Did The Church Change It's Teaching On Limbo?

[QNDNNDQDCE]

In time the notion of “suffering less” became “not suffering at all” and even “having as much happiness as one can have outside of Heaven.” This afterlife was envisioned as taking place on the outer borders of Hell, and thus the region became known as Limbo (from the word for a border or fringe). That led to the strange circumstance of a part of Hell whose inhabitants were happier than anyone on Earth.

The response in the Summa is as follows:

"Objection 1. It would seem that souls which depart with none but original sin, suffer from a bodily fire and are punished by fire. For Augustine [Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum, xxvii] says: “Hold firmly and doubt not that children who depart this life without the sacrament of Baptism will be punished everlastingly.” Now punishment denotes sensible pain. Therefore souls which depart this life with original sin alone, suffer from a bodily fire and are tormented with the pain of fire.

. . .

Reply to Objection 1. In the authority quoted punishment denotes, not pain of sense, but only pain of loss, which is the privation of the divine vision, even as in Scripture the word “fire” is often wont to signify any kind of punishment."

Read more here: newadvent.org/summa/6001.htm

The solution of a Limbo of the Infants is personally appealing to me because it does away with the possibility that God would condemn infants free of actual sin to eternal torment rather than simply hoping that God might see fit to spare them if he feels like it.

 

[Genesis315]

There’s really two issues at hand here, and they often get conflated.

No can deny that all, including infants, who die in original sin are deprived of the beatific vision–they are damned. The first issue is the historical debate concerning Limbo, which was whether infants who die in original sin suffer the torments of Hell, or just the loss of the beatific vision, and experience a state of natural happiness (a state of damnation called “Limbo,” ie the outskirts of Hell). If we assume God does not extraordinarily cleanse them of original sin, those are the only two options. That is the historical debate about "limbo."The latter option became pretty much the settled, unanimous doctrine.

The second issue is the debate as to whether God would extraordinarily cleanse such an infant of original sin and therefore save the child. This is a completely different debate and one we cannot know the answer to, ultimately. This is what the ITC study was looking at. All unanimously acknowledge He could, but no one can say for sure if He does–it has not been revealed. St. Thomas argued that God might for children dying in the womb, since baptism cannot reach there and, if He did not, Adam’s sin would have a farther reach than Christ’s salvation. I don’t see why this argument could not be extended to those for whom baptism cannot reach for other reasons:
St. Thomas:

Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.

newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article11

Likewise, some, like St. Bernard (De Baptismo I, 4; II, 1), have argued that the faith of the parents could suffice (since faith suffices when baptism is lacking without fault in other cases).

The CCC does not make a judgment one way or the other on this question.

So, as has been pointed out, there has been no change in doctrine. The Church still teaches infants, like everyone else, must be cleansed of original sin to be saved

 

[javid]

You didn’t read Carthage carefully. The part I bolded is the teaching. The part I underlined is not a teaching. Its a hypothesis.

Canon 110. (Greek cxii. bis)

**That infants are baptized for the remission of sins

Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.**

For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned, than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.

The following, says Surius, is found in this place in a very ancient codex. It does not occur in the Greek, nor in Dionysius. Bruns relegates it to a foot-note.

[Also it seemed good, that if anyone should say that the saying of the Lord, In my Father’s house are many mansions is to be understood as meaning that in the kingdom of heaven there will be a certain middle place, or some place somewhere, in which infants live in happiness who have gone forth from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For after our Lord has said: Unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy Spirit he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven, what Catholic can doubt that he who has not merited to be coheir with Christ shall become a sharer with the devil: for he who fails of the right hand without doubt shall receive the left hand portion.]

Didn’t I read Carthage carefully?

Canon 3.1 “If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized live in bliss (beate vivant), whereas without baptism they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, into eternal life, let him be anathema.” [The authenticity of this canon has been brought into question, though there is some reason to believe that it was part of the original canon listing. In some manuscripts Canon 3.2, listed below, is listed here.]

It shows that children who die unbaptized will go to hell! and If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized live in bliss… let him be anathema.

But Church doesn’t teach it today!

So The Church Did Change It’s Teaching On Limbo.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The Council of Carthage was not an ecumenical council and is not of itself infallible. If anything was novel, it was the teaching that unbaptized infants suffer sensible torments in hell. It is certainly not the case that this was taught always and everywhere. Moreover, the condemnation of a “middle place” was in the context of the Pelagian controversy. The primary intention of the council fathers was to affirm the reality of the Fall. The theory of Limbo, on the other hand, arose from a distinction between the natural and supernatural orders and the principle that punishment is administered according to the degree of sin committed. The fact is that, as far as I know, the Church has issued any dogma either way of the fate of unbaptized infants.

 

[javid]

The Council of Carthage was not an ecumenical council and is not of itself infallible. If anything was novel, it was the teaching that unbaptized infants suffer sensible torments in hell. It is certainly not the case that this was taught always and everywhere. Moreover, the condemnation of a “middle place” was in the context of the Pelagian controversy. The primary intention of the council fathers was to affirm the reality of the Fall. The theory of Limbo, on the other hand, arose from a distinction between the natural and supernatural orders and the principle that punishment is administered according to the degree of sin committed. The fact is that, as far as I know, the Church has issued any dogma either way of the fate of unbaptized infants.

Thanks, but don’t you want present any refrence or evidnce?

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Although it was never “infallibly defined” (which in itself is murky) it is disingenuous to attempt to downplay Latin teaching on this issue because many Modern Catholics find the idea of Limbo repugnant. The truth is, it was part of the ordinary Magisterium for centuries, and was taught with the full weight of Church authority, even if behind the walls of academe the Theologians were still debating it. To say that it was never Dogma is technically true, but it distorts how widespread and believed the doctrine really was.

 

[Memaw]

Although it was never “infallibly defined” (which in itself is murky) it is disingenuous to attempt to downplay Latin teaching on this issue because many Modern Catholics find the idea of Limbo repugnant. The truth is, it was part of the ordinary Magisterium for centuries, and was taught with the full weight of Church authority, even if behind the walls of academe the Theologians were still debating it. To say that it was never Dogma is technically true, but it distorts how widespread and believed the doctrine really was.

It was never a Doctrine or Dogma!. God Bless, Memaw

 

[thistle]

Although it was never “infallibly defined” (which in itself is murky) it is disingenuous to attempt to downplay Latin teaching on this issue because many Modern Catholics find the idea of Limbo repugnant. The truth is, it was part of the ordinary Magisterium for centuries, and was taught with the full weight of Church authority, even if behind the walls of academe the Theologians were still debating it. To say that it was never Dogma is technically true, but it distorts how widespread and believed the doctrine really was.

It was only ever a theological hypothesis. It was never dogma or even a non-infallible teaching.
No teaching on limbo for infants has changed because it was never a teaching.

 

[Nita]

Didn’t I read Carthage carefully?

Canon 3.1 “If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized live in bliss (beate vivant), whereas without baptism they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, into eternal life, let him be anathema.” [The authenticity of this canon has been brought into question, though there is some reason to believe that it was part of the original canon listing. In some manuscripts Canon 3.2, listed below, is listed here.]

It shows that children who die unbaptized will go to hell! and If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized live in bliss… let him be anathema.

But Church doesn’t teach it today!

So The Church Did Change It’s Teaching On Limbo.

javid, even the quote you provide shows the authenticity of the canon has been questioned. As thistle’s post noted: The following, says Surius, is found in this place in a very ancient codex. **It does not occur in the Greek, **nor in Dionysius. Bruns relegates it to a foot-note.

The phrase “a very ancient codex” is singular and gives the impression there may be only one instance where the canon appears in a Latin text. The canon was not included in the Greek translation which was adopted at the Council of Trullo. It was the Greek translation that was later granted an imprimatur by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

IF it actually was in the African code, then God saw to it that it did not get included in the text sanctioned by the Universal Church - a beautiful example of God protecting His Universal Church from proclaiming error. newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

These canons, thus confirmed by this council, merited to be called from that day to this The Code of Canons of the African Church. These canons were not at first adopted in Greek but in Latin, and they were confirmed in the same language. This Dionysius Exiguus distinctly testifies to in his preface to the Code of Ecclesiastical Canons, in which they are included. It is uncertain when the canons of this Carthaginian synod were done into Greek. This only is certain, that they had been translated into Greek before the Council in Trullo by which, in its Second Canon, they were received into the Greek Nomocanon, and were confirmed by the authority of this synod; so that from that time these canons stand in the Eastern Church on an equality with all the rest.

An extremely interesting point arises as to what was the authority of the collection as a collection, and how this collection was made? **There seems no doubt that the collection substantially as we know it was the code accepted by the Council of Trullo, the canons of which received a quasi-ecumenical authority from the subsequent general imprimatur given them by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Second of Nice. **

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)