The Catholic Church was not wrong to teach it, even though its inadequacy as a solution is now, presumably, apparent.
This just floors me. How is it "not wrong" to publich a catechism flatly stating that unbaptized babies "cannot enter heaven" when the truth, for all the Church now knows, is that perhaps virtually all unbaptized babies will ultimately enter heaven? I do not mean to blow this out of proportion; but it seems to me that leading most of your followers to believe something that is not necessarily so is at least a little bit "wrong."
Mark:
There's a sense in which the old BC was right. Nobody who's unbaptized can enter heaven, babies or otherwise. But that leaves open the question what can count for baptism. While the BC cited "the common belief" in a permanent limbo, nobody is or was a heretic for not sharing that belief and for entertaining such possibilities as I did in my original article. Still, the Vatican's word should be enough here.
While many Catholics will doubtless take the backtracking on limbo as license for easy universalism, I don't think that result would be any more justified than the old "common belief" in the permanence of limbo. People do tend to read too much into ecclesiastical documents—save for those on moral questions, where they tend to read too little—and this case appears to be no exception.
Best,
Mike
Dr L -- It still seems to me that, at a minimum, the old catechism language was misleading; and that it is somewhat wrong (although perhaps understandable and forgivable) to publich a misleading catehism. Do you really disagree?
Mark:
The old BC, which was but one local catechism of many and by no means the best, merely repeated Florence when it said that those who die in original sin cannot enter heaven. The question is how Florence is to be interpreted authoritatively and definitively. The BC was silent about that because, when it was published, theologians did not agree on how to answer that question.
I agree that the BC, as well as many other local catechisms, did not always and clearly distinguish between what's de fide and what's a matter of opinion. But I doubt it could have attempted to do so while remained pastorally useful for its intended audience. It would merely have invited debate, which defeats the purpose of catechesis. The BC did do a good job of presenting the ordinary teaching of the Church on controverted questions, and that's the best that can be expected of local catechisms.
Best,
Mike
Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself on these matters might address some quotes I found on another blog.
ICXC
John
The Roman Church teaches [...] that the souls of those who depart in mortal sin or with only original sin descend immediately to hell, nevertheless to be punished with different punishments and in disparate locations...
Nequaquam sine dolore
John XXII
November 21, 1321
...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.
Decree for the Greeks (Laetentur Caeli)
Ecumenical Council of Florence
July 6, 1439
[Errors of the Synod of Pistoia.] The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of 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 [...] is false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.
Auctorem Fidei
Pius VI
August 28, 1794
John -- Dr L can speak for himself, but these statements are addressed in the linked posts and comments in the limbo post from a few days ago. A key point (I cannot judge how valid) is that "infernum" does not necessarily mean "place of eternl damnation." Indeed, you and I chant every Sunday about the Lord leading Adam and Eve out from hades.
John:
As I've said many times before, the question is not whether the souls of those who die "in original sin alonge" go ad infernum, i.e., to the underworld. That proposition is de fide. The question is whether such a state is permanent. The belief that it is permanent is opinion, not definitive doctrine. And it's not an opinion that Catholics are required to share.
Best,
Mike
The Lord promised His Church would never be overcome by the gates of hades, and that His Spirit would lead us to all truth. He never promised there would be no misunderstandings....
"He never promised there would be no misunderstandings...."
Indeed. We Orthodox can confirm that in spades.
ICXC
John
Mark, you ask why it was not wrong for the Catholic Church to teach limbo. Keeping in mind that the Church has never taught it as belonging to the deposit of faith or as a necessary adjunct to the deposit of faith, it was not wrong for bishops and priests to teach the doctrine (or more accurately, theologoumenon) because it was the "best" solution the best minds of the Church could see at the time to a burning pastoral question.
I certainly agree, and the Holy Father agrees, that it would have been best if the Church's theologians had been satisifed with simply saying "We must trust and may trust in the mercy of God"; but for whatever reasons they did not see what appears to me to be the obvious solution. But we all live within the limitations and conditions of history.
The Catholic Church does not teach that all of her teachings enjoy infallible, irreformable status. At the same time, she rightly presents the Catholic faith as a whole that needs to be received by faith as a whole. Theologians may debate about the levels of authority of a specific teaching; but that would be disastrous at a catechetical and pastoral level, as the history of the past forty years well demonstrates.
Pontificator -- I appreciate your attention to my questions. I do questionin whether it would really be disasterous for the church to tell the faithful which teachings are settled parts of the faith, and which are simply the Churh's best current explaination. Indeed, the Church is about to do just that with regard to limbo, and I doubt any real harm will occur. It may be seized on by some trying to worm out of the gospel, but those folks would still be worming even if the Holy Father had left limbo the way it was.
Mark:
Regarding the quotation you cited by Pius VI on the errors of the Synod of Pistoia, the Pope censured that statement as "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools," not as heretical. That is its "theological note" or qualification. Only that is heretical which is contrary to a revealed doctrine to be be held de fide. This is an aspect of Church teaching which is too often overlooked in discussions of doctrinal development and alleged inconsistency.
Mark, my apologies. My comment should have been directed to John.
To understand Pius VI's statement on limbo, it is probably necessary to understand exactly what the Synod of Pistoia said about limbo. Does anyone know precisely what the synod asserted? It was a Jansenist council. My guess is that it asserted the damnation of unbaptized infants.
Regarding the fate of infants who die without sacramental baptism, I ran across this fascinating passage in Aquinas:
"There are three kinds of baptism, namely, of water, of desire, and of blood. But the last two have no force, unless they are referred to the first, because the first one must be intended [at least implicitly, as we would say today], if it cannot be actually received by a person with the use of freedom. Hence, there are not three sacraments, but one sacrament, by which we are reborn unto salvation: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven' (Jn 3:5). Of the other two, baptism of blood produces more of baptism's effects, provided that the first is desired, or the opposite is not present in the mind [emphasis added], as is clear in the case of the Holy Innocents, who were not of an opposite mind.... For baptism has its power from the merit of Christ's Passion...." (from the commentary on Hebrews 6:2)
No doubt this is in the context of martyrdom, but it is interesting to speculate as to whether the distinction between positive desire and the negative absence of rejection might be extended to other cases as well.
There is also a theological opinion regarding a vicarious baptism of desire in the tradition of the church. On vicarious desire in general, there is this text on its application to the Eucharist, I am sorry that I do not have the source {Sungenis?):
Further, it is also to be noted that Trent did not explicitly say that the desire must be had by the person who is to be justified. It might seem obvious that it must, but let us consider that St. Thomas had earlier used virtually the exact phrase that Trent used, "desire thereof", when saying that for children, the desire of the Eucharist could be vicariously had in the desire of the Church. Trent used the phrase "eius voto" and St. Thomas used "voto ipsius", while "eius" and "ipsius" both mean "thereof". St. Thomas: "This sacrament [of the Eucharist] has, of itself, the power of bestowing grace; nor does anyone possess grace before receiving this sacrament except from some DESIRE THEREOF [ipsius voto]; from his own desire, as in the case of the adult, OR FROM THE CHURCH'S DESIRE IN THE CASE OF CHILDREN." (Summa Theologica III, 79, 1)
More specifically, in the 16th century, Cardinal Cajetan speculated that unbaptized newborns, fetuses, etc. may benefit from a "vicarious baptism of desire." i.e. even though an actual baptism may not have occurred, it might have been desired by the parents, or the church or by someone else.
Cf. Aquinas, ST III, 68, 9, ad 1:
"The spiritual regeneration effected by Baptism is somewhat like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the child while in the mother's womb receives nourishment not independently, but through the nourishment of its mother, so also children before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of thei
their mother the Church, receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church. Hence Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i): "The Church, our mother, offers her maternal mouth for her children, that they may imbibe the sacred mysteries: for they cannot as yet with their own hearts believe unto justice, nor with their own mouths confess unto salvation . . . And if they are rightly said to believe, because in a certain fashion they make profession of faith by the words of their sponsors, why should they not also be said to repent, since by the words of those same sponsors they evidence their renunciation of the devil and this world?" For the same reason they can be said to intend, not by their own act of intention, since at times they struggle and cry; but by the act of those who bring them to be baptized."
And ibid., ad 2:
"As Augustine says, writing to Boniface (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i), "in the Church of our Saviour little children believe through others, just as they contracted from others those sins which are remitted in Baptism." Nor is it a hindrance to their salvation if their parents be unbelievers, because, as Augustine says, writing to the same Boniface (Ep. xcviii), "little children are offered that they may receive grace in their souls, not so much from the hands of those that carry them (yet from these too, if they be good and faithful) as from the whole company of the saints and the faithful. For they are rightly considered to be offered by those who are pleased at their being offered, and by whose charity they are united in communion with the Holy Ghost." And the unbelief of their own parents, even if after Baptism these strive to infect them with the worship of demons, hurts not the children. For as Augustine says (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i) "when once the child has been begotten by the will of others, he cannot subsequently be held by the bonds of another's sin so long as he consent not with his will, according to" Ezech. 18:4: "'As the soul of the Father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth, the same shall die.' Yet he contracted from Adam that which was loosed by the grace of this sacrament, because as yet he was not endowed with a separate existence." But the faith of one, indeed of the whole Church, profits the child through the operation of the Holy Ghost, Who unites the Church together, and communicates the goods of one member to another."
This would seem to suggest a possible solution in terms of communio drawing on the traditional doctrine of the Communion of Saints.
Oh my goodness--if the faith of the whole Church is held as profiting the child through the operation of the Holy Ghost, isn't that really a kind of indulgence? These topics are all tied in, aren't they?
Mike,
Yes, the same principle would seem to be at work, wouldn't it? Except, of course, indulgences are for the sake of the souls in Purgatory, as distinct from this life or (possibly in the case of the unbaptized infants) at the point of death that is the demarcation between this life and the next. But both cases would be aspects of the Communion of Saints, and in a sense we could say that they are implications of that doctrine (subject of course to the decision of the Church on the whole issue).
One other difference: indulgences concern the temporal punishment due to sin; they do not remove guilt or gain admittance itself of the suffering soul to Purgatory. But it seems that vicarious faith and desire may go further than this and play the kind of role that Augustine and Aquinas suggest.
The non-salvation (in limbo or hell) of children who die before receiving ordinary sacramental baptism by water simply is not a defined truth or dogma of the church, and no serious theologian supposes otherwise. What is a dogma is the necessity for salvation of baptism in some form. But the reference to Cajetan above makes it worth pointing something out of great importance. The issue of how the necessity of baptism was to be understood was discussed at Trent, in February 1547, at the formulation of the decree on baptism.
As is well-known, Cajetan had claimed that children who die in the womb without ordinary sacramental baptism might be saved through a desire of their parents for their baptism.
Such was the prevailing suspicion of 'Pelagianism', Cajetan's view was found very shocking by many council fathers, and there were requests that it be condemned. But Cajetan's view was saved from condemnation by Seripando, who defended its licitness by, amongst other considerations, invoking the Divine will that all be saved. Following Seripando's intervention, the council legates made it very clear that the Council's definition that baptism is necessary for salvation should not be understood to exclude theories of salvation by 'waterless' baptism or baptism-equivalents such as Cajetan's. By the council's own will and its understanding of its own decree, the question was to remain dogmatically open. (For the discussion at Trent, see that highly interesting source, the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, volume 2, columns 305-06.)
Sometimes, though, on grounds of pastoral policy the church simply has to take a clear line and teach something. That line is bound to reflect prevailing theological opinion. And if for very good historical reasons, that prevalent opinion is by our standards pessimistic, that will be reflected in the church's teaching. If non-baptism seems to most theologians highly risky, it is hardly heartless of the church bleakly to emphasise the risks. But of course theological discussion may even at the time be clearly seen as inconclusive, precisely because the issues are so evidently difficult. In which case the church needs to be able to teach without binding itself completely, and while still leaving room for further theological reflection. That seems to be what happened at Trent and after. The council refused to condemn the theory of Cajetan as definitively false. But the see of Rome still thought the theory dangerous because it had huge pastoral implications while as yet lacking adequate theological support. Hence, unsurprisingly, Pius V ordered Cajetan's opinion to be erased from subsequent editions of Cajetan's work. We just should not confuse a sustained and long-lasting pastoral policy of safety first for dogmatic definition - or become concerned if, on the basis of a very different theological consensus, the magisterium sees fit to revise what was always a fallible and provisional interpret
Michael Liccione, I hope it is OK to post here some comments to your excellent article that the Pontificator linked in his website …
Michael Liccione: All agree that infants who die unbaptized go ad infernum; the differences are about whether and what extent that entails suffering, and whether it must be permanent.
Amen. I agree that these are indeed the relevant questions.
First, is it possible that unbaptized innocent children suffer in limbo?
Consider the case of unbaptized children that are beaten to death before they have reached the age of reason. Is it possible that these innocent children are translated into a temporal state in their afterlife where they suffer from the effects of the evil directed at them?
Consider the case of aborted children that have been violently murdered in the womb. Might not those children continue to suffer from the violence of abortion in their immediate afterlife? Certainly the Catholic Church is never going to teach that abortion is means for bestowing sanctifying grace to an unborn child, and that abortion itself brings the joys of Heaven to an infant!
Children that are abused, but not killed, are damaged spiritually from their physical and emotional abuse. These children need healing. Personally, I think that children that are violently murdered suffer in their afterlife as a consequence of that violence, and that these innocent children are in need of healing and relief from their suffering. There is no question that aborted children are innocent of personal guilt and not deserving of their suffering. But the terrible reality is that innocents suffer from the sins of others, and I don’t see how murdering a child could be spiritually beneficial to a child.
The real question, as I see it, is not whether innocent children that die violent deaths are eternally deprived of the beatific vision, but whether the Church Militant has means at her disposal to help these poor souls.
The CCC says this:
CCC 1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation.
If the Church invites us to pray for the salvation of “children who have died without Baptism”, are we not being invited to pray for the grace of Baptism to be given to those children? For how could anyone be saved apart from the grace that the Sacrament of Baptism bestows?
Michael Liccione: … one might argue that the likelihood of salvation for such humans depends partly on the desires and prayers of the baptized on their behalf. That is desirable and might even be necessary to some extent. But what seems both necessary and sufficient to me is positing that the loving intercession of the most powerful of the Church’s members, the Mother of the Church who is also the Mother of God, is always working on behalf of such humans.
I personally believe that the Church Militant does have at her disposal th
Oops, I see my comments were cut off …
Michael Liccione: … one might argue that the likelihood of salvation for such humans depends partly on the desires and prayers of the baptized on their behalf. That is desirable and might even be necessary to some extent. But what seems both necessary and sufficient to me is positing that the loving intercession of the most powerful of the Church’s members, the Mother of the Church who is also the Mother of God, is always working on behalf of such humans.
I personally believe that the Church Militant does have at her disposal the means to provide succor to unloved innocent children that die violent deaths. The members of the Church Militant can offer prayers and sacrifices for the souls of these poor children. Above all, the members of the Church Militant can have Masses said for these children. However, I don’t think that efficacious prayers for the innocent can only come from those who have received the Sacrament of Baptism. I think that God also hears the cries of anyone who calls upon his mercy.
CCC 1256: … In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize …
If an informed non-baptized person with explicit desire can validly baptize another person, could an invincibly ignorant person possess the implicit desire for an infant to receive the grace of salvation? I think so.
Michael Liccione: I also believe it best to retain the traditional understanding that at least some sort of desire for baptism is necessary for incorporation into the Church and thus for salvation.
An infant is incorporated into the Church by the explicit desire of an adult to have the infant receive the graces bestowed by the Sacrament of Baptism. The baptized infant needs neither explicit nor implicit desire to receive the saving grace of Baptism.
Is it conceivable that an invincibly ignorant adult could have the implicit desire for their child to receive the saving graces of baptism? I think so, but that is only my opinion. I can only know with certainty the ordinary means of salvation that God has gifted to the Church Militant.
The question, as I see it, is not whether God is capable of saving a child in limbo or a person in Purgatory without my prayers or actions. The question is this: when I stand before God for my particular judgement, will I be able to show God that I did anything to try and provide succor to those in the Church Suffering?
Tom, thanks for the interesting historical background on the reception of Cajetan's view at Trent. As I think my quotations from Aquinas show, Cajetan was simply being a good Thomist. Nevertheless, your comments on the necessity and utility of the Church's non-infallible teaching and the prudence of its conservative attitude in dealing with controversial issues with far-reaching implications for fundamental doctrines show sound common sense.
Matt,
"Is it possible that these innocent children are translated into a temporal state in their afterlife where they suffer from the effects of the evil directed at them?"
I do not see how the mode of suffering in limbo need have any relation to the violent mode of suffering or death in this life, except insofar as the latter does or does not entail martyrdom. In the classical concept of the limbus puerorum, the only suffering is the exclusion from the Beatific Vision (poena damni, or pain of loss) but not the poena sensus or pain of sense, and even the former, on this hypothesis, would be accompanied by all the happiness of which this earthly life is capable. The former pertains to the soul, the latter to the body. But the traditional theory of the resurrection of the body involves its restoration in its complete integrity, so that any mutilation from this life would not be preserved. Moreover, part of the rationale for the fate of the body in the afterlife is that it would seem to be fitting that as the body participated in the sins or good works of the soul in this life, so it should participate in the punishment or rewards thereof in the next. The punishment of the body is a consequence of the guilt of the soul, not of innocents (re: personal sin) who suffer at the hands of others.
On the other hand, I would tend to agree with you that the other hypothesis which we are considering (vicarious desire) would seem to logically entail its possibility in the invincibly ignorant as well, while noting that this desire need not be that of the parent but could be that of any person of good will, including the offering of prayers and sacrifices by the entire Church.
These concepts are by no means far-fetched, for the gospels are full of references to the miracles of Christ performed on one person because of the faith of another.
Frankly, in my mind, if a statement is made by the Pope to the effect that Limbo cannot be true than I, in turn, cannot in good conscience become Catholic (at least what I would then consider the Roman Catholic, which I'm now in RCIA). I shows to me that the Teachers and Pastors of the Roman Catholic Church don't know what to teach with regards to doctrine.
Ken, I'm afraid I don't see the logic. Given that limbo does not enjoy dogmatic status in the Catholic Church---and thus has never really been taught by the Magisterium as Catholic doctrine, though many local Churches and pastors have so taught it---then why should it bother you if the Church decides it can dispense with a minor speculative theory? If your faith in the Catholic Church can be swayed by this, then perhaps you are not yet ready to become Catholic. To become Catholic is to embrace and trust the Church in her teaching authority, despite the "problem cases." It is to believe that the Church knows the Faith of the Apostles better than the individual believer, better than this invdividual believer.
Ken,
Your RCIA instructors should have told you (oversimplifying a bit) that there are two categories of Catholic teaching: infallible teaching which is irreformable (unchangeable), and fallible teaching which may be in error and therefore is reformable (changeable) in the light of further study. But since the latter represents what seems to be the most likely view at the time, a Catholic has the duty to accept it for the time being out of "religious obedience," but not as a matter of Catholic faith. The Church certainly does "know what to teach" as infallible and what (for the time being at least) as not infallible. Not to accept this is not to be a Catholic, and if that is your position then with all due respect I submit that you cannot become a Catholic "in good conscience" no matter what is eventually decided with regard to limbo, for then it is you yourself who is deciding what is Catholic doctrine and not the Church.
I wish you the best.
Al,
Two minds with but a single thought!
Tom:
I join Robert in thanking you for your historical perspective. Subtle and helpful indeed.
Matt:
Your opinions are not, I believe, injurious to the Faith, but I tend to agree with Robert's assessment.
Ken:
Al Kimel, a recent convert from Episcopalianism, is about to be ordained as a Catholic priest. As a well-educated, lifelong Catholic, I can assure you that his views are doctrinally sound and his pastoral touch quite sensitive. Please heed him.
Robert is right as well.
Best,
Mike
Al:
On the whole, I like your new article on limbo. I have two criticisms, both minor, which I'd say affect more the presentation than the doctrinal substance of your view.
One is that it must be acknowledged as de fide that those who die "in original sin alone go ad infernum". That doesn't say much about how, if at all, they suffer; Robert Kovacs' comments above about the poena damni and the poena sensus are apposite here. Nor does it logically entail that being "down there" is a permanent state. As you probably know already, I incline to the view that, for many who die unbaptized and without having been able to exercise moral responsibility of any kind, the prayers of others can and do provide a kind of vicarious saving faith for them, just as in the case of infants who are sacramentally baptized.
Which brings me to my other point. I think it would be going too far to "consign limbo to oblivion." It will, I am certain, remain an allowable theologoumenon even if the Church's ordinary teaching abandons it, which has pretty much happened already. (Readers, see today's Zenit article on the topic.
In that respect, the limbo issue is closely related to Feeneyism on the question of EENS. Even though the ordinary magisterium has abandoned the idea that an explicit act of faith before death is always and everywhere necessary for salvation, the contrary view was once very common, was never condemned, and was allowed even by then-Cardinal Ratzinger when he had to handle the Feeneyite issue. Like him, I believe it to be erroneous but not heretical. The idea of a permanent limbo for all infants or mental defectives who die unbaptized is also like that, IMHO.
Best,
Mike
"Ken, I'm afraid I don't see the logic. Given that limbo does not enjoy dogmatic status in the Catholic Church---and thus has never really been taught by the Magisterium as Catholic doctrine, though many local Churches and pastors have so taught it---then why should it bother you if the Church decides it can dispense with a minor speculative theory?"
Al, this is just your "take" and it doesn't enjoy the benefit of infallibility to boot. Frankly, the hubris of statements such as the above is what really disturbs me. Limbo certainly isn't a "minor speculative theory" it was taught as Catholic doctrine by large parts of the Church throughout history.
"If your faith in the Catholic Church can be swayed by this, then perhaps you are not yet ready to become Catholic. To become Catholic is to embrace and trust the Church in her teaching authority, despite the "problem cases.""
That's why I said what I said.
"It is to believe that the Church knows the Faith of the Apostles better than the individual believer, better than this invdividual believer.
"
As I stated, a declaration by the Pope that Limbo cannot be true (and I'm not sure that will be what he says) will show that the RCC does not know the "faith of the apostles" simply from the fact that large portions of said Church had taught Limbo as doctrine.
"Ken:
Al Kimel, a recent convert from Episcopalianism, is about to be ordained as a Catholic priest. As a well-educated, lifelong Catholic, I can assure you that his views are doctrinally sound and his pastoral touch quite sensitive. Please heed him.
Robert is right as well.
Best,
Mike
"
I've been reading the Pontificator from nearly the beginning of his blog. I'm happy for him to become a priest in the Catholic Church.
Ken
Ken:
For reasons it would take too long to explain here as I've done elswhere, it is quite unlikely that the Pope will say that we must disbelieve in limbo. What the ITC is likely to say, and the Pope to endorse, is that limbo is not necessary as a way of accommodating hope that those who die unbaptized before attaining the use of reason and free will can somehow avoid damnation and attain salvation. Like the once-common belief that explicit membership in the Catholic Church is always and everywhere necessary for salvation, belief in limbo will be permitted as a theological opinion now considered erroneous by most clergy and theologians.
I myself believe there is a limbo but that it is only temporary. For why, you can read the Pontificatons article of mine that I've already linked to.
Best,
Mike
"Which brings me to my other point. I think it would be going too far to "consign limbo to oblivion." It will, I am certain, remain an allowable theologoumenon even if the Church's ordinary teaching abandons it, which has pretty much happened already"
This is what is confusing, how can the "Church's ordinary teaching abandon it"? When I read that I read the "Church's Ordinary Magesterium".
Robert,
We haven't gotten that far in RCIA, but I'm well aware of the distinction between infallible and fallible teaching.
What I sense is the following. If the Pope definitively states tomorrow that Limbo is a de fide teaching, Al, Mike and you would rush to point out that Limbo was the common teaching of Catholics past and enjoyed the consent of the faithful.
"Ken:
For reasons it would take too long to explain here as I've done elswhere, it is quite unlikely that the Pope will say that we must disbelieve in limbo."
That I agree with, because it would throw the church's ordinary magisterium into doubt (not that you would take it that way).
"What the ITC is likely to say, and the Pope to endorse, is that limbo is not necessary as a way of accommodating hope that those who die unbaptized before attaining the use of reason and free will can somehow avoid damnation and attain salvation."
OK, but AFAIK limbo never refered to the "attainment of salvation", your comments on "infernium" of Florence being the exception.
"Like the once-common belief that explicit membership in the Catholic Church is always and everywhere necessary for salvation,"
Sorry, I never saw the "explicit" membership necessary as the common teaching. In fact, just the opposite.
"belief in limbo will be permitted as a theological opinion now considered erroneous by most clergy and theologians.
"
Isn't that already the current state of things.
Ken
Ken,
"What I sense is the following. If the Pope definitively states tomorrow that Limbo is a de fide teaching, Al, Mike and you would rush to point out that Limbo was the common teaching of Catholics past and enjoyed the consent of the faithful."
Is it the fact that we would defend the Pope's infallible statement that you object to, or the speed with which we would do it?
We are dealing with theological opinions (hypotheses) here, and these may be argued pro and con until such point as "Rome has spoken" clearly and authoritatively one way or another. Currently, there are good but not conclusive, merely probable arguments on both sides, and therefore both opinions may be held. But if the Pope were to define one of these opinions to be de fide, that would ipso facto remove it from the realm of opinion and compel its assent. The role of the theologian changes accordingly, and that includes the postulation of data from scripture and the tradition that is supportive of authoritative Church teaching.
Mr Kovacs -- Chiming in, I suppose that Ken's point is that, in most circles, postulating data in support of a proposition suggests that the speaker holds the proposition based on the data, or might not hold it if the data were negatived. But no doubt in springing to the support of a new dogma that is contrary to your own prior views, you and the Pontificator would not hesitate to admit that you once thought differently, and that, but the the Pope's definition, the data could reasonably be read otherwise.
Mark,
Of course not, and if that were Ken's point I not only would have no problem with it, but would insist upon it. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought he was implying that there would be something disreputable or sophistical in changing one's position after a disputed question has been authoritatively decided, else why make a point of stating what is not in dispute? Neither I nor Mike and the Pontificator have said that the limbo of children cannot currently be held as an opinion or that it has no reasonable basis, whatever our respective view may be of the probability of its contrary. In fact, I have taken pains to state that that we are in the realm of hypothesis here. And that is precisely our point. For we have some difficulty in seeing why Ken "could not become a Catholic" if the Church were to change its opinion on a matter, as opposed to changing a dogma. The latter would be a difficulty indeed, but it is the faith of the Church that this cannot happen, and being or becoming a Catholic implies acceptance of the faith of the Church.
In all such matters, it is not important to bear in mind not only what is taught or held or even the reasons for it, but also the mode in which it is taught or held. In the case under consideration, it is not (as Ken seems to imply) that I or others who hold one position for certain reasons would subsequently hold the opposite position for the opposite reasons, but rather that we now hold one position as an opinion, i.e. as a possible position carrying a certain amount of probability and defensible as a reasonable position to maintain, but should the Pope define the opposite position to be de fide we would then in obedience hold it, not as an opinion, but as a matter of divine and catholic faith. We would then hold it not for the stated reasons, but on the authority of the one defining. It has often been pointed out in discussions of this nature that, although the Pope may be infallible, the reasons he offers for a dogma are not necessarily infallible on that account (though they may be for other reasons). But, it is objected, it is alleged that you would now appeal precisely to those reasons. No doubt, but only to show the reasonableness or fittingness of the dogma, not to demonstrate it. In fact, if that reasonableness were even now in question (which it is not), there would be no issue in the first place. The question of original sin and the necessity of baptism in some sense is a significant one and not to be taken lightly, hence the caution of the Church in this whole regard, the prudence of which Tom has well reminded us above.
Typo
Second paragraph should read:
"In all such matters, it is important to bear in mind..."
Here is a traditionalist link that argues against the sort of suggestions I have made earlier:
http://www.catholicism.org/unbap...nts-
malone.html
Robert J. Kovacs : I do not see how the mode of suffering in limbo need have any relation to the violent mode of suffering or death in this life ... In the classical concept of the limbus puerorum, the only suffering is the exclusion from the Beatific Vision (poena damni, or pain of loss) but not the poena sensus or pain of sense, and even the former, on this hypothesis, would be accompanied by all the happiness of which this earthly life is capable. The former pertains to the soul, the latter to the body.
The “classical concept” of the limbus puerorum is a theological speculation about the eternal state of infants that died without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. What I am suggesting is that infant limbo is a temporal state – a temporal state from which some infants need help in order to be released from a state of suffering. I wasn’t clear about what I thought the suffering consists of for infants in limbo, but I don’t believe that it entails bodily suffering, since the infants in limbo are separated from their bodies in limbo. I believe that the suffering that some infants experience in limbo is spiritual suffering caused by a lack of human love, and that these infants need to experience human love in order to be healed.
Michael Liccione makes this comment in his article:
One thing I discovered should have been obvious to me at the outset; the fact that it wasn’t exposed the inadequacy of my “pastoral sense.” It is extremely important to believers, especially women, who have lost unbaptized children through miscarriage, abortion, stillbirth, or post-natal misfortune to hope that there is a way of salvation for such infants.
That, I believe, goes to the crux of the matter of why the Magisterium needs to have a dialog about infant limbo. Priests hear women (and men) confess the sin of abortion, and the priests need to be able to give sound pastoral advice to the penitents. For complete healing, there is a need not just for forgiveness of the eternal punishments due the sin of abortion (which is received in Confession), but also a healing from the “remains” of that sin (e.g. the temporal punishment brought about by the sin of abortion).
In our parish, the pastor is trying to establish a healing ministry to help those with post-abortion depression. Our diocese holds workshops for Project Rachel, a post-abortion healing ministry (which I have attended). The approach used in Project Rachel is effective, but the literature used by Project Rachel implies that aborted children are already in Heaven. The source of this belief seems to be a quote from Pope John Paul II where he wrote this to women who have had abortions:
You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord. (The Gospel of Life, 99).
But this is the very statement that was removed from the official Latin version of
Argh… cut off again. Continued from above …
The source of this belief (aborted children in Heaven) seems to be a quote from Pope John Paul II where he wrote this to women who have had abortions:
You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord. (The Gospel of Life, 99).
But this is the very statement that was removed from the official Latin version of Evangelium Vitae. (Wasn’t it the controversy caused by this statement that prompted Pope John Paul II to establish the ITC to study the doctrine of infant limbo?) For those involved in the post-abortion healing ministry, the need for magisterial clarity on the doctrine infant limbo is apparent.
Robert J. Kovacs : I do not see how the mode of suffering in limbo need have any relation to the violent mode of suffering or death in this life, except insofar as the latter does or does not entail martyrdom.
You point about martyrdom is germane to what I am trying to say. The Church celebrates the Feast of the Holy Innocents, but she does not celebrate a Feast Day for the Jewish children that were sacrificed by their parents to Baal Moloch. Both groups of Jewish children were innocent victims of violence. But there is a difference between them – the children slaughtered by Herod were loved and grieved by their parents – “A voice was heard in Ramah, sobbing and loud lamentation; Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be consoled, since they were no more" - Matt. 2:18. The children sacrificed by the Jewish parents to Baal Moloch were unloved – they were sacrificed to gain material wealth in the Kingdom of the World.
Why must the state of all infants in limbo necessarily be the same – the state of those in purgatory and those in the limbus patrum was not the same when Christ descended to the dead – some were suffering, some were in paradise.
The bond of love between the parent and the child can be broken or unbroken, and I think whether that bond of love is broken or unbroken makes a difference for the infant that dies. The child of Catholic parents that died from a miscarriage could have been completely loved by their parents, and these parents may have had the explicit desire that their unborn infant receive the Sacraments of Initiation. These children are not unlike the Holy Innocents with respect to love that they received from their parents. The children that die from abortion may have more in common with the Jewish innocents sacrificed to Moloch.
"What I sense is the following. If the Pope definitively states tomorrow that Limbo is a de fide teaching, Al, Mike and you would rush to point out that Limbo was the common teaching of Catholics past and enjoyed the consent of the faithful."
I am not embarrassed to say that if the Church were ever to define limbo as definitive dogma of the Church I would of course assent to it and reevaluate my reasons for presently opposing it. That is what it means to be Catholic. But until that point, limbo is an opinion with which one may disagree.
Cardinal Newman offers the following helpful counsel:
"When a man is perplexed by a difference between different teachers, if he cannot solve the problem at once, it is his duty to say "I believe what the Church holds and teaches." He cannot be wrong in that."
The traditionalist article by Malone (linked above) is a good example of a fundamentalist, ahistorical, noncontextual reading of dogma. This is what happens when dogma is divorced from God's self-revelation in Christ and treated as an "oracle" in its own right.
Personally I don't see how anyone can hold that infants who died lacking baptism achieve salvation in light of Trent. One sould hold a speculative view on the matter, allowing the possibility, but I don't see how one can hold it in faith.
If someone were so inclined, maybe they would compare the view that the Church could declare infants without baptism achieve heaven with the view that the Church could declare the priesthood is not limited to men.
MZF:
I agree that salvation for unbaptized infants, like damnation for unbaptized infants, is theologoumenon not de fide. As I've said before, the Church is not going to rule otherwise. The question posed to Al and me about changing our views is purely hypothetical.
Best,
Mike
Re: Infant limbo, the Council of Florence, and the suffering of infants in limbo
THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE: Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church’s ordinances.
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.
Michael Liccione on infant limbo: As I've said many times before, the question is not whether the souls of those who die "in original sin alone" go ad infernum, i.e., to the underworld. That proposition is de fide. The question is whether such a state is permanent. The belief that it is permanent is opinion, not definitive doctrine. And it's not an opinion that Catholics are required to share.
I agree with Michael that Catholics must believe that infants that die “in original sin alone” do not go straight to Heaven.
Michael Liccione: “The question is whether such a state is permanent.”
I agree with that is a question open for debate within the Church.
I am of the opinion that it is possible for infants that have died in a state of original sin to be freed from the underworld. Note that the Council of Florence teaches that those who die in “original sin only” suffer some sort of pain in their immediate afterlife. That is why I believe that aborted children continue to suffer after death from the violence of abortion, and that they are in need of relief from that suffering.
CCC 1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation.
CCC 1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. …
The Council of Florence teaches that the Church Militant has at her disposal the means of giving relief to those suffering the pains of purgatory, i.e. “the suffrages of the living faithful, …sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion”
I believe that the Church Militant can also provide succor to the infants suf
Commenting by HaloScan
