Did/Do any Eastern Churches accept the idea of Limbo?

[DavidFilmer]

For many centuries (about seven, to be exact) many Popes, Bishops, Doctors, Saints, and theologians accepted the theory of Limbo (limbus infantium). As recently as 1885, the old Baltimore Catechism described it as a “common belief” (Q.632).

Limbo was never formally taught as Doctrine, and the modern Church no longer promotes it in any way. Vatican II specifically addressed the question of unbaptized babies without any mention of Limbo (and the Council’s Limbo-less wording can be found in our Catechism).

(but I should mention that the Church has not actually repudiated the belief, and any faithful Catholic is still free to believe it).

However, I have always thought that Limbo was only believed in the West. Eastern Churches (whether or not in communion with Rome) never got on-board with Limbo.

Was the idea of Limbo ever accepted in the East?

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, at least not in a defined way it is in the West.

 

[willofgods]

As far as I know, they only accept limbo in the context of it being, compared to before, lower now.

 

[snarflemike]

Ah, limbo - nothing raises my hackles quicker.

So what do the Eastern Churches teach about the fate of those who die without baptism but also without personal sin?

 

[Jehannette]

Limbo is mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, albeit, very briefly in the Index. Here are the CCC’s statements on infants & baptism:

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

1261 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. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Saint Thomas taught,

“Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.” (Summa Theologica IIIa, q.68, a.11, ad 1)

However, Pope Sixtus V taught in his Papal Bull Effraenatam:

Noticing that frequently by various Apostolic Constitutions the audacity and daring of most profligate men, who know no restraint, of sinning with license against the commandment “do not kill” was repressed; We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? Who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety of him who will exclude a soul created in the image of God and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ has shed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and is destined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God, and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions (left vacant by the fallen angels), and has taken away the service to God by His creature?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ah, limbo - nothing raises my hackles quicker.

So what do the Eastern Churches teach about the fate of those who die without baptism but also without personal sin?

In Eastern theology the only way to heaven is through achieving Theosis, becoming partakers of the divine life of God. This begins with Baptism and is enriched through the Sacraments. Ultimately all souls are subject to judgement and can receive the Mercy of God. We pray for them but we cannot be sure where they are and put our hopes and trust in the mercy of God that they will be in heaven as well. But nothing is defined, nothing is definite. It was never revealed to us, we cannot be sure one way or the other.

 

[snarflemike]

In Eastern theology the only way to heaven is through achieving Theosis, becoming partakers of the divine life of God. This begins with Baptism and is enriched through the Sacraments. Ultimately all souls are subject to judgement and can receive the Mercy of God. We pray for them but we cannot be sure where they are and put our hopes and trust in the mercy of God that they will be in heaven as well. But nothing is defined, nothing is definite. It was never revealed to us, we cannot be sure one way or the other.

Then I must have a touch of Eastern in me, because this is exactly how I understand it.

 

[DavidFilmer]

But nothing is defined, nothing is definite. It was never revealed to us, we cannot be sure one way or the other.

That doesn’t mean we can’t speculate. Limbo was theological speculation which was widely accepted (but not formally taught) in Western Catholicism for seven centuries.

It seems that Eastern Catholicism never accepted this speculation of Limbo, but instead maintained a position which is more like the more recent teaching of Vatican-2 (as cited in the Catechism).

I’m always encouraged to see East and West inch a little closer together.

 

[Jehannette]

That doesn’t mean we can’t speculate. Limbo was theological speculation which was widely accepted (but not formally taught) in Western Catholicism for seven centuries.

It seems that Eastern Catholicism never accepted this speculation of Limbo, but instead maintained a position which is more like the more recent teaching of Vatican-2 (as cited in the Catechism).

I’m always encouraged to see East and West inch a little closer together.

If what Vatican II taught was, indeed, true, namely, that

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

then what I cited from Pope Sixtus V where he taught in his Papal Bull Effraenatam must also be true, namely, “by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls.” Or, am I missing something here?

 

[snarflemike]

If what Vatican II taught was, indeed, true, namely, that

then what I cited from Pope Sixtus V where he taught in his Papal Bull Effraenatam must also be true, namely, “by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls.” Or, am I missing something here?

I disagree that Sixtus V was “teaching” this point. It seems unlikely that the Church would not have noticed this teaching in the past 400 years.

 

[Jehannette]

I disagree that Sixtus V was “teaching” this point. It seems unlikely that the Church would not have noticed this teaching in the past 400 years.

What do you think that he was teaching, then? As far as noticing it, consider the following Catechism:

Catechism of the Summa Theologica by Thomas Pegues, O.P. 1922
XLVIIL OF THE PLACE OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT JUDGED, VIZ., OF THE LIMBO OF INFANTS

(A) Are there any human beings who at the moment of death are not judged?

Yes. All children who die before attaining the age of reason, or those who though adults never had the use of reason (LXIX. 6).

Is there any allotment at all as regards infants and those who have not had the use of reason?

Yes, but this is not by reason of their merits or demerits; and it is not made by way of judgment. It comes about by the fact that some have received baptism and others have not. Those that have received baptism immediately go to heaven; whereas those who have not received this sacrament go to a place reserved for them which is called Limbo.

OF THE LIMBO OF INFANT

(B) Is Limbo distinct from purgatory and hell?

Yes, because these two latter are places where punishment is inflicted for personal sins (LXIX. 6).

Do infants who have died without baptism suffer the pain of loss in Limbo?

Yes, to a certain degree, for they know they are deprived of the vision of God; but this has not the character of torture such as those in hell suffer (Appendix, 1.2).

Whence arises this difference as regards the pain of loss?

It comes from this, that although they know they are deprived of the vision of God, they also know that this is not by reason of any personal sin but by reason of their being born of Adam, who sinned (ibid.).

**For them, then, there is no horrible worm that gnaws their souls such as torments the damned in hell? **

No. But they live in a state without any kind of suffering or sadness, except that they are conscious of that supreme happiness which would have been theirs had the merits of the redemption been applied to them and which they will never have, not by any fault on their part but because the inscrutable counsels of God have arranged it so (ibid.).

(c) Do the souls of these infants know the mysteries of the redemption?

Most certainly.

Have they the light of faith?

No, they have not faith in the sense of that interior supernatural light perfecting the mind whereby in a certain intimate manner it penetrates revealed mysteries and generates in the soul a strong desire towards them; they know these mysteries very much in the same way as those who cannot help but assent to the truth of the divine mysteries revealed by God, but who are not drawn by an impulse of grace to cling supernaturally to these mysteries, and as a consequence they do not penetrate the intimate meaning of them.

Besides this Limbo of the souls of children who die before baptism, is not mention made of another Limbo in the language of the Church?

Yes, it is that Limbo where formerly the just were detained, that is, those in whom there was no personal hindrance as regards entrance into heaven, but who had to await the coming of the Redeemer (LXIX. 7).

Is there anyone now in this Limbo of the just?

Since the day when Jesus Christ at the moment of His death descended there and left it on the day of His Resurrection, bringing with Him all the souls of the just, this place ceased to be occupied by those for whom it was primarily destined; but it may be that since then it is the place where children go who die without baptism, so in this case it would be the same as the Limbo of infants.

 

[snarflemike]

I have neither the authority nor the knowledge to argue my point. I simply felt that what you quoted was not the teaching subject of the Bull. But in any case, the Church clearly does not teach it, and that’s the key point for me.

As for the 1922 catechism you quote, it is clearly in error in claiming with certainty what is only a speculation. The Baltimore Catechism, for one, points this out.

 

[DavidFilmer]

What do you think that he was teaching, then? As far as noticing it, consider the following Catechism:

Hi. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. But if you want to discuss whether the WESTERN Church taught Limbo, please feel free to open a thread to have this discussion. I opened this thread to discuss whether any EASTERN Churches ever taught Limbo (or if it was widely accepted for any length of time). Please help me keep this thread on-topic.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That doesn’t mean we can’t speculate.

No, it does mean that we cannot. Guesses are guesses. To say that unbaptized babies go to limbo and everyone believes it and we are not sure if its true or not is like saying there are green men in Alpha Centauri.

Besides, what is wrong in saying that we do not know?

Limbo was theological speculation which was widely accepted (but not formally taught) in Western Catholicism for seven centuries.

Arianism was also widely accepted, if you want to make a comparison.

It seems that Eastern Catholicism never accepted this speculation of Limbo, but instead maintained a position which is more like the more recent teaching of Vatican-2 (as cited in the Catechism).

I’m always encouraged to see East and West inch a little closer together.

The Eastern faith is quite comfortable in calling things the way it is. If it is a mystery beyond our current understanding, then that is what we call it. There is no effort to argue and speculate. God is way beyond what we can understand anyway.

 

[jaydog77]

You mean there AREN’T green men on alpha centauri?

 

[melekali]

Limbo is a ridiculous idea that is as non-Scriptural & non-Traditional as they come. We will all be judged and the perfect judge with perfect judgement will do the judging. Limbo comes from man’s inability to know the mind of God and then goes outside that to speculate. There is nothing useful that I find in this unbiblical concept.

 

[GLam8833]

Scripture DOES tell us that the dead are
“asleep”, (Jesus and St. Paul). If the Church
does not have a teaching about limbo, then
rely on Scripture!

Those interested in good Christian music,
please see my member’s profile.

 

[Hesychios]

That doesn’t mean we can’t speculate. Limbo was theological speculation which was widely accepted (but not formally taught) in Western Catholicism for seven centuries.

Actually, the Limbo theory (apparently never formally promulgated but still almost universally taught in the west) derives from the idea that unbaptized infants deserve hell. This was the earliest idea in the string of logic.

Now many later western theologians didn’t think that eternal damnation of infants was fair (nor do I), so they posited this third place. Not heaven, not really hell either. Not so bad, but the concept remains the children who never consciously sinned are nonetheless undeserving of heaven. The concept of limbo for infants was actually borrowed from the idea of Limbus Patrum (a place for good pagans and Jews from before Christ) and the idea was somehow extended to include them.

It was the Limbus Patrum which is theorized Christ went to when we say “He descended into Hell”. By the harrowing of Hell he broke the gates and freed many (tradition has it that he took Adam the first man and arch-sinner to heaven).

So the fall back position is that if limbo does not really exist as a separate place (a merciful alternative to hell), the children are damned. This follows the belief and teaching of Saint Augustine, which started the whole line of thinking.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Limbo is a ridiculous idea that is as non-Scriptural & non-Traditional as they come. We will all be judged and the perfect judge with perfect judgement will do the judging. Limbo comes from man’s inability to know the mind of God and then goes outside that to speculate. There is nothing useful that I find in this unbiblical concept.

Even as a kid in Catholic school in the 50’s learning my Baltimore Catechism, I never bought into it. It did not make sense to me and still does not. If God wants to bring unbaptized babies into heaven with Him, well that is His prerogative.

It is nowhere found in Scripture, in the context of the unbaptized babies that we were taught.

 

[Jehannette]

Even as a kid in Catholic school in the 50’s learning my Baltimore Catechism, I never bought into it. It did not make sense to me and still does not. If God wants to bring unbaptized babies into heaven with Him, well that is His prerogative.

It is nowhere found in Scripture, in the context of the unbaptized babies that we were taught.

Here is that section from the Baltimore Catechism:

1891 Baltimore Catechism

Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

Note that the phrase “die without baptism” is unqualified; the Baltimore catechism could have added “sacrament of,” “sacramental,” “in water,” etc. to qualify the word “baptism.” Indeed, the Baltimore Catechism elsewhere states,

Q. 642. Is it wrong to defer the baptism of an infant?

A. It is wrong to defer the baptism of an infant, because we thereby expose the child to the danger of dying without the Sacrament.

Q. 321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?

A. Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.

Q. 322. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of blood?

A. An unbaptized person receives the baptism of blood when he suffers martyrdom for the faith of Christ.

Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

Perhaps the Baltimore Catechism was not as “black/white” as some catechists were making it out to be. Q.322 could certainly be read as applying to unbaptized infants.