What is so objectionable about Limbo?

[Iotaunum]

True, that is why while I personally believe that the infants may be saved somehow, I know that this is only speculation that could very well be incorrect.

"Not for adults. Desire is sufficient in some instances, therefore, is it possible that there be some form of baptism of desire for the infants?"

  - I do see what you are saying. This seems to be the main line of argument against Limbo. However, I don't see a connection between an adult who is capable of desire "voto" and an infant incapable of it. Whether there is some other form or not, it would still have to be based upon the idea that the infant "desires" or wills it in some way. I know of no Church Father, doctor of the Church, Saint, Pope, or Council etc who presented a theory such as this. ( I may be wrong) The vast majority of theologians traditionally have held to Limbo, although disagreeing with the "punishments" or lack thereof. When holding opinions therefore, I think it is best to hold to what the Church traditionally has held: unless of course there is something of greater dogmatic weight which contraditcts it. But without such an argument, I think it would be rash, to say the least, to reject it outright.

"EENS has been completely watered down but being too literal is also an error, I quoted earlier the Catechism of St. Pius X on this. I defiantly think that the CCC does a poor job at explaining EENS and the Baltimore Catechism and St. Pope Pius X Catechism do a pretty good job. "

                  - I agree. The "exception" has become the rule somuchso that Hell should be empty! Every modern funeral also seems to be a minature "canonisation".

---

“I could see the infants being deprived because of origianal sin but why would God not give these children some chance to have the beatific vision as he gives all other humans a chance.”***
- I think this goes back to the idea that God "owes" us nothing. Moral theologians have discussed for centuries how if God were to take away Heaven or the chance of it, or second chances etc - He would still be perfect in His Justice, given that we have no claim on what He offered freely. Besides, the idea of Limbo is not in anyway against the mercy and Justice of God. If it were, it could not have been the common consensus of the most worty of theologians for so long. The Souls who go their would not "know" what Chance they had missed (i.e. the Beatific Vision), and would be in a state of natural happiness for eternity. This is Mercy beyond justice, given that the souls did nothing to merit it, though they did nothing to merit punishment either. To think of Limbo as a punishment is to misconstrue it entirely.

 

[Lormar]

Pardon me for butting in, but I do have a question.

Let me preface it by saying that in my pre-Vatican II religious training as well as in the Baltimore Catechisms we used, Limbo was taught.

If Limbo does not exist, and if aborted babies go straight to Heaven, then how can anyone think that Satan is behind abortion? Would Satan want the souls of every single aborted baby in Heaven for all eternity enjoying the Beatific Vision?

 

[Robert_Burns]

"Not for adults. Desire is sufficient in some instances, therefore, is it possible that there be some form of baptism of desire for the infants?"

  - I do see what you are saying. This seems to be the main line of argument against Limbo. However, I don't see a connection between an adult who is capable of desire "voto" and an infant incapable of it. Whether there is some other form or not, it would still have to be based upon the idea that the infant "desires" or wills it in some way. I know of no Church Father, doctor of the Church, Saint, Pope, or Council etc who presented a theory such as this. ( I may be wrong) The vast majority of theologians traditionally have held to Limbo, although disagreeing with the "punishments" or lack thereof. When holding opinions therefore, I think it is best to hold to what the Church traditionally has held: unless of course there is something of greater dogmatic weight which contraditcts it. But without such an argument, I think it would be rash, to say the least, to reject it outright.

"EENS has been completely watered down but being too literal is also an error, I quoted earlier the Catechism of St. Pius X on this. I defiantly think that the CCC does a poor job at explaining EENS and the Baltimore Catechism and St. Pope Pius X Catechism do a pretty good job. "

                  - I agree. The "exception" has become the rule somuchso that Hell should be empty! Every modern funeral also seems to be a minature "canonisation".

---

“I could see the infants being deprived because of origianal sin but why would God not give these children some chance to have the beatific vision as he gives all other humans a chance.”***

          - I think this goes back to the idea that God "owes" us nothing. Moral theologians have discussed for centuries how if God were to take away Heaven or the chance of it, or second chances etc - He would still be perfect in His Justice, given that we have no claim on what He offered freely. Besides, the idea of Limbo is not in anyway against the mercy and Justice of God. If it were, it could not have been the common consensus of the most worty of theologians for so long. The Souls who go their would not "know" what Chance they had missed (i.e. the Beatific Vision), and would be in a state of natural happiness for eternity. This is Mercy beyond justice, given that the souls did nothing to merit it, though they did nothing to merit punishment either. To think of Limbo as a punishment is to misconstrue it entirely.

Unbaptised Babies do not go to heaven. Agreed. Limbo simply means they are in limbo until Judgement day.

 

[TomD123]

Pardon me for butting in, but I do have a question.

Let me preface it by saying that in my pre-Vatican II religious training as well as in the Baltimore Catechisms we used, Limbo was taught.

If Limbo does not exist, and if aborted babies go straight to Heaven, then how can anyone think that Satan is behind abortion? Would Satan want the souls of every single aborted baby in Heaven for all eternity enjoying the Beatific Vision?

Maybe limbo exists, I personally hope for the salvation of the infants, but I cannot say for sure. Regardless of whether or not unbaptized infants to go heaven, hell, or limbo: abortion would still be immoral. Satan would still be winning over many souls of voters, politicians, abortion doctors, those who neglect to help the pro-life movement, the parents who have abortions, and he would be winning over souls by promoting a very anti life attitude in general. If abortion is only wrong because aborted babies do not go to heaven, would it be ok to baptize a baby and then kill it? Of course not- so its more than just where the infant goes. But yes, of course it would be worse if the child whent to limbo, and even worse if the unbaptized go to hell.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Unbaptised Babies do not go to heaven. Agreed. Limbo simply means they are in limbo until Judgement day.

OK at Judgment day, where do they go? Can they be damned at that point? Do they not have a particular judgment?

 

[Pug]

OK at Judgment day, where do they go? Can they be damned at that point? Do they not have a particular judgment?

The concepts discussed here are new to me. I’d always thought the standard scenario was that the limbus patrum was temporary, but the limbus infantium (the one meant on this thread) was a permanent destination. Thus, infants would stay there in eternity. Judgment would not change their basic location. I’d also understood that they would show up for the resurrection and judgment. But, like the residents of hell, once the show was over they would return to their former place.

(Note Well: I did not state anything about my belief concerning infants, limbo, or hell. I’m trying to communicate the standard fixings of limbo, not what I think.)

 

[MarkThompson]

Pardon me for butting in, but I do have a question.

Let me preface it by saying that in my pre-Vatican II religious training as well as in the Baltimore Catechisms we used, Limbo was taught.

If Limbo does not exist, and if aborted babies go straight to Heaven, then how can anyone think that Satan is behind abortion? Would Satan want the souls of every single aborted baby in Heaven for all eternity enjoying the Beatific Vision?

I don’t think it can be said that Satan’s interest is purely in quantity of souls saved versus lost. To illustrate this, let’s ask whether Satan would be pleased if I slaughtered a baby just after baptism. You’d think so, right? Even though that baby’s soul will surely go to Heaven, and I still have a chance for repentance and redemption so Satan may lose his grip on me too.

Satan prefers evil. But going to Hell is not evil, since it is a part of God’s justice. And murder is an intrinsically evil act, whether the victim’s soul goes to Heaven or Hell. Therefore, Satan cannot merely desire to collect souls of the infant unbaptized, since, if they go to Hell, it is not through committing evil. It is the evil of their murder that he desires, notwithstanding the final disposition of their souls. Consequently, if we recognize that he would desire the murder of a baptized infant even though the child’s soul goes to Heaven and is lost to him forever, then we must acknowledge that his similar desire for the murder of an unbaptized infant cannot logically be taken to imply that the latter child’s soul goes to Hell.

In other words – and I have no particularly strongly-developed view of the disposition of the souls of unbaptized infants – the argument that “They must go to Hell, or else Satan wouldn’t want their deaths” cannot be correct, since it would imply that he should not want the deaths of baptized infants.

 

[Gregory_I]

Well, hold on my fellow limbo supporters: Limbo has never been defined as a place BETWEEN Heaven and Hell. THat honor seems to go to purgatory more often than not

Limbo is a PART of hell. It is the Lightest part.

It is the eternal fate of those who die in original sin alone to descend to hell to be punished with the punishment of loss. This is so far de fide and at least sentitia certa/proxima.

I believe it is a mistake to think of limbo as an in-between place.

First, we start with Augustines Infant Damnation, and active torment, but the lightest kind. This view was held from the 5th Century to the 12th Century, Then Peter Abelard (The Archenemy of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, an Augustinian) modified Augustine’s interpretation of “Lightest Torment” to mean loss of the beatific vision alone. This is the lightest punishment you can suffer in hell without suffering hellfire. So far though, this is still technically infant damnation, the infants still suffer the PAIN of loss. This is the view accepted by Pope Innocent III.

Then Thomas Aquinas Modified Abelard’s View by saying there was no need for the infants to feel the PAIN of loss, because they could not know what they would have attained to except by supernatural grace: But hell is deprived of supernatural grace, therefore, the unbaptized infants are “punished” with the loss of the Beatific Vision, however, though they are not in GOd’s presence, they suffer no interior or spiritual torment.

On the Contrary, they may experience a certain Natural Happiness.

The First Pope to espouse Natural happiness in the lightest area of hell was Pope St. Pius X, in his catechism.

Notice, the constant teaching is that unbaptized infants do not have the beatific vision; the SPECULATION is what they DO experience. Not what they do not experience.

 

[Pug]

Then Thomas Aquinas Modified Abelard’s View by saying there was no need for the infants to feel the PAIN of loss, because they could not know what they would have attained to except by supernatural grace: But hell is deprived of supernatural grace, therefore, the unbaptized infants are “punished” with the loss of the Beatific Vision, however, though they are not in GOd’s presence, they suffer no interior or spiritual torment.

Do you happen to know where Thomas explains his view on this? Or have a link to a quote? It is unclear to me why this type of reasoning only applies to infants, and not some of the other residents of hell.

 

[Corki]

Pardon me for butting in, but I do have a question.

Let me preface it by saying that in my pre-Vatican II religious training as well as in the Baltimore Catechisms we used, Limbo was taught.

If Limbo does not exist, and if aborted babies go straight to Heaven, then how can anyone think that Satan is behind abortion? Would Satan want the souls of every single aborted baby in Heaven for all eternity enjoying the Beatific Vision?

We don’t know for sure that unbaptized babies go straight to Heaven. The Church teaches that we trust in God’s mercy regarding their eternal life. Satan doesn’t know either. He is not all-knowing.

The evil that, in my opinion, Satan is sowing is the evil that causes women to choose abortion, for doctors and nurses to commit abortions, for spouses/boyfriends/parents to coerce abortions and for organizations to greedily make money off the deaths. Also, I think that Satan loves the discord that is created by the abortion “issue”. I think the fingerprints of Satan are all over those activities.

 

[Gregory_I]

We don’t know for sure that unbaptized babies go straight to Heaven. The Church teaches that we trust in God’s mercy regarding their eternal life. Satan doesn’t know either. He is not all-knowing.

The Church does not teach that, the Catechism SAYS that, and the Catechism references NO magisterial documents where it DOES say that:

Ergo, the church does not teach that I a m afraid. ")

1261, read it. THere is no reference to any magisterial documents!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

The Church does not teach that, the Catechism SAYS that, and the Catechism references NO magisterial documents where it DOES say that:

Ergo, the church does not teach that I a m afraid. ")

1261, read it. THere is no reference to any magisterial documents!

Pardon, but isn’t the Catechism issued by the Church?

 

[StTommyMore]

Pardon, but isn’t the Catechism issued by the Church?

The Catechism is a Magisterial document. He is making arguments of straw man to make his own position appear stronger.

 

[TomD123]

Do you happen to know where Thomas explains his view on this? Or have a link to a quote? It is unclear to me why this type of reasoning only applies to infants, and not some of the other residents of hell.

newadvent.org/summa/6001.htm Interesting point about if the reasoning only applies to the infants who die w/o baptism

We don’t know for sure that unbaptized babies go straight to Heaven. The Church teaches that we trust in God’s mercy regarding their eternal life. Satan doesn’t know either. He is not all-knowing.

The evil that, in my opinion, Satan is sowing is the evil that causes women to choose abortion, for doctors and nurses to commit abortions, for spouses/boyfriends/parents to coerce abortions and for organizations to greedily make money off the deaths. Also, I think that Satan loves the discord that is created by the abortion “issue”. I think the fingerprints of Satan are all over those activities.

Exactly! abortion is sinful regardless of where the children end up, Satan spreads evil here on earth, even if the unbaptized did all go to heaven, or sometimes went to heaven, or never went to heaven, Satan would be happy for ruining souls on earth.

The Catechism is a Magisterial document. He is making arguments of straw man to make his own position appear stronger.

True, the Catechism cannot be disregarded, that is why I say that infants who die w/o baptism go to heaven (I hope for it anyway, cannot say for sure or that I have any proof) but on the other hand, the Catechism does not say that infants achieve salvation without baptism, its only speculation. The doctrine of the Church states that those who die in original sin alone go to hell, the question is: is there any other way besides baptism of water where infants can be freed of original sin, even Gregory I said that he believes this may happen at the ressurection. Limbo was never official, but still cannot be outright rejected because the Church has encouraged this position throughout most of history, we have to realize we really cannot say that infants who die w/o baptism go to heaven.
One last note- I think the Church as a whole has moved away from infant damnation (in other words, suffering for the unbaptized). This, I have to say, is pretty unlikely because God would create a soul who would, through no fault of his own, would end up tormented throughout eternity. Its one thing to create a soul who will not have a chance at supernatural happiness but still have a chance at natural happiness, or create a soul who would CHOOSE to be tormented for all of eternity, but for God to create someone who has NO chance but to be punished for all of eternity is harsh in my opinion and I would say unjust. It would be like a parent encouraging their child without any athletic talent, size, or skill to play football. No parent who knew their kid couldn’t play the sport would sign him up or encourage him- everybody would agree that the parent would be insane. Same thing- God would be creating somebody who he KNEW would SUFFER for ETERNITY WITHOUT FAULT- that would be unjust

 

[Pug]

newadvent.org/summa/6001.htm Interesting point about if the reasoning only applies to the infants who die w/o baptism

Your link states:

I say, then, that every man who has the use of free-will is adapted to obtain eternal life, because he can prepare himself for grace whereby to merit eternal life [Cf. I-II, 109, 5 and 6]; so that if he fail in this, his grief will be very great, since he has lost what he was able to possess. But children were never adapted to possess eternal life, since neither was this due to them by virtue of their natural principles, for it surpasses the entire faculty of nature, nor could they perform acts of their own whereby to obtain so great a good.

Thus children, and I imagine the simple as well, lack a certain aspect that we have, namely free will. It seems to be, then, that Thomas (or the supplement editor) imagines the children in limbo or hell as fundamentally different from us adults due to whatever changes this new aspect entails.

This is interesting. I’ve always imagined that children possessed the same nature as us. Or, if something lacked due to immaturity or defect, like part of their brain or part of their body, well, it would be restored to them in the resurrection or whenever. I’d never considered that they were treated almost as a different type of creature, of a different nature. I’d figured either men were adapted to eternal life, all men, or else they all weren’t. Not that some were and some weren’t. *

Thus, for St. Thomas, the faculty of free-will does not reside in a human soul by nature, since infants have a human soul, and he says they don’t have free-will? (I use “he” loosely, on account of the quote being from the supplement of the summa.)*

 

[Pug]

I’d figured either men were adapted to eternal life, all men, or else they all weren’t. Not that some were and some weren’t. *

Thus, for St. Thomas, the faculty of free-will does not reside in a human soul by nature, since infants have a human soul, and he says they don’t have free-will? (I use “he” loosely, on account of the quote being from the supplement of the summa.)*

Here, I dug a bit in the CCC to show somewhat why I find the idea that infants don’t have free will in some sense and aren’t ordered to eternal beatitude in some sense to be odd:**1711 **Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with free will, the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude. He pursues his perfection in “seeking and loving what is true and good” (*GS *15 § 2).

What, then, is it only that the baby has not been touched by prevenient grace??

 

[Gregory_I]

Ok, when speaking of being destined for eternal beatitude, the context is that God created man to be with him. That is true. However “many are called, but few are chosen.”

Infants, and everybody else in this world from the moment of conception are born in sin, and are guilty of adam’s sin, under the wrath of God, and God’s judgement condemns them; for being born spiritually dead and having the stain of Adam’s sin, they could not ever hope to attain to eternal life.

Those who die in this state of original sin alone, that is, having never “done one thing wrong!” are destined for hell. There they are punished, but differently from those who have commited mortal sin. Those who die without having been baptized, and without regeneration and the wiping away of original sin expereience the loss of the vision of God, but not the fire of hell. This much is De Fide and Sentitia Certa. Mortal sins to deny.

Beyond that church teaching is speculation, but it is reasonable to hope that God in his great mercy grants them natural happiness with an indirect vision of his light. As such, the just dwell in the light of God, and the unbaptized who never sinned, yet never had original sin remitted, dwell in a place apart from God’s presence, yet they may be as happy as their natural state would allow. This is Limbo. A part of hell.

Now, tell me, how many types of peopel in this world depart without having ever sinned? You guessed it: 2.

1. Infants.
2. Mentally Handicapped.

You can attempt to take one over the other, or take them both together. I think they go together.

Next:

1. The Catechism is not a source of Doctrine or of dogma. NO CATECHISM IS. It is a compendium used to reference the magisterial teaching of the church. As such the catechism as SUCH is not binding on any Catholic, but only the documents which it references: For it is the magisterial documents ALONE which are immediate source of faith. Scripture and tradition are remote sources of faith.
2. You presume that the text of the CCC is a Magisterial document. On the bottom of page 3 of the Pope’s introduction to the CCC, we are told that it was compiled and put together by an “editorial committee”. The Church has never exercised her binding (let alone infallible) teaching authority by means of an “editorial committee.” The Magisterium is not an “editorial committee.”

3.Also, not everything stated in the CCC is necessarily Magisterial in nature. In other words, there are numerous statements in the CCC which, IF said statements do not teach what the Church has always taught throughout her history (i.e. tradition), THEN these particular statements cannot be properly attributed to the Magisteium of the Church. They are simply the statements of Churchmen.
As is paragraph 1261 which references NO CHURCH DOCUMENTS, ERGO the Hope is one NOT based on any magisterial teaching of the church. THis is is the heart of what I mean here. Does anyone have an adequate explanation for this false hope planted in a Catechism?

1. Pope John Paul II’s letters at the beginning of the Catechism are really nothing more than glorified imprimaturs: THere is no binding language used. On the contrary:

“This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine.”

1. That which is IN a catechism is magisterial teaching, where said teachings REFERENCE the magisterial documents. But a Catechisn in and of ITSELF is not part of the ordinary magisterium.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 1994: **“The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive ***no other weight ***than that which they already possess”

So what weight does paragraph 1261 already posses? You got it! Zero. Therefore it is a typo. I will not attribute ill-will to any of our bishops here. ANd I don’t think anyone should accept a “Teaching” that is apparently not part of the “teaching” authority of the church.**

I offer a nice little challenge: Can anyone find any church document that bears that weight of magisterial teaching, or any FORMER catechism in the history of the church that teaches EXACTLY what Paragraph 1261 teaches? If Cardinal Ratzinger’s Committee couldn’t over a period of 6 years, why this novel change in church teaching?

This is not an emppty challenge, I wills eriously consider what is presented. Best of luck!

Don’t Dissent, just believe with your eyes wide open.

 

[Pug]

I offer a nice little challenge: Can anyone find any church document that bears that weight of magisterial teaching, or any FORMER catechism in the history of the church that teaches EXACTLY what Paragraph 1261 teaches? If Cardinal Ratzinger’s Committee couldn’t over a period of 6 years, why this novel change in church teaching?

Just in case no one figured it out, I lean toward the most unpopular opinion in this area for the current times. So I am unlikely to take up this challenge. But I will point out that the Church has previously mentioned the urgency to baptize the little children, and it is reiterated in 1261. This mention of urgency is not unusual, and can be found elsewhere, like canon law (obliged to do it in a few weeks, and without delay in danger of death, see CIC 867), and in older catechisms, which I anticipate you’ll accept without me digging one up.

I don’t know what happened to Limbo (Hell). Maybe this is a pastoral response? Fortunately, it lets me continue to exist as I have, except I have to be sure to match the statement of the CCC in the RCIA classes. I do know the effect, or perhaps not an effect, but a concurrent state of affairs, is that it seems that most people whom I encounter in real life believe unbaptized babies go directly to heaven for sure. It is like the whole Molinist/Thomist thing and predestination. The Church leaves me to exist in peace, thankfully, even though I am surrounded by Molinists. :winter:

 

[Gregory_I]

But how can the CHURCH allow your opinion, when the CHURCH does not havy documents that state anything on the matter?

At best, on eo f the author s of the catechism thought like you do. And why should he? Apparently the view cannot be backed up my any church teaching, so WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?

 

[StTommyMore]

But how can the CHURCH allow your opinion, when the CHURCH does not havy documents that state anything on the matter?

At best, on eo f the author s of the catechism thought like you do. And why should he? Apparently the view cannot be backed up my any church teaching, so WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?

The Church teaces it in the Catechism, an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium, and as such carries more weight than an encyclical or apostolic letter. From Fidei Depositum:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church…of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium.** I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion for**

(bold is mine).
This came from an Apostolic Letter by His Holiness John Paul II. We must hold to what the Catechism says, despite out personal convictions. Why? because according to John Paul II, exercising his Apostolic authority declare it to be “a sure norm for teaching the faith.” What Ratzinger may have said as Cardinal Prefect for the CDF would be superseded by this document.