Catholic Church Buries Limbo After Centuries

[johnstown_johnn]

John the Baptist was born without original sin. Besides Our Lord and our Lady the Church celebrates only one other birthday, his.

Matthew 11:11 “Amen I say to you, there hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

But here our Lord says that the least in the kingdom of God is greater than him. The way we enter the kindom of God is through water baptism. Because only water baptism engraphs us into Christ and the Mystical body and marks our soul to that effect. One can not recieve communion with only the other two “baptisms”, because one is not a member of the Church till recieving baptism.

in Acts Ch.8:38 the Eunuch was baptised by the miracle of Philip being transported to him. The Eunich most likely recieved the sanctifying grace of desire but God wanted him baptised.

St. Paul also recieved the Holy Spirit when he gained his sight, before Baptism:

Acts Of Apostles 9:17-18 “that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and rising up, he was baptized.”

Cornelius and family recieved the Holy Spirit but Peter baptised him right after this manifestation.

Acts 10:46 “For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. 47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? 48 **And he commanded them to be baptized **in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.”

A man named Apollo was preaching Christ but was baptised only with John’s baptism, he probably was cleansed from original sin by his desire to follow Christ; but in God’s providence Paul hearing this had him immediately baptised.

Acts 19:4 Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. 5 Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

It is true that “baptism” of desire removes original sin but it is clear in all these cases that baptism was also necessary. Curious isn it?

---

PS: Finally if your theory is that they recieve desire then they have a choice and they could reject God and if they do, they will end up in real hell fire not just limbo. You’ve created another problem not solved one.

This is a great post! The flow of your words are noticably spiritual and illumines this board Thank you.

 

[napad]

As far as your PS… I haven’t put forward a theory that matches what you said. All I have said is that if (that is an “if”) unbaptized babies have original sin removed through Baptism of desire, blood or some other method only known to God, nothing would impede their entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. If you can refute that statement, have at it. I personally don’t see how an infant whose original sin was removed could could possibly commit a mortal sin after death.

Now, since nothing has been revealed in this case, some theologians theorized that they go to Limbo because they still have original sin. The Catechism says we may “hope” for their salvation. Bottomline is we don’t know.

Im sorry if I miss understood you but I was using "you " not in a personal sense. And I thought you accepted that God gave them an opportunity to desire Him. ( Which is the most popular theory out there) I appologize for assuming you were proposing this theory.

I was trying to show that there is a difference in this this life between “baptism” of desire and water and that God went to a lot of trouble to make it clear in this life that baptism is necessary.
Maybe He ment it. And as you say:"Now, since nothing has been revealed " But it has been revealed that babies need baptism

The theory that he frees babies from original sin in some way aside from baptism, would mean that God and the Church has decieved us for centuries that baptism is necessary for babies.

Since there is no traditon that babies go to heaven and on the other hand we have very very strong traditional teaching that it is not possible for babies to go to heaven. I side on that of tradition not novelty.

 

[rlg94086]

Since there is no traditon that babies go to heaven and on the other hand we have very very strong traditional teaching that it is not possible for babies to go to heaven. I side on that of tradition not novelty.

I’m sure God will follow whatever you decide.

I will continue to pray for the souls of unbaptized babies who die, since the Church tells me I can have hope that they will be saved. I’m assuming you might be praying for them as well, but if so, why? If you know for certain they are going to Limbo, there is no reason to pray for them.

 

[napad]

I’m sure God will follow whatever you decide.

I will continue to pray for the souls of unbaptized babies who die, since the Church tells me I can have hope that they will be saved. I’m assuming you might be praying for them as well, but if so, why? If you know for certain they are going to Limbo, there is no reason to pray for them.

This seems to be an emotional augument

You are trying to frame the question around my personal beliefs and piety. When if anyone looks at my posts, mine is the objective teaching of the Church through the centuries. Don’t believe me. Check the sources yourself.

No one has yet shown a CONTINUITY of a tradition that babies go to heaven.

The Pro- artificial-contraception crowd try to use the emotional ploy too. They would like to change the Church 's morality to conform to their emotional hang-ups. But they never show a continuity of tradition accepting contraception. Though those opposed to artificial contraceptionhave shown a continuity of the Church condeming it.

 

[rlg94086]

This seems to be an emotional augument

You are only misreading it as emotional.

You are trying to frame the question around my personal beliefs and piety. When if anyone looks at my posts, mine is the objective teaching of the Church through the centuries. Don’t believe me. Check the sources yourself.

Not at all. I am genuinely curious as to why anyone would pray for the soul of a non-baptized baby who dies, if they know with certainty that they are beyond hope.

And since no one is willing to show a CONTINUITY of babies go to heaven.

The Pro- artificial-contraception crowd try the same thing. They would like to change the Church 's morality to conform to their emotional hang-ups. But they never show a continuity of tradition accepting contraception. Though those opposed to artificial contraceptionhave shown a continuity of the Church condeming it.

I haven’t tried to change the Church. I am following the Church teaching according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I don’t have to “show continuity” to follow a clear teaching of the Church.

Only Steve O’Brien has shown a worthwhile argument against the clear statements of the Catechism, and that was on the nature of salvation (whether it means saving one from hell or sending one to heaven).

You haven’t answered the challenge of the last two questions I had quoting the Catechism. In fact, you have implied that removal of original sin and sanctifying grace may not be sufficient to get to heaven, which seems pretty heretical to me. If you can find someone else to back you up on that one, I will be impressed.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

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?

“…unless a man be born again he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven…” “Born again” quite clearly means to be baptized. Also, a child in the womb is NOT born until it is born. The child has to be born to qualify for baptism. Seems simple enough for me.

 

[japhy]

The theory that he frees babies from original sin in some way aside from baptism, would mean that God and the Church has decieved us for centuries that baptism is necessary for babies.

No, Jesus told us to baptize. If extenuating circumstances prevent us from being able to baptize, why can’t we hope God has His own means?

What gain is there for anyone in the equation when a mother miscarries her child, and that child is sent to Limbo? Does the mother learn a lesson? Is God glorified? Certainly not by the soul (and future resurrected body) of the miscarried human, since in Limbo, no one knows they’re missing out on God.

Why doesn’t the Church institute in utero baptism to safeguard the unborn from the possibility of Limbo? Does the Church just not care?

 

[japhy]

“…unless a man be born again he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven…” “Born again” quite clearly means to be baptized. Also, a child in the womb is NOT born until it is born. The child has to be born to qualify for baptism. Seems simple enough for me.

The Greek behind “born again” can also be translated as “born from above”.

Anyway, since by this logic the unborn are simply not eligible to receive the Sacrament of Baptism as it was instituted for (born) men, why could not God bestow the grace of Baptism on those that die in the womb?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

No, Jesus told us to baptize. If extenuating circumstances prevent us from being able to baptize, why can’t we hope God has His own means?

What gain is there for anyone in the equation when a mother miscarries her child, and that child is sent to Limbo? Does the mother learn a lesson? Is God glorified? Certainly not by the soul (and future resurrected body) of the miscarried human, since in Limbo, no one knows they’re missing out on God.

Why doesn’t the Church institute in utero baptism to safeguard the unborn from the possibility of Limbo? Does the Church just not care?

It might not be medically feasible for in utero baptism. The baby is encased in a placenta and it may or may not be doable. Besides, a syringe would have to be used and that would NOT be “pouring” it would be “squirting.” There also has to be a touching in the ritual.

The more I think of this idea; the sillier it gets.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

The Greek behind “born again” can also be translated as “born from above”.

Anyway, since by this logic the unborn are simply not eligible to receive the Sacrament of Baptism as it was instituted for (born) men, why could not God bestow the grace of Baptism on those that die in the womb?

God is NOT a baptizer…that is a chore/duty/mission/obligation for us here on earth. Baptism is a kind of relay race from one gerneration to the next…it is incumbant on the human family in accord with God’s command.

 

[japhy]

God is NOT a baptizer…that is a chore/duty/mission/obligation for us here on earth. Baptism is a kind of relay race from one gerneration to the next…it is incumbant on the human family in accord with God’s command.

Correct, God doesn’t baptize, humans do, to confer the grace of the sacrament. God doesn’t need to “use” baptism because He is the source of the grace itself. God can supply what is lacking on our part.

You call in utero baptism silly. What recourse would you suggest to a woman who has had two miscarriages and is now pregnant again and fears most desperately for the eternal fate of her unborn child? Prayer and what else? Consignment to God’s will that her unborn children belong in Limbo?

Jesus is interceding for us at the throne of the Father. Will he not intercede for the unborn?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I don’t know if this is the correct forum to post this. I apologize if it is.

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070420/ts_nm/pope_limbo_dc

Catholic Church buries limbo after centuries By Philip Pullella
Fri Apr 20, 2:21 PM ET

The Roman Catholic Church has effectively buried the concept of limbo, the place where centuries of tradition and teaching held that babies who die without baptism went.

In a long-awaited document, the Church’s International Theological Commission said limbo reflected an “unduly restrictive view of salvation.”

“…Many are called - few are chosen…”.​

The 41-page document was published on Friday by Origins, the documentary service of the U.S.-based Catholic News Service, which is part of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Pope Benedict, himself a top theologian who before his election in 2005 expressed doubts about limbo, authorized the publication of the document, called “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised.”

The verdict that limbo could now rest in peace had been expected for years. The document was seen as most likely the final word since limbo was never part of Church doctrine, even though it was taught to Catholics well into the 20th century.

“The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in revelation,” it said.

“There are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible (to baptize them).”

That is very weak reasoning - if someone dies in unrepented mortal sin, is that a reason to hope they will be saved ? To ask the question is to answer it.​

The Church teaches that baptism removes original sin which stains all souls since the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden.

“NO NEGATION OF BAPTISM”

The document stressed that its conclusions should not be interpreted as questioning original sin or “used to negate the necessity of baptism or delay the conferral of the sacrament.”

Limbo, which comes from the Latin word meaning “border” or “edge,” was considered by medieval theologians

As well as those in all succeeding centuries​

to be a state or place reserved for the unbaptized dead, including good people who lived before the coming of Christ.

“People find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian,” the document said.

1. By parity of reasoning, that is an argument for ordaining women, denying the existence of Hell, & generally throwing out anything that does not commend itself to the ideas of the non-Christian world. It’s a suicidal idea.​

2.Our duty is to conform our thinking to the Gospel, all of it, nasty bits as well as nice, to be inwardly renewed by it - not to dilute it so Christ-deniers can find it acceptable.

It said the study was made all the more pressing because “the number of nonbaptised infants has grown considerably, and therefore the reflection on the possibility of salvation for these infants has become urgent.”

The commission’s conclusions had been widely expected.

In writings before his election as Pope in 2005, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made it clear he believed the concept of limbo should be abandoned because it was “only a theological hypothesis” and “never a defined truth of faith.”

Maybe he’s forgetting his own “Note” accompanying Ad Tuendam Fidem - Pius VI rebuked the Jansenists in 1794 for calling Limbo a “Pelagian fable” in 1786. It was Catholic teaching then - to say that it was not defined is true: & totally beside the point; it’s a red herring.​

Besides, the Cardinal Prefect of the SCDF is not the Pope, nor is he incapable of being mistaken. ##

In the Divine Comedy, Dante placed virtuous pagans and great classical philosophers, including Plato and Socrates, in limbo. The Catholic Church’s official catechism, issued in 1992 after decades of work, dropped the mention of limbo.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent published in 1566 doesn’t mention it either - unlike the 1976 edition of “The Teaching of Christ”, which is an excellent doctrinal source from every point of view. The 36th edition of Denzinger’s Enchiridion, published the same year, includes it.​

To be incorporated in Christ by grace is not a right - it is a** gift**. No injustice is done to the unbaptised if they do not receive baptism & die without being made Christ’s. It is an entirely free gift of God which no one deserves, & which all deserve not to receive: except that God is readier to show mercy, than to punish us we deserve.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Despite news reports, the Catholic Church has not buried the concept of limbo, nor can she do so.

Even though it is not a dogma, limbo is a valid theological conclusion solidly based on the dogma that those who die in original sin only are in some manner penalized for this state of sin in the next world. The penalty is deprivation of the beatific vision. This dogma was taught by two general councils: Lyons II in 1274 and Florence in 1439. (The old Denzinger numbers are 464 and 693; the new Denzinger numbers are 858 and 1306. See also old Denzinger number 410 and new Denzinger number 780.)

What has just happened is merely this: a group of theologians has dissented from the above dogma. In doing so, they have made a mistake. If the citations in media reports are accurate, the members of the International Theological Commission (ITC) are not even sure about their disagreement with Catholic doctrine, for they have contended that unbaptized infants may (not will) achieve the beatific vision.

What the ITC has done is very much in the same category as what Pope Paul VI’s birth control commission did when its majority report disregarded irreversible Catholic moral teaching on the sinfulness of artificial contraception. Even though Paul VI had continued his predecessor’s approval of the establishment of this commission, its contradiction of Catholic teaching had absolutely no weight for a serious Catholic, and Paul VI himself, by issuing the encyclical Humanae vitae in 1968, eventually put an end to the scandal caused by the commission’s defection from the truth of Catholic doctrine.

“But the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has permitted publication of the ITC statement on limbo!” Granted, but the fact of papal infallibility does *not *cover such actions, as every well-instructed Catholic should know. In this case, too, there is a parallel from Church history: in the fourteenth century, Pope John XXII erroneously taught, but in a non-ex cathedra manner, that the souls of the blessed do not achieve the beatific vision until the final judgment. (The new Denzinger numbers are 990-991.) This mistake, which did not compromise either John XXII’s authority as the Vicar of Christ or the truth of Catholic doctrine, had to be corrected later.

We should *not *allow the Devil to use the ITC statement on limbo to injure our faith. We should *not *start asking: “In addition to the dogma of original sin, which other dogmas or moral teachings will be overturned?” No dogma or moral teaching has been or will be reversed. Our Lord has promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Catholic Church, and the Mother of God is always crushing all heresies.

We must especially avoid the false solutions of “traditionalist” schism and sedevacantism. Please remember that St. Paul opted for neither of these dead ends when St. Peter, the first Pope, scandalized the Catholics of Antioch (Gal 2:11). We must not make the crisis in the human dimensions of the Church worse than it already is.

We should pray for the millions of Catholics who will scandalized by what the ITC has done. We should ask Our Lady of Fátima to guide the Holy Father and to strengthen our faith.

Keep and spread the Faith.

​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

In my newspaper Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology of the U. of Notre Dame, said, “Baptism does not exist to wipe away the ‘stain’ of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church.”

What a bunch of garbage! This is directly opposed to Church teaching. And this guy calls himself a priest? Of course, the liberal media run with this kind of junk.

It does both​

 

[DL82]

I don’t know if this is the correct forum to post this. I apologize if it is.

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070420/ts_nm/pope_limbo_dc

Catholic Church buries limbo after centuries By Philip Pullella
Fri Apr 20, 2:21 PM ET

The Roman Catholic Church has effectively buried the concept of limbo, the place where centuries of tradition and teaching held that babies who die without baptism went.

In a long-awaited document, the Church’s International Theological Commission said limbo reflected an “unduly restrictive view of salvation.”

The 41-page document was published on Friday by Origins, the documentary service of the U.S.-based Catholic News Service, which is part of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Pope Benedict, himself a top theologian who before his election in 2005 expressed doubts about limbo, authorized the publication of the document, called “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised.”

The verdict that limbo could now rest in peace had been expected for years. The document was seen as most likely the final word since limbo was never part of Church doctrine, even though it was taught to Catholics well into the 20th century.

“The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in revelation,” it said.

“There are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible (to baptize them).”

The Church teaches that baptism removes original sin which stains all souls since the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden.

“NO NEGATION OF BAPTISM”

The document stressed that its conclusions should not be interpreted as questioning original sin or “used to negate the necessity of baptism or delay the conferral of the sacrament.”

Limbo, which comes from the Latin word meaning “border” or “edge,” was considered by medieval theologians to be a state or place reserved for the unbaptized dead, including good people who lived before the coming of Christ.

“People find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian,” the document said.

It said the study was made all the more pressing because “the number of nonbaptised infants has grown considerably, and therefore the reflection on the possibility of salvation for these infants has become urgent.”

The commission’s conclusions had been widely expected.

In writings before his election as Pope in 2005, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made it clear he believed the concept of limbo should be abandoned because it was “only a theological hypothesis” and “never a defined truth of faith.”

In the Divine Comedy, Dante placed virtuous pagans and great classical philosophers, including Plato and Socrates, in limbo. The Catholic Church’s official catechism, issued in 1992 after decades of work, dropped the mention of limbo.

Surely this misunderstands what salvation is. Salvation is not a right but a privilege. It belongs not to our earthly natures, but to the new nature we take on as a gift of Grace at baptism.

 

[napad]

rlg94086
I haven’t tried to change the Church. I am following the Church teaching according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I don’t have to “show continuity” to follow a clear teaching of the Church.

Only Steve O’Brien has shown a worthwhile argument against the clear statements of the Catechism, and that was on the nature of salvation (whether it means saving one from hell or sending one to heaven).

I did post that I agreed with Steve. I didn’t think I needed to repeat his augument.

You haven’t answered the challenge of the last two questions I had quoting the Catechism.

I don’t remember what your questions were could you repeat them?
Neither have you answered the continuity of your position.

In fact, you have implied that removal of original sin and sanctifying grace may not be sufficient to get to heaven, which seems pretty heretical to me. If you can find someone else to back you up on that one, I will be impressed.

I implied that desire is not COMPLETELY the same as water baptism and
that there may be other things necessary other than sanctifying grace is clear from the Limbo of the Fathers (see my post above)

and from the1302 papal bull Unam Sanctam which states that “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Pope Boniface VIII).

Now this says that one needs to be subject to the Pope to be saved which means there maybe other things that are necessary besides sanctifying grace. It is a possibility.

 

[rlg94086]

I did post that I agreed with Steve. I didn’t think I needed to repeat his augument.

Right. But, it is non-conclusive as it is based on the possiblity that salvation may have more than one meaning.

I don’t remember what your questions were could you repeat them?

Actually, you probably couldn’t. I went back and read my posts and none of my challenges were in the form of a question. I just lost in Jeopardy.

The only question I did ask was “why would one pray for the souls of a dead unbaptized infant, if they have certainty that they were going to Limbo and had no other chance?” It is not a rhetorical question.

Neither have you answered the continuity of your position.

My position has complete continuity. I have not wavered from the fact that we don’t know what happens to unbaptized babies after they die.

I implied that desire is not COMPLETELY the same as water baptism and
that there may be other things necessary other than sanctifying grace is clear from the Limbo of the Fathers (see my post above)

Which goes against the clear teaching of the Catechism:

1258 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.

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

Clearly, since we are talking about a form of Baptism at death, there is nothing that would impede someone whose original sin has been removed from entering the Kingdom of Heaven. The limbo of the fathers ceased to exist when Jesus opened up the gates of heaven. Isn’t that true? (there…I made this challenge a question)

and from the1302 papal bull Unam Sanctam which states that “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Pope Boniface VIII).

Now this says that one needs to be subject to the Pope to be saved which means there maybe other things that are necessary besides sanctifying grace. It is a possibility.

See above.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am truly sorry for your pain and your loss.

Limbo is not a state on fringes of hell,

It’s called “fringe”, because it is on the fringes of Hell. Not “geographically”, but in its quality - those in Limbo are as really deprived of the Beatific Vision as the damned: the difference being that the damned are positively punished for their sins (which is a good thing BTW - there is a right to be punished for doing wrong; but no right to receive sanctifying grace); whereas those in Limbo have contracted no positive guilt at all, but, equally, lack the grace which can alone make those created lacking it (= the entire human race) capable of God’s friendship.​

• The saints were His enemies; & have been made His friends
• The damned are His enemies
• Those in Limbo were never made His friends

• so both lack His Friendship. That, is why neither can be saved. ##

it is a place of eternal happiness, just not the fullness of the Beatific Vision. I would say eternal happiness (Paradise) is a very, very good thing.

This is an equivocal understanding of the phrase “eternal happiness”:​

Limbo is eternal natural happiness - unlike the Beatific Vision, which is eternal supernatural happiness: & we are made for nothing short of the latter. To be in a state of not being punished for positive sin, is a very poor compensation for infinite blessedness such as that which is the life of the Saints in Paradise. It’s a bit like the difference between one of those faded sepia photographs from the 1870s people keep in their albums, & the full, living, breathing, reality of the people photographed: there is a comparison between them, even a faint similarity - but only a very distant one.

It is terribly important not to confuse natural with supernatural happiness - otherwise we won’t

• realise what it is God has calls us to
• appreciate as we should the immense privilege it is to belong to Christ
• be able to share the Good News with others: & if we can’t do that, then the Church can’t obey the Great Commission Christ gave her (see end of Matt. 28).

 

[napad]

rlg94086;2169538
1258 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.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 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.61 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.

To tell you the truth I don’t understand how we only know that baptism is necessary for salvation
and that it may not always be necessary.

I have no theory or know of one that can reconcile these two seemingly contrary positions. I have to submit my understanding to the Church on this one. The CCC seems to say that desire and blood are the same but there needs to be a lot of theological discussion on how to reconcile that.

There is a tradition for the desire and blood position and a tradition that seems to opposes it . Like the debate on the Immaculate Conception, I have to accept on faith the prevalent understanding, which is in the CCC. Until, if ever, it is cleared-up by a solemn definition.
Though from what I have read the tradition that says that desire as enough for salvation was always limited to only catechumens.

1249 Catechumens "are already joined to the Church, they are already of the household of Christ, and are quite frequently already living a life of faith, hope, and charity."48 "With love and solicitude mother Church already embraces them as her own."49

I have to make an act of Faith, and that God will clear this up and/or I may never understand it.

 

[rlg94086]

I agree.

The reality is that whatever the fate of unbaptized infants, it is out of our control. What we can control is baptizing our babies as soon as possible, as the Church teaches. We can only pray and hope for those who die before it can be done.

God bless,

Robert

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 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.61 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.

To tell you the truth I don’t understand how we only know that baptism is necessary for salvation
and that it may not always be necessary.

I have no theory or know of one that can reconcile these two seemingly contrary positions. I have to submit my understanding to the Church on this one. The CCC seems to say that desire and blood are the same but there needs to be a lot of theological discussion on how to reconcile that.

There is a tradition for the desire and blood position and a tradition that seems to opposes it . Like the debate on the Immaculate Conception, I have to accept on faith the prevalent understanding, which is in the CCC. Until, if ever, it is cleared-up by a solemn definition.
Though from what I have read the tradition that says that desire as enough for salvation was always limited to only catechumens.

1249 Catechumens "are already joined to the Church, they are already of the household of Christ, and are quite frequently already living a life of faith, hope, and charity."48 "With love and solicitude mother Church already embraces them as her own."49

I have to make an act of Faith, and that God will clear this up and/or I may never understand it.