I found this on another Catholic forum:

[Ziggamafu]

Pope St. Innocent, 414: “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, [b]is quite idiotic[/b].” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, [b]ex cathedra[/b]: “We [i]define [/i]also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, [i]or in original sin alone[/i], 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. 1596)

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.”- [b]Condemned[/b] (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 422.)

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.” (Denzinger 102, authentic addition to Can. 2.)


It seems there is a problem on both ends of anyone's response to this. On the one hand, if these quotes are rejected as not having binding authority, a whole lot of quotes used elsewhere for the defense of conservative or "orthodox" Catholicism are open to the same treatment. On the other hand, if they are accepted, limbo must be accepted.

What do you think?

[Era Might]

The Holy Father does not believe in Limbo, and in fact, would personally like to see it dropped as a theological hypothesis. His understanding of Catholic doctrine is sufficient for me.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 5 2006, 09:46 AM']The Holy Father does not believe in Limbo, and in fact, would personally like to see it dropped as a theological hypothesis. His understanding of Catholic doctrine is sufficient for me.
[right][snapback]846689[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

None the less, I believe interesting points have been brougt up with the quotes. Not being a scholar myself, here are my thoughts;

1. is this spoken with infaillibility?

2. What is the meaning intended behingd 'original sin alone'?

3. There seems to be missing info to reach the conclusion. Is this quote part of a list? What is this list trying to demonstrate?

4. Need to verify the context behind this one. I find it very surprising that a council would draw a conclusion of stupidity towards people who hold a certain belief. I would dig deeper into this quote before using it myself anywhere else.

5. [quote]without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, [/quote] This quote seems pretty straight forward to me but I have a lot of trouble accepting it. This tells me that it is not possible to go to heaven without receiving a baptism which I do believe is incorrect. (how many billions of people have never been baptised in the world today?)
After that, the passage refers to a specific verse of the bible, and I don't believe it aims to draw a general conclusion. Maybe the intent is not to supercede a different conclusion from the verse? It simply states not ot believe this from reading this; it does not states that belive this is wrong, and leaves open (logically) to believe anything else from reading this. What it rejects is linking the two.

[shortnun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 5 2006, 10:46 AM']The Holy Father does not believe in Limbo, and in fact, would personally like to see it dropped as a theological hypothesis.
[right][snapback]846689[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
AMEN!

[Matty_boy]

Double Amen!

I've only been able to find opinions by different popes, but never doctrine.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

First step is to look them up. Sometimes you find out that the quotes are out of context or were made up entirely.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]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]

This is what the The Catholic Encyclopedia says about this quote;


[quote]Finally, in regard to the teaching of the Council of Florence, it is incredible that the Fathers there assembled had any intention of defining a question so remote from the issue on which reunion with the Greeks depended, and one which was recognized at the time as being open to free discussion and continued to be so regarded by theologians for several centuries afterwards. What the council evidently intended to deny in the passage alleged was the postponement of final awards until the day of judgement. Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty. 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.
[/quote]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm[/url]

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]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.” (Denzinger 102, authentic addition to Can. 2.)[/quote]

The following is from The Catholic Encyclopedia;

[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 (De peccat. meritis I, xxi; Contra Jul. V, 44; etc.). [b]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[/b].[/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm[/url]

Edited January 6, 2006 by Cure of Ars

[qfnol31]

Not infallibly defined and not upheld by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

There have been no councils on it, no [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] statements (only the two!) and no Bishop can decide on what Limbo is, much less them all hold it up.

I still like to believe in it though.

[Guest JeffCR07]

A few further points:

It is not possible to enter into the kingdom of heaven without baptism, when baptism is understood as that Grace by which we are united with the Mystical Body of Christ, this much [i]is[/i] infallible.

Thus, we believe in One Baptism, that may manifest itself through water (normative) or through Blood or Desire (extraordinary). It is evident that none of these apply to children, however, that does not mean that there does not exist some fourth means by which God unites them to the Church (i.e. a fourth manifestation of Baptism).

Therefore, it is not necessary to believe in limbo, and it is perfectly acceptable to trust the souls of the infant departed to the mercy of God. What [i]cannot[/i] be said is that those children are definitively saved. We can only say that we do not know.

This lack of knowledge is what lead many theologians to posit limbo, not an authoritative declaration from the Magisterium.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 5 2006, 09:46 AM']The Holy Father does not believe in Limbo, and in fact, would personally like to see it dropped as a theological hypothesis. His understanding of Catholic doctrine is sufficient for me.
[right][snapback]846689[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sure, but remember that all those quotes were by past popes. Respecting the beliefs of our leader is certainly commendable, but do we reject the beliefs of past popes in doing so?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:49 AM']Sure, but remember that all those quotes were by past popes.  Respecting the beliefs of our leader is certainly commendable, but do we reject the beliefs of past popes in doing so?
[right][snapback]850113[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Pretty much. The expressed theological opinions of the current pontiff have a priority over those of past popes. The class of theories typically called limbo is simply an attempt at a cohesive interpretation of doctrine; they aren't formally doctrinal in themselves. No particular limbo theory has ever been formally defined by the Church or proposed for belief. It is a matter of opinion. Certainly such theories have had a notable presence in speculative theology and the catechetical tradition (at least in the Western church during certain periods of history), but it still does not have a doctrinal status which warrants the assent of faith. We ought to give religious assent to the manifest mind of the current Holy Father.

And interestingly, I am aware of official, authoritative decrees of the Church which undermine limbo theory (at least many versions of it). The issue is not as simple as it may appear on the surface.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 9 2006, 01:11 AM']We ought to give religious assent to the manifest mind of the current Holy Father. [/quote]
I don't mean to argue but what is this based on? If it's nothing more than his opinion why can't a person believe as many past popes did?

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 9 2006, 01:11 AM']And interestingly, I am aware of official, authoritative decrees of the Church which undermine limbo theory (at least many versions of it). The issue is not as simple as it may appear on the surface.
[right][snapback]850117[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm sure you are and I'm sure it isn't . I don't intend to argue the doctrine itself as my beliefs are a bit messed up right now and I need to sort them out before defending to many specific positions.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Jan 9 2006, 01:49 AM']I don't mean to argue but what is this based on?  If it's nothing more than his opinion why can't a person believe as many past popes did? 
[right][snapback]850118[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[color=gray]From Dr. Ludwig Ott:[/color]
[i]Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally [b]they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See [/b](assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obsequiosum." that is "reverent silence," does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.[/i]

[color=gray]Fr. John Trugilio:[/color]
[i]According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium #25, [b]even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful[/b]. While not requiring the ASSENT OF FAITH, they CANNOT be disputed nor rejected publicly and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority. The heterodox concept of a dual magisteria, i.e., the theologians, is not based on scriptural nor traditional grounds. Some have gone as far as to propose a triple magisteria, the body of believers. While it is true that as a whole, the body of believers is infallible in that SENSUS FIDEI is that the Church as the Mystical Body cannot be in error on matters of faith and morals, the TEACHING AUTHORITY (Magisterium) resides solely with the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops in union with him.[/i]

[color=gray]And finally, from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) no. 25:[/color]
[i]Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. [b]This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra[/b] in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and [b]sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention[/b], which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated. [/i]

But a Catholic is still free to hold to limbo theory as it has never been condemned. But it would be a gross error to suggest that limbo is an authoritative doctrine or that the Pope is in error for not speaking of it.
However, I would say that it is best to try and understand and conform to the mind of the Church in this epoch. Limbo theory has never been universally accepted and is really a pretty poor solution to the problem (IMHO). You might be a bit surprised by some of the names I could drop of venerable theologians who had serious reservations regarding limbo theory. I personally am quite open to the insight and direction of the current Pontiff and the Bishops in union with him.

[Ziggamafu]

See, what's interesting to me though is that there are lots of things that we believe that have never *formally* been "defined" - it's quite a loophole. Most the people on these boards feel free to pick and choose what parts of the CCC are binding on all believers and what parts aren't (contraception, for instance, versus Islam's God being our God, death penalty, grave social and government obligations, etc.). That sounds pretty subjective and relative, to me.

I've seen threads were a whole slew of quotes will pop up in an attempt to prove that if you don't believe something, you're not Catholic. But here's a whole slew of quotes that have suddenly become very relative.

P.S. I bet if somebody tried telling the common lay person or a pope hundreds of years ago that limbo didn't exist, they would think you were a heretic at worst and a very uneducated Catholic at best.