No more Limbo??
#1
It's amazing to see Catholics going around saying there is no longer any such thing as Limbo, and that this has never been a teaching of the Church. It's as if the whole world has gone mad. Below are many examples showing that the magisterium of the Catholic Church has taught this doctrine all along!
  • The Catechism Explained, 1899, page 188: "Limbo is called in Scripture the "bosom of Abraham"; (Luke xvi. 22); the "prison"; (1 Pet. iii. 19), and Our Lord called the place "paradise"; (Luke xxiii. 43)
  • The Fourth Lateran Council solemnly defined the doctrine on our Lord's descension into hell when it stated, "having suffered on the wood of the Cross and died, descended into hell, arose from the dead and ascended into heaven" (reference; Denzinger 429)
  • Pope Pius VI Auctorem fidei, 1794 (Denz 1526): 26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,--false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.
  • Denzinger 493: Hell and Limbo - [From the letter "Nequaquam sine dolore" to the Armenians, Nov. 21, 1321]: 493a It (The Roman Church) teaches. . . . . that the souls . . . . . of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places.
  • Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas, Whether the limbo of children is the same as the limbo of the Fathers?: "The limbo of the Fathers and the limbo of children, without any doubt, differ as to the quality of punishment or reward. For children have no hope of the blessed life, as the Fathers in limbo had, in whom, moreover, shone forth the light of faith and grace. But as regards their situation, there is reason to believe that the place of both is the same; except that the limbo of the Fathers is placed higher than the limbo of children, just as we have stated in reference to limbo and hell."
  • Catechism of Council of Trent, The Creed, Article IV: "...On the contrary, we firmly believe and profess that when His soul was dissociated from His body, His Divinity continued always united both to His body in the sepulchre and to His soul in limbo..."
  • The Catechism Explained, 1899, pgs 188-189: This place is called limbo, and is quite distinct from purgatory, though the two places had this feature in common, that in neither place is there the vision of God ; for while there is pain to be suffered in purgatory, there was none in limbo ; nor was limbo the same as hell, where the pains are eternal; on the contrary the souls in limbo had some consolation (Luke xvi. 25), though entrance to heaven was deferred (Heb. ix. 8)..."
  • Baltimore Catechism: 86. Q. Did Christ's soul descend into the hell of the damned? A. The hell into which Christ's soul descended was not the hell of the damned, but a place or state of rest called Limbo, where the souls of the just were waiting for Him.
  • Catechism of St. Pope Pius X, The Fifth Article of the Creed: "Q: What are we taught in the Fifth Article: He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead? A: The Fifth Article of the Creed teaches us that the Soul of Jesus Christ, on being separated from His Body, descended to the Limbo of the holy Fathers, and that on the third day it became united once more to His Body, never to be parted from it again"
  • Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, The Creed, The Fourth Article, End Notes: "The fourth and final reason is that Christ might free the just who were in hell [or Limbo]. For as Christ wished to suffer death to deliver the living from death, so also He would descend into hell to deliver those who were there". Also, "The reason they were there in hell [i.e., Limbo] is original sin which they had contracted from Adam, and from which as members of the human race they could not be delivered except by Christ."
  • Catholic Encyclopedia, Limbo (1913): "Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo, while form the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God's justice and other attributes."
[-] The following 1 user Likes pabbie's post:
  • cassini
Reply
#2
Limbo has never been a defined doctrine of the Church, but it does find wide support among most theologians, even though some, like St Augustine indirectly deny it.

Because it has not be defined, and despite its common support among theologians, that certain notable theologians effectively denied it, the doctrine of a limbus puerorum is considered a "common theological opinion".

The closest that we have in magisterial teachings (you mention only three possible magisterial sources with lots of other non-magisterial books discussing doctrine, of which only one directly answers the question) is Auctorem Fidei of Pius VI which adopts the limbus puerorum against the Synod of Pistoria, without explicitly defining it. 

If you read carefully what Pius VI defines is the error of that Synod that called Limbo a "Pelagian fable". He says this is "false, rash, and injurious to Catholic teaching" but never defines it has a heresy. Defining the error and condemning it has the indirect effect of teaching the contradictory, but is not definitive of the contradictory. In short, by defining Pistoria's error, Pius VI does not define Limbo as dogma. If the Pope had declared this error heretical, then he would implicitly be asserting they were denying something which was of the Faith, and that could be considered a possible indirect definition, at least enough to accuse those who deny Limbo of being suspect of heresy. "False" alone does not tell us what degree of assent must be given to the opposite (as a denial of a "certain" theologian truth and "common theological opinion" are both "false"), so it cannot be definitive of the Truth.

As we do not have an explicit statement from the magisterium which binds Catholics to accept Limbo, and only a magisterial statement which prevents Catholics from passing Limbo off as a "Pelagian fable", ones actual opinion is, hypothetically, free.

Given, however, the overwhelming support of theologians and the longstanding teachings you mention, certainly there is at least a sin of pride and disobedience involved in denying Limbo in most cases.

What is worse, however, is that St Augustine and his supporters deny Limbo by saying that all unbaptized suffer not only the pain of loss, but also the fires of Hell. Modern deniers want to put unbaptized babies in Heaven. That would be possibly proximate to heresy, since we know that Sanctifying Grace is necessary for heaven, and they are effectively denying this, but that's a different discussion altogether.

That is not to defend those who deny Limbo. Those who do in the hopes of having everyone saved are, quite simply, morons. Yet we cannot just quote mine to declare what we want either (and that is something you've done before pabbie, so I think it important to qualify things here).
Reply
#3
(07-23-2018, 07:39 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Limbo has never been a defined doctrine of the Church, but it does find wide support among most theologians, even though some, like St Augustine indirectly deny it.

Because it has not be defined, and despite its common support among theologians, that certain notable theologians effectively denied it, the doctrine of a limbus puerorum is considered a "common theological opinion".

The closest that we have in magisterial teachings (you mention only three possible magisterial sources with lots of other non-magisterial books discussing doctrine, of which only one directly answers the question) is Auctorem Fidei of Pius VI which adopts the limbus puerorum against the Synod of Pistoria, without explicitly defining it. 

If you read carefully what Pius VI defines is the error of that Synod that called Limbo a "Pelagian fable". He says this is "false, rash, and injurious to Catholic teaching" but never defines it has a heresy. Defining the error and condemning it has the indirect effect of teaching the contradictory, but is not definitive of the contradictory. In short, by defining Pistoria's error, Pius VI does not define Limbo as dogma. If the Pope had declared this error heretical, then he would implicitly be asserting they were denying something which was of the Faith, and that could be considered a possible indirect definition, at least enough to accuse those who deny Limbo of being suspect of heresy. "False" alone does not tell us what degree of assent must be given to the opposite (as a denial of a "certain" theologian truth and "common theological opinion" are both "false"), so it cannot be definitive of the Truth.

As we do not have an explicit statement from the magisterium which binds Catholics to accept Limbo, and only a magisterial statement which prevents Catholics from passing Limbo off as a "Pelagian fable", ones actual opinion is, hypothetically, free.

Given, however, the overwhelming support of theologians and the longstanding teachings you mention, certainly there is at least a sin of pride and disobedience involved in denying Limbo in most cases.

What is worse, however, is that St Augustine and his supporters deny Limbo by saying that all unbaptized suffer not only the pain of loss, but also the fires of Hell. Modern deniers want to put unbaptized babies in Heaven. That would be possibly proximate to heresy, since we know that Sanctifying Grace is necessary for heaven, and they are effectively denying this, but that's a different discussion altogether.

That is not to defend those who deny Limbo. Those who do in the hopes of having everyone saved are, quite simply, morons. Yet we cannot just quote mine to declare what we want either (and that is something you've done before pabbie, so I think it important to qualify things here).
 
MM,

I agree with some of what you said here regarding Limbo. However you are also making a serious error at the same time when you say Limbo is not a defined doctrine; it does not NEED to be a defined doctrine for Catholics to believe it, as past popes have confirmed. If something is taught continuously throughout the history of the Church without condemnation, it is part of the ordinary magisterium, which is infallible by definition. The fact that Guardian Angels exist has not been defined either, yet it would be considered heresy to deny their existence because the Church has always taught they exist. The divinity of Christ was not yet defined at the time Arius denied it, and he was considered a heretic for doing so, before he was ever condemned.

The infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches in 2 ways: Ordinary and Solemn. Vatican 1 confirms Catholics must believe BOTH forms of teaching:

"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

Plenty of other quotes can be provided confirming this.  The quotes I gave in the OP are all ordinary magisterium.
Reply
#4
(07-23-2018, 09:07 PM)pabbie Wrote: I agree with some of what you said here regarding Limbo. However you are also making a serious error at the same time when you say Limbo is not a defined doctrine; it does not NEED to be a defined doctrine for Catholics to believe it, as past popes have confirmed.

Pabbie, we're back to the usual rigmarole here.

No one, especially myself, are questioning or have questioned in your other threads that there is an ordinary magisterium which does bind the faithful. The difficulty is that you both over-extend in one way, and under-extending in another the scope of this ordinary magisterium.

(07-23-2018, 09:07 PM)pabbie Wrote: The quotes I gave in the OP are all ordinary magisterium.

In fact they are not. Most are just theological books, or history books, or encyclopedia which reference the teaching. They do help to support the notion that the teaching is pretty consistent and thus argue for this being the constant teaching and thus ordinary magisterium, but are not proofs in themselves.

The magisterium is the teaching authority which means that those exercising it in a certain way have to have this authority. This is why generally only the constant teaching of the Church, not merely theologians, is the way we can detect what is part of the ordinary magisterium. Thus we look at what bishops, councils and popes have taught in various non-solemn ways. For example, we can say that the prohibition of female ordination before Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was ordinary magisterium, since bishops and Popes taught this and did not teach that women were a possible subject of ordaination.

The support of theologians and other documents is helpful, but not definitive.

The problem with Limbo is that you do have theologians who have denied Limbo, notably even Fathers of the Church, which is one reason, I would suspect, that it has not been defined, if it were able to be defined.

Your mistake is to assert over and over that "it does not need to be defined to be believed", but then thinking that just because you can cite a bunch of quotes therefore it is "what was always taught". On several questions we have discussed, it is simply not the case that the matter in question as been a matter of the universal ordinary magisterium, but rather a common opinion of theologians.

In this latter case, while it would be prideful and temerious of most people, even theologians, to question the matter, that does not mean that it amounts to something that "must be believed".

While various theologians outline the grades of certainty or "Theological Notes" differently, this article outlines them fairly well.

Limbo would fall under number 10 in that list : A common opinion of theologians (in the article called "Very Common").

We have to make those kinds of distinctions in what must be believed, while in now way opening pandoras box and letting everyone believe as they wish.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#5
(07-23-2018, 09:38 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: While various theologians outline the grades of certainty or "Theological Notes" differently, this article outlines them fairly well.

MM, thanks for posting this. I'm definitely bookmarking it.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#6
(07-23-2018, 09:38 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-23-2018, 09:07 PM)pabbie Wrote: I agree with some of what you said here regarding Limbo. However you are also making a serious error at the same time when you say Limbo is not a defined doctrine; it does not NEED to be a defined doctrine for Catholics to believe it, as past popes have confirmed.

Pabbie, we're back to the usual rigmarole here.

No one, especially myself, are questioning or have questioned in your other threads that there is an ordinary magisterium which does bind the faithful. The difficulty is that you both over-extend in one way, and under-extending in another the scope of this ordinary magisterium.

(07-23-2018, 09:07 PM)pabbie Wrote: The quotes I gave in the OP are all ordinary magisterium.

In fact they are not. Most are just theological books, or history books, or encyclopedia which reference the teaching. They do help to support the notion that the teaching is pretty consistent and thus argue for this being the constant teaching and thus ordinary magisterium, but are not proofs in themselves.

The magisterium is the teaching authority which means that those exercising it in a certain way have to have this authority. This is why generally only the constant teaching of the Church, not merely theologians, is the way we can detect what is part of the ordinary magisterium. Thus we look at what bishops, councils and popes have taught in various non-solemn ways. For example, we can say that the prohibition of female ordination before Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was ordinary magisterium, since bishops and Popes taught this and did not teach that women were a possible subject of ordaination.

The support of theologians and other documents is helpful, but not definitive.

The problem with Limbo is that you do have theologians who have denied Limbo, notably even Fathers of the Church, which is one reason, I would suspect, that it has not been defined, if it were able to be defined.

Your mistake is to assert over and over that "it does not need to be defined to be believed", but then thinking that just because you can cite a bunch of quotes therefore it is "what was always taught". On several questions we have discussed, it is simply not the case that the matter in question as been a matter of the universal ordinary magisterium, but rather a common opinion of theologians.

In this latter case, while it would be prideful and temerious of most people, even theologians, to question the matter, that does not mean that it amounts to something that "must be believed".

While various theologians outline the grades of certainty or "Theological Notes" differently, this article outlines them fairly well.

Limbo would fall under number 10 in that list : A common opinion of theologians (in the article called "Very Common").

We have to make those kinds of distinctions in what must be believed, while in now way opening pandoras box and letting everyone believe as they wish.

MM,

What you are doing is creating your own rules on the fly on how the magisterium supposedly works -  you're not even providing proof for what you say! The only thing you had the nerve to use as support just now was an erroneous document by the SSPX. My gosh.
 
What you basically just told me is, yes, the Church has taught Limbo over the centuries, and though I quoted a General Council, a Pope, Denzingers, the Summa, multiple catechisms, the Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic dictionary (all of which have imprimatur), you have come up with excuses for all of them on why, you as a Catholic, are not bound by any of them. Where do we see Catholics acting this way in the history of the Church? Why does the Catholic Church bother to create catechisms if people like yourself can just disregard whatever they want? You have totally lost the concept of how Catholicism works. Next will you tell me that St. Thomas, St. Pope Pius X etc misled the faithful on Limbo in the quotes I posted in the OP?

You keep asking for things that are "infallible". Do you not believe that the Catholic Church doesn't have to solemnly define everything, yet its doctrine is still infallible because it is part of the Deposit of Faith? Baptism wasn't solemnly defined until the 13th century. Why? And does that mean it was just a theological opinion before that time? How about baptism of desire -  never solemnly defined to this day but Father Feeney was condemned as a heretic for denying it.  It was taught all throughout the history of the Church, and there may have even been some people who may have denied it at one time, but it was still part of the ordinary magisterium or they couldn't have convicted Father Feeney of heresy. How is belief in Limbo any different than belief in baptism of desire in that regard?
 
Because you don't understand the magisterium you post error after error. Here is a definition for infallibility from a popular and trusted Catholic book - A Catholic Dictionary. Notice the last sentence of this definition for infallibility INCLUDES catechisms, pastoral letters, preaching, etc.:

This definition of “Infallibility” from “A Catholic Dictionary” explains it in more detail: "This infallibility resides (A) in the pope personally and alone; (B) in an ecumenical Council subject to papal confirmation (these infallibilities are distinct but correlative); © in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope. This is not a different infallibility from (B) but is the ordinary exercise of a prerogative (hence called the "ordinary magisterium") which is manifested in a striking manner in an ecumenical Council. This ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books: it is thus in continuous function and embraces the whole deposit of faith."

Now will you tell me this definition from this trusted Catholic reference is in error also?
Reply
#7
Pabbie,

I'm tempted to say this will be my last reply on this thread, because, as I said before, we're right back to the same thing : we're clearly talking past each other. You're clearly now attributing bad motive to what is an effort to correct your mistaken notions.

It seems a fruitless effort, and one where you're not interested in discussing, but rather just making ipse dixits and pontificating. If that's an incorrect assessment, I'm happy to be corrected and have a discussion.

(07-24-2018, 02:18 AM)pabbie Wrote: What you are doing is creating your own rules on the fly on how the magisterium supposedly works -  you're not even providing proof for what you say! The only thing you had the nerve to use as support just now was an erroneous document by the SSPX. My gosh.

Virtue signaling, noted.

I'm glad you know more than the theologians who wrote that article. It does substantially match any apologetics textbook you will pick up. It matches what Dr Ludwig Ott writes in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (1974: Tan Books, p. 9, "Theological Grades of Certainty"), it matches What Msgr Van Noort writes in his Sources of Revelation (1962: Newman Press, p. 260). Other books of reference are Nicolau Salaverri's Sacrae Theologiae Summa (1952: BAC, 1. 7-8), The Catholic Encyclopedia in the article "Censures: Theological" in which indirectly the grades of certainty are laid out, and Pius IX's Tuas libenter, Dz 1684.

These folks have done a good summary here and here.

If I sorted through the rest of my collection I imagine I can come up with a few dozen references, too, but suspecting that all of this will just be dismissed because you know better, pabbie, I'll do that legwork only if you're willing to discuss and agree that perhaps you don't understand how things work quite as much as you think you do.

(07-24-2018, 02:18 AM)pabbie Wrote: What you basically just told me is, yes, the Church has taught Limbo over the centuries, and though I quoted a General Council, a Pope, Denzingers, the Summa, multiple catechisms, the Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic dictionary (all of which have imprimatur), you have come up with excuses for all of them on why, you as a Catholic, are not bound by any of them. Where do we see Catholics acting this way in the history of the Church? Why does the Catholic Church bother to create catechisms if people like yourself can just disregard whatever they want? You have totally lost the concept of how Catholicism works. Next will you tell me that St. Thomas, St. Pope Pius X etc misled the faithful on Limbo in the quotes I posted in the OP?

Hyperbole much?

We've addressed your "imprimatur" canard before. It doesn't mean much, and doesn't magically make the contents part of the magisterium.

I said that it has been the common teaching of the majority of theologians for a long time, but that at least one major Father, St. Augustine explicitly denies what we would consider as Limbo.

St Augustine holds that children who die without Baptism will be damned, but suffer only "mitissimima poena" — "the lightest of punishments" (Enchiridion ad Laurentium 93 in Migne PL 40, 275). Thus he says they do suffer at least some penalty, which is inconsistent with Limbo which is defined as a place of natural beatitude without suffering, but also without the Beatific Vision.

We know that (thanks to the Council of Carthage, DS 223, and adopted by the Council of Trent, DS 1514) that children who die without Baptism cannot go to heaven, but the question is, since they have no actual sin, only original sin, whether they go to a naturally happy place (Limbo) or to the fires of Hell. St. Augustine says the latter, but only suffering the least punishments. The present common theological opinion says the former.

But if we have such a split among the major theologians. The present and majority opinion is Limbo, but it really is an open question on which those who have the theological tools could take up St. Augustine's opinion and say, no to Limbo, and that the unbaptized are damned.

That the unbaptized certainly go to heaven, as I mentioned is not possible and would be proximate to heresy.

(07-24-2018, 02:18 AM)pabbie Wrote: You keep asking for things that are "infallible".

Re-read. I have not asked for anything infallible.

(07-24-2018, 02:18 AM)pabbie Wrote: Do you not believe that the Catholic Church doesn't have to solemnly define everything, yet its doctrine is still infallible because it is part of the Deposit of Faith?

Yes. Re-read. I said that much in my last reply.

Are you just arguing against what you though I wrote, or are you actually reading what I've written and thoughtfully trying to reply?

(07-24-2018, 02:18 AM)pabbie Wrote: Because you don't understand the magisterium you post error after error. Here is a definition for infallibility from a popular and trusted Catholic book - A Catholic Dictionary. Notice the last sentence of this definition for infallibility INCLUDES catechisms, pastoral letters, preaching, etc.:

This definition of “Infallibility” from “A Catholic Dictionary” explains it in more detail: "This infallibility resides (A) in the pope personally and alone; (B) in an ecumenical Council subject to papal confirmation (these infallibilities are distinct but correlative); © in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope. This is not a different infallibility from (B) but is the ordinary exercise of a prerogative (hence called the "ordinary magisterium") which is manifested in a striking manner in an ecumenical Council. This ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books: it is thus in continuous function and embraces the whole deposit of faith."

Now will you tell me this definition from this trusted Catholic reference is in error also?

Your reference is fine, but it is a non sequitur.

Limbo falls under none of these categories. It is not A, nor B, nor C.

It is the common (but not universal) teaching of theologians. It is supported by the magisterium, especially by the condemnation of the Pistorian errors from Pius VI you mentioned before, but it is not explicitly taught by the magisterium (ordinary or extraordinary).
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#8
(07-24-2018, 03:16 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Pabbie,

I'm tempted to say this will be my last reply on this thread, because, as I said before, we're right back to the same thing : we're clearly talking past each other. You're clearly now attributing bad motive to what is an effort to correct your mistaken notions.

It seems a fruitless effort, and one where you're not interested in discussing, but rather just making ipse dixits and pontificating. If that's an incorrect assessment, I'm happy to be corrected and have a discussion.

(07-24-2018, 02:18 AM)pabbie Wrote: What you are doing is creating your own rules on the fly on how the magisterium supposedly works -  you're not even providing proof for what you say! The only thing you had the nerve to use as support just now was an erroneous document by the SSPX. My gosh.

Virtue signaling, noted.

I'm glad you know more than the theologians who wrote that article. It does substantially match any apologetics textbook you will pick up. It matches what Dr Ludwig Ott writes in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (1974: Tan Books, p. 9, "Theological Grades of Certainty"), it matches What Msgr Van Noort writes in his Sources of Revelation (1962: Newman Press, p. 260). Other books of reference are Nicolau Salaverri's Sacrae Theologiae Summa (1952: BAC, 1. 7-8), The Catholic Encyclopedia in the article "Censures: Theological" in which indirectly the grades of certainty are laid out, and Pius IX's Tuas libenter, Dz 1684.

These folks have done a good summary here and here.

If I sorted through the rest of my collection I imagine I can come up with a few dozen references, too, but suspecting that all of this will just be dismissed because you know better, pabbie, I'll do that legwork only if you're willing to discuss and agree that perhaps you don't understand how things work quite as much as you think you do.

(07-24-2018, 02:18 AM)pabbie Wrote: What you basically just told me is, yes, the Church has taught Limbo over the centuries, and though I quoted a General Council, a Pope, Denzingers, the Summa, multiple catechisms, the Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic dictionary (all of which have imprimatur), you have come up with excuses for all of them on why, you as a Catholic, are not bound by any of them. Where do we see Catholics acting this way in the history of the Church? Why does the Catholic Church bother to create catechisms if people like yourself can just disregard whatever they want? You have totally lost the concept of how Catholicism works. Next will you tell me that St. Thomas, St. Pope Pius X etc misled the faithful on Limbo in the quotes I posted in the OP?

Hyperbole much?

We've addressed your "imprimatur" canard before. It doesn't mean much, and doesn't magically make the contents part of the magisterium.

I said that it has been the common teaching of the majority of theologians for a long time, but that at least one major Father, St. Augustine explicitly denies what we would consider as Limbo.

St Augustine holds that children who die without Baptism will be damned, but suffer only "mitissimima poena" — "the lightest of punishments" (Enchiridion ad Laurentium 93 in Migne PL 40, 275). Thus he says they do suffer at least some penalty, which is inconsistent with Limbo which is defined as a place of natural beatitude without suffering, but also without the Beatific Vision.

We know that (thanks to the Council of Carthage, DS 223, and adopted by the Council of Trent, DS 1514) that children who die without Baptism cannot go to heaven, but the question is, since they have no actual sin, only original sin, whether they go to a naturally happy place (Limbo) or to the fires of Hell. St. Augustine says the latter, but only suffering the least punishments. The present common theological opinion says the former.

But if we have such a split among the major theologians. The present and majority opinion is Limbo, but it really is an open question on which those who have the theological tools could take up St. Augustine's opinion and say, no to Limbo, and that the unbaptized are damned.

That the unbaptized certainly go to heaven, as I mentioned is not possible and would be proximate to heresy.

(07-24-2018, 02:18 AM)pabbie Wrote: You keep asking for things that are "infallible".

Re-read. I have not asked for anything infallible.

(07-24-2018, 02:18 AM)pabbie Wrote: Do you not believe that the Catholic Church doesn't have to solemnly define everything, yet its doctrine is still infallible because it is part of the Deposit of Faith?

Yes. Re-read. I said that much in my last reply.

Are you just arguing against what you though I wrote, or are you actually reading what I've written and thoughtfully trying to reply?

(07-24-2018, 02:18 AM)pabbie Wrote: Because you don't understand the magisterium you post error after error. Here is a definition for infallibility from a popular and trusted Catholic book - A Catholic Dictionary. Notice the last sentence of this definition for infallibility INCLUDES catechisms, pastoral letters, preaching, etc.:

This definition of “Infallibility” from “A Catholic Dictionary” explains it in more detail: "This infallibility resides (A) in the pope personally and alone; (B) in an ecumenical Council subject to papal confirmation (these infallibilities are distinct but correlative); © in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope. This is not a different infallibility from (B) but is the ordinary exercise of a prerogative (hence called the "ordinary magisterium") which is manifested in a striking manner in an ecumenical Council. This ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books: it is thus in continuous function and embraces the whole deposit of faith."

Now will you tell me this definition from this trusted Catholic reference is in error also?

Your reference is fine, but it is a non sequitur.

Limbo falls under none of these categories. It is not A, nor B, nor C.

It is the common (but not universal) teaching of theologians. It is supported by the magisterium, especially by the condemnation of the Pistorian errors from Pius VI you mentioned before, but it is not explicitly taught by the magisterium (ordinary or extraordinary).

MM,

When reading up on Limbo in traditional Catholic books, multiple times I have seen reference to the loss of the beatific vision in Limbo being referred to as punishment. Just like humanity is "punished" with original sin due to the sins of Adam and Eve, infants who die with original sin are punished with loss of the beatific vision for eternity. Otherwise, they are in a state of natural happiness. You are trying to claim St. Augustine believed something different, but he did not.

In my previous post I gave an approved definition for Infallibility which confirms the ordinary magisterium utilizes catechisms and imprimaturs. You dismiss these as untrustworthy and have no grounds to do so. You clearly don't believe in the dogma on the infallibility of the Church, which guarantees the Church cannot teach error. If there were errors in a catechism, this dogma guarantees the magisterium would catch and correct (or condemn) the catechism. You clearly do not believe this and that is why you don't trust catechisms, even those published by popes and Doctors of the Church. You really need to take a close look at what you've been taught!

Regarding your comments on theological opinions, I asked in my last post.... was baptism of desire only considered a theological opinion as of the 1940s when Father Feeney denied it? If so, how then was he condemned as a heretic?

The crux of this subject is obviously that of Benedict XVI. I assume you are aware that he approved publication of the report from the Theological Commission which approves of the possibility of infants dying without baptism can go to heaven? That means the infant could obtain heaven without baptism of water, desire, or blood, which is contrary to every Catholic reference that ever existed.
Reply
#9
(07-24-2018, 11:46 AM)pabbie Wrote: When reading up on Limbo in traditional Catholic books, multiple times I have seen reference to the loss of the beatific vision in Limbo being referred to as punishment. Just like humanity is "punished" with original sin due to the sins of Adam and Eve, infants who die with original sin are punished with loss of the beatific vision for eternity. Otherwise, they are in a state of natural happiness. You are trying to claim St. Augustine believed something different, but he did not.

Punishment follows fault.

The loss of something is only a punishment, properly speaking, if it's loss is due to his own fault. If I drive drunk and thus lose my license, the loss is a punishment because of my crime.

If I don't win the lottery, however, that's hardly a "loss" in a proper way of speaking. I'm not owed a win of the lottery, so there's no injustice in not having it, nor any "punishment" in any meaningful use of the term. Thus is Sanctifying Grace and heaven : it is not owed to us, so its absence is only properly a punishment or pain if its absence is due to a fault.

The loss of Heaven will be the greatest punishment for those who had the chance to be there (all those who had use of reason), but did not go because of their sins. For those who "lose" Heaven, but did nothing to gain or lose it (the unbaptized infant) it will not be a pain, because there will be nothing they have done to lose heaven.

A regards your comment on Original Sin, it is not a "punishment", unless you mean by it the wounds flowing from Original Sin.

Any reputable theologian from far before Benedict XVI and the theological commission question would say that St. Augustine denied Limbo, at least insofar as we understand it as an overstatement against the Pelagians. Would he accept the present common teaching? Probably, but that's not what he wrote, and for a non-theologian as yourself to try to claim that we can read St. Augustine as supporting your view, when that is not what most theolgians would say, should show you that you need to step back from the pontificating.

The imprimatured Catholic Encyclopedia article on Limbo for instance says (emphasis mine) :

Quote:But even before the outbreak of the Pelagian controversy St. Augustine had already abandoned the lenient traditional view, and in the course of the controversy he himself condemned, and persuaded the Council of Carthage (418) to condemn, the substantially identical Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of "an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness" (Denzinger 102). This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state (Of Sin and Merit I.21; Contra Jul. V, 44; etc.). But this Augustinian teaching was an innovation in its day, and the history of subsequent Catholic speculation on this subject is taken up chiefly with the reaction which has ended in a return to the pre-Augustinian tradition.

(07-24-2018, 11:46 AM)pabbie Wrote: In my previous post I gave an approved definition for Infallibility which confirms the ordinary magisterium utilizes catechisms and imprimaturs.

It does not say "imprimaturs," but censorship and it does so in describing point C, which reads that the ordinary magisterium is exercised "in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope."

How is the approval or disapproval of a book by a bishop of priest deputed by a bishop in a single diocese (what an imprimatur is), and example of "the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope"?

(07-24-2018, 11:46 AM)pabbie Wrote: You clearly don't believe in the dogma on the infallibility of the Church, which guarantees the Church cannot teach error.

I accept that dogma, but you seem to accept that any action of a Churchman is necessarily infallible, far overextending the highly limited scope of infallibility. By your own standard whenever a bishop writes, approves or teaches something it's infallible.

We've discussed it before, but if that's the standard you are using, then John XXII was a manifest heretic and lost the Papacy ... except he didn't.

(07-24-2018, 11:46 AM)pabbie Wrote: If there were errors in a catechism, this dogma guarantees the magisterium would catch and correct (or condemn) the catechism. You clearly do not believe this and that is why you don't trust catechisms, even those published by popes and Doctors of the Church. You really need to take a close look at what you've been taught!

I never said I distrusted catechisms or doctors of the Church, but that the imprimatur of a book does not make it magisterial. Again, if that's true the neo-Modernist heretic de Lubac is part of the magisterium, since his erroneous works were imprimatured well before Vatican II.

(07-24-2018, 11:46 AM)pabbie Wrote: Regarding your comments on theological opinions, I asked in my last post.... was baptism of desire only considered a theological opinion as of the 1940s when Father Feeney denied it? If so, how then was he condemned as a heretic?

Baptism of Desire is generally considered theological certain, thus Fr Feeney was condemned for error. He was never declared a heretic. The 1949 Holy Office instruction never mentions heresy, only error.

Feeneyism does quickly lead to heresy, though, because one of the only ways to support it and try to seemingly save Catholic doctrine and Trent is to argue that the Sanctifying Grace in Baptism of Desire is different from that of Sacramental Baptism, which is to deny the salvific effect of Sanctifying Grace, which denies something de fide, and thus is heresy.

(07-24-2018, 11:46 AM)pabbie Wrote: The crux of this subject is obviously that of Benedict XVI. I assume you are aware that he approved publication of the report from the Theological Commission which approves of the possibility of infants dying without baptism can go to heaven? That means the infant could obtain heaven without baptism of water, desire, or blood, which is contrary to every Catholic reference that ever existed.

I'm aware of it and figured you were looking to go down this new rabbit hole towards arguing for Sedevacantism. As in the other threads, however, your argument is full of gaping holes as you're an armchair theologian who is far out of your depth.

That's not meant as an insult, nor to say, "look how much I know", but if I can come up with a Catholic Encyclopedia article in two minutes that contradicts you, I think you've probably not done your homework or sufficient study to be making such declarations as you have here.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#10
(07-24-2018, 04:38 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
Quote:But even before the outbreak of the Pelagian controversy St. Augustine had already abandoned the lenient traditional view, and in the course of the controversy he himself condemned, and persuaded the Council of Carthage (418) to condemn, the substantially identical Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of "an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness" (Denzinger 102). This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state (Of Sin and Merit I.21; Contra Jul. V, 44; etc.). But this Augustinian teaching was an innovation in its day, and the history of subsequent Catholic speculation on this subject is taken up chiefly with the reaction which has ended in a return to the pre-Augustinian tradition.

I know I'm taking this off on a tangent, but wouldn't this be evidence that the Church implicitly teaches it is better to not exist at all than to exist in hell?
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)