S
- Status
Y
Your_Abbott
Guest
I have given up hope on you…that you might read some more modern Catholic theologian, who might inspire you. Unfortunately, I never met mgrfn, but I admire him cause he must have gotten under your skin more than I do.
Youre an SV person, so you are not willing to accept Catholic theology. You hang on to some strange theory that the Pontiff can be a heretic. Makes you feel good that we all belong to a Catholic sect, and you are the true Catholicism.
So what don’t you understand? What is a text book?
Or what is a theology text book? You spew out some opinions from Denzinger, and you believe you know theology. You wouldn’t know a theolgian if you fell over him.
Y
Your_Abbott
Guest
Here are some modern Catholic theologians for you to study: Thomas Merton, Teihard de Chardin, Bernard Longeran, Thomas Merton, Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger (BXVI), Hans von Balthasar, Karol Wojtyla (JPII), Henry Denifle, Ivan Illich, John Courtney Murray, Etienne Gilson, Henri deLubac, Jacque Dupuis, Romano Guardini, Karl Rahner
F
FrRJBoyd
Guest
It was definitaely the common teaching of theologians, yet we must remember that there is no dual magisterium; theologians cannot make magisterial teachings, only the pope and the bishops in union with him who are part of an arm of the magisterium (Holy Office/CDF, PBC before circa 1970, ecumenical council). Recall in 1998 how the CDF ruled (after “Always Our Children”) that bishop’s confrences may not issue doctrinal statements binding on the faithful unless they have unanimous consensus of the bishops of their conference and/or a recognitio from Rome.
2nd General Council of Lyons (1274):
D464 “The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments. The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment “all” men will be brought together with their bodies “before the tribunal of Christ” “to render an account” of their own deeds [Rom. 14:10].”
Council of Florence (1438) (de fide):
D693 “Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds”
And Pope Innocent III (1206) declared (though not solemnly):
D 410 “The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell”
It is theologians who propose that a state of perfect, natural happiness is not inconsistent with deprivation of the vision of God.
If you followed my original postings, you would see that I referenced the 1998 CDF commentary on JPII’s ATF. There are ordinary teachings of the magisterium (i.e., not formally defined) that are infallible (such as the moral teachings of the Church and reserving ordination to men alone) that are not subject to change. We owe them the assent of faith, based in faith that the Holy Spirit assists the magisterium in making such ordinary teachings. There are, however, provisional teachings of the magisterium (to which we must adhere with religios submission) that can be subject to chage. Consider what the Holy Office wrote in the last century about the “Johannine comma”; i.e., a phrase in the Vulagte version of 1 John that stated, “There are three in heaven who give witness: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” They declared that, based on our best Greek texts, this verse could be removed from 1 John, barring a later judgment by the magisterium. Or consider GIFT as a means of “assisting” women to become pregnant. It has not been defined either as replacement (forbidden) or assistance (allowed) to the conjugal act, yet some Catholic hospitals perform it, barring a later ruling from the magisterium. The Baltimore catechism is really, properly speaking, not a magisterial document. Of catechisms, only the Roman Catechism and the CCC would qualify as magisterial. To the best of my knolwldge, the only magisterial reply regarding limbo is the following from Pius VI’s Constitution Auctorem fidei (1794)
D1526 26. “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 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 it 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,–false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.”
It doesn’t exactly say that limbo exists, just that it is false to teach that it is a fable. As I said earler, I believe in limbo.
F
FrRJBoyd
Guest
OK, so I decided to actually look up what the Baltimore catechims taught:
Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. 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.
So it seems that even in the Baltimore catechism there is no claim that limbo is a magisterial teaching, but is rather a common belief.
Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. 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.
So it seems that even in the Baltimore catechism there is no claim that limbo is a magisterial teaching, but is rather a common belief.
Y
Your_Abbott
Guest
Limbo was a theory. It was never a teaching of the Magisterium, so there is no theological note on its belief. The theory never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium.
It never was the common teaching of the Church.
LIMBO IS NOT FOUND IN THE CCC.
Infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God.
Y
Your_Abbott
Guest
“Common belief”? No, it was never a theological belief with the note of ‘common’ teaching. Limbo may have been assumed to be a teaching of the Church, but it was not.
M
marymonde
Guest
Father Boyd,
Excellent explanation. Thank you.
Excellent explanation. Thank you.
Y
Your_Abbott
Guest
Father, no disrespect, but I don’t think your understanding of Limbo is in line with the teaching of the Church. Limbo is a theory. It has no theological note. If you want to believe in it, that is up to you. But, we are encouraged by the Church to trust in the mercy of God for those infants dying without baptism.
M
marymonde
Guest
Limbo is God’s Mercy. If no one can get into heaven with the stain of original sin on them, which is defined dogma, the only other place they can be is burning in hell.
Y
Your_Abbott
Guest
We don’t question God’s mercy. How do you know it is either/or?
All things are possible with God.
M
Margarite
Guest
My mother always taught me that Limbo was the place where the unbaptized sinless went. So young children and infants. After the first sin was commited, my mother said that a person could become Catholic through Baptism of Desire, thus any person old enough to sin, was also old enough to suffer in purgatory or hell for that sin, and also to desire (even without knowledge of this desire) to be Catholic, and act accordingly.
My mom always said that we had to trust in God’s mercy that at the end of time when final judgement was proclaimed, she said that everyone would go to heaven or hell, there would no longer be a purgatory and no Limbo either.
I am not proclaiming this to be truth, but I am saying that this is not contrary to Church teaching.
It is one of those wonderful traditions that has been handed down through the ages from Catholic to Catholic. It is part of what makes the Catholic Church so wonderful, and full, and unique.
I love being Catholic.
Have a Wonder Full St. Patrick’s Day,
Yours Through Our Lady and St. Patrick,
Margarite
My mom always said that we had to trust in God’s mercy that at the end of time when final judgement was proclaimed, she said that everyone would go to heaven or hell, there would no longer be a purgatory and no Limbo either.
I am not proclaiming this to be truth, but I am saying that this is not contrary to Church teaching.
It is one of those wonderful traditions that has been handed down through the ages from Catholic to Catholic. It is part of what makes the Catholic Church so wonderful, and full, and unique.
I love being Catholic.
Have a Wonder Full St. Patrick’s Day,
Yours Through Our Lady and St. Patrick,
Margarite
M
marymonde
Guest
“Babies dead without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having original sin alone, they do not deserve paradise, but neither do they merit hell or purgatory.” ~1905 Catechism of Pope Pius X,
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” - Condemned
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’ [John 14:2]: 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.” (Denz. 102, authentic addition to canon 2.)
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “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.” (Denz. 791)
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.” (Denz. 464)
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “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.” (Denz. 693)
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“26. 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” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1526)
Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: “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… But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)
St. Augustine, A.D. 415: “Anyone who would say that infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)
M
marymonde
Guest
It is either or. Christ said:
John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
If a baby cannot enter into heaven without baptism, hell is the only other option. That is why I said Limbo IS God’s mercy. It is a state of perfect natural happiness.
T
theistgal
Guest
Was this teaching accepted or taught by any of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church?
F
FrRJBoyd
Guest
WIth respect, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I have just quoted endless official Church teaching. Nothing was my own. Limbo, indeed, has a theological basis (as I have demonstrated), and even in the latest report of the Theological Commission it is explicitely stated that limbo remains a theological possibility. Perhaps you mean that limbo is not explicitely taught by the magisterium… which is exactly what I have been saying. I have cited specifics. If there is something concrete you can cite to support your opinion that my understanding is not in line with Chuch teaching, by all means point this out to me. Merely citing recent documents about entrusting all to the mercy of God does not in any way exclude limbo. I think that a state of perfect natural happiness for all eternity, where you would even be able to see our Lord in His humanity and enjoy His friendship is indeed quite merciful.
F
FrRJBoyd
Guest
Wow! That is a really great quote of which I was unaware. Thank you for this, marymonde!
F
FrRJBoyd
Guest
This is a quote from the Baltimore Catechism, not my own invention. From the middle ages until the 1960’s, limbo was considered the common (and nearly unanimous) opinion of theologians. This is merely historical fact.
M
marymonde
Guest
I believe they follow the same teachings on Limbo, since they are Catholics in union with Rome.
My dh is a convert from the Greek Orthodox Church. Baptism is conferred upon the infant as soon as possible, altho’ the ceremoney of the sacrament itself lasts three different Sundays (at least that is how his Aunt explained it to me). Here is the teaching from their catechism:
“You may ask what happens to a little baby that dies before it is baptized? We cannot answer this question. What we do know is that the baptized person is saved.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I found this on Amy Wellborns open book:
Pius XII’s Allecutio to Midwives . In discussion the duties of midwives, he stresses the supreme importance of the supernatural care of the child, who has to remedy for original sin save baptism.
"If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. Therefore, if it is considered that charity to our fellowman obliges us to assist him in the case of necessity, then this obligation is so much the more important and urgent as the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided is the greater, and in the measure that the needy person is incapable of helping or saving himself with his own powers; and so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death’s threshold.
Undoubtedly this duty binds the parents in the first place, but in case of necessity, when there is no time to lose or it is not possible to call a priest, the sublime office of conferring baptism is yours."
M
marymonde
Guest
It is very clear, concise, and pithy. I like that.
- Status