Limbo?

[Sophie]

Does Limbo exist anymore?

 

[bpbasilphx]

The question is not whether Limbo exists any more. The question is whether it ever existed to start with.

It was ALWAYS a theologoumenon–theological opinion–and never was de fide.

 

[John_Higgins]

A Caribbean dance under a bamboo pole–that’s all it ever was or is.

John

 

[thistle]

Does Limbo exist anymore?

There has never been any Church doctrine on Limbo.
We are allowed to believe in it or not. The Church’s official position
is that when unbaptised children die, for example, their souls should be entrusted to the mercy of God.

 

[Sophie]

There has never been any Church doctrine on Limbo.
We are allowed to believe in it or not. The Church’s official position
is that when unbaptised children die, for example, their souls should be entrusted to the mercy of God.

I suppose that is where I’m confused. What does that mean there was never any Church doctrine on Limbo? My old Baltimore Catechism, page 49, says., “Since infants who die unbaptised have commited no sins, they live in a place of natural happiness called “Limbo”.” So the Church can, very often, teach things that aren’t doctrine?

 

[NetNuncio]

The Baltimore Catechism was a teaching tool. It wasn’t an official document of the Church.

When a bishop gives his Imprimatur, he is simply saying there is nothing contrary to Catholic doctrine in the material. And, indeed, Limbo was not against Catholic teaching. It was a theological theory that was widely accepted, but never officially taught. However, it did not contradict Catholic teaching.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

I suppose that is where I’m confused. What does that mean there was never any Church doctrine on Limbo? My old Baltimore Catechism, page 49, says., “Since infants who die unbaptised have commited no sins, they live in a place of natural happiness called “Limbo”.” So the Church can, very often, teach things that aren’t doctrine?

One of the things that needs to be understood about theology is that all of its conclusions are not of equal weight. Things taught solemnly by a pope or a council approved by a pope are said to be de fide --of the faith-- and are absolutely certain. Their reality is guaranteed by God. These things include the existence of Heaven, Hell and Purgatory, Transubstantaition, and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Some things taught by the magisterium are certain, but not defined solemnly. These things include most of the moral teachings of the Church, as well as some very unpopular techings regarding ordination being reserved to men alone and the teachings of Humanae Vitae regarding the use of artificial birth control. They will are certain, and will never change. For a good, official commentary on this, read the 1998 CDF (under Cardinal Ratzinger) commentary on JPII’s Ad Tuendam Fidem,

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Some things taught by the magisterium are provisional, and subject to reform. To the best of my knowledge, the only official statement by the magisterium regarding limbo was from the Holy Office in the 19th century, which stated that it is not safe to teach that limbo does not exist.

The existence of limbo is primarily a teaching of speculative theology, not of the magisterium. There is little clear data from Scripture or the Apostolic Tradition on the question of what happens to infants who die without Baptism. What we do know from the teachings of the magisterium are that (1) No one who departs this world with the stain of original sin on his soul will see God face to face (de fide) and (2) The pains of hell are proportionate to actual sins committed by the damned (common teaching). So, what happens to a baby, who is incapable of committing personal sin, who dies before he receives baptism? Scholastic theologians propose the place of limbo, a place where one does not see God face to face (in the most technical sense, hell), yet experiencing none of the physical pain of the damned. Such a place would be consistent with a state of natural happiness, and, because of God’s goodness, it is believed He would give such souls a state of perfect, natural happiness. They would rise and receive their bodies back, perfected in the adult form, yet not glorified, at the resurrection of the dead. This became, for centuries, the near unanimous consensus of theologians.

It must be stressed that limbo is not a bad place. Have you ever had a moment of perfect, natural happiness? Could you imagine it for all eternity? God is not obligated to save and bring to heaven anyone, although we know He desires it. The Theological Commission did not deny the existence of limbo (as the media incorrectly asserted). Rather, it stated that, while limbo remains of theological possibility, they would rather hope that God, who is not limited, can bring these children to the supernatural happiness of seeing Him face to face in some unknown, extra-sacramental way. For a good article from Zenit, see this:

zenit.org/article-19522?l=english

This is an area of free theological speculation. The answer to the question is unknown, since it is not necessary for us to know this for our salvation. Personally, I will continue to believe in limbo, since it is logical and has been a traditional theological opinion. You are free to accept or reject it (but it is still not permitted to teach definitively that limbo does not exist, barring a later ruling of the magisterium).

God bless,

Fr. Boyd

 

[Sophie]

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

from the teachings of the magisterium are that (1) No one who departs this world with the stain of original sin on his soul will see God face to face (de fide) and (2) The pains of hell are proportionate to actual sins committed by the damned (common teaching).

zenit.org/article-19522?l=english

Fr. Boyd

Thank you Fr. Boyd for your thorough answer. So then does this theory, shall we say, also apply to adults as well as babies? Those who die outside of the Catholic Church? Such as Protestants, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Hindus, Scientologists, Jews, etc. Since they were never baptised in God’s Holy Catholic church, do they go to Limbo as well as unbaptised babies? They depart this world with the stain of original sin on their soul and will not see God face to face.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Thank you Fr. Boyd for your thorough answer. So then does this theory, shall we say, also apply to adults as well as babies? Those who die outside of the Catholic Church? Such as Protestants, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Hindus, Scientologists, Jews, etc. Since they were never baptised in God’s Holy Catholic church, do they go to Limbo as well as unbaptised babies? They depart this world with the stain of original sin on their soul and will not see God face to face.

This is a possibility; the “good pagans” (those who never committed any personal mortal sin) were traditionally included with unbaptized infants as probably going to limbo. As with the recent trend regarding infants, some Church documents, in particular some of the documents of Vatican II, have been moving towards the hope that those people of good will who are in invincible ignorance of the Gospel may be saved (i.e., go to heaven) in some extra-saramental way. The magisterium has taught that no one will be held responsible for something of which they are invincibly ignorant (something really only God can judge). And, once again, God is under no obligation, but desires, to save everyone. In short, once again, we do not know with certainty their fate; knowlegde of that answer is not necessary for our salvation. We are free to hope, but we must not let that hope deter us from preaching the Gospel, any more than we should let hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants allow us to unnecessarily defer their timely baptism (which, according to the Church, should occur within the first few weeks after birth).

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Thank you Fr. Boyd for your thorough answer. So then does this theory, shall we say, also apply to adults as well as babies? Those who die outside of the Catholic Church? Such as Protestants, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Hindus, Scientologists, Jews, etc. Since they were never baptised in God’s Holy Catholic church, do they go to Limbo as well as unbaptised babies? They depart this world with the stain of original sin on their soul and will not see God face to face.

Sorry --I just noticed you included Protestants. Limbo is only for the unbaptized. We may hope for their salvation if they are invincibly ignorant that the Catholic Church is the Church that our Lord established.

 

[Sophie]

You seem to disagree with scripture. Jesus said, believers will be saved and unbelievers will be condemned. He never mentioned anything about any type of ignorance. He said those outside the Catholic Church would be condemned. Believers are only those in the Church, right? Or are true believers also outside the Catholic Church? If believers are also outside the Catholic Church, why be Catholic?

 

[Sophie]

A Caribbean dance under a bamboo pole–that’s all it ever was or is.

John

Ha-ha-ha!! I definitely agree!!! And I was taught to absolutely believe in Limbo without questioning, when I was a kid!! Time changes everything. Even religions!

 

[Duke_of_Mantua]

Ha-ha-ha!! I definitely agree!!! And I was taught to absolutely believe in Limbo without questioning, when I was a kid!! Time changes everything. Even religions!

I went to Catholic schools my whole life and limbo was the rule. Now people are using lawyer-speak to explain away teachings that weren’t “official”. Makes me suspicious. How can it not?

While I believe in The Church as a whole, you have to admit some people in the upper part of the hierarchy lack good judgment e.g. dropping TLM

 

[FrRJBoyd]

You seem to disagree with scripture. Jesus said, believers will be saved and unbelievers will be condemned. He never mentioned anything about any type of ignorance.

Dear Sophie,

You are mistaken. Our Lord said to the Pharisees, “If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth.” (John 9:41). Invincible ignorance is that blindness. Holy Mother Church has always held that invincible ignorance means that a sin cannot be mortal.

He said those outside the Catholic Church would be condemned. Believers are only those in the Church, right? Or are true believers also outside the Catholic Church? If believers are also outside the Catholic Church, why be Catholic?

Our Lord indeed said of those who reject the Gospel that they would be condemned (Matt. 28). However, we are speaking here of hope, not for those who have rejected the Gospel, but for those who were invincibly ignorant of it. Hope is not the same thing as certainty. Why become Catholic? Because our Lord has commanded the Gospel to be preached to all nations, and that everyone accept the Gospel and enter the Church. If one knows this truth and rejects it unto death, he will be condemned; i.e., damned to hell. This is a true interpretation of the infallible statement that, “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” In addition to being a divine precept, the great advantage of joining the Church is that we who are members have certainty that our sins are forgiven, through Baptism, Confession, and even the Anointing of the Sick. If we persevere and die in the state of grace, we have the certainty that we will (at least eventually) be in heaven. You have this certainty no where outside the Catholic Church.

 

[SemperFidelis]

One of the things that needs to be understood about theology is that all of its conclusions are not of equal weight. Things taught solemnly by a pope or a council approved by a pope are said to be de fide --of the faith-- and are absolutely certain. Their reality is guaranteed by God. These things include the existence of Heaven, Hell and Purgatory, Transubstantaition, and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Some things taught by the magisterium are certain, but not defined solemnly. These things include most of the moral teachings of the Church, as well as some very unpopular techings regarding ordination being reserved to men alone and the teachings of Humanae Vitae regarding the use of artificial birth control. They will are certain, and will never change. For a good, official commentary on this, read the 1998 CDF (under Cardinal Ratzinger) commentary on JPII’s Ad Tuendam Fidem,

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Some things taught by the magisterium are provisional, and subject to reform. To the best of my knowledge, the only official statement by the magisterium regarding limbo was from the Holy Office in the 19th century, which stated that it is not safe to teach that limbo does not exist.

The existence of limbo is primarily a teaching of speculative theology, not of the magisterium. There is little clear data from Scripture or the Apostolic Tradition on the question of what happens to infants who die without Baptism. What we do know from the teachings of the magisterium are that (1) No one who departs this world with the stain of original sin on his soul will see God face to face (de fide) and (2) The pains of hell are proportionate to actual sins committed by the damned (common teaching). So, what happens to a baby, who is incapable of committing personal sin, who dies before he receives baptism? Scholastic theologians propose the place of limbo, a place where one does not see God face to face (in the most technical sense, hell), yet experiencing none of the physical pain of the damned. Such a place would be consistent with a state of natural happiness, and, because of God’s goodness, it is believed He would give such souls a state of perfect, natural happiness. They would rise and receive their bodies back, perfected in the adult form, yet not glorified, at the resurrection of the dead. This became, for centuries, the near unanimous consensus of theologians.

It must be stressed that limbo is not a bad place. Have you ever had a moment of perfect, natural happiness? Could you imagine it for all eternity? God is not obligated to save and bring to heaven anyone, although we know He desires it. The Theological Commission did not deny the existence of limbo (as the media incorrectly asserted). Rather, it stated that, while limbo remains of theological possibility, they would rather hope that God, who is not limited, can bring these children to the supernatural happiness of seeing Him face to face in some unknown, extra-sacramental way. For a good article from Zenit, see this:

zenit.org/article-19522?l=english

This is an area of free theological speculation. The answer to the question is unknown, since it is not necessary for us to know this for our salvation. Personally, I will continue to believe in limbo, since it is logical and has been a traditional theological opinion. You are free to accept or reject it (but it is still not permitted to teach definitively that limbo does not exist, barring a later ruling of the magisterium).

God bless,

Fr. Boyd

From a fellow Limbo believer, thanks for the great post Father.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

I went to Catholic schools my whole life and limbo was the rule. Now people are using lawyer-speak to explain away teachings that weren’t “official”. Makes me suspicious. How can it not?

While I believe in The Church as a whole, you have to admit some people in the upper part of the hierarchy lack good judgment e.g. dropping TLM

Time does not change the faith or the truth. When looking at the Church, we should always remember that there are three categories to fit things into:

(1) Things we must believe. These included the Creed, the officially defined dogmas of the Church, and the ordinary teachings of the magisterium.

(2) Things we must obey. These include the moral teachings which cannot change, and the disciplinary ones that can, such as the precepts of the Church and canon law.

(3) Things that are optional. These include the findings of speculative theology which can be subject to change (e.g., limbo), and private revelations and devotions.

Limbo remains a distinct theological possibility, but was never officially defined by the magisterium. You cannot cite what you were taught in catechism classes as the official standard for Catholic teaching any more than I can. I was taught, e.g., (even by priests) growing up that there was no difference between Catholic and Lutheran teachings on the Eucharist, and that educated Catholics look at all the teachings and disciplines of the Church critically and decide for themselves what they want to believe and obey (i.e., cafeteria Catholicism). I would hate to set that as the standard for official Church teaching!

 

[SFD]

Time does not change the faith or the truth. When looking at the Church, we should always remember that there are three categories to fit things into:

(1) Things we must believe. These included the Creed, the officially defined dogmas of the Church, and the ordinary teachings of the magisterium.

(2) Things we must obey. These include the moral teachings which cannot change, and the disciplinary ones that can, such as the precepts of the Church and canon law.

(3) Things that are optional. These include the findings of speculative theology which can be subject to change (e.g., limbo), and private revelations and devotions.

Limbo remains a distinct theological possibility, but was never officially defined by the magisterium. You cannot cite what you were taught in catechism classes as the official standard for Catholic teaching any more than I can. I was taught, e.g., (even by priests) growing up that there was no difference between Catholic and Lutheran teachings on the Eucharist, and that educated Catholics look at all the teachings and disciplines of the Church critically and decide for themselves what they want to believe and obey (i.e., cafeteria Catholicism). I would hate to set that as the standard for official Church teaching!

FrRJBoyd,

The existence of Limbo is the common teaching among pre-Vatican II theologians is it not? Isn’t that why it is found in all the catechisms?

What is the de fide teaching associated with those who die with only original sin?

Limbo remains a distinct theological possibility, but was never officially defined by the magisterium.

Are you saying here that all undefined doctrine is subject to change? I hope not.

SFD

 

[thistle]

FrRJBoyd,

The existence of Limbo is the common teaching among pre-Vatican II theologians is it not? Isn’t that why it is found in all the catechisms?

What is the de fide teaching associated with those who die with only original sin?

Are you saying here that all undefined doctrine is subject to change? I hope not.

SFD

With reference to unbaptised children Limbo has NEVER been a Church doctrine. We are obliged to believe/accept doctrine but we have never had to believe in or accept Limbo (for unbaptised children).

 

[SFD]

With reference to unbaptised children Limbo has NEVER been a Church doctrine.

It is the common teaching of the theologians. It is in all the Catechisms. It is Catholic teaching.

We are obliged to believe/accept doctrine but we have never had to believe in or accept Limbo (for unbaptised children).

This is so imprecise that it is meaningless. I believe that FrRJBoyd was saying it was not defined. Let him answer and don’t confuse the issue.

SFD

 

[Your_Abbott]

FrRJBoyd,

The existence of Limbo is the common teaching among pre-Vatican II theologians is it not? Isn’t that why it is found in all the catechisms?

What is the de fide teaching associated with those who die with only original sin?

SFD

You have to get some updated dogma theology books.

Limbo is not ‘common’ teaching of theologians. Limbo is not defide, or anything near it. As a matter of fact, Limbo never entered into the theological definitions of the Magisterium. There is no weight of teaching in the magisterium, nor mention of it in the liturgy. “Lex orandi, lex credendi”.

Of course, an undefined teaching can change. What kind of strange logic do you operate under?

Give up hope, SFD, cause we don’t agree.