Limbo of the Children

[Dan-Man916]

In his Allocution to Midwives of October 29, 1951, Pope Pius XII, summarizing two thousand years of Catholic tradition, teaches as follows:

Again, that is an incorrect application. Pius XII allocution cannot be considered a part of the ordinary magesterium directed to the entire Church, because this is directed only to mid-wives, not to the Church universal. As such, your statement that Pius is summarizing 2000 years of Catholic tradition is not a valid statement because the allocution is not meant for the universal Church.

The guarantee of attaining the beatific vision

You are arguing against a straw-man, as no one has made this claim. No one is saying that the Church teaches a guarantee of anything. The Church uses the word hope, which is hardly a guarantee.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Again, that is an incorrect application. Pius XII allocution cannot be considered a part of the ordinary magesterium directed to the entire Church, because this is directed only to mid-wives, not to the Church universal. As such, your statement that Pius is summarizing 2000 years of Catholic tradition is not a valid statement because the allocution is not meant for the universal Church.

You are arguing against a straw-man, as no one has made this claim. No one is saying that the Church teaches a guarantee of anything. The Church uses the word hope, which is hardly a guarantee.

Popes can reflect the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church even in statements made to specific groups.

Those who doubt the truth of Pope Pius XII’s teaching in his October 29, 1951, allocution should study the history of these dogmas: the existence of original sin, the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism, and the next-world punishment of those who die in original sin only.

For the last dogma, please see these old Denzinger numbers: 464 and 693.

In the light of the history of all those dogmas, the hope mentioned in *CCC *1261 has to be understood as the hope for natural, not supernatural, happiness. In other words, this hope should be interpreted as the hope for limbo, not a hope for the beatific vision.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Rach620]

Popes can reflect the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church even in statements made to specific groups.

What might you be basing this interesting theological assertion upon?

The Pope is not–I repeat–not–the ‘ordinary and universal’ Magisterium of the Church. The General Council of bishops, along with the Pope, are what constitute the ordinary Magisterium. It is an extraordinary circumstance when the Pope articulates an infallible doctrine on matters of faith and morals, and he must clearly express his intentions to do so for the universal Church. This is obviously not the case with Pius XII’s statement to midwives.

DanMan is right. In no way can the Allocution to Midwives of Pius XII be construed as establishing an infallible doctrine of limbo which must be held for all time by all Catholics–and this is what you are claiming, whether or not you realize it.

Since it does not reach that level of magisterial teaching, we are indeed free to revise it, as long as we keep in mind the gravity of original sin and necessity of baptism for salvation–which the new ITC statement goes to great lengths to preserve.

Those who doubt the truth of Pope Pius XII’s teaching in his October 29, 1951, allocution should study the history of these dogmas: the existence of original sin, the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism, and the next-world punishment of those who die in original sin only.

Again, the ITC statement does no harm to these dogmas whatsoever.

I wonder if in your support of “the necessity of the sacrament of baptism” you oppose the ideas of baptism of blood and desire which are widely supported by Catholics today? While we cannot *expect *God to work outside the sacramental economy, we must know that, in His omnipotence, He can, and because of promises made in Scripture (ie, to the good thief on the cross who was promised Paradise), we know that it has happened in the past and can hope that for some others it might happen now or in the future.

In the light of the history of all those dogmas, the hope mentioned in *CCC *1261 has to be understood as the hope for natural, not supernatural, happiness. In other words, this hope should be interpreted as the hope for limbo, not a hope for the beatific vision.

But this is obviously not the way in which our current or previous popes have understood it, nor the ITC. So there is apparently some leeway in our interpretation of the issue which the greatest theologians of our time have not found as incredibly problematic as some on this forum have.

 

[Dan-Man916]

In the light of the history of all those dogmas, the hope mentioned in *CCC *1261 has to be understood as the hope for natural, not supernatural, happiness. In other words, this hope should be interpreted as the hope for limbo, not a hope for the beatific vision.

That may be *one *way to interpret CCC 1261, however, there is nothing to indicate that this is the forgone conclusion in that it is the only way for it to be interpreted.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

What might you be basing this interesting theological assertion upon?

The Pope is not–I repeat–not–the ‘ordinary and universal’ Magisterium of the Church. The General Council of bishops, along with the Pope, are what constitute the ordinary Magisterium. It is an extraordinary circumstance when the Pope articulates an infallible doctrine on matters of faith and morals, and he must clearly express his intentions to do so for the universal Church. This is obviously not the case with Pius XII’s statement to midwives.

DanMan is right. In no way can the Allocution to Midwives of Pius XII be construed as establishing an infallible doctrine of limbo which must be held for all time by all Catholics–and this is what you are claiming, whether or not you realize it.

Since it does not reach that level of magisterial teaching, we are indeed free to revise it, as long as we keep in mind the gravity of original sin and necessity of baptism for salvation–which the new ITC statement goes to great lengths to preserve.

Again, the ITC statement does no harm to these dogmas whatsoever.

I wonder if in your support of “the necessity of the sacrament of baptism” you oppose the ideas of baptism of blood and desire which are widely supported by Catholics today? While we cannot *expect *God to work outside the sacramental economy, we must know that, in His omnipotence, He can, and because of promises made in Scripture (ie, to the good thief on the cross who was promised Paradise), we know that it has happened in the past and can hope that for some others it might happen now or in the future.

But this is obviously not the way in which our current or previous popes have understood it, nor the ITC. So there is apparently some leeway in our interpretation of the issue which the greatest theologians of our time have not found as incredibly problematic as some on this forum have.

Although Pius XII’s 1951 Allocution to Midwives is not an ex cathedra pronouncement, it accurately reflects the following truth enunciated by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church: baptism of desire is not possible for infants. It is this truth that underlies the Church’s urgent insistence throughout the centuries on infant Baptism.

The erroneous ITC statement conflicts with the Catholic dogma of a next-world punishment of some kind for unbaptized infants. This dogma was taught be two general councils (Lyons II and Florence) and is listed as de fide in the approved theological manuals used in seminaries before Vatican II. For example, the Pohle-Preuss series on dogmatic theology calls this thesis “an article of faith” (God: The Author of Nature and the Supernatural, page 302):

"It is an article of faith that children who die unbaptized must suffer the poena damni,**
i. e., are deprived of the beatific vision of God."

If a theologian or group of theologians contradicts a Catholic dogma, it is a Catholic’s duty to reject the denial of that dogma and to uphold the dogma’s truth for the sake of the Faith.

Those who attack or undermine the dogma of a next-world punishment for unbaptized infants are endangering their own faith and that of others. They are also endangering the lives of unborn children. Again, if all infants dying without Baptism go to heaven, then it is better to be aborted than to be born.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Dan-Man916]

The erroneous ITC statement conflicts with the Catholic dogma

The ITC is part of the Curia. By what authority do you claim to know better than a panel of doctorate theologians who have been consecrated priests and bishops?

When we start with the assumption that we can interpret Tradition better than the Church, we start down a VERY slippery slope.

I trust my Church, and I trust the pontiff. Others who think they know better can find their own way with their own interpretive methods.

 

[christianley]

Although Pius XII’s 1951 Allocution to Midwives is not an ex cathedra pronouncement, it accurately reflects the following truth enunciated by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church: baptism of desire is not possible for infants. It is this truth that underlies the Church’s urgent insistence throughout the centuries on infant Baptism.

How can you know that baptism of desire is not available to infants? Faith and desire for baptism is a gift which comes from God. What would keep God from giving an infant the desire for baptism prior to death? Perhaps we are underestimating what kind of understanding God can give to an infant.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

The ITC is part of the Curia. By what authority do you claim to know better than a panel of doctorate theologians who have been consecrated priests and bishops?

When we start with the assumption that we can interpret Tradition better than the Church, we start down a VERY slippery slope.

I trust my Church, and I trust the pontiff. Others who think they know better can find their own way with their own interpretive methods.

Whether or not the ITC is part of the Curia is irrelevant. It is certainly not part of the Magisterium, that body of official teachers to whom Christ said: “Whoever listens to you listens to me” (Lk 10:16; 1986 NAB).

As for a Catholic layperson’s duty to defend the Faith even against a confused commisision of theologians, we can safely follow the advice of one of the Church’s greatest teachers, St. Thomas Aquinas. In the Summa theologiae (pt. 2 of pt. 2, ques. 33, art. 4, reply to obj. 2), St. Thomas teaches as follows:

“It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. 2:11, ‘Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.’”

Dear Catholic brothers and sisters, the Faith is endangered. It is endangered in this era of “diabolical disorientation,” to use the phrase of Sister Lucia of the Fátima apparitions.

I ask readers of this forum to note the following: to the best of my knowledge, no one on any limbo forum has denied the fact that the next-world punishment of those dying in original sin only is a Catholic dogma. Anti-limbo people have talked around this issue, but I don’t believe that anyone has denied that this punishment is an article of faith.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Whether or not the ITC is part of the Curia is irrelevant. It is certainly not part of the Magisterium, that body of official teachers to whom Christ said: “Whoever listens to you listens to me” (Lk 10:16; 1986 NAB).

and obviously, it is being published with the permission and with the blessing of Benedict XVI.

Why do you think you know better than the ITC? You haven’t even read their argument yet.

Let me ask you this, Dominus Iesus came from the CDF. Is that magesterial document?
The Church says so.

it is this type of pride that one knows better than the CHurch that I find most annoying in some Catholics.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

and obviously, it is being published with the permission and with the blessing of Benedict XVI.

Why do you think you know better than the ITC? You haven’t even read their argument yet.

Let me ask you this, Dominus Iesus came from the CDF. Is that magisterial document?
The Church says so.

it is this type of pride that one knows better than the Church that I find most annoying in some Catholics.

The ITC is *not *the same thing as the CDF. The CDF document entitled Dominus Iesus, which is clearly in line with Catholic tradition, is a Magisterial document, but the ITC limbo statement, which is clearly in conflict with Catholic tradition, is *not *a Magisterial document. The ITC statement merely represents the erroneous opinion of a group of theologians.

As I’ve pointed out previously, the ITC statement is in the same category as the majority report of Pope Paul VI’s birth control commission. This report erroneously stated that it was morally O.K. for married couples to use contraception. Even if Paul VI had given permission for the issuance of this report–it was leaked–this statement would still have been erroneous.

We should not think that we know better than the Church, but we should seek to know what the Church knows. With regard to the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism, here’s what the Church knows:

***“The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are ‘reborn of water and the Spirit’” (*CCC *1257). ***

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[SoonerServant]

When you guys use the word “church” you make it sound like it’s just the pope and bishops. You know that you’re part of it too, right? Church is a false tralation due to King James. Assembly would be more correct tranlation.

 

[Rach620]

Although Pius XII’s 1951 Allocution to Midwives is not an ex cathedra pronouncement, it accurately reflects the following truth enunciated by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church: baptism of desire is not possible for infants. It is this truth that underlies the Church’s urgent insistence throughout the centuries on infant Baptism.

The ITC statement didnt’ say that baptism of desire was possible for infants.

The erroneous ITC statement conflicts with the Catholic dogma of a next-world punishment of some kind for unbaptized infants. This dogma was taught be two general councils (Lyons II and Florence) and is listed as de fide in the approved theological manuals used in seminaries before Vatican II. For example, the Pohle-Preuss series on dogmatic theology calls this thesis “an article of faith” (God: The Author of Nature and the Supernatural, page 302):

"It is an article of faith that children who die unbaptized must suffer the poena damni*,*
i. e., are deprived of the beatific vision of God."

I thought even Aquinas’ position on limbo was that unbaptized children do not suffer pain of loss or pain of sense; they are perfected in natural happiness and are not experiencing any pain.

If a theologian or group of theologians contradicts a Catholic dogma, it is a Catholic’s duty to reject the denial of that dogma and to uphold the dogma’s truth for the sake of the Faith.

But the theologian/group of theologians we’re talking about are a group of eminent Catholics whose report was published with the blessing of Benedict XVI, someone who is known as a scholarly theologian with a great care for protecting the doctrine of the Church.

 

[Rach620]

I did some searching… from the Ratzinger Report, an interview with our current pope on the state of the Church, published in 1985. The beginning is the interviewer’s commentary, the second part, in blue, are the Cardinal’s words.:

“'Limbo has actually disappeared, that intermediate place where unbaptized children, i.e., those with only the ‘stain’ of original sin, were supposed to go. For instance, we find no trace of it any longer in the official catechism of the Italian episcopate.
‘Limbo was never a defined truth of 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. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism. To put it in the words of Jesus to Nicodemus: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God’ (Jn 3:5). One should not hesitate to give up the idea of ‘limbo’ if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians whos proposed ‘limbo’ also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be.’” pgs 147-8

This seems like a serious, measured theological approach to be taking to the issue. I don’t think our Holy Father is going to lead us down the path towards rejecting the necessity of baptism for salvation any time soon.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I thought even Aquinas’ position on limbo was that unbaptized children do not suffer pain of loss or pain of sense; they are perfected in natural happiness and are not experiencing any pain.

The poena damni (“pain of loss”) is not physical or emotional pain, but the penalty of being deprived of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision.

Keep and spread the Faith.