Limbo Question

[Seatuck]

Jeanette L:

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?

I’m not trying to be a smart—, or whatever, but this does confuse me a bit.

The quotes are true because God has not revealed to us the method by which he saves an unbaptized person . We know that we must normatively be baptised by water and spirit to be saved. That’s why our tradition is as soon after birth as possible our babies are baptised. However, we know that we are bound by the Sacraments and the time and space of the world in which we live. God is not . So we may hope that God does have a plan for those who through no fault of their own such as a baby in utero or a young child to acieve salvation some other way. But it has not been revealed to us how this could be done and we are just relying on our understanding of God as love and mercy.

It’s important to realise also the burden thatGod puts on parents. Our sin has negative effects on the rest of the body of Christ. Failure to baptise or bring your child to Christ is a sin for parents. And they bear guilt for that.
In any event it is impossible to baptise a dead person and no protestant Christian denomination does that.

 

[DustinsDad]

Jeanette L:

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?

I’m not trying to be a smart—, or whatever, but this does confuse me a bit.

The normative necessity of Baptism is a binding doctrine, always has been. Absolutely speaking, the words of Christ himself speak this - “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)
**
What those quotes are teaching is this normative necessity of baptism - and it still stands today and always will. The Church at that time (in the given quotes at least) I think was specifically addressing the norative necessity of baptism and not diving into theological speculations about exceptions to the rule.

That being said, the Church has also recognized certain exceptions to this normative “rule” of the necessity of baptism - namely baptism of desire, baptism of blood. The problem with infants of course is that it is unclear how or if these exceptions can be applied to them. My thought is that God probably offers them Salvation in some mysterious way known to Him alone, offers them a yes or a no to accepting Him. What we are sure of, however, is that no one without sanctifiying grace can enter heaven - and baptsim we know confers that sanctifying grace.

The Church merely is saying the possibility remains that God can do what God wants to do, that whatever God does is absolutely just. But that theoritical possibility in no way overides the normative necessity of baptism.

Sad thing is that folks nowadays seem to want to say that unbaptized infants are guaranteed heaven - and that is absolutely not what the Church teaches. The normative necessity of baptism still stands.

The Church today, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has specifically addressed the possibility that God can save these children in a way known to Him alone, that while the normative necessity of baptism still stands.

Hope that helps - good question.

DustinsDad

Good reading on this topic:

Catechism of the Catholic Church on this topic

The Necessity of Baptism (Catholic Answers tract)

Baptismal Grace (Catholic Answers tract)

 

[Jeanette_L]

My confusion is not that baptism is a necessary sacrament both then and now and forever in this life, but that it seems that this particular teaching (highlighted below) forbids any other teaching concerning those infants who depart this world without baptism, under any circumstance, without being anathematized by the Church:

“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)

I guess what I am trying to get at is this: is the above *official * teaching of the Church at that time, and if so, is it forever inerrant or is it subject to correction. This is just a part of Catholicism I find very murky, in that I am told the Church never errs in matters of Faith and Dogma, but can come to a better understanding. But the above sounds very adament, in that it has left itself very little room for growth or better understanding in this area, at least as of that time in it’s history.

These are just areas of Catholic doctrine I find hard to deal with, especially if in the future I will have to try to defend these types of things, meaning, what seems to be reversals of doctrine.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Jeanette L:

My confusion is not that baptism is a necessary sacrament both then and now and forever in this life, but that it seems that this particular teaching (highlighted below) forbids any other teaching concerning those infants who depart this world without baptism, under any circumstance, without being anathematized by the Church:

…

These are just areas of Catholic doctrine I find hard to deal with, especially if in the future I will have to try to defend these types of things, meaning, what seems to be reversals of doctrine.

Well remember two things -

First, and this has already been mentioned, we do know that everyone who dies in original sin will go to hell. We do not know that everyone who dies without baptism dies in original sin. This is a whole other thread, really, concerning baptism of desire. Some folks, who are typically labeled ‘ultra-traditionalist’ (whatever the validity that label may be or may not be), will contest, and produce Church documents to attempt to prove, that only water baptism can remit original sin. However, the facts are simply not with them. This is a very deep and sometimes complicated topic. I would advise you not to dealve into it until you are more knowledgable. It would be like trying to understand calculus without knowing how to do algebra. If you do choose to delve into it, it will take up a considerable portion of you time, but I can provide you with some good sources.

Secondly, although limbo was never official teaching, Limbo was always envisioned as being a part of hell. Limbo comes from the latin word for “the fringe.” When someone speaks about limbo, they are talking about a part of hell on the fringe, a part lacking in actual pain.

Catholic thought has always seperated the punishments of hell into two categories - poena damni and poena sensus. Poena damni is the “pain of loss.” It refers to that aspect of hell which entails the lack of the vision of God. poena sensusis the “pain of the senses”, referring to actual torment. Technically, hell, at a bare minimum, consists of poena damni. According to believers in Limbo, all those infants dying in original sin only would indeed goto hell, but a part of hell where this poena damni would exist. It would be, as C.S. Lewis might call it, “mere hell.” Those dying with actual personal sin would suffer poena sensus, or actual punishment [torment] for their sins.

Thus, the councils of Lyons and Florence are fully upheld by the thought of Limbo. One more note. When we english speakers talk of hell, we mean the place of the damned. However, the latin word, which these councils, being written in Latin, used, does not refer to the place of the damned. It refers to the place of the dead. The place of the damned would be a part of this. Thus, when Lyons and Florence say those with only original sin would descend to hell, they do not so much specify the place of the damned, which is what our english speaking minds get out of it when we read the documents.

I actually believe that at least the base idea of Limbo does have some Magisterial support, in Pius IX encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore:

1. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. *Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. *

Emphasis added

 

[Jeanette_L]

Lazerlike42:

One more note. When we english speakers talk of hell, we mean the place of the damned. However, the latin word, which these councils, being written in Latin, used, does not refer to the place of the damned. It refers to the place of the dead. The place of the damned would be a part of this.

And yet the Scriptures say that all death and hell would eventually be thrown into the lake of fire. But I certainly don’t intend on starting down yet another road.

I think this is something, like you said, that I am not going to spend a lot of energy on personally. There are some things that we will not know this side of eternity, this I think is one of them.

I guess it didn’t help that I read Dante not too long ago. His imagery was pretty intense, although his place for infants wasn’t horrific by any means. And of course, I know, he was not a theologian, but a writer, so I’m not putting his ideas above Church teaching, you just do come away from these things with images that are sometimes haunting.

Anyway, thank you for your ideas.

 

[DustinsDad]

May seem a little confusing I guess, but ya gotta look at the big picture, the context of the declarations, and the specific things that were addressed. Just as parts of the written word seem confusing if isolated and taken apart from the rest of Scripture, so to can parts of the oral Tradition (as seen in teachings of the official Magesterium) if taken apart from the whole.

All the Church is doing now is reaffirming the necessity of Baptism for Salvation (as it has since the beginning), and reminding us to trust in both the infinite mercy and infinite justice of God (also what it has taught from the beginning). How the Good Lord chooses to deal with unbaptized infants will be both infinitely merciful and infititely just - whatever the final result is which we shall learn on the other side. But to assume this means that unbaptized infants are somehow guaranteed the Beautific Vision in heaven is an error that the Church does not teach now and never has.

Peace,

DustinsDad
Jeanette L:

My confusion is not that baptism is a necessary sacrament both then and now and forever in this life, but that it seems that this particular teaching (highlighted below) forbids any other teaching concerning those infants who depart this world without baptism…

 

[Magicsilence]

Lazerlike42:

Some folks, who are typically labeled ‘ultra-traditionalist’ (whatever the validity that label may be or may not be), will contest, and produce Church documents to attempt to prove, that only water baptism can remit original sin

.

While I agree that baptism of desire, is of course, possible. I would say that we are missing the point of it all.

Children who have not reached the age of reason, will not be born of the Spirit. Therefore, technically speaking even water baptism is NOT ENOUGH. Therefore, perhaps we are taking Jesus’s words and giving a onesided interpretation to them.

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit

.

One cannot be born of the Spirit until he can reason, no? Therefore, who can say that children who have not reached the age of reason can have been born of the spirit? Therefore, baptised babies cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

SIDE NOTE, just thought of this, Kingdom of God does not necessarily mean heaven. Jesus told us that the Kingdom was within us. It is through baptism and confirmation that we are recieved into the Church (Kingdom of God). But it doesnt necessarily mean those who don’t enter the Kingdom of God will be refused from heaven or… am i waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off track here.

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[Lazerlike42]

This is why Christ gave us the Church to infallibly teach. We know that a baptized infant who dies goes directly to Heaven. We also know that being baptized is the means by which we are born of the Spirit. Baptism conveys the Holy Spirit.

 

[Jasny]

Lazerlike

Well remember two things -

First, and this has already been mentioned, we do know that everyone who dies in original sin will go to hell.

Thus, the councils of Lyons and Florence are fully upheld by the thought of Limbo.
One more note. When we english speakers talk of hell, we mean the place of the damned. However, the latin word, which these councils, being written in Latin, used, does not refer to the place of the damned. It refers to the place of the dead.
The place of the damned would be a part of this. Thus, when Lyons and Florence say those with only original sin would descend to hell, they do not so much specify the place of the damned, which is what our english speaking minds get out of it when we read the documents.

There is a problem with this point. How are we to understand that “those who die in mortal sin” go to the place of the dead and not to hell?

They unfortunately go to hell. The hell that we all understand in the modern sense. The word used by the Council had that meaning at that time as our modern sense. We are to understand it the way the Council understood it not the way some Philoligist does; and as Vatican I, states
In Chapter 4. On faith and reason:

“ 13 For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
14 Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding .”

Hell is as you correctly held is separation from God’s Beatific Vision.

Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

Your quote comes up often with the wrong translation in English of “punishments” it should read “torments” as it does in my Denzinger.

Doctrine is not evolutional, i.e. that the most recent statements don’t necessarily have the most authority. There is a hierarchy of teaching and the lower must always be seen in light of the higher.

The reason for being picky about the word is that if he said “punishments” he would be advocating Pelagianism. Meaning that those who have only Original Sin would NOT go to hell of different punishment; only those who die with mortal sin go to hell.
This could not have ben what the Pope was meaning.

 

[VociMike]

I think it should be clear that God does not look for excuses to keep people out of heaven. The only thing that can keep us out of heaven is our own choice. The notion that God, who is Love, would become man and suffer a horrible death to save some, while keeping others out of heaven through no fault of their own (such as this child), makes absolutely no sense.

God tells us what He wants us to do, but He is not constrained by the rules He gives us. As Jesus said about John, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” If it is God’s will that all be saved (and scripture says that it is), then what is it to us if He saves some outside of the rules He has given us?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Jasny:

Lazerlike

There is a problem with this point. How are we to understand that “those who die in mortal sin” go to the place of the dead and not to hell?

They unfortunately go to hell. The hell that we all understand in the modern sense. The word used by the Council had that meaning at that time as our modern sense. We are to understand it the way the Council understood it not the way some Philoligist does; and as Vatican I, states
In Chapter 4. On faith and reason:

“ 13 For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
14 Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding .”

Hell is as you correctly held is separation from God’s Beatific Vision.

I never said that those who die in mortal sin don’t go to the place of the damned. The latin fathers and historical Church documents used infernum to refer to the place of the dead. This is why in the creed we say Christ descended into hell, although He did go to the place of the damned. The place of the damned was viewed as a subset of the place of the dead. This does not exclude these persons damnation.

I am very aware that the quote ought to read punishment. I had thought I had corrected it, but I seem to have been mistaken. The point I was making remains.

 

[patti2]

DustinsDad:

The normative necessity of Baptism is a binding doctrine, always has been. Absolutely speaking, the words of Christ himself speak this - “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)
**
What those quotes are teaching is this normative necessity of baptism - and it still stands today and always will. The Church at that time (in the given quotes at least) I think was specifically addressing the norative necessity of baptism and not diving into theological speculations about exceptions to the rule.

That being said, the Church has also recognized certain exceptions to this normative “rule” of the necessity of baptism - namely baptism of desire, baptism of blood. The problem with infants of course is that it is unclear how or if these exceptions can be applied to them. My thought is that God probably offers them Salvation in some mysterious way known to Him alone, offers them a yes or a no to accepting Him. What we are sure of, however, is that no one without sanctifiying grace can enter heaven - and baptsim we know confers that sanctifying grace.

The Church merely is saying the possibility remains that God can do what God wants to do, that whatever God does is absolutely just. But that theoritical possibility in no way overides the normative necessity of baptism.

Sad thing is that folks nowadays seem to want to say that unbaptized infants are guaranteed heaven - and that is absolutely not what the Church teaches. The normative necessity of baptism still stands.

The Church today, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has specifically addressed the possibility that God can save these children in a way known to Him alone, that while the normative necessity of baptism still stands.

Hope that helps - good question.

DustinsDad

Good reading on this topic:

Catechism of the Catholic Church on this topic

The Necessity of Baptism (Catholic Answers tract)

Baptismal Grace (Catholic Answers tract)

Hello, this is my first visit to the forum and this subject on Limbo touches me very deeply. I’m a mother of 2 children and it is our duty as Catholic parents , we must and say must lead our children into salvation and protect their soul. It is our duty to baptise them as soon as possible if not we will loose our soul to damnation. The only one to blame here and I am truly sorry but the truth hurts whose fault is it here that the parents had time to baptise their child and this child will not suffer in limbo but this poor child will never meet God? It is the parents whose souls are on the road to damnation if they don’t repent their sin and beg forgiveness from our Savoir ! The child is happy in limbo and God watches over them but how terribly sad and breaks my heart that those babies won’t see the Divine light of God ! The priest only did God’s will, Imagine, would it have been better to teach the parents a lie ?! These parents didn’t even have enough faith to even baptize the poor child ! We have to pray, deeply our Blessed Mother for the souls of these poor Babies first and second for the salvation of the souls of indifferent parents !
May God bless and have mercy on your souls.

 

[Jasny]

Lazerlike42:

I am very aware that the quote ought to read punishment. I had thought I had corrected it, but I seem to have been mistaken. The point I was making remains.

Sorry if you were offended but all I can do is respond to what you have written. But again the quote ought to read “torments” Not “punishment”.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Jasny:

Sorry if you were offended but all I can do is respond to what you have written. But again the quote ought to read “torments” Not “punishment”.

I wasn’t offended; I would never be offended by truth. Like I said, I know it ought to read torments. My point actually comes across much better if it reads torments

 

[Jasny]

Lazerlike42:

I wasn’t offended; I would never be offended by truth. Like I said, I know it ought to read torments. My point actually comes across much better if it reads torments

Great glad to hear no hard feelings.

The Limbo controversy, I think can be summarised into two schools of thought.

1. The first and older school is that of the Limbo-ist. They are trying to remain faithful to doctrines that excite very high emotions. They balance doctrine, justice and mercy. Because Limbo seems to be the only compromise that they can honestly make in light of Church teachings. This includes all saints and popes from St. Thomas Aquinas to the 20th century.
2. The second school of thought as far as I can gather started sometime in the 1940’s or 1950’s. They seek a loophole that original sin can be erased in infants without baptism. How is this accomplished is a mystery. It is to me a noble quest, but seems to ignore a long tradition and Church rulings in favour of Limbo. I have yet seen a consistent history of this school from the last Apostle to today. It all seems very emotional. It all seems very grey and gets into doctrinal contradictions, like the “torment” or “punishment” translation. The tradition of baptising your baby as soon as possible becomes meaningless as well as the consequences to the doctrine of original sin.

Neither school has “official” dogmatic certainty. The second school has achieved dominance with the new Catechism but has yet not been officially taught dogmatically.

Until there is a definitive statement I for one would rather err on the side of caution. I’ll baptise my baby as soon as possible. I’ll stay with the teachings of Augustine tempered by Aquinas and supported by Pope St. Zosimus until then.

 

[dcdurel]

It seems clear that the Church does teach that babies who die without baptism cannot go to heaven.

But, the Church also teaches that at the end of the world, **everyone **will be judged and they will go either to heaven or to hell. There is not a third place.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that at the end of the world those in limbo will have to go either to heaven or to hell.

Or perhaps, those babies who died without baptism were given a choice to serve God or not, right after they died. Those who rejected God went to hell, those who chose to serve God went to limbo, a place of natural happiness, till the end of the world. After that they went to heaven.

 

[Jasny]

dcdurel:

It seems clear that the Church does teach that babies who die without baptism cannot go to heaven.

But, the Church also teaches that at the end of the world, **everyone **will be judged and they will go either to heaven or to hell. There is not a third place.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that at the end of the world those in limbo will have to go either to heaven or to hell.

Or perhaps, those babies who died without baptism were given a choice to serve God or not, right after they died. Those who rejected God went to hell, those who chose to serve God went to limbo, a place of natural happiness, till the end of the world. After that they went to heaven.

Maybe the distinction between Limbo and Heaven have been missed. Limbo is part of Hell , which means the inability to have the Beatific Vision. Those in Limbo suffer only the loss of the Beatific Vision not the torment , i.e. fires of Hell. Those with Mortal Sin suffer the torment and the fire.

Everyone will have a particular judgement at death. There are no second chances at the resurrection or the general judgement, once sentenced to hell in the particular judgement, that is all. This means also for those dying only with Original Sin

The general judgement will be to see God’s plan of creation in all its fullness so the saved may praise God all the more.
Other things like the union of our bodies with our souls will complete the perfection of God’s Glory.

There is some Hope though, the famous theologian during the Counter-Reformation, Suarez, thought that un-baptised Babies will not only enjoy perfect Natural Happiness, but that they will rise with immortal bodies and have the Renewed Earth for their Natural Happiness.

The horror of Original Sin is seen more clearly through this teaching. The motivation is more positive than at first sight. We don’t want Babies to miss out on the Beatific Vision. All the more reason to stop abortion!

 

[Lazerlike42]

Jasny:

There is some Hope though, the famous theologian during the Counter-Reformation, Suarez, thought that un-baptised Babies will not only enjoy perfect Natural Happiness, but that they will rise with immortal bodies and have the Renewed Earth for their Natural Happiness.

“Blessed are the meak, for they shall inherit the earth…”

 

[Dan-Man916]

The child was 4 or 5, the parents were Catholic, and they DIDN’T have their child Baptized??

And now they are considering leaving the Church because they “don’t like” what they heard?

That is ludicrous. This is a very sad situation, but someone needs to pastorally tell them, that they omitted something extremely important in their vocations are parents. To not baptize their baby in a reasonable time is a serious situation.

I hate to sound cold here, but they have themselves to blame for most of their anguish about the eternal destiny of their child.

If they had only baptized their child, as the Church calls them too.
I think that someone needs to tell them that they need to get some pastoral counselling on this. This is something that needs to be handled in the confessional, as they may very well be in mortal sin by this serious act of omission.

 

[Dan-Man916]

By the way, Limbo was a “common teaching”. That is the theological grade of certainty it is given by Dr. Luwig Ott in his book, Fundamentals of Catholic dogma.

It was more than just a theory. It was common teaching for a very long time, and cannot simply be waved away by those who don’t like it.

We certainly should have Hope in God’s mercy. However, we do not have the assurance of Faith in this matter, as we would if the child had been baptized.