Catholic Church Buries Limbo After Centuries

[rlg94086]

I’m glad you don’t believe the current Catechism is in error. As Limbo is not de fide, it is not necessary to believe in it. However, it is important to understand that Baptism is necessary.

All that said, the Catechism says we can “hope there is a way of salvation for children who die without Baptism.”

CCC:

**VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM **
[1257](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1257.htm’) 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.
[1258](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1258.htm’) The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
[1259](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1259.htm’) For *catechumens *who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
[1260](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1260.htm’) "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. [1261](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1261.htm’) 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,"64 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.

Seems pretty clear to me. I’ll let those who seem to be experts on the Councils explain how the Catechism is holding to Tradition.

If one is to interpert the Catechism it should be to have harmony with Popes, Church Councils, Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, and the tradition of the saints. Not to create opposition between these things

As said by others on this thread the “a way of salvation” should be taken as establishing limbo more firmly and not to have it say babies go to heaven when traditionally this was never the case.

Until the 1950’s. there was no opposition to limbo. They who are opposed never give a continuity of their opinion from the early Church to today… They just seem to creat theories. The Holy Office( now The Doctrine of th Faith) condemed these new theories because it was effecting people postponing baptism for their children.:

The Holy Office in 1958 (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) provided as follows:The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature–a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism…Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible. . . . Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfillment of this obligation (refer to the New Catholic Encyclopedia: Limbo)

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

The verbatim citation of a Council out-of-context with all the other teachings of the Church does not prove a point. It is very similar to the tactics of those who follow *sola scriptura *and quote passages of the Bible out-of-context.

It is possible to state that those who die with original sin are deprived of the beatific vision, and to also state that “God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly." (See CCC 1257)

On the contrary, it is ***not ***quoting out of context to cite Florence’s dogma (DS 1306) that the souls of those dying in original sin only descend into hell for some kind of punishment (i.e., deprivation of the beatific vision), for the very same general council also teaches that the sacrament of Baptism is the sole remedy for infants facing the possibility of a premature death (DS 1349).

In keeping with Catholic tradition, CCC 1257 must be understood as referring only to baptism of blood (for anyone) and baptism of desire (for anyone who possesses the power of desire). Surely, *CCC *1257 cannot be interpreted as contradicting *CCC *1250, which teaches as follows:

"Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called."

Ultimately, all attacks on the dogmas of original sin, the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism, and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary emanate from him who represents the “power of darkness.”

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[rlg94086]

And CCC 1261?

1261 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,"64 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.

On the contrary, it is ***not ***quoting out of context to cite Florence’s dogma (DS 1306) that the souls of those dying in original sin only descend into hell for some kind of punishment (i.e., deprivation of the beatific vision), for the very same general council also teaches that the sacrament of Baptism is the sole remedy for infants facing the possibility of a premature death (DS 1349).

In keeping with Catholic tradition, CCC 1257 must be understood as referring only to baptism of blood (for anyone) and baptism of desire (for anyone who possesses the power of desire). Surely, *CCC *1257 cannot be interpreted as contradicting *CCC *1250, which teaches as follows:

***“Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.” ***

BTW…are you commenting on the belief or non-belief of Limbo with the following? I haven’t personally made any attacks on the dogmas you list, but Limbo (which may or may not exist) isn’t one of them.

Ultimately, all attacks on the dogmas of original sin, the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism, and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary emanate from him who represents the “power of darkness.”

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

And CCC 1261?

In the light of Catholic tradition, CCC 1261 should be understood as referring, not to a hope for the beatific vision for unbaptized infants, but instead to the hope that they may be saved from what Jesus calls the “fire” of hell (i.e., what theologians call the “pain of sense”).

The Church has never said that salvation must necessarily be understood as identical to the beatific vision, and Pope Pius XII taught in the 1950 encyclical Humani generis that the Church can change her terminology without changing her doctrine. In accordance with this principle of terminological development, the natural happiness of limbo can be viewed as a kind of salvation, whereas unbaptized infants’ loss of the beatific vision is a kind of damnation. This dichotomy is a paradox, but it’s supported by St. Thomas Aquinas’s concept of limbo and by an understanding of the totality of Catholic tradition.

Again, please note that the official analytical index of the new catechism lists “Limbo” and connects that word with *CCC *1261.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[rlg94086]

Thanks Steve. That is very helpful.

Can you give some direct sources that salvation does not necessarily mean beatific vision? It seems like a stretch to me. When I see salvation mentioned in the Bible and Catechism, I’ve never thought it meant anything short of beatific vision.

Are there two different words in Latin that may be translated to “salvation?” That would explain a lot.

In the light of Catholic tradition, CCC 1261 should be understood as referring, not to a hope for the beatific vision for unbaptized infants, but instead to the hope that they may be saved from what Jesus calls the “fire” of hell (i.e., what theologians call the “pain of sense”).

The Church has never said that salvation must necessarily be understood as identical to the beatific vision, and Pope Pius XII taught in the 1950 encyclical Humani generis that the Church can change her terminology without changing her doctrine. In accordance with this principle of terminological development, the natural happiness of limbo can be viewed as a kind of salvation, whereas unbaptized infants’ loss of the beatific vision is a kind of damnation. This dichotomy is a paradox, but it’s supported by St. Thomas Aquinas’s concept of limbo and by an understanding of the totality of Catholic tradition.

Again, please note that the official analytical index of the new catechism lists “Limbo” and connects that word with *CCC *1261.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Thanks Steve. That is very helpful.

Can you give some direct sources that salvation does not necessarily mean beatific vision? It seems like a stretch to me. When I see salvation mentioned in the Bible and Catechism, I’ve never thought it meant anything short of beatific vision.

Are there two different words in Latin that may be translated to “salvation?” That would explain a lot.

To the best of my knowledge, *CCC *1261 represents the first occasion on which the Magisterium has said anything that can–and should–be interpreted as meaning that the natural happiness of limbo may be viewed as a kind of salvation (salvation from the “pain of sense” in hell). I believe, however, that the groundwork for this shift in terminology and emphasis (without a contradiction of any dogma) was being laid all through the centuries in which the concept of limbo was being taught.

We should remember that many theological terms that are staples of Catholic theology today took centuries to arise. Examples: transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Co-Redemptrix. This principle, I suggest, can be applied to occasionally using a previously existing term (indeed, a Scriptural term) in an expanded sense–under the guidance, of course, of the Magisterium.

As for the two Latin words that may be translated as “salvation,” candidates would be salus (as in CCC 1261 and 1283) and beatitudo (as in CCC 1257). Here is a key statement in CCC 1257 in Latin and English:

"Ecclesia aliud medium non cognoscit ad ingressum in beatitudinem aeternam in tuto ponendum nisi Baptismum . . .]"

"The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude . . .]."

In CCC 1257, beatitudo aeterna is the equivalent of visio beatifica (“beatific vision”), i.e., salvation in the sense of the supernatural happiness of heaven. Please see also *CCC *1720.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[napad]

I’m glad you don’t believe the current Catechism is in error. As Limbo is not de fide, it is not necessary to believe in it. However, it is important to understand that Baptism is necessary.

All that said, the Catechism says we can “hope there is a way of salvation for children who die without Baptism.”

Seems pretty clear to me. I’ll let those who seem to be experts on the Councils explain how the Catechism is holding to Tradition.

Could you give me a historical continuity that infants dying without baptism are saved (i.e.beatific vision).

Or give a list of
first infallable statements, by Popes or Councils
then Ordinary Magisterium,
then Church Fathers and Doctors,
and finally saints, and catechisms ( though the new Catechism and Trent’s would be under ordinary Magisterium, others wouldn’t)

The Church cant make-up doctrines out of thin air. There has to be a CONTINUITY in a teaching to be considered Catholic.

 

[rlg94086]

Could you give me a historical continuity that infants dying without baptism are saved (i.e.beatific vision).

Nope.

napad:

Or give a list of
first infallable statements, by Popes or Councils
then Ordinary Magisterium,
then Church Fathers and Doctors,
and finally saints, and catechisms ( though the new Catechism and Trent’s would be under ordinary Magisterium, others wouldn’t)

If I knew all that stuff, I wouldn’t have asked Steve O. I am learning and reading Church documents, but the Catechism is my first source on Catholic teaching. Shouldn’t it be? Or am I expected as a Catholic to look at the Catechism with an untrusting eye?

I don’t think so. Rather, I would expect it to be accurate because…

napad:

The Church cant make-up doctrines out of thin air. There has to be a CONTINUITY in a teaching to be considered Catholic.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

The Church can’t make up doctrines out of thin air. There has to be a CONTINUITY in a teaching to be considered Catholic.

This is absolutely correct. Even though the existence of limbo is not a dogma, the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision because of original sin **is **a dogma, and this dogma cannot simply be made to vanish.

The Catholic Church cannot have taught this dogma for centuries and then suddenly announce in 2007: “Sorry. There’s been a mistake. All unbaptized infants may go to heaven after all.”

But the Catholic Church is ***not ***reversing her official teaching. What has actually happened is this: in a time of terrible confusion in the human elements of the one true Church, a group of misguided theologians has been erroneously permitted to publish a statement expressing their mistaken personal views on the concept of limbo. This is certainly a great scandal, but it represents no change in Catholic dogma. The thirty theologians who have contradicted Catholic dogma fall into the same category as Pope Paul VI’s birth control commission, whose majority report erroneously stated that contraception is not a mortal sin.

Catholic doctrine does develop over time, but by explication, not by the addition of novelties that imply contradiction in the Church’s official teaching. We should bear in mind the following words of Pope St. Pius X’s Oath Against Modernism:

". . .] I reject the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, passing from one meaning to another, different from that which the Church first had . . .]" (old Denzinger number 2145; new Denzinger number 3541).

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I am learning and reading Church documents, but the Catechism is my first source on Catholic teaching. Shouldn’t it be? Or am I expected as a Catholic to look at the Catechism with an untrusting eye?

I don’t think so. Rather, I would expect it to be accurate because…

We should trust the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As Pope John Paul II assured us, it is “a sure norm for teaching the faith” (Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum).

In absorbing the new catechism, however, we should follow its own good example by supplementing and clarifying its teaching with the totality of Catholic tradition and with previous Magisterial statements. Note how often the catechism cites those previous statements! The teaching of the Faith did not begin in 1992, the year in which the catechism was published. This teaching began on Pentecost, and we cannot ignore the expanse of time between Pentecost and 1992. Jesus was speaking through the Popes and the bishops during all those centuries in keeping with his words in *Lk *10:16: “Whoever listens to you listens to me” (1986 NAB).

Above all, we should bear in mind that nothing in the new catechism should be understood in a sense that would contradict a Catholic dogma. For this reason, *CCC *1261 should be interpreted as referring to the hope for limbo for unbaptized infants, and not as referring to the hope for their attainment of the beatific vision.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[rlg94086]

We should trust the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As Pope John Paul II assured us, it is “a sure norm for teaching the faith” (Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum).

In absorbing the new catechism, however, we should follow its own good example by supplementing and clarifying its teaching with the totality of Catholic tradition and with previous Magisterial statements. Note how often the catechism cites those previous statements! The teaching of the Faith did not begin in 1992, the year in which the catechism was published. This teaching began on Pentecost, and we cannot ignore the expanse of time between Pentecost and 1992. Jesus was speaking through the Popes and the bishops during all those centuries in keeping with his words in *Lk *10:16: “Whoever listens to you listens to me” (1986 NAB).

I agree wholeheartedly and do look up those references as I study the Catechism. However, I haven’t been able to do a comprehensive study of Council documents, and there is a limit to the knowledge gained by looking up individual citations.

Above all, we should bear in mind that nothing in the new catechism should be understood in a sense that would contradict a Catholic dogma. For this reason, *CCC *1261 should be interpreted as referring to the hope for limbo for unbaptized infants, and not as referring to the hope for their attainment of the beatific vision.

Keep and spread the Faith.

Understood Steve. And, if the potentially different use of the word “salvation” had been explained toward the beginning of this thread, many of my posts would have had a different tone.

I am still convinced that God “is not bound by His sacraments” (CCC 1257) and could admit anyone into heaven that he wants, but at least I understand the reasoning behind the necessity of the theory of Limbo. Thanks for that.

The important thing is that we all understand the necessity of Baptism.

God bless,

Robert

 

[japhy]

Why isn’t there vicarious baptizing of the wombs of pregnant women then, as soon as pregnancy is known? By delaying baptism until after birth, you are subjecting the unborn to the dangers of pre-birth complications that could result in its death and relegation to Limbo.

If Limbo is a reality, then a child killed by abortion has the same fate as a child who dies in a miscarriage, as does a child who dies when the embyro simply fails to attach itself to the uterine lining.

"What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? As I live, says the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel." (Ezekiel 18:2-3)

 

[napad]

Nope.

If I knew all that stuff, I wouldn’t have asked Steve O. I am learning and reading Church documents, but the Catechism is my first source on Catholic teaching. Shouldn’t it be? Or am I expected as a Catholic to look at the Catechism with an untrusting eye?

I don’t think so. Rather, I would expect it to be accurate because…

Im sorry if my tone seemed a little harsh.

To help you in your research here are some statements that will help:
**
Infallable**
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442:
“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, **when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, **it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people.”
Council of Lyons II, 1274
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.” (Denzinger 464)

Council of Florence, 1438-1445:
“the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds” (Denzinger 694)

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 -
Proposition 6: Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this = Condemned. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 422

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session Va:
“If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

St, Pope Zosimus : “Tractoria, in which Pelagianism and its authors were condemned. Thus, finally, the occupant of the Apostolic See at the right moment maintained with all authority the traditional dogma of the Church, and protected the truth of the Church against error." (catholic Ecyclo. “Zosimus”) Refered to in the Council of Ephases’ We[Zozimus], however, by the inspiration of God…have referred all things to the of our brothers and co-bishops.’ [16th Council of Carthage] "

 

[napad]

Authoritive: Ordinary Magisterium

16th Council of Carthage (aproved by Zosimus and Council of Ephases see above):

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my father’s house there are many mansions”(JN14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema.
For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left” (Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)

Pope St. Innocent I, in 417, Synod of Milevis : “The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life even without the grace of baptism is utterly foolish” (DS 219).

Pope Innocent III,
who asserted that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer "no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God” (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii – Majores). (Denzinger 410)

John XXII, Nequaquam sine dolere, Nov 21, 1321:"…the souls…of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places." (Denzinger 493a)

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, Aug. 28, 1794,
“Baptism” section 3:
The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the 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, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,–false rash injurious to Catholic schools." [Denzinger 1526[/COLOR]]

Pius XII-Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951.
An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.

The Holy Office in 1958 (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) provided as follows:The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature–a practice favored by some opinions,** lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism…**.Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible. . . . Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfillment of this obligation.

The provincial Council of Cologne: “Faith teaches us that infants, since they are not capable of this desire, are excluded from the kingdom of heaven if they die [unbaptized].” (Collectio Lacensis, V. 320)

 

[japhy]

Pope St. Innocent I, in 417, Synod of Milevis : “The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life even without the grace of baptism is utterly foolish” (DS 219).

God has given us the sacrament of baptism through which flows that grace which frees us from the stain of original sin, but He is not bound within His sacraments. I do not doubt that the grace of baptism is necessary to enter Heaven. The concepts of baptism by martyrdom or by desire imply that God can bestow the grace conferred by baptism in other means (apart from water).

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Why isn’t there vicarious baptizing of the wombs of pregnant women then, as soon as pregnancy is known? By delaying baptism until after birth, you are subjecting the unborn to the dangers of pre-birth complications that could result in its death and relegation to Limbo.

If Limbo is a reality, then a child killed by abortion has the same fate as a child who dies in a miscarriage, as does a child who dies when the embyro simply fails to attach itself to the uterine lining.

"What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? As I live, says the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel." (Ezekiel 18:2-3)

The pouring of the water is synchronous with the baptismal words must be directly on the forehead of the child.
To do otherwise would be baptizing the soon-to-be mother on her abdomen. Baptism cannot and must not be so loosely performed and rest comfortabley in the mind that all is achieved.

If so, then would you baptize the child again after it’s born? Or…would you just let it go at that?

The child IS NOT its mother nor is the mother the child. This is the argument the abortion folks use all the time…"…a woman’s right to her own body…"

 

[japhy]

The pouring of the water is synchronous with the baptismal words must be directly on the forehead of the child. To do otherwise would be baptizing the soon-to-be mother on her abdomen. Baptism cannot and must not be so loosely performed and rest comfortabley in the mind that all is achieved.

I wasn’t speaking of baptizing the abdomen; I meant (as unseemly as it sounds) an in utero baptism. I said “baptism of the womb”. I admit I used the word “vicarious” by mistake.

Your reply implies that a baptism cannot be performed on an unborn child, and therefore, there is nothing than a human can do to baptize one. Is there any prescribed prayer over such a one to ensure the conferrence of the grace of baptism should he die before being born?

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Pope St. Innocent I, in 417, Synod of Milevis : “The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life even without the grace of baptism is utterly foolish” (DS 219).

Napad, thanks for posting DS 219! I was unaware of it. Unfortunately, it’s not listed in the old Denzinger, in Deferrari’s English translation, or in Neuner-Dupuis.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[napad]

God has given us the sacrament of baptism through which flows that grace which frees us from the stain of original sin, but He is not bound within His sacraments. I do not doubt that the grace of baptism is necessary to enter Heaven. The concepts of baptism by martyrdom or by desire imply that God can bestow the grace conferred by baptism in other means (apart from water).

There is a little more to baptism than meets the eye. Baptism of water technically is the only baptism that exists. The other “baptisms” of desire and blood are not baptism.

Im not denying there exists other ways of getting rid of original sin but to call them Baptism is just not acurate; they have become shorthand for conveying sanctifying grace. They should technically always have the " quote marks". Why? Because Trent taught that baptism is of real and natural water and should not be understood as a metaphore.

Council of Trent 7th session; Baptism:
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

“Baptism” of blood and desire do not confer the mark on the soul this is only given in water baptism and they do not make one able to recieve any of the sacraments or make you a member of the church militant.

Original sin is wiped out by “baptism” of Blood and of Desire but it could be debated (and most likely is on these forums) whether they are enough to enter heaven.

Im only trying to clearify; Im still undecided which side is right. I do believe though that the limbo thing is a very clear teaching of the church. But the fact is all 3 of these baptisms are not exactly equal.
I thought id take the chance to give this interesting information information

 

[FTS]

No, respectfully you are wrong, your personal views about baptism are not in-line with the Church. According to the Church baptism is an absolute, not a choice, which includes babies and children of all ages. One cannot say that a baby or young can have baptism of desire because they have not even reached the age of reason. After all, an eight week-old baby being baptized is not desiring that baptism, the parents desire the baby’s baptism and the discussion of whether or not a parents desire is enough is far from settled. I also lean on the side of God’s mercy and I do hope non-Catholics and the unbaptized are given some path to salvation…yet what you are missing is that I can hope for such things (as a child hopes for Santa Claus to come), but my hope means nothing, God either has a path or He does not and God has NOT revealed any other path but baptism by water and the spirit.

If your view is correct, then the Church is wrong to baptized anyone under seven years old, and in fact the Church should follow the model of baptizing adults only, since they are the ones that hold the greatest maturity and ability to know the faith and to desire baptism. It is also important that we not think the Church has contructed formal teachings that are contrary to Scripture or Tradition, for the Church never contradict infallible revelation.

Rather, respectfully you are wrong. No matter how much you may want it to be, Limbo is not an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. It is theological speculation. I do believe that these infants can be baptised by desire. I have stated three possible theories in which this could take place. The Catholic Church teaches about ordinary baptism, via water, but also teaches about two extraordinary means, via blood and desire. The teaching of baptism by desire has not been fully explained, and neither I nor you no 100% positively whether or not this could be applied to infants. I think it can, and you think it cannot, but we are free to have these differing opinions. I respect yours and you should respect mine. The theory I personally find most plausible is at the moment before death supernaturally given an infusion of free will and reason, and God presents them the choice to deny or accept Him. This may be a choice to accept Him or deny Him, or a some sort of moral test for them, similar towards the way in which the angels were tested, the good entering Heaven and the bad entering Hell. I do not believe that God would make it impossible for someone to be with Him in Heaven forever, I believe strongly that He gives all people this opportunity to accept Him.

Also, your example is un-warranted and does not add up intellectually. Water baptism is the ordinary means of baptism, and God wills this for all people, if possible. However, in extraordinary circumstances people can be baptised by blood or by desire. In a similar comparison, God desires people to use the Sacrament of Confession to be absolved of sins. However, in extraordinary circumstances, a perfect act of contrition can result in forgiveness of sins. With your logic, according to this truth, we should stop going to Confession because it isn’t necessary. Your argument has no merit. Just because Baptism by blood or desire can occur in extraordinary circumstances doesn’t take away from the truth that if possible God desires His people to be baptised with water and Trinitarian formula. Also, believing in the possibility of salvation for these non-water baptised infants is NOT contrary to infallible Church teachings. We are absolutely allowed to believe this way, as does our current Pope Benedict XVI and many current Church theologians. You are allowed to believe in Limbo, but if any accusations of opposing the mind of the Church should be pointed out, it would be yourself who is opposed with most current Church theologians.