Limbo as Dogma?

[Sure]

So, yes, babies must be baptized by water, desire or blood. We know this is true and as Catholics we must believe this. However, there is no reason why an all-powerful God could not effect one of these miraculously in order to bring the most innocent to himself. The point is, we will never know how or if he does such a thing. I believe that he does bring these children to Himself, you might not. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that an all-powerful God might find a miraculous way within his Laws to bring a perfectly innocent child to Himself. I suppose we will all find out when we die.

 

[Sure]

Were the holy innocents Pre- or Post the Sacrament of the New Testament?

Feel free to acquire any corrected quote that I have posted, using any reference document /site you choose. If anything I quote is not accurate, or isolated from honest context, I will concede immediately.

For example, is:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger*, Principles of Catholic Theology*, 1982, p. 43: “Wherever it is severed from the catechumenate, [age of reason voluntarily seeking membership] baptism loses its reason to be." (raison d’etre )

removed from context, or would it be even clearer if more surrounding content was added?

Proceed.

BTW, if I disagree with any of your source sites, does that in and of itself negate the quote? Just curious.

And just so you know, I hold to Explicit BOD of Catecumens & BOB for the same as martyrs.

What is the problem with this quotation exactly? Are you saying that it is unimportant for the adult seeking baptism to also be committed to education and to living in the Faith?

Also, do you have more of the context?

Thanks!

 

[TNT]

What is the problem with this quotation exactly? Are you saying that it is unimportant for the adult seeking baptism to also be committed to education and to living in the Faith?

Also, do you have more of the context?

Thanks!

An infant is not a catechumen. ie can have no explicit desire for any sacrament.

It says outside the conscious desire for baptism, baptism really has no reason for existing.

Of course I would love to be proven wrong on this.
One way would be if B16 were to baptize a host of infants on Pentecost Sunday, at St Peter’s, or other Basilica. That would be awesome video.
But alas, I fear he would never baptize an infant in a public ceremony.

 

[Sure]

An infant is not a catechumen. ie can have no explicit desire for any sacrament.

It says outside the conscious desire for baptism, baptism really has no reason for existing.

Perhaps he is using catechumenate in a broader context, meaning a life of education within the Church. It seems to me that he is commenting on the practice of some “culturally” catholic parents who attempt to have their children baptized and yet who have no real intention of raising that child in the faith. A good priest will uncover this and in that case respectfully decline their request for the sacrament.

Also, is he even speaking of infant baptism here? The quotation you listed seems to indicate that he is not. I’m sorry, I don’t have access to the book. Can you post the preceding and following paragraphs so that we can see?

Thanks!

 

[marci]

I think the problem with this argument (the possibility of salvation for infants who died without baptism) is that if you argue salvation is possible then you effectively make the Sacrament of Baptism unessessary. This is not what I am saying at all. I am mearly saying that we do not know what God chooses to do with these souls who unfortunately died before baptism.

Think of the days before modern medicine. How many babies died during birth? In modern times, how many die due to abortion, to misscarriage? Since there is no dogmatic statement confirming the existance of Limbo, the alternative is Hell.
The question then becomes does a Just God create souls with basically a direct ticket to Hell?
You might say that God creates people everyday who He knows will go to Hell. That is correct, however they go to Hell because they chose to by their actions or inactions while on earth.
This is not true for an infant. They do not choose.

The church believes it is possible, due to inconvincable ignorance, that if a person lives according to their conscience and dies without mortal sin (for example, a jungle native, never know Jesus) then salvation is possible for that person.

To say that babies who die without baptism are damned eventhough they never had the opportunity to use their God given free will to live a life according to their conscience and free from actual mortal sin, is saying that it was just their bad luck to die.

That to me is unreasonable.

Don’t you think that Hell will be full enough with all of the evil people in the world? Do you honestly believe God intends to add to it the souls of billions of little babies that never had the opportunity to choose to know God, let alone commit a sin?

If we lived without hope for these little ones why on earth would any woman even attempt to get pregnant? There is a good chance she will miscarry (most pregnancies end in miscarriage before the woman even knows she’s pregnant). God knows if I myself have misscarried and been unaware of it. If I believed that that child was damned, I think I would honestly go mad from the unimaginable horror of knowing that I willingly conceived a child that will spend all of eternity in the fires of Hell.

 

[Sure]

Of course I would love to be proven wrong on this.
One way would be if B16 were to baptize a host of infants on Pentecost Sunday, at St Peter’s, or other Basilica. That would be awesome video.
But alas, I fear he would never baptize an infant in a public ceremony.

You mean like this:

caycompass.com/cgi-bin/CFPnews.cgi?ID=1010143

 

[cam100]

I admit that I haven’t done extensive research on this, but one thought that occurred to me is that we use godparents in infant baptism to speak for the child. In other words, there seems to be an assumption that the infant, if they could understand and speak, would request baptism, so the godparents request it for the child.

This seems to imply a type of desire for baptism which is assumed for infants. Perhaps God uses some form of Baptism of Desire to cleanse orginal sins from infants that die without Baptism of Water?

Any thoughts from others on this idea?

 

[marci]

I admit that I haven’t done extensive research on this, but one thought that occurred to me is that we use godparents in infant baptism to speak for the child. In other words, there seems to be an assumption that the infant, if they could understand and speak, would request baptism, so the godparents request it for the child.

This seems to imply a type of desire for baptism which is assumed for infants. Perhaps God uses some form of Baptism of Desire to cleanse orginal sins from infants that die without Baptism of Water?

Any thoughts from others on this idea?

I agree. It seems strange to allow for desire for “invincible ignorance” in adulthood and not assume it’s possible for the infant.
If they knew about baptism then they would desire it, therefore salvation is possible and baptism of desire is possible.

 

[Arnobius]

Do infants even need baptism or are the protestants correct?

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger*, Principles of Catholic Theology*, 1982, p. 43: “Wherever it is severed from the catechumenate, [age of reason voluntarily seeking membership] baptism loses its reason to be." (raison d’etre )

Could a Southern Baptist have said it any better?

In Universal Salvation Theology, COULD becomes WOULD.
It really does not matter if it’s COULD or WOULD, since there is no obstacle to being saved,

Yes, taken entirely out of context, and this part" ("[age of reason voluntarily seeking membership]") is NOT part of what he said. So right off the bat, you have a false quote.

The section is a refutation of those who claim that baptism has meaning only for someone who reaches the age of reason and deny its value for infants because they would not be able to accept the faith. He points out that for the infant, baptized before he is able to accept the faith on his own, his time in growing up after baptism becomes a catechumenate as it were.

Quote mining is a worthless thing, as all the documents and writings of theologians need to be understood in the context of what they were written.

So quoting the Councils and Decrees on the subject only has value when it understands the full meaning behind them. Something that throwing quotes does not do.

I am curious. Have you actually read the Councils you cite or the books you condemn? (Principles of Catholic Theology is actually a book that is strongly orthodox) Or did some site tell you what was allegedly said, and you merely repeated it here without verifying the context?

I spoke before of the danger of not considering the possibility we ourselves err and making ourselves the judge of the magisterium. Perhaps this misquote you cited demonstrates it?

 

[JohnGrey]

It seems to me that the Council is saying that those who die in Original Sin cannot go to Heaven. All of us agree on that, and nobody that believes that we can hope for the salvation of unbaptized babies is saying that they die with original sin. What they say is that it is possible that unbaptized babies are cleansed of Original Sin by some other way known only to God before (NOT AFTER) they die, if that is His will.

Where does the Council say that we can know for sure that God cannot and/or does not remove Original Sin from babies another way? As I read it, we must believe that baptism is necessary for salvation because that is what God has bound us to. But is it written anywhere that God has bound Himself to the sacrament; that is, that he never will bring about the salvation of babies by any other way?

Please note: I am arguing this for the sake of the argument, not because I reject limbo. I personally believe in limbo, but I do not know for sure whether or not we are bound not to believe that unbaptized babies can be saved.

This is the sort of theological speculation that has always concerned me about the modern age, and it has been regrettably fueled by the last two Pontiffs, though it should be pointed out that it has never been in official promulgation as such. That is what has always raised a red flag for me with the 1992 Catechism. The Catechism is for the delivery of Catholic dogma and doctrine, those things that the Church knows to be true or untrue by divine revelation. By elevating his personal theological opinion unjustly to the same level, it is even arguable that JPII gave scandal to several generations of Catholics. I think many here will agree with me that Tradition has been pretty clear on the matter of original sin, and the necessary elements of the baptism of desire (being the necessary faculties and interior assent, which is impossible for an infant).

Either it has been divinely revealed, and the Holy Father should promulgate it as such, or he and the rest of the hierarchy should remain silent.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

TNT,

I was curious about whether or not you got your quotes from here since you were posting them almost verbatim and in the precise order as in this essay. You haven’t answered my question, by the way.

I said only that if you were getting them from this essay, the reputation of the author* might* cause *someone *to lose confidence in their accuracy or usefulness, or at least ask for some explanation, interpretation, or context of each quote. I agree with you that the source of a quote does not necessarily invalidate the quote as accurate or useful – but sometimes the references one uses might illuminate for a reader the tenor or bias of an argument. If your reference work is an essay entitled “The staggering implication of Benedict XVI’s new blatant heresy on limbo” by Bro. Peter Dimond, OSB, and uses the same quotes in the same progression – its fair that the scholarly reputation, bias, and project of the essayist you quote could be relevant to our discussion.

In other words, someone might have a suspicion that Bro. Diamond chose the specific quotes he did, perhaps with a bit of artful manipulation and editing, in order to prove his thesis about our Pope’s alleged limbo heresy. The quotes might be ripped from context.

I also stated that it seems that at least some of the quote DO need some sort of explanation. For instance the Pope Innocent III quote (in full) looks like it states that reception of the Eucharist is necessary for a child to have eternal life. Is that what Pope Innoccent III meant? What did he mean?

Asking for explanation of the quotes isn’t such a bad thing is it? You already explicated how they should be viewed in the light of the Holy Innocents. If we understand Augustine’s quote as only applying to the post-sacramental economy it doesn’t deny redemption for the Holy Innocents who died before the necessity of Baptism was established.

God bless you.
VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Arnobius,

Speaking of the following quote:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger*, Principles of Catholic Theology*, 1982, p. 43: “Wherever it is severed from the catechumenate, [age of reason voluntarily seeking membership] baptism loses its reason to be." (raison d’etre )

Do you have the source text? I ask because as Bro. Diamond quoted it Cardinal Ratzinger used the phrase “raison d’etre”. Then I believe Bro. Diamond “translated” that for us as a parenthetical as “its reason to be.”

TNT, your quote has the action going the opposite way: you have “its reason to be.” as part of the quote and “raison d’etre” as a parenthetical translation. That doesn’t quite make sense, because if Cardinal Ratzinger originally wrote in German - why would someone translate the German to English and then append a French parenthetical?

More likely Cardinal Ratzinger used the French phrase “raison d’etre” or a German language equivalent. The question is what are the connotations of that phrase. It seems a bit dishonest to translate such a colloquial expression literally and slavishly to “its reason to be.” Not only that, but then Bro. Diamond underscores that French colloquial expression (oh the horrors!) and concludes triumphantly: “This means that infant Baptism has no reason to be.”

Either way, its seems a violence to the text to translate “raison d’etre” in this manner.

What do you folks think?
VC

 

[Arnobius]

Arnobius,

Speaking of the following quote:

Do you have the source text? I ask because as Bro. Diamond quoted it Cardinal Ratzinger used the phrase “raison d’etre”. Then I believe Bro. Diamond “translated” that for us as a parenthetical as “its reason to be.”

TNT, your quote has the action going the opposite way: you have “its reason to be.” as part of the quote and “raison d’etre” as a parenthetical translation. That doesn’t quite make sense, because if Cardinal Ratzinger originally wrote in German - why would someone translate the German to English and then append a French parenthetical?

More likely Cardinal Ratzinger used the French phrase “raison d’etre” or a German language equivalent. The question is what are the connotations of that phrase. It seems a bit dishonest to translate such a colloquial expression literally and slavishly to “its reason to be.” Not only that, but then Bro. Diamond underscores that French colloquial expression (oh the horrors!) and concludes triumphantly: “This means that infant Baptism has no reason to be.”

Either way, its seems a violence to the text to translate “raison d’etre” in this manner.

What do you folks think?
VC

Yes, I actually have the book right here next to me

The actual quote is:
It is obvious also that that the meaning of baptism is destroyed wherever it is no longer understood as an anticipatory gift but only as a self contained rite. Wherever it is severed from the catechumenate, baptism loses its raison d’être

 

[Sure]

Yes, I actually have the book right here next to me

The actual quote is:
It is obvious also that that the meaning of baptism is destroyed wherever it is no longer understood as an anticipatory gift but only as a self contained rite. Wherever it is severed from the catechumenate, baptism loses its raison d’être

Ha ha…the Dimond Brothers are funny.

Hmmm…as soon as he is refuted, TNT always just disappears.

 

[Arnobius]

Ha ha…the Dimond Brothers are funny.

Hmmm…as soon as he is refuted, TNT always just disappears.

Yes… such are the perils of quote mining. One never knows when one will run into a person who actually read the work referred to.

 

[TNT]

Yes, taken entirely out of context, and this part" ("[age of reason voluntarily seeking membership]") is NOT part of what he said. So right off the bat, you have a false quote.

You surprise us.
Basically a [xxxxxx] in a quote is INTENDED to show it is NOT part of the quote but an explanatary insertion.
From Rutgers.edu:
Quotations. When you quote others, you’re expected to quote them exactly, right down to the spelling, capitalization, and italicization. If you change anything, you have to signal it to your readers. The most common ways to do this are with [brackets] for additions and ellipses (. . .) for omissions. (Newspapers sometimes uses parentheses instead of brackets, but brackets pose less risk of confusion.)

For instance:
“…for you and for Many…”

gets changed to “…for you and for all…”

but no bracket or other notice would accomplish your accusation of:
“So right off the bat, you have a false quote.” as you say.

 

[Arnobius]

You surprise us.
Basically a [xxxxxx] in a quote is INTENDED to show it is NOT part of the quote but an explanatary insertion.
From Rutgers.edu:
Quotations. When you quote others, you’re expected to quote them exactly, right down to the spelling, capitalization, and italicization. If you change anything, you have to signal it to your readers. The most common ways to do this are with [brackets] for additions and ellipses (. . .) for omissions. (Newspapers sometimes uses parentheses instead of brackets, but brackets pose less risk of confusion.)

For instance:
“…for you and for Many…”

gets changed to “…for you and for all…”

but no bracket or other notice would accomplish your accusation of:
“So right off the bat, you have a false quote.” as you say.

So nothing to say about the actual quote itself eh?
If the best you can do is quibble about terminology, it doesn’t bode well for you.

But if you look above, you will see I supplied the actual quote. So your source remains false, as his bracketed material is not what was actually said.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Right, and if one *does *quote something that uses a bracketed gloss, one usually cites the person quoted so your reader can see who the bracketed gloss belongs to - otherwise the explanatory insertion must be attributed to the person who provided the quote.

VC

 

[JohnGrey]

I admit that I haven’t done extensive research on this, but one thought that occurred to me is that we use godparents in infant baptism to speak for the child. In other words, there seems to be an assumption that the infant, if they could understand and speak, would request baptism, so the godparents request it for the child.

This seems to imply a type of desire for baptism which is assumed for infants. Perhaps God uses some form of Baptism of Desire to cleanse orginal sins from infants that die without Baptism of Water?

Any thoughts from others on this idea?

No, this is because the intent is operating within the bounds of the sacramental framework. Sacraments function ex opere operato, meaning that they work by their own power, regardless of interior assent of those receiving the sacrament. So long as the officiant is intending to baptise and obeys the form, the baptism is valid.

With the baptism of desire, which cannot be done in proxy, it requires an interior assent and desire to know the mysteries of the faith and a perfect act of contrition. These are faculties unavailable to an infant.

 

[Arnobius]

No, this is because the intent is operating within the bounds of the sacramental framework. Sacraments function ex opere operato, meaning that they work by their own power, regardless of interior assent of those receiving the sacrament. So long as the officiant is intending to baptise and obeys the form, the baptism is valid.

With the baptism of desire, which cannot be done in proxy, it requires an interior assent and desire to know the mysteries of the faith and a perfect act of contrition. These are faculties unavailable to an infant.

I would say be careful here so you do not accidentally negate the baptism of infants by your reasoning though or allow one to reason that one can be forcibly baptized.

I am not saying you believe either of these of course. Rather that someone can be led to those false conclusions by the descriptions you give…