Limbo: a primer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ron_Conte

Guest
There are three different ideas that have each used the term limbo:
  1. limbo of the fathers - a kind of upper level of Purgatory, where the fathers are said to have waited for Christ to die for their salvation, so that they could enter Heaven.
Certainly, there is truth to the idea that those who died before Christ are nevertheless saved by Him. It is not true that they have to wait for time to pass as if they were still on earth; time in Purgatory is not the same as time on earth, and Heaven is beyond the limits of time. But there is still some merit to this idea; it merely needs some refinement.
  1. limbo of Hell - a kind of upper level of Hell where persons go who die without sanctifying grace because they were both conceived with original sin and never found sanctifying grace in their lives. These persons are punished less than those who had sanctifying grace through Baptism and then lost it through actual mortal sin, never repented, and ended in Hell. This idea was affirmed by Pope Pius VI in the Papal Bull, Auctorem Fidei, issued in 1794. It was also taught by the Council of Florence.
  2. limbo as a place between Heaven and Hell - a third final resting place, of perfect natural happiness, but lacking the Beatific Vision and the communion of the saint. This idea was called false, rash, and injurious by Pope Pius VI in the Papal Bull, Auctorem Fidei, issued in 1794. St. Thomas taught, in his interpretation of Matthew 25, that there are only two final resting places.
They say that the Pope may do away with the idea of limbo, but there are three different versions of the idea. The limbo of Purgatory and the limbo of Hell are probably not dispensible ideas, but are in need of some refinement. The idea of limbo as a third final resting place can safely be condemned by theologians as contrary to the Faith.

Ron Conte
 
The concept of Limbo has always just been a theological hypothesis and has never been a teaching of the Church. Its not something we have been obliged to believe in so for me it makes no difference if it stays or goes.
 
The limbo of Hell was taught by Pope Pius VI and by the Council of Florence, but not infallibly.

I believe that limbo has been taught by many individual Bishops, not merely as theological speculation.

Also, the limbo of the fathers has been taught by the Bishops. It was mentioned by Pope John Paul II during a general audience, who finds the idea to be supported by Scripture:

“The triumphal scene, described by the Psalm in the third poetic picture, has been applied by the Christian liturgy of the East and of the West to the victorious Descent of Christ to the Limbo of the fathers, spoken of in the First Letter of Peter (cf. I Pet 3,19)…”

Therefore, the Church has taught the existence of limbo in some form.

Ron
 
Ron_Conte said:
The limbo of Hell was taught by Pope Pius VI and by the Council of Florence, but not infallibly.

I believe that limbo has been taught by many individual Bishops, not merely as theological speculation.

Also, the limbo of the fathers has been taught by the Bishops. It was mentioned by Pope John Paul II during a general audience, who finds the idea to be supported by Scripture:

“The triumphal scene, described by the Psalm in the third poetic picture, has been applied by the Christian liturgy of the East and of the West to the victorious Descent of Christ to the Limbo of the fathers, spoken of in the First Letter of Peter (cf. I Pet 3,19)…”

Therefore, the Church has taught the existence of limbo in some form.

Ron
Click to expand...
It may have been a “teaching” of individual priests or bishops but it has never been a teaching of the Church and certainly Catholics have never been obliged to believe it. There was a discussion on EWTN some time ago about this too.
 
But I cited two Popes and a Council.

Also, individual Bishops can and do exercise the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium of the Church. I find it hard to believe that no Bishop has ever taught limbo, in some form, under the ordinary Magisterium

The Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and they can teach individually and authoritatively, though non-infallibly, under the ordinary Magisterium, even if what they are teaching has never been taught explicitly by any Pope.

I’m dismayed by those who would completely abandon, in every form, the long-standing teaching of limbo found in the ordinary teaching of the Church.

Ron
 
Ron_Conte said:
But I cited two Popes and a Council.

Also, individual Bishops can and do exercise the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium of the Church. I find it hard to believe that no Bishop has ever taught limbo, in some form, under the ordinary Magisterium

The Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and they can teach individually and authoritatively, though non-infallibly, under the ordinary Magisterium, even if what they are teaching has never been taught explicitly by any Pope.

I’m dismayed by those who would completely abandon, in every form, the long-standing teaching of limbo found in the ordinary teaching of the Church.

Ron
Click to expand...
No Catholic has ever been obliged to believe in Limbo.
 
Ron_Conte said:
But I cited two Popes and a Council…
Click to expand...
Ron, Auctorem Fidei did not indorse limbo, but merely judged it not heretical as the Jansenists were charging. Judging something not heretical is not the same as positive doctrine. For example, the pope’s decided that Molinists can’t call the Thomists heretics, and the Thomists can’t call the Molinsts heretics, but didn’t indorse either thesis in doing so.

The conclusion we can draw from Auctorum Fidei is the claim of the Jansenists, nameley that the teaching of Catholic schools about limbo being heretical, was in error.

As for the councilar documents, they don’t mention limbo. They simply confirm that those who die in merely original sin descend immediately to hell. They don’t discuss what kind of punishment they endure, other than to say the punishment differs from that of the wicked. The various conflicting views of pre-Augustine, Augustine, post-Augustine, Aquinas and post Aquinas all conform to this councilar teaching. Thus, what “limbo” is remains theological speculation. The councils call it “hell.”
 
Ron_Conte said:
…I’m dismayed by those who would completely abandon, in every form, the long-standing teaching of limbo found in the ordinary teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
I agree that there were bishops who likely taught limbo as an exercise of their ordinary magisterium, as doctrine. However, don’t be dismayed since we have Acta Apostolica Sedis in the form of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Evangelium Vitae which teaches that infants who die without baptism may have a means of salvation. This is an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, however, I still contend it is common teaching (sententia communis), not doctrine (sententia certa). One has to look at the manner in which the bishop or pope presents the teaching, to include the words he uses, to discern whether it is intended to be binding doctrine. And if there is still doubt, we can simply ask OUR ORDINARY what his ordinary teaching is and whether it is binding doctrine or merely common teaching (ie., still free opinion). 😉
 
Ron_Conte said:
  1. limbo of Hell - a kind of upper level of Hell where persons go who die without sanctifying grace because they were both conceived with original sin and never found sanctifying grace in their lives. These persons are punished less than those who had sanctifying grace through Baptism and then lost it through actual mortal sin, never repented, and ended in Hell. This idea was affirmed by Pope Pius VI in the Papal Bull, Auctorem Fidei, issued in 1794. It was also taught by the Council of Florence.
  2. limbo as a place between Heaven and Hell - a third final resting place, of perfect natural happiness, but lacking the Beatific Vision and the communion of the saint. This idea was called false, rash, and injurious by Pope Pius VI in the Papal Bull, Auctorem Fidei, issued in 1794. St. Thomas taught, in his interpretation of Matthew 25, that there are only two final resting places.
Click to expand...
But if they exist they are the same place. Because eternity in a place of perfect natural happiness but without the Beatific Vision and the communion of saints can only be hell to a supernatural being such as we are. If we seek God on this earth, would we not then seek him (and never find him) for all eternity in this limbo of perfect natural happiness?
 
Sophie said:
AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, I GOT A BRIDGE IN BROOKLYN I CAN SELL YOU REAL CHEAP!!!
Click to expand...
Are you really saying that Limbo is a doctrine that Catholics must believe?? Do enlighten me and show me the Church doctrine on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top