What happened to Limbo?

[wanner47]

But it was, in fact, the belief (and officially taught) doctrine of most of the Fathers of the Church, who now claim are “alien to the teaching that God is our loving Father” and you claim “bring Christianity into disrepute.”

No, it was the OPINION of the Fathers of the Church; it was never official church doctrine that unbaptized children suffered the torments of hell. It was common doctrine up until the middle ages, but not OFFICIAL doctrine sanctioned in any council documents.

the affirmation that infants who die without Baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the Church, which must be distinguished from the faith of the Church. As for the theory that the privation of the beatific vision is their sole punishment, to the exclusion of any other pain, this is a theological opinion, despite its long acceptance in the West. The particular theological thesis concerning a “natural happiness” sometimes ascribed to these infants likewise constitutes a theological opinion.

source

 

[wanner47]

Not at all. This says “we may hope”. Which is true. It does not say “We are sure” or “It is likely”.

Absolutely. That’s why I said, “God could possibly…” in my earlier statement. It’s possible, and it’s permissible to hope that it is indeed reality.

As already discussed, baptism of desire is an extraordinary means of sanctification for persons who are prevented by the Church, for a time, from baptism. It preserves justice for those who wish to be baptized immediately.

Unborn children are prevented by the Church from baptism, as the Church requires children to be physically born before they are eligible for baptism.

Let’s try a hypothetical – let’s say parents ask the Church for baptism for their child, and their parish says, “You have to take a class on [date] first.” So the parents sign up for the class, and on the way there they get into a car accident. The baby dies. Does he go to Hell, Limbo, or Heaven?

In the case of unbaptized infants justice is preserved when they do not go to Heaven because they, like all persons, have no right to Heaven.

No one has the right to Heaven. That’s why Jesus died for us.

I trust and hope that God has the ability to extend the extraordinary means of salvation to those who, through no fault of their own, were able to partake in the ordinary means of salvation.

 

[tonyrey]

But it was, in fact, the belief (and officially taught) doctrine of most of the Fathers of the Church, who you now claim are “alien to the teaching that God is our loving Father” and you claim “bring Christianity into disrepute.”

I have great respect for the Fathers of the Church but they were not infallible.They did not have the advantage of well over a thousand years of theological study and the development of doctrine.

 

[Will_S]

No, it was the OPINION of the Fathers of the Church; it was never official church doctrine that unbaptized children suffered the torments of hell. It was common doctrine up until the middle ages, but not OFFICIAL doctrine sanctioned in any council documents.

The Fathers of the Church were bishops and teachers, not dilettantes. What they taught was doctrine. Now, with our current temporal distance the Fathers, we say: “this was not taught infallibly.” But to claim that it was not doctrine is false.

the affirmation that infants who die without Baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the Church, which must be distinguished from the faith of the Church. As for the theory that the privation of the beatific vision is their sole punishment, to the exclusion of any other pain, this is a theological opinion, despite its long acceptance in the West. The particular theological thesis concerning a “natural happiness” sometimes ascribed to these infants likewise constitutes a theological opinion.

Which is exactly what I am saying. You seem to be arguing that the “theological opinion” of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church is something to be easily disregarded because you have an emotional attachment to the contrary.

The Council of Florence, an Ecumenical Council of the Church, taught:

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#3 (Session 6)

 

[tonyrey]

I trust and hope that God has the ability to extend the extraordinary means of salvation to those who, through no fault of their own, were able to partake in the ordinary means of salvation.

God does not allow anyone to suffer unnecessarily or **be separated from those they love **through no fault of their own - either parents or their children or anyone else. Of that I am absolutely certain.

 

[wanner47]

The Fathers of the Church were bishops and teachers, not dilettantes. What they taught was doctrine. Now, with our current temporal distance the Fathers, we say: “this was not taught infallibly.” But to claim that it was not doctrine is false.

So… you believe the Church has indeed made a complete 180 change in its doctrine?

Which is exactly what I am saying. You seem to be arguing that the “theological opinion” of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church is something to be easily disregarded because you have an emotional attachment to the contrary.

No, I’m saying that you can’t take the theological opinions of the Church Fathers and hold them as infallible.

Regarding the Council of Florence quote, that has to be read within the hermeneutic of continuity. You can’t take one line from a council document and read it without context and independently of all other Church teaching and Scripture. That’s what Fundamentalist Protestants do.

 

[Will_S]

Absolutely. That’s why I said, “God could possibly…” in my earlier statement. It’s possible, and it’s permissible to hope that it is indeed reality.

I agree that it is permissible.

Unborn children are prevented by the Church from baptism, as the Church requires children to be physically born before they are eligible for baptism.

They are physically unable to be baptized, not “prevented by the Church”. Also, they have no desire to be baptized and no Catholic Faith.

Let’s try a hypothetical – let’s say parents ask the Church for baptism for their child, and their parish says, “You have to take a class on [date] first.” So the parents sign up for the class, and on the way there they get into a car accident. The baby dies. Does he go to Hell, Limbo, or Heaven?

I believe in Limbo of the infants – which is, theologically a part of hell in the sense that ultimately there are only two eternal destinations: Heaven and hell, and as it is not part of Heaven, it is part of hell.

That preserves the teaching of the Church that all those who die in original sin alone descend straightaway to hell to be punished, though with unequal punishments.

So, I say the child goes to Limbo.

I also say, that any Catholic who fails to arrange for baptism of their child at the earliest possible opportunity is neglectfully endangering their own child’s eternal salvation.

 

[wanner47]

God does not allow anyone to suffer unnecessarily or **be separated from those they love **through no fault of their own - either parents or their children or anyone else. Of that I am absolutely certain.

This I would disagree with… for example, if one of my children, as an adult, decided to reject God, it would not necessarily be my fault but I would still be separated from him/her after we die, even though I loved them.

 

[Will_S]

God does not allow anyone to suffer unnecessarily or **be separated from those they love **through no fault of their own - either parents or their children or anyone else. Of that I am absolutely certain.

Then you are certain of far more than the Church is certain. Congratulations on your apostleship.

 

[tonyrey]

The Fathers of the Church were bishops and teachers, not dilettantes. What they taught was doctrine. Now, with our current temporal distance the Fathers, we say: “this was not taught infallibly.” But to claim that it was not doctrine is false.
Which is exactly what I am saying. You seem to be arguing that the “theological opinion” of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church is something to be easily disregarded because you have an emotional attachment to the contrary.

The Council of Florence, an Ecumenical Council of the Church, taught:

ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#3 (Session 6)

There is no emotional attachment in the Catechism which states “the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude” but also “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but** he himself is not bound by his sacraments**”. That is conclusive enough.

 

[wanner47]

They are physically unable to be baptized, not “prevented by the Church”. Also, they have no desire to be baptized and no Catholic Faith.

Then why doesn’t the Church permit unborn babies to be baptized (by pouring water on the mother’s womb and uttering the baptismal formula)? It is Catholic teaching that one must be physically born to be physically baptized; the Bible doesn’t say anything about it.

Newborn babies don’t have the desire or the Faith either. Should they not be baptized until the age of reason, when they do?

I believe in Limbo if the infants – which is, theologically a part of hell in the sense that ultimately there are only two eternal destinations: Heaven and hell, and as it is not part of Heaven, it is part of hell.

That preserves the teaching of the Church that all those who die in original sin alone descend straightaway to hell to be punished, though with unequal punishments.

So, I say the child goes to Limbo.

Interesting. Even though the Church prevented the child from being baptized by first requiring that the parents take a class, you feel that God would hold that against the child’s parents?

I’m so sorry you are unable to trust in both the mercy of God and the extraordinary means of salvation.

I also say, that any Catholic who fails to arrange for baptism of their child at the earliest possible opportunity is neglectfully endangering their own child’s eternal salvation.

I agree, but sometimes parishes put up roadblocks in that regard – requiring godparents, requiring a baptismal class, requiring a copy of the birth certificate, etc. There was recently an article on the National Catholic Register about this topic.

 

[Will_S]

So… you believe the Church has indeed made a complete 180 change in its doctrine? I’m saying that you can’t take the theological opinions of the Church Fathers and hold them as infallible.

Doctrine is not the same as Dogma. There are many levels of authority in the teaching of the Church. Things taught as dogma are absolutely certain and cannot be questioned. Other things are taught authoritatively without the charism of infallibility. These things are not to be lightly disregarded. In fact, they are usually declared to be “binding upon the faithful”.

The Fathers of the Church are our closest link to the teaching of the apostles. To lightly disregard their teachings because they conflict with contemporary sensibilities is foolish. The Church says we can hope, so hope, but also realize that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are more likely to be correct than contemporary academic theologians.

Regarding the Council of Florence quote, that has to be read within the hermeneutic of continuity. You can’t take one line from a council document and read it without context and independently of all other Church teaching and Scripture. That’s what Fundamentalist Protestants do.

I wasn’t aware fundamentalist protestants quoted council documents at all.

In any case, the entire historical teaching of the Church on the fate of unbaptized infants is that they cannot go to Heaven, so I am hardly reading it “independently of all other Church teaching and scripture.”

 

[Will_S]

There is no emotional attachment in the Catechism which states “the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude” but also “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but** he himself is not bound by his sacraments**”. That is conclusive enough.

One cannot conclude therefrom that God does not choose to limit his action to the effects of the sacraments. Indeed, the assumption has always been that Jesus Christ instituted the sacraments precisely because they are the channels of grace that God chooses to use, and that he chooses not to use other channels of grace because, by doing so, the sacraments would be superfluous and there would be no reason for Christ to institute them.

 

[wanner47]

Doctrine is not the same as Dogma. There are many levels of authority in the teaching of the Church. Things taught as dogma are absolutely certain and cannot be questioned. Other things are taught authoritatively without the charism of infallibility. These things are not to be lightly disregarded. In fact, they are usually declared to be “binding upon the faithful”.

The Fathers of the Church are our closest link to the teaching of the apostles. To lightly disregard their teachings because they conflict with contemporary sensibilities is foolish. The Church says we can hope, so hope, but also realize that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are more likely to be correct than contemporary academic theologians.

We should indeed not discount the teachings of the Fathers, but at the same time we should not discount the teaching of the current Church. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth, but in your opinion it has been guided into error and heresy. That is troubling.

I really encourage you to read the ITC document I previously posted; thoroughly examines the teaching of the Church fathers – Greek and Latin – and explains the development of doctrine that led to the understanding of the possibility of the extraordinary means of salvation for unborn children.

I wasn’t aware fundamentalist protestants quoted council documents at all.

In any case, the entire historical teaching of the Church on the fate of unbaptized infants is that they cannot go to Heaven, so I am hardly reading it “independently of all other Church teaching and scripture.”

Fundamentalist Protestants mainly prooftext scripture, although they do quote council documents out of context to try and claim the Church taught something it does not teach.

 

[Will_S]

Then why doesn’t the Church permit unborn babies to be baptized (by pouring water on the mother’s womb and uttering the baptismal formula)? It is Catholic teaching that one must be physically born to be physically baptized; the Bible doesn’t say anything about it.

The form of the sacrament is to pour water on the person to be baptized. When the child is still in its mother’s womb, pouring water on the mother would only have the effect of baptizing the mother.

Newborn babies don’t have the desire or the Faith either. Should they not be baptized until the age of reason, when they do?

No, we already discussed this. The sacraments work “ex opere operato”. Which is, approximately, “by doing the work”. So if you perform the right action and say the right words, the sacramental graces are effected. Baptism by desire has always been taught as a means of sacramental grace for those persons who, having the Catholic faith and wishing to be baptized, die before the Church baptizes them. (i.e. during their catechumenate).

Interesting. Even though the Church prevented the child from being baptized by first requiring that the parents take a class, you feel that God would hold that against the child’s parents?

The Church does not require any parents to take a class after the birth of the child. The class can easily be attended before the birth and the child baptized immediately after the birth. If the child thus loses Heaven because the parents were neglectful, the parents will certainly be punished for it by God.

I agree, but sometimes parishes put up roadblocks in that regard – requiring godparents, requiring a baptismal class, requiring a copy of the birth certificate, etc.

All of these things can be accomplished before the child is born except for the birth certificate itself. Personally I have never seen a birth certificate required and I suspect it is illicit for a parish to request one before baptism.

 

[Will_S]

I’m so sorry you are unable to trust in both the mercy of God and the extraordinary means of salvation.

Given that the Church has never authoritatively taught the existence of an “extraordinary means of salvation” for unbaptized infants and has authoritatively (though not infallibly) taught that unbaptized infants are deprived of Heaven, I don’t see any grounds for expecting the salvation of unbaptized infants.

 

[Will_S]

The Fathers of the Church were bishops and teachers, not dilettantes. What they taught was doctrine. Now, with our current temporal distance from the Fathers, we say: “this was not taught infallibly.” But to claim that it was not doctrine is false.

Which is exactly what I am saying. You seem to be arguing that the “theological opinion” of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church is something to be easily disregarded because you have an emotional attachment to the contrary.

The Council of Florence, an Ecumenical Council of the Church, taught:

ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#3 (Session 6)

 

[wanner47]

The form of the sacrament is to pour water on the person to be baptized. When the child is still in its mother’s womb, pouring water on the mother would only have the effect of baptizing the mother.

And this is a dictum of the Church, yes? This is something the Church requires for baptism, that one be physically born?

No, we already discussed this. The sacraments work “ex opere operato”. Which is, approximately, “by doing the work”. So if you perform the right action and say the right words, the sacramental graces are effected. Baptism by desire has always been taught as a means of sacramental grace for those persons who, having the Catholic faith and wishing to be baptized, die before the Church baptizes them. (i.e. during their catechumenate).

But infants are baptized before they have the Catholic faith and the desire for baptism. By your logic, wouldn’t being below the age of reason make them ineligible for baptism, if faith and desire are both required for the Sacrament?

The Church does not require any parents to take a class after the birth of the child.

My parish does.

The class can easily be attended before the birth and the child baptized immediately after the birth.

My parish requires parents to bring a copy of the child’s birth certificate to the class. Could you tell me how I could bring a copy to of my child’s birth certificate prior to his/her birth?

If the child thus loses Heaven because the parents were neglectful, the parents will certainly be punished for it by God.

And you believe that is the action of a just God, to punish an innocent party for something that is through no fault of its own? Or to punish the parents for doing what their parish asks of them?

All of these things can be accomplished before the child is born except for the birth certificate itself. Personally I have never seen a birth certificate required and I suspect it is illicit for a parish to request one before baptism.

Well, my parish does, and I’d like to see the citation in canon law that says it is illicit to do so.

This is what is printed in every copy of our parish bulletin:

“To have your child baptized at [Parish] you need to be a registered, participating parishioner of [Parish] for a minimum of three months, complete a Baptism inquiry form with the help of our Baptism Coordinator and register for a Baptism Preparation Session.

For more information contact our parish office. The next session is scheduled for [date, time] in the parish hall. You need only attend one session. Please bring your child’s birth certificate with you to the session. Also, please do not bring children to class. Thank you.”

 

[Will_S]

We should indeed not discount the teachings of the Fathers, but at the same time we should not discount the teaching of the current Church. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth, but in your opinion it has been guided into error and heresy. That is troubling.

Not at all. In my opinion, the Church is being protected by the Holy Spirit from error in that it has not attempted to authoritatively teach that unbaptized infants are saved.

I really encourage you to read the ITC document I previously posted; thoroughly examines the teaching of the Church fathers – Greek and Latin – and explains the development of doctrine that led to the understanding of the possibility of the extraordinary means of salvation for unborn children.

I have read it. One of the problems with that document, as well as with the CCC quote you offered is that they insinuate far more than they actually say. The purpose of the document is to put forth an opinion that unbaptized infants are saved without actually saying so. The document was not written in that way by accident. The authors of the document know very well that the entire historical teaching of the Church is against their preferred conclusion. Therefore they are very careful not to actually assert anything contrary to the historical teaching of the Church. But they attempt to draw the reader to assume what they do not assert.

This is not the way in which, historically, the Church wrote documents on doctrine. Historically, the Church taught doctrine in very clear and unambiguous language, so that no one would be mislead about that the Church was teaching. It is greatly detrimental to the faith of the contemporary Church that this is no longer so.

Lastly, the ITC document is in no way authoritative.

 

[wanner47]

Not at all. In my opinion, the Church is being protected by the Holy Spirit from error in that it has not attempted to authoritatively teach that unbaptized infants are saved.

I have read it. One of the problems with that document, as well as with the CCC quote you offered is that they insinuate far more than they actually say. The purpose of the document is to put forth an opinion that unbaptized infants are saved without actually saying so. The document was not written in that way by accident. The authors of the document know very well that the entire historical teaching of the Church is against their preferred conclusion. Therefore they are very careful not to actually assert anything contrary to the historical teaching of the Church. But they attempt to draw the reader to assume what they do not assert.

This is not the way in which, historically, the Church wrote documents on doctrine. Historically, the Church taught doctrine in very clear and unambiguous language, so that no one would be mislead about that the Church was teaching. It is greatly detrimental to the faith of the contemporary Church that this is no longer so.

Lastly, the ITC document is in no way authoritative.

Well, we disagree. Given that the Pope is in agreement with the ITC on this matter, I tend to agree with him.