What happened to Limbo?

[Will_S]

Ok but they’re based on the same concept of eternal happiness but without God, right?

Also, what about one that hasn’t been baptized, but is not an infant?

Limbo of the Fathers was a place of waiting, where the souls of the just awaited the Redeemer because the gates of Heaven were closed.

Anyone below the age of reason (that is, who has committed no actual sin) is considered an infant.

 

[ajpirc]

Babies in danger of death, even those not yet fully born, are to be baptized with water poured on any available part of their skin.

After an abortion, the baby is dead, so last rites are of no value. And furthermore, unless there is a means of sanctification which has not been divinely revealed to the Church, aborted babies are deprived of Heaven. That is, in my opinion, exactly why the devil has worked so hard to make this immense crime acceptable.

I think you’re getting somewhere with this!

God doesn’t just dislike abortion because it’s murder, He hates it because it deprives babies of their salvation. Satan knows how hard it is to baptize someone that’s inside another person; so if he can kill them in the womb, then they won’t spend eternal happiness with God. It’s more than murder, it’s the loss of salvation!

 

[Shin]

“The common teaching of the scholastic theologians is the within the earth there are four inner chambers: one for the damned, another for those being purged of sin, a third for those infants who have died without receiving Baptism, and a fourth which is now empty but once held those just men who died before the passion of Christ.”

St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church

All these places are at times spoken of generally as ‘Hell’, because (one would think) they are not Heaven. Without the beatific vision, without sanctifying grace, without baptism – no Heaven in the afterlife.

In the Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden, God says “they go instead to a place that it is not permitted for you to know but where they will live without suffering.” and in another place He says, “Just as the sun shining into a house is not seen as it is in its beauty - only those who look into the sky see its rays - so too the souls of such children, though they do not see my face for lack of baptism, are nevertheless closer to my mercy than to punishment, but not in the same way as my elect.”

He also makes the statement that it is a mercy that those who have not any virtue can go to Heaven at all, via baptism.

“'But consider my goodness and mercy! For, as the teacher says, I give virtue to those who do not have any virtue. By reason of my great love I give the kingdom of heaven to all of the baptized who die before reaching the age of discretion. As it is written: It has pleased my Father to give the kingdom of heaven to such as these.”

 

[Shin]

I think you’re getting somewhere with this!

God doesn’t just dislike abortion because it’s murder, He hates it because it deprives babies of their salvation. Satan knows how hard it is to baptize someone that’s inside another person; so if he can kill them in the womb, then they won’t spend eternal happiness with God. It’s more than murder, it’s the loss of salvation!

Yes, this is basically what Pope Sixtus V said about it.

 

[ricmat]

So then what would be the reason for the Church, her sacraments, good works, and the rest of the requirements for salvation if all I have to do is accept Christ’s love?

The sacraments, good works, etc. are things Jesus told us to do. You know that. So if you know it, and refuse to do it, is that actually accepting Christ’s love?

 

[wanner47]

Read The Hope of Salvation for Children Who Die without Being Baptized. It thoroughly explains the history of the theory of Limbo, the arguments for and against it, and why it has fallen out of favor as a popular theory.

An excerpt, from the conclusion:

Within the hope that the Church bears for the whole of humanity and wants to proclaim afresh to the world of today, is there a hope for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism? We have carefully re-considered this complex question, with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the Church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today. Reflecting within the one tradition of faith that unites the Church through the ages, and relying utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead his followers “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13), we have sought to read the signs of the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel. Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).

What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.

 

[Shin]

Keep in mind the ITC is simply that, a commission of people who express opinions…

On the other hand in favor of it… we have… quite a good deal. Quite a history…

Here’s a good sermon that deals with the ITC document.
ITC part starts at 6:45 in, if you’re not interested in the other subject.

 

[wanner47]

Keep in mind the ITC is simply that, a commission of people who express opinions…

On the other hand in favor of it… we have… quite a good deal. Quite a history…

Here’s a good sermon that deals with the ITC document.
ITC part starts at 6:45 in, if you’re not interested in the other subject.

The Pope fully agrees with the findings of this particular ITC, and if you actually read the document, you’ll find that they give the history of Limbo a *thorough *treatment.

 

[Shin]

I have actually read the document, which is what makes the conclusion quite out of thin air all the more amazing.

 

[wanner47]

I have actually read the document, which is what makes the conclusion quite out of thin air all the more amazing.

I assumed you hadn’t read it, given that you also stated that the ITC did not in fact cover the history of Limbo… which they did.

I don’t think their conclusion was pulled out of thin air; I think it followed a very logical progression of points.

Pope Benedict also did not think the ITC “pulled their conclusion out of thin air”; do you style yourself smarter than the Pope?

 

[Shin]

Are you sure you want to put your last post to me quite that way?

 

[Will_S]

An excerpt, from the conclusion:

The important point to notice in this excerpt is the sentence “We have carefully re-considered this complex question, with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the Church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today.”

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the ITC meant to say approximately:

“We recognize that the entire historical theology of the Church doubted (at best) the salvation of unbaptized infants, but people these days don’t want to hear that, so we will choose to pretend that we know something the Fathers of Church didn’t.”

 

[Will_S]

I should add, once again, that I agree that one may always hope for the salvation of any person, including unbaptized infants, but to assume their salvation is erroneous.

 

[lauraabarlow]

That is one thing I miss with being with the baptist faith-that the children before the age of accountability goes to heaven, no matter what for they are innocent and had no chance to choose. I personally would have a tough time being a christian if God sent unbaptized babies/aborted babies to hell-I really would. I just cannot in good conscience and holding on to that biblical passage of Jesus declaring the kingdom of God belonging to the little children imagine God condemning the little ones to hell, as the early church fathers/st augustine taught-it just goes against Jesus holding the little ones dear to Him-in fact-I believe that God does make a special provision for special circumstances as this.

 

[tonyrey]

It is not unjust because every person is conceived in original sin and thus has no right to Heaven. When a person has no right to Heaven, it is entirely just for them to not go to Heaven. It is sanctifying grace, which we received through baptism, that gives us the right to go to Heaven.

It is a de fide teaching of the Church that all those who die in original sin along (i.e. no actual sin) descend immediately to hell. It is also a de fide teaching of the Church that, the only divinely revealed way to remove original sin is Baptism, or the desire therefore.

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

BUT, the fact that divine revelation has not revealed to us any way that unbaptized infants can be saved does not mean that God will not act to save these unbaptized souls anyway. Therefore it is permissible to hope that He does so. However, to claim to be certain that unbaptized infants go to Heaven is an error.

It is impossible to be certain that any particular person goes to Heaven, whether baptized or not!

St. Augustine and other early Fathers believed that unbaptized infants suffered eternal torments in Hell. St. Thomas Aquinas and other medieval scholastics believed that unbaptized infants enjoyed a state of natural happiness, lacking only the Beatific Vision, which they called “Limbo of the Infants”.

Personally, I do not think that unbaptized infants attain Heaven. The historical opinion of the Church speaks against it.

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.

 

[tonyrey]

That is one thing I miss with being with the baptist faith-that the children before the age of accountability goes to heaven, no matter what for they are innocent and had no chance to choose. I personally would have a tough time being a christian if God sent unbaptized babies/aborted babies to hell-I really would. I just cannot in good conscience and holding on to that biblical passage of Jesus declaring the kingdom of God belonging to the little children imagine God condemning the little ones to hell, as the early church fathers/st augustine taught-it just goes against Jesus holding the little ones dear to Him-in fact-I believe that God does make a special provision for special circumstances as this.

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

 

[wanner47]

Are you sure you want to put your last post to me quite that way?

Yes. I’m curious as to if you think you are smarter than the Pope. Do you?

 

[wanner47]

The important point to notice in this excerpt is the sentence “We have carefully re-considered this complex question, with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the Church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today.”

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the ITC meant to say approximately:

“We recognize that the entire historical theology of the Church doubted (at best) the salvation of unbaptized infants, but people these days don’t want to hear that, so we will choose to pretend that we know something the Fathers of Church didn’t.”

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

Personally, I like St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s opinion:

“Your faith spoke for this child. Baptism for this child was only delayed by time. Your faith suffices. The waters of your womb — were they not the waters of life for this child? Look at your tears. Are they not like the waters of baptism? Do not fear this. God’s ability to love is greater than our fears. Surrender everything to God.”

 

[Paxvobis]

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.

 

[TomD123]

I should add, once again, that I agree that one may always hope for the salvation of any person, including unbaptized infants, but to assume their salvation is erroneous.

I’m pretty sure this would be considered the official teaching of the Church.