More on Limbo

[sw85]

I recall a thread a while ago in which Limbo was brought up and much passion was aroused over it. The consensus was that it was an obviously meritless fiction, never formally taught by the Church; I seem to recall there were some vague insinuations that people who endorse Limbo are just remorseless baby-haters.

Let’s briefly review the “never formally taught by the Church” bit. Here’s a passage from the sixth session of the Council of Florence:

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

And from its 11th session:

With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.

Pius VI, in Auctorem Fidei (sec. 26), condemned

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 if, 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.

Now, Florence was an ecumenical council, and Auctorem Fidei is a Papal bull. It would seem, then, that both are doctrinally infallible, in principle if not, perhaps, in exact expression. (i.e., we are guaranteed that nothing in there is technically wrong, properly understood; we are not guaranteed that we have the “properly understood” part at any particular moment in time).

A possible counter to AF is that it only condemns the Jansenist grounds for disbelieving Limbo, without discounting other grounds for disbelieving it. I don’t see a similar out for the Florentine documents, except perhaps to say that while baptism is necessary for Heaven, there is perhaps some means of achieving baptism yet unknown to us on Earth.

In contrast to this, the anti-Limbo arguments are not terribly convincing or even particularly authoritative. The arguments of the International Theological Commission’s document on Limbo (which is doctrinally nonbinding and nonauthoritative) seems to amount to “God wants everyone to saved, plus it wouldn’t be very pastoral in the modern age to talk about Limbo.” I’m not aware of any prominent theologians that aren’t total wackadoodles that oppose the idea of Limbo (though I’m not very well-versed in theological currents). And the Catechism (CCC 1261) is woefully vague in this area:

*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,"64 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. *

For the first part, “the Church can only entrust [babies who die without baptism] to the mercy of God,” does not contradict Limbo. Limbo is a merciful comfort of God, given that it is a place of perfect natural happiness without evil, sin, or sorrow of any sort. Nor does its last sentence, that the call of Catholic parents to baptize their children is “urgent” precisely because of what is at stake. The middle part, that God’s saving will “allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism,” raises some doubts, but it is not clear to me what exactly this means. God’s saving will is universal, yet it is clearly not sufficient to save. If it was, even the Devil would be saved. Given that the CCC is an exercise of the ordinary magisterium and therefore not infallible in its entirety, it is very possible this is simply one of those places in which theological opinion is mixed, without distinction, into discussions of objective doctrinal or dogmatic truth. And it is certainly true that whatever is in CCC cannot possibly contradict what has been revealed as infallible truth, and insofar as AF and the Council of Florence were far less ambiguous on this matter than the CCC, it would seem their take on the question of Limbo must be given authoritative priority.

Thoughts?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Although Limbo may have never been “formally” taught (ie, doctrinally defined), there is no question that it was “informally” taught. It was the common consensus of practically every Catholic for centuries, and was staunchly believed by Popes and laypeople alike. The old Baltimore Catechism (1885) described it as a “common belief:”

Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven. (Q.632)

(the BC uses the phrase “similar to Limbo” because it uses the word “Limbo” to describe the place that Jesus descended to after his death - the “waiting place” of the just, and we don’t want to confuse those schoolchildren.)

The thing that I find really surprising is how quickly the idea was abandoned by practically every Catholic theologian (Ludwig Ott was instrumental in this). Within the span of a single generation, centuries of theological consensus went out the window. That’s an astonishing thing for notoriously stubborn Catholic theologians. The Scholastics would debate ideas for centuries!

The Church simply doesn’t know (and cannot know) what happens to unbaptized babies - it’s not part of the Deposit of Faith. That’s not a very satisfying answer. But the Church does know that 100% of baptized babies go straight to heaven, so get your babies baptized!

By the way, we can’t assume that teachings by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council are automatically infallible. Popes and Councils can teach infallibly, but often do not. (Some people think that the decrees of an Ecumenical Council in particular are automatically infallible; this is not true.)

 

[triumphguy]

Although Limbo may have never been “formally” taught (ie, doctrinally defined), there is no question that it was “informally” taught. It was the common consensus of practically every Catholic for centuries, and was staunchly believed by Popes and laypeople alike. The old Baltimore Catechism (1885) described it as a “common belief:”

(the BC uses the phrase “similar to Limbo” because it uses the word “Limbo” to describe the place that Jesus descended to after his death - the “waiting place” of the just, and we don’t want to confuse those schoolchildren.)

The thing that I find really surprising is how quickly the idea was abandoned by practically every Catholic theologian (Ludwig Ott was instrumental in this). Within the span of a single generation, centuries of theological consensus went out the window. That’s an astonishing thing for notoriously stubborn Catholic theologians. The Scholastics would debate ideas for centuries!

The Church simply doesn’t know (and cannot know) what happens to unbaptized babies - it’s not part of the Deposit of Faith. That’s not a very satisfying answer. But the Church does know that 100% of baptized babies go straight to heaven, so get your babies baptized!

By the way, we can’t assume that teachings by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council are automatically infallible. Popes and Councils can teach infallibly, but often do not. (Some people think that the decrees of an Ecumenical Council in particular are automatically infallible; this is not true.)

Caveat: Just because a teaching may not be infallible it doesn’t mean that it is not Catholic doctrine though.

 

[sw85]

Thanks for your thoughts, David. Here’s some margin notes:

Although Limbo may have never been “formally” taught (ie, doctrinally defined), there is no question that it was “informally” taught. It was the common consensus of practically every Catholic for centuries, and was staunchly believed by Popes and laypeople alike. The old Baltimore Catechism (1885) described it as a “common belief:”

(the BC uses the phrase “similar to Limbo” because it uses the word “Limbo” to describe the place that Jesus descended to after his death - the “waiting place” of the just, and we don’t want to confuse those schoolchildren.)

The thing that I find really surprising is how quickly the idea was abandoned by practically every Catholic theologian (Ludwig Ott was instrumental in this). Within the span of a single generation, centuries of theological consensus went out the window. That’s an astonishing thing for notoriously stubborn Catholic theologians. The Scholastics would debate ideas for centuries!

In fact, I think you’re being a bit charitable here. The widespread rejection of Limbo occurred simultaneously with the widespread rejection of a number of other traditional Church teachings, which alone is enough to make me suspicious!

The Church simply doesn’t know (and cannot know) what happens to unbaptized babies - it’s not part of the Deposit of Faith.

This seems, though, to be belied by the above passages. The Church has at least once formally taught (and if the context of an ecumenical council does not constitute formal teaching, what does?) that unbaptized babies go “straightaway to Hell,” without suffering the punishments of those guilty of mortal sin.

By the way, we can’t assume that teachings by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council are automatically infallible. Popes and Councils can teach infallibly, but often do not. (Some people think that the decrees of an Ecumenical Council in particular are automatically infallible; this is not true.)

What indices are there to tell if the above passages are authoritative or not? How do we know these aren’t authoritative where some other section, or some other council entirely, is?

At the very least, as I said before, it would seem the weight of evidence has to be given to Limbo – it has been defended by a number of prominent historical theologians, taught at least informally by the Church for centuries, at least superficially appears to have been taught formally on more than one occasion, and is at the least strongly suggested by mountains of evidence in the Magisterium (re: to original sin, the necessity of baptism, etc.). By contrast, the countervailing “evidence” is virtually nonexistent – relatively recent opinions unsupported by any of the data at our disposal, at least superficially contrary to Scripture and previous exercises of the Magisterium, etc. So it would seem that reactive, emotive opposition to the idea of Limbo, as was encountered in the earlier discussion I mentioned above, is badly unjustified and unjustifiable.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The middle part, that God’s saving will “allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism,” raises some doubts, but it is not clear to me what exactly this means. God’s saving will is universal, yet it is clearly not sufficient to save. If it was, even the Devil would be saved. Given that the CCC is an exercise of the ordinary magisterium and therefore not infallible in its entirety, it is very possible this is simply one of those places in which theological opinion is mixed, without distinction, into discussions of objective doctrinal or dogmatic truth … AF and the Council of Florence were far less ambiguous on this matter than the CCC, it would seem their take on the question of Limbo must be given authoritative priority.

Forgive me, but I am a little unclear - you seem to be arguing that Limbo should be the prevalent teaching today. But the quotes from Florence you provided seem to not mention such a view, correct?

 

[triumphguy]

This is what the Vatican says of Limbo:

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*

This theory,

elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages,

never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium,

even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council.

It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.

However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned.

Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children.
(vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html)

Limbo is/was a theory.

 

[sw85]

Forgive me, but I am a little unclear - you seem to be arguing that Limbo should be the prevalent teaching today.

I’m saying there’s more and better reason to believe it does exist than that it doesn’t.

But the quotes from Florence you provided seem to not mention such a view, correct?

Collectively they suggest (a) the unbaptized cannot enter Heaven and (b) the unbaptized who are innocent of actual sin do not suffer the same fate as those guilty of actual sin. Which is actually what the idea of Limbo conveys: the unbaptized innocent of actual sin face a different fate than those guilty of it, namely, the lack of eternal torment.

This is what the Vatican says of Limbo:

Limbo is/was a theory.

The ITC isn’t the Vatican and has no doctrinal authority. I’m specifically disputing (or rather, questioning) the claim that the Church never taught Limbo. It seems pretty clear that, on at least one occasion, it did, specifically by saying that “those who depart this mortal life … in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains [relative to those who die, additionally, in unrepented actual sin].” Which is precisely what people mean when they talk about Limbo.

If its teaching in this respect is not doctrinally binding I think we are owed an explanation as to why.

In fact it seems to me fairly clear that to the extent that the modern church appears to have contradicted this teaching, it is only because it has stopped speaking very clearly about the issue at all – and this is probably motivated more by pastoral considerations (as the ITC document makes clear) than theological ones. Again, the weight of evidence here suggests the probability of something like Limbo: Scripture, sacramentology, our understanding of original sin, the opinions of sainted theologians, etc., all support it to varying degrees. Literally the only compelling piece of evidence I can think of against it is only that the Church’s attempts to clarify this teaching in the last two centuries have been repeatedly frustrated by external events.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Collectively they suggest (a) the unbaptized cannot enter Heaven and (b) the unbaptized who are innocent of actual sin do not suffer the same fate as those guilty of actual sin. Which is actually what the idea of Limbo conveys: the unbaptized innocent of actual sin face a different fate than those guilty of it, namely, the lack of eternal torment.

I am confused where in the Florence quotes you provided does it mention the different fate for unbaptized w/o actual sin.

 

[chypmonk]

I am confused where in the Florence quotes you provided does it mention the different fate for unbaptized w/o actual sin.

Here is were Florence teaches there are 2 kinds of punishment one for those who die in mortal sin and the other for those who die in only original:
**
Council of Florence:** “…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.— (Denzinger 693)

Also the Council of Lyons before Florence also taught the same.
**
Council of Lyons II** “…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell,** to be punis:ed with different punishments**…-- (Denzinger 464)

St. Augustine definitely said it is “of the Faith”(aka- apostolic teaching) that infants need to be baptized to go to heaven:

St. Augustine, Letter to Jerome, (415AD), Letter 166:
“Wherefore whosoever tells us that any man can be made alive in the resurrection of the dead otherwise than in Christ, he is to be detested as a pestilent enemy to the common faith. Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ. Now he that is not made alive in Christ must necessarily remain under the condemnation, of which the apostle says, that “by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation.” Romans 5:18 That infants are born under the guilt of this offence is believed by the whole Church.”
66.37.140.35:3000/bible/fathers/1102166.htm

@ **“sw85”**I think your instinct is right . The Holy office was trying to stop this trend of possible salvation for infants without baptism back in the 1950’s. It said there in no solid reasons to think infants can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism:

**The Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) in 1958 provided as follows:
**
"The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature–a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism.

Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible. . . . Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfillment of this obligation." (Apostolicae Sedis, L, 114)

 

[triumphguy]

Presumably “Limbo” was described because the Church couldn’t see the justice in babies going to hell, but at the same time wanted to affirm the doctrine of original sin, so they couldn’t go to heaven without Baptism.

Which, again I presume, is why it has been described as a theory.

As theories of Hell (it’s not a place it’s a state) and redemption develop so do theories about “limbo.”

 

[chypmonk]

Presumably “Limbo” was described because the Church couldn’t see the justice in babies going to hell, but at the same time wanted to affirm the doctrine of original sin, so they couldn’t go to heaven without Baptism.

Which, again I presume, is why it has been described as a theory.

As theories of Hell (it’s not a place it’s a state) and redemption develop so do theories about “limbo.”

I disagree it is just a theory. It is clear from tradition that there is a Limbo=
aka-“Punishment of a different kind for those who die in ONLY Original Sin”

The theory was only about what kind of punishment. Augustine said slight BUT Aquinas said the only suffering was not being able to achieve the Beatific Vision–punishment of loss.

The real (weak) theory is the salvation of infants without Baptism.

 

[Sirach2]

Why is it presumed that Limbo applies only to infants? Children who haven’t reached the age of reason, adults who live according to natural law as St. Paul taught in Romans 2:14-16, and who would be included in the class of non-Israelites of the Old Testament, are going to be judged mercifully according to the righteousness of following their conscience.

catholic.com/tracts/salvation-outside-the-church

Justin Martyr
"We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, *logos

] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid" (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).

Limbo was a theological opinion that developed in later centuries and has never been formally taught by the Church. Scripture and the Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, point to a more merciful God. When one considers the aspect of eternal life, and NEVER being able to enjoy the God who created them for eternal life, it is mind-boggling to consider that they would be confined to a place of benevolence short of God Himself.

Augustine and Aquinas are not invested with Divine Authority of Papal Office. There has not been an official Ex-Cathedra statement in this regard, to my knowledge.

 

[Sirach2]

This is probably a very deep meditation, but we need to remember our profession of faith that affirms the resurrection of the body. Will unbaptized infants or young children be resurrected without the use of reason, in their infant state of development? Similary, will a resurrected body of a 90-year-old person with dimentia continue in the same state they died in?

Hardly, if one considers the fallacy of such imaginings.

Therefore, at the moment of their death and the spirit is no longer within the body, what manner of cognition will the spirit have as it stands before God? That of an infant without reason? We need to separate the idea that the soul is the same age as the body, with the same human limitations.

I am especially devoted to the writings of St. Faustina, who wrote extensively of the mercy of God. It states in her Diary that at the moment of death, a soul may be given the choice to accept or reject God. If need be, I can retrieve the paragraph. Fr. Groeschel has spoken many times about this incredible mercy that may be afforded the soul at death based on that disclosure in her Diary.

If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it at this point, it would certainly dismiss the nebulous concept of Limbo.

 

[triumphguy]

I disagree it is just a theory. It is clear from tradition that there is a Limbo=
aka-“Punishment of a different kind for those who die in ONLY Original Sin”

The theory was only about what kind of punishment. Augustine said slight BUT Aquinas said the only suffering was not being able to achieve the Beatific Vision–punishment of loss.

The real (weak) theory is the salvation of infants without Baptism.

I didn’t call it a theory, I’m using the words of the ITC which consists of

30 theologians are appointed by the Pope upon the suggestion of the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

It seems Cardinal Levada approved the text for publication after receiving approval from the Holy Father:

This present text was approved in forma specifica by the members of the Commission, and was subsequently submitted to its President, Cardinal William Levada who, upon receiving the approval of the Holy father in an audience granted on January 19, 2007, approved the text for publication. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

So it’s probably worth reading the document which answers all the questions asked here

Or we could just ignore a document recommended by theologians (handpicked by the CDF, and personally approved of by the Pope) which was put forward by a Cardinal and approved of by the Pope, and continue with our own theories.

 

[snarflemike]

I have a simple question. Scripture says that God desires all to be saved. That presumably includes those innocents (no personal sin) who, through no fault of their own, are not baptized.

So, does God desire that they be saved?

If so, does he refuse to provide them some avenue of salvation?

If not, does scripture lie?

 

[Actaeon]

I have a simple question. Scripture says that God desires all to be saved. That presumably includes those innocents (no personal sin) who, through no fault of their own, are not baptized.

So, does God desire that they be saved?

If so, does he refuse to provide them some avenue of salvation?

If not, does scripture lie?

Exactly my thoughts… that an aborted baby, through no fault of his/her own, should be eternally denied of the presence of God and punished therefore (no matter how slight) is an abomination to justice.

I much prefer to think that God has some just AND merciful means of proffering the OPTION of baptism by desire to the souls of said people, and that those who are worthy of it will accept it and be saved, while those who are not will reject it and be damned. This idea of a sort of “half hell” for those who are never once offered the opportunity is, simply put, a travesty if it is a reality. (especially and moreso in the case of babies who die in the womb of natural causes, when their parents had every intent of having them baptised immediately!)

 

[sw85]

Why is it presumed that Limbo applies only to infants? Children who haven’t reached the age of reason, adults who live according to natural law as St. Paul taught in Romans 2:14-16, and who would be included in the class of non-Israelites of the Old Testament, are going to be judged mercifully according to the righteousness of following their conscience.

Hi Sirach. I have a couple of margin notes. First, the pre-Resurrection economy of salvation is different from the present one. Baptism was not then necessary for salvation. It is now. Second, while I don’t think Limbo is necessarily populated exclusively by infants, the discussion tends to focus on them because they most forcefully represent the theological mystery at stake here. We know, on the one hand, that we cannot enter Heaven without the grace of Baptism. We know, on the other, that our punishments in Hell are proportional to our actual sins. Unbaptized babies cannot enter Heaven for the former reason but do not suffer in Hell for the latter, being innocent of actual sin. So clearly the Heaven/Hell schema is nonexhaustive.

Adults who live in ignorance of Christ but who, in good faith, endeavor to obey the natural law to the best of their ability exhibit implicit desire for baptism, and may be saved thereby. This may be true of older children, as well. It may also not. We don’t know. Again, the reason we tend to focus on infants is because they most fully exemplify the nature of the problem that gave rise to the idea of Limbo in the first place.

Limbo was a theological opinion that developed in later centuries and has never been formally taught by the Church. Scripture and the Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, point to a more merciful God. When one considers the aspect of eternal life, and NEVER being able to enjoy the God who created them for eternal life, it is mind-boggling to consider that they would be confined to a place of benevolence short of God Himself.

Augustine and Aquinas are not invested with Divine Authority of Papal Office. There has not been an official Ex-Cathedra statement in this regard, to my knowledge.

The point of this thread is that the issue is a little more settled than Limbo-opponents let on. As I point out above, on at least four or five occasions, something like Limbo has been taught, and in contexts that are ordinarily considered exercises in infallible magisterium (ecumenical councils and Papal bulls). Now I’m not sure of the exact mechanism by which infallibility is definitely exhibited, so perhaps it’s not the case that these are in fact doctrinally binding. At the very least, however, they are absolutely authoritative.

You are right to point out that neither Augustine nor Aquinas are the Magisterium. But then, neither is the ITC. Personally, forced to choose between sainted doctors of the Church on the one hand a powerless advisory body of people I’ve never heard of on the other, I’ll grant the saints more priority. It’s also worth noting that the Council of Florence cites Aquinas directly on this, which grants him a bit of authority.

Or we could just ignore a document recommended by theologians (handpicked by the CDF, and personally approved of by the Pope) which was put forward by a Cardinal and approved of by the Pope, and continue with our own theories.

I don’t think anyone is ignoring the ITC document. What I’m saying, at least, is that the ITC doesn’t get the final word here. I’m also saying the ITC’s claim that the issue is entirely unsettled is, at least superficially, meritless. At best the ITC document is one data point which needs to be analyzed in the context of all the other data points. In social science, you don’t just take one participant who improved as a result of your treatment and declare that, therefore, the treatment works. If the other 999 participants did not improve or worsened, that’s evidence the treatment doesn’t work, and one exception cannot void the rule. That’s why we analyze group means, not individual cases. And likewise, in this case, that’s why we need to look at the data holistically and not try to improperly isolate individual data points and elevate them to the status of their own Magisterium.

The data we have before us on the one hand is Scripturally and Magisterially de fide teachings regarding the nature of baptism, original sin, Heaven and Hell, etc.; the direct testament of two ecumenical councils; the condemnations, of at least two or three Popes, of those belief systems that reject Limbo; and the common belief of practically all the faithful, including the Church’s holiest and most devout doctors and saints, just about everywhere for most of Christian history; and, on the other hand, extremely vague and ambiguous sentiments of very recent origins which lack any of the authoritative context of the aforementioned sources, and which appear to be motivated primarily by pastoral rather than theological considerations.

I have a simple question. Scripture says that God desires all to be saved. That presumably includes those innocents (no personal sin) who, through no fault of their own, are not baptized.

So, does God desire that they be saved?

If so, does he refuse to provide them some avenue of salvation?

If not, does scripture lie?

Well, let’s be clear here. God’s will to save is necessary but insufficient. If it was, even the Devil would be saved. The Devil is not saved, so clearly God’s will to save is not sufficient.

There’s grace, and then there’s cooperation with grace. Evidently it seems that grace must be not only freely given but also freely received, hence Calvinism is condemned as an error. To say “this man is forgiven” assumes that “this man” has accepted forgiveness. If he has not accepted it, than the statement is false. If he is compelled to accept it against his will, then he is no longer a man, having lost the free will that is integral to his nature.

Now babies by nature are unable to cooperate with grace. At that point in their lives, they lack a developed reason and independent will both. Grace has to be given to them through baptism by water (or through martyrdom), since they cannot achieve it through desire. These are the only ways baptism can be achieved that we know of, and we know that baptism is necessary for salvation; this is de fide. Hence the situation that has given rise to the idea of Limbo in the first place.

Exactly my thoughts… that an aborted baby, through no fault of his/her own, should be eternally denied of the presence of God and punished therefore (no matter how slight) is an abomination to justice.

Limbo isn’t a punishment in the modern sense of the word. Nothing bad would happen to them there. By all accounts they are doing better than any of us on Earth could hope for (on Earth).

Losing direct, personal access to God – something to which we aren’t entitled by justice or by nature – is not punishment, much less an affront against justice. Imagine a man who plays the lottery every day, and whose numbers come up only on the one day he doesn’t buy a ticket. Has he lost anything?

much prefer to think that God has some just AND merciful means of proffering the OPTION of baptism by desire to the souls of said people, and that those who are worthy of it will accept it and be saved, while those who are not will reject it and be damned. This idea of a sort of “half hell” for those who are never once offered the opportunity is, simply put, a travesty if it is a reality. (especially and moreso in the case of babies who die in the womb of natural causes, when their parents had every intent of having them baptised immediately!)

This I think is the reason the present Catechism says there is “hope” for them. Perhaps there are some means of baptizing we are unaware of. This, and the fact that the last two councils’ attempts to clarify the issue were frustrated, is all that suggests to me that Limbo is not an adequate solution to the aforementioned problems.

That said, if, say, angels could and absolutely do baptize any dead babies right before their death, we are left to wonder why exactly it’s so urgent for parents to baptize their infants or even their children. We are, in fact, left by such a possibility to question everything we know to be true about original sin and the sacrament of baptism.

Which is why, as I’ve said, all the balance of evidence favors Limbo, and there seems to be much, much more material in the Magisterium to recommend it than the contrary position.

 

[Sirach2]

sw85's OP:

…it would seem their take on the question of Limbo must be given authoritative priority.

It appears that you will hold on to your thesis, sw85.
Your exegesis in the OP was very complete, leaving no wiggle room for discussion. Clearly, you are prepared to refute any who disagreed with it, and you are certainly not in the wrong hold that view, since the Church has put forth these probabilities in past ages. I also held that view during my earlier Catholic upbringing.

But absolutely nothing has been taught that Catholics MUST believe in Limbo, as an absolute certainty that this is what occurs for unbaptized persons/infants. The Divine Mercy revelations granted to St. Faustina, with “mercy” designated by Christ as God’s greatest attribute, are a blessing of grace for the Church in our day. It is impossible for me to ascribe to the former uncertain view of a blessed place devoid of God. And those of us who hold to this belief are also, like you, not wrong to do so.

BTW, Justin Martyr, Father of the Church, is a Saint - do you discount his statements in favor of a saint of your choosing?

 

[triumphguy]

According to 30 of the most orthodox and learned theologians, a cardinal and the pope Limbo is a theory.

 

[snarflemike]

Well, let’s be clear here. God’s will to save is necessary but insufficient. If it was, even the Devil would be saved. The Devil is not saved, so clearly God’s will to save is not sufficient.

That comparison falls flat on its face, since the Devil WAS offered the opportunity for eternal life with God, something that you would deny to those who die without personal sin and, through no fault of their own, without baptism. So according to your theory, God treated Lucifer more justly than he treats an aborted baby.

Now babies by nature are unable to cooperate with grace. At that point in their lives, they lack a developed reason and independent will both. Grace has to be given to them through baptism by water (or through martyrdom), since they cannot achieve it through desire. These are the only ways baptism can be achieved that we know of, and we know that baptism is necessary for salvation; this is de fide. Hence the situation that has given rise to the idea of Limbo in the first place.

Then explain the Holy Innocents. Why would God grant them the opportunity of salvation because they were killed, but not grant other infants who are killed that same opportunity? Simply because of the motives of the killers? That’s just crazy.