Do you believe in limbo?

[Steve_O_Brien]

Those who have had a miscarriage should consider that Limbo is a state of very great happiness, such as the garden of Eden before the fall. It is not a bad place and those there are perfectly happy.

Maybe God, in His infinite wisdom knew that they would grow up, fall away from the faith and end in hell? Therefore, in his goodness and mercy, he allowed them to go to Limbo?

I’m sure there are a lot of souls in hell who would be happy to trade places with those in Limbo.

We have to be careful that we don’t allow sentiment to affect, or determine, what we believe.

The contemporary Magisterium, I believe, wishes Catholics to emphasize the positive and consoling aspects of limbo, especially when we speak to parents who have lost children through miscarriages and abortions, including chemical abortions. This is what the United States Marine Corps has done in its post.

We should remember that natural life in this world is a gift to which we have no strict right. The unending natural life of limbo is a super-gift. The supernatural happiness of the beatific vision in heaven is a mega-gift.

We should recall the words of Jesus to the Samaritan woman at the well:

"If you knew the gift of God . . .]" (Jn 4:10).

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[MariaG]

Those who have had a miscarriage should consider that Limbo is a state of very great happiness, such as the garden of Eden before the fall. It is not a bad place and those there are perfectly happy.

Maybe God, in His infinite wisdom knew that they would grow up, fall away from the faith and end in hell? Therefore, in his goodness and mercy, he allowed them to go to Limbo?

I’m sure there are a lot of souls in hell who would be happy to trade places with those in Limbo.

We have to be careful that we don’t allow sentement to effect, or determine, what we believe.

I am not sure if I agree with your assessment of Limbo. If I could see Limbo as you do, I may be swayed. At this point though I only see it as *punishment *to be denied the beautific vision of God.

However, I completely agree with you that we should not allow sentiment to determine what we believe which is why although I hope for heaven for these children, I answered “I don’t know” for the poll.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Ron_Conte]

The only question about Limbo that is unanswered is whether the unbaptized go to the fires of hell (which is what St. Augustine, St. Robert Bellarmine, and many others taught), or whether they go to a state of natural happiness, which is what St. Thomas taught and what most people believed before we entered the great apostacy we are now going through, in which most deny the doctrine.

As you correctly pointed out, the Council of Forence and Lyons both taught that those who die in original sin only go to hell, but to be punished with different torments than those who have sinned.

If you read a few of the earlier posts, you will see that most people consider this - God sending a person who has committed no actual sin to hell - contrary to God’s “justice and mercy”… yet it is a dogma.

An adult who has committed no act that is a mortal sin, but who has failed to find sanctifying grace in his life, through either a formal or non-formal Baptism, is guilty of a mortal sin of omission; he is like the useless servant who buried his master’s coin, rather than investing it. Such persons certainly to to Hell, but are punished less than those who found sanctifying grace, lost it by an actual mortal sin, and failed to repent from that sin through the last moment of their lives.

Limbo cannot be a doctrine if the question as to where they go is unanswered; if we have not been taught whether limbo is temporary or permanent, of happiness or of punishment, then it is not a doctrine.

In my opinion, the limbo of the fathers (a temporary place) has been taught by the ordinary magisterium, but has not been taught infallibly.

The limbo of perfect natural happiness was an idea condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem fidei, 1794, but he did not call it a heresy.

The Church has taught that unbaptized babies cannot be saved, however, it has not taught that babies who die without a formal baptism do not receive some type of non-formal baptism.

I believe that an early death (prenatals, infants, young children) is such a great suffering that it unites these young souls with Christ suffering on the Cross for our salvation, providing them with a type of mystical baptism similar to the baptism of blood and of desire. Therefore, they are baptized, non-formally, and so they can be saved.

But it is still true that without baptism no one can be saved.

Ron

 

[USMC]

I am not sure if I agree with your assessment of Limbo. If I could see Limbo as you do, I may be swayed. At this point though I only see it as *punishment *to be denied the beautific vision of God.

God Bless,
Maria

Maybe this will help explain why it is not a punishement.

Since God created man with eyes, man has a certain “right” to light which is necessary for him to see. Since God has given man ears, mans has a certain right to hear. A person who is born blind, or deaf, is, in a sense, suffering a certain degree of punishment because he is being deprived from something he should, by nature, have.

But man has no right to grace (supernatural life) or the beatific vision. These are freely given to whom God wills. If man did have a right to them, then the deprivation of it would be a punishment.

During the early part of the 20th century, there was a priest who was condemned (or suffered some kind of sanction) by Rome for teaching that man did have a right to the supernatural life.

If man had a right to the beatific vision then the deprivation of it would constitute a punishment.

The souls in Limbo get everything they have a natural right to: natural happiness.

 

[VociMike]

I just had a thought (!!!)

None of those in the Limbo of the Fathers was baptized, and yet we know that some of them must be in heaven. We also know that baptism is necessary for salvation. So how did they get there (heaven)?

This would seem to be clear evidence of the necessity (not just the possibility) of baptism of blood and baptism of desire. And if these were available to the dead in the Limbo of the Fathers, why could they not be available to the Limbo of the Infants.

In fact, why could not every person who has died and who will die without being baptized be among those to whom Christ descended after His death on the cross? We as Catholics certainly understand that God is not limited by time, whether past or future.

 

[USMC]

An adult who has committed no act that is a mortal sin, but who has failed to find sanctifying grace in his life, through either a formal or non-formal Baptism, is guilty of a mortal sin of omission;

Ron, is this another teaching that you made up, like “mystical baptism”? Please show my just one quote that says a person who has never committed a mortal sin, yet did not obtain the state of grace, is guilty of a mortal sin of ommission.

If you don’t have any magisterial quotes to support that statement (and there aren’t any), then admit that this is another teaching that you made up, which is what you were forced to admit with regard to teaching of “mystical baptism”.

The limbo of perfect natural happiness was an idea condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem fidei, 1794, but he did not call it a heresy.

Ron, that is exactly backwards. Auctorem fidei condemend those who “rejected” Limbo.

Auctorem Fidei, Pius VI’s: “The doctrine which rejects (explodit) as a Pelagian fable, that place of hell (locum illum inferorum) — usually called by the faithful “Children’s Limbo” — in which the soul of those dying with only original sin are punished by the pain of loss without any pain of fire; and this taken to mean that by denying the pain of fire one can thereby necessarily postulate a middle state or place involving neither guilt nor penalty between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as Pelagians have invented (fabulabantur): **— false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools.” **Auctorem fidei, August 28, 1794, The Condemned Errors of the Synod of Pistoia, Denzinger, #1526.)

The rejection of Limbo is condemned. Why? Because Limbo is, as I wrote earlier, a doctrine of the church - one that has not been defined.

I believe that an early death (prenatals, infants, young children) is such a great suffering that it unites these young souls with Christ suffering on the Cross for our salvation, providing them with a type of **mystical baptism **similar to the baptism of blood and of desire. Therefore, they are baptized, non-formally, and so they can be saved.

Ron

Has the Church ever taught that the death of prenatals, infants, or young childred is so great a suffering that it unites them to Christ on the cross, which privides them with a form of baptism?

No it hasn’t. I guess you are free to wonder about this, but it is not a teaching of the Church and there is no reason anyone should give it any weight.

 

[USMC]

As much as I respect the United States Marine Corps, and as much as I appreciate its support on limbo ( ), I must respectfully disagree with calling limbo a “doctrine of the Catholic faith.” It is a theological deduction and hypothesis …

A doctrine is a teaching of the Church. A dogma is a teaching of the Church that has been defined. With that in mind, consider the following quotes regarding Limbo:

In Auctorem Fidei, Pius VI condemend those who reject Limbo: “The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of hell (locum illum inferorum) — usually called by the faithful “Children’s Limbo” — in which the soul of those dying with only original sin are punished by the pain of loss without any pain of fire; — false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools.” Auctorem fidei, August 28, 1794, The Condemned Errors of the Synod of Pistoia, Denzinger, #1526.)

In a 1947 article written by Father Joseph Le Blanc, titled “Children’s Limbo, Theory or Doctrine?”, he summarized the two central points taught in Auctorem Fidei:

Fr. Le Blanc: “(1) There exists a Children’s Limbo, where the souls of children dying with original sin are detained; (2) the doctrine of Limbo as commonly accepted by the faithful, and taught by the schoolmen, is not a Pelagian fable, but an orthodox teaching.”

*Fr. Le Blanc: *"Theologically speaking, infants who die without baptism are in inferno. It might sound harsh to place them there; nevertheless that is where they are, and there is no reason why we should refrain from using the term when the Councils use it. It should be remembered, however, that inferno is a general term which signifies the state and place of those who will never see the face of God, no matter what be their condition.” “Children’s Limbo, Theory or Doctrine?”, p. 170)

The 1960 theology text, Christ and His Sacraments, speaks of Limbo as follows:

**A 1960 theology text reads: **“Under the name of ‘Abraham’s bosom’ (Luke 16:24), mention is made of a dwelling place of the just who died before the coming of Christ. But the only scriptural justification for a limbo of unbaptized infants and others must be sought in the general teaching of God’s eternal justice. On the other hand, the traditions of the Church, expressed in the writings of the Fathers, pontiffs and great theologians, asserts that there is a place in the next world for the unbaptized wherein they neither see God nor suffer any pain. While there has never been an authoritative declaration positively teaching the existence of limbo, the denial of its existence has been censured, and its existence is held as theologically certain.”

 

[Pug]

---

Look at the heading for CCC 1250–Infant baptism. It is in reference to infants-children who die without baptism. Only thru baptism can they receive the sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation. CCC 403 and 1250 makes this clear.

First, so everyone is on the same page, I am naturally *inclined *with Augustine on this issue, but I have worked to overcome that, so as to be a more acceptable person. I didn’t vote in the poll, because I couldn’t hash out what I believed v. what was my inclination in five seconds or less.

I was trying to say what I personally hear when I read certain verses of the CCC. That is not the same as what I believe or what it really means, of course. I’m glad you pointed the the phrase “sheer gratuitousness” for me. I tend to place that under the idea that obviously the infant has not yet done anything worthy, and it is especially clear because the infant isn’t yet an adult. It is less clear to the common man that an adult hasn’t done anything worthy. It is obvious with an infant that they didn’t do anything, so salvation is especially clearly displayed in the case of infants as a gift and freely bestowed (gratuitously).

But once you highlighted this phrase in a response to me, it made me wonder if you mean gratuitous as in “without any reason or cause” or “arbitrary”. Like, either the parents bother to save him from limbo or they don’t, kind of arbitrary, reasonless thing. Not that being “saved” from limbo as often conceived makes much sense to me upon cursory examination. Now, being saved from the power of Satan, from having an unhealthy soul, otoh…

I don’t understand at all when you refer me to the heading in the CCC. The previous heading is the “baptism of adults”. So “baptism of infants” is just logical next. I don’t see why that heading suggests the death of infants to you. The heading “baptism of adults” doesn’t suggest dead adults to me. The heading further on “the necessity of baptism” is the one that suggests death to me as a likely subtopic.

 

[Struggling]

if there is no consequence for not being baptized, then there is no reason to baptize.

Not true.

Because there may be a consequence for NOT BAPTIZING.

That is to say…the infant won’t lose heaven for not being baptized…

But the party who did not try their hardest to baptize them might.

The punishment would be on the person who had the obligation to baptize (an absolute command)…not necessarily on the party they were to baptize.

If a priest secretly withholds intent when baptizing someone…I doubt the person will be deprived of heaven for this. Rather, it is the priest’s sin.

If parents culpably delay baptism too long and the baby dies…it’s the parents who will be punished. So there is still a grave urgency to baptize, because…not knowing for sure what happens to them…we may presume nothing and will be held culpable for not baptizing AS IF there was no heaven otherwise, regardless of what God himself does extraordinarily…

 

[Struggling]

Futhermore, as I’ve said…it is CLEARLY taught that IF, IF, IF someone dies with only original sin on their soul, but no mortal, they go to a sort of limbo.

BUT, that is not the question.

The real issue is that God might, at the last moments of their life (and they would have to still be alive at that instant), give them grace in an extraordinary way (He certainly is not bound to give sanctifying grace through the sacraments only, though we are). Yes, IF you die with original sin you go to limbo…

But, since the time of Christ, does God really let anyone who hasnt committed mortal sin die with only original sin? Or, seeing as they are passively receptive to grace (just like an infant who is open to water baptism), does he remit the original sin extraordinarily at the last moment of their life? (because IF they died that way, they would go to limbo)

Well…we just don’t know. That’s what makes the means “extraordinary”: they aren’t revealed. As such, we cannot presume them, and are obligated as an absolute necessity to baptize. Any other means are God’s business which He did not reveal so that we could have good HOPE after the death of an unbaptized…but wouldn’t become lazy in the command to baptize or presume their salvation without baptism (even if we hope for it, it is a mortal sin to presume it, seeing as extraordinary means are by their nature non-revealed)

 

[Ron_Conte]

The limbo which is a part of Hell contains no prenatals or infants, or very young children, for all of these are given sanctifying grace at least in the last moment of their lives, from Christ on the Cross.

It remains true that those who die in original sin alone are not saved, and are sent to Hell, but with less punishment than the others.

There is also the limbo of the fathers, which has been described like an upper level of Purgatory. But this place is temporary and all such persons enter Heaven from there.

Past doctrinal pronouncements, and claims about what the Church has or has not definitively taught asided…

God is infinite in mercy and in power, so in his mercy he wills to save all the innocent little souls, and in his power he can and does save them.

The only real question is how, and of course the answer must be a non-formal Baptism.

Ron

 

[jmcrae]

I voted that I don’t know, but the concept behind the theory of limbo is what makes the most sense, to me.

If they go to Heaven (and I am not at all certain of that), it is because there is some means other than baptism (in all its forms) by which people can get to Heaven, but this method has not been revealed to us by God.

The concept that there may be regions of Hell that are qualitatively different from each other - some with great suffering, and other regions like “Limbo” where things are not so bad, is actually a very comforting thought, to me, because I have a relative who died cursing the name of Jesus.

Obviously, she cannot have gone to Heaven, but maybe she can have gone to a region of Hell that is not so bad, after all? Hope springs eternal.

 

[ribozyme]

If they go to Heaven (and I am not at all certain of that), it is because there is some means other than baptism (in all its forms) by which people can get to Heaven, but this method has not been revealed to us by God.

I don’t believe in heaven, limbo, hell, or purgatory, but read this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_desire

Does that answer your question? It attempts to analyze the question from a Catholic perspective

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t believe in heaven, limbo, hell, or purgatory, but read this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_desire

Does that answer your question? It attempts to analyze the question from a Catholic perspective

My understanding of baptism of desire is that there should have been an explicit intention to be baptized, but the person simply didn’t live until the date that had been set for the baptism.

While that would certainly hold true for the children of Christians who practice infant baptism (since there would have been an explicit intention to baptize them), it’s not the case for every child who dies without baptism.

 

[VociMike]

My understanding of baptism of desire is that there should have been an explicit intention to be baptized, but the person simply didn’t live until the date that had been set for the baptism.

That is not how I have seen it expained. I have seen it explained that “if the person had known of the requirement to be baptized, they would have sought to be baptized.”

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

A doctrine is a teaching of the Church. A dogma is a teaching of the Church that has been defined. With that in mind, consider the following quotes regarding Limbo:

In Auctorem Fidei, Pius VI condemned those who reject Limbo: “The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of hell (locum illum inferorum) — usually called by the faithful “Children’s Limbo” — in which the souls of those dying with only original sin are punished by the pain of loss without any pain of fire; — false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools.” Auctorem fidei, August 28, 1794, The Condemned Errors of the Synod of Pistoia, Denzinger, #1526.)

In a 1947 article written by Father Joseph Le Blanc, titled “Children’s Limbo, Theory or Doctrine?”, he summarized the two central points taught in Auctorem Fidei:

Fr. Le Blanc: “(1) There exists a Children’s Limbo, where the souls of children dying with original sin are detained; (2) the doctrine of Limbo as commonly accepted by the faithful, and taught by the schoolmen, is not a Pelagian fable, but an orthodox teaching.”

*Fr. Le Blanc: *"Theologically speaking, infants who die without baptism are in inferno. It might sound harsh to place them there; nevertheless that is where they are, and there is no reason why we should refrain from using the term when the Councils use it. It should be remembered, however, that inferno is a general term which signifies the state and place of those who will never see the face of God, no matter what be their condition.” “Children’s Limbo, Theory or Doctrine?”, p. 170)

The 1960 theology text, Christ and His Sacraments, speaks of Limbo as follows:

**A 1960 theology text reads: **“Under the name of ‘Abraham’s bosom’ (Luke 16:24), mention is made of a dwelling place of the just who died before the coming of Christ. But the only scriptural justification for a limbo of unbaptized infants and others must be sought in the general teaching of God’s eternal justice. On the other hand, the traditions of the Church, expressed in the writings of the Fathers, pontiffs and great theologians, asserts that there is a place in the next world for the unbaptized wherein they neither see God nor suffer any pain. While there has never been an authoritative declaration positively teaching the existence of limbo, the denial of its existence has been censured, and its existence is held as theologically certain.”

Marine Corps, Father Le Blanc’s article and the 1960 theology text aren’t Magisterial pronouncements, but they don’t even say that limbo (whose existence I defend!) is a doctrine of the Catholic Faith. All they’re saying is that Catholics may believe in limbo, because it’s orthodox and not heretical (Le Blanc), and because it’s a certain conclusion based on dogmas and reason (1960 textbook).

The only Magisterial pronouncement that you cite–Pope Pius VI’s 1794 condemnation of a teaching of the Synod of Pistoia (DS 2626/old Denzinger number 1526)–means only that the synod was wrong falsely to accuse believers in limbo of accepting a “Pelagian” (i.e., heretical) fantasy. Pope Pius VI did not actually say that all Catholics have to believe that limbo exists because it’s a doctrine of the Catholic Faith. He merely taught that the concept of limbo is not heretical. His sole purpose was to make clear that we *may *believe in limbo (as yours truly does), and that we do *not *have to agree with St. Augustine that unbaptized babies suffer some kind of pains in hell.

We must interpret the sometimes complex and subtle documents of the Magisterium with extreme care, and under the Magisterium’s own guidance. We must not make these documents say more than they actually do, or something other than what the Magisterium actually teaches. Otherwise, we may get into serious trouble, and then even the Marine Corps may not be able to rescue us.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Here’s a question: is Limbo a dogma/doctrine which we are obliged to recieve and submit to de fide or is it a theological opinion, as has been suggested (I think I remember the current Pope, no slouch theologically, be quoted as saying that it was an opinion, but I can’t be certain, so no, I cannot provide a citation)?

If it’s the former, I can submit to it by simply submitting, but I’m not going to buck the wisdom of the Church. If it’s the latter, I still have to say that God knows where the babies go and they aren’t going to go anywhere that He doesn’t want them to go (and I don’t understand why I can’t say that in regard to the former, as God SURELY does know where they go and they surely WON’T go where He doesn’t want them).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Marine Corps, Father Le Blanc’s article and the 1960 theology text aren’t Magisterial pronouncements, but they don’t even say that limbo (whose existence I defend!) is a doctrine of the Catholic Faith. All they’re saying is that Catholics may believe in limbo, because it’s orthodox and not heretical (Le Blanc), and because it’s a certain conclusion based on dogmas and reason (1960 textbook).

How can something be orthodox if it isn’t objectively true?

 

[jmcrae]

That is not how I have seen it expained. I have seen it explained that “if the person had known of the requirement to be baptized, they would have sought to be baptized.”

I’ve heard this in the context of speculation about what happens to those who have never heard of Jesus Christ, but afaik, it isn’t how the Church actually defines baptism of desire.

Also, even if this is so, we can’t know which of the people, having died without hearing the Gospel, would have chosen to accept it or to have been baptized had they received the opportunity, so it still doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know - ie: that we still don’t know the fate of those who never had any opportunity to hear the Gospel.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

How can something be orthodox if it isn’t objectively true?

Even if something isn’t objectively true, it can still be orthodox, i.e., not in direct conflict with any Catholic dogma. For example, it would not contradict any Catholic dogma to say that a race of human beings existed on earth and died out before Adam and Eve. This opinion concerning the “pre-Adamites” is orthodox in the sense of being compatible with the Faith, but this mere compatibility with the Faith does not make this idea true.

Keep and spread the Faith.