Infants' Limbo

[Thoughtfulone]

2 schools of thought exist on the nature of the infants’ Limbo: 1.) The Augustinian view that unbaptized infants are actually punished for eternity 2.) St. Thomas’s view that they are in a state of perfect natural happiness, but do not partake in the beatific vision.

Most theologians agree with St. Thomas, however, the Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about it:

“It is clear that Bellarmine found the situation embarrassing, being unwilling, as he was, to admit that St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide, and what the Council of Florence seemed to have taught definitively”

Now, if something is de fide and taught definitively at an ecumenical council, isn’t it generally thought to be infallible?

Of course, I do not believe that unbaptized babies are tormented…I personally wonder if they will be permitted the beatific vision, but how do we resolve the above conflict?

And do any theologians believe that unbaptized infants are accorded the beatific vision?

 

[Barbkw]

Upon our death, our souls return to God.

IMO, baptism of children is 10% for the child and 90% for the parents, the godparents and for the Church body.

The Rite of Baptism is a renewal of personal spiritual conviction against Evil, armor for the ensuing lifelong battle.

 

[Waiting]

We know that everyone has a final chance at the moment of death to repent. Our Lord told that to St. Gertrude. That should include unbaptized babies, who are not responsible for the original sin on their soul. The baby may be unable to feel sorrow for sin, but the baby’s soul is fully capable of accepting our Lord when He comes, and being totally innocent of any personal sin, would surely do so.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I agree with the above poster, but this seems to be in conflict with Church teaching, right? Would the Church teaching on this matter be considered to be infallible, or not? If it was considered de fide and defined by ecumenical council, does St. Thomas’opinion conflict with what is supposed to be an infallible teaching? IMO, they are both wrong…I cannot imagine that an aborted baby would be deprived of the beatific vision.

In other words, when all the bishops get together in an ecumenical council, they are supposed to be infallible. If they affirmed Augustine’s view during that council, wouldn’t that be a supposedly infallible teaching, that babies who are not baptized are actually PUNISHED? Does anyone know what the council actually said on the matter?

 

[manualman]

The concept of infallibility itself took time to recognize and define. No wonder that it ALSO took time to discern and define what ideas fell where. You’ve produced a secondary source. Got any primary sources in which a “damnation limbo” model was taught in a manner that would qualify as either ordinary or extraordinary infallible magisterial teaching?

 

[Waiting]

The concept of infallibility itself took time to recognize and define. No wonder that it ALSO took time to discern and define what ideas fell where. You’ve produced a secondary source. Got any primary sources in which a “damnation limbo” model was taught in a manner that would qualify as either ordinary or extraordinary infallible magisterial teaching?

I don’t believe that this subject falls under the concept of infalliblity. My nephew is a priest, and when I spoke to him of this, he said he’d been teaching the same thing as I’d described. He is very orthdox. If there were an infallible teaching on this subject, my nephew would have said so. Also, I’ve read comments from priests in advice columns that simply say that God is merciful, and unbaptized babies are left by the Church to the mercy of God. That makes sense. Certainly a just and merciful God would not punish anyone who wasn’t guilty of personal sin. As a child, many years ago, the nuns taught that those in limbo would not see God, but would be happy in a natural state. As the Church hasn’t made a definitive call on this, to my knowledge, I prefer to believe that a merciful God would give the infant the same choice as anyone else at the moment of death, and that innocent soul would of course choose a loving God. Remember, the soul was made to be with God. This would be a form of Baptism of desire.

 

[thistle]

I agree with the above poster, but this seems to be in conflict with Church teaching, right? Would the Church teaching on this matter be considered to be infallible, or not? If it was considered de fide and defined by ecumenical council, does St. Thomas’opinion conflict with what is supposed to be an infallible teaching? IMO, they are both wrong…I cannot imagine that an aborted baby would be deprived of the beatific vision.

In other words, when all the bishops get together in an ecumenical council, they are supposed to be infallible. If they affirmed Augustine’s view during that council, wouldn’t that be a supposedly infallible teaching, that babies who are not baptized are actually PUNISHED? Does anyone know what the council actually said on the matter?

Limbo for infants has NEVER been a Church teaching. It has only ever been a theological hypothesis.
Catholics are and have always been free to believe in Limbo or not.

 

[Bookcat]

2 schools of thought exist on the nature of the infants’ Limbo: 1.) The Augustinian view that unbaptized infants are actually punished for eternity 2.) St. Thomas’s view that they are in a state of perfect natural happiness, but do not partake in the beatific vision.

Most theologians agree with St. Thomas, however, the Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about it:

“It is clear that Bellarmine found the situation embarrassing, being unwilling, as he was, to admit that St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide, and what the Council of Florence seemed to have taught definitively”

Now, if something is de fide and taught definitively at an ecumenical council, isn’t it generally thought to be infallible?

Of course, I do not believe that unbaptized babies are tormented…I personally wonder if they will be permitted the beatific vision, but how do we resolve the above conflict?

And do any theologians believe that unbaptized infants are accorded the beatific vision?

In addition to the Catechism (which is from the Church per se…where we entrust unbaptized infants to the mercy of God)

Here you go: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

It is from the International Theological Commission that Pope Benedict XVI asked to study the question of infants dying without Baptism in depth…

 

[Bookcat]

I agree with the above poster, but this seems to be in conflict with Church teaching, right? Would the Church teaching on this matter be considered to be infallible, or not? If it was considered de fide and defined by ecumenical council, does St. Thomas’opinion conflict with what is supposed to be an infallible teaching? IMO, they are both wrong…I cannot imagine that an aborted baby would be deprived of the beatific vision.

In other words, when all the bishops get together in an ecumenical council, they are supposed to be infallible. If they affirmed Augustine’s view during that council, wouldn’t that be a supposedly infallible teaching, that babies who are not baptized are actually PUNISHED? Does anyone know what the council actually said on the matter?

Limbo is “one” of the theories that was developed in reasoning about the question of unbaptized infants.

One could still hold it of course…But there are others!!

We entrust them to the Mercy of God …

This is what is in the CCC

Catechism:

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.

 

[roveau]

Limbo isn’t and wasn’t an official doctrine of the Catholic Church. However, it was taught, and as others here, in my youth we were taught that unbaptised infants went to Limbo and would be perfectly happy there but would not see God, however the Blessed Virgin would visit them.

Limbo wasn’t officially abandoned by the Church after Vatican II, contrary to popular belief. But it is no longer taught by the Church either, as the above quote from the CCC shows.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

The concept of infallibility itself took time to recognize and define. No wonder that it ALSO took time to discern and define what ideas fell where. You’ve produced a secondary source. Got any primary sources in which a “damnation limbo” model was taught in a manner that would qualify as either ordinary or extraordinary infallible magisterial teaching?

Looks like it hasn’t been infallibly defined:

On April 22, 2007, the advisory body known as the International Theological Commission released a document, originally commissioned by Pope John Paul II, entitled “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized.”[23]

The document explicitly states that “the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis”
So limbo remains possible, but we can still hope for the best )

 

[shanne]

Cheap NFL jerseys obviously don’t cost a lot and there are a few reasons for this: • Low manufacturing costs • Low quality materials used.In this way distributors making bulk purchases of jerseys for resale in their store are able to give a better deal to the football fans, sale mlb jerseys, creating a larger customer C.J. Spiller Jersey base. nfl women jerseys ,So the difference between a cheap NFL Authentic jersey and an authentic NFL jersey is simply that there are no official licenses held by the manufacturers or the distributor concerned and that royalties are not being paid to NFL for the use of their teams names, nfl youth jerseys, logo and colors. cheap nhl jerseys , Getting cheap NFL jerseys is a matter of finding the right supplier by doing sufficient research.There are many kinds of cheap NFL jerseys.This is also justified by the large turnover in cheap NFL football jerseys in retail stores.The reduction in costs are favorable Jim Kelly Jersey to them where quality has been compromised in small items that would inevitably be replaced at a later stage. sale nfl jerseys , When a manufacturer is purchasing hundreds and hundreds of buttons, cheap nba jerseys ,for example, it works out very well for them to use a poorer quality button at half the price.
With their being so many teams it is vital to offer a variety of the teams to your customers. ,Buying in bulk Not only do manufacturers buy in bulk when making the NFL football jerseys and cheap NFL throwback jerseys, but also when they sell Larry Fitzgerald Jersey them in bulk to distributors, they are able to give a good price which suits their customers. reebok nfl jerseys ,Quality of materials Lower quality materials, even cottons and buttons can affect the price of cheap NFL jerseys.Buy a cheap jersey through internet marketing. cheap nhl jerseys ,NFL jerseys are in great demand in the US with many fans giving their support of all the National Football Teams of the NFL.Bulk buy • Authentic vs authenticity Manufacturing costs When locating a supplier you will find that many are based in China where the manufacturing costs are far less than in western countries.Wearing these jerseys is not only a way to show support uring a match but Adrian Wilson Jersey also part of everyday life for many active football fans, who wish to how who they support. wholesale nfl jerseys ,Cheap NFL Authentic Jerseys Authentic NFL jerseys are cheap because they do not need to go through the licensing and payment of royalties to the NFL Football League and their teams.Since licenses and royalties account for a great percentage of the cost of the actual jersey many distributors and manufacturers try to skip this process as buying fabrics and other materials at increasingly better Marion Barber Jersey prices is becoming difficult.These are often found to be preferable to buyers from the US.Of course the result is a less durable but cheap NFL football jersey.

 

[Bookcat]

Looks like it hasn’t been infallibly defined:

On April 22, 2007, the advisory body known as the International Theological Commission released a document, originally commissioned by Pope John Paul II, entitled “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized.”[23]

The document explicitly states that “the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis”
So limbo remains possible, but we can still hope for the best )

Right. It is one theory. Never a de fide teaching …never infallible…

…one theory …

One that is not even mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church…which rather seems to point more to the hope…

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Council of Florence taught that anyone who dies in either actual mortal sin, or in original sin only, are sent to Hell, but with unequal pains.

"But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.” (Florence, Session 6, July 6th, 1439).

From this assertion, some persons draw the conclusion that unbaptized infants die in a state of original sin. But this conclusion is not nessarily implied. It may be that God provides a mystical Baptism (a non-formal Baptism, i.e. without water and words) so that prenatals, infants, and young children who die without formal Baptism do not die in a state of original sin. In this case, they would be saved and would spend eternity in Heaven.

No human person is saved without some form of Baptism.

Pope Paul VI, in Auctorem Fidei, n. 26, taught that a limbo of Hell exists, that is, a part of Hell where the damned are punished with lesser pains, because they died only in a state of original sin, but without any additional actual mortal sins on their conscience. He stated that the faithful call this place the limbo of the infants, but he did not state that infants are sent there.
catholicresearch.org/Decrees/AuctoremFidei.html

It is a teaching of the Church that Hell has greater and lesser punishments, and the expression limbo is used to refer to the least punishments of Hell (for those who die in original sin only). Limbo means ‘fringe’, so limbo is a fringe of some place.

There is also the limbo of the Fathers, which is a fringe of Purgatory, and which was taught by Pope Benedict XII in On the Beatific Vision of God.

Limbo as a third final destination was never taught infallibly by the Church, though it may be argued that it was once taught under the non-infallible ordinary Magisterium.