Does anyone know? Whoever tries to answer please provide the reference to an official Vatican document.
Limbo has never been a Church doctrine, but did the Pope ever reject it?
- Thread starter BabyChristian22
- Start date
http://www.christianforums.com/t7353338-6/#post51151814
When ITC document first came out I wrote the following in a thread talking about Original Sin:
The International Theological Commission document states, "On the one hand, these Greek Fathers teach that children who die without Baptism do not suffer eternal damnation, though they do not attain the same state as those who have been baptised. On the other hand, they do not explain what their state is like or where they go. In this matter, the Greek Fathers display their characteristic apophatic sensitivity." Of the Latin Fathers it states, "In summary: 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."
They quote Sts. Augustine, Anselm, Duns Scotus, Athanasius, Gregory the Theologian, Aquinas, Robert Bellarmine, local Councils including Carthage from 419AD, Florence, all the way to Pope Pius XII who says, “The state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, cannot be attained. In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of Baptism; to the child still unborn, or newly born, this way is not open.”
They put forth some arguments which pretty much amount to, "but God loves everyone..." then end the entire document with:
"103. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.
In other words, Baptism by Desire can possibly supply for infants who have not been Sacramentally Baptized. That statement is a far cry from, "...all unbaptized children now go to Heaven says the Catholic Church." I for one am uncomfortable any time someone, I don't care who it is, says, "I know the sensus fidelum of the Church, both East and West, from time immemorial has been X and here are a ton of the Fathers of the Church which state such, but we have advanced now and believe Y is possible." We used to call that Modernism...
When ITC document first came out I wrote the following in a thread talking about Original Sin:
The International Theological Commission document states, "On the one hand, these Greek Fathers teach that children who die without Baptism do not suffer eternal damnation, though they do not attain the same state as those who have been baptised. On the other hand, they do not explain what their state is like or where they go. In this matter, the Greek Fathers display their characteristic apophatic sensitivity." Of the Latin Fathers it states, "In summary: 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."
They quote Sts. Augustine, Anselm, Duns Scotus, Athanasius, Gregory the Theologian, Aquinas, Robert Bellarmine, local Councils including Carthage from 419AD, Florence, all the way to Pope Pius XII who says, “The state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, cannot be attained. In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of Baptism; to the child still unborn, or newly born, this way is not open.”
They put forth some arguments which pretty much amount to, "but God loves everyone..." then end the entire document with:
"103. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.
In other words, Baptism by Desire can possibly supply for infants who have not been Sacramentally Baptized. That statement is a far cry from, "...all unbaptized children now go to Heaven says the Catholic Church." I for one am uncomfortable any time someone, I don't care who it is, says, "I know the sensus fidelum of the Church, both East and West, from time immemorial has been X and here are a ton of the Fathers of the Church which state such, but we have advanced now and believe Y is possible." We used to call that Modernism...
Upvote
0
I remember the "Pope abolishes Limbo" headlines. In reality, there was just an ITC report (which has no Magisterial authority at all) which gave the reasons why it was ok to hope for the salvation of infants, but also affirmed it was still ok to believe they went to Limbo.
Ott's Fundamentals describes various permitted opinions on this as to how infants might be saved (instead of a person act of charity, which Pius XII said was not possible), so it was not new with the ITC report. Things like vicarious desire (just like vicarious faith which suffices for infant baptism)are noted as possible, just not definitively provable from revelation.
It should be noted that it is very important to frame the issue correctly so as not to negate original sin. The question boils down to whether God may cleanse some or all infants of original sin, who, through no fault of their own cannot receive Baptism.
St. Thomas actually explained that this was possible regarding those in the womb. I don't see why his reasoning could not be extended outside in certain circumstances as well. In response to the objection that the sin of Adam was more efficacious than the salvation of Christ since babies in the womb can't be baptized and therefore saved from original sin, St. Thomas responds:
"Children while in the mother's womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb."
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Those who receive Baptism (Tertia Pars, Q. 68)
Ott's Fundamentals describes various permitted opinions on this as to how infants might be saved (instead of a person act of charity, which Pius XII said was not possible), so it was not new with the ITC report. Things like vicarious desire (just like vicarious faith which suffices for infant baptism)are noted as possible, just not definitively provable from revelation.
It should be noted that it is very important to frame the issue correctly so as not to negate original sin. The question boils down to whether God may cleanse some or all infants of original sin, who, through no fault of their own cannot receive Baptism.
St. Thomas actually explained that this was possible regarding those in the womb. I don't see why his reasoning could not be extended outside in certain circumstances as well. In response to the objection that the sin of Adam was more efficacious than the salvation of Christ since babies in the womb can't be baptized and therefore saved from original sin, St. Thomas responds:
"Children while in the mother's womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb."
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Those who receive Baptism (Tertia Pars, Q. 68)
Upvote
0
Virgil the Roman
Young Fogey & Monarchist-Distributist . . .
- Jan 14, 2006
- 11,413
- 1,299
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
Yea; I believe in Limbo. It is really the only logical belief. Sorry, but there have been enough synods and papal documents condemning the denial of Limbo for me to be very, very wary of NOT believing in it. I'm sticking with this rather 'Catholic' of beliefs. 
Upvote
0
B
Basil the Great
Guest
"Since 1958 we have been deceived." Virgil the Roman, I find your tagline to be extremely interesting. Does it refer to Pope John the 23rd's election?
Upvote
0
EnglishSeminarian
Newbie
Yea; I believe in Limbo. It is really the only logical belief. Sorry, but there have been enough synods and papal documents condemning the denial of Limbo for me to be very, very wary of NOT believing in it. I'm sticking with this rather 'Catholic' of beliefs.
Could you post some links to these documents? I had always considered Limbo (of infants, that is) to be simply an opinion and not in any way authoritatively or definitively taught. . .
Upvote
0
- Mar 3, 2006
- 33,112
- 11,338
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
it never had the force of dogma and the Church is clear on that. We have no idea of how God saves them, we hold out hope as Christians that He does.
"The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized."
But Limbo was always speculation and it was never listed as a dogma in the time when we had dogmatic handbooks. Neither Ott not Denzinger nor any council raise it beyond what is called Common Teaching (sententia communis) it is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally. But it is able to be changed. After that common teaching has grades:
well-founded (bene fundata)
more probable (sententia probabilis)
probable (probabilior)
pious opinions (sententia pia)
tolerated opinions (opinio tolerata)
But none of it is unchangeable dogma.
So it is not forbidden to be believed or required to be believed. On related matters there is this document: "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized."
That I agree with. But the Vatican has officially been clear that belief in limbo is not dogmatically binding. From the above document:
A quote from the document:
"The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized."
But Limbo was always speculation and it was never listed as a dogma in the time when we had dogmatic handbooks. Neither Ott not Denzinger nor any council raise it beyond what is called Common Teaching (sententia communis) it is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally. But it is able to be changed. After that common teaching has grades:
well-founded (bene fundata)
more probable (sententia probabilis)
probable (probabilior)
pious opinions (sententia pia)
tolerated opinions (opinio tolerata)
But none of it is unchangeable dogma.
So it is not forbidden to be believed or required to be believed. On related matters there is this document: "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized."
That I agree with. But the Vatican has officially been clear that belief in limbo is not dogmatically binding. From the above document:
A quote from the document:
It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin.
This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children.
This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children.
Upvote
0
- Mar 3, 2006
- 33,112
- 11,338
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
Upvote
0
Similar threads
