Limbo?

[FrRJBoyd]

Was this teaching accepted or taught by any of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church?

One of the criticims the East has commonly had of the West is that we are too obsessed with speculative theology. The Eastern Churches prefer to stress the living out of the faith over speculative theology, and, in general, do not worry about teachings that are really beyond what we need to know for our own salvation (I know, I know, the filioque and the theology of marriage seem to be exceptions to this). At any rate, I really don’t think that we need to know the answer to the question of limbo in order to get into heaven.

 

[marymonde]

Father Boyd, please correct me if I am wrong, but in, I believe it is in Jones Moral Theology, it states something to the effect that if a baby is stillborn that a baptism should still be given to the poor child, since it is a possiblity that the soul may not have departed from the body yet.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

I believe they follow the same teachings on Limbo, since they are Catholics in union with Rome.

My dh is a convert from the Greek Orthodox Church. Baptism is conferred upon the infant as soon as possible, altho’ the ceremoney of the sacrament itself lasts three different Sundays (at least that is how his Aunt explained it to me). Here is the teaching from their catechism:

“You may ask what happens to a little baby that dies before it is baptized? We cannot answer this question. What we do know is that the baptized person is saved.”

This is very typical of the Eastern Churches, in the very best sense of the term: The living out of the faith stressed over speculative theology.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Father Boyd, please correct me if I am wrong, but in, I believe it is in Jones Moral Theology, it states something to the effect that if a baby is stillborn that a baptism should still be given to the poor child, since it is a possiblity that the soul may not have departed from the body yet.

Sacraments are given to the living only; however, if there is a doubt as to whether or not the soul is present, one should always attempt to confer the sacrament (baptism, anointing, or absolution) using the words *si capax *(if capable). The theology book is correct.

 

[marymonde]

). At any rate, I really don’t think that we need to know the answer to the question of limbo in order to get into heaven.

I am putting my .02 in here since why I think so many want to know.

I have several friends who have had abortions. The pain they experience from the effects of it is heartbreaking, I assure you. They were brought up in Catholic schools learning about Limbo. It is absolutely devastating to them to think their babies are now deprived from the Beatific Vision. They want desperately to grasp onto something that relieves their consciences. The new thought of doing away with Limbo satisfies this need of theirs. This may sound harsh, and I don’t mean it to be, but they now believe the abortions sent their babies to heaven, without their children suffering any type of pains and agonies of this world. Abortion became a sort of salvation for these children who were once thought by them to be in Limbo. I know this sounds crazy, but trust me, I have heard these things.

As parents we are SO terribly responsible for the eternal salvation of our children. There is no job so important as saving our childrens souls.

 

[marymonde]

Sacraments are given to the living only; however, if there is a doubt as to whether or not the soul is present, one should always attempt to confer the sacrament (baptism, anointing, or absolution) using the words *si capax *(if capable). The theology book is correct.

Thank you for the explanation.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

I am putting my .02 in here since why I think so many want to know.

I have several friends who have had abortions. The pain they experience from the effects of it is heartbreaking, I assure you. They were brought up in Catholic schools learning about Limbo. It is absolutely devastating to them to think their babies are now deprived from the Beatific Vision. They want desperately to grasp onto something that relieves their consciences. The new thought of doing away with Limbo satisfies this need of theirs. This may sound harsh, and I don’t mean it to be, but they now believe the abortions sent their babies to heaven, without their children suffering any type of pains and agonies of this world. Abortion became a sort of salvation for these children who were once thought by them to be in Limbo. I know this sounds crazy, but trust me, I have heard these things.

As parents we are SO terribly responsible for the eternal salvation of our children. There is no job so important as saving our childrens souls.

I’ve been the priest-chaplain on several Rachael’s Vineyard weekends, so I know what you are talking about. I always talk about the fact that with God, there is the fullness of redemtion… that their childern will receive perfect, adult bodies at the resurrection of the dead, that they will be happy forever and are happy now. All of this is consistent with limbo, or with their salvation (which, of course, is even better in that they would receive glorified bodies and enjoy suernatural as well as natural happiness). Whether or not they see God face to face is not something we know, so I don’t mention this one way or another. Merely describing the teaching without mentioning the word “limbo” is really quite comforting to everyone.

 

[marymonde]

I’ve been the priest-chaplain on several Rachael’s Vineyard weekends, so I know what you are talking about. .

God bless you for reaching out to these women. It must be very difficult for you as well to hear the heartache they are experiencing.

 

[brycelaliberte]

So I was wondering, is it possible that those in limbo may be taken out of it? There is that very random and out of place verse about Jesus going down to someplace and rescuing some from ‘sleep’ (can’t remember the version, it might change with the version of the bible one would be using), so might we suppose that there would be a time when those in limbo would be given the choice to make, either love God or not?

Perhaps this is only my human understanding of it, but I couldn’t imagine how ‘eternal, oblivious happiness’ could be happy without God?

All I want to know, are there ideas that those in limbo may be ‘rescued?’ Would this be an okay opinion to hold onto?

 

[FrRJBoyd]

So I was wondering, is it possible that those in limbo may be taken out of it? There is that very random and out of place verse about Jesus going down to someplace and rescuing some from ‘sleep’ (can’t remember the version, it might change with the version of the bible one would be using), so might we suppose that there would be a time when those in limbo would be given the choice to make, either love God or not?

Good question. There are references to our Lord descending to the dead; i.e., not the hell of the damned, but the limbo of the Fathers, where Abraham, Moses, David and all those destined for heaven had to wait until our Lord opened the gates of paradise through His passion and death. He probably also took some in purgatory to paradise. However, this would not really have anything to do with the limbo of children.

Perhaps this is only my human understanding of it, but I couldn’t imagine how ‘eternal, oblivious happiness’ could be happy without God?

It is not oblivious happiness; they would have perfect use of reason. Nor would it be without God, only without the Beatific vision (i.e., the source of supernatural happiness); there is nothing to prevent them seeing and enjoying friendship with our Lord in His humanity, the saints, and perhaps even (through visions) the holy angels (as some in this life have been privileged to see visions of them).

All I want to know, are there ideas that those in limbo may be ‘rescued?’ Would this be an okay opinion to hold onto?

We are in the realm of free, speculative theology. There is nothing to prevent one from holding this position.

 

[SFD]

It was definitaely the common teaching of theologians, yet we must remember that there is no dual magisterium; theologians cannot make magisterial teachings, only the pope and the bishops in union with him who are part of an arm of the magisterium (Holy Office/CDF, PBC before circa 1970, ecumenical council). Recall in 1998 how the CDF ruled (after “Always Our Children”) that bishop’s confrences may not issue doctrinal statements binding on the faithful unless they have unanimous consensus of the bishops of their conference and/or a recognitio from Rome.

2nd General Council of Lyons (1274):

D464 “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments. The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment “all” men will be brought together with their bodies “before the tribunal of Christ” “to render an account” of their own deeds [Rom. 14:10].”

Council of Florence (1438) (de fide):

D693 “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”

And Pope Innocent III (1206) declared (though not solemnly):

D 410 “The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell”

It is theologians who propose that a state of perfect, natural happiness is not inconsistent with deprivation of the vision of God.

And as a result of these dogmas of the Faith, the theologians teach that they desend into hell but with unequal punishments. The deprivation of the Beatific Vision is their only punishment…not the fires of Hell.

If you followed my original postings, you would see that I referenced the 1998 CDF commentary on JPII’s ATF. There are ordinary teachings of the magisterium (i.e., not formally defined) that are infallible (such as the moral teachings of the Church and reserving ordination to men alone) that are not subject to change. We owe them the assent of faith, based in faith that the Holy Spirit assists the magisterium in making such ordinary teachings.

We are also required to assent to the teaching of the theologians where it is morally unanimous and certain. These certain teachings are a result of speculative theology…or a blend of speculative and positive theology.

There are, however, provisional teachings of the magisterium (to which we must adhere with religios submission) that can be subject to chage.

Limbo is not one of these…unless one wants to put unbaptised babies in the fire of hell. If one denies Limbo…and does not then put the unbaptised who lack the use of reason in the fires of hell…then he must put them in Heaven. This denies the dogma you quoted above.

Consider what the Holy Office wrote in the last century about the “Johannine comma”; i.e., a phrase in the Vulagte version of 1 John that stated, “There are three in heaven who give witness: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” They declared that, based on our best Greek texts, this verse could be removed from 1 John, barring a later judgment by the magisterium. Or consider GIFT as a means of “assisting” women to become pregnant. It has not been defined either as replacement (forbidden) or assistance (allowed) to the conjugal act, yet some Catholic hospitals perform it, barring a later ruling from the magisterium.

Please explain this further…I don’t know what “GIFT” is…although I have some idea. I believe Pope Pius XI was quite clear in Casti Connubii in this area.

The Baltimore catechism is really, properly speaking, not a magisterial document. Of catechisms, only the Roman Catechism and the CCC would qualify as magisterial. To the best of my knolwldge, the only magisterial reply regarding limbo is the following from Pius VI’s Constitution Auctorem fidei (1794)

D1526 26. “The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as it by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,–false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.”

It doesn’t exactly say that limbo exists, just that it is false to teach that it is a fable. As I said earler, I believe in limbo.

I don’t see how that helps you defend the possible abandonment of Limbo. It is defending a truth…but not defining it. Do you think a condemnation like this could be wrong?

Btw, thank you for your thoughtful replies.

SFD

 

[SFD]

FrRJBoyd:

We are in the realm of free, speculative theology. There is nothing to prevent one from holding this position.

Just to be clear here…I hope you are not stating that the results of ALL speculative theology is in the area of “free opinion”.

SFD

 

[thistle]

And as a result of these dogmas of the Faith, the theologians teach that they desend into hell but with unequal punishments. The deprivation of the Beatific Vision is their only punishment…not the fires of Hell.

We are also required to assent to the teaching of the theologians where it is morally unanimous and certain. These certain teachings are a result of speculative theology…or a blend of speculative and positive theology.

Limbo is not one of these…unless one wants to put unbaptised babies in the fire of hell. If one denies Limbo…and does not then put the unbaptised who lack the use of reason in the fires of hell…then he must put them in Heaven. This denies the dogma you quoted above.

Please explain this further…I don’t know what “GIFT” is…although I have some idea. I believe Pope Pius XI was quite clear in Casti Connubii in this area.

I don’t see how that helps you defend the possible abandonment of Limbo. It is defending a truth…but not defining it. Do you think a condemnation like this could be wrong?

Btw, thank you for your thoughtful replies.

SFD

I don’t know where you got your Catholic education.
Limbo is NOT and NEVER has been a teaching which we must believe. We are free to believe in Limbo or not.

This is the official teaching on Limbo:

CCC 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,” 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.

 

[SFD]

I don’t know where you got your Catholic education.
Limbo is NOT and NEVER has been a teaching which we must believe. We are free to believe in Limbo or not.

This is the official teaching on Limbo:

CCC 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,” 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 didn’t get it from the CCC…it didn’t even exist at the time.
Allocution of Pope Pius XII to midwives.[full text:

Publisher & Date: Vatican, October 29, 1951 ]
**Supernatural life **

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. Therefore, if it is considered that charity to our fellowman obliges us to assist him in the case of necessity, then this obligation is so much the more important and urgent as the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided is the greater, and in the measure that the needy person is incapable of helping or saving himself with his own powers; and so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death’s threshold.

Undoubtedly this duty binds the parents in the first place, but in case of necessity, when there is no time to lose or it is not possible to call a priest, the sublime office of conferring baptism is yours.

The CCC is a novel teaching based on nothing from tradition…only a verse from Scripture…Protestant like in nature.

SFD

 

[FrRJBoyd]

We are also required to assent to the teaching of the theologians where it is morally unanimous and certain. These certain teachings are a result of speculative theology…or a blend of speculative and positive theology.

Well, we are required to believe the unanimous consensus of the Fathers (as a witness to the Apostolic Tradition), and there are certain truths that are proximate to the faith (i.e., you cannot deny them without denying a dogma); e.g., the existence of Adam and Eve. But I don’t agree that we must assent per se to the teachings of theologians; hence, the statement from JPII that there is no dual magisterium (the pope and bishops being one… the only genuine one, and theologians being the other, false claimants). Theologians have no authority whatsoever. Please provide some quote from the magisterium to back up your chaim, or at least give an example.

Limbo is not one of these…unless one wants to put unbaptised babies in the fire of hell. If one denies Limbo…and does not then put the unbaptised who lack the use of reason in the fires of hell…then he must put them in Heaven. This denies the dogma you quoted above.

This is not exactly what some modern theologians are saying. They are not denying that anyone who departs this world in original sin is deprived of the vision of God. Rather, they are hoping that God somehow cleanses them extra-sacramentally before death, e.g., by a vicarious baptism of desire (of the Church in general or by someone specific). Personally, I don’t buy it, but I cannot deny it is possible, nor can I say it is contrary to Church teaching.

Please explain this further…I don’t know what “GIFT” is…although I have some idea. I believe Pope Pius XI was quite clear in Casti Connubii in this area…

GIFT is a method whereby the sperm of the husband is placed in the filopean tube of the wife who is ovulating. They then engage in the conjugal act to muddy the waters so that it isn’t clearly replacement. At the time when it was first introduced, details were sketchy, so Rome said they would investigate it and rule at a later time. That was maybe 15 years ago. Still no word. In the mean time, since there is a doubt of law, some Catholic hospitals allow it. IMHO, it is replacement, and needs to be condemned.

I don’t see how that helps you defend the possible abandonment of Limbo. It is defending a truth…but not defining it. Do you think a condemnation like this could be wrong?

The comdemnation isn’t wrong, since we really don’t know what happens, and it is not safe to deny the existence of limbo. Even the modern theologians are not denying the possibility of its existence, only that they hope God finds another way. Personally, I think the modern trend is spurrious and based on a false notion that God somehow owes us heaven.

Great debate!

 

[thistle]

I didn’t get it from the CCC…it didn’t even exist at the time.

The CCC is a novel teaching based on nothing from tradition…only a verse from Scripture…Protestant like in nature.

SFD

Frankly, if you are a Catholic then you are a heretic.

 

[bear06]

Frankly, if you are a Catholic then you are a heretic.

coughsedevancantistcough

 

[SFD]

"FrRJBoyd:

Great debate!

thistle:

Frankly, if you are a Catholic then you are a heretic.

coughsedevancantistcough

And therein lies the natural progression from newer member who values true debate…then the old standards…the namecaller…then the little boy who cries “wolf”.

And btw, Thistle, just what is my heretical belief…what dogma of the faith am I denying here?

FrRJBoyd has set an example here…why don’t you (thistle) venture out of your box and follow his lead?

SFD

P.S. Bear06, you should take something for that cough.

 

[SFD]

Pope Pius XII:

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.

FrRJBoyd:

This is not exactly what some modern theologians are saying. They are not denying that anyone who departs this world in original sin is deprived of the vision of God. Rather, they are hoping that God somehow cleanses them extra-sacramentally before death, e.g., by a vicarious baptism of desire (of the Church in general or by someone specific).

FrRJBoyd,

This isn’t even speculative theology…it’s a hope based on what reasoning? This idea is completely incompatible with what Pope Pius XII said above…and he actually was a great theologian as well.

I understand why you don’t buy it.

SFD

 

[SFD]

Well, we are required to believe the unanimous consensus of the Fathers (as a witness to the Apostolic Tradition), and there are certain truths that are proximate to the faith (i.e., you cannot deny them without denying a dogma); e.g., the existence of Adam and Eve. But I don’t agree that we must assent per se to the teachings of theologians; hence, the statement from JPII that there is no dual magisterium (the pope and bishops being one… the only genuine one, and theologians being the other, false claimants). Theologians have no authority whatsoever. Please provide some quote from the magisterium to back up your chaim, or at least give an example.

His Excellency Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser
On Infallibility, Relatio proposed to the Fathers of the First Vatican Council explaining in some detail what is meant by papal infallibility, 11 July 1870

First Draft of Chapter IV on
Papal Infallibility

Chapter IV
On the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff

…Therefore not only must it be said that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, when he defines doctrines about faith and morals, but that this infallibility is that infallibility which the Church enjoys. Therefore, someone who would simply assert that the Roman Pontiff is infallible when he defines something about faith or morals has by no means comprehended the meaning of our definition. Nor is the meaning of our formula comprehended by someone who simply asserts that the Roman Pontiff is infallible when he defines something which simply must be held by the Church. The two things must always be joined so that the meaning of our formula be correct and true. Moreover, this formula seems most suitable to express both things: “The Roman Pontiff, when he defines a doctrine of faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith or morals.”
Therefore, in this entire definition, the following three things are contained:

1. The Roman Pontiff, through the divine assistance promised to him, is infallible, when, by his supreme authority, he defines a doctrine which must be held by the Universal Church, or, as very many theologians say, when he definitively and conclusively proposes his judgment;
2. the object of these infallible definitions is doctrine about faith or morals;
3. in respect to the object of infallibility, generically proposed in this way, the infallibility of the Pope is neither more nor less extensive than is the infallibility of the Church in her definitions of doctrine of faith and morals.

Therefore just as everyone admits that to deny the infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas of faith is heretical, so the force of this decree of the Vatican Council makes it no less heretical to deny the infallibility of the supreme Pontiff, considered in itself, when he defines dogmas of faith. However, in respect to those things about which it is theologically certain - but not as, yet certain “de fide” - that the Church is infallible, these things are also not defined by this decree of the sacred Council as having to be believed “de fide” in respect to papal infallibility. With the theological certitude which is had that these other objects, apart from dogmas of the faith, fall within the extension of the infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions, so, with that same theological certitude, must it be held, now and in the future, that the infallibility of definitions issued by the Roman Pontiff extends to these same objects.

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), Denz. 1684.

SFD