[Apologetics] Limbo

Mon Apr 23 11:00:18 EDT 2007

Hi

I've come across priests (Jesuit) who have said in their sermons that the feeding of the 5000 was due to the miracle of people deciding to share what they brought, so a few fish and loaves started the sharing, and people brought the rest out of what they brought with.

This blogger also thinks that the teaching on Purgatory was initiated by Eusebius, based on Plato's writings, and only then were a few verses in the Bible found to support it ... and then it became tradition.  I'll try to find some info on that ... and then that puts him in perspective.  Like the people who don't mind Jesus' resurrection being simply a metaphor.  Maybe I take his opinions too seriously, because he's ex-Adventist, now Catholic, and disapproves of my attempts at apologetics.

David's hope for his son, Paul's hope for the Gentiles, and God's ability to work outside the sacraments (confession for Protestants, baptism for unbaptised adults of other religions) helps me have faith that God does so for unbaptised infants too.  Unfortunately dwelling on the damnation of infants as well as partial birth abortion recently leaves me disturbed for several days afterwards; it's very unpleasant.

God bless,
Stephen
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dianne Dawson 
  To: Stephen Korsman ; Apologetics Group 
  Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 1:35 AM
  Subject: Re: [Apologetics] Limbo

  Hi Stephen,

  I agree with you that this guy's post is disturbing.  I can't see how he can pass himself off as a Catholic apologist.  Anyway, Limbo has never been given the authority of being a Doctrine.  Scripture is very clear that unless you are baptized you cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.  At the same time, it is unreasonable to think that God, in His infinite Mercy and Justice, would condemn an innocent to Hell simply because there was no opportunity to be baptized.  Until the theology could be studied and defined further, theologians put forth the idea of "Limbo."  This was actually not a new concept, the Jews believe(d) in Sheol which is a place for the righteous who have died.

  Catholics recognize three types of baptism: Water, Blood, and Desire.  Naturally, baptism by water is the most common form of baptism.  Baptism of blood would be conferred upon aborted babies and those who died for the Faith (the Christian Martyrs) without being first baptized by water are just two examples.  There are those who have a strong desire to be baptized yet they die before being able to be baptized by water (due to some tradegy, sudden illness, etc.).  These people are baptized by desire.

  Dianne

  Stephen Korsman <skorsman at theotokos.co.za> wrote:
    Hi

    What is everyone's take on the new Limbo story?

    Original article at http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm

    VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- After several years of study, the Vatican's International Theological Commission said there are good reasons to hope that babies who die without being baptized go to heaven.

    In a document published April 20, the commission said the traditional concept of limbo -- as a place where unbaptized infants spend eternity but without communion with God -- seemed to reflect an "unduly restrictive view of salvation."

    ...

     The 41-page document, titled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized," was published in Origins, the documentary service of Catholic News Service. Pope Benedict XVI authorized its publication earlier this year.

    Why was the document published by the USCCB in a place where only those with a paid subscription can get at it?  I don't think that's normal Vatican practice.

    To what extent do you guys think this is a definite part of Tradition that Pope Benedict cannot remove?  Sure, none of this has been official magisterial teaching, but Evangelium Vitae is, and comes close to indicating that aborted babies may be with God (the original stated as much.)  And if salvation is possible for "who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church" [Vatican II, LG16], does that limit that salvation to Limbo too?  If not, why are babies limited to limbo?  (What I'm not concerned about is the necessity of baptism, which I believe.  What I am concerned about is the effect on Tradition, doctrine, dogma, infallibility, papal heresy, 

    I've read Fr Kimel's series on Limbo here - http://catholica.pontifications.net/?page_id=2025 - and James Akin - http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/limbo_in_limbo.html - which predate this excitement, and which make the most sense to me, but I'd like your take on the following (some are not directly addressing unbaptised infants, but there's no reason to exclude them from the issue discussed):

    Babies go to hell:

    Ecumenical Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1442:
    Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, ... but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently

    Ecumenical Council of Florence, Decree to the Armenians:
    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.

    St Anselm:
    "For they even receive everlasting torments, who never sinned by their own will. And hence it is written, 'Even the infant of a single day is not pure in His sight upon earth.'"

    St Augustine, On the soul and it's origin:
    Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them.

    St Augustine, Epistle to Jerome:
    Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.

    Babies go to Limbo:

    Synod of Carthage, 418 AD:
    It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: "In my house there are many mansions": that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God" [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [cf. Matt. 25:41,46].

    Pope Pius XII, Address to Italian Midwives:
    If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death. Without it salvation and supernatural happiness-the beatific vision of God-are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. . . . so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death's threshold.

    Fr Brian Harrison, Could Limbo Be 'Abolished'?, http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html
    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".

    St. Thomas Aquinas, De malo q. 5. a. 3. ad 4:
    "The infants are separated from God perpetually in regard to the loss of glory, which they do not know, but not in regard to participation in natural goods, which they do know. . . . That which they have through nature. . they possess without pain."

    Babies go to Limbo or heaven:

    St. Thomas Aquinas (the quote is compatible with both heaven and limbo; his actual position was that they go to limbo):
    "Children while in the mother's womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification."

    CCC 1261:
    "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,' allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism"

    CCC 1257:
    "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments"

    Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 16:
    Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

    Pius IX, Quanto conficiamur moerore, 1863:
    "God. . . in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault."

    Babies go to heaven:

    Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (first version):
    I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.

    Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (second version after the Limbo issue was apparently pointed out to him): 
    I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child.

    Pope Benedict XVI (as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger), The Ratzinger Report, pp. 147-148:
    Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally-and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation-I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism. To put it in the words of Jesus to Nicodemus: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God" (Jn 3:5). One should not hesitate to give up the idea of "limbo" if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed "limbo" also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be.

    Pope Benedict XVI (as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger), God and the World, pp. 401-402:
    The question of what it means to say that baptism is necessary for salvation has become ever more hotly debated in modern times. The Second Vatican Council said on this point that men who are seeking for God and who are inwardly striving toward that which constitutes baptism will also receive salvation. That is to say that a seeking after God already represents an inward participation in baptism, in the Church, in Christ. To that extent, the question concerning the necessity of baptism for salvation seems to have been answered, but the question about children who could not be baptized because they were aborted then presses upon us that much more urgently. Earlier ages had devised a teaching that seems to me rather unenlightened. They said that baptism endows us, by means of sanctifying grace, with the capacity to gaze upon God. Now, certainly, the state of original sin, from which we are freed by baptism, consists in a lack of sanctifying grace. Children who die in this way are indeed without any personal sin, so they cannot be sent to hell, but, on the other hand, they lack sanctifying grace and thus the potential for beholding God that this bestows. They will simply enjoy a state of natural blessedness, in which they will be happy. This state people called limbo. In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the Pope [John Paul II] made a decisive turn in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already anticipated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament.

    Lastly:

    A blog post by a Catholic apologist at http://billcork.wordpress.com/2007/04/21/more-on-limbo/ - this is what got me looking, and got me disturbed:

    This discussion raises a question that we must put bluntly-is Tradition authoritative for Catholics or not? When certain Catholic apologists want to argue with Protestants they defend Tradition; when they can't support a teaching by citing Scripture, they fall back on Tradition. They can never quite define what this "Tradition" is, or where to find it, however. Used in this way, it is a deus ex machina that is dropped to defend any Catholic teaching that is either not proven from Scripture or that seems to contradict Scripture.

    Regardless of how you might define "Tradition," it seems plain that Limbo was taught consistently for centuries by that Tradition. Now by a wave of the hand it becomes merely a "hypothesis."

    What about other Traditional teachings? Can they disappear at the wave of the hand and become mere "hypotheses"? Why or why not? Is it merely papal authority that makes or breaks doctrine, that creates it or knocks it down, includes it or excludes it from Tradition? Is papal authority thus a form of legal positivism?

    Thanks!
    Stephen
    --
    Stephen Korsman
    skorsman at theotokos.co.za
    The Theotokos Website
    A Rural Virologist  ||  RSS feed
    Sabbath Keepers  ||  RSS feed

    IC | XC
    ---------
    NI | KA

  Like a deer that longs for running waters so my soul longs for you, O God.
  Ps 42:1

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
  Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gathman.org/pipermail/apologetics/attachments/20070423/0c7cf6e9/attachment.html>