Is Limbo a Capital 'T' Tradition & de fide?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Iambic_Pen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have always thought that it was not required that we believe in the Children’s Limbo.

TNT makes a reasonable case and some logically correct statements, but there is one inconsistency. It is was stated that persons with original sin, but without actual sin do not enter heaven but also do not suffer the pains of hell as completely as those with actual sin. In order for this argument to justly apply, the person in question would have to be capable of committing actual sin. Their avoidance of actual sin then signifys a thirst for God, or at least a willingness to serve Him. Seeing as how those before the age of reason cannot make this choice positively in either direction, I see no reason to apply this argument to them.

Personally, I believe that unbaptized babies are in Heaven. I base this belief largely on King Davids reaction to the death of the child he had with his ill gained wife Bathsheba. While the child lived and was ill, David mourned and pleaded with God for the child’s life. When the child died, David said this (in response to a question as to why he did not continue to mourn): “While the child was living, I fasted and wept, thinking ‘Perhaps the LORD will grant me the childs life.’ But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” 2 Samuel 12:22-23 (emphasis mine).

I believe that King David was speaking in his prophetic office when this statement was made. King David is surely in Heaven. Though he sinned in his life, he always repented and returned to God. Therefore, the child is there also. This child is an example of an unbaptized child admitted to heaven.
 
LilyM said:
Have you seen how ignorant many catechists are of even the fundamentals of the faith these days? Even priests and nuns who should know much better?

What makes you think they weren’t occasionally ignorant in the past? There are more than enough ill-educated pre-Vatican2 Catholics walking around to suggest that this was the case. Or, also a possibility, subject to something of a misinformation campaign to scare them into making sure their kids were baptised?
Click to expand...
Well thankyou—Now my family who have departed this life holding on to the faith as was taught back then–have now become ignorant ill-educated people.

It is truely sad—that the botton of the barrel is scraped to–use this form of tactic.
 
Walking_Home said:
Interesting—it was de fide when limbo was taught to me in the 60’s, It was de fide when it was taught to my parents before me, it was de fide when it was taught to my grandparents, great-grandparents-- and going back before them. They were not “quite free” to reject it.
Click to expand...
But see, that’s the problem. If truly de fide, Cardinal Ratzinger would have to accept it. If he didn’t accept it, continued to believe what he said, didn’t retract it, etc., then he would be a heretic and a heretic is not the proper matter for a pope, ie, a heretic is unable to become pope (which we ARE obliged to believe, according to what I’ve read on BOTH sides of the sedevacanteist argument. We’re free to believe that the pope cannot become a heretic, but we are BOUND to believe that a heretic cannot become pope.
 
paramedicgirl said:
That would be invincible ignorance where the Church acknowledges the goodness of people who through no fault of their own do not have the fullness of the faith. It seems it is indeed being applied to Limbo here, anyway.
Click to expand...
Isn’t an infant, who can’t understand any human language, invincibly ignorant?
 
JKirkLVNV said:
But see, that’s the problem. If truly de fide, Cardinal Ratzinger would have to accept it. If he didn’t accept it, continued to believe what he said, didn’t retract it, etc., then he would be a heretic and a heretic is not the proper matter for a pope, ie, a heretic is unable to become pope (which we ARE obliged to believe, according to what I’ve read on BOTH sides of the sedevacanteist argument. We’re free to believe that the pope cannot become a heretic, but we are BOUND to believe that a heretic cannot become pope.
Click to expand...
JKirkLVNV—I do not know what to tell you. Limbo Was taught to me and my family before me and required to believe it.

It is my understanding that we have had a Pope–who was placed in the Chair of Peter–with the understanding that he was going to do what a queen wanted or some royal person or other. Once he became Pope–he could not go thru with it. I cannot at present remember the particulars–but it went something along those lines.
 
Walking_Home said:
Well thankyou—Now my family who have departed this life holding on to the faith as was taught back then–have now become ignorant ill-educated people.

It is truely sad—that the botton of the barrel is scraped to–use this form of tactic.
Click to expand...
Oh come on - it’s a criticism that is dished out wholesale to post-Vatican 2 clergy and catechists, not to mention we who have been taught by them. Not to mention, in this case, Benedict 16, JP2 and the compilers of his Catechism!

We’ve been tarred with the same brush time and time and time again on these fora - as has our late Holy Father too.
 
Walking_Home said:
JKirkLVNV—I do not know what to tell you. Limbo Was taught to me and my family before me and required to believe it.

It is my understanding that we have had a Pope–who was placed in the Chair of Peter–with the understanding that he was going to do what a queen wanted or some royal person or other. Once he became Pope–he could not go thru with it. I cannot at present remember the particulars–but it went something along those lines.
Click to expand...
I frankly don’t know what to think, either. I didn’t find the teaching on limbo (those there possessed natural happiness) terribly cruel at all (which is what the liberal alledge).
 
LilyM said:
Oh come on - it’s a criticism that is dished out wholesale to post-Vatican 2 clergy and catechists, not to mention we who have been taught by them. Not to mention, in this case, JP2 and the compilers of his Catechism!

We’ve been tarred with the same brush time and time again on these fora.
Click to expand...
Whatever you say LilyM–thankyou much anyway.
 
JezuUfamTobie said:
There is a decided absence of any mention of limbo in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. It seems to me that this should effectively communicate the fact that limbo is not a required belief for Catholics.
Click to expand...
It is simply false to say that limbo is absent from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. “Limbo” is listed in the official analytical index of the new catechism. The index mentions “limbo” in connection with section 1261.

In accordance with Catholic tradition, the “hope” mentioned in *CCC *1261 should be understood as the hope for salvation from what Jesus calls the “fire” of hell (i.e., the “pain of sense”). It should *not *be interpreted as hope for the beatific vision.

What is a required belief for Catholics (i.e., a Catholic dogma) is that the souls of those dying in original sin only descend into hell for some kind of punishment.

A Catholic may believe (with St. Augustine) that this punishment is the pain of sense together with deprivation of the beatific vision, or he or she may believe (with St. Thomas Aquinas) that this punishment is merely deprivation of the beatific vision together with substitution of natural for supernatural happiness. St. Thomas’s state of natural happiness is called limbo.

I urge everyone to study Patrick J. Toner’s article on limbo in The Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
Steve_O_Brien said:
It is simply false to say that limbo is absent from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. “Limbo” is listed in the official analytical index of the new catechism. The index mentions “limbo” in connection with section 1261.

In accordance with Catholic tradition, the “hope” mentioned in *CCC *1261 should be understood as the hope for salvation from what Jesus calls the “fire” of hell (i.e., the “pain of sense”). It should *not *be interpreted as hope for the beatific vision.

What is a required belief for Catholics (i.e., a Catholic dogma) is that the souls of those dying in original sin only descend into hell for some kind of punishment.

A Catholic may believe (with St. Augustine) that this punishment is the pain of sense together with deprivation of the beatific vision, or he or she may believe (with St. Thomas Aquinas) that this punishment is merely deprivation of the beatific vision together with substitution of natural for supernatural happiness. St. Thomas’s state of natural happiness is called limbo.

I urge everyone to study Patrick J. Toner’s article on limbo in The Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Keep and spread the Faith.
Click to expand...
Par 1261 of the catechism speaks of God’s desire that all men should be saved - do you honestly think this is only a desire to save them from pain of sense?

Or is it far more sensible to think that He truly wishes for all of His human children, created in His own image, to share in His Beatific Vision, since this was the destiny He intended for Adam and Eve, and that there is at least hope that He does at least sometimes, since He can, use extrasacramental means to do so.

Christ went to extraordinary lengths in regard to salvation when He ‘descended to the dead’ to preach to the righteous who had lived and died before His time on Earth.

Why are we not permitted to hope that He can do similarly wonderful deeds for unbaptised children and the righteous who have no opportunity of instruction in our faith or baptism?
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I frankly don’t know what to think, either. I didn’t find the teaching on limbo (those there possessed natural happiness) terribly cruel at all (which is what the liberal alledge).
Click to expand...
I don’t either. I have a brother and a sister in limbo. Limbo reconciles God’s mercy with revealed Truth.
 
Steve_O_Brien said:
It is simply false to say that limbo is absent from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. “Limbo” is listed in the official analytical index of the new catechism. The index mentions “limbo” in connection with section 1261.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is. It’s in the index so that people who are curious about limbo can see paragraph 1261, which covers the subject of children who have died without baptism. Limbo–unlike Purgatory or any other vital element of our Faith–is not mentioned in the body of the Catechism.
Steve_O_Brien said:
In accordance with Catholic tradition, the “hope” mentioned in *CCC *1261 should be understood as the hope for salvation from what Jesus calls the “fire” of hell (i.e., the “pain of sense”). It should *not *be interpreted as hope for the beatific vision.
Click to expand...
Your interpretation is inconsistent with the Scriptural passage quoted in the same paragraph of the Catechism, which consists of Christ saying “Let the children come unto me.” If Christ were hanging out in limbo with the kids, it would by definition cease to be limbo. Clearly the word “salvation” in this passage does not refer merely to escaping the fires of hell, but rather to being in the presence of God almighty.
Steve_O_Brien said:
I urge everyone to study Patrick J. Toner’s article on limbo in The Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
Click to expand...
I’ve looked it over several times, and honestly what keeps drawing my attention is the author’s reference to limbo as a “prevailing Catholic notion” rather than something taught de fide. Presumably the author wrote this in the early 20th century, at a time when limbo was indeed a prevailing notion, as propagated by the Baltimore Catechism (which, interestingly, says of unbaptized infants, “it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to limbo”). It appears that even back in the good old days of 1891 when the BC was published, the authors knew that limbo was a theological hypothesis, not de fide.
 
JezuUfamTobie said:
Indeed it is. It’s in the index so that people who are curious about limbo can see paragraph 1261, which covers the subject of children who have died without baptism. Limbo–unlike Purgatory or any other vital element of our Faith–is not mentioned in the body of the Catechism.

Your interpretation is inconsistent with the Scriptural passage quoted in the same paragraph of the Catechism, which consists of Christ saying “Let the children come unto me.” If Christ were hanging out in limbo with the kids, it would by definition cease to be limbo. Clearly the word “salvation” in this passage does not refer merely to escaping the fires of hell, but rather to being in the presence of God almighty.

I’ve looked it over several times, and honestly what keeps drawing my attention is the author’s reference to limbo as a “prevailing Catholic notion” rather than something taught de fide. Presumably the author wrote this in the early 20th century, at a time when limbo was indeed a prevailing notion, as propagated by the Baltimore Catechism (which, interestingly, says of unbaptized infants, “it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to limbo”). It appears that even back in the good old days of 1891 when the BC was published, the authors knew that limbo was a theological hypothesis, not de fide.
Click to expand...
You left out that limbo and its reference to 1261 is also to be included within the context of baptism. Your reference to “Let the children come unto Me”–backs infant baptism and its cleansing of original sin----Not the denial of original sin.

CCC second edition: pg. 817

Limbo, 1261. See also Baptism; Funerals

CCC pg. 759
Baptism:
of infants, 403, 1231, 1233, etc

CCC 403
Following St. Pual, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”. 291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292
 
Walking_Home said:
You left out that limbo and its reference to 1261 is also to be included within the context of baptism. Your reference to “Let the children come unto Me”–backs infant baptism and its cleansing of original sin----Not the denial of original sin.
Click to expand...
Who is denying original sin? If we’re going to have an honest discussion here, you will have to stop attacking straw men.

Paragraph 1261 is indeed to be taken in context with Church teaching on Baptism. Just as Church teaching on Baptism is to be taken in context with the hope expressed very clearly in paragraph 1261. I will retype it here, so that you may see how very clear this paragraph is:

“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,” 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.”

This passage does not undercut or contradict in any way, shape, or form, the Church teaching on Baptism. But it does explicitly say that Catholics may hope for the salvation of unbaptized children.

There’s no need for anybody to be getting worked up about this. I will repeat again: neither the teaching on original sin NOR the teaching on Baptism is threatened by the Church’s hope for the unbaptized.

Why?

Because “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” - CCC, Paragraph 1257
 
JezuUfamTobie said:
Who is denying original sin? If we’re going to have an honest discussion here, you will have to stop attacking straw men.

Paragraph 1261 is indeed to be taken in context with Church teaching on Baptism. Just as Church teaching on Baptism is to be taken in context with the hope expressed very clearly in paragraph 1261. I will retype it here, so that you may see how very clear this paragraph is:

“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,” 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.”

This passage does not undercut or contradict in any way, shape, or form, the Church teaching on Baptism. But it does explicitly say that Catholics may hope for the salvation of unbaptized children.

There’s no need for anybody to be getting worked up about this. I will repeat again: neither the teaching on original sin NOR the teaching on Baptism is threatened by the Church’s hope for the unbaptized.

Why?

Because “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” - CCC, Paragraph 1257
Click to expand...
We are bound by revealed Truth. 1261 needs to be taken in conjunction with baptism. Limbo saves the unbaptised infants from Hell of damnation.
 
Theological speculation.

We are bound to the sacraments, but God is not bound to them.
 
Walking_Home said:
We are bound by revealed Truth. 1261 needs to be taken in conjunction with baptism. Limbo saves the unbaptised infants from Hell of damnation.
Click to expand...
You are bound by the revealed truth. That is why it would be sinful for you to presume God’s mercy and withhold baptism from your children (or hypothetical children, as the case may be).

God, however, is not…
 
JezuUfamTobie said:
You are bound by the revealed truth. That is why it would be sinful for you to presume God’s mercy and withhold baptism from your children (or hypothetical children, as the case may be).

God, however, is not…
Click to expand...
More sinful–would be to use what we do not know of God to bend Him to our will.

We would be pitting what we know of God (revealed Truth ) against God (what we do not know).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top