Vatican theologians study issue of limbo

[spiritblows]

Here’s an interesting article on the reexamination of the Church’s teaching on Limbo for unbaptized babes who die. It looks as if our new Pope is trying to address this problem. What does everyone here think of Limbo?

Vatican theologians study issue of limbo

 

[Ghosty]

I’m with the CCC in saying that we leave the babies to the mercy of God. Limbo, IMO, is a formula that comes from an obsession with needing every detail answered, and I don’t think that’s really necessary. Limbo is a logical conclusion, but not really one based on Sacred Tradition or Scripture; it falls more into the category of philosophy than theology.

I have no use for the concept of Limbo, as I’m not a philosopher of that angle. I feel it’s an acceptable philosophy for Catholics to hold, but that it really has no place in Catholic theology.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Steven_Merten]

As far as what happens to unbaptized babies, I have to agree with Ghostly. That is something we can only leave up to our merciful God.

As far as Pope Benedict starting a theological study on where unbaptized babies go, what a wonderfully gentle way to bring need for baptism, in order to share in everlasting life, to the attention of unbaptized adults.

Here is an interesting story. I know of a nonpracticing Catholic woman. The woman took her baby to be baptized and the priest refused to baptize the child. The woman totally admitted to the priest that she had no intention of starting again to go to Mass or seeing that her children get to Mass. She told him she had no intention of repenting and turning her life around or seeing to it that her child gets to Caticism. She simply did not want her child to go to hell for her sins. Her child has never been baptized. What do you think?

 

[AlphaOmega]

here is another link:
thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2324222005
The late pope had written: “The Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God. In fact the great mercy of God, who wants all men to be saved, and the tenderness of Jesus towards children allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who die without baptism.”

That view was in contrast to what Pope Pius X had declared in 1905: “Children who die without baptism go into limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they do not suffer either, because having Original Sin, and only that, they do not deserve paradise, but neither hell or purgatory.”

---

Wasn’t there one fore those who had gone before Christ?
What is the history behind the formulation of the concept of limbo?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

spiritblows:

Here’s an interesting article on the reexamination of the Church’s teaching on Limbo for unbaptized babes who die. It looks as if our new Pope is trying to address this problem. What does everyone here think of Limbo?

Vatican theologians study issue of limbo

Scripture says that no unbaptized person can enter the kingdom. The Church teaches that no person who dies with only Original Sin is condemned to Hell. This does not leave much room for opinion.

I believe that God working outside of His Sacraments grants the Grace of of Baptism to an unbaptized or unborn infant. Like St. John the Baptist was sanctified in his mothers womb. This allows them into the Kingdom, but they remain outside the Beatific Vision in Heaven. That is my opinion until the Church defines otherwise.

 

[Superstar905]

Steven Merten:

As far as what happens to unbaptized babies, I have to agree with Ghostly. That is something we can only leave up to our merciful God.

As far as Pope Benedict starting a theological study on where unbaptized babies go, what a wonderfully gentle way to bring need for baptism, in order to share in everlasting life, to the attention of unbaptized adults.

Here is an interesting story. I know of a nonpracticing Catholic woman. The woman took her baby to be baptized and the priest refused to baptize the child. The woman totally admitted to the priest that she had no intention of starting again to go to Mass or seeing that her children get to Mass. She told him she had no intention of repenting and turning her life around or seeing to it that her child gets to Caticism. She simply did not want her child to go to hell for her sins. Her child has never been baptized. What do you think?

I think, and I may be wrong, but the Child is baptized based on the faith of it’s parents (just like Jesus forgave the sins of the paralyzed man based on the faith of his friends story). So if the parents do not have the faith, then the baptism is irrelvant, as you need faith for baptism, whether it be the actual Childs, or the parents.

This was a total guess, so please, someone correct me if I’m wrong!!

 

[Ghosty]

This was a total guess, so please, someone correct me if I’m wrong!!

They’re all total guesses, and I think that’s the main thrust of the Vatican’s supposed “change” in stance on Limbo. What was previously held by some, even some Popes, as fact, is being regarded in its original and proper place as speculation. That doesn’t make it wrong, and it doesn’t make it impious.

In essence, your guess is as good as mine, and as good as Br. Rich’s, and the Pope is merely reminding us of that, and to keep our guesses firmly rooted in Tradition.

Peace and God bless!

 

[JimG]

Why are they even bringing up Limbo again? I thought that Limbo had been in limbo for several centuries. It was always a theological hypothesis–never a doctrine. If we didn’t have a problem with unbaptized old testament figures such as Moses and Adam getting into heaven, why were we worried about infants?

 

[batteddy]

So if the parents do not have the faith, then the baptism is irrelvant, as you need faith for baptism, whether it be the actual Childs, or the parents.

It may be permissible to believe that the desire of the parents can save an unbaptized infant, because the Church has made no definition in this matter, but I believe this is silly. Why should the faith of the parents specifically affect the salvation of an independent soul of a seperate individual anymore than anyone else’s faith and hope for that child?

But it is NOT permissible to believe that the baptism would be irrelevant if the parents did not have faith. The sacraments work ex opere operato, meaning by the very fact that they are preformed. Even adults, unless they put up a delibrate and conscious positive barrier in their will against the baptism, are baptized by the very fact that baptism was preformed. You do not need faith before baptism, as baptism is what infuses the supernatural virtue of faith in the first place. The person does not need to positively will to be baptized. As long as they don’t positively will specifically to not be baptized, they will be baptized.

 

[batteddy]

If we didn’t have a problem with unbaptized old testament figures such as Moses and Adam getting into heaven, why were we worried about infants?

Because we did have a problem with them. It wasn’t plain and simply evident that they got into heaven. There was serious theological brain-work done to explain how they had to wait in the Limbo of the Fathers until Jesus won the graces of salvation and came and gave it to them.

So Limbo as a possible state (perfect natural happiness) definitely does exist, it is where Jesus descended to when he died. The real question is if people in Original but not Mortal sin who were born after Jesus still go there, like unbaptized infants?

And even when it came to unbaptized old testament figures, traditional theologians had some requirements: the adults had to have made a preliminary act of faith to be eligible for the “retrospective” graces when Jesus came, and the infant boys and girls had to be officially part of the Jewish community (analagous to membership in the Church today) meaning the boys had to have been circumsized already (the precursor and symbol of baptism) and the girls had to be of Jewish families.

Aquinas left those pagan adults who died before Christ and never made an act of faith, and also the non-Jewish infants, and even the uncircumsized Jewish boys in Limbo…

The question is made more solvable, perhaps, by the thought of “implicit desire” and Pius IX’s concept of Invincible Ignorance.

Invincible ignorance showed how people who, through no fault of their own, did not know the truth (whether they came before or after Christ) could be saved as long as they were not culpable for their ignorance and were of good will, seeking truth and God’s desire as best they could. Surely a just, merciful God who desired the salvation of all would not deny his free gift of grace to those who earnestly sought it, even if they had not learned of his revelation and it had to be given outside the normal channel he set as necessary.

So this cleaned things up a bit. It was more in keeping with our notions of God’s benevolence, while still absolutely requiring cooperation with grace for salvation and not being Pelagianist. This let pagan adults before and after Christ leave Limbo and enter heaven, even if they did not make an explicit act of faith, as long as they were Invincibly Ignorant and of good will as best they could be given their state.

But still, the question of non-Jewish infants (and even uncircumsized Jewish boys) before Christ and unbaptized infants after Christ nagged at us. And does today.

 

[batteddy]

I think that two modifications to our traditional thought can solve this, removing two archaic distinctions, satisfying our notions of God, and significantly simplifying things…making the theology look much more elegant and refined, with much fewer exceptions and “special cases”. A Unified Field Theory of Soteriology, as it were:

1. The first distinction I would remove is this emphasis, at least when it comes to questions of Desire and Invincible Ignorance, on the age of reason when a Child can first make a culpable free act. Of course infants cannot commit sin, because knowledge that the act is wrong is needed to commit sin and they clearly do not have that. However, people have often taken this to mean that if infants cannot commit evil, they cannot cooperate with grace either…but I do not believe this is true. Implicit desire is enough. If God’s grace is not impeded, it will go where it will. And since unbaptized infants have not commited mortal sin, if they are going to die before being baptized, God’s grace will surely flow through their soul. Although they are making no positive or conscious act for God on the one hand, they are also presenting no positive barrier on the other, and I think that God’s grace can enter their soul then as easily as in baptism, because they do not make a positive act for God in baptism either, but since they make no positive act Against, they get the graces. And this does not have to be just actual graces, but could be sanctifying grace too if God wants if they die without baptism.

Basically the distinction I would remove is: why should a person who has not been baptized need to make a positive act of good will to be saved by grace in ignorance, while a person recieving grace in baptism merely needs to present no positive impediment in their will…regardless if they make a positive act of faith or good will. If implicit desire is enough to recieve grace in baptism, it would seem to be enough to recieve grace in ignorance. If God’s grace flows through the ordinary channel as long there is no impediment, why should it need positive help to flow through the extraordinary channel.

1. The second small distinction I would remove is this, which frankly is not really even an issue for the Church anymore…only the traditional scholastic theology I was discussing: while recognizing circumcision under the Old Law as a type and foreshadowing of baptism…it should be recognized that niether it nor membership in the Jewish community had any ex opero operanto effect on their souls. Any salvation the Jewish infants recieved when Jesus descended into Limbo to open heaven’s gates and lead them through…they recieved through implicit desire and invincible ignorance as mentioned in part 1. Circumcision or Jewish parentage of the body had nothing to do with whether Christ would remove their soul from Limbo. This same thing makes it possible for non-jewish infants and uncircumsized boys to have been saved too and in the same way…even if the Old Law was God’s normative covenant at the time.

This just gets rid of a lot of complications, makes it so that Christ totally emptied Limbo when he went there, and answers how the unculpable unbaptized can be saved and why they in fact would be. If merely implicit desire is enough to recieve grace in baptism, it should be enough to recieve grace in ignorance.

 

[stanley123]

JimG:

It was always a theological hypothesis–never a doctrine. If we didn’t have a problem with unbaptized old testament figures such as Moses and Adam getting into heaven, why were we worried about infants?

Because, is it not true that the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council of the Church says:

“illorum animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato vel solo originale decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas”

 

[thistle]

batteddy:

So Limbo as a possible state (perfect natural happiness) definitely does exist, it is where Jesus descended to when he died. The real question is if people in Original but not Mortal sin who were born after Jesus still go there, like unbaptized infants?

The Church teaches Jesus descended to Hell when he died, and not Limbo. There is no Limbo mentioned anywhere.

**632 The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was “raised from the dead” presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.478 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.479

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:481 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483

634 "The gospel was preached even to the dead."484 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.

635 Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live."485 Jesus, “the Author of life”, by dying destroyed "him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage."486 Henceforth the risen Christ holds “the keys of Death and Hades”, so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.**

 

[Ghosty]

thistle:

The Church teaches Jesus descended to Hell when he died, and not Limbo. There is no Limbo mentioned anywhere.

**632 The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was “raised from the dead” presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.478 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.479 **

**633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:481 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483 **

**634 "The gospel was preached even to the dead."484 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption. **

635 Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live."485 Jesus, “the Author of life”, by dying destroyed "him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage."486 Henceforth the risen Christ holds “the keys of Death and Hades”, so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.

Hell in the sense of the Creed is the “abode of the Dead”, which is indeed what we today call Limbo. Hell in the sense of the Creed was not the place of Damnation, as the Damned can not be saved; Hell is synonymous with Hades, meaning the place of the dead. The dead in the New Covenant are eternally dead, whereas the dead of the Old where temporally dead. The distinction is very, very important.

Peace and God bless!

 

[thistle]

Ghosty:

Hell in the sense of the Creed is the “abode of the Dead”, which is indeed what we today call Limbo. Hell in the sense of the Creed was not the place of Damnation, as the Damned can not be saved; Hell is synonymous with Hades, meaning the place of the dead. The dead in the New Covenant are eternally dead, whereas the dead of the Old where temporally dead. The distinction is very, very important.

Peace and God bless!

If its so clear that was Limbo then why would there be any need for a Vatican study of it?

 

[Dan-Man916]

Br. Rich SFO:

Scripture says that no unbaptized person can enter the kingdom. The Church teaches that no person who dies with only Original Sin is condemned to Hell. This does not leave much room for opinion.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but the Church has stated in the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 that souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”
This is de fide according to theologian, Dr. Ludwig Ott in his Book, Fundamentals of Catholic dogma.

Now, there may be an extra-sacramental way for infants to have original sin removed so that this infallible proclomation would not apply to them.
However, Tradition doesn’t really say.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Superstar905:

I think, and I may be wrong, but the Child is baptized based on the faith of it’s parents (just like Jesus forgave the sins of the paralyzed man based on the faith of his friends story). So if the parents do not have the faith, then the baptism is irrelvant, as you need faith for baptism, whether it be the actual Childs, or the parents.

Superstar, theologians have talked of this possibility.

In Ludwig Ott’s book, he mentions these:

1)the spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism of blood.

1. Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism such as prayer and the desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism as described by Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death so that the dying child can make a decision for or against God (baptism of desire, H. Klee) or the suffering and death of the child as a quasi-sacrament (baptism of suffering, H Schell).

In these, Ott says that these are indeed possible, but cannot be proved from Revelation.

 

[Superstar905]

batteddy:

It may be permissible to believe that the desire of the parents can save an unbaptized infant, because the Church has made no definition in this matter, but I believe this is silly. Why should the faith of the parents specifically affect the salvation of an independent soul of a seperate individual anymore than anyone else’s faith and hope for that child?

But it is NOT permissible to believe that the baptism would be irrelevant if the parents did not have faith.

Thats true, so i’m wrong there. I suppose though, that since FAITH is necessary for Baptism, and a Child is not yet able to have FAITH, then I suppose the one doing the Baptism’s faith is what’s considered?

I’m not sure on this.

 

[spiritblows]

Well, my opinion, for what little it’s worth, is that God makes sense, and anything that doesn’t make sense is probably not of God. Now, it doesn’t make sense to me that God would send innocent, powerless babies to Hell, or to a place away from him.

Why wouldn’t God want his little creations to grace his Heavenly realms? God is all powerful and he is merciful. Why would he create little babes, knowing full well that many would die unbaptized, then condemn them, just because of some legal glitch? Or why would he send them to some no man’s land where they would not be in his presence? I thought the Church said that even the unborn were fully human and that their lives are valuable?

God is all powerful. Also, he hasn’t made it clear the exact set up to the universe. We don’t have any detailed explanations as to the nature of Heaven and Hell. These things are mysteries. I think Limbo was an attempt by the Church to explain something which really hasn’t been revealed to us. Jesus even told the disciples that there were many things he wasn’t revealing because they weren’t ready for them.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

spiritblows:

Well, my opinion, for what little it’s worth, is that God makes sense, and anything that doesn’t make sense is probably not of God. Now, it doesn’t make sense to me that God would send innocent, powerless babies to Hell, or to a place away from him.

Why wouldn’t God want his little creations to grace his Heavenly realms? God is all powerful and he is merciful. Why would he create little babes, knowing full well that many would die unbaptized, then condemn them, just because of some legal glitch? Or why would he send them to some no man’s land where they would not be in his presence? I thought the Church said that even the unborn were fully human and that their lives are valuable?

God is all powerful. Also, he hasn’t made it clear the exact set up to the universe. We don’t have any detailed explanations as to the nature of Heaven and Hell. These things are mysteries. I think Limbo was an attempt by the Church to explain something which really hasn’t been revealed to us. Jesus even told the disciples that there were many things he wasn’t revealing because they weren’t ready for them.

The Catholic Church DOES NOT and NEVER HAS taught the above. As a matter of record the Catholic Church has declared in two infallible statements (DS) that anyone who dies with only Original sin is NOT condemned to Hell.