Pope Benedict XVI. abolishes the teaching on limbo

[Marcus Marulus]

Closing the doors of limbo: Theologians say it was hypothesis

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- An international group of Vatican-appointed theologians is about to recommend that the Catholic Church close the doors of limbo forever.

Many Catholics grew up thinking limbo -- the place where babies who have died without baptism spend eternity in a state of "natural happiness" but not in the presence of God -- was part of Catholic tradition.

Instead, it was a hypothesis -- a theory held out as a possible way to balance the Christian belief in the necessity of baptism with belief in God's mercy.

Like hypotheses in any branch of science, a theological hypothesis can be proven wrong or be set aside when it is clear it does not help explain Catholic faith.

Meeting Nov. 28-Dec. 2 at the Vatican, the International Theological Commission, a group of theologians led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger until his election as Pope Benedict XVI, completed its work on a statement regarding "the fate of babies who have died without baptism."

A press release said the commission's statement would focus on the question "in the context of God's universal saving plan, the uniqueness of the mediation of Christ and the sacramentality of the church in the order of salvation."

U.S. Archbishop William J. Levada, president of the theological commission in his role as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told Pope Benedict Dec. 1 that he hoped the statement would be published soon.

Archbishop Levada said the question is important because "the number of babies not baptized has increased considerably" and the church knows that salvation "is only reachable in Christ through the Holy Spirit."

But the church, "as mother and teacher," also must reflect on how God saves all those created in his image and likeness, particularly when the individual is especially weak "or not yet in possession of the use of reason and freedom," the archbishop said.

Redemptorist Father Tony Kelly, an Australian member of the commission, told Catholic News Service "the limbo hypothesis was the common teaching of the church until the 1950s. In the past 50 years, it was just quietly dropped.

"We all smiled a bit when we were presented with this question, but then we saw how many important questions it opened," including questions about the power of God's love, the existence of original sin and the need for baptism, he said.

"Pastorally and catechetically, the matter had been solved" with an affirmation that somehow God in his great love and mercy would ensure unbaptized babies enjoyed eternal life with him in heaven, "but we had to backtrack and do the theology," Father Kelly said.

A conviction that babies who died without baptism go to heaven was not something promoted only by people who want to believe that God saves everyone no matter what they do.

Pope John Paul II believed it. And so does Pope Benedict.

In the 1985 book-length interview, "The Ratzinger Report," the future Pope Benedict said, "Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally -- and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the congregation -- I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis.

"It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism," he said.

In "God and the World," published in 2000, he said limbo had been used "to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible" to ensure that they had the "sanctifying grace" needed to wash away the effects of original sin.

While limbo was allowed to disappear from the scene, the future pope said, Pope John Paul's teaching in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and the encyclical "The Gospel of Life" took "a decisive turn."

Without theological fanfare, Pope John Paul "expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament," the then-cardinal said.

Father Kelly said turning away from the idea of limbo was part of "the development of the theological virtue of hope" and reflected "a different sense of God, focusing on his infinite love."

The Redemptorist said people should not think the changed focus is a lightweight embrace of warm, fuzzy feelings.

"The suffering, death and resurrection of Christ must call the shots," he said. "If Christ had not risen from the dead, we never would have thought of original sin," because no one would have needed to explain why absolutely every human needed Christ's salvation.

The fact that God loves his creatures so much that he sent his Son to die in order to save them means that there exists an "original grace" just as there exists "original sin," Father Kelly said.

The existence of original grace "does not justify resignation," or thinking that everyone will be saved automatically, he said, "but it does justify hope beyond hope" that those who die without having had the opportunity to be baptized will be saved.

END

[source]

[Milesian]

Redemptorist Father Tony Kelly, an Australian member of the commission, told Catholic News Service "the limbo hypothesis was the common teaching of the church until the 1950s. In the past 50 years, it was just quietly dropped.

"We all smiled a bit when we were presented with this question, but then we saw how many important questions it opened," including questions about the power of God's love, the existence of original sin and the need for baptism, he said.

"Pastorally and catechetically, the matter had been solved" with an affirmation that somehow God in his great love and mercy would ensure unbaptized babies enjoyed eternal life with him in heaven, "but we had to backtrack and do the theology," Father Kelly said.

This is a matter of some controversy.
St Augustine was sure that the Unbaptised were to suffer in Hell for eternity.
St Thomas Aquinas on the other hand did not believe that the Unbaptised suffered the sensory torments of Hell, but rather were deprived of the Beatific Vision so that they were united with God in the love and understanding of Him that their natural senses could afford, but theyr were not joined with Him for eternity.

But never has the Church taught that the Unbaptised can join the Just in Heaven, as this Redemptorist seems to have been heretically teaching

Personally, this is a matter to great for a layman like myself.
However, the Catholic Encyclopedia seem to state that "Limbo" is part of the Pelagian Heresy

“In the course of the controversy Augustine condemned, and persuaded the Council of Carthage to condemn, the Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of 'an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness'. This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned.” (Limbo, Catholic Encyclopedia)

St Augustine's own words were:

“Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of rest and happiness, such as he pleases and wherever he pleases, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven. This is what the Pelagian heresy promised them.” (The Soul and Its Origin)

And

“Nor is there any middle place for anyone, and so one can only be with the devil who is not with Christ.“ (Of the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins and of the Baptism of Infants 55)

Yet, Aquinas seems to offer out some hope by saying that the infants will not suffer the sensory punishments of Hell but rather be deprived of the Beatific Vision. This itself will cause no grief in them as you cannot grieve the loss of something when you don't know you have lost it. Whether that constitutes the kind of Limbo that the Council of Carthage condemend, I do not know.

The Council of Florence also defined, in Session VI, the following: ‘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.’

[Milesian]

A Feenyite look at the issue

Infants Suffer Fire and Limbo is a Pelagian Fable

[Milesian]

Are they saying now that the Unbaptised go straight to Heaven?
If so:

a) This is in direct contradiction to Infallibly defined dogma.

b) They are negating the necessity for baptism & by extension, the Catholic Church.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Milesian

A Feenyite look at the issue

Infants Suffer Fire and Limbo is a Pelagian Fable

But this website you are quoting is a Jansenist website. Jansenism is a heresy offically condemned by the Catholic Church several hundred years ago. Jansenism is basically Calvinism in "Roman Catholic" disguise.

romancatholicism.org is a Jansenist website!

[Marcus Marulus]

This was a very controversial theme during the whole Church history. It is true that Agustine postulated that unbaptized infants go to hell, but it is also true that Augustine was Manichaean before he converted to Christianity. Some remnants of Manichaean/Gnostic teachings and concepts survived in his mind even after his conversion to Christianity.

And some sort of Gnostic line persisted in the Church, throughout history, it manifested itself in various heresies. The basic tenet of Gnosticism was that matter is inherently evil. In Christianity permeated with Gnostic spirit this concept brought about the exaggeration of the impact of original sin. The Gnostic line in Christianity stated that man (being born in the material world) has become so corrupt by original sin, that he is practically incapable of any good work. This line of thought produced both Calvinism and Jansenism (and in modern world atheism and materialism, do you follow the line: man is extremely corrupt, ergo he is just an animal/wild beast like any other), with their exaggerated stress on predestination. Portestants based this teaching on predestination on some chapters in Augustine's work, taken out of context.

There is absolutely no logic in unbaptized children going straightly to hell, because they have no sins to atone for. According to Christian teaching, suffering in hell is very real and is a punishment for sins we committed. God gave us liberty to sin or to live according to his rules. In this case we would have some humans who were never given any liberty of choice, but ended up in hell through no fault of their own. It is contrary to both common sense and God's mercy towards all people.

Of course, all of this does not mean that I deny the original sin.

God is never unjust!

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

This was a very controversial theme during the whole Church history. It is true that Agustine postulated that unbaptized infants go to hell, but it is also true that Augustine was Manichaean before he converted to Christianity. Some remnants of Manichaean/Gnostic teachings and concepts survived in his mind even after his conversion to Christianity.

If he still entertained heretical notions then would he really have been cannonised and made one of the Doctors of the Church (The Doctor of Grace)?

And some sort of Gnostic line persisted in the Church, throughout history, it manifested itself in various heresies. The basic tenet of Gnosticism was that matter is inherently evil. In Christianity permeated with Gnostic spirit this concept brought about the exaggeration of the impact of original sin. The Gnostic line in Christianity stated that man (being born in the material world) has become so corrupt by original sin, that he is practically incapable of any good work. This line of thought produced both Calvinism and Jansenism (and in modern world atheism and materialism, do you follow the line: man is extremely corrupt, ergo he is just an animal/wild beast like any other),

This is not what atheism/materialism says, as far as I'm aware.
Rather, they deny any divine/supernatural. There is no God therefore no Original Sin. In fact, no sin of any kind.

Humanism actually seems far more like Pelagiasm - it says that humans can attain salvation through their own merit. Look at the UN and similar groups trying to create a humanistic utopia, trying to create peace on earth through human effort & without need of God's grace. This is what St Augustine opposed.

with their exaggerated stress on predestination. Portestants based this teaching on predestination on some chapters in Augustine's work, taken out of context.

Yes, as you said - they took it out of context.

There is absolutely no logic in unbaptized children going straightly to hell, because they have no sins to atone for.

Do you not believe in Original Sin?
If you deny that Original Grace was lost to Original Sin, then there is no longer any need for Christ's sacrifice on the cross & there is no need for baptism.
Baptism is the washing away of Original Sin and the conferring of the Salvic benefit of Christ's sacrifice. Original Sin was the whole reason why a "perfect sacrifice" had to be rendered and resulted in the Incarnation.

According to Christian teaching, suffering in hell is very real and is a punishment for sins we committed. God gave us liberty to sin or to live according to his rules. In this case we would have some humans who were never given any liberty of choice, but ended up in hell through no fault of their own. It is contrary to both common sense and God's mercy towards all people.

Not only have Church council's seemingly defined the need for baptism as dogma (Council of Carthage and Council of Florence to name but two), but Christ himself said that unless one was baptised by water and the Holy Spirit, then they could not enter the Kingdom of God.

Of course, all of this does not mean that I deny the original sin.

Can you clarify your view of it then? If it does not shut the Gates of Heaven to Man, then what effect if any does it have? And what do you believe then was the purpose of Christ?

God is never unjust!

Yes, that is my point.
He is merciful, but above all he is just.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

But this website you are quoting is a Jansenist website. Jansenism is a heresy offically condemned by the Catholic Church several hundred years ago. Jansenism is basically Calvinism in "Roman Catholic" disguise.

romancatholicism.org is a Jansenist website!

Can you explain?
What is Calvinistic about this website. It upholds the dogma - Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus. It believes in the absolute necessity of baptism.
Calvinism, on the other hand does not, as far as I'm aware.
Calvinism believes in Pre-Destination. If someone is pre-ordained to be one of the Saved Elect, what matter is it whether they are baptised or not. they still go to Heaven anyway.

I may be wrong, but I think the belief that baptism is not necessary for salvation leads to many dangerous logical conclusions. For a start, it begins to fall into the Concilliar heresy of Invincible Ignorance

[Erasmus]

An article on Augustine and Jansen:

Augustine\'s Doctrine of Grace and the Church\'s Approval of It

Limbo hasn't been a dogma but a theological proposition.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Milesian

For a start, it begins to fall into the Concilliar heresy of Invincible Ignorance

Look at what Pope Pius IX. had to say. And that was one hundred years before the II. Vatican Council:

Pope Pius IX. in his Letter on Indifferentism (August 10, 1863): "The Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known. Those who obstinately and knowingly reject the authority and definitions of the Church, and persist willfully in remaining separated from the unity of the Church and from the Bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter to whom the charge of the vineyard was committed by Christ, those cannot be saved.We know that those who are invincibly ignorant of our holy religion, and who are prepared to obey God. earnestly observing the natural moral law engraven in the hearts of all men by God, can be saved by living an honest and just life with the help of divine light and grace. For God, who clearly discerns the minds and souls, thoughts an habits of all men, will not, in his goodness and mercy, permit anyone to be punished eternally who is not guilty of voluntary sin."

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Milesian

If he still entertained heretical notions then would he really have been cannonised and made one of the Doctors of the Church (The Doctor of Grace)?

He isn't considered heretic, but he isn't considered an infallible authority either. Some of his teachings never became mainstream in the Church, for ex. the predestination.

Originally Posted by Milesian

This is not what atheism/materialism says, as far as I'm aware.
Rather, they deny any divine/supernatural. There is no God therefore no Original Sin. In fact, no sin of any kind.

There is a small step between claiming that man is absolutely and irreparably separated from God, being (the man) incapable of any good work on his own free will (that's what both Calvinism and Jansenism teach) and the outright abolition of God (with time He becomes ever less and less relevant in a way...) First separation, then alienation.

Originally Posted by Milesian

Humanism actually seems far more like Pelagiasm - it says that humans can attain salvation through their own merit. Look at the UN and similar groups trying to create a humanistic utopia, trying to create peace on earth through human effort & without need of God's grace. This is what St Augustine opposed.

A typical example of false opposites. On one side we have those who deny Original Sin and say man is totally good (those who you mentioned: humanists, Pelagianists, utopianists, UN), on the other side those who exaggerate the impact of Original Sin, stating the complete badness of man and incapability of any good deeds. Both of these ostensibly opposed doctrines in the last instance converge in one and the same outcome: rejection of God.

Originally Posted by Milesian

Do you not believe in Original Sin?

Of course I do. I believed in original sin even before I became Christian. Because, when one sees the propensity to evil in all human beings, you must come to a logical conclusion that it must be some primordial cause to it.

Originally Posted by Milesian

If you deny that Original Grace was lost to Original Sin, then there is no longer any need for Christ's sacrifice on the cross & there is no need for baptism.

Man didn't completely lose ability to know God, even after the Original Sin. If that were so, even faith would be impossible and man would degenerate into mere animal. Some grace remained, not all of it was lost. Christ's sacrifice and baptism are absolutely necessary because of the sinfulness of man.

Originally Posted by Milesian

Baptism is the washing away of Original Sin and the conferring of the Salvic benefit of Christ's sacrifice. Original Sin was the whole reason why a "perfect sacrifice" had to be rendered and resulted in the Incarnation.

What is Original Sin? St. Ambrose taught that original sin is rather an inclination to evil than guilt in the strict sense. One month old child cannot be guilty of anything.

Originally Posted by Milesian

Not only have Church council's seemingly defined the need for baptism as dogma (Council of Carthage and Council of Florence to name but two), but Christ himself said that unless one was baptised by water and the Holy Spirit, then they could not enter the Kingdom of God.

...and he also pointed at (unbaptized at the time) little children saying that the Kingdom of Heaven is in them.

Originally Posted by Milesian

Can you clarify your view of it then? If it does not shut the Gates of Heaven to Man, then what effect if any does it have? And what do you believe then was the purpose of Christ?

To wash away our sins, pure and simple.

Originally Posted by Milesian

He is merciful, but above all he is just.

Paul in Timothy: "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who wills all men to be saved, and to come to an acknowledgment of the truth."

So he wills all men to be saved. If someone heard about Christ's message and refused to accept it, he is inexcusable. But what about unbaptized infants? They have never had any occasion to decide whether they wish to accept Christ or not.

One of the basic tenets of Christianity is man's freedom. Not freedom in the stupid modern sense of liberalism, but a metaphysical freedom, being entitled to choose between God and evil, serving Christ or devil. But it seems that the Jansenists/Feeney-ites say that God has predetermined some people for eternal punishment. It turns out that only a small group of "the elect" can be saved (smacks of Calvinism all too much). And what about the Holy Innocents (killed by Herodes' soldiers)? They should all rot in hell according to that logic (they were unbaptized).

This is a difficult issue for which there were many opinions proposed, often contradicting each other. Maybe the best solution is to say, because we can't be sure, that those "children are entrusted to God's mercy", as the Catechism says.

[Franze]

I don´t know enough for seeing the consequences of this, although I am sure, that if I have children, they will be baptised soon.