Heaven or Limbo?

[Steve_O_Brien]

The idea of Limbo as a separate third place was condemned by Pius VI. So it is therefore not a logical and solid deduction. On what basis do you believe and teach an idea condemned as ‘false, rash, and erroneous’ by a Pope?

In my theological opinion, all unbaptized prenatals and infants, who die prior to the age of reason, necessarily go to Heaven because they have committed no actual mortal sin. Ron

On the contrary, Pope Pius VI did ***not ***condemn the deduction known as limbo. What he condemned in 1794 was the Jansenist accusation that the limbo of St. Thomas Aquinas is a “Pelagian fable.”

Pius VI implicitly upheld the right of St. Thomas and other Catholics to believe in limbo as a state of unending natural happiness for those dying in original sin only. This happiness is consistent with the punishment of being deprived of the beatific vision. I respectfully urge anyone interested in what Pius VI actually taught to check out his words in Denzinger.

Please see this article published by Catholics United for the Faith: “What Does the Church Teach About Limbo?” Here is the link:

cuf.org/news/newsdetail.asp?newID=143

The opinion that all infants dying without Baptism attain heaven leads to the following absurd conclusion: it is better to be aborted than to be born.

In this unfounded scenario, beng aborted infallibly guarantees salvation, whereas being born involves the risk of not being saved. Anyone who escapes abortion and is born may reach the age for mortal sin, commit it, die in it unrepentant, and be sent to hell for all eternity.

Again, Pope Pius XII taught on October 29, 1951, that baptism of desire is not open to infants. Are we to say that he didn’t know what he was talking about?

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Pope Pius VI and the Council of Florence both taught that those who die with original sin on their souls go to a place in Hell, with lesser sufferings than those who died with a mortal sin of commission on their souls. This is sometimes called (a version of) limbo. Persons who die in a state of original sin go to Hell, according to the teaching of the Church.

The Church also teaches, in Evangelium Vitae (which is cited by the Catechism) that prenatals who die without a formal Baptism may go to Heaven. [But you are saying that they may not.] And though the theology as to how this occurs is speculative, the power and limitless of God’s Mercy is not a speculation.

So how can we reconcile these two teachings? Very simply. Prenatals and infants who die at that young age, and without a formal Baptism, must be given a non-formal Baptism by God. Therefore, they do not die with original sin on their souls.

Now if this non-formal Baptism cannot be categorized as a Baptism of blood or of desire, then there must be a third category of non-formal Baptism. The Church has never taught that non-formal Baptism is limited solely to blood and desire.

To hold otherwise is to hold that there is a contradiction in Church teaching.

Ron Conte

Might God have a way to save them? I hope so.

 

[mosher]

Limbo is NOT a Church doctrine and never has been.
Show me in the CCC where it teaches we must believe in Limbo.
Bosom of Abraham for example is not Limbo.

You know as well as I the the Catechism does not do into that kind of detail. As I stated above the statement made about “trusting in the mercy of God” does not exclude the traditional view of Limbo.

Also, it has been documented here where the Church in official forms has proposed for belief certain aspects about Limbo and the rejection of other ideas. I think that it would be fair in the conversation to present where the Church has in council or papal document denied the existence of Limbo.

 

[ribozyme]

The opinion that all infants dying without Baptism attain heaven leads to the following absurd conclusion: it is better to be aborted than to be born.

If God is benevolent, it is not an absurd conclusion.

 

[mosher]

If God is benevolent, it is not an absurd conclusion.

Only if one contends that the nature of benevolence necessitates a lack of suffering.

 

[ribozyme]

Only if one contends that the nature of benevolence necessitates a lack of suffering.

I would agree with that requirement of benevolence.

 

[Genesis315]

No, it would not be heretical, but quite Catholic, to say that God does create billions of human beings who will be excluded from heaven no matter what. Otherwise we’d have to say that Pope Innocent III was a heretic, for he taught in 1201 that the punishment for dying in original sin only is deprivation of the beatific vision (old Denzinger number 410).

I’m not arguing that those who die in original sin are deprived of the beatific vision. But Scripture testifies that God desires all men to be saved. To say a miscarried child or a mezoamerican from the first millenium has no shot at salvation would contradict Scripture. If God desires all men to be saved, why create a man who would never be saved–that would mean He didn’t desire all men to be saved. Of course, a mezoamerican who would have committed no mortal sins, but who also never responded to the Spirit and had no implicit desire would be a neutral soul but for original sin. That person would surely descend into Hell.

There is also the dogma that God can grant sanctifying grace outside water Baptism. In fact, He has done it to infants or pre-borns as well (see Jeremiah and John the Baptist). So the precedence is there for Him to cleanse infants or pre-born of original sin without water Baptism.

Yes, it is a dogma that one in original sin descends into Hell–BUT there is nothing that says an infant or pre-born NECESSARILY remains in the state of original sin when he has no opportunity for Baptism through any fault of his own.

I don’t think we can say for certain where any individual ends up. To say “this specific individual is definitely in Hell” is to condemn–an act Jesus says leads to our own condemnation.

 

[thistle]

You know as well as I the the Catechism does not do into that kind of detail. As I stated above the statement made about “trusting in the mercy of God” does not exclude the traditional view of Limbo.

Also, it has been documented here where the Church in official forms has proposed for belief certain aspects about Limbo and the rejection of other ideas. I think that it would be fair in the conversation to present where the Church has in council or papal document denied the existence of Limbo.

I’m not saying in the past a Cardinal, Bishop, or Priest may said something about Limbo according to his own views, which they and we can choose to accept or not.
What I am saying is that Limbo is not and never has been a Church doctrine.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I’m not saying in the past a Cardinal, Bishop, or Priest may have said something about Limbo according to his own views, which they and we can choose to accept or not.
What I am saying is that Limbo is not and never has been a Church doctrine.

It was a Pope–not merely a cardinal or a bishop–who said something quite authoritative about limbo, which is a state of unending, unmerited natural happiness for those who die in original sin only. In 1794, Pope Pius VI taught that it is wrong to call limbo a fable (in the constitution Auctorem fidei; old Denzinger number 1526).

While it is true that the deduction known as limbo is not a Catholic dogma, it is wrong to think that this deduction can be “abolished” from Catholic theology. On the contrary, limbo is necessary for the defense of a teaching that definitely is a dogma: the dogma of original sin, which, according to the new catechism, is “an essential truth of the faith” (*CCC *388). Accordingly, limbo is also necessary for making sense of the Church’s urgent insistence on infant Baptism. Neither original sin nor infant Baptism can be “abolished.”

As a Catholic, you cannot say that unbaptized infants achieve the remission of original sin and acquire sanctifying grace through baptism of desire (which Mr. Conte calls “mystical baptism”), for Pope Pius XII taught on October 29, 1951, in his *Allocution to Midwives *that baptism of desire is impossible for infants. Moreover, to say that all unbaptized infants attain the beatific vision with no risk at all yields the absurd conclusion that it is better for the victim of abortion to be aborted than to be born with the risk of later sinning mortally and going to hell. The Catholic Church *cannot *say anything that will promote the murder of unborn children.

As a Catholic, you may say, together with St. Augustine (at least at some point in his life), that unbaptized infants go to the same hell as those dying in mortal sin, but that they suffer the mildest of all punishments there. The Church has never condemned this solution, but it seems to conflict with God’s love and mercy, because it involves a positive punishment in a case where there is only a state of original sin, but no actual, or committed, sin.

What about God’s universal salvific will? Limbo is in accord with this truth, because limbo, in addition to being a kind of damnation (loss of the beatific vision), is, simultaneously and paradoxically, a kind of salvation. The unbaptized infant is saved from what Our Lord called the “fire” of hell. Isn’t this a form of salvation? Wouldn’t you rather be in limbo than in hell?

Please remember: God, in strict justice, doesn’t have to give *anyone *either heaven or limbo. But we have to go further and say that he doesn’t even have to give anyone mere existence. Both salvation and mere existence are stupendous gifts, not entitlements.

In the light of the above reasoning, limbo makes tremendous sense to me.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Punishment of Those Who Die with Original Sin Only
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 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,—false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.
(Auctorem Fidei, Pope Pius VI)

Two ideas about limbo are mentioned in the above quote.

1. Limbo as a fringe of Hell

This is where 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 remain forever.

Pope Pius VI teaches that any doctrine which rejects this idea is false. The Church often teaches a truth by condemning its opposite. Here the Pope is using the ordinary Magisterium to teach that the souls who die in original sin go to an upper level of Hell, with less punishment than the other denizens of Hell.

Therefore, the Church has taught limbo as a doctrine (but not a dogma).

1. Limbo as a third final destination

“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”

The “middle place” which is “free from guilt” is Limbo as a third final destination, between Heaven and Hell. This idea is rejected by the Pope, since he calls it not merely idle talk, but idle talk by the Pelagian heretics.

Therefore, Limbo as a third final resting place has been rejected by the ordinary Magisterium, but the limbo as a fringe of Hell has been taught by the Ordinary Magisterium.

Ron

 

[thistle]

The Punishment of Those Who Die with Original Sin Only
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 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,—false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.
(Auctorem Fidei, Pope Pius VI)

Two ideas about limbo are mentioned in the above quote.

1. Limbo as a fringe of Hell

This is where 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 remain forever.

Pope Pius VI teaches that any doctrine which rejects this idea is false. The Church often teaches a truth by condemning its opposite. Here the Pope is using the ordinary Magisterium to teach that the souls who die in original sin go to an upper level of Hell, with less punishment than the other denizens of Hell.

Therefore, the Church has taught limbo as a doctrine (but not a dogma).

1. Limbo as a third final destination

“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”

The “middle place” which is “free from guilt” is Limbo as a third final destination, between Heaven and Hell. This idea is rejected by the Pope, since he calls it not merely idle talk, but idle talk by the Pelagian heretics.

Therefore, Limbo as a third final resting place has been rejected by the ordinary Magisterium, but the limbo as a fringe of Hell has been taught by the Ordinary Magisterium.

Ron

I’m sorry but you are wrong. Limbo has NEVER been a doctrine we have been obliged to believe. Limbo has only ever been theological speculation and something we are free to believe in or not.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

The Punishment of Those Who Die with Original Sin Only
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 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,—false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.
(Auctorem Fidei, Pope Pius VI)

Two ideas about limbo are mentioned in the above quote.

1. Limbo as a fringe of Hell

This is where 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 remain forever.

Pope Pius VI teaches that any doctrine which rejects this idea is false. The Church often teaches a truth by condemning its opposite. Here the Pope is using the ordinary Magisterium to teach that the souls who die in original sin go to an upper level of Hell, with less punishment than the other denizens of Hell.

Therefore, the Church has taught limbo as a doctrine (but not a dogma).

1. Limbo as a third final destination

“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”

The “middle place” which is “free from guilt” is Limbo as a third final destination, between Heaven and Hell. This idea is rejected by the Pope, since he calls it not merely idle talk, but idle talk by the Pelagian heretics.

Therefore, Limbo as a third final resting place has been rejected by the ordinary Magisterium, but the limbo as a fringe of Hell has been taught by the Ordinary Magisterium.

Ron

Let’s avoid confusing people by using misleading terminology. We should bear in mind Pope Pius XII’s statement that the Church has not always been constant in using the same terms (1950 encyclical Humani generis; old Denzinger number 2311). The Church can change her terminology without changing Catholic teaching.

It’s not a good idea to call limbo “a fringe of hell.” Our contemporaries cannot easily reconcile unending natural happiness with the word “hell.” It’s much better to emphasize that limbo is a state of eternal happiness, even a kind of salvation, for those who die in original sin only. By noting that those in limbo are still burdened with original sin, and that they are being punished for this state of unremitted sin by being deprived of the beatific vision, we have preserved Catholic dogma and avoided heresy.

I believe that the above position is supported by the mention of a “hope” for “a way of salvation” for unbaptized infants in *CCC *1261, and that the above reasoning enables us to reconcile CCC 1261 with Pope Pius VI’s teaching on limbo.

I don’t understand why any Catholic would deny that limbo is “a third final destination.” By no means did Pope Pius VI deny that limbo, properly understood, is an eternal destiny for some human beings. The natural happiness in limbo is unending; therefore, limbo is a final destination for those whose salvation is not heaven.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I’m sorry but you are wrong. Limbo has NEVER been a doctrine we have been obliged to believe. Limbo has only ever been theological speculation and something we are free to believe in or not.

What we are *not *free to believe is the claim that all unbaptized infants attain the beatific vision in heaven.

This claim conflicts with the Catholic dogma that the souls of those dying in original sin only are punished in some manner in the next world. As Pope Innocent III taught in 1201, this punishment is deprivation of the beatific vision.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[thistle]

What we are *not *free to believe is the claim that all unbaptized infants attain the beatific vision in heaven.

This claim conflicts with the Catholic dogma that the souls of those dying in original sin only are punished in some manner in the next world. As Pope Innocent III taught in 1201, this punishment is deprivation of the beatific vision.

Keep and spread the Faith.

You are correct. My point is that Limbo has never been doctrine and we have never been obliged to believe it.

 

[namguy69]

I thank everyone for their (name removed by moderator)ut, i appreciate all…

 

[CALDE]

Hi,
That one is deprived of “the beatific vision” has not been defined as for how long. In the end there will only be Heaven. God’s mercy is infinite and His logic is not ours as well as His concept of justice. All those who died before Christ and those who die today but have not had the opportunity of being Baptized but have done the will of the Father will at the end of time have this “vision” and be with Him through Christ’s divine mercy.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Hi,
That one is deprived of “the beatific vision” has not been defined as for how long. In the end there will only be Heaven. God’s mercy is infinite and His logic is not ours as well as His concept of justice. All those who died before Christ and those who die today but have not had the opportunity of being Baptized but have done the will of the Father will at the end of time have this “vision” and be with Him through Christ’s divine mercy.

An infant cannot “do the will of the Father.” As Pope Pius XII taught on October 29, 1951, this is the reason why baptism of desire is not open to infants.

Catholics should not believe in theological hypotheses that have no solid foundation in Catholic tradition, that cannot be reconciled with Catholic dogmas, or that make it seem as if God cannot make up his mind about the destiny of the different classes of human beings.

If unbaptized infants’ being deprived of the beatific vision isn’t permanent, then it’s extremely difficult to understand all the urgency surrounding infant Baptism. The deduction known as limbo, however, is perfectly consistent with infant Baptism, for the baby will lose something priceless–the supernatural happiness of heaven–if he or she isn’t baptized before leaving this world.

Still, even the unbaptized infant attains unmerited, and uninterrupted, happiness, not via the beatific vision, but instead through natural knowledge and love of God in limbo. Accordingly, limbo is also perfectly consistent with the truth that God is infinite generosity and kindness.

The danger that infants will die without Baptism is a tremendous incentive for us Catholics to be zealous in spreading the one true Faith and Baptism throughout the world. The false contention that Baptism isn’t necessary for infants to reach heaven jeopardizes the spread of the Faith. Why would God do anything to impede the spread of the true religion?

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[CALDE]

Catholics should not believe in theological hypotheses that have no solid foundation in Catholic tradition, that cannot be reconciled with Catholic dogmas, or that make it seem as if God cannot make up his mind about the destiny of the different classes of human beings.

Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit to enlighten us. We are still being enlightened. It took 1964 years for Vatican II and we still are studying it ,and after over forty years we still haven’t imnplemented more than half of it. It would seem that WE haven’t understood or haven’t made up our minds, not God.

If unbaptized infants’ being deprived of the beatific vision isn’t permanent, then it’s extremely difficult to understand all the urgency surrounding infant Baptism.

The urgency is that they need to be forgiven the Original Sin. They need to be made children of God and heirs of the Kingdom. They need to receive the Santifying Grace that will strenghten them as Christians. They need to receive the gift of Faith. The urgency is that we must give our children what we know is good for them as soon as we can, so that, they can grow healthy in body and soul. What is the urgency? We meet their bodily needs as soon as they’re born why not their spiritual needs also?

The danger that infants will die without Baptism is a tremendous incentive for us Catholics to be zealous in spreading the one true Faith and Baptism throughout the world. The false contention that Baptism isn’t necessary for infants to reach heaven jeopardizes the spread of the Faith.

Our incentive should be doing the will of our Father. Doing what Jesus commanded us to do, “Go and make disciples of everyone, baptize them In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Mt 28,19-20)
Our incentive should be our entry into Heaven by using the Talents that we were given and multiplying them in the spead of the Kingdom on earth. By serving our brothers and by being last so that we’ll be first.

Why would God do anything to impede the spread of the true religion?

He wouldn’t!!! His plan is perfect!!! We just need more time to understand it. Maybe we never will, but is that important?

 

[Jasny]

Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit to enlighten us. We are still being enlightened. It took 1964 years for Vatican II and we still are studying it ,and after over forty years we still haven’t imnplemented more than half of it. It would seem that WE haven’t understood or haven’t made up our minds, not God.

The urgency is that they need to be forgiven the Original Sin. They need to be made children of God and heirs of the Kingdom. They need to receive the Santifying Grace that will strenghten them as Christians. They need to receive the gift of Faith. The urgency is that we must give our children what we know is good for them as soon as we can, so that, they can grow healthy in body and soul. What is the urgency? We meet their bodily needs as soon as they’re born why not their spiritual needs also?

Our incentive should be doing the will of our Father. Doing what Jesus commanded us to do, “Go and make disciples of everyone, baptize them In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Mt 28,19-20)
Our incentive should be our entry into Heaven by using the Talents that we were given and multiplying them in the spead of the Kingdom on earth. By serving our brothers and by being last so that we’ll be first.

He wouldn’t!!! His plan is perfect!!! We just need more time to understand it. Maybe we never will, but is that important?

Could you back up your posion with the Church documents and history of baptism of infants without the sacrament in the womb?

What hasn’t been implemented from Vat II?

 

[thistle]

Hi,
That one is deprived of “the beatific vision” has not been defined as for how long. In the end there will only be Heaven. God’s mercy is infinite and His logic is not ours as well as His concept of justice. All those who died before Christ and those who die today but have not had the opportunity of being Baptized but have done the will of the Father will at the end of time have this “vision” and be with Him through Christ’s divine mercy.

Actually at the end of time there will be Heaven and Hell, not just Heaven.