Do you believe in Infant's Limbo?

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='954522' date='Apr 19 2006, 09:32 PM']

That being said, I remember now why I stopped posting here at Phatmass at the end of last year, the constant tendency to equate being Catholic with being Latin is offensive to say the least.
[/quote]
don't be offended! Most people are Latins over in this hemisphere, and it's only natural for us to equate the Latin Rite with Catholicism. You're too smart to let that get to you.

[MichaelFilo]

I would have to agree that simply because a council says something, we cannot mean it to be dogmatic (however, does Vatican I agree? Anyone know; namely Cam?). Regardless, let us look at the traits of the Council and what is said, and furthermore, the circumstance and the placement of the decree (Excuse any typos, I'm not completly concentrating):


The big issue of the Council was getting the Greeks and Latins together (at least this was one of the issues), namely to define and resolve certain doctrinal issues among other things, such as the schism, the people from the council of Basel who sought to create some disturbance among the the council of Florence (which actually started outside of Florence, but had to be moved due to the plague in the original city).

IT should be noted that 2 things were present here that would make it binding on the Church.. the first, (and less important, but certainly important) was the fact that the empoeror of the Greeks was there, and the Patriarch of Constantinople. These two figures were there to represent the East (for those who clamor that this is a Latin thing, this most certainly is not). In the words of the Pope

"For behold, the western and eastern peoples, who have been separated for long, hasten to enter into a pact of harmony and unity; and those who were justly distressed at the long dissension that kept them apart, at last after many centuries, under the impulse of him from whom every good gift comes, meet together in person in this place out of desire for holy union."

Also, the Pope declared this to be a council for the universal Church.

"Therefore we decree and declare, in every way and form as best we can, with the assent of the said emperor and patriarch and of all those in the present synod, that there exists a holy universal or ecumenical synod in this city of Ferrara" in which Ferrara was the original city that was hit by the plague and moved to Florence. The next session addresses this.

After the session declaring the change, they meet up again to define truths within the Church, as you will note, each is a proclamation of the Church, that can be heard throughout the ages. The first is a discource on the Latin claim that the Spirit comes forth from the Father and the Son, and the Greek claim that the Spirit comes forth from the Father. The decleration starts with these (authoratative) words:

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it".

After the proclamation of which is more appropriate (really neither is innappropriate, because the difference is a difference in applying a certain trait that is.. all things come from the Father (Greek understanding), and that the Trinity is One (Latin understanding). Neither is wrong, but the Latin is used henceforth, since it can include both understandings.

Afterwards, the proclamation that the Lord's Body is confected in both leavened and unleavened bread and that the East and West ought to stick to their own respective tradition, as both are valid substances. Then, a proclamation on the reality of Purgatory, and the true aid that is given to the souls who, while in purgatory when masses are offered up for them, and good deeds are done for their quick enterance into heaven.

Right after that, this is proclaimed

"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."

Then a proclamation on the primacy of the Pope.

Now, we must ask whether the intent was to define an actual doctrine. We can either be protestants about this, and treat it like Mathew 16:18, which says Jesus rebukes Peter when he calls him a small stone, in the middle of 2 praises (the Spirit has revealed this unto you... the keys to the gates of heaven). Or we can be Catholic about this and realize that it would make sense that in between two praises would be a praise, calling Peter the rock on which the Church is built. The same here, we could say that what is being defined isn't a decree on our Faith, in the middle of decrees that have long been proclaimed (and in effect pick and choose our Truth, just as the Protestants pick through their truncated Bibles), or we can admit that the Council was continuing in the decrees for the Universal Church (East and West).



Now, whether we can say this is really a decree that says children will not go to heaven lest they be baptized, or that there maybe room for some other hope, then I would like to ask this one question, would the Church define something without reason (the Church rarely defines ANYTHING, I would suspect that when the Spirit moves Her, it is with some purpose)? You see, I ask this, because the Council decreed that the soul desceneds immediatly into hell.. immediatly. To suggest that God uses baptisms of desire to save a child would make that comment meaningless.. because then Church's proclamation on the eternal life of the unbaptized becomes entirely misleading. Why would the Spirit move them to say something like "descends immediatly into hell". Our hope in God's Mercy is this, that we are not all sent to the eternal fire, and that even in our undeserved nature, God may save us from the worst pains (the fire, as opposed to simple seperation). Remember, God chose the punishments that He deemed appropriate, and they are truly more justice than we deserve.

At any rate, Limbo then is that level of hell which knows no suffering for actual sins, but simply is the place of the unregenerate (as far as the East goes, you know very well Todd that while it is not seen as a mark on the soul (nor does the West endorse this view) it is still a state of soul lacking Grace, which is neccessary to enter into heaven.

God bless,
Mikey

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='955541' date='Apr 20 2006, 05:34 PM']
[. . .]

At any rate, Limbo then is that level of hell which knows no suffering for actual sins, but simply is the place of the unregenerate (as far as the East goes, you know very well Todd that while it is not seen as a mark on the soul (nor does the West endorse this view) it is still a state of soul lacking Grace, which is neccessary to enter into heaven.

God bless,
Mikey
[/quote]
Nevertheless, [i]Limbus Puerorum[/i] remains a theologumenon of the Latin Church, and so no one is required to believe in it. Unless of course you want to accuse the present day Magisterium of the heresy of denying a dogma.

Blessings to you,
Todd

[MichaelFilo]

Of course not, a third state, seperate from heaven and hell is hardly worthy of belief, and is a novelty. But when it is understood as a simple title for a level of hell, then it can hardly be condemned by anyone. ("A rose by any other name, does it not smell as sweet" or something to that effect). At any rate, the limbo I understand, which maybe different from what others understand it as, (because of the ambiguity of the doctrine and that certain proponents have described it differently, ie. some as a level of hell others as a 3rd state) is nothing more than the level of hell at which no suffering by fire takes place, only seperation from the Lord.

God bless,
Mikey

[Guest JeffCR07]

Your position that one can be "seperated from the Lord" but without suffering makes me extremely uncomfortable. God is all Good, and without Him there is no Good for us to have. Seperation from God in any degree is a form of suffering, and seperation from God in the degree that constitutes Hell seems to me to be a privation of almost all goods. The assertion that there is some "part" of Hell (seperation from God) in which one attains "natural happiness" is an extremely tenuous position, given that natural happiness implies a degree of communion with God.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[qfnol31]

Mikey,

Vatican I never got around to councils I believe and that's one of the things Vatican II was supposed to address and finish up.

[KnightofChrist]

Limbo does not exist. Nor did it ever exist. The Church has not and does not teach it as truth, there for it is not truth... If it was truth it would have always been taught as such... it has not... again there for it is not truth... limbo was always and most likey always will be theological speculation and nothing more...

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Limbo does not exist. Nor did it ever exist. The Church has not and does not teach it as truth, there for it is not truth... If it was truth it would have always been taught as such... it has not... again there for it is not truth... limbo was always and most likey always will be theological speculation and nothing more...[/quote]

The Belief that Limbo of the Fathers used to exist is dogma, and if you deny that Limbo of the Fathers once existed then you are a heretic.

[qfnol31]

Limbus Patrium is still believed by Catholics, though it no longer exists itself.

Also, StThomasMore, please don't forget to distinguish material and formal heresy. Calling someone a heretic is saying the latter, which is not good...Most people on the SSPX side of things have stepped into a neo-moral theology that's definitely New Natural Law Theory side of things.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='956875' date='Apr 21 2006, 11:00 PM']
The Belief that Limbo of the Fathers used to exist is dogma, and if you deny that Limbo of the Fathers once existed then you are a heretic.
[/quote]


Used to exist? Once existed? Truth does not "used to" or "once existed"... and Limbo is not a Dogma of Holy Mother Church... there for Limbo is not truth... it does not exist... and I'm not a heretic, Brother.

Edited April 22, 2006 by KnightofChrist

[qfnol31]

Actually, Limbus Patrium used to exist.

The dogma that it used to exist still holds true.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='956879' date='Apr 21 2006, 11:07 PM']
Actually, Limbus Patrium used to exist.

The dogma that it used to exist still holds true.
[/quote]


Ah point taken... but LIMBUS PATRUM and LIMBUS INFANTIUM are two very different animals... it is my understanding Limbus Patrium was a part of hell or the land of the dead... so Limbus Patrium would not be a true independent "Limbo" (a place between heaven and hell) but only a part of hell. Limbus Infantium is what one thinks of when "Limbo" is spoken... Limbus Infantium has never been Dogma... which is what this debate is about... Limbus Patrium tripped me up woops...

Edited April 22, 2006 by KnightofChrist

[Aloysius]

Limbus Patrium was a part of sheol, the abode of the dead, and not of hell, the abode of the eternally damned. From hell (inferno) there can be no escape, it is by definition eternal. But the abode of the dead consisted of parts that were still subject to time and thus within them change could occur-- limbus patrium was one such place. limbus infantium is postulated generally as existing as part of the eternal hell; but there are a few medieval theologians that have proposed it as still subject to time such that it could perhaps be released at the Second Coming of Christ (the same way the first limbo was released at the first coming of Christ) thus giving those who wait in it until the end of time a choice between heaven and hell (as the pre-Christ just who were in the first limbo were given a choice, some went to hell some went to heaven)

This tends to be my view-- it is the abode of the dead but still subject to time and perhaps at the second coming of Christ they will be released and given the option-- finally judged with the final judgement.

But "limbo" simply means "edge"... there has always existed a "limbo"-- the edge of hell. Whether since Christ's first coming that edge has shifted below the "dividing line" between time and eternity is the real question. If it has shifted, those least deserving of hell are there for eternity. I tend to think an unbaptized baby is in the same situation as the just before Christ were in-- they were never given the chance to be restored from original sin and they were not deemed culpable by God for any actual sin... therefore it would seem God would give them the same fate-- the edge of the abode of the dead awaiting the coming of a Messiah to open the gates of heaven to them.

[qfnol31]

Just so you know, you sound like Savonarola. :

Here are some articles I wrote on this a while back, though haven't concluded yet:

[quote]Recently in the news, there have been many rumours of the Vatican striking Limbo from books completely. What surprised me more than this was that many Catholics started praising this turn of events as a wonderful blessing. I honestly could not figure out what was so repulsive about Limbo and so I did some research. It may be that most of the people I hang out with were influenced by Dante’s Inferno, in which Limbo is the first level of Hell, but I’m not sure why most everyone considers Limbo a place of great torment.
This last week, as I sat procrastinating late one night, one of my roommates came in asking me about the practice of selling indulgences. Of course, this being UD, there is no such thing as a simple question and a simple answer. This naturally progressed into a discussion on the nature of Purgatory, which truly is the only likely outcome in a conversation between two people who have both read Dante’s Purgatorio. I figure that to understand Limbo, Purgatory might actually be a good place to begin especially since many people misunderstand them and want to deny both due to their implications.
The more he and I talked, the more I got the impression that for him (as well as most people I know) Purgatory is a place where God must send us to undergo purification before we enter into the Beatific Vision. Now of course I do not deny this fact, but I do think there can be much more said about it.
When looking at Purgatory, I have a very close analogy that I like to use. A few years back one of my friends ran into the back of my car. To me it wasn’t much of a big deal, and I didn’t care at all, but she felt terrible about the whole incident and the tiny dent she left. I of course didn’t make her pay for it, but each time she saw me over the next month, she was reminded of this minor bump. To her it was more painful to be in my presence than had she paid for it.
St. Catherine of Genoa says the same thing about Heaven. For us, who offend God, it would be too painful to be in His awesome presence without knowing that we had done something to atone for our sins. Heaven for us would almost be as another Hell without this chance to repay some of the debt we owe. The sinner, according to St. Catherine, chooses purification in Purgatory freely so that he may encounter the Lord in His full glory. Because we participate in salvation rather than have it forced upon us, the Father gives us this wonderful and merciful chance to participate in the punishment for our sins.[/quote]

[quote] I started writing these with the intention of addressing Limbo, especially now that there is talk of striking it from the books completely in the Catholic Church. But I think that to speak of Limbo, we must first address both the land of the blessed and the land of the damned. Last time I touched on Purgatory to show the end of those men who die in the state of grace with the stain of sin still on their soul, the men about to enter into the Beatific Vision.
Hell is the second place I wish to discuss. It is the place for those men who die in the state of mortal sin, a condition brought upon them by their own actions. As I mentioned before, Our Lord works with us in salvation, giving us the choice whether to spend the end of our life with Him or separated from Him. When we die, we have already made the choice where we want to spend eternity and there is no turning back.
Living in Texas, I often hear analogies made between Texas’ heat and Hell’s fire; however, I think these are inaccurate. We are very fortunate here at UD to read such wonderful literature as Dante’s Divine Comedy, which has many lessons to offer us. Just as Dante encounters a level of fire and intense heat, he also runs into the land of the ice and cold. St. Alphonsus Ligouri says that the souls in Hell pass from extreme heat to bitter cold and back again, without relief. He draws on the passage in Job that says, “Let him pass from the snow waters to excessive heat, and his sin even to hell” (DRB Job 24:19). This is an even more intense pain than a constant heat. This means, for us in the middle of the South, that the weather in Texas is not analogous to Hell’s temperatures because we rarely see cold!
Knowing the fate of the Baptized souls not in sin and those souls that have died in the state of mortal sin raises the question of what happens to the un-Baptized souls that die before they can enter in to the Church, but not to any fault of their own. It seems unfair that they should be made to endure Hell’s torments, but according to the Church no one may go to Heaven without Baptism…[/quote]

[quote] The time is approaching when the theological commission established by Pope Benedict will announce its verdict on Limbo. I myself do not wish to give an opinion, but rather to address the common misconceptions that many people seem to have.
First, there must be a distinction made between the two different Limbos in Church history. Limbus Patrum is the term given to the place to which Our Lord descended after His death: “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water” (I Peter 3:18-20). This Limbo no longer exists.
The other Limbo discussed in history is Limbus Infantium. This is one of the more controversial points, mostly because it is (seemingly) the most difficult one to reconcile with God’s wonderful mercy. It probably arose around the time of Saint Augustine, linked with his conception of original sin, and has been developed by many theologians over the centuries. The majority of people today think that Limbo is inappropriate and maybe even an antiquated idea; nevertheless, there are a few who think that it is an infallible Church doctrine. However, the Baltimore Catechism (number four, teacher’s edition) says,
Hell had many meanings in olden times. The grave was sometimes called hell. Jacob, when he heard that wild beasts had devoured his son Joseph, said: ‘I will go down with sorrow into hell.’ He meant the grave. Limbo is not the same as Purgatory. It does not exist now, or, if it does, is only for little children who have never committed actual sin and who have died without Baptism. They will never get into Heaven or see God, but they will not have to suffer pains as they who are in Purgatory or Hell endure (Baltimore Catechism #4).
Though this catechism defines Limbus Infantium as a place for babies without torment, it takes care to say that it is probably non-existent beforehand. It cannot be a doctrine if it has been denied.
As I stated before, the Church recognizes the importance of Baptism. The Catechism says,
The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are ‘reborn of water and the Spirit.’ God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments (CCC 1257).
The Church does not say explicitly what happens to unborn babies, but says, “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…” The old saying in the Church is, “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi,” which means the Church prays as She believes…That is why the Church offers Masses for those unborn.
These leads us with the question of what is really meant by Limbus Infantium…If it even exists, is it a place of torment or a place of perfect natural happiness…maybe even a holding ground until the resurrection of the body?[/quote]

Can you tell where I'm going with this?

[Proud2BCatholic139]

What I thought to beleive was, was that limbo does not exist anymore, but God has a special place for all of the new borns who die without the sacrament of baptisim.