Limbo - how strongly do you endorse it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GandalfTheWhite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GandalfTheWhite

Guest
I was thinking about this lately. I would like to know what people think. Then for those who vote the first option, do you think that there should be no Catholic funeral for those infants who die before baptism? Should we pray for their souls?

DISCLAIMER: This thread was not created for people to discuss the actual existence and relevance of Limbo. There was actually a thread about this that died only a short time ago. You can always resurrect it. 🙂
 
I just wanted to point out that #1 and #3 can both be true, since Limbo is part of hell. It is commonly believed to be a place of natural happiness, but it is on the outer edge of hell. In fact, I have never heard anyone (before the past 45 years) claim that Limbo was not a part of hell.

The following is a link to several articles of St. Thomas Aquinas on Limbo.

newadvent.org/summa/6001.htm
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
I just wanted to point out that #1 and #3 can both be true, since Limbo is part of hell. It is commonly believed to be a place of natural happiness, but it is on the outer edge of hell. In fact, I have never heard anyone (before the past 45 years) claim that Limbo was not a part of hell.

The following is a link to several articles of St. Thomas Aquinas on Limbo.

newadvent.org/summa/6001.htm
Click to expand...
I know. I capitalized the word hell to show that I actually mean…hell…like the hellish part of hell. :rolleyes: Souls being boiled in a large pot of lava, you get the idea :p. I guess I didn’t get that along since I even capitalized Heaven.

But thanks for the clarification Pax. 🙂
 
There was a document published April 20, by the International Theological Commission called “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized”. The document was approved for publishing by the Pope.

After reading the document, I think that the idea of holding out serious hope is warrented.

An excerpt from the document:

“Our conclusion 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”.

Also, it reiterates the need for baptism:

“We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge.”
 
I was torn between #2, #4 and #5 because I don’t think we really know anything about the after life. There could be a Limbo. The afterlife might have a very complex structure with lots of parts, we really don’t know. But in the end I chose 5 - go to heaven - because I believe that however the next life is structured, with or without Limbo or multiple Limbos or whatever, I believe God will afford these little ones that had no chance here the best of what is next.
 
I can accept that there might be a limbo, though I personally don’t believe there is. But as TMC says, we don’t really have any way of knowing. I too believe that God will make provisions for those whom He brought into creation who, through truly no fault of their own, were not able to be baptized. Whether that is heaven or not I guess I’ll find out when the time comes–assuming I’m able to find a hole in the fence where I can sneak in myself. :o God may indeed have very strong words for those who failed to baptize them when that was an option, but there are too many statements in the Bible that one will not be held responsible for actions beyond one’s control for me to believe that God is going to send an innocent to torment.

That being said, I would still never presume that there isn’t a limbo and would make sure of baptism at the earliest possible moment. The saying “Work as if it all depended on you; pray as if it all depended on God” would seem to be applicable to the circumstances.
 
I picked #2, although I think that it could be interpreted in several ways. I do believe that souls with original sin are prevented from attaining heaven. However, it seems possible that God could remove original sin from infants via something other than baptism of water.
 
I would personally say that this is something that’s entirely up to God and that I hope that he has some way to take them to Heaven (as he desires) if the Church wouldn’t be constantly teaching us that those who die with the original sin cannot go to heaven and that baptism is necessary for salvation. There doesn’t seem to be any “exception” that could be applied to infants. For this reason Limbo seems the most logical option. However I also accept that God is not bound by his sacraments and that he could have some ways to reach even the infant’s soul. I hope that this is true. This is why I chose option #2.

Let me ask those who chose #1. Would you not pray for a soul of an infant who died before baptism? Would you not give him a Christian funeral?

This leads me to the following question: Infants who die before their baptism can get a Christian funeral these days, can’t they? How was it in the past?
 
GandalfTheWhite said:
This leads me to the following question: Infants who die before their baptism can get a Christian funeral these days, can’t they? How was it in the past?
Click to expand...
I attended one of these once. It’s not a funeral in the strict sense of the word. The liturgy was integrated with a theme of hope and entrusting the soul to God’s mercy. It made no statements about the soul’s possible whereabouts. So it neither confirmed nor denied limbo or any other destination for the infant’s soul.
 
cam100 said:
I attended one of these once. It’s not a funeral in the strict sense of the word. The liturgy was integrated with a theme of hope and entrusting the soul to God’s mercy. It made no statements about the soul’s possible whereabouts. So it neither confirmed nor denied limbo or any other destination for the infant’s soul.
Click to expand...
This creates another difficulty in the fact that millions upon millions of babies have been aborted. They have not been baptized. Why would a just God condemn babies to an outer circle of Hell because their mothers decided to tear them asunder before they had an actual chance to be baptized.

I don’t believe in Limbo.

We don’t need a 4th option for the After Life.
 
I could not choose any of them.

I don’t know if there is a limbo. It certainly makes sense. BUT if there is no limbo, some infants would go to heaven and some to hell. It depends on their actions. The problem we have is we cannot judge their actions, only God can. I prefer the theology that gives infants and the mentally ill a full understanding of the Gospel (such as Jesus preached when he decended into hell) at death and they make a choice (such as the angels did at their creation.

I cannot see God being just if ALL infants go to heaven or ALL infants go to hell.

Can’t go to heaven if they never believed, can’t go to hell if then never sinned, can’t stay out of both if they ever existed.

Limbo is a solution (a happy part of hell), but so in instant understanding. It is the solution I prefer.
 
Evan said:
I could not choose any of them.

I don’t know if there is a limbo. It certainly makes sense. BUT if there is no limbo, some infants would go to heaven and some to hell. It depends on their actions. The problem we have is we cannot judge their actions, only God can. I prefer the theology that gives infants and the mentally ill a full understanding of the Gospel (such as Jesus preached when he decended into hell) at death and they make a choice (such as the angels did at their creation.

I cannot see God being just if ALL infants go to heaven or ALL infants go to hell.

Can’t go to heaven if they never believed, can’t go to hell if then never sinned, can’t stay out of both if they ever existed.

Limbo is a solution (a happy part of hell), but so in instant understanding. It is the solution I prefer.
Click to expand...
Good point. I certainly woudn’t dismiss the possiblity that even infants get the chance to hear the Gospel. Sure, to us humans infants don’t see able to grasp the message, but for God everything is possible. This could apply even to anyone who dies before hearing the Gospel.

This is one of the reason why I woudn’t choose the first option. I find the issue too uncertain to get “dogmatic” about it.

But the problem I have is that mortal sin seperates us from God and it must be removed. I just think that many of those who say that infants go to heaven don’t really realize the reality of mortal sin.
 
Hard question because what it really does is question your faith in Church teaching in one area.

ORIGINAL SIN

It either exists or it doesn’t. It is either important or it isn’t. You cannot have it both ways. None of us as humans chose to be born with it yet we all carry it until we are baptized. By saying an unbaptized infant will go to heaven, we are in essence denying our belief in the entire concept of original sin. If God is able to wash away original sin for the unbaptized why not do it for everyone regardless? Why not scrap the concept completely and have us born pure? Certainly God could do that and if he is a kind loving God, why doesn’t he want to do that? The Protestants thought so and did away with the concept of Limbo and Purgatory long ago.

Apparently God wants things done in a certain fashion. Why, I don’t know. But He always has and I somehow suspect that he always will.
 
I didn’t pick an option because I waiver between a few of them. I would state my beliefs as follows:

-Limbo exists and is a part of Hell, as defined by the councils Florence and Lyons II

-Just because it exists and is meant for the unbaptized does not mean that all people who have died without water baptism, or even without a consciously manifested desire to receive it, automatically go there. There may be ways, of which we are unaware, that God bestows the necessary grace for salvation on those who would have wanted baptism had they truly understood its necessity. This could include both infants and non-Christian adults.

Bottom line, just hope and pray for everyone. Leave God to sort the rest out.
 
This is a tough question to answer in the regards that there is never a solid answer one way or the other. The way I have understood the traditional teaching is that a) we can never know what will happen to the soul of the infant and b) the intention of the parents’ also has a role in being a decisive factor. (since we can never state definitively that anyone is in Hell, we know that Hell exists but at the final judgment there is always a chance for repentance.)
We have the break down this argument to the ground level though, if we believe in Limbo then we believe in a God who does not have a place for everybody. This is because arguably if God planned for the baby to die for some providential reason, then why would He bring them to a “Limbo” and not to His full kingdom? If He never gave the child the opportunity to follow Him openly, why would He not open the gates of Paradise for the child.
Now the other thing I’ve heard is that if the parents had the intention of baptizing their child then the child gets into heaven. I think this idea goes a long way in stating that intention does matter especially in matters of grave importance. I still think the final judgment for each individual soul would still have some allotance for the rest of the people not affected by this (“by ways known only to Him” (usually this references ecumenical discussion but I think this can apply here as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top