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

[The_Iambic_Pen]

So, I’m seeing that the debate rages. The lack of Limbo in the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches shows that it was not something unanimously held by the Fathers. However, it did seem to be fairly popular in the Western Church until recently. However, I personally haven’t seen where and when it was declared to be de fide, a binding belief for all Catholics.

I think I’m discovering some clues in this debate, though…

TNT:

The Novus Ordo Conciliar conservative cath’s

I am beginning to think that some of those arguing that Limbo is de fide are also of the mind that the Church lost its teaching authority sometime in the 1960’s. The term “Novus Ordo Conciliar conservative cath’s” seems to imply a faithful Catholic, who accepts the Church’s authority when it comes to Vatican II and the Novus Ordo mass, and believes that God is continuing to teach through the Church today. However, I suspect that this term is used in a negative sense.

I find it interesting that those who insist on the strictest possible interpretation of “Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sallus” are also quite likely to find themselves in religious bodies which are not within the Church at all. Since union with the pope is obviously not what determines if one is in the Church, from their perspective, I wonder how these types define the Church.

From my relatively short time in this particular forum, it seems I would have to believe the following to be a “true” Catholic:

1. That only those within the explicit boundaries of the Catholic Church have any hope whatsoever of salvation. Those who die without hearing of the Church are out of luck, as are those who had the misfortune to be born before the Church was founded.
2. That the Novus Ordo mass is completely invalid and even dangerous, and that one would be better off attending a Latin mass with a schismatic body.
3. That unbaptized infants absolutely, without a doubt, go to Limbo, where they will be forever barred from the presence of God.
4. That the current pope and all popes since Vatican II have no authority, and anything they say may be freely disregarded.
5. That the Catechism of the Catholic Church is essentially a manual of heresy.

This is a very difficult time to be a prospective convert…

 

[mattheus09]

If Baptism is necessary for salvation…how come the catechism says non-Christians (non-baptized) can enter heaven? Is one obliged to believe the non-baptized can enter heaven?

 

[Genesis315]

If Baptism is necessary for salvation…how come the catechism says non-Christians (non-baptized) can enter heaven? Is one obliged to believe the non-baptized can enter heaven?

It’s possible only if they are not Baptized through no fault of their own.

 

[Genesis315]

So, I’m seeing that the debate rages. The lack of Limbo in the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches shows that it was not something unanimously held by the Fathers. However, it did seem to be fairly popular in the Western Church until recently. However, I personally haven’t seen where and when it was declared to be de fide, a binding belief for all Catholics.

I think I’m discovering some clues in this debate, though…

I am beginning to think that some of those arguing that Limbo is de fide are also of the mind that the Church lost its teaching authority sometime in the 1960’s. The term “Novus Ordo Conciliar conservative cath’s” seems to imply a faithful Catholic, who accepts the Church’s authority when it comes to Vatican II and the Novus Ordo mass, and believes that God is continuing to teach through the Church today. However, I suspect that this term is used in a negative sense.

I find it interesting that those who insist on the strictest possible interpretation of “Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sallus” are also quite likely to find themselves in religious bodies which are not within the Church at all. Since union with the pope is obviously not what determines if one is in the Church, from their perspective, I wonder how these types define the Church.

From my relatively short time in this particular forum, it seems I would have to believe the following to be a “true” Catholic:

1. That only those within the explicit boundaries of the Catholic Church have any hope whatsoever of salvation. Those who die without hearing of the Church are out of luck, as are those who had the misfortune to be born before the Church was founded.
2. That the Novus Ordo mass is completely invalid and even dangerous, and that one would be better off attending a Latin mass with a schismatic body.
3. That unbaptized infants absolutely, without a doubt, go to Limbo, where they will be forever barred from the presence of God.
4. That the current pope and all popes since Vatican II have no authority, and anything they say may be freely disregarded.
5. That the Catechism of the Catholic Church is essentially a manual of heresy.

This is a very difficult time to be a prospective convert…

Follow the Pope and the bishops in union with him who wield authority from Jesus, not a bunch of self appointed internet popes who have made themselves the supreme judges of all doctrine and revelation.

This question from an old Catechism (1876) sheds light on such folks:

Q. Is it a great sin to refuse submission to a general Council?

A. It is the greatest act of criminal pride and presumption, accompanied by the awful guilt of heresy or schism, or both. We call it extremely criminal, as well as irrational; because the man who will not submit, prefers his own single opinion*—and this in a matter, regarding which he is neither qualified nor authorized to judge—*to the deliberately formed decision of an immense assemblage of the best qualified, and most competently authorized, legitimate judges.

 

[Genesis315]

From the Catechism of St. Pius X:

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

This is a very difficult time to be a prospective convert…

Great post, btw. It took me a couple years post-conversion to pick up on some of the things you mentioned above.

Just out of curiosity, why did you choose to post this question in the Traditional Catholicism forum rather than in Apologetics?

 

[Genesis315]

Someone once asked me who interprets the Magisterium trying to claim it must be private interpretation. Certain people in this forum do that. But, the correct answer is the Pope and the bishops in union with him who are alive are the interpreters. Jesus didn’t leave us a corpus pf Scripture and magisterial texts to interpret ourselves and live by–He left a succsion of pope and bishops from the Apostles to continue teaching.

 

[TNT]

People are confusing a couple issues. It is de fide that one must be cleansed of original sin in order to enter Heaven.

AMEN

It is also de fide that the pains of those who die without actual sin, but with original sin suffer lesser pains (if any).

AMEN

It is also de fide that Baptism cleanses one of original sin.

AMEN

It is also de fide that there are extra-scramental** ways** that this grace may be bestowed (Council of Trent said Baptism or the desire for it is necessary).

Assuming this to be a valid, supported interpretation, it has nothing to do with infants & preborn who have nothing more than the most basic primal desires for physical survival.

The idea that all infants who die without Baptism automatically go to Limbo because God definitely does not grant them that grace extra-sacramentally right before death falls on the theological spectrum under “common teaching” (sententia communis) which pertains still to the field of “free opinion,” and has been accepted by theologians generally. In other words, it has never been formally proposed as doctrine (sententia certa) of the Catholic Church. And it especially has never been definitively proclaimed as a dogma (de fide).

First of all, proclaimed or defined dogma is not the only de fide articles of the Catholic Church, as you well know.
The Perennial Ordinary Magisterium is what is to be believed which can be collectively called DOCTRINE.

To definitively and infallibly declare the destination of any individual’s soul it would take a formal act of the solemn magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff–such as is exercised in the canonization process.

This is completely unnecessary. No one is pointing to any individual by name.
This is just an obfuscation. The Church teaches OBJECTIVELY, not subjectively.

This has not been done for all unbaptized infants.

Ok, let’s summarize your mostly informative post:
1. It is de fide that one must be cleansed of original sin in order to enter Heaven.
I must add here what you left out:
2. It is de fide that ALL outside Christ, & the BVM, are created with the privations, both natural & supernatural, of that very Original Sin.
Hence
3. It is also de fide that Baptism cleanses one of original sin.
4. It is also de fide that the pains of those who die without actual sin, but with original sin suffer lesser pains (if any).

---

Conclusion:
Infants & preborn who die Unbaptized:
ARE: with original sin
HAVE NO actual sin.
Therefore DO NOT “to enter Heaven”.
Therefore DO objectively come under those "with original sin [who] suffer lesser pains (if any).
Inescapable:
The last condition above is simply called the “Hem of hell” or “LIMBO”. Limbo provides the reasonable differential of the hell of Torment and the hell of only a lack of Beatific Vision aka Heaven.

In order for your de fide’s to hold up, which they do, Limbo is inescapable as de fide. The only alternative is the early fathers who included the infants into the hell of torment.
In fact #4 to wit:
It is also de fide that the pains of those who die without actual sin, but with original sin suffer lesser pains (if any).

Is a rather precise de fide definiton of Limbo.

[sign]Now, all those practicing catholics who would not bother to baptize a dying infant because they are certain of their heavenly destination, please RAISE YOUR PLACARD.[/sign]

 

[TNT]

So, I’m seeing that the debate rages. The lack of Limbo in the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches shows that it was not something unanimously held by the Fathers. However, it did seem to be fairly popular in the Western Church until recently. However, I personally haven’t seen where and when it was declared to be de fide, a binding belief for all Catholics.

I think I’m discovering some clues in this debate, though…

I am beginning to think that some of those arguing that Limbo is de fide are also of the mind that the Church lost its teaching authority sometime in the 1960’s. The term “Novus Ordo Conciliar conservative cath’s” seems to imply a faithful Catholic, who accepts the Church’s authority when it comes to Vatican II and the Novus Ordo mass, and believes that God is continuing to teach through the Church today. However, I suspect that this term is used in a negative sense.

I find it interesting that those who insist on the strictest possible interpretation of “Extra Ecclesium Nulla Sallus” are also quite likely to find themselves in religious bodies which are not within the Church at all. Since union with the pope is obviously not what determines if one is in the Church, from their perspective, I wonder how these types define the Church.

From my relatively short time in this particular forum, it seems I would have to believe the following to be a “true” Catholic:

1. That only those within the explicit boundaries of the Catholic Church have any hope whatsoever of salvation. Those who die without hearing of the Church are out of luck, as are those who had the misfortune to be born before the Church was founded.
2. That the Novus Ordo mass is completely invalid and even dangerous, and that one would be better off attending a Latin mass with a schismatic body.
3. That unbaptized infants absolutely, without a doubt, go to Limbo, where they will be forever barred from the presence of God.
   …

How’s about we stay on point which is #3. If you want to preach a sermon, start another thread on “My impressions of …”

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Just out of curiosity, why did you choose to post this question in the Traditional Catholicism forum rather than in Apologetics?

TNT suggested I post it. I thought this would be an appropriate place, especially since Limbo seems to be a more popular idea among traditionalists than among others.

Speaking of TNT, I must apologize if my previous post seemed a bit harsh. I am sure you hold your beliefs out of sincere conviction.

God bless!

EDIT: In response to your previous post, which you typed up while I posted, I apologize for nearly dragging things off-topic. Navigating my way through the numerous teachings claiming to be the true teachings of the Church can be a bit frustrating. Sometimes this frustration comes through in my posts.

 

[TNT]

Great post, btw. It took me a couple years post-conversion to pick up on some of the things you mentioned above.

Just out of curiosity, why did you choose to post this question in the Traditional Catholicism forum rather than in Apologetics?

Because I proposed it to him. In addition, LIMBO is steeped in the historical (Traditional) paradigm or Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
The discussion is between Catholics who hold to Limbo, and those who can dump it. We are not trying to inform or convert non-catholics at this point on Limbo.

 

[TNT]

TNT, if you really believe that the CA apologists are spreading incorrect teachings, perhaps you ought to submit a question to the AAA forum, asking them what they think of these documents you’re citing.

On a side note, avoiding inflammatory rhetoric is generally more conducive to having a productive discussion.

OK, here is Peggy Frye, Jan 04, the CAF Apologist:
“This [Limbo] is understood as “ 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”)” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Limbo). This is not hell, but a place or state of perfect natural happiness.”

**Now the idea that Limbo is not a part of hell is condemned.
*To Wit:
Under the heading: “The Punishment of Those Who Die with Original Sin Only”, Pius VI’s Auctorem fidei reads: “The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of hell (locum illum inferorum) — usually called by the faithful “Children’s Limbo” — in which the soul of those dying with only original sin are punished by the pain of loss without any pain of fire; and this taken to mean that by denying the pain of fire one can thereby necessarily postulate a middle state or place involving neither guilt nor penalty between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as Pelagians have invented (fabulabantur)*: —false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools.” *Auctorem fidei, *August 28, 1794, The Condemned Errors of the Synod of Pistoia, Denzinger, #1526.

Translation of text taken from “Children’s Limbo, Theory or Doctrine?”, Father Joseph Le Blanc, C.J.M., American Ecclesiastical Review, September 1947, p. 167.

 

[rescath]

Limbo is not per se de fide but was declared to be theologically certain by Paul VI in Auctorem fidei.

What’s de fide is that the unbaptized cannot enjoy the beatific vision.

Yet the denial of Limbo can have different degrees of severity depending on WHY one denies Limbo.

If one denies it because he does not believe there should be a special place apart from or in hell, then that has been condemned as “false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools”.

Pius VI in Auctorem fidei (August 28, 1794):

The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of hell — usually called by the faithful “Children’s Limbo” — in which the soul of those dying with only original sin are punished by the pain of loss without any pain of fire; and this taken to mean that by denying the pain of fire one can thereby necessarily postulate a middle state or place involving neither guilt nor penalty between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as Pelagians have invented: — false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools.”

1. To deny Limbo AS PELAGIAN would be condemned. Pelagius taught that actual sin would determine one’s place in eternity, and not original sin. To deny Limbo as Pelagian means that one rejects Limbo because he thinks it implies that eternal rewards depend upon actual sin.
2. To deny Limbo by saying that even unbaptized children who have not attained the age of reason suffer pain of the senses in eternity – not sure what to call that, since St. Augustine felt that there would be some pain of sense – albeit extremely mild. I would say THAT is the context in which Limbo would be a “theological hypothesis”.
3. BUT … to deny Limbo because it would somehow be unjust that children with original sin alone could not enjoy the beatific vision, that would be implicitly heretical.

Benedict XVI called Limbo a “theological hypothesis”, but it’s only a theological hypothesis in the sense of Limbo denial condition #2 above. To declare it a “theological hypothesis” vis-a-vis Limbo denial conditions #1 or #3 would be just flat out incorrect. Unfortunately, everything I’ve read about the International Theological Commission “report” released a couple days ago suggests that it’s Limbo denial condition #3. But I haven’t been able to get hold of the actual text of the report yet.

 

[rescath]

Notice that the Holy Father Pius VI explicitly called out a REASON for rejecting Limbo. Rejecting it for that reason would be wrong.

 

[rescath]

In other words, distinguo. I love the power of being able to make logical distinctions – the razor of truth.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

What if someone had a reason 4?

To deny limbo because of a belief that God has the means to remove original sin from the unbaptized infants, which He may possibly use.

 

[mattheus09]

I don’t even know why the ITC said that they can get to heaven. It is Catholic doctrine that no one can enter heaven without being cleansed of Original Sin, including infants. That is doctrine. Now it is true that Limbo is a hypothesis, but the doctrine is that no one can enter heaven without being cleansed of Original Sin. Council of Florence, Trent, numerous Popes stated this. Read Father Harrison’s writings…they are quite good.

 

[TNT]

TNT suggested I post it. I thought this would be an appropriate place, especially since Limbo seems to be a more popular idea among traditionalists than among others.

Speaking of TNT, I must apologize if my previous post seemed a bit harsh. I am sure you hold your beliefs out of sincere conviction.

God bless!

EDIT: In response to your previous post, which you typed up while I posted, I apologize for nearly dragging things off-topic. Navigating my way through the numerous teachings claiming to be the true teachings of the Church can be a bit frustrating. Sometimes this frustration comes through in my posts.

This is all greatly appreciated.
I have a thick skin. I’ve been accused of being an outright sedevacantist recently on this forum. So, I did not deny it just to experience living under the stigma.

 

[TNT]

What if someone had a reason 4?

To deny limbo because of a belief that God has the means to remove original sin from the unbaptized infants, which He may possibly use.

If we promote as valid doctrine all the wonderful things God COULD do, where does it stop? Eventually, what He DID reveal for our salvation becomes superfluous. You might as well be a Methodist or a Universalist, because Catholic Doctrine would be useless. All you have to believe is what you (generic) would do if YOU (generic) were God.
I mean, what human person send & would allow Crucifying their only begotten in a grisly death?
Say it aint so!!

 

[paramedicgirl]

If we promote as valid doctrine all the wonderful things God COULD do, where does it stop? Eventually, what He DID reveal for our salvation becomes superfluous. You might as well be a Methodist or a Universalist, because Catholic Doctrine would be useless. All you have to believe is what you (generic) would do if YOU (generic) were God.

I’ve been reading this whole discussion, and that’s a very valid point. If we keep changing our beliefs to make the more difficult teachings and traditions easier to swallow, then why do we need a crucified Jesus?