Doctrine change on the fate of the unbaptized infants?

[HomeschoolDad]

The failure of a Catholic parent to promptly baptize his or her baby is a possible sin of omission on behalf of the parent, though I will say that the Church does not make it easy for babies who are not in danger of death to be speedily baptized nowadays (as shown by lengthy times for baptismal prep and the delay of a lot of infant baptisms during COVID shutdowns). The baby should not be made to suffer in either case, and I don’t believe God would do that.

Help me out here. When we had our infant son baptized in 2007, we had no baptismal preparation. It was a very small parish (yes, diocesan, not some SSPX or “independent chapel”) and the pastor, in his comments immediately prior to the ceremony, told us something to the effect of “from what I know of the two of you, I have every reason to think your son will be raised as a faithful Catholic”. In other words, it was a kind of personal recognizance. The pastor was well aware of the work we had done to bring a diocesan Latin Mass to town (which has now been discontinued), and we had donated a lot of books and videotapes to the parish mini-library (large bookshelf in the vestibule), so we were obviously not religious illiterates. The parish skewed elderly and there were very few babies baptized from the parish, so I don’t know what other parents did.

Is there, in fact, some kind of “mini-RCIA”-type baptismal preparation for parents, and did this pastor just “let us slide” because he presumed we already knew everything that would be taught? What does it consist of, and how long is it?

 

[Katie777]

It used to be Limbo but now not. That’s easy.
Young very young babies go to heaven.

If a choice is made by the parent its thier sin.

 

[JimG]

It is true that God is not bound by the Sacraments. But the sacraments are given for our benefit. Baptism is the ordinary means by which people including infants are brought into the Church and endowed with sanctifying grace enabling them to go to heaven. So it remains true that parents ought to ensure that their newborns are baptized as soon as possible.

 

[Katie777]

I saw a video hosted by a Carmelite Sister for aborted ,miscarried and babies that died before the opportunity of the sacrament.

In it, a statue of Mary lifesize had her hands out. Mary took the babies, they were placed there. She kissed them and said you are mine. I will love you . They went with her to heaven. That’s what Sister said. I saw sister and the explanation of the statue. They always put these babies there.

 

[ReaderT]

To clarify, “Limbo” is Hell, that is, it is the state deprived of the beatific vision. It is not a third place. It is the state of those who die in original sin only, but who committed no actual sins. The punishment for original sin is the loss of the beatific vision, while the punishment for actual sins are the actual torments of Hell. So “Limbo” is the degree of damnation without any torments. Only infants and others incapable of actual sin could ever end up in this state, were they to die in original sin. The question is whether God gratuitously cleanses them before death at some point of they don’t receive actual baptism. We can certainly ask Him to, and hope He does, but we can’t say for certain He will.

To me Limbo was always a theological impossibility - God is infinite and created humans to exist perpetually and grow closer to Him throughout all eternity. (Likewise, those in hell go farther away from Him throughout all eternity.) Something other than this is not human nature. Limbo, which seems to fix someone at a certain point (“happiness without the beatific vision”) and allows no growth in either direction seems incompatible with human nature.

 

[StudentMI]

That reminds me of the problem I have with timelessness. I’m not saying God or eternity is not timeless, mind you. It just strikes me as odd.

 

[ReaderT]

That reminds me of the problem I have with timelessness. I’m not saying God or eternity is not timeless, mind you. It just strikes me as odd.

Right. It’s hard to say how our resurrected bodies will be (physical for sure, so maybe there’s something time-like about them?)

 

[Katie777]

And in this life we dont have to put the aborted, miscarried or young babies figuratively in the hand of this statue.
They are in Our Mothers care.

 

[Katie777]

We had no prep after baby1. Same reason.
During prep they just taught to be good Catholics choose good Catholic Godparents etc.

You got the edited version

 

[JimG]

The most recent Church revision of the teaching about Limbo is expressed simply as a hope. Not a doctrine. We entrust these unbaptized infants to the mercy of God. There is no definite declaration that they go to heaven.

That’s all that can be said. The danger is that if we can rely on this hope, what is the status of Baptism? Is it still the entryway to the Church, to grace, and eternal life? Will parents now become more lax about having their children baptized because, well, they can entrust them to the mercy of God?

 

[Gab123]

The Church never taught that unbaptized children are condemned to hell. But rather, unbaptized children run the risk of being deprived of the Beatific Vision. As the catechism states:
All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Their fate is in God’s hands, as it were, in limbo.

 

[Anesti33]

The Church never taught that unbaptized children are condemned to hell. But rather, unbaptized children run the risk of being deprived of the Beatific Vision. As the catechism states:
All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Their fate is in God’s hands, as it were, in limbo.

Except for the inconvenient fact that Limbo is, technically, part of Hell, just a very nice part.

 

[CathBoy1]

The Church never taught that unbaptized children are condemned to hell. But rather, unbaptized children run the risk of being deprived of the Beatific Vision. As the catechism states:
All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Their fate is in God’s hands, as it were, in limbo.

I’m sorry but you are most certainly mistaken on the theory of Limbo ( I’m not saying that you are required to believe in the theory, just mistaken about it), it was most definitely believed that Limbo was the borders of Hell as @Genesis315 has correctly pointed out:

To clarify, “Limbo” is Hell, that is, it is the state deprived of the beatific vision. It is not a third place. It is the state of those who die in original sin only, but who committed no actual sins. The punishment for original sin is the loss of the beatific vision, while the punishment for actual sins are the actual torments of Hell. So “Limbo” is the degree of damnation without any torments. Only infants and others incapable of actual sin could ever end up in this state, were they to die in original sin. The question is whether God gratuitously cleanses them before death at some point of they don’t receive actual baptism. We can certainly ask Him to, and hope He does, but we can’t say for certain He will.

Again I am not saying anyone has to accept the theory of Limbo, however it was most definitely taught that Limbo was Hell or the borders of Hell, where those who die with ”original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds”. -Pope Eugene IV, at the Council of Florence (1439)

To me Limbo was always a theological impossibility - God is infinite and created humans to exist perpetually and grow closer to Him throughout all eternity. (Likewise, those in hell go farther away from Him throughout all eternity.) Something other than this is not human nature. Limbo, which seems to fix someone at a certain point (“happiness without the beatific vision”) and allows no growth in either direction seems incompatible with human nature.

Yes I see your pov and what it really comes down to is the theological difference of opinion on Original Sin between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

 

[Usagi]

Yes, but notice that even the official document says that the limbo of infants “is the common belief,” not the definitive teaching of the Church. That’s because God has not revealed it to us.

What God has revealed is that baptized infants definitely go to heaven, and that anyone who dies in a state of sin (actual or merely original) cannot.

So when we have edge cases, Christian thinkers can theorize, but we can’t know for sure this side of heaven.

. . . .

The majority of thinkers throughout Church history (hence, the “common belief”) have speculated about a . . . place . . . that is technically outside the Beatific Vision but features no actual suffering. By analogy with the similar condition to which the righteous dead were consigned before Christ (the limbo of the fathers), that was called the limbo of infants.

More recently, further meditation on God’s mercy has suggested that God could grant sanctifying grace even in the absence of literal baptism, thus permitting one who did not actively oppose His will into Heaven. We can’t assert that as a certainty any more than we could limbo, but it fits with other similar speculations:

1. We’ve been assuring catechumens since the earliest persecutions that God would not reject them if they died before physical baptism, either by martyrdom (blood) or other causes (desire). As noted earlier in the thread, the infant situation isn’t exactly either of those, but we already have “God’s not going to damn you for an accident of timing” exceptions.
2. True, infants can’t form the will to desire God, but they can’t form the will to reject His grace either. If baptism “works” in that situation (when, IIRC, it wouldn’t on an unwilling adult), then God’s grace supplied outside baptism should too.
3. And most importantly, and what I’m surprised it took us this long to consider in depth, God wants that child in Heaven more than any of us do. It’s literally the reason the kid exists. Yes, God gave us rules, and we shouldn’t cavalierly ignore them or presume on special exceptions, but the last time He had extended in-person conversations with people, there was an awful lot of, “Yes, of course I gave you that rule, and it’s a good one, but I just figured you’d know that if you have to choose between following it 100% and following the general principle of loving each other that the rules were made to illustrate, you pick the second one.”

But it would be wrong to say that we know for sure. Just that considering all the data we do have, bad hell and nice hell may not be the only options, or even the ones most consistent with what we know of God.

 

[Genesis315]

Yes I see your pov and what it really comes down to is the theological difference of opinion on Original Sin between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

I don’t actually think there’s a difference here. While modern Orthodox bristle at the idea of an infant being “guilty” of Adam’s sin as a reaction to a misunderstanding of Catholic use of the term as if we meant personal fault or actual guilt (we don’t), they didn’t used to and they used to be more comfortable explicitly saying there was an eternal “punishment” related to original sin. Still, they haven’t really changed even if their language has and they now propose this as a point of division. What they do explicitly profess still implies common agreement with what we actually teach and what we explicitly agreed upon in times past.

For example, on the infant baptism page of the Antiochan EO Church in North America, the priest-author says that “Baptism effects a change in one’s status with God” and infants are baptized into Christ’s life and death so that they “become co-beneficiaries of a life which finally brought God and man into a union of love and a harmony of will.” This implies that before Baptism the infant is not a beneficiary of that life in Christ which brings one into union with God’s love.

In light of that, I think @ReaderT’s point is not really different than what we hold to. It is founded on the idea that God desires all to be saved and therefore there is good reason to assume He can save those He chooses even apart from Baptism, especially for one whose will is not hardened against Him. Again, the Antiochan EO website I quoted above says exactly the same with regard to infants: “Do we really think that God is so small that He is bound by our rites, the rites He has given us? God is sovereign, and He will have mercy on whom He has mercy and judgment on whom He has judgment” (Again, this implies the infant needs mercy and salvation). This is no different than St. Thomas speaking of the gratuitous privilege granted by God without the actual sacrament I referenced earlier in the thread or what Catholics are free and encouraged to hope for.

Limbo as a fate of unbaptized infants is considered theory because it is ultimately a “what if”–what if God does not make them co-beneficiaries of the life in Christ (since this is not something owed, and God has not explicitly revealed that He does). Many have felt this was less presumptuous than to presume He does. On the other hand, there is good reason to hope and non-presumptuous motivations for doing so.

 

[Gab123]

I’m sorry but

Except for

Not the hell of the damned. Limbo is perfect happiness save the Beatific Vision. Hell of the damned is eternal damnation and the torture that comes with realizing damnation is one’s own doing, and ending with a complete demonic transformation. This demonic metamorphosis is described by St. Faustina.

This is much different than perfect happiness for those who through no fault of their own would be deprived of the beatific vision. But it is important to note that the limbo of the infants was never a dogma, but rather a theological speculation. The Church has reiterated that the infants are not damned to the hell, but that it leaves their eternal state, whether enjoying the Beatific Vision or not, in the hands of God.

Eternal damnation of the reprobate in hell is a dogma of the Church, and it is the lot of those who knowingly rejected the inspiration of God. While the elect and the salvation of their soul culminates in the beatific vision and the infinite unending discovery of God, the reprobate and the damnation of their soul removes all trace of God.

It is said that for the lot of the damned, the first thing to lose is the ability to speak, turning from despair to curses and blasphemies and ultimately to growls and shrieks.

 

[ReaderT]

perfect happiness without the Beatific Vision

Is that possible?

 

[CathBoy1]

Not the hell of the damned.

Actually, yes the Hell of the damned, “yet to suffer unequal punishments”.
I know that sounds harsh but it was/is 1000000% taught to be the same place (or state of being), and just because it is a place of perfect happiness minus the Beatific Vision, doesn’t mean that it’s some new place (or state of being), which is what is implied by your denial of it being Hell…

…I’m not saying you have to believe in Limbo, but you are mistaken about the theory of Limbo.

But it is important to note that the limbo of the infants was never a dogma, but rather a theological speculation.

Absolutely correct, it was never a dogma, it can be (and has been) debated that it was a teaching of the Church (which I do not wish to debate now) IMO you are free to feel however you wish about the subject, I just wish to present you with all the facts, and as @(name removed by moderator) has correctly pointed out:

Continued…

 

[CathBoy1]

…continued from above.

Multiple Popes have endorsed the theory of Limbo, Who else are they speaking of when they say those who die with original sin only? And what place do they speak of?

First, Pope Gregory X, at the Second Council of Lyons (1274), said:

The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only … immediately descend into Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.

Second, Pope Eugene IV, at the Council of Florence (1439), said:

Moreover, 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.

Third, Pope John XXII, in a Letter to the Arminians (1321), said:

The Roman Church teaches … that souls of those who depart in mortal sin or with only original sin descend immediately to hell, nevertheless to be punished with different punishments and in disparate locations.

 

[Catholic21]

For someone to die without committing actual sin but not being baptized and they go to Limbo, at the Last Judgement and in the New Jerusalem do these souls reunite back to God as if they are in Heaven?