Limbo as Dogma?

[JohnGrey]

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…

Thanks for pointing that out!

Well, naturally one could not forcibly baptise an individual who had reached the age of reason, or had come to understand objectively the necessity of the sacrament within the economy of the Catholic faith and subsequently rejected it. This is precisely why infant baptism is not forcible baptism and why baptism of desire (the opposite of forced baptism in terms of interior assent) is not possible for infants; no intellectual faculties exist to allow the child to accept or deny the sacrament.

 

[TNT]

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

Let’s expand that quote :
“The conflict over infant baptism shows** the extent to which we have lost sight of the true nature of faith**, baptism and membership in the Church.
Once we begin to understand again, it will be clear to us that baptism **is neither the imposition of burdens about which we should have been allowed to make our own decision nor acceptance by a society into which we have been forced without being consulted in advance …"
[So much for Circumcision ordered by God himself to Abraham and all Jewish infants, including the Ifant Jesus Christ.
He continues with his definition that is enlightened in our new age:}
**"**but rather the grace of that meaning which, in the crisis of self-doubting mankind, can alone enable us to rejoice in being human."
[another thought is added]
" It is obvious also 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’etre."

Now anyone is invited to translation ***raison d’etre. ***Just let us know how you arrived at it.

Where it states that the infant will become a catechumenate, is no where to be found. In fact, one who is baptized in the Catholic Church PRECLUDES them from ever regressing to a catechumen. So the infant is severed from the catechumenate at its baptism.

"…"the grace of that meaning which, in the crisis of self-doubting mankind, can alone enable us to rejoice in being human. "

This definition in no way can be accomplished by an infant. They are without reasoning intellect.

Now let us find anything close to this definition of baptism in the Annals the Catholic Religion. aka that baptism is:
"…the grace of that meaning …[that] can alone enable us to rejoice in being human. "

For he says: "…we have lost sight of the true nature of faith, baptism and membership in the Church. " and:
“…begin to understand again…”

So, where in history did we have this “sight” that became lost. Where did the Catholic Church teach this lost sight and baptismal definition of his?

Finally,
Does anyone know someone who was never baptised or even believes in no god, "rejoice in being human. " ?
I do, lots of them, JW’s Mormons, Jews., atheists, etc.

BTW:
An: “… imposition of burdens …” in baptism is the Obedience of Faith, Mass on Sundays, and to raise offspring as faithful Catholics.
Just to name a few.

 

[Arnobius]

TNT, why not actually try reading the book instead of commenting on what you don’t know.

The context of catechumenate in this case refers to the catechesis, or teaching the faith to the infant after baptism. The entire point of this section of the book is about stressing the validity of baptizing the infants and rejecting the claim that only one who can make a conscious decision can be validly baptized.

 

[TNT]

TNT, why not actually try reading the book instead of commenting on what you don’t know.

The context of catechumenate in this case refers to the catechesis, or teaching the faith to the infant after baptism. The entire point of this section of the book is about stressing the validity of baptizing the infants and rejecting the claim that only one who can make a conscious decision can be validly baptized.

Feel free to offer those quotes instead of making us take your word for it.
For instance “catechumenate” = “Catechesis”
ie:
“The context of catechumenate in this case refers to the catechesis”

Until then I’ll give the cardinal credit for being able to say the words he means.

 

[Arnobius]

Feel free to offer those quotes instead of making us take your word for it.
For instance “catechumenate” = “Catechesis”
ie:
“The context of catechumenate in this case refers to the catechesis”

All, right
Page 42:
But first let us confirm that the catechumenate belongs to baptism; that the Church did not alter her stand when infant baptism became common procedure. It only needs to be pointed out that catechesis can be “prebaptismal” or “postbaptismal”. In the latter case it must be initiated in the course of the baptismal rite.

But indeed don’t take my word for it. And don’t take the word of those sites you’ve been quote mining either. Just buy the book and read it. Then you might see you have been grossly misinterpreting the context of the words of the Holy Father written when he was still cardinal.

 

[mangy_dog]

Well, we must remember I think that the Limbo of the Fathers did not keep them eternally but until Christ came. Is it just to say the unbaptized infants do not have the opportunity they did?

I am not saying this is the case of course, but I do wonder if it might be something relevant to consider.

I don’t know where anyone would get the idea that Limbo is part of Hell. Hell is Hell; Heaven is Heaven and logic tells (even) me that Limbo is its own location or realm. If theologically we can agree that there was a Limbo of the Fathers, why then would the Limbo of infants have to be part of hell?
Limbo may be another realm of God’s mercy for the infants that, while with original sin, have not committed any other sins. They enjoy happiness and peace but do not have the beatific vision.

It’s not complicated…God is merciful and loving and just.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

I don’t know where anyone would get the idea that Limbo is part of Hell. Hell is Hell; Heaven is Heaven and logic tells (even) me that Limbo is its own location or realm. If theologically we can agree that there was a Limbo of the Fathers, why then would the Limbo of infants have to be part of hell?
Limbo may be another realm of God’s mercy for the infants that, while with original sin, have not committed any other sins. They enjoy happiness and peace but do not have the beatific vision.

It’s not complicated…God is merciful and loving and just.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

Totally agree…

Theologians distinguished a two-fold Limbo: the Limbo of the Fathers (Limbus patrum) , where the just that died before Christ, were detained until Heaven, which had been closed in punishment for the sin of Adam, was reopened by the Savior, Jesus Christ; and the Limbo of infants (Limbus infantium), where those who die in original sin, but without personal mortal sin, are deprived of the happiness which would come to them in the supernatural order, but not the happiness in the natural order.

 

[cam100]

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 think you may have misunderstood my point. I’m not speaking of the validity of the sacrament. For that matter, baptism can be valid even without godparents. Nevertheless, godparents are normally selected and they normally speak for the infant during the reception of the sacrament. My point is that this seems to suggest some kind of implied consent or desire on the part of the infant. The godparents speak as the infant would speak if he or she could.

 

[SemperFidelis]

If theologically we can agree that there was a Limbo of the Fathers, why then would the Limbo of infants have to be part of hell?

Um, probably because Limbo of the Fathers was in a part of hell

Limbo may be another realm of God’s mercy for the infants that, while with original sin, have not committed any other sins. They enjoy happiness and peace but do not have the beatific vision.

This is what Limbo is.

 

[TMC]

This is a silly argument. Of course infants receive Baptism of Desire. They have immortal souls that are innocent, blemished by Orginal Sin, but free of any deliberate sin of their own. They have a natural desire for God’s love and presence because they have not yet taken affirmative steps to distance themselves from God (through individual sin). Orginal Sin mars their souls, but has yet been able to encourage the selfishness that seperates us from God. You don’t have to be a full fledged reasoning human to desire God. Babies are born yearning for his comfort. He gives it to them. They are cleansed by the Baptism of Desire and carried to His bosom.

 

[francesco920]

This is a silly argument. Of course infants receive Baptism of Desire. They have immortal souls that are innocent, blemished by Orginal Sin, but free of any deliberate sin of their own. They have a natural desire for God’s love and presence because they have not yet taken affirmative steps to distance themselves from God (through individual sin). Orginal Sin mars their souls, but has yet been able to encourage the selfishness that seperates us from God. You don’t have to be a full fledged reasoning human to desire God. Babies are born yearning for his comfort. He gives it to them. They are cleansed by the Baptism of Desire and carried to His bosom.

Is this ex cathedra, Your Holiness?

 

[mangy_dog]

Um, probably because Limbo of the Fathers was in a part of hell

This is what Limbo is.

Gee…! I’m almost regretful that we are in agreement (!?)

 

[SemperFidelis]

This is a silly argument. Of course infants receive Baptism of Desire.

This line of thinking has been brought up, and has been found wanting. In fact this very line of thinking came up in the 50’s and Pope Ven. Pius XII said this:

Pope Ven. Pius XII in his address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (Oct. 29, 1951) :

“If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. **An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open…” **

 

[JohnGrey]

This is a silly argument. Of course infants receive Baptism of Desire. They have immortal souls that are innocent, blemished by Orginal Sin, but free of any deliberate sin of their own. They have a natural desire for God’s love and presence because they have not yet taken affirmative steps to distance themselves from God (through individual sin). Orginal Sin mars their souls, but has yet been able to encourage the selfishness that seperates us from God. You don’t have to be a full fledged reasoning human to desire God. Babies are born yearning for his comfort. He gives it to them. They are cleansed by the Baptism of Desire and carried to His bosom.

This is perhaps one of the most heretical statements I’ve come across since I’ve been here. The idea that an infant has a natural inclination toward God despite original sin?! Original sin by definition has wounded by man’s nature and by extension his natural relationship with God, given to rebellion against Him. To say otherwise borders on Semi-Pelagianism.

For children to have a conscious desire toward God, they must first have an understanding that God exists, that He is the Creator, that they have sin which has separated them from Him, that they are objectively repentant for their sins, and that they necessarily must be reunited to Him. A child does not have the intellectual faculties to do this…I know people in their 40s and 50s that don’t have the faculties to understand this. A child without baptism, in the spiritual sense, is little more than an animal having only understanding of sense and instantaneous reaction. The comfort they seek is instinctual, not spiritual.

 

[SemperFidelis]

This is my problem once again:

Unbaptized Infants can go to one of two places only:

1. Hell

or

1. Limbo

Several Councils and several Popes have clearly and explicitly said unbaptized children could not go to heaven. Having hope that they might doesn’t do anything, as a Council, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost has definitively said this is not possible. Limbo is the least harsh of the two places above, and has clearly been believed by a majority of the faithful from the time of St. Thomas up until Vatican II, so I go with that. Limbo itself is not an extraordinarily defined Dogma, but it is implicitly stated in two Councils, and explicitly stated by several Popes and Catechisms. If this isn’t Ordinary Magisterium, then I don’t know what is. The only time Limbo has ever been denied (with the exception of the latter part of this century) is by heretics (Jansenists with too narrow of a view of salvation, and Pelagians with too broad of a view). Other than that the only place you’ll find rejection of it is in the Second Edition of the CCC (the first edition even mentioned Limbo), and the document recently published by the ITC, which has absolutely no Magisterial authority what so ever. Even then, the ITC still stated that Limbo is a legitimate theology to hold. Saying unbaptized infants (who are not innocent by the way due to original sin) can go to heaven borders on Semi-Pelagianism and is a rejection of original sin itself. For those who reject Limbo, there is only one other place they can go: hell.

 

[JohnGrey]

I think you may have misunderstood my point. I’m not speaking of the validity of the sacrament. For that matter, baptism can be valid even without godparents. Nevertheless, godparents are normally selected and they normally speak for the infant during the reception of the sacrament. My point is that this seems to suggest some kind of implied consent or desire on the part of the infant. The godparents speak as the infant would speak if he or she could.

The godparents speaking is more symbolic of their commitment to instruct the child in the Catholic faith should they be entrusted to their care. As show by SemperFidelis, Ven. Pius XII closed the way in the regard of flaminis for infants.

 

[JohnGrey]

This line of thinking has been brought up, and has been found wanting. In fact this very line of thinking came up in the 50’s and Pope Ven. Pius XII said this:

Pope Ven. Pius XII in his address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (Oct. 29, 1951) :

“If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open…”

The Council of Florence was also pretty clear. Per Session 11, 4th of February 1442, ratified by Pope Eugenius IV:

With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God…

 

[Arnobius]

The problem I see is that the definitions of the Church that you cite do not preclude the action of God. These councils condemned certain heresies that made baptism unnecessary yes. But these definitions do not limit God. The Limbo of the Fathers show that those who had the accident of being born before the establishment of baptism were not faulted for it. The question that must then be asked is whether this is something that was limited solely for those individuals who died before, or whether it is possible God recognizes that those people who died since with no way to receive or even know of the salvation of baptism were in a similar situation.

We have to recognize that Denzinger 464 points out that:
The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments. The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment “all” men will be brought together with their bodies “before the tribunal of Christ” “to render an account” of their own deeds [Rom. 14:10 ].

Does this accept a view that those in Limbo would be among those at the Day of Judgment to render an account? That brings us to the question as to whether this would allow for the same salvation made for the Limbo of the Fathers might also be available for those who did not have in life the opportunity to be shown the salvation of baptism and died ignorant of its existence or necessity.

I think we need to recognize that the Council of Lyons did make this clear about the Day of Judgment, and even if other councils did not speak of it, does not mean it is not something to be considered.

 

[JohnGrey]

The problem I see is that the definitions of the Church that you cite do not preclude the action of God. These councils condemned certain heresies that made baptism unnecessary yes. But these definitions do not limit God. The Limbo of the Fathers show that those who had the accident of being born before the establishment of baptism were not faulted for it. The question that must then be asked is whether this is something that was limited solely for those individuals who died before, or whether it is possible God recognizes that those people who died since with no way to receive or even know of the salvation of baptism were in a similar situation.

We have to recognize that Denzinger 464 points out that:
The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments. The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment “all” men will be brought together with their bodies “before the tribunal of Christ” “to render an account” of their own deeds [Rom. 14:10 ].

If it has been thusly defined infallibly, I of course assent. The question, here is not degrees of punishment, but rather the ultimate question of their salvation. Will they be punished differently than those who sinned personally? That is the notion taken from your quote. Will they be punished with Hell? Yes, and eternally at that.

Arnobius:

Does this accept a view that those in Limbo would be among those at the Day of Judgment to render an account? That brings us to the question as to whether this would allow for the same salvation made for the Limbo of the Fathers might also be available for those who did not have in life the opportunity to be shown the salvation of baptism and died ignorant of its existence or necessity.

I do not.

Per the Catholic Encyclopedia

All men, both good and bad, according to the Athanasian Creed, will appear in the judgment to give an account of their deeds. As to children that have personally done neither good nor evil, the baptized must be distinguished from the unbaptized. The former appear in the judgment, not to be judged, but only to hold the glory of Christ (Supplement 80:5), while the latter, ranked with the wicked, although not judged, will be enabled to realize the justice of their eternal loss [that is, the loss of beatific vision] .

 

[Metaron]

Is it perhaps (I’m not endorsing this view) ok if someone posits that… maybe… maybe they are reincarnated? I mean, only the unbaptized infants, no other people. Is this view permissible. I am in no way endorsing it. I just want to know if it is a belief abile to be held in the Catholic Church.