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

[Reformed_Rob]

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

Fuerza,

I’m not to be so quick to say that I don’t believe in Limbo. However, I have sort of thought on this topic along the same lines that you appear to have yourself.

The Magesterial statement that is top in my mind is from Pope Innocent III in like 1206. If you have a Denzinger book, it’s paragraph 410 in my edition.

He talks about original sin, and says that the punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God. Which we term “limbo.”

Then there are the others Conciliar statements you are talking about. Also **Pope John XXII **made a statement that "The Roman Church teaches…those who die with original sin only descend immediately into hell to be punished with different penalties and in different places. Also **Pope Pius X **made a pretty clear statement on it in keeping with the thinking.

Here’s my take on it…

1. The Fathers and Doctors have not been at all in agreement on the “Nature of Limbo” that is, what it’s like for the souls there. Maybe it’s ultimate natural happiness but no beatific vision. Maybe it’s painful. Maybe it’s something inbetween. The pre-eminent idea for several centuries has been the more positive one. That Limbo is pleasant.
2. Since there has been no agreement, it’s hard to come down hard and fast and say “this is what Limbo is like.”
3. If not even the preeminent theologians through the centuries are able to agree on that aspect of it, then…
4. Perhaps there was something missing in the Church’s understanding of some of the issues.

5) When different pre-eminent thinkers and Church leaders (such as Card. Joseph Ratzinger) feel comfortable saying that it has always been a “theological hypothesis” I’m willing to say maybe they understand it better than I do.

That’s not to go so far as to say that there’s for sure no Limbo, but the Church apparently feels comfortable to say that we can rely on God’s grace to bring those souls to heaven in His own way.

We are guided by the Sacraments, He is not limited by them.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

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.

Yes, it is very merciful for God to allow those who are deprived of grace to enjoy any happiness in the after life. That is merciful. It is certainly better than the pains of hell. And Limbo seems to be, on surface level, a nice piece to the puzzle regarding the difference between original sin and actual sin and the state of souls guilty of one but not the other after they die.

The issue perhaps is more of a modern one, for instance, the issues with abortion. Though abortion is not itself a modern issue, things have perhaps come full circle and the topic of the souls of aborted babies and infant mortality has forced the Magesterium to take a fresh look at the issues.

I admit, it is something that can confuse many if they think (which is a reasonable thing to do) that the Church is going back on a defined doctrine.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Let’s deal with the contention that *CCC *1257 impairs the case for limbo and favors heaven for all unbaptized infants. In this regard, the key sentence is the following:

"God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments" (totally in italics in the original).

The above statement is still true even if it is understood as applying ***only to the cases discussed in **CCC 1258 (baptism of blood) and *CCC 1259 and 1260 (baptism of desire). There is no need, in the light of section 1257’s wording, and in the light of Catholic tradition, to interpret this otherwise valid principle as extending also to unbaptized infants on a massive scale.

Granted, an unbaptized infant, like the Holy Innocents, could attain the beatific vision through baptism of blood if he or she were killed out of hatred for the Faith. (This must happen in only a tiny fraction of the millions of deaths of unbaptized infants.)

Nonetheless, Catholic tradition knows nothing of baptism of desire–either personal or vicarious–for infants. This is one reason for the development and tenacity of the deduction of limbo.

Again, please read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on limbo.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[mchale]

Let’s deal with the contention that *CCC *1257 impairs the case for limbo and favors heaven for all unbaptized infants. In this regard, the key sentence is the following:

"God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments" (totally in italics in the original).

The above statement is still true even if it is understood as applying ***only to the cases discussed in **CCC 1258 (baptism of blood) and *CCC 1259 and 1260 (baptism of desire). There is no need, in the light of section 1257’s wording, and in the light of Catholic tradition, to interpret this otherwise valid principle as extending also to unbaptized infants on a massive scale.

Granted, an unbaptized infant, like the Holy Innocents, could attain the beatific vision through baptism of blood if he or she were killed out of hatred for the Faith. (This must happen in only a tiny fraction of the millions of deaths of unbaptized infants.)

You know, I am not so sure it is true in only a small fraction. As I think about it, any responsbile Catholic would get their child baptisied immediately if there was any risk that the child would not live long enough to survive for a regular baptisim. Those who wouldn’t get their child baptisied, or worse, have their child aborted obviously hate the faith in some way shape or form. So in a sense these children might receive a baptism of blood.

–
Bill

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

This is an addendum to my last post on this thread.

It should be clear to every Catholic that CCC 1257 and 1261 must be interpreted in the light of Pope Pius XII’s teaching concerning the impossibility of baptism of desire for infants (in his Allocution to Midwives on October 29, 1951):

"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. "

When Pope Pius XII made this clear, firm statement, he was reflecting the teachings of two ecumenical councils (Lyons II and Florence), and also the urgency that the Catholic Church has always attached to infant Baptism.

I am not going to contradict Pope Pius XII. I am *not *going to say to him: “No, Holy Father, you don’t know what you’re talking about!”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church and previous Catholic teaching cannot be set in oppostion to each other. The new catechism must be read in the light of twenty centuries of Catholic tradition. This is the only coherent position that a Catholic can take.

Here are links for the must-read Catholic Encyclopedia articles on Baptism and limbo:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#IX
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[mirus]

In the old testament and new everyone gets to choose . Otherwise free will of no meaningful significance. The notion of life does not include duration. So it appears to me that the end of which a free choice has been made re internal destiny.

 

[mchale]

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.” ***

No one here is tampering with the doctrine of Original Sin, merely the concept that infants who dies unbatisied through no fault of their own are a automatically excluded from heaven. We don’t know that they do go to heaven, but we might hope that they might, just as we might hope that those who don’t know the Church but who earnestly desire God might also be saved.

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.

Ok, but on the flip side, even as a private theologian, do you think that Ratzinger would have said something that he thought was inconsistent with the teaching of the Church? Ratzinger was not placed in charge of the Congegation of the Doctrine of the Faith (Kind of wish they would just call it the Inquisition again… it would be alot less typing ) because he was a theological rebel. Rather, he pretty much always has been a staunch defender of Orthodoxy. Further, even if he was speaking as a private theologian, he would surely have kept in mind that anything he said would be interpreted as the all but official Church teaching because of his Office.

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.

I am not binding our Pope to anything. I am however pointing out that a position that denies the existence of Limbo is hardly outside the theological orthodoxy of the Church. Further, I keep getting disturbed by your crazy logical conclusion regarding abortion! The same logic would apply to killing infants the moment they are baptisied. Both before and after birth, killing an infant is wrong not because of the threat to the infant’s soul, but rather because it violates both Natural Law and God’s commandments. In any case, Limbo stand or fall on its own merits as an idea, not because of any consequences in the real world! The Church is dedicated to Truth, not to teaching what it needs to, to get people to behave the way it wants them to.

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.

I think I am going to stick with the interpretation of 1261 that a Pope who is known for his Orthodoxy has stated publicly; at least until I hear otherwise from him or one of his successors.

–
Bill

 

[Tom317]

Fuerza,

I’m not to be so quick to say that I don’t believe in Limbo. However, I have sort of thought on this topic along the same lines that you appear to have yourself.

The Magesterial statement that is top in my mind is from Pope Innocent III in like 1206. If you have a Denzinger book, it’s paragraph 410 in my edition.

He talks about original sin, and says that the punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God. Which we term “limbo.”

Then there are the others Conciliar statements you are talking about. Also **Pope John XXII **made a statement that "The Roman Church teaches…those who die with original sin only descend immediately into hell to be punished with different penalties and in different places. Also **Pope Pius X **made a pretty clear statement on it in keeping with the thinking.

Here’s my take on it…

1. The Fathers and Doctors have not been at all in agreement on the “Nature of Limbo” that is, what it’s like for the souls there. Maybe it’s ultimate natural happiness but no beatific vision. Maybe it’s painful. Maybe it’s something inbetween. The pre-eminent idea for several centuries has been the more positive one. That Limbo is pleasant.
2. Since there has been no agreement, it’s hard to come down hard and fast and say “this is what Limbo is like.”
3. If not even the preeminent theologians through the centuries are able to agree on that aspect of it, then…
4. Perhaps there was something missing in the Church’s understanding of some of the issues.

5) When different pre-eminent thinkers and Church leaders (such as Card. Joseph Ratzinger) feel comfortable saying that it has always been a “theological hypothesis” I’m willing to say maybe they understand it better than I do.

That’s not to go so far as to say that there’s for sure no Limbo, but the Church apparently feels comfortable to say that we can rely on God’s grace to bring those souls to heaven in His own way.

We are guided by the Sacraments, He is not limited by them.

The Church appears to be saying that we can “hope” for their salvation, not that we can count on it. How can the Church make any declarative statement about unpabtized babies?

 

[Tom317]

No one here is tampering with the doctrine of Original Sin, merely the concept that infants who dies unbatisied through no fault of their own are a automatically excluded from heaven. We don’t know that they do go to heaven, but we might hope that they might, just as we might hope that those who don’t know the Church but who earnestly desire God might also be saved.

Ok, but on the flip side, even as a private theologian, do you think that Ratzinger would have said something that he thought was inconsistent with the teaching of the Church? Ratzinger was not placed in charge of the Congegation of the Doctrine of the Faith (Kind of wish they would just call it the Inquisition again… it would be alot less typing ) because he was a theological rebel. Rather, he pretty much always has been a staunch defender of Orthodoxy. Further, even if he was speaking as a private theologian, he would surely have kept in mind that anything he said would be interpreted as the all but official Church teaching because of his Office.

I am not binding our Pope to anything. I am however pointing out that a position that denies the existence of Limbo is hardly outside the theological orthodoxy of the Church. Further, I keep getting disturbed by your crazy logical conclusion regarding abortion! The same logic would apply to killing infants the moment they are baptisied. Both before and after birth, killing an infant is wrong not because of the threat to the infant’s soul, but rather because it violates both Natural Law and God’s commandments. In any case, Limbo stand or fall on its own merits as an idea, not because of any consequences in the real world! The Church is dedicated to Truth, not to teaching what it needs to, to get people to behave the way it wants them to.

I think I am going to stick with the interpretation of 1261 that a Pope who is known for his Orthodoxy has stated publicly; at least until I hear otherwise from him or one of his successors.

–
Bill

You are correct, the Church must teach the truth, and the only authentic truth the Church definitely knows is that Jesus said we MUST be baptized to enter the kingdom. We can hope for anything we want, but that does not mean it will hapen. Therefore, the Church is bound to walk very carefully here, because it does not know what God does with unbaptized babies. Since it does not know, it cannot say, it can only hope and hope is NOT assurance of any kind.

 

[mchale]

You are correct, the Church must teach the truth, and the only authentic truth the Church definitely knows is that Jesus said we MUST be baptized to enter the kingdom. We can hope for anything we want, but that does not mean it will hapen. Therefore, the Church is bound to walk very carefully here, because it does not know what God does with unbaptized babies. Since it does not know, it cannot say, it can only hope and hope is NOT assurance of any kind.

Tom, on this I think we can agree.

–
Bill

 

[corvidae]

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 have been lurking on these threads and have noticed a few things.

For one, you are misusing the words dogma. Dogma refers to what Catholics must believe in order to be considered Catholic. It covers things like you must believe abortion is seriously wrong, and you must believe that Jesus Christ is God. However, it does not cover things that are optional beliefs, such as you do not have to believe in Fatima, or in limbo. The Church has taught using limbo, but they never have officially taught limbo, even in the baltimore catechism it was said to be a common belief, meaning many believe it but you are free not to.

Also, you are misinterpreting what the Church would be saying if it did in fact revoke limbo. You say that it means that all unbaptized would have the beatific vision. The Church would say, it does not know.

I think that limbo is a human idea, at least, the limbo of infants has no revelation to back it up. It was a human idea to attempt and reconcile God’s mercy with original sin. When in fact, we simply do not know. That is why it was never a dogma, we simply do not know if it exists. Therefore, I think it is more honest to say we do not know what happens than to say they go to this place we are not sure exist.

We as a Catholic Church believe that those who through no fault of their own have not heard the word of God may still be saved. Why would this not apply to the ears too small to hear the word of God.

A lone Raven

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Both before and after birth, killing an infant is wrong not because of the threat to the infant’s soul, but rather because it violates both Natural Law and God’s commandments.

–
Bill

Bill, the reason why the Catholic Church declared at Vatican II that abortion is a “nefandum crimen”–an “unspeakable crime”–is that, in contrast to other kinds of murder, abortion inevitably deprives the victim of the supernatural life of the beatific vision, in addition to the merely natural life of this world. Abortion thus kills the victim twice, as it were, and takes away the most precious possession that any human being can ever have: the direct vision of God in eternal beatitude.

For the Vatican II reference, please see *CCC *2271.

This is the most profound reason for the horror of abortion. It is also a reason why the failure of the hierarchy to excommunicate pro-abortion politicians is one of the worst scandals in the entire history of the Catholic Church, in addition to being an example of the “diabolical disorientation” mentioned by Sister Lucy of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Steve,
I have been lurking on these threads and have noticed a few things.

For one, you are misusing the word dogma. Dogma refers to what Catholics must believe in order to be considered Catholic. It covers things like you must believe abortion is seriously wrong, and you must believe that Jesus Christ is God. However, it does not cover things that are optional beliefs, such as you do not have to believe in Fatima, or in limbo. The Church has taught using limbo, but they never have officially taught limbo, even in the Baltimore catechism it was said to be a common belief, meaning many believe it but you are free not to.

Also, you are misinterpreting what the Church would be saying if it did in fact revoke limbo. You say that it means that all unbaptized would have the beatific vision. The Church would say, it does not know.

I think that limbo is a human idea, at least, the limbo of infants has no revelation to back it up. It was a human idea to attempt and reconcile God’s mercy with original sin. When in fact, we simply do not know. That is why it was never a dogma, we simply do not know if it exists. Therefore, I think it is more honest to say we do not know what happens than to say they go to this place we are not sure exists.

We as a Catholic Church believe that those who through no fault of their own have not heard the word of God may still be saved. Why would this not apply to the ears too small to hear the word of God?

A lone Raven

Dear Lone Raven, I am not misusing the term “dogma.” I have never called limbo a dogma. I have said that it is a hypothesis and a deduction. But it is a deduction that is necessary for the defense of a truth that is a dogma: the fact that souls dying in original sin only are somehow punished in the next life.

The Catholic Church taught this dogma at two ecumenical councils: Lyons II in 1274 and Florence in 1439. In 1201, Pope Innocent III told us what the next-world punishment is: deprivation of the beatific vision (what most people call “heaven”).

Those whose ears are “too small to hear the word of God” can indeed be saved, but only in this sense: if they leave this world without having received the gift of Baptism and are thus deprived of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision, they can, through God’s mercy, still be saved from the sufferings of hell and receive the gift of unending *natural *happiness. This state of unending natural happiness is what we mean by limbo.

Pope Pius XII told us on October 29, 1951, that the possibility of baptism of desire for the forgiveness of original sin is not open to infants. In accordance with Jesus’s words about his speaking to us through Popes and bishops (Lk 10:16), let’s listen to Pope Pius XII.

Lone Raven, may I add this? If you listen to Jesus as he speaks to us through the Magisterium, you won’t feel so lonely.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[mchale]

Bill, the reason why the Catholic Church declared at Vatican II that abortion is a “nefandum crimen”–an “unspeakable crime”–is that, in contrast to other kinds of murder, abortion inevitably deprives the victim of the supernatural life of the beatific vision, in addition to the merely natural life of this world. Abortion thus kills the victim twice, as it were, and takes away the most precious possession that any human being can ever have: the direct vision of God in eternal beatitude.

Well, I would like to see some specific documentation to the effect that that is why abortion is an unspeakable crime. Frankly the murder of one who is innocent of all sin but Original Sin pretty much defines unspeakable; its even unspeakable if they have been baptisied. Consider, 2271 that you reference below lumps abortion in with infanticide as being amongst the gravest of sins. Yet according to your reasoning, abortion is worse because of the impossibility of baptisim. Now, we don’t know if those who are aborted or saved or not, but I am going to trust God’s mercy that they somehow might receive a baptisim of desire or blood. But infanticide is as grave as abortion, and is made so without distinction regarding whether the child has been baptisied, it stands to reason that the reason is independent of the spiritual life of the infant. The reason is that no other acts so distort or overturn the divinely intended order of life than the killing of an innocent whose life has just begun.

For the Vatican II reference, please see *CCC *2271.

This is the most profound reason for the horror of abortion. It is also a reason why the failure of the hierarchy to excommunicate pro-abortion politicians is one of the worst scandals in the entire history of the Catholic Church, in addition to being an example of the “diabolical disorientation” mentioned by Sister Lucy of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima.

Keep and spread the Faith.

I agree that abortion is a horror, but I think we need to look no further than this life to see why. If infanticide, instead of abortion was practiced on this scale, even the most ardent pro-choice politician would be decrying the actions as being abominable.

–
Bill

 

[Tom317]

Tom, on this I think we can agree.

–
Bill

I predict the Church might get rid of the term “LImbo,” yet it will retain the theory of Limbo within some other theory, that way everything is still covered as it has been and all parties breathe more easily.

 

[corvidae]

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.
Second, I am the one listening to the magestarium. I have listened and will listen, however, even though the magestarium used limbo to teach, it never officially stated limbo as a belief that must be accepted. Therefore, I am well within my rights to question it.

If we do not question the Church on issues that are not infallible, how can we keep the church from error on non-infallible subjects. Surely we should strive for truth in all things, even non-infallible things.

It is my belief that you are making limbo into something it is not, namely, a dogma that if rejected would collapse all claims of truth. This is simply not the case. If the Church rejects limbo, it would return to the idea that we do not know what happens, but we leave them to God’s mercy.

We do not know, The Church does not know, so why should we, or the Church teach as if we do.

A lone Raven

p.s.- why can grown men who do not hear the word of God be saved, but ears too small to hear can only be saved in a sense.

p.p.s.- I will listen to the pope’s and take heart in what they say, yet i will recognize when they are speaking infallibly, and when they are not. To do otherwise would put the same weight on the words of Alexander the Sixth the Pope who turned the Vatican into a Brothel, as on the words of Pope John Paul the Second. Something I will not do.

When the Pope speaks non infallibly, I treat it as though spoken by an esteemed teacher. When the Pope speaks infallibly, I treat it as though spoken by God.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Well, I would like to see some specific documentation to the effect that that is why abortion is an unspeakable crime. Frankly the murder of one who is innocent of all sin but Original Sin pretty much defines unspeakable; its even unspeakable if they have been baptisied. Consider, 2271 that you reference below lumps abortion in with infanticide as being amongst the gravest of sins. Yet according to your reasoning, abortion is worse because of the impossibility of baptisim. Now, we don’t know if those who are aborted or saved or not, but I am going to trust God’s mercy that they somehow might receive a baptisim of desire or blood. But infanticide is as grave as abortion, and is made so without distinction regarding whether the child has been baptisied, it stands to reason that the reason is independent of the spiritual life of the infant. The reason is that no other acts so distort or overturn the divinely intended order of life than the killing of an innocent whose life has just begun.

I agree that abortion is a horror, but I think we need to look no further than this life to see why. If infanticide, instead of abortion was practiced on this scale, even the most ardent pro-choice politician would be decrying the actions as being abominable.

–
Bill

Bill, I appreciate our exchange, but I’m troubled when any Catholic falls into the terrible trap of echoing the evil propagandistic term “pro-choice.” This term came right out of hell. Murder can never be a “choice.” Please use the term “pro-abortion” instead.

Thanks for pointing out that Vatican II and the new catechism include infanticide in the condemnation of nefanda crimina (“unspeakable crimes”) against God’s gift of life. But my point still stands, for many infanticides involve unbaptized infants. Like aborted infants, the unbaptized victims of infanticide are also deprived of the supernatural life of heaven. As Pope Pius XII taught on October 29, 1951, neither unborn nor newborn infants can achieve baptism of desire.

As for your request for documentation for my stating that Vatican II’s condemnation of abortion was partly motivated by the Church’s realization that abortion deprives the unborn child of the supernatural life, my documentation is the history of Catholic theology in toto. Simply look up, in DS or Deferrari, all the references to the supernatural order, sanctifying grace, the beatific vision, original sin, and Baptism. But a quick initial reference is CCC 1250:

"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."

In the above citation, the phrase “priceless grace of becoming a child of God” is not merely rhetorical. It would be a grave error to think so, and all Catholic teaching cries out against that error. The French word used for “priceless” when the new catechism was drafted in French (its original language) was inestimable; in the Latin editio typica, the word is inaestimabili.

Please be aware of this: the campaign against limbo is, for many (not all), a Trojan Horse tactic aimed at transforming Catholicism into the “broad and liberal Protestantism” that Pope St. Pius X condemned in 1907 in his fight to defend the Faith against the heresy of Modernism (DS 3465=D 2065).

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Eliza10]

As all of the recent threads on Limbo have become too large for my pathetic attention span…I have decided to start my own… explaining my own beliefs about Limbo…

…In my belief, Limbo is … a part of Hell whose inhabitants are …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…

Eric

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.

 

[corvidae]

Well, as John Milton, a non Catholic put it

Limbo
The place of embryo’s and idiots, eremites and friars,
The praiseless and the blameless dead

Perhaps that is what most of the world is hoping for.

A lone Raven

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Bill (and other fellow Catholics), I can also give you this specific piece of documentation for the contention that Vatican II condemned abortion as an “unspeakable crime” partly because of the Church’s realization that abortion deprives the unborn child of supernatural as well as natural life.

Pope Sixtus V (reigned 1585-1590), in the apostolic constitution *Effraenatam *(October 29, 1588), taught as follows in connection with his fulminating condemnation of abortion (my translation):

“For who should not execrate so repulsive a crime? It involves the infallible loss, not merely of bodies, but even–what is worse–of souls. In the case of the soul imprinted with God’s image, the soul for whose redemption Christ Our Lord poured out his priceless Blood, the soul capable of unending Beatitude, the soul destined for common life with the Angels, who should not condemn with the greatest punishments the godlessness of someone who has shut this soul out of the blessed vision of God, and, to the extent of the criminal’s ability, has obstructed this soul from reaching its celestial home, while also snatching away from God the service of his own creature?"

***“Quis enim non detestetur, tam execrandum facinus, per quod nedum corporum, sed quod gravius est, etiam animarum certa iactura sequitur? Quis non gravissimis suppliciis damnet illius impietatem, qui animam Dei imagine insignitam, pro qua redimenda Christus Dominus noster preciosum Sanguinem fudit, aeternae capacem Beatitudinis, et ad consortium Angelorum destinatam, a beata Dei visione exclusit, reparationem coelestium sedium quantum in ipso fuit, impedivit, Deo servitium suae creaturae ademit?” ***

This citation appears in Gasparri, Codex iuris canonici fontes, vol. I, page 308.

It is obvious to me that the above words of Pope Sixtus V reflect the immutable Catholic dogma that the souls of those dying in original sin only are punished in the next world. As Pope Innocent III told us, this punishment is not the suffering of hell, but the loss of the beatific vision.

Please try to imagine how Pope Sixtus V would react to the attempts to interpret *CCC *1261 and 1283 as referring to the beatific vision instead of limbo.

Please don’t listen to me. Listen to Pope Sixtus V.

Keep and spread the Faith.