"Feed My sheep" & they fed them the LIMBO OF INFANTS ???

balshan

Well-known member
it's a bad teacher all around.
Not only that teaching us a theory as a truth could mean they wanted to deceive us. I mean if they knew it was just a theory and taught it as fact, what was their purpose in doing so? Also, how could an institution which makes out it is the pillar of truth teach a theory as truth? It raises so many ethical questions.
 

mica

Well-known member
Not only that teaching us a theory as a truth could mean they wanted to deceive us. I mean if they knew it was just a theory and taught it as fact, what was their purpose in doing so? Also, how could an institution which makes out it is the pillar of truth teach a theory as truth? It raises so many ethical questions.
It doesn't care. It is all about itself.
 

Bonlee1

Active member
If there were those who taught it incorrectly, as something other than a theory. then that would be wrong. But the Church itself always recognized it as theory (and apparently still does).


Introduction

The idea of Limbo, which the Church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without Baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation, even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching. Moreover, the notion that infants who die without Baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the Church, gives rise to numerous pastoral problems, so much so that many pastors of souls have asked for a deeper reflection on the ways of salvation. ......

........................................................
The Modern/Post-Tridentine Era


.[53] Papal interventions during this period, then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century.


 

mica

Well-known member
If there were those who taught it incorrectly, as something other than a theory. then that would be wrong. But the Church itself always recognized it as theory (and apparently still does).


“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5


Is this "cannot" absolute? Or are there many exceptions that Jesus didn't bother to mention?

Or.. is there a way around this not mentioned in Scripture? But don't Protestants tell us that everything is in the Bible and we must add nothing to it?
just because you don't understand those verses in John 3 doesn't mean that what they say isn't true. That's another false teaching of the RCC to deceive people. Did you answer the questions regarding verses 3.2 and 3.7? john 3.5 is another favorite catholic verse to yank out of context and claim it means something that it doesn't mean.
 

Bonlee1

Active member
If there were those who taught it incorrectly, as something other than a theory. then that would be wrong. But the Church itself always recognized it as theory (and apparently still does).
Yes the church still recognises it as a theory....a theory that at it's worst condemned unbaptized infants to Hell... at it's 'best' just left them 'somewhere' in an 'ignorant bliss'...depending on what heresy the church was attempting to battle at the time ....but in ALL cases.... that theory that the church taught ended up depriving them of the vision of God...deciding for HIM that unbaptized infants were not 'saved'...right up until the mid 20th century...until it was no longer TAUGHT. Hhhmmm... What about all those infants in Hell, or wherever...??? There are still people alive that were taught this theory and placed their faith in 'men' and their limited musings as directed to do so by the Catholic church because they were NOT taught to place their faith in an all loving and wise and merciful God...well maybe...perhaps....not too sure.....as it is still considered a possible alternative. It So.... get those babies baptised into the Catholic Church, His supposed one true church that has HIS authority to teach 'theories of men' whenever they have problems arising from their 'supposedly' revealed official doctrines - in this case - baptism.
Any red flags ???? any other official doctrines that perhaps were developed and taught along the way that were based on the ideas, the musings, the theories of men?
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
This is from your link:

"It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.
The Official Revised Baltimore Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church doesn't call Limbo a 'theory,' instead they throw the answer to the question onto the back of the Apostles Creed.

RCC Catechism question #95 asks: "What do we mean when we say in the Apostles Creed that Christ descended into hell?"
RCC answer: "When we say that Christ descended into hell we mean that after He died, the soul of Christ descended into a place or state or rest, called Limbo, where the souls of the just were waiting for Him."

There is not a single word there indicating that 'Limbo' is a place for unbaptized babies.
 

Bonlee1

Active member
Why doesn't the Roman Catholic Church teach that unbaptized babies go to 'purgatory' to have their 'original sin' removed?
Now that's a good question. Perhaps it has something to do with their 'ideas' that they developed while formulating their teaching regarding baptism. From what I can make out from posts by Catholics in here is that ' purgatory ' is only for those Catholics that have already been BAPTISED into the Catholic church...their baptism ritual and their purgatory only takes care of BAPTISED people...didn't/doesn't allow for others. Oh...wait...except by 'desire'...oh and by 'blood' (martyrs)...at least one of these was added on later....another 'oops!' hiccup? This is touched on in that document also. Lot of 'touching up' going on for a self-proclaimed, supposedly Holy Spirit led church that flounders around adjusting, re-arranging their supposedly revealed truths that binds people to them and not to HIM.
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
Now that's a good question. Perhaps it has something to do with their 'ideas' that they developed while formulating their teaching regarding baptism. From what I can make out from posts by Catholics in here is that ' purgatory ' is only for those Catholics that have already been BAPTISED into the Catholic church...their baptism ritual and their purgatory only takes care of BAPTISED people...didn't/doesn't allow for others. Oh...wait...except by 'desire'...oh and by 'blood' (martyrs)...at least one of these was added on later....another 'oops!' hiccup? This is touched on in that document also. Lot of 'touching up' going on for a self-proclaimed, supposedly Holy Spirit led church that flounders around adjusting, re-arranging their supposedly revealed truths that binds people to them and not to HIM.
Here's another question - this one is asked and answered in the Official Revised Roman Catholic Church's Catechism, which says:
WHY DID CHRIST GO TO LIMBO?

The official Roman Catholic Church Catechism answer #96 is:
Christ went to Limbo to announce to the souls waiting there the joyful news that He had reopened heaven to mankind.
 

mica

Well-known member
Here's another question - this one is asked and answered in the Official Revised Roman Catholic Church's Catechism, which says:
WHY DID CHRIST GO TO LIMBO?

The official Roman Catholic Church Catechism answer #96 is:
Christ went to Limbo to announce to the souls waiting there the joyful news that He had reopened heaven to mankind.
reopened?
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
reopened?
LOL! My thought exactly - but then leave it to the RCC, being the "pillar of truth," to teach that Jesus went to "Limbo" to announce that He had 'reopened heaven' to mankind. :rolleyes:

BUT..... the Roman Catholic Church further teaches this in their "Official" Roman Catholic Catechism, (question #97) when asked: "Where was Christ's body while His soul was in Limbo?"

And the "official" Roman Catholic Church response is: "While His soul was in Limbo, Christ's body was in the holy sepulchre."
 
Last edited:

Bonlee1

Active member
it's a bad teacher all around.
But it's a good 'developer'
Here's another question - this one is asked and answered in the Official Revised Roman Catholic Church's Catechism, which says:
WHY DID CHRIST GO TO LIMBO?

The official Roman Catholic Church Catechism answer #96 is:
Christ went to Limbo to announce to the souls waiting there the joyful news that He had reopened heaven to mankind.
Wow! Never heard that before! Where can you find that catechism please!
 

pilgrim

Member
just because you don't understand those verses in John 3 doesn't mean that what they say isn't true. That's another false teaching of the RCC to deceive people. Did you answer the questions regarding verses 3.2 and 3.7? john 3.5 is another favorite catholic verse to yank out of context and claim it means something that it doesn't mean.
 

pilgrim

Member
The Bible also doesn't say that baptism affects salvation in any way. So why would dying before baptism be an issue?

John 3:5 isn't about baptism. He's contrasting the physical birth (water) with spiritual birth.
If this is true, then you have a bigger problem than the theory of limbo.
 
Top