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.
LilyM said:
I know my father, who is a doctor, was grieving for a long time over one baby who he was treating and had to be rushed to hospital - it died suddenly en route without him or its parents having had a chance to give an emergency baptism.

I’d qualify anything that needlessly scars a person that much as a scare campaign.
Click to expand...
Absoultely so do I. And I imagine all the millions upon millions of mothers who have gone to their graves thinking the child they miscarried was lost to heaven forever, and to say that Limbo is a “nice place” Hell NO…Its should have been removed from conscious memory years and centuries ago and I hope that the person who first conceived of such a place, can see the anguish of women who have believed this. My own mother lost 4 in utero (miscarried) infants and one stillbirth and I have a sister who lived only hours and died before the priest got there. I have I have 3 in utero deaths. Limbo is for those who hav e nev er lost children. they are the onse insisting on Limbo. Ask any parent who has miscarried if they believe in Limbo or in a God of Mercy who would find His own way of rescuing their child./ Pharisees those who believe such.
Grace Angel.
 
paramedicgirl said:
So, do you seriously think that catechism is a scare campaign???
Click to expand...
The current catechism permits hope that the child was saved, whereas the way many people have been taught about the unbaptised in the past (including Dad, obviously) permitted of no such hope.
 
LilyM said:
John Paul 2 certainly said as much, while he was Pope - among other places in the Catechism!
Click to expand...
He certainly did. In E.V 99. “your children are living in the Lord”
that says to me clearly that they are with Lord.
Grace Angel.
 
LilyM said:
The current catechism permits hope that the child was saved, whereas the way many people have been taught about the unbaptised in the past (including Dad, obviously) permitted of no such hope.
Click to expand...
Doctrines don’t change though, otherwise they wouldn’t be the truth. Allowing hope is not the same as changing the doctrine. It’s just saying, “Go ahead and hope. We don’t know either way, so there’s no harm in hoping.” In short, it’s a pacifier for people who struggle with a difficult doctrine. At least, that’s the way I see it.
 
I thank everyone for their contributions to this thread! In my time here on this forum, including the other threads in which I have participated, I have come to a conclusion. If I am to know what the Church really teaches, I should trust the Church, which still exists today, to tell me that. I do not possess the intellect to sift through two thousand years of teachings and then use my private intrepretation to decide for myself what Church teaching really is. The latter technique is rather Protestant, it seems to me, and has the potential to lead to all kinds of schism and heresy.

Despite the claims of many on this forum, I am increasingly convinced that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. I look forward to learning more about it, and I deeply long to enter it someday. And, rather than be led astray by various people claiming to hold the true teachings of the Church, I will stick with what St. Cyprian of Carthage said:
“If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Click to expand...
May God bless you all!
 
The_Iambic_Pen said:
I thank everyone for their contributions to this thread! In my time here on this forum, including the other threads in which I have participated, I have come to a conclusion. If I am to know what the Church really teaches, I should trust the Church, which still exists today, to tell me that. I do not possess the intellect to sift through two thousand years of teachings and then use my private intrepretation to decide for myself what Church teaching really is. The latter technique is rather Protestant, it seems to me, and has the potential to lead to all kinds of schism and heresy.

Despite the claims of many on this forum, I am increasingly convinced that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. I look forward to learning more about it, and I deeply long to enter it someday. And, rather than be led astray by various people claiming to hold the true teachings of the Church, I will stick with what St. Cyprian of Carthage said:

May God bless you all!
Click to expand...
Woohoo! :extrahappy:

God bless you too IP … just glad all our to-ing and fro-ing hasn’t scared you off 😉
 
paramedicgirl said:
Doctrines don’t change though, otherwise they wouldn’t be the truth. Allowing hope is not the same as changing the doctrine. It’s just saying, “Go ahead and hope. We don’t know either way, so there’s no harm in hoping.” In short, it’s a pacifier for people who struggle with a difficult doctrine. At least, that’s the way I see it.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s a difficult doctrine for many, no doubt about it.
 
LilyM said:
Woohoo! :extrahappy:

God bless you too IP … just glad all our to-ing and fro-ing hasn’t scared you off 😉
Click to expand...
Ditto that. 🙂 I think IP’s contributions to this thread have been every bit as inspiring as some of the responses. Thanks in return!
 
Grace_Angel said:
He certainly did. In E.V 99. “your children are living in the Lord”
that says to me clearly that they are with Lord.
Grace Angel.
Click to expand...
When the official text was published in AAS those phrases were missing. Here’s Jimmy Akin’s commentary on what happened:

"An even more striking departure from prior teaching came in John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (section 99), where he wrote:

I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. . . . The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.

"This would seem to affirm the salvation of children dying without baptism–or at least those who died by abortion–but there’s something very strange about this passage, because when the official, Latin version came out in Acta Apostolicae Sedes, the passage had been rephrased so that it read:

***I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. . . . The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child. ***

"It would appear that the degree of departure from prior teaching in the original text was called to the attention of the pontiff, who then had the official Latin version altered. One would expect that the other versions of the text would be corrected in light of the Latin one and the prior text regarded as inauthentic, but I have seen individuals argue (I can’t see on what basis) that both texts enjoy official status.

“However that may be, both do continue to circulate, and in fact both are present on the Vatican’s own web site (here’s the first, here’s the second).”

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/limbo_in_limbo.html

Here are the referenced links to the diverging passages:

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__P10.HTM
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

Please remember to mention this issue when citing his words, now that you know 🙂
 
MTD said:
According to An Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead, 1891-1921, you do not need the permission of the parents to baptize a dying child.

“You cannot baptize a person against his will. Neither can you baptize an infant whose parents are unwilling to have the child baptized, or when the child will not be brought up in the Catholic religion. But if the child is dying, it can and should be baptized, even without the consent of the parents.”

If you cannot establish whether the child has already been baptized or baptized properly, of course you can and should baptize him conditionally.

I’m sure you already know this stuff anyway… 🙂

Maria
Click to expand...
“should” seems a little ambiguous. Is there an actual moral obligation to baptize a dying child against the will of the parents such that it would be a sin to not do so? Anyone have any moral theology text or other text that speaks to that? I know it’s permitted, but is it obligatory?

The current Code of Canon Law reflects the above teaching btw, Maria, as you may know. Jimmy Akin makes an interesting conditional prediction about it:

"One final prediction: If the document is published and if it starts to shape future magisterial statements on the subject then there is one provision in the current Code of Canon Law that may get revisited at some point in the future. Here it is:

“Can. 868. §2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.”

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/limbo_in_limbo.html

I’m not sure what I think of the matter. Respect for the right of a family to without coercion form their consciences in the practice of religion would mitigate against baptizing an infant against the parents’ will yet charity for the infant would mitigate for baptizing so.
 
cor said:
“should” seems a little ambiguous. Is there an actual moral obligation to baptize a dying child against the will of the parents such that it would be a sin to not do so? Anyone have any moral theology text or other text that speaks to that? I know it’s permitted, but is it obligatory?
Click to expand...
Okay, I looked it up in Moral Guidance: A Textbook in Principles of Conduct for Colleges and Universities by Edwin. F. Healy, S.J., S.T.D., 1942.

From pages 305-306:

“With regard to newborn babies, if they are in immediate danger of death, the doctor should see to it that they are baptized. He himself may perform the ceremony if no priest is available. Even if the child is born of infidel parents who are bitterly opposed to baptism, charity enjoins the doctor to baptize the dying infant in spite of the parents’ stand, for they are clearly in the wrong if they interfere with the rights of the dying.”

From pages 322-323:

"BAPTISM OF DYING INFANTS

"If an unbaptized infant, for whom the nurse is caring, is in a dying condition, what should the nurse do with regard to the sacrament of baptism? We must distinguish as follows:

"1. If the mother or father of the child is a Catholic, then ordinarily there is no difficulty. The nurse should at once summon a priest in order that he may administer the sacrament. If, however, no priest is available, and there is immediate danger of death, she herself may and should baptize the dying child.

“2. If the parents are non-Catholics, the nurse may baptize the child unless more harm than good would result from her act. The dying child’s eternal salvation is at stake and so, even if the parents object, the nurse could baptize the infant. ‘Unless more harm than good would result’–when would this clause be verified? It would be verified if the nurse were to baptize such a child openly and against the non-Catholic parents’ consent, for in such circumstances her act would redound to the harm of the Catholic Church. Her act would generally create bitterness and resentful attacks against the Church, and so it would go counter to the common spiritual good. Hence if the parents object to the dying baby’s baptism, the nurse should not baptize it unless she can administer the baptism altogether secretly.”

Paramedicgirl, I should say that answers your original question pretty well, doesn’t it? 🙂 Thanks, cor, for making me look that up.

Maria
 
cor said:
When the official text was published in AAS those phrases were missing. Here’s Jimmy Akin’s commentary on what happened:

"An even more striking departure from prior teaching came in John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (section 99), where he wrote:

I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. . . . The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.

"This would seem to affirm the salvation of children dying without baptism–or at least those who died by abortion–but there’s something very strange about this passage, because when the official, Latin version came out in Acta Apostolicae Sedes, the passage had been rephrased so that it read:

***I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. . . . The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child. ***

"It would appear that the degree of departure from prior teaching in the original text was called to the attention of the pontiff, who then had the official Latin version altered. One would expect that the other versions of the text would be corrected in light of the Latin one and the prior text regarded as inauthentic, but I have seen individuals argue (I can’t see on what basis) that both texts enjoy official status.

“However that may be, both do continue to circulate, and in fact both are present on the Vatican’s own web site (here’s the first, here’s the second).”

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/limbo_in_limbo.html

Here are the referenced links to the diverging passages:

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__P10.HTM
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

Please remember to mention this issue when citing his words, now that you know 🙂
Click to expand...
The Latin version of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium vitae does lack the phrase “your child, who is now living in the Lord.” Still, this phrase, which John Paul II used in the original version of the encyclical, does *not *necessarily contradict the Catholic concept of limbo, for the souls in limbo are indeed living in the Lord. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, they are united with God through natural knowledge and love, and this state may be correctly described as life. After all, those children are not dead.

According to St. Paul, citing the poet Aratus of Soli, we all live in God:

"In him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28; 1986 NAB).

James Akin’s blog entry on limbo does not represent a sound Catholic approach to this topic. Catholics should not allow themselves to be misinformed by such comments. Instead, we should listen to Catholic tradition and the Magisterium, both of which teach us that the souls of unbaptized infants, since those infants die in original sin only, descend into hell for some kind of punishment. This Catholic dogma, taught by two general councils (Lyons II and Florence), need not mean that unbaptized infants suffer in what Jesus calls the “fire” of hell (the “pain of sense”), but it does mean that they are deprived of the beatific vision. As Pope Innocent III teaches, this deprivation is the penalty for original sin.

It is misleading to say that “limbo is not a dogma” as if that ends the discussion for a Catholic. Even though limbo is not a dogma, the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision is a dogma.

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
From Jimmy Akin:
A recent example of this kind of presentation may be found in Pius XII’s Address to Italian Midwives, where he stated:
Click to expand...
If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death. Without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. . . . so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death’s threshold.
Click to expand...
Here the pontiff affirms that a child cannot make the kind of personal act of charity needed to obtain sanctifying grace apart from baptism and thus, according to the clear implication of the text, such children cannot experience the beatific vision. The pontiff does not go into the fact that such children will not suffer (other documents do that) or affirm the idea of their natural happiness, but he does make it clear that such children will not be saved (in the proper sense of the term of receiving the beatific vision).

That was Church teaching (doctrine). It was not, however, Church dogma, and for some time (centuries, actually), theologians had been entertaining possible ways by which salvation could be achieved for such infants. These often centered on the idea that such children might experience a form of baptism of blood or baptism of desire.

Another time we can go into the mechanics of how these theories work, but as the Church’s understanding of baptism of desire progressed in the 19th and 20th centuries, related to a greater emphasis on the universality of God’s salvific will, the idea of limbo began to fall out of favor. This was clearly happening by the mid-20th century, and it may even be why Pius XII didn’t go further than he did in articulating limbo in his address to the midwives.
Click to expand...

Dear All,

As the previous poster (Steve O’Brien) indicated, Jimmy Akin is wrong here and he misrepresents the clear teaching of Pius XII by effectively dismissing it.
That was Church teaching (doctrine). It was not, however, Church dogma, and for some time (centuries, actually), theologians had been entertaining possible ways by which salvation could be achieved for such infants.
Click to expand...
Mr. Akin is apparently unaware that this is certain doctrine. There is no chance that it is in error. It may not be strictly heretical to deny this doctrine as it is not yet de fide, but it is a mortal sin to knowingly deny it.

Mr. Akin is apparently ignorant of the different classes of Church doctrine (as classified by the theologians). Because of this, Mr. Akin is completely discredited and he should not be trusted in these matters. He is not a theologian. Pius XII was a theologian and Pope.

Gorman
 
Dan-Man916 said:
If that were the case, then the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox would have it in their Tradition but they do not.
Limbo is NOT the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Click to expand...

The Filioque, the canon of Scripture as listed at Trent, & Papal primacy of jurisdiction, are all de fide - but they don’t seem to be held in the Oriental Churches. So objections from the non-universality of Tradition on this or that, are powerful - but not decisive.​

Limbo has very little Patristic support, agreed - & there is also the question of what form of a doctrine is affirmed by an author: it’s no good quoting a Father or Doctor or whoever, if he’s affirming a doctrine for reasons, or in a form, which would now be considered incompatible with the Faith of which it is a part. Doctrines have content, & context - not names only; which is a reason why dictionaries are useless as guides to theological issues :eek:
 
Genesis315 said:
People are confusing a couple issues. It is de fide that one must be cleansed of original sin in order to enter Heaven. It is also de fide that the pains of those who die without actual sin, but with original sin suffer lesser pains (if any). It is also de fide that Baptism cleanses one of original sin. 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).

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).

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 has not been done for all unbaptized infants.
Click to expand...
This is somewhat related to what I personally think. My opinion is that there is a Limbo for those who die with the stain of original sin but no serious personal sin, but that we do not kow who that includes.

The example I always give is that of the infant who would have grown up to accept baptism and die in a state of grace, along with the infant who would have died rejecting God. Neither received water baptism, but we could speculate that the first infant would be extra-sacramentally cleansed based on his hypothetical future acceptance of God. The second infant would be denied this cleansing, but because he did not actually get the chance to commit and real sins, he would be spared the physical torments of hell. To save such a soul would actually be unjust, as they would not have wanted to be saved. Therefore, limbo has always made perfect sense to me.
 
gorman64 said:
Mr. Akin is apparently unaware that this is certain doctrine. There is no chance that it is in error. It may not be strictly heretical to deny this doctrine as it is not yet de fide, but it is a mortal sin to knowingly deny it.
Click to expand...
What is the doctrine exactly to which you are referring. I can’t tell from the quote, and I will confess that I was too lazy to read the entire thread. :o
Mr. Akin is apparently ignorant of the different classes of Church doctrine (as classified by the theologians). Because of this, Mr. Akin is completely discredited and he should not be trusted in these matters. He is not a theologian. Pius XII was a theologian and Pope.
Click to expand...
If you could, I’d like to know what classification of doctrine this constitutes. My understanding is that the Pope teaches as a doctor of the Church when he isn’t otherwise speaking ex cathedra. Then again I don’t know where this quote came from and its context.

Thanks Gorman and anybody else who wants to help out!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top