Limbo? I don't understand

[Carlus_Magnus]

Let me put it like this, if ther is no limbo, then you are saying that all are immaculately conceived, which, is a denial of other dogmas.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

No. It is not dogma.

It may at different times in Church history been a more (or less) prominent theological position, but is not Dogma and it is not part of the Apostolic position.

Please prove your assertion.

The quote you give below certainly does not establish such

Chuck

That quote condemns the idea which you promote.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“The doctrine which rejects… that place of the lower regions Limbo] 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” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

He states that those who reject Limbo are teaching error! Behold, see! Pope Pius VI here states that it is false notion to reject the Limbo of the Children!

What you assert is condemned by the Council of Trent:

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V: “If anyone says that… babies… incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life… let him be anathema.”

Here we see that Baptism is necessary even for babies to obtain salvation!

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.”

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “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.”

Simply because the word Limbo is not mentioned, does not negate the fact that the definition of Limbo is here given. This quote from the Council of Lyons is the definition of Limbo: that unbaptised infants, who only in original sin contracted from Adam, go straigtway to Hell, but suffer different punishments! Dare you deny this definition of a Council of the Church as a “theological theory”?!
**

 

[japhy]

Let me put it like this, if ther is no limbo, then you are saying that all are immaculately conceived, which, is a denial of other dogmas.

He didn’t say that. “No limbo” doesn’t mean immaculate conceptions. It might mean they go to Hell proper.

Those in limbo, do they have their names written in the Book of Life? If not, then they are thrown into the lake of fire, the second death (Rev 20:14-15). Where in a “lake of fire” are there no flames?

If their names are in the Book of Life, it would stand to reason they enter the New Jerusalem (cf. Rev 21:27)… unless there’s the possibility that a) some people named in the Book of Life can get tossed into the Lake of Fire, and/or b) some people named in the Book of Life don’t enter the New Jerusalem. But if Jesus will acknowledge the names of those written in the Book of Life in the presence of the Father and the angels (cf. Rev 3:5), why would some whom he acknowledged not enter the New Jerusalem?

Original sin is not personal sin, correct? It’s not my sin against God, it’s the sin of Adam, imputed upon me, correct? If so, why would God blot out of His book the name of one who had never committed a sin against Him (cf. Ex 32:33)?

 

[VociMike]

Let me put it like this, if ther is no limbo, then you are saying that all are immaculately conceived, which, is a denial of other dogmas.

Not at all. The other option is that the grace of baptism is made available to them through other means. Baptism of desire is certainly one possibility that may be made available to all. And if you tell me that infants can’t desire baptism, I’ll simply point out how John the Baptist leaped in the womb in the presence of Mary and Jesus, indicating both an awareness and a joy when in the presence of God.

If God desires that all be saved, we can desire no less. As the CCC states, “we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery”.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

Not at all. The other option is that the grace of baptism is made available to them through other means. Baptism of desire is certainly one possibility that may be made available to all. And if you tell me that infants can’t desire baptism, I’ll simply point out how John the Baptist leaped in the womb in the presence of Mary and Jesus, indicating both an awareness and a joy when in the presence of God.

If God desires that all be saved, we can desire no less. As the CCC states, “we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery”.

The Catholic Church teaches that Original sin is only remitted through the sacrament of Baptism, the matter of which is water, without which the sacrament is not confected according to the Council of Florence.
The case of John the Baptist was:

1. under the old law before the institution of the sacraments of the new law.
2. an extraordinary case referring to something else.

We desire that all might be saved, however, the Church is the means, without the sacraments of the Church there is no salvation, once again a dogmatic fact from the Council of Florence, no exceptions mentioned.
Baptism of desire negates one or more dogmatic magisterial teachings of the Church, then, if it assumes to do something contrary to that which is not possible according to ex cathedra pronouncments of Holy Mother Church.

 

[clmowry]

Yeah, not only do I dare, so does the Vatican. Apparently they forgot to check in with you to see if it was dogma.

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

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. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.

That quote condemns the idea which you promote.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“The doctrine which rejects… that place of the lower regions Limbo] 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” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

He states that those who reject Limbo are teaching error! Behold, see! Pope Pius VI here states that it is false notion to reject the Limbo of the Children!

What you assert is condemned by the Council of Trent:

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V: “If anyone says that… babies… incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life… let him be anathema.”

Here we see that Baptism is necessary even for babies to obtain salvation!

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.”

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “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.”

**Simply because the word Limbo is not mentioned, does not negate the fact that the definition of Limbo is here given. This quote from the Council of Lyons is the definition of Limbo: that unbaptised infants, who only in original sin contracted from Adam, go straigtway to Hell, but suffer different punishments! Dare you deny this definition of a Council of the Church as a “theological theory”?! **

 

[VociMike]

The Catholic Church teaches that Original sin is only remitted through the sacrament of Baptism, the matter of which is water, without which the sacrament is not confected according to the Council of Florence.

Are you denying the teaching of the Church on Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire? You are really going against the tide in that case.

The case of John the Baptist was:

1. under the old law before the institution of the sacraments of the new law.
2. an extraordinary case referring to something else.

What the case of John the Baptist points out is that even children in the womb can be aware of God and express joy in that awareness, thus rendering baptism of desire a possibility. That fact has nothing to do with being under the old law, and it is by no means a given that it is an extraordinary ability.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

Yeah, not only do I dare, so does the Vatican. Apparently they forgot to check in with you to see if it was dogma.

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

Do you know what the Church says about those who believe and teach different from its defined dogmatic teachings? Allow me:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “Whoever, therefore, have adverse and contrary opinions the Church disapproves and anathematizes and declares to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church.”

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, Dec. 19, 1513: “And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith.”

Pope Pelagius II, epistle (1) Quod ad dilectionem, 585: “If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized according to the opinion of the same Fathers.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441: “Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”

I Lateran Council: “If anyone does not profess properly and truthfully all that has been handed down and taught publicly to the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God, to the last detail in word and intention: let him be anathema.”

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chap. 4, Canon 3: “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”

Note that it is not I, but the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church who says these things, that what is here excerpted is not my opinon, but the infallible pronouncements of the Church, thus, these sayings may not be attributed to myself.

 

[Amolibri]

Excerpt from an editorial of Nat’l Catholic Reporter May, 4 2007:

It took us centuries to come to the realization that perhaps these most inventive theologians of the past might have been wrong in their reading of the mind of God.

Even Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, apparently had trouble with the concept. In an interview while head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he said, “Limbo was never a defined truth of the faith. Personally – and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the congregation – I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis.”

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

Excerpt from an editorial of Nat’l Catholic Reporter May, 4 2007:

It took us centuries to come to the realization that perhaps these most inventive theologians of the past might have been wrong in their reading of the mind of God.

Even Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, apparently had trouble with the concept. In an interview while head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he said, “Limbo was never a defined truth of the faith. Personally – and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the congregation – I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis.”

The controversial statement of this man is not capable of the negation of the eternal truths defined by the the body of Christ i.e. the Church. I have shown its definition from an infallible document of the Church, and now shown that all those who disagree with the Church are to be anathematized.
Does this mean that I am wrong? Considering that I have not posted my opinion yet, this cannot be assumed.
Does this mean that I consider people here as heretics?
Maybe not, but I will say, that those who disagree with the Church are as such.

 

[clmowry]

I’d suggest you take it up with the “International Tehological Commission” and whoever from the Vatican made the “mistake” of placing the document on the Vatican website.

They don’t seem to think that the Church has made a Dogmatic pronouncement on Limbo.

They disagree with you. I simply agree with them. Which I believe is what you are pointing out that I should do below.

I’m thinking you might want to take your own advice.

Have you read the document on the Vatican web site?

Chuck

Do you know what the Church says about those who believe and teach different from its defined dogmatic teachings? Allow me:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “Whoever, therefore, have adverse and contrary opinions the Church disapproves and anathematizes and declares to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church.”

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, Dec. 19, 1513: “And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith.”

Pope Pelagius II, epistle (1) Quod ad dilectionem, 585: “If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized according to the opinion of the same Fathers.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441: “**Therefore the Holy Roman Church condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, **which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”

I Lateran Council: “If anyone does not profess properly and truthfully all that has been handed down and taught publicly to the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God, to the last detail in word and intention: let him be anathema.”

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chap. 4, Canon 3: “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”

Note that it is not I, but the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church who says these things, that what is here excerpted is not my opinon, but the infallible pronouncements of the Church, thus, these sayings may not be attributed to myself.

 

[jedimasterham]

The pope is just an elected man, what true right does he have to say whether something exists or not. Scientifically, limbo is not proven nor can be, so what’s the big discussion about then? I can’t wait to get to a limbo, sounds like a great place if it’s there.

 

[tdgesq]

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“The doctrine which rejects… that place of the lower regions Limbo] 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” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

So, using ellipses to blank out the relevant part somehow meets the objection that PPVI is condemning a doctrine that equates limbo with a Pelagian heresy. Interesting, but not very good scholarship. If you want this to be an ex cathedra statement establishing that limbo must be held as divine truth by all the faithful, please demonstrate how it meets the papal infallibility criterion of Vatican I.

Here we see that Baptism is necessary even for babies to obtain salvation!

No one is denying this. I’m not sure who you think you are fighting with. If what you mean though is that the grace of baptism can only be conferred through the formal sacrament, you are at odds with other dogmas of the Church.

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “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.”

Please give me the internet link where you obtained this information. The actual one you got it from please.

Simply because the word Limbo is not mentioned, does not negate the fact that the definition of Limbo is here given. This quote from the Council of Lyons is the definition of Limbo: that unbaptised infants, who only in original sin contracted from Adam, go straigtway to Hell, but suffer different punishments! Dare you deny this definition of a Council of the Church as a “theological theory”?!

I don’t deny that there are different degrees of punishment in hell for those who die in a state of mortal sin and those who die only in a state of original sin. That is a far cry from establishing as dogma limbo of the children.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

So, using ellipses to blank out the relevant part somehow meets the objection that PPVI is condemning a doctrine that equates limbo with a Pelagian heresy. Interesting, but not very good scholarship. If you want this to be an ex cathedra statement establishing that limbo must be held as divine truth by all the faithful, please demonstrate how it meets the papal infallibility criterion of Vatican I.

No one is denying this. I’m not sure who you think you are fighting with. If what you mean though is that the grace of baptism can only be conferred through the formal sacrament, you are at odds with other dogmas of the Church.

Please give me the internet link where you obtained this information. The actual one you got it from please.

I don’t deny that there are different degrees of punishment in hell for those who die in a state of mortal sin and those who die only in a state of original sin. That is a far cry from establishing as dogma limbo of the children.

These things are in hard copy, books.

Actually, I have already shown the context of that statement earlier in this thread, go read. What I mean is that those in a state of original sin, go to Hell, defined dogma, its in the the catechism, in the councils ect. ect.

What other dogmas?

With the character limit, I’m afraid that’s not possible without ellipses.
It is bacause of this limit that the pronouncements provided are so brief, so, I included only that which is most relavent to this discussion.
Obviously you are exposing your ignorance of the documents of the Church which I quote, according to which, how can you so staunchly assert that I, or the documents I quote are in error?

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

I’d suggest you take it up with the “International Tehological Commission” and whoever from the Vatican made the “mistake” of placing the document on the Vatican website.

They don’t seem to think that the Church has made a Dogmatic pronouncement on Limbo.

They disagree with you. I simply agree with them. Which I believe is what you are pointing out that I should do below.

I’m thinking you might want to take your own advice.

Have you read the document on the Vatican web site?

Chuck

So, their opinion is greater than ex cathedra papal pronouncements?

Show me where I have posted my unsubstantiated opinion.
You here imply that what I have posted regarding ecclesiastical documents is reduced to that of a personal opinion or liking.

In my study of ecclesiastical doctrine, I am still in the middle of Pius XI, so I guess not.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

The pope is just an elected man, what true right does he have to say whether something exists or not. Scientifically, limbo is not proven nor can be, so what’s the big discussion about then? I can’t wait to get to a limbo, sounds like a great place if it’s there.

Physically, no.

But according to divine revelations defined by the Holy See, Yes.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, Canon, ex cathedra: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the
more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power… let him be anathema.”

 

[tdgesq]

These things are in hard copy, books.

The question wasn’t whether these things are in hard copy books or not. Cite to the source where you obtained this:

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “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.”

If you are claiming that it came from Lyons II, link me up to it.

Actually, I have already shown the context of that statement earlier in this thread, go read. What I mean is that those in a state of original sin, go to Hell, defined dogma, its in the the catechism, in the councils ect. ect.

And once again I agree with you.

What other dogmas?

Baptism of blood and desire. Do you claim these are not dogmas? I invited you previously to so assert. I’ll be happy to provide you with the evidence that they are.

With the character limit, I’m afraid that’s not possible without ellipses.

That’s what consecutive posts are for, which I see you actually did with respect to the one in question.

It is bacause of this limit that the pronouncements provided are so brief, so, I included only that which is most relavent to this discussion.

No, you left out the portion that works against your position, and then didn’t answer the objections.

Obviously you are exposing your ignorance of the documents of the Church which I quote . . . .

Then show me that I’m mistaken. I’m willing to admit if I’m in error. I can find the quote from the Council of Florence, but not from Lyons II. So either link me up to Lyons II, or set forth your original source for the quote. I’m very interested to see the original source where you obtained it.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

The question wasn’t whether these things are in hard copy books or not. Cite to the source where you obtained this:

If you are claiming that it came from Lyons II, link me up to it.

And once again I agree with you.

Baptism of blood and desire. Do you claim these are not dogmas? I invited you previously to so assert. I’ll be happy to provide you with the evidence that they are.

That’s what consecutive posts are for, which I see you actually did with respect to the one in question.

No, you left out the portion that works against your position, and then didn’t answer the objections.

Then show me that I’m mistaken. I’m willing to admit if I’m in error. I can find the quote from the Council of Florence, but not from Lyons II. So either link me up to Lyons II, or set forth your original source for the quote. I’m very interested to see the original source where you obtained it.

First of all I have made no assertion on BOD, or BOB, which in any case do not refer to this topic.

Second, My source is in hard copy, Denzinger, Sources of Catholic dogma.
Or, if you want you can find from ignatius press those works on the encyclicals of the Popes.

However, since Denzinger is not online, the Councils and encyclicals can be found on the web:

The Papal Encyclicals Online

piar.hu/councils

I wish more people had your skepticism, Protestants don’t have that quality.

But I have shown from the church my assertions.

 

[VociMike]

I think what needs to be kept in mind is that to offer salvation to those who died before the “era of baptism”, Christ decended to them. When they couldn’t come to him, He came to them (just as he came to us). Why would we assume that he would do any less today to reach those who, through no fault of their own, did not have access to, or knowledge of, baptism? Is the God who decended into hades to bring the opportunity of salvation to all the same God who today won’t lift a finger to do so? I hardly think so.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

I think what needs to be kept in mind is that to offer salvation to those who died before the “era of baptism”, Christ decended to them. When they couldn’t come to him, He came to them (just as he came to us). Why would we assume that he would do any less today to reach those who, through no fault of their own, did not have access to, or knowledge of, baptism? Is the God who decended into hades to bring the opportunity of salvation to all the same God who today won’t lift a finger to do so? I hardly think so.

By this I believe that refer to the Limbo of the Father. Only the just hebrews went there, not everybody who did not know the one God made it. the Philistines and the others did not make it.

Then you make all of the missionaries whose lives were ended that unbelievers might believe to be vain.
He gave us the Church and its sacraments for our sanctification and salvation. Remember in the gospel of John, it was to those who believe who are given the power to become sons of God, and only those to whom “that water flowed”, not everyone, this is universal savation, it is those who are born of the will of God, not the will of man.
Then all are conceieved immaculately, and there is no original sin.

But what of the words of the Apostle that those who have not the gospel are lost?