Limbo And Extra Ecclesiam

[dairygirl4u2c]

many people here probably know one of my biggest beefs with the CC is the possible, and apparently probable, contradiction of, extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

i have another beef that's been solidifying. i thought i'd get your thoughts on it before it solidifies too much. i have a hard time believing that limbo was just the church using its noninfallible magisterium, when this is what it taught:

[quote]“Babies dead without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having original sin alone, they do not deserve paradise, but neither do they merit hell or purgatory.” ~1905 Catechism of Pope Pius X,

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” - Condemned

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 102, authentic addition to canon 2.)

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 464)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:

“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 the 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” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1526)

Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic… But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

St. Augustine, A.D. 415: “Anyone who would say that infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)[/quote]

or, if the church was infallibly propsing this stuff... i do concede that it's not clear that limbo has been done away with now and so no contradiction, but why won't someone concede that it's a legit teaching of the church? won't someone concede at least that the noninfallible magisterium is now teaching in contradiction to the infallible magisterium of before?

btw, i am aware that the rhetoric answer without regard to these quotes etc is that limbo has never been defined, and now it's open for interpretation as to whether it's true or not.

[CatherineM]

The babies have been released from Limbo. I remember reading something about a change not to long ago, but am too bored to look it up.

[Aloysius]

I am a believer in limbo, which I believe to be on the edge of hell/the abode of the dead, and is a place of waiting for the Second Coming of Christ the way the limbus patrium was a place of waiting for the First Coming of Christ (the Bosom of Abraham, or limbo of the Fathers, which is definitively taught to have existed before Christ by the Church)... and I hold that it might be possible that in the end Christ coming in glory might go to the limbus infantium and release those who were in waiting giving them the choice to either reject or accept Him there... the same way the Harrowing of Hell was done in the First Coming of Christ. The big news hype about limbo being done away with is just that, news hype. The document which was released clearly says that limbo is still a legitimate theological theory which any Catholic is free to hold, it simply proposes a different theory as equally possible. the media is really stupid when it comes to Vatican affairs. especially when it took poetic license and started saying things like Rome was freeing the babies from limbo

[quote]“Babies dead without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having original sin alone, they do not deserve paradise, but neither do they merit hell or purgatory.” ~1905 Catechism of Pope Pius X,[/quote]
Catechisms are not necessarily infallible... the CCC can be referred to for infallible teachings only by virtue of its infallible sources when it is quoting them or citing them... same with any catechism.

[quote]Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” - Condemned[/quote]
Yes, this statement is to be held as condemned.... you cannot call those who believe children of the faithful who die without baptism will not be saved stupid or presumptuous... the Vatican even into the present day calls this a legitimate theory and no Catholic has the right to call it a stupid or presumptuous theory or belief.

[quote]Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 102, authentic addition to canon 2.)[/quote]
this means that there is not some special place in heaven for those who died in original sin... because some would take the many mansions quote to mean that there might be a special place in heaven for them which is like a middle place. no, if you're in heaven you are in the Beatific Vision... the idea of limbo would be the edge of hell... this requires that if anyone believes in limbo, they cannot hold it as being the edge of heaven but would have to hold it as the edge of hell/abode of the dead.

[quote]Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)[/quote]
such quotes that specify that baptism is necessary to get into heaven are handled by the fact that modern theories hold that the effects of baptism might be applied to such infants... that is why the theological theory that unbaptized infants might go to heaven is a legitimate theological theory that can be held.

[quote]Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 464)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)[/quote]
again, the current legitimate theory is that it is possible for the effects of baptism to be applied to the dying baby by an extra-ordinary act of God's mercy, so such a baby would not die in original sin alone.


[quote]Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:

“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 the 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” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1526)[/quote]
now this doesn't speak solely of infants... so again, there is a legitimate theory that the babies might have baptism applied to them and thus not die in original sin alone.

[quote]Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic… But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)[/quote]
clearly not a definitive doctrinal thing... "seem to me to want to quash baptism itself"... again, the theory that baptism is applied to such a baby stands without being contradictory to this statement, which is not infallible by any means as it's clearly making a personal theological position.

[quote]St. Augustine, A.D. 415: “Anyone who would say that infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)[/quote]
I agree with Augustine, but again, the Church holds there to be a legitimate theological opinion that says that baptism is applied to the babies by some extra-ordinary means.

[Altari]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1521806' date='May 7 2008, 09:36 PM']The babies have been released from Limbo. I remember reading something about a change not to long ago, but am too bored to look it up.[/quote]
Huh? Who released them?

I never understood the concept of Limbo. Do babies float around on little marshmallow clouds? It always sounded very sad...

[Aloysius]

the Vatican released a document which definitively stated that limbo was no longer the theological theory backed by Rome (it hadn't been for a long time, this document just specified the details of the current theological theory Rome backs) but stated that limbo was still a legitimate theological theory. anyhoo... the stupid media got in a big hoopla about how the Vatican had now released the babies from limbo... a way of ridiculing them and in part insinuating that other teachings could be done away with like purgatory... or women priests lol

the concept of limbo is that a person does not deserve active damnation based upon personal sins which they are culpable for, but also are not able to enter heaven due to the effects of original sin. "Limbo" means "edge" and refers to the "edge of hell" or the "edge of the abode of the dead" (as opposed to the hell of the damned, the abode of the dead refers to all areas where those who have died are still subjected to death rather than participating in the victory over death won by Christ, not necessarily only those who are actively punished, though most people consider the abode of the dead to only consist of the hell of the damned in the post-Christ era (in Old Testament times we know that the abode of the dead also included a non-eternal place of waiting))

in limbo, the only punishment is the separation from the beatific vision. in the hell of the damned, there are additional punishments for the actual sins you have committed. the terminology used by the scholastics was that those in limbo were able to achieve "perfect natural happiness"... ie as happy as a human can naturally be without the supernatural happiness given by God. Eastern theology definitely rejects the idea of perfect natural happiness holding that all happiness comes from God. I am not convinced that there is a total absence of God's presence in limbo, there is only an absence of the direct beatific vision; but I hold that God's presence in limbo is similar to his presence on earth currently... or actually, more like His presence on earth prior to the coming of Christ. so as happy as you could be on earth (except for the experience of the Eucharist or any other such Christian supernatural happiness), you could be in limbo. of course in heaven happiness infinitely supersedes any possible happiness you could have on earth or limbo.

the limbo of the fathers was a place of waiting for the First Coming of Christ for those who were unable to enter heaven due to original sin but who did not merit hell. it is possible, in my opinion and in the opinion of a very minute minority of limbo-believing theologians, that the current limbo is a place of waiting for the Second Coming of Christ.

[Altari]

Thank you for your highly informative post (even though I'm more confused).

To dairygirl, to what religious sect do you subscribe?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i am a former catholic. i am a christian, non-denominational i guess. not fundamentalist, in fact anti-fundamentalist. not a stereotypical christian.
i am open minded about many things, while trying not to be so open minded that my brains have fallen out.

[quote]QUOTE
Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 464)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

again, the current legitimate theory is that it is possible for the effects of baptism to be applied to the dying baby by an extra-ordinary act of God's mercy, so such a baby would not die in original sin alone.[/quote]

how can you say that the current theory is that it's okay to believe or to not believe in limbo? now, the quote i provided might not be ex cathedra even though it says it is, but it does say it is... and it does say "define" and other definitive language. so?

also... another troubling, but passing problem addition to EENS and limbo... is the "pope is God" stuff from history. i tend to not put much weight on it, cause it's so brief, but it's interesting and curious.

i'm reminded of the modern idea that God is not bound by his sacraments... they are only the normative and proper means of salvation. it seems like that'd be a way of getting around what was said before. sacraments are necessary. this is just an example. i can see how they'd be proper and necessary, but not really. i'm just making an observation.
i do note this is all about salvation, which if the CC were true, I'm sure God would have teachings similar to what they teach now about things heng normative and proper.

Edited May 8, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

my point is that the current acceptable theory proposes that baptism IS applied to such babies and as such they qualify as those who can enter baptism because they are baptized out of original sin.

the "pope is God" stuff is garbage that I have still not seen a substantiated source cited from I'll look into its context if you can provide me a substantiated source...

[CatherineM]

As someone who has suffered a miscarriage, I obviously don't like the idea of Limbo, and prefer to think that an unbaptized baby would have a baptism of desire, and be waiting in heaven.

[Aloysius]

and that is a perfectly legitimate belief according to the Vatican's most recent statement.

I would suggest that a possible equally comforting belief is the idea that limbo is a place of perfect natural happiness where one waits for Christ to come in the second coming and offer salvation. this would mean that the baby's salvation is only as undetermined as if that baby had been born and lived in the world now.

see, I just can't see a free-pass on original sin being given just because one dies before the chance at baptism... I personally see it as more likely that they await the Second Coming of Christ with no punishments when they will have a chance with a second Harrowing of Hell to choose Christ or not. perhaps, as at the second coming all those in heaven will be resurrected body and soul, the parents of such children would participate in such a harrowing of hell.

[Altari]

Thanks for the clarification, dairygirl. I agree on the problem of seemingly conflicting teachings. I've had many Catholic friends attempt to explain it, but it's a dynamic that I simply can't wrap my mind around.

Original sin is an interesting concept. As our theology taught, until a time of accountability, individuals had a form of [i]de facto[/i] cleansing of original sin through Christ's sacrifice. He wiped the slate clean for all, and we need only seek his forgiveness in sin that we consciously committed.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1521729' date='May 7 2008, 07:31 PM']many people here probably know one of my biggest beefs with the CC is the possible, and apparently probable, contradiction of, extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

i have another beef that's been solidifying. i thought i'd get your thoughts on it before it solidifies too much. i have a hard time believing that limbo was just the church using its noninfallible magisterium, when this is what it taught:
or, if the church was infallibly propsing this stuff... i do concede that it's not clear that limbo has been done away with now and so no contradiction, but why won't someone concede that it's a legit teaching of the church? won't someone concede at least that the noninfallible magisterium is now teaching in contradiction to the infallible magisterium of before?

btw, i am aware that the rhetoric answer without regard to these quotes etc is that limbo has never been defined, and now it's open for interpretation as to whether it's true or not.[/quote]

For what its worth, I know we've had our disagreements, but I do believe that the concept of Limbo is an infallible teaching to a certain extent in that it is a de fide teaching that people who die with original sin on their soul are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God, but some extraordinary ways of washing away the original sin is admitted as theoretically possible. I believe limbo is a part of hell, but where there is no physical suffering apart from the loss of the Beatific Vision. An infant who dies before being normally baptised can possibly obtain an extra-ordinary baptism of sorts, but if (s)he does not then (s)he cannot obtain the Beatific Vision of heaven:

"[b]25. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. ([i]De Fide[/i].)[/b]

The 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-45) declared: illorum animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato vel solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas (the souls of those who die in original sin as well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell, but their punishment is very different). D 464, 693.

The dogma is supported by the words of Our Lord: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God" (John 3, 5)

The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism by blood of the children of Bethlehem). Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire--Cajetan) or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire--H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering--H. Schell), are indeed, possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. Cf. D 712

In the punishment of Hell theologians distinguish between the "poena damni," which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific Vision of God, and the "poena sensus" which is caused by external means, and which will be felt by the senses even after the resurrection of the body. While St. Augustine and many Latin Fathers are of the opinion that children dying in original sin must suffer "poena sensus" also, even if only a very mild one (mitissima omnium poena: Enchir. 93), the Greek Fathers (for example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 40, 23), and the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that they suffer "poena damni" only. The declaration of Pope Innocent III, is in favour of this teaching: Poena originalis peccati est carentia visionis Dei (= poena sensus). D 410. A condition of natural bliss is compatible with "poena damni." Cf. St. Thomas, De malo, 5, 3; Sent. II d. 33 q. 2a. 2.

Theologians generally assume that there is a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerum (children's Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia. D 1526.

Edited May 8, 2008 by goldenchild17

[Aloysius]

that is not Catholic theology. Catholic theology teaches that we need baptism to be cleansed of original sin, baptism is what applies Christ's sacrifice. it is possible to believe that some who die before baptism have it applied to them, though.

[Altari]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1522034' date='May 8 2008, 12:48 AM']that is not Catholic theology. Catholic theology teaches that we need baptism to be cleansed of original sin, baptism is what applies Christ's sacrifice. it is possible to believe that some who die before baptism have it applied to them, though.[/quote]
No it's not. I think that's why many Protestants have a hard time wrapping their mind around CC theology. Christ came to remove our eternal punishment for sin. Only those who have brought sin upon themselves must seek forgiveness. A child, who has brought no sin on themselves, is no longer bound by "original sin" through their lineage, as Christ's death has freed them. To think that children, who were held in such esteem by Christ himself, would be subjected to the torments of Hell for failing to be baptized (an action that, in Christ's time, was taken by one's own free will) is unfathomable from a loving God.

[goldenchild17]

Also:

From the Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology (Parente, et al. tranl. by Doronzo, Bruce, 1952. pp. 164,165)

"limbo (Lat. limbus—border, hem of a garment). According to the present teaching of the Church, it is a place adjoining hell, where the just who died in the grace of God before Christianity dwelled until they were liberated by Christ, and where babies who die without baptism dwell and remain forever.

Holy Scripture speaks of Abraham’s bosom as sojourn of the just (Luke 16:22), but not of a place for babies who died without baptism. Tradition begins, especially with the Greek Fathers, to differentiate between adults who die in personal sin and infants who die with only original sin, who cannot enter the heaven of the blessed and yet cannot share the fate of the damned in hell. In reacting against Pelagianism, which denied the transmission of original sin and its consequences, St. Augustine, endeavoring to defend this truth, held that babies who die without baptism will be subjected to the pain of fire, albeit very slight, on account of original sin. This opinion later on influenced some theologians, but did not hinder the course of the other more correct and more benign opinion, according to which babies who die without baptism will suffer only privation of the beatific vision. This opinion was defended and developed by St. Thomas, and from then on prevailed in the schools. We find it in a letter of Innocent III to the archbishop of Arles, and in the Constitution Auctorem fidei with which Pius VI condemned the Synod of Pistoia (DB, 1526).

The babies in limbo will not enjoy the vision of God, but will not be unhappy on this score, since the beatific vision is a supernatural good of which they have no knowledge. Some theologians (Billot) think that limbo is the eternal residence not only of babies and abnormal adults who did not have the use of reason, but also of certain classes of men of low- grade civilization, who are comparable to babies in the lack of development of moral consciousness.

A strange opinion has recently gained favor in the theologies of Protestants and Orthodox Schismatics who, by abusive interpretation of some gospel expressions (Matt. 12:32; 1 Pet. 3:18; 4:6), hold that all pagans are evangelized in limbo after their death and given the possibility of conversion and salvation. This opinion is critically untenable.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ST. THOMAS, Summa Theol., III, Suppl., q. 69, a. 4—7; Quaest. Disp. De Malo, q. 5. BILLOT, several articles published in Etudes (1920—1922). CAPERAN, Le probléme du salut des infidèles (Toulouse, 1934). GAUDEL, “Limbes,” DTC. TONER, “Limbo,” CE. See under descent of Christ into hell."