Limbo in the CCC,or Scripture?

[franksv]

As a newer Catholic some of the conversations here are just light years ahead of my reading.On another thread there was some debate on weather limbo is or is not a Catholic teaching,or even in the CCC.

My Questions:

Is limbo in the CCC,or Bible?(I could not find it on the CCC search engine)

If its not in the CCC or Bible,where did the idea come from?

Is limbo a teaching of our most Holy Faith?

Have at it.

Frank

 

[quasimodo]

as I understand it is not in the current catechism but it was in previous ones.

 

[VociMike]

Limbo (Limbo of the Infants, I assume you mean) was/is a theory that is not in scripture, but attempts to “extrapolate” scripture; in particular, the need for baptism to attain salvation. It was never a doctrine, but was presented as a theory. Even the pretty strident Baltimore Catechism does not claim it is a teaching of the faith, but only that some believe it to be correct.

What I wonder is how those who developed the theory thought that those in the Limbo of the Fathers got to heaven, since they weren’t baptized either. If some in the Limbo of the Fathers could get to heaven without water baptism, why not those whom the theory assigned to the Limbo of the Infants?

 

[Della]

The current CCC says: this about unbaptized children.

Limbo was never a teaching of the Church but rather a theological construct by which scholars tried to explain the fate of unbaptized children. Since Jesus did not reveal to the Apostles exactly what happens to such souls who have no sin of their own but have the stain of original sin, the Church has only been able to speculate regarding their fate. It is yet to be seen if the Church will finalize any teaching on the subject in doctrinal or dogmatic terms.

 

[Della]

What I wonder is how those who developed the theory thought that those in the Limbo of the Fathers got to heaven, since they weren’t baptized either. If some in the Limbo of the Fathers could get to heaven without water baptism, why not those whom the theory assigned to the Limbo of the Infants?

Possibly because the Fathers could have decided to have been baptized if it had been available to them or because they were looking forward to the redemption by the Messiah, although it didn’t come in their time. Infants can do neither. That’s my understanding of it, anyway.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

As I’ve done on another thread (“What should the Church ‘drop’ besides limbo?”), I’m posting this link for those who are unaware of, or doubt, the fact that “Limbo” is listed in the official analytical index of the definitive version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

scborromeo.org/ccc/index/l.htm

Please note that the index links limbo to catechism section 1261, which discusses the eternal destiny of children who die without Baptism.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Fidelis]

As I’ve done on another thread (“What should the Church ‘drop’ besides limbo?”), I’m posting this link for those who are unaware of, or doubt, the fact that “Limbo” is listed in the official analytical index of the definitive version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

scborromeo.org/ccc/index/l.htm

Please note that the index links limbo to catechism section 1261, which discusses the eternal destiny of children who die without Baptism.

Keep and spread the Faith.

It should be added that the *word *“limbo” is clearly added to the index for the convenience of people who are looking for information on the subject. The section the index sends them to does not endorse the concept itself; in fact it would seem to preclude it. Just having the word there as reference does not endorse the idea, anymore than having the word “necromancy” in the index would mean it is a practice approved by the Church.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

It should be added that the *word *“limbo” is clearly added to the index for the convenience of people who are looking for information on the subject. The section the index sends them to does not endorse the concept itself; in fact it would seem to preclude it. Just having the word there as reference does not endorse the idea, anymore than having the word “necromancy” in the index would mean it is a practice approved by the Church.

No.

CCC 1261 does not preclude limbo, but, in fact, encourages us to believe in it, for the “hope” of “a way of salvation” for unbaptized infants, when considered against the background of Catholic tradition and the dogma of original sin and its penalties, should be understood to be the hope for the unending natural happiness of limbo, not the *supernatural *happiness of heaven.

Unbaptized infants cannot attain the supernatural happiness of heaven for this reason: they are, in some sense, punished in the next world. It is a Catholic dogma, not a mere theological hypothesis, that “the souls of those who die mortal sin or in original sin only descend without delay into hell, to be punished, however, with different kinds of punishments” (DS 858=D 464 and DS 1306=D 693). This punishment is deprivation of the beatific vision (DS 780=D 410).

Since children dying without the urgently necessary sacrament of Baptism are deprived of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision in accordance with the DS 858/1306 dogma, then how can we say, as *CCC *1261 states, that may hope for a kind of salvation for unbaptized infants? We can say this only because limbo, which is unmerited, unending natural happiness provided by God’s goodness, mercy, love, and universal salvific will, can be viewed as a kind of salvation, a quasi-salvation. After all, the unbaptized child is saved from the pains of hell.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[VociMike]

No.

CCC 1261 does not preclude limbo, but, in fact, encourages us to believe in it, for the “hope” of “a way of salvation” for unbaptized infants, when considered against the background of Catholic tradition and the dogma of original sin and its penalties, should be understood to be the hope for the unending natural happiness of limbo, not the *supernatural *happiness of heaven.

Unbaptized infants cannot attain the supernatural happiness of heaven for this reason: they are, in some sense, punished in the next world. It is a Catholic dogma, not a mere theological hypothesis, that “the souls of those who die mortal sin or in original sin only descend without delay into hell, to be punished, however, with different kinds of punishments” (DS 858=D 464 and DS 1306=D 693). This punishment is deprivation of the beatific vision (DS 780=D 410).

Since children dying without the urgently necessary sacrament of Baptism are deprived of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision in accordance with the DS 858/1306 dogma, then how can we say, as *CCC *1261 states, that may hope for a kind of salvation for unbaptized infants? We can say this only because limbo, which is unmerited, unending natural happiness provided by God’s goodness, mercy, love, and universal salvific will, can be viewed as a kind of salvation, a quasi-salvation. After all, the unbaptized child is saved from the pains of hell.

Keep and spread the Faith.

Does this also mean that none of those who were in the Limbo of the Fathers have entered heaven, or will ever enter heaven? For they too were never baptized in water. If this is the case, then why did Jesus bother to descend to them?

 

[VociMike]

Originally Posted by VociMike
What I wonder is how those who developed the theory thought that those in the Limbo of the Fathers got to heaven, since they weren’t baptized either. If some in the Limbo of the Fathers could get to heaven without water baptism, why not those whom the theory assigned to the Limbo of the Infants?

In this matter I always think of how John the Baptist, still in the womb, leaped “for joy”(!!!) in the presence of Our Lord. That sounds like he would have decided to be baptized right then and there, if it had been available.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I have never found the Baltimore Catechism strident, merely
orthodox. However, it teaches limbo straightforwardly, with no apologies. Now, the edition I have is
Father Connell’s 1949 Confraternity Edition of the Baltimore Catechism no. 3 and Mass (available at amazon.com).

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Does this also mean that none of those who were in the Limbo of the Fathers have entered heaven, or will ever enter heaven? For they too were never baptized in water. If this is the case, then why did Jesus bother to descend to them?

The saints living in the state of sanctifying grace in the “limbo of the fathers” before the accomplishment of the Redemption were, in the case of those who had reached the age of reason, able to desire Baptism implicitly, and thus be saved by baptism of desire in accordance with the principles that the Church teaches in CCC 633-634, 848, and 1260. But it should be noted, in accordance with the teaching of the Council of Trent (DS 1524=D 796), that the urgent necessity of water Baptism began to exist only with the promulgation of the Gospel.

Baptism of desire cannot apply to infants, since they have no actuated power of desire. This is one of the presuppositions for the deduction of limbo.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Fidelis]

No.

CCC 1261 does not preclude limbo, but, in fact, encourages us to believe in it, for the “hope” of “a way of salvation” for unbaptized infants, when considered against the background of Catholic tradition and the dogma of original sin and its penalties, should be understood to be the hope for the unending natural happiness of limbo, not the *supernatural *happiness of heaven.

I disagree, since the Catechism section in question does not make the *natural/supernatural *distinction that you are projecting onto it. In fact, it pointedly uses the term salvation, which, arguably, can only mean heaven.

Peace,
fidelis

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I disagree, since the Catechism section in question does not make the *natural/supernatural *distinction that you are projecting onto it. In fact, it pointedly uses the term salvation, which, arguably, can only mean heaven.

Peace,
fidelis

On the contrary, the “natural/supernatural distinction” is taught, or presupposed, all through the Catechism of the Catholc Church, for it is one of the foundations of the Catholic Faith. Anyone–this is not directed at you personally, Fidelis–who doesn’t understand the distinction between natural life and the supernatural life doesn’t understand what the Faith is all about.

Please see *CCC *367, 1027-1028, 1131, 1722, 1727, and 1996-2005.

Etymologically, salvation is the state of being rescued from some danger. In CCC 1261, the danger is the sufferings of hell. The souls in limbo are rescued–this is our hope, based on God’s mercy–from these sufferings.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Fidelis]

On the contrary, the “natural/supernatural distinction” is taught, or presupposed, all through the Catechism of the Catholc Church, for it is one of the foundations of the Catholic Faith. Anyone–this is not directed at you personally, Fidelis–who doesn’t understand the distinction between natural life and the supernatural life doesn’t understand what the Faith is all about.

Sure it’s not, even though the remark is directed at my reply. Whatever.

Anyway, for the record, I do appreciate the distinction between natural life and the supernatural life. My point is that CCC 1261 does not make the distinction, and it is presumptous to project it there.

Etymologically, salvation is the state of being rescued from some danger. In CCC 1261, the danger is the sufferings of hell. The souls in limbo are rescued from these sufferings.

Again, you are projecting this definition on a passage that doesn’t say what you wish it to say. It talks about salvation, but does not mention Limbo.

Anyone who tries to torture Church teaching into saying something that will preserve one’s pet theory really doesn’t understand what the Faith is all about. Nothing personal, of course.

 

[VociMike]

Baptism of desire cannot apply to infants, since they have no actuated power of desire. This is one of the presuppositions for the deduction of limbo.

And I say that the example of John the Baptist in the womb shows otherwise.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Anyway, for the record, I do appreciate the distinction between natural life and the supernatural life. My point is that CCC 1261 does not make the distinction, and it is presumptuous to project it there.

Again, you are projecting this definition on a passage that doesn’t say what you wish it to say. It talks about salvation, but does not mention Limbo.

Anyone who tries to torture Church teaching into saying something that will preserve one’s pet theory really doesn’t understand what the Faith is all about. Nothing personal, of course.

A passage does not have to mention a theological term to be understood as teaching the concept which that term expresses. The New Testament does not use the terms “Blessed Trinity” or “Real Presence,” but it teaches their meanings. Without using the term “Co-Redemptrix,” CCC 618 expresses the meaning of that term by stating that Mary “was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his [Jesus’s] redemptive suffering.” In the same manner, we should understand CCC 1261 as referring to the hope that unbaptized infants are saved from the pains of hell and accorded the gift of natural happiness in limbo.

The relevant Church teaching–a dogma–which I am defending, not torturing, is that the “souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only descend without delay into hell, to be punished, however, with different kinds of punishments” (Councils of Lyons II and Florence).

Limbo is necessary for the defense of the above dogma. That is why the Catholic Church will not, and cannot, abandon limbo.

Limbo is *not *my “pet theory”–or the “pet theory” of any Catholic. It is the carefully, prayerfully considered conclusion of Catholics, including great theologians, throughout the ages. One of these theologians is St. Thomas Aquinas. Limbo was explicitly defended by Pope Pius VI in 1794, when he condemned those who called limbo a “fable” (DS 2626).

I urge everyone interested in this issue to study the following texts: the Catholic Encyclopedia article on limbo, and St. Thomas Aquinas’s comments on limbo in the supplement to the Summa theologiae. Here are the links:

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
newadvent.org/summa/600101.htm
newadvent.org/summa/600102.htm

Catholic brothers and sisters, please don’t listen to me. Listen to Pope Pius VI and St. Thomas Aquinas–and a multitude of other Catholic authorities.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve O’Brien forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Baptism of desire cannot apply to infants, since they have no actuated power of desire. This is one of the presuppositions for the deduction of limbo.

And I say that the example of John the Baptist in the womb shows otherwise.

On the contrary, if St. John the Baptist received the miraculous power of cognition in the womb of St. Elizabeth, that does not conflict with the statement that all infants other than St. John the Baptist have no actuated power of desire. Nor does it conflict with the fact that the official teaching of the Catholic Church knows nothing of baptism of desire in infants.

If infants other than St. John the Baptist had the power of cognition, then God would never have allowed the Church to teach the urgent necessity of infant Baptism.

Logically, if limbo were to be suppressed, then infant Baptism would have to be suppressed as well, for baptizing babies would then make no sense. The Church baptizes infants because they are born with original sin (CCC 403 and 1250), and because they are incapable of baptism of desire.

Here is what Pope Pius XII, speaking about Baptism and the supernatural life, taught in an address to midwives in 1951:

"In the present dispensation there is no other means of communicating this life to the child, who has not yet the use of reason."

---

**By the way, if all unbaptized infants are guaranteed heaven, then it’s impossible to escape the startling and upsetting conclusion that it’s better to be aborted than to be born. **

In the anti-limbo scenario, being aborted becomes a diabolical quasi-sacrament, catapulting souls into heaven almost ex opere operato, whereas being born and reaching the age of reason entail the risks of dying unrepentant in mortal sin and then going to hell for all eternity. This is another reason why the Church can’t abandon limbo and say that all children dying without Baptism reach heaven.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[VociMike]

On the contrary, if St. John the Baptist received the miraculous power of cognition in the womb of St. Elizabeth, that does not conflict with the statement that all infants other than St. John the Baptist have no actuated power of desire. Nor does it conflict with the fact that the official teaching of the Catholic Church knows nothing of baptism of desire in infants.

I certainly accept that the Church knows nothing of baptism of desire in infants. I do not claim it is doctrine, only that scripture shows that it may be possible.

If infants other than St. John the Baptist had the power of cognition, then God would never have allowed the Church to teach the urgent necessity of infant Baptism.

The Church also teaches the urgency of receiving the Eucharist, but people may be saved without it. The Church also does teach the possiblility of baptism of desire for (but not only for) adults, but that does not reduce her determination that unbaptised adults also be baptised.

Logically, if limbo were to be suppressed, then infant Baptism would have to be suppressed as well, for baptizing babies would then make no sense. The Church baptizes infants because they are born with original sin (CCC 403 and 1250).

The Church baptises all who join her because they are born with original sin. And yet she also teaches baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

**By the way, if all unbaptized infants are guaranteed heaven, then it’s impossible to escape the startling and upsetting conclusion that it’s better to be aborted than to be born. **

Not so, any more than the false conclusion that it’s better to die at the moment of baptism than to live a full life.

In the anti-limbo scenario, being aborted becomes a diabolical quasi-sacrament, catapulting souls into heaven almost ex opere operato, whereas being born and reaching the age of reason entail the risks of dying unrepentant in mortal sin and then going to hell for all eternity. This is another reason why the Church can’t abandon limbo and say that all children dying without Baptism reach heaven.

Let me be clear that I do not suggest that all children dying without baptism reach heaven, any more than that all adults dying without baptism will receive baptism of desire.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Quote from Steve O’Brien:

**By the way, if all unbaptized infants are guaranteed heaven, then it’s impossible to escape the startling and upsetting conclusion that it’s better to be aborted than to be born. **

Not so, any more than the false conclusion that it’s better to die at the moment of baptism than to live a full life.

From a solidly Catholic perspective, it ***is ***better to die at the moment of Baptism and be assured of heaven than to live a full life and risk hell. (But, of course, it’s necessary to accept God’s will whatever happens to us.)

Isn’t it better to die a martyr than to deny the Faith and risk hell for this denial?

By the same token, if all unbaptized infants were guaranteed the beatific vision, then it most certainly would be preferable to be aborted than to be born.

Logically, there are only two escape hatches from the above conclusion concerning abortion: (1) to deny the dogma of hell, saying that everyone goes to heaven, and (2) to abandon the Catholic Faith altogether.

The conclusion is inescapable. Think about it.

Keep and spread the Faith.