Limbo as Dogma?

[TMC]

Sentimentality, as I said. You cannot accept it because you feel it to be “not fair,” right? I don’t mean to be unkind, but this is something that I’ve never heard God be referred to as.

Perhaps we should consider the possibility he meant “Just.” Sometimes people consider it the same thing without considering the different connotations.

Actually I didn’t say “not fair” or “not just” although I think this result would be neither.

I assume you all are aware that this discussion about what happens to unbaptized infants was posed by the Pope to the International Theological Commission (so at least B XVI thinks its not settled). This was the impetus for the article linked by the OP, but the article was written before the approved text was published in April 2007. The Commission concluded that there is “strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.”

One of the basis for their hope is the possiblity that infants may be baptised in voto.

1. Baptism for salvation can be received either in re or in voto. It is traditionally understood that the implicit choice for Christ that adults who are not actually baptised can make constitutes a votum for Baptism and is salvific. In the traditional view, such an option is not open to infants who have not attained the use of free‑will. The supposed impossibility of Baptism in voto for infants is central to the whole question. Hence, many, many attempts have been made in modern times to explore the possibility of a votum in the case of an unbaptised infant, either a votum exercised on behalf of the infant by its parents or by the Church,[126] or perhaps a votum exercised by the infant in some way.[127] The Church has never ruled out such a solution, and attempts to get Vatican II to do so significantly failed, because of a widespread sense that investigation of this matter was still ongoing and a widespread desire to entrust such infants to the mercy of God.

Here is the rest: THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED

Its worth looking at, it goes through the history of the belief in Limbo and addresses many of the points made here.

Bottom line is that the Church is holding out hope for the possiblity that unbaptised infants are saved, and has clarified that there is no dogma that precludes this hope.

 

[JohnGrey]

Actually I didn’t say “not fair” or “not just” although I think this result would be neither.

I assume you all are aware that this discussion about what happens to unbaptized infants was posed by the Pope to the International Theological Commission (so at least B XVI thinks its not settled). This was the impetus for the article linked by the OP, but the article was written before the approved text was published in April 2007. The Commission concluded that there is “strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.”

One of the basis for their hope is the possiblity that infants may be baptised in voto.

Here is the rest: THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED

Its worth looking at, it goes through the history of the belief in Limbo and addresses many of the points made here.

Bottom line is that the Church is holding out hope for the possiblity that unbaptised infants are saved, and has clarified that there is no dogma that precludes this hope.

No, the bottom line is that the Pope is holding out his opinion, along with the recommendation of a theological Council, not dissimilar from the one that gave the okay to contraception back in the 60s. I put no faith in, nor give assent to, opinions.

 

[Arnobius]

An argument that we’ve heard ad nauseam. The fact of the matter is that there have only been two popes that have endorsed this opinion, publicly or privately. If I have to weigh Tradition vs. their opinions (especially given their association with theologians like Kung and Rahner), I’m gonna go with Tradition.

Perhaps I should reiterate my mentioning of the dangers of assuming we cannot err, but others can.

Moreover, considering the role the two popes have had in making Kung an unemployed theologian, I think your comment is rather unworthy.

Perhaps because, just in terms of this argument alone, it purports dogmatic weight to something that most people seem to view as something that is merely and opinion. Where the Pope does not speak infallibly, he does not enjoy any more weight than the rest of us. St. Peter and the Gentile converts is a good enough example of that.

The example of St Peter being not of teaching, but personal conduct, I find the view a non starter. It remains possible the error is in your own understanding and not theirs (both of what they taught and what the older councils taught).

 

[TMC]

Perhaps because, just in terms of this argument alone, it purports dogmatic weight to something that most people seem to view as something that is merely and opinion. Where the Pope does not speak infallibly, he does not enjoy any more weight than the rest of us. St. Peter and the Gentile converts is a good enough example of that.

Really? I have never heard this asserted by a Catholic. The Pope can teach authoritatively without pronouncing infallibly. Peter was challenged and corrected on applying Jewish Law to Gentiles, but it was Paul that did so. I agree that when we think the Church is wrong we should say so. (Lot’s of good threads on conscience going on right now.) But even I don’t think my opinion should be given the same weight as Benedict’s.

 

[JohnGrey]

Perhaps I should reiterate my mentioning of the dangers of assuming we cannot err, but others can.

Thus enters the “well, you’re not the Pope” rebuttal. Neither was St. Athanasius, as he stood against the Arian behemoth.

Arnobius:

Moreover, considering the role the two popes have had in making Kung an unemployed theologian, I think your comment is rather unworthy.

Ah, my comment is unworthy when it calls into question what effect their association with modernist theologians could’ve had on their theological grounding? I’m sure that being raised to the episcopate removes such bias as you accuse me of.

Arnobius:

The example of St Peter being not of teaching, but personal conduct, I find the view a non starter. It remains possible the error is in your own understanding and not theirs (both of what they taught and what the older councils taught).

The two are linked, as the manner of personal conduct was based on a matter of theological dispute, the Jewish precept that they should not mix with Gentiles.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thus enters the “well, you’re not the Pope” rebuttal. Neither was St. Athanasius, as he stood against the Arian behemoth.

. . . and thus enters the "I’m (or our group) is just like St. Athanasius " rebuttal, which we have also heard ad nauseum.



VC

 

[JohnGrey]

Really? I have never heard this asserted by a Catholic. The Pope can teach authoritatively without pronouncing infallibly. Peter was challenged and corrected on applying Jewish Law to Gentiles, but it was Paul that did so. I agree that when we think the Church is wrong we should say so. (Lot’s of good threads on conscience going on right now.) But even I don’t think my opinion should be given the same weight as Benedict’s.

He can teach authoritatively, but it doesn’t enjoy infallibility. In those matters we are not obliged to give assent of faith, or even religious assent if it conflicts with our conscience.

 

[JohnGrey]

. . . and thus enters the "I’m (or our group) is just like St. Athanasius " rebuttal, which we have also heard ad nauseum.



VC

snickes Touche.

 

[JohnGrey]

. . . and thus enters the "I’m (or our group) is just like St. Athanasius " rebuttal, which we have also heard ad nauseum.



VC

How do you like this quote from the ITC document:

t indicates how such a hope has developed in recent decades…

No worries, right?

 

[Arnobius]

So, when you have no answers, turn to the ad hominem and straw man, I see. Sad, but entirely expected in the internet forum, especially this one…

Thus enters the “well, you’re not the Pope” rebuttal. Neither was St. Athanasius, as he stood against the Arian behemoth.

Not at all. Your distortion of what I said is rather extreme. It is not the “Well, you are not the pope” argument, but rather the argument of St Francis de Sales against the Calvinists. If the Church can err, then so can you. It is easier to believe you err than the Church. You fail to consider the possibility that you lack the perspective they had.

Ah, my comment is unworthy when it calls into question what effect their association with modernist theologians could’ve had on their theological grounding? I’m sure that being raised to the episcopate removes such bias as you accuse me of.

Another strawman, and yes it is unworthy to infer that their beliefs are related. It is also the cum hoc fallacy assuming a link of theological beliefs.

But I see the truth reveals its ugly head, and your a priori belief that the Popes are modernist is exposed. It colors your reading of these councils and the words of the Popes.

The two are linked, as the manner of personal conduct was based on a matter of theological dispute, the Jewish precept that they should not mix with Gentiles.

Brush up on the reading of scripture. When among Gentiles, Peter did do what was right, but when some Jews came to visit, he set aside what he believed. There was no teaching involved

Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party

Spiritual weakness and not teaching.

 

[Arnobius]

He can teach authoritatively, but it doesn’t enjoy infallibility. In those matters we are not obliged to give assent of faith, or even religious assent if it conflicts with our conscience.

Well, since we are citing everything else, lets see your citation for this one, as it is the same argument the pro abortion Catholics use.

from the CCC:
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Are you going to argue this is heretical or modernist?

 

[JohnGrey]

Arnobius:

Not at all. Your distortion of what I said is rather extreme. It is not the “Well, you are not the pope” argument, but rather the argument of St Francis de Sales against the Calvinists. If the Church can err, then so can you. It is easier to believe you err than the Church. You fail to consider the possibility that you lack the perspective they had.

It is easier to believe the Church. But when Peter is not speaking infallibly, he is not speaking for the Church. He is speaking in his capacity as a theologian.

Arnobius:

Another strawman, and yes it is unworthy to infer that their beliefs are related. It is also the cum hoc fallacy assuming a link of theological beliefs.

Um…what? How precisely is questioning theological bias a cum hoc fallacy? Are you saying likewise that Ambrose had no effect on the theology of Augustine, rather the two had similar theology by mere happenstance? Or that the Jansenists sprung out of the ground of their own accord, rather than in response to the perceived Semi-Pelagianism of the Jesuits of the time?

Arnobius:

But I see the truth reveals its ugly head, and your a priori belief that the Popes are modernist is exposed. It colors your reading of these councils and the words of the Popes.

Of course, I must be one of those crazy Traditionalists that want to go back before VII, with meatless Fridays and headcoverings! Get real. I simply ask for acknowledgment of the same possibility of bias that can exist in the heart of a man, especially one wishing to validate something that he gave his heart and soul to.

 

[TMC]

He can teach authoritatively, but it doesn’t enjoy infallibility. In those matters we are not obliged to give assent of faith, or even religious assent if it conflicts with our conscience.

I don’t disagree. And if you read the Commission’s document, it explains what is and isn’t dogma and makes plain that a lot of what it says is merely opinion.

But we have travelled a long way, then, haven’t we? We have gone from its absolutely certain that God send babies to Hell to, well its an opinion I don’t have to share.

 

[JohnGrey]

Well, since we are citing everything else, lets see your citation for this one, as it is the same argument the pro abortion Catholics use.

from the CCC:
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Are you going to argue this is heretical or modernist?

Of course not, when it’s an exercise of Magisterium. Has his opinion been promulgated officially in a document. Not from the Commission, but from the Chair itself?

 

[JohnGrey]

I don’t disagree. And if you read the Commission’s document, it explains what is and isn’t dogma and makes plain that a lot of what it says is merely opinion.

But we have travelled a long way, then, haven’t we? We have gone from its absolutely certain that God send babies to Hell to, well its an opinion I don’t have to share.

On the contrary, I’m merely displaying how having an erring opinion would not contradict his position as the Successor of Peter. I believe with full assent of faith, that unbaptized children are excluded from Beatific Vision.

 

[TMC]

It is easier to believe the Church. But when Peter is not speaking infallibly, he is not speaking for the Church. He is speaking in his capacity as a theologian.

Um…what? How precisely is questioning theological bias a cum hoc fallacy? Are you saying likewise that Ambrose had no effect on the theology of Augustine, rather the two had similar theology by mere happenstance? Or that the Jansenists sprung out of the ground of their own accord, rather than in response to the perceived Semi-Pelagianism of the Jesuits of the time?

Of course, I must be one of those crazy Traditionalists that want to go back before VII, with meatless Fridays and headcoverings! Get real. I simply ask for acknowledgment of the same possibility of bias that can exist in the heart of a man, especially one wishing to validate something that he gave his heart and soul to.

Of course Augustine built on Ambrose, each generation builds on those that came before. There have been many opinions on this topic through the centuries as the Commission’s report lays out. Some of the Early Church Fathers were even <> universal salvationists that assumed that there must be some mechanism for everyone. The fact is that nobody knows what God’s plan is for anybody, especially in such an abstract area as the fate of infants.

There is a great possiblity of bias in the hearts of men on this topic. But doesn’t the fact that ordinary men have such love and mercy towards these little innocents speak to your heart about the love that God feels toward them? Will the God that notes every sparrow’s fall withhold His mercy from these little ones? I don’t think so.

 

[TNT]

No, but I think it makes sense. If there is no Limbo, there are two choices - they go to Heaven (perhaps via purgatory) or to Hell. I cannot accept that they go to Hell. So they must be cleansed of Original SIn.

ok, He is another bottom line point:
To TMC my favorite adversary, and every other catholic poster on this thread:

Which one of you would not bother to do EVERYTHING in your power to get a dying infant baptized?

Let us hear from you. Put your conclusion to the test.

 

[Arnobius]

It is easier to believe the Church. But when Peter is not speaking infallibly, he is not speaking for the Church. He is speaking in his capacity as a theologian.

Ah, so the Pope was not speaking for the Church when he called the CCC a sure norm for the faith in the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum?

Um…what? How precisely is questioning theological bias a cum hoc fallacy? Are you saying likewise that Ambrose had no effect on the theology of Augustine, rather the two had similar theology by mere happenstance? Or that the Jansenists sprung out of the ground of their own accord, rather than in response to the perceived Semi-Pelagianism of the Jesuits of the time?

Heh… but you claim that two popes were influenced by Kung, when in fact Pope John Paul II had not been taught by him. Second, if you read the work Truth and Tolerance by the Holy Father when he was Cardinal, we see that already as a student, Benedict XVI had doubts about some of the ideas of his teachers whom you call modernist.

However, you assume that because of the link of Kung and Ratzinger, Ratzinger must have believed the heresies of Kung. That does not follow.

Of course, I must be one of those crazy Traditionalists that want to go back before VII, with meatless Fridays and headcoverings! Get real. I simply ask for acknowledgment of the same possibility of bias that can exist in the heart of a man, especially one wishing to validate something that he gave his heart and soul to.

So where did I say those things? But you were the one to use the label modernist and to imply that the Pope has modernist beliefs. You know a person by the company he keeps. If you can conclude modernist influences by your interpretation of what the pope said, I can certainly conclude Traditionalist by what you said. Perhaps you should moderate your rhetoric to avoid being confused as one.

 

[Arnobius]

Of course not, when it’s an exercise of Magisterium. Has his opinion been promulgated officially in a document. Not from the Commission, but from the Chair itself?

The CCC, which you call fallible was decreed a sure norm of the faith in an Apostolic Constitution.

Moreover Christus Dominus teaches
9. In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.

 

[Arnobius]

ok, He is another bottom line point:
To TMC my favorite adversary, and every other catholic poster on this thread:

Which one of you would not bother to do EVERYTHING in your power to get a dying infant baptized?

Let us hear from you. Put your conclusion to the test.

You realize this only indicates your misunderstanding of our point and the point of the Church, as we know the importance of baptism.

But given we are discussing those who die without the chance of baptism or even the knowledge it is necessary, your post rather misses the point of the debate.