Limbo

[Benadam]

The Church has always taught that unbaptized infants die in a state of original sin.

 

[spn82756]

Actually Limbo wasn’t just a “theory.” It was the positive teaching of the Church for centuries. Furthermore, the question as to the state of unbaptized infants has not been in the realm of theory in the sense of heaven and hell, only punishment or not punishment. I am tempted to re-post all the Church teachings that have already been cited in this thread, but I will just recommend that you read back through the beginning of the thread when Shin so kindly posted them. Here is one that demonstrates the mind of the Church and which all Catholics must hold as a matter of faith:

“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 (Council of Florence).”

The Church has always taught that unbaptized infants die in a state of original sin. It is only in very recent years, when the Church has become infected with modernism that modern theologians have began speculating that unbaptized infants could somehow be cleansed from original sin. Many of the same theologians are ones who speculate that all souls will be saved (universalism), which was itself condemned as heresy.

Okay. If I accept what you’re saying…then explaing how a muslim…a denier of Christ through his own will…can be saved according to CCC 841.

 

[spn82756]

The Church teaches that if a baby dies unbaptized their soul remains in a state of Original sin. Without water Baptism we know of no means

 

[una_fides]

Okay. If I accept what you’re saying…then explaing how a muslim…a denier of Christ through his own will…can be saved according to CCC 841.

I do not see the relevancy here. Can you please explain it to me.

Here’s the CCC passage you referenced: 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330
First, I think it’s important to realize that to say that God’s plan of salvation involves someone is not the same thing as saying that they will be saved. God’s plan of salvation also includes satan and the other fallen angels as well as all the damned. In God’s salvific plan, those are the ones who reject him and his salvation. This catechism passage is extremely vague and certainly should not be one’s starting point at all in understanding the Church’s teaching of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. If you would like to read about that teaching, see my link in my signature below and if you would like to discuss it, please start a new thread on the topic. I can see this thread being derailed quickly if we start discussing this issue. Let me say that perfect contrition and perfect charity imply an implicit baptism of desire, so if a Muslim were to make such an act and be invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith then it has been speculated that he could possibly be saved. But again what this has to do with unbaptized infants, I don’t know…

 

[karoleck]

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism”.[134]

3.6. Hope

1. Within the hope that the Church bears for the whole of humanity and wants to proclaim afresh to the world of today, is there a hope for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism? We have carefully re-considered this complex question, with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the Church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today. Reflecting within the one tradition of faith that unites the Church through the ages, and relying utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead his followers “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13), we have sought to read the signs of the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel. Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).
2. What has been revealed to us is that the** ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism.** None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.

This is what I cannot understand,as a youth brought up in the traditional Latin Church;I remember clearly that both the sisters and Christian Brothers(Irish) when talking about Limbo–said that this was something that was not a teaching of The Church but a therory.

What I cannot understand is how does ‘STRONG GROUNDS FOR HOPE’ threaten our FAITH?Is your foundation so frail that you cannot be open to this?Will this theory–like the theory of Limbo, alter or endanger your Faith–it certainly does not effect me one way or the other! I believe all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches–maybe your memory has failed you; this concept of Limbo has always been that, “still in the air”.Purgatory was revealed to remind us to pray for the dead,Hell to know the fear of committing a mortal sin-Heaven for some place to hope for.Christ said nothing of Limbo --leave it in that state of oblivion and hope that God saves ALL infants!

 

[una_fides]

This is what I cannot understand,as a youth brought up in the traditional Latin Church;I remember clearly that both the sisters and Christian Brothers(Irish) when talking about Limbo–said that this was something that was not a teaching of The Church but a therory.

I think the many quotes from popes, catechisms, etc that have been posted prior in this thread demonstrate that it was both a theory that was also being definitively taught as fact by the Church. The Church did not teach it as if it was theory. She did not say, “We suppose…”. She essentially said, “This is how it is…”

What I cannot understand is how does ‘STRONG GROUNDS FOR HOPE’ threaten our FAITH?Is your foundation so frail that you cannot be open to this?Will this theory–like the theory of Limbo, alter or endanger your Faith–it certainly does not effect me one way or the other! I believe all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches–maybe your memory has failed you; this concept of Limbo has always been that, “still in the air”.Purgatory was revealed to remind us to pray for the dead,Hell to know the fear of committing a mortal sin-Heaven for some place to hope for.Christ said nothing of Limbo --leave it in that state of oblivion and hope that God saves ALL infants!

The problem with the theory that all unbaptized infants are saved is three-fold. 1) It goes contrary to divine revelation and the Church’s explanation thereof (“unless one is born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God”); 2) It goes contrary to 2000 years of Church teaching and cannot be found ever being taught anywhere in her history; 3) It leads to a denial of original sin, for if all infants are saved, then all infants must not have or must be immediately cleansed from original sin. Some proponents of this new teaching have also taught that there is some first grace received by all infants in the womb, which regenerates all infants. This teaching is heretical as it contradicts directly the Council of Trent that says that souls cannot be justified without the laver of regeneration (baptism) or the desire thereof. These particular modernist theologians are essentially proposing that there is some other grace apart from baptism, which all infants receive in the womb that saves them. There are all sorts of theories out there, but none of them are rooted in the traditions of the fathers. All of them are new innovations created with the intention of placating the sensibilities of those who have difficulty with the Church’s constant teaching on this matter because of their difficulties they perceive with the Church’s dogma of original sin.

 

[surritter]

I think the many quotes from popes, catechisms, etc that have been posted prior in this thread demonstrate that it was both a theory that was also being definitively taught as fact by the Church. The Church did not teach it as if it was theory. She did not say, “We suppose…”. She essentially said, “This is how it is…”

But that is your perception. The better question is to ask what vehicle did the Church use to establish your so-called definitive teaching? Was it an ex cathedra statement? Was it the declaration of a Council? One example of a “vehicle” that you give is the writings of popes. Well, JPII also wrote about the possibility for hope. That is the same vehicle but suddenly you say that he’s wrong?

The problem with the theory that all unbaptized infants are saved is three-fold…

I’ll stop you right here because NO ONE is claiming that this is the case. You are putting words in our mouths.

We do not claim that “all unbaptized infants are saved.” Instead, we claim that “it is possible for God to intervene to save an unbaptized infant.” Notice the difference.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

But that is your perception. The better question is to ask what vehicle did the Church use to establish your so-called definitive teaching? Was it an ex cathedra statement? Was it the declaration of a Council? One example of a “vehicle” that you give is the writings of popes. Well, JPII also wrote about the possibility for hope. That is the same vehicle but suddenly you say that he’s wrong?

I’ll stop you right here because NO ONE is claiming that this is the case. You are putting words in our mouths.

We do not claim that “all unbaptized infants are saved.” Instead, we claim that “it is possible for God to intervene to save an unbaptized infant.” Notice the difference.

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0710fea4.asp

In our own times, Cardinal Ratzinger echoed Cajetan in a 1985 interview with Vittorio Messori. “One should not hesitate to give up the idea of ‘limbo’ if need be,” the future pontiff advised. “[A]nd it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed ‘limbo’ also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer” (The Ratzinger Report 147-8).

We have tradition for praying for the dead. We implore Our Lady to “pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death” St. Faustina states that the Lord calls to everyone at the time of their death.

We understand the John the Baptist was removed of original sin when Elizabeth greeted Mary and the baby in her womb leaped with joy.

We know that one unrepentant mortal sin is all that is necessary to send anyone to hell. I know of people who seemed to be in mortal sin at the time of their deaths. Yet the Church has never stated categorically that any specific person is in hell. We still pray for the dead.

There seems to be lots of concrete examples that encourage hope for babies lost before baptism

 

[surritter]

Well said, MG!

No one has ever been declared to be in hell, because we hope that God can SOMEHOW change their hearts at the last microsecond. I personally believe many, many souls are in hell, but the Church does not officially declare such.

Yet proponents of limbo attempt to speak for the Church by saying that unbaptized infants are most assuredly in limbo. This absolutist view holds no room for God to intervene. Yes – souls with the stain of original sin will not enter heaven, but God MIGHT be able to remove that stain in at way that we do not know.

 

[Rites]

I very definitively voted yes.

The arguments from emotion presented against limbo are far from convincing in my view. Original Sin is Original Sin. Those who die with it still on their souls cannot reach Heaven. That’s simply how it is. Saying “I simply don’t believe God would send an infant to limbo” is just a step away from sayng “I simply don’t believe God would send anyone to hell.” It’s a terrible thing, unbaptized infants being unable to enter Heaven; but the unpleasantness of it does not constitute an argument against the thing itself.

Not that I’m saying limbo is a dogma in the strict sense of the word. I just think there is overall vastly more to be said for it than against it.

 

[pnewton]

Not that I’m saying limbo is a dogma in the strict sense of the word. I just think there is overall vastly more to be said for it than against it.

If it was dogma in any sense of the word this would be a moot conversation. Also, not arguments against Limbo have been based in emotion.

 

[Young_Thinker]

No problem…Here it is:

**841 **The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Thank you. I see what you mean; that seems to come rather close to saying that believing in Christ as savior is not necessary.

 

[simple_soul]

*OK, since this thread keeps simmering in my sub consciousness and I keep coming back to it to read all of the varying views. I just want to run my thoughts by everyone to see what you think. I am not looking for an argument. If you can understand where I am coming from and then show me how it could not be this might be helpful in furthering my understanding.
But, first I am going to use a disclaimer because I want to make it clear that I do not have a formal education in catholic teachings and what I say may or may not go with it. These are just my thoughts and since the question of the salvation of prenatal and unbaptized infants, who die at a young age, has not been answered definitively by the Magisterium. I am giving my opinion. I pray that it most certainly does not go against church teaching. If it does, I would ask you to please forgive me and just help me to understand the how’s and why’s of it going with or against church teaching.

I was taught a very basic understanding of the theology of limbo when I was younger.
The reason I question it now is because it is my belief and understanding that

1. the soul is present at the moment of conception.
2. that the baby does have enough sophistication in it’s DNA at the moment of conception to generate a mind and that the mind starts to develop at the moment of conception.
3. If the conscience is the voice of God inscribed into the human mind, which informs the mind of right and wrong it would make sense that it is also present at the moment of conception. If this is the case then the baby would start developing and obtaining reason around this and thus begin living it‘s life according to it‘s conscience if it chooses at the moment of conception.

From this understanding they are just developing and forming their conscience just like we have and hopefully still are. We are all just at a different stage of developing not only our conscience but also spiritual, physical and mental abilities.

This would lead me to the different forms of baptism.

There are three types of Baptism:

1. the formal Sacrament of Baptism
2. Baptism of desire
3. Baptism of blood

In understanding what I said above it would lead me to believe that out of the three forms of baptism “Baptism of desire” would be the one that “fits” the best. That is if I my understanding of the baptism of desire is correct and that all of what I said above is correct also.

As always I pray this makes some sense. I just thought I would share my thoughts that have developed since this thread was started. *

 

[una_fides]

But that is your perception. The better question is to ask what vehicle did the Church use to establish your so-called definitive teaching? Was it an ex cathedra statement? Was it the declaration of a Council? One example of a “vehicle” that you give is the writings of popes. Well, JPII also wrote about the possibility for hope. That is the same vehicle but suddenly you say that he’s wrong?

We have an infallible dogmatic definition in the Council of Florence that says that those who die in the state of original sin only descend into hell. The universal understanding of the Church at that time was that infants died in that state. I’d say that’s a higher authority than a catechism that is to be used merely as a “reference guide” for other local catechisms and is to be referenced as a “sure norm for teaching” and nothing more. If popes were wrong in the past, they could be wrong now too. The difference is that there are many many many more popes that taught contrary, and in fact the entire Church did for 2000 years. Again please show me where in Catholic tradition you find any Church father ever saying that unbaptized infants could be saved. Can you find just one? Also please tell me who taught that unbaptized infants could be saved in the early Church? You’ll find the name of the author of that teaching in the list of those excommunicated in the General Council of Ephesus.

I’ll stop you right here because NO ONE is claiming that this is the case. You are putting words in our mouths.

We do not claim that “all unbaptized infants are saved.” Instead, we claim that “it is possible for God to intervene to save an unbaptized infant.” Notice the difference.

Actually if you read the writings many of these theologians are claiming that God could save ALL unbaptized infants. Some theorize that it could be by a special grace that cleanses everyone from original sin. If God can save just one unbaptized infant contrary to how he has revealed he saves infants, then why could or would he not save all of them? How does God make his determination? Certainly not by their works. And since the desire of the parents does not suffice for the children as Pope Pius XII clearly taught, then determining factors are certainly becoming quite limited.

 

[una_fides]

*OK, since this thread keeps simmering in my sub consciousness and I keep coming back to it to read all of the varying views. I just want to run my thoughts by everyone to see what you think. I am not looking for an argument. If you can understand where I am coming from and then show me how it could not be this might be helpful in furthering my understanding.
But, first I am going to use a disclaimer because I want to make it clear that I do not have a formal education in catholic teachings and what I say may or may not go with it. These are just my thoughts and since the question of the salvation of prenatal and unbaptized infants, who die at a young age, has not been answered definitively by the Magisterium. I am giving my opinion. I pray that it most certainly does not go against church teaching. If it does, I would ask you to please forgive me and just help me to understand the how’s and why’s of it going with or against church teaching.

I was taught a very basic understanding of the theology of limbo when I was younger.
The reason I question it now is because it is my belief and understanding that

1. the soul is present at the moment of conception.
2. that the baby does have enough sophistication in it’s DNA at the moment of conception to generate a mind and that the mind starts to develop at the moment of conception.
3. If the conscience is the voice of God inscribed into the human mind, which informs the mind of right and wrong it would make sense that it is also present at the moment of conception. If this is the case then the baby would start developing and obtaining reason around this and thus begin living it‘s life according to it‘s conscience if it chooses at the moment of conception.

From this understanding they are just developing and forming their conscience just like we have and hopefully still are. We are all just at a different stage of developing not only our conscience but also spiritual, physical and mental abilities.

This would lead me to the different forms of baptism.

There are three types of Baptism:

1. the formal Sacrament of Baptism
2. Baptism of desire
3. Baptism of blood

In understanding what I said above it would lead me to believe that out of the three forms of baptism “Baptism of desire” would be the one that “fits” the best. That is if I my understanding of the baptism of desire is correct and that all of what I said above is correct also.

As always I pray this makes some sense. I just thought I would share my thoughts that have developed since this thread was started. *

In order to have a baptism of desire, one must make use of his will and make a perfect act of charity to God. Infants are incapable of such acts. Therefore, infants are incapable of receiving for themselves a baptism of desire. Furthermore, baptism of desire only pertains to adults who can make use of the will as Pope Pius XII clearly explained.

 

[sidbrown]

We have an infallible dogmatic definition in the Council of Florence that says that those who die in the state of original sin only descend into hell. The universal understanding of the Church at that time was that infants died in that state. I’d say that’s a higher authority than a catechism that is to be used merely as a “reference guide” for other local catechisms and is to be referenced as a “sure norm for teaching” and nothing more. If popes were wrong in the past, they could be wrong now too. The difference is that there are many many many more popes that taught contrary, and in fact the entire Church did for 2000 years. Again please show me where in Catholic tradition you find any Church father ever saying that unbaptized infants could be saved. Can you find just one? Also please tell me who taught that unbaptized infants could be saved in the early Church? You’ll find the name of the author of that teaching in the list of those excommunicated in the General Council of Ephesus.

Actually if you read the writings many of these theologians are claiming that God could save ALL unbaptized infants. Some theorize that it could be by a special grace that cleanses everyone from original sin. If God can save just one unbaptized infant contrary to how he has revealed he saves infants, then why could or would he not save all of them? How does God make his determination? Certainly not by their works. And since the desire of the parents does not suffice for the children as Pope Pius XII clearly taught, then determining factors are certainly becoming quite limited.

Is it true or not that the teaching on whether or not unbaptised babies can be saved has been changed?

 

[una_fides]

In my discussion group tonight, we were covering the sacrament of baptism and were pondering over the intricacies of limbo. I raised an interesting point that for Catholics the understanding of heaven is quite different than that of protestants. We understand heaven as actually being able to share in the divine nature of God, in his very essence and being, and experiencing God so intimately that it is a complete and total fulfillment of all that we are and all that we ever could be. We are completely absorbed in this beatific vision, in this divination. We actually share in God and enter into his very being. The experience of limbo would actually be much more similar to how many protestants view heaven. Perfect natural happiness. No suffering. Loving God. This seems to equate much more closely to how many protestant sects understand heaven. The difference of course would be the degree of the presence of God in our understanding of Limbo would not be the same as how protestants would understand it. Nevertheless, the experiential nature and such I think fits much more closely. I honestly do not see any need to teach that unbaptized infants could somehow possibly be saved. They’re practically in heaven by many protestant standards.

 

[sidbrown]

In my discussion group tonight, we were covering the sacrament of baptism and were pondering over the intricacies of limbo. I raised an interesting point that for Catholics the understanding of heaven is quite different than that of protestants. We understand heaven as actually being able to share in the divine nature of God, in his very essence and being, and experiencing God so intimately that it is a complete and total fulfillment of all that we are and all that we ever could be. We are completely absorbed in this beatific vision, in this divination. We actually share in God and enter into his very being. The experience of limbo would actually be much more similar to how many protestants view heaven. Perfect natural happiness. No suffering. Loving God. This seems to equate much more closely to how many protestant sects understand heaven. The difference of course would be the degree of the presence of God in our understanding of Limbo would not be the same as how protestants would understand it. Nevertheless, the experiential nature and such I think fits much more closely. I honestly do not see any need to teach that unbaptized infants could somehow possibly be saved. They’re practically in heaven by many protestant standards.

Still, limbo is part of hell, is it not?

 

[surritter]

In order to have a baptism of desire, one must make use of his will and make a perfect act of charity to God. Infants are incapable of such acts. Therefore, infants are incapable of receiving for themselves a baptism of desire. Furthermore, baptism of desire only pertains to adults who can make use of the will as Pope Pius XII clearly explained.

I might say that this is irrelevant because God speaks to the SOUL. The mind may be undeveloped, but God can cut through that to speak directly to the soul. Infants are incapable of verbalizing things, or even comprehending them as you and I do. But those are mere physical “handicaps” due to their tender age.

Hmmm, but you do mention Pope Pius’s explanation. I’ll have to check on that…

 

[una_fides]

Is it true or not that the teaching on whether or not unbaptised babies can be saved has been changed?

I would say that the Church is now delving into the realm of great speculation that goes well beyond revelation and that this speculation has not been taught before. At one point, limbo had not been taught before either, so the fact that it is a new teaching does not make it wrong; however, the fact that the conclusion itself has never been taught before and the opposite has does raise some concern. Just as the Church has moved into this speculation, she can also move back out. There is nothing any more definitive being taught now than before. The teachings before were much more firm than the vague teachings that have been emerging in recent years.

This issue has not been infallibly defined so it doesn’t negate Christ’s promises since the Church is not contradicting infallible teaching. Nevertheless, this modern teaching is not definitive and can be revised or completely scratched from the record just as quickly as it emerged.