Catholic Church Buries Limbo After Centuries

[rlg94086]

I’m not an “anti-Limbo” person, which is why I’ve never responded to your questions to “anti-Limbo” people. I don’t know what happens to unbaptized babies, and I have never stated that they go to heaven. I don’t believe the Church has has taught de fide that they are excluded from the Beatific Vision. I’ve read conflicting reports on this, so excuse me if I am skeptical of your claim.

My understanding is that God is not limited in His ability to allow unbaptized (anyone really) into heaven. You seem to believe that He is limited in His abilities. I’m not sure where that is taught in the Church.

Something of immense importance is being repeatedly circumvented in this discussion. Even though limbo is not de fide, the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision because of original sin IS de fide.

As a Catholic, you may choose to reject St. Thomas Aquinas’s teaching on the existence of natural happiness in limbo. You may, if you wish, agree instead with St. Augustine by saying that unbaptized infants, in addition to being deprived of the beatific vision, also suffer in hell. Nonetheless, if you wish to be a solid Catholic, you may ***NOT ***deny that unbaptized infants are excluded from the beatific vision, for this exclusion is a Catholic dogma.

Again, two general councils (Lyons II and Florence) taught that those who die in original sin only descend into hell for some kind of punishment. Pope Innocent III told us that this punishment is deprivation of the beatific vision.

Anti-limbo people should cease evading these points.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I don’t know what happens to unbaptized babies, and I have never stated that they go to heaven. I don’t believe the Church has has taught de fide that they are excluded from the Beatific Vision. I’ve read conflicting reports on this, so excuse me if I am skeptical of your claim.

This is not merely a personal claim.

The limbo threads on this Web site contain repeated references to the Catholic Church’s de fide teaching that the souls of those who die in original sin only are punished in the next world by deprivation of the beatific vision.

The verbatim citation from the Council of Florence (DS 1306) was transcribed in an earlier post on this thread (#304).

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Tom317]

Okay. First of all, teaching is not the same as Dogma and Doctrine. For example, Limbo is a teaching in the Church, but it is not *de fide. *Secondly, the Church isn’t giving a false impression, people are misinterpreting.

I feel you are wrong with this. The Church knows that it has nothing new to say about unborn babies, yet it opened the study anyway. In today’s anti-Catholic atmosphere the Church needs to be very cautious about making public statements. The Church exists in the world and must be conscious of what the world will do with its statements.

True, but some things are “hard sayings.” People get pushed away all the time over issues like Birth Control and Divorce, for examle. We don’t call on the Church to be careful of her wording for fear of pushing people away.

I agree and with those examples the reason is the Church has very definitive things to say. Regarding unborn babies the Church’s view has not changed–yet many people already think the Church has changed, which simply proves my point.

Wait. That is exactly my point, if you are talking about the articles misinterpreting the words of the Commission. Faithful Catholics will continue to understand the need for Baptism. Catholics who deny Church teaching will continually need instruction and prayers.

Yet, it is the Church’s role to reach those dissenting Catholics and all non-Catholics, and these sorts of statements simple confuse that attempt to reach them. People need to hear and know the truth, not a world mess of views that has nothing to do with reality.

But, your argument is that belief in Limbo is required in order for Baptism to be considered important. Baptism in the East is considered very important even though they don’t believe in Limbo, so your argument is faulty. For some reason our Orthodox brothers and sisters are able to understand something that us Catholics are all of a sudden going to have a crisis over because of Limbo being questioned. I think your concern is overblown.

No. My argument is that Limbo is still retained as a valid theory because the Church retains the knowledge that baptism is an absolute and that God has not revealed what He does with unborn babies. The Church will never get rid of Limbo as so many people want, because Limbo explains what happens to unborns. The Church states that Limbo remains a valid theory, which simply proves my point that this study was a waste and did nothing but cause trouble. Some things are better left alone.

What the Orthodox or Protestants believe means nothing, this is about Catholics.

 

[rlg94086]

Round and round it goes. Where does it stop? Nobody knows.

 

[Tom317]

Round and round it goes. Where does it stop? Nobody knows.

Yep, and the truth is this conversation does not do much good for people on this thread.

 

[rlg94086]

No. My argument is that Limbo is still retained as a valid theory because the Church retains the knowledge that baptism is an absolute and that God has not revealed what He does with unborn babies. The Church will never get rid of Limbo as so many people want, because **Limbo explains what happens to unborns. **The Church states that Limbo remains a valid theory, which simply proves my point that this study was a waste and did nothing but cause trouble. Some things are better left alone.

God has not revealed what He does with unborn babies. Agreed. Limbo explains what happens to unborns? Perhaps. It is a theory to explain it, but it doesn’t definitively explain it. I don’t need a guess, when I can leave such things to the mercy of God.

What the Orthodox or Protestants believe means nothing, this is about Catholics.

My comments weren’t about what they believe. Rather, it was the effect of their non-belief of Limbo on the need for infant baptism. Since the Orthodox are very close to us in their doctrine, it is a worthwhile comparison. Since you can’t refute the point, you prefer to dismiss it out of hand. It’s your choice, so I guess we will leave it at that. Again, I see no evidence that the Commission’s comments negate the importance of Baptism, as you have claimed previously.

 

[rlg94086]

This is not merely a personal claim.

The limbo threads on this Web site contain repeated references to the Catholic Church’s de fide teaching that the souls of those who die in original sin only are punished in the next world by deprivation of the beatific vision.

The verbatim citation from the Council of Florence (DS 1306) was transcribed in an earlier post on this thread (#304).

Keep and spread the Faith.

The verbatim citation of a Council out-of-context with all the other teachings of the Church does not prove a point. It is very similar to the tactics of those who follow *sola scriptura *and quote passages of the Bible out-of-context.

It is possible to state that those who die with original sin are deprived of the beatific vision, and to also state that “God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly." (See CCC 1257)

 

[rlg94086]

Yep, and the truth is this conversation does not do much good for people on this thread.

You mean the three people who are still reading it?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

1. If this is the case, then the concept of Limbo has done nothing to help the situation. Therefore, if the Church were to drop it, it would probably have zero effect IMO.
2. The faithful Cathlolics will still follow the Church in the same way, with or without the belief in Limbo.

Are you OK with receiving Communion WITHOUT ever being baptized? Is it OK to receive with still carrying Original Sin?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

This is really not about Limbo, it is about original sin and baptism. Limbo protects both, while deleting Limbo makes both meaningless.

Many (not all) Protestants wrongly believe that baptism plays no role in salvation, and that is exactly how many (not all) Catholics will feel if they are told that unborn babies go to Heaven. Catholics are not stupid. They will understand that if unpbaptized unborn babies go to Heaven, then so will any unbapitized child/baby under the age of seven. There is no escaping that, it makes baptism a sysmbolic action and it makes original sin look meaningless.

For two millenium Catholics have been taught that they must baptized their babies, not only because Christ demanded baptism, but because the Church recognized that Christ made it a condition of salvation, without qualification. Now, if the Church is falsely seen as having proclaimed unborn babies go to Heaven, then 2,000 years of teachings are tossed out.

SYMBOLIC ! You just opened my eyes. If baptism should be seen as “symbolic” that seems to follow along the lines where many catholics see the “Eucharist” as “symbolic.”

The Church is under attack in most sublte of ways. Catholic prophesies tell of a “falling Away” in the last days and following “doctrines of demons” …this fits the grand scheme of things, wouldn’t you say?

 

[rlg94086]

Are you OK with receiving Communion WITHOUT ever being baptized? Is it OK to receive with still carrying Original Sin?

You must have just come from my “smoking crack” thread.

Where do you get that from my post? What does receiving communion without being baptized (a potentially mortal sin) have to do with Limbo?

 

[LilyM]

Are you OK with receiving Communion WITHOUT ever being baptized? Is it OK to receive with still carrying Original Sin?

Nobody is discussing being able to receiving Communion here. We’re talking salvation - the two are different matters. Many baptised children die and are saved without ever having had the opportunity to receive Communion. So have many people who haven’t had the opportunity for sacramental confession (and thus communion either) but nonetheless had Perfect Contrition at the point of death.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Nobody is discussing being able to receiving Communion here. We’re talking salvation - the two are different matters. Many baptised children die and are saved without ever having had the opportunity to receive Communion. So have many people who haven’t had the opportunity for sacramental confession (and thus communion either) but nonetheless had Perfect Contrition at the point of death.

It was rhetorical. You didn’t get the gist of it. Gimmee a break

 

[napad]

The way I read it there are two camps the anti-limbo and the pro-limbo.

The anti-limbo seems to come-up with a lot of theories but very little documentation. The few quotes from the new Catechism they use to oppose an established Tradition. But to oppose Tradition one needs another Tradition to show a continuity of belief since the time of the last Apostle, that infants without baptism are saved. Which they do not.

The pro-limbo camp seems to quote strong authorities: Councils , popes, saints and show how there is a continuity in the acceptence of limbo.

Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori states:
“Calvin says that infants born of parents who have the faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism. But this is false: for David was born of parents who had the faith, and he confessed that he was born in sin. **This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned” (**Explanation of Trent, Duffy Co., 1845, p.56)

This seems clear to me and of the highest authority. If infants of believers can’t be saved then there should be no question.

This seems very clear to me I don’t see how others miss it.

 

[rlg94086]

So, are you claiming the current Catechism of the Catholic Church is in error?

The way I read it there are two camps the anti-limbo and the pro-limbo.

The anti-limbo seems to come-up with a lot of theories but very little documentation. The few quotes from the new Catechism they use to oppose an established Tradition. But to oppose Tradition one needs another Tradition to show a continuity of belief since the time of the last Apostle, that infants without baptism are saved. Which they do not.

The pro-limbo camp seems to quote strong authorities: Councils , popes, saints and show how there is a continuity in the acceptence of limbo.

Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori states:
“Calvin says that infants born of parents who have the faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism. But this is false: for David was born of parents who had the faith, and he confessed that he was born in sin. **This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned” (**Explanation of Trent, Duffy Co., 1845, p.56)

This seems clear to me and of the highest authority. If infants of believers can’t be saved then there should be no question.

This seems very clear to me I don’t see how others miss it.

 

[napad]

So, are you claiming the current Catechism of the Catholic Church is in error?

No. Im saying that those opposed to limbo mis-interpert the Catechism to be in conflict with Popes, Church Councils, Doctors of the Church and an established Tradition going back the Church Fathers. :
This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed the very opposite procedure must be used. ( Pius XII HUMANI GENERIS 21)

 

[napad]

If one is to interpert the Catechism it should be to have harmony with Popes, Church Councils, Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, and the tradition of the saints. Not to create opposition between these things

As said by others on this thread the “a way of salvation” should be taken as establishing limbo more firmly and not to have it say babies go to heaven when traditionally this was never the case.

Until the 1950’s. there was no opposition to limbo. They who are opposed never give a continuity of their opinion from the early Church to today… They just seem to creat theories. The Holy Office( now The Doctrine of th Faith) condemed these new theories because it was effecting people postponing baptism for their children.:

The Holy Office in 1958 (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) provided as follows:The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature–a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism…Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible. . . . Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfillment of this obligation (refer to the New Catholic Encyclopedia: Limbo)

 

[Tom317]

SYMBOLIC ! You just opened my eyes. If baptism should be seen as “symbolic” that seems to follow along the lines where many catholics see the “Eucharist” as “symbolic.”

The Church is under attack in most sublte of ways. Catholic prophesies tell of a “falling Away” in the last days and following “doctrines of demons” …this fits the grand scheme of things, wouldn’t you say?

Yes! Without any doubt these sorts of things are prophesied in Scripture and yes I do believe there is a very strong possibility we have entered the last days.

Changing sacraments to mere symbolism is just the beginning.

 

[Tom317]

You mean the three people who are still reading it?

Ahh come-on, there are at least four people reading this thread.

 

[napad]

The verbatim citation of a Council out-of-context with all the other teachings of the Church does not prove a point. It is very similar to the tactics of those who follow *sola scriptura *and quote passages of the Bible out-of-context.

It is possible to state that those who die with original sin are deprived of the beatific vision, and to also state that “God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly." (See CCC 1257)

There is huge difference in quoting a council making a decision on Churchteaching and quoting the Bible. The Bible is a source of revelation about a defintion not to be interperted–it is applied.

We dont interpert dictionaries though we may interpert Shakespear