Pope to drop idea of limbo

[bones_IV]

Brendan, thanks for your contribution!

We who realize why the Catholic Church can’t, and won’t, “abolish” limbo shouldn’t hesitate to grant that limbo is, in fact, a punishment. The theology of limbo is, it seems to me, multifaceted and somewhat complicated–but its facets and complications are hardly beyond the ken of the average Catholic.

In one sense, limbo *is *a punishment: the condition of having original sin, as Pope Innocent III taught, is penalized by deprivation of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision. Nonetheless, in another sense, limbo is simultaneously a wonderful gift, since unmerited and unending natural happiness can only be described as a gift.

A rough analogy: the runner who comes in second is penalized by being forced to accept a less impressive trophy or medal because he lacks the ability of the runner who comes in first. Still, the second-place runner may–and should–rejoice in that lesser gift. In one sense, the second-place award is his punishment for the training he didn’t, or couldn’t, do. But, in anothers sense, it’s his reward for the training he did do–or merely for the fact that there were no other runners in his age category! (I’m a guy who took up running late in life.)

Limbo is the second-place award.

It appears to me that the Magisterium, in a change of emphasis and terminology (not a true change in doctrine), has begun, with section 1261 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, to underscore the understanding of limbo as a gift of eternal happiness emanating from God’s love and mercy.

But this shift of emphasis cannot be described as “abolishing” limbo, and it doesn’t retract what the Church said in the Middle Ages about limbo’s punitive aspect. Accordingly, Catholic doctrine on the fate of unbaptized children and on original sin (which the new catechism calls “an essential truth of the faith” [section 388]) remains intact and coherent. Saying that those children all go to heaven, however, would unravel the whole fabric of Catholic doctrine. That’s why we can’t say that.

Thanks for mentioning St. Thomas! We should all read what St. Thomas wrote about limbo.

Keep and spread the Faith.

#1261 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: 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.

According to Bill Bilton it has never been a formally defined doctrine of the Church. Correct?

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

#1261 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: 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.

According to Bill Bilton it has never been a formally defined doctrine of the Church. Correct?

It is correct that the existence of limbo is not a formally defined doctrine of the Church–a Catholic dogma. But that is not the end of the story by any means! I say this because limbo is a theological hypothesis that can be deduced from statements that *are *Catholic dogmas, the chief dogma in this context being the truth that the souls of those dying in original sin alone are in some way punished for this condition of sin in the next world.

This dogma was enunciated by two ecumentical councils: Second Lyons in 1274 and Florence in 1439.

How do we know what this punishment is? Pope Innocent III, summarizing Catholic tradition, taught in 1201 that “[t]he punishment of original sin is the absence of the vision of God.”

For those who wish to check the DS numbers for the above Magisterial statements, here they are: 780, 858, and 1306.

As for section 1261 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, if you open the catechism’s index under “limbo,” you’ll see that section 1261 is referenced. I believe that the “hope” mentioned in section 1261 should be interpreted as the hope that infants dying without Baptism will obtain the unending natural happiness of limbo, which can be viewed as a kind of salvation: salvation from the pains of hell.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[bones_IV]

It is correct that the existence of limbo is not a formally defined doctrine of the Church–a Catholic dogma. But that is not the end of the story by any means! I say this because limbo is a theological hypothesis that can be deduced from statements that *are *Catholic dogmas, the chief dogma in this context being the truth that the souls of those dying in original sin alone are in some way punished for this condition of sin in the next world.

This dogma was enunciated by two ecumentical councils: Second Lyons in 1274 and Florence in 1439.

How do we know what this punishment is? Pope Innocent III, summarizing Catholic tradition, taught in 1201 that “[t]he punishment of original sin is the absence of the vision of God.”

For those who wish to check the DS numbers for the above Magisterial statements, here they are: 780, 858, and 1306.

As for section 1261 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, if you open the catechism’s index under “limbo,” you’ll see that section 1261 is referenced. I believe that the “hope” mentioned in section 1261 should be interpreted as the hope that infants dying without Baptism will obtain the unending natural happiness of limbo, which can be viewed as a kind of salvation: salvation from the pains of hell.

Keep and spread the Faith.

Not to be disrespectful, but the critical question here is why does the new Catechism omit that teaching? The section 1261 in the New Catechism doesn’t even mention Limbo by name does it? No it doesn’t. It seems that some people in pre-Vatican II were taught incorrectly about limbo. I heart that prior to Vatican II you were taught Limbo. Right? Then in the 80’s, they were taught “that limbo was a ‘theological concoction of the middle ages’”. But even Colin B. Donovan states that the word Hell “is broader than the current meaning of it. It derives from words meaning the lower regions (sheol, infernum), all the places the dead went before Christ. These include hell, in the sense of the place of eternal punishment, purgatory, and the place where Christ actually went, the Limbo of the Patriarchs (or Abraham’s Bosom, as it is called in the Parable of the Rich Man).” You were right about Limbo being a place of natural happiness. Another thing to consider, that this something that **Fr. John Echert **pointed out, he said that "God is NEVER unjust, and to condemn a person innocent of any personal sin to hell for eternity would be UNJUST.

 

[bones_IV]

Some people have even said that the limbo of the Fathers is the same as purgatory.

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

Another thing to consider, that this something that **Fr. John Echert **pointed out, he said that "God is NEVER unjust, and to condemn a person innocent of any personal sin to hell for eternity would be UNJUST.

I haven’t kept up on this thread so if this was already said, I apologize. But I seem to remember reading several years ago that Augustine found no contradiction with unbaptized babies burning in hell as part of His Divine Justice.

Btw, any word on what actually happened?

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Not to be disrespectful, but the critical question here is why does the new Catechism omit that teaching? The section 1261 in the New Catechism doesn’t even mention Limbo by name does it? No it doesn’t. It seems that some people in pre-Vatican II were taught incorrectly about limbo. I heard that prior to Vatican II you were taught Limbo. Right?

Yes, we were taught about the concept of limbo before Vatican II, and we were taught correctly. Vatican II never annulled this theological deduction, nor did the council annul the dogma from which it is chiefly deduced: the dogma that the souls of those dying with original sin only are in some way punished for this status in the next world. As far as the Faith is concerned, the Catholic Church is the same as she was before Vatican II. There are only one Church and one Faith.

Even though section 1261 of the new catechism doesn’t use the word “limbo,” it can be interpreted as referring to the concept, just as sections 967-970 can be understood as referring to Mary’s being the Co-Redemptrix of the human race, even though those sections don’t use that technical theological term. The terms “Trinity” and “transubstantiation” don’t appear in Scripture, but, as Catholics, we still accept both the terms and their meanings. But please note again that “limbo” is listed in the new catechism’s index, where it is linked to section 1261.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Everyone interested in limbo should read an essay posted on the Web site of Catholics United for the Faith, an excellent organization. The essay is entitled “What Does the Church Teach About Limbo?” Here’s the link:

cuf.org/news/newsdetail.asp?newID=143

I would make some revisions in the essay, but it’s much more solid than most of the material now circulating on this subject.

Please note this key paragraph:

"Limbo has never been a formally defined doctrine of the faith, but rather is a theological opinion used to harmonize (a) the necessity of Baptism; (b) God’s universal salvific will (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4); and (c) the fact that such children are without actual sin. Despite contemporary ridicule, limbo remains a respectable theological opinion that may be held by the faithful."

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[cainem]

i don’t believe that god who willing gave himself on the cross for all our sins would banish his little ones because they did not survive the pregnancy stage of their life, i have also had a still born child and i firmly believe she is with the father and not some limbo status

 

[Augustine22]

Personally, I love the limbo. But my back doesn’t. Can’t bend the way I used to.

But seriously: I always thought that at least for children of Christaian parents, the idea of baptism of desire might provide some insight.

If the parents of the child WOULD have baptized the baby, then is that really very much different from a person who is studying to become Cathoilc and then dies before the baptism/confirmation and all?

Just a thought.

 

[fix]

The fate of such souls is therefore not a bad fate, not a fate to be pitied. On the contrary, it is the greatest thing of which human nature is capable, and to look down on it is to hold very cheap the divine grace that makes possible for some persons something even better. On a deep level, most people who despise the fate of the unbaptized infants in limbo are assuming that human beings have some right to the divine grace needed for the beatific vision. Such people are implicitly assuming that those who, even through no fault of their own, do not attain that grace are somehow being treated unfairly or, at least, are deserving of pity, having suffered some misfortune. This is to forget that grace is a gift.

…I hope that the members of the International Theological Commission remember that the view that all unbaptized infants are saved is decidedly a modern one, a view very much in the spirit of our times. Ours is a culture that can’t bear the thought of anyone going to hell, even the people who, for all the world, seem to deserve it. Thus we have the near universal custom at Christian funerals of proclaiming that the decedent, no matter how morally dissolute his life, is now enjoying the banquet of heaven in the company of the saints, without even a short stay in Purgatory. The spirit of the age hates hell, and so hates limbo as well, which it cannot adequately distinguish from hell…

firstthings.com/

 

[Augustine22]

I’ve got to agree that people are a little too ready to think everyone goes to heaven. I hope no one talks about what a great guy I was when I die, at least at the funeral service! I want the priest to say, “Pray for his soul. If you loved him, PRAY, PRAY, PRAY!”.

But I still think there is a way to see this that doesn’t mess with the past. If baptism of desire is possible, why couln’t it work in a similar way with unbaptised babies? If their parents were going to have them baptised should we believe that God’s up there going, “oh, well, sorry about that. But LIMBO, yer gonna LOVE it!” No, I’m notbuying it, really.

 

[Walking_Home]

Following thru to Baptism of infants —it is shown that baptism is needed for the remission of original sin in infants.
From what CCC 403 and 1250 state-- CCC 1261 is Limbo–since it does reconcile the infants state of original sin–with God’s mercy.

CCC Second Edition

Pg. 817 — Limbo, 1261. See also Baptism;Funerals
Pg. 759 — Baptism
---------------- of infants, 403, 1231, 1233, 1250-52, 1282, 1290

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

The Baptism of infants

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. the Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Following thru to Baptism of infants —it is shown that baptism is needed for the remission of original sin in infants.
From what CCC 403 and 1250 state-- CCC 1261 is Limbo–since it does reconcile the infants state of original sin–with God’s mercy.

CCC Second Edition

Pg. 817 — Limbo, 1261. See also Baptism;Funerals
Pg. 759 — Baptism
---------------- of infants, 403, 1231, 1233, 1250-52, 1282, 1290

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

The Baptism of infants

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. the Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

I’m grateful for Walking Home’s post, which shows, from the words of the new catechism, why talk of the Pope’s or the Church’s “dropping” limbo is misguided.

It’s imperative for Catholics to realize that *CCC *1261 can, and should, be understood in the sense of limbo (eternal ***natural ***happiness), not the beatific vision (eternal supernatural happiness). We can, indeed, hope that the child dying without the sacrament of Baptism will attain a “way of salvation,” i.e., salvation from hell. (Simultaneously and paradoxically, limbo is a kind of damnation, i.e., deprivation of the the beatific vision, but please note that this is no injustice, since no human being has a strict right to this mega-gift.)

I’m especially glad that Walking Home cited *CCC *1250:

***“The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism.” ***

The above statement of the new catechism would hardly be true if all children went to heaven whether or not they had received the sacrament of Baptism.

Respectfully and fraternally, I’d like to challenge those who erroneously believe that the Catholic Church can say that all unbaptized infants attain the beatific vision in heaven: if this were true, wouldn’t it be better to be aborted than to be born?

After all, it doesn’t take a doctorate in theology to realize that a sure bet is superior to a risky one. If the anti-limbo proponents are right, then the aborted child goes to heaven with no risk, while the person who’s born into this world may reach the age for mortal sin, commit it, die in it unrepentant, and then be sent to hell for all eternity. Right?

Logically, if you opt for the beatific vision for every child dying without Baptism, aren’t you saying that abortion, like a quasi-sacrament–a diabolical sacrament horrifically aping the real one-- confers, indirectly but automatically and infallibly, the supernatural life of sanctifying grace, and thus puts its victims into heaven immediately? In your thesis, as soon as the suction machine has been turned off, the soul of the poor dismembered child is enjoying supernatural beatitude. Hence, aren’t you forced to say that abortionists are really doing the unborn a favor by killing them?

Please try to answer my respectful and fraternal challenge.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Tom317]

Steve,

There is no valid response to your challenge, because the removal of Limbo causes many problems.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Steve,

There is no valid response to your challenge, because the removal of Limbo causes many problems.

Tom, thanks for your post! You are absolutely correct.

National Catholic Reporter columnist John Allen, in his most recent column on limbo, repeats the inaccurate statement that limbo is not in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I don’t understand why this inaccuracy is being reiterated. Just open the new catechism’s official index to the word “limbo,” and you’ll see that limbo is linked to section 1261, which mentions a hope for a “way of salvation” for infants who die without Baptism. That “way of salvation” is limbo.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Tom317]

Tom, thanks for your post! You are absolutely correct.

National Catholic Reporter columnist John Allen, in his most recent column on limbo, repeats the inaccurate statement that limbo is not in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I don’t understand why this inaccuracy is being reiterated. Just open the new catechism’s official index to the word “limbo,” and you’ll see that limbo is linked to section 1261, which mentions a hope for a “way of salvation” for infants who die without Baptism. That “way of salvation” is limbo.

Keep and spread the Faith.

I agree and I do not think the Pope will “do away” with Limbo as so many seem to think. If he does, then there will be a “Limbo-like” theory in its place…so even if that happens we are in the same place.

 

[Brenda4God]

I lost a baby once, and have friends that have lost them too. I hope they went to heaven!

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I lost a baby once, and have friends that have lost them too. I hope they went to heaven!

Brenda, the hearts of everyone on this forum go out to you and your friends. I hope that you are consoled and encouraged by God’s goodness, mercy, and love, which I believe lead to the hope that your child and the other children are now enjoying unending natural happiness, and that, because of their natural knowledge and love of God, they are in union with him for all eternity.

I believe that one of the pastoral problems arising from the idea of limbo is the fear that unbaptized children will be separated by limbo from their mothers and fathers. I don’t believe that this fear is well founded.

May I give you a parallel? You and your young child attend the same film. As an adult, you derive much more enjoyment from the film because of your greater knowledge and your experience of life, but the child sitting in the seat right next to you is still truly happy as he or she watches the film. Why can’t this situation from our world be transferred to the next world and be applied to parents and to their children who have died without the sacrament of Baptism? I suggest that the children who are naturally happy in limbo will not be separated from their parents who are supernaturally happy in heaven.

I hope that you are encouraged by what the new catechism says about lost children in section 1261.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Augustine22]

Steve,

That’s an interesting idea. You think they may be in the same “place” but not on the same “spiritual level” or something like that?

That sounds a little like how there are levels of heaven (or I think so…didn’t St. Paul talk about being brought up to the 3rd level or something?)

I have to think about this.

 

[Brenda4God]

Dear Mr. O’Brien,

Thank you for your caring. But I have to say that it does look to me like some people here are hoping that these babies don’t make it to heaven. Would these peoople be happier if our babies don’t go to heaven? Does it make them more special if there are less people in heaven?

I know some people go too far and think there’s no one in hell. So I don’t mean that.

But someone said that people might not baptize their babies if there’s no limbo. I think that’s silly. What kind of mom or dad would not give their baby the best chance and the most grace they can have? I don’t need limbo to make me baptize my children.