Limbo: Difference between revisions

From Cor ad Cor
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "== An objection to the papal teaching == What do you think of this argument, published in the letter section of First Things?: Commenting on Benedict XVI’s endorsement of th...")
 
m (Text replacement - "--" to " — ")
 
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== An objection to the papal teaching ==
Limbo was a ''theological theory'' that was never adopted dogmatically by the Church.


What do you think of this argument, published in the letter section of First Things?:
The article on Limbo in [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm the old Catholic Encyclopedia] makes it clear that this theory was ''not'' a formal teaching of the Council of Trent — which alone could be considered a binding, dogmatic teaching.
Commenting on Benedict XVI’s endorsement of the International Theological Commission (ITC)’s 2007 document on infants who die without baptism, Joseph Bottum says that “Benedict explained why limbo is unnecessary . . . for Catholics to believe in” (“The Papal Difference,” February 2010). But ascribing the commission’s explanation to the Holy Father himself could suggest magisterial status—something the said document no more enjoys than does, say, Pope Benedict’s book Jesus of Nazareth. An ITC document, even with papal endorsement, has no authority, pace Mr. Bottum, to “downgrade” or “toss aside” an existing doctrine.


Indeed, it seems questionable whether even the Catechism of the Catholic Church has the authority officially to change Catholic teaching on those rare occasions when it enunciates some doctrinal novelty. For a catechism is intended to be a pastoral, educationally oriented compendium of already existing and settled doctrine. Its authority depends on that of previous teachings of the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium that it can appeal to.
Simply affirming Benedict's professional theological opinions on the subject cannot turn the 2005 International Theological Commission document into a "papal" teaching. There are no accidental ''ex cathedra'' pronouncements. The exercise of the papal magisterium must be done explicitly.


Now, in stating that Catholics are “permitted to hope” for the salvation of infants dying without baptism, the Catechism (#1261) cites not one previous magisterial statement—for the very good reason that there are none to cite. The Catechism is at odds with the only previous universal catechism of the Church, that of the Council of Trent, which affirmed categorically that “no means for attaining salvation remains for infant children other than baptism” (II, II, 33).
Catholics are therefore free to accept the old theory or to follow John Paul II, the ''Catechism,'' and Benedict in hoping that God will grant the innocent children full participation in the Beatific Vision.


And that teaching certainly did have previous magisterial authority behind it: As early as 417 Pope St. Innocent I rejected as “utterly foolish” (perfatuum) the idea that unbaptized infants may be saved, and their exclusion from heaven remained the firm doctrine of the ordinary magisterium in both East and West until at least the pontificate of Pius XII, who confirmed the catechism of Trent’s teaching in a 1951 allocution. Pope Sixtus V affirmed, in a 1588 constitution, that the “certain” destiny of aborted (and therefore unbaptized) infants is exclusion from the beatific vision. And according to the 1860 Provincial Council of Cologne, whose acts were subsequently confirmed by the See of Peter, “faith teaches [fides docet] that infants, since they are not capable of this desire [for baptism], are excluded from the heavenly kingdom” if they die without the sacrament.
:; Francis Beckwith, [http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/05/03/a-doctrine-in-limbo/ "A Doctrine in Limbo"]


Is Benedict XVI aware of the above documents from Catholic tradition ruling out that “hope” which the new Catechism permits? If he has trusted and depended on theological advice like that given him by the International Theological Commission, probably not. For, astonishingly, not one of the five statements mentioned in the previous paragraph is referred to in the ITC’s thirty-eight-page study. While the natural happiness of limbo was and is only a hypothesis, that is the case only because the Church never condemned St. Augustine’s alternative hypothesis (revived by some Catholic theologians as recently as the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) that unbaptized infants suffer, albeit very mildly, in hell. Both permissible hypotheses excluded them eternally from heaven. The Church traditionally taught that exclusion as doctrine, not mere opinion.
:: In 2005, the pope endorsed the report of the International Theological Commission on the topic, which concluded:


== Respondeo ==
::: What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.


Notice that the correspondent quotes the CATECHISM of the Council of Trent--not the council itself.
:: According to a member of the commission, Sister Sara Butler, S.T.D., the main purpose of the study was to explain and defend the following statement in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:


So far as I know, Trent did not deal with this question explicitly. It is pretty natural for catechism writers--of all ages--to have to fill in some blanks with the understanding of their day.  There are lots of "fillers" like that in the contemporary Catechism.
::: As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. (§1261, 1997 English edition)


See the article below for a detailed account of the controversy:
== Links ==
* About Francis Beckwith's return to Catholicism: [http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/2772 "He Could No Longer Explain Why He Wasn't Catholic."]
* [http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm "Closing the Doors of Limbo: Theologians Say It Was Hypothesis."]


http:''www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
[[Category:Salvation]]
 
This edition of the Encyclopedia would not have missed a formal teaching of the Council of Trent--which alone could be considered a binding, dogmatic teaching.
 
Note, too, that simply affirming Benedict's professional theological opinions on the subject cannot turn the new document into a "papal" teaching.  There are no accidental ''ex cathedra'' pronouncements. The exercise of the papal magisterium must be done explicitly.
 
== Beckwith's response ==
 
http:''www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/05/03/a-doctrine-in-limbo/
 
It's now available in a single-page, print-friendly format:
* http:''www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0250.htm
* http:''www.catholiceducation.org/articles/printarticle.html?id=6445
 
Here's a 2007 National Catholic Register interview with Beckwith on his return to the Catholic Faith:
 
http:''www.ncregister.com/site/article/2772

Latest revision as of 11:04, 10 December 2022

Limbo was a theological theory that was never adopted dogmatically by the Church.

The article on Limbo in the old Catholic Encyclopedia makes it clear that this theory was not a formal teaching of the Council of Trent — which alone could be considered a binding, dogmatic teaching.

Simply affirming Benedict's professional theological opinions on the subject cannot turn the 2005 International Theological Commission document into a "papal" teaching. There are no accidental ex cathedra pronouncements. The exercise of the papal magisterium must be done explicitly.

Catholics are therefore free to accept the old theory or to follow John Paul II, the Catechism, and Benedict in hoping that God will grant the innocent children full participation in the Beatific Vision.

Francis Beckwith, "A Doctrine in Limbo"
In 2005, the pope endorsed the report of the International Theological Commission on the topic, which concluded:
What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.
According to a member of the commission, Sister Sara Butler, S.T.D., the main purpose of the study was to explain and defend the following statement in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. (§1261, 1997 English edition)

Links

Retrieved from "https://moleski.net/cacwiki/index.php?title=Limbo&oldid=20359"