What happened to Limbo and where do aborted babies go?

[Marc_Anthony]

People didn’t go to Limbo before Christ, they went to the Bosom of Abraham, a part of the Land of the Dead (Hades), which is a different concept than Limbo.

I believe another term for the Bosom of Abraham is the Limbo of the Just, actually.

Limbo is an eternity of nothingness, which I guess could leave one with a sense of happiness and calm.

Since when? I’ve never heard of that before. I’ve always heard of it referred to as a place of happiness and peace set up by God, merely separate from Him. Technically Hell, yes, but not a place of torture or even a place of unhappiness. Never heard “nothingness” before except in cartoons and TV shows.

Hades was split into the Bosom of Abraham and what we would consider Hell. A large chasm separated the two. After Jesus died, he went into the Bosom of Abraham and preached to the souls there to get them to go with him to Heaven. Jesus then came back to Earth and finished up his business before he Ascended to our Father in Heaven.

Yep.

 

[Corki]

Since when? I’ve never heard of that before. I’ve always heard of it referred to as a place of happiness and peace set up by God, merely separate from Him. Technically Hell, yes, but not a place of torture or even a place of unhappiness. Never heard “nothingness” before except in cartoons and TV shows.

I remember the dear sisters explaining Limbo as a place of natural happiness but without the beatific vision. They also taught us that the worst pain of hell was the knowledge that one is forever separated from God. The souls in Limbo are ignorant of the separation and experience no pain from their exclusion from the beatific vision. But no mention of “nothingness”.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I remember the dear sisters explaining Limbo as a place of natural happiness but without the beatific vision. They also taught us that the worst pain of hell was the knowledge that one is forever separated from God. The souls in Limbo are ignorant of the separation and experience no pain from their exclusion from the beatific vision. But no mention of “nothingness”.

I guess it’s more like since they’re happy they have no concept of the immense joy they’re missing out on-and if they’re happy, why should they?

The souls in Hell are tortured because they CHOSE their fate, and have nobody to blame but themselves, making them eternally jealous and miserable.

In my head this makes sense.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Also, for what it’s worth, my Theology teacher who I respect very much and is one of the two smartest people I’ve ever met (the other being my Uncle) personally did not believe in Limbo of the Infants (he taught us the correct teaching of course, that they are entrusted to the mercy of God, and he believed you were allowed to believe in Limbo of the Infants. He just personally didn’t believe it).

He described it as a “sort of amusement park” for the children. From my learning on Thomism, I personally think that’s an unfair characterization, but he’s older, much smarter, and much wiser than me.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Limbo means “fringe”, so it is part of another place.

The Magisterium does teach that there is a limbo of Purgatory, also called the limbo of the Fathers. This can be thought of as an upper level of purgatory where souls are no longer suffering for their sins, but are waiting for heaven. (Pope Benedict XII, On the Beatific Vision of God.)

The Magisterium also teaches that there is a limbo of Hell, a part of Hell where there is the least suffering. Souls there suffer only from the deprivation of Heaven, not any active punishments. The souls who die in original sin only go there. (Council of Lyons II, Council of Florence).

Limbo as a third final destination was a theological opinion that has fallen out of favor with most persons. The ordinary non-infallible Magisterium did at one time teach this idea (e.g. the 1949 Revised Edition of the Baltimore Catechism, n. 3). But the Magisterium no longer teaches it. The non-infallible teachings of the ordinary Magisterium are non-irreformable; they can change.

The CCC teaches that only those souls that commit an actual mortal sin and refuse to repent go to Hell. 1037 “God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.”

But the Councils of Florence and Lyons II taught that persons who die in mortal sin or in ‘original sin only’ go to Hell. How can we reconcile these two teachings?

The sin of dying in ‘original sin only’ is the actual mortal sin of omission of never having found sanctifying grace in this life (baptism by water, or desire, or blood) despite ample opportunity. Prenatals, infants and young children who die without baptism do not die in original sin only. (None of the definitions of doctrine on this topic say that they do.) They receive a baptism of blood, just like the Holy Innocents, and so they die in a state of grace and go to Heaven.

If prenatals who die in the womb went to Hell, then that would be tantamount to predestination to Hell, since no baptism of water is possible in the womb. Such a claim contradicts the Magisterial teaching on the universal salvific will of God.

Ron-

This reply is beautiful! Thanks so much…very concise and answers my original questions perfectly.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The sin of dying in ‘original sin only’ is the actual mortal sin of omission of never having found sanctifying grace in this life (baptism by water, or desire, or blood) despite ample opportunity. Prenatals, infants and young children who die without baptism do not die in original sin only. (None of the definitions of doctrine on this topic say that they do.) They receive a baptism of blood, just like the Holy Innocents, and so they die in a state of grace and go to Heaven.

If prenatals who die in the womb went to Hell, then that would be tantamount to predestination to Hell, since no baptism of water is possible in the womb. Such a claim contradicts the Magisterial teaching on the universal salvific will of God.

That is absolutely misleading and (unintentionally, I’m sure) dishonest. You’re trying to make it out as if we “know” unbaptized babies end up in Heaven, but that simply isn’t the case.

Technically Limbo of the Infants IS a part of Hell (anybody who has ever said otherwise is uneducated on the matter) but it is the part of Hell with no suffering or torture and every natural happiness allowed.

It’s very dangerous to tell people that unbaptized infants “have to” go to Heaven or it’s contrary to the Magisterium’s teaching that they don’t. We do NOT know that-we only know that they’re entrusted to the mercy of God, and any number of theories can be used to speculate on what that means. But they are THEORIES-not teachings.

This leads to the conclusion that baptism of infants is not necessary-something we Catholics do NOT believe!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The sin of dying in ‘original sin only’ is the actual mortal sin of omission of never having found sanctifying grace in this life (baptism by water, or desire, or blood) despite ample opportunity.

This is the first time I’ve ever heard such a definition of Original Sin. Can you back this up with official teaching?

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Well…yeesh! Now I’m more confused than before!

 

[sw85]

This is the first time I’ve ever heard such a definition of Original Sin. Can you back this up with official teaching?

I second that. It is extremely specious and borderline Pelagian. The Church has never to my knowledge referred to “the sin of dyign in original sin only” as if it were a thing different than original sin. Nor do the Council documents from Lyons or Florence. They speak only of “those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone.”

If you want to deny the necessity of baptism, go right ahead, but let’s not insert material into the Magisterium that doesn’t exist.

 

[johnnyjones]

The existence of limbo is not a Catholic doctrine. However, it has been believed that there must be a limbo. Where did good people go when they died before Christ came? They could not go to heaven. It was often said when I was young that baptized babies go to limbo, which was a place of perfect natural happiness. The simple fact that the subject, limbo, does not come up now is no reason for saying it cannot be said to exist. I don’t hear people speaking of the country of Senegal, but that does not mean it doesn’t exist.
However, the idea that unbaptized bapies go to limbo was never Catholic doctrine, If you believe that, because of the goodness of God, they go to heaven, you are prefectly free to believe that.

Abrahams Bossom was the term used as to where departed souls go before Christ.

 

[rfournier103]

Let’s look at this logically…

Let’s suppose you MUST be baptized to get into Heaven.

Now, if a baby is MURDERED at the hands of it’s mother, -]China/-] an evil foreign government, or some other catastrophe occurs; wouldn’t God in His all-knowing wisdom take that into account? A baby died through no fault of his/her own, and there was NEVER a chance at baptism. Our God can not be so unreasonable, unloving, and merciless, as to condemn an unborn child. I just don’t see how that can happen.

If life begins at conception, and this life is ended so suddenly that there can be no baptism, that HAS to be taken into account.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Let’s look at this logically…

Let’s suppose you MUST be baptized to get into Heaven.

Now, if a baby is MURDERED at the hands of it’s mother, -]China/-] an evil foreign government, or some other catastrophe occurs; wouldn’t God in His all-knowing wisdom take that into account? A baby died through no fault of his/her own, and there was NEVER a chance at baptism. Our God can not be so unreasonable, unloving, and merciless, as to condemn an unborn child. I just don’t see how that can happen.

If life begins at conception, and this life is ended so suddenly that there can be no baptism, that HAS to be taken into account.

Nobody’s saying it isn’t taken into account; the two theories are limbo and Heaven, but they’re both THEORIES-theological opinions. We don’t KNOW anything at all except that God is merciful, and we’re meant to trust in that.

Anything after that is speculation.

 

[M-Dent]

Pretty heavy stuff from the super knowlegable traditional cathlics on that site.

Here’s the reflection on this question by some other ‘knowledgeable traditional Catholics’.

 

[atheistgirl]

It was never a magisterial teaching.

Nevertheless it was adhered to as a teaching by priests and Bishops, who denied thousands of parents a Christian burial for their children who died before Baptism, and many parents have suffered horribly as a result.

Watch all four parts of this documentary - it highlights the unimaginable pain these parents were put through.

youtube.com/watch?v=uTudSo6s_VU

Sarah x

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Nevertheless it was adhered to as a teaching by priests and Bishops, who denied thousands of parents a Christian burial for their children who died before Baptism, and many parents have suffered horribly as a result.

Watch all four parts of this documentary - it highlights the unimaginable pain these parents were put through.

youtube.com/watch?v=uTudSo6s_VU

Sarah x

What’s your point? Catholics in general never denied that people in the Church did horrible things in the past (and now for that matter). I certainly don’t, anyway. I don’t really see how this is relevant to the fact that Limbo was never made an official teaching.

 

[atheistgirl]

I don’t really see how this is relevant to the fact that Limbo was never made an official teaching.

I see it as relevant because I am left wondering why these priests and Bishops, knowing that this was not a magesterial teaching, still denied these children a Christian burial in consecrated grounds.

As men of God, who’s mission is surely to bring all to God and do all they can to ensure all get to heaven, why wouldn’t they give these children a Christian burial and tell the parents, don’t worry about Limbo, it’s not an official teaching.

I suspect that while it is claimed not to be an ‘‘official’’ teaching, in fact it was, in all but name, because I can’t understand the actions of these priests and Bishops of the time. After all, why didn’t the various Bishops stop priests from refusing these Christian burials to these tragic parents - it was done with their approval, yet they don’t seem to have ever been horrified at the numbers involved.

Sarah x

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I see it as relevant because I am left wondering why these priests and Bishops, knowing that this was not a magesterial teaching, still denied these children a Christian burial in consecrated grounds.

As men of God, who’s mission is surely to bring all to God and do all they can to ensure all get to heaven, why wouldn’t they give these children a Christian burial and tell the parents, don’t worry about Limbo, it’s not an official teaching.

I suspect that while it is claimed not to be an ‘‘official’’ teaching, in fact it was, in all but name, because I can’t understand the actions of these priests and Bishops of the time. After all, why didn’t the various Bishops stop priests from refusing these Christian burials to these tragic parents - it was done with their approval, yet they don’t seem to have ever been horrified at the numbers involved.

Sarah x

Yeah, it was horrible. Not denying that. But it was never an OFFICIAL teaching.

 

[William_C]

Please tell me the aborted babied go to heaven.

Has the teaching about Limbo been abandoned? Is there still a Limbo?

What’s to preclude them from being saved by grace alone?

 

[snarflemike]

I see it as relevant because I am left wondering why these priests and Bishops, knowing that this was not a magesterial teaching, still denied these children a Christian burial in consecrated grounds.

As men of God, who’s mission is surely to bring all to God and do all they can to ensure all get to heaven, why wouldn’t they give these children a Christian burial and tell the parents, don’t worry about Limbo, it’s not an official teaching.

I suspect that while it is claimed not to be an ‘‘official’’ teaching, in fact it was, in all but name, because I can’t understand the actions of these priests and Bishops of the time. After all, why didn’t the various Bishops stop priests from refusing these Christian burials to these tragic parents - it was done with their approval, yet they don’t seem to have ever been horrified at the numbers involved.

Even the rather stiff-necked Baltimore Catechism makes it clear that limbo is not a teaching, just a theory.

There is a theory, which I tend to believe, that American Catholicism is largely Irish Catholicism, and Irish Catholicism, for various reasons, is a very fire-and-brimstone variety. So maybe there’s more limbo in American Catholicism than in worldwide Catholicism.

 

[atheistgirl]

Yeah, it was horrible. Not denying that. But it was never an OFFICIAL teaching.

I know, I’m really clear about and fully understand it was never an official teaching from the magisterium.

But there are a lot of questions I would be asking, and demanding answers for, were I a Catholic mother whose child’s remains are lying along the border of a field somewhere, unmarked, because the priests and Bishops adhered to, and enforced on parents, something that was never an official teaching.

Did you watch the video?

Truely heartbreaking.

Sarah x