CathInfo.com

You're missing the point.  Whether or not "Abraham's Bosom" remains (as a place) is different from whether it is USED (as a holding place for people).  Some say the Garden of Eden still remains (as a place), but it's no longer used (except for maybe Enoch/Elias...waiting for antichrist...but it's not USED in the same way as Adam/Eve used it). 

The purpose of Abraham's Bosom was a temporary place of waiting til one can get to heaven...it was a waiting room for Christ.  It is no longer used for that purpose, as there is no longer anyone from the Old Testament who is "justified" but unbaptized.  And there is no longer a wait for a Redeemer.  So, with the termination of the Old Law, so the purpose of the OT Limbo is terminated.

St Thomas' comments on whether or not the place still remains, is irrelevant to my point.  The purpose is gone.

You said "the Limbo of the just was temporary." That statement does not conform to what Aquinas said. Can you at least admit that your opinion differs from St. Thomas Aquinas?

Regarding the "purpose" of the "limbo of the Fathers," here is Aquinas's response to Objection 2 (just below the earlier quote I provided), Aquinas says:

Reply Obj. 2: The place of rest of the holy fathers was called Abraham’s bosom before as well as after Christ’s coming, but in different ways. For since before Christ’s coming the saints’ rest had a lack of rest attached to it, it was called both hell and Abraham’s bosom, wherefore God was not seen there. But since after the coming of Christ the saints’ rest is complete through their seeing God, this rest is called Abraham’s bosom, but not hell by any means. It is to this bosom of Abraham that the Church prays for the faithful to be brought.

If you will read Aquinas carefully, I think you will see that the purpose of the "limbo of the just" does not go away after the Resurrection of Christ, and therefore, as Aquinas says there is nothing that prevents the "limbo of the just," called Abraham's bosom, from still being there "after Christ's coming."

Just as you are incorrect about "the limbo of the Fathers," you are incorrect about "the Garden of Eden," aka Paradise. That is still the place of reward for the saints who overcome in the end times.

St. John makes it clear that Paradise will be the destination of those who overcome [Apocalyps 2:7]:

7 He, that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: To him, that overcometh, I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God.

In his description of the New Heaven and the New Earth, St. John says in Apocalypse chapter 22:

2 In the midst of the street thereof, and on both sides of the river, was the tree of life, bearing twelve fruits, yielding its fruits every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
...
14 Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city.

St Thomas isn't the only saint to comment on this theory.  There's not a consensus on if the "Limbo of the Just" is still in use AFTER Christ's Ascension. 

This is all irrelevant to my point, which is that a non-baptized person (i.e. Plato) is not in the "Limbo of the Just", as he is not (nor will ever be) on the path to heaven.  He would be in the "common Limbo", the upper part of hell, which is distinct from the "Limbo of the Just".

Look, I may be wrong. I don't claim infallibility. But all you do is present your opinion. You don't substantiate your opinion with any Church-approved sources. In fact, you reject the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas because you claim "there's not a consensus." What is your proof that there is not a consensus? Show a source. Or did you just make up this "consensus?"

Just like the opinion above, you then opine how Plato "is not in the Limbo of the Just." Again, giving no Church-approved support for your argument. But you state it as if it is absolute truth. Why do you do this?

I didn't reject St Thomas.  I simply said there's not a consensus.  He could be right or wrong.  It's not a Church doctrine, so there's room for debate.

Based on the thrice-defined DOGMA of EENS, how can an unbaptized person such as Plato gain heaven?  Please explain.


Because St Thomas (and others) describe the post-Resurrection "Abraham's Bosom" as a holding place for the "just" who are waiting to gain heaven, until the world ends/Last Judgement.

Even according to St Thomas, there's no way that Plato can be "waiting for heaven" because he's unbaptized.  Ergo, he's NOT/can't be in "Abraham's Bosom".  He has to be in the "common limbo" which has been (piously) believed by the Church to contain unbaptized infants and good-willed non-catholics.

Unless you deny EENS and believe that unbaptized persons go to heaven...

I am not questioning the dogma of EENS. I don't know what the reward of the just consists of. I suspect it is Paradise, aka "the New Earth" discussed in Apocalypse 21-22.

All of the OT "Fathers" that were in "Abraham's bosom" were unbaptized. They died before the Sacrament was instituted.