordered appetites and the need to communicate them!)
Incidentally, this is partly why, I can’t imagine a special moment of choice at death for unbaptized babies either. Does baptism make us less free? If baptized babies aren’t offered a special chance to reject God, I’m not sure how much sense such a choice makes for unbaptized babies, who also lack the use of reason and haven’t attained moral responsibility.
Unfortunately, I believe that this question of baptized infants having to make a choice may show why the suggestion that unbaptized ones are offered the choice at death may not be correct.
Innocent III taught that since infants contract Original Sin without their consent, they may be freed of it through Baptism without their consent, as well. This seems to eliminate the possibility that infants could be given a choice, as SDG seems to suggest.
Well, the poster I responded to theorized that baptized babies would be presented with a choice, hence my response.
We shouldn’t make the mistake of equating “Trust them to the mercy of God” to “All unbaptized babies are definitely saved”.
As C.S. Lewis pointed out, “He is’nt a TAME lion”.
Trusting in His mercy isn’t the same as taking it for granted, and even implies a certain ignorance on our part. We can’t say we know one way or another, which is what this document reiterates.
Don’t presume, dunk that baby with all speed.
Yet we all sin. Why is that, Realist?
Everyone eats food, breathes, goes to the bathroom too. So?
“Yet we all sin. Why is that, Realist?
Everyone eats food, breathes, goes to the bathroom too. So?Everyone eats food, breathes, goes to the bathroom too. So?”
So… We eat because we’re hungry, we breathe because we need oxygen, we go to the bathroom because we make waste? These all go to suggest that our actions have causes. SDG was asking what leads us sin even though we know what is right. Your hypothetical questions only support his reason for asking it.
That was supposed to be rhetorical not hypothetical, sorry.
So… either those things are an inherent part of the design intended by the Creator — or else not, in which case it would seem that we are all somehow damaged goods out of the box not conforming to manufacturer specs, which would need some explaining.
In the case of eating, breathing, going to the bathroom, I say these are manufacturer specs. God put these things in human nature, and when we do them, we’re doing what God designed us to do.
God put freedom in human nature too, as Realist rightly points out, and that does allow for the possibility of sin and evil.
However, God did not create human nature with an actual inclination or orientation or disposition toward sin and evil. That would make God himself the Author of sin.
And that means that either human nature is not disposed or oriented toward evil, but is simply capable of choosing (or not choosing) it, or else again we are somehow damaged goods out of the box, which again needs explaining.
That’s the major premise. The minor premise is that clearly we are in some way disposed or oriented toward evil. Evil is not something we are capable of choosing or not choosing, it’s something we all choose.
If there were no inclination or orientation toward sin, at least some human beings would simply choose never to sin, and we would all know sinless human beings, just as we all know celibate human beings who have never married (even though human nature is disposed toward marriage, though not inexorably so).
Human nature is in some way inclined toward sin. But God is not the Author of evil. It follows that we are damaged goods out of the box not conforming to manufacturer specs.
That is what Catholic teaching calls original sin.
We all inherit original sin – the inclination to sin – which might seem unfair, except that at some point each of us, in his/her own heart RATIFIES that original sin by our own free choice.
There comes a time for each of us when we see sin for what it is, and choose it anyway.
We consciously affirm that option for sin, in exchange for some short-term perceived good, which is why none of us can look the Judge in the eye and claim we are only a victim of circumstance, or that we “always tried our best”. Any truthful person knows better.
I can indulge someone who attempts an honest argument that God does not exist (as cramped and circular as that is), but to argue that sin doesn’t exist, one would have to occupy a fantasy universe that would make Alice’s Wonderland look downright pedestrian.
I can indulge someone who attempts an honest argument that God does not exist (as cramped and circular as that is), but to argue that sin doesn’t exist, one would have to occupy a fantasy universe that would make Alice’s Wonderland look downright pedestrian.
This statement, to me, is a bit problematic. If God does not exist, then sin does not exist. If you can indulge a person in the arguement that God does not exist, then their argument implies by definition that sin does not exist either.
What else is “toast” when limbo and original sin are relegated to the myth bin?
The Feast of the Immaculate Conception for one.
“A bad tree bears bad fruit”?Matt 7:17 ( Trees and Hearts: (1) Gos. Thom. 45; (2a) 1Q: Luke 6:43-45 = Matt 7:16-20; (2b) Matt 12:33-35; (3) Ign. Eph 14:2b.) Already declared not of the historical Jesus.
“For Christians, atonement for original sin (and actual sin) requires the redemption of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection.” Partial removal for the need of the crucifixion?
“Original sin is also called hereditary sin, birth sin, or person sin.” So we can also get rid of these terms.
The Book of Genesis? The only reason we put up with this mythology was to support the concept of original sin so, as the Conservative Jews have done, out with the book of Genesis.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm
And by making “toast” out of limbo and original sin, we reinforce the following:
Kingdom and Children: (1) Gos. Thom. 22:1-2; (2) Mark 10:13-16 = Matt 19:13-15 = Luke 18:15-17; (3) Matt 18:3; (4) John 3:1-5,9-10. Jesus was apparently demanding that we make ourselves anew and equivalent to the innocence of children. For example, in Mark 10:13-16, Jesus says ” Let the children come to me, and do not stop them, because the the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I assure you that whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it”. Note there is no mention of cleansing of original sin only the demand to be innocent like a child. And of course the Jewish children in these passages were not baptized into the Catholic religion but had they died right there, Jesus assured them of a place in Heaven.
Note: The referenced NT passages have been judged by many contemporary NT scholars as being from the historical Jesus.
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/020_Kingdom_and_Children
It follows that we are damaged goods out of the box not conforming to manufacturer specs.
Looks like a problem in Quality Control.
The whole production process has gone awry. That’s the Church’s explanation, anyway. What’s yours?
The whole production process has gone awry.
Has it? Or does it just appear that way to you. To the pure, all things are pure.
That’s not my impression, that’s my explanation. The supporting facts being explained were set forth above.
What’s your explanation for why everybody does bad stuff?
All things, yes, but we aren’t talking about things, are we? We’re talking about the fact that everybody does bad stuff. Since you’re quoting St. Paul, I’m sure you’re familiar with some of his teachings on that subject (e.g., “Those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God”).
Do you really mean to imply that doing bad stuff is not something that everyone does (at least, all who attain moral responsibility)? What exactly is your contention here?
An act is a thing. If you see it as “bad”, “selfish”, or even that “you” are doing it, that is appearance.
I repeat: Do you really mean to imply that doing bad stuff is not something that everyone does (at least, all who attain moral responsibility)? What exactly is your contention here?
Not in the sense required by the statement “To the pure all things are pure.” St. Paul does not thereby set forth the proposition that all acts are pure. You are playing word games with scripture.
Jordan posted:
“Oh, and Esau and everyone, our old friend John has chimed in with his stale old church bashing rhetoric. For once could we all please just ignore him?”
Mr Potter
How is pointing out that Pope B16 in overturning dogma defined by not one but codified at the Sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418, the Second Council of Lyons in 1274, the Council of Florence in 1438-1445, and finally the Council of Trent (1546)church bashing?
If proving that the church of today just continues and continues to redefine previously defined dogma and teachings is church bashing, then I am a church basher!
But I think what it shows is that the church is in eclipse, caught between trying to appease the modern secular corrupt world with clergy and laity alike infected as well, while a small group like myself refuse to buy this hogwash of so called obedience. Obedience is to God not to Man. Obedience is to sound and true Catholic teachings, not man made. The reversal on limbo is just another such example!!
Do you really mean to imply that doing bad stuff is not something that everyone does
If that’s how it appears to you, that’s how it appears to you. Still, it’s appearance. How do you know you see clearly? If you don’t see clearly, why presume what you see to be true?
As per Jimmy, please give yourself a name. Thanks.
I know what I think (and if you ask me I will tell you). I’m asking you what you think (and so far you aren’t telling me).
If that’s how it appears to you, that’s how it appears to you. Still, it’s appearance. How do you know you see clearly? If you don’t see clearly, why presume what you see to be true?
“What else is “toast” when limbo and original sin are relegated to the myth bin?”
You believed this both before and after this document was released, and it would have affected you NOT AT ALL had this committee affirmed Limbo in the strongest language. To act as if you think of this as “authoritative” is a joke. You don’t care what the Church teaches until it agrees with you (by some random chance). Not that she does in this instance…
Though your ears are closed, I pray you will at least give SOME consideration to following Christ, some day.
OOhhh! A real-live GEE-nostic! Can I try?
Ummm… what’s the sound of one hand clapping?
If a tree falls on a gnostic, does it make any noise?
Did I dream I was a gnostic… or does the gnostic dream it is me?
In the words of Stewie Griffin “Oooo… I must be so brooding and deep!…”
Seeing clearly is a matter of degree, of course. I have astigmatism; in fact I don’t see entirely clearly.
But there’s a difference between not seeing entirely clearly and not being able to see at all, just as there’s a difference between a glass of water that is less than entirely clear and a glassful of wet dirt. The impossibility of totally pure and perfectly clear knowledge of reality doesn’t slide directly into radical skepticism.
I’m a humanist. I begin by reckoning that the only way to approach life is as a human being, with human nature as a clue to what human life is all about.
Ducks are driven to seek water, bees to seek flowers, human beings to seek meaning. I think Frankl was onto something when he contradicted Freud and said that meaning rather than pleasure is the most fundamental human need. As a duck in the egg believes in water, I believe in meaning, in significance, in moral truth. I am made for it; I believe it is out there.
I believe that when human beings look at the Holocaust, or 9/11, or (far more mundanely, but topically) the Virginia Tech shootings, and say “This is bad,” or when they look at the celebrated last acts of, say, Maximilian Kolbe (who sacrificed himself in Auschwitz to save a Jewish prisoner), or Todd Beamer and the other United 93 passengers, or Liviu Librescu (the Holocaust-survivor lecturer who died at Virginia Tech blocking the door to save students), and say “This is good,” they are making meaningful statements about reality.
I also believe that everyone who attains moral responsibility does things for which it would be true to say, and he or she knows it would be true to say, “This is bad.”
That’s what I believe. You asked me, and I told you.
What do you believe?
(And Realist, of course I’m still waiting for your answer as well.)
One man’s belief is another man’s belly laugh. Ho! Ho! Ho!
And would you have the chutzpah to make that response to Librescu’s widow?
“Your husband survived the Nazis and then sacrificed his life out of principle to save others, but it’s all just a big joke! Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!”
Or do you have the wherewithal to honor virtue?
Or to have a serious moral conversation?
“Your husband survived the Nazis and then sacrificed his life out of principle to save others, but it’s all just a big joke! Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!”
Come on, fellas, that ain’t right.
It’s bad enough that the guy survived the Holocaust only to be killed in this senseless act of violence.
Exactly my point.
One can’t just look at the Nazis or even Cho on the one hand, and Librescu’s heroism on the other, and say “Six of one, half a dozen of another! Life’s a bowl of cherries! Nazis, Holocaust survivors, heroes, boo hurrah, boo hurrah!”
Or, even if one might affect to such blase agnosticism in a combox, please God such bluster would crumble if you were actually speaking to the man’s widow, and one would not dare but to speak the truth.
Somewhere within you is something that says, “That ain’t right.”
Listen, Santa Claus.
One man’s virtue is another man’s folly.
And if it were your son or daughter, your brother or sister, whom he saved, would you still talk such rot?
“I certainly am selfishly glad that my loved one isn’t dead, even though he was a moron for not saving himself instead.”
It’s easy enough to play the anonymous churl in a combox. Without knowing your name, I sincerely hope your heart isn’t as rotten as your words.
Troll.
Librescu did what many insects do. An ant will give its life to protect the colony. Call it virtue, call it folly, call it instinct, training, whatever. Call whatever names you want.
What part of love our enemies (and friends) don’t we ever seem to get?
I agree with Patrick’s last post.
John, can you show where the Councils you listed codified the doctrine of Limbo?
I am relatively knowledgeable about the various Councils of the Church, and I am not familiar with this.
How do you know you see clearly? If you don’t see clearly, why presume what you see to be true?
What you and I are doing, no insect does. Insects don’t debate what to call their actions or how to understand them. They neither exhibit virtue, nor scoff at the virtue of others.
Reductionism is a pitiful lens. It is not words that makes Librescu’s act authentically human, and bigger than the yardstick you hold him against. And, however cravenly you strive to deny it, in the very act of holding him and yourself against yardstick, you prove that however much you might like to be equivalent to an insect, you are something more than that too.
If that’s how it appears to you, that’s how it appears to you. Still, it’s appearance. How do you know you see clearly? If you don’t see clearly, why presume what you see to be true?
We can but act on the premise that we see clearly enough to act.
I think I see clearly enough to concur with Tim J’s diagnosis.
Realist, let me know when you’re ready to talk original sin.
We can but act on the premise that we see clearly enough to act.
If it appears there’s anyone acting, that anything has been done or needs to be done or can be done, that is appearance.
And God said “Let it appear so,” and so it appeared. And God saw the appearance He had made, and He laughed and cried.
Just as one should not speak of ice to a may-fly which will never survive to see the fall (let alone the winter), one should probably avoid topics like honor and virtue when speaking to trolls with holiday gift-giver psuedonyms. These have no concept of it, nor will they seek it out.
And the Narrator did say, “Feed ye not the trolls.”
To misquote what Galileo didn’t quite say, “And yet, we see and act.”
It appears to me that your tautology makes no substantial contribution to any line of thought in play, and that you have nothing helpful to say on the subject at hand. That’s how it appears to me. I see with less than total clarity, but enough clarity to act.
And yet, we see and act.
It appears we see and act.
It appears to me that…
Appearance.
SDG,
There is no such thing as original sin as of last Friday.
I’ve tried to read through all the comments on my post – it was difficult to follow from my post to the end with all the bunnies and jolly fat men (and apparently one of the stooges…).
I appreciate the comments; actually, I kind of regretted the addition of the baptized infant being given the “choice” part. I used the phrase “one could imagine” as a key to flag it, but most of the comments related to my post were all related to that and the part about the tempter not being there. All of which took all focus off the original post.
To clarify, I believe baptized infants go straight to Heaven, and I do believe the Church when she tells me that Satan is real. The point of the comment in question was only to point out the effect of original sin on the ability of the unbaptized infant to choose God.
Throw out the description of how God offers a choice to the unbaptized infant; the point was that somehow, in a way that we can’t comprehend, God can extend mercy to that child that doesn’t violate anything we know from Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Something that is still, in some fashion, contingent on the soul of the infant responding to that mercy. Thus, there is no guarantee, and it is still the parent’s responsibility to have their children baptized.
I was really looking for comments on this alternative to the speculation of Limbo in the case of infants and children who die unbaptized. The question is “we should baptize children, but what happens when someone doesn’t”? At least for me, that is what the discussion of Limbo is about, not whether we should get them baptized.
My son may be a 7 foot tall basketball star when he grows up; but I don’t know that will be the case. I would be a horribly irresponsible parent if I didn’t make him prepare for a normal working life in this world because he might be a star athlete and not need an education. In the same way, God can save unbaptized children, but who am I to say that He must, or how and when? In that case, it seems rather presumptuous to NOT have children baptized.
So any comments on alternative speculation on what happens to unbaptized infants? I’m not looking to get drawn into the discussion on the necessity of baptizing infants; I can only check into this discussion thread about once per day!
“There is no such thing as original sin as of last Friday.”
Haw! Coffee up my nose, on that one.
Realist, you weasel. You don’t accept that ANY teaching of the Church carries ANY authority, yet you pretend that this very tentative, modest opinion paper from a committee is of the UTMOST importance to you. What farfel! At least be honest and admit that your opinion was never in danger of being affected one way or another by this paper. Your blinders are firmly super-glued in place.
Not to mention which (as has been pointed out by SDG, who thoroughly eviscerated your logic) Original Sin remains as solid a doctrine as ever, set in concrete, while Limbo was never (however loudly you complain) more than a pious *hypothesis*. The paper doesn’t even *rule out* Limbo, let alone the come anywhere NEAR touching original sin.
You must be disappointed.
Original Sin remains as solid a doctrine as ever, set in concrete, while Limbo was never (however loudly you complain) more than a pious *hypothesis*.
Tim:
What you haven’t realized yet is that John (jtnova@optline.net) and his RAD TRADs actually AGREE with Realist.
I found out (as did Esquire in the past) the Source of John’s recent remarks concerning Limbo.
John JTNOVA’s “Pope” Says: Benedict XVI Prepares to Suppress Limbo and Promulgate a New Heresy.
Of course they agree, Esau! It surprises me not at all. That’s what happens when people refuse to submit to the earthly authority that Christ established. All drains lead to the sewer, eventually.
“Throw out the description of how God offers a choice to the unbaptized infant; the point was that somehow, in a way that we can’t comprehend, God can extend mercy to that child”
Yes. I don’t know that we can very profitably speculate on HOW that might happen… the thing is, we know that God is infintely just and merciful, and we entrust these children to Him. We trust in Him, and not in this or that theory or diagram.
Of course they agree, Esau! It surprises me not at all. That’s what happens when people refuse to submit to the earthly authority that Christ established. All drains lead to the sewer, eventually.
AMEN to that!
Of course, so-called Catholics like John will just turn all that around and accuse Protestant Converts and such that they’re the ones destroying the Catholic Church, not even acknowledging the fact that it’s Catholics like them that do exactly that!
Yet, who am I to say all that?
I’m merely one of those who accept Scott Hahn as my Personal Lord & Saviour! *sigh*
Tim J,
Keep watching ZENIT!!! And when original sin is officially toast, whatever are we going to do?
Caught that all by yourself, did you?
That wasn’t my question, dude (so I’ll pass on listing all the ways in which your answer is crap, especially since [a] you already know it and [b] Tim J has already listed at least some of them).
Just to be clear, here is my question yet again. Sort of a multi-part question actually.
Is sin or evil something that human beings simply can choose — or not choose — or is it something that we are in some way actually inclined, disposed, or oriented toward?
If the former, why is it that sin or evil is something that we all choose? (Assuming I can count on more Realism from you on this point than from the Santa Claus troll?) Why is it that we don’t all know any number of people who simply choose never to commit sin or evil?
But if the latter, how is it that creatures created by an all-good God in His own image have such an inclination or disposition or orientation, unless something has gone wrong with human nature?
I was really looking for comments on this alternative to the speculation of Limbo in the case of infants and children who die unbaptized. The question is “we should baptize children, but what happens when someone doesn’t”? At least for me, that is what the discussion of Limbo is about, not whether we should get them baptized.
K. Mraz, your post was very provocative. Made me think… we have hope that God may have mercy and allow some unbaptized babies into heaven, but we haven’t asked what happens to the ones who He doesn’t? There’s a big difference between the half-court shot for innocents who die unbaptized and the slam-dunk of baptism.
“And when original sin is officially toast, whatever are we going to do?”
For the sake of answering your question, I doubt very much that YOU would do anything differently, and given that the scenario is about as likely as being attacked by giant turtles from Mars, I’m not losing any sleep over what I might do.
How will YOU handle the fact that you will never see this teaching – that Original Sin is real – change? Just stick to your current program of demoralizing the troops?
By golly, THAT’S who you remind me of! Tokyo Rose! I knew the tone was familiar, that it put me in mind of someone else, but I couldn’t figure who, until now. Tokyo Realist…
“Ooohh, sorry, boys… it looks like your little religion of sin and redemption is about to be tossed on the rubbish heap… why not give up now? Just accept that Jesus was a nice, obscure peasant who died a very ordianary death (for one accused of sedition) and that “Christianity” is all a marketing scheme cooked up by the Apostle Paul. Poor boys, don’t take it so hard. At least now you know the truth. Heaven is what WE make it…”
Zing! Oh, snap.
Tim, bang on. Nailed it. I mean.
More “Limboing”-
From Time Magazine’s “Life After Limbo”: (Surviving Without the Birth Sin?)(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1145257,00.html
“Shutting down limbo also aligns nicely with the church’s activism on abortion. On last week’s Feast of the Holy Innocents–honoring children murdered by the evil King Herod–Pope Benedict XVI emphasized that the embryo is a “full and complete” human being, despite being “shapeless.” If you are going to call a fetus’ termination murder, then it seems somehow inconsistent to deny heaven to the blameless, full and complete victim.”
(note: The Holy Innocents = (“prophecy turned into history rather than history remembered” ??)
“In the finely balanced theological universe, however, it’s hard to give in one area without taking away elsewhere. In this case, the loser is baptism–or at least the rite’s broadest, bluntest definition. Limbo was conceived in the Middle Ages to solve a problem relating to original sin, the inherited stain of Adam and Eve’s disobedience. Jesus’ death on the Cross is understood to have relieved humanity of the burden of that sin, an immunity Catholicism still considers activated for each human as he or she unites with Christ in baptism. ”
More Toyko Realism… “Ooohh, sorry, boys, baptism is the loser, look, it says so in Time…”
(“Read not the Times, read the eternities.” – Thoreau)
I confess, I’m genuinely at a loss to understand what issues could possibly drive a person to post this stuff, what the payoff for Realist is.
Meanwhile, Realist, my question’s still waiting for you…..
TIME magazine! Oh, that’s heady stuff…
You might find more serious reflections on spiritual matters in other publications…
I’m thinking “MAD” or “CRACKED”.
“I confess, I’m genuinely at a loss to understand what issues could possibly drive a person to post this stuff, what the payoff for Realist is.”
Well, SDG, Chesterton gave what I think is an apt assessment of the Realists of the world;
“They cannot get out of the penumbra of Christian controversy. They cannot be Christians and they can not leave off being Anti-Christians. Their whole atmosphere is the atmosphere of a reaction: sulks, perversity, petty criticism. They still live in the shadow of the faith and have lost the light of the faith…
…Now the best relation to our spiritual home is to be near enough to love it. But the next best is to be far enough away not to hate it… while the best judge of Christianity is a Christian, the next best judge would be something more like a Confucian. The worst judge of all is the man now most ready with his judgements; the ill-educated Christian turning gradually into the ill-tempered agnostic, entangled in the end of a feud of which he never understood the beginning, blighted with a sort of hereditary boredom with he knows not what, and already weary of hearing what he has never heard…”
Pithy and acutely observed, as usual. The first graf, especially, has Realist’s number, I think.
Apparently the woman in the press release below did not want to be the oldest person in Limbo. Baptism is always important!
Taipei, Apr. 26, 2007 (FIDES/CWNews.com) – Taiwan’s Hsing Chu diocese welcomed a 114-year-old woman into the Church at Easter, the Fides news service reports.
When Bishop Luke Liu Hsien-Tang, bishop emeritus of the diocese, poured the water on the head of Xu Song Re Ai, the people present burst into warm applause to welcome the oldest Catholic in Taiwan. The event was announced by all the media in Taiwan, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.
The diocese arranged for Miss Xu Song to be baptized on Easter Sunday, after 21 people had received the sacraments of Christian initiation during the Easter Vigil Mass. Over 200 people were present for the baptism.
Wang Tong Min, diocesan press officer, said “Miss Xu Song, who never married, is still very clear-headed and lively. Her baptism gives new impulse to evangelization and pastoral care.”
Ahh, the Reality of it All!!!
And my new granddaughter has now been cleansed with a majority/red vote and
the stroke of a pen.
No need now for all that hopefully sanitary holy water and hopefully FDA-approved skin oil.
Apparently the woman in the press release below did not want to be the oldest person in Limbo. Baptism is always important!
I don’t think Limbo ever applied to someone with a capacity for reason.
Pray for Realist or this will be his payoff
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“And my new granddaughter has now been cleansed with a majority/red vote and
the stroke of a pen.”
Except that’s false. No such thing happened, which you know very well.
“No need now for all that hopefully sanitary holy water and hopefully FDA-approved skin oil.”
Yeah! If you’re wrong, it’s only her soul, after all… why not roll the dice?
Exceeding glad you are not MY grandfather…
No need now for all that hopefully sanitary holy water and hopefully FDA-approved skin oil.
Testing in Seville, Spain found the holy water fonts contained strong bacterial contamination. Coliforms, Enterobacteriaceae and other pathogenic bacteria were widely represented in the fonts investigated. Thirty out of the 37 different species isolated from holy waters were known human pathogens.
As to the skin oil, it is not FDA approved.
Reeeeaaaaaalllllliiiiissssssttttt. . . .
why does everyone do bad stuff?
not just some people, but everyone?
why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why?
are we created in God’s image? is God the author of evil? is evil just one possible choice, or is there a bent toward it?
I’m callin’ you out man. you just whistling in the dark. you got nothing. and you know it. dark dark dark dark dark dark dark dark dark dark dark dark.
“Testing in Seville, Spain found the holy water fonts contained strong bacterial contamination…”
Two men looked out from prison bars,
One saw mud, the other, stars.
You see mud.
Why does everyone do bad, bad stuff? Free will of course and not because of some mythical fruit pickers from a mythical garden with a mythical talking snake.
Why are you stupid?
Free will of course.
You are the proof that evolution does not exist.
Maybe devolution because you are much dumber than Eve.
You are dumber than a spare rib.
Even dumber than some modeled clay.
I’m sorely tempted, but I’ll leave it to SDG to respond to this two-word dodge of a non-answer.
You’re not lliiiisteninnggg Realist…. you’re only answering half the question.
The other half is: If sin/evil is just something that we can choose or not choose, then why is it that we don’t all know any number of people who simply choose never to commit sin or evil?
If there were no inclination or orientation toward sin, at least some human beings would simply choose never to sin, and we would all know sinless human beings.
So I repeat:
why does everyone do bad stuff?
not just some people, but everyone?
(including juvenile anonymous trolls)
why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why?
If there were no inclination or orientation toward good, at least some human beings would simply choose never to do good, and we would all know pure evil human beings.
But I can’t say that I know any pure evil human beings.
So I repeat:
why does everyone do good stuff?
not just some people, but everyone?
If there were no inclination or orientation toward good, at least some human beings would simply choose never to do good, and we would all know pure evil human beings.
But I can’t say that I know any pure evil human beings.
So I repeat:
why does everyone do good stuff?
not just some people, but everyone?
Um… who said there was no inclination or orientation toward good?
Hmmm, was not Limbo also the depository for all the good souls of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. ? Wow, Heaven got very crowded last Friday!!!!!
Realist,
Every time you post I am reminded how lost you must feel that you have to come to Jimmy’s blog to spout your ridiculous beliefs.
I pray you will open yourself to the gifts God gave you at your baptism but I know He will respect your free will if you choose Hell.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
the silence is deafening.
Too bad, boys, it looks like the Vatican has finally been forced to concede that the teachings of St. Crossan are inerrant and infallible, and that all religions are equally true (in that they are all false). Heaven and Hell are nursery tales, and God is a state of Mind… do whatever you like, (S)he doesn’t Mind!
Your “Bible” is a fantasy… do you really think Jesus would get anywhere near a 4-days dead body (as in the Lazarus fable)? How unsanitary! The latest science has shown that the possibility of successfully re-animating a corpse at that time in history was statistically almost nill! Most modern scholars agree that they are correct 99.9% of the time.
The handwriting is on the wall… why not surrender, and avoid all this unnecessary strife and arguing? , if you do, you will be treated kindly. Fighting for this quaint idea of “truth” will only make things harder for you.
Um… who said there was no inclination or orientation toward good?
I think the commenter falsely assumed that Original Sin necessarily meant Total Depravity.
The latest science has shown that the possibility of successfully re-animating a corpse at that time in history was statistically almost nill! Most modern scholars agree that they are correct 99.9% of the time.
Tokyo Realist:
Just what Science-Fiction plane of existence did you step out from?
I’ve never heard such nonsense.
Also, 99.9%???
You’ve got to be kidding me with such an incredible statistic!
When you expire, I just hope your ‘god’, Science, can bring you back from the dead because the destination you’re bound for, under the Christian God, will be quite the torrid nightmare — not to mention, everlasting!
Esau, I think Tokyo Realist may be engaging in a bit of biting satire.
Exposing absurdity by being absurd.
My bad.
Actually, it was pretty good satire, too.
Did the satire induce anyone to scandal? If so, is it “good” satire?
Anonymous,
It was good, as in “well-written, accomplishing what it intended to accomplish”, which was cast Realist in the voice of Tokyo Rose.
It was good satire.
It was good satire.
‘Good’ is only as ‘good’ as in the mind of the one who said it but after that, it’s only as ‘good’ as it gets!
Limbo- defined before 4/20/2007
“limbo –
In the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the afterlife, the condition of innocent persons who die without benefit of baptism; those in limbo do not suffer damnation, but they do not enjoy the presence of God. Limbo means “a bordering place.”
limbo – the definition after 4/20/2007
A mythical teaching based on the Roman Catholic Church’s regard for original sin and the afterlife i.e. the condition of innocent persons (babies, and the good souls of Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists et al) who died without benefit of baptism; those in mythical limbo did not suffer damnation, but they did not enjoy the presence of God. Limbo now means “a mythical bordering place.”
Limbo as with original sin, Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and “pretty/ugly wingy thingies” were Christianity’s thinking about things in the first one hundred centuries CE/AD using the NT, OT and ancient religions as guidance. Slowly new analyses plus common sense and reality are changing the definitions of concepts like limbo.
Realist,
When you choose to ignore SDG direct questions it becomes quite clear you are unable to answer them. You have my pity.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches (has taught and will continue to teach):
Thus, Saint Paul says in his Epistle:
“All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” Romans 3:23
The CC, 2392 CE:
404: What was the sin of Adam i.e. original sin aka birth sin?
A mythical teaching/concept based on the our Church’s ancient and respectful regard for the mythical fall from God’s grace by the mythical Adam, supposedly the first Biblical man who in “bible time” lived some 6000 years ago.
Unlike his Biblical namesake, the real Adam was not the only man alive in his era (~60,000 BCE/BC). Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.
It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity.
Our ancient Church Fathers believed that the sin of the biblical Adam could be removed by immersion in water. If this cleansing did not occur, souls stained only with Adam’s sin to include babies were relegated to a mythical state called Limbo, a state bordering Heaven but never visited by God.
The concept of Limbo was declared an error of ancient reasoning in 2007 AD/CE along with original sin, the biblical Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and “pretty/ugly wingy thingies” aka angels/devils.
“Our ancient Church Fathers believed…”
Who gives the south end of a north-bound rat what *your* “ancient Church Fathers believed”? We’re mostly Christians here; we’re concerned with what our Church Fathers believed, and how they refuted your “ancient Church Fathers”.
Realist, why should I be the slightest bit embarrassed to worship a God who made angels, gave laws and caused floods (as the Church teaches), when you worship an old, disreputable pseudo-scholar in a cheap suit?
Sorry, I’ll take the Christian faith over… whatever theory-of-the-week Crossan is pushing.
HORRID RED THINGS!
It just occured to me. Realist’s whole “pretty/ugly wingy thingies” saw is precisely the same class of sophistry that C. S. Lewis exploded in his strikingly similiarly titled essay “Horrid Red Things”:
Not, of course, that this devastating rebuttal will stop Realist from continuing to trot out his “pretty/ugly wingy thingies” taunt, as if it were some telling rebuttal of the Judeo-Christian worldview. But at least we can have some fun with it!
Realist watchers! Let’s play a game! (Tim J, Esau, I’m talking to you — and anyone else who wants to play!)
Starting now, any time anyone sees Realist write “pretty/ugly wingy thingies,” let’s see who can be the first to respond “Horrid Red Things!”
Bonus points if you link to this combox post!
that was supposed to be applause for SDG, but since I’m html-challenged, it didn’t take.
Actually to my knowledge, Professor C (by rule 20, I am not allowed to mention his full name), has not made any comments about the Limbo voting (black to delete limbo vs. red to keep vs pink or grey as maybe we should keep or delete). Nor has he commented on International Theological Commission’s report containing said voting results.
It is good to see that Rome is finally coming around to agree with conservative Lutherans about what Scripture teaches on the issue of unbaptized infants — nothing! Where Scripture is silent, we must be silent. Where Scripture speaks, we must speak!
Greg, if you knew anything about the topic, you would know that “Rome” never took any official position on Limbo one way or another. It was a widely held theological opinion, not a doctrine of the Church.
“Where Scripture is silent, we must be silent. ”
So, you won’t have anything to say on embryonic stem cell research, I take it? Or cloning?
And, since scripture is silent on which books actually make up scripture, you have no opinion on the Canon?