Limbo

[malphono]

If you are going to jump in then answer my question.

I’ll stick my nose in too, mostly for support (and I’ll probably get branded as a post-conciliar poster boy for doing it ).

Anyway, it seems to me that what we have here is a classic conundrum, and I’d venture to say that may be why there has never been a definitive teaching on the matter by HMC.

The quotes from Florence and Lyons are very nice, but still do not amount to a definitive teaching. The catechism of Pius X, in the quoted item #28, apparently tries to clarify them, but read as written, it can also be said to up-end them, at least to a degree.

To expand just a bit on something I said in an earlier post: the righteous who are unbaptized may not experience the “Beatific Vision” but at the same time they cannot really be said to be “deprived” of it since they were unaware of it in the first place. The key is that they were righteous: how could the Infinite Justice and Mercy of our Omnipotent God disregard that and inflict punishment of any sort?

 

[crazzeto]

I voted no opinion, but mainly because my personal opinion wasn’t an option. I think it should still be OK to use the term limbo, but not to refer it necessarly as a place. Rather as an idea, of our own humility in acknowlegeing that we don’t know the fate of certain classes of people.

We know those who die in a state of grace will untilmately go to heaven (if through purgatory)
We know people who do not, probably won’t (excluding perfect act of contrition, and extrodenary means).

But what does happen to unbaptised babies? I don’t know whether there’s a clear definate answer for that. The best was can say is we place them upon the Mercy of God, and I think limbo is as good a term for that as any.

 

[Pat_Payne]

I personally do not believe in the “limbus infantium”.
Limbo would include that those infants who die without a Catholic baptism would not see heaven, but enter into a place that has only the mildest torments because of original sin. I can’t see how any torments would be justified and how God would inflict this upon infants and aborted children. As the Bible does not mention such a thing I refuse to believe that this kind of an injustice truly exists.

Also, this would be condemning to torment all those who died either before Christ’s birth (and it would seem odd to send Cicero to limbo, when he is viewed, IIRC, as one of the “Righteous Pagans” by the church) or who died without even having a chance to know about Christ, regardless of how good a life they lived. It seems unfair to send them to a plane of even “mildest” torment for a salvation they never had a chance to know existed.

 

[crazzeto]

Also, this would be condemning to torment all those who died either before Christ’s birth (and it would seem odd to send Cicero to limbo, when he is viewed, IIRC, as one of the “Righteous Pagans” by the church) or who died without even having a chance to know about Christ, regardless of how good a life they lived. It seems unfair to send them to a plane of even “mildest” torment for a salvation they never had a chance to know existed.

Not necessarly, see the Catechism of St. Pius X above.

 

[Shin]

*I have a quick question. It would read, as an underlying and overall theme in some of the posts here that in order to see the beatific vision of God one has to be baptized, cleansed of original sin. Is this a correct understanding? *

Yes this is the constant teaching of the Church.

No one in original sin can achieve the beatific vision.

In fact it goes all the way back to Genesis, and it is the reason in fact we need Christ, without whom no man is saved. Christ’s sacrifice is what gave us baptism, it is what gains us what He desires to give us by the cross.

 

[Lamafacaja]

Shin, Great job on this thread!

Ditto!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’ll stick my nose in too, mostly for support (and I’ll probably get branded as a post-conciliar poster boy for doing it ).

That particular slur, post-conciliar, has always made me laugh. It shows the single mindedness as well a taking what they are told by others bias against the Church.

After all the only true Catholics who are not post-conciliar lived before 325AD.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes this is the constant teaching of the Church.

No one in original sin can achieve the beatific vision.

In fact it goes all the way back to Genesis, and it is the reason in fact we need Christ, without whom no man is saved. Christ’s sacrifice is what gave us baptism, it is what gains us what He desires to give us by the cross.

So you do not believe in the omnipotence of God nor in God’s Mercy.

If it goes back to Genesis then please explain how Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and all the other OT saints have ended up in Heaven? They were in original sin.

 

[simple_soul]

Yes this is the constant teaching of the Church.

No one in original sin can achieve the beatific vision.

In fact it goes all the way back to Genesis, and it is the reason in fact we need Christ, without whom no man is saved. Christ’s sacrifice is what gave us baptism, it is what gains us what He desires to give us by the cross.

*Dear Shin,

Thank you for clarifying…

Could you clarify this a little more for me?

What exactly is baptism and how do we obtain it?

 

[cathguy]

I think this by Karl Keating (founder of this website) is quite cogent:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

 

[pnewton]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not mention Limbo. It is not currently a teaching of the Church. It has been taught, but never with certainty. These are facts not in dispute. The degree to which this was a doctrine or a speculation is distputable. I will side with those theologians who know better of such things and have let the matter be omitted from the Catichism. Plus, it goes against my gut, if you will. God is both a God of perfect justice and perfect mercy. Both to me speak against this Limbo.

 

[pnewton]

I think this by Karl Keating (founder of this website) is quite cogent:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

I liked this quote:

G. K. Chesterton noted that truth is not chronologically determined. The century of a teaching’s promulgation is not an argument for or against it. An old teaching is not necessarily truer for being old, and a new teaching is not necessarily truer for being new.

 

[palmas85]

If you are going to jump in then answer my question.

Yes I believe that God is omnimpotent. Now will you answer my questions as well?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes I believe that God is omnimpotent. Now will you answer my questions as well?

I do not subscribe to your view of God’s Justice.

You also brought up fairness, no where did I say anything about this. Justice is not always fair, but it is just.

I also believe in God’s Mercy to those who through no fault of their own had no choice in the matter, just as all the OT Saints.

 

[palmas85]

I do not subscribe to your view of God’s Justice.

You also brought up fairness, no where did I say anything about this. Justice is not always fair, but it is just.

I also believe in God’s Mercy to those who through no fault of their own had no choice in the matter, just as all the OT Saints.

You conveniently left out the entire question of Original Sin in relation to your views. I somehow am not surprised at that omission. Justice my friend is always fair, if it is true justice and not mere retribution. I too believe in Gods mercy, but I also believe in His laws, which although we may not comprehend or agree with are no less valid because of our lack of understanding or our agreement. Remember Isiah 55:8:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You conveniently left out the entire question of Original Sin in relation to your views. I somehow am not surprised at that omission. Justice my friend is always fair, if it is true justice and not mere retribution. I too believe in Gods mercy, but I also believe in His laws, which although we may not comprehend or agree with are no less valid because of our lack of understanding or our agreement. Remember Isiah 55:8:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

I have already said that I believe in original sin. What else do you want from me?

Limbo is not a dogma and has never been. I follow what the Holy Father says about it.

I believe that God and His mercy can be greater than what we think and believe and in what original sin is.

Those who die without baptism through no fault of their own most likely do not know about original sin either.

Again, can you explain the OT Saints and them being in Heaven if Limbo is a dogma (which it is not).

 

[Sharbel23]

In ‘City Of God’, the mystical work by Ven. Mary of Agreda, we read that at the death of Christ, among many other fulfillments, the prophecy of Habbacuc was fulfilled. Part of the the relevant words are “…that before His feet the devil should be routed and measure the earth.” (Habac. 3,2-5).
“Since the devil was forced to cast himself to the lowest hell, which is in the middle of the earth and farthest removed from its surface, he is said to measure the earth.” (vol.3 p686)
Then in the same volume on page 720, Mary of Agreda describes what she is shown about limbo. She notes that she is shown it in relation to one of the articles of faith pertaining to the most sacred humanity of Christ Our Lord. “He descended into Hell.”
She sees that hell is in the center of the earth like a vast globe or jar, with an opening or mouth of vast expansion. That is the hell of the damned.
To one side of hell is purgatory. This cavern is also large, but not as large as hell. Its punishments have no connection with those of hell.
To the other side of hell is limbo, which has two diferent divisions: The one for the children, who die unbaptized, the other was a retreat for the just who died before Christ’s redeeming sacrifice. This limbo has been called the limbo of the just or the Bosom of Abraham.
This division of limbo was entirely depopulated when Christ came and led all it’s inhabitants to Heaven.
Mary of Agreda notes that hell can be used to signify any of these regions, although we usually say ‘hell’ when referring to the hell of the damned, and refer to the other two regions as purgatory and limbo.
She writes that:
“After the final judgement heaven and hell only are to be inhabited, since purgatory shall become unnecessary and since even the infants shall be transported to another dwelling place.” (vol3 p721)
All of this is of course in perfect accord with everything taught by our holy Church, and everything else said by heaven in other authentic private revelations.
It seems many of us knew innately the truth of this matter, no doubt inspired by the Holy Spirit, and on account of our knowing that God is infinitely good and holy.
Godbless.

 

[MIKE46]

I have already said that I believe in original sin. What else do you want from me?

Limbo is not a dogma and has never been. I follow what the Holy Father says about it.

I believe that God and His mercy can be greater than what we think and believe and in what original sin is.

Those who die without baptism through no fault of their own most likely do not know about original sin either.

**Again, can you explain the OT Saints and them being in Heaven **if Limbo is a dogma (which it is not).

As you know, when Christ died He descended into Hell. At least that is what the Church teaches. That is normally considered to be a descent into Limbo where he apparently offered salvation to those who were there and who desired it. We have no way of knowing who took it, if all took it, or if only some took it. It was and still is a matter of free will.

We also have absolutely no way of knowing if that form of Limbo still exists or if it was destroyed after Christs visit there. While true the Church does not teach the existance of Limbo, it does not deny it’s existance either… It does not in any way shape or form teach that unbaptized children go to heaven or that anyone not baptized is assured of attaining Heaven for that matter… I believe what the Church says is all we can do is trust in Gods mercy for the children that die without baptism, and that we have reason to hope that there is a way for them to achieve salvation. Thats it. That is all that the Church says. We entrust them to the mercy of God and hope that they have a way of salvation. That is a long way from saying that Limbo or some other afterlife state other than Heaven does not await them. All it says is that we can hope otherwise

Now if you choose to believe those statements definitely say there is no place where these children go other than Heaven, then you are reading a lot into it…

The simple and plain truth is that original sin either exists and means something or it doesn’t, You cannot get around it. It either is there or is not there. You cannot have it both ways no matter how unfair it may personally seem to you.

If it does exist it must pertain equally to all. If it doesn’t exist then it is time to scrap the belief in it and view baptism as the protestanst do, merely an introduction and acceptance into the community.

And to be honest, I think that is the direction that many want to go.

 

[palmas85]

**I have already said that I believe in original sin. What else do you want from me?
**
Limbo is not a dogma and has never been. I follow what the Holy Father says about it.

I believe that God and His mercy can be greater than what we think and believe and in what original sin is.

Those who die without baptism through no fault of their own most likely do not know about original sin either.

Again, can you explain the OT Saints and them being in Heaven if Limbo is a dogma (which it is not).

I would like you to explain why, if you do believe in original sin, as you say you do, that you deny that it applies to infants. and the unborn? The reason I ask is because it is well established that nothing unclean can enter the presence of God. The unbaptized are unclean, like it or not. They are stained. It does not matter if they are unborn, infants children teenagers or full grown adults. Without Baptism the stain is there. The dire consequences of original sin.

Why would God allow something this horrific to affect an entire species unless it is His will that it be so? I can only conclude that it is indeed his will that it be so ,no matter how unjust, unfair and unfeeling it seems to us. Whatever it was that happened must have been pretty bad. Real bad.

God gave His sacraments to the Church one of which is baptism. Christ himself said that no one unbaptized would enter the kingdom of Heaven. He did not say everyone except for children and the unborn. That is a speculation by man. Much the same as Limbo itself, the concept of which started when certain early theologians felt there must be an middle place where those so stained and unbaptized through no fault of their own would spend eternity without punishment in a state of natural happiness and contentment. Before them, the Church believed the unbaptized went straight to Hell.

I’m just looking for some degree of consistency in your argument. Because i will tell you, if Limbo goes or the concept of some middle ground then original sin is next. As I have said it either is there or it isn’t. And it is tied directly to the concept of Limbo. No matter how unjust and unfair it may seem. They are connected.

You can believe whatever you want and pick and choose whichever ideas suit you just as do many. As for me I will believe what Jesus himself said

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.** That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, "You must be born again.**

 

[MikeDunphy]

I think this by Karl Keating (founder of this website) is quite cogent:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

Karl Keating wrote: My e-mail correspondent said, “Well, I think I’ll stick with the solution suggested by the older catechism and will reject the ‘novel’ solution of the new catechism.” Why do that? I asked. Because the old solution is older, he said.

I have trouble believing that Karl’s correspondent said and meant what I just quoted. Maybe there was a misunderstanding. I know of no traditionalist who would prefer the teachings of Marcion of Sinope to the teachings of St. Francis de Sales, even though Marcion’s teaching’s are much older. We look for consistency with what the Church has taught from age to age, not just the date on which someone’s opinion is offered.