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

[MilesXpisti]

Steve,

I was not debating an issue of Feeneyism; I accept that a person who through no fault of their own has not been presented the Gospel of Christ can by act or disposition receive a de facto baptism of desire. I would submit, however, that these instances would represent a positive act on the part of the individual. The desire to seek God and act in a morally just manner perhaps stands in place of the formal baptism, acting as St. Peter has referred to as an act of good intent toward God, when they are not aware of him in a formal way. But in the case of unbaptised children, where no explicit assent can be assumed with certainty, I would also call into question the notion of an implicit baptism in most cases. While, I understand that the sacramental water baptism falls under ex opere operato and as such would allow for implicit intent on the part of the parents or guardians, the remaining extant methods (desire, blood) both fall under a means of positive action, e.g. desire for baptism or accepting martydom for the sake of the Faith. I fail how a child could meet this requirement. Many thanks.

 

[USMC]

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.

Limbo is a doctrine that has been taught throughout the Church age. It is not merely a hypothesis. It has not been defined yet, which is why there is still some uncertainties with respect to certain details, such as, do they suffer pain of sense or not. Limbo has been taught by the magisterium, and the rejection of Limbo has been declared “false” and “rash”.

The Catechism of Pius X teaches Limbo for the children who die without baptism:

Catechsim of Pius X: "Babies who die without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having Original Sin alone, they do not deserve Paradise, but neither do they merit hell or purgatory.

We are required to believe all of the teachings of the Church, not only those which have been defined.

1. 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.

What they taught is that they undergo suffering in Limbo. Since Limbo is technically located in hell, your comment is true, but it must be understood properly. They did not deny that souls went to Limbo, they taught that those who went to Limbo underwent some kind of pain of sense.

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.

I’m sorry but what you are saying is not correct. Both camps - that of St. Thomas and that of St. Augustine - teach that those who die without baptism go to Limbo. The difference between to two camps is that St. Augustin believed they suffer some pain of sense, whereas St. Thomas did not. If Limbo is ever defined, and it probably will be, that is one of the points that will be cleared up.

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!

The Church has never taught that those who die in original sin only will receive a second chance of attaining salvation, which is what you are saying the new Catechism teaches. The Church has, however, taught that those who die in original sin only will go to hell (Limbo), but will suffer different pains than those who have sinned. The pain they suffer, according to St. Thomas, is the pain of loss; according to St. Augustine, some degree of physical pain. Who is correct (it it is probably St. Thomas) will be settled when the Church defines the doctrine.

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.

I agree. That’s why you should interpret the word “hope” to mean we can hope they obtain the state of grace through some kind of extra-sacramental means before death. That is the only way that word could be reconciled with 2000 years of Catholic teaching - and even then it will be mere speculation.

Interpreting the verse as you are is not theologically possible based on 2000 years of Catholic teaching.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Limbo is a doctrine that has been taught throughout the Church age. It is not merely a hypothesis. It has not been defined yet, which is why there is still some uncertainties with respect to certain details, such as, do they suffer pain of sense or not. Limbo has been taught by the magisterium, and the rejection of Limbo has been declared “false” and “rash”.

The Catechism of Pius X teaches Limbo for the children who die without baptism:

Catechsim of Pius X: “Babies who die without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having Original Sin alone, they do not deserve Paradise, but neither do they merit hell or purgatory.”

We are required to believe all of the teachings of the Church, not only those which have been defined.

USMC, in the Catechism of Saint Pius X as it appears on the EWTN Web site, I couldn’t find the citation in your post. Have I missed it? Can you give us a link?

The only relevant citations that I could find in the EWTN version are the following, none of which uses the term “limbo”:

11 Q. When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptised?
A. Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptised as soon as possible.

---

12 Q. Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?
A. There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptised because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.

---

13 Q. Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism, or who defer it?
A. Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it.

Here’s the link for the EWTN version of the Catechism of Saint Pius X:

ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM#Sacraments

The EWTN introduction to St. Pius X’s catechism says the following:

***“It was used in the ecclesiastical province of Rome and for some years in other parts of Italy. It was not, however, prescribed for use throughout the universal church.” ***

Let’s make a crucial distinction to foil the Devil’s attempts to spread confusion about limbo. This distinction will, I respectfully suggest, help us clarify the issue of whether or not limbo is a Catholic doctrine. In this context, it’s better to ask: “Is limbo a Catholic dogma?”

1. Limbo is a Catholic dogma only in the sense that the Church has taught solemnly that those dying in original sin only are in some manner punished in the next world. This dogma was taught by the Councils of Lyons II and Florence.
2. Limbo is not a Catholic dogma in the sense that the Church has not taught solemnly that there exists a state in which those dying in original sin only, in addition to being punished by being deprived of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision, also enjoy natural happiness based on natural knowledge and love of God, and in which they undergo no positive sufferings, not even the suffering of regretting that they have been deprived of the beatific vision.

In other words, the Church has not imposed as a dogma the view that St. Thomas Aquinas takes with respect to limbo.

No Magisterial document has ever said, even at a low level of Magisterial teaching: “Limbo exists in the sense in which St. Thomas Aquinas taught it.” No Magisterial document has even said simply: “Limbo exists.” In 1794, Pope Pius VI merely taught that it is false to call limbo a heretical “fable.” That’s not the same thing as saying that a Catholic must believe in limbo’s existence in the sense of #2 above, i.e., in the sense taught by St. Thomas.

I strongly believe in St. Thomas’s view expressed in #2 above, but I also believe, in the light of the historical record, that we cannot say that the Church has taught this view as a dogma. The most that we can say, to use the words of CCC 1261, is that we may hope that unbaptized infants are in St. Thomas’s kind of limbo, which can be regarded as a way of salvation, in addition to being a punishment for original sin.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I’d like to add this clarification to the following statement in post #62:

**"1. Limbo is a Catholic dogma only in the sense that the Church has taught solemnly that those dying in original sin only are in some manner punished in the next world. This dogma was taught by the Councils of Lyons II and Florence."

Please realize that I was using “dogma” in the above statement only in an improper sense to make a point to USMC. In the proper sense, limbo, as I explained in the same post, is NOT a dogma.

I urge USMC and other Catholics not to call limbo a dogma, for that will only add to the confusion surrounding the issue, and will aid the efforts of those who erroneously believe that the Church can “abolish” limbo and declare, or appear to declare, that all unbaptized infants go to heaven.

For the same reasons, I urge USMC and other Catholics not even to call limbo a Catholic doctrine.

The best way to describe the Catholic concept of limbo is to call it a theological hypothesis and deduction. It is deduced from the dogma concerning the next-world punishment of those who die in original sin only. The fact of that punishment–that is what is a Catholic doctrine and dogma, and the reason why the Church cannot “drop” the deduction of limbo.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[corvidae]

No one is saying that they all go to heaven. At most people are saying we leave them to God’s mercy. People are saying that we do not know, they could be in heaven, could be in hell, or could be somewhere else, but we do not know.

The Church by dropping the idea of limbo is not dropping anything but a hypothesis. It would only be stating the limits of our knowledge. The Church is infallible, it is not omniscient.

I think the biggest problem is that people jump on limbo and seem to say we know exactly what happens to these children, even though the Church has not and will not definitively say what happens to anyone else, unless there be thourough investigation, and miracles occuring.

A lone Raven

 

[Fuerza]

I agree. That’s why you should interpret the word “hope” to mean we can hope they obtain the state of grace through some kind of extra-sacramental means before death. That is the only way that word could be reconciled with 2000 years of Catholic teaching - and even then it will be mere speculation.

Interpreting the verse as you are is not theologically possible based on 2000 years of Catholic teaching.

This is exactly what I was referring to when I said I believed that there may be a means of implicit baptism (possibly based on whether or not the person would have accepted water baptism had they truly understood its necessity, or perhaps even based on the prayers of others) in the first post. I believe that if it happens, it is in the instant before death, not after. Implying that there is a way of extra-sacramentally cleansing the unbaptized before death, at least in my understanding, does not conflict with Catholic doctrine and is likely what the catechism is referring to.

However, as I have already stated many times, I don’t believe that this always happens, or even that it happens a majority of the time. It is in this sense that Limbo can be perfectly reconciled with the catechism.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

This is exactly what I was referring to when I said I believed that there may be a means of implicit baptism (possibly based on whether or not the person would have accepted water baptism had they truly understood its necessity, or perhaps even based on the prayers of others) in the first post. I believe that if it happens, it is in the instant before death, not after. Implying that there is a way of extra-sacramentally cleansing the unbaptized before death, at least in my understanding, does not conflict with Catholic doctrine and is likely what the catechism is referring to.

However, as I have already stated many times, I don’t believe that this always happens, or even that it happens a majority of the time. It is in this sense that Limbo can be perfectly reconciled with the catechism.

Teaching, not ex cathedra, but authoritatively, Pope Pius XII told Catholics in his Allocution to Midwives on October 29, 1951, that baptism of desire for unbaptized infants is impossible:

"Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death; without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open."

I appeal to my fellow Catholics to remember Lk 10:16 (“Whoever hears you hears me”), and to listen to Christ as he speaks to us through the voice of Pius XII.

In addition to stating that I accept the authoritative teaching of Pius XII, I’d like to offer my own personal theological speculation on the reasons why God rules out baptism of desire for those who have not attained the use of reason, giving them instead the super gift of the natural happiness of limbo, but excluding them from the mega-gift of the supernatural happiness of heaven.

One of my conjectures is this: God’s exclusion of baptism of desire for infants may be aimed at providing Catholics with an incentive for making greater efforts to spread the one true Faith and infant Baptism throughout the world in accordance with Mt 28:19 (“Make disciples of all nations”). The more zealous our efforts in this direction are, the greater will be the number of human beings who will have a chance to reach heaven.

Shouldn’t we be ashamed of the fact that, after twenty centuries of evangelization, such a small percentage of the human race is Catholic? Only about seventeen percent of the world’s population consists of (at least nominal) Catholics. Isn’t this percentage pitiful?

Moreover, God’s exclusion of baptism of desire for infants may be aimed at discouraging women and men from killing their own children by abortion (both surgical and chemical), and at encouraging Catholics to fight legalized abortion and contraception more resolutely, especially by establishing Catholic confessional states where this is politically feasible. Such states would be concrete expressions of the kingship of Christ. They would also be concrete expressions of the fact that Catholicism is the true religion.

I’d appreciate knowing how my fellow Catholics react to my speculation on the reasons why God makes baptism of desire impossible for infants.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[USMC]

Teaching, not ex cathedra, but authoritatively, Pope Pius XII told Catholics in his Allocution to Midwives on October 29, 1951, that baptism of desire for unbaptized infants is impossible:

"Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death; without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open."

I appeal to my fellow Catholics to remember Lk 10:16 (“Whoever hears you hears me”), and to listen to Christ as he speaks to us through the voice of Pius XII.

In addition to stating that I accept the authoritative teaching of Pius XII,

Yes, what Pius XII taught is what the Catechism of Trent also taught, but it worded it slightly different. But, if you believe the teaching of Pius XII, which was not infallible, why do you reject the teaching of the council of Florence and Lyons, which was infallible?

Both of those councils taught that those who die in original sin only will go to hell. Why do you reject that infallible dogma of the faith by claiming that those who die in original sin only will be saved?

Or do you think that those who go to hell will have another chance of salvation later, even though the Church has never taught such a thing?

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Yes, what Pius XII taught is what the Catechism of Trent also taught, but it worded it slightly different. But, if you believe the teaching of Pius XII, which was not infallible, why do you reject the teaching of the council of Florence and Lyons, which was infallible?

Both of those councils taught that those who die in original sin only will go to hell. Why do you reject that infallible dogma of the faith by claiming that those who die in original sin only will be saved?

Or do you think that those who go to hell will have another chance of salvation later, even though the Church has never taught such a thing?

USMC, I hasten to assure you that I most certainly DO accept the infallible dogma taught by the Councils of Lyons II and Florence concerning the next-world punishment of those who die in original sin only! I’ve been defending this dogma in numerous posts on these forums!

But we must understand all Catholic dogmas in the sense in which the Church herself understands them, and we must also accept the fact that the Church, in a legitimate, non-contradictory development of Catholic doctrine, may alter her terminology and emphases, while teaching the identical truths.

Lyons II and Florence taught that “the souls of those dying in mortal sin and with original sin only descend without delay into hell (infernum), to be punished, however, with different kinds of punishments” (DS 858 and 1306).

In the Lyons II-Florence dogma, the word “hell,” as far as those dying only in original sin are concerned, does not mean the “pain of sense” (the “fire” of which Our Lord speaks). It means only the “pain of loss,” i.e., the loss of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision. Consequently, unbaptized infants are in hell only in the extremely restricted sense that they’re deprived of the beatific vision, but without undergoing any positive sufferings. This mere deprivation is not what most people today think the word “hell” means. When they think of hell, they associate it with positive sufferings.

Accordingly, to avoid confusing people and alienating them from the Faith, it’s best to avoid using the term “hell” in reference to unbaptized infants, and simply to say that they’re not in heaven, while adding that we hope that they possess the unmerited, unending natural happiness of limbo.

I believe that we should understand the Church to be endorsing this merely terminological (not doctrinal) shift when we read CCC 1261. Again, I maintain that we should understand that section as meaning that we may “hope” that unbaptized children attain a “way of salvation” in the sense of limbo, not heaven. They are, indeed, saved from the “fire” of hell, but not from the loss of the beatific vision–the loss that is the chief punishment of hell.

USMC, again, can you give us a link for your citation from the Catechism of St. Pius X?

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[USMC]

I believe that we should understand the Church to be endorsing this merely terminological (not doctrinal) shift when we read CCC 1261. Again, I maintain that we should understand that section as meaning that we may “hope” that unbaptized children attain a “way of salvation” in the sense of limbo, not heaven. They are, indeed, saved from the “fire” of hell, but not from the loss of the beatific vision–the loss that is the chief punishment of hell.

Again, can you give us a link for your citation from the Catechism of St. Pius X?

Keep and spread the Faith.

I gave my copy of that Catechism to a co-worker who is thinking of converting. When I get it back I’ll give you all the information.

Regarding your post: Although you agree that souls who die in original sin go to hell, you think it is not a good idea to use the term “hell” since most associated that with the hell of the damned.

I understand your concern, however, you then make a leap from saying we should not use the term hell (so as not to offend anyone) to saying that Limbo is “a way of salvation”. That is too big of a leap, since, as we know, those who die in original sin go to hell; and, needless to say, those in hell are not saved.

When the Catechism says it is allowed to “hope” for their salvation it does not mean that we can hope that a person who dies in original sin is saved. That is contrary to what the Church teaches, when it says that those “who die in original sin only” go to hell.

I understand what you are saying - that not suffering the pain of sense is “salvation”, but it’s not. Salvation is attaining heaven, not being free from the pain of sense in hell.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I gave my copy of that Catechism to a co-worker who is thinking of converting. When I get it back I’ll give you all the information.

Regarding your post: Although you agree that souls who die in original sin go to hell, you think it is not a good idea to use the term “hell” since most associated that with the hell of the damned.

I understand your concern, however, you then make a leap from saying we should not use the term hell (so as not to offend anyone) to saying that Limbo is “a way of salvation”. That is too big of a leap, since, as we know, those who die in original sin go to hell; and, needless to say, those in hell are not saved.

When the Catechism says it is allowed to “hope” for their salvation it does not mean that we can hope that a person who dies in original sin is saved. That is contrary to what the Church teaches, when it says that those “who die in original sin only” go to hell.

I understand what you are saying - that not suffering the pain of sense is “salvation”, but it’s not. Salvation is attaining heaven, not being free from the pain of sense in hell.

USMC, I’m not aware of any pronouncement in which the Church has insisted that salvation is identical with the beatific vision, or has prohibited extending the word “salvation” to the happiness of limbo.

All the souls in both states–heaven and limbo–are happy, though in radically different ways. They are all, however, united in having been **saved **from the “pain of sense” experienced by those suffering for unrepented mortal sin in hell.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[USMC]

USMC, I’m not aware of any pronouncement in which the Church has insisted that salvation is identical with the beatific vision, or has prohibited extending the word “salvation” to the happiness of limbo.

All the souls in both states–heaven and limbo–are happy, though in radically different ways. They are all, however, united in having been saved from the “pain of sense” experienced by those suffering for unrepented mortal sin in hell.

Keep and spread the Faith.

If being in hell is compatible with salvation you may have a point. The word salvation has a meaning. It does not refer to the decree of pain (i.e. pain of loss, vs. pain of sense), but to a person who is either in the state of grace, or in heaven.

Being spared the pain of sense does not equal salvation. You really have to stretch the meaning of the word salvation, and interpret it in a way the Church never has, in order to believe that being in hell and being saved are compatible. And don’t forget, as the Church has infallibly defined: Those who die in original sin only go to hell.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I think at the very least the idea of trying to downplay limbo or emphasize the possibility of unbaptized infants being saved (in the sense of being in the Beatific Vision) is at least imprudent.

I really don’t think we should bank on “possibilities” or whatever we might think the mercy of God is (and which seems to always be translated into a free ride to heaven) when we know very well that the normative entrance into salvation is baptism.

Ultimately, all we can do for ANYBODY is entrust them to the mercy of God. However, that doesn’t mean that we should skimp on preaching the Sacraments or giving people that much more feel-good opiates. In all reality, Limbo doesn’t sound that bad. Not as good as it could be (in the Beatific Vision), so make sure to baptise your children.

 

[maryle]

I have struggled with this question and have attempted to answer many non-Catholics when they asked the same. I have always held that baptism of desire is valid and in the case of infant baptism when I have been challenged that the infant could not so desire baptism, it has been my response that the parent did and that God also desires the baptism of children. In regard to unbaptised children, it seems to me that again, God would desire the baptism of the child. I personally believe full privileges of Heaven await unbaptised babies. Since no human being has the answer, I trust in the mercy and love of God.

 

[JMMK]

From my understanding of heaven and hell leaves little room for limbo, if any at all. I realize I’m not infallible in the slightest sense, I’m just sharing what I’ve learned in my short time.

While we have tried to define Original Sin as best we can, only God knows of its true nature. I’m not saying what we know is wrong, just imperfect as we humans are wont to be. While all are guilty, God knows who is worth saving.

I refer to the line that states God knows us ‘ere we were formed in our mother’s womb’. That and the parables of the wedding feasts where God turns some away because He does not know them. The conundrum to me is how much time does an unbaptized baby have before God no longer knows them.

Ultimately there is nothing we can do but pray. It will all work out according to His Will.