www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology No More Limbo?

Has anyone seen this? Anyone have any thoughts?

The Pope may be about to abolish the notion of limbo, the halfway house between heaven and hell, inhabited by unbaptised infants. Is it really that simple?

Pope Benedict XVI's anticipated pronouncement on limbo will have been informed by the International Theological Commission - a group of leading Roman Catholic theologians who have been meeting to consider the issue.

The Pope, himself, has been quoted in the past as saying that he would let the idea of limbo "drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis".

He was quoted as saying that limbo has never been a "definitive truth of the faith".

Read the whole article here:
Limbo being abolished? [news.bbc.co.uk]

I meant to post this in Church News but I guess it's ok here too...

Pope Benedict XVI is quite correct; "limbo" was and is a medieval theological construct, not a Church doctrine. What seems to have sent it off to . . . well, to limbo! (the word itself may retain a certain useful in the sense in which I just used it) is the horrific phenomenon of mass abortions. The notion that parents are not merely able to murder their own children with impunity, but can deny their own children access to Heaven, is simply intolerable.

As to what actuallyl happens, we may safely leave that in the hands of Almighty God. This applies to my own older brother, so I am not simply waving aside someone else's concern.

Fr. Serge

It seems, however, that limbo has always been in limbo, ie, never defined - just an attempt to explain that it would be unjust of God to condemn the innocent to hell.

Here is another story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600383.html

PS

When my wife miscarried in January of 2005 with # 10, she was very upset about limbo which she saw as a sorry excuse for heaven. When the baby was alive and well, we had decided on the name Gianna after St. Gianna Molla who sacrificed her own life, so that her unborn baby could live. After our Gianna had died, my wife, unbeknowst to me, had one Sunday told God she wanted to know our baby was in heaven. She didn't want anything big, just a little sign - any sign.

The next day (i think it was the very next day) my wife got a phone call out of the blue from my sister who was (unknown to us) at the national pro-life rally in Washington, DC. She told us that there was a big long line of people to meet some woman who looked rather tall and attractive, so she got in line to see what it was all about. It was in fact Gianna Molla's daughter (also named Gianna) for whom she had sacrificed her life. My sister told her that we had recently lost our baby who was named after her mother. Her response was, "Well, now there are two Giannas in heaven." You can imagine my wife's reaction when she heard this.

It still gives me the chills to think about that "little" sign!

Im,

Thanks for that wonderful testimony!

St. Gianna pray for us!!!

This a good article dealing with the question of Limbo: http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html

And I'd also check out www.rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/ [rorate-caeli.blogspot.com]

Logos Teen

I have actually seen a small but vocal number of people against dropping limbo. They wonder what is to become of original sin then. Without that, they lament, there is no Immaculate Conception. No Assumption. They wonder why children would need to be baptized at a young age. They rightly point out that it is a slippery slope that calls into question all those topics touched by Augustinian thought.

The response, one they are truly ignorant of, is that there is another way of approaching these issues. Maybe babies are baptized and chrismated so that they will have the strength and grace of the sacraments for their life here on earth. Maybe there wasn't anything special about Mary's conception, but instead about her life and her cooperation with the will of God. Maybe Mary did die and was taken to her heavenly glory three days later, a testament to what all those who cooperate with the will of God will taste. Maybe original sin isn't best understood as a stain on the soul only able to be washed away by the powers of baptism. These thoughts honestly don't occur to them. But when they are pointed out, I think it could lead to a much wider knowledge and acceptance of Orthodox theology in the west.

St. Gregory of Nyssa has a letter on the fate of the unbaptized infants who die. I'm out of town, but when I get home, I will get my copy and give a quote or two for you. But I can summarize his view.

St. Gregory unequivocally states that unbaptized infants and small children who die are saved and in heaven since they have no sin. He also states unequivocally that we do not inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. Baptism is for the remission of actual sins. There is no original sin to remit. We inherited death from Adam, not sin. My understanding is that this is the widely accepted view among Orthodox and it makes the most sense to me. In my opinion, St. Augustine is wrong about original sin. It would be fundamentally unjust for God to condemn to hell those who are brought into the world without their consent, and then left to die before given the opportunity to love God and fear Him. Peace in Christ,

Joe

If Baptism is for the forgiveness of *Actual* sin, then why does the Church baptize infants within days of birth? They cannot have sinned, and the practice is of extremely long standing.

You might want to re-examine your theology here. And St. Gregory's.

Plausibility isn't the same as evidence.

Not to mention that "theologoumenonically" ;)speaking, Limbo is a state of perfect natural happiness, therefore far superior to life on Earth and anything we can experience here. How is this unjust?

Logos Teen

As far as I know, it is only the Roman Church that baptizes infants within days of their birth. In the Melkite Church, the typical custom is to tonsure the baby at 40 days and then baptize, chrismate, and commune the baby either at Pascha or Theophany. That seems to be the usual custom. Our children were a good 3 months old before being baptized. In Christ,

Joe

If man was made to be in communion with God, then how can there ever be perfect, "natural" happiness? Our nature is only fully alive when we are deified. In Christ,

Joe

Despite my wife's experience, I agree that the speculation on limbo ought not to be forsaken, for the reason that we simply don't know what happens to children who do not receive the grace of baptism. For infants who do receive the grace and die, we do have a certainty. [In my story above, my wife did make an "intention' of baptism when one night she woke up after having a dream that our baby died - so I have a certain confidence in God's mercy which confidence was strengthened by the prayer which God answered.

As to Augustin, so much gets attributed to him that really isn't from him.

As to original sin, it is important to remember that it is a sin of origin. Here is St. Thomas on original sin:


...Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that all men born of Adam may be considered as one man, inasmuch as they have one common nature, which they receive from their first parents; even as in civil matters, all who are members of one community are reputed as one body, and the whole community as one man. Indeed Poryphyry says (Praedicabilia, De Specie) that "by sharing the same species, many men are one man." Accordingly the multitude of men born of Adam, are as so many members of one body....so original sin is not the sin of this person, except inasmuch as this person receives his nature from his first parent, for which reason it is called the sin of nature, according to Ephesians 2:3: "We. . . were by nature children of wrath."

In a later question St. Thomas writes:

I answer that, In one man there is one original sin. Two reasons may be assigned for this. The first is on the part of the cause of original sin. For it has been stated (Q81,A2), that the first sin alone of our first parent was transmitted to his posterity. Wherefore in one man original sin is one in number; and in all men, it is one in proportion, i.e. in relation to its first principle. The second reason may be taken from the very essence of original sin. Because in every inordinate disposition, unity of species depends on the cause, while the unity of number is derived from the subject. For example, take bodily sickness: various species of sickness proceed from different causes, e.g. from excessive heat or cold, or from a lesion in the lung or liver; while one specific sickness in one man will be one in number. Now the cause of this corrupt disposition that is called original sin, is one only, viz. the privation of original justice, removing the subjection of man's mind to God. Consequently original sin is specifically one, and, in one man, can be only one in number; while, in different men, it is one in species and in proportion, but is numerically many.

If unbaptized children do share in theosis...it is still because of God's great mercy. As to the abortion issue mentioned by Fr. Serge, I think of the innocent children in a way similar to the Holy Innocents. Instead of being slaughtered directly (ie, in the order of grace) for Christ, however, aborted childred are being slaughtered indirectly (by a rejection of the natural order) for Him insofar as the order established by God is being utterly rejected by man even to the extent that man would destroy his own offspring.

"Limbo" is a theological opinion and has never been taught as a doctrine of the Catholic Church. The term and the concept are a medieval attempt to fill in all the gaps. It seems that scholastic philosophy and theology needed to define all the mystery and answer all the questions that could be posed. Paragraphs 1261 and 1283 of the CCC deal with this topic and suggest an answer closer to the idea that one can be comfortable with mystery and allow the Providence of God to be what it is--His Mercy, His Providence, His Love poured out generously.

Yes, there were teachings about this in some catechetical instruction if one were old enough to have heard it taught. But some of that was what has been pejoratively called "convent theology" where the good sisters thought that they needed to know all the answers. Beyond that, it seems that the same questions came up in the same grades year after year and my own suspicion was that it was an ongoing atttempt to trip up the nuns who were simply trying to evangelize a bunch of semi-heathen children. Brings to mind the times the Pharisees tried to trip up Jesus.

It seems to me that the reason that one has an infant baptized is the sincere desire to give to that child the great gift that the parents and sponsors already have: communion with Christ, with the Holy Trinity, the life of grace lived by the saints that we can have NOW in the soul to guide us, to guard us, and to lead us through this life into the life to come. We become part of God's family, entering into and participating in His life. What could be greater? The purification of Baptism is a prefigurement of the purification that some of us may need at the end of our lives so that we can enter into the Mansions of the Just, to the Wedding Feast without end, to the Heavenly Liturgy that never ends, to the Beatific Vision--to praise Him forever with all the blessed spirits gathered there from every race, nation, people, culture, and time.

I think that here it might be well to remember the term "baptism of desire" that theologians say is possible for those righteous souls who have never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel--it happens after death. Who can say that the God Who told His apostles to "let the little children come to Me and do not prevent them" is not actively embracing every last one who comes to Him in his innocence whether miscarried, stillborn, or died before baptism? I'd be rather disappointed if He didn't.

In any event, I think that this is much ado about nothing. Is God tied to our sacramental system (the life of the Church expressed and lived within the Church and her celebration of the Mysteries)? While we might be bound to join the Church and live the life He has given us through the Church and through the teaching of the Church, God Himself is not bound when He is in the business of saving His creatures.

I personally believe that this will be part of the "eye hath not seen, nor hath ear heard . . ." that we hear of in the Gospel. God's got lots of surprises for all of us, including the theologians who may think they've finally got Him figured out. For me, complete faith in Divine Providence, even when I can't understand it, is a big part of my moving my faith growth to another level--going from child-like faith to learning lots of the big theological terms and expressions to trying to come to some sort of synthesis in my prayer and faith life and finally coming full circle to a place where I'm completely comfortable with saying "Lord, I don't understand thus and such, but I trust You; You have it in Hand; I'm leaving it up to You." (And is it any wonder I sleep like a baby? )

In Christ,

BOB

Bob,

That was a beautiful post that expresses my feelings better than I ever could. In Christ,

Joe

Interestingly, St. Gregory Nazianzen (a contemporary of St. Gregory of Nyssa) held a much different view. He essentially believed in what would become known as Limbo in the West. From his 40th Oration:

So it's clear that there was never any consensus on this matter. We have Doctors of the Church that have upheld all three major "answers" to the question. All appeals to a "traditional" answer are going to be met with other equally attested answers. One more reason to make it a matter of a shrug and a prayer, IMO.

Peace and God bless!