Souls of aborted/unbaptized babies?

[PraiseChrist]

Need some help with this:
catholic.com/video/souls-of-abortedunbaptized-babies

In that video, Jimmy Akin said that we can hope for the salvation of infants.

Obviously, no one who dies before the age of reason won’t go to the hell of the damned. But didn’t the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 accept that these infants go to hell (not the hell of the damned–Hell is also used to name the “limbo of the Fathers” (not limbo of the infants), like in the Apostles Creed “he descended into hell”)

I’m pretty sure that in limbo, they wouldn’t be punished or damned or anything like that, but they won’t have the beatific vision, but may experience natural happiness. Is this true?

Any (name removed by moderator)ut and help appreciated

 

[1ke]

In that video, Jimmy Akin said that we can hope for the salvation of infants.

Which is exactly what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says,

Obviously, no one who dies before the age of reason won’t go to the hell of the damned.

That isn’t obvious. It isn’t church teaching either way. Akin expresses church teaching on the matter: we have hope.

But didn’t the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 accept that these infants go to hell (not the hell of the damned–Hell is also used to name the “limbo of the Fathers” (not limbo of the infants), like in the Apostles Creed “he descended into hell”)

No.

I’m pretty sure that in limbo, they wouldn’t be punished or damned or anything like that, but they won’t have the beatific vision, but may experience natural happiness. Is this true?

Any (name removed by moderator)ut and help appreciated

Limbo is not Church teaching.

 

[1ke]

This document might help.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[PraiseChrist]

This document might help.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Thank you for the help.

I made a mistake when I said

Obviously, no one who dies before the age of reason won’t go to the hell of the damned.

If that were true that would mean that all who die before the age of reason would be damned. I meant to say everyone who dies before the age of reason won’t be damned. My bad.

Thank you again

 

[1ke]

I meant to say everyone who dies before the age of reason won’t be damned. My bad.

I know what you meant.

That isn’t what the Church teaches vis-vis those who are under the age of reason AND unbaptized. It teaches what I stated above: we may have hope.

 

[Neal76]

Limbo is not Church teaching.

Dr Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.114: “Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children’s Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia.” (Ref. Denzinger 1526)

 

[1ke]

Dr Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.114: “Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children’s Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia.” (Ref. Denzinger 1526)

I repeat: Limbo is not a Church teaching.

Theological opinion, yes.

Teaching of the Church, no.

 

[z_0101]

Dr Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.114: “Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children’s Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia.” (Ref. Denzinger 1526)

I repeat: Limbo is not a Church teaching.

Theological opinion, yes.

Teaching of the Church, no.

As 1ke says, Limbo is not a dogmatic teaching of the Church. Furthermore, the view of Limbo, or some alternate version of Heaven, and the understanding that there is no impediment for the infant, baptized or not, for God’s redemptive grace has also grown…

This is a very long read - from Vatican.va, I’ll only a few sections here so if you have the time to read thru the entire document I would - There’s a very interesting treatment of several of the Church Fathers and how they struggled with this question.

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION - THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*

(…) theory of limbo, (…) This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God (…)

So despite Dr Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma implication that Limbo is a dogmatic teaching, it is, by the Vatican’s own words, not so.

But let me go further here, on pg 192 Dr Ludwig Ott states:

The purpose of the descent into Hell was. according to the general teaching of
theologians. the freeing of the just in Limbo by the application of the fruits of the
Redemption, that is, by the communication of the Beatific Vision. C£ S. tho
III 52, s. Cat. Rom. I 6, 6.

So the gates of heaven are open and Limbo is what - No more. All of those individuals “by the application of the fruits of the Redemption” received the Beatific Vision. And yet, were they all baptized at that point? Certainly not, were not our Jewish brothers and sisters in the bosom of Abraham?

Why would Christ only free those unbaptized adult persons, who were “just”? Who is more just, an innocent who’s only fault may be from the original sin, or the adult that lived a long life doing God’s will as best he was able?

Why without baptism were they able to receive the Beatific Vision (I’ll follow-up on this below)?

We also understand that God is outside of space and time, why only free those that were there at the time of the crucifixion and not all of those individuals in Limbo thru all of time?

I think paragraph 82 really sums this up:

1. b) **God does not demand the impossible of us.[108] **Furthermore, God’s power is not restricted to the sacraments: ‘Deus virtutem suam non alligavit sacramentis quin possit sine sacramentis effectum sacramentorum conferre’ **(God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament).[109] God can therefore give the grace of Baptism without the sacrament being conferred, and this fact should particularly be recalled when the conferring of Baptism would be impossible. **The need for the sacrament is not absolute. What is absolute is humanity’s need for the Ursakrament which is Christ himself. All salvation comes from him and therefore, in some way, through the Church.[110]

Hence, IMHO, why we need to rely in God’s Mercy in the tragic cases where a child dies without the sacrament of baptism.

I go back to our Lord’s own words and actions:

And the disciples rebuked them that brought them. [14] Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased, and saith to them: Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. [15] Amen I say to you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter into it. [16] And embracing them, and laying his hands upon them, he blessed them****

Certainly, many, if not all, of these children were not Baptized, and yet, our Lord blessed them… laying hands on them during the act.

IMHO, if Christ had mercy then, and accepted those children, he would do so now for the most innocent amongst us.

 

[otjm]

Dr Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.114: “Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children’s Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia.” (Ref. Denzinger 1526)

And then there is the old wag’s comment" What happens when we assume?" Perhaps not polite in reference to theologians, but just the same…

 

[Brendan]

And then there is the old wag’s comment" What happens when we assume?" Perhaps not polite in reference to theologians, but just the same…

The assumption is still a valid one. Limbo was never taught as definitive teaching, but is still a valid position that a Catholic may hold.

As noted in the ITC document

It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.

 

[Aaron_I]

The assumption is still a valid one. Limbo was never taught as definitive teaching, but is still a valid position that a Catholic may hold.

As noted in the ITC document

Agreed. Personally I find limbo to be very theologically sound.

Honestly, the best argument against it isn’t even very nuanced: God is merciful and loving, so he “brings the children” to Himself. There is no strong theology for this, and it would clearly happen outside the sacraments, but it seems reasonable enough that I tend to believe it.

So to break it down:

1. Baby dies without baptism or having intentionally sinned (though of course still with stain of Original Sin) cannot be punished justly but also lacks sanctifying grace to get into heaven. A place like Limbo just makes sense.
2. But God is too loving and merciful for that! Oh, fair point, will cede Limbo in favor of God’s mercy.

I do feel that there could be some theology to support “no limbo” based around the recognition of the Holy Innocents…

 

[Brendan]

There is theology to support God acting outside of Baptism.

As Trent noted on the necessity of Baptism “unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction”

One key note is that what Trent requires is the GRACE of Baptism. That Grace can clearly be granted outside of the Sacrament itself, as we can see in that the Old Testament Saints, and even the Blessed Mother herself, were granted this grace outside of the Sacrament.

So there is no theological doubt that that God can, and has, operated in this regard outside the actual Sacrament.

The question is, does He do so for infants, and in that Church has rightly stated the answer to that is not part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith. In other words, we don’t know and will not this side of the veil of Heaven.

For one, we cannot fall into the trap of Pelganism, in that humans somehow deserve Heaven, if a human does not sin of their own accord, that it is a matter of justice that they be admitted to Heaven. It is not. Due to the sin of Adam, what is just is that we are barred from Heaven, and that include infants.

But infants, having no sin other than the stain of Adam, do not deserve punishment.

Ergo, the logical place is therefore, the fringes (limbus) of Hell, a place of no punishment, and natural happiness, but not of the beatific vision and supernatural happiness.

But logic does not preclude Mercy, and God might (and the key word is ‘might’) choose to grant the Grace of Baptism as a free gift.

As a gift, we cannot either expect it, as if it was a right, but neither can we discount the possibility that it could happen.

 

[otjm]

The assumption is still a valid one. Limbo was never taught as definitive teaching, but is still a valid position that a Catholic may hold.

As noted in the ITC document

Perhaps I was a bit too vague - I was referring to those who assume theologians are correct…

In this case theologians may be, or may not be.

 

[Brendan]

Perhaps I was a bit too vague - I was referring to those who assume theologians are correct…

Granted, but since the theologians in question include Aquinas and several Popes, it would not be a stretch to assume they are correct, even if they were speaking speculatively.

In this case theologians may be, or may not be.

True, and we will never find out until we reach the beatific vision ourselves.

 

[Evan]

Agreed. Personally I find limbo to be very theologically sound.

Honestly, the best argument against it isn’t even very nuanced: God is merciful and loving, so he “brings the children” to Himself. There is no strong theology for this, and it would clearly happen outside the sacraments, but it seems reasonable enough that I tend to believe it.

So to break it down:

1. Baby dies without baptism or having intentionally sinned (though of course still with stain of Original Sin) cannot be punished justly but also lacks sanctifying grace to get into heaven. A place like Limbo just makes sense.
2. But God is too loving and merciful for that! Oh, fair point, will cede Limbo in favor of God’s mercy.

I do feel that there could be some theology to support “no limbo” based around the recognition of the Holy Innocents….

The Holy Innocents had the advantage of being members of the People of God via their circumcision. The act used to enter the people of God at the time before Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Baptism. So, the comparison is not definitive.

 

[Rosebud77]

Some small Irish thoughts on this.

When I was first here, I was introduced to “the killeens” in my first parish. An unmarked mound in the middle of a field of cattle. The farmer who owned the land would not allow the priest in to bless this, the burial place for unbaptised babies…Not in sacred ground Some villages, my guide and neighbour told me, have now honoured and reclaimed these. I think "rehabilitated " is the term.

Some years later I was wandering in the Abbey and graveyard in Donegal Town and got chatting to a man walking a dog called Ham …
used to see him often down there…

He showed m the monument to the unbaptised,properly honoured now, then led me to a grave, where twin babies were buried, and told me that they were both called Mary

When they were born, the midwife knew they would not live and that if they were not baptised… So she hastily baptised them both and the only name she could think of was Mary…to spare the mother having her babies buried in the dark outside sacred ground with no marker.

so much sheer love…

 

[StAlphonsusMary]

Sorry for bring up an old thread…
I found this from the Council of Florence?

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

The Council of Florence, in Session VI
Source: ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#3

So, if the Council of Florence stated that those, like infants/aborted babies, who died without baptism go to hell–how does this still tie into Jimmy Akin’s response?

Thank you again