Limbo?

[SFD]

Well, we are required to believe the unanimous consensus of the Fathers (as a witness to the Apostolic Tradition), and there are certain truths that are proximate to the faith (i.e., you cannot deny them without denying a dogma); e.g., the existence of Adam and Eve. But I don’t agree that we must assent per se to the teachings of theologians; hence, the statement from JPII that there is no dual magisterium (the pope and bishops being one… the only genuine one, and theologians being the other, false claimants). Theologians have no authority whatsoever. Please provide some quote from the magisterium to back up your chaim, or at least give an example.

His Excellency Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser
On Infallibility, Relatio proposed to the Fathers of the First Vatican Council explaining in some detail what is meant by papal infallibility, 11 July 1870

First Draft of Chapter IV on
Papal Infallibility

Chapter IV
On the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff

…Therefore not only must it be said that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, when he defines doctrines about faith and morals, but that this infallibility is that infallibility which the Church enjoys. Therefore, someone who would simply assert that the Roman Pontiff is infallible when he defines something about faith or morals has by no means comprehended the meaning of our definition. Nor is the meaning of our formula comprehended by someone who simply asserts that the Roman Pontiff is infallible when he defines something which simply must be held by the Church. The two things must always be joined so that the meaning of our formula be correct and true. Moreover, this formula seems most suitable to express both things: “The Roman Pontiff, when he defines a doctrine of faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith or morals.”
Therefore, in this entire definition, the following three things are contained:

1. The Roman Pontiff, through the divine assistance promised to him, is infallible, when, by his supreme authority, he defines a doctrine which must be held by the Universal Church, or, as very many theologians say, when he definitively and conclusively proposes his judgment;
2. the object of these infallible definitions is doctrine about faith or morals;
3. in respect to the object of infallibility, generically proposed in this way, the infallibility of the Pope is neither more nor less extensive than is the infallibility of the Church in her definitions of doctrine of faith and morals.

Therefore just as everyone admits that to deny the infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas of faith is heretical, so the force of this decree of the Vatican Council makes it no less heretical to deny the infallibility of the supreme Pontiff, considered in itself, when he defines dogmas of faith. However, in respect to those things about which it is theologically certain - but not as, yet certain “de fide” - that the Church is infallible, these things are also not defined by this decree of the sacred Council as having to be believed “de fide” in respect to papal infallibility. With the theological certitude which is had that these other objects, apart from dogmas of the faith, fall within the extension of the infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions, so, with that same theological certitude, must it be held, now and in the future, that the infallibility of definitions issued by the Roman Pontiff extends to these same objects.

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), Denz. 1684.

SFD

 

[thistle]

And therein lies the natural progression from newer member who values true debate…then the old standards…the namecaller…then the little boy who cries “wolf”.

And btw, Thistle, just what is my heretical belief…what dogma of the faith am I denying here?

FrRJBoyd has set an example here…why don’t you (thistle) venture out of your box and follow his lead?

SFD

P.S. Bear06, you should take something for that cough.

Well unless I misunderstood your comment you do not seem to think the CCC contains all the teachings of the Church and you seek to trivialise it. By the way it is not only Dogmas you must accept but you must accept all teachings includings disciplines.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Quote:

Therefore, in this entire definition, the following three things are contained:

1. The Roman Pontiff, through the divine assistance promised to him, is infallible, when, by his supreme authority, he defines a doctrine which must be held by the Universal Church, or, as very many theologians say, when he definitively and conclusively proposes his judgment;
2. the object of these infallible definitions is doctrine about faith or morals;
3. in respect to the object of infallibility, generically proposed in this way, the infallibility of the Pope is neither more nor less extensive than is the infallibility of the Church in her definitions of doctrine of faith and morals.

Therefore just as everyone admits that to deny the infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas of faith is heretical, so the force of this decree of the Vatican Council makes it no less heretical to deny the infallibility of the supreme Pontiff, considered in itself, when he defines dogmas of faith. However, in respect to those things about which it is theologically certain - but not as, yet certain “de fide” - that the Church is infallible, these things are also not defined by this decree of the sacred Council as having to be believed “de fide” in respect to papal infallibility. With the theological certitude which is had that these other objects, apart from dogmas of the faith, fall within the extension of the infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions, so, with that same theological certitude, must it be held, now and in the future, that the infallibility of definitions issued by the Roman Pontiff extends to these same objects.

I don’t think we’re in essential disagreement regarding infallibility. As I quoted before, there are (1) infallible, defined statements, (2) statements of the ordinary magisterium that have not been formally defined, but “fall within the extension of the infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions” and (3) statements by the magisterium that are reformable (such as the case of the Johannine comma). One of the great things that has come out of this debate is that we have found magisterial statements in favor of limbo; e.g., from the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X and the Allocution of Pope Pius XII to midwives that you quoted. However, the question is what category does this teaching fall in to? It would seem it must fall into number (3), since the CCC, which is magisterial, does not mention limbo, but holds out the possibility to hope for salvation… in direct contradiction to what Pope Pius XII said. The statement of Pius XII was not infallible, but reformable, as the CCC is on this point as well. Indeed, the idea of vicarious baptism of desire was proposed by a bishop at Trent, and was permitted as a valid and permissible theological opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pope Pius IX-Tuas Libenter
“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and** also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions,** so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), Denz. 1684.

SFD

I believe Pope Pius IX was paraphrasing the Vincentian Canon, which proposes as the rule of faith what has been believed always, everywhere and by all the faithful. “Common and constant consent of Catholics” is an appeal to the supernatural sense of faith which is open to all the faithful, not merely those schooled in theology. To be sure, many members of the official magisterium have been excellent theologians, but their teachings do not gain weight due to their theology alone, but rather from the assistance that the Holy Spirit gives them by virtue of their office. Much damage has been done to the faith recently by people listening to dissenting theologians over and above the magisterium.

For a time, it was the common theological opinion that the conferral of the Sacrament of Orders involved the presentation of the chalice to the ordinandi, rather than the laying on of hands. This is what is found in the Summa Theologiae. Yet Pope Pius XII taught authoritatively that it is the laying on of hands that is necessary, not the handing on of the instruments.

 

[SFD]

Well unless I misunderstood your comment you do not seem to think the CCC contains all the teachings of the Church and you seek to trivialise it.

Actually, I was contrasting it with what was taught by Pope Pius XII just 20 years earlier and how that was the constant teaching of the Church…it was in all the catechisms. I also pointed out that the basis for the CCC teaching was weak and a novelty.

By the way it is not only Dogmas you must accept but you must accept all teachings includings disciplines.

You obviously don’t know me from my posts here…I have argued that position many times. It is the constant teaching of the Church.

From the theologian Herve:

OBJECTUM INDIRECTUM INFALLIBILITATIS

1. Ex praxi Ecclesiae. — Ecclesia suam in rebus disciplinaribus infallibilitatem nonnunquam diserte aut impticite affirmavit (Act. xv, 28; Denzinger, 626, 856, 1578.). Quinimo doctrinam, ipsa Ecclesiae praxi universali consecratam et confirmatam, semper ut veram habuerunt non solum Patres et theologi, sed Pontifices et Concilia (S. Steph, I, ep. ad Cypr.; Conc. Nic. II, act. 7; Denzinger, 46, 302; S. Aug., serm. 294, 2, 2; S. Leo I M., ep. 114, 2, 119, 3; Journel, 1525, 2185, 2186.). Ergo.

Translation for the bold above:

The Church has on occasion expressly or implicitly affirmed her own infallibility in disciplinary matters. Indeed it is a doctrine consecrated and confirmed by the universal practice of the Church herself, which not only the Fathers and theologians but also the Popes and Councils have always held to be true.

SFD

 

[SFD]

FrRJBoyd:

Bp Gasser:

Therefore just as everyone admits that to deny the infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas of faith is heretical, so the force of this decree of the Vatican Council makes it no less heretical to deny the infallibility of the supreme Pontiff, considered in itself, when he defines dogmas of faith. However, in respect to those things about which it is theologically certain - but not as, yet certain “de fide” - that the Church is infallible, these things are also not defined by this decree of the sacred Council as having to be believed “de fide” in respect to papal infallibility. With the theological certitude which is had that these other objects, apart from dogmas of the faith, fall within the extension of the infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions, so, with that same theological certitude, must it be held, now and in the future, that the infallibility of definitions issued by the Roman Pontiff extends to these same objects.

I don’t think we’re in essential disagreement regarding infallibility. As I quoted before, there are (1) infallible, defined statements, (2) statements of the ordinary magisterium that have not been formally defined, but “fall within the extension of the infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions” and (3) statements by the magisterium that are reformable (such as the case of the Johannine comma). One of the great things that has come out of this debate is that we have found magisterial statements in favor of limbo; e.g., from the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X and the Allocution of Pope Pius XII to midwives that you quoted.

We also have the dogma that no one who dies with original sin will possess the beatific vision. Against that we have a “hope” not based on any sound reasoning but a claim of a “vicarious desire”.

FrRJBoyd:

However, the question is what category does this teaching fall in to? It would seem it must fall into number (3), since the CCC, which is magisterial, does not mention limbo, but holds out the possibility to hope for salvation… in direct contradiction to what Pope Pius XII said.

But Pope Pius XII’s teaching was the common teaching of the Church and it was in all the catechisms. The CCC is a novel teaching based on no sound reasoning.
Balt. Catechism:

154 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven–neither will they go to Hell. After the Last Judgment there will be no Purgatory. Where, then, will they go? God in His goodness will provide a place of rest for them, where they will not suffer and will be in a state of natural peace; but they will never see God or Heaven. God might have created us for a purely natural and material end, so that we would live forever upon the earth and be naturally happy with the good things God would give us. But then we would never have known of Heaven or God as we do now. Such happiness on earth would be nothing compared to the delights of Heaven and the presence of God; so that, now, since God has given us, through His holy revelations, a knowledge of Himself and Heaven, we would be miserable if left always upon the earth. Those, then, who die without Baptism do not know what they have lost, and are naturally happy; but we who know all they have lost for want of Baptism know how very unfortunate they are.

Think, then, what a terrible crime it is to willfully allow anyone to die without Baptism, or to deprive a little child of life before it can be baptized! Suppose all the members of a family but one little infant have been baptized; when the Day of Judgment comes, while all the other members of a family–father, mother, and children–may go into Heaven, that little one will have to remain out; that little brother or sister will be separated from its family forever, and never, never see God or Heaven. How heartless and cruel, then, must a person be who would deprive that little infant of happiness for all eternity–just that its mother or someone else might have a little less trouble or suffering here upon earth.

FrRJBoyd:

The statement of Pius XII was not infallible, but reformable, as the CCC is on this point as well.

But one of them is wrong. You’re not willing to embrace the CCC’s teaching and for good reason.

FrRJBoyd:

Indeed, the idea of vicarious baptism of desire was proposed by a bishop at Trent, and was permitted as a valid and permissible theological opinion.

Can you produce this obscure opinion and its context?

I believe it was Cajetan who held this opinion (desire of the parents) and taught this doctrine in his commentary to Aquinas’s Summa. It was struck out of the commentary by the Pope. In other words, it is a condemned doctrine. And rightly so; it contradicts the very idea of Baptism of Desire.

SFD

 

[SFD]

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), Denz. 1684.

Pope Pius IX is referring to doctrines that have a theological “Note” attached and a “censure” for denial.

I believe Pope Pius IX was paraphrasing the Vincentian Canon, which proposes as the rule of faith what has been believed always, everywhere and by all the faithful. “Common and constant consent of Catholics” is an appeal to the supernatural sense of faith which is open to all the faithful, not merely those schooled in theology.

I see that more in Dz. 1683 and Dz. 1800, actually.

SFD

 

[SFD]

FrRJBoyd:

To be sure, many members of the official magisterium have been excellent theologians, but their teachings do not gain weight due to their theology alone, but rather from the assistance that the Holy Spirit gives them by virtue of their office. Much damage has been done to the faith recently by people listening to dissenting theologians over and above the magisterium.

Why are these modern theologians not silenced? How are we to determine who is “okay” and who is a “dissenter”?
Scheeben's Dogmatik:

SECT. 27.— The Writings of Theologians.

I. By Theologians we mean men learned in Theology, who as members or masters of the theological schools which came into existence after the patristic era, taught and handed down Catholic doctrine on strictly scientific lines, in obedience to and under the supervision of the bishops. The title belongs primarily to the Schoolmen of the Middle Ages — the Scholastic Theologians strictly so-called; then to all who followed the methods of the School during the last three centuries; and, generally, to all distinguished and approved writers on Theology whether they have adhered to the Scholastic methods or not. It is only in exceptional cases that the Church gives a public approbation to an individual Theologian, and this is done by canonization or by the still further honour of conferring on him the title of Doctor of the Church. When we speak of an Approved Author, we mean one who is held in general esteem on account of his learning and the Catholic spirit of his teaching. Some approved authors are of acknowledged weight, while others are of only minor importance. What we are about to state concerning the authority of Theologians must not be applied indiscriminately to every Catholic writer, but only to such as are weighty and approved (auctores probati et graves).

II. The authority of Theologians, like that of the Fathers, may be considered either individually and partially, or of the whole body collectively. As a rule, the authority of a single Theologian (with the exception of canonized Saints, and perhaps some authors of the greatest weight) does not create the presumption that no point of his doctrine was opposed to the common teaching of the Church in his day; much less that, independently of his reasons, the whole of his doctrine is positively probable merely on account of his authority. When, however, the majority of approved and weighty Theologians agree, it must be presumed that their teaching is not opposed to that of the Church. Moreover, if their doctrines are based upon sound arguments propounded without any prejudice and not contradicted very decidedly, the positive probability of the doctrines must be presumed. No more than this probability can be produced by the consent of many or even of all Theologians when they state a doctrine as a common opinion (opinio communis) and not as a common conviction (sententia conmunis). These questions have been discussed at great length by Moral Theologians in the controversy on Probabilism. See Lacroix, Theol. Mor., lib. I., tr. i., c. 2.

The consent of Theologians produces certainty that a doctrine is Catholic truth only when on the one hand the doctrine is proposed as absolutely certain, and on the other and the consent is universal and constant (Consensus universalis et constans non solurn opinionis sed firmae et ratae sententiae). If all agree that a particular doctrine is a Catholic dogma and that to deny it is heresy, then that doctrine is certainly a dogma. If they agree that a doctrine cannot be denied without injuring Catholic truth, and that such denial is deserving of censure, this again is a sure proof that the doctrine is in some way a Catholic doctrine. If, again, they agree in declaring that a doctrine is sufficiently certain and demonstrated, their consent is not indeed a formal proof of the Catholic character of the doctrine, nevertheless the existence of the consent shows that the doctrine belongs to the mind of the Church (catholicus intellectus), and that consequently its denial would incur the censure of rashness.

These principles on the authority of Theologians were strongly insisted on by Pius IX in the brief, Gravissimas inter (cf. infra, § 29), and they are evident consequences of the Catholic doctrine of Tradition. Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to Theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be led astray. The consent of Theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine’s dictum: “Not to resist an error is to approve of it — not to defend a truth is to reject it.” (“Error cui non resistitur approbatur, et veritas quae non defenditur opprimitur “ (Decr. Grat., dist. 83, c. error). And even natural reason assures us that this consent is a guarantee of truth. “Whatever is found to be one and the same among many persons is not an error but a tradition” (Tertullian). (Supra, p. 68.)

The Church holds the mediaeval Doctors in almost the same esteem as the Fathers. The substance of the teaching of the Schoolmen and their method of treatment have both been strongly approved of by the Church (cf. Syllab., prop xiii., and Leo XIII., encyclical AEterni Patris on the study of St. Thomas).

[Editor: We have additionally, since this work was published, the evidence of the Code of Canon Law (1917) concerning St. Thomas, which confirms and even strengthens the point made by Scheeben in this place. “The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold.” CIC 1366, 2.]

SFD

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Well, either the assistance of the Holy Ghost failed the earlier theologians who held to limbo, or it has failed the current Magisterium which officially teaches that one can hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants, or the conception of truth is evolving in the Church. It is absolutely clear that doctrine on this issue has changed.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

We also have the dogma that no one who dies with original sin will possess the beatific vision. Against that we have a “hope” not based on any sound reasoning but a claim of a “vicarious desire”.

Even though we may not hold this position, we have to be fair to it; no one is saying that someone who dies with original sin will be in heaven, rather, they are hoping that original sin is cleansed in some extra-sacramental way. We know it was cleansed in an extra-sacramental way (baptism by blood) for the Holy Innocents, who shed their blood for Christ and are rightly honored as martyrs. Dr. Ludwig Ott states, in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (p. 114):

Other emergency means… for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire - Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire - H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-sacrament (baptism of suffering - H. Schell), are indeed, possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation.

But Pope Pius XII’s teaching was the common teaching of the Church and it was in all the catechisms. The CCC is a novel teaching based on no sound reasoning.

The reasons given are the universal salvific will of God, His omnipotence and our Lord’s statement to “let the little children come to me.” I’ll admit, it doesn’t seem as weighty as the case for limbo from the magisterial statements of Innocent III, Pius VI, St. Pius X and Pius XII, as well as from the common opinion of theologians from Aquinas until the second half of the last century. But I have to agree with Ott (who was an excellent theologian and, I believe, accurately reflected the common opinion of theologians in the first half of the 20th century) and the CCC: positions other than limbo are tenable.

But one of them is wrong. You’re not willing to embrace the CCC’s teaching and for good reason.

In a strict sense, and with all due respect to Pius XII, I have to say that he was mistaken in saying sacramental baptism is the only means available for the salvation children before they acquire the use of reason. It is certain the Holy Innocents had baptism by blood. And what of the undoubtedly millions of Catholics that were martyred in centuries gone by? In all likelihood, some pregnant women were martyred, and possibly some unbaptized babies with their families as well. Did these children not die for Christ just as the Holy Innocents did? To be fair to Pius XII, I believe he was speaking of sacramental baptism as the only ordinary means of salvation. These other means, which could be a source of hope, are all extraordinary.

Can you produce this obscure opinion and its context? I believe it was Cajetan who held this opinion (desire of the parents) and taught this doctrine in his commentary to Aquinas’s Summa. It was struck out of the commentary by the Pope. In other words, it is a condemned doctrine. And rightly so; it contradicts the very idea of Baptism of Desire.
SFD

The bishop referenced Cajetan. I was completely unaware (and so apparently is Ott) that his opinion was ever stuck out by a Pope. Can you produce a reference for this?

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Well, either the assistance of the Holy Ghost failed the earlier theologians who held to limbo, or it has failed the current Magisterium which officially teaches that one can hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants, or the conception of truth is evolving in the Church. It is absolutely clear that doctrine on this issue has changed.

This is why you must understand the different weight of various teachings. They are not all equally certain, some are held with the assent of faith (de fide defined and absolutely certain), some are held with firm and definitive assent, “based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters” (irreformable and absolutely certain, but not solemnly defined), and some “require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error” (CDF Doctrinal Commentary on Ad tuendam fidem). These last teachings are reformable, and limbo falls into this category. It is not a matter of the Holy Spirit failing anyone.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Why are these modern theologians not silenced? How are we to determine who is “okay” and who is a “dissenter”?

These principles on the authority of Theologians were strongly insisted on by Pius IX in the brief, Gravissimas inter (cf. infra, § 29), and they are evident consequences of the Catholic doctrine of Tradition. Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to Theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be led astray. The consent of Theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine’s dictum: “Not to resist an error is to approve of it — not to defend a truth is to reject it.” (“Error cui non resistitur approbatur, et veritas quae non defenditur opprimitur “ (Decr. Grat., dist. 83, c. error). And even natural reason assures us that this consent is a guarantee of truth. “Whatever is found to be one and the same among many persons is not an error but a tradition” (Tertullian). (Supra, p. 68.)

The Church holds the mediaeval Doctors in almost the same esteem as the Fathers. The substance of the teaching of the Schoolmen and their method of treatment have both been strongly approved of by the Church (cf. Syllab., prop xiii., and Leo XIII., encyclical AEterni Patris on the study of St. Thomas).

SFD

Thank you for this excellent quote and reference to Piux IX’s Gravissimas inter. It certainly makes sense for “the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be led astray.” However, there have always been disputed questions, and even St. Thomas Aquinas was incorrect in his opinions on the Immaculate Conception (naturally, not defined yet) and the conferral of Orders. In regard to the question of the fate of children who die without baptism, in addition to the opinion of theologians quoted in Ott’s book, St. Augustine held a much harsher view than limbo; i.e., that children dying in original sin must suffer poena sensus, even if only a mild one (Enchir. 93). It cannot be said that limbo is the unanimous consensus of theologians, nor of the Fathers.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

This is why you must understand the different weight of various teachings. They are not all equally certain, some are held with the assent of faith (de fide defined and absolutely certain), some are held with firm and definitive assent, “based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters” (irreformable and absolutely certain, but not solemnly defined), and some “require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error” (CDF Doctrinal Commentary on Ad tuendam fidem). These last teachings are reformable, and limbo falls into this category. It is not a matter of the Holy Spirit failing anyone.

I understand about different theological notes, but how can “religious submission of will and intellect” be demanded for something which might be false? Can a falsehood succeed in arriving at a deeper understanding of revelation, recalling the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or warning against ideas incompatible with truth, or against dangerous opinions which can lead to error, if the very thing for which “religious submission” is demanded is itself not only leading to error, but in error, and therefore incompatible with truth in itself? Is this not a very obvious form of pragmatism, believing something not because it is true, or because there is evidence it is true, but merely because it is convenient?

How would you classify monogenism (literal Adam and Eve) BTW? This came up on another thread. Is this reformable? Why or why not?

 

[FrRJBoyd]

I understand about different theological notes, but how can “religious submission of will and intellect” be demanded for something which might be false? Can a falsehood succeed in arriving at a deeper understanding of revelation, recalling the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or warning against ideas incompatible with truth, or against dangerous opinions which can lead to error, if the very thing for which “religious submission” is demanded is itself not only leading to error, but in error, and therefore incompatible with truth in itself? Is this not a very obvious form of pragmatism, believing something not because it is true, or because there is evidence it is true, but merely because it is convenient?

In this life, we know only in part. There are many things we do not know which are not necessary for our salvation. However, we are curious and would like to know more. And the development of doctrine is possible. Consider the Immaculate Conception. Despite the Fathers proclaiming the Mother of God as all holy and inviolate, theologians could not understand how our Lord could be called her Saviour if she never had Original Sin and never committed a personal sin. For a time, the teaching of Aquinas seemed to prevail over the teaching of Duns Scotus. I believe there were even restrictions on preaching about the Immaculate Conception at one time. Yet now it is a defined dogma, and its development excellently defended by Ven. John Henry Newman. What were the reasons for the former restrictions on preaching about the Immaculate Conception? The desire to safeguard the teaching on our Lord as the Redeemer of Man. Once proven that the Immaculate Conception is compatible with this, there was no need for fear, and what had been always present in seminal form in the belief that Mary is the all holy, inviolate one was allowed to blossom into the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

It is similar with the teaching on limbo. We must safeguard the necessity of infant Baptism as soon as possible after birth. Personally, I think that, if the world lasts long enough, limbo may emerge as a doctrine which is certain. No one has denied its inevitability if someone dies with original sin only, but rather some have expressed a hope that God cleanses unbaptized children in some extraordinary way before they die. It is akin to the untenable position of von Bathazar, dare we hope that all men be saved? I say untenable, because the letter of Jude places in the hell of the damned the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, and it is difficult to see how Judas, whom our Lord calls the “son of perdition”, was saved.

How would you classify monogenism (literal Adam and Eve) BTW? This came up on another thread. Is this reformable? Why or why not?

Monogenism is officially classified as proximate to the faith; i.e., you cannot deny it without denying a dogma of the faith. It is, therefore, certain that Adam and Eve existed, and that the entire human race derived from them (cf. Acts 17:26). Since the Council of Trent defined that Adam’s sin is transmitted by descent, not by imitation (D 789-791), and we are all born with Original Sin, it follows that we are all descended from Adam (it is the only way to contract Original Sin).

 

[thistle]

Well, either the assistance of the Holy Ghost failed the earlier theologians who held to limbo, or it has failed the current Magisterium which officially teaches that one can hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants, or the conception of truth is evolving in the Church. It is absolutely clear that doctrine on this issue has changed.

You are wrong. To say a doctrine has changed would mean there was a doctrine in the first place. With regard to Limbo for unbaptised children there has NEVER been a doctrine. If there had been a doctrine all Catholics would have to accept it. We have NEVER been obliged to believe in Limbo. It has only been a theological hypothesis which we have been free to embrace or not.

 

[Walking_Home]

You are wrong. To say a doctrine has changed would mean there was a doctrine in the first place. With regard to Limbo for unbaptised children there has NEVER been a doctrine. If there had been a doctrine all Catholics would have to accept it. We have NEVER been obliged to believe in Limbo. It has only been a theological hypothesis which we have been free to embrace or not.

---

Generations, upon generations, upon generations etc. of Catholics would have vehemently disagreed with your statements. Limbo was taught along side our doctrine of original sin — and not in the context of whether we had the “option” of embracing it or not.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

It is similar with the teaching on limbo. We must safeguard the necessity of infant Baptism as soon as possible after birth.

IOW, pragmatism. The concern is not on whether the doctrine is true, but upon what consequences belief (or disbelief) in it may have.

Personally, I think that, if the world lasts long enough, limbo may emerge as a doctrine which is certain.

And, if so, the assistance of the Holy Spirit clearly failed John Paul II and the CCC, for falsehood was officially taught as Catholic doctrine.

Monogenism is officially classified as proximate to the faith; i.e., you cannot deny it without denying a dogma of the faith. It is, therefore, certain that Adam and Eve existed, and that the entire human race derived from them (cf. Acts 17:26).

Classified by whom? The same theologians who would have had no salvation for unbaptized infants (whether limbo or hell) as “Theologically certain” at least? It was the overwhelming consensus of theologians for a very, very long time. The same theologians who had the earth’s movement condemned as “erroneous in faith”?

I have seen hints in official Church documents that, perhaps, monogenism might not be on as certain ground. It could be a “reformable” teaching. If the next version of the Catechism says so I am sure you will change your mind and say it is a reformable teaching. Bear in mind there is absolutely no evidence from genetics for a bottleneck of two individuals and much evidence the founder population would need to be significantly larger to account for the large genetic variability seen in the human population.

Since the Council of Trent defined that Adam’s sin is transmitted by descent, not by imitation (D 789-791), and we are all born with Original Sin, it follows that we are all descended from Adam (it is the only way to contract Original Sin).

And Scripture says the sun “stood still”, which was taken as proof positive for geocentrism. How assured can you be about your interpretation of Trent? What if you are wrong about original sin? Some theologians have speculated about original sin might have arisen with a polygenetic origin of man and (apparently) reconciled it with Trent.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

You are wrong. To say a doctrine has changed would mean there was a doctrine in the first place. With regard to Limbo for unbaptised children there has NEVER been a doctrine. If there had been a doctrine all Catholics would have to accept it. We have NEVER been obliged to believe in Limbo. It has only been a theological hypothesis which we have been free to embrace or not.

This is a nice little bit of history revisionism. The alternative to rejecting the “theological hypothesis” was believing those infants went to hell. It was simply not permitted to believe in salvation for unbaptized infants. This was the overwhelming consensus of theologians, which is sufficient, as SFD as shown earlier on this thread, to make something a Catholic doctrine.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

IOW, pragmatism. The concern is not on whether the doctrine is true, but upon what consequences belief (or disbelief) in it may have.

There really is no issue of a falsehood being taught. Rather, by reformable, I mean that (1) if there are children who die with original sin on their souls, they will not see God face to face, nor will they be punished with the same punishment of the senses as the damned. However, (2) God may cleanse all children of original sin before he dies. If he does so, there would be no need for limbo. We have no certainty as to which of the two possibilities is true, and we must safeguard the necessity of infant baptism. The possibility of limbo is practical, but true as well.

And, if so, the assistance of the Holy Spirit clearly failed John Paul II and the CCC, for falsehood was officially taught as Catholic doctrine.

Please give a logical syllogism which demonstrates this, because I think I have been more than clear in demonstrating that this is not the case.

Classified by whom? The same theologians who would have had no salvation for unbaptized infants (whether limbo or hell) as “Theologically certain” at least? It was the overwhelming consensus of theologians for a very, very long time. The same theologians who had the earth’s movement condemned as “erroneous in faith”?

I have seen hints in official Church documents that, perhaps, monogenism might not be on as certain ground. It could be a “reformable” teaching. If the next version of the Catechism says so I am sure you will change your mind and say it is a reformable teaching. Bear in mind there is absolutely no evidence from genetics for a bottleneck of two individuals and much evidence the founder population would need to be significantly larger to account for the large genetic variability seen in the human population.

Well, there is a genetic bottleneck affirmed by genetics in that we have all come from one mitochondrial Eve, and another, later bottleneck in that we all have a common Y-chromosome father. Dating in the genetics of mutation is based upon a guess at the rate of this random process of mutation. I do not pretend to know if, in the creation of a new species, or in the safeguarding of a species after a genetic bottleneck, whether it is necessary for God to intervene in this process.

Adam and Eve are honored liturgically in the Eastern Churches, and liturgy is a living part of the Tradition. There have, indeed been some attempts at proposing polygenism by some theologians, but not the magisterium. Most of these misguided attempts were made using 40 year old science from archeology that suggested man developed separately in different parts of the world, as opposed to the newer theories from genetics which suggest common origins. Even John Paul II in his encyclical Mulieris Dignitatem, which spoke of a literary style in Genesis similar to what is found in near-Eastern myths, treated Adam and Eve as real people. For this teaching to change, we would have to negate Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Impossible.

And Scripture says the sun “stood still”, which was taken as proof positive for geocentrism. How assured can you be about your interpretation of Trent? What if you are wrong about original sin? Some theologians have speculated about original sin might have arisen with a polygenetic origin of man and (apparently) reconciled it with Trent.

As Leo XIII wrote in Providentissimus Deus, the Bible does not err in reporting the science of appearance, such as the sun rose, or the sun stood still. Nothing was being affirmed in Scripture’s statement that the sun stood still other than the miracle was that the sun appeared to stand still in the sky. Also from Providentissimus Deus, “There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, ‘not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known.’”

When the Church defines something solemnly, as she did at Trent, it means it can never be changed; it is certain and true. If someone were claiming represent the Church at a later time tried to deny it, we would have to conclude that they were not indeed representing the Church. To absolutely deny the existence of limbo, one may be rash, but one is not in heresy. To deny the existence of Adam and Eve, and the unity of the human race, one would have to deny the solemn definitions of Trent, and would therefore be in heresy.

Germaine Grisez’s attempt to defend polygenism, e.g., falls very short of the mark. In his theory, others after Adam and Eve who become “hominized” enter into the human community and therefore gain original sin. But that isn’t by descent, it is by association, contrary to Trent. None of the other theories I have read are any better. In short, polygenism is untenable for the Catholic.

 

[Walking_Home]

There really is no issue of a falsehood being taught. Rather, by reformable, I mean that (1) if there are children who die with original sin on their souls, they will not see God face to face, nor will they be punished with the same punishment of the senses as the damned. **However, (2) God may cleanse all children of original sin before he dies. If he does so, there would be no need for limbo. ** We have no certainty as to which of the two possibilities is true, and we must safeguard the necessity of infant baptism. The possibility of limbo is practical, but true as well.

.

---

That would place these children in the same category as our Blessed Mother and the precursor St. John the Baptist. A unique attribute of who they are—would go down the drain.

 

[Margarite]

I would compare Limbo with the death of Our Lady.
Some believe she died, some believe that she never had to suffer death, each side has their arguements, but the Church has not said either is correct and has not said that either is wrong (please correct me if I am wrong). We must belive that she was taken to heaven body and soul, but we do not need to believe that she died or did not die before the Assumption.
The same is true of limbo. Some believe in it, some don’t and everyone has their reasons, but the Church has not taken a stance either way. What we must believe is that a person should be baptized as soon as possible and then we must trust in God for those who were not baptized.

We do not know for sure about Limbo, but it is not wrong to take either stance, just as it is not wrong to take either stance about Mary’s death.
I hope I made sense.

Have a Holy Good Friday,
& A Happy and Blessed Easter!