Limbo

[Penelope]

I'm largely ignorant of the Church's teaching on limbo, but it came up at work today and I tried to explain it as best I could. People kept confusing limbo and purgatory and saying, "Purgatory doesn't actually exist." I had to say, "You're thinking of limbo, and as far as I know, the Church has said not that limbo doesn't exist, but that it isn't a dogmatic belief, meaning that if you don't believe in limbo, you aren't denying one of the essential teachings of Catholicism." No one was really interested in my explanation, though, so I said loudly (half-jokingly), "Okay, fine. I'm never going to try to teach people about their own Faith again!" I realize, though, that I should really know more about limbo myself. I want to know more about my own Faith. Will you teach me?

[totiusque]

Going off the top of my head without any sources (never a good idea, I know), Limbo is actually a part of Hell, though without any of the suffering.  Some say it is a place of natural happiness, though obviously without the Beatific Vision.  This is where Christ descended after His death, and is also said to be where unbaptized babies/children go. 

Limbo is not a de fide teaching of the Church, so we are not bound to believe in its existence, but to my knowledge, many of the Church Fathers referred to Limbo in their writings, and we can know with near certainty that it does, in fact, exist.

[tmw89]

The much-noted theologian Ott refers to two distinct limbos.

§25. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.  (De fide.)

The 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-45) declared:  illorum animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato vel solo irginali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere poenis tamen disparibus puniendas (the souls of those who die in original sin as well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell, but their punishment is very different).  D 464, 693.

The dogma is supported by the words of Our Lord: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God" (John 3, 5).

The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner though baptism by blood (cf. the baptism by blood of the children of Bethlehem).  Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire -- Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire -- H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering -- H. Schell), are indeed, possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation.  Cf. D 712.

In the punishment of Hell theologians distinguish between the "poena damni," which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific Vision of God, and the "poena sensus" which is caused by external means, and which will be felt by the senses even after the resurrection of the body.  While St. Augustine and many Latin Fathers are of the opinion that children dying in original sin mus suffer "poena sensus" also, even if only a very mild one (mitissima omnium poena:  Enchir. 93), the Greek Fathers (for example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 40, 23), and the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that they suffer "poena damni" only.  The declaration of Pope Innocent III, is in favour of this teaching:  Poena originalis peccati est carentia visionis Dei (= poena damni) actualis vero poena peccati est gehennae perpetuae cruciatus (= poena sensus).  D 410.  A condition of natural bliss is compatible with "poena damni."  Cf. St. Thomas, De malo, 5, 3; Sent. II d. 33 q 2 a. 2.

Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children's Limbo).  Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia.  D 1526.

§12 Christ's Descent into Hell

After his Death, Christ's soul, which was eparated from His body, descended into the underworld.  (De fide.)

The underworld is the place of detention for the souls of the just of the pre-Christian era, the so-called vestibule of hell (limbus Patrum).

[Penelope]

Going off the top of my head without any sources (never a good idea, I know), Limbo is actually a part of Hell, though without any of the suffering.  Some say it is a place of natural happiness, though obviously without the Beatific Vision.  This is where Christ descended after His death, and is also said to be where unbaptized babies/children go. 

Limbo is not a de fide teaching of the Church, so we are not bound to believe in its existence, but to my knowledge, many of the Church Fathers referred to Limbo in their writings, and we can know with near certainty that it does, in fact, exist.

Okay, so far that matches up with what I know about Limbo. Thanks, totiusque.

[Penelope]

§12 Christ's Descent into Hell

After his Death, Christ's soul, which was eparated from His body, descended into the underworld.  (De fide.)

The underworld is the place of detention for the souls of the just of the pre-Christian era, the so-called vestibule of hell (limbus Patrum).

Question about this one: Christ descended into the vestibule of hell to reveal himself to the pre-Christian just souls so that they could attain salvation, right?

Edited to fix typo.

[tmw89]

§12 Christ's Descent into Hell

After his Death, Christ's soul, which was eparated from His body, descended into the underworld.  (De fide.)

The underworld is the place of detention for the souls of the just of the pre-Christian era, the so-called vestibule of hell (limbus Patrum).

Question about this one: Christ descended into the vestibule of hell ro reveal himself to the pre-Christian just souls so that they could attain salvation, right?

Correct:

The purpose of the descent into Hell was, according to the general teaching of theologians, the freeing of the just in Limbo by the application of the fruits of the Redemption, that is, by the communication of the Beatific Vision.  Cf. S. th. III 52, 5.  Cat. Rom. I 6, 6.

[Penelope]

Gracias, tmw. Is there anything else I need to know about Limbo? For example, when did belief in Limbo fall out of favor (I bet I know the answer...)

[tmw89]

Gracias, tmw. Is there anything else I need to know about Limbo? For example, when did belief in Limbo fall out of favor (I bet I know the answer...)

De nada.  And I think you answered your own question there!

[Penelope]

Better question: how did belief in Limbo fall out of favor? Was there a document or something that promoted this, or did people just take it upon themselves?

[tmw89]

Better question: how did belief in Limbo fall out of favor? Was there a document or something that promoted this, or did people just take it upon themselves?

Here I am of little help - my knowledge of the topic is limited to pre-V2 sources.  At the very least, I've never read it discouraged or disparaged as a belief in any of those texts.

If anyone else reading this can contribute to the new matter at hand, please post!

[Vetus Ordo]

Just a few brief inputs, summarily taken from the CE:

In theological usage the name Limbo is applied to:

(a) the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ's triumphant ascension into Heaven (the "limbus patrum"); or

(b) to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the "limbus infantium" or "puerorum").

The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven, Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul's teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Romans 5:12 sqq.). On the other hand, it is clear from Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq., 2 Corinthians 5:10).

The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."

Although the belief that the souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God is actually de fide (e.g. according to Dr. Ott's theological manual), Limbo itself has never been defined by Rome as a dogma of the faith. Roman Catholics, therefore, are not bound under pain of heresy to profess that Limbo exists. After Vatican II, this teaching has been largely ommitted, if not altogether abandoned, by the ordinary episcopal magisterium.

[Penelope]

This is helpful. Thanks.

[Melkite]

If there is a limbo, I kind of think of it as comparative to the court of the gentiles in the temple complex.  I don't believe it is reserved to unbaptized babies, nor do I believe unbaptized babies are necessarily confined there (I know that will probably ruffle some feathers, but that's your problem, not mine )  I think what many quasi-Christians today believe to be heaven, the place of natural happiness, in that "good people" go there, and I think this limbo has an exponentially greater population than heaven or hell combined.  I think a truly just God would recognize the difference between torturing and murdering a child and merely telling a white lie if the intent is to spare someone emotional pain.  It's not really realistic to suggest that a person who is good by society's standard and a person who is evil by everybody's standards will both suffer in hell punishment so torturous that any difference between the two is purely academic.

[MilesChristi]

What about Dante's Limbo? Was that ever a serious theological position?

[Vetus Ordo]

I think a truly just God would recognize the difference between torturing and murdering a child and merely telling a white lie if the intent is to spare someone emotional pain. It's not really realistic to suggest that a person who is good by society's standard and a person who is evil by everybody's standards will both suffer in hell punishment so torturous that any difference between the two is purely academic.

I wouldn't call the differences "purely academic," although when it comes to these questions all we can do is speculate.

Both the "good guy" (the white liar) and the "bad guy" (the murderer) have sinned and will end up damned without Christ. Remember that he who breaks even the least commandment of the law is as guilty as if he had broken the whole law. That's the standard of justice and that's why only grace can save us.

However, the lives and the sins of the white liar and the murderer were actually different in degree and that will certainly play a part after death. How it will play a part is merely a matter of speculation that I don't consider particularly profitable.