Purgatory

[concretecamper]

staff edit

please quote an authoritative source that tells us all that according to the Catholic Church Limbo was doctrine rather than just hopeful speculation.

 

[Albion]

Albion was correct, as I specified, with regards to the Catholic church's teaching about Limbo for unbaptised infants and it being 'phased out'.
What the Catholic church teaches now, is not what was taught and believed by Catholics for centuries and centuries.

You are, of course, absolutely correct that the Catholic Church taught what you reported and applied various sanctions in connection to that teaching (about Limbo). This was the church's stance for half a millennium until just recently.

 

[concretecamper]

You are, of course, absolutely correct that the Catholic Church taught what you reported and applied various sanctions in connection to that teaching (about Limbo). This was the church's stance for half a millennium until just recently.

of course you can quote an Authoritative source from the Catholic Church that backs up your claims, but as we know, you will come up a bit short.

 

[Placemat]

please quote an authoritative source that tells us all that according to the Catholic Church Limbo was doctrine rather than just hopeful speculation.

It was a 'theological hypothesis' that was based on the ideas of men and was developed and taught - the common teaching, doctrine, of the Catholic church, right up until the 20th century.

The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised

There are people still alive today that remember it being taught to them.

You would do well to know what the church taught at one time with regards to the salvation of souls.

 

[concretecamper]

It was a 'theological hypothesis' that was based on the ideas of men and was developed and taught - the common teaching, doctrine, of the Catholic church, right up until the 20th century.

The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised

There are people still alive today that remember it being taught to them.

You would do well to know what the church taught at one time with regards to the salvation of souls.

thank you for proving me correct that Limbo was never doctrine.

 

[Placemat]

of course you can quote an Authoritative source from the Catholic Church that backs up your claims, but as we know, you will come up a bit short.

You obviously haven't read the document from the 'Authoritative source' that you requested from me.

 

[concretecamper]

You obviously haven't read the document from the 'Authoritative source' that you requested from me.

thank you for proving me correct!

 

[Placemat]

thank you for proving me correct that Limbo was never doctrine.

You really should read through the document before posting any more.

 

[Placemat]

n/t

 

[concretecamper]

You really should read through the document before posting any more.

I did. Limbo was never doctrine. Check your bias at the door before replying again.

 

[Placemat]

I did. Limbo was never doctrine. Check your bias at the door before replying again.

Perhaps you could check your attitude at the door before replying again....and please re-read the document.

1.4. The Medieval Scholastics

21. Augustine was the point of reference for Latin theologians throughout the Middle Ages on this matter. Anselm of Canterbury is a good example: he believes that little children who die without Baptism are damned on account of original sin and in keeping with God's justice.[43] The common doctrine was summarized by Hugh of St. Victor: infants who die unbaptised cannot be saved because (1) they have not received the sacrament, and (2) they cannot make a personal act of faith that would supply for the sacrament.[44] This doctrine implies that one needs to be justified during one's earthly life in order to enter eternal life after death. Death puts an end to the possibility of choosing to accept or reject grace, that is, to adhere to God or turn away from him; after death, a person's fundamental dispositions before God receive no further modification.

 

[fide]

Albion does have a point when it comes to the Catholic church's teaching on Limbo for unbaptised infants, as it was considered for centuries as the common teaching in schools, taught by nuns and priests and promulgated throughout that time by popes and theologians 'as if' it was His Truth...to the point of assigning their bodies to be buried in separate graveyards outside of what the church considered 'consecrated' ground, but even more disturbingly - banishing them from His 'beatific vision' for eternity. However, this teaching that Catholics for centuries believed, by placing their faith in the Catholic church, caused such distress that the church decided to 'phase it out', after alllllllll those centuries finally admitting that there was no evidence of it being a 'revealed TRUTH' and that it would now encourage Catholics to have HOPE in the mercy and love of God.

So please tell us just 'what and who' the Catholic church "IS".

Your final question is more complex than I can reduce to a forum-sized or bumper-sticker sized response. I refer you to the [universal Catholic] Catechism, and than is only a beginning. All who seriously seek the whole Truth entrusted to His Church have a beautiful and arduous life-long pilgrimage before them. Snippets here and there to "answer" one particular "challenge" are never accepted by critics - or sufficient - or acceptable or complete. Wave flags of "victory" if you like. If I thought there was sincere searching here, I would offer more, but experience tells me this discussion is doomed to circles having no end.

Regarding "Limbo", below is from the conclusion to a long response (complete document on-line HERE) by the Vatican CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Jan 2007):

3.6. Hope

102. Within the hope that the Church bears for the whole of humanity and wants to proclaim afresh to the world of today, is there a hope for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism? We have carefully re-considered this complex question, with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the Church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today. Reflecting within the one tradition of faith that unites the Church through the ages, and relying utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead his followers “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13), we have sought to read the signs of the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel. Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).

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.​

 

[fide]

Perhaps you could check your attitude at the door before replying again....and please re-read the document.

1.4. The Medieval Scholastics

21. Augustine was the point of reference for Latin theologians throughout the Middle Ages on this matter. Anselm of Canterbury is a good example: he believes that little children who die without Baptism are damned on account of original sin and in keeping with God's justice.[43] The common doctrine was summarized by Hugh of St. Victor: infants who die unbaptised cannot be saved because (1) they have not received the sacrament, and (2) they cannot make a personal act of faith that would supply for the sacrament.[44] This doctrine implies that one needs to be justified during one's earthly life in order to enter eternal life after death. Death puts an end to the possibility of choosing to accept or reject grace, that is, to adhere to God or turn away from him; after death, a person's fundamental dispositions before God receive no further modification.

The word "doctrine" is used in difference senses, different meanings which are discerned rightly in a given context by those who know the Faith - and can be misunderstood by those who do not. "Doctrine" can include solemn and universal teaching - promulgated de fide, "of the Faith" - and binding on the faithful (ex: "the doctrine that God is a Trinity of Persons") or it can also be used to express something taught of much lesser weight, significance and consequence (ex: "we don't eat meat on Fridays"). The phrase "common doctrine" indicates right away it may have been "common" and even widespread, but not "universal and absolute, binding on all the faithful".
[the above is not theologically precise and quotable - forgive me for that please]

 

[concretecamper]

Perhaps you could check your attitude at the door before replying again....and please re-read the document.

1.4. The Medieval Scholastics

21. Augustine was the point of reference for Latin theologians throughout the Middle Ages on this matter. Anselm of Canterbury is a good example: he believes that little children who die without Baptism are damned on account of original sin and in keeping with God's justice.[43] The common doctrine was summarized by Hugh of St. Victor: infants who die unbaptised cannot be saved because (1) they have not received the sacrament, and (2) they cannot make a personal act of faith that would supply for the sacrament.[44] This doctrine implies that one needs to be justified during one's earthly life in order to enter eternal life after death. Death puts an end to the possibility of choosing to accept or reject grace, that is, to adhere to God or turn away from him; after death, a person's fundamental dispositions before God receive no further modification.

thank you for giving us examples of individuals who may have believed this or that. Btw, still waiting for proof the Limbo was doctrine in the Catholic Church.

 

[Placemat]

The word "doctrine" is used in difference senses, different meanings which are discerned rightly in a given context by those who know the Faith - and can be misunderstood by those who do not. "Doctrine" can include solemn and universal teaching - promulgated de fide, "of the Faith" - and binding on the faithful (ex: "the doctrine that God is a Trinity of Persons") or it can also be used to express something taught of much lesser weight, significance and consequence (ex: "we don't eat meat on Fridays"). The phrase "common doctrine" indicates right away it may have been "common" and even widespread, but not "universal and absolute, binding on all the faithful".
[the above is not theologically precise and quotable - forgive me for that please]

Fide – Thank you for taking the time to clarify.

As you can see from the document that we both referred too, the ‘common teaching’ on Limbo for unbaptised infants was extremely ‘significant’, both for those during the centuries it was taught and finally enough so that the Catholic church held an International Theological Commission on it – and the same with regards the ‘consequences’ – as it dealt with the very salvation of souls and bound the faith of many of being able to have HOPE in a loving and merciful God.

Referring to it as being ‘not binding on all the faithful’ does not address the fact that for centuries it was developed, taught and allowed to be taught by popes. Faithful Catholics were not given a choice in the matter of accepting it or not as is evidenced by the graves of those little souls in unconsecrated grounds. They placed their faith in their church and its leaders/teachers – popes, magisterium, priests, nuns – expecting them to teach them the Truth, not suppositions and hypothetical theories.

 

[Placemat]

thank you for giving us examples of individuals who may have believed this or that. Btw, still waiting for proof the Limbo was doctrine in the Catholic Church.

Those “individuals” – ECFs – developed and laid the groundwork for this common doctrine that popes and magisteriums fumbled around with for centuries.

 

[fide]

Fide – Thank you for taking the time to clarify.

As you can see from the document that we both referred too, the ‘common teaching’ on Limbo for unbaptised infants was extremely ‘significant’, both for those during the centuries it was taught and finally enough so that the Catholic church held an International Theological Commission on it – and the same with regards the ‘consequences’ – as it dealt with the very salvation of souls and bound the faith of many of being able to have HOPE in a loving and merciful God.

Referring to it as being ‘not binding on all the faithful’ does not address the fact that for centuries it was developed, taught and allowed to be taught by popes. Faithful Catholics were not given a choice in the matter of accepting it or not as is evidenced by the graves of those little souls in unconsecrated grounds. They placed their faith in their church and its leaders/teachers – popes, magisterium, priests, nuns – expecting them to teach them the Truth, not suppositions and hypothetical theories.

The Church does not KNOW everything! She can teach definitively only that which she has been given - and she was given the necessity of Baptism. Hence the uncertainty concerning the fate of unbaptized children, hence the theological speculations, among them, "Limbo." The Church has been given much, concerning divine revelation. But not every possible question has been answered, definitively.

 

[fide]

Those “individuals” – ECFs – developed and laid the groundwork for this common doctrine that popes and magisteriums fumbled around with for centuries.

-- "fumbled around with for centuries"? How about a little sympathy due in a theological difficulty for which there is still no certain resolution? -- Beyond, HOPE. We can be certain of the justice of God, but we cannot presume upon our judgments. We can hope in God. If that is not good enough for anyone, they can make up a denomination that teaches what they want to hear. The Catholic Church is confined to divine revelation.

BTW - Here is a Q/A from the 1891 edition of the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.​

This is clearly NOT a doctrinal teaching.

 

[Placemat]

The Church does not KNOW everything! She can teach definitively only that which she has been given - and she was given the necessity of Baptism. Hence the uncertainty concerning the fate of unbaptized children, hence the theological speculations, among them, "Limbo." The Church has been given much, concerning divine revelation. But not every possible question has been answered, definitively.

Then perhaps what 'she was given',as you put it, regarding Baptism, was misunderstood by her in the first place. If she was being led by the Holy Spirit when 'given the necessity of Baptism ' she would have understood it and defined it properly and would not have had to rely on the hypothetical theory of 'Limbo for infants who die without baptism' that was developed by men to uphold her incomplete 'defined' doctrine.

 

[Placemat]

-- "fumbled around with for centuries"? How about a little sympathy due in a theological difficulty for which there is still no certain resolution? -- Beyond, HOPE.

Yes, fumbled around for centuries - ranging from 'all the torments of Hell' to 'suffering, but not too much' to a kind of 'blissful ignorance'...then back to 'all the torments of Hell'.....then back to a kind of 'blissful ignorance'.....depending on different ideas of different men and on what 'heresy' they were attempting to combat at a particular time...but in all cases...depriving the infants of being with God. It was talked about in the odd Council....but then still allowed to be taught as their common teaching/doctrine 'as if' it were His Truth.....until they finally decided not teach it anymore. So no - no sympathy for those involved in the developing and approval of teaching this theory that was not HIS TRUTH.
That there is still no certain resolution is something that the church is stuck with due to their own formulation and defining of what 'Baptism' meant.
HOPE in a loving and merciful God should have been the church's first and only choice to offer His sheep....but apparently that never occurred to anyone for centuries....until now.....

We can be certain of the justice of God, but we cannot presume upon our judgments.

But that is exactly what the Catholic church DID do and proceeded to shuffle unbaptised infants off to 'limbo' denying them God's beatific vision for eternity.

We can hope in God. If that is not good enough for anyone, they can make up a denomination that teaches what they want to hear.

Yes, it is official, you can NOW hope in God because the Catholic church has given you permission.....there were many over the centuries and centuries who were not given that 'teaching' or 'opportunity'....the little graves in unconsecrated grounds attest to that fact.

The Catholic Church is confined to divine revelation.

Seriously!? If that were the case it would never have allowed a theory, based on the musings of men to be taught for all those years, a theory that dealt with the very salvation of souls....until....it wasn't taught anymore......