Catholic Church Buries Limbo After Centuries

[mattheus09]

Even though I disagree with the findings on Limbo, I do not believe it ever said that there was no such thing as Original Sin. In past documents of the Church, she has said the those who die with only Original Sin will not enter Heaven. Therefore there seems to be a contradiction, but not a total repudiation of the dogma…because the Church will never teach that. The Catechism of the Council of Trent states

Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

 

[stadre]

I admit that I don’t see the change. (I couldn’t sleep last night so I might be too tired to read everything properly! ) It seems to me that all they have done it quoted the Catechism which does not teach one way or the other. "The Catechism of the Catholic Church in No. 1261 explains: ‘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.’ " How has this document changed anything?

 

[mattheus09]

The new Catechism leaves the question of Limbo open. Therefore, a Catholic may still believe in Limbo. To me, Limbo makes the most since. And Limbo is merciful, because before the idea of Limbo was adopted, it was thought that they went to Hell. These new findings, I think, contradict many past statements of Popes and councils, such as the Council of Trent and the following Catechism. Theological Commissions can teach error. From what I understand the Theological Commission for Birth Control taught error. I may be wrong about that, but that is what I understand. Feel free to correct me.

 

[Genesis315]

From what I’ve heard, none of this is binding- Deo Gratias. People are still free to believe in Limbo.

Not only is it not binding, it doesn’t even rule out limbo itself. All it does is teach that it is reasonble to have hope that the possibility of their salvation exists. I pray for the salvation of all who die without the ability to receive the sacraments. Does God answer my prayers concerning infants? Who knows. I think charity and hope both make my practice a good one

 

[stbruno]

What other doctrines of the church will change in coming years?

Limbo was never a DOCTRINE of the church. It was a theological opinion that was taught. Doctrines cannot change, opinions can change and this obviously was done with the release of this document. And Doctrines do not change despite popular opinion or secular thought. Thank goodness for that.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Not only is it not binding, it doesn’t even rule out limbo itself. All it does is teach that it is reasonable to have hope that the possibility of their salvation exists. I pray for the salvation of all who die without the ability to receive the sacraments. Does God answer my prayers concerning infants? Who knows? I think charity and hope both make my practice a good one

Limbo can be regarded as a kind of salvation, for it is both unending natural (not supernatural) happiness and a way of avoiding the torments of hell.

While not as magnificent a gift as the beatific vision, limbo is still a stupendous gift. Our mere existence in this world is a gift, isn’t it?

Pope Pius XII taught in the 1950 encyclical Humani generis that the Church can change her terminology without changing her doctrine. This statement justifies regarding limbo as a form of salvation.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[KathleenElsie]

We are free to personally believe as we wish on this. And I will go by Zent and not the secular news.

 

[Genesis315]

It is important to point out the significance of the dogma of original sin. It means that we don’t enter Heaven by not committing sins, but only by the grace of God. Because of this, we know that one who dies in a state of original sin without excepting the sanctifying grace of God descends into Hell. What we don’t know is whether or not God grants grace extra-sacramentally to an infant in that state for reasons known only to Him (His own largesse, in answer to prayers, etc.). The doctrinal development the last few centuries concerning the soul of the Church and who can be united to it has given more reason to hope that this extra-sacramental bestowal of grace can happen. That’s what the study says.

 

[cubalibre]

The criminal crucified next to Jesus was assured salvation without baptism. We will all be confronted by Christ at our death including aborted children and those born that died before baptism. I have no doubt he will be as merciful to them as he was to the crucified criminal. When Christ descended to the dead was this not an act that was outside of linear time? Could these children have been present then even though they died on earth later? Can’t our prayers be applied by Christ at any time since he exists outside of time?

 

[Tom317]

If the concept of Limbo is wrong, then there is no need for Baptism, babies can be aborted without fear (it actually becomes an act of mercy), and original sin can be tossed aside.

Call it something else, but if that concept is tossed out, then the Catholic faith takes a huge hit…

 

[francesco920]

I made this post in the Eastern Christianity Forum, but I’ll post it here too:

francesco920:

The report also says “We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge” and “It must be clearly acknowledged that the church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptized infants who die”.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm

 

[havemercy]

Despite news reports, the Catholic Church has not buried the concept of limbo, nor can she do so.

Even though it is not a dogma, limbo is a valid theological conclusion solidly based on the dogma that those who die in original sin only are in some manner penalized for this state of sin in the next world. The penalty is deprivation of the beatific vision. This dogma was taught by two general councils: Lyons II in 1274 and Florence in 1439. (The old Denzinger numbers are 464 and 693; the new Denzinger numbers are 858 and 1306. See also old Denzinger number 410 and new Denzinger number 780.)

What has just happened is merely this: a group of theologians has dissented from the above dogma. In doing so, they have made a mistake. If the citations in media reports are accurate, the members of the International Theological Commission (ITC) are not even sure about their disagreement with Catholic doctrine, for they have contended that unbaptized infants may (not will) achieve the beatific vision.

What the ITC has done is very much in the same category as what Pope Paul VI’s birth control commission did when its majority report disregarded irreversible Catholic moral teaching on the sinfulness of artificial contraception. Even though Paul VI had continued his predecessor’s approval of the establishment of this commission, its contradiction of Catholic teaching had absolutely no weight for a serious Catholic, and Paul VI himself, by issuing the encyclical Humanae vitae in 1968, eventually put an end to the scandal caused by the commission’s defection from the truth of Catholic doctrine.

“But the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has permitted publication of the ITC statement on limbo!” Granted, but the fact of papal infallibility does *not *cover such actions, as every well-instructed Catholic should know. In this case, too, there is a parallel from Church history: in the fourteenth century, Pope John XXII erroneously taught, but in a non-ex cathedra manner, that the souls of the blessed do not achieve the beatific vision until the final judgment. (The new Denzinger numbers are 990-991.) This mistake, which did not compromise either John XXII’s authority as the Vicar of Christ or the truth of Catholic doctrine, had to be corrected later.

We should *not *allow the Devil to use the ITC statement on limbo to injure our faith. We should *not *start asking: “In addition to the dogma of original sin, which other dogmas or moral teachings will be overturned?” No dogma or moral teaching has been or will be reversed. Our Lord has promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Catholic Church, and the Mother of God is always crushing all heresies.

We must especially avoid the false solutions of “traditionalist” schism and sedevacantism. Please remember that St. Paul opted for neither of these dead ends when St. Peter, the first Pope, scandalized the Catholics of Antioch (Gal 2:11). We must not make the crisis in the human dimensions of the Church worse than it already is.

We should pray for the millions of Catholics who will scandalized by what the ITC has done. We should ask Our Lady of Fátima to guide the Holy Father and to strengthen our faith.

Keep and spread the Faith.

All the ITC has done is confirm their hope that they will in fact see God, and that we can trust in God’s mercy. Who on earth or in heaven would be scandalized by this?

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

If the concept of Limbo is wrong, then there is no need for Baptism, babies can be aborted without fear (it actually becomes an act of mercy), and original sin can be tossed aside.

Call it something else, but if that concept is tossed out, then the Catholic faith takes a huge hit…

The denial of limbo in favor of the contention that all unbaptized infants attain the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision has ***momentous ***consequences for the entire structure of the Catholic Faith. As the new catechism teaches, original sin is “an essential truth of the faith” (section 388).

Even emphatically and repeatedly claiming that unbaptized infants may go to heaven will encourage abortion and reduce the number of Baptisms.

Furthermore, if the resolutely anti-limbo view is true, then it logically follows that it is better to be aborted than to be born, since birth may lead to unrepented mortal sin and, as a consquence, eternal damnation in hell. Surely, it is better to be guaranteed heaven than to risk hell.

Whenever anyone strongly attacks limbo, ask these questions: “Do you also deny the existence of hell? Do you believe that everyone goes to heaven?”

Any theologian who discusses limbo should take the above points into account.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Tom317]

The denial of limbo in favor of the contention that all unbaptized infants attain the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision has ***momentous ***consequences for the entire structure of the Catholic Faith. As the new catechism teaches, original sin is “an essential truth of the faith” (section 388).

Even emphatically and repeatedly claiming that unbaptized infants may go to heaven will encourage abortion and reduce the number of Baptisms.

Furthermore, if the resolutely anti-limbo view is true, then it logically follows that it is better to be aborted than to be born, since birth may lead to unrepented mortal sin and, as a consquence, eternal damnation in hell. Surely, it is better to be guaranteed heaven than to risk hell.

Whenever anyone strongly attacks limbo, ask these questions: “Do you also deny the existence of hell? Do you believe that everyone goes to heaven?”

Any theologian who discusses limbo should take the above points into account.

Keep and spread the Faith.

WE agree and we have been down this road before. It seems fairly certain that the Pope is going in that direction, and if it happens, it is a very bad day for the Church.

 

[Tom317]

All the ITC has done is confirm their hope that they will in fact see God, and that we can trust in God’s mercy. Who on earth or in heaven would be scandalized by this?

The roots of the Catholic faith are rocked by this, if it actually happens. Baptism would become meaningless, abortion would become a preferred sacrament, purgatory and hell would fall under attack, etc.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Isn’t the real meaning of “Limbo”, an unknown state?

Jim

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Isn’t the real meaning of “Limbo”, an unknown state?

Jim

*Limbus *is the Latin word for “fringe” or “border.” In one sense, limbo is the fringe of hell. Why? Because, like the souls in hell, the souls in limbo do not possess the supernatural happiness of seeing God in the beatific vision.

Nevertheless, it is also true that the souls in limbo are saved from the torments of hell. In addition, they enjoy the unmerited gift of unending natural happiness. Those are reasons why limbo can also be viewed as a kind of salvation.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[rien]

Limbo *was not * doctrine. It had been postulated as possible by theologians and was generally accepted.

The permanance of sacramental Marriage and the intrinsic evil of contraception are doctrine. Acceptance of them is a required part of the deal.

Sourc please. I can’t find/see the distiniction here.

 

[rien]

Since we’re on the subject of infallible…what other precepts of the church may be up for question? BTW, I was taught about Limbo.

John

I think contraception - the specific details anyway, receiving communion after divorce to name two. This really opens the door to big chnanges as really there are not a whole lot of infallible defintions.

Benedict is turning out to be a real surprise.

 

[rien]

The denial of limbo in favor of the contention that all unbaptized infants attain the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision has ***momentous ***consequences for the entire structure of the Catholic Faith. As the new catechism teaches, original sin is “an essential truth of the faith” (section 388).

Even emphatically and repeatedly claiming that unbaptized infants may go to heaven will encourage abortion and reduce the number of Baptisms.

Furthermore, if the resolutely anti-limbo view is true, then it logically follows that it is better to be aborted than to be born, since birth may lead to unrepented mortal sin and, as a consquence, eternal damnation in hell. Surely, it is better to be guaranteed heaven than to risk hell.

Whenever anyone strongly attacks limbo, ask these questions: “Do you also deny the existence of hell? Do you believe that everyone goes to heaven?”

Any theologian who discusses limbo should take the above points into account.

Keep and spread the Faith.

Maybe this throws into question the validity of Catholicsm? More changes will come under Benmedict I suspect and my evangelical friends are said I told you so. They are pointing out how this opens the door the pro-abortion arguments which some of the posts above have mentioned.

Not that I am about to go evangelical. I think this just adds to the overall doubts on my part and many others of the “truth” of Christianity. Doctrine does change and if folks refuse to acept that then so be it but this is a malleable faith as are all the rest .

Baptism is or is not necessary. The Bible says it is but the Catholic Church seems to be moving in an un-Biblical direction. Evanglicals alway have claimed baptism is necessary - though their understaning of it is off I think - but this is a far more radical departure than the mis-understaning of evangelicals.

I frankly have not felt that the Catholic Church has not changed doctrine as some claim and this is a perfect example of that.

What will CA have to do now with those tracts defending limbo. I really think too we will see a softening on contraception under this Pope.

The church is definitely heading in the direction of the possibility of universal salvation as orthodox theologian Von Baltasar argured in his book.

But that is not historic Christianity. Are we left now only with the Orthodox churches holding the line? Or really is there any line to hold?