My thoughts on Limbo and a question to those who don't believe in it

[Fuerza]

This is where I begin to lose my attenion span!

It sounds like a place people make up when they make a personal choice to have a God-free life, and choose to do whatever they want with their life, as long as its not “too bad” in their eyes, and they figure they will end up somewhere like this. Separatred from Who they never wanted to know anyway, but, somewhere pleasant.

I don’t know if I agree with that. Limbo isn’t for those who purposely choose to live a God-free life. To willingly and knowingly do so would seem to me to be a mortal sin and therefore would be punished in the “true” Hell.

 

[Contarini]

Steve,

I’m also originally from Staten Island. There must be some sort of “believe in limbo” syrum in the water, or possibly emitting from the landfill .

Easy explanation: Staten Island *is *limbo!

As a former resident of New Jersey who loves New York City, I hesitate to speculate on which of these is hell and which is heaven, though the fact that Staten Island belongs to the latter (while in practice often treated as being quite separate from it) does point toward a rather obvious conclusion. . . .

Edwin

 

[Fuerza]

I think the reason that the idea of Limbo causes so much frustration is because people are focusing on the wrong question. As I said in my first post, I don’t think that the question should be whether or not Limbo exists. Two church councils have officially declared that those who die in original sin only go to hell, but to a different punishment. This “different punishment” is the very definition of Limbo to those who believe in it. We don’t know exactly of what it consists, but we generaly agree that it is far less severe and likely even allows for some degree of happiness.

The real question should be, “Who is it that actually dies in original sin?” Even if God does have a way of extra-sacramentally baptizing those who had no chance to receive it in life, there must be some who don’t receive even this. If all who died in original sin only, but no mortal sin, were saved extra-sacramentally, then there would have been no reason for Lyons II and Florence to speak as they did. So again: If God does have a plan for the salvation of the unbaptized, to whom does he give it and what are the criteria? I ventured a guess in my first post, but I don’t think that we’ll ever truly answer this question.

 

[Fuerza]

Easy explanation: Staten Island *is *limbo!

As a former resident of New Jersey who loves New York City, I hesitate to speculate on which of these is hell and which is heaven, though the fact that Staten Island belongs to the latter (while in practice often treated as being quite separate from it) does point toward a rather obvious conclusion. . . .

Edwin

You know, you may have a point.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Dear Lone Raven, I am not misusing the term “dogma.” I have never called limbo a dogma

-Steve O’Brien

If the dogma concerning the next-world penalty of original sin can be revoked

-Steve O’Brien

That is a misuse Steve.

Lone Raven, there is no misuse.

I’d like to clear up some confusion.

It is true that the existence of limbo is not a dogma. I have never said that it is. Please read all my previous posts on limbo carefully.

Nevertheless, what is a dogma is the Church’s teaching concerning the next-world penalty of those dying in original sin only. This is a distinct issue.

Here’s a schema to help clarify the situation:

DOGMA: next-world punishment of some kind for souls dying in original sin only. (Pope Innocent III told us that this punishment is loss of the beatific vision, i.e., loss of heaven.)

THEOLOGICAL DEDUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: limbo, a hoped-for state of unending natural happiness. (This deduction is deduced from the above dogma, but is not itself a dogma.)

The Church teaches dogmatically that there is some penalty for dying in original sin only. Pope Innocent III clarified this dogma in 1201 by teaching that the penalty is deprivation of the supernatural life and happiness of the beatific vision (DS 780=Deferrari 410). (I’m giving the scholarly references in the Latin and English doctrine collections for those who are interested–or skeptical.)

The Church’s dogma concerning the next-world penalty for original sin only does not include the positive destiny that may await those who suffer the punishment of being excluded from heaven. The dogma is merely negative, not positive. But the Church allows, and even encourages, us to believe that the exclusion from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision is compatible with enjoyment of the unending happiness called limbo.

That the next-world penalty for those dying in original sin only is a Catholic dogma is not merely my personal opinion. One of the standard Latin dogma manuals, once used in seminaries all over the world, says that this teaching is “De fide divina et catholica definita” (“A matter of defined divine and Catholic faith”). This statement appears in the Spanish Jesuits’ dogma series entitled Sacrae theologiae summa (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1955), vol. 2, page 1001.

This dogma was taught by two ecumenical councils: Lyons II in 1274 (DS 858=Deferrari 464) and Florence in 1439 (DS 1306=Deferrari 693). The Church cannot now revoke or contradict this teaching, precisely because it’s a Catholic dogma.

No solid and informed Catholic theologian can deny that the next-world penalty for dying in original sin only is a Catholic dogma.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I think the reason that the idea of Limbo causes so much frustration is because people are focusing on the wrong question. As I said in my first post, I don’t think that the question should be whether or not Limbo exists. Two church councils have officially declared that those who die in original sin only go to hell, but to a different punishment. This “different punishment” is the very definition of Limbo to those who believe in it. We don’t know exactly of what it consists, but we generally agree that it is far less severe and likely even allows for some degree of happiness.

The real question should be, “Who is it that actually dies in original sin?” Even if God does have a way of extra-sacramentally baptizing those who had no chance to receive it in life, there must be some who don’t receive even this. If all who died in original sin only, but no mortal sin, were saved extra-sacramentally, then there would have been no reason for Lyons II and Florence to speak as they did. So again: If God does have a plan for the salvation of the unbaptized, to whom does he give it and what are the criteria? I ventured a guess in my first post, but I don’t think that we’ll ever truly answer this question.

Fuerza, I’d like to commend you for highlighting the pivotal importance of the Lyons II-Florence dogma concerning the next-world punishment of those who die in original sin only.

Every Catholic who discusses limbo should realize that this Lyons II-Florence dogma *is *a dogma, not a mere opinion, that it cannot be ignored as if it didn’t exist, and that the Church cannot, and will not, annul it with the specious claim that such a momentous reversal would merely be a doctrinal “development” or a “nuancing.”

Thanks for starting this thread!

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fidelis and other fellow Catholics, CCC 1257, like CCC 1261, and, indeed, every other section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church without exception, has to be interpreted in the light of all the previous statements that Christ makes as he speaks to us through the Magisterium (Lk 10:16).

In accordance with this basic principle for understanding the Church’s teachings accurately, no CCC section can be interpreted in a sense that contradicts (instead of complementing and clarifying) any previous official teaching of the Church.

In connection with the dogmas of original sin and the necessity of Baptism, and the deduction of limbo, one of the most important of these previous Magisterial statements is the following pronouncement, which was issued by the Council of Florence in 1442 (DS 1349=D 712):

[snip]

Only about a half-century ago, within the lifetime of many on this forum, Pope Pius XII taught the following in an allocution to midwives on October 29, 1951:

[snip]

Here is a link for Pius XII’s address:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

We should not think that Vatican II and the new catechism have swept away previous Catholic teachings, and that the Magisterium can discard old dogmas and invent new ones. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Limbo has not been widely taught as Catholic doctrine - it’s been dropped; and if the various hierarchies ought to have taught it, they are no more trustworthy as a source of Christian truth than Brother Billy-Bob’s Gospel Hour.​

At least Brother Billy-Bob is unlikely to pretend that his teaching source doesn’t contain the verses he quotes, however misapplied they may be. If he preaches a prosperity gospel from the verses about Jabez, his congregation & his competition can at least take them in a different way. In the CC, if the hierarchy don’t teach a doctrine, then they don’t teach it, whether it be salvation by grace alone, prosperity by the prayer of Jabez, or the existence of Limbo. And at least Brother Billy-Bob does not claim to be indefectible in faith or infallible in teaching. A worldwide hierarchy which for 40 years has not taught Limbo, cannot create a past in which for 40 years they did so.

The doctrine of what they should do is all fine & dandy - it doesn’t follow that they do as they should. To confuse dogma with actual behaviour is as useful as saying that aeroplanes cannot fly because they are heavier than air. ##

The new catechism itself bears witness to the fact that the Magisterium can only transmit, safeguard, and explain dogmas, always preserving their original meaning. It cannot jettison dogmas in favor of novelties that contradict what the Church has taught in previous centuries. Please see *CCC *

65-67, 81, 86, and 88.

Keep and spread the Faith.

The trouble with what the Council of Florence says is that it the population of the inhabited was larger than the Council Fathers were able to know.​

Maoris, Bushmen & Hurons (for instance) had not been evangelised - the Council Fathers knew no more of the Maoris than we do about any lizard-people there may conceivably be on Sirius - IOW, they knew nothing of them, so neither (hypothetical) transgalactic lizard-people nor (wholly real & existent) Maoris etc. could have heard the Gospel, been baptised, or the like. But if they are damned on that account, either

• 1. Baptism is a far from ordinary means of salvation
     or
• 1. God created most of the human race for the express purpose of damning them (which is hyper-Calvinism)
     or
• 1. the dogma of Florence received from the Fathers needs to be revised.
     If Maoris (or Sirian lizard-people) can be saved without baptism, it is not clear why infants can’t be. The problem with making exceptions is that they can easily become the rule - there is a direct line from baptism of desire in the fourth century for dying catechumens, to the salvation of atheists of goodwill.

ISTM that dogmatic fidelity is a matter of one’s perspective -

• do we judge Vatican II by (say) Florence, Trent, Lateran IV
  or
• do we take V2 as our point of reference, and treat it as a fulfilling of past Councils ?
  ISTM that many disputes about continuity, tradition, & fidelity arise because people have different ways of relating present & past, & that this in its turn is because they see the same things from different perspectives. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Limbo has not been widely taught as Catholic doctrine - it’s been dropped; and if the various hierarchies ought to have taught it, they are no more trustworthy as a source of Christian truth than Brother Billy-Bob’s Gospel Hour.​

At least Brother Billy-Bob is unlikely to pretend that his teaching source doesn’t contain the verses he quotes, however misapplied they may be. If he preaches a prosperity gospel from the verses about Jabez, his congregation & his competition can at least take them in a different way. In the CC, if the hierarchy don’t teach a doctrine, then they don’t teach it, whether it be salvation by grace alone, prosperity by the prayer of Jabez, or the existence of Limbo. And at least Brother Billy-Bob does not claim to be indefectible in faith or infallible in teaching. A worldwide hierarchy which for 40 years has not taught Limbo, cannot create a past in which for 40 years they did so.

The doctrine of what they should do is all fine & dandy - it doesn’t follow that they do as they should. To confuse dogma with actual behaviour is as useful as saying that aeroplanes cannot fly because they are heavier than air.

The trouble with what the Council of Florence says is that the population of the inhabited was larger than the Council Fathers were able to know.​

Maoris, Bushmen & Hurons (for instance) had not been evangelised - the Council Fathers knew no more of the Maoris than we do about any lizard-people there may conceivably be on Sirius - IOW, they knew nothing of them, so neither (hypothetical) transgalactic lizard-people nor (wholly real & existent) Maoris etc. could have heard the Gospel, been baptised, or the like. But if they are damned on that account, either

• 1. Baptism is a far from ordinary means of salvation
     or
• 1. God created most of the human race for the express purpose of damning them (which is hyper-Calvinism)
     or
• 1. the dogma of Florence received from the Fathers needs to be revised.
     If Maoris (or Sirian lizard-people) can be saved without baptism, it is not clear why infants can’t be. The problem with making exceptions is that they can easily become the rule - there is a direct line from baptism of desire in the fourth century for dying catechumens, to the salvation of atheists of goodwill.

ISTM that dogmatic fidelity is a matter of one’s perspective -

• do we judge Vatican II by (say) Florence, Trent, Lateran IV
  or
• do we take V2 as our point of reference, and treat it as a fulfilling of past Councils ?
  ISTM that many disputes about continuity, tradition, & fidelity arise because people have different ways of relating present & past, & that this in its turn is because they see the same things from different perspectives. ##

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Limbo has not been widely taught as Catholic doctrine - it’s been dropped; and if the various hierarchies ought to have taught it, they are no more trustworthy as a source of Christian truth than Brother Billy-Bob’s Gospel Hour.​

On the contrary, the theological deduction of limbo has *not *been “dropped,” nor can it be. Nor can the Catholic Church “drop” the dogma of the next-world punishment of those dying in original sin only. It is from this dogma that limbo is deduced.

No Catholic hierarchy anywhere in the world in any century has told Catholics that they should no longer believe in the existence of limbo in the sense in which Catholic theology understands that concept, i.e., a state of unending natural happiness compatible with some kind of punishment for original sin. If such a hierarchical statement had been issued, it would be common knowledge among informed Catholics by now.

Catholics should be aware of this: some people are targeting limbo, and claiming that the Church can or has changed her teachings, because they wish to see the Church destroy herself by transforming herself into “a broad and liberal Protestantism” (the phrase of Pope St. Pius X in his condemnation of the heresy of Modernism). This transformation is not going to happen, but the efforts being deployed in that direction are generating confusion.

This confusion should not exist, because the teachings of the Faith are lucid. It is our duty as Catholics to absorb their lucidity. One way to do this is to assimilate the entire text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Don’t read the new catechism. Memorize it!

Section 403 of the new catechism teaches us the following:

"Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth."

If there were no limbo, and if all unbaptized infants were to go to heaven, then it would hardly be true that infant Baptism manifests the sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[USMC]

As all of the recent threads on Limbo have become too large for my pathetic attention span (and some have gotten a little bit heated), I have decided to start my own. I’ll start by explaining my own beliefs about Limbo, with which you are of course free to agree or disagree. The following are my personal beliefs only and I do not pretend to speak authoritatively.

The Nature of Limbo

In my belief, Limbo is not a part of Heaven, nor is it a third option between Heaven and Hell. It is a part of Hell whose inhabitants are denied a supernatural union with God and are therefore technically “damned”. However, through the mercy of God, they are spared most, if not all, of the suffering associated with such a state and are maintained in a state of natural happiness. The only “pain” is the knowledge that there is something better that will never be achieved. Also, although I have no actual basis for this belief, I’d also like to think that God grants these souls a way of “keeping in touch” with any loved ones who may be in Heaven, even if only in a limited manner. This is what I think that the Councils of Lyons II and Florence had in mind when they spoke of a different punishment for those dying in original sin only.

So, to sum it up, I believe that Limbo is more or less a relatively pleasant section of hell. Kind of like an affluent, peaceful suburb of a run down, crime ridden city.

Your above thoughts are perfect. I would say that you are in perfect agreement with St. Thomas, the greatest theologian in the history of the Church.

My guess is that you arrived at this understanding of Limbo by simply reading the magisterial documents with no preconceived notions, or bias. Good job.

 

[corvidae]

On the contrary, the theological deduction of limbo has *not *been “dropped,” nor can it be. Nor can the Catholic Church “drop” the dogma of the next-world punishment of those dying in original sin only. It is from this dogma that limbo is deduced.

No Catholic hierarchy anywhere in the world in any century has told Catholics that they should no longer believe in the existence of limbo in the sense in which Catholic theology understands that concept, i.e., a state of unending natural happiness compatible with some kind of punishment for original sin. If such a hierarchical statement had been issued, it would be common knowledge among informed Catholics by now.

Catholics should be aware of this: some people are targeting limbo, and claiming that the Church can or has changed her teachings, because they wish to see the Church destroy herself by transforming herself into “a broad and liberal Protestantism” (the phrase of Pope St. Pius X in his condemnation of the heresy of Modernism). This transformation is not going to happen, but the efforts being deployed in that direction are generating confusion.

This confusion should not exist, because the teachings of the Faith are lucid. It is our duty as Catholics to absorb their lucidity. One way to do this is to assimilate the entire text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Don’t read the new catechism. Memorize it!

Section 403 of the new catechism teaches us the following:

"Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth."

If there were no limbo, and if all unbaptized infants were to go to heaven, then it would hardly be true that infant Baptism manifests the sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation.

Keep and spread the Faith.

NO ONE IS SAYING THEY ALL GO TO HEAVEN. At least I am not, I am saying we do not know. We leave them to God’s mercy, just as we cannot say anyone is definitively in hell. And the Parents would deny a child a priceless grace of becoming a child of God. However, that does not mean that there is no other way for that Child to become a child of God. It means that the only way we know of is not done.

Look at it this way. If someone’s child had malaria and the parents denied the child a sure means of curing it, they are denying that child a priceless thing. That does not mean that the child may not be cured in another way, or even that the child will die, it just means that the parents denied the child a sure cure which they most definately did.

A lone Raven

A lone Raven

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Your above thoughts are perfect. I would say that you are in perfect agreement with St. Thomas, the greatest theologian in the history of the Church.

My guess is that you arrived at this understanding of Limbo by simply reading the magisterial documents with no preconceived notions, or bias. Good job.

I join the United States Marine Corps in praising Fuerza’s post–with two respectful reservations, which express my personal reaction, not doctrines of the Church:

1. I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas, who believed that the happiness of the souls in limbo is not clouded by any pain or sorrow over the loss of the beatific vision.

Please see St. Thomas’s own words at this link:

newadvent.org/summa/600102.htm

1. I agree with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger that Pope John Paul II and the Church took a “decisive turn” in CCC 1261, not by discarding the concept of limbo, but by providing a doctrinal formulation (a “hope” for “a way of salvation”) that can, and should, be understood as the hope for limbo as a quasi-salvation.

It is my personal opinion as an individual Catholic that this immensely positive and consoling perspective on limbo (which does not conflict at all with the Lyons II-Florence dogma on next-world punishment for original sin) is the authentic doctrinal development on this issue. It’s a terminological development: it allows Catholics to extend the meaning of “salvation” to include limbo, even though limbo is also a kind of damnation and penalty. Who can deny that limbo is a way of being saved from what Our Lord calls the “fire” of hell?

Etymologically, salvation is the action or condition of being rescued from some danger. Limbo is a way of being rescued from the danger of the sufferings of hell. Like heaven, limbo is a means by which God can “save others by snatching them out of the fire” (*Jude *1:22).

Please consider these realities of the contemporary world: a huge, and hugely increasing, world population, most of which is not being baptized owing to Catholics’ failure to spread the one true Faith zealously, and also the horrific spread of the sins of surgical and chemical abortion and in vitro fertilization. Please think of the millions and millions of abortions and miscarriages.

It’s my opinion that these contemporary realities justify the Church in modifying her pastoral (not dogmatic) stance by allowing limbo to be viewed as “a way of salvation.” In doing so, of course, the Church cannot, and will not, contradict any of her past teachings, including her dogma concerning the next-world punishment of original sin, and the dogma concerning the urgent necessity of infant Baptism.

Even if limbo is called a form of salvation, there is still a tremendous incentive for parents to baptize their children, and for Catholics to spread the Faith. This incentive is the desire to give every child the chance to attain the full salvation of the beatific vision.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[USMC]

1. I agree with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger that Pope John Paul II and the Church took a “decisive turn” in CCC 1261, not by discarding the concept of limbo, but by providing a doctrinal formulation (a “hope” for “a way of salvation”) that can, and should, be understood as the hope for limbo as a quasi-salvation.

I think you misunderstood what the Catechism means by “hope” in this context.

It doesn’t mean that we should hope that Limbo is salvation. It means that we can hope for extra-sacramental means “known to God alone” by which a child may obtain the state of grace, be saved, and therefore avoid Limbo.

For example, the Holy Innocents, who died in the place of our Lord, were given the use of reason with which they were able to will to die for our Lord. This was a special grace given to them due to the special circumstances of their death.

As the Catechism of Trent says, the Church knows of no other way for children to obtain the state of grace other than Baptism; however, there is no danger in “hoping” that, like the Holy Innocents, certain children may obtain the state of grace, either through the prayers of their parents prior to the child dying, or some other unknown means.

That is what was meant by the “hope” referred to.

 

[MilesXpisti]

I thought I’d put my own opinion in this mix, as this seems to be a point of contention these days. I am personally a believer in Limbo, but this comes as much from my stance as a moral positivist as anything. Certainly, I follow the Church in entertaining hope that God through extraordinary means may grant them beatific vision. But I temper the hope expressed by HH John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger with the opinion of HH Pius IX, who said it was unadvisable to entertain good hope for those not a part of the true Church of Christ. As baptism is the only sacramental means by which we enter into the Body of Christ, we must take at face value the three known forms of the baptism, namely water, blood and explicit desire. Does a baptism of blood apply? I see no martydom for the sake of the Faith. Explicit desire? Does the child even have the capacity to know God let alone desire eternal communion with him? I doubt it very much.

If the Church affirms doctrine that destroys Limbo, I will abide happily. As it is said, if Rome speaks the debate is ended. But in my own estimation, I must at this time put my faith in a God that is loving but follows His own rules. Thanks.

Comments welcome…please?

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I think you misunderstood what the Catechism means by “hope” in this context.

It doesn’t mean that we should hope that Limbo is salvation. It means that we can hope for extra-sacramental means “known to God alone” by which a child may obtain the state of grace, be saved, and therefore avoid Limbo.

For example, the Holy Innocents, who died in the place of our Lord, were given the use of reason with which they were able to will to die for our Lord. This was a special grace given to them due to the special circumstances of their death.

As the Catechism of Trent says, the Church knows of no other way for children to obtain the state of grace other than Baptism; however, there is no danger in “hoping” that, like the Holy Innocents, certain children may obtain the state of grace, either through the prayers of their parents prior to the child dying, or some other unknown means.

That is what was meant by the “hope” referred to.

USMC, I’m not aware that Catholic tradition contains any statement that the Holy Innocents were granted a miraculous episode of adult cognition so that they might experience baptism of desire. My understanding is that Herod’s victims achieved the beatific vision solely in virtue of baptism of blood, i.e., by being killed for the sake of Jesus.

If we concede extra-sacramental means (apart from martyrdom) for infants to achieve sanctifying grace, e.g., personal or vicarious baptism of desire, then we’re–please let me speak bluntly, bro–allowing the Devil to con us.

Because the Devil is no slouch, he knows this: if the Church were to issue a statement saying, or even appearing to say, that there may be extra-sacramental means for some unbaptized infants to go to heaven, the immediate and widespread concrete reaction would be to transform even this guarded statement into a complete overturning of the Church’s dogmas of original sin and infant Baptism. People would say: “Well, then maybe all unbaptized infants go to heaven! Why not?” Indeed, why not?

I’m tremendously grateful to you for sharing with me the objectives of upholding the coherence and unruptured continuity of Catholic doctrine. Still, the only position that safeguards these goals is the one that interprets CCC 1261 as referring, not to heaven, but to limbo.

USMC, please think this over! Don’t let the bleeping Devil pull a fast one on you!

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I thought I’d put my own opinion in this mix, as this seems to be a point of contention these days. I am personally a believer in Limbo, but this comes as much from my stance as a moral positivist as anything. Certainly, I follow the Church in entertaining hope that God through extraordinary means may grant them beatific vision. But I temper the hope expressed by HH John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger with the opinion of HH Pius IX, who said it was inadvisable to entertain good hope for those not a part of the true Church of Christ. As baptism is the only sacramental means by which we enter into the Body of Christ, we must take at face value the three known forms of the baptism, namely water, blood and explicit

desire. Does a baptism of blood apply? I see no martyrdom for the sake of the Faith. Explicit desire? Does the child even have the capacity to know God let alone desire eternal communion with him? I doubt it very much.

If the Church affirms doctrine that destroys Limbo, I will abide happily. As it is said, if Rome speaks the debate is ended. But in my own estimation, I must at this time put my faith in a God that is loving but follows His own rules. Thanks.

Comments welcome…please?

Soldier of Christ, please chill out. I say that because the Church is not going to destroy limbo.

Together with the teaching authority of the Church, I believe that the baptism of desire can be implicit as well as explicit. I believe that this point of Catholic teaching has been clarified and authoritatively settled by the letter that Pope Pius XII had the Holy Office send to the Archbishop of Boston in 1949. If you have not already studied this extremely important statement of Catholic doctrine–it explains the orthodox understanding of the infallible dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation–then I’d like to take the liberty of urging you to do so. Here’s a link:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

By the way, all serious Catholics should absorb the above document, which is referred to in the *Catechism of the Catholic Church (*section 847).

I’d like to emphasize that I believe that baptism of desire is possible only for those who have reached the age of reason, as Pope Pius XII taught in his Allocution to Midwives on October 29, 1951.

Again, I feel that the “hope” for “a way of salvation” for unbaptized infants in CCC 1261 can, and should, be understood as the hope for the happiness of limbo.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[USMC]

If we concede extra-sacramental means (apart from martyrdom) for infants to achieve sanctifying grace, e.g., personal or vicarious baptism of desire, then we’re–please let me speak bluntly, bro–allowing the Devil to con us.

That is what they are referring to when they speak of a hope for unbaptized infants.

Because the Devil is no slouch, he knows this: if the Church were to issue a statement saying, or even appearing to say, that there may be extra-sacramental means for some unbaptized infants to go to heaven, the immediate and widespread concrete reaction would be to transform even this guarded statement into a complete overturning of the Church’s dogmas of original sin and infant Baptism. People would say: “Well, then maybe all unbaptized infants go to heaven! Why not?” Indeed, why not?

That’s right, and that’s why so many people now teach that all aborted babies go straight to heaven. Probably not a good idea for the new Catechism to teach what the Church has never taught.

I’m tremendously grateful to you for sharing with me the objectives of upholding the coherence and unruptured continuity of Catholic doctrine. Still, the only position that safeguards these goals is the one that interprets CCC 1261 as referring, not to heaven, but to limbo.

Here’s the flaw in your argument. There is no need to hope that the unbaptized infants will go to Limbo, since that is certianly where they will go. And it is not possible for those who go to Limbo to someday arrive in heaven, since our eternity is fixed when we die. There is no second chance to attain the state of grace after death.

USMC, please think this over! Don’t let the bleeping Devil pull a fast one on you!

Keep and spread the Faith.

I’ll try not to let him pull a fast one on me, but I can assue you that when the Catechims says we can “hope” for the salvation of those who die without normal water baptism, it is referring to them obtaining the state of grace through extra sacramental means - either through the prayers of their parents, or some other way known only to God.

Remember, I didn’t teach this, the new Catechism did. In my opinion it would be best if the catechism just taught what the Church teaches and did not allow room to “hope” in something that has never been taught by the Church and is still not taught by the Church.

One final note: Extra sacramental means of attaining the state of grace (either before water baptism, or before confession for those who have fallen into mortal sin) is standard Catholic theology. If you read up on it, I’m sure you will understand what the Catechism if referring to - and it is certianly not referring to those in Limbo attaining heaven at a future date. Extra sacramental means of attaining the state of grace has its place in theology; souls in Limbo being given a second chance after death has none.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

On the contrary, the theological deduction of limbo has *not *been “dropped,” nor can it be. Nor can the Catholic Church “drop” the dogma of the next-world punishment of those dying in original sin only. It is from this dogma that limbo is deduced.

No Catholic hierarchy anywhere in the world in any century has told Catholics that they should no longer believe in the existence of limbo in the sense in which Catholic theology understands that concept, i.e., a state of unending natural happiness compatible with some kind of punishment for original sin. If such a hierarchical statement had been issued, it would be common knowledge among informed Catholics by now.

Which doesn’t alter the fact that if it is Catholic doctrine, the various individual hierarchies have done a useless job of teaching it. Which makes one wonder just how much more they are failing to teach. If it is true, they have failed desperately to teach the faith, & should be replaced by people who can & will do what they are meant to.

Proper bishops teach the faith, all of it - not most of it. Bishops who fail to teach even one doctrine - especially of the pastoral importance of Limbo - are not bishops, except for purposes of bureaucracy. Not formally denying a doctrine, is nothing like the same as teaching it. I’ve never denied being legitimate Pope, just as millions of others have not - but who in his right mind imagines that is a claim to being legitimate Pope ? If it were a claim, there would be millions of claimants. So with doctrine - not formally denying, =/= actually teaching (quite apart from preaching, explaining, or doing any of the 1001 other things one does with doctrine).

All this follows, if Limbo is Catholic doctrine

If Limbo is true, then Ratzinger in 1984 was deficient in doctrine, and absolutely not the person to be in charge of the SCDF; because Prefects of Sacred Congregation ought at least to know whether a doctrine is Catholic doctrine; & if Limbo is doctrine, he was not fit to be SCDF Prefect, because by the standards of his 1998 Note he was neither orthodox nor competent Or is it usual for SCDF Prefects not to know something is Catholic doctrine ?

Apart from anything else, your reply ignores almost all of the implications & difficulties raised if this doctrine is true. A true doctrine can stand up to testing by difficult questions - it’s a sign of a false one that it cannot.

Catholics should be aware of this: some people are targeting limbo, and claiming that the Church can or has changed her teachings, because they wish to see the Church destroy herself by transforming herself into “a broad and liberal Protestantism” (the phrase of Pope St. Pius X in his condemnation of the heresy of Modernism). This transformation is not going to happen, but the efforts being deployed in that direction are generating confusion. his confusion should not exist, because the teachings of the Faith are lucid. It is our duty as Catholics to absorb their lucidity. One way to do this is to assimilate the entire text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Don’t read the new catechism. Memorize it!

Lucidity is no guarantee of truth.​

Section 403 of the new catechism teaches us the following:

"Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth."

If there were no limbo, and if all unbaptized infants were to go to heaven, then it would hardly be true that infant Baptism manifests the sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation.

Keep and spread the Faith.

One can perfectly well have gratuitous redemption & gratuitous baptism without any Limbo. Most Christians through the ages have got on perfectly well without Limbo, & have insisted that redemption, whatever its means, is wholly gratuitous.​

Calvinists don’t believe in Limbo - & they insist on grace, all the time.

St.Paul speaks of grace constantly - but never of Limbo. Limbo may be logical - it doesn’t follow that is a revealed truth; or even a theologically valid inference. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I join the United States Marine Corps in praising Fuerza’s post–with two respectful reservations, which express my personal reaction, not doctrines of the Church:

1. I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas, who believed that the happiness of the souls in limbo is not clouded by any pain or sorrow over the loss of the beatific vision.

Please see St. Thomas’s own words at this link:

newadvent.org/summa/600102.htm

1. I agree with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger that Pope John Paul II and the Church took a “decisive turn” in CCC 1261, not by discarding the concept of limbo, but by providing a doctrinal formulation (a “hope” for “a way of salvation”) that can, and should, be understood as the hope for limbo as a quasi-salvation.

It is my personal opinion as an individual Catholic that this immensely positive and consoling perspective on limbo (which does not conflict at all with the Lyons II-Florence dogma on next-world punishment for original sin) is the authentic doctrinal development on this issue. It’s a terminological development: it allows Catholics to extend the meaning of “salvation” to include limbo, even though limbo is also a kind of damnation and penalty. Who can deny that limbo is a way of being saved from what Our Lord calls the “fire” of hell?

Etymologically, salvation is the action or condition of being rescued from some danger. Limbo is a way of being rescued from the danger of the sufferings of hell. Like heaven, limbo is a means by which God can “save others by snatching them out of the fire” (*Jude *1:22).

Please consider these realities of the contemporary world: a huge, and hugely increasing, world population, most of which is not being baptized owing to Catholics’ failure to spread the one true Faith zealously, and also the horrific spread of the sins of surgical and chemical abortion and in vitro fertilization. Please think of the millions and millions of abortions and miscarriages.## Irrelevant. Numbers are nothing to do with truth. If it be the good pleasure of God that 100% of the population of the world be lost - well & good

If it be His good pleasure that 100% be saved - well & good.

Doctrines do not become less true or more true because of the numerical implications. The problems come, not because of those, but because the Church sometimes speaks too early - as at Florence.

It’s my opinion that these contemporary realities justify the Church in modifying her pastoral (not dogmatic) stance by allowing limbo to be viewed as “a way of salvation.”

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Here’s the flaw in your argument. There is no need to hope that the unbaptized infants will go to Limbo, since that is certainly where they will go

USMC, I’m glad that you raise this point, because your comment touches on something that’s being missed. It *is *right for the Church to say in CCC 1261 that we may merely "hope" that unbaptized infants go to limbo. It is right for two reasons:

1. While, together with St. Thomas Aquinas, I strongly believe in the existence of limbo, we can’t say that God has revealed its existence. That’s why it’s a hypothesis, not a dogma. There is an element of doubt that the Church must acknowledge.
2. There have been Catholic heavyweights–e.g., St. Augustine (at least at one point in his life), Pope St. Gregory the Great, and St. Anselm–who believed that unbaptized infants actually undergo some degree of suffering in hell. Given that rigorism and that pessimism (which I reject as conflicting with God’s love and mercy), the Magisterium is saying that Catholics do *not *have to share the personal opinion of St. Augustine and the others, since it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

On the contrary–this is how I understand CCC 1261–we may, as solid Catholics, adopt St. Thomas’s positive and consoling view that unbaptized infants are happy in limbo instead of suffering in hell. Having escaped hell, these souls have thus found “a way of salvation” that is not, however, the supernatural salvation of the beatific vision.

CCC 1261 has to be read against the background of a huge amount of Catholic history and theology. Of course, those who drafted this section couldn’t put everything into a brief paragraph. Had they mentioned St. Augustine’s harsh view, for example, they would have merely confused the average Catholic. Too many Catholics are already confused!

Nonetheless, this whole historical and theological background is, I respectfully maintain, essential for avoiding misreadings of the new catechism, which should be seen as being in continuity with, not at odds with, twenty centuries of Catholic tradition.

It is my hope that the Magisterium will eventually clarify the correct interpretation of *CCC *1261. Let’s pray for that.

Keep and spread the Faith.