Limbo as Dogma?

[palmas85]

Of course I would. Absolutely no question that I would pull out all the stops to do so. So why do you think that God would not do the same, and grant the infant a Baptism of Desire. Is His mercy less than yours and mine?

God always has done things in a way that man finds peculiar and hard to grasp or accept. Whatever we may think about God we really have no understanding of why he does things the way he does, Do we?

Why is it so hard to believe that God may have certain rules that he demands that we obey? Over time God has repeatedly punished man for transgressions against His laws. Has he not? So, lets look at things realistically.

Original Sin exists correct? Correct
Man is tainted by the stain of original sin correct? Correct
Infants are tainted by the stain of original sin, correct? Correct

If baptism is required as it is to remove the stain of original sin from mankind, except in certain well defined situations, then it would seem that an infant dying in such a state would of necesity have to suffer, just as everyone else does. The sin that child has inherited is communal and we all have had it.

It may sound harsh but lets remember that God has repeatedly whacked man for disobedience, allows terrible suffering and often, very often afflicts those closest to him with punishments and chastisements that defy description. One need look no further than St Bernadette or countless other Saints to see that.

I don’t think it out of line with Gods history that unbaptized infants go to a place of rest and no punishment but are stilled denied the beatific vision. While the stain they carry wasn’t put there by them, they do bear responsibility for it as do we all.

I feel it all comes down to us creating God in our image. If we wouldn’t do it or we would do it then we think God has to react the same way we would to a given situation…

But he doesn’t , not always, and never has.

 

[Arnobius]

Original Sin exists correct? Correct
Man is tainted by the stain of original sin correct? Correct
Infants are tainted by the stain of original sin, correct? Correct

These points are all acknowledged of course. But I think there are some more that need to be added to the mix

• Not all people have been taught of the need of baptism, correct?
• We know the Church teaches that those in a state of invincible ignorance are not held accountable for what they cannot know, correct?
• The Church teaches (Lumen Gentium 16) that those who do not know God through no fault of their own may be provided graces, correct?

With this in mind, we cannot preclude the possibility (NOT the requirement) that God can (NOT must) act to provide special graces in some way (NOT a specifically known way).

The Church does not teach He will of course, but only reassures parents we may hope that God will be merciful and just in what He does.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

My question is this. This is something I always wondered. How can one experience a state of natural happiness in hell? Isn’t hell, along with other things, a complete alienation from God (who is the source of all goodness)?

Thank you beforehand!

 

[mark_a]

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:

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.

I like this response.

 

[SemperFidelis]

My question is this. This is something I always wondered. How can one experience a state of natural happiness in hell? Isn’t hell, along with other things, a complete alienation from God (who is the source of all goodness)?

Thank you beforehand!

Because it’s on the very fringes of hell.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Because it’s on the very fringes of hell.

Right, this is where I get lost. Where does the happiness in hell come from if it includes a total alienation from God?

If hell isn’t total separation from God, what is it?

 

[SemperFidelis]

Right, this is where I get lost. Where does the happiness in hell come from if it includes a total alienation from God?

If hell isn’t total separation from God, what is it?

There is more than just seperation from God. Hell includes physical pain. The Fathers from the Old Testament went to Limbus Patrum (Limbo of the Fathers) while they waited for Jesus to come. It’s the hell that is spoken about in the Apostle’s Creed, and is a Dogma of the Church. They certaintly didn’t experience any physical pain there however, just like unbaptized infants who go to Limbus Infantium (Limbo of the Infants).

 

[mikee]

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.

If we define Limbo as a state of natural happiness without the Beatific Vision of God, we can be certain that Limbo is not a dogma. The reason? The Church has never explicitly condemned the opposite theory: the theory being that unbaptized infants do go to hell to suffer a very mild form of hell fire.

Before anyone says anything let me make it explicitly clear: I do not believe unbaptized infants who have died before the age of reason suffer hell fire. I merely wish to point out that the majority of the magisterial texts brought forward to support Limbo often presuppose the legitimacy of that other theory.

 

[manualman]

Limbo dogma? Look it up in your handy dandy Ludwig Ott reference book amazon.com/Fundamentals-Catholic-Dogma-Ludwig-Ott/dp/0895550091/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198103475&sr=1-1

Don’t be fooled, the original publish date was well before Vatican II and the scholarship is impeccable. The current TAN edition is a reprint. I’m pretty sure you’ll find it to be an old, respected theological speculation. Not De Fide.

 

[Armyof1Faith]

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?

Jesus did say,“let the children come to me”. They truly couldn’t have sinned as infants and God loves his creations, he wouldn’t allow innocent children to go to Hell. But if the child died and the parents refused to have that child baptised, I imagine it would be the sin of the parents and that they would be the ones to suffer rather than the child. But that last bit was my own thought.

 

[Victory5]

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.

Semper read Florence and Lyons carefully—(they)it doesnt/dont say that unbaptized infants go to hell—it does say (both councils) that the souls who die with original sin go to hell9----you are ASSUMING that this automatically means all babies who die without baptism die with original sin—there could be a way (known to God alone) an infant (who dies without water baptism) could be forgiven of original sin in extrordinary circumstances----

 

[palmas85]

These points are all acknowledged of course. But I think there are some more that need to be added to the mix

• Not all people have been taught of the need of baptism, correct?
• We know the Church teaches that those in a state of invincible ignorance are not held accountable for what they cannot know, correct?
• The Church teaches (Lumen Gentium 16) that those who do not know God through no fault of their own may be provided graces, correct?

With this in mind, we cannot preclude the possibility (NOT the requirement) that God can (NOT must) act to provide special graces in some way (NOT a specifically known way).

The Church does not teach He will of course, but only reassures parents we may hope that God will be merciful and just in what He does.

MAY BE PROVIDED DOES NOT PRECLUDE WE CAN HOPE

Quite true we can do all of these things. The fact still remains that all we can do is speculate and nothing more. And in all honesty, it is useless speculation because the Church has already spoken on the subject.

THE CHURCH DOESN’T KNOW

As for me, well I hate to sound cold but I don’t really see the problem in this. The overwhelming majority of Catholics who don’t baptize their infants do so quite willingly and Protestants don’t believe in the concept of original sin at all. If God decides to show mercy He will show it. If you as a Catholic don’t have your child baptized then it is your own fault. If you belong to another sect, that is your choice and your own fault as well. I don’t think God requires that we all be canon experts in order to make decisions about the Church

This use of the term invincible ignorance really disturbs me. Simply speaking moral theology divides ignorance into a number of categories. two of which are invincible and vincible. Ignorance is invincible if it a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence. Reasonable diligence, in turn, is that diligence that a conscientious person would display in seeking the correct answer to a question given (a) the gravity of the question and (b) his particular resources.

Using that definition as a guide, I don’t see how ANY Christian could be said to be invincibly ignorant. They all know of the Church and reject Her. Some know more and others less, but I would say they all know. They don’t have to be told everything about the Church or know everything about the Church and its doctrine in order to make an informed decision about Her. Not believing something is not necessarily the result of invincible ignorance. It is usually the end result of the exercise of free will to make a decision in a situation.

The same could be said of most Muslims and Jews. They willingly and knowingly reject the Church and her doctrines.

No, I think the whole thing really comes down to one simple fact. Many people are quite uncomfortable with the fact that God may have rules that they find distasteful and try somehow to make those rules more palatable to them.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

MAY BE PROVIDED DOES NOT PRECLUDE WE CAN HOPE

Quite true we can do all of these things. The fact still remains that all we can do is speculate and nothing more. And in all honesty, it is useless speculation because the Church has already spoken on the subject.

THE CHURCH DOESN’T KNOW

As for me, well I hate to sound cold but I don’t really see the problem in this. The overwhelming majority of Catholics who don’t baptize their infants do so quite willingly and Protestants don’t believe in the concept of original sin at all. If God decides to show mercy He will show it. If you as a Catholic don’t have your child baptized then it is your own fault. If you belong to another sect, that is your choice and your own fault as well. I don’t think God requires that we all be canon experts in order to make decisions about the Church

This use of the term invincible ignorance really disturbs me. Simply speaking moral theology divides ignorance into a number of categories. two of which are invincible and vincible. Ignorance is invincible if it a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence. Reasonable diligence, in turn, is that diligence that a conscientious person would display in seeking the correct answer to a question given (a) the gravity of the question and (b) his particular resources.

Using that definition as a guide, I don’t see how ANY Christian could be said to be invincibly ignorant. They all know of the Church and reject Her. Some know more and others less, but I would say they all know. They don’t have to be told everything about the Church or know everything about the Church and its doctrine in order to make an informed decision about Her. Not believing something is not necessarily the result of invincible ignorance. It is usually the end result of the exercise of free will to make a decision in a situation.

The same could be said of most Muslims and Jews. They willingly and knowingly reject the Church and her doctrines.

No, I think the whole thing really comes down to one simple fact. Many people are quite uncomfortable with the fact that God may have rules that they find distasteful and try somehow to make those rules more palatable to them.

So aborted babies go to hell…

I find that extremely unpalatable.:crying:

 

[palmas85]

So aborted babies go to hell…

I find that extremely unpalatable.:crying:

If you read my post you will see that I did not say that, or if you think I did please point it out to me.

The hard cold reality is that God often does things that we don’t particularly understand or find palatable. So what? We didn’t create Him. We don’t own Him. We really have no say in the matter at all. He is what He is, God. And He does what He does.

And we are not God, no matter how much some try to have us think we are. How is it said in scripture?,

FOR MY THOUGHTS ARE NOT YOUR THOUGHTS
NOR MY WAYS YOUR WAYS

Very very true and very very insightful.

If you accept scripture you know that He banished man from Eden on the basis of disobedience to one rule and one rule only. Not ten not twenty, just one. Why? .Being God, he must have known that it would happen. Why allow it? Why punish his favorite and much beloved creation if He knew what was going to happen. Why not just pat him on the back and say, Son, you messed up that time. Lets try it again shall we?

Further, He then destroyed pretty much the entire world except for a very few people. Why? Why when he easily could have done something else. You know the reason as well as I do.

Scripture and history are full of things that God has done that many people would find unpalatable. But what utter difference does that make? God is God. And that is all there is to it. We cannot impose our morality and our sense of indignation on God. That just doesn’t work.

As an aside, as I recall, Limbo was described as a place of natural happiness, where there is no suffering, not the burning pits of Gehena. So if the unbaptized do go there would they then suffer? I doubt it, but you never know.

As I said, even the Church doesn’t know.

 

[marci]

MAY BE PROVIDED DOES NOT PRECLUDE WE CAN HOPE

WE CAN HOPE! According to the document published by the International Theological Commission entitled “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized”, we most certainly may HOPE for their salvation.

An excerpt: “Our conclustion is that the many factors that we have considered…give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision.”

Pope Benedict XVI authorized the publication of this document.

As for me, well I hate to sound cold but I don’t really see the problem in this. The overwhelming majority of Catholics who don’t baptize their infants do so quite willingly and Protestants don’t believe in the concept of original sin at all. If God decides to show mercy He will show it. **If you as a Catholic don’t have your child baptized then it is your own fault. ** If you belong to another sect, that is your choice and your own fault as well. I don’t think God requires that we all be canon experts in order to make decisions about the Church

I had to read the bold part twice. How about all of those poor catholic parents whose babies died during birth? (May not happen in the states that often, but is not very uncommon in underdeveloped nations) Not to mention the fact that if you have had a child in the last ten years (my experience), the church does community baptisms once a month. Parents may possibly have to wait 3 weeks to baptize their children, unless they are lucky enough to have a priest in the family, or are friends with one.

It is not inconcieveable that the whole family could die in a car wreck on the way to the baptism. I guess that’s the fault of the parents?

Or what about the miscarriages? I suppose that is the parents fault as well.

No, I think the whole thing really comes down to one simple fact. Many people are quite uncomfortable with the fact that God may have rules that they find distasteful and try somehow to make those rules more palatable to them.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe you are not privy to God’s plan for another’s soul?

If the church allows us to hope for their salvation, why not just do it?

 

[palmas85]

WE CAN HOPE! According to the document published by the International Theological Commission entitled “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized”, we most certainly may HOPE for their salvation.

An excerpt: “Our conclustion is that the many factors that we have considered…give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision.”

Pope Benedict XVI authorized the publication of this document.

I had to read the bold part twice. How about all of those poor catholic parents whose babies died during birth? (May not happen in the states that often, but is not very uncommon in underdeveloped nations) Not to mention the fact that if you have had a child in the last ten years (my experience), the church does community baptisms once a month. Parents may possibly have to wait 3 weeks to baptize their children, unless they are lucky enough to have a priest in the family, or are friends with one.

It is not inconcieveable that the whole family could die in a car wreck on the way to the baptism. I guess that’s the fault of the parents?

Or what about the miscarriages? I suppose that is the parents fault as well.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe you are not privy to God’s plan for another’s soul?

If the church allows us to hope for their salvation, why not just do it?

I know that I am not privy to Gods plan except as outlined by the Church. Thanks for reminding me. The Church says Baptism is normally necessary does it not? I’m almost positive that it says that somewhere. I believe that. The Church also says that those not baptized MIGHT have an opportunity be saved or MAY have a chance for salvation under certain circumstances. I believe that as well.

As far as infant baptisms it is obvious that there will be cases where the child dies when the parents fully intended to have that child baptized. I would have to imagine those cases might fall under the baptism of desire model perhaps. However , if the fetus is miscarried, then by definition it was not born yet and could not be baptized. If it wasn’t born yet it really wasn’t a child yet. So would baptism even be necessary in that case? i don’t know. Do you?

As far as children dying in childbirth thanks for letting me know that happens. Your paternalistic concern is touching,

However, as I was born in the Philippines and lost a brother in that fashion, I do know something about it. Maybe more than you. Maybe not. And yes, I hope that his soul somehow made it to heaven. I really don’t think it did, but I do pray for his soul.

I have always hoped for the salvation of souls. But if they are not saved then there is really nothing that I can do about it now is there? I have to accept that God can be and often is a very stern judge.

 

[marci]

The Church also says that those not baptized MIGHT have an opportunity be saved or MAY

have a chance for salvation under certain circumstances. I believe that as well.

If you believe that we MAY hope for salvation, than why not leave it at that?

As far as infant baptisms it is obvious that there will be cases where the child dies when the parents fully intended to have that child baptized. I would have to imagine those cases might fall under the baptism of desire model perhaps.

 

[palmas85]

If you believe that we MAY hope for salvation, than why not leave it at that?

 

[marci]

As I said, God can be very stern. I accept that fact because there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. I did not create God nor do I expect Him to conform to what I may think is right.

I guess that is the big difference between you and I.

If that is all you have taken away from what I have said, then you obviously misunderstood.

I will say it again PLEASE read the document entitled, “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized”, aurthored by The International Theological Commission.

The Commission consists of a 30 member advisory panel to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Their afore mentioned publication was approved by Pope Benedict XVI.

I have said nothing in my posts that contradicts the findings and advice of the Commission.

And just in case I’m not clear enough, No I do not expect God to conform to what I think.

I have hope that God, Who desires that all be saved, Who said “let the children come”, Who is infinately Merciful, allows for the salvation of those innocent of actual sin whose fate would not allow for baptism in the ordinary way.

P.S. I think that to say that condemning the soul of a child who was either miscarried, aborted, died during birth, or as a baby, is STERN is an understatement.

Does God create life knowing that that life will not have the faculty for free will, will not ever take a breath on this earth, nor commit any actual sin, but will nevertheless be damned? None of us know for certain the answer to this. However, does this reconcile with our understanding of God’s Nature?

In my opinion the idea of Limbo was created to reconcile the idea that baptism in absolutly necessary, with the problem of condemning an infant to hell who has commited no actual sin.

Before Limbo, they were deemed to go to Hell. But, this was troubling, so since they can’t go to Heaven (ie not-baptized), they gotta go somewhere. So then it was a “part” of Hell. Not the physical pain of Hell, but on the “outer edge”. Then it developed into not part of Hell, a separate place where they are unable to see God, but in a state of perfect happiness. (I don’t know how happy one can be on the edge of Hell, and never having the possibility of the beatic vision, but who am I to try and reason?)

Do you see why the speculation about Limbo can cause damage?
The current CCC does not even mention it. And what about the problem of the Final Judgement when there is no more purgatory, or earth? There is only Heaven and those who have been eternally damned to Hell. All will be judged living and dead. So what about those supposedly in Limbo? They have to go somewhere.

 

[BritishCatholic]

marci;3110985:

As I said, God can be very stern. I accept that fact because there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. I did not create God nor do I expect Him to conform to what I may think is right.

I guess that is the big difference between you and I.

Yes, God can be stern, but He is also very merciful.

We are in no position to dictate the “ways” and “hows” of eternal salvation. Heck, I don’t even think Holy Mother Church, with all due respect, is in an omnipotent position to say who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell.

Personally, I never really cared much for Limbo. Limbo by common definition is a non-official existence between two official existences. I was brought up to believe that when someone dies, he/she either goes to Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory.

In regards to infants when they die, we must all understand that this is God’s Will. The Almighty saw it fit in His Wisdom not to have this infant live. Why? I don’t know. What is the truth behind this assumption? The Scriptures tells us that nothing comes to pass without God’s permission or approval. Now, God willed that this infant be conceived. But why taken away so shortly after birth?

My friends, rather that debating whether or not these souls reach the Gates of St. Peter(or not), we should be contemplating the majesty of God and His righteousness.