What is so objectionable about Limbo?

[Gregory_I]

Again, not binding language, and again, the Catechism’s introduction says it is subject to the magisterium.

“A catechism should faithfully and systematically present the teaching of Sacred Scripture, the living Tradition in the Church and the authentic Magisterium, as well as the spiritual heritage of the Fathers, Doctors and saints of the Church, to allow for a better knowledge of the Christian mystery and for enlivening the faith of the People of God. It should take into account the doctrinal statements which down the centuries the Holy Spirit has intimated to his Church. It should also help to illumine with the light of faith the new situations and problems which had not yet emerged in the past.”
Apostolic Constitutionon -Fidei Depositum-

The Holy Father says the CCC is attested to by three sources: Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. Now, to be attested to by another source means, by definition, that that source is both DISTINCT AND SEPARATED from that to which it attests. Therefore, it necessarily follows that Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium itself are separate and distinct from the CCC. This can ONLY mean that the CCC itself is NOT a Magisterial document, since it is quite evident that it is neither Scripture or Tradition.

Once again: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 1994: “The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess” (Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 26, Ignatius Press)

The catechism carries NO EXTRA WEIGHT just because it’s a catechism. None. THe only weight the Catechism carries is the weight of the doctrines it contains; it is only a compendium, and the pope’s letters are glorified imprimatur’s and NIhil Obstat’s. Nothing in any of them constitute language binding on the faithful, or suggesting the Catechism as SUCH is part of the Ordinary Magisterium; The doctrines it contains are (The ones that at least reference a magisterial source) but not it in and of itself.

So: Why does 1261 reference no magisterial documents? And as such, how can such a beliefe be part of the Church’s Authentic Universal Ordinary Magisterium? It can’t. THis paragraph FAILS to live up to what JPII intended for the catechism to do, because it is not a part of the magisterium, scripture or tradition and is not attested to by any of these three. Someone made a typo.

St. Tommy More: Find a pre-1992 reference to the concept of hoping that unbaptized infants enter into eternal life. Show me just one. and BTW Ratzinger was head of the commitee that created the Catechism! SO, I will believe in his take on it: NO authority beyond the magisterial documents cited. YYour mistake is to assume that when you read the catechism you are reading the church teaching. Not necessarilly, for the whole church did not contribute to its creation, only a handful of bishops and an editorial committee, and the Pope doesn’t even Bind it on the faithful, he simply says that he does not object to what is in it.

 

[StTommyMore]

Again, not binding language, and again, the Catechism’s introduction says it is subject to the magisterium.

“A catechism should faithfully and systematically present the teaching of Sacred Scripture, the living Tradition in the Church and the authentic Magisterium, as well as the spiritual heritage of the Fathers, Doctors and saints of the Church, to allow for a better knowledge of the Christian mystery and for enlivening the faith of the People of God. It should take into account the doctrinal statements which down the centuries the Holy Spirit has intimated to his Church. It should also help to illumine with the light of faith the new situations and problems which had not yet emerged in the past.”
Apostolic Constitutionon -Fidei Depositum-

The Holy Father says the CCC is attested to by three sources: Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. Now, to be attested to by another source means, by definition, that that source is both DISTINCT AND SEPARATED from that to which it attests. Therefore, it necessarily follows that Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium itself are separate and distinct from the CCC. This can ONLY mean that the CCC itself is NOT a Magisterial document, since it is quite evident that it is neither Scripture or Tradition.

Once again: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 1994: “The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess” (Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 26, Ignatius Press)

The catechism carries NO EXTRA WEIGHT just because it’s a catechism. None. THe only weight the Catechism carries is the weight of the doctrines it contains; it is only a compendium, and the pope’s letters are glorified imprimatur’s and NIhil Obstat’s. Nothing in any of them constitute language binding on the faithful, or suggesting the Catechism as SUCH is part of the Ordinary Magisterium; The doctrines it contains are (The ones that at least reference a magisterial source) but not it in and of itself.

So: Why does 1261 reference no magisterial documents? And as such, how can such a beliefe be part of the Church’s Authentic Universal Ordinary Magisterium? It can’t. THis paragraph FAILS to live up to what JPII intended for the catechism to do, because it is not a part of the magisterium, scripture or tradition and is not attested to by any of these three. Someone made a typo.

St. Tommy More: Find a pre-1992 reference to the concept of hoping that unbaptized infants enter into eternal life. Show me just one. and BTW Ratzinger was head of the commitee that created the Catechism! SO, I will believe in his take on it: NO authority beyond the magisterial documents cited.

With all due respect to the CArdinal who would become Pope within a decade of issuing the statement, it is quite amusing to me that you will take the words of a Cardinal over the Successor to Saint Peter simply because you quoting him out of context seems to support your untenable position of rejecting any portion of the Catechism you want to disagree with. You are exposing your awn argument as fraudulent in doing so. I will take the Catechism as authoritative, as is required of us.

 

[Gregory_I]

Did Cardinal Ratzinger willfully contradict Pope John Paul II 2 years after the promulgation of the first edition of the catechism?

YOu think he was ignorant of what the Pope wrote? No. THe Pope’s writings are neither binding or infallible in this case. And the good Cardinal made it clear the position to be taken on the Catechism.

Why doies paragraph 1261 reference no magisterial documents?

IN fact, why does it reference any at all? If it is part of the ordinary magisterium, then it has not need to supplement virtually everything it says with magisterial documents. But it does. Why? Because the Catechism represents magisterial teaching, the rejection of which as a WHOLE would be the abandonment of the church.

I simply reject what apparently cannot be supported by the Church scripture, tradition, the fathers or the ordinary magisterium. WHere is it stated the Catechism in and of itself is a magisterial document?

 

[StTommyMore]

Did Cardinal Ratzinger willfully contradict Pope John Paul II 2 years after the promulgation of the first edition of the catechism?

YOu think he was ignorant of what the Pope wrote? No. THe Pope’s writings are neither binding or infallible in this case. And the good Cardinal made it clear the position to be taken on the Catechism.

Why doies paragraph 1261 reference no magisterial documents?

IN fact, why does it reference any at all? If it is part of the ordinary magisterium, then it has not need to supplement virtually everything it says with magisterial documents. But it does. Why? Because the Catechism represents magisterial teaching, the rejection of which as a WHOLE would be the abandonment of the church.

I simply reject what apparently cannot be supported by the Church scripture, tradition, the fathers or the ordinary magisterium. WHere is it stated the Catechism in and of itself is a magisterial document?

Here is your problem:
You hold the words of a Cardinal over that of a Pope.
You hold the introduction of a document (which is not actually part of the document) as more authoritative than the document itself.
You hold your own interpretations over that of the Church.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

*The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.

PRELIMINARY NOTE: The theme “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized” was placed under the study of the International Theological Commission. In order to prepare for this study, a Committee was formed comprised by Most Rev. Ignazio Sanna, Most Rev. Basil Kyu-Man Cho, Rev. Peter Damien Akpunonu, Rev. Adelbert Denaux, Rev. Gilles Emery, OP, Msgr. Ricardo Ferrara, Msgr. István Ivancsó, Msgr. Paul McPartlan, Rev. Dominic Veliath, SDB (President of the Committee), and Sr. Sarah Butler, MSTB. The Committee also received the collaboration of Rev. Luis Ladaria, SJ, the Secretary General of the International Theological Commission, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, the Assistant to the ITC, as well as other members of the Commission. The general discussion on the theme took place during the plenary sessions of the ITC, held in Rome. In October 2005 and October 2006. This present text was approved in forma specifica by the members of the Commission, and was subsequently submitted to its President, Cardinal William Levada who, upon receiving the approval of the Holy father in an audience granted on January 19, 2007, approved the text for publication.

 

[Pug]

But how can the CHURCH allow your opinion, when the CHURCH does not havy documents that state anything on the matter?

At best, on eo f the author s of the catechism thought like you do. And why should he? Apparently the view cannot be backed up my any church teaching, so WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?

I suspect they end up in Hell, which is why I call my view unpopular. In other words, I am probably more unpopular in my views than you, since I don’t naturally define my views by the word “Limbo”. For the sake of conversation, I’ll call it Limbo, to make people happier with me.

Where do you know of where the Church says I cannot be concerned that the infants might end up in Hell? If the Church says I cannot think this might happen, I am happy to not be concerned about it. I strongly support the idea that baptism for babies ought to be done within the first few weeks, obviously.

I meant that in RCIA, I say what the CCC says, and breathe not a word about Hell or any view of my own or anything about Limbo.

 

[Gregory_I]

Pug: I agree with you. I don’t agree the Catechism is infallible, and I do not believe it to be an Act of the Ordinary Magisterium. IF IT IS, if a catechism is an act of the authentic magisterium, and someone wants to cite a church teaching, do they cite the Catechism, or the documents the catechism references? For example, would you cite such and such a paragraph from the catechism to say contraception is wrong which references humanae vitae, or would you cite humanae vitae? You would cite Humanae Vitae.

Mary Gail: THat document was compiled by the internationa theological commission. it is 33 THeologians from all over the world that act as advisors to the CDF. It is NOT A MAGISTERIAL OFFICE. NO committee is a magisterial office. Only the documents issued from the pope or an ecumenical council or some other recognized magisterial entity enter into the AUthentic Magisterium. The ITC doesn’t qualify, and the catechism was written well before this document came out. This document cam eout in 2007. The Catechism was written in 1992. No dice.

Therefore, if paragraph 1260 has no magisterial backing, how is it church doctrine? The church does not teach what paragraph 1260 says. It never has. SOmeone please prove me wrong, because it’s not like I want to be up in arms against the Catechism, I am not. I am against the passages that teach things without magisterial authority.

 

[Gregory_I]

Okay, I found this on the USCCB website. In submission, I modify my opinion on the Catechism:

What is the doctrinal or teaching authority of the Catechism?

The Catechism is part of the Church’s official teaching in the sense that it was suggested by a Synod of Bishops, requested by the Holy Father, prepared and revised by bishops and promulgated by the Holy Father as part of his ordinary Magisterium. Pope John Paul II ordered the publication of the Catechism by the Apostolic Constitution, Fidei Depositum, on October 11, 1992. An apostolic constitution is a most solemn form by which popes promulgate official Church documents. The new Code of Canon Law, for example, was promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution, Sacrae Disciplinae Leges. In Fidei Depositum, Pope John Paul II said, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.” John Paul II also stated that the Catechism “is given as a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine.”

Is the doctrinal authority of the Catechism equal to that of the dogmatic definitions of a pope or ecumenical council?

By its very nature, a catechism presents the fundamental truths of the faith which have already been communicated and defined. Because the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine in a complete yet summary way, it naturally contains the infallible doctrinal definitions of the popes and ecumenical councils in the history of the Church. It also presents teaching which has not been communicated and defined in these most solemn forms. This does not mean that such teaching can be disregarded or ignored. Quite to the contrary, the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine as an organic whole and as it is related to Christ who is the center. A major catechism, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, presents a compendium of Church teachings and has the advantage of demonstrating the harmony that exists among those teachings.

Is the doctrinal authority of the Catechism equal to the documents of the Second Vatican Council?

Just as the Catechism contains the most solemnly defined dogmas of the Church, it also contains the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. The worldwide consultation of the bishops that preceded the promulgation of the Catechism gives it a collegial character. It is, as Pope John Paul II said, “the result of a collaboration of the whole episcopate.” It would seem, however, that the Catechism did not have the benefit of the complete exercise of effective collegiality that accompanies the writing, disputation, revision, consensus, agreement and eventual promulgation of documents of an ecumenical council. But it must be noted that the form of a catechism is distinct from the form of conciliar documents. They are complimentary, but they are not identical.

That said, I would still like to know why par.1260 has no magisterial reference. Any takers?

And why does this paragraph of this catechism alone present this new teaching on infants?

 

[Pug]

That said, I would still like to know why par.1260 has no magisterial reference. Any takers?

And why does this paragraph of this catechism alone present this new teaching on infants?

You mean 1261, I think? 1260 does have references to V2 docs. Here is Gaudium et Spes to support 1260:All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.
Also, don’t forget, I did say that 1261 does have support in canon law and in previous catechisms to the extent that it is urgent to bring/allow children to be baptized.

Did you note that the body of 1261 refers to the funeral rites themselves? This is a reference to the liturgy itself, which as you know, lex orandi, lex credendi. However, a rite for the unbaptized infant is probably a newer thing. So, you might want to check out the prayers and such in the OCF (Order of Christian Funerals) that may apply to the miscarried/stillborn child (unbaptized). Maybe this would assist you. Your parish would have a copy of OCF. They will bury an unbaptized child with actual funeral rites when the parent intended to baptize the child.

 

[Pug]

Pug: I agree with you. I don’t agree the Catechism is infallible, and I do not believe it to be an Act of the Ordinary Magisterium. IF IT IS, if a catechism is an act of the authentic magisterium, and someone wants to cite a church teaching, do they cite the Catechism, or the documents the catechism references? For example, would you cite such and such a paragraph from the catechism to say contraception is wrong which references humanae vitae, or would you cite humanae vitae? You would cite Humanae Vitae.

I think it is related to the ordinary Magisterium, but that is mute, since you accept the quote on the USCCB site.

Concerning contraception, I’d quote the CCC to people because I volunteer in RCIA, and they often understand what that is, and almost guaranteed they will have no clue what an encyclical is, much less any idea about how authority works or how to evaluate documents. But if I quote the CCC, I am just quoting Paul VI, of course, since the CCC quotes his encyclical. But I wouldn’t tell them that unless the situation suggested to me it would be a good idea. That is because individual Catholics (or catechumens) understand they can trust the CCC, but they aren’t typically in a position of having enough knowledge to understand which documents are what. I can say to them that something is guaranteed because the canons of Trent guarantee it, and that is a whole can of worms, because they have no idea what “Trent” is. Even worse, they won’t understand how the anathemas work, in that sort of reverse-ish manner. So it is a matter of whom I talk with, and what the needs of the situation happen to be.

Of course, if I need to make a point about a doctrine being de fide, the CCC is not my first choice. But I’ve never needed to do that anywhere save here, on this site. That is why I mention Trent. I love to quote Trent.

 

[CradleCath]

I think it is related to the ordinary Magisterium, but that is mute, since you accept the quote on the USCCB site.

Concerning contraception, I’d quote the CCC to people because I volunteer in RCIA, and they often understand what that is, and almost guaranteed they will have no clue what an encyclical is, much less any idea about how authority works or how to evaluate documents. But if I quote the CCC, I am just quoting Paul VI, of course, since the CCC quotes his encyclical. But I wouldn’t tell them that unless the situation suggested to me it would be a good idea. That is because individual Catholics (or catechumens) understand they can trust the CCC, but they aren’t typically in a position of having enough knowledge to understand which documents are what. ** I can say to them that something is guaranteed because the canons of Trent guarantee it, and that is a whole can of worms, because they have no idea what “Trent” is. Even worse, they won’t understand how the anathemas work, in that sort of reverse-ish manner**. So it is a matter of whom I talk with, and what the needs of the situation happen to be.

Of course, if I need to make a point about a doctrine being de fide, the CCC is not my first choice. But I’ve never needed to do that anywhere save here, on this site. That is why I mention Trent. I love to quote Trent.

I find the part of your post that I emboldened, really sad. Do you recommend further study once these Catechumens finish RICA? Do
you have books to suggest, in order for them to continue learning??

 

[Pug]

I find the part of your post that I emboldened, really sad. Do you recommend further study once these Catechumens finish RICA? Do
you have books to suggest, in order for them to continue learning??

Note. I do not teach RCIA right now. The priest does. Currently, I sometimes do the part where we leave early and talk about the bible (BOW). I am not supposed to teach as my primary activity then. If I gave a speech on NFP, for example, during this time, with documentation, I’d not being doing what I’ve been told to do. Rather, I do things like lead a discussion on the beatitudes, with use of the bible, and I might read from the CCC about it to them. This behavior is non-exceptional.

I have loaned out my copy of Trent for a catechumen, and explained to them about the canons. I am the team member who makes up a handout of websites for further study, one of which encourages them to pick a pope and read his encyclicals (papalencyclicals.net). I got the deacon to approve it, so it can get handed out. I am the one who likes to encourage, where I can, outside reading for catechumens. When I could teach, for example, I gave them a list of several (there are more than several, though) social justice encyclicals to read if they want, when my topic was social justice.

Right now, it is policy to not give the students a CCC during the course. However, they do often get a compendium. I do what I am told to in RCIA. That is the way it is done. I can make suggestions, like the handout.

 

[CradleCath]

Note. I do not teach RCIA right now. The priest does. Currently, I sometimes do the part where we leave early and talk about the bible (BOW). I am not supposed to teach as my primary activity then. If I gave a speech on NFP, for example, during this time, with documentation, I’d not being doing what I’ve been told to do. Rather, I do things like lead a discussion on the beatitudes, with use of the bible, and I might read from the CCC about it to them. This behavior is non-exceptional.

**I have loaned out my copy of Trent for a catechumen, and explained to them about the canons. I am the team member who makes up a handout of websites for further study, one of which encourages them to pick a pope and read his encyclicals (papalencyclicals.net). I got the deacon to approve it, so it can get handed out. ** I am the one who likes to encourage, where I can, outside reading for catechumens. When I could teach, for example, I gave them a list of several (there are more than several, though) social justice encyclicals to read if they want, when my topic was social justice.

Right now, it is policy to not give the students a CCC during the course. However, they do often get a compendium. I do what I am told to in RCIA. That is the way it is done. I can make suggestions, like the handout.

It sounds like you’re doing a great job. I wasn’t commenting on YOUR teaching, but on the program itself. I really like the idea about giving the catehumens websites to learn from & encouraging them to pick a pope & read his encyclicals.

 

[Pug]

It sounds like you’re doing a great job. I wasn’t commenting on YOUR teaching, but on the program itself. I really like the idea about giving the catehumens websites to learn from & encouraging them to pick a pope & read his encyclicals.

Thanks, CradleCath, for the encouragement!

 

[Fide_Roma]

Yeah, as long as they don’t read Pope Eugene IV or Boniface VIII. A little Cantate Domino and Unam Sanctum anyone ?

 

[valentino]

if a baby is deprived of the beatific vision but he doesnt know what he is missing is it so bad?

 

[Pug]

Yeah, as long as they don’t read Pope Eugene IV or Boniface VIII. A little Cantate Domino and Unam Sanctum anyone ?

The website I send them to has Boniface VIII listed in the pope list. So, all they need to do is pick him. The only document they list for him is Unam Sanctam. They don’t have every document ever. I wish they did! That would be really cool. Total information access.

 

[Gregory_I]

Well, like I said, it seems to be pretty dogmatic: Those who die in original sin alone descend to hell, where they are punished, but differently from those who die in mortal sin.

Only infants and mentally handicapped die in original sin alone.

Where is the liberal theological dissent coming from?

“If you want to be a Catholic do no believe, do not say, and do not teach that infants carried off by death before they are baptized can attain the remission of original sin.”
-Saint Augustine, Father, Doctor, and Bishop of the Church, On the Soul and its Origin Book II

“Likewise, whoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that Sacrament (Baptism)*** are alive in Christ***, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to loose no time and run in haste to administer Baptism to infant children, because it is believed as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ.”
-Saint Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church, Epistle 167, AD 415

We all like St. Augustine until he gets under our skin…

Or the Ordinary Magisterial Teaching of Pope St. Innocent I :

“The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life without even the grace of baptism is utterly foolish.”
-Pope Saint Innocent I, Letter to the Bishops of the Church, 417 AD

“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, … but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently…”
-Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, February 4, 1442

 

[StTommyMore]

Well, like I said, it seems to be pretty dogmatic: Those who die in original sin alone descend to hell, where they are punished, but differently from those who die in mortal sin.

Only infants and mentally handicapped die in original sin alone.

Where is the liberal theological dissent coming from?

“If you want to be a Catholic do no believe, do not say, and do not teach that infants carried off by death before they are baptized can attain the remission of original sin.”
-Saint Augustine, Father, Doctor, and Bishop of the Church, On the Soul and its Origin Book II

“Likewise, whoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that Sacrament (Baptism)*** are alive in Christ***, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to loose no time and run in haste to administer Baptism to infant children, because it is believed as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ.”
-Saint Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church, Epistle 167, AD 415

We all like St. Augustine until he gets under our skin…

Or the Ordinary Magisterial Teaching of Pope St. Innocent I :

“The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life without even the grace of baptism is utterly foolish.”
-Pope Saint Innocent I, Letter to the Bishops of the Church, 417 AD

“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, … but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently…”
-Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, February 4, 1442

I will address the Council of Florence first. If you read the entire quote, the issue here is the problem of delaying the baptism of infants. I will say that those who die in original sin only, but were baptized due to delay, in all likelihood are in a different position than those who not only were never baptized, but would never be baptized, such as the infants who died in a location where the gospel had never reached.

St. Augustine, with all due respect, as he is a doctor of the Church, a bishop, and one of our greatest saints, his statements, while they carry a degree of authority, do not enjoy the charism of infallibility. In fact he made a statement in City of God that seems to indicate that those who appear inside the Church may very well be outside the Church, and those who appear outside the Church, may very well be inside the Church.
Finally, the letter to the bishops by Pope Innocent is also addressing the issue of parents delaying baptism, and not the issue of those who would have utterly no chance at baptism.
I can say that there is a real difference between the situations because our Lord did say “To whom much is given, much will be required.” This implies also that to whom little is given, little will be required. So you can see, we can hold a position that precludes Limbo, whilst staying withion the heart of the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

 

[valentino]

do you believe the thief on the cross was baptized by water and the Holy Spirit?