Limbo as Dogma?

[JohnGrey]

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.

No…there is death and judgment. Any else is heresy.

 

[SemperFidelis]

The problem I see is that the definitions of the Church that you cite do not preclude the action of God.

You’re looking at it the wrong way. The Council has infallibly defined what happens to unbaptized infants ie: they have declared that this knowledge (that unbaptized infants cannot attain the beatific vision) is from God and that this is what will happen to unbaptized infants. A Council imparts absolute truths revealed by God. God has revealed to us what happens to unbaptized infants. The Council didn’t say some of the time, it said clearly all of the time. If God was going to do something else, I think he would have told us before we infallibly defined what would happen. Why have original sin in the first place, if all God is going to do is remove it from everybody? This line of thinking is clearly on the path to universalism, and this has been condemned as error by the Church.

But these definitions do not limit God.

This quotation drives me crazy. No God is not limited by his Church and its Dogmas but why would God have given us the revealed truth that unbaptized infants do not go to heaven to begin with, if all he was going to do was do something else. He has imparted to us the knowledge of what will happen to unbaptized infants.

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 Fathers were not infants. They had free will and knowledge that Jesus was going to come. Infants do not.

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.

No because Limbus Infantium is a permanent place

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.

The problem with this line of thinking is that you have no source to back up your claim. There is no Early Church Father, Doctor, Council, or Pope with the exception of the last two that has even hinted at the hope that unbaptized children can attain heaven. All there is is a fallible Catechism, and the fallible opinions of the last two Popes.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

SemperFidelis, back to your original post.

The issue, I think, is this: We know that those who die in original sin go to hell eternally. You posit that this means that unbaptized children either go to Hell (of the damned) or Limbo (a “hell” of either natural beatitude or of “pain of loss” only or of both “pain of loss” and “pain of sense”, but the most mild “pain of sense” imaginable.) You therefore wish to retain the concept of Limbo.

I am inclined to do so as well (particularly the Thomistic concept of “natural beatitude”).

However, there is also another possibility which you seem to be overlooking: that unbaptized infants could somehow have original sin taken from them before they depart this world. If that can be so, then they won’t descend to Hell. The question then can infants receive sanctifying grace extra-sacramentally?

Some say yes. (Cardinal Cajetan, for instance). Others say no, and JohnGrey has been laying out that position.

But, my point is that the portions of the Council of Lyons and Florence that you quoted in themselves do not lead to the conclusion that all unbaptized infants go to Hell (or Limbo). For that conclusion you a need middle term: namely that water baptism is the only way (and I mean ONLY - in the sense that God Himself never chooses some other way) an infant can be cleansed of original sin.

What do you think? Is that a fair summary of the problem?
VC

 

[Arnobius]

SemperFidelis

Nor have I said that unbaptized children do achieve Heaven. The Church has not taught so either, but rather it acknowledges the difficulties of the issue.

However, when there is the possibility of our own opinions of the meaning of the Church teachings being in error or the Catechism of the Catholic Church being in error, I will find more probable that we err, rather than the Magisterium.

It seems problematic to say the least to assert that they have access to the same documents we do, and they can be in error, but we cannot.

 

[JohnGrey]

You’re looking at it the wrong way. The Council has infallibly defined what happens to unbaptized infants ie: they have declared that this knowledge (that unbaptized infants cannot attain the beatific vision) is from God and that this is what will happen to unbaptized infants. A Council imparts absolute truths revealed by God. God has revealed to us what happens to unbaptized infants. The Council didn’t say some of the time, it said clearly all of the time. If God was going to do something else, I think he would have told us before we infallibly defined what would happen. Why have original sin in the first place, if all God is going to do is remove it from everybody? This line of thinking is clearly on the path to universalism, and this has been condemned as error by the Church.

Hear, hear! An even better question would be, why send Himself as the Son to die, and having constituted a sacramental framework at that, when the redemption would only be as efficacious in remitting sin as the age of the person?

SemperFidelis:

This quotation drives me crazy. No God is not limited by his Church and its Dogmas but why would God have given us the revealed truth that unbaptized infants do not go to heaven to begin with, if all he was going to do was do something else. He has imparted to us the knowledge of what will happen to unbaptized infants.

Oh, man, myself as well! It’s usually tossed out as a means to justify something that should be heretical, but isn’t thought of as because of sentimentality.

SemperFidelis:

The problem with this line of thinking is that you have no source to back up your claim. There is no Early Church Father, Doctor, Council, or Pope with the exception of the last two that has even hinted at the hope that unbaptized children can attain heaven. All there is is a fallible Catechism, and the fallible opinions of the last two Popes.

Yes, but then this begs the question. Wouldn’t their opinions, having been expressed so publicly, at the very least be a possible account of scandal, or even a manifest heresy (assuming of course that unbaptised children are deprived beatific vision is real, which I believe is the case)?

 

[JohnGrey]

SemperFidelis, back to your original post.

The issue, I think, is this: We know that those who die in original sin go to hell eternally. You posit that this means that unbaptized children either go to Hell (of the damned) or Limbo (a “hell” of either natural beatitude or of “pain of loss” only or of both “pain of loss” and “pain of sense”, but the most mild “pain of sense” imaginable.) You therefore wish to retain the concept of Limbo.

I am inclined to do so as well (particularly the Thomistic concept of “natural beatitude”).

However, there is also another possibility which you seem to be overlooking: that unbaptized infants could somehow have original sin taken from them before they depart this world. If that can be so, then they won’t descend to Hell. The question then can infants receive sanctifying grace extra-sacramentally?

Some say yes. (Cardinal Cajetan, for instance). Others say no, and JohnGrey has been laying out that position.

But, my point is that the portions of the Council of Lyons and Florence that you quoted in themselves do not lead to the conclusion that all unbaptized infants go to Hell (or Limbo). For that conclusion you a need middle term: namely that water baptism is the only way (and I mean ONLY - in the sense that God Himself never chooses some other way) an infant can be cleansed of original sin.

What do you think? Is that a fair summary of the problem?
VC

I believe the point that SemperFidelis is saying is that the quote in question do not make distinctions between the infant and the adult. If there were such a distinction, then it would rightly have been in there, being a divinely revealed truth. Their are, according to Catholic theology, only two other means of imparting sacramental grace throughout the teaching history of the Church (the addition of a further one 2,000 years hence could only be termed a novelty). Desire, as stated by Pius XII and several others is impossible. Blood is possible, though unlikely, as it would require martyrdom on behalf of Christ directly. Florence, however, states very clearly, that there is no other remedy for original sin in infants other than sacramental baptism, i.e. water.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

John,

That is the missing term I was talking about. SemperFidelis’ quote of Florence did include your quote of Florence.

The issue, it seems, hinges on that missing term (your quote of Florence).

VC

 

[JohnGrey]

John,

That is the missing term I was talking about. SemperFidelis’ quote of Florence did include your quote of Florence.

The issue, it seems, hinges on that missing term (your quote of Florence).

VC

I’m not sure I follow. What is unclear about the quote?

 

[Arnobius]

Does anyone know about the idea of baptizing the infant in the womb? The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions it, but it seems to be an idea that is not spoken about any more.

The context is:
Other theologians have urged that, under the law of nature and the Mosaic dispensation, children could be saved by the act of their parents and that consequently the same should be even more easy of attainment under the law of grace, because the power of faith has not been diminished but increased.

Common objections to this theory include the fact that infants are not said to be deprived of justification in the New Law through any decrease in the power of faith, but because of the promulgation by Christ of the precept of baptism which did not exist before the New Dispensation. Nor would this make the case of infants worse than it was before the Christian Church was instituted. While it works a hardship for some, it has undoubtedly improved the condition of most. Supernatural faith is now much more diffused than it was before the coming of Christ, and more infants are now saved by baptism than were justified formerly by the active faith of their parents. Moreover, baptism can more readily be applied to infants than the rite of circumcision, and by the ancient law this ceremony had to be deferred till the eighth day after birth, while baptism can be bestowed upon infants immediately after they are born, and in case of necessity even in their mother’s womb. Finally it must be borne in mind that unbaptized infants, if deprived of heaven, would not be deprived unjustly. The vision of God is not something to which human beings have a natural claim. It is a free gift of the Creator who can make what conditions He chooses for imparting it or withholding it. No injustice is involved when an undue privilege is not conferred upon a person. Original sin deprived the human race of an unearned right to heaven. Through the Divine mercy this bar to the enjoyment of God is removed by baptism; but if baptism be not conferred, original sin remains, and the unregenerated soul, having no claim on heaven, is not unjustly excluded from it.

Anyone know about this?

 

[JohnGrey]

Does anyone know about the idea of baptizing the infant in the womb? The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions it, but it seems to be an idea that is not spoken about any more.

The context is:
Other theologians have urged that, under the law of nature and the Mosaic dispensation, children could be saved by the act of their parents and that consequently the same should be even more easy of attainment under the law of grace, because the power of faith has not been diminished but increased.

Common objections to this theory include the fact that infants are not said to be deprived of justification in the New Law through any decrease in the power of faith, but because of the promulgation by Christ of the precept of baptism which did not exist before the New Dispensation. Nor would this make the case of infants worse than it was before the Christian Church was instituted. While it works a hardship for some, it has undoubtedly improved the condition of most. Supernatural faith is now much more diffused than it was before the coming of Christ, and more infants are now saved by baptism than were justified formerly by the active faith of their parents. Moreover, baptism can more readily be applied to infants than the rite of circumcision, and by the ancient law this ceremony had to be deferred till the eighth day after birth, while baptism can be bestowed upon infants immediately after they are born, and in case of necessity even in their mother’s womb. Finally it must be borne in mind that unbaptized infants, if deprived of heaven, would not be deprived unjustly. The vision of God is not something to which human beings have a natural claim. It is a free gift of the Creator who can make what conditions He chooses for imparting it or withholding it. No injustice is involved when an undue privilege is not conferred upon a person. Original sin deprived the human race of an unearned right to heaven. Through the Divine mercy this bar to the enjoyment of God is removed by baptism; but if baptism be not conferred, original sin remains, and the unregenerated soul, having no claim on heaven, is not unjustly excluded from it.

Anyone know about this?

This is in reference to those children that are delivered by Caesarean in cases of distress or likely death are baptised without even being fully removed from the womb.

 

[TMC]

Is this ex cathedra, Your Holiness?

No, but I think it makes sense. If there is no Limbo, there are two choices - they go to Heaven (perhaps via purgatory) or to Hell. I cannot accept that they go to Hell. So they must be cleansed of Original SIn.

 

[JohnGrey]

No, but I think it makes sense. If there is no Limbo, there are two choices - they go to Heaven (perhaps via purgatory) or to Hell. I cannot accept that they go to Hell. So they must be cleansed of Original SIn.

Sentimentality, as I said. You cannot accept it because you feel it to be “not fair,” right? I don’t mean to be unkind, but this is something that I’ve never heard God be referred to as.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

John,

What I was attempting to get at in my summary was that SemperFidelis’ quote of Florence alone did not lead to the conclusion that all unbaptized infants go to Hell or Limbo.

He needed a intermediate term, namely that the only way an infant can be made free of original sin is through water baptism.

Your additional quote of Florence attempts to supply that missing term in the logical argument.

The argument hinges on the portion of Florence that reference.

VC

 

[JohnGrey]

John,

What I was attempting to get at in my summary was that SemperFidelis’ quote of Florence alone did not lead to the conclusion that all unbaptized infants go to Hell or Limbo.

He needed a intermediate term, namely that the only way an infant can be made free of original sin is through water baptism.

Your additional quote of Florence attempts to supply that missing term in the logical argument.

The argument hinges on the portion of Florence that reference.

VC

Oh, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Arnobius]

This is in reference to those children that are delivered by Caesarean in cases of distress or likely death are baptised without even being fully removed from the womb.

Thank you.

 

[TMC]

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.

Most heretical? That’s saying something. I should get some kind of prize.

Why does a desire toward God require an understanding of Him, and why do you think babies don’t have any understanding? John knew Christ in the womb.

And how smart or developed or educated do you have to be, exactly? God doesn’t grant grace based on the strength of your “intellectual faculties”. No man can understand God. Why is an adult’s imperfect understanding enough but not a child’s? Where is the line below which one is simply too stupid to be saved?

As for “most heretical” I think this statement of yours : **“A child without baptism, in the spiritual sense, is little more than an animal **” would give mine a run for the money any day. Children are no more than animals?? At what age do they take on some spiritual value?

 

[Arnobius]

Sentimentality, as I said. You cannot accept it because you feel it to be “not fair,” right? I don’t mean to be unkind, but this is something that I’ve never heard God be referred to as.

Perhaps we should consider the possibility he meant “Just.” Sometimes people consider it the same thing without considering the different connotations.

 

[marci]

If God was going to do something else, I think he would have told us before we infallibly defined what would happen. Why have original sin in the first place, if all God is going to do is remove it from everybody? This line of thinking is clearly on the path to universalism, and this has been condemned as error by the Church.

How do you know what He tells us about limbo when the church doesn’t even take a position on it?

My argument is that God doesn’t remove original sin from everyone, but that He can choose to with the infants, or rather allow for some other form of Baptism that may not be known to us.

This quotation drives me crazy. No God is not limited by his Church and its Dogmas but why would God have given us the revealed truth that unbaptized infants do not go to heaven to begin with, if all he was going to do was do something else. He has imparted to us the knowledge of what will

 

[JohnGrey]

Most heretical? That’s saying something. I should get some kind of prize.

Ask one of the moderators, I’m sure they could help there.

TMC:

Why does a desire toward God require an understanding of Him, and why do you think babies don’t have any understanding? John knew Christ in the womb.

No, John leapt with joy in the womb, he didn’t recognize Christ. This is an understandable result of being in the physical presence of the living God, unhidden by even the accidents of the Host.

Children have no understanding of anything beyond pure sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. They are creatures of instinct that will in time become creatures of learning, which is little more than the transmission of sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

TMC:

And how smart or developed or educated do you have to be, exactly? God doesn’t grant grace based on the strength of your “intellectual faculties”. No man can understand God. Why is an adult’s imperfect understanding enough but not a child’s? Where is the line below which one is simply too stupid to be saved?

You’re misconstruing the idea of an intellectual faculty. It is the another word for self-awareness, or even the awareness of self-awareness that creates an understanding that a human in unique among all of God’s creations, and in that uniqueness is His image and the ability to discern right from wrong. An infant cannot know this, and since it cannot understand that it has sinned against God through atavism and requires regeneration, it is unable to understand the need for baptism to be redeemed to Christ.

TMC:

As for “most heretical” I think this statement of yours : **“A child without baptism, in the spiritual sense, is little more than an animal **” would give mine a run for the money any day. Children are no more than animals?? At what age do they take on some spiritual value?

I was afraid you would take that statement incorrectly. I probably should have justified it and for that I sincerely apologize. My point there was that in terms of intellectual faculty that I spoke of before. They are as far from the ideal human (Jesus Christ) as is possible. They have original sin, no means or understanding of it, no means of being reconciled, and no means of even understanding that they need this. This is why infant baptism is so vital to the sacramental economy.

 

[JohnGrey]

My argument is that God doesn’t remove original sin from everyone, but that He can choose to with the infants, or rather allow for some other form of Baptism that may not be known to us.

An argument that we’ve heard ad nauseam. The fact of the matter is that there have only been two popes that have endorsed this opinion, publicly or privately. If I have to weigh Tradition vs. their opinions (especially given their association with theologians like Kung and Rahner), I’m gonna go with Tradition.

marci:

Perhaps there are many things that will be made clear to us if and when we are freed from the bounds of our own minds and finally with Him in Heaven, when all will be made known to us.

Perhaps, maybe, possibly, might be. Florence was clear on this point. Trent equally so.

marci:

So because they lack free will they are condemned? That’s exactly my point.

All are condemn without baptism, and this is just, because we are descended of those that sinned against God, and that sin has been borne to us across time. My original sin alone, man warrants Hell. That is de fide. In the Old Testament, God transferred the punishment for sin to even the third and fourth generations of them that did the sin. These people were not alive to be part of the offense, yet God felt it just to deliver the penalty of it to them.

Aren’t we taught that at the Great Judgement all are to be judged and either go to Heaven or Hell. No other place will exist at that time, no purgatory, no Limbo of the Fathers, no other realm period?

Limbo is Hell. Just a place in Hell where the punishment is the pain of loss, rather than the pain of sense.

marci:

So your saying that the current CCC doesn’t require our alligiance because it is fallible? Can you give more information to back up the argument that the CCC in not dogmatic?

Perhaps because, just in terms of this argument alone, it purports dogmatic weight to something that most people seem to view as something that is merely and opinion. Where the Pope does not speak infallibly, he does not enjoy any more weight than the rest of us. St. Peter and the Gentile converts is a good enough example of that.