Limbo in Limbo?

[axolotl]

JSmitty2005:

I don’t mean to be harsh, but refer to post #8.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1261.htm

How about we refer to the Catechism?

"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

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

 

[Nohome]

stanley123:

So the Catholic dogma on limbo is incorrect and can be changed?
Now if they can change the Catholic dogma on limbo, then why can they not change the Catholic teachings on women priests, on contraception and on divorce?

the Church has stated in the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 that souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”
This is de fide according to theologian, Dr. Ludwig Ott in his Book, Fundamentals of Catholic dogma.

“illorum animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato vel solo originale decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas”

Also, Denzinger 464 states:
" souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”

But according to Cardinal Ratzinger:

“Limbo has never been a defined truth of faith,” he said. “Personally, speaking as a theologian and not as head of the Congregation, I would drop something that has always been only a theological hypothesis.” According to Italian Vatican watchers, the reluctance of theologians to even use the word limbo was clear in the way the Vatican referred in its official statement to the question up for discussion .

source:ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus…29_1975390.html

“The Catholic Church appears set to definitively drop the concept of limbo, the place where it has traditionally said children’s souls go if they die before being baptised .”

If the Church believes that life begins at conception, then every miscarriage would have a soul. Since it is necessary to first be born in order to receive the sacrament of baptism, your position would damn all unborn who die to hell. Looks like the Church has painted itself into a theologic corner, but it wouldn’t be the first time.

I can’t speak with any authority as to the validity of Dr. Ludwig Ott’s position, but I think your Pope carries more weight than he. As to the ability to change other Catholic “Truths” , you will have to ask someone else. As a former Catholic, I already reject the teaching authority of the Church.

Nohome

 

[estesbob]

Nohome:

As to the ability to change other Catholic “Truths” , you will have to ask someone else. As a former Catholic, I already reject the teaching authority of the Church.

Nohome

I am sorry to hear that-you will be in my prayers.

 

[stanley123]

Nohome:

As a former Catholic, I already reject the teaching authority of the Church.

Hello Nohome:
My personal opinion is that you should reconsider your decision. There is much to be missed by leaving the Church.
Anyway, good luck in your quest.

 

[Nohome]

stanley123:

Hello Nohome:
My personal opinion is that you should reconsider your decision. There is much to be missed by leaving the Church.
Anyway, good luck in your quest.

We have irreconcilable differences, but I remain interested in Church policy and politics.

Nohome

 

[jdnation]

Limno doesn’t seem to be any sort of hell for unbaptized children, there there is neither pain or sufferring, it just simply isn’t heaven.

I believe that the souls of these children will reside there until the Second Coming and the new heaven and the new earth where God will finally reside amongst us.

I think a prayer by St. Catherine of Siena said, “Today, the Godhead is united and kneaded with our humanity so strongly that this union is never able to be separated neither through death nor through our ingratitude. Rather, the Godhead was always united, even with the Body in the sepulcher and with the Soul in limbo…”

The problem is that no soul bearing any sin can withstand to be in the presense of God. God’s very goodness and being would utterly destroy it. Limbo may simply be a lot like Purgatory where people must first be clensed. We don’t know all there is no know about Limbo and if it doesn’t exist, then we would have some problem determining what happens to the souls of unbaptized children, well infants really…

There’s some interesting stuff at this link here:
tldm.org/news8/Limbo.htm

In 1954, the English Jesuit Bernard Leeming wrote a hopeful explanation of the reunion of an unbaptized child and its baptized parents. Fr. Leeming

“suggested the possibility of a reunion in eternity of a child and its parents. The parents would enjoy the beatific vision and the child would not, but this would not prevent a free association between them…. Fr. Leeming’s theory is perhaps best appreciated in the illustration he offers. Let us suppose that a mother and her small son are walking through an art museum. As they walk along hand-in-hand, the youngster is obviously delighted with the shiny marble floors, the brightly lighted rooms, the splashes of color and, most of all, his mother. On the other hand, the mother appreciates all this and much more too. Because of her maturity and her education, she can glimpse in the paintings a whole world of ideas that is closed to the child. Mother and child are in identical surroundings, but with quite a different effect.”

 

[jdnation]

St. Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the greatest of theologians, grew in his understanding of limbo over the years. In 1255 St. Thomas said that children are aware of their lost destiny but feel no regret. In 1265 he said they feel no regret because they have no idea of what they have lost:

“Thomas, it is clear, ruled out the pain of sense as a punishment for original sin. But the pain of sense is not the greatest torment of the damned. By divine decree the children in limbo are eternally exiled from the vision of God. Do they chafe under their misfortune? Do they rebel against the providence that banished them? St. Thomas had a more difficult problem here than he did in dealing with the pain of sense. Augustine and John Chrysostom alike had insisted that the loss of heaven was a far greater torment than the fire of hell. And surely this loss would be felt far more keenly by one who was innocent of any personal guilt! How, then, could children help resenting their exile, and the providence that had decreed it? Thomas gave two answers to the question over a period of some ten years; and in doing so he shifted ground remarkably.
“In the year 1255 Thomas completed his commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. At that time he remarked that no one regrets the lack of something which he is totally unequipped to have. A man may regret the loss of his home, his family, his good name; but no reasonable man permits himself to be distressed over his inability to fly like a swallow. The analogy holds good in the case of the child in limbo. The child will know that he was meant for the beatific vision; he will know, too, why he lost his chance to enjoy it, but it won’t distress him. He will see too clearly that he has no natural ability to enjoy the beatific vision. The intuitive vision of the divine nature is farther beyond his reach than flying is beyond the corner butcher’s. It is conceivable, of course, that there are people who get upset over their inability to fly like birds; but such people are confined to institutions. We don’t find them in the reasonable world of limbo. (II Sent. d. 33, q. 2, a. 2)
“Some ten years later St. Thomas had a second thought on this problem. (De Malo, q. 5, a. 3) Children, he finally decided, will not be disturbed over their loss simply because they will not know what they have lost. They will go through eternity unaware of their supernatural destiny, never dreaming of the sin that put it beyond their reach. They will, of course, reason to the fact that they were meant to possess God. Since they have not the knowledge of faith, they will never guess the divine decree that would admit man to the vision of God; and what they don’t know won’t hurt them. They will spend eternity contemplating God so far as their nature permits, never dreaming that they were destined for something immeasurably more glorious.
“St. Thomas had shown that children were not unhappy in limbo. Still another question remained: were the children happy? The difference between these two states of mind is not especially subtle. We may ask our neighbor how he is feeling and have him reply that at least his ulcer isn’t bothering him. The answer tells us little aside from the absence of an obvious torment; it is one thing not to be unhappy, and quite another to be happy. Did the green meadow and the glistening river of Dante’s poem speak of a natural happiness? Most theologians would say that the question is to some extent an unreal one. Man was meant to spend his eternity enjoying the vision of God. That is the final purpose of our lives; in it we find our God. That is the final purpose of our lives; in it we find our fulfillment or ‘beatitude’, as theologians would say. Deprived of this fulfillment, could any human being find real happiness?
“St. Thomas says that the children of limbo can be happy, in spite of their exclusion from heaven. It is true that they are separated from God insofar as they do not enjoy the beatific vision, but they are united to God by their native ability to know and to love him; and in this they find their happiness.” [9]

 

[jdnation]

The Jesuits have made a significant contribution to the limbo discussion. “In the three centuries that followed the council of Trent the limbo controversy constantly simmered and sometimes boiled over. Augustinians and Jansenists denied the existence of limbo; Jesuits defended it. The Jansenists detested the Jesuits, the Jesuits reciprocated, and the Augustinians disliked them both. The air was charged with suspicion and at times with libel. The Jesuits were denounced as Pelagians; the Augustinians as Jansenists; and the Jansenists, rightly enough, as heretics." [21]

Fr. Dyer believes that limbo theology reached its ultimate development in the Jesuit theologian, Francisco Suarez [22]:

“In God’s providence, says Suarez, a moment will come when Christ will be acknowledged by all men as Prince and Judge of the world. Since even unbaptized infants must pay him this homage, they will have their part to play both in the resurrection of the dead and in the final judgment of mankind.
“They died as infants, but they will rise as adults possessing not only the use of their reason but full physical maturity as well. As young adults they will stand before the tribunal of Christ to see there for the first time the divine pattern into which their lives had been woven. * Children will all be present at the final judgment to see and honor the majesty of Christ, says Suarez, because the glory of Christ demands that he be adored and acknowledged by all as the Prince, the supreme Judge of the world. They could hardly pay proper tribute to Christ, however, if they were unaware of what was being done at this mighty tribunal. When they see the sentence of damnation passed upon the wicked as well as the joy of the just, they will recognize the justice of God. Their own destiny too, fixing them as it does on a middle ground between damnation and glory, will stand revealed as another manifestation of God’s perfect justice.” [23]

 

[Nohome]

jdnation,

Your Pope thinks it is time to put away the notion of Limbo. Are you suggesting he is wrong?

Nohome

 

[jdnation]

Nohome:

jdnation,

Your Pope thinks it is time to put away the notion of Limbo. Are you suggesting he is wrong?

Nohome

Yes, I am…

 

[Nohome]

jdnation:

Yes, I am…

And if he is wrong about Limbo, does that suggest that the Pope and his predecessors have errored in the past about other issues?

 

[Nevarlander]

Nohome:

And if he is wrong about Limbo, does that suggest that the Pope and his predecessors have errored in the past about other issues?

Not necessarily, as he never taught it officially, AFAIK. The Pope’s allowed to be personally wrong about an issue. John XXII and the Beatific Vision (IIRC, he believed that the saved only saw it after final judgment) is an excellent example.

 

[estesbob]

Nohome:

And if he is wrong about Limbo, does that suggest that the Pope and his predecessors have errored in the past about other issues?

Of course they have erred about other issues! They were human were they not? However they never erred in matters of faith and doctrine. Limbo has been the sunject of much specualtion over the last 1,000 years but was never promulgated as official, infallible doctrine

 

[Nohome]

estesbob:

Limbo has been the subject of much specualtion over the last 1,000 years but was never promulgated as official, infallible doctrine

I agree, but some here seem to think otherwise.