infant baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter ibetrippin07
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To understand Infant Baptism, one must first understand Baptism itself. It is a Sacrament, which effects what it symbolizes: That is, it actually washes away original sin. THAT is why babies are baptized, because the sacrament works ex opera operato
 
So the Bottom Line is this: apparently the RCChurch has “allowed” - a “theory” – a “theological speculation” to be taught for many, many years – something that apparently wasn’t “revealed”,…
Hi Leeann,

The fact is that we are forever seeking to learn more about God & His creation. The fact that some things have not been explicitly & divinely revealed doesn’t change that, nor does it mean that we cannot be curious & seek answers to them.

Calculus was not divinely revealed, but that was not a reason for Isaac Newton to refuse to speculate on it. Likewise, the shape of the earth was not divinely revealed, but that did not prevent anyone from speculating on it, and teaching the theory that the earth was flat for centuries, until that too, was disproved.
40.png
Leeann:
Does it not raise concerns as to the validity of other doctrines and practices that are or have been taught in the past as being “absolutely correct”…when a “theory” - not an “official doctrine” has been just left there and allowed to be taught for so many years…and then is retracted?
40.png
Leeann:
This is why I wonder at the “your absolute certainty” of the correctness and authority of ANY of the dogmas or “teachings” of “The Church” and of the ones who “codify” things.
There is no reason for concern because as you recognize, the theory of Limbo was not taught as doctrinal truth.

If it were, you would be correct that there would be cause for concern about the credibility of the Catholic Church, but the fact that the theory of Limbo was around for a long time, but was never taught as a doctrinal truth actually supports the infallible authority of the Catholic Church to teach correctly.

By “allowing” the theory of Limbo to remain just that, the Holy Spirit protected the Catholic Church from error, just as Christ promised.

God bless,

Chris
 
Leeann;
So the Bottom Line is this: apparently the RCChurch has “allowed” - a “theory” – a “theological speculation” to be taught for many, many years – something that apparently wasn’t “revealed” …
Perhaps fifty years from now, the Theory of Evolution (which is currently taught as if it were a fact in a great many Catholic schools) will be superceded by something else - a different idea about how the Creation came about.

Many of today’s children in Catholic schools will react very much as you are reacting - “What? But our Catholic teachers told us that Evolution was a fact, and that it would be very unscientific (read: stupid) to believe anything else. The teaching of the Church was that God used the process of Evolution to create the world!”

You and I know that’s not true, because we were alive when the decision to include the theory of Evolution in science curricula came about, and we know how it goes with schools these days. We know that it’s not a “teaching of the Church” but rather just the speculation of modern scientists, and subject to new discoveries and revisions. But kids who are being brought up with it today will think that it’s “a teaching of the Church” and they will be very surprised when it turns out that no, the Church never had a position one way or the other, in the first place.

This is one of those questions to which the infallible Church answers “We don’t know.” 🤷

So is the question of what happens to unbaptized babies. Always has been, and most likely always will be, until the Judgment Day, which is when we will find out everything. 🙂
 
Leeann-

Good question.

Some things are in the realm of theological speculation…limbo is in this category. So is the question of HOW God created the world as we know it…you can believe in evolution if you want to, for example, provided that you acknowledge God as the originator and that we are descended from single pair of parents.

Other things are certain, and since the Church cannot err in teaching matters related to faith and morals, we can be confident of these doctrines. Limbo was never in this category.

Leann:
I encourage you to read in full the official document by the The International Theological Commission : “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised” – as found on the www.vatican website.

It states that this “theory” was at one time taught and supported by Popes in the “church”.

Thank you Randy for responding.
 
Hello Popes Soldier

The problem with your statement is that “Limbo” was never a doctrine, let alone a dogma. So no doctrine was changed. (I understand that – no doctrine was changed…that’s not the point…the point was about why a “theory” was allowed to be “taught” as if it were doctrine/dogma.)

Another good example of this is the seven-day account of Creation. Many popes believed it. But it is not doctrine: The Church has never infallibly defined whether the days in Gen 1 are actual days or periods of time. Therefore, a faithful Catholic is free to go either way. Same with Limbo. Many Catholic theologians may have taught it, but it was never Dogma. (yes…well that’s perhaps another “thread” – food for thought.) I encourage you to read in full the official document by the The International Theological Commission : “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised” – as found on the www.vatican website.

I do appreciate your response, thank you.
 
Hello CentralFLJames

CentralFLJames
Senior Member Join Date: November 7, 2007
Posts: 1,786

Re: infant baptism

Leeann, I can “feel” your conviction in your trust in God at the same timeI can “feel” a certain passion and anger or resentment for The Catholic Church. (darn…and I thought I hid it so well…just kidding) I present that you are misdirecting your passions here. There are MANY, perhaps hundreds, of apparent contradictions (to those not initiated into the apostolic tradition)in scripture. This is why private interpretation of scripture is so dangerous.

The Catholic Church is under no new discovery of God’s Mercy. ( I have no doubt in this statement at all…however I question the way it assumes the role of sole authority in the dispensation of God’s mercy (and grace) and of when it can be sanctioned) This has always been a core teaching of The Church - this is in fact central to the teaching on the sacrament of confession for example. We know from apostolic teaching that even a complete traitor like Judas can be forgiven if he seeks pardon, confesses and repents. So God’s mercy is nothing new to Catholics - although on an individual basis I am certain each person rediscovers it over and over in their lives and in personal ways. (now if only the “corporate body” could submit to that and reveal it in their actions towards those under their authority…)

Again, Limbo was never intended to be a substitute theology for God’s Mercy. No, not at all. Limbo, in a sense was no different than the subject of a sermon and an illustration of how God’s Mercy might accommodate the apparent contradiction in the scriptural truths that one must be baptised. Clearly, the Church can not contradict the words Jesus himself used in scripture. So when mourning parents came to the priest in agony asking what was the fate of their unbaptised and deceased children they consoled them with the Hope we call “limbo” that God would reconcile the words in scripture about necessity for baptism with His Mercy. This again, was not and is not an official teaching - it is an attempt to express a plausable hope in God’s Mercy. The Church never taught Limbo as an absolute. (yes it did….and it was accepted by the Popes of the time as the “church” teaching…then it was challenged and changed bit by bit…and then “left”… until very recently in 1992. I encourage you to read in full the official document by the The International Theological Commission : “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised” – as found on the www.vatican website.)

It was always an expression of hope – (not the theory of limbo or theological speculation that was taught in the past) more like a sermon that is not materially different than describing the Trinity with the imagery of a 3 leafed shamrock. Just as the trinity is a supernatural mystery that we can never fully know with finite and created minds we will never know precisely how God resolves His Mercy with His Justice and His inspired word. Somehow it must all reconcile. That is God’s job. (my point exactly…)

I really think you are getting yourself worked up over nothing important on this topic.

Where is the evidence of the RC “mercy” that you attested too at the beginning of this posting in that last sentence James? The “nothing important” on this topic…is the suffering of believers who took at face value, over the centuries, that they were being shepherded and taught by truly inspired, Holy Spirit guided leaders, who had the “sole authority” to reveal to them our Heavenly Father’s truth.
The “nothing important” are the parents who lived the remainder of their lives and went to their graves in anguish because they were “taught” that this was “His truth”… not some mere speculation….how effective to their spiritual growth was this “truth”……what sort of “Hope” in His grace was offered….back then?
If the sole authority and responsibility that comes with that, that is claimed now by the RC Church and that has been claimed to have never been contaminated by any other influence over the centuries is to have any credibility….then how and why has this happened?

For all we know there could be a real place or state that is representative of “Limbo”. In fact many theologians believe it to be real and in a spiritually proximate locale (relatively speaking) to “paradise”. (…and many have believed it to be and actually taught it to be a lot closer to the “other” destination…on it’s very “border” as it were…it’s all in that official document)

We just do not believe that God permits those not baptised to fully commune with the beatific vision.

James, in all honesty, is that what you’ve been taught now to believe – by the “church” – if so, what happened to the “Hope” – have limits been put on “Hope” to mean “not able to fully commune with the beatific vision.” - and if so – who established these limits and with what authority??? )

I am talking about full “Hope” instilled by God’s incomprehendible grace.
Or are you referring to the “Hope” that the RCChurch is “now” allowing to be dispensed.

Observe or consider too, that some of the emotion and frustration you are directing here at the Church is really more directed at God.

Upon reflection and consideration, I can honestly say that it is all directed towards the “church”.

But here James, I want to thank you, you’ve been very gracious in your time and thoughtful response to me. I am new to this type of “communication” (forums) and as with emails, etc. – we can’t always convey our true emotions – or frame of mind by just putting it down in words – sometimes a comment or response will be interpreted as being sarcastic or snappy, when the person writing it may not have meant it that way at all…or sometimes it could be exactly what they meant – however you have displayed patience and I appreciate that.
The Church can not change God’s words nor His ways. (YESSSS!! I agree!) No human can possibly empathize with just how offensive original sin is to the eternal God. What may seem unjust to us - is simply not our place to judge. That is God’s domain and His ways are His ways - not our ways. (YESSS!! I agree!) We trust and we hope. (… but in what and who?)

God Bless,
James

• Free 1,000 Souls From Purgatory & they will pray for you unceasingly all your life!

• Join the Dominican Fathers Rosary Cofraternity for extra indulgences!

• Pray The Chaplet of Divine Mercy!
 
Hi Leeann,

The fact is that we are forever seeking to learn more about God & His creation. The fact that some things have not been explicitly & divinely revealed doesn’t change that, nor does it mean that we cannot be curious & seek answers to them.

Calculus was not divinely revealed, but that was not a reason for Isaac Newton to refuse to speculate on it. Likewise, the shape of the earth was not divinely revealed, but that did not prevent anyone from speculating on it, and teaching the theory that the earth was flat for centuries, until that too, was disproved.

There is no reason for concern because as you recognize, the theory of Limbo was not taught as doctrinal truth.

If it were, you would be correct that there would be cause for concern about the credibility of the Catholic Church, but the fact that the theory of Limbo was around for a long time, but was never taught as a doctrinal truth actually supports the infallible authority of the Catholic Church to teach correctly.

By “allowing” the theory of Limbo to remain just that, the Holy Spirit protected the Catholic Church from error, just as Christ promised.

God bless,

Hi Chris

The fact is that we are forever seeking to learn more about God & His creation.
(yes…I agree and understand that)
The fact that some things have not been explicitly & divinely revealed doesn’t change that, nor does it mean that we cannot be curious & seek answers to them.
( yes….again I agree…. to be curious and to seek answers is one thing – but that has nothing to do with “teaching” all the various “theories” one might discover along the way….or “allowing” them to be taught, especially when the
RC Church declares the “authority” of defining and teaching only “divine revelation”. To declare this authority and then allow the teaching of a “theory” – doesn’t make sense.)

The question it poses is does the RC Church ever only teach “divine revelation” or has it allowed just “theory’s of men” to be taught?

Which one is it – and more importantly – “IS” the RC Church now allowing the same thing to happen in other areas of it’s doctrines…and by what standard will we ever know??

Calculus was not divinely revealed, but that was not a reason for Isaac Newton to refuse to speculate on it. Likewise, the shape of the earth was not divinely revealed, but that did not prevent anyone from speculating on it, and teaching the theory that the earth was flat for centuries, until that too, was disproved.

I do understand what you are saying…however to compare the teaching of calculus, and the shape of the earth to a teaching that affected the lives of so many people throughout the centuries, right up until the 20th century…with regards to something that could and did affect many of their spiritual lives while bringing intense suffering to these people…well…I don’t think those examples are in the same “category”…unless of course “calculus” and “the shape of the earth” were being taught in earlier times as things relating to the spiritual growth of the followers of Christ?

I encourage you to read in full the official document by the The International Theological Commission : “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised” – as found on the www.vatican website.

ChrisWRIT – I thank you for your response.
 
jmcrae
Senior Member Join Date: September 7, 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 14,008

Re: infant baptism

Leeann;
Quote:
So the Bottom Line is this: apparently the RCChurch has “allowed” - a “theory” – a “theological speculation” to be taught for many, many years – something that apparently wasn’t “revealed” …

jmcrae

Perhaps fifty years from now, the Theory of Evolution (which is currently taught as if it were a fact in a great many Catholic schools) will be superceded by something else - a different idea about how the Creation came about.

Many of today’s children in Catholic schools will react very much as you are reacting - “What? But our Catholic teachers told us that Evolution was a fact, and that it would be very unscientific (read: stupid) to believe anything else. The teaching of the Church was that God used the process of Evolution to create the world!”

You and I know that’s not true, because we were alive when the decision to include the theory of Evolution in science curricula came about, and we know how it goes with schools these days.
(I’m not talking about “school” curriculum)

We know that it’s not a “teaching of the Church” but rather just the speculation of modern scientists, and subject to new discoveries and revisions. But kids who are being brought up with it today will think that it’s “a teaching of the Church” ( the “Limbo” theory was taught in the church for centuries) and they will be very surprised when it turns out that no, the Church never had a position one way or the other, in the first place. (that’s a sad testament for the RC Church…my heart goes out to you…not being smart…I sincerely mean it)

This is one of those questions to which the infallible Church answers “We don’t know.” (That is the answer “now”…why has it taken this long for the “enlightened authority” to finally come to this conclusion…)

So is the question of what happens to unbaptized babies. Always has been, and most likely always will be, until the Judgment Day, which is when we will find out everything.

Isn’t that a fundamental acknowledgement that comes as soon as every believer experiences God’s grace and mercy in one’s own life? To have “hope” in God – in all things?

No one has to spell it out for them once His all sufficient grace has touched them and as been finally acknowledged by the RCChurch – this happens even outside of their jurisdiction.

And yet it has taken this long for an official document to come into being presenting this as a “new way” (leaving it to God) of trying to define this “teaching” – or – “theory”…that has caused believers to stumble in their faith, to experience pain and anguish for so long a time.

**Paragraph 79. from The Hope of Salvation for Babies Who Die Without Being Baptised **
(yes…I know…but I’ll repeat it again…the official document on the www.vatican website)
79. It must be clearly acknowledged that the Church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptised infants who die. She knows and celebrates the glory of the Holy Innocents, but the destiny of the generality of infants who die without Baptism has not been revealed to us, and the Church teaches and judges only with regard to what has been revealed. (hmmm?)
What we do positively know of God, Christ and the Church gives us grounds to hope for their salvation, as must now be explained.

I encourage you to read in full the official document by the The International Theological Commission : “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised” – as found on the www.vatican website.

jmcrae – thank you also for your insights and comments.

For life is to be with Christ; where Christ is, there is life, there is the kingdom. St. Ambrose

Tiber Swim Team - Class of 2001
 
If I have missed anyone that was kind enough to take the time to respond to my initial post with regards to “Limbo” - I apologize.

Thank you all for your insights and postings, they have brought me to a better understanding of why you believe what you do.

For those who may have missed it - there is an official document referring to this topic - and can be viewed on the www.vatican website. It is a rather “long” read, but not much longer than some of my posts here have been…🙂 .

I figure if I could take the time to read through the whole thing and give it my due consideration - so can you guys! 🙂

Thank you again.
God Bless
 
Well the Holy Spirit inspired Saint Paul to write this down in case we had a problem or a question…

**1 Timothy 3:15 **

but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

well if I was living in any time before 1517 a.d. which “church” would that be? Well it would have to be the church that Jesus was talking about.

Matthew 16:18 **
18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock
I will build My church**; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Well Jesus came before 1517 a.d. so it couldn’t be any that were “born” after that date in time.

:hmmm:
 
If I have missed anyone that was kind enough to take the time to respond to my initial post with regards to “Limbo” - I apologize.
Limbo is a theory of Catholic theologians - it is NOT Catholic doctrine, and it never WAS Catrholic doctrine.

The idea is: We are all born into original sin, and since we believe baptism washes away original sin, what happens to a baby who is not baptised? Well, Gods mercy will not allow a baby to go to hell, yet the baby dies in original sin, so its possible that a baby could enter into a state of eternal bliss and happiness, but not necessarily the beatific vision, i.e. “heaven”. This state of eternal bliss and happiness was given the name “Limbo” by theologians. Anyway, thats how the theory goes. But as I said, it was never defined as doctrine. Frankly, I don’t think I buy into it either.

As for “official” doctrine, it goes like this:
CCC 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” (Mk 10 14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4), 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.
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#VI
 
The link Leeann provided is incomplete. So I am posting it here for others who want to read the materials:

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED


I am currently digesting this Church writing and finding it to be extremely enlightening and insightful. I recommend that others read this as well. It shows the constant struggle of The Church in trying to reconcile God’s Mercy with God’s Justice against the intractable constraints of God’s Revealed Word in Holy Writ. We see the fundamental constraint being the binary nature of final destination being Heaven or Hell. But in the reckoning of that tension we see a hiearchy of rewards and punishments within each domain and which domain an unbaptised child rests given the constraints that nothing impure may enter heaven and the fact that a newborn child in its innocence of new creation directly from God lacks the guilt of personal sin but has the stain of inherited original sin. In the consideration there is a clear dichotomy that heaven is not a place of punishment but of reward and hell is the domain of punishment. So from that observation there are conjectures presented that an unbaptised infant is denied the entrance of heaven due to its sin and so must enter hell but suffer at the least possible level of punishment at its periphery. But it is also clear from the hierarchy of truth that God elected on His own Love and Mercy to send Jesus so that ALL may be saved. This is the greater truth and is the premise for why God permitted man to fall in the first place - to manifest a greater glory. Therefor, many theologians consider that God’s Mercy wins out over His Justice and permits those children to enter the periphery of Heaven (paradise) but are denied participation in the beatific vision. This denial alone would be a torment to a soul seeded with supernatural knowledge received from baptism (and why a baptised person who falls from grace to land in hell suffers so greatly). But since this infant soul never had its baptismal seed of supernatural knowledge it does not experience its depravity from the beatific vision and does not know that it is all it can ever be nor suffer for knowledge of loss as would a baptised soul that falls from grace.

This is very heady stuff and a GREAT read.

Thanks Leeann for bringing this to our attention. I may have more to say after I contemplate more on what is contained here.

James
 
Hi Popes Soldier
Limbo is a theory of Catholic theologians - it is NOT Catholic doctrine, and it never WAS Catrholic doctrine.

The idea is: We are all born into original sin, and since we believe baptism washes away original sin, what happens to a baby who is not baptised? Well, Gods mercy will not allow a baby to go to hell, yet the baby dies in original sin, so its possible that a baby could enter into a state of eternal bliss and happiness, but not necessarily the beatific vision, i.e. “heaven”. This state of eternal bliss and happiness was given the name “Limbo” by theologians. Anyway, thats how the theory goes. But as I said, it was never defined as doctrine. Frankly, I don’t think I buy into it either.

As for “official” doctrine, (now) it goes like this:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#VI
I inserted the word “now” (above) in your last line, as that was the point from my initial enquiry, regarding the changes and the length of time it has taken to clarify this teaching , finally bringing it up to “now” with a formal instruction given.

As you will see in my posts…I understand that this teaching has not been considered to be official “doctrine” or “dogma” by many faithful RC, and that is why I also posted the Vatican website with the “newest” official document, which brought about the new entry in the catechism site you posted above. In it, it explains the history of this theory and how it was - **at one period of time **- taught in the “church” and approved by the supposedly enlightened Popes of that time.

It also explains the contention within the ranks and consequently the varying “changes” made over the centuries to this theory by some of the following Popes who thought differently.

One of my points is, that it highlights the lack of responsibility (which accompanies “authority”) that was taken over the years, by the people claiming to have “sole authority” - not only in the “doctrine”, but also within their role as being shepherds to His sheep.

If they have finally attempted “now” to clarify the issue…then why did the forebearers, who apparently are believed to have had the same “sole authority” (and the responsibility) and the same “divine guidance” not deal with it then by stating as they have now that we must have “hope” in God in this matter.

Which brings me to the other point for me - the question of assumed validity in the “sole authority” claim of the RC Church and what value this claim has to offer.

Thank you for taking the time to respond, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
Well, consider this: Many early popes belived in a litteral six-day creation. Now most of us don’t. There is no contadiction though, because the Church has never formally defined what the “day” in Genesis 1 means.

Same thing here. A pope can believe whatever he wants, as long as it is not heresy. But just because a pope speaks it does not make it Dogma (unless He SAYS its Dogma).
 
To: CentalFLJames

Thank you for posting the title of the document…I guess I got overwhelmed at keying it in all the time!

After such a lengthy and full on exchange of points of views…I’d like to offer the following quote as something we must surely all agree with…

** " The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that deep down inside we ALL believe we are good drivers." ** 👍
 
I inserted the word “now” (above) in your last line, as that was the point from my initial enquiry, regarding the changes and the length of time it has taken to clarify this teaching , finally bringing it up to “now” with a formal instruction given.

… it explains the history of this theory and how it was - **at one period of time **- taught in the “church” and approved by the supposedly enlightened Popes of that time.
Leeann, you are revealing a dubious agenda which is clearly an attempt to discredit the authority and credibility of The Catholic Church and Her leaders. That’s not the purpose of these forums.

It;s coming across a bit cheeky, anti-clerical and anti-authoritarian. It’s also conspicuous of you to arrive 20 centuries distant from the formation of The Church and many centuries after the theory of Limbo was developed to criticize The Church while personally benefiting from all Her scholarship and the blessings that flow out of Her to give us the modern context of open dialog we currently enjoy in our western civilization.

It’s very clear that you have a serious personal problem with ecclesial authority. So I would caution you to consider that you are criticizing Jesus’ and His Church.

The Catholic Church is NOT a democracy nor a confederation of sub-churches. It is the Body of Christ. We Catholics do have a concept called **sensus fidei ** which is the consensus of belief of the faithful. The reason that the concept of Limbo is being re-expressed is because we, the people of God through our collectively held sensus fidelium have come to the revelation that there is a greater and more plausible hope than Limbo. This is really a maturing and more compelling hope but is not a certainty.

To temper your criticism please recall the fact that there was NO BIBLE for about 400 years before the first Catholic Cannon was established. Nor was NO sola scriptura EVER in the church history; that was a modern speculation arising out of contrarian critical academics (Luther et-al) in the 1500’s. What we had before The Catholic Church assembled The Catholic Bible was a rule of law called *lex orandi, lex credendi * . That is, “law of prayer is the law of belief”. In the early Church, before we had The Bible, prayer and liturgy was the living tradition. It formed Christian rule of law, life and belief. Consider in light of this fact that in your zeal to attack legitimate divinely given ecclesial authority of Peter’s Chair by calling it’s leaders “irresponsible” for not growing Church insights “fast enough” to suit your personal schedule you seem willing to ignore more vulnerable aspects of what I suspect is your own faith. The modern “bible-centric” view of the Protestant view took Martin Luther operating through his own private initiatives 1500 year to come out of “the aether”. Would you be equally inclined to call our Protestant brothers “irresponsible” too for being so slow to revolt? :rolleyes:

You might want to consider that The Church does not march to any one’s personal drum beat and tempo and only follows the urgings of the Holy Spirit in step with Divine Providence. If you are signaling through criticism that you could do a better job you need to reassess if that would not put yourself in conflict with your own disregard for authority. I can’t imagine that the pattern of a dog chasing and biting at its own tail would effectively scale in the aggregate. The resentment would becomes larger but now self directed. 😉

Back to the OP. You are turning a deaf ear to the fact that we have told you repeatedly that Limbo was never an official church teaching. It was a means to express hope in God’s Mercy and not a precise mechanism. The Church has never attempted to limit God to the human means by which we imagine He may operate. Nor does The Church deny God’s divine right to operate outside of the sacraments. God is God and He can do anything that does not contradict the consistency of His own Divine nature. What we know from scripture and the apostolic tradition is that the normative means for salvation is Baptism (by water, by desire or by blood). Beyond this revelation all we know for certain is “I [God] will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” [Exodus 33:19].

Where are we now?

The Church has found a greater hope for what may happen to children who die unbaptised . Limbo remains a possibility but we now consent to the plausible hope that there is much more. Again, this is not a change in dogma - this is a matured insight that is acceptable to believe but with no guarantees.

It is important to recognise the “double gratuity” which calls us into being and simultaneously calls us to eternal life. The actual order is supernatural; channels of grace are open from the very beginning of each human life.

All are born with that humanity which was assumed by Christ himself and all live in some kind of relation to him, with different degrees of explicitness (cf. LG 16) and acceptance, at every moment

The Church has come to realize a greater dimension as to what “The Church” is. And it’s profound. The Church now sees itself as ‘the universal sacrament of salvation’ (LG 48, cf. 1, 9).

This is a remarkable recognition that the holiness that resides in the Church reaches out to people outside the visible bounds of the Church by means of the bonds of human communion. This comes from Pauline insights. In particular 1 COR 7:14 “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy”

Thus we see possibilities for unbaptized children reaching full beatitude through the context of faith extended from the authority and love of their believing family. In the wider “universal” context The Catholic Church thus becomes family to the entire world! In other words we Catholics have the Holy Mass and the universal sacrement of The Church itself (which effects the graces of Baptism and Eucharist) that can be extended to the entire planet though the sacrifice of the mass and prayer. Of course not all will respond to grace but its universally available through The Church. Jesus mediates.

Thus, it has become apparent that all salvation has some relation to Baptism, Eucharist and The Church. This does not deny Christ His role since Christ is the head of The Church and inseparable from it.

From a principal called the “hierarchy of truths” The Church reaffirms the primacy of Christ and his grace, which has priority over Adam and sin. Thus, by Christ dieing on the Cross the entire supernatural nature of Creation is compelled toward Christ. God wants free consent of course. This is why sacramental baptism remains the normative means by which men consent to God through elective choice. But just as a baptised christian infant received its context of faith from its parents faith we too believe that THROUGH THE CHURCH (as its own self evident “universal sacrament”) the possibility for God’s grace may be extended to the whole human family and especially to the innocence of infants dieing without ever having the opportunity to consent to baptism. That is, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which has a mysterious relationship to the Church. Church & God’s Grace are paired through Divine Charity (God’s desire for peace and goodwill toward man). In essence The Church supernaturally converts more than it’s human members know. The Church is both Church Militant (earthly) and Church Triumphant (heavenly) - Jesus knows who are His.

Since Christ died for all, and since all 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 partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (GS 22). No human being can ultimately save him/herself. Salvation comes only from God the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit operating through His Catholic Church.

Bottom Line:
The Catholic Church has endeared itself to the universal scope of its calling. It now sees serious theological and liturgical grounds for a real hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved AND enjoy the Beatific Vision

Thus our hope in limbo has been superseded by the plausibility of a greater hope. We are free to believe in limbo or the greater beatitude.

A beatitude suddenly comes to mind here:
Matthew 5: 3
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

I can think of nothing more “poor of spirit” than a completely helpless and innocent baby aborted out of its mother’s womb or an innocent child dieing early in its life before the age of reason. God gives us each a free gift of life and the promise that each of us would be assured of all the graces necessary for our salvation. Salvation has no age nor intellectual restriction and a baby only knows one thing - “It needs.” Crying sure sounds like a consent to the “desire to live” to me.

James
 
SIZE=“3”]To CentralFLJames:

Originally Posted by Leeann
Hello - it’s my first time in here.

I have been reading the posts and I’m not certain if my comments fall into this thread “infant baptism” or not - as my comments have more to do with my questioning the apparent “certainty” of most of the replies, based on how they view the church’s (RC) teaching as being “absolutely correct”.

The reason I wonder at their certainty of absolute correctness in how this particular practice is administered and why, is due to the recent retraction by this same church, of the teaching of the “theory” of limbo for “infants who die without being baptized”,

Does it not raise concerns as to the validity of other doctrines and practices that are or have been taught in the past as being “absolutely correct”…when a “theory” - not an “official doctrine” has been just left there and allowed to be taught for so many years…and then is retracted?

It is an honest and sincere question?
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
Leeann, you are revealing a dubious agenda which is clearly an attempt to discredit the authority and credibility of The Catholic Church and Her leaders.

The word “revealing” – implies that I’ve been concealing or trying to keep something secret from you. My initial post when I came into this thread, states clearly my reason for being here. (see above)

That’s not the purpose of these forums.
My understanding of the purpose of these forums is that questions are to be asked by visitors and those who wish to partake, will endeavor to answer them. I believe that is what has been happening.

It;s coming across a bit cheeky, anti-clerical and anti-authoritarian.

Yes…some of my own responses have been cheeky and I offer my apologies, not only for the times where they were intentional, (which I am ashamed to admit some were), but also for the times where my words may have been perceived incorrectly by the reader – understanding this format does not allow for vocal inflection.

It’s also conspicuous of you to arrive 20 centuries distant from the formation of The Church and many centuries after the theory of Limbo was developed to criticize The Church while personally benefiting from all Her scholarship and the blessings that flow out of Her to give us the modern context of open dialog we currently enjoy in our western civilization.

You don’t honestly mean to imply that you believe that I am the first and only person, over all these years, to have questioned this particular theory and the process of its development? You don’t honestly mean to imply that I’ll be the last?

As to “personally benefiting from all Her scholarship and the blessings that flow out of Her” - I’m not clear on what you mean - I personally, have never benefited in way from her - although if you are referring specifically to this “thread” - “as the context of open dialog”- well yes, it has been beneficial to me, to be able to read other’s comments and their insights.

It’s very clear that you have a serious personal problem with ecclesial authority.

Only when that ecclesial authority claims the same “sole authority” as to God’s will, as the RC Church leaders do.

So I would caution you to consider that you are criticizing Jesus’ and His Church.

That is a consideration we must all take seriously … and having done so for myself…I am at peace, leaving my actions “solely” to His divine judgment.

The Catholic Church is NOT a democracy nor a confederation of sub-churches. It is the Body of Christ. We Catholics do have a concept called **sensus fidei ** which is the consensus of belief of the faithful.
(Which is good, just as a lot of other faiths have - and are encouraged to utilize it within their particular denomination whenever the need arises)

The reason that the concept of Limbo is being re-expressed is because we, the people of God through our collectively held sensus fidelium have come to the revelation that there is a greater and more plausible hope than Limbo. This is really a maturing and more compelling hope but is not a certainty.

And that is a commendable effort – not the “coming to the revelation” part, for as we all know that is by God’s grace – but the “seeing it through” part – making the authorities aware of the “urgent need” to clarify this dubious theory…better late than never.

To temper your criticism please recall the fact that there was NO BIBLE for about 400 years before the first Catholic Cannon was established. Nor was NO sola scriptura EVER in the church history; that was a modern speculation arising out of contrarian critical academics (Luther et-al) in the 1500’s. What we had before The Catholic Church assembled The Catholic Bible was a rule of law called *lex orandi, lex credendi * . That is, “law of prayer is the law of belief”. In the early Church, before we had The Bible, prayer and liturgy was the living tradition. It formed Christian rule of law, life and belief. Consider in light of this fact that in your zeal to attack legitimate divinely given ecclesial authority of Peter’s Chair by calling it’s leaders “irresponsible” for not growing Church insights “fast enough” to suit your personal schedule (I don’t expect that they should have “grown the church insights ” into anything – God’s grace was as efficient then and was there then, just as it is now – I simply question why someone in all that time…over all those centuries, didn’t take the responsibility that accompanies any authority (authority without responsibility is a dictatorship) and clarify this theory, then - instead of leaving it sit, accepting some of it, toning it down, letting it lie. In all those years was there not one who could recognize God’s infinite grace?) you seem willing to ignore more vulnerable aspects of what I suspect is your own faith. The modern “bible-centric” view of the Protestant view took Martin Luther operating through his own private initiatives 1500 year to come out of “the aether”. Would you be equally inclined to call our Protestant brothers “irresponsible” too for being so slow to revolt? :rolleyes:

Yes you’re quite right…I wasn’t going to bring up what you call “the Protestant” view, but since you did - after due consideration - the answer is no - not so much “irresponsible” – but more as to being “blind” – until by the grace of God they were set free.

There is something I would ask that you now consider and that is that apparently the idea of “sensus fidei” back then was not a concept that was embraced as wholeheartedly by the ones claiming to have had sole authority. The result speaks for itself.

(an aside):
By referring to “the aether”….are you displaying some “cheekiness” there James?

You might want to consider that The Church does not march to any one’s personal drum beat and tempo and only follows the urgings of the Holy Spirit in step with Divine Providence. (It would be apparent by now that I have considered this and haven’t discovered any substantial evidence that points to this as necessarily being a fact, other than your opinion based on what you’ve been told.) If you are signaling through criticism that you could do a better job you need to reassess if that would not put yourself in conflict with your own disregard for authority. (I’m not “signaling” through criticism anything - I’ve clearly stated a question and have clearly responded accordingly to each one.) I can’t imagine that the pattern of a dog chasing and biting at its own tail would effectively scale in the aggregate. The resentment would becomes larger but now self directed. 😉

Well…that’s the difference…God’s mercy and grace doesn’t resort to our human need of “setting a scale for intelligence” as if that constitutes the basis of dispensing His truth to us……if that were the case, the word grace itself would have no meaning.

(another post coming to finish this off)
 
(continuation and end of previous post)

Back to the OP. You are turning a deaf ear to the fact that we have told you repeatedly that Limbo was never an official church teaching. (James…now…I thought you said that
you were going to read and study that document I posted…)

It was a means to express hope in God’s Mercy and not a precise mechanism. The Church has never attempted to limit God to the human means by which we imagine He may operate. Nor does The Church deny God’s divine right to operate outside of the sacraments. God is God and He can do anything that does not contradict the consistency of His own Divine nature. What we know from scripture and the apostolic tradition is that the normative means for salvation is Baptism (by water, by desire or by blood). Beyond this revelation all we know for certain is “I [God] will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” [Exodus 33:19].

Where are we now?

The Church has found a greater hope for what may happen to children who die unbaptised . Limbo remains a possibility but we now consent to the plausible hope that there is much more. Again, this is not a change in dogma - this is a matured insight that is acceptable to believe but with no guarantees.

It is important to recognise the “double gratuity” which calls us into being and simultaneously calls us to eternal life. The actual order is supernatural; channels of grace are open from the very beginning of each human life.

All are born with that humanity which was assumed by Christ himself and all live in some kind of relation to him, with different degrees of explicitness (cf. LG 16) and acceptance, at every moment

The Church has come to realize a greater dimension as to what “The Church” is. And it’s profound. The Church now sees itself as ‘the universal sacrament of salvation’ (LG 48, cf. 1, 9). Wow!

This is a remarkable recognition that the holiness that resides in the Church reaches out to people outside the visible bounds of the Church by means of the bonds of human communion. This comes from Pauline insights. In particular 1 COR 7:14 “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy”

Thus we see possibilities for unbaptized children reaching full beatitude through the context of faith extended from the authority and love of their believing family. In the wider “universal” context The Catholic Church thus becomes family to the entire world! In other words we Catholics have the Holy Mass and the universal sacrement of The Church itself (which effects the graces of Baptism and Eucharist) that can be extended to the entire planet though the sacrifice of the mass and prayer. Of course not all will respond to grace but its universally available through The Church. Jesus mediates.

Thus, it has become apparent that all salvation has some relation to Baptism, Eucharist and The Church. This does not deny Christ His role since Christ is the head of The Church and inseparable from it.

From a principal called the “hierarchy of truths” The Church reaffirms the primacy of Christ and his grace, which has priority over Adam and sin. Thus, by Christ dieing on the Cross the entire supernatural nature of Creation is compelled toward Christ. God wants free consent of course. This is why sacramental baptism remains the normative means by which men consent to God through elective choice. But just as a baptised christian infant received its context of faith from its parents faith we too believe that THROUGH THE CHURCH (as its own self evident “universal sacrament”)
the possibility for God’s grace may be extended to the whole human family and especially to the innocence of infants dieing without ever having the opportunity to consent to baptism. That is, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which has a mysterious relationship to the Church. Church & God’s Grace are paired through Divine Charity (God’s desire for peace and goodwill toward man). In essence The Church supernaturally converts more than it’s human members know. The Church is both Church Militant (earthly) and Church Triumphant (heavenly) - Jesus knows who are His.

Since Christ died for all, and since all 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 partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (GS 22). No human being can ultimately save him/herself. Salvation comes only from God the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit operating through His Catholic Church.

(Some may call it “profound”, obviously those who believe they have the sole authority to do so and those who have been instructed to believe all of what you just posted …others may call it an “absurd delusion”…or an “elaborate fabrication” that is now necessary to appease and catch up with the rest of the world (while still maintaining its claim of having sole authority)…the important thing is what God will eventually call it……and as you’ve yourself have already stated… “Jesus knows who are His.”)

Bottom Line:

The Catholic Church has endeared itself to the universal scope of its calling. It now sees serious theological and liturgical grounds for a real hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved AND enjoy the Beatific Vision

Thus our hope in limbo has been superseded by the plausibility of a greater hope.
We are **free to believe **in limbo or the greater beatitude.

You are “free to believe”?
So you were in “bondage” by someone…or by their authority over your beliefs?
Hmmm….?

A beatitude suddenly comes to mind here:
Matthew 5: 3
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

I can think of nothing more “poor of spirit” than a completely helpless and innocent baby aborted out of its mother’s womb or an innocent child dieing early in its life before the age of reason.

…neither can I…oh wait…except for the grieving and desolate spirits of the infant’s family members who were left in a “limbo” of their own…

God gives us each a free gift of life and the promise that each of us would be assured of all the graces necessary for our salvation. Salvation has no age nor intellectual restriction (see James….there’s hope for me yet ) and a baby only knows one thing - “It needs.” Crying sure sounds like a consent to the “desire to live” to me.

Just imagine…and I’m sure your can James as indicated from your fanciful vision of me as “a dog chasing my tail”…if only the ones in authority…over all those years… had your insight and applied it as you have done to that beatitude.And more importantly, had they acted on it…imagine…all those parents, all the agony, all the grief and despair and torment…that could have been eliminated…just imagine. ALL those years ago…in the times when “Limbo” as it’s now described was quite described as delicately…
James - I really do believe you have looked into that document I suggested. I can sense your tension in your replies and can only hope it is because what you read and what you began to question were the same things as I have been doing and not simply a blind faith of what you’ve been taught as the “truth”.

Facts are facts, no matter how many fancy words you use (I’m referring to the doc. in question) or how convulated and lengthy you make it (again referring to that doc.) or how many people you can “snow over” either by fear or doubt or simply perhaps their own laziness to search out the truth …nothing will alter His truth.

God’s grace has always been sufficient and it should be as I stated before, a very fundamental understanding whenever a believer has truly encountered that grace…that there is “Hope”.

If it takes an official document this long to surface and for you or any other person to finally be able to declare **

" Thus our hope in limbo has been superseded by the plausibility of a greater hope.
We are **free to believe ****in limbo or the greater beatitude.
(*still *nothing definitive here)

that should at least be some sort of an indication, that something has gone wrong somewhere down the “sole authority” line of the RCChurch. But they’ve painted themselves into a corner now, they try and backtrack, they have to admit to errors, some major ones and the whole bottom falls out…they hang on and deny and coverup and make it almost impossible for the average everyday believer to understand …when all else fails…telling them “it’s a mystery” and to have faith in “them”, that “they” have the only true line to divine communication open.

No one can dispense His grace at their leisure, for no one knows the depths of it.

Consider *that *“mystery”.

No one.

Thank you for your time, your patience - which I now am aware that I’ve tested sorely - please believe me when I say, it is in love and faith that I now close.

Leeann
 
Leann:

Do you think Baptism is just symbolic, or do you believe that it actually confers grace & regenration?
 
As to “personally benefiting from all Her scholarship and the blessings that flow out of Her” - I’m not clear on what you mean - I personally, have never benefited in way from her - although if you are referring specifically to this “thread” - “as the context of open dialog”- well yes, it has been beneficial to me, to be able to read other’s comments and their insights.
By speaking and writing in the English language, you are benefiting from the work of the Venerable Bede, a Catholic priest who lived in the 700s AD. He took the spoken language of the Anglo Saxon peoples, discerned a grammar, and created a written language for it, so that it could be taught in schools, for the purpose of creating a common foundation for all English-speaking people to become literate and conversant in their own language. He also translated a Bible into English - the very first English Bible.

If you live in a house with four walls and a roof in a climate that experiences winter, you are benefiting from the work of Roman Catholic clergy who worked out a simple system of architecture, whereby free-standing buildings could be constructed that could withstand the blast of winter air without either falling apart or getting wet on the inside. They did this so that they could build little chapels where ever they wanted to, instead of having to keep everything in caves and hillsides. (Prior to that, buildings in winter climate areas were constructed into caves or hillsides.)

(It’s kind of astonishing to think of the fact that the Catholic Church was already here while my own ancestors, at least, were still, for all intents and purposes, living in caves.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top