- Status
N
Neofight
Guest
A dance from the Caribbean where people contort their bodies to creep while leaning backwards under a horizontal pole supported by to vertical posts, without touching the ground.
It has no relevance to Catholic teaching or doctrine.
It has no relevance to Catholic teaching or doctrine.
C
cmodrmac
Guest
it certainly was previously taught-“where the unbaptized babies went” -has since been removed from the Catholic Catechism
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
In theological usage the name is applied to (a) the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ’s triumphant ascension into Heaven (the “limbus patrum”); or (b) to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the “limbus infantium” or “puerorum”).
You’re most likely inquiring about the latter, the limbus infantium.
In theological usage the name is applied to (a) the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ’s triumphant ascension into Heaven (the “limbus patrum”); or (b) to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the “limbus infantium” or “puerorum”).
You’re most likely inquiring about the latter, the limbus infantium.
O
oldcelt
Guest
It may not now, but I can personally assure you that it was widely taught in the recent past.A dance from the Caribbean where people contort their bodies to creep while leaning backwards under a horizontal pole supported by to vertical posts, without touching the ground.
It has no relevance to Catholic teaching or doctrine.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Agreed; taught… but not by the magisterium. You know what it’s called when something is “widely known” or “widely taught” but not substantiated authoritatively? Not ‘doctrine’, certainly…
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
Well, just to be clear: the limbus patrum is in fact an infallible doctrine taught by the Church. That no one was able to enter Heaven before the Gates of Heaven were opened by Christ is a part of the Deposit of Faith. The limbus infantium, however, is about as close as you can get to doctrine without being actual doctrine. It is quite orthodox and perfectly acceptable to believe.Agreed; taught… but not by the magisterium. You know what it’s called when something is “widely known” or “widely taught” but not substantiated authoritatively? Not ‘doctrine’, certainly…
N
Neofight
Guest
Discussing what “used to be” is not advisable. When someone asks what is, the first thing you should present is “what is”. Unfortunately, the qualifier what “used to be” is often glossed over, and the person walks away with erroneous or incomplete information.
While knowledge of Church history is laudable, and useful if playing Jeopardy, knowledge of current doctrine, dogmata, and catechesis is far more important to most people asking questions here about Catholoicism.
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean by this. What information in my post do you find irrelevant?
B
Bahman
Guest
The state of our beings, an uncertain period of awaiting a decision or resolution.
O
oldcelt
Guest
You and I understand that, but the fact that ordained members of Church taught such things was very confusing to many of the faithful when the teaching was suddenly “changed.” Personally, I was happy when Limbo was clarified (eliminated)…what I had been taught was very out of step with a merciful God.Agreed; taught… but not by the magisterium. You know what it’s called when something is “widely known” or “widely taught” but not substantiated authoritatively? Not ‘doctrine’, certainly…
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
Limbo was never “eliminated”. It is still a perfectly viable, patristically supported, orthodox theological opinion, as it was all along.
T
Truth_Faith13
Guest
From my perspective, teachings such as limbo can be problematic…and talk of teachings now instead of past because the Catholic Church teaches it has the fullness of truth and has never changed the teachings of Christs church.
If there are indeed teachings which have changed, there needs to be a careful explanation of this…
As for me, it gets very confusing. You can’t have a never changing church and a church which has changed its teachings in one.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Perhaps, but in the functional realms of all my local Catholic Churches Limbus infantium ended due to the 2007 decision of Pope Benedict.
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
Regardless, my previous post stands.
O
oldcelt
Guest
So you have won a moot point. It may be acceptable to believe, but very few will ever hear of it in the future, since it is not being taught, and it will become a relic known only to historians.
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
I wasn’t aware that we were arguing.
Anyhow, the idea that almost nobody today chooses to believe in Limbo today does not follow from the fact that you are unaware of anyone who does so in your local community. The Church does not teach anything on the fate of unbaptized children, other than that they go into the hands of a merciful God, and Limbo is the most orthodox belief of the several that are allowed. Many believe in Limbo today, and at no point in the future do I see it becoming a “relic”.
P
Pancras
Guest
Your outlook is a healthy one, Truth_Faith13, because it should not be an attractive prospect to fall into confusion. At Vatican I it was made clear that it is not the place of the hierarchy or even the pope to teach NEW doctrine. The revelation of God was complete at the time of St. John’s death around 100 A.D. The Church has been teaching the existence of Limbo all that time, largely as a logical consequence and reasonable outgrowth of the doctrines of Holy Baptism and original sin and justification and sanctifying grace and salvation. It would seem that Limbo may stand as an obstacle to those who may desire to attack these doctrines, and therefore, they might endeavor to first eliminate Limbo so that the other doctrines would become as it were more ‘vulnerable’. That, however, would not be a holy endeavor but a wicked scheme.
I have yet to see any compelling argument for why some people are so ‘hell-bent’ on eliminating Limbo. Check it and see if they’re not likewise in favor of eliminating Holy Days of Obligation, or the assignment of penance in the confessional, or the practice of praying the Rosary or making the Stations of the Cross. Maybe they are also in favor of homosexual ‘marriage’ and abortion, but opposed to the existence of Purgatory or the Last Judgment.
In the end, Limbo is a matter for God to deal with, and if He was utterly opposed to its existence, how could have Holy Mother Church been teaching it for multiple centuries without God stepping in to put a stop to that? Did God only step in starting in 1960?
.
Z
zippy2006
Guest
I agree. I think modern aversion to the idea of limbo is linked to misunderstandings of the effects of the Fall and the necessity of sanctifying grace, as well as misunderstandings of the theory of limbo itself.I wasn’t aware that we were arguing.
Anyhow, the idea that almost nobody today chooses to believe in Limbo today does not follow from the fact that you are unaware of anyone who does so in your local community. The Church does not teach anything on the fate of unbaptized children, other than that they go into the hands of a merciful God, and Limbo is the most orthodox belief of the several that are allowed. Many believe in Limbo today, and at no point in the future do I see it becoming a “relic”.
A
Abu
Guest
The Catholic Church doesn’t “change” Her teaching.
LIMBO for infants:
Catechism of the Catholic Church (1261):
"Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.”
“Limbo was never a defined truth of faith.” The Ratzinger Report, p147].
Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium:16.
“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.”
Limbo has never ever been a dogma of faith. Nor defined as a doctrine.
The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI approved it for publication.
Notion of Limbo Isn’t Closed, Expert Says
Adds It’s a Theological Opinion That Can Be Defended
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
- Status