Limbo as Dogma?

[SemperFidelis]

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?

The Roman Catechism is also a sure norm for teaching the faith, and it includes Limbo, so which should we go with? I can also show you Apostolic Constitutions which explicitly teach Limbo. Once again, which one should we go with?

 

[SemperFidelis]

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?

You can say it all you want, but children are not innocent. Original Sin ain’t nothin.

 

[Arnobius]

The Roman Catechism is also a sure norm for teaching the faith, and it includes Limbo, so which should we go with? I can also show you Apostolic Constitutions which explicitly teach Limbo. Once again, which one should we go with?

You realize of course that if the CCC can err as you claim, so can the Roman Catechism and if an Apostolic constitution can not be considered definitive per JohnGrey then the same standard applies to yours.

Personally I would want to see the context they used the term in.

Just continues to prove my point of the danger of erring when one puts one’s personal judgment over the magisterium though…

 

[SemperFidelis]

You realize of course that if the CCC can err as you claim, so can the Roman Catechism and if an Apostolic constitution can not be considered definitive per JohnGrey then the same standard applies to yours.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

To my knowledge the Roman Catechism does not mention Limbo. Could you point out where Semper?

The closest thing I could find was:

Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

VC

 

[Arnobius]

Thank you for proving my point.

I believe you proved mine actually:

Just continues to prove my point of the danger of erring when one puts one’s personal judgment over the magisterium though…

 

[SemperFidelis]

I believe you proved mine actually:

Actually you proved mine, that the CCC and John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution regarding the “sure norm” can err… And I never disagreed with your point.

 

[Arnobius]

Actually you proved mine, that the CCC and John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution regarding the “sure norm” can err… And I never disagreed with your point.

Then you read more into it than I said. I said if they can err than so can yours. Ergo, your claim of contradiction does not work in your favor. Moreover Verbum Caro asked you to demonstrate where the Roman Catechism mentioned Limbo and I asked you about context in the Apostolic constitutions you claim.

So far, you have not addressed the “if” clause

 

[JohnGrey]

Then you read more into it than I said. I said if they can err than so can yours. Ergo, your claim of contradiction does not work in your favor. Moreover Verbum Caro asked you to demonstrate where the Roman Catechism mentioned Limbo and I asked you about context in the Apostolic constitutions you claim.

So far, you have not addressed the “if” clause

Actually, it really can. If neither Catechism can be a sure norm for teaching the faith, and by extension promulgations not bearing the infallibility of the Petrine ministry do not carry binding weight, then the relegation of the unbaptised infant outside of Beatific Vision is still supported by an Ecumenical Council ratified by a Holy Father.

 

[SemperFidelis]

To my knowledge the Roman Catechism does not mention Limbo. Could you point out where Semper?

The closest thing I could find was:

VC

Sorry, I got my Catechisms switched up. I meant the Catechism of St. Pius X. It was also taught in the 1949 Revised Edition of the Baltimore Catechism. Here are some parts however of the Roman Catechism that pertain to this topic:

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their childrenbe brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have **no **other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to
be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

The Church has never, until the last twenty years or so taught that unbaptized babies even have a remote chance of attaining the beatific vision. This is a recent novel theological invention, and it is most clearly not devolopment but an evolution. Hell or Limbo, choose one. The Councils couldn’t be any clearer. You can say that recent Popes have taught they can go to heaven, and they have but Papal Infalliblity does not mean Papal Impeccability, and a Pope can err in promulgating a Catechism or making a theological statement, when it’s not ex cathedra. You are so quick to assert the teaching’s of recent Popes, but in so doing you reject the teachings of past Councils and Popes, not to mention that the most recent two Popes are way, way outnumbered when it comes to this subject. When it comes to Limbo I think the famous French Thomist Philosopher Jacques Maritain should be mentioned:

“Limbo is scorned by so many of today’s theologians who don’t know what they are doing.”

 

[SemperFidelis]

Then you read more into it than I said. I said if they can err than so can yours.

I never said it couldn’t…

Ergo, your claim of contradiction does not work in your favor. Moreover Verbum Caro asked you to demonstrate where the Roman Catechism mentioned Limbo and I asked you about context in the Apostolic constitutions you claim.

Give me a second and I’ll pull out some Apostolic Constitutions.

So far, you have not addressed the “if” clause

Sorry, but I don’t remember an “if” clause being explicitly asked of me. Refresh my memory please.

 

[Arnobius]

Actually, it really can. If neither Catechism can be a sure norm for teaching the faith, and by extension promulgations not bearing the infallibility of the Petrine ministry do not carry binding weight, then the relegation of the unbaptised infant outside of Beatific Vision is still supported by an Ecumenical Council ratified by a Holy Father.

Not so, because the Church has never said that they will be saved, but only that we must leave it to God to do what is just and merciful.

Too many people however misrepresent the words of the Pope and the CCC on the issue. And look at the fruits of it on this thread… accusations (overt and subtle) of modernism, heresy and other errors, never admitting that the words of the Catechism do not deny the previous works.

We know what Christ said about baptism, and we know about the examples of the Good Thief, the Holy Innocents, that Jesus said to let the little children come to him. So the question is: Is it impossible for God to work a miracle for those who do not and cannot know the truth.

I choose to follow the magisterium on this. If it turns out I am wrong, I can offer this to God as my excuse. If you are wrong, what excuse will you offer for rejecting it?

 

[Arnobius]

Sorry, but I don’t remember an “if” clause being explicitly asked of me. Refresh my memory please.

I said:

You realize of course that if the CCC can err as you claim, so can the Roman Catechism and if an Apostolic constitution can not be considered definitive per JohnGrey then the same standard applies to yours.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I said:

You realize of course that if the CCC can err as you claim, so can the Roman Catechism and if an Apostolic constitution can not be considered definitive per JohnGrey then the same standard applies to yours.

And I don’t disagree with you here, and I never did.

 

[JohnGrey]

Not so, because the Church has never said that they will be saved, but only that we must leave it to God to do what is just and merciful.

But therein lay the problem. To many mercy is beatific vision unearned. Those that disagree with the ITC’s recommendation have no qualms about it, and neither does Tradition.

Arnobius:

Too many people however misrepresent the words of the Pope and the CCC on the issue. And look at the fruits of it on this thread… accusations (overt and subtle) of modernism, heresy and other errors, never admitting that the words of the Catechism do not deny the previous works.

In actual words, no, but in meaning most definitely. If the Council of Florence did indeed settle the fact of the eternal state of those dying in original sin being excluded from beatific vision (and it did), then we cannot hope for anything otherwise. No amount of linguistic back-bending can paper over the disparity.

Arnobius:

We know what Christ said about baptism, and we know about the examples of the Good Thief, the Holy Innocents, that Jesus said to let the little children come to him. So the question is: Is it impossible for God to work a miracle for those who do not and cannot know the truth.

Both are poor examples. The Holy Innocents were martyred directly for the sake of Christ, something that is historically unique, and I know of no other instance where children are killed for the sake of Christ.

As for the Good Thief, the fact of the matter is that he died under the Old Covenant. How do we know? Christ’s promise that he would be in Paradise. Not Heaven.

Is it impossible for God to work a miracle? As well to ask if God can create a rock that He cannot lift. God created a sacramental framework so that such questions wouldn’t be necessary. Said framework has only two options other than sacramental baptism, and prior promulgations of Popes have left one closed. So short of martyrdom, sacramental baptism is necessary.

Arnobius:

I choose to follow the magisterium on this. If it turns out I am wrong, I can offer this to God as my excuse. If you are wrong, what excuse will you offer for rejecting it?

There is no magisterium contrary to Florence. Nothing. There is a theological opinion of two Popes and the ITC. Against the statements of Popes, Councils and Doctors of the Church. You choose obedience to the now. I and others choose obedience to the always. In this matter, the twain cannot meet.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I just realized everything I needed was in the original article by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S. I linked to in my first post on this thread.

Here are some excerpts:

Pope Sixtus V, Apostlic Constitution Effaenatam of 29 October 1588:

For who would not detest a crime as execrable as this — a crime whose consequence is that not just bodies, but — still worse! — even souls, are, as it were, cast away? The soul of the unborn infant bears the imprint of God’s image! It is a soul for whose redemption Christ our Lord shed His precious blood, a soul capable of eternal blessedness and destined for the company of angels! Who, therefore, would not condemn and punish with the utmost severity the desecration committed by one who has excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God? Such a one has done all he or she could possibly have done to prevent this soul from reaching the place prepared for it in heaven, and has deprived God of the service of this His own creature.

Pope Pius VI rejecting the Jansenist view that there is no Limbo stated that it is “false, rash, and injurious to Catholic schools”.

"At that time, the liberal theologians criticized by Fr. Le Blanc were beginning for the first time in Church history to raise the possibility of Heaven for all unbaptized infants — a totally novel hypothesis which was soon censured by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII as unsound and “without foundation”.

 

[SemperFidelis]

However Arnobius, I’m still waiting for that quote (outiside of the CCC and Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI) that says we can have hope that unbaptized infants can go to heaven.

 

[Arnobius]

Both are poor examples. The Holy Innocents were martyred directly for the sake of Christ, something that is historically unique, and I know of no other instance where children are killed for the sake of Christ.

So are you then saying that children below the age of reason can have baptism of blood?

As for the Good Thief, the fact of the matter is that he died under the Old Covenant. How do we know? Christ’s promise that he would be in Paradise. Not Heaven.

That certainly needs to be proven that the distinction was deliberate in the sense you claim.

Is it impossible for God to work a miracle? As well to ask if God can create a rock that He cannot lift. God created a sacramental framework so that such questions wouldn’t be necessary. Said framework has only two options other than sacramental baptism, and prior promulgations of Popes have left one closed. So short of martyrdom, sacramental baptism is necessary.

I was asking you. I know that all things are possible with God. The question is whether or not God is limited by the sacraments or allows for extraordinary ways. The councils could not define such extraordinary ways of course, and I will not speculate on what He does. ST III 68.2 indicates however that there are ways other than baptism to be saved Ott (page 340) does point out that God can administer grace without the sacraments citing ST III 72: 6.1

At any rate, I am convinced you err in a blanket statement that God cannot do so, when the Church holds He is not bound to do so

There is no magisterium contrary to Florence. Nothing. There is a theological opinion of two Popes and the ITC. Against the statements of Popes, Councils and Doctors of the Church. You choose obedience to the now. I and others choose obedience to the always. In this matter, the twain cannot meet.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Given this does not contradict previous councils, my conscience is secure. I can faithfully say I am obedient to both the past and trust that the Popes carry on the teaching authentically

So are you calling the Pope a heretic? yes or no? And who gives you the authority to decide such?

 

[Arnobius]

However Arnobius, I’m still waiting for that quote (outiside of the CCC and Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI) that says we can have hope that unbaptized infants can go to heaven.

I don’t recall you asking or my agreeing to provide it. But your distinction is interesting.

Do you claim these popes to be heretical?

 

[Arnobius]

I just realized everything I needed was in the original article by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S. I linked to in my first post on this thread.

Here are some excerpts:

Pope Sixtus V, Apostlic Constitution Effaenatam of 29 October 1588:

For who would not detest a crime as execrable as this — a crime whose consequence is that not just bodies, but — still worse! — even souls, are, as it were, cast away? The soul of the unborn infant bears the imprint of God’s image! It is a soul for whose redemption Christ our Lord shed His precious blood, a soul capable of eternal blessedness and destined for the company of angels! Who, therefore, would not condemn and punish with the utmost severity the desecration committed by one who has excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God? Such a one has done all he or she could possibly have done to prevent this soul from reaching the place prepared for it in heaven, and has deprived God of the service of this His own creature.

Pope Pius VI rejecting the Jansenist view that there is no Limbo stated that it is “false, rash, and injurious to Catholic schools”.

"At that time, the liberal theologians criticized by Fr. Le Blanc were beginning for the first time in Church history to raise the possibility of Heaven for all unbaptized infants — a totally novel hypothesis which was soon censured by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII as unsound and “without foundation”.

Where was it said all would receive it? I find your arguments not contradictory to the statements of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Do you dare accuse them of Jansenism? Because this condemnation must be read within that context.

What you are showing is not the error of the Pope, but of your own failure to understand what they teach.

Might I refer you to my original response to the subject:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3052424&postcount=2