Do you believe in Infant's Limbo?

[MichaelFilo]

I would say that the words of Florence and Lyons, which stress the "descend immediatly into hell", would really leave little room for questioning of any extra-sacramental salvation, as the souls are said definitivly to descend immediatly into hell.. which really means just that.

At any rate, if limbo is meant as a place of no fire, simply seperation from God, then it is actually tought by a pope. Now, if someone means limbo as in a place seperate from hell, then I say, no council or saint, or pope has mentioned the idea ever before.

God bless,
Mikey

[Era Might]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='954453' date='Apr 19 2006, 08:47 PM']
I would say that the words of Florence and Lyons, which stress the "descend immediatly into hell", would really leave little room for questioning of any extra-sacramental salvation, as the souls are said definitivly to descend immediatly into hell.. which really means just that.

At any rate, if limbo is meant as a place of no fire, simply seperation from God, then it is actually tought by a pope. Now, if someone means limbo as in a place seperate from hell, then I say, no council or saint, or pope has mentioned the idea ever before.

God bless,
Mikey
[/quote]

The words of Florence have nothing to do with whether or not God employs extra-Sacramental grace for the salvation of souls. "Descend immediately into hell" just means that those who die in original sin cannot go to Heaven. This is obvious. It doesn't say "Unbaptized babies die in original sin" or "Unbaptized babies descend immediately into hell". The Church doesn't know either way, and in fact, she explicitly leaves the question open, and prays that the mercy of God will be enough for innocent children who die without baptism.

All Florence establishes is that original sin closes the door to Heaven. This was always the case, and still is. We can't know who dies in original sin. All we can know is who dies unbaptized, which is why the Church stresses the importance of Baptism. It is the only means God has given her.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Era Might

[Apotheoun]

Not everything said by a council is an infallible dogma.

For example the Council of Florence -- in its decree of union with the Armenians -- declared that the Sacrament of Orders is conferred in the Latin Church by the handing over of the [i]instruments[/i] (e.g., in the case of a priest the presentation of the chalice and the paten). Now prior to 1947 many Catholic theologians mistakenly thought that this Florentine decree was an infallible pronouncement of the Magisterium, but Pope Pius XII in his Apostolic Constitution [u]Sacramentum Ordinis[/u] repudiated that idea, and in its place he taught that the Sacrament of Orders is conferred by the laying on of hands and the prayer of consecration to the proper rank of the ministry (i.e., to the episcopate, presbyterate, or diaconate).

Thus, since the Magisterium has indicated recently (i.e., over last few decades) that the concept of [i]Limbus Puerorum[/i] is merely a theologumenon, it follows that it is improper for the Catholic faithful to insist that it is a dogma.

[MichaelFilo]

If you mean that it is possible to go to a placein hell in which there is no suffering for positive sins (the fire), but suffering for unrepentance and unregeneration (seperation from God), then this place surely exists, for there are some who have died unregenerate but without any personal sin, and to that place (limbo), is nothing more than a part of hell then surely you and I are talking about differing thing Apotheun. But, when you mean the idea of a 3rd state, removed from hell, then yes, it's a silly notion that I too disagree with. However, the moral decree on where souls go of the unbaptized, not just in Florence but in Lyons II, are binding on all Catholics, regardless of tradition or Rite. There is, as I see it, little room to spirit away the harsh but true decrees of both Councils in any case.

But i must conceed (although I did already, I believe) that a 3rd state is hardly defendable as dogma.

God bless,
Mikey

[jasJis]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='954498' date='Apr 19 2006, 07:17 PM']
If you mean that it is possible to go to a placein hell in which there is no suffering for positive sins (the fire), but suffering for unrepentance and unregeneration (seperation from God), then this place surely exists, for there are some who have died unregenerate but without any personal sin, and to that place (limbo), is nothing more than a part of hell then surely you and I are talking about differing thing Apotheun. But, when you mean the idea of a 3rd state, removed from hell, then yes, it's a silly notion that I too disagree with. However, the moral decree on where souls go of the unbaptized, not just in Florence but in Lyons II, are binding on all Catholics, regardless of tradition or Rite. There is, as I see it, little room to spirit away the harsh but true decrees of both Councils in any case.

But i must conceed (although I did already, I believe) that a 3rd state is hardly defendable as dogma.

God bless,
Mikey
[/quote]Mike,
Since not all decrees from a Council are infallible, so it's not like it's a definition provided by God. One doesn't have to look far to see how Church Fathers and Dr. of the Church have had differing opinions on a number of things.

[Apotheoun]

Your views reflect a limited Augustinian understanding of the nature of original sin and salvation, and represent a viewpoint that the Church has distanced itself from in the new Catechism. Original sin is not sin in the proper sense of the term, it is a state or condition, and not an act. You also seem to have an Augustinian view of grace, which again is merely one position among many that can be held within the Catholic Church.

That being said, I remember now why I stopped posting here at Phatmass at the end of last year, the constant tendency to equate being Catholic with being Latin is offensive to say the least.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='954522' date='Apr 19 2006, 07:32 PM']
Your views reflect a limited Augustinian understanding of the nature of original sin and salvation, and represent a viewpoint that the Church has distanced itself from in the new Catechism. Original sin is not sin in the proper sense of the term, it is a state or condition, and not an act. You also seem to have an Augustinian view of grace, which again is merely one position among many that can be held within the Catholic Church.

That being said, I remember now why I stopped posting here at Phatmass at the end of last year, the constant tendency to equate being Catholic with being Latin is offensive to say the least.
[/quote]It isn't the tendency to be 'Latin', but the tendency to believe there is One Set Way to be Catholic. Catholic is a rigid framework, not an unchangeble and completed structure

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='954522' date='Apr 19 2006, 08:32 PM']
Your views reflect a limited Augustinian understanding of the nature of original sin and salvation, and represent a viewpoint that the Church has distanced itself from in the new Catechism. Original sin is not sin in the proper sense of the term, it is a state or condition, and not an act. You also seem to have an Augustinian view of grace, which again is merely one position among many that can be held within the Catholic Church.

That being said, I remember now why I stopped posting here at Phatmass at the end of last year, the constant tendency to equate being Catholic with being Latin is offensive to say the least.
[/quote]

I will have you know I love being Latin. : I won't give it up for the world!

However, I do agree that most Latins are very narrow-minded for the most part.

Good story you reminded me of:

One day I went into my parish bookstore and asked if there were any books on Eastern Catholicism. "Nope, sorry, I'm afraid we don't have any." "Oh, that's all right...do you know if you have any books specifically on Latin Catholicism?" "No, I don't think we have any of those either."

Since it's a parish in the Roman Rite, what are their books then, heretical?

Oh, and Todd, don't leave! I like your Eastern-ness!

[Peccator]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='954522' date='Apr 20 2006, 03:32 AM']
Your views reflect a limited Augustinian understanding of the nature of original sin and salvation, and represent a viewpoint that the Church has distanced itself from in the new Catechism. Original sin is not sin in the proper sense of the term, it is a state or condition, and not an act. You also seem to have an Augustinian view of grace, which again is merely one position among many that can be held within the Catholic Church.

That being said, I remember now why I stopped posting here at Phatmass at the end of last year, the constant tendency to equate being Catholic with being Latin is offensive to say the least.
[/quote]I tend to agree with you here. There are more than + - 30 rites within the umbrella of the Catholic Church, not one being superior to the other - yet sometimes people tend to forget that!

Having said that, all I can add is - Don't Leave! You have to educate the lot here(and me because I really love the Eastern Liturgy) on the Eastern Rite.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='953778' date='Apr 19 2006, 07:52 AM']
Jeff,

Limbo does not offer the same punishment for infants with no actual sin and only original sin. An infant with no personal actual sin is not actively punished by God. Anyone with personal actual sin preventing them from going to heaven is actively punished (i.e. "hellfire"). I would argue that limbo does not contradict God's mercy or justice.
[/quote]


Al, if you go back and read my post I explicitly say that one of the pros of limbo is that it [i]does[/i] reconcile God's Mercy with His Justice. The objections raised against it are altogether different.




Also, Todd is correct: simply because Florence taught something doesnt mean that it is dogmatically defined. Moreover, even if the decrees of Florence and Lyons [i]were[/i] dogmatically defined, it does not preclude salvation for the unborn, it would simply mean that we must formulate our position more carefully. Namely, we would have to say that [i]if[/i] God desires that unbaptized infants receive the Beatific Vision, then God provides an extraordinary means of baptism [i]at the moment of their death[/i]. Thus, the infant would not die with original sin on his or her soul.

I still maintain, however, that we do not, and perhaps cannot, know the fate of such children for certain, and so the proper response is to make no dogmatic statement, but rather, to hope in the mercy of God.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

Edited April 20, 2006 by JeffCR07

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='954522' date='Apr 19 2006, 09:32 PM']

That being said, I remember now why I stopped posting here at Phatmass at the end of last year, the constant tendency to equate being Catholic with being Latin is offensive to say the least.
[/quote]
don't be offended! Most people are Latins over in this hemisphere, and it's only natural for us to equate the Latin Rite with Catholicism. You're too smart to let that get to you.

[MichaelFilo]

I would have to agree that simply because a council says something, we cannot mean it to be dogmatic (however, does Vatican I agree? Anyone know; namely Cam?). Regardless, let us look at the traits of the Council and what is said, and furthermore, the circumstance and the placement of the decree (Excuse any typos, I'm not completly concentrating):


The big issue of the Council was getting the Greeks and Latins together (at least this was one of the issues), namely to define and resolve certain doctrinal issues among other things, such as the schism, the people from the council of Basel who sought to create some disturbance among the the council of Florence (which actually started outside of Florence, but had to be moved due to the plague in the original city).

IT should be noted that 2 things were present here that would make it binding on the Church.. the first, (and less important, but certainly important) was the fact that the empoeror of the Greeks was there, and the Patriarch of Constantinople. These two figures were there to represent the East (for those who clamor that this is a Latin thing, this most certainly is not). In the words of the Pope

"For behold, the western and eastern peoples, who have been separated for long, hasten to enter into a pact of harmony and unity; and those who were justly distressed at the long dissension that kept them apart, at last after many centuries, under the impulse of him from whom every good gift comes, meet together in person in this place out of desire for holy union."

Also, the Pope declared this to be a council for the universal Church.

"Therefore we decree and declare, in every way and form as best we can, with the assent of the said emperor and patriarch and of all those in the present synod, that there exists a holy universal or ecumenical synod in this city of Ferrara" in which Ferrara was the original city that was hit by the plague and moved to Florence. The next session addresses this.

After the session declaring the change, they meet up again to define truths within the Church, as you will note, each is a proclamation of the Church, that can be heard throughout the ages. The first is a discource on the Latin claim that the Spirit comes forth from the Father and the Son, and the Greek claim that the Spirit comes forth from the Father. The decleration starts with these (authoratative) words:

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it".

After the proclamation of which is more appropriate (really neither is innappropriate, because the difference is a difference in applying a certain trait that is.. all things come from the Father (Greek understanding), and that the Trinity is One (Latin understanding). Neither is wrong, but the Latin is used henceforth, since it can include both understandings.

Afterwards, the proclamation that the Lord's Body is confected in both leavened and unleavened bread and that the East and West ought to stick to their own respective tradition, as both are valid substances. Then, a proclamation on the reality of Purgatory, and the true aid that is given to the souls who, while in purgatory when masses are offered up for them, and good deeds are done for their quick enterance into heaven.

Right after that, this is proclaimed

"Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."

Then a proclamation on the primacy of the Pope.

Now, we must ask whether the intent was to define an actual doctrine. We can either be protestants about this, and treat it like Mathew 16:18, which says Jesus rebukes Peter when he calls him a small stone, in the middle of 2 praises (the Spirit has revealed this unto you... the keys to the gates of heaven). Or we can be Catholic about this and realize that it would make sense that in between two praises would be a praise, calling Peter the rock on which the Church is built. The same here, we could say that what is being defined isn't a decree on our Faith, in the middle of decrees that have long been proclaimed (and in effect pick and choose our Truth, just as the Protestants pick through their truncated Bibles), or we can admit that the Council was continuing in the decrees for the Universal Church (East and West).



Now, whether we can say this is really a decree that says children will not go to heaven lest they be baptized, or that there maybe room for some other hope, then I would like to ask this one question, would the Church define something without reason (the Church rarely defines ANYTHING, I would suspect that when the Spirit moves Her, it is with some purpose)? You see, I ask this, because the Council decreed that the soul desceneds immediatly into hell.. immediatly. To suggest that God uses baptisms of desire to save a child would make that comment meaningless.. because then Church's proclamation on the eternal life of the unbaptized becomes entirely misleading. Why would the Spirit move them to say something like "descends immediatly into hell". Our hope in God's Mercy is this, that we are not all sent to the eternal fire, and that even in our undeserved nature, God may save us from the worst pains (the fire, as opposed to simple seperation). Remember, God chose the punishments that He deemed appropriate, and they are truly more justice than we deserve.

At any rate, Limbo then is that level of hell which knows no suffering for actual sins, but simply is the place of the unregenerate (as far as the East goes, you know very well Todd that while it is not seen as a mark on the soul (nor does the West endorse this view) it is still a state of soul lacking Grace, which is neccessary to enter into heaven.

God bless,
Mikey

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='955541' date='Apr 20 2006, 05:34 PM']
[. . .]

At any rate, Limbo then is that level of hell which knows no suffering for actual sins, but simply is the place of the unregenerate (as far as the East goes, you know very well Todd that while it is not seen as a mark on the soul (nor does the West endorse this view) it is still a state of soul lacking Grace, which is neccessary to enter into heaven.

God bless,
Mikey
[/quote]
Nevertheless, [i]Limbus Puerorum[/i] remains a theologumenon of the Latin Church, and so no one is required to believe in it. Unless of course you want to accuse the present day Magisterium of the heresy of denying a dogma.

Blessings to you,
Todd

[MichaelFilo]

Of course not, a third state, seperate from heaven and hell is hardly worthy of belief, and is a novelty. But when it is understood as a simple title for a level of hell, then it can hardly be condemned by anyone. ("A rose by any other name, does it not smell as sweet" or something to that effect). At any rate, the limbo I understand, which maybe different from what others understand it as, (because of the ambiguity of the doctrine and that certain proponents have described it differently, ie. some as a level of hell others as a 3rd state) is nothing more than the level of hell at which no suffering by fire takes place, only seperation from the Lord.

God bless,
Mikey

[Guest JeffCR07]

Your position that one can be "seperated from the Lord" but without suffering makes me extremely uncomfortable. God is all Good, and without Him there is no Good for us to have. Seperation from God in any degree is a form of suffering, and seperation from God in the degree that constitutes Hell seems to me to be a privation of almost all goods. The assertion that there is some "part" of Hell (seperation from God) in which one attains "natural happiness" is an extremely tenuous position, given that natural happiness implies a degree of communion with God.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[qfnol31]

Mikey,

Vatican I never got around to councils I believe and that's one of the things Vatican II was supposed to address and finish up.

[KnightofChrist]

Limbo does not exist. Nor did it ever exist. The Church has not and does not teach it as truth, there for it is not truth... If it was truth it would have always been taught as such... it has not... again there for it is not truth... limbo was always and most likey always will be theological speculation and nothing more...

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Limbo does not exist. Nor did it ever exist. The Church has not and does not teach it as truth, there for it is not truth... If it was truth it would have always been taught as such... it has not... again there for it is not truth... limbo was always and most likey always will be theological speculation and nothing more...[/quote]

The Belief that Limbo of the Fathers used to exist is dogma, and if you deny that Limbo of the Fathers once existed then you are a heretic.

[qfnol31]

Limbus Patrium is still believed by Catholics, though it no longer exists itself.

Also, StThomasMore, please don't forget to distinguish material and formal heresy. Calling someone a heretic is saying the latter, which is not good...Most people on the SSPX side of things have stepped into a neo-moral theology that's definitely New Natural Law Theory side of things.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='956875' date='Apr 21 2006, 11:00 PM']
The Belief that Limbo of the Fathers used to exist is dogma, and if you deny that Limbo of the Fathers once existed then you are a heretic.
[/quote]


Used to exist? Once existed? Truth does not "used to" or "once existed"... and Limbo is not a Dogma of Holy Mother Church... there for Limbo is not truth... it does not exist... and I'm not a heretic, Brother.

Edited April 22, 2006 by KnightofChrist