Pope to abolish theory of Limbo?

[Walking_Home]

Maybe baptism is only necessary when one is presented with the choice of accepting or rejecting it. Why would somebody be judged for a choice they never had the opportunity to make? It seems to me to be unreasonable to expect someone to be baptized if they were never given that opportunity. I don’t see God as unreasonable – obviously, Augustine and some of the other ancient authorities did see God that way.

---

I can see that the compromising of our doctrine on infant baptism has already started.

 

[Writer]

I don’t know much about limbo, but could one say the theory of limbo is in limbo right now?

I know that the current pope as well as Pope John Paul II both opposed the idea of limbo in their writings.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

Well, estesbob, I am not sure it does clear it up.
How can something not be doctrine when it is
taught BLUNTLY, with no qualifiers, in catechisms
put out by popes, by Plenary Councils (such as the Baltimore Catechism), etc, etc, etc , and taught explicitly, and for ages?

Every pre-Vatican II catechism that touches on the subject, definitely teaches Limbo as if it is a fact.
That’s not my perception, that’s just the way it was.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

---

You have understood the implications of what can occur Bro. Rich. How the foundation of our doctrine on the need for infant baptism can indeed be compromised.

I can see this used to justify the idea that parents of infants and children do not need to Baptize their children until the “age of reason” because without the use of Reason they cannot make the choice for themselves. And if they die before making that choice God will offer them Salvation anyway. This of course is the view of the Baptists and a few other Protestant communities.

Right now the parent has the responsibility to see that their infant is Baptized within a few weeks of birth. If there is no need for infant Baptism then there is no longer any parental responsibility towards their children’s Salvation, that responsibility will now become God’s.

 

[LilyM]

Surely this isn’t news, I remember hearing stories about the Limbo theory being done away with last year or earlier this year.

The most that will be changed is to say that we can’t be sure that unbaptised babies don’t go to heaven, and we trust them to God’s mercy. This makes sense, putting them in the same category with all unbaptised people.

I certainly don’t believe that this removes the requirement for parents to baptise their children as soon as practicable, in order to remove such uncertainty and give the child the positive graces of the Sacrament.

As far as I know, even if limbo has been long-standing Church teaching it may not be doctrine. Surely there is some room for flexibility in such areas, in light of additional scholarship and lack of complete theological consensus over the issue. For example, our understanding of ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ has deepened and broadened over time.

 

[batteddy]

In trying to look around to counter this all I did was run around in circles. I found apologists saying limbo was never a doctrine but no meat to prove it, but it certainly appears it was from what I’ve read. Is there anyone out there with knowledge of limbo and how I can say it was never an official doctrine accurately?

It is of course dogma that “*those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven”

*And such people would go to some sort of limbo.

BUT that is not the question. The question is whether, since the time of Christ…God DOES in fact let anyone die in original sin who doesn’t also have mortal sin. Or does he provide grace extraordinarily before the moment of death to those who do not mortally sin?

Obviously, a limbo is a possibility IF someone died only in original sin but no mortal sin (like the old testament saints, the “dead” to which Christ descended).

But the real question now is…does God let anyone die only in original sin? Or is the choice only heaven or hell? Jesus did say: If you are not against me you are for me, and if you are not for me you are against me. Implying that there is not a neutral state since his coming. I think it is obvious that if infants can implicitly accept the grace of baptism (because the sacraments work ex opere operato, we dont need to make any positive act of the will to recieve the grace…we must merely not consciously resist) I dont see a problem with extraordinary grace. I dont see why a direct act of good will or desire would be needed…as we are only passive to grace, at least to the First Grace of our justification…

I think we can have good hope that God provides anyone who doesnt have mortal sin with extraordinary grace…but because it would be officially extraordinary (though probably common) we cannot presume it and are obliged by the same urgency of baptism.

I dont think the Pope could “abolish” limbo as a theory, because what happens to the unbaptized is NOT a subject of Public Revelation. God didn’t tell us, probably because he wanted us to baptize urgently and didn’t want us getting lazy and relying on the presumption that he would extraordinarily save them. We can have good* hope* that he provides grace extraordinarily to anyone who doesnt resist him (if he’s the God I know, he probably does)…but it is certainly not a subject of faith. He didn’t say what he does in those cases, and though we can have (very) good hope in his mercy when someone dies unbaptized…because it is not Revealed, we cannot presume it, and are obliged to baptize urgently as it is the revealed ordinary means. We have been given our task, and it really is none of our business what he does outside of that. We can speculate on it, and have hope that he does something merciful, but it is really not our place to know for sure until he chooses to reveal it (at the end of time, since we know additional public revelation has ceased).

 

[whosebob]

I am listening to Relevant Radio and the news just said the Pope is likely to abolish the theory of limbo for infants who have died without baptism. Does anyone know any more about this? Any links?

JMJ + OBT​

Two resources you and the other forums members may find helpful:

The article on Limbo in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia

An article published yesterday (Oct. 4, '06) on kath.net which relates an intereview with a young theologian who recently completed his doctoral dissertation on this subject: Unbaptized Children: Limbo, Vision of God or Rahner’s reincarnation?

Interestingly enough, this scholar – who in no way projects a radical or traditionalist mindset in answering the interviewer’s questions – came to a strong conclusion:

I would however like to point out two rarely noted problems I have encountered with these arguments [against the existence of Limbo of unbaptized infants and other unbaptized innocents]. The first is, that the concept of limbo is not as homogeneous as modern discussion often assumes. Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Suarez and modern limbo theologians describe limbo quite differently. For this reason some critiques of limbo apply only to a certain variation of the limbo theory, leaving the others untouched.

The second problem in many modern works is the theological discussion of church documents. It might be true that there are no definitory statements on the questions, but there is a firm tradition in the ordinary magisterium, that can not simply be discarded. It is insufficient to state that limbo was never defined, and therefore unbaptized children might equally be thought to be in heaven. Historically the doctrinal alternative to limbo never was infant salvation, but a stricter Augustinian interpretation assigning also pain of sense to the state of the children. That limbo was never defined had much to do with leaving room for the Augustinian theory as a study of the Jansenist controversy helps to see. The non-salvation of children was not disputed, except for very limited exceptions (Cajetan and some others). In my opinion a detailed study is yet to be done of some church documents with a focus on the question, but in particular of the third canon of the Council of Carthage. It seems to decide the question in favour of non-salvation, but is missing in different collections of canons. In my study, I found, that the answer usually given, namely that Rome did not accept it because of its content, needs to be reviewed, as there are statements of popes before and after the ratification of that council to the same effect as the disputed canon.

But so much to the question whether the theory of limbo is to be considered outdated. I do not think so …

… As a dissertation it is an academic not a pastoral work, although the pastoral implications of the question are quite clear. Therefore it is directed at the scholarly community, at pastors and the theologically interested laity. It is not a pastoral guide for parents dealing with the unfortunate loss of a child, as it provides merely an insight into a chapter of the history of theology. I would however like to conclude with the following personal remark. In my study I found that limbo is not only valid as an explanation, it also has a greater probability than most other theories and as a model of non-salvation a longstanding tradition with authority. I do not rejoice over the fact, that such a state could be the state of unbaptized children. But then, there are many things in this world, I find hard and difficult. I often fail to understand why God permits this or that, but I do not believe in God because he conforms to my image, but simply because God is. I trust, that how he ordains things it is right, just and merciful. (Johannes M. Schwarz, PhD, Unbaptized Children: Limbo, Vision of God or Rahner’s reincarnation?)

[emphasis mine]

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[chrisb]

I wonder if Purgatory might be the ‘next’ teaching to go?

 

[Walking_Home]

I wonder if Purgatory might be the ‘next’ teaching to go?

---

More than likely----that it is not sufficient to be baptised by pouring on the head.

 

[BrickCityIrish]

Maybe the Church will make Limbo of the Infants a Dogma? That could also be the result. If the possibility of Limbo is removed it chipd away at the foundation of the Doctrine of the necessity of Baptism that is found in the Catechism.

I don’t see that at all, you could argue baptism by intent for any unbaptized Catholic children.

I don’t know but even outside the church I will baptize my children minutes after they’re born.

 

[BrickCityIrish]

I’ve tried but I I’m gaining no headway, every poster is convinced that the Catholic Church changed doctrine.

Now since there is so much teaching behind Limbo why didn’t Benedict just leave it alone? Limbo means essentially zip for our salvation and now reversing course on it makes the Catholic Church loose incredible face from those on the outside.

Why not just leave it alone?

Essentially no non-Catholic buys that Catholics didn’t change doctrine on limbo, and it hurts the Churches credibility big time.

 

[lrs]

Am I to understand that a baby who is born, a miraculous life born from the love of God, which God calls home- that somehow this soul, this life, is held in LIMBO.
WHAT?!!
GOD breathes the miracle of life into a baby, the baby dies, then GOD punishes the BABY??!
Who in the world does this make sense to?
Sorry, I will forever believe in the God we are taught to believe in. A GOD OF LOVE.

BY the way, there are many times through out this Churches history where people were not baptized until they were adults.

PEACE,
Lisa

 

[Walking_Home]

Am I to understand that a baby who is born, a miraculous life born from the love of God, which God calls home- that somehow this soul, this life, is held in LIMBO.
WHAT?!!
GOD breathes the miracle of life into a baby, the baby dies, then GOD punishes the BABY??!
Who in the world does this make sense to?
Sorry, I will forever believe in the God we are taught to believe in. A GOD OF LOVE.

BY the way, there are many times through out this Churches history where people were not baptized until they were adults.

PEACE,
Lisa

---

Are you then–implying that infants do not need to be baptised.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I don’t see that at all, you could argue baptism by intent for any unbaptized Catholic children.

I don’t know but even outside the church I will baptize my children minutes after they’re born.

No ,you can’t intend or desire Baptism for someone else.

 

[gelsbern]

I’ve tried but I I’m gaining no headway, every poster is convinced that the Catholic Church changed doctrine.

Now since there is so much teaching behind Limbo why didn’t Benedict just leave it alone? Limbo means essentially zip for our salvation and now reversing course on it makes the Catholic Church loose incredible face from those on the outside.

Why not just leave it alone?

Essentially no non-Catholic buys that Catholics didn’t change doctrine on limbo, and it hurts the Churches credibility big time.

Again just to clarify, it wasn’t the current pope who called for the commission, it was JPII. And the decision will be the decision of the commission and not a unilateral decision of the Pope. In fact the main approval of the commissions recommendation willl be done by Cardinal William Levada and then finally the Pope will sign it or veto it.

You almost got your wish. You are allowed to believe in Limbo, but it is not required for Catholics to do so.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46911

 

[christianley]

According to some of what I have been reading about Limbo, honorable people who died before the time of Christ without baptism would wind up in a special Limbo prepared for them and would never be in God’s presence. This doesn’t make any sense to me. Can you give this recent convert any information on that.

 

[havemercy]

I’ve never understood limbo. I know why it isn’t actual dogma though. Its a load of lard.

 

[chutton]

I find this a really interesting development. I can understand why many of you are fearful that abolishing the theory of limbo may in fact open up a can of worms so to speak! Looking from the outside in (as a Christ-follower in a protestant church) I think that by abolishing this state of limbo, the Church may in the process end up weakening the “argument” for infant baptism. One poster was saying that if infant baptism was no longer necessary that parents would no longer have responsibility for the salvation of their children. However, the Bible is quite clear that parents DO have a responsibility:
“Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land that the LORD swore to give your ancestors, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth.” Deuteronomy 11:18-21
You are all probably well aware of the arguments for each side of infant baptism and believer’s baptism…right? I probably don’t need to go into that on this thread. However, my point is, that if it it not necessary for unbaptized infants to be baptised to go to Heaven, then it begins to put a question mark in many people’s heads of whether it is a necessity for ANY infant to be baptised to enter Heaven. Or is it rather based on individuals who believe, repent and desire to be identified as a Christ-follower…
I will be following this with interest.

Your sister in Christ

 

[christianley]

I find this a really interesting development. I can understand why many of you are fearful that abolishing the theory of limbo may in fact open up a can of worms so to speak! Looking from the outside in (as a Christ-follower in a protestant church) I think that by abolishing this state of limbo, the Church may in the process end up weakening the “argument” for infant baptism. One poster was saying that if infant baptism was no longer necessary that parents would no longer have responsibility for the salvation of their children. However, the Bible is quite clear that parents DO have a responsibility:
“Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land that the LORD swore to give your ancestors, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth.” Deuteronomy 11:18-21
You are all probably well aware of the arguments for each side of infant baptism and believer’s baptism…right? I probably don’t need to go into that on this thread. However, my point is, that if it it not necessary for unbaptized infants to be baptised to go to Heaven, then it begins to put a question mark in many people’s heads of whether it is a necessity for ANY infant to be baptised to enter Heaven. Or is it rather based on individuals who believe, repent and desire to be identified as a Christ-follower…
I will be following this with interest.

Your sister in Christ

I’m pretty new to all of this, but I believe as Catholics we teach that baptism imparts grace – it strengthens the ability of the Christian to live according to the commandments of Christ. Parents should be concerned their infants receive this sacrament as a way of strengthening their children in the faith. I think it is impossible for a Christian to gain perfection relying solely on our own strength – we need the sacraments (including baptism) to perfect our Christian walk. That would not come into play for a baby that died shortly after birth.

 

[MilesXpisti]

I must say that I’m very disturbed by this whole series of events. I understand, of course, that definition of doctrine is by nature a function of the magisterium, and whatever the Church teaches, I will abide by. But I have to have hope that our Holy Father, if presented with a promulgation to refute the theological idea of limbo, will deign not to endorse it. There are too many what if’s involved in this area to arrive at the negative: what if the sacraments, being ex opere operato, do not require tacit assent to be efficacious, what if Our Lord, through His divine mercy, grants grace extraordinarily to the unbaptized child. Two big if’s that threaten the very foundations of Catholic soteriology. But are there really questions here? We have St. John 3:5, where Our Lord stated unequivocally: "Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.. Likewise, do we have our Catechism, which states at 1257: The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. One can argue that 1261 offers something of a loophole, but in fact it exists only as a profound hope for the salvation of unbaptized children.