Limbo as Dogma?

[Arnobius]

When it comes down to it, it seems some people have an a priori assumption that the deepening understanding of what happens to unbaptized infants cannot happen, limbo is dogmatized by some of our “infallible” posters who read Council documents out of context, and woe to the mere Pope who dares to disagree with them!

A careful reading of the ITC document demonstrates a better understanding of the sense of the documents than those who would denigrate them seem to have.

Given that it is the Magisterium that is given authority to interpret the teachings of the Church, those who seek to interpret the Church against the Church are de facto advocating a schismatic view.

Who is more likely to be considered condemnable in the eyes of the past popes? A Pope of today who encourages a deeper study into the fate of unbaptized infants? Or one who advocates rejection of the authority of the Pope when he disagrees with the Pope?

As for me and mine, we echo St Ambrose: Where Peter is, there is the Church

 

[Conservative]

I’m not a theologian but here’s my thought.

Do the math. We are conceived with original sin stained on our soul by reason of Adam and Eve. Baptism removes that original sin. But an unborn child is ***not responsible for ***(a) not being born; (b) not being baptized; (c) committing any sins on its own. Therefore, based on Item C, they would not be sent to hell - since they have not willfully sinned against God.

I would think that God will show mercy to those unborn who through no fault of their own have not had the grace of Baptism. Sort of the same as if we’re in the state of mortal sin, have the intention to go to confession but through no fault of our own die before going.

It gives one pause when the dogma of Limbo comes to mind - that there must be a place where these souls reside - not a place of punishment but sort of a holding pattern. Surely, God will be merciful unto them, and perhaps this long “holding pattern” in our earth’s history until God comes in Final Judgement will be their cleansing time of the stain of original sin.

 

[Walking_Home]

When it comes down to it, it seems some people have an a priori assumption that the deepening understanding of what happens to unbaptized infants cannot happen, limbo is dogmatized by some of our “infallible” posters who read Council documents out of context, and woe to the mere Pope who dares to disagree with them!

A careful reading of the ITC document demonstrates a better understanding of the sense of the documents than those who would denigrate them seem to have.

Given that it is the Magisterium that is given authority to interpret the teachings of the Church, those who seek to interpret the Church against the Church are de facto advocating a schismatic view.
Who is more likely to be considered condemnable in the eyes of the past popes? A Pope of today who encourages a deeper study into the fate of unbaptized infants? Or one who advocates rejection of the authority of the Pope when he disagrees with the Pope?
As for me and mine, we echo St Ambrose: Where Peter is, there is the Church

---

Nice try — in trying to apply infallibility to every word spoken by a Pope.

As to “advocating a schismatic view” ----Bah!

 

[Cristiano]

Our bodies are hopelessly corrupted as are our souls corrupted by the fall of man. But our bodies do not go to heaven, our souls do. Baptism does not cleanse the body and make it pure, . rather it cleanses the soul and enables it to come into the presence of God.

I apologize for quoting such an early post but this has been bugging me for a while. Are you are you saying that we are not going to have glorified bodies? Are you saying that the soul and the body will be separated for ever? What do you mean when you say that our bodies do not go to heaven?

 

[Arnobius]

---

Nice try — in trying to apply infallibility to every word spoken by a Pope.

As to “advocating a schismatic view” ----Bah!

You certainly have an active imagination if you think that I said every word of the Pope was infallible.

However, I certainly trust the wisdom of the Pope more than those members of the site who decide they can sit in judgment over whether he is right or wrong.

 

[Walking_Home]

You certainly have an active imagination if you think that I said every word of the Pope was infallible.

However, I certainly trust the wisdom of the Pope more than those members of the site who decide they can sit in judgment over whether he is right or wrong.

Quote=Arnobius
Given that it is the Magisterium that is given authority to interpret the teachings of the Church, those who seek to interpret the Church against the Church are de facto advocating a schismatic view.

---

Really now --sit in judgement-- for defending a position —which is defendable. You are reflecting some confusion–since the ITC report is not an official expression of the Magisterium.

ewtn.com/library/Theology/znotionlimbo.HTM

Notion of Limbo Isn’t Closed, Expert Says

Adds It’s a Theological Opinion That Can Be Defended

ROME, 3 MAY 2007 (ZENIT)

The theory of limbo is not ruled out, says a member of the International Theological Commission, commenting on a study from the panel.

Sister Sara Butler, a Missionary Servant of the Most Blessed Trinity, has served on the commission since 2004. The commission is an advisory body comprised of 30 theologians chosen by the Pope. **Its documents **are not ****considered official expressions of the magisterium, but the commission does help the Holy See to examine important doctrinal issues.

In an interview with Inside the Vatican magazine, Sister Butler, who teaches dogmatic theology at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Yonkers, New York, says **“the report concludes that limbo remains a ‘possible theological opinion.’ Anyone who wants to defend it is free to do so. **This document, however, tries to give a theological rationale for hoping that unbaptized infants may be saved.”

 

[sphilomena]

I apologize for quoting such an early post but this has been bugging me for a while. Are you are you saying that we are not going to have glorified bodies? Are you saying that the soul and the body will be separated for ever? What do you mean when you say that our bodies do not go to heaven?

Of course we will have glorified bodies, but not at the initial judgment after death. It will happen after the last judgment, when there are only Heaven and Hell, and we are in Heaven, God willing!

Regarding limbo, no, it was never dogma, maybe not even doctrine, but remember the “development of doctrine”. Beliefs can be expanded or clarified over the centuries.

 

[Arnobius]

---

Really now --sit in judgement-- for defending a position —which is defendable. You are reflecting some confusion–since the ITC report is not an official expression of the Magisterium.

ewtn.com/library/Theology/znotionlimbo.HTM

Notion of Limbo Isn’t Closed, Expert Says

Adds It’s a Theological Opinion That Can Be Defended

ROME, 3 MAY 2007 (ZENIT)

The theory of limbo is not ruled out, says a member of the International Theological Commission, commenting on a study from the panel.

Sister Sara Butler, a Missionary Servant of the Most Blessed Trinity, has served on the commission since 2004. The commission is an advisory body comprised of 30 theologians chosen by the Pope. **Its documents **are not ****considered official expressions of the magisterium, but the commission does help the Holy See to examine important doctrinal issues.

In an interview with Inside the Vatican magazine, Sister Butler, who teaches dogmatic theology at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Yonkers, New York, says **“the report concludes that limbo remains a ‘possible theological opinion.’ Anyone who wants to defend it is free to do so. **This document, however, tries to give a theological rationale for hoping that unbaptized infants may be saved.”

Well, I see no point in responding to this, as you will clearly know what I intended to say better than I do

Exactly where in my posts do you see me denying the possibility of limbo?

The issue is not whether or not one may believe in it, but whether some people are passing judgments on the Popes based on their personal interpretation of the councils.

Waits to see how this post will be misinterpreted :hypno:

 

[Walking_Home]

Well, I see no point in responding to this, as you will clearly know what I intended to say better than I do

Exactly where in my posts do you see me denying the possibility of limbo?

The issue is not whether or not one may believe in it, but whether some people are passing judgments on the Popes based on their personal interpretation of the councils.

Waits to see how this post will be misinterpreted :hypno:

Quote=Arnobius
When it comes down to it, it seems some people have an a priori assumption that the deepening understanding of what happens to unbaptized infants cannot happen, limbo is dogmatized by some of our “infallible” posters who read Council documents out of context, and woe to the mere Pope who dares to disagree with them!

A careful reading of the ITC document demonstrates a better understanding of the sense of the documents than those who would denigrate them seem to have.

Given that it is the Magisterium that is given authority to interpret the teachings of the Church, those who seek to interpret the Church against the Church are de facto advocating a schismatic view.

Who is more likely to be considered condemnable in the eyes of the past popes? A Pope of today who encourages a deeper study into the fate of unbaptized infants? Or one who advocates rejection of the authority of the Pope when he disagrees with the Pope?

As for me and mine, we echo St Ambrose: Where Peter is, there is the Church

---

My, my, my—doing some back tracking – I see. You’ve gone from " those who seek to interpret the Church against the Church are de facto advocating a schismatic view" and “advocates rejection of the authority of the Pope when he disagrees with the Pope” ----- To where have you denied limbo and whether some people are passing judgment on the Pope.

 

[Arnobius]

---

My, my, my—doing some back tracking – I see. You’ve gone from " those who seek to interpret the Church against the Church are de facto advocating a schismatic view" and “advocates rejection of the authority of the Pope when he disagrees with the Pope” ----- To where have you denied limbo and whether some people are passing judgment on the Pope.

No backtracking at all. This remains my point since Post #2 actually. I have consistently pointed out the issue was the private interpretations of the Church documents.

Those who question the orthodoxy of the Pope are indeed de facto schismatic.

Might I suggest actually reading my previous posts on the thread before making baseless accusations? You might have fun knocking over strawmen, but what you are attacking has nothing to do with what I hold.

(I must congratulate you by the way… you continue to exceed my expectations on how grossly you misinterpret my posts :tsktsk: )

 

[Walking_Home]

No backtracking at all. This remains my point since Post #2 actually. I have consistently pointed out the issue was the private interpretations of the Church documents.

Those who question the orthodoxy of the Pope are indeed de facto schismatic.

Might I suggest actually reading my previous posts on the thread before making baseless accusations? You might have fun knocking over strawmen, but what you are attacking has nothing to do with what I hold.

(I must congratulate you by the way… you continue to exceed my expectations on how grossly you misinterpret my posts :tsktsk: )

---

You are blowing smoke.

 

[Arnobius]

---

You are blowing smoke.

Translated: You looked at my past posts and realized your mistake? I believe if you checked you would see I consistently never said it was a definite thing, but merely rejected the claim that limbo was dogma, and challenged those who asserted it was.

Those are the ones who I have been taking issue with.

Whatever misinterpretations you draw from my posts is your problem, not mine.

 

[Walking_Home]

Translated: You looked at my past posts and realized your mistake? I believe if you checked you would see I consistently never said it was a definite thing, but merely rejected the claim that limbo was dogma, and challenged those who asserted it was.

Those are the ones who I have been taking issue with.

Whatever misinterpretations you draw from my posts is your problem, not mine.

---

Nope — the fact that limbo can be defended pulls down your house of cards that it is “de facto schismatic” to disaggree with the Pope’s opinion. Roll your eyes as much as you want–it will not change – the ITC document into some magisterial declaration.

By the way ---- you are aware that Pope Benedict himself (as Pope) has not made any statement on the status of limbo.

 

[Arnobius]

---

Nope — the fact that limbo can be defended pulls down your house of cards that it is “de facto schismatic” to disaggree with the Pope’s opinion. Roll your eyes as much as you want–it will not change – the ITC document into some magisterial declaration.

By the way ---- you are aware that Pope Benedict himself (as Pope) has not made any statement on the status of limbo.

Try reading the whole thread please, and see certain posters who were strongly implying that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were being heretical/modernist for their stance.

Commenting on something when you don’t even know the context is rather pointless :yawn:

 

[Walking_Home]

Try reading the whole thread please, and see certain posters who were strongly implying that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were being heretical/modernist for their stance.

Commenting on something when you don’t even know the context is rather pointless :yawn:

---

It seems you were the one coming up with the accusation that they supposedly implied the above. You even brought in the apparent rejection of Vat II and Jansenism into the equation. You created the environment to use for your accusation.

 

[Greg72]

---

Heresies can and have taken many into error — that is our history. Eventually the Holy Spirit guides their suppression — but in the meantime error and deception does live. It took a long time and a Council to suppress the Arian heresy. The Council of Trent addressed the Ultraquist heresy — yet there are indications that it is alive again in our current Church.

Did the heresies actually take hold of the Church though? What I mean is, was there ever a Pope that believed that Jesus was a separate god?

As a side-note, the Ultriquist heresy certainly remains a danger. There are too many people whose preference for a “fuller sign” seems to have moved into thinking that they are somehow recieving more when they recieve under both species. I don’t know why the Church allows them to be offered to the people separately (intinction seems to make the most sense, but I don’t know where it is done). I mean, they worry (in some churches) about the people being confused by the reserved Host in the tabernacle while our Lord is becoming present on the Altar, yet they have no problem with people recieving our Lord in a lineup, often in the hand, hearing “Body” and “Blood” separately and recieving two separate times…

I can appreciate why the Church has to constantly battle heresy, but I wonder if sometimes She is her own worst enemy (by being permissive and allowing innovations).

No matter how much silliness I personally witness, I always look to Rome. So, I ask again - has there ever been a Pope who was guilty of heresy? Is such a thing even possible?

 

[Greg72]

---

Presuming on God’s love and mercy.

That can be a bad thing if -

a) it leads to the postponement of baptism (a danger referred to by the Pope).

or

b) it causes us to lose sight of our own sinfulness and think that God will still love us and forgive us no matter what we do (which, while it may be true, is a dangerous and unfruitful path to tread, and one that is all too common these days).

Otherwise, I don’t see how that sort of presumption is a bad thing. God IS Love and we are supposed to trust in His mercy and not despair. It seems to me that when an unbaptised infant dies, there is much to despair about without such trust (no matter how happy a picture the theologians paint of Limbo).

 

[Greg72]

---

How do we get from pt A to pt B (taking an idea too far). Start by implanting a “new ideology”/ a “new understanding” into the minds of the people. God loves us all – so how could the unbaptised infants be denied heaven. Heresy has its beginning.

Doesn’t something have to go against Church teaching to be heresy?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=316674&highlight=Neocatechume

Quote=itsjustdave1988
I didn’t really like the way they portrayed the Church up until Vatican II as having lost touch with early Christianity. They seem to suggest that infant baptism and catechesis of those baptized as children was some kind of innovation in the Catholic Church, which I disagree with.

Quote=itsjustdave1988
Since I only attended day one of their seminar, I don’t remember that it was discussed. Their suggestion that the early church didn’t baptize infants made me skeptical of their orthodoxy. I presume that they just mispoke or phrased it poorly.

Anyone who doesn’t believe in infant baptism is simply ignorant. I’m afraid that I can’t understand how this is connected.

 

[Walking_Home]

Did the heresies actually take hold of the Church though? What I mean is, was there ever a Pope that believed that Jesus was a separate god?

As a side-note, the Ultriquist heresy certainly remains a danger. There are too many people whose preference for a “fuller sign” seems to have moved into thinking that they are somehow recieving more when they recieve under both species. I don’t know why the Church allows them to be offered to the people separately (intinction seems to make the most sense, but I don’t know where it is done). I mean, they worry (in some churches) about the people being confused by the reserved Host in the tabernacle while our Lord is becoming present on the Altar, yet they have no problem with people recieving our Lord in a lineup, often in the hand, hearing “Body” and “Blood” separately and recieving two separate times…

I can appreciate why the Church has to constantly battle heresy, but I wonder if sometimes She is her own worst enemy (by being permissive and allowing innovations).

No matter how much silliness I personally witness, I always look to Rome. So, I ask again - has there ever been a Pope who was guilty of heresy? Is such a thing even possible?

---

Since heresy not only takes laity into error – but also priests and bishops who by their teaching authority propagate and spread the heresy – so to those holding on to the Faith – it could be seen as heresy taking hold of the Church. The Arian heresy took the majority of the Church into error — so the majority of the “faith” being spread was Arian,

As to whether it is possible for a Pope to be guilty of heresy. I know a Pope is protected from error in only a very limited scope —so outside of that he can be as vulnerable as anyone else. There was a Pope who put out contracts to kill those who he considered his enemies— so in a way/sense his actions were heretical.

 

[Walking_Home]

That can be a bad thing if -

a) it leads to the postponement of baptism (a danger referred to by the Pope).

or

b) it causes us to lose sight of our own sinfulness and think that God will still love us and forgive us no matter what we do (which, while it may be true, is a dangerous and unfruitful path to tread, and one that is all too common these days).

Otherwise, I don’t see how that sort of presumption is a bad thing. God IS Love and we are supposed to trust in His mercy and not despair. It seems to me that when an unbaptised infant dies, there is much to despair about without such trust (no matter how happy a picture the theologians paint of Limbo).

---

The teaching of limbo was not based on despair --but on the basis of a just and merciful God. That was a far as the Church could go without overstepping on revealed Truth. Now it is coming down to pitting what we know of God (what He reveal to us) against what we don’t know of God and filling in the blanks.