The controversy about Limbo

  • Thread starter Thread starter YehoiakhinEx232
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YehoiakhinEx232

Guest
I realize that this is probably a super controversial topic but, what exactly is the story regarding Limbo?

My understanding so far, is that Limbo is not a divinely-revealed truth, but an intellectual theory regarding what happens to infants who die unbaptized. No panel or Pope has ever given any authoritative ruling regarding Limbo, but some panel, and comments made by Pope Benedict XVI have given the misconception that Limbo is “abolished.”

Is that correct?
 
Last edited:
Limbus patrem or limbo of the fathers is very clear from the early christian writers. We know
  • that their condition is one of happiness,
  • that it is temporary, and
  • that it is to be replaced by a condition of final and permanent bliss when the Messianic Kingdom is established.
Limbus infantium or limbo of the infants

According to the Council of Florence (binding belief, defining doctrine)
  • They can’t go to hell
  • They can’t behold God face to face (no heaven either) due to the condition “unless you are born again of the spirit”
  • They are perfectly happy as far as naturally (not supernaturally) possible
 
Limbo is not a doctrine of the Church, and it has not been declared false. You may believe it.
 
YehoiakhinEx232 said:
I realize that this is probably a super controversial topic but, what exactly is the story regarding Limbo?

My so far, is that Limbo is not a divinely-revealed truth, but an intellectual theory regarding what happens to infants who die unbaptized. No panel or Pope has ever given any authoritative ruling regarding Limbo, but some panel, and comments made by Pope Benedict XVI have given the misconception that Limbo is “abolished.”

Is that correct?
Click to expand...
The official position of the Church is to pray for the souls of infants (like we do with everybody) in the hopes of their salvation. This isn’t dogmatic because the fate of souls isn’t revealed to us.

It is (and has been) increasingly viewed that the traditional view of the limbo of the infants of St Augustine & company is erroneous.
 
Last edited:
anon65111186 said:
Limbus infantium or limbo of the infants

According to the Council of Florence (binding belief, defining doctrine)
  • They can’t go to hell
  • They can’t behold God face to face (no heaven either) due to the condition “unless you are born again of the spirit”
  • They are perfectly happy as far as naturally (not supernaturally) possible
Click to expand...
You will need to cite the appropriate canon or anathema.

But that said, if limbo infantorum is indeed true, it is not a third final state. If unbaptized children do end up in limbo, then they are in hell. That is what limbo infantorum is: the limbus, or rim, of hell. It is theorized that this outer rim if hell is where the punishments of sense are at an absolute minimum but where the principal punishment still exists: the deprivation of the Beatific Vision.

The Church permits limbo as a theory not as doctrine. If you claim it is then please cite the anathema from Florence. My position is that of the Church: we do not know because this is not revealed.
 
Last edited:
Limbo is not a doctrine of the Church; as such, while some have theorized it, you don’t have to believe it. In fact, you shouldn’t. Note that the Church ONLY declares some people are in heaven (the saints) and NEVER pronounces the fate of others. We only pray to God for all the dead who alone knows their fate.
 
anon65111186 said:
…
According to the Council of Florence (binding belief, defining doctrine)
…
Click to expand...
We must affirm that without baptism one cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Now, we know of three forms of baptism: sacramental, blood, and desire. There is hope for another.
 
I think there are two propositions that need to be considered separately. First, is the idea that those who die in original sin only experience the state we call “Limbo” (aka the outskirts of hell with no beatific vision, but no actual torments due to actual sin). The second is whether any particular soul dies this way and actually experiences it.

I think an argument can be made for the first proposition–it is dogmatic and infallibly taught that those who die in original sin cannot be saved and at the very least the Church teaches the punishments of those who die in original sin only are less than those who die in actual sins.

The second proposition can’t really be an infallible judgment of the Church, since the Church doesn’t pass infallible negative judgments on the final destination of any particular souls. The Church has always allowed for the possibility of God granting the grace of the sacraments outside of the actual reception of the sacraments–He just has not promised to do so.

The International Theological Commission, an advisory body to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, published a paper with the permission of the Pope giving reasons why one can hope that God cleanses infants who die without baptism of original sin. It also noted that proposing they are not cleansed, and instead go to Limbo, remains an acceptable opinion.
 
A topic I have never troubled myself with. Through realization of the complete and boundless mercy of God, it is a non-issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top