A baby died - what happened?

[DavidFilmer]

I disagree with this. I believe that Scripture itself implicitly refers to Limbo.

An implicit reference cannot be considered a teaching of the Church (even an explicit reference is subject to qualifications - such as Our Lord’s statement that water Baptism is required for salvation).

You are perfectly free (as a faithful Catholic) to believe and advocate the idea of Limbo. It has been believed and advocated by centuries of Catholic theological opinion (including many Saints and Popes), so you are in good company. I merely point out that the idea is not currently favored by a majority of Catholic theologians (Ludwig Ott was particularly influential in turning opinion away from Limbo).

As I said, the teaching does not belong to the Deposit of Faith, so anyone is pretty much free to believe and advocate any position which is not completely crazy or overtly heretical.

But I will again point out that NO Catholic Theologian (to my knowledge) has EVER advocated such a strict interpretation of Our Lord’s instruction to Nicodemus regarding Baptism as to imagine that innocent unbaptized infants are consigned to the same hellfire as the wicked. This strict interpretation is reserved to various protestant faiths.

Whether we accept the idea of Limbo (a state of perfect natural happiness) or hope for actual salvation (a state of supernatural happiness), either fate is FAR superior to what we could ever hope to experience in this lifetime.

Whichever teaching we accept should still be a great source of comfort to anyone who has lost a child who was not able to receive ordinary Christian Baptism.

 

[constantconvert]

I have a friend who ia moving towards Catholicism (as am I). They lost a child at 4 days old years ago and at the time went to a protestant Church that practiced adult baptism. When it was clear the child wouldn’t survive they had the Anglican chaplain in the hospital come and pray with them and the child, but didn’t have the baby baptised as it wasn’t in their belief system.

Concern over the Church’s teaching on the issue of unbaptised infants is probably te biggest thing holding them back from converting.

What is the position on such babies?

First I am so sorry for your friends’ loss. Second, the Church’s teaching on unbaptized infants shouldn’t really be an issue for two reasons:

1. Protestants don’t really know what happens to babies when they die, although it’s assumed they go to heaven. So I would say that is a similar belief to the Catholic Church.
2. And I’m not trying to be harsh here, but what should concern your friends is what is Truth, rather than what comforts them. For example, does the idea of hell comfort? Does the idea of taking up our cross? Or the fact that everyone was wiped out by the flood? If they keep from converting because they don’t believe it’s true, that’s one thing. If they don’t convert because something doesn’t suit them, they’re headed for trouble-- no matter what church they belong to.

PS I know it is much more difficult to come to terms with a doctrine that touches us where we live. Again I’m sorry about your friends’ loss

 

[ianjmatt]

First I am so sorry for your friends’ loss. Second, the Church’s teaching on unbaptized infants shouldn’t really be an issue for two reasons:

1. Protestants don’t really know what happens to babies when they die, although it’s assumed they go to heaven. So I would say that is a similar belief to the Catholic Church.

They were taught that children under the age of moral responsibility and others (e.g. special needs etc) would go to heaven. Not saying it’s right - only what they were taught.

1. And I’m not trying to be harsh here, but what should concern your friends is what is Truth, rather than what comforts them. For example, does the idea of hell comfort? Does the idea of taking up our cross? Or the fact that everyone was wiped out by the flood? If they keep from converting because they don’t believe it’s true, that’s one thing. If they don’t convert because something doesn’t suit them, they’re headed for trouble-- no matter what church they belong to.

PS I know it is much more difficult to come to terms with a doctrine that touches us where we live. Again I’m sorry about your friends’ loss

The issue is not about what is true - when dealing with these issue it is far more complex - but their own sense of guilt if they made the wrong decisions for their child. Quote TRUTH at people in this sort of situation is both unhelpful and potentially harmful. Remember - truth needs to be spoken with love.

 

[constantconvert]

The issue is not about what is true - when dealing with these issue it is far more complex - but their own sense of guilt if they made the wrong decisions for their child. Quote TRUTH at people in this sort of situation is both unhelpful and potentially harmful. Remember - truth needs to be spoken with love.

I did not mean to imply that they are morally culpable for whether their child ended up in heaven or not. Goodness, no! They are Christians, they love God, and they did the best they knew. I did not even consider that they might feel guilty for not baptizing their baby. Personally I think they can be at peace, because there is a baptism of desire, usually refers to those who at death desire baptism and are very sorry for their sins, but there is nothing that states that an infant’s parents’ desire cannot suffice. In other words the parents wanted their child to know, love and serve God. God is merciful and has made us for heaven, knowing He is more loving and gracious than we are. I hope the parents can be at peace.

 

[Uzziah1]

So you believe. You may be right. But there may have been 4 or 5 or a 1000 heavens and Paul only got to number 3.

I respect your right to make sense of this issue for yourself, but the OP asked about what the Church teaches, and what the Church teaches is: there are circumstances where water baptism is not necessary to see Heaven and that we have reason to hope that ALL can be saved. That’s pretty much it: “we don’t know for sure but we trust in God’s mercy.”

I believe that the Church’s current position, which is a CHANGE TO leaving belief in Limbo optional and “hoping for” mercy, FROM a more-than-one-thousand-year-old doctrine that the un-baptized who die in infancy go to Limbo, is error.

The Church STILL teaches, with firmness, (1) that the stain of Original Sin is passed to our offspring in the reproductive process, and (2) “Baptism with water and the Spirit” is “necessary.”

“Baptism with water and the Spirit” ISN’T “necessary” if God replaces it with mercy outside of the sacrament, for infants, or with Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood or Invincible Ignorance in the case of non-infants. There’s basically no one left, COMPLETELY gutting the words of Christ quoted with such DRAMA in the Catechism in the beginnimng of CCC#1257.

I regard Christ’s assurance in John’s gospel as more reliable than that “Limbo is optional” teaching.

In effect, the beginning of CCC#1257 and the end of CCC#1257 contradict, and all Catholics should ask, “Why does the CCC contradict itself on such an important issue within the same paragraph?”

 

[Uzziah1]

This is not a sola scriptura Church. If you read the op, you will see the thread concerns what to tell those outside the Church. That means we are requested to define Church teaching. That teaching is most readily available in the CCC. I’m sorry for your loss. It is my opinion that it is inappropriate for you to argue for your personal, private, opinion in a thread asking for the Church’s position. Perhaps you should start a thread of your own about this for dialogue with other forum members.

I believe your child went straight into the arms of Jesus. But that isn’t Church teaching, either.

But the Church warns that though it is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture, IT DOESN’T HAVE, AND CAN’T HAVE, VETO POWER OVER SCRIPTURE.

Because the Holy Spirit inspires BOTH, the Church can only, at best, arrive at the same point as the inspired, unchanging meaning of inspired Scripture.

When something is expressly and unambiguously covered by Scripture, whether or not you regard our Church as a sola sacriptura church, THE CHURCH IS STUCK. IT HAS NO VETO POWER OVER SCRIPTURE.

When you say, “I believe that your child went straight into the arms of Jesus,” you SEEM to be denying the stain of Original Sin, and denying the need for Baptism.

Was Christ – almighty God Himself – right or wrong when He said that “unless we are baptized with water and the Spirit, you can not ener the Kingdom of Heaven?”

Re “arguing personal opinion,” it is philosophically impossible to rise above personal opinion.

 

[snarflemike]

I believe that the Church’s current position, which is a CHANGE TO leaving belief in Limbo optional and “hoping for” mercy, FROM a more-than-one-thousand-year-old doctrine that the un-baptized who die in infancy go to Limbo, is error.

Except that Limbo has never been a doctrine.

 

[Uzziah1]

An implicit reference cannot be considered a teaching of the Church (even an explicit reference is subject to qualifications - such as Our Lord’s statement that water Baptism is required for salvation).

You are perfectly free (as a faithful Catholic) to believe and advocate the idea of Limbo. It has been believed and advocated by centuries of Catholic theological opinion (including many Saints and Popes), so you are in good company. I merely point out that the idea is not currently favored by a majority of Catholic theologians (Ludwig Ott was particularly influential in turning opinion away from Limbo).

As I said, the teaching does not belong to the Deposit of Faith, so anyone is pretty much free to believe and advocate any position which is not completely crazy or overtly heretical.

But I will again point out that NO Catholic Theologian (to my knowledge) has EVER advocated such a strict interpretation of Our Lord’s instruction to Nicodemus regarding Baptism as to imagine that innocent unbaptized infants are consigned to the same hellfire as the wicked. This strict interpretation is reserved to various protestant faiths.

Whether we accept the idea of Limbo (a state of perfect natural happiness) or hope for actual salvation (a state of supernatural happiness), either fate is FAR superior to what we could ever hope to experience in this lifetime.

Whichever teaching we accept should still be a great source of comfort to anyone who has lost a child who was not able to receive ordinary Christian Baptism.

Hi.

There is so much to cover in this post.

First, the much older position of the Church is that unbaptized infants ARE consigned to Hell. But a Hell with a different “punishment” that that reserved for damned adults.

I beleive, and always have believed, that this was error, in part. I believe, and always have believed, that Limbo is “the first Heaven,” in Paul’s Epistle, an acceptably-pleasant place WITH NO BEATIFIC VISION, because the Church teaching that we are conceived with the Stain of Original Sin is absolutely correct.

Thus, MARY HAD TO BE IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO “SHAKE HANDS WITH” THE “SPECIAL PRESENCE OF GOD” IN HER WOMB.

Limbo MUST exist for the same reason that Mary HAD TO BE immaculately conceived.

For hundreds of years, Limbo was taught as doctrine.

Being unsure that Limbo is necessary is to be unsure about the need for “Baptism with water and the Spirit” is to be unsure about Christ’s words is to be unsure about the Immaculate Conception doctrine is to be unsure about …

Do you see the problem?

 

[ianjmatt]

Hi.

There is so much to cover in this post.

First, the much older position of the Church is that unbaptized infants ARE consigned to Hell. But a Hell with a different “punishment” that that reserved for damned adults.

I beleive, and always have believed, that this was error, in part. I believe, and always have believed, that Limbo is “the first Heaven,” in Paul’s Epistle, an acceptably-pleasant place WITH NO BEATIFIC VISION, because the Church teaching that we are conceived with the Stain of Original Sin is absolutely correct.

Thus, MARY HAD TO BE IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO “SHAKE HANDS WITH” THE “SPECIAL PRESENCE OF GOD” IN HER WOMB.

Limbo MUST exist for the same reason that Mary HAD TO BE immaculately conceived.

For hundreds of years, Limbo was taught as doctrine.

Being unsure that Limbo is necessary is to be unsure about the need for “Baptism with water and the Spirit” is to be unsure about Christ’s words is to be unsure about the Immaculate Conception doctrine is to be unsure about …

Do you see the problem?

You are confusing Baptism by water with Baptism as a whole. As far as I can see in the catechism there is also Baptism by desire and Baptism by blood. Clearly it is possible to encounter the beatific vision without Baptism by water.

 

[snarflemike]

You are confusing Baptism by water with Baptism as a whole. As far as I can see in the catechism there is also Baptism by desire and Baptism by blood. Clearly it is possible to encounter the beatific vision without Baptism by water.

Indeed, hence the Feast of the Holy Innocents.

 

[Uzziah1]

Except that Limbo has never been a doctrine.

ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE: Session 6—6 July 1439: 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.

[So, without using the word Limbo, they canonically defined the STATE of Limbo. Here is where, after hundreds of years of belief in Limbo, it was made doctrine.]

ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE: Session 11—4 February 1442: With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.

[Here, it is made clear that the Session 6 Canon applies to babies.]

So, you are mistaken.

The Church has actually altered its doctrine, from a certainty to an ambiguity.

 

[snarflemike]

ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE: Session 6—6 July 1439: 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.

[So, without using the word Limbo, they canonically defined the STATE of Limbo. Here is where, after hundreds of years of belief in Limbo, it was made doctrine.]

ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE: Session 11—4 February 1442: With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.

[Here, it is made clear that the Session 6 Canon applies to babies.]

So, you are mistaken.

The Church has actually altered its doctrine, from a certainty to an ambiguity.

Nothing you quoted discusses WATER baptism. And since the Church DOES recognize other forms of baptism, your point does not hold up. Besides, what you quoted refers to hell, not limbo.

So I repeat, Limbo has never been defined as Catholic doctrine.

 

[Uzziah1]

Nothing you quoted discusses WATER baptism. And since the Church DOES recognize other forms of baptism, your point does not hold up. Besides, what you quoted refers to hell, not limbo.

So I repeat, Limbo has never been defined as Catholic doctrine.

Dearly beloved friend: I have not idea why your conclusion follows from your argument.

 

[grannymh]

ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE: Session 6—6 July 1439: 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.

[So, without using the word Limbo, they canonically defined the STATE of Limbo. Here is where, after hundreds of years of belief in Limbo, it was made doctrine.]

ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE: Session 11—4 February 1442: With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.

[Here, it is made clear that the Session 6 Canon applies to babies.]

So, you are mistaken.

The Church has actually altered its doctrine, from a certainty to an ambiguity.

Sounds like a proper context is needed in order to determine what actually is being taught.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)