At the end of the day, nothing has really changed in Church teaching: Limbo remains a likely scenario, the other options such as baptism of desire remain possibilities, and the definitive teaching that those who die with unremitted original sin go to hell. All we can do is speculate and hope, and the recent study paper by the non-magisterial International Theological Commission doesn't add anything substantive to the brief hopeful language of the Catechism. I'm inclined somewhat to accept the traditional view of Limbo, out of due respect for the many centuries it was believed, that it had entered into the common teaching of the Church and was therefore more than just theological speculation, albeit never defined doctrine. But then the Church used to speak of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption with the same kind of language prior to definition, and as recently as the 1950s the Holy See cautioned that it was rash and unfounded to promote belief that unbaptised babies are saved. As for the absence of definitive, "positive" NT evidence, if that means the subject of Limbo is incapable of definition, then how did the Church define the Assumption, which equally lacks definitive positive NT evidence?
I think the Assumption flows logically from the Immaculate Conception insofar as, without original sin, it makes sense that one's body would not undergo the decay of death that was the result of original sin in the first place.
Likewise, limbo is a deduction from no baptism. But there are also other deductions (baptism of desire and blood, etc.), which make it a bit different, I think, from the development of the doctrine of the Assumption.
Likewise, limbo is a deduction from no baptism. But there are also other deductions (baptism of desire and blood, etc.),
True -- although with unbaptised infants, in most cases imputed baptism of desire or baptism of blood would not apply. I'm very open to the possibility of baptism of blood in the cases of victims of abortion, although it might be a tough case to make that aborted babies are generally killed out of a conscious and intentional hatred of Christ. Indeed, one of the Popes decried abortion as a most grievous crime because, he said, it deprives the unborn child of any chance of salvation (though he made that statement in a non-magisterial text). As for baptism of desire, it is accepted that the intention of the parents or guardians to baptise the infant can be imputed in those cases where baptism is not possible prior to death, but it's not clear any baptism of desire obtains in the vast majority of cases where the baby's parents or guardians are non-Christians with no desire to baptise him. That leaves quite a large room for the traditional doctrine of Limbo.
In the end, I take the approach of accepting the Church's doctrine that anyone who dies unregenerate goes to hell, while hoping that God provides some means to remit the original sin of the unbaptised, much as I hope and pray that no human soul is damned while admitting that my hope isn't especially realistic and my prayer isn't likely to be answered. God is just and He is merciful, and if unbaptised infants go to the "limbus" of hell, separated from God but without torments, then I accept His judgment -- He's God, I'm not.
>those who die with unremitted original sin go to heli.
I reply: It would be more correct to say those who die with unremitted original sin are damned(i.e. they are excluded from the Beatific Vision).
You can be damned without going to Hell.
P.S. I would make the observation that "Limbo" cannot be defined not because of a lack of positive Scripture evidence, but because it would require a judgment from the Church on the fate of all unbaptised babies, and the Church is not given the authority to make such judgments -- she can only warn of the possible and probable fate of sinners, not dogmatically pronounce that this or that person definitively is damned (though I except Judas Iscariot from that rule, since I believe the Holy Spirit revealed his date in Scripture).
I reply: It would be more correct to say those who die with unremitted original sin are damned(i.e. they are excluded from the Beatific Vision).
You can be damned without going to Hell.
But Hell = final damnation. "Limbo" is called "Limbo" because it is the "fringe" or "hem" (limbus) of hell. When we talk of permanent exclusion from the Beatific Vision, we mean "hell," and when we talk of "hell," we mean permanent exclusion from the Beatific Vision. The idea of Limbo is included in the dogmatic teaching of the Church that those who die with unremitted original sin go to hell, but there they receive varying punishments, some lighter, some heavier. An unbaptised infant would receive the lightest punishment of all, having committed no actual sin.
IMHO the Augustinian view that those who die with original sin only suffer the torments of the damned is unreasonable & inconsistant with a just God.
A year and a half ago I wrote a series of postings on limbo. Folks may find them of interest.
Indeed they would. Thanks, Fr. Al!
IMHO the Augustinian view that those who die with original sin only suffer the torments of the damned is unreasonable & inconsistant with a just God.
I agree, and the Augustinian view was rightly abandoned as untenable long ago.
Regarding Augustine's views of those who die with original sin alone, I have always been under the impression Augustine taught unBaptized infants are tossed into hell right along side the worst sinners, however I came across a passage in Ch 93 of his Enchiridion book and he made it clear those who die with original sin alone would receive the "mildest punishment" possible where as those with actual sin will be punished in proportion to their actual sin. This is very in line with Catholic teaching regarding punishment in proportion to actual sin.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers...athers/
1302.htm
Whether he meant the infant still undergoes some punishment is disputed, but I interpret this as saying the only "punishment" they receive is being excluded from Heaven, though not feeling any pain. From what I have been told Saints like Aquinas taught that they feel no pain and that this has been the most popular/traditional view.
There is a reason why the Church has not defined the fate of unbaptized infants - that is because we simply don't know. Period.
A lot is made of Limbo being merely a theory. But I think we need to keep in mind on the flip side of the coin the idea that unbaptized infants who die go directly to heaven is also in the realm of speculation (in fact it is even more speculative than Limbo).
All these theories are not without their problems, though.
Take for instance baptism of blood applying to infants. Do we apply baptism of blood also to infants who have died through miscarriage or natural means? If such is the case how do we differentiate baptism of blood from, well, simply dying?
Limbo is also not without it's problems from a dogmatic point of view. It is a dogmatic teaching of the Church that all those who are saved must be "inside the Church"; and to be inside the Church you must either be baptized in water or in desire. Otherwise they go into eternal fire (not a place of natural happiness). The dogmatic definition goes something like this:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
If infants were to die in original sin, they would die unregenerated and therefore outside the fold of the Church. Hence, according to the above definition, "they will go into the 'eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels'"
IMHO, I believe God gives all souls sufficient grace to accept his salvation.
The theory that seems more possible then is this: At the moment before they leave this life God enlightens these infants with a special grace to either accept or reject him (similar to the grace given to all the angels at the time of probation). If they accept they will go to heaven, if they reject him they will go to hell.
The only problem I see with this is that it is lacking in historical foundation; that is, there is no scripture or tradition to support it. But since the Church allows us to "hope", this theory seems more possible and less problematic than those above two theories.
Do we believe that baptized infants who die are received into glory, even though they die before making a decision for Christ? I think that we do.
If this is so, then what is to prevent God from spiritually regenerating unbaptized infants at the moment of their deaths?
Surely the real question is "Who is God? Does he will our good?"
If this is so, then what is to prevent God from spiritually regenerating unbaptized infants at the moment of their deaths?
And if He does that, then what is the point of baptising them at all?
You wrote: When the article gets back on the question of limbo, directly, note that it is way more tentative:
". . . it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe . . ."
This is not the language of definitiveness.
Well, no, it's not -- but even so you haven't read the article correctly. The article doesn't say it is only speculation that unbaptised infants go to limbo -- it says it is a reasonable and fitting speculation that limbo is a place of natural happiness, although the souls there are deprived of the Beatific Vision. The article casts no doubt on the belief that infants who die without baptism cannot go to heaven: the only question the article raises is what limbo is like, not whether or not it exists.
IMHO the Augustinian view that those who die with original sin only suffer the torments of the damned is unreasonable & inconsistant with a just God.
BenYachov
With all my respect,you make it sound as if salvation and heaven are our right,no sir,we receive them by grace.So if you want to speak about Justice,then as St. Augustine and St. Thomas both quoted and also most if not all the church fathers,we justly deserve damnation and not salvation,because we are saved by grace ,which is a free undeserved gift.But when you say that if an unbaptised baby goes to hell then God is unjust,then i must disagree with you,because justly , none of us deserves heaven,because no one is saved unless by an undeserved grace , and no one is condemned unless for a deserved punishment.Otherwise you will be contradicting our Lord Jesus himself which clearly said,that unless a man is born from above,he or she shall not inherit the kingdom of God,and that includes all,whether infants or adults,because we are all sinners,whether only with original sin or original and personal sins...
Now if the unbaptised infants go to hell or limbo,i dont know,because also the limbus patris,didnt speak of hell and torment for those which were there,on the contrary ,they were very happy like in the parable of the poor Lazarus. And this is exactly the state in which St. Thomas and many other church fathers spoke of,when they spoke about the limbo for unbaptised infants.They said that they were happy just like any person who is in heaven,but just excluded of the beatific vision...
And last but not least,i mean come on guys,if you think that we can say for sure that unbaptised infants are for sure in heaven or are not,then the church and the church fathers would have said so very clearly,but since it is imposiible for us to truly know,then i will stick with what the church is teaching us,we can only hope that there is also a way for them to reach the beatific vision and heaven ....
Commenting by HaloScan
