isn't limbo or hell for infants, irrevocable doctrine?

[linate]

aren’t the traditionalist catholics correct?
isn’t it a cop out to say that God can do anything he wants, and that while he has bound us to the sacraments, he is himself not bound? and that we may hope for infant salvation without baptism?
using that reasoning, anything taught as dogma could be exempted by merely saying “X only… but God can do anything he wants, so Y perhaps too”.

"Some Traditionalist Catholics deny that salvation is (or may be) possible for non-baptized infants and maintain that the existence of a Limbo of Infants is certain, claiming that any other view would contradict the Church’s teachings on faith and morals. They say that the medieval Church statements indicate that no person could possibly be saved unless baptized, and that this was the meaning intended by the Popes of the time, whom they contend made no “lenient statements” on the matter.

Some traditionalists believe their understanding of the original doctrine to be correct and that, if the Church were now to teach that the salvation of infants outside baptism is possible, it would contradict its earlier teaching, and would violate the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility. Some sedevacantists hold that current teachings have in fact defected from the Church’s infallible teaching, and that what is today generally recognized as the Catholic Church is a counterfeit, which therefore is not infallible.

As evidence, traditionalists demonstrate that popes have taught the following concerning infants, hell, and limbo:

Decree for the Jacobites at the Council of Florence in 1442: “There is no other way to come to the aid [of little children] than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God”.

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: We define also that the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds. (Denz. 464)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Letentur coeli, Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: We define also that the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds. (Denz. 693)

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this. - Condemned

Pope St. Innocent I, in 417, Synod of Milevis : “The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life even without the grace of baptism is utterly foolish” (DS 219).

Pope Innocent III asserted that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer “no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God” (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii—Majores). (Denzinger 410)

The provincial Council of Cologne: “Faith teaches us that infants, since they are not capable of this desire (Baptism of Desire), are excluded from the kingdom of heaven if they die [unbaptized].” (Collectio Lacensis, V. 320)

Pope Gregory the Great (-604) taught the eternal torment of infants in his Moralia on the Book of Job. “For there be some that are withdrawn from the present light, before they attain to shew forth the good or evil deserts of an active life. And whereas the Sacraments of salvation do not free them from the sin of their birth, at the same time that here they never did aright by their own act; there they are brought to torment. And these have one wound, viz. to be born in corruption, and another, to die in the flesh. … As if reviewing the woes of mankind he said in plain words; With what sort of visitation does the strict Judge mercilessly slay those, whom the guilt of their own deeds condemns, if He smites for all eternity even those, whom the guilt of deliberate choice does not impeach?” (Moralia 9)

Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic. But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism. (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: In my Fathers house there are many mansions [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left" (Denz. 102, authentic addition to canon 2.)

St. Augustine, A.D. 415: Anyone who would say that infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ. (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

 

[linate]

St Aquinis, Summa Theologica Question 68, Article 3 "I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism. On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people.”

Pope Sixtus V, Effraenatam, Oct. 29, 1588: “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, and has taken away the service to God by His creature?”

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: 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 the 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. Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1526)

Pius XII-Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951. “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.”

Faithful Catholics maintain that, as stated by the current catechism, “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments”. Critics view this as a cop out to the expressed intention of past papal teachings.[citation needed] Some traditionalists who prefer the view that infants go to hell, point out that Catechisms, that might teach salvation without baptism is possible, are not in themselves infallible. Catechisms are only infallible insofar as they represent outside infallible teachings. This means the catechisms teaching Limbo and current catechisms offering hope for eternal life, are not necessarily infallible. Traditionalists argue the only remaining infallible teachings of popes are those that indicate that unbaptized infants go to hell, while opponents of the Church assert that contradiction has occurred. Some accept the teaching of Limbo, but only understood as a place within, or similar to, hell.

 

[Gorgias]

isn’t it a cop out to say that God can do anything he wants, and that while he has bound us to the sacraments, he is himself not bound?

Oh, goodness – not only is it not a cop-out, it’s Scripturally sound that God isn’t personally bound by the requirements placed on us! “At this time, Jesus was walking through the corn-fields on the sabbath day. And his disciples, who were hungry, fell to plucking the ears of corn and eating them. The Pharisees saw this, and said to him, Look, thy disciples are doing a thing which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath. Whereupon he said to them, Have you never read of what David did, when he and his followers were hungry?How he went into the tabernacle, and ate the loaves set out there before God, although neither he nor his followers, nor anyone else except the priests had a right to eat them? Or again, have you not read in the law that the priests violate the sabbath rest in the temple, and none blames them? And I tell you there is one standing here who is greater than the temple. If you had found out what the words mean, It is mercy, not sacrifice, that wins favour with me, you would not have passed judgement on the guiltless. The Son of Man has even the sabbath at his disposal.” (Mt 12:1-8; emphasis mine.)

In the Latin for Mt 12:8, we have “dominus enim est Filius hominis etiam sabbati” – the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath! So, if Jesus is not bound by the sabbath (with respect to his apostles), then God is certainly not bound by the sacraments with respect to us! Those who claim otherwise worship a God who is not all-powerful and all-loving, but rather, all-encumbered and all-indifferent!

 

[ellzeena]

Oh, goodness – not only is it not a cop-out, it’s Scripturally sound that God isn’t personally bound by the requirements placed on us! “At this time, Jesus was walking through the corn-fields on the sabbath day. And his disciples, who were hungry, fell to plucking the ears of corn and eating them. The Pharisees saw this, and said to him, Look, thy disciples are doing a thing which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath. Whereupon he said to them, Have you never read of what David did, when he and his followers were hungry?How he went into the tabernacle, and ate the loaves set out there before God, although neither he nor his followers, nor anyone else except the priests had a right to eat them? Or again, have you not read in the law that the priests violate the sabbath rest in the temple, and none blames them? And I tell you there is one standing here who is greater than the temple. If you had found out what the words mean, It is mercy, not sacrifice, that wins favour with me, you would not have passed judgement on the guiltless. The Son of Man has even the sabbath at his disposal.” (Mt 12:1-8; emphasis mine.)

In the Latin for Mt 12:8, we have “dominus enim est Filius hominis etiam sabbati” – the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath! So, if Jesus is not bound by the sabbath (with respect to his apostles), then God is certainly not bound by the sacraments with respect to us! Those who claim otherwise worship a God who is not all-powerful and all-loving, but rather, all-encumbered and all-indifferent!

May God abundantly bless you for this post. The hypothesis of “Limbo” was proposed during the black death when the Church had to come up with some explanation of what happened to those thousands (perhaps more) babies who died. No, God is not bound in any way by our beliefs, our traditions, and especially our superstitions. It is beyond Him to take any soul who has not lived long enough to reach the age of reason and turn that soul away from Him forever, not for one jot of a moment. They go back to Him, as innocent as they were at the moment of conception. “Original sin” notwithstanding (another totally misunderstood concept imho), Jesus freed us from that. I think Pope Francis has some giant “fish to fry”, God help and guide him, and so these outdated traditional beliefs may never receive full redaction, as they should. But, if we know God as we should (which means daily and intense prayer, an ongoing daily conversation with Him, receiving the Sacraments regularly), He will “tell” us, He will share with us, He has with me, and I’m sure with many others on this site. But the foundation for such sharing is constant awareness of Him and great love for Him, great love for Jesus (I’m too shy to do this but, face to Face, I’d like to wrap my arms around him and hold on for a thousand years). Also, never forget our most powerful intercessor, the Blessed Virgin Mary, who loves all her children.

 

[Ron_Conte]

linate: Quite a few of the sources that you cite are non-infallible or are theological opinion. Even non-infallible sources are not the last word, since doctrine can develop over time.

The infallible pronouncements of Lyons II and Florence only say that there is a place in Hell (the limbo or fringe of Hell) where those who die in “original sin only” are sent. Limbo as a fringe of Hell is dogma. But the Church has never infallibly defined that any infants are sent there.

In my view, a person dies in a culpable state of “original sin alone” if he dies unrepentant from the actual mortal sin of omission of never having found sanctifying grace in this life, despite ample opportunity. These persons go to the limbo of Hell.

As for limbo as a third final destination, which is neither Heaven or Hell, the idea was never taught infallibly, and has fallen out of favor.

The CCC says that we can hope for the eternal salvation of unbaptized infants, so it should be clear from that statement that no infallible doctrine requires us to believe that they are in Hell or Limbo.

 

[Didascalia]

Greetings linate, a lot of copying and pasting! With all that research you have missed a singularly important precept, and that is that Limbo is not a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church! Limbo is an idea, an idea that only exists in the theology of the Catholic Church. It is a speculative construct, a philosophical meandering into the unknown. I agree that its not a particularly pleasant idea, and I also agree that it has been regarded by many as a fact, and in that regard the Church has been deficit in broadcasting the fact that its an idea and nothing more! It bears no more truth than say Dante’s Inferno. If one were to teach Dante’s work as doctrine it would be considered a Heresy, I believe the same to be true for Limbo limbus,!

Psalm 139:13
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
My interpretation of the above verse? God knows us at the moment of our conception, Our names, some of us? were written in the book of life before, we were born, since before the creation of the universe.

My parting death-knell to Limbo…

Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, ** “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”**

 

[genetee]

Maybe something skipped me, but, limbo or hell are doctrines

Baptism is an outward sign of a Spiritual accomplishment so it acts upon body and soul, applied to the body and applies to the soul, so to speak. leaving the, hell, limbo, etc… doctrines intact as the option because of non-baptism

Maybe God does not restrict the benefits of application to before the death of someone truly innocent and is waiting for our physical application to be fulfilled to apply the spiritual aspects at even a seemingly late time.

Who knows? Ask that the unborn be baptized and then baptize, so letting His love and mercy do what it can after we do our part physically!!!

What a novel idea letting God be God and us humble ourselves and ask and do instead of doubting and not do.

 

[TK421]

I have a hard time making sense of the concept of limbo unless infants are somehow less-than-human, which is something the Church is virulently against given the ongoing battle with abortion rights. Infants would essentially be put into a state of eternal mild depravity, or eternal neutrality, or eternal natural pleasantness, either because somebody killed them before they could mature, or because they died of natural causes. Because God is outside of time and space and knows all things, I believe baptism by desire would apply to an infant or a fetus.

Of course, the catch to this is that I have an equally hard time making sense of some people’s view that all infants go to Heaven. That smells like a warm & fuzzy version of Calvinism. You cannot recognize the humanity of a fetus and of it being made in the image of God, and yet at the same time rule out its God-given autonomy and say that all infants go to Heaven.

 

[linate]

while the “God is not bound, while we are, to the sacrament” is plausibly not a cop out to expressed teachings, the most reasonable approach to someone trying to look at it objectively, is that it is a cop out. at least, that’s my opinion.

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: In my Fathers house there are many mansions [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left" (Denz. 102, authentic addition to canon 2.)

that looks pretty infallible to me. just to use an example.

anything taught as dogma could be exempted by merely saying “X only… but God can do anything he wants, so Y perhaps too”. do all those who think God can opt out, like the poster with the grain example… think that this reasoning is true?

 

[R_C]

isn’t limbo or hell for infants, irrevocable doctrine? aren’t the traditionalist catholics correct?

First: traditionalists don’t say this kind of heresy. Perhaps ultra-traditionalists in schism do.

Now, back to business: no, it is not irrevocable doctrine.

It was a theological opinion at first that there may not be salvation without baptism, later that there was a separate place (limbus puerorum) with or without pain, and now the Church embraced a “greater theological hope” (see "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized ") expressed in the 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.

This theological opinion proposed by the Magisterium is now to be held true by all faithful Catholics with assent of mind and will. This is the traditionalist position as far as I know.

Instead, the following are considered infallible dogma de fide:

• Baptism confers the grace of justification.
• Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both the eternal and the temporal.

As the Doctor of the Church Aquinas said, “Deus non alligatur Sacramentis”, “God is not tied by His own Sacraments”.

 

[Didascalia]

I have a hard time making sense of the concept of limbo unless infants are somehow less-than-human, which is something the Church is virulently against given the ongoing battle with abortion rights. Infants would essentially be put into a state of eternal mild depravity, or eternal neutrality, or eternal natural pleasantness, either because somebody killed them before they could mature, or because they died of natural causes. Because God is outside of time and space and knows all things, I believe baptism by desire would apply to an infant or a fetus.

Of course, the catch to this is that I have an equally hard time making sense of some people’s view that all infants go to Heaven. That smells like a warm & fuzzy version of Calvinism. You cannot recognize the humanity of a fetus and of it being made in the image of God, and yet at the same time rule out its God-given autonomy and say that all infants go to Heaven.

Study Christs own words regarding children…Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

Let the little children come to me…An unequivocal statment LET = ALLOW. I would say this was sacramental. A direct commandment from Christ to do something.

and do not hinder them…A second commandment from Christ, this time telling us not to do something like fabricating ridiculous Limbo doctrine ] or even worse…binding them on earth…“what you bind on earth!”

the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Jesus Christ is directing children directly to heaven. It is obvious that he means the souls of children. There are no stopovers in purgatory or paradise its straight to the jackpot! While we all sin from an early age Jews like Christ knew and accepted the age of accountability as 12-13.

Children don’t go to hell! How anyone could construe Matthew 19:14 as anything other than guaranteed salvation for children is beyond me. The church needs to “suck it up” and admit the “Limbo” doctrin is as real as Harry Potter

                          "Heaven Belongs to Children" 


                                                    Says Jesus Christ

 

[Robyn_p]

aren’t the traditionalist catholics correct?
isn’t it a cop out to say that God can do anything he wants, and that while he has bound us to the sacraments, he is himself not bound? and that we may hope for infant salvation without baptism?
using that reasoning, anything taught as dogma could be exempted by merely saying “X only… but God can do anything he wants, so Y perhaps too”.

Ehh no not quite a cop out… The argument of God being able to work outside the sacraments, which are the ordinary means of our salvation, works because it’s biblical. Jesus told the thief on the cross, who was not baptized, that he would be with Jesus in heaven. Now, some protestants will point to that passage and say, “See, baptism isn’t necessary then.” Yet Jesus himself says it is in John 3:5, and we can’t just ignore that. But then what? Was Jesus contradicting himself on the cross? No. Baptism IS necessary for salvation, but God can get* the grace of baptism* to us outside the ordinary means He established. It’s not a cop-out to acknowledge God’s omnipotence.

"Some Traditionalist Catholics deny that salvation is (or may be) possible for non-baptized infants and maintain that the existence of a Limbo of Infants is certain, claiming that any other view would contradict the Church’s teachings on faith and morals. ***They say that the medieval Church statements indicate that no person could possibly be saved unless baptized, ***and that this was the meaning intended by the Popes of the time, whom they contend made no “lenient statements” on the matter.

The Early Church had already the understanding of catechumens dying without baptism being able to get into heaven. So the statement that the Church’s prior teaching indicated NO person can possibly be saved without water baptism is false and inaccurate.

But it makes sense that some of the statements back then were pretty harsh sounding. What the heresies that all these Pope’s were condemning taught was not so much that GOD wasn’t bound to the sacraments, but that WE are not bound to them. And that is wrong, and still condemned by the Church by the way. So yeah, they’re going to have harsher sayings back then. Heresy tends to provoke strong statements that don’t involve getting into nuances. That’s what the development of doctrine is for, to dive deeper. We can’t expect every council or pope to say everything there is to say about a subject in one single statement. They are dealing with particular situations that call for different emphasis at times, though it’s the same truth. Back then, the supreme importance of the sacraments and our obligation to receive them had to be taught, since there were heretics running around saying they’re not important.

As evidence for apostasy, traditionalists demonstrate that popes have taught the following concerning infants, hell, and limbo:

Decree for the Jacobites at the Council of Florence in 1442: “There is no other way to come to the aid [of little children] than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God”.

Nothing contrary to current Catholic teaching in that statement. There is no other way for us to come to the aid of children than by baptism. In fact, it’s even in the current Code of Canon Law that parents must baptize their children within the first few weeks of birth. Clearly it’s still considered an urgent matter. Notice though, it doesn’t mention God’s actions. It’s talking about ours.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Letentur coeli, Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: We define also that the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds. (Denz. 693)

Again, that actually is still the Church’s teaching. Original sin of itself deprives us of the grace necessary for living in heaven. But again, there is no mention of God’s actions, whether He can apply the grace of baptism to souls who never had the opportunity to receive it. It’s simply saying we can’t get into heaven without sanctifying grace. Still taught today.

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this. - Condemned

Hmm. I’d have to see the text of the condemnation to know what exactly was being condemned. I do know Wycliffe denied the efficacy and necessity of baptism, so it would make sense he would be condemned.

But I do find it kind of odd that this says Martin V condemned John Wycliffe on July 6, 1415, when Martin wasn’t actually pope at that time. He wouldn’t be made pope for another two years, on November 21,1417, after Gregory XII resigned to settle the Great Western Schism. I’d be interested in seeing the source for that info. It seems historically faulty.

Pope St. Innocent I, in 417, Synod of Milevis : “The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life even without the grace of baptism is utterly foolish” (DS 219).

Yup. Without the grace of baptism. (i.e. sanctifying grace.) No one, you or me or a baby can receive eternal life. But again, not to sound like a broken record, it makes no mention of the possibility of God’s actions.

Pope Innocent III asserted that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer “no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God” (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii—Majores). (Denzinger 410)

See previous responses.

CONTINUED in Pt 2…

 

[linate]

how do those who say it’s merely theological opinion and was never settled doctrine square it with this below?
this is just an example.
this could be said to say that limbo doesn’t exist, but that they go to hell, or something.
anything that tried to read this one or each of the above, at least the doctrinal ones, as saying limbo or hell for infants, seems to be doing too much fancy foot work to take absolutely seriously.

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: In my Fathers house there are many mansions [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left" (Denz. 102, authentic addition to canon 2.)

also, it seems that the best argument i’ve heard is that it’s a doctrine, limbo or hell for infants, but that God is not bound by the sacrament or his rules (even the rules of the Catholic Church). but again, at least in my opinion, this is too much of a cop out.

can’t we at least agree that it was indeed a doctrine, but disagree what to make of it?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

My own opinion: if a person, such as an infant, died in Original Sin alone and not personal mortal sin, then they would certainly enter what we conventionally call Limbo. Die in Original Sin = no Heaven. If we give that up we’ve trashed the whole Catholic idea of grace and instead started treating salvation as a birthright which can be lost, not a free gift given to the elect.

However, we do not know for sure whether any people do die in this state since it is possible that God takes away their original sin before their death through something akin to baptism of desire. Thus we should affirm Limbo as a theory but remain silent as to whether anyone actually goes there.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I have a hard time making sense of the concept of limbo unless infants are somehow less-than-human, which is something the Church is virulently against given the ongoing battle with abortion rights. Infants would essentially be put into a state of eternal mild depravity, or eternal neutrality, or eternal natural pleasantness, either because somebody killed them before they could mature, or because they died of natural causes. Because God is outside of time and space and knows all things, I believe baptism by desire would apply to an infant or a fetus.

Of course, the catch to this is that I have an equally hard time making sense of some people’s view that all infants go to Heaven. That smells like a warm & fuzzy version of Calvinism. You cannot recognize the humanity of a fetus and of it being made in the image of God, and yet at the same time rule out its God-given autonomy and say that all infants go to Heaven.

The thing about infants is they do not have the use of reason and so they cannot make an informed choice for or against God. Is your suggestion that God miraculously grants infants who are about to die the use of reason so they can choose for or against Him (and if they choose for Him then he gives them baptism of desire)?

 

[linate]

it’s worth nothing, that many catholics, good articulate catholics, none uber-traditional and in line with the Pope… argue that limbo or hell for infants exists, or something. this is because they see the teachings posted as clear, and anything else a deviation on doctrine. ive witnessed many catholic on catholic debates on the issue. im sure there’s some around here too, if they are willing to come out and say so.

 

[linate]

it seems to me that the teachings say that baptism of desire is not possible for infants, as it is taught that they go to hell. in the limbo days of the CC, those exceptions etc existed, but no one applied it to infants. even great scholars like Augustine, Aquanis etc believe in Limbo etc. they believed it, cause that is what was taught doctrinally by popes.

again, while we might quibble over what to make of the doctrines, we should at least be able to settle that they are doctrines, and just not agree on what to make of them. “God can do whatever he wants” is to me a cop out, but it’s at least staying true to form considering all teachings?

 

[Gorgias]

how do those who say it’s merely theological opinion and was never settled doctrine square it with this below?

You’re confusing me. You’re saying that the quote you provide tells us that limbo exists? Let’s look at it again:

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- It has been decided likewise that if anyone says … that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism… let him be anathema.

It sure looks to me like Zosimus is saying precisely that there isn’t any other destination! There’s no ‘middle place’ (e.g., limbo) where unbaptized babies go!

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Aren’t you using this quote – which denies the existence of a ‘middle place’ – to assert that such a ‘middle place’ exists?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

You’re confusing me. You’re saying that the quote you provide tells us that limbo exists? Let’s look at it again:

It sure looks to me like Zosimus is saying precisely that there isn’t any other destination! There’s no ‘middle place’ (e.g., limbo) where unbaptized babies go!

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Aren’t you using this quote – which denies the existence of a ‘middle place’ – to assert that such a ‘middle place’ exists?

Limbo, understood in an orthodox way, is not a state between Heaven and Hell (despite the popular way it has been interpreted) but is the “fringe” of Hell.

 

[linate]

yes that is a possible reading of that quote, no middle place. most people who read it think he was teaching hell for infants. as he goes on to say…

" what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left" (Denz. 102, authentic addition to canon 2.)"

most critics of the CC say that it has taught 3 different things, hell for infants, limbo, and some say a the new teaching, that it is possible for them to be saved. many try to say limbo is part of hell or something like that, to square past teachings.