Limbo of the Children

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Here’s a good article:

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9709fea2.asp

His work got the same treatment as the Marquette professor’s a while back. While there is no index of course, Catholics were discouraged from reading–it’s the closest thing to a forbidding. Pardon my hyperbole

I have his book on the History of the Popes. Is this book filled with his liberalisms? And if so, where can I find a decent book on the history of the popes and the papacy?

 

[francesco920]

I really don’t need to wait until the church says so. It’s obvious to me.

Really? So you received a revelation from God about this?

Interesting.

 

[Neithan]

I personally believe in the Limbus Infantium. To say that unbaptised and unborn infants receive the Beatific Vision to me somewhat empties Baptism of its wondrous power.

Parents may be comforted by the fact that Limbo is [usually understood as] a place of natural happiness, and there is no suffering there.

The Beatific Vision is for human beings who are ‘divinized,’ i.e. infused with God’s sanctifying Grace, and without Baptism (or at least a sincere desire for Baptism) I don’t see how that is possible.

It is important for people to realise that abortion is not a free ticket to heaven, but in fact [probably] robs souls of their chance to take part in the inheritance of Christ–though they will not be punished for this.

On the other hand, I think that it might be admissible to find within the doctrine of ‘Baptism of Desire’ the possibility for miscarried and newborn infants to receive sanctifying Grace on the basis of the desire (and intent) of their parents? Perhaps through prayers of intercession as well.

 

[v1gilbert]

I really don’t need to wait until the church says so. It’s obvious to me.

I also had a child who died by miscarriage this past year and I trust in our Heavenly Father as being Mercy and Love. However, I do always give my assent of faith according to what the Church teaches. Any thing less than that is not faith, in the Catholic sense.

Since the Church didn’t have the answer Divinely revealed to them there is uncertainty but nothing that would ever make me go against what the Church teaches.

 

[John_Hiner]

. . . I bolded the part of your post that I am totally confused by. I don’t think God limits salvation at all… it is His desire that everyone be saved. But we’ve been given free will and some people choose to not accept His gift of grace.

Also, you said that God can only do what is loving. I agree. Isn’t it most loving to allow preborn babies who’ve died to go to heaven? In what way have they chosen to reject God?

Dear Carol Marie:

I am writing to try and make clearer my statement: “It is respect for humans and human families that limits God’s options in salvation.”

I will start with an example: If I approach a young mother and say, “I love your newborn child, I would like him to spend the week with me,” and the mother says, “No, I do not want him to go with you.” What are my choices as a person who respects the mother?

My options are very limited. I can try and persuade the mother to change her mind. But, if she does not, I cannot take the child – no matter how good I think it is for the child – unless the mother reconsiders and explicitly gives her permission.

I cannot overpower the mother. I cannot confuse her and get her to say yes, without really meaning it. I cannot merely take the baby and do what I know is best for the baby, even if I am correct and it is good for the baby to be with me for the week.

I cannot do any of these things, even if the baby would want me to. Even if the baby were old enough to say that he wanted to come with me, I still could not take the baby without the mother’s permission, until the child reached an age where the mother’s dignity no longer gave her the decisive say in what the child could do. (To do so would be for me to assist the child to dishonor his mother.)

Now suppose I had the above exchange, and the mother said “no,” and I waited a month. I did not ask again, I just waited a month and then thought, “Well she said ‘no’ before, but she has not said ‘no’ since then.” Even this delay with the mother being silent would not overcome her decision. If I respect the mother, I cannot take the baby. The mother’s word restricts me – if I love and respect the mother.

Suppose I find the baby alone. Suppose someone has violently taken the baby away from the mother and I find the baby. Even this would not allow me to take the baby and do what the mother had denied me permission to do. If I took up the baby and had him spend the week with me, I would become a kidnapper.

All of these considerations apply to God as well as to me. All of these considerations are reflected in the Church’s teachings about baptizing children. The Church, even as God’s direct agent, cannot baptize without a parent’s (or other appropriate guardian’s) permission. She cannot merely override the parent’s decision against baptism, even though the Church absolutely knows, as does God, that baptism would be good for the child.

None of this can be done against the mother’s wishes, even if I believe that “if only she knew the whole story, the mother would change her mind and agree with me.” Unless she actually changes her mind and gives permission, I cannot violate the mother’s dignity, if I love her.

It is in this sense that love and respect for the mother and for the family restrains God from saving children, without the permission of their parents. God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. Sometimes, sadly, His love compels Him to give other children as well.

Jesus did say “let the little children come to me.” This is a command that fathers and mothers must heed and obey. But if they choose not to obey, it is not a command God will impose as a tyranny.

Let us pray that the hearts of parents will be softened.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[mich2]

With the formal announcement of the reversing of the teaching on Limbo of the Children I saw on the AP press release a comment from Rev. McBrien from Notre Dame which was a concern (see link):

news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/catholic-church-reverses-teaching-on/20070420203609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Since I have more “zeal than brains” I may have not been as articulate as some of you would have been. What would you have said to him? His email address is rmcbrien@nd.edu if you want to send him your thoughts.

Taken from the article;

** Theologians said the move was highly significant - both for what it says about Benedict’s willingness to buck a long-standing tenet of Catholic belief and for what it means theologically about the Church’s views on heaven, hell and original sin - the sin that the faithful believe all children are born with**

I have always been a supporter of the theory of Limbo since, in the scriptures, Abraham’s Bosom was understood as being a type of Limbo which, according to Josephus,was situated within Hadies (Hell), where the souls of the righteous were awaiting to be delivered.

However, I also greatly support the “possibility” of Heaven having been opened up by Christ’s death and resurrection, for **all ** except those who would refuse to be “changed” using the words of St Paul or to receive new birth as Jesus Himself mentioned.Without this change of nature, no one can enter or see the kingdom of God. This “change” is, according to the belief of the Catholic Church, accomplished only by baptism.

Now, the christian baptism, realized through water, in the name of the Holy Trinity, may not be the only form of baptism availlable. I personally believe in the baptism of **fire and the Holy Spirit ** mentioned by the Baptist.I believe it is the fire mentioned by St Paul in which everyone will pass through. Such a baptism would be viewed as a purification for christians and a regeneration, although not by water, for those who are not part of Christ’s body.It could also represent, in my personal opinion, the fires of Hell within which some would remain within their sins refusing to be purified

The Jewish Holy Temple of God was a type of Heaven in which separations can be found. A hypothesis would be that only christians (those united to the mystical body of Christ) could enter into the “Heaven of heavens”. However, other divisions exists for those who have received a covenant with God (Isrealites), and also for those who, according to nature, are gentiles, but follow God’s law in their hearts.

And so, as for the statement:

Theologians said the move was highly significant …for what it means theologically about the Church’s views on heaven, hell and original sin - the sin that the faithful believe all children are born with.

Nothing about baptism or original sin is being questioned by the Church.

Andre

 

[carol_marie]

Dear Carol Marie:

I am writing to try and make clearer my statement: “It is respect for humans and human families that limits God’s options in salvation.” …

John Hiner

John,
Thank you for explaining what you meant. Would your opinion be different though if the baby who died would have been born to Christian parents who would have baptized the baby?

And to all: I have such a hard time understanding why some Catholics are so reluctant to say that unbaptized babies would go to heaven when the Catholic Church teaches that even some Musims & Jews & Atheists will be in heaven? (that “through no fault of their own…” thing.) Why are the unborn babies held to a higher standard than the rest? honestly

 

[John_Hiner]

In RCIA my Priest said that we are bound by the Sacrements but God is not. Do you disagree with that?

I bolded the part of your post that I am totally confused by. I don’t think God limits salvation at all… it is His desire that everyone be saved. But we’ve been given free will and some people choose to not accept His gift of grace.

Also, you said that God can only do what is loving. I agree. Isn’t it most loving to allow preborn babies who’ve died to go to heaven? In what way have they chosen to reject God?

Dear Carol Marie:

I cannot answer your first question easily. It is complicated in this particular case, because the statement that God did not bind His power to the Sacraments is an argument of St. Thomas Aquinas. He is also the one who argued for the necessity of “limbo.” Hence, it is not clear to me just now whether the one concept can be lifted from his reasoning in a context that calls his reasoning on the other into doubt. I will need time to think about this.

It is true however that St. Thomas did write in Summa Theologica III Question 64, A[7] body para 2/2:

But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; . . .

See, intratext.com/IXT/ENG0023/_PEN.HTM

It is true that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) states:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[59] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.[60] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[61] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. (Emphasis added.)

There is no footnote in the Catechism at this point, so it is not clear whether some other source than St. Thomas’s observation is relied on as the basis for the final sentence in this statement.

St. Thomas also said, in Summa Theologia, Supplementum Tertiæ Partis, Q 99, Art. 3, On the contrary:

Further, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) “death is to men what their fall was to the angels.” Now after their fall the angels could not be restored [Cf. I, 64, 2]. Therefore neither can man after death . . .

This view too is taken up and endorsed by the 1992 Catechism:

393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272 [fn. 272 St. John Damascene, De Fide orth. 2,4: PG 94,877.] (Emphasis added.)

See newadvent.org/summa/5099.htm.

How these two ideas are inter-related, and what they have to say about the nature of man – before and after death – are not immediately clear to me. So, I am unwilling to take the statement, “we are bound by the Sacraments but God is not” out of its context and try to reason from it about the question of the fate of the unbaptized. To do so would be to ignore Pope John Paul II’s warning in Fides et Ratio:

The first goes by the name of eclecticism, by which is meant the approach of those who, in research, teaching and argumentation, even in theology, tend to use individual ideas drawn from different philosophies, without concern for their internal coherence, their place within a system or their historical context. They therefore run the risk of being unable to distinguish the part of truth of a given doctrine from elements of it which may be erroneous or ill-suited to the task at hand. (See Fides et Ratio, art. 86.)

So, though I can agree with the statement in a certain sense, I cannot agree to it unconditionally.

Pax Christi tecum.

John Hiner

 

[carol_marie]

John,
Thanks again for your reply. Sometimes I think I am not intelligent enough to be Catholic - half the time I don’t really understand what is meant when I read the Chruch Father’s or the documents posted.

In simple terms, could you shed any light on my inability to reconcile why unbaptized Muslims & Atheists ("…through no fault of their own…" ) have the hope of heaven - but not babies? Or perhaps my frustration comes from Catholics who are willing to say that Muslims will be in heaven - but not unbaptized babies. I believe it’s written that both have the “hope” (ie - no guarantee) but it seems that Catholics are willing to extend the grace to the Muslim MUCH more readily than the grace is extended to the unbaptized baby.

 

[mich2]

John,

And to all: I have such a hard time understanding why some Catholics are so reluctant to say that unbaptized babies would go to heaven when the Catholic Church teaches that even some Musims & Jews & Atheists will be in heaven? (that “through no fault of their own…” thing.) Why are the unborn babies held to a higher standard than the rest? honestly

I don’t think it’s a reluctancy in hoping for the best of those unbaptized children, since limbo is identified as a place of natural happiness. However, if the unbaptized babies who died went directly into Heaven due to the fact that they haven’t committed any actual sins, the question remains, how can Jesus be said to be their Savior as well, if they had no need of being saved in the first place. Also, were the unbaptized babies who died before the Sacrifice of Christ on calvary able to enter directly into Heaven as well?

Limbo is/was believed to be a temporal place where all unbaptized babies or righteous individuals were believed by some to be detained until Judgement Day, where the righteous would be risen and allowed to enter Heaven. As for the babies, certainly we all would** hope** that they would attain Heaven; however, it must be left ot the Judgement of God who is the only One that is capable of knowing the hearts. I say this because a condemned person will certainly feel that Judgement has not been executed if he/she will pass eternity in Hell while the baby who never had the opportunity to commit any sin will be in Heaven.

I personally would think the baby will need to receive a new nature instead of it’s own sinful nature ( a nature **leading **one to sin) as any other individuals…if this individual resists the change, I believe it also can potentially receive condemnation.

Andre

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Cheap shot…it is MY belief. How’s that? "one of “THOSE” churches? and you are a Br.?

It’s not a cheap shot but a reality. Other non-Catholic Christian communities do in fact hold that infants do not require Baptism, that they are born into God’s grace and deny Original Sin.

If it is your belief that infants go to Heaven without any doubt, Then keep it to yourself, and quit trying to proclaim publicly what is clearly against the opinion of the Church.

The Church holds that we may believe that there might be a way for these children to be saved, without any absolute certainty.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

John,
Thank you for explaining what you meant. Would your opinion be different though if the baby who died would have been born to Christian parents who would have baptized the baby?

And to all: I have such a hard time understanding why some Catholics are so reluctant to say that unbaptized babies would go to heaven when the Catholic Church teaches that even some Musims & Jews & Atheists will be in heaven? (that “through no fault of their own…” thing.) Why are the unborn babies held to a higher standard than the rest? honestly

There is no difference. A Moslem or Jew who dies without Baptism and did not explicitly state a desire for Baptism, MIGHT be in Heaven if they didn’t intentionally reject Christ and lived by God’s Actual Grace as given to them. Just as any Infant MIGHT be in Heaven if they died without the possibility of Baptism, through nobody’s fault.

 

[Rach620]

I just knew someone in the media was going to ask for Fr. McBrien’s insight. sigh

As an ND student, I think it’s safe to say that the best response to McBrien is to ignore him. His comment about baptism as merely being ‘initiation into the Church, not a wiping away of original sin’ amounts to the collapse of the sacramental economy. He’s offering his ‘Catholicism’ class next semester–I’m happy, so far, to see that all 200 spots aren’t yet filled.

On the other hand, the article in This Rock (about McBrien) was written by a fantastic philosophy professor here, Adrian Reimers. He offers multiple classes on the theology/philosophy of JPII which students (like me!) are clamoring to take.

Again, everyone please keep in mind that the ITC neither affirmed nor denied the existence of limbo. It just said that we have great reason to hope that unbaptized infants enjoy the beatific vision, and that we can never know for sure.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

John,
Thanks again for your reply. Sometimes I think I am not intelligent enough to be Catholic - half the time I don’t really understand what is meant when I read the Chruch Father’s or the documents posted.

In simple terms, could you shed any light on my inability to reconcile why unbaptized Muslims & Atheists ("…through no fault of their own…" ) have the hope of heaven - but not babies? Or perhaps my frustration comes from Catholics who are willing to say that Muslims will be in heaven - but not unbaptized babies. I believe it’s written that both have the “hope” (ie - no guarantee) but it seems that Catholics are willing to extend the grace to the Muslim MUCH more readily than the grace is extended to the unbaptized baby.

Unbaptized infants DO have the hope of the possibility of Heaven, they just DO NOT have the certainty of Heaven which some seem to be promoting.

 

[Julianna]

It’s not a cheap shot but a reality. Other non-Catholic Christian communities do in fact hold that infants do not require Baptism, that they are born into God’s grace and deny Original Sin.

If it is your belief that infants go to Heaven without any doubt, Then keep it to yourself, and quit trying to proclaim publicly what is clearly against the opinion of the Church.
The Church holds that we may believe that there might be a way for these children to be saved, without any absolute certainty.

…or else what…death by torture on the rack, maybe a burning at the stake? Br. Rich…did you notice that the Middle Ages are over? Upon whose authority do you state that I cannot state what I want when “asked” directly? Should I lie, should I pretend to agree, when I don’t. As thistle pointed out, it is the Magistrum that decides this…but then again…aren’t they made up of “human beings”…or did I miss the boat on that too? Human beings fail and are capable of sin, no one is perfect…not on this earth. Actually, I do keep some things to myself…because I know that I will be flamed by conservo catholics. Not very charitable on your part.

 

[Rach620]

…or else what…death by torture on the rack, maybe a burning at the stake? Br. Rich…did you notice that the Middle Ages are over? Upon whose authority do you state that I cannot state what I want when “asked” directly? Should I lie, should I pretend to agree, when I don’t. As thistle pointed out, it is the Magistrum that decides this…but then again…aren’t they made up of “human beings”…or did I miss the boat on that too? Human beings fail and are capable of sin, no one is perfect…not on this earth. Actually, I do keep some things to myself…because I know that I will be flamed by conservo catholics. Not very charitable on your part.

I’m pretty sure he wasn’t threatening anything. You’re far from an e-Inquisition.

The thing is, in regards to Church teaching, there is a truth of things which all Catholics are pursuing. It’s not all just a matter of opinion. As a Catholic, yes, your opinion is valuable–inasmuch as it is informed by the authority of the Church. You’re allowed to say what you think, but at the same time must recognize a responsibility to conform your thoughts to the mind of the Church, which has infinitely more wisdom than any one individual. It’s hard, and requires humility, but it is what we are called to do as faithful Catholics.

We believe that the Magisterium isn’t just made up of guys who think really hard about things and then teach about them; when they are together, they speak with the voice of the Church, under the influence of the Holy Spirit. They are worthy of our attention and obedience.

 

[Corki]

If there’s no limbo and we’re not going to revert to St. Augustine’s teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we’re left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.

“Baptism does not exist to wipe away the “stain” of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church,” he said in an e-mailed response.

This is scary stuff from McBrien. I would not call anyone a heretic but what do you call someone who is not just questioning but blatently denying a central Church teaching?

 

[Rach620]

This is scary stuff from McBrien. I would not call anyone a heretic but what do you call someone who is not just questioning but blatently denying a central Church teaching?

Apostate? Heterodox?

or, my old school favorite…“anathema”?



A quote from another favorite ND prof: “There is no conservative or liberal in the Church. There’s orthodox and there’s heterodox. Either you follow Church teaching, or you don’t.” - Ralph McInerny

 

[TNT]

In RCIA my Priest said that we are bound by the Sacrements but God is not. Do you disagree with that?

I bolded the part of your post that I am totally confused by. I don’t think God limits salvation at all… it is His desire that everyone be saved. But we’ve been given free will and some people choose to not accept His gift of grace.

Also, you said that God can only do what is loving. I agree. Isn’t it most loving to allow preborn babies who’ve died to go to heaven? In what way have they chosen to reject God?

I love this. It guarantees that abortions are not entirely evil in their consequences, but in fact, ASSURE the greatest reward in Christianity…Immediate Heaven.
If it wasn’t for abortion, objectively, Heaven would be far less populated.
Re:
In what way have they chosen to reject God?

In what way do they profess any faith whatsoever in the Messiah or the Trinity.
So, the question is a strawman, really.

What exactly IS the effect of Original sin in the Supernatural realm?

Re:
Also, you said that God can only do what is loving. I agree.
Well, by that requirement, God can be really nasty when a Tsunami drowns & smashes infants to death (and other countless acts of God)… the good with the evil.

 

[Neithan]

Limbo is/was believed to be a temporal place where all unbaptized babies or righteous individuals were believed by some to be detained until Judgement Day, where the righteous would be risen and allowed to enter Heaven.

That’s not entirely correct; the *Limbus Patrum *was the place where the just souls who died before Christ went and were freed by Him when He descended there after His death. This is a dogmatic teaching (de fide).

The Limbus Infantium is the place (not the same as above) normally referred to as Limbo, where unbaptised children or the unborn are believed to go, but the view that they might go to Heaven after Judgment Day was condemned at the Council of Florence. Limbo is apart from direct experience of God, but the souls there experience as much happiness as is possible for their natural human state (i.e. without sanctifying Grace), and there is no suffering there.