J
justme
Guest
I find it telling what is listed as “prohibition” and what is listed as “dogma” in the poll.
- Status
S
Stephen_C
Guest
That’s good to hear…still wish you had a option for none of above.
God’s Peace,
Stephen
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
None of the above. People are making too much of something (limbo) THAT WAS NEVER part of official Church teaching.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Bunk. You need to read what I actually said. EVEN IF he didn’t make an ex cathedra pronouncement, the Holy See regards the matter as closed forever because it’s a part of the ordinary magisterium, something the Church has taught always, back to Saint Paul. I also said that it was something of a debate as to what the old Holy Father intended to do. If you read the actual document, it sounds like he’s bringing the full weight of his office to bear on the pronouncements. A statement doesn’t have to include an anathema to be binding.
As for “John Paul the Great,” take that up with the likes of Fr. Richard Neuhaus and Pope Benedict XVI. They’ve been known to use the term with frequency. It’s not papalotry to pay attention to what the Pope says.
M
Melanie01
Guest
OOOOOOPppppps you missed one …Modernism!!!
B
Black_Knight_MI
Guest
.Really? Better look again my friend! LINK TO CCC SEARCH ENGINE
S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
Wrong.
As has been pointed out previously, those who say that limbo “is not in the Catechism of the Catholic Church” are mistaken. A computer search engine may be defective.
The word “Limbo” is listed in the official index of the Latin *editio typica *of the new catechism and in the English translation published in hardcover editions. The official index links limbo to catechism section 1261. In my hardcover English edition of the new catechism, limbo is listed on page 816. In the Vatican’s Latin edition, limbo is listed on page 858.
The “hope” for a “way of salvation” for unbaptized infants in section 1261 should, in accordance with Catholic tradition, be understood as referring to the natural happiness of limbo (which is a way of being saved from the pains of hell), not the supernatural happiness of heaven.
Keep and spread the Faith.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
" are mistaken. A computer search engine may be defective.
The word “Limbo” is listed in the official index of the Latin *editio typica *of the new catechism and in the English translation published in hardcover editions. The official index links limbo to catechism section 1261. In my hardcover English edition of the new catechism, limbo is listed on page 816. In the Vatican’s Latin edition, limbo is listed on page 858.
The “hope” for a “way of salvation” for unbaptized infants in section 1261 should, in accordance with Catholic tradition, be understood as referring to the natural happiness of limbo (which is a way of being saved from the pains of hell), not the supernatural happiness of heaven.
Keep and spread the Faith.No, I’m afraid that you are wrong Steve.
See any reference to Limbo in there? No ya don’t. It’s not taught there.
UPDATE: I have my CCC in hand and there is no reference at all to Limbo in it and the pages Steve uses show nothing at all to do with Limbo, so I don’t know what he’s using .
Pax tecum,
M
mchale
Guest
Steve, I may be playing the skeptic here, but again, I ask for some sort of documentation to indicate that 1261 “should” be interpreted to mean the natural happiness of limbo? I am not saying that it can’t be interpreted that way, but I also have yet to see any evidence to suggest it can’t be interpreted to mean that infants who die with out baptisim might be brought to God by his loving grace.
–
Bill
W
Walking_Home
Guest
You may have missed it.
CCC second edition: Pg. 817
Limbo, 1261. See also Baptism; Funerals
S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
No, I am not wrong.
Your edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church may lack the official Vatican analytical index to the second (1997) edition of the new catechism. This is the revised, definitive edition.
The paperback version of the new catechism published by Doubleday-Image in 1995 lacks the official analytical index; instead, it has an earlier or non-official index. For this reason, this Doubleday-Image paperback edition is an incomplete version of the new catechism.
The new catechism’s official analytical index, which appears in the hardcover version published by the United States Catholic Conference in 2000, does indeed list the word “Limbo” on page 816. Anyone who has this hardcover edition can verify this for you. This index links limbo to catechism section 1261, which deals with the eternal destiny of unbaptized infants.
I urge you to obtain the above hardcover version so that you will have the benefit of the official analytical index.
The “hope” for unbaptized infants in catechism section 1261 should be understood as limbo because it cannot be understood as heaven. These infants die in original sin only. The Catholic Church teaches officially that the souls of those dying in original sin only are punished in some manner in the next life. This punishment is incompatible with the supernatural happiness of heaven. The only reasonable alternative for these children is the natural happiness of limbo, which can be regarded as a “way of salvation”: salvation from the pains of hell. The punishment of these children is the loss of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision.
Please note that the new catechism makes clear that we baptize infants because they are born in original sin (sections 403 and 1250).
Some may be concerned by the omission of the word “limbo” in section 1261. The concept itself, however, is more important than the word. An analogy: the word “Co-Redemptrix” does not occur in section 618 of the new catechism, but the content of that word is expressed in that section, which says that the Blessed Virgin Mary “was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his [Jesus’s] redemptive suffering.”
Keep and spread the Faith.
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
You’re right where I was yesterday… see post 24.It is interesting to me that the index of the catechism has the word “limbo” but the text in para 1261 just doesn’t seem to address it one way or another.
If I’m not mistaken the OP knows that Limbo is not a dogma of the Church but if the idea is “dropped” then it will have major implications for the dogma of original sin. That is perhaps a question should be hashed out in another thread. As for me, it would seem we are limiting the mercy of God if we insist there has to be a limbo of unbaptized babies. God can save who He wants to save. I think that para 1261 is more referring to trusting God’s mercy in this matter than saying there is or isn’t a limbo.
There are exceptions to water baptism. The Church teaches that those who do not know Jesus or His Church, but who seek God with a sincere heart may be saved. If a person doesn’t know Jesus or His Church he is not necessarily water baptized. I think this is called a baptism of desire. What I am saying is: how do we know that a baby doesn’t desire God? I’m not talking about an intellectual seeking, but a seeking in the soul. After all, the soul of a baby is fresh from heaven, maybe they still are able to seek God in their soul, prior to their death. The point is, we just don’t have enough information on this to know what God is going to do, which is why the concept of Limbo was thought up in the first place. I, myself, trust completely in the mercy of God and I trust the infallibly declared teachings of the Church. I really believe that there is a reason that Limbo (Infantium) has never been declared a doctrine. (Of course, it is still possible it will be, considering the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary have not been "officially defined " dogma until fairly recently in the Church.)
S
Saint_Sinner
Guest
None of the above.
Limbo, a theological speculation, never reached the level of any of these other teachings. The poll is flawed.
Limbo, a theological speculation, never reached the level of any of these other teachings. The poll is flawed.
C
corvidae
Guest
I agree, the poll is flawed.
It seems from the poll that the vast majority would change certain things, but there have been many responses and many more views I am guessing that would have chosen, none of the above.
It seems that this poll and the results are skewed.
A lone Raven
p.s. I did not vote
It seems from the poll that the vast majority would change certain things, but there have been many responses and many more views I am guessing that would have chosen, none of the above.
It seems that this poll and the results are skewed.
A lone Raven
p.s. I did not vote
S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
On limbo, the urgent necessity of infant Baptism, and original sin and its next-world punishment, please don’t listen to me. Listen to St. Augustine (354-430), who is cited eighty-five times in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Here are some of his teachings on these subjects:****
“Wherefore whosoever tells us that any man can be made alive in the resurrection of the dead otherwise than in Christ, he is to be detested as a pestilent enemy to the common faith. Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose 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” (Letter 166, section 21).
“If you wish to be a Catholic, refrain from believing, or saying, or teaching that ‘infants which are forestalled by death before they are baptized may yet attain to forgiveness of their original sins’" (On the Soul and Its Origin, book 3, chapter 12).
Keep and spread the Faith.
Here are some of his teachings on these subjects:****
“Wherefore whosoever tells us that any man can be made alive in the resurrection of the dead otherwise than in Christ, he is to be detested as a pestilent enemy to the common faith. Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose 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” (Letter 166, section 21).
“If you wish to be a Catholic, refrain from believing, or saying, or teaching that ‘infants which are forestalled by death before they are baptized may yet attain to forgiveness of their original sins’" (On the Soul and Its Origin, book 3, chapter 12).
Keep and spread the Faith.
S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
Limbo is addressed in section 1261 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the manner that I’ve explained in a previous post. Even though the word “limbo” doesn’t appear in that section, the “hope” for “a way of salvation” for unbaptized infants should be understood as limbo because it can’t be understood as heaven.
If limbo were “dropped,” this nuclear explosion in Catholic theology would indeed “have major implications for the dogma of original sin.” Logically, this dogma would also have to be “dropped.” This is not going to happen, for, as the new catechism teaches, original sin is “an essential truth of the faith” (section 388).
Consequently, limbo cannot be “dropped” either.
Please note what the Church tells us in section 389 of the new catechism:
"The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ."
Keep and spread the Faith.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
1 Limbo is not a dogma.
2 It isn’t confirmed that the Holy Father “dropped” Limbo.
3 Existing dogma cannot be “dropped”.
4. None of the Above.
2 It isn’t confirmed that the Holy Father “dropped” Limbo.
3 Existing dogma cannot be “dropped”.
4. None of the Above.
S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
I am posting this link for those who are unaware of, or doubt, the fact that “Limbo” is listed in the official analytical index of the definitive version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
scborromeo.org/ccc/index/l.htm
Again, please note that the index links limbo to catechism section 1261, which discusses the eternal destiny of children who die without Baptism.
Keep and spread the Faith.
scborromeo.org/ccc/index/l.htm
Again, please note that the index links limbo to catechism section 1261, which discusses the eternal destiny of children who die without Baptism.
Keep and spread the Faith.
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
I respectfully disagree. Dogma cannot be dropped. That is not possible. Limbo is not on par with dogma, nor has it ever been. If Limbo was declared by the Pope not to exist it would not affect the dogma of original sin. The concept of Limbo is dependant upon the reality of original sin, but the reality of original sin is not dependant upon the concept of Limbo. The “dropping” of Limbo may have a great deal of affect on how we view the salvation of non-baptized babies, but not on original sin. Either we will believe that all unbaptized babies go to hell as they did prior to the Limbo hypothesis or you will believe that souls of these babies are at the mercy of God and He will do what is best. I will choose the latter, unless otherwise directed by an official doctrine of the Church.
Salvation is a gift. God will give it to whom He chooses. IMHO
S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
I respectfully address this question to those Catholics who, undermining the dogma of original sin, are sure that all unbaptized infants go to heaven:
If it’s certain that all unbaptized infants go to heaven, then what’s the urgency–or even the mere point–of infant Baptism, apart from providing an occasion for a family celebration?
If limbo and original sin are “dropped,” won’t infant Baptism also have to be “dropped”?
You Catholics (this is ironic distancing–I’m not losing the Faith) are confusing me!
Keep and spread the Faith.
If it’s certain that all unbaptized infants go to heaven, then what’s the urgency–or even the mere point–of infant Baptism, apart from providing an occasion for a family celebration?
If limbo and original sin are “dropped,” won’t infant Baptism also have to be “dropped”?
You Catholics (this is ironic distancing–I’m not losing the Faith) are confusing me!
Keep and spread the Faith.
- Status