Where there any (changes/clarifications/better understandings) in the doctrine of Limbo from Vatican II? I have heard that there was, but do not want to talk about it until I get a confirm or deny from this forum.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004

Answers

"As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them', allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy baptism" (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261).

-- - (David@excite.com), August 29, 2004.

There were no changes to the "doctrine" of Limbo because Limbo is not and never was a doctrine. It was an idea which was proposed by theologians as a possible solution to the theological problem of completely innocent children who die without benefit of baptism. It was an effort to resolve, at least in theory, the apparent conflict between the idea "A just God could not condemn the innocent to hell along with sinners" and the idea "no-one can enter the kingdom of god unless he is born of water and the Spirit". It became widely accepted as the theory which seemed to best reconcile these two important concepts. But the idea was never part of the Deposit of Faith, and was never an official doctrine of the Church. What Vatican II did was to de-emphasize the specific idea of Limbo, since it was not true doctrine, and to express our acceptance of the will of God regarding unbaptized children in more general terms, as quoted by David above. The idea of Limbo is incorporated in the new wording, and Catholics are free to believe the Limbo idea if they wish. But the new wording acknowledges what has always been true, and what led to the theory of Limbo in the first place - that we really don't know just How God deals with this situation, because He has not revealed that information to the Church.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 29, 2004.

In the past I was also worried about the problem of innocent children dying without Bapttism, but then I asked myself "where would they go after death?" And I mentioned three palces:

.. Hell? they cannot go to this horrible place since they have comitted no sin whatosever and a just God cannot punish them.

.. Limbo? Since the existance of Limbo has never been defined it would be an injustice to send them to a nonexisting place.

.. Purgatory? Once again, the have no sin. They cannto go there.

So the only other place where they can go is HEAVEN, and certainly they are there since

3"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,

who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth". 1Thimoty 2, 3-4

God in His infinite Mercy certainly has a way of svaing them.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.

Purgatory? Once again, the have no sin. They cannto go there.

***All of us are born with original sin so your statement above is not true.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

Purgatory has nothing to do with Original Sin. It is for remission of the "spiritual debt" incurred through actual sin. Small children, baptized or not, have no actual sin. Therefore, while Enrique's final conclusion (such children must be in heaven) is his own opinion and goes a step beyond what the Church actually teaches, his statement regarding Purgatory is correct. There is no theological reason why unbaptized children would end up in Purgatory. Two things are true of all those in Purgatory - (1) They are saved, and will untimately be in heaven for all eternity; and (2) they have a debt to pay, or they require purification (whichever way you prefer to state it) for personal sins committed. Therefore, if a small child fulfilled number 1, that is he/she was saved and "eligible" for heaven, then he/she would have to be received into heaven immediately, bypassing Purgatory, since he/she would carry no spiritual debt for actual sin.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 30, 2004.

Now I can ask the question behind the question.

If unbaptised children go to heaven, then why does the Church persist in infant baptism? Until the age of reason/consent the child is presumed to be in a state of grace, right?

Also please mention the above Limbo stuff to any Catholic woman bothered about losing a child unbaptised. It would be a great comfort, as many have not heard of the change in emphsis re Limbo.

Paul, What other things fall into the catagory of 'never officially stated' and thus available for change?

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), August 30, 2004.

"If unbaptised children go to heaven, then why does the Church persist in infant baptism?"

A: Because the Word of God says one cannot go to heaven without being baptized. Baptism is the means by which God Himself has said we become eligible for heaven. There is no guarantee that unbaptized children go to heaven. It seems, from our human perspective, and considering what God has revealed to us about His nature, that such innocents "should" be saved; and therefore we find good reason to "hope" that they are. But even though God in His mercy might make such an exception to His stated will in some circumstances, we still have the responsibility of obeying His stated will, not putting God to the test by intentionally rejecting His will, and then expecting Him to make a special exception for us. That would be a very dangerous approach spiritually.

"Until the age of reason/consent the child is presumed to be in a state of grace, right?"

A: No! That is just the point! If that were true, there would be absolutely no question about their going to heaven. We are not born in a state of grace. We are born deprived of grace by the effects of original sin. Baptism is our initial entrance into a state of grace. Thereafter, a child does remain in the state of grace until reaching the age of reason, since he/she is incapable of actual sin. The only uncertainty concerns those children who never initially received grace through Baptism.

"Paul, What other things fall into the catagory of 'never officially stated' and thus available for change?"

A: There are a great many traditions, devotions, practices, and beliefs, some of them dangerously bordering on superstition in my opinion, which Catholics (some Catholics at least) have held and practiced for a long time, but which are not officially approved by the Church. The notion of Limbo was more widely accepted than many of these other beliefs, but it was no more valid on a doctrinal level.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 30, 2004.

Hi, Sean ! I do not believe in "limbo" I believe a person who is living in mortal sin goes directly to hell and I believe that Christians who have unconfessed sins and need purified go in to purgatory before heaven. I also believe that baptism is needed for salvation, but ( and this is my own belief.)I believe in God's great mercy and by His astounding grace He makes a way for babies who die before they can be baptized or who are victims of abortion to go directly into Heaven. Yes, we are all born into original sin, but that is not really our fault is it? Actual sin is a fault of our own making and a small child can not commit actual sin. It isn't possible. They have no concept of what is right or wrong or heaven or hell, or of eternal life. And our Lord Jesus Christ absolutely loved children. He asked that we be as children, so I believe in my heart that a child that hasn't had the chance (or even the choice in the case of parents who refuse to baptize their young ones)to be baptized and who is not at the age of reason will be called to God imeadiately if he dies. Just my own beliefs and ideas. Have a wonderful day, Ya'll, and God bless !

Thanks and Glory be to God!

-- Suzanne (james-betsy@sbcglobal.net), August 31, 2004.

Where the Catholic Church has reversed herself is in holding out the hope that unbaptized infants may go to heaven. This is a completely novel teaching.

If limbo was not an official doctrine of the Catholic Church (and that's debatable) it is only because the dispute over the fate of unbaptized infants was between limbo or hell. It was unthinkable to suggest that unbaptized infants may go to heaven. If that were the case then it means that salvation is a natural birthright that one loses at some point as one gets older.

It is through baptism that one is "born again" and becomes a child of God and a member of the Catholic Church. Thus the Catholic dogma of "no salvation outside the Church." See how it all fits together? But once you say that unbaptized infants may go to heaven then it all starts to unravel.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), August 31, 2004.

DC and Paul, It seems that you two disagree. How about some cites then?

People in this forum are good at citations, I have found.

I am actually glad of this, as we will then get some discussion, and get better educated at the end of it all.

I am in an inferno/dante class at my church, which is where this all came up. Limbo certainly was real for Dante, but he was not a church schollar.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), August 31, 2004.

"Where the Catholic Church has reversed herself is in holding out the hope that unbaptized infants may go to heaven. This is a completely novel teaching."

A: It is hardly a "reversal" since the Church said nothing definitively previously, and still says nothing definitively. The fact that the notion of "Limbo" arose and gained popularity shows that the Church never said unbaptized infants definitely go to hell. And now the Church does not definitely say they go to heaven. In other words, the Church's earlier position was "we don't know" and the Church's present position is "we don't know". So where is the "reversal"?

"If that were the case then it means that salvation is a natural birthright that one loses at some point as one gets older."

A: That's right. We are predestined to spend eternity with God. Salvation is a free gift offered by God to every person. But each of us has a God-given right to reject His offer, to throw away our birthright and insist on a destiny of our own choosing instead, a destiny that is not God's will for us. Therefore, one who doesn't reject the offer of salvation can expect to receive it.

"It is through baptism that one is "born again" and becomes a child of God and a member of the Catholic Church. Thus the Catholic dogma of "no salvation outside the Church."

A: The dogma is more correctly stated "no salvation except through the Church". The Church is the sole repository of the truth which leads to salvation, and anyone who is saved by that truth is therefore saved through the Church, whether they are specifically members of it or not. Unbaptized infants of parents who intend to have them baptized but do not have the opportunity to do so are saved. So are catechumens studying for baptism and entry into the Church, who die before completing the process. This has always been so. Those who were martyred for the faith are saved, regardless of whether they were baptized or not. Anything less would make both God and the Church legalistic to the point of entirely excluding love and justice.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 31, 2004.

www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), August 31, 2004.

In addition to the article on Limbo in the Catholic Encyclopedia (as cited by jalapeno) see also the article on Baptism: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Scroll down about half way to the section on unbaptized infants, which says:

"The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church."

There is no doubt about it. An unbaptized infant cannot enter heaven. That was the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church up until at least Vatican II and perhaps up until JPII. I'm not sure when it changed, but the seeds were sown at Vatican II when everything was thrown up for grabs and no teaching or practice was deemed too sacred to be off-limits to the modernists, who are pushing for the Church to teach universal salvation for all mankind.

I challenge Paul M. to cite any pre-Vatican II teaching from any authoritative source which says that unbaptized infants might go to heaven, or which says that the Church does not know their fate.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.

I found this on Internet. It would be very interesting to read your comments.

UNBAPTIZED INFANTS

The Church has given us no teaching on the eternal fate of these babies. The view of St.Thomas Aquinas has been widely accepted, never rejected by the Church.

Here is the his position:

1) On the one hand, there is no positive suffering for the babies, or they have no personal guilt. This is confirmed by Pope Pius IX, in "Quanto conficiamur moerore," August 10, 1863 (DS 2866) "God in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault."

2) On the other hand, their souls seem to lack the transformation by grace needed for the Beatific Vision.So they cannot have it.But they have a natural happiness, and do not miss what they do not have.

Toward a Solution:

1) God has the power to remedy this lack of grace even without a Sacrament. St. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa II. 68.2.c. wrote that God "is not bound to the visible sacraments."

Therefore God could supply that grace outside of Baptism. He did it in the case of the Holy Innocents.

2) Does He actually provide the remedy?

(1) Theologians commonly hold that God provided for the salvation of those who died before Christ in some way. As to the Hebrews, circumcision seems to have been the means for boys, but not of course for girls. (Cf. St. Thomas ST III.62. ad 3). But the theological opinion just mentioned extended also to those outside the Hebrew people.

(2) St. Paul in Romans 3.28-30 says that if God hd not provided for those who did not know the Mosaic Law, He would not be their God. So, Paul concludes, He must have done so, and did it through the regime of faith. Would Paul argue similarly for unbaptized infants? Likely.

(3) St. Paul, in 1 Cor 7.14 says that the pagan partner married to a Christian is made holy through union with the Christian, "Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is,they are holy." "Holy" reflects Hebrew "qadosh," set aside for God by the covenant. So the pagan partner and the children did come under the covenant.

(4) God shows great concern for the objective moral order (cf. "Our Father's Plan," chapter 4. For example, in the Gospel description of the Last Judgment, Jesus does not accept the excuse of those who say they did not know it was Jesus in the poor, etc. He pays attention only to the objective fact. Cf. also Leviticus 4, 1 Cor. 4.4, and all instances of involuntary sin.

Does He also will to rectify the objective physical order?

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham explains (Lk 16.25): "Remember that you in your lifetime received good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish." Of course the rich man had violated charity--but that is not mentioned. Only the reversal and physical rectification is mentioned. The woes in Luke 6:24-26 seem similar.

Conclusion: In view of all the above, God may well speak thus of the aborted babies: "These infants have been deprived of everything in the normal objective order they should have had, even of a chance for birth. Instead, without deserving it, they have been torn apart or cut up alive. So it is right to make up for that. They suffered evil, like Lazarus. Now they should be comforted. I showed concern for the rebalancing the objective physical order in the case of Lazarus. I made provision for the eternal salvation of people before Christ. St. Paul argues in Romans 3.28- 30 that if I did not, I would not be their God. I revealed through St. Paul, in 1 Cor 7.14, that a pagan partner in marriage is brought under the covenant merely from being united to the Christian, and similarly the children. So it is right for me to provide grace to these children even outside of the Sacrament. My hands are not bound by the Sacraments."

What if Limbo? If our deductions are not correct, then the babies would be in Limbo, which,as St.Thomas Aquinas said, involves no pain, and is such that the babies do not even know what they have missed (St. Thomas, "De Malo" q. 5, a. 3 ad 4). We might compare two persons: one whose tastes are not highly refined, who is completely happy with a ballgame and popcorn; the other whose ability to enjoy things has been refined: he will be satisfied only with the most artistic things. Similarly the babies, lacking the refinement of the power to know given by grace, will be fully satisfied,and not know what they have missed.

If Limbo be the answer,will they be separated from parents who have reached Heaven and the Vision of God? No, for two reasons: 1) Heaven is not essentially a place, but a state. You could have two persons side by side, even in a place, such that one is enjoying interiorly the divine vision, the other is not. They can be together, yet in different states. 2) God does satisfy every legitimate desire of those who reach heaven. (Cf. Apoc. 21.4: "He [God] shall wipe away every tear from their eyes.") Parents who deeply want their children of Limbo will not be separated from them. Limbo and heaven are most basically states more than places. And even as to place, after resurrection, bodies will be like the the Risen Body of Jesus, who came to see the Apostles locked in an upper room. He simply ignored the door, did not bother to open it by a miracle. Risen bodies are not bound by place. Objection: The Council of Florence in 1439 taught (DS 1306): "The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or only original sin descend into the realm of the dead (infernum), to be punished however with unequal punishments." Reply: 1) The word "poena" in Latin need not always be the same as English "pain" - it can mean merely deprivation of something. As we saw above, Pius IX taught that God does not allow anyone to be punished with eternal punishments without the guilt of personal fault.

Vatican II, "On ecumenism" #6, taught that if any language in older teachings is in need of improvement, it should be improved. Such is the case here, at least if we do not think of the difference of Latin "poena" and English pain. Paul VI in "Mysterium fidei" did not contradict the Council, but said that the older texts are not untrue in themselves, if properly understood.

2) The word "infernum" in Latin means merely the realm of the dead, not hell in the English sense. Cf. the Creed in which we read that after His death, Jesus "descended into hell"- the archaic English use of the word.

3) Our reasoning above tends to show that the aborted babies, and probably other unbaptized babies also, are given grace by God outside the Sacrament of Baptism, and so do not depart this world in original sin, which is merely the lack of grace that should be there.

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), September 01, 2004.

Imagine a dying unbaptised child who cannot will or desire anything heavenly and who have unbelieving parents that do not care about anything spiritual (nominal catholic or pagans), then what will be the force that will propel the child towards heaven? Here, there is no belief either in person or by proxy, and there is no baptism either ritual or by desire.

What about satanic parents who willfully offer their child to Satan? If babies receive grace by baptism by proxy of believing parents, then why not a child also not receive curse by proxy of unbelieving satanic parents? If then, such a child dies then what will be its fate? If the above is true, then the dangers are too great for the unbaptised child of satanic parents. Then, Limbo is not such a bad idea.

What exactly would Limbo be like? It is difficult to know. Perhaps, the child will go back to that state of no-rememberance where he/she was before, or can it be compared to the state when a animal dies?

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), September 02, 2004.

"what will be the force that will propel the child towards heaven?"

A: the only force that propels anyone toeward heaven is the love and mercy of God. There is nothing we can to "earn" heaven or even to become "deserving" of heaven. Salvation is a free gift. There is much we can do to reject the gift. But certainly God is capable of extending His free gift to anyone who has not personally rejected it, even those who for some reason have not been able to specifically and consciously accept His gift in the usual manner.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 02, 2004.