What is so objectionable about Limbo?

[Gregory_I]

Why do so many object to limbo? It has been called the “common teaching of the church” in the recent document on the Fate of unbaptized children, and it places them in a place of natural happiness.

I contend that they may be saved, but it will be in the ressurection.

According to "Limbo " in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Some writers, like Savonarola (De triumpho crucis, III, 9) and Catharinus (De statu parvulorum sine bapt. decedentium), added certain details to the current teaching—for example that the souls of unbaptized children will be united to glorious bodies at the Resurrection, and that the renovated earth of which St. Peter speaks (II Pet., iii, 13) will be their happy dwelling-place for eternity.”

I simply stand on these writers and say that God would offer his grace to these children, and since they would be in glorified bodies, they would respond positively, and be admitted to the heavenly jerusalem.

How about it? THis IS Theological speculation, but the basic tenets are built on incotrovertible Catholic dogma. As the Document on the Fate of Unbaptized children states:

“A theological reading of the history of Catholic teaching up to Vatican II shows in particular that three main affirmations which belong to the faith of the Church appear at the core of the problem of the fate of unbaptised infants. (i) God wants all human beings to be saved. (ii) This salvation is given only through participation in Christ’s paschal mystery, that is, through Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, either sacramental or in some other way. Human beings, including infants, cannot be saved apart from the grace of Christ poured out by the Holy Spirit. (iii) Infants ***will not ***enter the Kingdom of God without being freed from original sin by redemptive grace.”

For those who think I am overly old fashioned, this document was written only a few years ago.

Does the position outlined above reasonably solve the problem?

ONe other point I just considered: THe Virtuous pagans could go to limbo as well, since their own visions of the afterlife seem to correspond with the descriptions of limbo:

Perhaps , Just as Christ descended to the Limbo of Fathers and led the dead into heaven, Perhaps in the Ressurection he will descend to the Limbo of the unbaptized, or at least lead those in there out and into heaven: THey will be converted, experience sanctifying grace in the same way as the patriarchs, and be with God.

And everyone is Happy, those who want salvation for the unbaptized, THose who believe in limbo, and the justice that seems to be demanded for the virtuous pagan.

HOw about it?

 

[cajun2core]

“A theological reading of the history of Catholic teaching up to Vatican II shows in particular that three main affirmations which belong to the faith of the Church appear at the core of the problem of the fate of unbaptised infants. (i) God wants all human beings to be saved. (ii) This salvation is given only through participation in Christ’s paschal mystery, that is, through Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, either sacramental or in some other way. Human beings, including infants, cannot be saved apart from the grace of Christ poured out by the Holy Spirit. (iii) Infants ***will not ***enter the Kingdom of God without being freed from original sin by redemptive grace.”

Can you please cite the source for the text above?

 

[Spoken4]

What you are missing, regarding the “virtuous pagans”, is the fact that “ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God”. (Romans 3:23)

Perhaps an infant, who has died before the Age of Reason (knowing right from wrong) or even before taking that first breath, could be cleared of conscious sin and thus enter into Limbo (my assessment of the situation; perhaps someone can correct me or elaborate further). But an adult would have surely sinned in some way-- whether venially or mortally, through commission or omission-- and thus need to receive God’s Forgiveness. None of us are perfect; we all need forgiveness.

In Christ,

~Spoken4

 

[ConstantineTG]

But the Patriarchs were not baptized because there was no baptism before Christ became man. Its different today where there is baptism and the path to heaven has been opened by Christ. So it doesn’t make such sense for the righteous unbaptized to be in an in-between state when Christ has already made it possible for all souls to get to heaven.

 

[cajun2core]

I found the source. It is:

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*

It can be found at:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/itclimbo.HTM
and
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

If you read the whole document, I admit I did not, but there seems to be other options that are presented.

Personally, I would stick with the CCC which states:
1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy and to pray for their salvation.

 

[MaryRuth55]

I have been away from the church for a number of years, but I don’t remember ever being taught about Limbo, purgatory yes, but not limbo. Just what is it supposed to be?

 

[Spoken4]

But the Patriarchs were not baptized because there was no baptism before Christ became man. Its different today where there is baptism and the path to heaven has been opened by Christ. So it doesn’t make such sense for the righteous unbaptized to be in an in-between state when Christ has already made it possible for all souls to get to heaven.

Indeed, the Jewish people had washing ceremonies in order to demonstrate outward iand inward repentance in the preparation for the coming of the Messiah well before the coming of Jesus.

But in first-century Judaism, baptism had a different meaning. In the book of Leviticus, God instructs Jews to cleanse themselves from ritual impurities, contracted through such acts as touching a corpse or a leper. Washing primarily fulfilled the legal requirements of ritual purity so that Jews could sacrifice at the Temple. Later, as “God-fearers” or “righteous” Gentiles expressed their desire to convert to Judaism, priests broadened the rite’s meaning, and along with circumcision, performed baptism as a sign of the covenant given to Abraham. Baptism in its most basic sense, then, is a ritual washing-away of sins.

But then things changed. Jesus the Messiah came to live as, and among, us. But to pave the way, there was John. John himself was baptized. Remember, John baptized many Jews and Gentiles. He also baptized Jesus Himself. Jesus didn’t need to repent…right? So why was He baptized? He was baptized, I believe, to identify himself with that repentant remnant. Thus, Christian baptism is unique unto itself.

If Jesus is perfect, yet was baptized, then shouldn’t we who are imperfect also be baptized? Yes, for as John stated, “I baptize you in water unto penance, but he who shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.” Thus, ever since the baptism of Christ, we are baptized with the water and the Spirit.

What needs to be understood is that there are two “branches” of Limbo. One is the Limbo of the Patriarchs, also referred to in Luke 16:22 as the Bosom of Abraham. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, following early Christian writers, understand this as a temporary state of souls awaiting entrance into Heaven. The end of that state is set either at the resurrection of the dead, the most common interpretation in the East, or at the Harrowing of Hell. Apparently as I am able to understand it, this occurred during the three days between the Crucifixion and the resurrection. In this assault, Jesus freed the souls of the just and escorted them into heaven, and will occur again in the End Times to free those who have not been baptised-- those who live in the other branch of Limbo-- the Limbo of Infants (who died before they were baptized, and who had committed no personal sin).

Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us. 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. The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized, ITC

Thus, we pray for these souls, that they may come to join us, the baptized, in the glory of the Kingdom of God.

In Christ,

~Spoken4

 

[Snugglebugmom]

As I understand it, Limbo is an unofficial teaching of the Church. Meaning Catholics are free to believe in it, but not obligated to. Limbo is a place where a soul can be happy, but separated from God. (How that would make you happy, is beyond me though.)
I think Limbo is a cruel notion. It is hard enough to have lost a child, and without having the consolation that you will see that child again in Heaven it would be infinitely harder.
And for me personally, it doesn’t mesh with my image of God. What would an innocent baby have done to deserve being separated from God? Jesus loved children more than anything. He said:“To such as these belongs the Kingdom of God.” (Luke 18:16). In that light, how does Limbo make sense?

 

[Spoken4]

I have been away from the church for a number of years, but I don’t remember ever being taught about Limbo, purgatory yes, but not limbo. Just what is it supposed to be?

Hi, MaryRuth… here is the definition of Limbo, from the Encyclopedia available here on-site:

Limbo:
Temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ’s triumphant ascension into heaven

In Christ,

~Spoken4

 

[Spoken4]

As I understand it, Limbo is an unofficial teaching of the Church. Meaning Catholics are free to believe in it, but not obligated to. Limbo is a place where a soul can be happy, but separated from God. (How that would make you happy, is beyond me though.)
I think Limbo is a cruel notion. It is hard enough to have lost a child, and without having the consolation that you will see that child again in Heaven it would be infinitely harder.
And for me personally, it doesn’t mesh with my image of God. What would an innocent baby have done to deserve being separated from God? Jesus loved children more than anything. He said:“To such as these belongs the Kingdom of God.” (Luke 18:16). In that light, how does Limbo make sense?

You are not alone in asking this question. Indeed, this has certainly been discussed in previous threads. Here’s one thread in particular that discusses this issue:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=113149

As for the Scripture that you reference, please review the whole passage, and see how it was meant to keep Jesus’ disciples from rebuking those who brought infants and young children to Him for His touch, and also to remind us to be childlike in approaching Him (that is, innocent and unafraid, as children are innocent and unafraid):

Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” Luke 18:15-17

In Christ,

~Spoken4

 

[Corki]

I never really had a problem with the idea of Limbo, especially for infants who did not have a chance to be Baptized.

I lost a child in a miscarriage and it is comforting to think of him in a place of perfect natural happiness. If God, in His mercy, granted him and the other holy innocents entry into the beatific vision, so much the happier.

 

[Gregory_I]

Well, a few points:

Regarding the virtuous pagans: After Christ came, salvation is possible, but the church knows no other means of salvation than baptism. Baptism is necessary. THat’s why they couldn’t just BE in heaven, because they do not have sanctifying grace which is an ABSOLUTE necessity.

Regarding infants: The Church also says that the belief that they just automatically go to heaven because they don’t have original sin is a heresy. It is the belief set forth by the Heretic, pelagius, who denied original sin.

The Church teaches dogmatically that those who die in original sin alone are deprived of the vision of God. It says this at both the Ecumenical council of Lyons, and the Ecumenical Council of Florence.

Only three types of people fall into this category: Infants, Mentally handicapped, and Virtuous Pagans who are invincibly ignorant and seek after the higher call of virtue and seek to mortify the flesh and leave behind selfishness.

Limbo is NOT cruel. The Children in limbo would not be aware of their deprivation of the vision of God, they enjoy a happiness akin to the garden of Eden, and YOU don’t have to worry about looking forward to seeing them again, because your grief cannot thwart heaven’s happiness. Are children what you go to heaven for? If so, your spiritual priorities are misplaced:

Our call is union with Christ, and our union with others is secondary. Christ is to be our all in all and our sole goal aim and desire in getting to heaven. TO want to go for another reason is sentimentay misledl at best, and deluded and spiritually crippling at worst.

SO the Catholic has three Viable options for the unbaptized who die in original sin only:

1. The most popoular is : I don’t know, but I think they’re there somehow anyway because God wants all to be saved. My comment is “No kidding.” Just because GOd wants people to be saved though is not an indication they will be, so, to me, God’s universal salvific will is not really a big factor. The whole Idea of God not being bound by the sacraments is just a cop out: Sure he isn’t bound in the sense that He is greater than the sacraments, but he IS bound to uphold what he establishes and to NOT change and to maintain his nature. Just as a king is bound by the rules he enforces, even though they could make new ones; but there is no evidence God ever made any other lighter requirements for salvation than what the Church has told us.
2. That there is a limbo that consists of Natural happiness but not supernatural happiness. This is fitting in that Children do not deserve to be in the presence of GOd, as they are stained with Original sin which the Church teaches alienates us from the presence of God, and it shows forth his mercy in them not suffering positive eternal torment. They are fortunate to not be in the fires of hell. THis is the Point of view that enjoyed the longest amount of belief, and the Church has called it a “Common doctrine of the church.” Aquinas’s version, which tends to be the standard was taught and believed by the Catholic majority for over 600 years. THis point of View was defended by Pope Pius VI
3. Infant damnation. THis is the least enjoyable one, but many saints held to it, and it is the most LOGICAL conclusion to be drawn from the dogmas without theological hairsplitting. It’s also the most repugnant. However, Augustine Basically said that the infants in hell suffer the lightest of punishments, and basically reacted with this against pelagius. This is a legitimate Catholic opinion that was defended by three different Popes. The popes (Paul III, Benedict XIV, Clement XIII) defended the right of Catholics to teach Augustine’s stern view that infants dying with original sin alone are damned and punished with the perpetual torment of the fire of hell, though with the “mildest pain” (Augustine) compared with what was suffered by adults who were punished for their mortal sins.

According to the Document on the Fate of unbaptized Children:

“26. Augustine’s thought enjoyed a revival in the 16th century, and with it his theory regarding the fate of unbaptised infants, as Robert Bellarmine, for example, bears witness.[51] One consequence of this revival of Augustinianism was Jansenism. Together with Catholic theologians of the Augustinian school, the Jansenists vigorously opposed the theory of Limbo. During this period the popes (Paul III, Benedict XIV, Clement XIII)[52] defended the right of Catholics to teach Augustine’s stern view that infants dying with original sin alone are damned and punished with the perpetual torment of the fire of hell, though with the “mildest pain” (Augustine) compared with what was suffered by adults who were punished for their mortal sins. On the other hand, when the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786) denounced the medieval theory of “Limbo”, Pius VI defended the right of the Catholic Schools to teach that those who died with the guilt of original sin alone are punished with the lack of the Beatific Vision (“punishment of loss”), but not sensible pains (the punishment of “fire”).”

 

[Gregory_I]

Snugglebugmom:

A CHild born in Mortal Sin does not deserve heaven. TO believe they do is the Heresy of Pelagius. If infants DO get to heaven, they have to receive sanctifying grace. Problem is, the church does not acknowledge any other means to receive grace than baptism.

 

[laszlo]

John XXII 1316-1334
Hell and Limbo(?)
493a It (The Roman Church) teaches. that the souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places.

PIUS VI 1775-1799
Errors of the Synod of Pistoia
1526 26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,–false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. [C.Errors] about the Sacraments, and First about the Sacramental Form with a Condition Attached [Baptism, sec. 12]

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION. THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*
The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

This is about the limbo of infants, and that always was considered theological opinion only. We get no revelation whatsoever who is damned.

There was the patriarch’s limbo, where Jesus descended and what Jesus obsoleted. After his death everyone goes to the heaven or purgatory or hell, the purgatory being transit to heaven.

 

[Gregory_I]

" That whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered a sin, is hereby condemned as
error."
Pope Innocent II

 

[Shiranui117]

Snugglebugmom:

A CHild born in Mortal Sin does not deserve heaven. TO believe they do is the Heresy of Pelagius. If infants DO get to heaven, they have to receive sanctifying grace. Problem is, the church does not acknowledge any other means to receive grace than baptism.

Are you confusing original sin and mortal sin? Mortal sin implies committing a grave act with the knowledge that such act is against God’s will. Sure, we are all tainted by Original Sin and do not deserve Heaven, but damning an unbaptized infant to Limbo who has done nothing wrong and is merely born into a fallen human nature is legalistic and almost seems to me to deny the mercy of God. Just because we receive grace in Baptism doesn’t mean that Baptism is the only way God can remove any debt we have incurred. You are limiting God’s mercy to the Sacraments. God is so far more powerful than that.

 

[Spoken4]

I have a sister who died before she could ever be baptized. Well, I say that-- as the state of the medical art wasn’t as advanced as it is today, and it’s possible that there was still the tiniest spark of life remaining. Either way, it was known that she was dying soon after birth. Despite summoning a priest to administer an emergency baptism, she died (according to the doctor, who couldn’t detect a heartbeat-- but had no means to check for brain electrical activity) before the priest could make it to her. The priest baptised anyway… “If there is a chance that life, no matter how fleeting, is still in this child, I baptize in the Name of the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit…”

This is why emergency baptisms exist, for we don’t know the precise moment when the soul has departed.

It’s also good to know that, in an EMERGENCY, a layperson can baptize! Even a non-Catholic or non-Christian.

“If the ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or some other person deputed to this office by the local Ordinary, may lawfully confer baptism; indeed, in a case of necessity, any person who has the requisite intention may do so” (canon 861 §2).

All that is required is that the person baptizing:

*Intend to do what the Catholic Church does in this sacrament
*Pour water upon the head (ordinary tap water is fine in an emergency)
*Say audibly the words of Baptism while pouring water, similar to: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

These are words that every Catholic should know as well as he knows his own name. Someone’s eternal salvation may one day depend upon the knowing of these words.

If the person receiving emergency Baptism is of the age of reason (at least seven years old or so), then they must have the necessary faith to receive Baptism:

*Faith in God the Blessed Trinity as the rewarder of the just and the punisher of the wicked and in Jesus Christ as God’s own Son and our Redeemer

*The willingness to accept all that the Catholic Church teaches

Hopefully, none of us will ever have to administer an emergency Baptism, but we do have the “power” to do so if necessary.

I believe that Maureen is in Heaven, by virtue of her Baptism in the faith of the priest who admministered the Sacrament, but if by some “technicality” she is not, and is in Limbo, I take solace in knowing that she’s in a happy place free of punishment and sorrow, that God set aside for souls like hers. Only God knows for sure, and He is All-Knowing. I also believe that she, and all pure souls, will be in Heaven someday-- I pray for those souls.

In Christ,

~Spoken4

 

[Snugglebugmom]

Snugglebugmom:

A CHild born in Mortal Sin does not deserve heaven. TO believe they do is the Heresy of Pelagius. If infants DO get to heaven, they have to receive sanctifying grace. Problem is, the church does not acknowledge any other means to receive grace than baptism.

I am quoting just this post, but I have a big problem with all of your posts on this thread. Are you a parent? Probably not, huh? You have no idea how cruel your words are, and I hope you will never have to see it from my point of view.
With that said, I am bowing out of this discussion. It has hurt my heart, and an online forum is just not worth that.

 

[Spoken4]

I am quoting just this post, but I have a big problem with all of your posts on this thread. Are you a parent? Probably not, huh? You have no idea how cruel your words are, and I hope you will never have to see it from my point of view.
With that said, I am bowing out of this discussion. It has hurt my heart, and an online forum is just not worth that.

Yes, I for one am a parent. I, too, have lost more than one child to miscarriage, and have another child, a son who is now 25 years old. I take comfort knowing that once Christ makes His triumphant return, ALL souls who are now separated will be joined with us and the rest of the Saints in Heaven for all eternity. Until that day comes, I pray for them. I will pray for you and yours, as well.

Perhaps we do see things differently, though, despite us both being parents and we have both lost a child to miscarriage. We are both human children of God-- emphasis on the “human”.

My deepest condolences to you…

In Christ’s Love,

~Spoken4

:hug1:

 

[Gregory_I]

I have been married four years and have two girls, and a third (hopefully) on the way. I am a parent.

BUt the truth is bigger than my feelings.

GOd is my all in all, and GOd says heed the church, so I will put my wishes aside and listen to the voice of Christ on earth. And it says:

The guilt of Adam’s sin is transmitted to all of his posterity – each of us is conceived with the guilt of Adam as one’s own;

o Each of us is justly punished in body and soul for Adam’s sin, the guilt of which we have as our own – thus we are subject to bodily and mental suffering, temporal death and damnation; our intellect is darkened, particularly with regard to spiritual and ethical matters and our will is weakened and debased in its operations;

o Each of us is due eternal punishment for that sin in the fires of hell – we bear the guilt of Adam’s actual sin which, given the state of Adam, merits such sufferings;

o Only through the merits of Christ’s passion, applied to us through baptism or its desire can this guilt be erased – and only through baptism, and perhaps through its desire, can we be spared eternal torment.

If infants are in Limbo, it is good.

If they are in hell, it is good.

If they are in heaven, it is good.

Why?

Because God is the Author of Good, and has allowed these things to be: He is sovereign and his will is what directs the universe. THerefore I can rest in whatever fate awaits infants.

We are mistaken to apply our ideas of Good to God: THat’s putting the cart before the Horse. Anything that God does is good, even if it makes our hearts queasy.

I did not mean to hurt anyone’s feelings, but I do not speak on my own Authority, I speak of the Church’s authority, and I repeat what the Church and her theologians who are faithful to the magisterium have said.

I do not wish to be without charity.

But I equally do not wish to be deluded by wishful thinking.

THerefore I say, in as charitable a way as possible:

St. Paul stated the fact in his Epistle to the Romans (5:12).

“By one man sin entered into this world (and by sin death and so death passed upon all men) in whom all have sinned.”

Council of Trent: “If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam – which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, is in each one **as his own **– is taken away by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.” (Session Five)

Council of Trent: “If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death and the punishments of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema.”

Original sin is as our own sin.

NO infant is innocent, and no infant deserves heaven, because they are tainted with original sin, meaning they are born spiritually dead, which is what seperates man from the vision of God.

That part is dogmatic fact, in terms of after their birth. THe hard part is what happens if the unbaptized infant dies?

Well…Catechism of Trent (THe catechism that was binding on all the faithful before the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic church, so up to 1992!): “Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all posterity. To remedy the evil and repair the loss it became necessary that the Son of God should remove the infinite weight of sin and reconcile us to God in His blood.” (1, 2, 2)

And another doctrine of Faith: The councils of Lyons II and Florence both indicated that those who die with original sin only, such as unbaptised infants, are punished for the guilt of original sin. The councils wrote as follows.

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate [disparibus] punishments.”

Take all these things together, add a dash of salt, let it simmer a couple hundred years and you get limbo.

Once again, I am not sorry for sharing my views which are founded on church dogma, but I AM sorry if I hurt feelings. THIs is a sensitive topic I understand and…well…if you can’t stand the fire…

No pun intended.

Oh, yeah, I meant a child born in original sin is not worthy of heaven.

But that is our world people, this is the warfare we face: It’s unfair and cruel and you can blame adam and the devil, but we now have to deal with what God has allowed.