Here are the true teachings from The Roman Catholic Church regarding un-baptized infants. A lot of people heretically believe infants not baptized are in limbo, which is in between heaven and hell. THAT IS HERESY. CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH. Here are the true teachings of the Catholic Church:


Council of Trent [hereafter COT], Decree on Original Sin, 1546: “2. If any one asserts that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone and not his posterity, and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he being defiled by the sin of disobedience has only transfused death ‘and pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul,’ let him be anathema, whereas he contradicts the apostle who says: ‘By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.’ (Rom. 5:12)”1

Pope Saint Zosimus, Sixteenth Council of Carthage, 418 AD: “Canon 3.1. If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized live in bliss (beate vivant), whereas without baptism they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, into eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God’, 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 to the left.”

Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274: “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or only with original sin go down into hell, but there they receive unequal [disparibus] punishments.”7

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439: “The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of unequal [disparibus] kinds.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, 1794: “26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the 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, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.” (D. 1526)

Not sure whether limbo exists or not.  However, I was under the impression that the Church has never made a definitive dogmatic statement about limbo that is binding on the faithful and that we are free to believe or reject it's existence.  The Church itself has changed it's view on limbo over the course of centuries.  St. Augustine believed that infants in limbo feel the pains of the fires of hell while St. Thomas believed they only felt the pain of loss of the beatific vision.

Thomas Aquinas' limbo of children is in hell.

The Archdiocese of Chicago teaches that there is no limbo, so does the Diocese of Gary, INdiana.

Here is St.Thomas explaining why though the limbo of the infants entails the objective penalty of the privation of the beatific vision, it is nonetheless a state of perfect natural happiness.

"If unbaptized children have interior sorrow after death, they will grieve either for their sin or for their punishment.

If for their sin, since they cannot be further cleansed from that sin, their sorrow will lead them to despair. Now sorrow of this kind in the damned is the worm of conscience. Therefore these children will have the worm of conscience, and consequently theirs would not be the mildest punishment, as Augustine says it is.  

If, on the other hand, they grieve for their punishment, it follows, since their punishment is justly inflicted by God, that their will opposes itself to divine justice, and thus would be actually inordinate, which is not to be granted. Therefore they will feel no sorrow."

...Wherefore no further punishment is due to him, besides the privation of that end to which the gift withdrawn destined him, which gift human nature is unable of itself to obtain.

Now this is the divine vision; and consequently the loss of this vision is the proper and only punishment of original sin after death...

Further, right reason does not allow one to be disturbed on account of what one was unable to avoid; hence Seneca proves (Ep. lxxxv, and De ira ii, 6) that "a wise man is not disturbed." Now in these children there is right reason deflected by no actual sin. Therefore they will not be disturbed for that they undergo this punishment which they could nowise avoid."

Quote from: charles1ofAustria

Quote from: rowsofvoices9

Not sure whether limbo exists or not.  However, I was under the impression that the Church has never made a definitive dogmatic statement about limbo that is binding on the faithful and that we are free to believe or reject it's existence.  The Church itself has changed it's view on limbo over the course of centuries.  St. Augustine believed that infants in limbo feel the pains of the fires of hell while St. Thomas believed they only felt the pain of loss of the beatific vision.

Thomas Aquinas' limbo of children is in hell.

only non-white children (eh, Tele :wink: ), they are born naturally cursed with crime, lust, uncivility and a natural rythm in their step...."I's gots do soul..."

edited

I don't think this subject is humorous; neither is this post.

A lot of people heretically believe infants not baptized are in limbo, which is in between heaven and hell. THAT IS HERESY. CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH. Here are the true teachings of the Catholic Church:
...
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, 1794: “26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the 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, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.” (D. 1526)

Read that again.

Auctorem Fidei does not condemn belief in Limbo at all.

Rather, it condemns (as false, rash, and injurious, etc) the doctrine which rejects Limbo as a Pelagian fable.

Also, who says Limbo is between heaven and hell? It's a part of hell.

Quote from: Loriann

Quote from: Belloc

Quote from: charles1ofAustria

Quote from: rowsofvoices9

Not sure whether limbo exists or not.  However, I was under the impression that the Church has never made a definitive dogmatic statement about limbo that is binding on the faithful and that we are free to believe or reject it's existence.  The Church itself has changed it's view on limbo over the course of centuries.  St. Augustine believed that infants in limbo feel the pains of the fires of hell while St. Thomas believed they only felt the pain of loss of the beatific vision.

Thomas Aquinas' limbo of children is in hell.

only non-white children (eh, Tele :wink: ), they are born naturally cursed with crime, lust, uncivility and a natural rythm in their step...."I's gots do soul..."

Dumb if a joke, rubbish if not.

what is rally dumb and rubbish is the seemingly non-stop race/ethinic obsessing here at CI, much more then myfirst go around as a poster.......I leave for 3 days and we have a slew of posts and reponses about race........people pretending to be Catholic, but puting race/ethnicity before the Fide, making them align with Prots and Freemasons.......that is what is stupid and rubbish..that and beleiving in the very slanted and false "history" in the USA we have crammed down us.....saying Tele is a racist and trying to hide behind official and nifty words does not absolve......a bigot is a bigot......the sad thing, she/he nad others get their views not be living and experience, but by the evening news from WhiteBread America.......anyone outside their views are automatically filed into the 2nd (always only 2 categories allowed, like Party politics) of "defending my people", always a Neo-nαzι excuse or a Franfurt school communist.......never other options......

and to get back to this thread, we have talked this topic to death some yrs back w/CM, the former poster, who took a Neo-Calvinist view........this topic, Charles and others, has already been addressed, to  :barf: some yrs back......been there, we done that......moving along, please.......seig heilers to the right, all sane to the left.......

I find the subject of souls missing out on the fullness and beauty of Heaven to be not jokeworthy. I did not mention the "r" word...

Judgement comes down to two things--Heaven  or not.

Quote from: charles1ofAustria

A lot of people heretically believe infants not baptized are in limbo, which is in between heaven and hell. THAT IS HERESY. CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH. Here are the true teachings of the Catholic Church:
...
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, 1794: “26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the 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, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.” (D. 1526)

Read that again.

Auctorem Fidei does not condemn belief in Limbo at all.

Rather, it condemns (as false, rash, and injurious, etc) the doctrine which rejects Limbo as a Pelagian fable.

Also, who says Limbo is between heaven and hell? It's a part of hell.

Ah, Clare, it looks like you beat me to it. :smile: