isn't limbo or hell for infants, irrevocable doctrine?

[Gorgias]

it seems to me that the teachings say that baptism of desire is not possible for infants, as it is taught that they go to hell. in the limbo days of the CC, those exceptions etc existed, but no one applied it to infants. even great scholars like Augustine, Aquanis etc believe in Limbo etc. they believed it, cause that is what was taught doctrinally by popes.

Not taught doctrinally. I rarely recommend the 1917 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia (since a more recent version has been published, taking into account the doctrinal statements of the 20th century), but their article on Limbo might be a good read for you. I would point out the conclusion of the article, which states:

As to the difficulties against this view [that unbaptized infants’ “happiness is as perfect and complete as it would have been in the hypothetical state of pure nature”] which possessed such weight in the eyes of the eminent theologians we have mentioned, it is to be observed:

• we must not confound St. Augustine’s private authority with the infallible authority of the Catholic Church; and
• if allowance be made for the confusion introduced into the Pelagian controversy by the want of a clear and explicit conception of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural order one can easily understand why St. Augustine and the Council of Carthage were practically bound to condemn the locus medius of the Pelagians. St. Augustine himself was inclined to deny this distinction altogether, although the Greek Fathers had already developed it pretty fully, and although some of the Pelagians had a glimmering of it (see Coelestius in August., De Peccat. Orig., v), they based their claim to natural happiness for unbaptized children on a denial of the Fall and original sin, and identified this state of happiness with the “life eternal” of the New Testament.
• Moreover, even if one were to admit for the sake of argument that this canon of the Council of Carthage (the authenticity of which cannot be reasonably doubted) acquired the force of an ecumenical definition, one ought to interpret it in the light of what was understood to be at issue by both sides in the controversy, and therefore add to the simple locus medius the qualification which is added by Pius VI when, in the Constitution “Auctoreum Fidei”, he speaks of “locum illium et statum medium expertem culpae et poenae.”
• Finally, in regard to the teaching of the Council of Florence, it is incredible that the Fathers there assembled had any intention of defining a question so remote from the issue on which reunion with the Greeks depended, and one which was recognized at the time as being open to free discussion and continued to be so regarded by theologians for several centuries afterwards. What the council evidently intended to deny in the passage alleged was the postponement of final awards until the day of judgement. Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty. Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children’s limbo, while from the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God’s justice and other attributes.

Blessings,

G.

 

[Gorgias]

yes that is a possible reading of that quote, no middle place.

Actually, that’s the only possible reading of that quote. So, fair enough: if you want to say that there’s a declaration with magisterial force, there it is – there’s no middle place!

most people who read it think he was teaching hell for infants. as he goes on to say…

Aah… but now the rubber meets the road! Perhaps he thought that unbaptized infants go to hell; perhaps not. Either way, he didn’t explicitly state it, so we can’t possibly say that it’s a doctrinal statement, can we?

So, what are we left with? One authoritative statement (no middle place), no authoritative statement on the destination of unbaptized infants. Therefore, we have to look elsewhere. So, Zosimus and Carthage can’t be the bedrock of your argument. Fair enough?

 

[linate]

" For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left"

i dont think it really is ambiguous at the end. “without doubt” are words of an infallible nature. yes people try to read ambiguity into it, but it’s really not.

the catholic encyclopedia quotes seem to be jusifying limbo or something like it, as far as i can tell. they say “while limbo is hard to digest, or at least the idea of natural happiness but no beatic vision, here are some teachings that say it is true…”

for example…
“What the council evidently intended to deny in the passage alleged was the postponement of final awards until the day of judgement. Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God.”

looks like he’s saying florence is saying that they are barred from the Beatic Vision, our number one goal in heaven, but it goes on to agree that they can reach a place of natural happiness. this is what traditional “good” academic catholics often believe too. many of these guys think the current catechism is merely mistaken, and dont count it as infallible.

i think you may be misinterpreting that article snippet’s purpose, and the points of each of them.

with that said i dont know what this is referring to “interpret it in the light of what was understood to be at issue by both sides in the controversy, and therefore add to the simple locus medius the qualification which is added by Pius VI when, in the Constitution “Auctoreum Fidei”, he speaks of “locum illium et statum medium expertem culpae et poenae.””
and i can’t deny i might have some misunderstandings myself.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D

that looks pretty infallible to me. just to use an example.

The Council of Carthage and several other Councils cited by linate are not Ecumenical Councils, so they cannot teach infallibly.

 

[linate]

i will look into the infallible nature of carthage, but i see even the first quote “original sin only” quote looks like it is referring to even infants. who else has original sin only?
and there are other quotes that back it up.

i asked the question before and i see a good catholic argued…
"What part of “We Define that” in that portion from an infallible and authoritative council was missing from what I just provided? Did what I provide say the matter was up to theologians? No, it says “We define” in exercising the infallible magisterium of the Church. The Infallible magisterium: it becomes less and less infallible every day here at FE, we just enjoy reducing dogmas to theological speculations because it jives with what want to believe.

Those councils were infallible and authoritative, including the Council of Trent, Florence, and Carthage - are we here lowering their definitions to speculations?
Am I actually seeing this? You’ve got the authority of three Councils of the Church backing Limbo, you’ve got a letter from a group of fellas in Rome to back the myth of theological speculation - what are we gonna go with - the authority of the Roman Pontiff in solemn definition, or a letter from the Holy Office?"

will look into the infallible nature of carthage and some of the others also and bring more back on it.

 

[linate]

another strict catholic argument…
"Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V: “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.”

Now, this says that if anyone says that babies incure no trace of the original sin of Adam, which need to be washed away by baptism in order for them to have eternal life let him be anathema. So, then, if they are not baptized they still have original sin and thus cannot have eternal life, this is dogmatically seen from our passage above, and that it is this original sin that deprives them of it, according to Pius XI."

 

[R_C]

The Council of Carthage and several other Councils cited by linate are not Ecumenical Councils, so they cannot teach infallibly.

Indeed.

What the Magisterium holds to be the most complete understanding at this time is what we hold on to. For it is written: "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak.

With all due respect, you don’t seem to quite grasp the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, and the difference between infallible dogmas in various graduations vs. theological opinions. This is also reflected by your definition of your religion as “neo-orthodox-ish protestant”. So why don’t you try to understand, instead coming here to teach, and to teach those who actually understand Catholicism?

For your information, here are the basics you should begin to learn.

Any dogma is an infallible doctrine, divinely & formally revealed by God as a necessary truth for salvation.

Extraordinary Magisterium is an ex cathedra pronouncement of the Roman Pontiff (Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX) or a de fide statement of an Ecumenical Council (Justification, by the Council of Trent).

Ordinary Magisterium is the perennial teaching of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him around the world.

One can find the theological distinctions made between divinely revealed truths (De Fide) and those which are only theologically certain.

nature, like the Holy Trinity, The Real Presence, etc.

Next, are VERITATES CATHOLICAE (catholic truths) like the existence of God which can be known through reason alone.

Finally, there are four types of THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS:

1. SENTENTIA FIDEI PROXIMA (proximate to the Faith) like the Trinity can be known only through Revelation.

1. SENTENTIA CERTA (theologically certain) like Monogenism, i.e., that the human race came from one set of parents.

1. SENTENTIA COMMUNIA (common teaching) like the Church’s prohibition & proscription of artificial contraception.

1. SENTENTIA PROBABILIS (probable teaching) like the premise that the Virgin Mary died before being Assumed into Heaven.

According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium n.25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority.

For two thousand years, Christians who knew far more than us all put together have tried to reconcile the absolute imperative of Baptism with the nonsense that an infant may not enter heaven, and several theological opinions were brought forth, such as the limbus puerorum and, today, the idea that God may mercifully act in an extraordinary way and simply grant them access to heaven as it is written: “the kingdom belongs to such as these”.

Your random quotations of writings of popes without even fully grasping what it means to teach ex cathedra won’t help understand the truth.

As for us, we hold on to what the Magisterium currently teaches, under virtue of holy obedience. This the Church Fathers and Early Church Christians did, this we do.

 

[pnewton]

I did a little searching, since I noted that the OP does not link anything he states. I did find these little snipets spread out and pasted together on several sedevacantist sites. What is being posted here is proof-texting from various statements, encyclicals and even Church councils. Those which do fall under the category of infallible all profess the possibility of baptism by desire, as did the Council of Trent. It is this desire that the Church has tried to better understand in its doctrine on invincible ignorance.

If I were to post one half of a debate by Baptist, for example, on the role of free will, I could easily make it look like all Baptist believed one way, or the other, depending on which side I wanted to post. Limbo was a widely believed, but often debated topic in the early Church. We are seeing the predominant opinion presented by those who have separated from the Catholic Church.

We should not believe everything we read on the internet. We need to weigh the slant from which it is being presented and investigate more deeply those we think deserve investigation.

 

[linate]

i will research the infallibility more of each quote. but the “original sin only” quote seems pretty clearly infallible and about infants. who else could it apply to?
and i have plenty of exemplar academic catholics who agree with me that it is a settled question. they just are not as many in number. it’s not politically popular, the position, and not the current sentiment put forth by the CC.

the easiest way to interpret infallibility as far as ive seen is to ask did the “pope, intentionally, teach, the church, on faith and morals”. in application that can be open to interpreation sometimes, so i will look into other interpretations of the quotes’ infallibililty, and consider them from my own vantage too. my opinion doesn’t count for nothing.
this will take some time as i want to make sure im not mistkane, and get feed back here too.

the easy ones like saints’ opinions etc we can disregard. but again it does give evidence to what was taught.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

i will research the infallibility more of each quote. but the “original sin only” quote seems pretty clearly infallible and about infants. who else could it apply to?
and i have plenty of exemplar academic catholics who agree with me that it is a settled question. they just are not as many in number. it’s not politically popular, the position, and not the current sentiment put forth by the CC.

the easiest way to interpret infallibility as far as ive seen is to ask did the **“pope, intentionally, teach, the church, on faith and morals”. **in application that can be open to interpreation sometimes, so i will look into other interpretations of the quotes’ infallibililty, and consider them from my own vantage too. my opinion doesn’t count for nothing.
this will take some time as i want to make sure im not mistkane, and get feed back here too.

You missed the important point of the Pope clearly binding all the faithful to accept that teaching.

 

[Gorgias]

i will look into the infallible nature of carthage, but i see even the first quote “original sin only” quote looks like it is referring to even infants. who else has original sin only?

Oh, where did I put my soapbox, now? Aah! There it is! ahem

OK … in order to understand a conciliar document, you need to understand the context in which it was written. Councils aren’t called in order to have an excuse to bring bishops together and have a party; rather, they’re called in order to address a particular problem or controversy.

In the example of Carthage, the controversy was Pelagianism. Zosimus was trying – once and for all – to deal with Pelagius and with his ideas. Pelagius had asserted that Jesus wasn’t strictly ‘necessary’ for salvation; that is, he said that man had it within himself to attain salvation, and Jesus was more of a ‘role model’ that we should try and follow. Therefore, there was no such thing as original sin, and no inability on the part of humans to be saved.

So, here’s what Zosimus needed to do in his conciliar document: affirm the teaching of the Church! Therefore: baptism a necessity; no salvation through personal merit. That’s why we see the language that you’re quoting – he’s making it perfectly clear that it’s not just a matter of personal sin that blocks salvation; original sin is sufficient, too.

As you can see, then, Zosimus isn’t really trying to declare doctrine on the fate of unbaptized infants, per se. He’s really addressing the problems of Pelagianism, and in doing so, he needs to be certain that he grounds the arguments about salvation from the beginning of life (that is, he needs to include a discussion of the effects of original sin).

OK… done with the soapbox…

 

[Misplaced_Book]

I don’t know about irrevocable doctrine. While it is technically true that there was no “Definitive” definition or dogma declared, it was part of the ordinary Magisterial teaching for Centuries. It was certainly taught with the force of Doctrine, even if it wasn’t technically a “Doctrine.” To say otherwise is erroneous at best, and disingenuous at worst.

 

[linate]

“You missed the important point of the Pope clearly binding all the faithful to accept that teaching.”

that is a great point. i may change the way i approach them to “pope, intentionally, binds, the church, on faith and morals”. it does give more credence to the catholic idea of “binding and loosing” from the bible. i would squabble, on the point that it doesn’t have to be ‘clear’ to be binding as long as it was intentionally binding, though that would be preferable. i would also squabble, that if we can say a pope is teaching something but not binding it… isnt that getting into the magic hat that catholics are said to be able to do? 'we can teach anything as long as we can plausibly get out of it later, and never contrdict ourself". even were i to eventuallyu concede the limbo etc points, it’d still be a magic hat issue, cause everything is so murky that no one can really know anything with any real certainty except that which is clear to the nth degree.
–i acutally ahve usually said catholics aren’t too shady in that regard, most encyclicals etc etc for example could be said to be infallible, but not necessarily. i always said i dont see them contradicting each other at any rate as a practical matter for the most part, as far as i know. but if this limbo thing is what you guyus say, it is a bit shady we can suddenly see contradictions and teachings and try to think nothing of it.

it also is shady that someone could be bound by mortal sin by something that turned out later to not be a doctrine, as catholics are bound by mortal sin in rejecting doctrines or things that appear to be doctinres. that’s my understanding which has been verified other places as well. usually they say it’s cause about deferring to authority, though perhaps some argue that you aren’t mortally sinning to opt out of something that wasn’t really a doctrine in the first place? and what of trying to pick your own topics now? tangent, another topic, maybe for another time.

 

[linate]

it does look like the florence and jacobite quotes are about infants, no? “original sin alone” and they go to hell. who else would this fit? anyone at the age of reason has other sins.

i see the following point trying to be made, but it looks like the person being referred to, the person who sins by omission in never findnig the sactifying grace, must have been old enough to sin on his own. we all sin on our own when we reach age. maybe i’m missing something?

“In my view, a person dies in a culpable state of “original sin alone” if he dies unrepentant from the actual mortal sin of omission of never having found sanctifying grace in this life, despite ample opportunity. These persons go to the limbo of Hell.”

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I don’t know about irrevocable doctrine. While it is technically true that there was no “Definitive” definition or dogma declared, it was part of the ordinary Magisterial teaching for Centuries. It was certainly taught with the force of Doctrine, even if it wasn’t technically a “Doctrine.” To say otherwise is erroneous at best, and disingenuous at worst.

What do you mean, taught with the force of a doctrine even if it wasn’t technically a doctrine? That seems to be an inherently contradictory idea. Remember that the word “doctrine” means “teaching.”

By the way I would point out, since if anyone else has done so I have missed it, that the famous paper that came out a few years ago casting doubt upon Limbo was not itself Church teaching. A Catholic is perfectly free to disagree with its conclusions about the optional nature of Limbo. Granted there have been other statements about our hope for unbaptized infants salvation, but that does not contradict the idea of Limbo as the eternal state one would enter into by dying in Original Sin but not personal mortal sin. As I’ve mentioned earlier, I personally find Limbo pretty incontrovertible as regards that theoretical situation, whether or not it ever actually arises.

 

[linate]

Oh, where did I put my soapbox, now? Aah! There it is! ahem

OK … in order to understand a conciliar document, you need to understand the context in which it was written. Councils aren’t called in order to have an excuse to bring bishops together and have a party; rather, they’re called in order to address a particular problem or controversy.

In the example of Carthage, the controversy was Pelagianism. Zosimus was trying – once and for all – to deal with Pelagius and with his ideas. Pelagius had asserted that Jesus wasn’t strictly ‘necessary’ for salvation; that is, he said that man had it within himself to attain salvation, and Jesus was more of a ‘role model’ that we should try and follow. Therefore, there was no such thing as original sin, and no inability on the part of humans to be saved.

So, here’s what Zosimus needed to do in his conciliar document: affirm the teaching of the Church! Therefore: baptism a necessity; no salvation through personal merit. That’s why we see the language that you’re quoting – he’s making it perfectly clear that it’s not just a matter of personal sin that blocks salvation; original sin is sufficient, too.

As you can see, then, Zosimus isn’t really trying to declare doctrine on the fate of unbaptized infants, per se. He’s really addressing the problems of Pelagianism, and in doing so, he needs to be certain that he grounds the arguments about salvation from the beginning of life (that is, he needs to include a discussion of the effects of original sin).

OK… done with the soapbox…

i think the best technical jargon you could use to make your point is ‘dicta’. it’s reasoning and teaching, but it’s secondary to what was primarily being intended to address. it’s plausible, perhaps, i’d have to look into it more, but it looks like it might be one on top of another of excuses, which eventually is just evading what’s clear. (or dare i say, clear enough?)

 

[Misplaced_Book]

What do you mean, taught with the force of a doctrine even if it wasn’t technically a doctrine? That seems to be an inherently contradictory idea. Remember that the word “doctrine” means “teaching.”

By the way I would point out, since if anyone else has done so I have missed it, that the famous paper that came out a few years ago casting doubt upon Limbo was not itself Church teaching. A Catholic is perfectly free to disagree with its conclusions about the optional nature of Limbo. Granted there have been other statements about our hope for unbaptized infants salvation, but that does not contradict the idea of Limbo as the eternal state one would enter into by dying in Original Sin but not personal mortal sin. As I’ve mentioned earlier, I personally find Limbo pretty incontrovertible as regards that theoretical situation, whether or not it ever actually arises.

What I mean, is that while many are quick to dismiss Limbo as “not a doctrine” and just a “theological opinion,” it was part of the ordinary Magisterial teaching. Most modern Catholics find the idea of Infant Limbo abhorrent and offensive, causing a dilemma for the Church. Infant Limbo, like the Death Penalty are issues where Rome has budged.

 

[pnewton]

What I mean, is that while many are quick to dismiss Limbo as “not a doctrine” and just a “theological opinion,” it was part of the ordinary Magisterial teaching. Most modern Catholics find the idea of Infant Limbo abhorrent and offensive, causing a dilemma for the Church. Infant Limbo, like the Death Penalty are issues where Rome has budged.

Throwing the death penalty here is both inaccurate and very much a separate topic.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

What I mean, is that while many are quick to dismiss Limbo as “not a doctrine” and just a “theological opinion,” it was part of the ordinary Magisterial teaching. Most modern Catholics find the idea of Infant Limbo abhorrent and offensive, causing a dilemma for the Church. Infant Limbo, like the Death Penalty are issues where Rome has budged.

It was certainly part of day-to-day catechesis. I’m sure it sometimes entered the ordinary magisterial teaching of individual bishops too. But did it enter into the teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium? That’s an important question but also inherently difficult to determine. In any case it is the function of the living Magisterium to determine such questions not individual lay Catholics, otherwise all of us would turn into a pack of bickering “Traditionalists.” Certainly it appears Limbo never entered into the teaching of the Extraordinary Magisterium at least in a binding way.

Not that I would be troubled if it had. As I’ve said I’m quite comfortable with my view of Limbo as a theoretical state into which people certainly would enter under the traditional conditions, but do not necessarily really enter since the conditions may never really arise. This, it seems to me, encompasses both the old teachings about Limbo and the modern hope for unbaptized infants’ salvation.

Regarding the death penalty, the Church still ultimately accepts, however weakly and grudgingly it may appear in recent documents, that it can be a moral option in some cases, so the shift is more one of emphasis and of practical pastoral guidance. I’ll grant, though, that we could use further clarification from the Church to help bring together the different threads of Her teaching on the subject into a coherent whole. Personally I don’t think this is likely to happen in our lifetimes because Europe’s current attitude of absolute rejection of the death penalty won’t allow for both sides of the Church teaching on the subject to be given their due share of weight.

 

[Ron_Conte]

There are 21 Ecumenical Councils
newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm
Some did not exercise the infallible teaching authority, but all those Councils and ONLY those councils had the ability to exercise conciliar infallibility.

The ordinary non-infallible Magisterium is exercised by an local Council (e.g. Carthage), by any individual Bishop, by any Bishops’ Conference, by the Holy See, and by the Pope when he is not teaching infallibly.

The ordinary and Universal Magisterium is exercised when the body of Bishops dispersed through the world and the Pope are in agreement on on position definitively to be held (LG 25).

I don’t see Lyons II and Florence, the only infallible sources on dying in original sin alone, as necessarily including infants. Pope Pius IX taught that no one goes to Hell except because of deliberate sin. The CCC teaches that only mortal sin and persistence in that sin (i.e. refusal to repent) condemns to Hell (n. 1035, 1037).

Therefore, I suggest that only those souls die in “original sin alone” who are guilty of the actual mortal sin of omission of never having obtained sanctifying grace despite ample opportunity.

The ordinary teaching of the Magisterium on limbo as a third final destination for unbaptized infants is non-infallible (at best). My view is that unbaptized infants are given a baptism of blood, then they go to the limbo of Purgatory, then to Heaven.

Infants should be baptized (with water), but if they are not – or in the case of prenatals who die in the womb – they can receive a baptism of blood and so be saved by Christ. Otherwise, esp. for prenatals, how would the universal salvific will of God be fulfilled?