Limbo as Dogma?

[SemperFidelis]

I am struggling at the moment with grasping the current situation on Limbus Infantium (Limbo for infants). I have heard time and again that Limbo was never Dogma, but after reading this article:
seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html it seems like it’s Dogma to me. I personally believe in Limbo. The thing is those who don’t believe in Limbo usually believe that unbaptized infants can get to heaven. Thinking this directly contradicts the Council of Florence, as well as the Council of Lyons. So basically there can be only two outcomes that comply with Church teaching: either unbaptized infants go to Limbo, or they go to hell (I know Limbo is part of hell, but the punishments aren’t the same). I don’t see them going to hell, so I say Limbo. What bothers me is that the Church (including the new Catechism) seems to believe that unbaptized Catholics can reach heaven. As stated earlier, this line of thinking clearly contradicts the two Councils I mentioned above, let alone several teachings by several Popes including: Popes Innocent II, Pius VI, Pius XII, Sixtus V, and John XXII, as well as many other Catechisms. Can someone straighten me out here?

 

[Arnobius]

Well, Limbo of Infants has not been defined, or revealed as Heaven, Hell and Purgatory have been. What we do know is that Jesus mandated baptism and we know there are people who never had the opportunity to accept the word of God and infants who died without personal sin and without baptism.

We can’t explicitly say they are in hell. Nor can we explicitly say they are in Heaven. Hence the Theological idea of Limbo which seeks to reconcile the words of Christ and the facts of those who die not knowing Christ or the need for baptism.

Since we know God is both just and merciful, we must trust in His wisdom that what He does will be just and merciful.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

I am struggling at the moment with grasping the current situation on Limbus Infantium (Limbo for infants). I have heard time and again that Limbo was never Dogma, but after reading this article:
seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html it seems like it’s Dogma to me. I personally believe in Limbo. The thing is those who don’t believe in Limbo usually believe that unbaptized infants can get to heaven. Thinking this directly contradicts the Council of Florence, as well as the Council of Lyons. So basically there can be only two outcomes that comply with Church teaching: either unbaptized infants go to Limbo, or they go to hell (I know Limbo is part of hell, but the punishments aren’t the same). I don’t see them going to hell, so I say Limbo. What bothers me is that the Church (including the new Catechism) seems to believe that unbaptized Catholics can reach heaven. As stated earlier, this line of thinking clearly contradicts the two Councils I mentioned above, let alone several teachings by several Popes including: Popes Innocent II, Pius VI, Pius XII, Sixtus V, and John XXII, as well as many other Catechisms. Can someone straighten me out here?

CCC1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy and to pray for their salvation.
**
CCC1257** The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Looks like the CCC teaches that baptism is needed for salvation.
And we are asked to pray for the dead babies that have not been baptized. There is no guarantee that they are in heaven.

 

[awalt]

If you do some searching, you will find that the concept of Limbo has never been anything more than theological speculation.

Let the Catechism of the Catholic Church be your guide, as said in #1261:

[, 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,"64 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.

[1261](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1261.htm’)

children who have died without Baptism](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1261.htm’)

Remember, God’s laws for us, for example on baptism, are for us to follow, but God is not held to any laws - he can do what he wants. So relying on his mercy for innocent babies that he infinitely loves is not an unreasonable theory.

 

[SemperFidelis]

If you do some searching, you will find that the concept of Limbo has never been anything more than theological speculation.

This is sorta my problem… As per Florence and Lyons, then we must accept that unbaptized babies are in hell, because according to these Councils, it is not possible that they are in heaven.

 

[Antithesis]

If you do some searching, you will find that the concept of Limbo has never been anything more than theological speculation.

Let the Catechism of the Catholic Church be your guide, as said in #1261:

[%between%](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1261.htm’)

Remember, God’s laws for us, for example on baptism, are for us to follow, but God is not held to any laws - he can do what he wants. So relying on his mercy for innocent babies that he infinitely loves is not an unreasonable theory.

But it is unreasonable they are not innocent, they are guilty of original sin which the church teaches to be a real and true sin and represent the death of the soul.

Also God is a God of justice and order he is incapable of change. If he was he would be chaotic which goes against his nature. If he establishes a law of salvation it must be held, it cannot be chaged. Love and mercy are not greater than his Justice.

 

[Arnobius]

But it is unreasonable they are not innocent, they are guilty of original sin which the church teaches to be a real and true sin and represent the death of the soul.

Also God is a God of justice and order he is incapable of change. If he was he would be chaotic which goes against his nature. If he establishes a law of salvation it must be held, it cannot be chaged. Love and mercy are not greater than his Justice.

Well, we must remember I think that the Limbo of the Fathers did not keep them eternally but until Christ came. Is it just to say the unbaptized infants do not have the opportunity they did?

I am not saying this is the case of course, but I do wonder if it might be something relevant to consider.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

This is sorta my problem… As per Florence and Lyons, then we must accept that unbaptized babies are in hell, because according to these Councils, it is not possible that they are in heaven.

When the Church defines a doctrine, it addresses that particular point directly. The quotes you mentioned from the councils of Florence and Lyons address is indirectly. They both say that those who die in original sin only go to hell, but are only punished with the “pain of loss” - which means the loss of the beatific vision. This corresponds perfectly with Limbo - which is usually described as a place of natural happiness, but without the Beatific Vision - but it is not a direct doctrinal definition of Limbo.

So, when you read the quotes you are referring to you are left with only one conclusion… and that conclusion is Limbo. But Limbo itself has not been directly defined.

 

[SemperFidelis]

When the Church defines a doctrine, it addresses that particular point directly. The quotes you mentioned from the councils of Florence and Lyons address is indirectly. They both say that those who die in original sin only go to hell, but are only punished with the “pain of loss” - which means the loss of the beatific vision. This corresponds perfectly with Limbo - which is usually described as a place of natural happiness, but without the Beatific Vision - but it is not a direct doctrinal definition of Limbo.

So, when you read the quotes you are referring to you are left with only one conclusion… and that conclusion is Limbo. But Limbo itself has not been directly defined.

What troubles me is that Pope Benedict XVI, the ITC, the Catechism, and most everyone else seems to think that unbaptized infants go to heaven. This is so completely contradictory to the Councils. The way I see it, Limbo is not Dogma, but there are only two outcomes one can hold here, and heaven ain’t one of them, so basically denial of Limbo, means that hell is the only alternative. Saying unbaptized infants can go to heaven is almost a complete denial of original sin.

 

[marci]

Also God is a God of justice and order he is incapable of change. If he was he would be chaotic which goes against his nature. If he establishes a law of salvation it must be held, it cannot be chaged. Love and mercy are not greater than his Justice.

However, we are bound by God’s law, but He is not bound. We have no way of knowing whether or not He allows salvation to babies or young children, who by no fault of their own, died before being baptized. Not to mention those who die in miscarriage or abortion. The majority of pregnancies are miscarried before a woman even knows she is pregnant.

I find no conflict in having hope for those innocent of actual sin, having died before birth or before the age of reason. I trust in God’s mercy for these little ones. If the church believes salvation exists for non-christian, unbaptized adults, is it really such a stretch to believe that He might have a special plan for babies?

I know of nothing more cruel then telling a catholic woman who had every intention of baptizing her baby after birth that because that baby died in the womb, she will never see her child in Heaven.

Of Course, this is all just my opinion.

 

[palmas85]

I look at this argument somewhat differently than do most. Most people see souls as somewhat like themselves. They don’t see the soul as being intrinsically any different than we as humans are, basically the same thing in another form. I don’t. That is why I think that baptism is so very vital to salvation… Our bodies are hopelessly corrupted as are our souls corrupted by the fall of man. But our bodies do not go to heaven, our souls do. Baptism does not cleanse the body and make it pure, . rather it cleanses the soul and enables it to come into the presence of God.

I fail to see how any soul, uncleansed of original sin, could come into the presence of God, UNLESS God so willed it. Further, I’m not at all sure that our souls are recognized as being infants, teenagers, adults or oldsters by God. It would seem somewhat strange it they were as God exists outside of time itself and is ageless.

As to what happens to the soul of an unbaptized child, I don’t know. I doubt that they suffer, but at the same time I know that unless God cleansed them in some unknown fashion, outside of Baptism, they could not come into his divine presence any more than any other corrupted soul could.

To think otherwise would seem to cast into doubt any belief in the concept of original sin, something most of our separated brothers no longer believe in anyway and sad to say, apparently many Catholics also.

 

[SemperFidelis]

However, we are bound by God’s law, but He is not bound. We have no way of knowing whether or not He allows salvation to babies or young children, who by no fault of their own, died before being baptized. Not to mention those who die in miscarriage or abortion. The majority of pregnancies are miscarried before a woman even knows she is pregnant.

I find no conflict in having hope for those innocent of actual sin, having died before birth or before the age of reason. I trust in God’s mercy for these little ones. If the church believes salvation exists for non-christian, unbaptized adults, is it really such a stretch to believe that He might have a special plan for babies?

I know of nothing more cruel then telling a catholic woman who had every intention of baptizing her baby after birth that because that baby died in the womb, she will never see her child in Heaven.

Of Course, this is all just my opinion.

That’s all nice and well, but does it not bother you that this opinion contradicts two Ecumenical Councils? I would have no problem believing unbaptized infants went to heaven, had a Council said so, but there are two that say otherwise. It’s quite a problem when we start rejecting past Councils in favor of a more “feel-good” answer.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

What troubles me is that Pope Benedict XVI, the ITC, the Catechism, and most everyone else seems to think that unbaptized infants go to heaven. This is so completely contradictory to the Councils. The way I see it, Limbo is not Dogma, but there are only two outcomes one can hold here, and heaven ain’t one of them, so basically denial of Limbo, means that hell is the only alternative. Saying unbaptized infants can go to heaven is almost a complete denial of original sin.

I agree completely.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

For those who didn’t read the documents, could you please quote the places where the councils contradict the very thought that God may accept infants to heaven?

 

[SemperFidelis]

For those who didn’t read the documents, could you please quote the places where the councils contradict the very thought that God may accept infants to heaven?

The Council of Florence:

“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.” (Denzinger 693)

The Second Council of Lyons:

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate punishments.” (Denzinger 464)

Not Ecumenical but important nonetheless:

Council of Carthage:

“If anyone should say that newborn children need not be baptized that no original sin is derived from Adam to be washed away in the laver of regeneration, so that in their case the Baptismal formula for the remission of sins is to be taken in a fictitious and not in the true sense, let him be Anathema” (Denzinger 102)

Here’s my main point:

The word “Limbo” may be a theological opinion, but the fact that unbaptized infants will not see the beatific vision, is Dogma. Therefore there can only be two locations: Hell or Limbo. Personally I like Limbo a little better…

 

[homewardbound]

Why can’t infants go to Purgatory?

convert here, so maybe I just don’t understand Purgatory completely yet.

I definitely believe infants would have to go through some wort of purification process before getting into Heaven.

 

[Arnobius]

Hmm, hopefully I am not playing at semantics with my reading of Denzinger, but #464 does have an unusual phrasing

The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments. The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment “all” men will be brought together with their bodies “before the tribunal of Christ” “to render an account” of their own deeds [Rom. 14:10 ].

One wonders if this is something that allows for the prospect of salvation for those who are in invincible ignorance or have only original sin or if it is one of the difficulties of translations.

As for Denzinger #102, my reading is that it is a condemnation of people who say baptism is unnecessary, and that infants cannot have understanding or baptism are in error, but to my reading, is not necessarily denying God can do otherwise.

Now of course I am not trying to represent these readings as what the Church teaches, but I do wonder if these understandings might allow for some of the more recent nuances.

Incidentally, my source for Denzinger is
catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php

 

[francesco920]

The Council of Florence:

“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.” (Denzinger 693)

The Second Council of Lyons:

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate punishments.” (Denzinger 464)

Not Ecumenical but important nonetheless:

Council of Carthage:

“If anyone should say that newborn children need not be baptized that no original sin is derived from Adam to be washed away in the laver of regeneration, so that in their case the Baptismal formula for the remission of sins is to be taken in a fictitious and not in the true sense, let him be Anathema” (Denzinger 102)

Here’s my main point:

The word “Limbo” may be a theological opinion, but the fact that unbaptized infants will not see the beatific vision, is Dogma. Therefore there can only be two locations: Hell or Limbo. Personally I like Limbo a little better…

It seems to me that the Council is saying that those who die in Original Sin cannot go to Heaven. All of us agree on that, and nobody that believes that we can hope for the salvation of unbaptized babies is saying that they die with original sin. What they say is that it is possible that unbaptized babies are cleansed of Original Sin by some other way known only to God before (NOT AFTER) they die, if that is His will.

Where does the Council say that we can know for sure that God cannot and/or does not remove Original Sin from babies another way? As I read it, we must believe that baptism is necessary for salvation because that is what God has bound us to. But is it written anywhere that God has bound Himself to the sacrament; that is, that he never will bring about the salvation of babies by any other way?

Please note: I am arguing this for the sake of the argument, not because I reject limbo. I personally believe in limbo, but I do not know for sure whether or not we are bound not to believe that unbaptized babies can be saved.

 

[Metaron]

CCC1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy and to pray for their salvation.
**
CCC1257** The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Looks like the CCC teaches that baptism is needed for salvation.
And we are asked to pray for the dead babies that have not been baptized. There is no guarantee that they are in heaven.

There is more than just water baptism. There is Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood, and, perhaps, a Baptism of Mercy for infants.

 

[SemperFidelis]

There is more than just water baptism. There is Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood, and, perhaps, a Baptism of Mercy for infants.

I believe in Baptism of Desire (both explicit and implicit), and also Baptism of Blood, however “Baptism of Mercy” is something that I have never seen from any theologian or Doctor of the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas (among many others), spoke of three Baptisms, and “Baptism of Mercy” was not one of them. You can’t just make up terms as you go along.