Vatican Considers Dropping "Limbo"

ANSA.it ^ | 11-29-2005 | unknown

[Free Baptist]

So, where do you go to wash yourself in this blood?

Are you equating water with Blood? The Bible never does. But if the Bible ever did equate water with Blood, then IMMERSION in water would be the better mode of baptism, would it not?

[Dajjal]

So you can read this prooftext the way you do, with Augustine and Cyprian, but if you do so, you are in direct conflict with the dogmatic tradition of the Western Church which, since Innnocent III, has openly taught that infants are not condemned to hell by original sin; only actual sin, freely chosen after the age of reason, condemns to hell.
201 posted on 11/29/2005 5:50:58 PM PST by Dionysiusdecordealcis

Then I stand corrected. 8-)
And not because of St. Thomas' position alone, but because of your explanation.
223 posted on 11/29/2005 6:08:28 PM PST by Aquinasfan

> since Innnocent III, has openly taught that infants are not condemned to hell by original sin;
Could that be because ...?
Just curious...
276 posted on 11/29/2005 9:16:45 PM PST by mike182d

Aquinasfan & mike182d: St. Anselm & Innocent III did not teach what Dionysiusdecordealcis says they taught. See Post #274.

[manwiththehands]

No, I don't believe infants go to hell when they die. I don't have all the answers, but "Limbo" isn't one of them.

[RipSawyer]

I agree with you, apparently I am having extreme difficulty in conveying my actual thoughts.

[RipSawyer]

Surely you understand this.>>>>>>>>>

I understand this perfectly, my point is that some on this thread consider the act of baptism itself to have some power, without going into all the other aspects of belief, it should be obvious to anyone that a mere physical act confers nothing. Baptism is a mere outward symbol.

[RipSawyer]

Jesus went to be baptized on his own accord, this has nothing to do with the apparent belief of some that the baptism of an infant who is too young to decide anything on his own can be cleansed by a mere physical act.

[giotto]

Didn't Jesus say, "Suffer the little children to come unto Me?" What more do you need? He meant that the innocent should not be deprived of His presence, not even for a moment, much less a subset of eternity such as limbo.

[Bogie]

Try the stock market.

[Aquinasfan]

You think that Abraham, who was called the friend of God, and Moses, with whom God spoke face to face as one speaks to his friend, are in a place without God?

No. The "Limbo of the Fathers" is different from the Limbo of infants who die without baptism.

The "Limbo of the Fathers" was the temporary place or state of those people who were bound for heaven yet died before Christ opened the gates of heaven.

[Aquinasfan]

Aquinasfan & mike182d: St. Anselm & Innocent III did not teach what Dionysiusdecordealcis says they taught. See Post #274.

Thanks Dajjal. I thought that sounded funny. Then I'm going back to my original position.

[Aquinasfan]

Surprise! Carlin was wrong. Meatless Fridays were never done away with.

This can't be repeated often enough, although it's important to remember that this is a Church discipline and not a Church dogma. Nevertheless, the discipline is deserving of obedience.

[Aquinasfan]

Bit is also sheds light on the fact that some within the Republican party / Conservatives are simply Anti Catholic plain and simple.

That's for sure.

[toddlintown]

So what happens to the babies now in Limbo? Do they get a "Never mind" sort of pass?

[Aquinasfan]

Didn't Jesus say, "Suffer the little children to come unto Me?" What more do you need?

We need to reconcile this statement with another statement of Jesus. "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

There is a tension here that is not easily resolved, which is why the Church leaves the fate of infants who die without baptism as an open question.

[Aquinasfan]

So what happens to the babies now in Limbo? Do they get a "Never mind" sort of pass?

Historically, Limbo has been offered as a theological speculation regarding the fate of infants who die without baptism. It's not unreasonable speculation. Today, the Church is simply saying that theologians are gradually moving away from this speculation, and the Church is stating with greater force that the fate of infants dying without baptism is an open question.

[mike182d]

Everyone is still waiting for that day..including Moses and Abraham.

When Jesus said to the theif on the cross that "on this day you will be with me in paradise," He meant "this day" as in several thousand years later when He returns for judgement?

[houeto]

It seems most likely to me that God, in some mysterious manner...

Yup, remember the thief on the cross.

Luke.23 [43] And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

He who makes the rules, makes the rules.

[mike182d]

...this has nothing to do with the apparent belief of some that the baptism of an infant who is too young to decide anything on his own can be cleansed by a mere physical act.

It was common in the early Church, as written down in the book of Acts, for Apostles to not merely baptise a convert but his entire household as well, including any infants. There is certainly an objective cleansing act that takes place apart from one's awareness or consent to it. Otherwise, things like intercessory prayer would be rendered useless as nothing could help a man except himself and his choices.

[mike182d]

wow...that's a bit creepy. Same scripture posted at the same time... :-)

[MarMema]

Perhaps meaningful. I was thinking about it myself as I read through the thread, but then it's one of my favorite arguments against "no salvation for unbaptized infants".