Sacramentalist:
Why is no one addressing any of Father’s argument from Tradition? Doesn’t this bother anyone?
Let’s be honest. So far the only person this bothers is you. But I’ll analyze the arguments for your sake. The first example given by Fr. Harrison comes from the Effrænatam. I did look up this Papal bull to check the validity of his claim and it holds up. But how important is the Effrænatam?
These expressions certainly do not constitute an ex cathedra definition, and indeed, the Constitution itself is primarily a legislative act — an exercise of the Pope’s governing authority rather than his teaching authority. Nevertheless, in view of the clarity and force of the Pontiff’s teaching, in this preamble to the legislative norms which form the main body of the document, it would seem that the doctrinal proposition in question — namely, that the souls of infants who die without baptism are eternally excluded from the beatific vision — should be seen as belonging at least to the authentic teaching of the magisterium.
That essentially tells us two things. First, it is NOT ex cathedra. This is stated explicitly by Fr. Harrison and does not need to be analyzed. Second, that limbo belonged to the authentic teaching of the magisterium. Does this matter? After all, if no part of Church tradition matters until it is defined, what is the point of following tradition? Keep in mind that the teachings of the Church Fathers are only infallible when they are held unanimously. Because only if they are held unanimously can we be safe in declaring it to be true tradition. Consider the Arian heresy of the early church. Nearly ALL Catholic theologians and priests adopted this heresy besides St. Athanasius. Does that mean we should adopt the Arian heresy as true tradition. No.
Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, … but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently
I don’t see a problem with this. Only members of the Catholic Church can be saved. A non-Catholic can be saved by baptism by desire, thereby becoming Catholic. Do withold that right from the young? Actually, it’s quite possible, but I am not certain either way. Here’s a pertinent cite from the source: While the Catechism says cautiously that Catholics are “allowed” (not obliged) to “hope” that there is a way of salvation for infants who die unbaptized (#1261), it also emphasizes that “
the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude” (#1257).
We can clearly see that the Church teaches that there MAY BE hope. It’s not a definitive teaching either way. What should be noted is the part I bolded. For non-baptized babies to be saved, they must either receive baptism by desire or be saved by the mercy of God through some means the Church is not aware of.
The seeming implication of these councils and popes is that the only “punishment” of those who die with souls stained by nothing worse than original sin is eternal exclusion from the beatific vision, which is compatible, however, with a natural (as distinct from supernatural) happiness. The “pain of sense” — or at least, a pain severe enough to warrant being described as “the torment of hellfire” — is reserved only for those who die in mortal sin. This is the teaching of Pope Innocent III in an epistle of the year 1201 (see D 410 = DS 780).
Again, if they are capable through God’s mercy to receive baptism by desire, then they would NOT be among those who die with original sin.
Frankly, Sacramentalist, if you leave the Church over this, you might as well do it AFTER any change is made in doctrine. If they discuss it and do not change anything, then you can see it as proof that the HS prevents errors in doctrine. All I expect them to state is that limbo is a theological necessity unless 1) they are granted baptism by desire, or 2) through some unknown aspect of the mercy of God, he works around his sacraments and saves them. Limbo truly is a theological necessity. What is up for debate is whether or not it is possible for unbaptized babies to have their original sin removed.
I suggest you read all of whatever text is brought forth from the discussions. Perhaps the Magisterium of the Church might be a little sharper on both theology and tradition than one individual priest.
) - so it doesn’t matter what he says: the Church is not a democracy - so whether or not he wants it to be true, is irrelevant. If the Pope defines a square is a purple elephant from Venus - it is one.