Limbo Babies documentary

[MartyrForJesus]

What do you think? Seems to paint Roman Catholic theology in a pretty dark light, Limbo especially.

youtube.com/watch?v=XNyytxUi_y8

 

[Catholic90]

Limbo is not the official teaching of the Church. We leave the babies to God’s mercy.

 

[Wardog]

Limbo is not the official teaching of the Church. We leave the babies to God’s mercy.

You are absolutley correct; here is a link to the vatican website with a very clear statement.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

I find the vatican website to be very useful to avoid conflicting interperations. I had always heard that Limbo was a Catholic idea that was not in Scriptures; glad to find out that it is not part of the Catholic faith.

 

[Ignatius]

What do you think? , Limbo especially.

Be serious. Limbo was never anything but speculation of some theologians.

 

[thistle]

What do you think? Seems to paint Roman Catholic theology in a pretty dark light, Limbo especially.

youtube.com/watch?v=XNyytxUi_y8

Limbo for infants has NEVER been a Church teaching. It was only ever a theological hypothesis.

 

[tafan]

Be serious. Limbo was never anything but speculation of some theologians.

This is the current Catholic response towards accusations of the Church changing its teaching on Limbo, but it is weak and a half truth. In order to defend the faith and the Church properly, we need to be honest and understand some key distinctions. I myself remember nuns teaching us about limbo as a child, it certainly was not presented as just speculation. From the document quoted above:

This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis

It was not just theologians, but the Magisterium of the Church itself which taught of limbo. Not as part of its extraordinary teaching, which is infallible, butas part of its ordinary teaching, to which we owe assent. Therefore, the nuns were probably quite right to teach it to me as more than just speculation.

 

[Newbie2]

This is the current Catholic response towards accusations of the Church changing its teaching on Limbo, but it is weak and a half truth. In order to defend the faith and the Church properly, we need to be honest and understand some key distinctions. I myself remember nuns teaching us about limbo as a child, it certainly was not presented as just speculation. From the document quoted above:

It was not just theologians, but the Magisterium of the Church itself which taught of limbo. Not as part of its extraordinary teaching, which is infallible, butas part of its ordinary teaching, to which we owe assent. Therefore, the nuns were probably quite right to teach it to me as more than just speculation.

Source, Please?

 

[tafan]

Source, Please?

Sorry, I was not clear, the same Vatican document posted above by another member.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[thistle]

This is the current Catholic response towards accusations of the Church changing its teaching on Limbo, but it is weak and a half truth. In order to defend the faith and the Church properly, we need to be honest and understand some key distinctions. I myself remember nuns teaching us about limbo as a child, it certainly was not presented as just speculation. From the document quoted above:

It was not just theologians, but the Magisterium of the Church itself which taught of limbo. Not as part of its extraordinary teaching, which is infallible, butas part of its ordinary teaching, to which we owe assent. Therefore, the nuns were probably quite right to teach it to me as more than just speculation.

I repeat. Limbo for infants has NEVER EVER been a Church teaching of any kind. It was only a theological hypothesis.
Catholics were not and are not obliged to believe or give any type of assent to it.

 

[tafan]

I repeat. Limbo for infants has NEVER EVER been a Church teaching of any kind. It was only a theological hypothesis.
Catholics were not and are not obliged to believe or give any type of assent to it.

The Vatican admits otherwise, why should we be afraid to do so?
"…even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching "

There are lots of Catholics who remember being taught about limbo as kids by the church.
Good time to learn about the difference between the ordinary magisterium and the extraordinary magisterium. We have no need of historical revisionism; that approach never stands up to scrutiny.

 

[Ignatius]

I myself remember nuns teaching us about limbo as a child, it certainly was not presented as just speculation.

Then those nuns were simply in error and if you believed them then you are in error. Limbo was never an actual teaching of The Church, no matter what some nun or theologian said. Nuns, theologians, The International Theological Commission, committees of the Curia don’t determine what the teachings of The Catholic Church are.

 

[Newbie2]

The Vatican admits otherwise, why should we be afraid to do so?
"…even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching "

There are lots of Catholics who remember being taught about limbo as kids by the church.
Good time to learn about the difference between the ordinary magisterium and the extraordinary magisterium. We have no need of historical revisionism; that approach never stands up to scrutiny.

Did you read the document?

“It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.”

It may have been mistakenly taught as dogma by some, but this clearly says that although the notion was “mentioned” as a “theory”.

 

[thistle]

The Vatican admits otherwise, why should we be afraid to do so?
"…even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching "

There are lots of Catholics who remember being taught about limbo as kids by the church.
Good time to learn about the difference between the ordinary magisterium and the extraordinary magisterium. We have no need of historical revisionism; that approach never stands up to scrutiny.

You are completely wrong. The Vatican did NOT admit otherwise. I think when reading documents you should actually wear your reading glasses because what you claim is NOT in any Church documents.
You have so far failed to come up with any documents to support your claim. Its all hot air.

 

[tafan]

You are completely wrong. The Vatican did NOT admit otherwise. I think when reading documents you should actually wear your reading glasses because what you claim is NOT in any Church documents.
You have so far failed to come up with any documents to support your claim. Its all hot air.

Could you explain to me what “if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching”. It seems plain the Vatican admits ut was part of the ordinary teaching of the magisterium at times. But maybe my glasses are nit working.

I would venture a guess that almost all Catholics were taught about limbo as kids up until the late 60s in catholic schools. I will get out my Baltimore catechism to verify. It was very widespread for just being a theory of some theologians.

Why the fear in admitting what the document plainly states or what is likely remember by any cradle catholic over the age of 50?

 

[Newbie2]

Could you explain to me what “if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching”. It seems plain the Vatican admits ut was part of the ordinary teaching of the magisterium at times. But maybe my glasses are nit working.

I would venture a guess that almost all Catholics were taught about limbo as kids up until the late 60s in catholic schools. I will get out my Baltimore catechism to verify. It was very widespread for just being a theory of some theologians.

Why the fear in admitting what the document plainly states or what is likely remember by any cradle catholic over the age of 50?

There is no fear because your interpretation of what the document “plainly states” is in error.

“if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching”.

Just about every Magesterial document mentions things that are not taught as doctrine or dogma, this one included.

Mentioning a theory does not mean that said theory is taught.

Now you do have a point that many people were taught the notion of Limbo as Church teaching. This, however, was done in error. IMHO if any admission needs to be made it is that this notion was taught as Church teaching when it in fact never was.

If you say, “It was taught, albeit in error, therefore it was a teaching”, that is a much different thing than saying “It was taught as an “Official” teaching”.

The theory of Limbo was mentioned simply because we do not have any authoritive teaching on what does happen to such infants. It is speculation. The Magisterium addresses speculation all the time, especially when there is not definitive teaching on a particular matter.

 

[tafan]

Let us back up. Probably for 700 years, Limbo was taught as standard catechetical instruction in most dioceses of the Latin Church. It was also taught in most seminaries.

Any distinction between theory or fact was not included. The Baltimore Catechism in the US:

“Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.”

This catechism was certainly published under the authority of the Biships of the US. So to say that Limbo was never taught as part of the fallible ordinary (as opposed to extraordinary, or infallible ordinary) Magisterium is not right. And this is why it matters.

We has Catholics, do ourselves no good , by trying to claim that all teachings of the magisterium are unchanging and have an implied infallibility. The semantic game of "mentioning it in a teaching"is not really “teaching” does not work. There are ample, and I mean ample, examples of teaching documents of the Church which talk of Limbo.

So how should we address this issue:

1. We can easily show that it was never part of the extraordinary magisterium, ie Defined ex-cathedra by the Pope, or defined by a general council in union with the Pope.
2. We can easily show that is was never taught as part of the infallible ordinary magisterium, ie taught universially by the Bishops in union with the Pope.
3. We can show that every instance of the teaching is at most taught as part of the Ordinary Magisterium by the Pope (speaking not ex-cathedra) or Bishops (speaking individually or as a group) - which is NOT considered to be infallible.

If you find yourself in a detailed debate with protestants about the Church “changing its teaching on Limbo”; you will have a very difficult time just saying “Limbo for infants has NEVER been a Church teaching. It was only ever a theological hypothesis” (thistle, post #5). You will find yourself simply repeating that statement over and over again, while your opponent will bring up one text after another which is a Church document mentioning limbo in its teachings, often by Bishops and sometimes by Popes. You will loose the argument, because only the second sentence of your argument is true, the first is an incomplete statement. There are different levels of teachings by the Catholic Church.

 

[thistle]

Let us back up. Probably for 700 years, Limbo was taught as standard catechetical instruction in most dioceses of the Latin Church. It was also taught in most seminaries.

Any distinction between theory or fact was not included. The Baltimore Catechism in the US:

“Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.”

This catechism was certainly published under the authority of the Biships of the US. So to say that Limbo was never taught as part of the fallible ordinary (as opposed to extraordinary, or infallible ordinary) Magisterium is not right. And this is why it matters.

We has Catholics, do ourselves no good , by trying to claim that all teachings of the magisterium are unchanging and have an implied infallibility. The semantic game of "mentioning it in a teaching"is not really “teaching” does not work. There are ample, and I mean ample, examples of teaching documents of the Church which talk of Limbo.

So how should we address this issue:

1. We can easily show that it was never part of the extraordinary magisterium, ie Defined ex-cathedra by the Pope, or defined by a general council in union with the Pope.
2. We can easily show that is was never taught as part of the infallible ordinary magisterium, ie taught universially by the Bishops in union with the Pope.
3. We can show that every instance of the teaching is at most taught as part of the Ordinary Magisterium by the Pope (speaking not ex-cathedra) or Bishops (speaking individually or as a group) - which is NOT considered to be infallible.

If you find yourself in a detailed debate with protestants about the Church “changing its teaching on Limbo”; you will have a very difficult time just saying “Limbo for infants has NEVER been a Church teaching. It was only ever a theological hypothesis” (thistle, post #5). You will find yourself simply repeating that statement over and over again, while your opponent will bring up one text after another which is a Church document mentioning limbo in its teachings, often by Bishops and sometimes by Popes. You will loose the argument, because only the second sentence of your argument is true, the first is an incomplete statement. There are different levels of teachings by the Catholic Church.

Catholics must accept all infallible and non-infallible teachings.
Catholics have never had to and still do not have to accept anything about Limbo for Infants.
The Church itself says it has only been a theological hypothesis. Are you telling us the Church has got it wrong regarding a matter of faith??

 

[tafan]

Catholics must accept all infallible and non-infallible teachings.
Catholics have never had to and still do not have to accept anything about Limbo for Infants.
The Church itself says it has only been a theological hypothesis. Are you telling us the Church has got it wrong regarding a matter of faith??

If the church has a fallible teaching, by definition it could be wrong. I am not claiming limbo was ever taught universally by the bishops, if so it would be part of the infallible ordinary magisterium. I am claiming, it was taught by many Bishops as part of the fallible magisterium. I believe my quote from the Baltimore catechism pretty much proves that. The Baltimore catechism was written and published at the behest of US bishops. Individual Bishops used it in their diocese as the standard catechetical text for youths for decades. How can you say it was not taught.

Even now the Church still says it is a valid hypothesis, so it may not be wrong. But it is certainly no longer part of the teaching of the church.

Are you saying the Church has no fallible teachings?

 

[tafan]

BTW, if I remember my history correctly of the US church, in the late 19th century the US bishops did submit the Baltimore Catechism to the Vatican for approval.

 

[Newbie2]

“Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.”

Again, methinks you are misinterpreting what is actually written. “…it is the common belief that they will go to some place similar to limbo…” does not validate the belief in the existence of limbo.

IF the Church taught that Limbo was a reality, the quote would not have said “a place similar to limbo”, it would have just said limbo.

You’re reading into this quote what you want to hear. A careful reading will discern that “a common belief” does not equal a teaching.