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

[Fuerza]

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.

The Inhabitants of Limbo

I think that the real question should not be whether or not Limbo exists, but rather who it is who actually dies in original sin. In my mind there are two possible scenarios.

Either A:

All those dying without baptism(of water, blood, or explicit desire), but no personal mortal sin, are sent to Limbo. This would include not only infants and the mentally disabled, but also mentally healthy, adult, non-Christians who through no fault or malicious intent of their own do not know or do not fully understand the truth of Christ, but otherwise have no grave sins on their consciences (was that a run-on?).

                                    OR

B:

That some who are not formally baptized in any manner may be said to be implicity baptized. As I have said before, this may boil down to a hypothetical test. Those who would have accepted and followed Christ if they had had a clear understanding could be said to have an implicit desire for baptism and therefore saved. Those who would not have accepted would be sent to Limbo, rather than the bad part of Hell, since they still technically would not have a mortal sin on their conscience due to their rejection being only hypothetical. This, again, could apply to both those who had absolutely no chance to accept Christ (infants and mentally disabled) as well as those who technically had a chance, but because of their upbringing in another faith/lack of understanding did not know Him. Is everyone following me?

Now my question. This is neither a challenge nor an attempt to start an argument. I’m just curious.

For those of you who don’t believe in Limbo, how do you interpret the statements made by the Councils of Lyons II and Florence ( I think those are the correct ones) regarding those who die in original sin?

Thanks,

Eric

 

[thistle]

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.

The Inhabitants of Limbo

I think that the real question should not be whether or not Limbo exists, but rather who it is who actually dies in original sin. In my mind there are two possible scenarios.

Either A:

All those dying without baptism(of water, blood, or explicit desire), but no personal mortal sin, are sent to Limbo. This would include not only infants and the mentally disabled, but also mentally healthy, adult, non-Christians who through no fault or malicious intent of their own do not know or do not fully understand the truth of Christ, but otherwise have no grave sins on their consciences (was that a run-on?).

                                    OR

B:

That some who are not formally baptized in any manner may be said to be implicity baptized. As I have said before, this may boil down to a hypothetical test. Those who would have accepted and followed Christ if they had had a clear understanding could be said to have an implicit desire for baptism and therefore saved. Those who would not have accepted would be sent to Limbo, rather than the bad part of Hell, since they still technically would not have a mortal sin on their conscience due to their rejection being only hypothetical. This, again, could apply to both those who had absolutely no chance to accept Christ (infants and mentally disabled) as well as those who technically had a chance, but because of their upbringing in another faith/lack of understanding did not know Him. Is everyone following me?

Now my question. This is neither a challenge nor an attempt to start an argument. I’m just curious.

For those of you who don’t believe in Limbo, how do you interpret the statements made by the Councils of Lyons II and Florence ( I think those are the correct ones) regarding those who die in original sin?

Thanks,

Eric

We don’t have to interpret anything. Limbo has never been a Church teaching. It has always only been a theological hypothesis.
We don’t have to believe in Limbo and I don’t. For those infants who die unbaptised I simply trust in God’s love and mercy.

 

[Fidelis]

For those of you who don’t believe in Limbo, how do you interpret the statements made by the Councils of Lyons II and Florence ( I think those are the correct ones) regarding those who die in original sin?

Since we need to look at the entire teaching of the Church, I interpret those earlier statements in the light of these two very clear recent statements found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**1257 **The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. **The Church **does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1261 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,” 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.

In other words, God has given us the Sacrament of baptism for the remission of original and actual sin. It is the only means the Church knows of by which this happens. But God is not bound by the means he has revealed to us. Thus, since he is all powerful, all just and all merciful, he can allow the entry into heaven of any and all he chooses, in any way he wants, baptism or not. To deny this, is to limit the omnipotence and sovereignty of God, not to mention his Divine Mercy.

 

[Fuerza]

We don’t have to interpret anything. Limbo has never been a Church teaching. It has always only been a theological hypothesis.
We don’t have to believe in Limbo and I don’t. For those infants who die unbaptised I simply trust in God’s love and mercy.

I know that the Limbo has never been an official teaching and my post is not meant to force my views on anyone else. I have no problem with those who don’t believe in Limbo. What I’m trying to understand is how this statement, definitively pronounced by two Church councils regarding the fate of those dying in orginal sin, fits into the belief system of those who disregard Limbo.

I’m not saying that everyone who lacks formal baptism will be denied Heaven, but it would seem rather pointless for the Holy Spirit to allow two councils to make such strong statements regarding something that never happens.

 

[Fuerza]

In other words, God has given us the Sacrament of baptism for the remission of original and actual sin. It is the only means the Church knows of by which this happens. But God is not bound by the means he has revealed to us. Thus, since he is all powerful, all just and all merciful, he can allow the entry into heaven of any and all he chooses, in any way he wants, baptism or not. To deny this, is to limit the omnipotence and sovereignty of God, not to mention his Divine Mercy.

Thank you for responding. I know that God is not bound by the sacraments, which is what I was getting at in my second theory. I do, however, firmly believe that the Limbo can be perfectly reconciled with the mercy of God.

 

[mchale]

I know that the Limbo has never been an official teaching and my post is not meant to force my views on anyone else. I have no problem with those who don’t believe in Limbo. What I’m trying to understand is how this statement, definitively pronounced by two Church councils regarding the fate of those dying in orginal sin, fits into the belief system of those who disregard Limbo.

I’m not saying that everyone who lacks formal baptism will be denied Heaven, but it would seem rather pointless for the Holy Spirit to allow two councils to make such strong statements regarding something that never happens.

No one said it never happens. I ascribe it to the development of doctrine. The councils were making statements about the importance of baptisim for obtaining salvation. Those statements still stand. However over time it was recignized that God’s mercy might yet find a way for those whom truely remain baptised through no fault of their own (i.e. infants). In other words, do not think of it as a repudiation of the previous statements, but rather a nuancing of them in light of the Church’s growing understanding of the Nature of God.

–
Bill

 

[CollegeCatholic]

Hello,

I think that people are too easily thrown off by this particular dilemma due to historical and theological shortsightedness. The same type of concerns were faced when the issue of the state of Mary and whether she was immaculately conceived as well as whether she sinned etc. Many great saints, especially Aquinas, who I love so dearly, came to particular conclusions that were ultimately, false.

The Marian situation seemed to go against many teachings of the Church and yet we found out that God can be pretty sneaky in His ways. No different is this particular situation. The language that is being used sounds incredible similiar to that which was saying that Mary could not be immaculately conceived. They referenced tradition, great saints, and so forth all with the goal of proving that there could not be an alternative or else it would go against the teachings of the Church.

One does not lose the possibility for salvation by accident. An accidental medical procedure, an exposure to a certain chemical or substance, a family killed in a car accident while going to baptism, are all rediculous barriers to eternal salvation.

With that said, unless revelation says otherwise, I will also not claim with absolute certainty that all babies will go to heaven. There is, perhaps, a means in which God can look into the soul of a child and recognize their desire for salvation or not. At the same time though, I have very little doubt that there is no such thing as Limbo. The only equivalent would be Sheoul, prior to the coming of Jesus, where people did not have the means for salvation yet but were righteous regardless.

Even then, figures like Enoch and Jeremiah show us that God has ways of bypassing the formalities. We should seek to Baptize our families because of the sacramental graces that are bestowed both ordinarily and extraordinarily but at the same time, we should rest assured that those among us who are not able to recieve baptism still have a fair shot at Heavenly glory.

Heck, many in the early Church delayed their baptisms due to the current theological movements (see Augustine) and yet do we doubt the salvation of the saintly among them who died through accidents?

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

No one said it never happens. I ascribe it to the development of doctrine. The councils were making statements about the importance of baptism for obtaining salvation. Those statements still stand. However over time it was recognized that God’s mercy might yet find a way for those who truly remain unbaptized through no fault of their own (i.e. infants). In other words, do not think of it as a repudiation of the previous statements, but rather a nuancing of them in light of the Church’s growing understanding of the Nature of God.

No, it would indeed be a repudiation of the previous statements.

If the Church of the twenty-first century were to say, or even appear to say, that no unbaptized infants are barred from the beatific vision, she would be contradicting, not developing, what she said in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries at the Councils of Lyons II and Florence, when she taught that souls dying in original sin only are punished for this sin.

Catholic doctrine does develop over the centuries, but never by retraction or contradiction–otherwise the truth and stability of the Faith would be destroyed, and intellectually honest people would have to abandon it.

Vatican I and Pope St. Pius X warned us that dogmas cannot be interpreted otherwise than in the same sense in which the Church first understood them.

If the dogma concerning the next-world penalty of original sin can be revoked, then no Catholic dogma is safe from revocation, and the Catholic Church then becomes a liberal Protestant church.

But no Catholic dogma is going to be revoked, because Jesus promised us that the “gates of hell will not prevail” against his Church (*Mt *16:18).

The stakes in the discussion of limbo are much higher than many Catholics realize.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[mchale]

The following was stated by then Cardinal Ratzinger in the book God and the World.

Earlier ages had devised a teaching that seems to me rather unenlightened. They said that baptism endows us, by means of sanctifying grace, with the capacity to gaze upon God. Now, certainly, the state of original sin, from which we are freed by baptism, consists in a lack of sanctifying grace. Children who die in this way are indeed without any personal sin, so they cannot be sent to hell, but, on the other hand, they lack sanctifying grace and thus the potential for beholding God that this bestows. They will simply enjoy a state of natural blessedness, in which they will be happy. This state people called limbo.
In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the Pope [John Paul II] made a decisive turn in the [1995] encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already anticipated by the [1992] Catechism of the Catholic Church, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament."

So Steve, who am I to believe regarding the present teaching of the Catholic Church (and the meaning of 1261 in the Cathechism), you or the man who was then head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and who is now the Pope? The above clearly indicates that Limbo is not currently the teaching of the Catholic Church. It further indicates that the correct interpretation of 1261 is that there is in fact a possibility that unbaptisied infants might achieve the beatific vision.

So I am going to stand by my earlier claim that what we are seeing is a modern nuancing of the statements made more than 500 years ago and not as you claim a repudiation of them.

–
Bill

 

[franksv]

Ahhh,no wonder I stopped getting feedback on the limbo issue.Theres a new limbo thread.

Carry on,I ll subscribe to this one too .

 

[Fuerza]

No, it would indeed be a repudiation of the previous statements.

If the Church of the twenty-first century were to say, or even appear to say, that no unbaptized infants are barred from the beatific vision, she would be contradicting, not developing, what she said in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries at the Councils of Lyons II and Florence, when she taught that souls dying in original sin only are punished for this sin.

Catholic doctrine does develop over the centuries, but never by retraction or contradiction–otherwise the truth and stability of the Faith would be destroyed, and intellectually honest people would have to abandon it.

Vatican I and Pope St. Pius X warned us that dogmas cannot be interpreted otherwise than in the same sense in which the Church first understood them.

If the dogma concerning the next-world penalty of original sin can be revoked, then no Catholic dogma is safe from revocation, and the Catholic Church then becomes a liberal Protestant church.

But no Catholic dogma is going to be revoked, because Jesus promised us that the “gates of hell will not prevail” against his Church (*Mt *16:18).

The stakes in the discussion of limbo are much higher than many Catholics realize.

Keep and spread the Faith.

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 .

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

The following was stated by then Cardinal Ratzinger in the book God and the World.

So Steve, who am I to believe regarding the present teaching of the Catholic Church (and the meaning of 1261 in the Catechism), you or the man who was then head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and who is now the Pope? The above clearly indicates that Limbo is not currently the teaching of the Catholic Church. It further indicates that the correct interpretation of 1261 is that there is in fact a possibility that unbaptized infants might achieve the beatific vision.

So I am going to stand by my earlier claim that what we are seeing is a modern nuancing of the statements made more than 500 years ago and not as you claim a repudiation of them.

–
Bill

Bill, don’t listen to me. Listen to Christ as he speaks through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church throughout all twenty centuries of her existence. That Magisterium warns us in section 389 of the new catechism that we cannot tamper with the dogma of original sin:

***“The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the ‘reverse side’ of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.” ***

The pre-papacy personal opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger on limbo was purely that–his personal opinion. The cardinal acknowledged in one of his limbo comments (in The Ratzinger Report) that he was speaking as a private theologian, not as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Consequently, those comments bind no Catholic in any way.

They don’t even bind Benedict XVI, for the Holy Father, after having thought the matter through and having prayed over it, may have changed his mind since then. I hope that one of the factors that may have changed his mind is the terrible danger that the “dropping” of limbo would pose for the lives and salvation of unborn children. Again, it’s logically impossible to escape the following conclusion: if all unbaptized infants go to heaven, then it’s better to be aborted than to be born.

In addition, *CCC *1261 can, and should, be understood as referring to the quasi-salvation of limbo, not to the salvation of heaven. This is the only understanding of that catechism section that accords with the dogma of original sin and with two thousand years of Catholic tradition.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Fidelis]

In addition, *CCC ***1261 can, and should, be understood as referring to the quasi-salvation of limbo, not to the salvation of heaven. **This is the only understanding of that catechism section that accords with the dogma of original sin and with two thousand years of Catholic tradition.

Again, this is highly arguable. And the issue of CCC section 1257 has not been dealt with:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. **The Church **does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

 

[Tom317]

Again, this is highly arguable. And the issue of CCC section 1257 has not been dealt with:

Since God bound baptism to salvation, we must assume that not being baptized holds a consequence. We do not know what that consequence is with any certainty, either does the Church, yet God would not have bound baptism to salvation if He meant something else.

 

[Tom317]

Here is the problem, imo:

We do not have enough knowledge of what God does with souls after they leave this life…we only know what God has revealed to us. It is obviously possible that God has other means of saving those who have not been batpized, yet we do not KNOW that God actually does that. Therefore, we must go for the side of caution on this issue, because the stakes are high–eternal life in Heaven.

 

[Pius_X]

I trust in God’s mercy that he brings the unbaptised infants to heaven. “Let the little children come to me.”
How could a loving God not let them into heaven, to be with him?

 

[Tom317]

I trust in God’s mercy that he brings the unbaptised infants to heaven. “Let the little children come to me.”
How could a loving God not let them into heaven, to be with him?

Yet, we are all God’s children.

 

[Fidelis]

Since God bound baptism to salvation, we must assume that not being baptized holds a consequence. We do not know what that consequence is with any certainty, either does the Church, yet God would not have bound baptism to salvation if He meant something else.

What part of this statement of the Catechism cited above are people not seeing???:

God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. :banghead:

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Again, this is highly arguable. And the issue of CCC section 1257 has not been dealt with:

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):

"Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of Baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it [the Most Holy Roman Church] advises that holy Baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians."

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:

“Supernatural life”

“If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. 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. Therefore, if it is considered that charity to our fellowman obliges us to assist him in the case of necessity, then this obligation is so much the more important and urgent as the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided is the greater, and in the measure that the needy person is incapable of helping or saving himself with his own powers; and so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the Baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death’s threshold.

"Undoubtedly this duty binds the parents in the first place, but in case of necessity, when there is no time to lose or it is not possible to call a priest, the sublime office of conferring Baptism is yours.”

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. 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.

 

[Tom317]

What part of this statement of the Catechism cited above are people not seeing???:

God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. :banghead:

No need to scream.

We see it, it is just that it is not saying what you seem to think. Because God is not bound by His own sacraments, does not mean He does in fact work outside the binds of His own sacraments. In other words: No-one disagrees God can do whatever He wants, the question that we do not have answer for is: Does God save souls outside of baptism? We do not know the answer to that, and if we did know for certain that God saves without baptism, then that knowledge changes a lot of teachings.

God could also instantlly save every soul on earth no matter the state of their soul, yet does God do that? Just because God “can” do a certain action, does not me He does those actions. Therefore, since we do not know, it is far more prudent and wise to assume that one must be baptized to be saved.