Doctrine change on the fate of the unbaptized infants?

[Guilherme123]

The Catechism of St. Pope Pius X says:

11 Q. When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptized?

A. Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptized as soon as possible.

12 Q. Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?

A. There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptized because, on account of
their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without
Baptism.

13 Q. Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die
without Baptism, or who defer it?

A. Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without
Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also
sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to
danger of dying without having received it.

Now the Cathecism says:

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,” 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.

I know doctrines can’t change, but this went from “children cannot be saved without baptism/without baptism children are deprived from eternal life” to “we can have hope that there is a way of salvation for children who died without baptism”.

I am sure that I am missing something and I would be grateful with any help on this.

 

[Vico]

…

Baptism is of two kinds: sacramental and non-sacramental. The Sacrament is the rite of water baptism.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1257 … God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

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.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Church teaches that babies can’t have baptism of desire though. Baptism of blood would only be possible in a martyrdom situation.

As for the original question,

this went from “children cannot be saved without baptism/without baptism children are deprived from eternal life” to “we can have hope that there is a way of salvation for children who died without baptism”.

The Catechism of Pope Pius X was only used in Rome and a few parts of Italy. It was not promulgated to the whole Church.

The Vatican (ITC) released a detailed document on the evolution of the teaching about unbaptized babies. It has all the history in it.

The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Before Being Baptized

 

[Vico]

The Church teaches that babies can’t have baptism of desire though. Baptism of blood would only be possible in a martyrdom situation.

As for the original question,

Guilherme123:

this went from “children cannot be saved without baptism/without baptism children are deprived from eternal life” to “we can have hope that there is a way of salvation for children who died without baptism”.

The Catechism of Pope Pius X was only used in Rome and a few parts of Italy. It was not promulgated to the whole Church.

The Vatican (ITC) released a detailed document on the evolution of the teaching about unbaptized babies. It has all the history in it.

The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Before Being Baptized

That is a good document.

My purpose was to show baptism of blood and of desire as examples of the non-sacramental grace where the Holy Trinity is not bound by his sacraments so it did address the original question that way.

 

[Genesis315]

The CCC also says “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.”” (CCC 1257). Other means of sanctification may or may not happen–we simply don’t know with certainty, but we can hope and pray and there has certainly been a growing conviction that it is probable, but again, we have no such promises from God.

The doctrine in the Catechism of Pius X is not contrary to the faith (Pope Benedict, when a Cardinal in 2003 affirmed it was still good for catechesis and some might even feel more comfortable with it than the Compendium of the CCC now and in the future and that was fine). Neither is that in the CCC. Both positions are acceptable in the Church as neither is of faith (the doctrines in any catechism are not all of the same degree of certainty). What is of faith is what actual baptism does.

At the time of the Catechism of Pius X other theories had been and were proposed by theologians and not condemned, such as the desire of the parents or the Church on their behalf sufficing, of infant souls at the moment of death being given a moment of lucidity to make a decision for or against Christ, or simply God granting grace as a privilege like He had done for those sanctified in the womb (most popular now, basically what the ITC opinion linked earlier in the thread argues for). Centuries earlier St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, in the Summa counters the idea that original sin is more powerful than the salvation of Christ, since it reaches in the womb but baptism can’t, by saying God can still sanctify directly Himself as a kind of gratuitous privilege where the sacrament can’t reach. Likewise, as the ITC document notes, one can still freely maintain the opinion that such souls are not sanctified.

 

[ioannes_pius]

I found this to be helpful.

 

[TK421]

The Catechism (or any catechism) is not an infallible document, even though it does have a very high teaching authority since it comes from the Congregation on the Doctrine of Faith. It can be edited.

Those lines from that older catechism don’t say anything heterodox but the emphasis is changed somewhat in the current CCC. The Church has become more optimistic of salvation these days. Balthasar (who was highly praised by Pope St JPII) is a good source for seeing this shift.

 

[MarkRome]

The Church teaches that babies can’t have baptism of desire though.

Not sure that is an actual teaching anywhere but I am receptive to being shown otherwise. I have heard that in God’s omniscience, He knows what the baby’s decision would be and thereby it is a baptism of desire.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It’s discussed in the Vatican document I posted on the Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Before Being Baptized.

Paragraph 29:

The proposals invoking some kind of Baptism of desire or Baptism of blood, however, involved certain difficulties. On the one hand, the adult’s act of desire for Baptism can hardly be attributed to children. The little child is scarcely capable of supplying the fully free and responsible personal act which would constitute a substitution for sacramental Baptism; such a fully free and responsible act is rooted in a judgement of reason and cannot be properly achieved before the human person has reached a sufficient or appropriate use of reason ( aetas discretionis : “age of discretion”).

Therefore, children under the age of reason are not capable of having baptism of desire, and their parents’ desire that they be baptized (if the parents had such desire but the baby died before they could baptize it) wouldn’t somehow cover them.

I have heard that in God’s omniscience, He knows what the baby’s decision would be and thereby it is a baptism of desire.

This would be a case of God providing a path for salvation to the baby, not a “baptism of desire” as defined by the Church, which requires a human to be able to make a free and responsible personal decision. We also do not know for sure what God might do so we can’t say, "Oh yeah, God’s gonna do this so you’ll be getting baptism of desire. "

 

[MarkRome]

not a “baptism of desire” as defined by the Church

Right, according to the document it would be more appropriately called “extra-sacramental configuration to Christ”. Obviously this has been kicked around for centuries and the idea of a type of Baptism of Desire has been put forth before by theologians. This document doesn’t positively teach that they can’t have a baptism of desire, it just shows the difficulties in that argument, which I agree with. But since the fate of the unbaptized infants is not taught de fide, it can still and will be up for discussion and speculation. That’s what theologians do.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Sure, theologians can endlessly discuss. Some of them probably still argue that such babies go to Limbo and not to Heaven.

Unless something really drastic happens, however, I doubt the Church will change its teaching beyond “We have hope that God will save innocent babies.”

 

[ConcernedConvert]

The new CCC can be very confusing, especially when compared to some of the older catechisms.
Just know that the churches teaching has not changed and the importance to baptize infants remains as important today as it always has been.
Here is the article released by the CDF on the matter.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/..._cfaith_doc_19801020_pastoralis_actio_en.html

 

[NevermoreLenore]

Limbo

Is Limbo another word for purgatory, or something different altogether?

 

[Glennon_P]

Is Limbo another word for purgatory, or something different altogether?

The theory of Limbo is that it is a place of natural happiness. The souls in Limbo cannot go to Heaven because they were not baptized, but they never committed a sin so they don’t deserve Hell. Therefore, they are in a place of complete natural happiness. Souls do not leave Limbo.

Souls in Purgatory committed sin in their life and, upon the completion of their purification, go to Heaven.

 

[Genesis315]

The souls in Limbo cannot go to Heaven because they were not baptized, but they never committed a sin so they don’t deserve Hell.

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.

 

[NevermoreLenore]

@Glennon_P and @Genesis315

Thank you for these detailed explanations. As an evangelical convert, I appreciate learning more about our faith and filling some of the gaps in my knowledge.

 

[CathBoy1]

I have struggled with this question myself for quite some time, perhaps the best answer I have found is to say that God is not bound by his sacraments.

Limbo seems to be the traditional teaching of the Church (and I know some would argue otherwise and for personal reasons I do not wish to discuss it, so please don’t ask), however in modern times the Church has moved away from speaking of limbo and prefers to say that we can hope, and so that is perhaps the best answer, probably not the one you were looking for (I know it sure wasn’t what I wished to here).

Hope this helps.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Thank you for these detailed explanations. As an evangelical convert, I appreciate learning more about our faith and filling some of the gaps in my knowledge.

Just remember that Limbo of Infants is not and never was an official teaching of the Church. This is explained in detail in the Vatican document “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Before Being Baptized” which I linked in post #3 of this thread, above.

A lot of Catholics do not believe in Limbo of Infants because we don’t believe God would deprive innocent babies of the beatific vision. And we’re allowed to not believe in it.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Again, the Vatican document which I linked above reads, in pertinent part:

[Popes] did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century.

1.6. From the Time of Vatican I to Vatican II

1. Prior to the First Vatican Council, and again prior to the Second Vatican Council, there was a strong interest in some quarters in defining Catholic doctrine on this matter. This interest was evident in the revised schema of the dogmatic constitution, De doctrina catholica , prepared for the First Vatican Council (but not voted upon by the Council), which presented the destiny of children who died without Baptism as between that of the damned, on the one hand, and that of the souls in purgatory and the blessed, on the other: “Etiam qui cum solo originali peccato mortem obeunt, beata Dei visione in perpetuum carebunt”
   In the 20th century, however, theologians sought the right to imagine new solutions, including the possibility that Christ’s full salvation reaches these infants.
2. In the preparatory phase of Vatican II, there was a desire on the part of some that the Council affirm the common doctrine that unbaptised infants cannot attain the Beatific Vision, and thereby close the question. The Central Preparatory Commission, which was aware of many arguments against the traditional doctrine and of the need to propose a solution in better accordance with the developing sensus fidelium , opposed this move. Because it was thought that theological reflection on the issue was not mature enough, the question was not included in the Council’s agenda; it did not enter into the Council’s deliberations and was left open for further investigation. The question raised a number of problems whose outcome was debated among theologians, in particular: the status of the Church’s traditional teaching concerning children who die without Baptism; the absence of an explicit indication in Holy Scripture on the subject; the connection between the natural order and the supernatural vocation of human beings; original sin and the universal saving will of God; and the “substitutions” for sacramental Baptism that can be invoked for young children.

In short, the Church allowed Limbo of Infants to be “commonly taught” but never officially adopted it as the doctrine of the Church, and when some pushed for Vatican II to adopt it, the Church refused.

It’s okay for Catholics to believe in Limbo of Infants.
It’s also okay for Catholics to not believe in Limbo of Infants.
The current official, universal Catechism of the Church does not include or discuss it, and leaves the question open.

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.

 

[NevermoreLenore]

A lot of Catholics do not believe in Limbo of Infants because we don’t believe God would deprive innocent babies of the beatific vision. And we’re allowed to not believe in it.

Thank you for the clarification, @Tis_Bearself.

Interesting take, thinking you know better than a bishop.