Did Limbo Become Purgatory

[willguy]

I've heard of the idea before that what was limbo (the place for just souls before Christ's death) is the place which is now Purgatory, and was wondering what ya'll thought about the idea?

[Jake Huether]

The short answer is no. The two were seperate "states". One is for the purging of the stain of sin, etc. (the definition of Purgatory in the Catechism). The "Limbo" of the OT refered to the "boosom of Abraham". It was the state that Just Souls rested in wait for the opening of Heaven. These souls would have already been purged.

Unless the Just souls of the OT were in a continual state of purgation until the gates of Heaven were open. In that case, then there was no such thing as Limbo, and the boosom of Abraham was Purgatory. But I don't think so...

[Jake Huether]

Hmmmm... Actually, now that I think about it...

Maybe this is true. Maybe Purgatory is the gate to heaven. If you think about it. It could be that the souls in limbo needed to be purged before they got into heaven once the gates were opened.

But in this case also, then, Purgatory is still a different state. Limbo couldn't become purgatory, because then the souls in Limbo would have been "Purging".

It is better to think of these as "states", rather then places. It isn't like limbo was a warehouse, which was converted to a purging area. Limbo served a purpose, which was a different purpose than Purgatory.

One couldn't become the other.

[IXpenguin21]

Dante's Divine Comedy gives poetic insight to the soul's journey in the afterlife.

According to Dante, Limo is actually a cirle of Hell for those never believed in a diety, nor felt remorse for things they did wrong in the world. Pagan scholars and philosophers such as Homer and Plato are located there. The souls there are not punnished and do not suffer, but they are in complete desperation because they will never be with God. The rest of Hell is more of what we think of when we hear of Hell.

Purgatory is an whole seperate stage, where the soul is purged of all that is wrong with it. It is the place where sinners go who have repented before death.

this of course is not official Catholic teaching, but it is a beautiful example of Catholic poetry from the middle ages. The Church does not believe in a state of Limbo in Hell, and says that the only way to Heaven is through baptism.

One often wonders what happens to the children who die before baptism? The Church has developed a baptism through intention theology, where someone becomes baptized through the desire of some outside party (the mother or father of a still born baby). This aplies in cases where had the baby had lived, they would've been baptized.

i suggest reading Dante's Divine Comedy (as Dave knows).

it's a great poetic look at the soul and a beautiful examination of conscience.

[willguy]

I've read the Divine Comedy. It's an interesting read, but I don't think I'd form my theology from it.

[Iacobus]

I read the Divine Comdey, not sure if I think it is 100% sound. But for those of us like me it helped to picture what Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell are like.

[IXpenguin21]

[quote name='willguy' date='Mar 3 2004, 06:18 PM'] I've read the Divine Comedy. It's an interesting read, but I don't think I'd form my theology from it. [/quote]
i'm not.

i'm using it as a tool.

[Adeodatus]

I'm sure phatcatholic has pinned something on this somewhere, but there are 2 limbos.

There's the [i]limbus patrum[/i], the limbo of the fathers, the bosom of Abraham where the souls of the righteous before Christ rested until Christ descended into 'hell' (Sheol, lower regions) after His death and released them all. They didn't need purification from their sins but still required the Saviour's redemption.

Then there's the [i]limbus puerorum[/i], the limbo of the children. St Augustine couldn't work out how unbaptised babies who died could go to heaven and thought they went to hell. St Thomas Aquinas postulated this limbo, where babies would enjoy natural happiness but not the supernatural beaitific vision. Pope John Paul speaks about ways of saving them known to God alone, and that we can have a firm hope in the mercy and love of God.

So the first state of limbo ceased to operate after the death and Resurrection of Jesus. And the second limbo has probably never existed.

I reckon if purgatory is seen as the gate of heaven (like the flashing flaming swords that guard the way to Eden), then we could say that before Christ died, people who needed it were in the state of purgatory, and if they finished there, they were on the edge (limbus) of heaven, waiting in the state we call Sheol, or limbo. And after Christ died and rose again limbo stopped being a reality for people, and from purgation they went into heaven straightaway.

[popestpiusx]

The existence of [i]limbus infantium[/i] has been taught by the Church for nearly 20 centuries. It was defended by countless saints, popes, and councils. Exactly what it entails is a matter of some debate. There is a great article on the matter in the Catholic Encylopedia: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm[/url]. The teaching, though perhaps not [i]de fide[/i] has still been the constant teaching of the Church. The fact that the current Holy Father has expressed some contrary belief does not mean "the second limbo has probably never existed." This is merely the opinion of the Holy Father, spoken as a private theologian, not in his capacity as Pope. It certainly does not reflect what the Church has consistently taught concerning the matter. Because the Church has not defined exactly what limbo consists in, one is free to take that position, though cautiously. I say cautiously because a denial of limbo can take one dangerously close to universalism, which is certainly heretical. That's my two cents.

[Adeodatus]

The essence of the Church's teaching concerning the [i]limbus puerorum [/i]is not about the existence of a place. It is about the necessity of baptism for salvation (or at least the desire for baptism). In trying to articulate the Church's belief in this necessity St Augustine believed such children were doomed to hell, and St Thomas mitigated that with the natural beatitude of limbo.

What the Church can say is that if there is a way of salvation for such children, God has not made it known to us. That does not necessitate the existence of limbo. What we can rely on is the mercy of God, whose Wisdom and Mercy are inscrutable and ineffable. I think we have to be humbled before this great mystery and say, 'We don't know how these children can be saved. God alone knows'. We must not and cannot say 'God can't save these children' because that is idolatry, creating a false God we claim to understand---rather than the Living and True God who, although He gives grace to us through the sacraments, is Himself utterly free and not bound to the sacraments.

Please note, the contrary proposition: "[i]Extra ecclesia nulla conceditur gratia [/i](Outside the Church there is no grace)" was condemned by the Holy Office (see Denzinger, (33rd ed) 2429). So even though these unbaptised infants are outside the Church, we don't know that God doesn't give them grace and can't say that He doesn't.

So one does not have to hold to belief in 'limbo', and one can still avoid universalism. The current Holy Father's theological opinion is not contrary to the Church's tradition. In any case, the same articulation is to be found in the Catechism, which is "the sure norm of Faith". It is important to cling to what the Church actually does teach and define, and what she authentically interprets today, rather than too literal and paradoxically non-traditional a reading of the Church's pronouncements.

[popestpiusx]

Adeodatus,
Let me attempt this point by point. We must be very careful and pay very close attention to exactly what is being said. We are discussing theology and must be precise.
To the first point, what the Church has always debated about [i]Limbus infantium [/i]([i]limbus puerorum[/i]) is not whether the unpatized souls go there or to heaven, but whether they go there or to hell. In other words, what sort of "punishment" accompanies one's dying without baptism. The debate goes back even further than Augustine and involves numerous saints, popes and councils spanning nearly 20 centuries. The Church eventually settled on the formulation proposed by Aquinas, as you alluded to, to some extent. So in some sense I agree wih you that the essence of the teaching is the necessity of baptism for salvation (desire, blood, etc). But the importance of this question cannot be underestimated or shoved to the side. If the Church is going to deny the existence of Limbo, then she must account for this. Either baptism is necessary or it is not. If it is, then what is the fate of the unbaptised who do not have a choice in the matter? The situation almost necessitates the existence of Limbo. A person only goes to hell by choosing to go there. The unbaptised child certainly does not choose this fate. However, a person canot enter heaven without sanctifying grace. The child does not have that either. This is what the debate has always been about.

Point two: The Church does say that God has not revealed to us a way of salvation for the unbaptized children. Because of that, it would be presumptuous, to say the least, to try and argue that such a "way" does in fact exist. We cannot ever presume on God's mercy, to the neglect of the necessity of the sacraments. Granted, God is not bound by the sacraments. However, we are! and they happen to be the only way, according to His revelation, that man is saved. He didn't tell us any other way and we should not presume that there is one.

Point three: The proposition poses no problem to what I have been saying. One can certainly not say that there is NO grace outside the Church. If there was no grace outside the Church conversion would be impossible. The Church makes distinctions when talking about grace. There is actual grace and sanctifying grace. Actual grace is the supernatural help of God for salutory acts. Sanctifying grace is a permanent, supernatural quality (or state) of the soul. If I am not mistaken (and I could very well be) supernatural grace is attainable only through the Church (i.e. the sacraments), while the grace of repentance and conversion (prevenient grace) would fall under actual grace (and therefore could be found outside the Church, but always leading to the Church). It is [i]de fide[/i], however, that one is saved ONLY by sanctifying grace. You must die in the state of sanctifying grace in order to go to heaven. And it is absolutely impossible to achieve sanctifying grace without the Church. Ergo, unbaptised children , lacking sanctifying grace, may not experience the beatific vision. To deny this seems to lead to a denial of the necessity of grace for salvation, and the necessity of the Church for saving grace. That is dangerously close to universalism and a number of other nasty heresies. According to Aquinas "The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed." Without some form of Baptism, I don't see how it is possible.

Point four: The current Holy Father's opinion is contrary to tradition. I am not saying that he is right or wrong based on that alone. But it must be admitted. The opinion he is giving on this matter is completely novel. It is an innovation. I do not know of a single saint or pope or council in history who mantained a comparable opinion. If you would like a few examples I can supply them in abundance, and I can assure you that they are not merely the personal /private opinions of theologians. They are representative of what the Church taught for nearly 2000 years:

"The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, [b]or only in Original Sin[/b], immediately descend into Hell" (Council of Florence, Denz.693).

Therefore, all who die in actual mortal sin are excluded from the kingdom of God and will suffer forever the torments of hell where there is no redemption. also those who die [b]with only original sin will never have the vision of God.[/b]
(First Vatican Council Ch. 5 Schema of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Principle Mysteries of the Faith)

If you wish to be Catholic, do not believe, do not say, do not teach that infants who are overtaken by death before they can be baptized are able to come to a forgiveness of Original Sin." St. Augustine

It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished. [St. Gregory Nazianzus Orat., xl, 23]

Pope Innocent III taught that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer "no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God" (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii -- Majores)

There are just a few. If you would like more I can give countless saints who say the same thing.

Point five: The Authority of the Catechism rests upon that from which it is derived. In other words, it contains material at various levels of teaching Authority, just as the Catechism of Trent, of Pius X, of St. Thomas, etc.
What the Church teaches today can be no different than what the Church taught 1000 years ago (or even 200 years ago). The Faith does not, and can not, change. Only its mode of expression may change. The Pope has no authority to change what the Church teaches. Only to teach it and defend it.

Your last sentance baffles me. "and what she authentically interprets today, rather than too literal and paradoxically non-traditional a reading of the Church's pronouncements." I can only say this: All teachings, clarifications, reforms, etc. are to be interpretted in light of tradition. NOT the other way around. We can't interpret Trent in light of Vatican II. For the sake of continuity (and the presevation of orthodoxy) Vatican II must be interpreted in light of everything that came before it. Novelty bears the burden of proof. Until formally declared otherwise, I stick with Limbo (and all of tradition).

In Christo et Maria,
PSPX

[Laudate_Dominum]

I've always considered the idea of limbo to be linked with the neo-scholastic distortions of the medieval theory of pure nature.. Since I reject the idea of pure nature I tend to not see the necessity of positing limbo.

[Laudate_Dominum]

And while it might be the case that certain aspects of the theology pertaining to limbo are a substantial part of the Catholic tradition, I tend toward the idea that much of the formal theologizing on limbo in the post-Trent period is baggage that the Church would do well to shed, which perhaps is something of what the Pope has encouraged by possibly trying to redirect and reorient the discussion on these issues. I do believe that much of the tridentine theorizing on limbo has come under attack and scrutiny in late 20th century Theology. For the Pope to support the neo-scholastic formulations would be to ignore the more recent developments.
I'm largely speculating here as I have not studied the issue in any detail. I'm just throwing some things out there to start discussion.

[Adeodatus]

pope,

[quote]We cannot ever presume on God's mercy, to the neglect of the necessity of the sacraments. Granted, God is not bound by the sacraments. However, we are! and they happen to be the only way, according to His revelation, that man is saved. He didn't tell us any other way and we should not presume that there is one. [/quote]

True, [b]we[/b] cannot presume upon God's mercy to the neglect of the necessity of the sacraments. But for those who have no recourse to the sacraments, such as dead unbaptised babies, we cannot insist that God is bound by the sacraments to save [b]them[/b]. Contrary to your assertion, what we cannot presume is that God is limited and can't save such children.

[quote]"The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell" (Council of Florence, Denz.693).

Therefore, all who die in actual mortal sin are excluded from the kingdom of God and will suffer forever the torments of hell where there is no redemption. also those who die with only original sin will never have the vision of God.
(First Vatican Council Ch. 5 Schema of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Principle Mysteries of the Faith)[/quote]

Of course these definitions are true. We are concerned here with original sin, so the issue of mortal sin does not concern us as innocent babies are incapable of committing that sin. Without sanctifying grace one cannot come to the vision of God. But how can you so confidently assert that unbaptised babies do not receive some unknown grace from God allowing them to be admitted to the beatific vision? If they do not receive such grace, then it is true, they will not enjoy the bliss of heaven. But how do you know with such certainty that God does not give them grace? The definitions above no where presume to tell God what He can or can't do. They only set out what is true for us within God's sacramental economy.

It is a very early tradition that righteous pagans before Christ could be saved (see, among others, St Justin Martyr and other 2nd century Apologists). Here are people being saved [b]who have not been baptised.[/b] We can say that the grace of baptism is communicated to them somehow, like a so-called 'baptism of desire' or 'baptism of blood'. For such people I guess you would say they showed the necessary predispositions for baptism, and an implicit/explicit desire for the same. But I'm guessing that you'd have a problem with unbaptised babies who die, because they cannot indicate this desire. Think about babies who do get baptised. They also can't express this desire, but others express it on their behalf, their parents and god-parents. Now if a baby can receive the sacrament of baptism by the desire of another person, is it not conceivable that unbaptised babies may also receive the grace of that sacrament through another person's desire?

So the necessity of baptism is not compromised, nor is the teaching on original sin. Instead what we have here is the humble acknowledgement that we do not understand the mysterious Love of our God. We cannot say about God that He cannot do such and such. That is not our place, and such a God that we claim to understand so well is not the real God. As St Augustine says, "As soon as you say, I understand, that is not God..."

If you're still wondering who it could be that would desire the grace of baptism for these innocent unbaptised babies, let me express a personal opinion. Our Lady, Mediatrix of all Grace, can desire such a thing for all of them, and God may grant such graces through her maternal intercession. It is entirely possible. I don't know, [b]but then, neither do you[/b].


[quote]The current Holy Father's opinion is contrary to tradition. [/quote] Alas, have you come to believe such a thing?


[quote]We can't interpret Trent in light of Vatican II. For the sake of continuity (and the presevation of orthodoxy) Vatican II must be interpreted in light of everything that came before it.[/quote]

Really? The later Council must be interpreted in the light of the former? In that case how do you explain Chalcedon, the later council, which taught that in Christ there is a union of the two natures in the one person (henosis kath'upostatin)----using the term 'hupostasis' (person)----while the earlier council, Nicaea, had anathematised anyone who said that the Son and the Father were of different 'ousiai' (natures) or 'hupostaseis'! The Cappadocians talked about the Father and the Son as distinct 'hupostaseis', and that is implicit in Chalcedon, where the Hypostatic Union cannot be undertsood to mean that the Father also was joined to Christ's human nature. The Father and the Son must be distinct 'hupostaseis', but that is exactly what Nicaea anathematised!!!!!

Nicaea did not distinguish 'hupostasis' from 'ousia', but according to your way of looking at Councils, we should all have abandoned Chalcedon, and talked about Pope St Leo I the Great as the innovator to the Apostolic Tradition!!!! And to follow your logic, we should have rejected Leo's great 'Tomus' as his personal theological opinion, clearly at variance with the Church's Tradition.

Peace be with you. To paraphrase St Augustine, Do not, while saying you love the Father, slight and abandon the Mother (Holy Church). Do not, while saying you cling to tradition, abandon the Living Tradition that comes to us from the Apostles.

[popestpiusx]

Adeodatus,
I must regrettably leave town this morning to attend the funeral of my grandfather (Requiescat in Pace!). Therefore I will not be able to give you a reply until I return next week. God Bless!

In Christo et Maria,
PSPX