Catholic Church Buries Limbo After Centuries

[MiddleBear]

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…

That is a huge jump in logic and is not supportable.

Because the Church teaches that the Lord is merciful (in this case death of unbaptized infants and unborn), the Chuch would then teach that original sin does not exist is a huge leap in logic and is unsupportable. Check out the CCC for details.

 

[bquinnan]

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.

I have to strongly disagree. Based on your logic, it would be merciful to kill people immediately after baptism. That way, there would be no time for the newly baptised to commit mortal sin and possibly end up in Hell. I don’t believe that the Church has ever taught that killing an innocent person is an act of mercy. If she has, show me where.

That unborn infants who die unbaptised might still have hope for eternity in Heaven does not mean that it would be acceptable to kill such infants, taking from them the gift of earthly life that God has given them and interfering with God’s plans for them.

 

[bquinnan]

Baptism is or is not necessary. The Bible says it is but the Catholic Church seems to be moving in an un-Biblical direction.

On this subject, I’ve often heard Catholic Answers representatives (Rosalyn Moss comes to mind) say that, while man is bound by the sacraments, God is not. Thus, we are obligated to do everything in our power to receive the sacraments ourselves and to make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But, if for some reason someone never really has the opportunity to be baptised (because he dies in infancy, or is a catechumen who dies before the sacrament was administered, or dies having never known of the need to be baptised), it is still possible that God will save him.

This seems perfectly consistent with passages 1259-1261 of the CCC. It also is consistent with the fact that even though Saint Emerentiana, sister of Saint Agnes of Rome, was a catechument and not yet baptised when she was martyred around the year 304, is nevertheless considered a saint and has been for most of the Church’s history.

What will CA have to do now with those tracts defending limbo.

Please provide a link to any tract you feel that CA will need to bury in light of the recent limbo document. I’d be surprised if you can find one.

 

[PapaSquash]

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

Regarding Limbo:
Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the “children’s limbo.”
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Note the terms speculation. “ought to beleive” “usually mean” Rather indefinite and not mandatory/

Regarding Marriage

1. Christian marriage is a sacrament whereby sexuality is integrated into a path to holiness, through a bond reinforced by the indissoluble unity of the sacrament: “The gift of the sacrament is at the same time a vocation and commandment for the Christian spouses, that they may remain faithful to each other forever, beyond every trial and difficulty, in generous obedience to the holy will of the Lord: ‘What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder’.”

Regarding Contraception:

A Christian education for chastity within the family cannot remain silent about the moral gravity involved in separating the unitive dimension from the procreative dimension within married life. This happens above all in contraception and artificial procreation. In the first case, one intends to seek sexual pleasure, intervening in the conjugal act to avoid conception; in the second case conception is sought by substituting the conjugal act with a technique. These are actions contrary to the truth of married love and contrary to full communion between husband and wife.

Both from a Papal document “the Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality”
newadvent.org/library/docs_cf9601.htm
Note the clear lack of equivocation.

See also
newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02vs.htm
a Papal encyclical entitled Veritas Splendor

In it’s statment of purpose this document says:
Today, however, it seems “necessary to reflect on the whole of the Church’s moral teaching,” with the precise goal of recalling certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine which, in the present circumstances, risk being distorted or denied.

Search this document for what it says on marriage and contraception.

These issues are settled.

Limbo is not and never was. It was (and is) useful but not settled. Attainment of the beatific vision for the unbaptised is not out of the question. At the very least the thief who is in paradise made it. Nor is it by any means a given. Baptism is at the same time a requirement for salvation. In this, as in all things, we must trust to God’s mercy. Limbo is a way of saying that, as temporal innocents, we hope that infants are spared the torments of hell. As creatures we don’t get to force God to give us the answer, nor do we get to judge the final disposition of souls.

 

[Rach620]

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…

Why not? It is a theological concept, and that is all, not an official doctrine of the faith. It is the only reasonable explanation which human theologians have been able to come up with for what must happen to unbaptized infants who die. Limbo has never been made an official doctrine–has remained a theological concept–for a reason. We can modify our understanding of this concept without doing injury to Church dogma on original sin.

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.

Nowhere did they dissent from dogma on original sin; they were very careful to preserve that teaching intact. There’s no doctrine on limbo for them to disagree with! In fact, I think the concept of limbo and what they said are compatible lines of thought. They perhaps come off as ‘unsure,’ but that is because *no one *can be sure about the salvation of these unbaptized children. Not even hardcore proponents of limbo.

Here’s how I read it: “We’re not sure what happens to the souls of the unbaptized, because original sin is such a grave matter and baptism (of some kind) is necessary for salvation. A tenable explanation is that the souls of the innocent unbaptized are perfected in natural happiness but do not enjoy the beatific vision; however, in the face of millions of children dying violent deaths by abortion and other disrespect for life, and an expanding notion of the meaning of God’s mercy, a different explanation seems to be pastorally necessary. Because God especially apparently loves the ‘little ones,’ and because these ‘holy innocents’ are united to Christ in their suffering, there is great reason to hope that they are indeed enjoying the beatific vision. The sacramental economy is of greatest importance to our understanding of salvation, but God Himself is not limited by that economy and can work outside of it if He so chooses. So limbo might indeed exist, for all of God’s faithful who died before Christ were there and were set free by Christ; but by the grace of God we may hope that today there are no souls there, even of the innocent unbaptized.”

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.

How?

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.

No infallible definitions were altered by this declaration.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Nowhere did they dissent from dogma on original sin; they were very careful to preserve that teaching intact. There’s no doctrine on limbo for them to disagree with!

On the contrary, the theologians who issued the ITC statement criticizing the concept of limbo dissent from the following Catholic dogma: that the souls of those who die in original sin only are punished for this state of sin in some way in the next life. Again, two general councils taught this dogma: Lyons II and Florence. Please check manuals of Catholic theology: this teaching is de fide.

As Pope Innocent III taught, the penalty for original sin is deprivation of the beatific vision.

Not only is original sin a fact, but it also has serious, painful consequences for every human person except the Mother of Jesus. (Please see these sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 385-421.) One of those consequences is that the failure of Catholics to make greater efforts to ensure the Baptism of as many human beings as possible will result in the loss of the beatific vision for myriads of unbaptized infants.

The correct response to the sad exclusion of those infants from heaven is not to undermine the dogma of original sin by attacking limbo, but to keep and spread the Faith.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Ah, the reversal of the doctrine of Limbo. This could only happen in our time! Could it be that we’re living in the time about which Holy Scripture declares:

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

The correct response to the sad exclusion of those infants from heaven is not to undermine the dogma of original sin by attacking limbo, but to keep and spread the Faith.

Couldn’t agree more. Keep up the excellent posts!

 

[francesco920]

I think people here are jumping to conclusions. I don’t see anything in the document that says the Church is “burying” Limbo. What the document says is that Catholics may hope for unbaptized infants’ salvation, but that whether or not they can be saved is unknown.

Personally, I think it would be crazy for somebody to say, “Well, I have hope that my baby will be saved if I don’t baptize him, so even though I don’t really know if he’ll be saved, I’ll take the chance and just wait 'til he’s older.” I don’t think any devout Catholic would ever do that.

On the other hand, I do agree that all this talk about Limbo is unnecessary because the most the Church can say is “We don’t know.” Plus, it can have the affect of making people think that baptism is unnecessary (despite the fact that this document clearly says that the most we can have about the unbaptized dead is hope, not knowledge.)

The only reason this is being done is because of politics, in my view: Muslims in Africa are able to tell parents of dead infants “Yes, your baby’s in Heaven” while Catholics can’t say much more than “well, we can have hope but your baby is probably in Limbo, excluded from the beatific vision.”

Again this report is NOT a magisterial document.

Rien – The evils of contraception and divorce/remarriage have been clearly spelled out to the point where the Church’s teaching on them is considered to be infallible. There can be no change in those teachings. Limbo, on the other hand, has not been as far as I know. If I am wrong, please show me (and cite sources please!) And, again, this report says neither that Limbo is abolished or that baptism is unnecessary…what it says is that Catholics are allowed to hope NOT know that that unbaptized infants can be saved.

I have faith in Pope Benedict. So far he has done well and his writings, like Sacramentum Caritatis, have been orthodox. He has shown himself to be thoughtful and I don’t think he will just scrap Limbo (nor can he, I think.)

 

[Pius_X]

Anyone who believes in limbo of the infants does not know the first thing about God’s love.

 

[francesco920]

Anyone who believes in limbo of the infants does not know the first thing about God’s love.

That’s a bit too harsh!

Most Catholics used to believe in Limbo and this was the case for a long, long time. The essential idea behind Limbo is that baptism must be taken seriously. Also, Limbo is actually a compassionate teaching because the alternative has traditionally been to believe that unbaptized babies go to Hell (I believe St. Augustine taught this.) This is because Catholics (and some other Christians) have always believed in the necessity of baptism, which is why even this document says the most Catholics can have is hope for unbaptized infants (which means you can’t deny Limbo, I think.)

 

[Tom317]

How?

If an aborted or miscarried baby goes straight to Heaven to the fullness of the Beatific Vision, then it is better to be aborted, then to live because the baby is gauranteed the full Beatific Vision with God through eternity. This negates the importance of baptism for any child, negates the impact of orignal sin, negates the importance of Purgatory and places every person on earth on a path to Heaven.

 

[Tom317]

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?

If what you predict happens, then we are truly in the last days.

 

[thecoach]

What other doctrines of the church will change in coming years? I really think re-marriage and denial of communion needs to be re-evaluated. It is too restrictive also IMO.

Is there a chance that the contraception doctirne could be modified in years to come. There are those rumors.

limbo wasnt exactly a doctrine, more of a working theory. It has been debated back and forth since it was offered centuries ago.

 

[thecoach]

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

why would you? and btw, beleiving in limbo was never binding either. why do yuo choose to dissent from the Pope now?

 

[thecoach]

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…

could not disagree more.

 

[Tom317]

could not disagree more.

Back atcha.

 

[Tom317]

limbo wasnt exactly a doctrine, more of a working theory. It has been debated back and forth since it was offered centuries ago.

True, Limbo is not a doctrine, yet if the tehory is removed (which btw it has not), then baptism is just something for a party, not something that saves. It also opens the flood gates for billions who are never baptized to be saved in the same manner and way that baptized people are, which means baptism is meaningless, so is original sin because if baptized is not required, then OS is not important to have removed…etc, it is a huge wave across the faith and the Catholic Church joins all Protestant believers.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Anyone who believes in limbo of the infants does not know the first thing about God’s love.

He who said that “no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit” (Jn 3:5; 1986 NAB) is Love Incarnate.

One of the foundations of the concept of limbo is the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism for attaining the beatific vision. This necessity is still taught by the Catholic Church and always will be.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Pius_X]

Also, Limbo is actually a compassionate teaching because the alternative has traditionally been to believe that unbaptized babies go to Hell (I believe St. Augustine taught this.)

What is hell? Hell is eternal separation from God. If limbo lacks the presence of God, then surely, this is hell! A merciful God would never send a baby to hell. A loving God would never send a baby to hell. If limbo lacks God’s presence, and hell is the lack of God, then, surely, limbo is hell! Limbo was closed when Jesus descended to the dead.
Natural hapiness is nothing compared to the supernatural hapiness of heaven. This is hell, as it is nothing close to the hapiness of heaven.

Both of those “options” are hell, which is why a baby goes straight to heaven Why? Because a loving God would never send a baby to hell!