Limbo Babies documentary

[thistle]

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?

The Church has infallible teachings and non-infallible teachings. Catholics are obligated to believe both. In both cases if a Catholic rejects one or more of these teachings they put themselves in a state of mortal sin. In the case of rejecting an infallible teaching that is also heresy.
The point is that Catholics are BOUND by both the infallible and non-infallible teachings and rejection of either is a mortal sin.
Limbo for Infants has NEVER been either an infallible or a non-infallible teaching. It is irrelevant if some nuns, priests or even bishops have taught it at one time or another because that did not and does not make it a Church teaching.
It has only ever been a theological hypothesis and the Church has confirmed this. Catholics have never been bound by this hypothesis.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

The Church has infallible teachings and non-infallible teachings. Catholics are obligated to believe both. In both cases if a Catholic rejects one or more of these teachings they put themselves in a state of mortal sin. In the case of rejecting an infallible teaching that is also heresy.
The point is that Catholics are BOUND by both the infallible and non-infallible teachings and rejection of either is a mortal sin.
Limbo for Infants has NEVER been either an infallible or a non-infallible teaching. It is irrelevant if some nuns, priests or even bishops have taught it at one time or another because that did not and does not make it a Church teaching.
It has only ever been a theological hypothesis and the Church has confirmed this. Catholics have never been bound by this hypothesis.

The Council of Florence : “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, . . . but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently”.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

Pope St. Innocent, 414: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.”

Pope Pius VI: The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.”

There are many more quotes… So something can be taught in councils, be taught by popes, by bishops, by priests, appear in catechisms, appear in encyclicals, appear in papal addresses, and still not be part of Catholic teaching in the ordinary magisterium? This point confuses me. When is something taught as part of the ordinary magisterium?

 

[tafan]

“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.

A carefule reading? Ok, lets parse it out:

For a second, lets just take out the phrase “similiar to limbo” and look at the sentence: it is clear that it is referring to exactly the Limbo of Infants which is the traditional term for the limbo under discussion in this thread. So why include the phrase “similiar to Limbo”. Because there are two Limbo’s in church teaching: the Limbo of the Fathers, which is part of the infallible, extra-ordinary teaching of the Church; and the Limbo of the Infants, which is what this thread is about. The Baltimore catechism used the term Limbo for the former, so this “comon belief”, is not given a formal name in this catechism (to avoid confusion I would assume).

And why does it just say “common belief”? That is an explicit acknowledgement the teaching is not universal,which was needed since it is clear through Church history that Limbo of the Infants did not become commonly accepted until the 13th century or so. Prior to that, the Church, for the most part, followed St Augustine and taught that unbaptized innocents were damned; albet a place in hell that may not have had any physical suffering.

Now is the Baltimore Catechism a teaching document of the Church? yes. It was produced at the request of 3 plenary councils of Bishops in the United States and sent to the Vatican for approval. It was implemented in almost every Catholic school in this country.

We can also go to Aquinas’s Summa. This is also accepted as part of the fallible ordinary magisterium of Church teaching, since it was used, almost exclusively, as the primary theological teaching document in seminaries throughout the Latin Church for almost 400 years. It too teaches of Limbo of the Infants.

Why does this matter? From a apologetics standpoint only. We cannot revise history, especially when it is so plain to every fallen away Catholic who is over 50 years old. They love to bring up Limbo as an example of the Church not being a source of truth in its teachings. We are better served by explaining the different levels of the magisterium and we can plainly show that the Church considered its teaching on Limbo of Infants as non-universal.

 

[tafan]

The Church has infallible teachings and non-infallible teachings. Catholics are obligated to believe both. In both cases if a Catholic rejects one or more of these teachings they put themselves in a state of mortal sin. In the case of rejecting an infallible teaching that is also heresy.
The point is that Catholics are BOUND by both the infallible and non-infallible teachings and rejection of either is a mortal sin.
Limbo for Infants has NEVER been either an infallible or a non-infallible teaching. It is irrelevant if some nuns, priests or even bishops have taught it at one time or another because that did not and does not make it a Church teaching.
It has only ever been a theological hypothesis and the Church has confirmed this. Catholics have never been bound by this hypothesis.

This is way too simplistic. We owe infallible teachings of the Church our “Full assent of faith”, we owe noninfallible (a better word than fallible, I admit) teachings our “religious assent of will and intellect”.

And you make it sound like there were just some nuns, priests, and maybe a Bishop here or there that taught of Limbo of Infants. That is complete historical revisionism. Almost every Bishop for probably 300 - 400 years, in the Latin Church at the very least indirectly taught of limbo through the curriculum in the Diocesan seminaries. Every Bishop accepted Aquinas’s Summa as part of Church Teaching (the noninfallible ordinary magisterium), and the Summa affirmed the Limbo of Innocents.

 

[tafan]

There are many more quotes… So something can be taught in councils, be taught by popes, by bishops, by priests, appear in catechisms, appear in encyclicals, appear in papal addresses, and still not be part of Catholic teaching in the ordinary magisterium? This point confuses me. When is something taught as part of the ordinary magisterium?

It should confuse you, when we deny what is plainly in front of us from a historical standpoint it leads to confusion. That is a problem. We need to be able to explain these “changes” in a clear and coherent manner, not pretend they never happened.

 

[Newbie2]

Methinks it’s difficult enough to Catholics to understand the different levels of magesterial teachings, let alone someone who may have it in for the RCC.

But if that works for you, go for it. I’m comfortable with “It’s not a current teaching and has not been one in the past”.

 

[centurionguard]

The Church has infallible teachings and non-infallible teachings. Catholics are obligated to believe both. In both cases if a Catholic rejects one or more of these teachings they put themselves in a state of mortal sin. In the case of rejecting an infallible teaching that is also heresy.
The point is that Catholics are BOUND by both the infallible and non-infallible teachings and rejection of either is a mortal sin.
Limbo for Infants has NEVER been either an infallible or a non-infallible teaching. It is irrelevant if some nuns, priests or even bishops have taught it at one time or another because that did not and does not make it a Church teaching.
It has only ever been a theological hypothesis and the Church has confirmed this. Catholics have never been bound by this hypothesis.

Just to bump your statement :thumbs up:

**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” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. **

Not to derail this thread but I have to ask why is it in various threads you’ll here teachings from popular Saints and though sometime not declared officially ** infallible** or a Dogmatic teaching, some will ignore or downplay such statements from Saints entirely. I see this happen often. Also with former Popes. And its not usually from new forum members. Regular, Senior and Veteran members.

Are Catholics bound by some or all non-infallible teachings of the Church outside the Magisterium.

 

[thistle]

This is way too simplistic. We owe infallible teachings of the Church our “Full assent of faith”, we owe noninfallible (a better word than fallible, I admit) teachings our “religious assent of will and intellect”.

And you make it sound like there were just some nuns, priests, and maybe a Bishop here or there that taught of Limbo of Infants. That is complete historical revisionism. Almost every Bishop for probably 300 - 400 years, in the Latin Church at the very least indirectly taught of limbo through the curriculum in the Diocesan seminaries. Every Bishop accepted Aquinas’s Summa as part of Church Teaching (the noninfallible ordinary magisterium), and the Summa affirmed the Limbo of Innocents.

We are OBLIGATED to believe/accept Church teachings upon pain of mortal sin if we don’t.
We are NOT obligated (nor have Catholics ever been obligated) to believe in Limbo for Infants.

 

[twoangels]

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

youtube.com/watch?v=XNyytxUi_y8

Looks very honest. I don’t find it hostile to Catholic Theology. Truth is that it has always been a bit of a theological problem of the necessity of baptism and the fact that babies would die before being baptized. Limbo may have been a theological speculation, but right now our teaching is that its left to God’s mercy. Believing that the baby goes to Heaven through a baptism of desire by their parents’ is a theological speculation as well. All the Church has finally said is that the theological speculation of Limbo is not satisfactory and that ultimately we as a Church do not know what happens. We only trust that God is merciful.

To write this off is silly. Do these graveyards outside of consecrated ground not exist? Is this documentary pretending? I mean so what it doesn’t make Catholicism look as perfect as some apologetic material.

 

[tafan]

Just to bump your statement :thumbs up:

**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” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. **

Not to derail this thread but I have to ask why is it in various threads you’ll here teachings from popular Saints and though sometime not declared officially ** infallible** or a Dogmatic teaching, some will ignore or downplay such statements from Saints entirely. I see this happen often. Also with former Popes. And its not usually from new forum members. Regular, Senior and Veteran members.

Are Catholics bound by some or all non-infallible teachings of the Church outside the Magisterium.

I am not for sure what you mean by teachings outside the Magisterium.

I do believe there is a fear to acknolwedge any teaching as infallible by some Catholics. I think this is somewhat a reaction to both cafeteria Catholics and a desire by others to lump many teachings into the non-infallible category of the ordinary magisterium. For example, the latter is a certain problem when one sees theologians trying to claim that artificfial contraception being a sin is non-infallible. This goes against a simple review of the history of church teaching, as it becomes apparent that this teaching has been taught universally by the Bishops, throughout Church history.

Newbie2:

Methinks it’s difficult enough to Catholics to understand the different levels of magesterial teachings, let alone someone who may have it in for the RCC

It is actually quite simple.
1)Those teachings defined ex-cathedrally by popes, or defined in a general council of bishops in union with the Pope are part of the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church, and are infallible.
2) Those teachings taught universally by the Bishops are part of the infallible Ordinary Magisterium.
3) Those Teachings taught by the Bishops and particulary the Pope matters of faith and morals which they do not intend to make a definitive pronouncement are part of the non-infallible ordinary magisterium of the Church. To these we owe “religious submission of the intellect and will”

The first 2 contain those teachings we must believe, “ascent of faith”.

The 3rd, which is how the teaching of Limbo would have been classified in the past, is well defined in CCC 892, quoted above by centurionguard. And that paragraph tells us the purpose of these types of teachings, “teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals”.
Canon 752 also defines this

“Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

and tells us what religions submission of intellect and will means: “the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it”.

thistle:

We are OBLIGATED to believe/accept Church teachings upon pain of mortal sin if we don’t

Again, this is too simplistic, or perhaps I should say it is way too imprecise.

thistle:

We are NOT obligated (nor have Catholics ever been obligated) to believe in Limbo for Infants

If by “believe” you mean “ascent of faith”, then I certainly agree with this sentence, when removed from the context of its predecessor.

 

[tafan]

Looks very honest. I don’t find it hostile to Catholic Theology. Truth is that it has always been a bit of a theological problem of the necessity of baptism and the fact that babies would die before being baptized. Limbo may have been a theological speculation, but right now our teaching is that its left to God’s mercy. Believing that the baby goes to Heaven through a baptism of desire by their parents’ is a theological speculation as well. All the Church has finally said is that the theological speculation of Limbo is not satisfactory and that ultimately we as a Church do not know what happens. We only trust that God is merciful.

To write this off is silly. Do these graveyards outside of consecrated ground not exist? Is this documentary pretending? I mean so what it doesn’t make Catholicism look as perfect as some apologetic material.

Unconsecrated graveyards for unbaptized infants? I know of older Churches that had areas for the dead that were used for people who were denied a Christian burial, for instance in the case of suicide, in the past. I have never heard or seen unbaptized infants being buried this way; I suppose it could have happened here and there, but not wide spread. If it was, we would see lots of evidence of it, as infant death used to be quite common; even in the very recent past.

You are correct, in a certain sense all the Church has finally said is we do not know for sure, but we can legitimately have hope.

 

[centurionguard]

I am not for sure what you mean by teachings outside the Magisterium.

I do believe there is a fear to acknolwedge any teaching as infallible by some Catholics. I think this is somewhat a reaction to both cafeteria Catholics and a desire by others to lump many teachings into the non-infallible category of the ordinary magisterium. For example, the latter is a certain problem when one sees theologians trying to claim that artificfial contraception being a sin is non-infallible. This goes against a simple review of the history of church teaching, as it becomes apparent that this teaching has been taught universally by the Bishops, throughout Church history.

It is actually quite simple.
1)Those teachings defined ex-cathedrally by popes, or defined in a general council of bishops in union with the Pope are part of the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church, and are infallible.
2) Those teachings taught universally by the Bishops are part of the infallible Ordinary Magisterium.
3) Those Teachings taught by the Bishops and particulary the Pope matters of faith and morals which they do not intend to make a definitive pronouncement are part of the non-infallible ordinary magisterium of the Church. To these we owe “religious submission of the intellect and will”

The first 2 contain those teachings we must believe, “ascent of faith”.

The 3rd, which is how the teaching of Limbo would have been classified in the past, is well defined in CCC 892, quoted above by centurionguard. And that paragraph tells us the purpose of these types of teachings, “teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals”.
Canon 752 also defines this

“Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

and tells us what religions submission of intellect and will means: “the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it”.

Again, this is too simplistic, or perhaps I should say it is way too imprecise.

If by “believe” you mean “ascent of faith”, then I certainly agree with this sentence, when removed from the context of its predecessor.

See this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=580918&page=3

and here catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4210

 

[Newbie2]

The first 2 contain those teachings we must believe, “ascent of faith”.

The 3rd, which is how the teaching of Limbo would have been classified in the past, is well defined in CCC 892, quoted above by centurionguard. And that paragraph tells us the purpose of these types of teachings, “teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals”.
Canon 752 also defines this

“Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

and tells us what religions submission of intellect and will means: “the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it”.

.

And you think Joe Catholic could define “assent of faith” and “submission of intellect and will”?

And be able to look at the contents of a document or its origin and be able to tell whether or not a teaching falls under an infallible or non-infallible teaching?

You have more confidence in Joe Catholic than I do.

 

[atheistgirl]

Unconsecrated graveyards for unbaptized infants? I know of older Churches that had areas for the dead that were used for people who were denied a Christian burial, for instance in the case of suicide, in the past. I have never heard or seen unbaptized infants being buried this way; I suppose it could have happened here and there, but not wide spread. .

The bbc made a documentary about ‘‘limbo babies’’. Across the UK and Ireland there are tens of thousands of babies buried in unconsecrated graves, mass graves, because of the teaching on limbo at the time.

It seems to have been a very traumatic experience for the parents, as youd expect - losing a child and then not being able to have a church burial.

It’s hard to take from that, that the information on limbo was nothing more than a hypothesis, when priests routinely (in Ireland and the UK at least) denied familes a christian burial for their deceased baby, and led them to believe they were in limbo.

bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wdpcx

Doh thats a link to the same video in the OP. Sorry. I read the thread but didnt click the links for the video.

 

[tafan]

And you think Joe Catholic could define “assent of faith” and “submission of intellect and will”?

And be able to look at the contents of a document or its origin and be able to tell whether or not a teaching falls under an infallible or non-infallible teaching?

You have more confidence in Joe Catholic than I do.

So Joe catholic is too dumb to understand the truth, so we will just teach him falsehoods, eg that every teaching is infallible or everything that a Bishop utters is infallible?

 

[Newbie2]

So Joe catholic is too dumb to understand the truth, so we will just teach him falsehoods, eg that every teaching is infallible or everything that a Bishop utters is infallible?

I assume your response carries with it a degree of sarcasm.

Not “too dumb”, rather “too not-informed” or “too not wanting-to-be-informed”.

We should teach that every infallible teaching is infallible.

 

[Ignatius]

I am not claiming limbo was ever taught universally by the bishops, I am claiming, it was taught by many Bishops

Anyone in authority propagating something outside of Authentic Catholic Teaching, is in grave error. Discussion and speculation should not be mistaken for teaching.

 

[Trishie]

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

 

[atheistgirl]

Anyone in authority propagating something outside of Authentic Catholic Teaching, is in grave error. Discussion and speculation should not be mistaken for teaching.

Are you saying all the priests and Bishops in Ireland, over many many years, were in grave error? It seems the document linked above by Trishie recognises that the church DID in fact teach about Limbo.

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

I cant quite follow how the entire church of an entire country for years and years can teach Limbo, deny babies a burial in consecrated grounds, (how much agony must those parents have been put through being convinced their pure little ones were not in heaven) and the church still say it was not part of any official teaching? Surely, the Vatican would know what was happening in Ireland and elsewhere, and step in and say stop teaching Limbo and give these babies a christian burial?

 

[AnneTeresa]

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?

^ This.

I know former catholics who joke about how the catholic church got rid of limbo. Because it WAS TAUGHT in catechism and we all learned it.

Pulling out old documents and making theological fine points seems like an excuse to people who learned this back then and it WAS taught as a Truth.