Do you believe in Infant's Limbo?

[Peccator]

This is one of those debates that will go on ad infinitum...however I see no justice in condemning babies to hell/limbo or whatever people would like to think.

Anyhow, I tend to agree with the Eastern Rite here.

[MichaelFilo]

I see the councils are no reason to believe it. Well, if I cna't believe the councils because it doesn't agree with my own personal beliefs than I might as well be a pagan, because hell, if your gonna play with one or two doctrines, I'm sure there is more to fiddle with.

In reality, it's not condemnation that babies suffer alone, all mankind has been condemned to eternal punishment not becaus eo fsome sin we all have committed, but because we have lost the gift of eternal salvation that was granted to Adam and Eve. Christ brought that back, and so we have hopes for eternal salvation. If babies go to heaven, then I suggest we begin to kill off each that comes into this world, and support abortion, because all these things have no real net negative consequences in light of the fact that we are sending people to heaven and saving them from the struggles that could possibly lead to hell...

Pelagians... St. Augustine, may the wisdom revealed to you come quickly to save us from the errors of those who would choose to deny original sin and it's effects and deny the neccessitity of our Lord's death, amen.

Anywho, on lighter note, the Eastern Church is hardly free from the decree of the councils. Unless you mean the Eastern Ortho(hetero?)dox churches, which are certainly not Catholic, and in fact, no source of slavation.

God bless,
Mikey

[qfnol31]

I don't think that the Council of Florence necessarily applies as such, though I could be wrong.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='954222' date='Apr 19 2006, 04:21 PM']
I don't think that the Council of Florence necessarily applies as such, though I could be wrong.
[/quote]
Really, what about that quote wouldn't apply... I'm interested, because I could very well misinterpret a council (I have no God-promised ability to interpret the councils, so this is very likely), but I'm willing to bet this one can't be wiggled out of. The Spirit has spoken, I believe, and all ought to listen, yeah?

God bless,
Mikey

[Era Might]

Without addressing the particular context of Florence, I will just say that it doesn't teach Limbo. All it teaches is that those who die in original sin do not go to Heaven. I think everyone agrees. What is in dispute is whether unbaptized babies die in original sin, or whether God applies the fruit of his Passion to them extra-Sacramentally. The Church does not teach us either way.

Oh, and the Catechism of Trent was not a document of the Council. It was not infallible, although it was, like the current Catechism, an authoritative text.

Anyway, the point of the Catechism, as cited above, was to say that the Church has no other way to effect the salvation of infants except Baptism. Christ has given the Church no other means. That does not mean, however, that God himself cannot make use of other ways to bring a child to salvation. It just means the ordinary path to salvation given to the Church is baptism, and baptism alone.

[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