Limbo? I don't understand

[MilesXpisti]

ITC-LIMBO Apr-20-2007 (1,240 words) xxxi

Vatican commission: Limbo reflects 'restrictive view of salvation’

Please bear in mind that the ITC has no more magisterial authority than The Moral Majority or the ACLU. Even though their recently-published document on the subject was endorsed by the Holy Father (and as such I gave it my due attention), I find that it is still predicated on the absence of divine revelation on the subject as a matter for hope (or even outright dismissal of the subject), what Tradition does say, rather than what it does not say. One such section troubles me greatly, as both JPII and the current pontiff were both architects of the Second Vatican Council:

Prior to the First Vatican Council, and again prior to the Second Vatican Council, there was a strong interest in some quarters in defining Catholic doctrine on this matter. This interest was evident in the revised schema of the dogmatic constitution, De doctrina catholica, prepared for the First Vatican Council (but not voted upon by the Council), which presented the destiny of children who died without Baptism as between that of the damned, on the one hand, and that of the souls in purgatory and the blessed, on the other: “Etiam qui cum solo originali peccato mortem obeunt, beata Dei visione in perpetuum carebunt”.[54] In the 20th century, however, theologians sought the right to imagine new solutions, including the possibility that Christ’s full salvation reaches these infants.[55]

My problem with such a statement is not an issue of novelty, as I will not belabor to address questions of novel inception during the post-conciliar period, but more to the point the mindset behind such petition. Apparently it is not enough to have a reasonable theory, balanced in Divine Justice and Mercy that is consistent with the dogmatic canons of the Council of Trent. They had to replace an unpopular theory with an unsupportable one.

The document itself is laced in “might be’s” and “what if’s” drawing specious arguments from varying verses dealing with other sacraments. I am not opposed to proper theology, but I’ve seen more concrete affirmations from cryptozoology papers. If they have received or exegized revelation on the subject let it be promulgated properly, if not, in the name of all that is holy save us the confusion and be silent!

 

[tdgesq]

On the contrary, it necessarily would be at the center of the conflict, because extraordinary redemption of infants would at the very least render that particular canon of Trent to be a conditional dogma, which is a dangerous notion. Canons are always worded thus: condition renders effect. To say that Trent promulgated “condition renders effect except in the case of…”, then to many it ceases to represent a firm dogmatic point.

It depends upon your interpretation of that particular canon. If you interpret it to only allow for sacramental baptism and baptism of desire, then you have no choice but to conclude that it doesn’t allow for baptism of blood or for the Immaculate Conception, both of which the fathers of Trent knew existed at the time. This leads me to conclude that Trent wasn’t attempting to give a jointly exhaustive definition of extra sacramental baptism. That particular canon is asserting the necessity of baptismal regeneration for initial justification. The only way it becomes a conditional dogma is if we interpret in a way that leads to contradictions with other dogma.

The obvious answer is that God can act outside His Sacraments. But we must also address that extraordinary redemption, at least in my own opinion, represents the introduction of an improper divergence in the character of the Almighty. It stresses His Divine Mercy to the detriment of His Divine Justice. The Augustinian position of paena damni (with even the possibility of paena sensus), takes the polar position, stressing Divine Justice. The just medium between the two is of course the sacramental system instituted by Christ as that perfect mixture, being available freely to all. Is it possible that the unbaptised infants are damned? I consider it even probabe theologically (though I hope I am wrong), but I do not question its Divine Justice. They bear the sin that all born of Adam share, and they too share in its penalty, both in life and, if left unclean, in death.

I think this goes to demonstrate something very different. The Fathers have not been in accord on the fate of unbaptized infants. Presumably that is why there is no dogma that directly addresses the issue. As you point out it is tricky business for us to weigh God’s justice against his mercy. But that you hope that your tentative theological conclusion is wrong gives me some idea of where you think the equities lie, even if you are willing to intellectually assent to something different. At the end of the day I don’t know how helpful it is in reaching truth to weigh these abstract concepts against each other as God might. The Calvinists claim to do this when it comes to the supposed affirmative predestination of the damned. Your point is well taken though that whatever the result, God’s justice can’t really be second guessed.

I think that if there were significant questions in the minds of the pillars of the Church regarding the soteriology of the young and infantile, it would’ve been addressed already. Given that conditions in the past have been far more contributory to infant mortality, if there was something to be defined regarding extraordinary redemption of children it would’ve already happened.

The ITC obviously sees things differently. Whether it’s just a flash in the pan or it leads to anything useful is yet to be seen. Like you, I have my doubts.

 

[MilesXpisti]

tdgesq:

It depends upon your interpretation of that particular canon. If you interpret it to only allow for sacramental baptism and baptism of desire, then you have no choice but to conclude that it doesn’t allow for baptism of blood or for the Immaculate Conception, both of which the fathers of Trent knew existed at the time. This leads me to conclude that Trent wasn’t attempting to give a jointly exhaustive definition of extra sacramental baptism. That particular canon is asserting the necessity of baptismal regeneration for initial justification. The only way it becomes a conditional dogma is if we interpret in a way that leads to contradictions with other dogma.

To address what manners of baptism I think are included in the Trent canon, I absolutely believe that all three are covered. My problem is that while baptism of blood is of course possible, its path is even more narrow than that of desire, and its application to infants exceedingly rare, as in the case of the Martyrdom of the Innocents:

Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis, Q.124

…it is better to say that these babes in being slain obtained by God’s grace the glory of martyrdom which others acquire by their own will. For the shedding of one’s blood for Christ’s sake takes the place of Baptism…

Perhaps this is not a singular opportunity in the course of history, but its application is so rare that I question its possibility now. Likewise, the Immaculate Conception is an inappropriate comparison, as it is a unique honor afforded Our Lady, never to come again.

tdgesq:

I think this goes to demonstrate something very different. The Fathers have not been in accord on the fate of unbaptized infants. Presumably that is why there is no dogma that directly addresses the issue. As you point out it is tricky business for us to weigh God’s justice against his mercy. But that you hope that your tentative theological conclusion is wrong gives me some idea of where you think the equities lie, even if you are willing to intellectually assent to something different. At the end of the day I don’t know how helpful it is in reaching truth to weigh these abstract concepts against each other as God might. The Calvinists claim to do this when it comes to the supposed affirmative predestination of the damned. Your point is well taken though that whatever the result, God’s justice can’t really be second guessed.

That I hope is no indicator of my theological standing, I assure you, merely my sentimentality where children are concerned. Theologically, I once came down on the side of Augustine (and still do toy with it occasionally), but and fairly firmly Thomistic in my approach.

My goal in keeping the question alive is that, so long as no dogma on the subject is promulgated, Catholics are free to believe what they will. But I think a lot of would-be theologians are trying to railroad it out.

tdgesq:

The ITC obviously sees things differently. Whether it’s just a flash in the pan or it leads to anything useful is yet to be seen. Like you, I have my doubts.

This is why I have very real dislike of such commissions, because they stir and confuse the faithful. A similar commission was responsible for the controversy surrounding the study of birth control, damaging generations of Catholics. Let’s hope there’s another surprise on the level of Humanae Vitae to show us the way.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

No, but how about from Trent. This quote is of particular relevance since it refers indirectly to the errors of the Dimonds:

You are simply mistaken that the Church teaches that the grace of baptism cannot be conferred outside of the formal sacrament.

Why not from before Martin V? Baptism of desire only extends to catechumens, and this is what all of the fathers believed, they never extended it to infants, I can show you from the Fathers to the contrary of your assertion. Since you claim that this is teaching of the Church from the beginnig, why not provide a definition declared before the Council of Florence, because Florence states that no one can be saved outside of the formal sacrament. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold.”
The reason I say this is because according to BOD, salvation is obtained by the desire for the sacraments of the Church, and, infants are incapable of this desire, since desire is an act of the will, and as we know, infants are not capable of such. I simply ask that before a verdict is arrived at for my position, that evidence against my case be provided.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

  			Originally Posted by **Carlus Magnus** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2235026#post2235026) 				
  		*Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:

“The doctrine which rejects*… that place of the lower regions Limbo] in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

Ok, you want full context, here you are:
Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, August 28, 1794, #XXVI, Of Baptism: “The doctrine that rejects like a Pelagian fable that place of Hell (than the faithful commonly call Limbo of the children) in which the spirits of those who die with the single guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, without the pain of the fire; Nearly that those people which exclude the pain of the fire, for this same one introduced that place and that state of means lacking in guilt and pain between the Reign of God and the eternal eternal damnation, like that which the Pelagians say; FALSE, RECKLESS, INJURIOUS TO THE CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.”

 

[tdgesq]

Why not from before Martin V?

Because it doesn’t make any difference. Trent was an ecumenical council.

Baptism of desire only extends to catechumens

This is wrong. It applies to all Christians, despite what you are about to quote me from the Baltimore Catechism that I will then have to show you is a flawed interpretation on your part.

, and this is what all of the fathers believed, they never extended it to infants, I can show you from the Fathers to the contrary of your assertion.

I never asserted that baptism of desire applied to infants. In fact, I came to the opposite conclusion.

Since you claim that this is teaching of the Church from the beginnig, why not provide a definition declared before the Council of Florence, because Florence states that no one can be saved outside of the formal sacrament.

If that’s what the council of Florence really states, then it conflicts with the canons of Trent. Which one is right? Actually there isn’t any conflict, because Florence doesn’t state that sacramental baptism is the only method to receive the grace of baptism. If your interpretation is correct then the Magisterium contradicts itself and none of us should be Catholic.

The reason I say this is because according to BOD, salvation is obtained by the desire for the sacraments of the Church, and, infants are incapable of this desire, since desire is an act of the will, and as we know, infants are not capable of such. I simply ask that before a verdict is arrived at for my position, that evidence against my case be provided.

I don’t disagree. Never did. My post was in answer to your claim that the remission of original sin can only come through sacramental baptism. This is clearly incorrect according to the canons of Trent.

 

[tdgesq]

Ok, you want full context, here you are:
Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, August 28, 1794, #XXVI, Of Baptism: “The doctrine that rejects like a Pelagian fable that place of Hell (than the faithful commonly call Limbo of the children) in which the spirits of those who die with the single guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, without the pain of the fire; Nearly that those people which exclude the pain of the fire, for this same one introduced that place and that state of means lacking in guilt and pain between the Reign of God and the eternal eternal damnation, like that which the Pelagians say; FALSE, RECKLESS, INJURIOUS TO THE CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.”

Dude, I answered this twice a long time ago here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2232132&postcount=27

and here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2235449&postcount=52

You never responded to either.