What happened to Limbo?

[tonyrey]

First, thanks for all your answers and comments.

Second, I’m going to go ahead and continue to believe in limbo, while understanding that the possibility exists that these souls were saved in a way we cannot understand and not revealed to us by God.

Given God’s infinite love it is more than a mere possibility!

 

[ajpirc]

I entirely agree with you. God is a God of love not a merciless Judge.

God’s love is mercy AND justice. When He says that unless someone will be baptized they won’t be saved, then His justice will treat everyone equally based on if they’ve been baptized or not. But, because God’s love is also mercy, He won’t send an infant that would’ve been impossible to baptize to Hell. His justice and His mercy are one, and in this case, He gave unbaptized infants Limbo.

 

[Will_S]

How do you know that unbaptized children have no desire for baptism when they die?

They are not capable of having the desire for baptism. That is why there are godparents.

Jesus suffered and died for everyone. The infinite power of His love implies that no one will fail to share life with Him in Heaven unless they deliberately reject Him.

You are rejecting the dogma of original sin. It is a de fide teaching of the Church that the souls of the unbaptized who die in original sin only (that is, without actual mortal sin) descend immediately to hell.

“If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, let him be anathema.” – Council of Trent, Session 5

“Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. 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.” – Council of Florence, Session 6

 

[Will_S]

I entirely agree with you. God is a God of love not a merciless Judge.

God is both infinitely loving and infinitely just.

No unbaptized person has any right to Heaven. It is therefore perfectly just for any unbaptized person to be deprived of Heaven.

 

[Will_S]

Actually, no, what they are speaking of is development of doctrine. You might want to read up on that.

The ITC did not develop or teach any doctrine at all. They said, in brief, “since it is not a dogma that unbaptized infants are deprived of Heaven, it is possible to hope that they are not so deprived.”

That’s fine. But to be clear, everything that they Church knows from Divine revelation suggests that unbaptized infants do not go to Heaven.

You are free to hope that unbaptized infants enjoy the Beatific Vision, but you do not know that they do. and if you even believe that unbaptized infants certainly go to Heaven, then what you believe is unsupported by the doctrine of the Church.

 

[Will_S]

Given God’s infinite love it is more than a mere possibility!

Not true. You are assuming that if God loves a soul, He will certainly admit that soul to the Beatific Vision. But in fact God loves the souls in hell, and yet they will suffer unimaginable torments for all eternity, because they do not love God.

If we assume that the souls of unbaptized infants go to Limbo of the Infants, then God, in His love and mercy has prepared a place of perfect natural happiness for them. In fact, Limbo of the Infants is pretty much exactly what most people conceive Heaven to be. Because most people conceive of Heaven in terms of natural joys, while in fact, what makes Heaven is the supernatural joy of the Beatific Vision, which we cannot even imagine at this time.

 

[tonyrey]

             *Given God's infinite love it is more than a mere possibility!*

Incorrect! I believe that God loves everyone but only those who reject His love will be separated from Him.

If we assume that the souls of unbaptized infants go to Limbo of the Infants, then God, in His love and mercy has prepared a place of perfect natural happiness for them. In fact, Limbo of the Infants is pretty much exactly what most people conceive Heaven to be. Because most people conceive of Heaven in terms of natural joys, while in fact, what makes Heaven is the supernatural joy of the Beatific Vision, which we cannot even imagine at this time.

Limbo would entail **the eternal separation of unbaptized infants from their parents **through no fault of their own or their parents…

 

[wanner47]

The ITC did not develop or teach any doctrine at all. They said, in brief, “since it is not a dogma that unbaptized infants are deprived of Heaven, it is possible to hope that they are not so deprived.”

That’s fine. But to be clear, everything that they Church knows from Divine revelation suggests that unbaptized infants do not go to Heaven.

You are free to hope that unbaptized infants enjoy the Beatific Vision, but you do not know that they do. and if you even believe that unbaptized infants certainly go to Heaven, then what you believe is unsupported by the doctrine of the Church.

And everything that the Church *knows *from Divine Revelation also suggests that God can work outside of His own sacraments. It is ALSO not doctrine that unbaptized babies go to Limbo, nor is it doctrine that they go to Hell.

Infants may not have desire to be baptized but they don’t have the desire not to be baptized either. Their parents have that desire for them. I know that in my case, I fully desired and intended to have both of my miscarried babies baptized (as did my husband), had I been able to bring them to term and deliver them live. Therefore, I trust in the mercy of God that He knew our desires and intentions, and honored them, or that He was somehow able to discern the will of our children, had they lived.

I don’t put limits on His power, or His abilities. I simply trust in His mercy.

 

[Will_S]

Incorrect! I believe that God loves everyone but only those who reject His love will be separated from Him.
Limbo would entail **the eternal separation of unbaptized infants from their parents **through no fault of their own or their parents…

Why does that matter?

 

[tonyrey]

And everything that the Church *knows *from Divine Revelation also suggests that God can work outside of His own sacraments. It is ALSO not doctrine that unbaptized babies go to Limbo, nor is it doctrine that they go to Hell.

Infants may not have desire to be baptized but they don’t have the desire not to be baptized either. Their parents have that desire for them. I know that in my case, I fully desired and intended to have both of my miscarried babies baptized (as did my husband), had I been able to bring them to term and deliver them live. Therefore, I trust in the mercy of God that He knew our desires and intentions, and honored them, or that He was somehow able to discern the will of our children, had they lived.

I don’t put limits on His power, or His abilities. I simply trust in His mercy.

Only a legalistic interpretation of baptism could suggest that parents will never be with their children again…

 

[Will_S]

And everything that the Church *knows *from Divine Revelation also suggests that God can work outside of His own sacraments. It is ALSO not doctrine that unbaptized babies go to Limbo, nor is it doctrine that they go to Hell.

Infants may not have desire to be baptized but they don’t have the desire not to be baptized either. Their parents have that desire for them. I know that in my case, I fully desired and intended to have both of my miscarried babies baptized (as did my husband), had I been able to bring them to term and deliver them live. Therefore, I trust in the mercy of God that He knew our desires and intentions, and honored them, or that He was somehow able to discern the will of our children, had they lived.

Nothing wrong with that. But that doesn’t mean they are certainly in Heaven.
If they are in Limbo, then they are experiencing perfect natural happiness such as is not possible in this vale of tears.

 

[Will_S]

Only a legalistic interpretation of baptism could suggest that parents will never be with their children again…

“If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, let him be anathema.” – Council of Trent, Session 5

Read the above: If you say that infants have no need of “being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting”, then you are anathema.

Call it legalistic if you wish, but it is dogma.

 

[wanner47]

Nothing wrong with that. But that doesn’t mean they are certainly in Heaven.
If they are in Limbo, then they are experiencing perfect natural happiness such as is not possible in this vale of tears.

Well, like all parents, I hope for the best for my children. I’d prefer that they have supernatural happiness as opposed to natural.

 

[Ignatius]

Actually, limbo is still a theological speculation, same as it always was. It never was a very well supported speculation.

 

[tonyrey]

“If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, let him be anathema.” – Council of Trent, Session 5

Read the above: If you say that infants have no need of “being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting”, then you are anathema.

Call it legalistic if you wish, but it is dogma.

I am **not **denying the need for baptism but questioning it as a universal principle that even God cannot transcend!.

Wherever there is doubt God’s infinite love should be our guide…

 

[tonyrey]

Well, like all parents, I hope for the best for my children. I’d prefer that they have supernatural happiness as opposed to natural.

I bet you would prefer** to be with them** in Limbo rather than eternally separated from them in heaven!

 

[dsmantz]

If infants are baptized with water based on the faith of their parents, could they not be baptized by desire based on the faith of their parents? Personally, having lost a child through miscarriage, and based on the opinions of several traditional and orthodox priests I’ve chosen to discuss such a personal subject, I will continue to hold on to the hope that I have a son or daughter ready to welcome me into Heave so that we may enjoy the Beatific Vision.

 

[tonyrey]

If infants are baptized with water based on the faith of their parents, could they not be baptized by desire based on the faith of their parents? Personally, having lost a child through miscarriage, and based on the opinions of several traditional and orthodox priests I’ve chosen to discuss such a personal subject, I will continue to hold on to the hope that I have a son or daughter ready to welcome me into Heave so that we may enjoy the Beatific Vision.

I don’t believe even lack of desire on the part of their parents is a good reason for unbaptized infants to be excluded from heaven through no fault of their own.

 

[dsmantz]

I don’t believe even lack of desire on the part of their parents is a good reason for unbaptized infants to be excluded from heaven through no fault of their own.

But, we must understand the doctrine of Original Sin. I do truly believe that baptism is necessary for the Beatific Vision. But, the Church, in Her great understanding of revelation, has defined Baptism by Water, Blood, and Desire. If, when an infant is baptized, and unable to make a profession of faith, it is proceeded upon the faith of their parents and Godparents. I certainly do not see anything standing in the way of baptism by desire, taken in the same faith of the infants parents or Godparents.

 

[Will_S]

Actually, limbo is still a theological speculation, same as it always was. It never was a very well supported speculation.

The Council of Florence stated that all those who die in original sin alone “go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”

So it is well supported that unbaptized infants “go down straightaway to hell to be punished.”

If we then speculate that they, being free from the guilt of actual sin, suffer no punishments of sense, but suffer only the loss of the Beatific Vision (“but with unequal pains”) then we call that Limbo.

Of course you are right that that speculation could be wrong. They could be suffering the torments of Hell, as St. Augustine believed.