Limbo Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Baptista
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Baptista

Guest
A friend of a friend lost a young child not too long ago. The child was hit by a car and killed. He was 4 or 5 yrs old. He was not baptized, but his parents are Catholics. They asked a priest to please baptize his body. The priest refused and said this child is now in Limbo forever. That he will never see God. The parents are so upset that they are thinking of leaving the Church for a protestant denomination that doesn’t teach this.

Wait…I know the Church does NOT teach Limbo. That was something that was taught in my generation in schools, however. But even then, we were taught that the child would see God at the end of time.

What I need is something concrete that the Church teaches about children who have not been baptized, and have died.

This child had not reached what we called “the age of reason”. I’m not sure if it is still 7. I don’t know why the people didn’t have their child baptized. All I know is they have been turned against the Catholic Church because of this priest, who should not have turned their request away.

This little child deserved to be given Baptism after death at the hospital, IMHO. And the parents certainly didn’t need to be told their child would languish in some gray area of space forevermore.

I looked in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but I guess I’m not seeing the answer to this. I would appreciate any help. Any site that has the answer. I would like to e-mail it to my friend, so she can tell these people that the Church does not teach this. Maybe they will be awakened in their Faith and learn more about our wonderful Church. And maybe, if there are more children, they will get them baptized now…
 
The Church teaches the following (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church):

1261 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,”[63] 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.
I found this quote on a thread the other day and thought it may help you. I was having difficulty with the same issue over a miscarriage. I believe, as does it seems the Church, that the Lord’s mercy is sufficient, his love is unending, and we can rest in that.

God Bless,
Jeanette
 
Tell you friend not to worry their child is in heaven with God.I’m in RCIA and last night was our meeting was on baptism,and this subject came up the finally result was that God takes care of all children 😉
 
Thanks for your response Jeanette. I, too, believe this child is in Heaven. I believe in Our Lord’s mercy. I believe my miscarried children are with God in Heaven. I just wanted something concrete to show to these people who are out of their minds with grief.

I am so upset with the priest who acted that way toward them. They have such a responsibility to the flock. It was another such priest who drove my father away from the Church for more than 40 years. I will be praying for him and all to know how to deal with people compassionately.

Thank you again. I guess I just didn’t see that. Probably in too much of a hurry. I will copy that passage for my friend. Thank you, thank you, thank you! God bless.
 
40.png
answers:
Tell you friend not to worry their child is in heaven with God.I’m in RCIA and last night was our meeting was on baptism,and this subject came up the finally result was that God takes care of all children 😉
Click to expand...
I hate to say this but that is not the teaching of the church. The Church says that we have to trust in Gods mercy and judgement. We don’t know where these souls reside and the Church does not say one way or another… I think it good to remember two essential elements of Catholic doctrine. One is the concept of original sin, which we all have and which is taken away through baptism. The second is that only perfection can enter Heaven which is the basis of the doctrine of Purgatory. A child is born with the stain of original sin that must be erased through baptism. After baptism, any subsequent sins must be wiped clean through confession, penance, good works and or suffering either in this world or purgatory, until such time as the soul is clean and pure.

The priest I think was unnecessarily cruel in what he said, and he did not speak as the church teaches.

But you have to understand the Church does not say that the souls of these children go to heaven. It never has. It cannot unless it changes some of the basic beliefs of the faith.

I’m very sorry, but that is the truth. We don’t know what happens to them.
 
But… we trust that our loving God would not condemn to hell innocent children.
 
The priest was wrong. “Limbo” is only a theory, a conjecture, and was never doctrine (It was probably a page notation). Do a search in this forum and you will find all the pertinents. However, there is no way to baptize the dead. The priest could have been kinder, could have blessed the child’s body, could have…could have…could have…but didn’t.

The Church teaches that little children who die without Baptism are trusted to God’s mercy. We simply don’t know. Then, there is that scripture of “let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for such is the Kingdom of Heaven”.

Now, we can conjecture- but we will simply never know until we get to heaven ourselves.

I don’t think we need to resort to a rabbinical pilpul to figure out that it is not a lie to comfort friends through mentioning that Jesus said, “Let the little children…” or that the actual teaching of the Church is to entrust the child to God’s mercy. You can ask (although it sounds like a stereoptypical shrink’s couch), “Where do YOU think little Milton is?”

A child who has not been baptized is entitled to a Funeral Mass if the parents desire it (even a non-Catholic can have a Funeral Mass). At such a Mass, there are farewell prayers that mention trusting the child to God. If this was not provided, it should be, forthwith (a body is not necessary for a Memorial Mass). And hopefully, there are other priests in the area who can celebrate this Mass, as well as provide the comfort the first priest did not. Perhaps you can direct this priest to your friends, or recommend such a priest to them.
 
Jeanette L:
The Church teaches the following (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church):

1261 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,”[63] 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.
I found this quote on a thread the other day and thought it may help you. I was having difficulty with the same issue over a miscarriage. I believe, as does it seems the Church, that the Lord’s mercy is sufficient, his love is unending, and we can rest in that.

God Bless,
Jeanette
Click to expand...
Tell your friend that it is good to have hope that there may be a way for these children to enter into Heaven. That she should continue to pray for her child and ask her child to pray for her.
 
Joe Gloor:
But… we trust that our loving God would not condemn to hell innocent children.
Click to expand...
The church has never said that unbaptized children went to Hell. It was thought or supposed that they went to Limbo. However, I think that was just a theory that evolved from the Limbo of the Just where Christ descended after his death. I have heard that several Popes did espouse the belief that there was a Limbo for unbaptized children, but it was never offical doctrine. It was one of those grey areas.

I think the catechism says it best that we have to trust in Gods mercy. We have to remember that unbaptized children still carry the stain of original sin on their souls, and we cannot get around that or neglect it and the consequences that could arise from it.
 
Honestly, is God so powerless that a defenseless child’s soul will never enter heaven, because of the lack of prudence on the part of the parents in not having their child baptized quickly? God’s love is stronger than original sin- and he doesn’t depend on our baptizing our children for those children to see Him face to face.
 
40.png
m134e5:
Honestly, is God so powerless that a defenseless child’s soul will never enter heaven, because of the lack of prudence on the part of the parents in not having their child baptized quickly? God’s love is stronger than original sin- and he doesn’t depend on our baptizing our children for those children to see Him face to face.
Click to expand...
I trust in his mercy, I just stated the Churches teachings. Thats all. Why get defensive about it?.

You see what you are doing is just what Martin Luther and the reformers did. They did not agree with what the church taught, so they formed their own. Catholicism is not just another sect, it is the one true church. It has rules, it has doctrine and beliefs. If you choose not to believe them that is entirely your choice.

I neither defended or attacked the position of the Church. II accept its teachings even if I don’t understand them. In all honesty, who can say why God requires certain things? He does, we don’t know why. We have to accept what He says as a matter of faith. Why did Jesus have to die? Couldn’t God have done something else to offer salvation tous? Think about it. God is not human, nor are we Gods.

There is a line in the Book of Isiah, and t I think sums it up completely:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts
Nor my ways your ways.
 
Those who believe in Limbo claim that the souls there are perfectly happy. No pain, no suffering, no fear, no worries.

They aren’t bothered at all by the fact that they don’t have the Beatific Vision, because you don’t miss what you’ve never had.

And there are those who claim that our prayers can release souls from Limbo into Heaven.

(I myself am not sure what to believe. I’m merely stating what others have said. I got some of the above info from an old catechism.)
40.png
Baptista:
The priest … said this child is now in Limbo forever. That he will never see God.
Click to expand...
This may not be as terrible as it sounds. May not be terrible at all, in fact.

*Limbo *comes from the Latin Limbus, meaning border or edge. The edge of Heaven.

Not quite Heaven, but still a lot better than this life…
 
Thanks all. I have read more in the Catechism now that I was directed to the paragraph 1261 “As children who have died without baptism, the Church can only trust them to the mercy of God…”

I read the preceding paragraph, 1260, and found something I was thinking of.

"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. 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."

So a child may have desired to be Baptized. IF he knew how important it was. Or maybe at the moment of death it was revealed, and the soul cried out for it.

You here have helped, as has this. I think I’m going to be praying for priests to be more sensitive to the spiritual needs of people. Words and attitudes can win or lose souls for Christ.
 
Others have already correctly stated Catholic doctrine. Limbo is a theological conjecture, not a formal dogma of the Church. And, as others have noted, if Limbo does exist, it is a state of perfect natural happiness.

The priest was correct in not baptizing a dead child. Only the living can be baptized. He could, of course, have been more compassionate.

Finally, by entrusting the child to the mercy of God, it is good to remember that the sacraments–including Baptism–are binding on man, not God. God remains free to save in any way He wishes.
 
The church’s doctrine does not include limbo. It is an old attempt to answer a question. A just God does leave children in Limbo he brings them to heaven. The church teaches baptism by intent that these little one in there limited knowlwdge and innocence would in fact choose baptism if they had the opportunity. Babies and children that die before the age of consent go straight to heaven
 
What really got me about the op’s post was the idea that by simply going to a different religion that would somehow cause their child to be taken to heaven. “???”. The truth is the truth even if no one believes it and wrong is wrong even if eveyone does it. These parents need to stop threatening Christ, which by the way is the Church for they are ONE.
We need to remember God does not need us, but we need God. Yes, by all means trust in His Mercy, but also pray for this poor child.
 
I also thought as most of you once but I discovered these things in the official documents of the Church:

Council of Lyons II: “…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished with different punishments…-- (Denzinger 464)

Council of Florence: “…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.— (Denzinger 693)

Pope John XXII: “It (The Roman Church) teaches… that the souls… of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places.” (Denzinger 493(a).

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my father’s house there are many mansions”(JN14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left” (Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)

Its seems it is a doctrine that no un baptised baby can enter heaven because it dies with original sin.
The theological explaination of “different punishment” is Limbo which means only the loss of the vision of God with no torment;
This was an attempt to soften the Augustine thought of babies going to the hell of fire and torment.

BTW Hell is defined as a loss of the Beatific Vision.
 
This is an area where Catholicism has tried to get out of a corner it unwittingly painted itself into.

The problem begins with the way “original sin” has been historically understood in the west, especially in later times. It was understood not simply as involving guilt on the part of the original parents (Adam and Eve), but a hereditary guilt passed along to all of their descendents. While it is true that all of the older catechisms (ex.Baltimore Catechism, Catechism of the Council of Trent, etc.) make a distinction between “two kinds of sin” (original, and actual - the latter being the ones people themselves commit as individuals), this didn’t change the fact that “original sin” was recognized very clearly as a sin, with a resultant guilt that needed absolution. That absolution was baptism.

This created a problem however - what to make of the fate of those young persons, who had not the opportunity to commit “actual sins”, but who had died without baptism? The RCC was quite firm that no one with this “guilt of original sin” upon them could enter Heaven. So what to make of their fate?

Well this is where another subject comes into play - the differing fates of those who do go to hell. According to Catholicism, the fate of all of those in hell is not equal. Some suffer more than others, because some committed worse sins than others. Ex. a mass murderer would likely suffer more than a thief.

Well, since an infant has committed zero “actual sins” as per RC teaching, they couldn’t suffer any of those torments. The only penalty they would suffer is “the pain of loss” - never getting to inherit the “Beatific Vision”. They refered to this condition as “being in Limbo” - and it was the universally taught belief in Catholicism; you need only look in any RC catechism before the 20th century that addresses this topic to see this born out.

While this Limbo teaching is neat and quite logical, from my Orthodox perspective it leaves something out - the possibility that God can do whatever He wants! While the grace of the mysteries is all that we can know or predict, it seems rather backward to suppose God Himself cannot give this grace in ways which men cannot predict or know. And this seems to be exactly what the new catechism is saying; and this is a most welcome change, as far as I’m concerned.

I’m actually a little surprised that the teaching on Limbo survived in Catholicism as long as it did - most especially given the fact that the RCC’s teaching on “invincible ignorance” (which was evolving ever since the first RC missionaries encountered entire continents full of people in the new world, living for some 1400 years after Christ’s Ressurection, without ever hearing the Gospel) was so well developed by the time of Pius IX. I honestly don’t get how RC theologians could on one hand entertain the possibility that a “noble savage” in some unevangelized land could be somehow offered the “grace of redemption” in a hidden way before dying, while holding fast to the idea that all unbaptized babies get sent to Limbo on the other; most especially when they were born to Christian parents.

I agree with the healthy agnosticism of the current RC teaching, as found in the new catechism - one big criticism of mine with regard to Catholicism in general, is the tendency to not simply be able to say “I don’t know; God hasn’t revealed this to us”.
 
40.png
Palamite:
While this Limbo teaching is neat and quite logical, from my Orthodox perspective it leaves something out - the possibility that God can do whatever He wants!
Click to expand...
Exactly. Which is just another way of saying that the sacraments are binding upon man, not God.

I was raised on the Baltimore Catechism, and was never taught that original sin resulted in actual guilt upon anyone other than Adam and Eve; but rather that Adam and Eve lost for us the inheritance of sanctifying grace, which in our fallen state, had to be restored through baptism, since it was no longer ours by inheritance.

The larger point is that since Baptism was given as the ordinary means of entry into the Church and into Sanctifying Grace, given to us by Christ, it ought not to be unduly delayed.
 
40.png
Jasny:
I also thought as most of you once but I discovered these things in the official documents of the Church:

Council of Lyons II: “…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished with different punishments…-- (Denzinger 464)

Council of Florence: “…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.— (Denzinger 693)

Pope John XXII: “It (The Roman Church) teaches… that the souls… of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places.” (Denzinger 493(a).

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my father’s house there are many mansions”(JN14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left” (Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)

Its seems it is a doctrine that no un baptised baby can enter heaven because it dies with original sin.
The theological explaination of “different punishment” is Limbo which means only the loss of the vision of God with no torment;
This was an attempt to soften the Augustine thought of babies going to the hell of fire and torment.

BTW Hell is defined as a loss of the Beatific Vision.
Click to expand...
OK, so I’m really new at Catholicism. Are the above mentioned teachings considered binding on the Catholics that lived during those times, and most importantly, how does this all fit into the teaching that the Church never errs in matters of Faith and Dogma? I understand the concept of evolving understanding of the Faith, so to speak, but it seems almost an actual reversal of teaching that was spelled out even with an anathema attached at one time, of which reversal is not supposed to be possible, is it? :confused:

I’m not trying to be a smart—, or whatever, but this does confuse me a bit. 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top