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

[napad]

It is clear that the Council of Florence, in referring to those who die “in original sin only,” is speaking of unbaptized infants, for otherwise the same council would not have taught that there is no remedy for infants apart from the sacrament of Baptism…

For fighting the good fight.
The people who want to say that limbo is not “offically” taught by the Church frustrate the heck out of me.:banghead:
How many authoritive testimonies does it take for them to see that getting rid of limbo only leaves the torments of hell fire which is a complete rejection of the Councils of Lyons and Florence.

If the debate only hinged on St. Augustine and St. Thomas. Id say they had a point; but limbo is the only conclusion that all the teachings of council upon concil, pope upon pope about the necessity of baptising infants for their salvation.

Those on the more traditional side have technically over steped their bounds to call limbo de fide. Id say it is doctrine and very solid but de fide i think is only for solem pronouncements.:twocents:

It seems odd that this issue seems to have a swam that follows to make threads so long that many just tune it out. And leave many to never see the facts.

 

[tdgesq]

It is clear that the Council of Florence, in referring to those who die “in original sin only,” is speaking of unbaptized infants, for otherwise the same council would not have taught that there is no remedy for infants apart from the sacrament of Baptism:

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God . . . ."(old Denzinger number 712).

I have a couple of questions. Is the “sacrament of baptism” referenced here limited exclusively to formal baptism of water and the Trinitarian formula? Second, is the language “the only remedy available to them” referring to the only remedy available period, or is it referring to the only remedy that the Church has at its disposal that guarantees removal of original sin?

Part of the reason I ask is because of this passage from the CCC:

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1257 (emphasis in the original).

Btw, I’m not one of those who is ready to throw children’s limbo on the ash heap.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

For fighting the good fight.
The people who want to say that limbo is not “officially” taught by the Church frustrate the heck out of me.:banghead:

Thanks, Napad!

Behind all doctrinal confusion ultimately stands the Devil, who has to rejoice when confused and scandalized Catholics contend that “limbo is not a dogma.”

True, limbo is only a conjecture, not a dogma, but the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision on account of original sin ***is ***a dogma, as the entire history of the dogmas of original sin and infant Baptism shows.

We must pray to the Blessed Mother, for she “has destroyed all heresies.” We should especially pray the Rosary for confused and scandalized Catholics who do not realize that a religion in which the Church can contradict her dogmas is not the Catholic religion.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I have a couple of questions. Is the “sacrament of baptism” referenced here limited exclusively to formal baptism of water and the Trinitarian formula? Second, is the language “the only remedy available to them” referring to the only remedy available period, or is it referring to the only remedy that the Church has at its disposal that guarantees removal of original sin?

Part of the reason I ask is because of this passage from the CCC:

1257 (emphasis in the original).

Btw, I’m not one of those who is ready to throw children’s limbo on the ash heap.

I do not believe that the Council of Florence intended to deny that baptism of blood can enable unbaptized infants even today to attain the beatific vision, as was the case with the Holy Innocents in the time of King Herod.

But baptism of blood for infants is part of Catholic tradition, which knows nothing of baptism of desire for those who are too young to experience an explicit or implicit desire for the sacrament of Baptism. Hence, the Church, speaking through the Council of Florence, and taking into account the rarity of infant martyrdom, taught that the ***sacrament ***of Baptism (i.e., with water and the Trinitarian formula) is the ***only ***remedy for cleansing infants of original sin. In so doing, the council was teaching in accordance with Catholic tradition.

Again in accordance with Catholic tradition, *CCC *1257 can, and should, be understood as referring to baptism of blood for all, and to baptism of desire only for those capable of desire. This understanding leaves intact the de fide teaching that those who die in original sin only are penalized for this state of sin by being deprived of the beatific vision.

No statement in the Catechism of the Catholic Church should be interpreted in such a way that a de fide teaching of the Church is contradicted.

By the way, we should all be aware of this: the word “limbo” is listed in the new catechism’s official analytical index, where it is linked to section 1261. This is why it is incorrect to say, as we often read, that limbo is absent from the new catechism.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[tdgesq]

Thank you for that well thought out post.

I do not believe that the Council of Florence intended to deny that baptism of blood can enable unbaptized infants even today to attain the beatific vision, as was the case with the Holy Innocents in the time of King Herod.

I agree with you. Although the council was referring to sacramental baptism only here, it was not intending to exclude baptism that can occur outside of the sacramental system; baptism of blood.

But baptism of blood for infants is part of Catholic tradition, which knows nothing of baptism of desire for those who are too young to experience an explicit or implicit desire for the sacrament of Baptism.

I agree with you again. There is no indication that the doctrine of baptism of desire applies to infants. It requires a desire that infants cannot have. I also think that there are good reasons to reject the notion of some kind of vicarious desire that might apply on behalf of the infant.

Again in accordance with Catholic tradition, *CCC *1257 can, and should, be understood as referring to baptism of blood for all, and to baptism of desire only for those capable of desire. This understanding leaves intact the de fide teaching that those who die in original sin only are penalized for this state of sin by being deprived of the beatific vision.

This is where we are not in full agreement. The pertinent part of CCC 1257 only states: “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” It does not state that baptism of blood and desire fully exhaust this category. The index for baptism of blood and desire do not reference CCC 1257. We already know that baptism of blood does not require intent on the part of the infant for original sin to be removed. I believe the possibility remains open for another non-sacramental baptism that also does not require intent on the part of infants.

No statement in the Catechism of the Catholic Church should be interpreted in such a way that a de fide teaching of the Church is contradicted.

I agree again, but it is not a contradiction to assert that infants who do not receive the sacrament of baptism may nevertheless receive baptism (removal of original sin) outside of the sacramental system and thereby achieve the beatific vision. In fact, we know this is the case with baptism of blood.

 

[gorman64]

tdgesq:

I agree again, but it is not a contradiction to assert that infants who do not receive the sacrament of baptism may nevertheless receive baptism (removal of original sin) outside of the sacramental system and thereby achieve the beatific vision. In fact, we know this is the case with baptism of blood.

“we know this is the case with baptism of blood”

I agree…but how do we know this? What is your assertion based on?

 

[cor]

Jimmy Akin writes:

“In fact, the International Theological Commission is not an organ of the magisterium but an advisory body. Its documents, even when their publication is approved by the pope, do not have magisterial force. What the pope did in this case was allow an advisory document to become public.”

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/04/limbo_document_.html

BTW, even the pope’s own works need not have magisterial force. For example, his upcoming book lacks magisterial character.

 

[tdgesq]

“we know this is the case with baptism of blood”

I agree…but how do we know this? What is your assertion based on?

It is implicit in Scripture, explicit in the teachings of several of the early Fathers, and generally considered Catholic doctrine sententia fidei proxima. I can give you specifics if you wish, but I’m fairly certain you are wanting to make a point instead. Go ahead.

 

[gorman64]

It is implicit in Scripture, explicit in the teachings of several of the early Fathers, and generally considered Catholic doctrine sententia fidei proxima. I can give you specifics if you wish, but I’m fairly certain you are wanting to make a point instead. Go ahead.

Who classifies it sententia fidei proxima?

 

[DustinsDad]

I finally was able to find the ITC document (Click here to download) and have been plugging my way through it.

Sorry to say, but it has modernism written all over it.

The whole basis of the study, its justification of itself, is the modern “feelings” of the people who have suddenly become compassionate regarding deceased unbaptized infants - and of course modern theologins themselves, who “sought the right to imagine new solutions” to the problem. So our two points of justification for the study are, in short, emotion and modern “reason”.

Funny thing is, as the “study” goes through the Christian timeline of Church teaching, it actually lays out a iron-clad justification for the concept of limbo…only to in the end dismiss all the evidence and claim that the concept is an “unduly restrictive” view of salvation which contradicts the Universal Salvific Will of God…as if the Church somehow missed the Universal Salvific Will of God for 2000 years.

The only way a group of guys could do such illogical mental gymnastics if if they have rejected the concept of immutable truth, and have succomed to the idea that truth is relative and changable and is subserviant to the whims of man’s reason and emotion. Prepositions condemned by the Church itself:
Syllabys of Errors (Pope Pius IX, 1864)
Condemned beliefs:
3… Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations.—Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.

1. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind.—Ibid. and Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846, etc.
2. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason.—Ibid.
   The very notion that the Church can contradict itself in its teachings is also condemned, and therefore, this document condemns itself. Good thing it carries no Magisterial weight!

Vivo Christo Rey!

DustinsDad

 

[tdgesq]

Who classifies it sententia fidei proxima?

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 356.

 

[ironchef]

Why dont we go to the bible and see what it has to say about the subject of infant death? no one has mentioned searching the scriptures. all you have refered to is what men have said.Let God be true and every man a liar…King James Bible

 

[bear06]

Why dont we go to the bible and see what it has to say about the subject of infant death? no one has mentioned searching the scriptures. all you have refered to is what men have said.Let God be true and every man a liar…King James Bible

IC, you are going a little off-topic because it would seem that your last few threads have dealt with the “traditions of man” theme. You might want to check out these catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp
before you take on this argument. Our entire faith is Bible based.

 

[tdgesq]

By the way, we should all be aware of this: the word “limbo” is listed in the new catechism’s official analytical index, where it is linked to section 1261. This is why it is incorrect to say, as we often read, that limbo is absent from the new catechism.

I believe this needs to be addressed as I see it thrown around so much. I highly doubt that the index entry “limbo” has any significance. Here’s why.

I have a first edition of the CCC in English. Guess what, no mention of children’s limbo in the index. Clearly the second English edition does now have limbo added to the index. The explanation for this is given by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Office of the Catechism as follows:

The second edition of the Catechism incorporates all the modifications to the text that appeared in the Latin Typical Edition, released in September of 1997. The new book is also lengthier than the first edition because it contains a new index and a glossary. The Analytical Index is more detailed than the Subject Index which appeared in the first edition, adding sixty extra pages.

usccb.org/catechism/update/spring2000.htm

It looks like the second edition contains this disclaimer:

The following index is an English translation of the Index Analyticus that appeared in the Latin typical edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated on August 15, 1997. For the most part, this index is a literal rendering of the Latin, with attention given to maintaining consistency with the language of the English edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Index Analyticus was designed to be both a general subject index as well as a conceptual index of the contents of the Catechism, and this English translation is faithful to that design. This English translation does not participate in the approval of the Latin typical edition given in the apostolic letter Laetamur Magnopere of Pope John Paul II, by which the Latin text was approved and promulgated.

scborromeo.org/ccc/index/a.htm

I tried to find the Index Analyticus for the Latin typical edition, but was unsuccessful. Anybody here have a hard copy of that edition? My guess is that limbus infantium is not to be found.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I believe this needs to be addressed as I see it thrown around so much. I highly doubt that the index entry “limbo” has any significance. Here’s why.

I have a first edition of the CCC in English. Guess what, no mention of children’s limbo in the index. Clearly the second English edition does now have limbo added to the index. The explanation for this is given by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Office of the Catechism as follows:

usccb.org/catechism/update/spring2000.htm

It looks like the second edition contains this disclaimer:

scborromeo.org/ccc/index/a.htm

I tried to find the Index Analyticus for the Latin typical edition, but was unsuccessful. Anybody here have a hard copy of that edition? My guess is that limbus infantium is not to be found.

“Limbo” is listed in the official analytical index of the Latin editio typica of the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *(Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997) on page 858:

"Limbus, 1261, cf. Baptismus, Exsequiae."

---

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[tdgesq]

“Limbo” is listed in the official analytical index of the Latin editio typica of the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *(Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997) on page 858:

***"Limbus, 1261, cf. *Baptismus, Exsequiae."

---

Keep and spread the Faith.

Thanks for the information. I think that it is significant if that’s the case. Weird that it wasn’t included in the first English edition. Do you have an online link for that? I would like to have it for future reference if this issue comes up again.

 

[cor]

Thanks for the information. I think that it is significant if that’s the case. Weird that it wasn’t included in the first English edition. Do you have an online link for that? I would like to have it for future reference if this issue comes up again.

The “Latin editio typica” was published some time after the “first English edition.” That’s why they are different.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Limbo is not a dogma and is not de fide. In point of fact, we just do not know. All we can do is to trust in God’s infinite divine mercy knowing that whatever he does, it will be the correct, proper, most just and most merciful solution.
Deacon Ed B

 

[napad]

Limbo is not a dogma and is not de fide. In point of fact, we just do not know. All we can do is to trust in God’s infinite divine mercy knowing that whatever he does, it will be the correct, proper, most just and most merciful solution.
Deacon Ed B

I know it is a long thread but please read steve O’Brians posts and you will understand the true teaching and what you say above is not exactly accurate. E.G.:

Originally Posted by Steve O’Brien

True, limbo is only a conjecture, not a dogma, but the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision on account of original sin is a dogma, as the entire history of the dogmas of original sin and infant Baptism shows.
We must pray to the Blessed Mother, for she “has destroyed all heresies.” We should especially pray the Rosary for confused and scandalized Catholics who do not realize that a religion in which the Church can contradict her dogmas is not the Catholic religion.

“Limbo” is listed in the official analytical index of the Latin editio typica of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997) on page 858:

“Limbus, 1261, cf. Baptismus, Exsequiae.”

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

 

[napad]

To help you in your research here are some statements that will help:

Infallable teachings related to babies not entering heaven:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442:
“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people.”

Council of Lyons II, 1274
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.” (Denzinger 464)

Council of Florence, 1438-1445:
“the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or **in original sin only, descend immediately into hell **but to undergo punishments of different kinds” (Denzinger 694)

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 -
Proposition 6: “Those who claim, that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this = Condemned.” Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 422

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session Va:
“If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

St, Pope Zosimus : “Tractoria, in which Pelagianism and its authors were condemned. Thus, finally, the occupant of the Apostolic See at the right moment maintained with all authority the traditional dogma of the Church, and protected the truth of the Church against error." (catholic Ecyclo. “Zosimus”)
the Tractoria is referred to in the Council of Ephases ’ We[Zozimus], however, by the inspiration of God…have referred all things to the of our brothers and co-bishops. of the 16th Council of Carthage]’

The Pope Zosimus and Ephases points are related to the 16th Council of Carthage (see below for relivant quote). This council was local but it is held that the condemnations of the16th council of Carthage are echoed in the famous Tractoria of Pope Zosimus which would be infallable as described in the Catholic encyclopedia.(above)