Limbo as Dogma?

[SemperFidelis]

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

I could be wrong but I believe it was in page eight. You don’t have to provide a quote though, because you won’t find a credible one I believe, as I have done some looking. My distinction was used because those are the only three sources out of 2000 years of Church teaching, that seem to think unbaptized infants can go to heaven.

Do you claim these popes to be heretical?

Plain and simple for you: No.

 

[Arnobius]

Plain and simple for you: No.

Then the possibility exists that the error is in your reading of the Council documents and the teaching of the Popes, and not in their teaching.
Your quote on page 8 was:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3056551&postcount=120
Where you claimed you could show Limbo in the Roman catechism (you haven’t). What you did show was a condemnation of Jansenism, which I believe the Holy Father would also condemn.

Given the CCC points out in the mention of hope the urgent need for baptism, I think it is established that the belief in universal salvation is not demonstrated as has been alleged by some of the “Limbo is doctrine” proponents.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Then the possibility exists that the error is in your reading of the Council documents and the teaching of the Popes, and not in their teaching.

This issue is clear as day, there is no error in my readings of the Council documents. Unlike Vatican II, the older Councils were clear and concise for a reason. There are many modern theologians who are also troubled by the Pope’s opinions on Limbo and this apprarant shift that unbaptized infants can get to heaven, so I’m not the only one.

Where you claimed you could show Limbo in the Roman catechism (you haven’t).

Clearly you don’t pay attention. I said I mixed up my Catechisms.
Try reading a post I made at 8:32 P.M. yesterday.

 

[SemperFidelis]

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.

Well I do, as do some theologians. They are the only two Popes in the history of the Church who even mention the hope that unbaptized infants can go to heaven. What they are saying has been clearly condemned by past Popes.

Do you dare accuse them of Jansenism?

No I do not. By the way, If I was going to accuse them of anything, which I’m most absolutely not, it wouldn’t be Jansenism, it would be Semi-Pelagianism. Now if they said outright that unbaptized infants wen’t to heaven, then we would have a huge problem, and I would probably be knocking on the Orthodox’s door.

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

Like I said before, this issue couldn’t be any clearer.

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

And I found that post wanting then, just as I find your arguments wanting now, so that isn’t going to help me.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Here’s an interesting paragraph from my original link I’d like you to respond to Arnobius:

"It should be clear from the above survey of relevant Catholic magisterial statements that those who now talk about Limbo as only ever having been a mere “hypothesis”, rather than a doctrine, are giving a very misleading impression of the state of the question. They are implying by this that the pre-Vatican II Church traditionally held, or at least implicitly admitted, that an alternate ‘hypothesis’ for unbaptized infants was their attainment of eternal salvation — Heaven. Nothing could be further from the truth. Limbo for unbaptized infants was indeed a theological “hypothesis”; but the only approved alternate hypothesis was not Heaven, but very mild hellfire as well as exclusion from the beatific vision! In short, while Limbo as distinct from very mild hellfire was a ‘hypothetical’ destiny for unbaptized infants, their eternal exclusion from Heaven (with or without any ‘pain of sense’) — at least after the proclamation of the Gospel, and apart from the ‘baptism of blood’ of infants slaughtered out of hatred for Christ — this was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis. No, it was never dogmatically defined. But the only question is whether the doctrine was infallible by virtue of the universal and ordinary magisterium, or merely “authentic”. - Fr. Brian Harrison

 

[SemperFidelis]

Arnobius, I also find it interesting that Pope John Paul II retracted, in his final and definitive version of Evangelium Vitae #99 (cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 87 [1995] p. 515) his initial statement that aborted babies “now live in the Lord.” Any reason behind this you think? I’m probably guessing its either because John Paul II realized or was informed that this was bad theology, and contradictory to two infallible Councils. I don’t have a problem saying there is hope that unbaptized infants can go to heaven, I have hope that all people will go to heaven. However we both know, due to the teachings of the Church and its infallible Councils that neither is the case. Like I said before, the day a Pope declares in a definitive way that unbaptized infants can go heaven, is the day I find a new Church.

 

[Arnobius]

First off, the reason for my citing my original post was not as a claim of disproving you, but reminding you that you are arguing against something I have never stated.

I think you have misinterpreted what I have said from the beginning then, because your “refutations” do not at all refute what I believe, nor what the Church teaches today. It never was a claim that all children are guaranteed saved. I fully recognize what the councils have said about the necessity of baptism and have accepted it from the beginning.

What we do not know, however, is whether or not God will allow an extraordinary means not addressed by the councils. Neither Pope John Paul II nor Pope Benedict XVI nor the ITC have denied the need for baptism, nor have they claimed God is obligated to save the children who die only in the state of original sin, but rather trusts that that in His mercy and justice, what He will do will be just and merciful. Since Limbo has never been defined by an infallible council, your citation of the Catechism of St Pius X is just as “fallible” as the CCC and is not a valid citation of proof.

I have no issue with Fr Harrison’s writing you cited, because I see him as not judging the teaching of the Church, but judging the attitude that turns the teaching of the Church that we may hope in the Lord to do what is just and merciful into a claim that all infants must go to Heaven.

The problem with your analysis of the early councils is that you fail to take into account the context, where heresies were condemned denying the need for baptism in infants because they were free of original sin. Since Pope Benedict XVI and John Paul II, as well as the CCC have stressed the urgent need for baptism, they do not contradict the councils.

I find it interesting that today is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, where we celebrate the fact that God did something extraordinary indeed. And this is the issue under consideration. Can God do something extraordinary in these cases? The Popes have not said He will, and neither do I.

We do know that Lumen Gentium 16 speaks of the possibility of salvation to the unbaptized:

Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

This brings up some questions:

1. 
   *]Do you deny Vatican II teaches infallibly as an Ecumenical Council? (Lumen Gentium is a Dogmatic Constitution) If so, what is your source for claiming it does not?
   *]Is it consistent to claim that God may (not must) provide graces to people who strive to live in righteousness, but not for those unfortunate enough to die before the age of reason?
   *]Do we have one Ecumenical Council contradicting another? Or is it possible that Vatican II addresses an aspect that the councils cited by you do not?
   
   As for the issue of the “retraction” I believe it possible that the issue was a mistranslation of the English edition and corrected. The version I use of Evangelium Vitae (which, it must be noted, is speaking to women who had an abortion and not defining the state of infants) is the final one after all.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Arnobious,

Just regarding EV 99, I don’t think you can call it a mistranslation of the English. As far as I know, many of the early translations (English, French, Italian, etc.) had the same language “now with the Lord.” It stands to reason that these were translations of an early text (whether from Latin or some other language I do not know).

The important point is, however, that the official text does NOT now and never did have the language in it. I’m not sure of the value of speculating on the writing process/redactions/revisions etc. which led up to the official text.

VC

 

[Arnobius]

Arnobious,

Just regarding EV 99, I don’t think you can call it a mistranslation of the English. As far as I know, many of the early translations (English, French, Italian, etc.) had the same language “now with the Lord.” It stands to reason that these were translations of an early text (whether from Latin or some other language I do not know).

The important point is, however, that the official text does NOT now and never did have the language in it. I’m not sure of the value of speculating on the writing process/redactions/revisions etc. which led up to the official text.

VC

I agree, and whatever the reason, the text I have always used was the official one and speculations as some do as for the reasons for so-called redactions seem calculated to undermine popes people disagree with

 

[SemperFidelis]

Since Limbo has never been defined by an infallible council, your citation of the Catechism of St Pius X is just as “fallible” as the CCC and is not a valid citation of proof.

How many times am I going to have to say I agree with this until you quit saying it?

*]Do you deny Vatican II teaches infallibly as an Ecumenical Council?

Yes, as did Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and Benedict XVI:

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”- Cardinal Ratzinger

I don’t think Vatican II contains outright error. I do believe however that the documents are ambigious and are often misquoted and made to look like they teach something contrary to Catholic teaching. However Vatican II didn’t define any new Dogma, so I once again take the stance of the then Cardinal Ratzinger here:

“Not all valid councils, after being tested by the facts of history, have shown themselves to be useful councils; in the final analysis, all that was left of some was a great nothing." – Cardinal Ratzinger

(Lumen Gentium is a Dogmatic Constitution)

What new Dogma does it teach though?

If so, what is your source for claiming it does not?

What is your source for claiming that it does? I’ve already stated a few of mine.

*]Is it consistent to claim that God may (not must) provide graces to people who strive to live in righteousness, but not for those unfortunate enough to die before the age of reason?

Yes because those who strive to live in righteousness * and actually do*, have implicit Baptism of Desire. An unbaptized infant has not reached the age of reason, and henceforth cannot desire Baptism explicitly or implicitly, and Ven. Pius XII stated as much.

*]Do we have one Ecumenical Council contradicting another? Or is it possible that Vatican II addresses an aspect that the councils cited by you do not?

Where on earth did I ever say Vatican II contradicted a previous Ecumenical Council?

 

[marci]

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.

What do you mean by this, that we all earn our way into Heaven? Do you believe that God shows mercy toward us?
I don’t believe that any of us deserve Heaven, it is only by God’s Mercy that any of us get there.

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.

 

[marci]

I have to make one more comment on this thread and then I must say good-bye.

I remember back in college, when I was shaky in my faith, I was watching a show on the History Channel with my mother (a very traditional catholic), about Ireland. There was a scene in which there was a beach that had large rocks which marked the graves of infants who died without baptism. They were not allowed to be burried in the church cemetary and so their parents burried them in stone marked graves by the sea.

This upset me so much when I saw it. I said to my mother, how could the church have shown so little charity toward these poor grieving parents, any one of whom would have baptized their babies had fate not stepped in.

I do not accept that there is not reason to have hope for these babies. Would that God have the Charity, Justice, and Mercy of some on this thread, Mother Theresa would have a tough time entering Heaven.

I will always hold out hope and pray for all to be saved. I will hate the sin and love the sinner. I will not claim to know where a soul is destined. And I will try to show love, forgiveness, and mercy to everyone, lest Christ deny any one of these to me.

I’m sorry, I know I don’t speak from the theological, I speak from the heart, because this issue is dear to mine.

God Bless you all, and may we all hope in His Mercy.

 

[Arnobius]

I think you’ve unmasked yourself SemperFidelis. You’ve seemingly said you deny Vatican II as an Ecumenical Council and thus showing that your standard is your own interpretation of the Church documents.

Moreover, you grossly misrepresent the words of the Holy Father:

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=3032

I will be charitable and assume you did not do so deliberately but merely got this from a quote mining site, but reading the article shows it does not at all support the idea you claim.

First of all in the very article you quoted but failed to cite, we see the future Pope said In context:
It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolate Vatican II and which has provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II.

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.
So what the future Pope was actually talking of was the belief of some people that Vatican II rejects what came before.

Now as for your second quote of the future Pope, a little research reveals:

Whether a given Council has been a pastoral success or failure is not a matter of Catholic Doctrine. To say the Council led to a decrease in Mass attendance is not an indication of dissent. Even to say a Council was useless or ill-advised does not challenge the authority or indefectibility of the Church. In reference to several past Ecumenical Councils (specifically the Council of Ephesus in 449, the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 and the Council of Constance in 1414), Cardinal Ratzinger remarked that:

“Not all valid councils, after being tested by the facts of history, have shown themselves to be useful councils; in the final analysis, all that was left of some was a great nothing.” 5

Some Councils were rightfully considered “failures” and some took a fair amount of time to bring about the intended results. Although it’s difficult to content that the overall results of Vatican II have thus far been positive, there is the possibility that it’s “good fruits” and the “true renewal” it promises wait for us in the future. In which case, the impetus would be on the defenders of the Council to demonstrate that a potential future renewal truly resulted from Vatican II and, in justice, they will need to be held to the same propter hoc standards to which they currently subject

Source: seattlecatholic.com/article_20030404.html

In other words he was not speaking of Vatican II here.

If this is the accuracy of your research, it throws your analysis of the past councils regarding Limbo into great doubt, doesn’t it?

Quote mining is a dangerous tactic.

At any rate, I now consider your previous quotes doubtful at best regarding the previous councils.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I think you’ve unmasked yourself SemperFidelis.

How so?

You’ve seemingly said you deny Vatican II as an Ecumenical Council and thus showing that your standard is your own interpretation of the Church documents.

Really? Wow. I did not know this about myself. Thank you for putting words in my mouth, and reading into my post what you want to. Maybe you should quit “showing that your standard is your own interpretation of my posts.” Where did I ever deny that Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council? In fact I even said this in my previous post:

SemperFidelis:

I don’t think Vatican II contains outright error. I do believe however that the documents are ambigious and are often misquoted and made to look like they teach something contrary to Catholic teaching.

Some Councils were rightfully considered “failures” and some took a fair amount of time to bring about the intended results.

I completely agree. This was my intention regarding the quotes I posted above, and I know quite well the context of those quotes. ONCE AGAIN: QUIT READING INTO MY POSTS THINGS THAT ARE NOT THERE AND BELIEFS THAT I DO NOT HOLD! I have never, come across a poster that so blatantly twists around what I, or anyone else for that matter, posts on this forum. I am done with you, for this reason and the reason that you have failed to acknowledge or answer several of my points. Your arguments regarding this subject are flawed, and I refuse to “ride this merry-go-round” any more with you.

 

[Arnobius]

I’ll stand by my assessment. You quoted the Holy Father out of context and continually misinterpreted me, thinking several rhetorical questions were directed at you personally.

Whatever.

I have better things to do than to see people claim Popes invented new ideas and then dance away when confronted

 

[SemperFidelis]

I’ll stand by my assessment.

I never thought you would do anything else…

You quoted the Holy Father out of context

If I did, then so did you, because my point was exactly what yours was.

and continually misinterpreted me

Likewise…

Whatever.

Likewise…

I have better things to do

I wish you would have said that about five pages ago…

than to see people claim Popes invented new ideas

As soon as you can show me someone who has advocated the same position as the last two Popes, I’ll quit claiming that this idea is new.

 

[Arnobius]

See above post. I said I was done with it.

Later.

 

[SemperFidelis]

See above post. I said I was done with it.

Later.

Then why do you keep posting?

 

[marci]

How so?

Ok I know I said good-bye BUT, SemperFidelis, in all charity I have to tell you there are three things I have taken away from reading your Posts. If I am wrong, I am sorry, and I hope that you can help me set myself strait.

First, The only popes to allow for hope for salvation for infants are the current and previous popes. Because this seemingly for you is contrary to prior counsils and writings of previous popes, the two latest popes are erring in their writings concerning this matter.

Second, the CCC promulgated by Pope JPII is fallable and therefore, is not required belief by the faithful concerning the hope for infants who have died without baptism.

Third, you do not hold the belief that we are bound by the magesterium, but God is not bound by the church, and therefore can perform miracles which are not outlined in dogma.

Again, I am not saying this is what you believe, only that this is what I have taken away from your posts.

 

[TMC]

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.

Of course I would. Absolutely no question that I would pull out all the stops to do so. So why do you think that God would not do the same, and grant the infant a Baptism of Desire. Is His mercy less than yours and mine?