S
- Status
G
GoLatin
Guest
I sure hope that the Pope doesn’t suspend Limbo.
E
Elzee
Guest
I’ve heard Father Larry Richards say that the Church doesn’t require us to believe in Limbo…is that true? I didn’t realize it was in the Catechism? Now I’m confused. I’ve also heard the Church makes no determination on what happens to unbaptized babies…we just trust in God’s mercy. That doesn’t sound like the Church teaches they go to Limbo? Still confused…
D
drforjc
Guest
Fr. Richards is right. And no, the Catechism does not even mention Limbo.
On the other hand, it does not teach the non existence of Limbo, either.
Limbo is a theological theory that one can accept or reject in good conscience. It is not in itself revealed truth but neither does it contradict revealed truth.
On the other hand, it does not teach the non existence of Limbo, either.
Limbo is a theological theory that one can accept or reject in good conscience. It is not in itself revealed truth but neither does it contradict revealed truth.
A
AltarMan
Guest
This is a bunch of sewage. The idea of “Limbo” is strictly a theological construct. It is neither a teaching of the Church, nor part of the Deposit of Faith.
P
palmas85
Guest
It is always sad to me when people display ignorance of their own faith and the history of it.
I refer you to the Baltimore Catechism, used for generations to teach Catholic Doctrine to the faithful, up to and even following Vatican II.
Lesson 8#95
Q. What do we mean in the Apostles Creed when we say that Christ descended into Hell?
A. Whe we say that Christ dscended into Hell we mean that after He died, the soul of Christ descended into a place or state of rest called LIMBO , where the souls of the just were waiting for him
#96 Why did Christ go to Limbo?
A Christ went to LIMBO to announce to the souls waiting there the joyful news that he had re-opened heaven to mankind.
#97 Where was Christs body while His soul was in Limbo?
A While His soul was in LIMBO, Christs body was in the Holy Sepulchre.
LIMBO is the place where the just souls went that had never heard the word of God, virtuous pagans and others as it were. It was never defined as a place of punishment. The theory is that if you never heard the word of God you should not be punished with Hell or have the need of purification of Purgatory. No specific mention was made of un baptized babies going there was ever made. I think it was assumed that they would because even though they were children they were un baptized and thuis carried the stain of original sin on their souls. Thus they could not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
In the general “enlightenment” and modernization following Vatican II people stopped believing in the existance of Limbo, claiming it was unfair and that God would not punish those who had not heard his word. While I don’t believe it was ever officially supressed by the Church, it was none the less downplayed, but still exists, hence the late Holy Fathers wish to re-define it in other terms.
It was always a bone of contention in Ecumenical Dialogue as is Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, infallibility of the Pope etc
.
I refer you to the Baltimore Catechism, used for generations to teach Catholic Doctrine to the faithful, up to and even following Vatican II.
Lesson 8#95
Q. What do we mean in the Apostles Creed when we say that Christ descended into Hell?
A. Whe we say that Christ dscended into Hell we mean that after He died, the soul of Christ descended into a place or state of rest called LIMBO , where the souls of the just were waiting for him
#96 Why did Christ go to Limbo?
A Christ went to LIMBO to announce to the souls waiting there the joyful news that he had re-opened heaven to mankind.
#97 Where was Christs body while His soul was in Limbo?
A While His soul was in LIMBO, Christs body was in the Holy Sepulchre.
LIMBO is the place where the just souls went that had never heard the word of God, virtuous pagans and others as it were. It was never defined as a place of punishment. The theory is that if you never heard the word of God you should not be punished with Hell or have the need of purification of Purgatory. No specific mention was made of un baptized babies going there was ever made. I think it was assumed that they would because even though they were children they were un baptized and thuis carried the stain of original sin on their souls. Thus they could not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
In the general “enlightenment” and modernization following Vatican II people stopped believing in the existance of Limbo, claiming it was unfair and that God would not punish those who had not heard his word. While I don’t believe it was ever officially supressed by the Church, it was none the less downplayed, but still exists, hence the late Holy Fathers wish to re-define it in other terms.
It was always a bone of contention in Ecumenical Dialogue as is Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, infallibility of the Pope etc
.
A
AJV
Guest
Isn’t that the Limbo of the Fathers -and different from the ‘other’ limbo. I don’t think anyone denies the existence of the former but some question the latter.
P
palmas85
Guest
No Limbo was Limbo. And again there never was a mention of unbaptized babies going there. It was assumed that since they were unbaptized, and still had the stain of original sin, that they would. But I don’t believe that there was ever any statement from the Church that said they did.
What I believe people question and find distasteful is the unfairness of God in sending children to a place apart from him, especially when Christ Jesus has the reputation of loving children so deeply.
N
ncjohn
Guest
Actually Palmas, I believe they are two separate things. Limbo of the Fathers is where Jesus went after His death to free those who came before the resurrection.
Limbo of the Children is the construct taught for many years as the explanation of where unbaptized babies went. To the best of my knowledge, it was never a “required” belief and it is not mentioned in the current catechism. It was replaced by the paragraph referring to it being unknown and trusted to the mercy of God.
The current commission is undertaking some study to hopefully publish some sort of document, which will almost surely be just as speculative. A link to one article on that is here seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103AP_Vatican_Limbo.html
A
AltarMan
Guest
No.
“Limbo” is not the same in the eyes of the Church as “Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, infallibility of the Pope.”
A
AltarMan
Guest
ncjohn said:
To confuse the staging area (probably best described using the Hebrew term “Sheol”) of the righteous who came before the incarnation of Christ with an abstract idea of where non-baptised babies go is wrong.
P
Pius_X
Guest
There is an old tradition (Irish, I believe) that the unbaptized babies graves are baptized by the rain which comes from God. Just another way of saying Trust in God Mercy.
A
AltarMan
Guest
“Limbo has never been a defined truth of faith. Personally, speaking as a theologian and not as head of the Congregation, I would drop something that has always been only a theological hypothesis.”** – Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 1984**
"But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” – Mark 10:14
"This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.** – 1Timothy 2:3-4**
“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’ [Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy baptism”. ** – CCC 1261**
"But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” – Mark 10:14
"This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.** – 1Timothy 2:3-4**
“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’ [Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy baptism”. ** – CCC 1261**
N
ncjohn
Guest
I fully agree with you and maybe just wasn’t clear in saying that.
The Limbo of the Children to the best of my knowledge, was never an “official” teaching of the Church. To be fair though, everyone I’ve talked to who grew up in Catholic schools pre-V2 like I did remembers quite vividly that it sure was taught as if it was official Church teaching and it wasn’t until not too many years ago that I found out that it really wasn’t official.
Also, there are still people out there teaching this. I saw a textbook recently with an Impramatur being used in catechist training, put out by an outfit in Kentucky, with a sentence stating that it is still the common teaching of the Church. I quite frankly couldn’t believe my eyes.
At any rate, I tend to doubt that anything that comes out of the new commission will be much more clarifying given the uncertain nature of the topic.
Peace,
P
palmas85
Guest
I never said it was. I said it was a stumbling block in Ecumenical dialogue the same as the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory and the Infallibility of the Pope. I never said or even intimated the Church said they were. As you probably know, or maybe not, Ecumenical Dialogue is between different churches, and believe me, no Christian Church or sect outside of Catholicism accepts or will likely ever accept those three things and the concept of Limbo.
P
palmas85
Guest
II must have something wrong with me. I never said that children go there, in fact I said the church didn’t have a position on it, and that the belief probably came about due to the existance of Limbo of the fathers which WAS taught and generally believed until fairly recently. As far as I know the Church has never either supported or defended the belief that unbaptized babies go there. It never really faced the issue I thought I was real clear on that. Maybe not.
There was actually some uncertainty about the whole issue of Limbo dating back to at least the late 1800’s. In his book the Catechism Explained, Nihil Obstat Arthur Scanlon S.T.D. and Imprimatur of Patrick Hayes D.D. Archbishop of New York 1921, Father Francis Spiraga wrote " After the death of Christ, Limbo ceased to exist"
So according to true Church teaching there really could be no way unbaptized babies or adults for that matter could go there. However, from the Council of Florence we know that nothing defiled can enter Heaven and that only those who AFTER BAPTISM have not sinned, or who if they have sinned did perfect penance on earth or in Purgatory can enter Heaven.
So what was the solution? Send innocent babies to suffer the purifying flames of Purgatory, or send them to a nice place of rest Most people could and would not accept the supposition that a merciful God would require the suffering of babies because they were unbaptized. However, since they came with the stain of original sin, the question remained what do you do with them? So the rationale came about that unbaptized infants went to Limbo. That of course conveniently ignored the issue that Limbo ceased to exist after the death of Christ.
A pretty neat little package, but never, never never fully endorsed by the Church. I hope I was a little more clear that time.
B
Brendan
Guest
That is correct.
One, the Limbus Patrum, was where those saved under the Old Law resided until Christ freed them to enter heaven (decent into Hell). This is otherwise known as “The Busom of Abraham”.
It is a de fide teaching of the Church. It is also ‘de fide’ that the Limbo Patrum no longer exists.
The one is discussion is the Limbus Infantum, the Limbo of Children. This has never been a teaching of the Church, only a theological construct in the realm of Speculative Theology.
You will not find the Limbus Infantum mentioned in any Church wide Catechism, or in books like Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”
N
ncjohn
Guest
I apparently misunderstood you Palmas. I read your post to say that the Limbo of the Children thing that floated around for so long, official or not, was the same thing as the Limbo of the Fathers in that people were thinking that unbaptized babies were being consigned to the limbo of the Fathers.
If I’d thought about it a little more, realizing how “up” on things you are, I would have realized that I must have misunderstood.
At any rate, thanks for clearing things up.Peace,
M
Marian_Carroll
Guest
**General Notice:
Regarding quoted texts/materials/references to the threads:
Please review Forum rules and the help sticky,
Helpful Hints on Posting:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=72808
Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answers Forums
**
Regarding quoted texts/materials/references to the threads:
Please review Forum rules and the help sticky,
Helpful Hints on Posting:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=72808
Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answers Forums
**
O
otm
Guest
That’s nice, but that doesn’t show that the theological construct of Limbo was ever a defined doctrine of the Church.
- Status