Maybe some clarification is in order here. The purpose of this thread, I said earlier, was to continue a discussion from several months ago on Limbo. I cannot now remember the exact topic but I think it may have been the “Explain the justice of Hell” one. In that thread, the sentiment was expressed repeatedly that Limbo was a meritless, primitive, superstitious belief utterly unsupported by anything in the Magisterium; a veiled suggestion was furthermore made repeatedly that belief in Limbo could be motivated only by dislike of infants and spiteful theological reaction.
The purpose of this thread was not to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Limbo exists. It was to show that there is more to recommend belief in Limbo than the contrary view. It was also to show that there is better reason to believe in Limbo than the contrary position. One can say “But we aren’t required to believe it.” That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that, on the basis of what we know, it is prudent that we believe it. More prudent than that we believe the contrary position. So asserting repeatedly that one doesn’t believe it isn’t particularly relevant or helpful.
I’m open to the possibility that Limbo doesn’t exist. I have put forth a few possible ways of understanding that. I just find them to be unbearable theological contortions, where Limbo seems to flow much more naturally and organically from what we already understand as truth. Maybe there is way to “un-twist” defenses of the no-Limbo position, and another point of this thread was to give people the opportunity to do that. But no one has, and I still see no way of doing it.
Once again, we have on the one hand fairly clear statements issued in Papal bulls and at least two ecumenical councils, endorsed by a number of sainted theologians (including the foremost doctor of the Church), and the clear support of sacramentology. On the other hand we have very vague and ambiguous sentiments of recent origin motivated primarily by pastoral rather than theological considerations. We can reconcile the latter to the former by understanding the modern Church’s treatment of the topic as simply forfeiting clarity for pastoral purposes without actually abandoning the idea of Limbo. I see no way to reconcile them while jettisoning Limbo without simply ignoring the former statements entirely, which is not something we are permitted to do lightly. Literally the only way I can see to integrate the two is one that preserves the idea of Limbo.
There is also the simple fact that we can fit Limbo very neatly into our existing understanding of theology and sacramentology. Rejecting Limbo whole-hog requires revisions to both, and it is not clear how we can make such revisions without baselessly positing an arbitrary solution or else rejecting infallible teachings regarding original sin or the sacraments. The best we can say is that there might be something we don’t know that would change things. But is there any reason we cannot say the same thing about anything else? Such a principle seems to me to be sufficiently protean as to make a total mess of the Magisterium.
Finally, I confess to being very, very suspicious of the anti-Limbo movement simply because the language adopted by its most vehement partisans very neatly lines up with Protestant and modernist sensibilities (e.g., the repeated assertion in the earlier thread that Limbo was a primitive superstition). To put it as charitably as I’m capable, I literally see no good reason whatsoever to believe in the anti-Limbo position. It seems to be a position borne of extreme squeamishness, hyperindividualism, and entitlement mentality. In other words, a thoroughly modern phenomenon.
BTW, Justin Martyr, Father of the Church, is a Saint - do you discount his statements in favor of a saint of your choosing?
I’ve said pretty repeatedly that no one thing can be held up as definitive evidence for or against Limbo. (I am not the one doing this, anyway – it is the Limbo opponents insisting we focus on ambiguous and probably doctrinally nonbinding passages in the CCC or the ITC document to the exclusion of much clearer Papal bulls and ecumenical councils). So no, Justin Martyr’s attitude does not need to be and should not be
disqualified.
But it does need to be
qualified. Aquinas’ view is supported by the fact that his writings in defense of Limbo were cited approvingly by at least one ecumenical council. To my knowledge there is nothing similar that can be said for Justin Martyr. This stands to reason: early Christians believed lots of different and conflicting things, the Holy Spirit having not yet revealed in the fullness of time all the truths which would come to light in the Church. This is why we have ecumenical councils: to sort out truth from falsehood. Some of the early church fathers were universalists, some were Pelagians, some were Arians. Most of them are saints because of their martyrdom, not because of their theological insight or correctness.
So while we are not justified in ignoring his opinions entirely, we are certainly justified in giving them less priority than those of Aquinas, who had the benefit of greater theological clarity (having lived in a later time) and, again, whose writings have been cited approvingly by church authorities on the topic in at least one ecumenical council.
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.
“More justly” is a misleading sentiment. “Justice” is the principle according to which everything is given its proper due. Man does not, by nature, deserve Heaven, hence his not being in Heaven is never an affront against justice (and without the supernatural grace showered on us by baptism, man exists only in nature). Justice only requires that those not in Heaven suffer according to their sins: worse sinners more intensely and non-sinners not at all. That’s exactly what Limbo is, and exactly why it was postulated in the first place: to reconcile our understanding of justice with our understanding of the necessity of baptism.
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.
I don’t presume to know the mind of God.
