Catholic Church Buries Limbo After Centuries

  • Thread starter Thread starter TexRose
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tom,

1)at the very moment before death, they are supernaturally given an infusion of free will and reason, and God presents them the choice to deny or accept Him. The intricate details of this mysterious “baptism of desire” are up to debate and I think quite interesting, but personally I find that situation most plausible.

2)Another interesting theory that I think holds some weight could be that the prayers of saints or angels in Heaven for these babies could, through the unique allowance and power of God, enable a Baptism of Desire for the child.
Both are interesting theories, yet neither of them have the weight of Limbo, which has been held as a reasonable theogical construct for many centuries. Further, if those possibilites are true, then they hold true for every single human no matter what they have done, and no matter what they believed, and hell becomes something that no longer exists because under those theories God’s mercy, or the intervention of the angels and saints would save everyone. Of course, we know that is not true, yet I do think you are thinking these points to their logical conclusion.

I do undersand why you feel so emotional about this, after all who wants to think of unborn babies not going to Heaven, yet what you do not seem to get is that Limbo is a state of eternal natural happiness, but is not the Beatific Vision. That means unborn babies do NOT go to hell, rather they receive eternal happiness.
 
FTS;2145997,

You cannot seriously think that unborn babies can receive a baptism of desire, do you?

There are two thoughts on the thief on the cross, he went to Heaven, he went to another place of eternal happiness (Paradise) that could also be called Limbo.

Perhaps you are right, maybe I am nuts as you so politely accuse me of being. However, Jesus (He is God) told us that baptism is an absolute, He said we must be baptized to enter the kingdom of God. Jesus did not qualify His statement, He did not say that His mandate only applies to certain people. He said we must be baptized…period.

Are we really certain that the Good Thief was NOT baptized? After all, the GT did recognize Jesus as his “Lord” and petitioned Him to ."… remember me when you enter your kingdom…" That can only mean that he was versed in who Jesus was.

The GT very well may have been a follower of Christ and at some point was baptized.

Legend has it that Dysmas (the Good Thief) was cured from being lame by dipping his hands in the bathwater of the baby Jesus while the Holy family took refuge in Egypt. Dysmas was a few years older.

Now, if the Church came out and said that unborn babies go to Heaven, then baptism becomes meaningless and so does original sin, the logic of that is unavoidable. The Church will never say unborn babies go to Heaven, it can only say we are allowed to hope and pray for that they go to Heaven. The Church has not done away with Limbo either, and it will not do that, because if it does then it has to propose another theory to explain what happens to unborn babies, or it has to say that it is possible unborn babies do NOT go to Heaven. Can you not see the problem here? If the Church allows people to believe in their hearts that baptism is not required, then over time baptism will not be used.

Finally, if people are convinced that unborn babies go to Heaven, then abortion will be seen as a great mercy, and while you are correct that not very many woman think of that when they are in the clinic, you can be sure some do, and in the future the clinics will use the “unborn babies go straight to Heaven” as a defense of aborting babies.
 
It is simply not true to say: “You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine; there is no infallible, revealed teaching on the issue.”

On the contrary, there *is *infallible, revealed teaching on this issue. This infallible, revealed teaching is the Catholic dogma that the souls of unbaptized infants, since they die with original sin only, are punished in the next life by being deprived of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision.

The above Catholic dogma was taught by two general councils: Lyons II in 1274 and Florence in 1439. The old Denzinger numbers (to be found in Deferrari’s translation) are 464 and 693. The new Denzinger numbers (DS numbers) are 858 and 1306.

Pre-Vatican II seminary manuals list the above thesis as a dogma. For example, even though he later contradicts himself and undermines the dogma by speaking of baptism of desire for infants, Ludwig Ott states on page 113 of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that the following is de fide:

"Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God."

Check other manuals of dogmatic theology used in seminaries all over the world before the present confusion in the human dimensions of the Church. Those manuals will tell you the same thing: the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision is a dogma.

No Catholic–not even the Holy Father–may contradict or undermine a dogma. On the fate of unbaptized infants, the only freedom of opinion that exists for Catholics has to do with the issue of whether unbaptized infants, in addition to being deprived of the beatific vision of heaven, also experience the pain of sense in hell. Catholics may agree with St. Augustine, Pope St. Gregory the Great, and St. Anselm in believing that unbaptized infants experience the pain of sense, or they may agree with St. Thomas Aquinas in believing that they experience only the loss of the beatific vision and that this loss is compatible with the natural happiness of limbo. I agree with St. Thomas.

In other words, as Catholics, we may believe either that those infants suffer in hell, or that they are happy in limbo. To use the words of *CCC *1261, we may “hope” that unbaptized infants will achieve “a way of salvation.” Salvation from what? From what Jesus calls the “fire” of hell. In this sense, limbo, in addition to being a kind of damnation, is also a kind of salvation.

Keep and spread the Faith.
You are correct in saying that it is official teaching of the Catholic Church that a person who isn’t baptised, and therefore still possesses original sin, cannot enter into Heaven. You are absolutely correct in saying this. You posted this quote from a Catholic theologian and author…“Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.” Yet you admitted this man, Ludwig Ott, talks about belief in the baptism of desire for unbaptied babies. You claim he is contradicting himself. He is not.

You are forgetting something. If you believe that “unbaptised babies” are actually validly baptised by desire, which we are free to believe, then you are fully in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church. If you are baptised by desire, your Original Sin is wiped away and you are filled with sanctifying grace. As Ott says, souls who depart from this life in original sin cannot enter Heaven. Yet he also believes “unbaptised babies” can be validly baptised by desire and enter Heaven. This is because when you are validly baptised by desire, your Original Sin is wiped away. I completely acknowledge the truth of Original Sin and the necessity of baptism for salvation. No doubt about it. And when I say that I believe “unbaptised babies” (by this we really mean non-water baptised babies) enter into Heaven, it is because I believe they are validly baptised by desire. Hopefully this clarifies the issue.
 
How are they baptized by desire if they are just infants? Do you mean because of the desire of their Christian parents? Well then what of infants of non-Christian parents? How are they baptized by desire?
 
Even the Catholic Encyclopedia (pre-Vatican II from 1913 IIRC) says it’s not contrary to dogma to suppose that God at times by way of exception releases a soul from Hell. If so, then it would seem not contrary to dogma to suppose that God at times by way of exception admits an unbaptized infant (perhaps previously in limbo) to the beatific vision in heaven. Here’s the article:

“In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell.”

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

Heaven and Hell are eternal, and there is no going back. This is solid Catholic doctrine and cannot change. Those in Hell are incapable of going anywhere else, as are those in Heaven. They are permanent and eternal. We will have free will, but limited free will. In Hell we may have free will, but will not be able to change our fates and those in Hell have permanently chosen Hell via their lives on earth. In Heaven we will have limited free will, but we will not have the ability to sin or do wrong. Being face-to-face in the the splendor of God’s Kingdom renders this impossible.
 
Some thoughts. I think Adam and Eve are in Limbo. I believe all unbaptsed childre/aborts/ are in Limbo.

Also, when the Final Day arrives and the Final Judgment is applied, Christ will say to those on His right, “Come…” to those on His left, “Depart…” and there will be no middle place. as St. John, in the Apocalypse sees a “new Jerusalem descending from Heaved and adorned kike a bride for her husband…” (paraphrasing). There will be no Limbo ONLY Heaven or Hell. And Heaven will be on Earth after all things are settled.

The unbaptized may be, by the Great love of God, be baptized at that time. That could be the assignment of the many …to baptize the the throngs of the pre-born that were deprived of their earthly lives.

Adam and Eve will also experience the cleansing sacrament of baptism after all is said and done.

These are merely my thoughts and not theology, of course. But somehow a merciful God just might allow for some kind of similar application to those deprived.
Heaven and Hell are eternal, and there is no going back. This is solid Catholic doctrine and cannot change. Those in Hell are incapable of going anywhere else, as are those in Heaven. They are permanent and eternal. We will have free will, but limited free will. In Hell we may have free will, but will not be able to change our fates and those in Hell have permanently chosen Hell via their lives on earth. In Heaven we will have limited free will, but we will not have the ability to sin or do wrong. Being face-to-face in the the splendor of God’s Kingdom renders this impossible.
 
How are they baptized by desire if they are just infants? Do you mean because of the desire of their Christian parents? Well then what of infants of non-Christian parents? How are they baptized by desire?
I have heard of the theory that the desire of Christian parents can cause a baptism of desire for the child, but I personally disagree with this particular theory. This is why…according to that theory, unbaptised babies of Christian families would be baptised by desire and enter Heaven, but not so for Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist, etc…families. It is just my personal opinion, but I do not think that is so, and wouldn’t give credence to the great justice and mercy of God, who loves all His children from the moment of their conception. However, there are three different theories within “baptism of desire” that I find highly plausible and likely to be true. They are…
  1. At the very moment before death, they are supernaturally given an infusion of free will and reason, and God presents them the choice to deny or accept Him.
  2. The prayers of saints or angels in Heaven for these babies could, through the unique allowance and power of God, enable a Baptism of Desire for the child.
  3. All people have a built-in desire for God. Some of us pursue this and others don’t, through their own free will. Since babies are innocent and lack free will and reason, some would say immediately preceding death this built-in desire for God would create a valid baptism of desire.
I will re-state that it is entirely acceptable for Catholics to believe in Limbo, but likewise it is entirely acceptable to believe that “unbaptised babies” are actually vaIidly baptised via “baptism of desire” and are saved. I am not sure which of these three theories of “baptism of desire” I find most likely. But through whatever particular form or theory within Baptism of Desire for unbaptised babies, I strongly believe that as being children of God, in His great mercy and love God would welcome them into His heavenly kingdom.
 
Even the Catholic Encyclopedia (pre-Vatican II from 1913 IIRC) says it’s not contrary to dogma to suppose that God at times by way of exception releases a soul from Hell. If so, then it would seem not contrary to dogma to suppose that God at times by way of exception admits an unbaptized infant (perhaps previously in limbo) to the beatific vision in heaven. Here’s the article:

“In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell.”

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

I tihnk it would be in accord with the received Catholic tradition to affirm that but for God’s mercy unbaptized infants would all go to Hell. If someone says that an unbaptized infant “by default” as though through some kind of natural right goes to Heaven then that would be heterodox. There is no natural right to Heaven. Even the saints do not win heaven by a natural right but have a right to it supernaturally through grace.
Heaven and Hell are eternal, and there is no going back. This is solid Catholic doctrine and cannot change. Those in Hell are incapable of going anywhere else, as are those in Heaven. They are permanent and eternal. We will have free will, but limited free will. In Hell we may have free will, but will not be able to change our fates and those in Hell have permanently chosen Hell via their lives on earth. In Heaven we will have limited free will, but we will not have the ability to sin or do wrong. Being face-to-face in the the splendor of God’s Kingdom renders this impossible. The article you are talking about is probably referring to a different meaning of “hell” than what you are thinking of. “Hell” has sometimes been referred to as the place of the Limbo of the Fathers, or otherwise known as Sheol. This is the waiting place for those who died in a state of grace, before Christ’s death on the cross. As the Apostle’s Creed states, “He descended into Hell.” This doesn’t mean the eternal Hell of the damned, but rather is referring to Sheol.

 
I have heard of the theory that the desire of Christian parents can cause a baptism of desire for the child, but I personally disagree with this particular theory. This is why…according to that theory, unbaptised babies of Christian families would be baptised by desire and enter Heaven, but not so for Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist, etc…families.
I suppose that Jewish parents may have an implicit will to baptize their children inasmuch as they have the will to do God’s will whatever it may be – which would include baptizing their children. For true atheists this couldn’t be so however. But I highly doubt that anyone is truly an atheist. If you define God philosophically as the ultimate reality, consider what it would mean to deny that the ultimate reality exists – it would mean that for ever being there is a greater one since there is no ultimate being. But then the cosmos as a whole would be the ultimate reality – so I don’t think one can coherently deny the existence of an ultimate reality.
  1. At the very moment before death, they are supernaturally given an infusion of free will and reason, and God presents them the choice to deny or accept Him.
Then there’s no guarantee that they would all go to heaven. Some may choose to reject him and go to hell (according to the common understanding at least). So if you believe in this particular theory, you shouldn’t say they all go to heaven.
But through whatever particular form or theory within Baptism of Desire for unbaptised babies, I strongly believe that as being children of God, in His great mercy and love God would welcome them into His heavenly kingdom.
Why can’t they be saved outside of baptism? The Catechism seems to suggest that salvation is possible outside of the sacraments and that baptism is necessary for salvation only for some, not all:
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
It seems to be saying that those who have not enountered the Gospel can be saved apart from any kind of baptism and that God if He chooses to can save apart from any kind of baptism “he himself” not being “bound by his sacraments.” I think everyone would acknowledge that He can act outside baptism; the only question is whether he does so.
 
What other doctrines of the church will change in coming years? I really think re-marriage and denial of communion needs to be re-evaluated. It is too restrictive also IMO.

Is there a chance that the contraception doctirne could be modified in years to come. There are those rumors.
Rumors without foundation whatsoever. People should learn to distinguish which are Catholic doctrines and which isn’t, and Limbo isn’t a dogma/doctrine, but a mere possibility. Catholics may or may not believe it.
 
No, their sentence was not Hell but they were warned by God that should they eat of the forbidden tree they would then know of sin and death…this was a profound warning.

The Serpent said, “No, you surely would not die…you will be as God…” Now, to me, that is not merely disobedience but it was also a sin of doubting God and the very same sin that Lucifer committed in wanting to “be God.”

Adam and Eve’s sin carried more baggage than just disobedience. It was also Pride in wanting to be an equal with God.

At what point did Adam & Eve have the opportunity to repent? Remember God promised a Redeemer after the Fall.

Adam, in choosing to follow Eve in partaking of the fruit, symbolically chose the carnal (Eve) over the spiritual (God). This is why we must master the flesh by our spiritual selves. The flesh is mortal…while the spirit is eternal.

As a sidenote: The lump in men’s throats called “The Adam’s Apple,” in folklore, is the first bite that Adam took and it traveled only to his throat before he realized he had sinned thereby causing men the inherited reminder of prefering the flesh (Eve) over the spirit.

Sin after the banishment abounded thereafter. Adam & Eve has two sons Cain and Able. The next sin to follow the Fall was ENVY followed by MURDER as Cain killed his brother Able.

Therefore, the consequences of Original Sin begot new and different sets of sins. Later, they were defined in the 10 Commandments. Later on God’s Son came into the world and refined the human condition and its proclivities with the BEATITUDES. These are the most beautiful, heart-rendering, words that touch the hearts of all mankind. They show how pleasing we could be to God and our neighbor by always keeping an eye on those words…were we inclined to live the Beatitudes there would never be wars, pestilence, or other calamities.

In my opinion, A&E are not in Heaven (yet) nor are they saints of the Church. They died with the stain of Original Sin and therefore, IMO, they are in Limbo until the Last Day.

All this is a kind of lesson we might realize that when we sin, the next sin is not far behind and successive sins grow more egregious and on and on.

Limbo exists—it makes a lot of sense too.
That was my point, to state that the banishment from Paradise was from the Garden of Eden, not from Heaven. As I said, Adam and Eve could have sincerely repented to God for their wrongdoing and sin. You are free to believe they won’t go to Heaven or at least are not there yet. But many within the Church have traditionally taught that Adam and Eve are in Heaven, especially in the Eastern-Rite. You are free to believe that Limbo exists and makes sense. I disagree and think it makes more sense that it does not. I believe that “non-baptised babies” are validly baptised via baptism of desire.
 
FTS;2145997,

You cannot seriously think that unborn babies can receive a baptism of desire, do you?

There are two thoughts on the thief on the cross, he went to Heaven, he went to another place of eternal happiness (Paradise) that could also be called Limbo.

Perhaps you are right, maybe I am nuts as you so politely accuse me of being. However, Jesus (He is God) told us that baptism is an absolute, He said we must be baptized to enter the kingdom of God. Jesus did not qualify His statement, He did not say that His mandate only applies to certain people. He said we must be baptized…period.

Now, if the Church came out and said that unborn babies go to Heaven, then baptism becomes meaningless and so does original sin, the logic of that is unavoidable. The Church will never say unborn babies go to Heaven, it can only say we are allowed to hope and pray for that they go to Heaven. The Church has not done away with Limbo either, and it will not do that, because if it does then it has to propose another theory to explain what happens to unborn babies, or it has to say that it is possible unborn babies do NOT go to Heaven. Can you not see the problem here? If the Church allows people to believe in their hearts that baptism is not required, then over time baptism will not be used.

Finally, if people are convinced that unborn babies go to Heaven, then abortion will be seen as a great mercy, and while you are correct that not very many woman think of that when they are in the clinic, you can be sure some do, and in the future the clinics will use the “unborn babies go straight to Heaven” as a defense of aborting babies.
Yes, I do seriously believe that “unbaptised babies” are validly baptised via baptism of desire. Speaking of the Good Thief, he did go to Heaven. Sacred Scripture tells us Jesus told him “Today you will be with Me in Paradise.” This clearly indicates that the Good Thief would enter Heaven. He may have been baptised earlier in his life, but I doubt this. More than likely he was baptised by desire. Baptism by blood and desire are valid, they exist and do occur. And about your “nuts comment”, I actually didn’t use this term dealing with this subject. I said that it was nuts to believe that the Church rejecting Limbo would lead to increased abortions. It is not faithful and practicing Catholics who are committing abortions. And this is the only population who cares about this issue. Women who have abortions are not pondering the eternal fate of their baby. And even if unbaptised babies go to Heaven, it is not merciful to murder them. If true, you must logically be consistent and state that it would be merciful to murder all babies immediately after baptism. I don’t see that being recommended anywhere, do you? There can be good that derives out of evil. It is evil to murder someone. It is evil to murder a Catholic because of their religious beliefs, but there is a great good as a result that that martyrdom assures the person of eternal salvation. Yet that horrendous crime is still mortally sinful and awful.

You are very incorrect in saying that if the Church advocated unborn babies go to Heaven, that as a result Original Sin and Baptism cease to be important. They remain solid teaching of the Catholic Church. Original Sin exists, and so does the necessity of baptism for salvation. But since these babies are validly baptised by desire, their Original Sin is wiped away and they ARE validly baptised. This is my personal opinion, but you have to be logically consistent. If they are baptised by desire, the Church’s teachings on Original Sin and necessity of baptism are defended and recognized. Look back a bit (post #204) to see my three possible theories on the details of baptism of desire for infants…which as a faithful Catholic I can choose to believe, apparently in unison with many current Catholic theologians, Pope JPII, and Pope Benedict XVI.
 
Both are interesting theories, yet neither of them have the weight of Limbo, which has been held as a reasonable theogical construct for many centuries. Further, if those possibilites are true, then they hold true for every single human no matter what they have done, and no matter what they believed, and hell becomes something that no longer exists because under those theories God’s mercy, or the intervention of the angels and saints would save everyone. Of course, we know that is not true, yet I do think you are thinking these points to their logical conclusion.

I do undersand why you feel so emotional about this, after all who wants to think of unborn babies not going to Heaven, yet what you do not seem to get is that Limbo is a state of eternal natural happiness, but is not the Beatific Vision. That means unborn babies do NOT go to hell, rather they receive eternal happiness.
This is not true. These theories do not mean that nobody is going to Hell. In order to be truly invisibly ignorant and be baptised by desire, you must cooperate with the knowledge given to you, to the best of your ability and follow God’s moral precepts. You cannot “trick” God. Only He can look deep into the depths of our souls and judge us justly and according to how we have responded to what has been given to us. If someone, through their own fault, makes no attempt to seek what is true, what is right, and to do what is right in their lives then they will be judged accordingly. But invisible ignorance is real, many people are baptised by desire and saved as a result. For example, many people will never even hear the name Jesus in their entire lifetimes. Are they banished to Hell forever? Of course not. This would not be just nor merciful. God’s name is mercy, and He exhibits perfect justice. Some will enter Heaven and some will go to Hell. Everyone is individually judged by God according to what they have done, how they have responded to the knowledge given to them, how they have seeked God’s will, how they have done their best to do what is right and follow the moral precepts revealed by God. God alone is their judge, and His judgements are always perfectly just.

Infants are not capable of free will nor reason, and they cannot choose to reject God. Through one of the theories I have prescribed (not made up, I have learned about them while studying issues), I strongly believe that they are baptised by desire. They are innocent, and do not reject God. They are innocent and beloved children of God, and I think He welcomes them into His Kingdom with great mercy and love.
 
I suppose that Jewish parents may have an implicit will to baptize their children inasmuch as they have the will to do God’s will whatever it may be – which would include baptizing their children. For true atheists this couldn’t be so however. But I highly doubt that anyone is truly an atheist. If you define God philosophically as the ultimate reality, consider what it would mean to deny that the ultimate reality exists – it would mean that for ever being there is a greater one since there is no ultimate being. But then the cosmos as a whole would be the ultimate reality – so I don’t think one can coherently deny the existence of an ultimate reality.

Then there’s no guarantee that they would all go to heaven. Some may choose to reject him and go to hell (according to the common understanding at least). So if you believe in this particular theory, you shouldn’t say they all go to heaven.

Why can’t they be saved outside of baptism? The Catechism seems to suggest that salvation is possible outside of the sacraments and that baptism is necessary for salvation only for some, not all:

It seems to be saying that those who have not enountered the Gospel can be saved apart from any kind of baptism and that God if He chooses to can save apart from any kind of baptism “he himself” not being “bound by his sacraments.” I think everyone would acknowledge that He can act outside baptism; the only question is whether he does so.
Again, I don’t think a child’s fate is simply determined by the wishes of their parents for baptism or not for baptism. I think regardless of this parent’s wish, the baby would be baptised by desire. Yes, if the 1st theory of baptism by desire is correct, then some may choose to accept God and others choose to reject Him. But the key is that, like you and me, and even like the angels, they would be given this choice upon which their fate depends. Your quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church also raise a possible theory, that since God is not bound by the Sacraments He could save them in some mysterious way that we are not aware of. But personally I believe they are baptised by desire.
 
Heaven and Hell are eternal, and there is no going back. This is solid Catholic doctrine and cannot change. Those in Hell are incapable of going anywhere else, as are those in Heaven. They are permanent and eternal. We will have free will, but limited free will. In Hell we may have free will, but will not be able to change our fates and those in Hell have permanently chosen Hell via their lives on earth. In Heaven we will have limited free will, but we will not have the ability to sin or do wrong. Being face-to-face in the the splendor of God’s Kingdom renders this impossible. The article you are talking about is probably referring to a different meaning of “hell” than what you are thinking of. “Hell” has sometimes been referred to as the place of the Limbo of the Fathers, or otherwise known as Sheol. This is the waiting place for those who died in a state of grace, before Christ’s death on the cross. As the Apostle’s Creed states, “He descended into Hell.” This doesn’t mean the eternal Hell of the damned, but rather is referring to Sheol.

Amen !
 
Yes, I do seriously believe that “unbaptised babies” are validly baptised via baptism of desire. Speaking of the Good Thief, he did go to Heaven. Sacred Scripture tells us Jesus told him “Today you will be with Me in Paradise.” This clearly indicates that the Good Thief would enter Heaven. He may have been baptised earlier in his life, but I doubt this. More than likely he was baptised by desire. Baptism by blood and desire are valid, they exist and do occur. And about your “nuts comment”, I actually didn’t use this term dealing with this subject. I said that it was nuts to believe that the Church rejecting Limbo would lead to increased abortions. It is not faithful and practicing Catholics who are committing abortions. And this is the only population who cares about this issue. Women who have abortions are not pondering the eternal fate of their baby. And even if unbaptised babies go to Heaven, it is not merciful to murder them. If true, you must logically be consistent and state that it would be merciful to murder all babies immediately after baptism. I don’t see that being recommended anywhere, do you? There can be good that derives out of evil. It is evil to murder someone. It is evil to murder a Catholic because of their religious beliefs, but there is a great good as a result that that martyrdom assures the person of eternal salvation. Yet that horrendous crime is still mortally sinful and awful.

You are very incorrect in saying that if the Church advocated unborn babies go to Heaven, that as a result Original Sin and Baptism cease to be important. They remain solid teaching of the Catholic Church. Original Sin exists, and so does the necessity of baptism for salvation. But since these babies are validly baptised by desire, their Original Sin is wiped away and they ARE validly baptised. This is my personal opinion, but you have to be logically consistent. If they are baptised by desire, the Church’s teachings on Original Sin and necessity of baptism are defended and recognized. Look back a bit (post #204) to see my three possible theories on the details of baptism of desire for infants…which as a faithful Catholic I can choose to believe, apparently in unison with many current Catholic theologians, Pope JPII, and Pope Benedict XVI.
You can choose to **hope **that unborn babies go to Heaven, there is nothing in Scripture, or in Tradition, that tells they will go to Heaven. The only thing we know for sure is Jesus made baptism an absolute and until the later half of the 20th cetury that truth was held without challenge. Now, since Vatican II, all of sudden there are all sorts of new ways to get into Heaven. I don’t buy it, you are free to if you want. However, placing all of our own arguments to the side, it comes to something quite simple:

**Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. **

What the Church allows is for us to hope that unborn babies can somehow be welcomed into Heaven, the Church does NOT say they go to Heaven, nor can the Church say that, for if it ever does, the faith is gone.

As for the thief on the cross, there are plenty of theologians through history who believe that the Paradise the theief went to is limbo, because he was not baptized by water.

Now, answer me this: Why do you perceieve that eternal natural happiness is somehow a punishment? No person is gauranteed the Beatific Vision, so why do you (and others) seem to feel it is unfair that some souls will receive eternal happiness? What is wrong with that?
 
FTS;2150792]

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XI

*The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed. *

Unborn babies cannot receive baptism of desire because that requires them to be at an age of reason, which the Church declares to be age seven.

Therefore, we can hope, but only hope, that unborn babies, and Hindus, and Muslims, etc., can somehow be brought into Heaven, but we cannot believe it because the Church does not teach that and because none of those people in those groups have been baptized by water.
 
The theory of Limbo is not required for us to hope and pray.
Some on here call Limbo a “theory”. Is that what it is? I can only think of myself as a little Catholic school girl, sitting in the classroom at St. Mary of Perpetual Help parish, being taught by Sister Thomas about Limbo. That it is a real place where unbaptised babies go for all eternity. Now, in 3rd or 4th grade,(back in the mid 60’s) if I were to have said, “Sister Thomas? You’re teaching us about Limbo. But Limbo is only a theory. It’s a “common” Church teaching, not an “official” teaching, so we don’t have to believe what you are teaching us if we don’t want to.” Can you imagine! I would have been spanked in front of the whole class with the board of education, and then hauled off to the principal’s office, and possibly even expelled!!! I guess this is my delimma now. 😦
 
Well, Sophie, there are a lot of things in Catholic teaching, and not all of them are ‘dogma level’. Think of the children being taught in AD 1500–were they taught of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as we were? The way that we were? No. Certainly Mary was seen as being conceived without sin but there was no specific feast set aside at that time. It was only when the concept came ‘under fire’ that it was deemed necessary by the Pope to make the dogmatic pronouncement of what had been believed. So–the Immaculate Conception was always a ‘belief’ but it was not fully understood at earlier times.

Now think back to AD 400. Children were being taught that Christ had two natures (the Arian heresy, which for a time overpowered true church teaching among the majority of people). Now, the Church had not pronounced that “Christ has two natures”. (And it hasn’t, and it won’t). But individual teachers, who subscribed to Arianism, DID so teach.

So. . .here is a slightly different situation, where this ‘belief’ is NOT really a belief of the Church, but various well meaning people have somehow accepted it as belief, in spite of the Church’s teachings, because it ‘made sense’ to them and because their 'teacher told them so." But that did not make it so.

OK. So, the Church pretty much was ‘silent’ on Limbo, and indeed on heaven itself, throughout history. We know the Limbo of the Fathers exists. Many theologians proposed a teaching on the limbo for unbaptized infants. . .but even this was not proposed until I believe the Middle Ages, and was acknowledged as a concept which, absent official teaching on the matter, could be believed, or not.

So THAT is what Sister was teaching you. And she was within her right to do so. At the time, absent official teaching, limbo as a concept was perfectly logical and worthy of belief according to what we knew at the time.

Our teachers were not perfect. I grew up in the 60s at the Catholic school and I heard about Limbo but it was not given the same authority and scope as was the teaching on the Immaculate Conception. Apparently, according to some, THEY were taught by their priests and nuns that we really ‘do’ worship Mary. . .so just because “Sister said so” doesn’t mean it really was so. If it was so, it was, whether ‘Sister said’ or not.
 
Tom, just as an advocate, what about baptism by blood? These children can be considered, I think, as martyrs for the faith. Why? Because they are being killed because of proponents and believers in the culture of death. The culture of death is antithetical to the culture of life. Christianity is the culture of life.

Therefore, those children are dying because of their parents’ (and others) spurning of life in favor of death. The children would, of course, choose life rather than death (that is a natural order of the universe, despite its twisting and distortion by certain ‘thinkers’ that non-existence is preferable to existence).

So since the children would choose life–and thereby the opportunity to choose Christ–and since they are denied that choice through no fault of their own, I argue that they are martyrs and thus eligible for baptism under baptism of blood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top