Doctrine change on the fate of the unbaptized infants?

[Guilherme123]

Virtuous pagans were also in the Limbo of the Fathers?

 

[Anrakyr]

Virtuous pagans were also in the Limbo of the Fathers?

Dante’s inferno goes into more detail of the mood of limbo.

Anyone good, just not baptized. So yes with an astrix.

 

[Isearch]

This seems to be a question that would only lead to wrong answers. The better question is:

How can we imagine being in the state of supernatural happiness (ie the beatific vision according to the Catholic Church)?

The only right answer is: It’s unimaginable as long as we do not yet have this happiness. And even if we do attain this happiness, it remains incomprehensible.

On the other hand, natural happiness is imaginable and comprehensible (though this, admittedly, can only be imagined and comprehended with great difficulty).

 

[Isearch]

1 Corinthians 2:9:

But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.

One cannot imagine or comprehend the happiness of seeing God directly. Natural happiness does not reach even close to this.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The parishes I attend are often very large, with 1000 or 2000 families. Also there are a good many families who don’t really practice, but want their baby baptized for some reason, like they want to have photos or the grandparents are pushing them to baptize. And many Catholics who attend Mass on Sunday, or some Sundays, or Christmas/ Easter, but are poorly catechized.

I think in some cases parents may be able to do the prep during the wife’s pregnancy.

Nevertheless I am uncomfortable with making a baby wait to be baptized. I’m pretty sure I myself was baptized within a week or two of my birth, though I’d have to check the date. I was a healthy baby. I imagine if I’d been unhealthy, the hospital staff would have baptized me as it was a Catholic hospital.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The parishes I attend are often very large, with 1000 or 2000 families. Also there are a good many families who don’t really practice, but want their baby baptized for some reason, like they want to have photos or the grandparents are pushing them to baptize. And many Catholics who attend Mass on Sunday, or some Sundays, or Christmas/ Easter, but are poorly catechized.

That’s exactly what I was talking about.

Nevertheless I am uncomfortable with making a baby wait to be baptized. I’m pretty sure I myself was baptized within a week or two of my birth, though I’d have to check the date. I was a healthy baby. I imagine if I’d been unhealthy, the hospital staff would have baptized me as it was a Catholic hospital.

I think it needs to be a general rule in the Church, that babies born in Catholic hospitals to Catholic parents, are baptized the day they are born by the chaplain on call, to be followed up by some kind of ceremony (possibly adopt the Eastern practice of chrismation and communion?) a few weeks after the baby comes home. Our son was born in a Catholic hospital (partially for that very reason, if emergency baptism were needed), but when I established to myself that the hospital staff didn’t know elbows from eyebrows when it came to Catholic doctrine, I took a bottle of holy water and kept it on the shelf at all times. I did likewise at home until our son was baptized a month later. That hospital has since been acquired by a secular entity.

 

[otjm]

You are elevating a theological speculation to an official teaching of the Church. The Church has no official teaching on the matter; it is still theological speculation, just as it is theological speculation that God, in his infinite mercy, would not withhold children from the Beatific Vision.

The Church also holds that we are bound by the rules of the Church; and that God is not so bound. The issue is a matter of Sacramental theology and has never been defined. It has been speculation because we are bound to baptize. You are incorrect that it was an official teaching of the Church; it was and still is a theological speculation; it is not defined sacramental doctrine - which it will be if the Church ever defines it. Unless and until the Church does define it, it remains as it always has been, speculation.

In 1957 the Church appears to have reached a peak of those attending Mass on a weekly basis of somewhere about 65 to 67% and Mass attendance on a weekly basis has been falling off gradually ever since. It now appears to hover somewhere around 20 to 23%. The delay in baptizing children appears in part to be an attempt to get the parents to actually raise the child Catholic, and to recognize that baptism is not something just to be done for ritualistic purposes and/or top please parents and other family members. Whether it is or is not having an impact is for social scientists to investigate; but the priest is to have some sense that the parents will raise the child Catholic, and not just disappear until the child is near old enough to receive Communion, then disappear again until, possibly confirmation, and then again, if anyone is lucky (given near zero teaching from the parents about Church, Mass, salvation, etc) at a wedding - at which point we see wash, rinse, repeat of little or no Catholicism in the family other than a vague response that “yes, I am Catholic”.

In short, God is not bound by the failures of parents.

 

[otjm]

The Church provides for baptism;; if a child is in danger of death a quick phone call to the pastor (or if you are lucky enough to an assistant pastor) to come to the hospital and do the baptism.

I understand the issue of a child which could be in danger of death; my twins were born 9 weeks and a day early and were in NICU for 5 and a half weeks, We were in contact with our pastor, and in consultation with him, determined to not baptize early unless one of both took a serious turn - which they did not. They were born in August and baptized in October in the parish.

 

[c4csp]

Always stick to your Catechism of the Council of Trent. Doctrine does not change. The ordinary means of salvation come through Christ’s Church and the sacraments. We must accept this because this is what Christ taught. Christ is not bound by His sacraments though. He can save whoever He wants. So we can hope in an extraordinary means of salvation. We can know that God is just. He wants us in heaven more than we want to be there. We must never let the doctrine get watered down though. We cannot say that, yes the church teaches this but it is not that important because God can save us other ways. This way of thinking is very dangerous. We must hold to our deposit of faith. Use Catechism of Trent, it will give every catholic the clarity.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The Church provides for baptism;; if a child is in danger of death a quick phone call to the pastor (or if you are lucky enough to an assistant pastor) to come to the hospital and do the baptism.

I understand the issue of a child which could be in danger of death; my twins were born 9 weeks and a day early and were in NICU for 5 and a half weeks, We were in contact with our pastor, and in consultation with him, determined to not baptize early unless one of both took a serious turn - which they did not. They were born in August and baptized in October in the parish.

That is all very good, and it would be ideal to have a priest come and do it, but if I had to do it myself, I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment. The worst thing that could happen, is that the priest would tell me “you shouldn’t have done that”. I would simply reply “the Catechism refers to conscience as the ‘aboriginal vicar of Christ’, and I was just following my conscience — is that a problem?”.

Catholics generally don’t believe anymore, that there is a possibility a child who dies without baptism may not enjoy the beatific vision. Let’s be real — it’s not a pleasant thing to contemplate, not being able to go to heaven, and without even realizing it, many contemporary people of all faiths have become essentially universal-salvationists. Fundamentalist Christians who believe in the absolute necessity of “getting saved” would be an exception to this, and even then, they make an allowance for children who are not of the “age of accountability” (age 12 or thereabouts), a variation — and possibly a more accurate one — of the traditional Catholic “age of reason” (around age 7). In their economy of salvation, children automatically go to heaven, well, because they’re children. It’s a sweet notion, but it may not be true.

I can tell you, having raised a child from the ages of 7 to 12, and all ages before and after, moral reasoning and cognition do not happen “in a flash”, all at once. It happens gradually. I seriously doubt that a seven-year-old child can commit a mortal sin, and to tell you the truth, I have to doubt it is possible until up into adolescence. The brain is not fully developed until around age 25. I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right.

 

[Anesti33]

You are elevating a theological speculation to an official teaching of the Church. The Church has no official teaching on the matter; it is still theological speculation, just as it is theological speculation that God, in his infinite mercy, would not withhold children from the Beatific Vision.

And we’ve already established that you do not understand the difference between “teachings” and “definition of doctrine”.

 

[ThomasMT]

What I find fascinating is how adult converts are denied such a sense of urgency, with regard to baptism.
Even after jumping through several hoops, it can take over a year for a baptism to occur.

 

[Anesti33]

What I find fascinating is how adult converts are denied such a sense of urgency, with regard to baptism.
Even after jumping through several hoops, it can take over a year for a baptism to occur.

The urgency must be balanced by the sense of commitment and the responsibilities which the person is about to undertake. The catechumenate is a period of mutual evaluation, during which the catechumen decides whether to make the most important decision of his life, and the Church community decides whether to accept the catechumen as a brother.

 

[ThomasMT]

The urgency must be balanced by the sense of commitment and the responsibilities which the person is about to undertake.

Akin to the sense an infant is about to undertake?

Church community decides whether to accept the catechumen as a brother.

The acceptance has already been granted by our Lord Himself. It is the catechumen with the decision to make. Would it be any different under extreme circumstance?

Besides, does it make sense that one could go to another denomination and get baptized with minimal discernment, and then have that “valid” baptism instantly recognized by the Church?

 

[MrsAngelala]

I suspect the longer wait times and formal classes occur more often in larger, younger parishes. Our parish is similar to yours, and we were also personally known to the pastor. Our prep was just had a single meeting with him beforehand. From what he said though, I think that was the way he handled all baptisms.

We had already been through a lot with him, including several months after our first child died in utero when I vehemently advanced every argument I could think of or find against the damnation of the child, so he knew exactly how well I understood baptism, what it is, and what it means. We still had to have that meeting. It was kind of funny. We walked in to find him with a pad full of notes. I asked him, “Surely you don’t have to do that after thirty years of this?” He replied, “I knew I’d better be prepared for this one.”

 

[JimG]

Baptismal preparation. I recall a story told me by an older priest about his own baptism. He was born at home after Saturday midnight. His mother, apparently a healthy woman, rested for the night. The next morning, a Sunday, she said she felt well enough to go to Mass with the family, and took the new baby with her. After Mass, the pastor was talking to her and admiring the new baby. “Well, as long as he’s here, we might as well baptize him,” he said. So the child was baptized. The priest ended his story by saying, “So you see, I was born, baptized, and attended my first Mass, all on the same day!”

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The catechumenate is a period of mutual evaluation, during which the catechumen decides whether to make the most important decision of his life, and the Church community decides whether to accept the catechumen as a brother.

I… see…

I don’t intend this as any sort of assault upon anyone, but I find this positively outrageous. Salvation is between an individual and Our Lord (with the mediation of the Church and her ministers of the sacrament), not a “community decision”. This sounds more like a men’s lodge or a country club deciding whether they want a member or not. Would a prospective convert be “blackballed” if he called into question, for instance, the Church just “letting it slide” that 92 percent of Americans who call themselves Catholic dissent from Humanae vitae? I thought this stunk to high heaven when I was a catechumen (I did one-on-one lessons, this was back when Paul VI was Pope), and I think it stinks to high heaven now. What would the “community” think of that?

I fully understand why we cannot just have people coming up to the door of the rectory and saying, “hey, I’d like to be baptized”. It’s not entirely out of reason, to think that a non-Catholic family might do this, to get subsidized Catholic school tuition for their children, or for some other temporal advantage. But in Scripture, when we hear of people being baptized, along with their whole families, I don’t see any evidence of “not so fast, let’s make sure you’re truly sincere, there’s a lot of stuff you need to learn first”. I know the early Church evolved a catechumenate. I know this had to be done, for among other reasons, to keep people hostile to the Church from infiltrating it. But if baptism is necessary for salvation — and at the end of the day, even though “God is not bound by the sacraments”, it is the ordinary means of salvation — then to make people wait a year, two years, maybe more, is forcing these people into a gauzy notion of “God knows your heart, you are on your way to the Church”, and having to live without the God-saved life of the sacraments. It comes across more like conversion to Judaism — they don’t get in any hurry, in fact, the first or second time you ask, they discourage you, but then again, they don’t teach that salvation depends on being received into Judaism.

We do so much looking to how our “separated brethren” do things these days — why not look at Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and so on, and see what they do about receiving new Christians. Do they have a lengthy catechumenate?

 

[Phemie]

I think it needs to be a general rule in the Church, that babies born in Catholic hospitals to Catholic parents, are baptized the day they are born by the chaplain on call, to be followed up by some kind of ceremony (possibly adopt the Eastern practice of chrismation and communion?) a few weeks after the baby comes home.

At present, canon law forbids that except in limited cases.

Can. 860 §1. Apart from a case of necessity, baptism is not to be conferred in private houses, unless the local ordinary has permitted it for a grave cause.

§2. Except in a case of necessity or for some other compelling pastoral reason, baptism is not to be celebrated in hospitals unless the diocesan bishop has established otherwise.

 

[NSmith]

Pardon me for interjecting, but would I be correct in summarizing that the dogma of the church, which has been repeatedly and infallibly declared, is that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.
A well-supported and long-standing theological opinion with doctrinal support is that there are exceptions to the need for a water baptism for those who are martyred prior to attaining it or who explicitly desired baptism but were prevented from attaining it. In these cases they are considered to have been granted baptism extraordinarily by God, but they are by no means saved apart from baptism itself. These also are not as certain as the sacrament when it is observed in its proper form.
Another well-supported and long-standing theological opinion with doctrinal support is that there exists a place in Hell for those guilty of original sin only, and that place is known as Limbo. Others have spoken of several councils and several popes that support this, as well as theological giants like St. Thomas Aquinas.
A more recent theological opinion, although respected, is that even those who, without knowledge of baptism or even of Christ, desire the grace of baptism may have hope for extraordinary salvation. This has been shared by some respected popes and theologians in the last 60 years, but is not “official teaching” at the level of dogma and is on the same level in the hierarchy of truths as Limbo, or perhaps even lower.
However, a child prior to the age of reason cannot desire baptism explicitly, and neither can such a child make an act of hope or an act of faith while ignorant of baptism, thus attaining to the implicit desire. Therefore, the extraordinary means of approaching the sacrament do not apply, except perhaps in the case of a martyrdom. Obviously most people are not speaking of martyrdom, but of accidental death, abortion, or miscarriage.
Finally, there is a liturgical form in the Roman Rite for the unbaptized child whose parents intended to bring him to baptism but who has perished before receiving it, and that rite places him at the mercy of God, who we know desires all to be saved, and on the merits of this does the catechism say, "[we] 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.”
Continued…

 

[NSmith]

The hope for salvation stated in the funeral for the unbaptized infant is not establishing that infants attain to the beatific vision, as this would seem to contradict the dogma of original sin and the dogma that baptism is the only means by which men attain to forgiveness.
The case of baptism of desire and the baptism of blood do not establish exceptions to the rule, because they both relate to the supernatural grace and charism of baptism. There is no such relation to baptism in the case of the unbaptized infant, who neither desires such grace, nor is washed by his own blood for the sake of Christ, nor seeks after God in an act of faith although ignorant.
The liturgy that the church recognizes is only saying that God, who is Just, could not and would not act callously in regards to his own creature, as an earlier poster has pointed out. The hope that we have for them is for God’s mercy, and it is a certainty that all people will receive their justice from God, and it will be declared Just and Holy by the saints in heaven.
However, I think it is rather impious to contend that such children attain to salvation. Again, this would seem to elevate speculation to the level of dogma, and then proceed to set them at odds.