Pope to abolish theory of Limbo?

[christianley]

I am listening to Relevant Radio and the news just said the Pope is likely to abolish the theory of limbo for infants who have died without baptism. Does anyone know any more about this? Any links?

 

[LRThunder]

I don’t know much about limbo, but could one say the theory of limbo is in limbo right now?

 

[gelsbern]

The pope is not doing anything unilaterally. As in all the history of the church, things like this are determined by councils, panels etc…

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46835

Also a very interesting article

kath.net/detail.php?id=14836

 

[puzzleannie]

sometimes it is better to see something in writing then to rely on what we hear on the radio, filtered by an announcer with an agenda
catholicexchange.com/e3news/index.asp?article_id=183723
here is the story of a commission of theologians convening to discuss the issue of the fate of babies who die without baptism

 

[christianley]

sometimes it is better to see something in writing then to rely on what we hear on the radio, filtered by an announcer with an agenda
catholicexchange.com/e3news/index.asp?article_id=183723
here is the story of a commission of theologians convening to discuss the issue of the fate of babies who die without baptism

What would the agenda be on Relevant Radio which is a pretty conservative Catholic radio network? Anyway, it looks like Limbo is on its way into the ashes. I actually think that clarification makes a lot of sense.

 

[BrickCityIrish]

I’m not Catholic but I tend to try and defend the Catholic faith on other boards, however I’m painted into a corner on this one:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.”

In trying to look around to counter this all I did was run around in circles. I found apologists saying limbo was never a doctrine but no meat to prove it, but it certainly appears it was from what I’ve read. Is there anyone out there with knowledge of limbo and how I can say it was never an official doctrine accurately?

 

[thistle]

I’m not Catholic but I tend to try and defend the Catholic faith on other boards, however I’m painted into a corner on this one:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.”

In trying to look around to counter this all I did was run around in circles. I found apologists saying limbo was never a doctrine but no meat to prove it, but it certainly appears it was from what I’ve read. Is there anyone out there with knowledge of limbo and how I can say it was never an official doctrine accurately?

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

 

[Fidelis]

I’m not Catholic but I tend to try and defend the Catholic faith on other boards, however I’m painted into a corner on this one:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.”

In trying to look around to counter this all I did was run around in circles. I found apologists saying limbo was never a doctrine but no meat to prove it, but it certainly appears it was from what I’ve read. Is there anyone out there with knowledge of limbo and how I can say it was never an official doctrine accurately?

You might have to get more of the quote from the article than this. Is this from an article about Limbo from the Catholic Encyclopedia? This paragraph does not mention Limbo, and on it’s face, it’s simply saying that some of the teachings of the Church indicate that those die in original sin are deprived of heaven, but does not say what does happen to them. More context would be helpful.

 

[christianley]

I’m not Catholic but I tend to try and defend the Catholic faith on other boards, however I’m painted into a corner on this one:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.”

In trying to look around to counter this all I did was run around in circles. I found apologists saying limbo was never a doctrine but no meat to prove it, but it certainly appears it was from what I’ve read. Is there anyone out there with knowledge of limbo and how I can say it was never an official doctrine accurately?

I think we can look at the Pope’s recent speech about reason on this one. Is it reasonable to believe that God would deny heaven to infants who never had a chance to be baptized through no fault of their own? When you have people like Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas disagreeing on this question, I think you can honestly say there was no settled doctrine on the matter. Jesus promised he would send the Holy Ghost to lead us into all truth through the Catholic Church. There is no reason the Holy Ghost can’t lead us to a fuller understanding of this matter. If Pope Benedict decides to deny the idea of Limbo, I would simply rejoice that Mother Church has been given more insight than she had before.

 

[BrickCityIrish]

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

I read that it’s a very weak apologetic to counter actual Papl Bulls and notes from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[JimG]

Apparently, while the theory of Limbo was never official dogma, it was at one time widely accepted.

The Church has never officially dumped the theory, neither has it made it a matter of dogma. As far as I know, it remains a theological theory that is now not much accepted.

It was an attempt to reconcile God’s mercy with his justice. Innocent non-baptized babies with original sin but no personal sin are not seen as deserving of hell; but without baptism and sanctifying grace, they cannot enter heaven.

The current thinking seems to be that maybe we are trying too hard to read the mind of God. It is his problem, not ours; and we trust that his solution will reconcile the matter with perfect love.

There is also another theological saying that comes into play here: The Sacraments are binding on man, not God.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

I wonder how they’ll rationalize doing away with Limbo,
seeing as Limbo was the virtually unanimous teaching of popes, bishops, and theologians for nearly the entirety of Church History.
It’s taught in EVERY SINGLE pre-Vatican II textbook, Catechism, etc., that I have ever seen.

This is as odd to me as the Church’s sudden recent
change of heart, turning against the death penalty, which the Church endorsed wholeheartedly for 2000 years.

I have to admit, I’m confused.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not Catholic but I tend to try and defend the Catholic faith on other boards, however I’m painted into a corner on this one:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV.”

In trying to look around to counter this all I did was run around in circles. I found apologists saying limbo was never a doctrine but no meat to prove it, but it certainly appears it was from what I’ve read. Is there anyone out there with knowledge of limbo and how I can say it was never an official doctrine accurately?

You cannot prove a negative. Therefore the rule in debate is those who advance the affirmative position assume the burden of proof. For example, if I say the world is flat, it’s up to me to prove it – I can’t legitimately call on you to disprove it.

Those who say Limbo was official Catholic doctrine bear the burden of proof. And they can’t meet that burden, because there is no official document, council or teaching they can cite.

 

[Della]

I wonder how they’ll rationalize doing away with Limbo,
seeing as Limbo was the virtually unanimous teaching of popes, bishops, and theologians for nearly the entirety of Church History.
It’s taught in EVERY SINGLE pre-Vatican II textbook, Catechism, etc., that I have ever seen.

This is as odd to me as the Church’s sudden recent
change of heart, turning against the death penalty, which the Church endorsed wholeheartedly for 2000 years.

I have to admit, I’m confused.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

Limbo is not and never has been a doctrine of the Church. It is a theological theory that, until a better one is revealed, attempts to explain the fate of miscarried infants and other infants who were not baptized when they died. So, the Church has been exploring this issue for centuries, finally deducing, but not infallibly, that we can only leave them to the mercy of God since we do not know their fate. Perhaps Benedict is going to suggest a better way to express this concept or has an insight into this issue.

And the death penalty was and is not forbidden by the Church, but neither could it be said that the Church “wholeheartedly” embraced it. It has always been considered something that ought to be a last resort and a carefully applied punishment, not an automatic sentence given for vengeance or with little regard for those so condemned.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Merged both threads on same topic.

No one seems to have referenced this article from ZENIT, so I supply it as a service.

Draft Text on Unbaptized Children Being Analyzed
International Theological Commission in Session

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 3, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The International Theological Commission began its plenary session in the Vatican, analyzing, among other things, a draft document on the status of children who die without baptism.

The Vatican press office confirmed this in a communiqué and noted that the meetings, which began Monday, are presided over by Cardinal William Levada, the commission’s president, in his capacity as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The documents of this commission, which are not part of the magisterium, are intended to help the Holy See, especially the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in examining doctrinal questions of particular importance.

Last December, the secretary-general of the International Theological Commission, Jesuit Father Luis Ladaria, spoke about the document on Vatican Radio and explained that there is "no dogmatic definition " and “no biding Catholic doctrine” on limbo.

“We know that for many centuries it was believed that these children went to limbo, where they enjoyed a natural happiness, but did not have the Beatific Vision,” he said. “Because of recent developments, not only theological but also of the magisterium, this belief is in crisis today.”

To understand the question, Father Ladaria added: “We must begin by the fact that God wills the salvation of all and does not will to exclude any one; we must base ourselves on the fact that Christ died for all men and that the Church is a universal sacrament of salvation, as the Second Vatican Council teaches.”

“Therefore, if we start from these assumptions, the problem of the need for baptism is framed in a larger context,” he noted.

The communiqué clarifies that the assembly is also examining a first draft document on the topic of the identity of nature and method of theology as “scientia fidei” (science of faith), and opinions are being exchanged on the foundation of natural moral law in the light of the encyclicals “Veritatis Splendor” and “Fides et Ratio.”

ZE06100322

MF

 

[Evan]

I wonder how they’ll rationalize doing away with Limbo,
seeing as Limbo was the virtually unanimous teaching of popes, bishops, and theologians for nearly the entirety of Church History.

A bit of an exageration there.

For almost the same length of time there has been the alternate theory: That an infant is given the knowledge of God such as the angels were. And, as the angles, they were to make a choice. Good or Evil. They were then judged as all of us are: based on our choices.

I believe one (Limbo or Judgement) was promoted by St Thomas Aquinas and one by Augustine. Never read anything by either that supports this, but I remember hearing this 2nd hand. It may have been 2 other theologians.

 

[estesbob]

I wonder how they’ll rationalize doing away with Limbo,
seeing as Limbo was the virtually unanimous teaching of popes, bishops, and theologians for nearly the entirety of Church History.
It’s taught in EVERY SINGLE pre-Vatican II textbook, Catechism, etc., that I have ever seen.

This is as odd to me as the Church’s sudden recent
change of heart, turning against the death penalty, which the Church endorsed wholeheartedly for 2000 years.

I have to admit, I’m confused.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

Limbo has never been Dogma of the Catholic Church
The Church has not chaged its position on the Death penatly.

Hope that clears up your confusion.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I am listening to Relevant Radio and the news just said the Pope is likely to abolish the theory of limbo for infants who have died without baptism. Does anyone know any more about this? Any links?

Maybe the Church will make Limbo of the Infants a Dogma? That could also be the result. If the possibility of Limbo is removed it chipd away at the foundation of the Doctrine of the necessity of Baptism that is found in the Catechism.

 

[christianley]

Maybe the Church will make Limbo of the Infants a Dogma? That could also be the result. If the possibility of Limbo is removed it chipd away at the foundation of the Doctrine of the necessity of Baptism that is found in the Catechism.

Maybe baptism is only necessary when one is presented with the choice of accepting or rejecting it. Why would somebody be judged for a choice they never had the opportunity to make? It seems to me to be unreasonable to expect someone to be baptized if they were never given that opportunity. I don’t see God as unreasonable – obviously, Augustine and some of the other ancient authorities did see God that way.

 

[Walking_Home]

Maybe the Church will make Limbo of the Infants a Dogma? That could also be the result. If the possibility of Limbo is removed it chipd away at the foundation of the Doctrine of the necessity of Baptism that is found in the Catechism.

---

You have understood the implications of what can occur Bro. Rich. How the foundation of our doctrine on the need for infant baptism can indeed be compromised.