Limbo

[codefro]

Hello all-

I wanted to get some dialogue going here. I have been thinking a lot lately about the Church’s historical holding to the concept of Limbo for the Unbaptized Infants. Now, if I have this right, the idea is that infants are born with the stain of original sin which would keep them from seeing the Beatific Vision should they die and be received into Heaven. So because they were not baptized, and the stain of Original Sin was not removed and babies cannot desire their own baptism, they cannot experience Heaven. Yet, because of their innocence and lack of committed sin, they experience Limbo where a natural happiness can be experienced, but not the euphoria of the Beatific Vision.

In Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s time as Prefect and Pope, he let it be known that his personal opinion is that the “theory” of Limbo needs to be thrown out due to “recent understandings of God’s Love and Salvation”. Yet, the need for a concept like Limbo is still there, otherwise you throw out the idea of Original Sin. I read the letter issued by the Theological Commission at the Vatican that Pope Benedict endorsed. Yet, the letter doesn’t throw out Limbo, it just tries to find a way to say that one can hope children are saved if they die without Baptism, yet Limbo remains a valid theory. It also says that Catholics MUST baptize their children as soon as possible (in a sort of way I interpret as either a “just in case” policy or “we may be wrong and Limbo may exist”?). So even the Theological Commission’s letter doesn’t really settle the matter.

I have tried to find any essays or books on this subject in today’s Church thinking, yet not much is out there. Ralph Martin covers it slightly in “Will Many Be Saved?”. Does anybody have any thoughts or recommendations for me to look? This is something I am really fascinated by and would like to read up a lot more on it.

 

[Joe_5859]

Here’s a talk from Cardinal Dulles on the New Evangelization where he speaks at some length about limbo:

digital.library.fordham.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Dulles/id/9

This talk was given before the International Theological Commission published their document, though Dulles does reference it as forthcoming.

You’re right, not many people talk about limbo anymore. The common misconception is that the ITC document banned or suppressed the notion of limbo. That’s not accurate, though. They don’t really support it, but it remains a theory that Catholics are entitled to hold. But limbo was never part of defined dogma to begin with.

 

[JimG]

Hello all-

I wanted to get some dialogue going here. I have been thinking a lot lately about the Church’s historical holding to the concept of Limbo for the Unbaptized Infants. Now, if I have this right, the idea is that infants are born with the stain of original sin which would keep them from seeing the Beatific Vision should they die and be received into Heaven. So because they were not baptized, and the stain of Original Sin was not removed and babies cannot desire their own baptism, they cannot experience Heaven. Yet, because of their innocence and lack of committed sin, they experience Limbo where a natural happiness can be experienced, but not the euphoria of the Beatific Vision.

In Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s time as Prefect and Pope, he let it be known that his personal opinion is that the “theory” of Limbo needs to be thrown out due to “recent understandings of God’s Love and Salvation”. Yet, the need for a concept like Limbo is still there, otherwise you throw out the idea of Original Sin. I read the letter issued by the Theological Commission at the Vatican that Pope Benedict endorsed. Yet, the letter doesn’t throw out Limbo, it just tries to find a way to say that one can hope children are saved if they die without Baptism, yet Limbo remains a valid theory. It also says that Catholics MUST baptize their children as soon as possible (in a sort of way I interpret as either a “just in case” policy or “we may be wrong and Limbo may exist”?). So even the Theological Commission’s letter doesn’t really settle the matter.

I have tried to find any essays or books on this subject in today’s Church thinking, yet not much is out there. Ralph Martin covers it slightly in “Will Many Be Saved?”. Does anybody have any thoughts or recommendations for me to look? This is something I am really fascinated by and would like to read up a lot more on it.

Yes, I think you have pretty much framed the issue accurately. It has always been Church teaching that Baptism is necessary for salvation, including baptism by water, baptism of blood (martyrdom), and baptism of desire.

Since infants are incapable of the above, they are entirely dependent on someone else to present them for baptism and vouch to raise then in the Faith. The theory of Limbo presents a possible state of perfect natural happiness (which can be pretty euphoric) but not the Beatific Vision.

Actually, I suppose that in heaven, no one could tell by observation who was in a state of perfect natural happiness and who had the Beatific Vision.

Still, the current thinking is that maybe we ought to leave the matter in the hands of God, while still making every effort to baptize infants as soon as possible.

 

[codefro]

Still, the current thinking is that maybe we ought to leave the matter in the hands of God, while still making every effort to baptize infants as soon as possible.

I agree, yet, the Church does need to sort this out. I think a result of making it ambiguous is normal Catholics waiting long periods of time to baptize their children because they are under the impression they are “saved anyways”.

 

[JimG]

I agree, yet, the Church does need to sort this out. I think a result of making it ambiguous is normal Catholics waiting long periods of time to baptize their children because they are under the impression they are “saved anyways”.

Yes, perhaps someone should clarify that the only dogmatic teaching we know for sure about this issue is that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Sometimes now, it seems to me, parents do wait too long. (I know of a priest my age–i.e. old!-- who was baptized and attended his first Mass on the day he was born!)

 

[pianistclare]

Yes, I think you have pretty much framed the issue accurately. It has always been Church teaching that Baptism is necessary for salvation, including baptism by water, baptism of blood (martyrdom), and baptism of desire.

Since infants are incapable of the above, they are entirely dependent on someone else to present them for baptism and vouch to raise then in the Faith. The theory of Limbo presents a possible state of perfect natural happiness (which can be pretty euphoric) but not the Beatific Vision.

Actually, I suppose that in heaven, no one could tell by observation who was in a state of perfect natural happiness and who had the Beatific Vision.
**
Still, the current thinking is that maybe we ought to leave the matter in the hands of God, while still making every effort to baptize infants as soon as possible.**

I think this ^ is at the heart of it. People put off this Sacrament. Best not to. People prepare for babies in every material way…but they neglect the spiritual life of the child. Perhaps this notion of limbo is a way to keep people accountable. I don’t know…just thinking out loud…Peace!

 

[otjm]

I agree, yet, the Church does need to sort this out. I think a result of making it ambiguous is normal Catholics waiting long periods of time to baptize their children because they are under the impression they are “saved anyways”.

I am not sure why you and others think that the Church “needs” to sort this out; we have survived for 2000 years without doing so.

And where does this idea come from that babies cannot desire their own baptism? That is strictly and purely between the child And God, and with God, all things are possible.

Limbo is a construct. We are charged with - that is to say bound by - God’s laws. God is not so bound. Other than a theological positing, we have no evidence that there is any such status or state of being as Limbo. There may well be; on the other hand, it is not the child’s responsibility to seek baptism; it is the partents’ responsibility. And so the question remains - if the child has no say in the matter, is God bound by the parents’ failure? Or is God’s mercy greater than that?

St. Thomas was one of the greatest theologians, and he did not get everything right. Benedict is probably the brightest theologian alive; that does not say that he got this right. On the other hand, I would be a bit hesitant about not paying attention to what he says.

And 2000 years of not having to answer this question should indicate that in terms of things needing to be solved, it is not very high on the list.

 

[Joe_5859]

I am not sure why you and others think that the Church “needs” to sort this out; we have survived for 2000 years without doing so.

And where does this idea come from that babies cannot desire their own baptism? That is strictly and purely between the child And God, and with God, all things are possible.

Limbo is a construct. We are charged with - that is to say bound by - God’s laws. God is not so bound. Other than a theological positing, we have no evidence that there is any such status or state of being as Limbo. There may well be; on the other hand, it is not the child’s responsibility to seek baptism; it is the partents’ responsibility. And so the question remains - if the child has no say in the matter, is God bound by the parents’ failure? Or is God’s mercy greater than that?

St. Thomas was one of the greatest theologians, and he did not get everything right. Benedict is probably the brightest theologian alive; that does not say that he got this right. On the other hand, I would be a bit hesitant about not paying attention to what he says.

And 2000 years of not having to answer this question should indicate that in terms of things needing to be solved, it is not very high on the list.

Right.

God revealed those things we absolutely need to know. I’m pretty confortable with the way things are articulated in the Catechism. Basically, we work like everything depends on us and pray like everything depends on God. We don’t want to be ambivalent about the need for Baptism. But we also don’t want to despair with regards to the salvation of those who have not been baptized – particularly infants.

 

[codefro]

I am not sure why you and others think that the Church “needs” to sort this out; we have survived for 2000 years without doing so.

Cause souls “could” be perishing…

 

[codefro]

I am not sure why you and others think that the Church “needs” to sort this out; we have survived for 2000 years without doing so.

And where does this idea come from that babies cannot desire their own baptism? That is strictly and purely between the child And God, and with God, all things are possible.

Limbo is a construct. We are charged with - that is to say bound by - God’s laws. God is not so bound. Other than a theological positing, we have no evidence that there is any such status or state of being as Limbo. There may well be; on the other hand, it is not the child’s responsibility to seek baptism; it is the partents’ responsibility. And so the question remains - if the child has no say in the matter, is God bound by the parents’ failure? Or is God’s mercy greater than that?

St. Thomas was one of the greatest theologians, and he did not get everything right. Benedict is probably the brightest theologian alive; that does not say that he got this right. On the other hand, I would be a bit hesitant about not paying attention to what he says.

And 2000 years of not having to answer this question should indicate that in terms of things needing to be solved, it is not very high on the list.

I greatly disagree with this. Limbo had reached a point where it was being taught as THE official teaching of the Church. Limbo was even included in the Baltimore Catechism, but that is just one example. Its inclusion in Church teaching kept parents accountable to baptize their child immediately after birth. Now, the Theological Commission’s letter STILL tells parents to baptize their children immediately, yet they do not. So, why is it more important now than ever? Making the “theory” of Limbo ambiguous has allowed Catholic parents to think they are ok to prolong their children’s baptism.

Here is the other problem that you are not addressing- Limbo is indeed a valid theory in the Church still. So if it does indeed exist, and these babies with the stain of original sin die- they cannot recieve the Beatific Vision. Your reasoning above comes across as if the Church HAS indeed done away with Limbo, when in reality it has not as of yet.

 

[Joe_5859]

I greatly disagree with this. Limbo had reached a point where it was being taught as THE official teaching of the Church. Limbo was even included in the Baltimore Catechism, but that is just one example. Its inclusion in Church teaching kept parents accountable to baptize their child immediately after birth. Now, the Theological Commission’s letter STILL tells parents to baptize their children immediately, yet they do not. So, why is it more important now than ever? Making the “theory” of Limbo ambiguous has allowed Catholic parents to think they are ok to prolong their children’s baptism.

Here is the other problem that you are not addressing- Limbo is indeed a valid theory in the Church still. So if it does indeed exist, and these babies with the stain of original sin die- they cannot recieve the Beatific Vision. Your reasoning above comes across as if the Church HAS indeed done away with Limbo, when in reality it has not as of yet.

Limbo was never THE official teaching of the Church. Even the universal Catechism is simply a collection of teachings that only bear as much weight as the document they cite contains. And the Baltimore Catechism was not a universal catechism but simply a local one. So the presence of limbo in it does not signify that limbo was official Catholic teaching. The theory may not contradict official Catholic teaching. But it has always been just a theory.

I don’t think it is lack of teaching on limbo that has led to many parents prolonging the Sacrament of Baptism for their children. It’s a lack of faith in general.

It would be good for more people to take Baptism seriously, but the Church cannot simply dogmatize something that is uncertain because it is expedient to scaring parents into baptizing their children.

 

[codefro]

Limbo was never THE official teaching of the Church. Even the universal Catechism is simply a collection of teachings that only bear as much weight as the document they cite contains. And the Baltimore Catechism was not a universal catechism but simply a local one. So the presence of limbo in it does not signify that limbo was official Catholic teaching. The theory may not contradict official Catholic teaching. But it has always been just a theory.

I don’t think it is lack of teaching on limbo that has led to many parents prolonging the Sacrament of Baptism for their children. It’s a lack of faith in general.

It would be good for more people to take Baptism seriously, but the Church cannot simply dogmatize something that is uncertain because it is expedient to scaring parents into baptizing their children.

1. I said it was being taught as THE official teaching of the Church.
2. After reading what you said, I am left with the feeling that we do not need to baptize our children at all.

 

[Joe_5859]

1. I said it was being taught as THE official teaching of the Church.
2. After reading what you said, I am left with the feeling that we do not need to baptize our children at all.

What about my post conveys the sentiment that we do not need to baptize our children at all?

 

[codefro]

What about my post conveys the sentiment that we do not need to baptize our children at all?

You say it’s important to baptize them, but you don’t say why. Sorry if I’m being forward in my posting, but this is why I’ve been thinking about this topic. If the child is not in danger, then baptizing them is merely tradition. That’s it.

 

[Joe_5859]

You say it’s important to baptize them, but you don’t say why. Sorry if I’m being forward in my posting, but this is why I’ve been thinking about this topic. If the child is not in danger, then baptizing them is merely tradition. That’s it.

I didn’t say why because I figured it was obvious. Baptism is important because it washes away Original Sin, brings us into the Church, opens the door to receiving the other sacraments, and because Jesus affirmed that it is necessary for salvation.

But, as the Catechism states: “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” That’s why I said we work like everything depends on us but pray like everything depends on God. The only way by which we know we can be saved (because it is what has been revealed) is through Baptism into the Catholic Church. So we best take that seriously. However, since we know God is infinitely merciful, we can still hold out hope for those who have died without Baptism, especially children.

To me, the uncertainty is actually helpful. I cannot rest on my laurels with regards to evangelization by assuming that Baptism is inconsequential. And yet, I don’t need to come across as though I have first-hand knowledge of the eternal fate of the souls of all the unbaptized (which tends to rub people the wrong way).

 

[JimG]

For whatever reasons, new parents do seem to often unduly delay Baptism. I can remember a time when it was customary to have the child baptized within two weeks of birth. (And as I mentioned before, I heard one story of a baby being baptized on the day of his birth. He was born shortly after midnight on a Sunday and his mom decided to attend Mass in the morning, taking the new baby with her, and getting him baptized.)

Now, I come across Catholic grandparents who are worried and stewing because their new grandchild is several months old and the parents still have not made plans to have him or her baptized. When pressed, they say they will get around to it–and they do. But Baptism is the child’s entry into the life of Grace. Who wouldn’t want that for their child?

 

[pianistclare]

For whatever reasons, new parents do seem to often unduly delay Baptism. I can remember a time when it was customary to have the child baptized within two weeks of birth. (And as I mentioned before, I heard one story of a baby being baptized on the day of his birth. He was born shortly after midnight on a Sunday and his mom decided to attend Mass in the morning, taking the new baby with her, and getting him baptized.)

Now, I come across Catholic grandparents who are worried and stewing because their new grandchild is several months old and the parents still have not made plans to have him or her baptized. When pressed, they say they will get around to it–and they do. But Baptism is the child’s entry into the life of Grace. Who wouldn’t want that for their child?

Yeah, I don’t get it. We are seeing more and more parents waiting until the children are 3, 4, and even 5. What in the world is so pressing that you don’t get around to Baptizing your child?
On the other hand, most of these people are not practicing their faith…so I suppose that would be a big indicator.

 

[codefro]

Yeah, I don’t get it. We are seeing more and more parents waiting until the children are 3, 4, and even 5. What in the world is so pressing that you don’t get around to Baptizing your child?
On the other hand, most of these people are not practicing their faith…so I suppose that would be a big indicator.

Like I said, Theologians and the Magisterium need to address this.

 

[thistle]

I greatly disagree with this. Limbo had reached a point where it was being taught as THE official teaching of the Church. Limbo was even included in the Baltimore Catechism, but that is just one example. Its inclusion in Church teaching kept parents accountable to baptize their child immediately after birth. Now, the Theological Commission’s letter STILL tells parents to baptize their children immediately, yet they do not. So, why is it more important now than ever? Making the “theory” of Limbo ambiguous has allowed Catholic parents to think they are ok to prolong their children’s baptism.

Here is the other problem that you are not addressing- Limbo is indeed a valid theory in the Church still. So if it does indeed exist, and these babies with the stain of original sin die- they cannot recieve the Beatific Vision. Your reasoning above comes across as if the Church HAS indeed done away with Limbo, when in reality it has not as of yet.

That is absolutely NOT true. It has not been done away with because Limbo for Infants has NEVER been Church doctrine. It was only ever a theological hypothesis which we were/are free to believe or not.

 

[codefro]

That is absolutely NOT true. It has not been done away with because Limbo for Infants has NEVER been Church doctrine. It was only ever a theological hypothesis which we were/are free to believe or not.

My statement above agrees with what you just said… So it is not wrong…