Who still believes in Limbo of the Innocent


I am firmly of the belief that if one isnt baptised (by water) then one can’t see the Beautific Vision. and this Limbo is sitting on the top level of Hell, No pain, but maybe sorrow; who knows.

To take Limbo away invokes other ways of Salvation which God will work out in the “course of time” or “new rules”. I understand we (as in the human race) are under Gods Laws but God does not have to live by them; inasmuch as He can do what He likes.

But losing Limbo seriously implicates our whole faith, well I think so anyway.



I don’t believe in Limbo and it never been taught by the Church. Not having Limbo has no impact on our Faith. The Church position for example on aborted and other unbatised children is to trust in God’s mercy which I do.


I’m going to go out on a limb here and say I don’t care. This has always been good enough for me:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


I still believe in the Catholic doctrine of Limbo that the modernists and liberals reject.


It has NEVER been a doctrine of the Church. That is a myth!


It has always been a doctrine of the Church, but not one that has been defined. The doctrine of limbo has even been discussed at general councils.

The only thing uncertain about limbo is whether those who go there suffer the fires of hell (as taught by Augustine, Bellarmine, and others), or if they enjoy natural happiness (as taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, and many others).

The “myth” (invented very recently) is that limbo is not a doctrine (teaching). It most certainly is a doctrine of the Church, just not one that has been defined de fide.

I believe the following article provides the magisterial quotes to show that limbo is a doctrine of the Church.


Don’t be deceived by the deceivers.


I think Limbo of the Innocent (!!!) lessens God in order to fit him into our limited understanding (and the limited revelation given to us).

As you touch on, eternity away from God is hell, nothing more, nothing less. Just calling Limbo a “nice hell” doesn’t change that fact.

The notion that e.g. an abortionist could repent and gain heaven, but all the babies he aborted would never gain heaven, is simply grotesque.


If your ancestors were Catholic—that statement would have them turn in their graves.


I think a Dumb god would provide for a Limbo and a smart god would give such infants a baptism of Desire.

Since I believe that God is infinitely intelligent I believe He can get around the oiginal sin Cherishers!

And I also believe that one can be quite traditional and quite right in insisting that Catholic parents get their babies baptized as quickly as possible after birth

but not be dumb enough to believe that God would not grant the baptism of desire to infants who are not baptized.

I just don’t see how Catholics can maintain that Jesus died for all men–admit that original sin is only a privation of sanctifying grace–only an inclination towards evil an not sin itself–and also maintain that an infant is incapable of committing not even one mortal sin

and also say that God would let those infants go to Hell and not grant them a baptism of desire.

Wouldn’t that be like Jesus Himself “hindering the little children to come unto me?”

The only way I think it might be possible that some of those children would perish is if God knew that no matter what circumstances they were put in and no matter how much grace they were given that they would reject every possibility of grace and deserve Hell.

Now that is quite a scary thing but God is smart enough to know such things.

So even if you think that some may indeed go to Hell–it seems very problematic that the same God would let other infants not have a baptism of desire and be sent to limbo.

Now what kind of sense does that make?

For all the original sin cherishers out there I’ll just say this: Limbo is going by the way side and it isn’t going to come back.

Don’t say to yourself that only an Ex Cathedra statement from the Pope himself will make you give up that cherished theological speculation which probably drove more people away from Jesus than towards him!


That is like saying—a “dumb” God sent God the Son to give His life on the Cross—when He could have given us redemption without our Lord Christ’s death.


The issue is not the existence of Limbo (a state deprived of the beatific vision with no actual pains; Hell without punishment)–this is dogmatic. The issue is whether we can say definitively that unbaptized infants go there. I pray that God grant them sanctifying grace, but His will not mine.


This should have been a poll. In answer to the question “Who still believes in Limbo of the Innocents?” I say only people who are trying to harken back to the mythical “good old days” of the pre-Vatican II Church which never really were all that good.



I do.


I say—people who are not taken in by the new opinions of theologians—especially after our Pope has warned the theologians not to prostitute themselves for popular opinion.


Limbo may have been taught by 2,000 years worth of theologians and discussed at umpteen hundred councils, but really it would take more than the current level of official pronouncement (and theologians and teachers don’t count) to make it required belief. And one can be a perfectly good Catholic and not believe in it.

No-one asserts that St Thomas Aquinas was somehow less Catholic, less saintly or ‘less than’ in any respect because of his faulty understanding in regards the Immaculate Conception, even though that IS required belief for ourselves.

So with Limbo - those theologians who DO believe in it have debated on its nature. I dare say many haven’t even mentioned it simply because they either didn’t believe in it or didn’t pretend to know.

If a future Pope or Council pronounces definitively on it, in obedience I will assent. Until then I have no position on it, claim no certain knowledge on the topic, and don’t have to. And I implicitly trust the Catechism when it permits of hope, it is worth more than any amount of theological windbaggery.


My hope–is that in limbo the unbaptised escape the torments of hell of the damned.


My hope is that there is no Limbo and that all the children are not hindered from coming to Jesus!


Where does it say in the bible that those who are not baptized cannot attain salvation?


That is the ordinary way to obtain salvation. It is not the only way.

Since it isn’t-- it isn’t a forlorn hope to hope that unbaptized infants who die obtain salvation–in fact the Catholic Church says that we should hiope for this–it does however recognize that we do not know this is what will happen.


I don’t question in the slightest that baptism is ordinarily a requirement for salvation. But what I want to see, if anybody can provide it, is a clear statement of no baptism = no salvation. A statement something like this (from John 3:36)
he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him
Now that is a very clear statement that applies to any and every person. I want to see a similar statement regarding baptism.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.