Limbo

[gospel_life]

My thoughts on the idea of limbo:

I first have to go to baptism and what it truly represents. Baptism is the expression of the desire to surrender to God’s will and to spend eternity with Him. The ritual of baptism, at least to me, is nothing more than the outward expression of that desire to the community: the outward sign of the reality that has already occurred.

The Church has taught that baptism occurs in more than one way and that water baptism, while the “norm”, is not the only type of baptism. A prime baptism is one of desire, which I would deem to be the reality behind ALL baptism, and would have to be the baptism involved, for instance, for the “good thief” who was promised that he would be that day in the kingdom though he clearly did not experience water baptism.

I then go to infant baptism and what it represents. Whether it has or hasn’t actually always been the practice of the Church–and that is very much in the air–in the time that it has been the practice one has to ask what it represents. The infant can neither have sinned personally nor can it have or express a desire for baptism. The infant’s desire is expressed by the parents and the community and it is ONLY through their desire that the child is baptized.

As such, it would seem eminently logical that an unborn child whose parents and the community desired it to know God and to follow Him, has had the same baptism of desire that an infant has in its physical baptism. It too would logically have its baptism through the desire of the parents and the community regardless of whether the physical act affirming that for, and presenting it to, the community has occurred.

Do I KNOW any of this to be true? No,I don’t, any more than anyone else knows how God is working through all of this in His ways that aren’t our ways. Do I know if limbo does or doesn’t exist, or what it truly is if it does exist? Nope but in the end the one thing I will trust is that God is working in His infinite mercy and that whatever He is doing in that area is for the eternal benefit of all concerned. That’s really all I need to know.

 

[Poco]

It seems to me the existence or non existence of Limbo (except for the Limbo dance ) is something we cannot know with certitude while we are on this earth.

As to the fate of babies (and by “babies”, I include everyone from an embryo to a born infant) who die before being Baptized; I found the “Unbaptized infants” section of this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia quite interesting. It begins with this:

The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God.

This, when applied to unbaptized infants, makes me think of John 6:60, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (I know this didn’t apply to baptism as written, but it seems appropriate here ). It is difficult for me to understand how a person could be concieved and die with absolutely no chance of salvation! I did like the Editor’s Note, however!

Editor’s note: On this subject, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”

Who was it, Padre Pio, that said “pray, hope and don’t worry”? (easier said than done! ) Well, I’ll trust the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to do what’s right with those souls!

 

[Poco]

As an aside, while I think most of Shin’s et.al. statements regarding Church teaching are correct, they don’t seem to allow or consider any possible “supernatural actions” by the Holy Trinity. This was probably not very well said. I just hope the basic idea comes across.

 

[palmas85]

My thoughts on the idea of limbo:

I first have to go to baptism and what it truly represents. Baptism is the expression of the desire to surrender to God’s will and to spend eternity with Him. The ritual of baptism, at least to me, is nothing more than the outward expression of that desire to the community: the outward sign of the reality that has already occurred..

Unfortunately, your view and understanding of Baptism is **NOT **the view of the Catholic Church and never has been. Since your post identifies you as Catholic, I would recommend that you get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see exactly what Baptism is. I think you will be surprised at just how far off base you are in this area.

I know that many if not protestant sects see baptism in much the same way that you do and that my friend, is just plain wrong and totally against Catholic teaching and theology.

As Catholics we are free to believe or disbelieve certain things. Messages of approved visions of the Virgin Mother and Saints for example, or as is being discussed here, the concept of Limbo.

However, we are required to believe and accept as truth the things that the Church infallibly teaches to be true, and the Sacrament, not the ritual as you put it, of Baptism is one of those things.

I will certainly pray that you learn that as a Catholic, you cannot pick and choose which part of dogma and doctrine you will accept or throw away.

 

[gospel_life]

Unfortunately, your view and understanding of Baptism is **NOT **the view of the Catholic Church and never has been. Since your post identifies you as Catholic, I would recommend that you get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see exactly what Baptism is. I think you will be surprised at just how far off base you are in this area.

I know that many if not protestant sects see baptism in much the same way that you do and that my friend, is just plain wrong and totally against Catholic teaching and theology.

As Catholics we are free to believe or disbelieve certain things. Messages of approved visions of the Virgin Mother and Saints for example, or as is being discussed here, the concept of Limbo.

However, we are required to believe and accept as truth the things that the Church infallibly teaches to be true, and the Sacrament, not the ritual as you put it, of Baptism is one of those things.

I will certainly pray that you learn that as a Catholic, you cannot pick and choose which part of dogma and doctrine you will accept or throw away.

I apologize if I worded that badly enough to imply that I think of baptism as “merely” a ritual, as that is not the case. The definition of a sacrament however is as the visible sign of God’s invisible presence. Sacraments are our public acknowledgment of that presence of God but are NOT the presence itself.

I’ve read the catechism many times as well as extensive Catholic theology and have found nothing at all in that, nor have my discussions with many very learned Catholic priests and lay people, that in any way indicates that this is outside Catholic teaching.

Baptism is unquestionably required. HOW baptism might occur however in this case, is all speculation and always has been. I certainly am not bright enough to have come up with what I mentioned here. It is the result of much study of Catholic teaching which I might quite possibly not have worded as well as I should have in a fairly short distillation. I am not at all addressing the necessity of physical baptism for those to whom it is available; I am simply addressing another possibility for how baptism can occur for those innocents to whom it is not available, similar to that of the “good thief” yet different since age and reason preclude the infant from even being able to have the desire.

 

[Benadam]

Which Church fathers taught such a thing? Saints? Doctors of the Church?

Some here have categorized limbo as a speculation. The more precise term that defines the theology that supports limbo is ‘theory’. The word theory acknowledges that what is being described is a current state of understanding. That it is a theory doesn’t mean that what is being described may or may not be real but that it is real but as yet not understood how. We know that gravity is real, we have proof of it all around us but we don’t understand how gravity is real either so when a scientist studies gravity what is studied is the theory of gravity. If he adds to the current understanding the theory of gravity has developed. If he has discovered a radical thing that alters the meaning of data a new theory of gravity may emerge.

The New theory of course would not have a precedent. The question if asked, " what notable scientist ever taught such a thing?" is a question from an understanding that isn’t able to grasp the implications the data presents to the current theory.

This is why the properly termed limbo is a theory. That it is a theory it is open to theological ideas that could possibly change the current state of understanding in a radical way. When exploring the theory of limbo a perspective that requires that it not wander from what has been previously taught stagnates the developement of theological understanding. Denies the theologian the opportunity to explore and seek out truth.

 

[palmas85]

I apologize if I worded that badly enough to imply that I think of baptism as “merely” a ritual, as that is not the case. The definition of a sacrament however is as the visible sign of God’s invisible presence. Sacraments are our public acknowledgment of that presence of God but are NOT the presence itself.

I’ve read the catechism many times as well as extensive Catholic theology and have found nothing at all in that, nor have my discussions with many very learned Catholic priests and lay people, that in any way indicates that this is outside Catholic teaching.

Baptism is unquestionably required. HOW baptism might occur however in this case, is all speculation and always has been. I certainly am not bright enough to have come up with what I mentioned here. It is the result of much study of Catholic teaching which I might quite possibly not have worded as well as I should have in a fairly short distillation. I am not at all addressing the necessity of physical baptism for those to whom it is available; I am simply addressing another possibility for how baptism can occur for those innocents to whom it is not available, similar to that of the “good thief” yet different since age and reason preclude the infant from even being able to have the desire.

What is mainly wrong with your statement is that nowhere in it did you mention the cleansing of Original Sin and the cleansing of all other sins as well and removing the temporal punishments required for the sins. This paves the way for a persons entry into Heaven.

From the Catechism:

1262 The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit

**When we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that cleansed us, the forgiveness we received then was so full and complete that there remained in us absolutely nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor offenses committed by our own will, nor was there left any penalty to suffer in order to expiate them.
Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of the forgiveness of sins: it unites us to Christ, who died and rose, and gives us the Holy Spirit. **

Baptism is not and never has been primarily an acceptance into the community and is not just an outward sign of an inner reality. Those are purely protestant views of Baptism

 

[gospel_life]

Baptism is not and never has been primarily an acceptance into the community

I did not ever say or imply that it was primarily, or even secondarily, an “acceptance into the community.” I said that the desire for infant baptism in the baptism of desire would arise from the parents and community. A completely different thing.

…and is not just an outward sign of an inner reality.

From the Catholic Enclycopedia, as defined at Trent…

"Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification "

What you quoted is all fine and wonderful for those who have the option to make the choice and partake of the physical sacrament. Not all do however and the Church recognizes baptism of desire as every bit as valid as water baptism. The only point I’m trying to make is that in the case of infants that desire can only come from the outside; it cannot come from the infant. Whether it is the case of a live birth before physical baptism can occur or whether it is the unborn, I am positing the possibilty, informed by Catholic theology, that the mechanism that allows to hope in God’s mercy can be that it is the desire of the parents and community that the child be baptized, the same desire that is the infant’s “expression of faith” in a physical baptism.

You are certainly welcome to not agree. Please get off your idea of trying to put words in my mouth and portray me as some kind of uninformed protestant though as I am anything but.

 

[palmas85]

I did not ever say or imply that it was primarily, or even secondarily, an “acceptance into the community.” I said that the desire for infant baptism in the baptism of desire would arise from the parents and community. A completely different thing.

From the Catholic Enclycopedia, as defined at Trent…

"Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification "

What you quoted is all fine and wonderful for those who have the option to make the choice and partake of the physical sacrament. Not all do however and the Church recognizes baptism of desire as every bit as valid as water baptism. The only point I’m trying to make is that in the case of infants that desire can only come from the outside; it cannot come from the infant. Whether it is the case of a live birth before physical baptism can occur or whether it is the unborn, I am positing the possibilty, informed by Catholic theology, that the mechanism that allows to hope in God’s mercy can be that it is the desire of the parents and community that the child be baptized, the same desire that is the infant’s “expression of faith” in a physical baptism.

You are certainly welcome to not agree. Please get off your idea of trying to put words in my mouth and portray me as some kind of uninformed protestant though as I am anything but.

This is what you said:
I first have to go to baptism and what it truly represents. Baptism is the expression of the desire to surrender to God’s will and to spend eternity with Him. The ritual of baptism, at least to me, is nothing more than the outward expression of that desire to the community: the outward sign of the reality that has already occurred.

Nothing more than the outward expression of that desire to the community.

Your words, exactly. You said that Baptism is the outward expression of a desire to surrender to Gods will to the community. The expression of something that has already occurred. Where in there do you say anything about the saving effects of Baptism? The cleansing of Original Sin and other sins? The Grace that we receive through baptism itself?

The answer is simple. You didn’t mention them at all. The purpose of baptizing children at a very young age is to cleanse them of that stain of Original Sin. It is not primarily to show the community of their desire to surrender to God… You left that out as do many these days.

I too believe that baptism of desire is valid. I just don’t believe that it pertains to everyone and is a much used and abused concept.

I am not trying to portray you as anything or to put words in your mouth. I can only go by what you wrote. And what you wrote about baptism very much resembles a protestant view and not the Catholic view. Sorry but it does.

 

[cswalters]

I am not really sure, I can see the argument on both sides, but I lean more towards that it doesn’t exist.

 

[Benadam]

I The only point I’m trying to make is that in the case of infants that desire can only come from the outside; it cannot come from the infant. Whether it is the case of a live birth before physical baptism can occur or whether it is the unborn,.

Since there is no state of soul that the unbaptized or unborn exist that the human soul of God doesn’t also exist isn’t there hope that the knowledge that flows from the unity of likeness be a means to activate the faculties required to desire God that would otherwise require the body? If this were to happen then couldn’t the suffering of a soul denied the means to reach perfection become the pattern of Christ’s death and resurrection?

 

[gospel_life]

The answer is simple. You didn’t mention them at all. The purpose of baptizing children at a very young age is to cleanse them of that stain of Original Sin. It is not primarily to show the community of their desire to surrender to God… You left that out as do many these days.

I already apologized for my bad wording of my original post as it was not my intention in any way to imply that baptism is not important and that the outward sacrament is not important.

And no, I didn’t mention those aspects you mention at all because they are irrelevant to the topic at hand. We are talking about limbo and whether it is reasonable to hope in there being a mechanism by which God operates outside the sacrament for the unborn or newly-born but not yet baptized. I simply posited a way of thinking about how that could happen, the extension of the thought of baptism of desire and how the desire of the parents is the primary desire involved in any infant baptism.

I’m not sure how else to make that clear.

 

[palmas85]

I already apologized for my bad wording of my original post as it was not my intention in any way to imply that baptism is not important and that the outward sacrament is not important.

And no, I didn’t mention those aspects you mention at all because they are irrelevant to the topic at hand. We are talking about limbo and whether it is reasonable to hope in there being a mechanism by which God operates outside the sacrament for the unborn or newly-born but not yet baptized. I simply posited a way of thinking about how that could happen, the extension of the thought of baptism of desire and how the desire of the parents is the primary desire involved in any infant baptism.

I’m not sure how else to make that clear.

Irrelevant? Original Sin is the only reason that the concept of Limbo even came about. You cannot separate the two. They are linked. There either is Original Sin or there is not.
If there is there must be a way to cleanse it. The Church is pretty silent on that issue speaking only in vague terms of what may happen in certain circumstances. Thats it.

If on the other hand if there is not Original Sin then why have the sacrament at all? To show others that we too are part of the community is the only possible answer.

I don’t mean to brow beat the issue but it is vitally important to the discussion at hand. You cannot escape from Original Sin except through Baptism under one of the prescribed ways. More than that, I don’t see how the parents desires have anything whatsoever to do with it.

Example. My mother prays for me often and desires that I go to heaven so that she can see me there. She really wants that. Badly. More tha anything else in the world. I go out and kill someone in a fit of rage. Then I kill myself. I somehow doubt that her desires will count for a whole lot.

In the case of the children who die without baptism, let me pose a question to you.

Original Sin must be something pretty bad if we all have it or at one time had it and none of us did anything personally to deserve it.It is bad enough that without Baptism we cannot achieve salvation. We cannot enter into the presence of God due to our degraded state and the stain upon our soul. Agreed?

A child dies unbaptized… That child still has that horrible stain on their soul. Why would God allow that stain to be swept under the rug if it is so bad that it infects all of us and none of us did anything at all to deserve it? It makes no sense at all.

God set up the rules for us not for him. We are tied to his rules not he to ours. And His rule as stated by no less an authority on the subject than Jesus Himself said we have to be baptized by water and the spirit. He didn’t say in some situations. He didn’t say in some cases. It is something that we have to do. Period. Now the Church has defined that rule to a degree that permits in some rare circumstances for that Baptism to take place in an unorthodox fashion. But none of those conditions exist for the children and the unborn except possibly the one about invincible ignorance and that is a stretch. The parents wishes simply do not factor into the equation. The parents have the obligation to do this or the child will suffer the penalty. I know that sounds harsh and unfeeling. I know that many on the Forum will disagree. I know many will never even think that what I have said could possibly be true. I accept that.

No, Limbo came about as a concept of the mercy of God allowing those who died unbaptized through no fault of their own to not suffer after death.

And the reason that I believe this to my soul is simple. If God allows Original Sin in the first place, the why would He get rid of it in these situations. Wouldn’t it make more sense to just trash the whole thing? No it must mean something and something very vital, and I don’t think it can be dismissed quite so easily…

 

[karoleck]

You make some excellent statements in your postings palmas85 you are spot on in linking the “place or state” of limbo and the Doctrine of Original Sin-- and Baptism --the challenge is to focus on “limbo”!
John pointed out how the rest of mankind–sinners like myself–can and do have an opportunity to get back to our baptismal innocents through the sacrament of “confession”.where as unbaptised infants do not even have a chance to be baptised!! a fair comment.

Angels were given free will,we are given free will to choose to believe and to ratify the promises made for us by our parents at Baptism when we reach maturity—but "permanent limbo"adherants have fixed these souls in an eternity, separated from mothers who bore them.Ask any mother if this would be “heaven” for them?

God seems to like this type of observation as the Holy Spirit included The Book of Job as part of The Bible,We will not include John’s posting in the next edition though!.

In my posting I mentioned that in the book The Teachings of Christ (a solid Catholic publication) "baptism of desire of the unbaptised in the place or state of limbo on the last day was suggested .I would say that they chose "on the last judgement day " deliberately.Firstly it is a very health respect for great minds like St.Thomas Aquinas who muted the idea of “infant limbo” just through a logical deduction of the effects of the Stain of Original Sin and the lack of The Sacrament of Baptism.To ignore such knowledge would be foolish I would think.As a guess by adding to this scholars’ writings a solution is put forward as reasonable or plausable addition.

Why?

My guess is that mankind will appear in their restored state,I was taught(at least I think I was!!!) that cripples,mutes,oldand babies etc. will be all restored ,as young adults in their perfection.So then those who were in the ''state of limbo" will appear as adults;they then can exercise their free will of baptism of desire and so enter Heaven?? I put in question marks ,as people with a better knowledge might fill me in if this is not correct.Though I would appreciate an explanation of the corrected reason why contemporary scholars chose “on the last day”.

I know that there are persons who received “private” locutions about wanting to pronounce aborted babies as saints witnessing to the santity of life–but I leave that to the Church;That could be “baptism of blood” would it not and no limbo for them at all?

A foolish person will ask more questions that a wise person will dare to answer!!–but go for it anyway!!

St.Thomas Aquinas,pray for us.

 

[gospel_life]

Irrelevant? Original Sin is the only reason that the concept of Limbo even came about. You cannot separate the two. They are linked. There either is Original Sin or there is not.
If there is there must be a way to cleanse it. The Church is pretty silent on that issue speaking only in vague terms of what may happen in certain circumstances. Thats it.

Palmas, I really think you’re nitpicking something that isn’t there right now. Implicit in my entire discussion is the need to cleanse from original sin. That is the purpose of baptism and the only reason I would be pondering a mechanism outside of “normal” baptism that God might be using to accomplish the purpose of baptism. Original Sin is a “given” to the entire discussion. Since it is given and there was no need to expound on that concept itself, it is irrelevant to my discussion of a possible way that God might accomplish it even within our understanding that baptism must occur in some way.

It is not that original sin is irrelevant, only that that is already acknowledged in the premise that baptism is necessary to begin with. Without that presupposition I would have no reason to ponder how God might have His own way of accomplishing it. My comments are only to the level of what you describe as the “vague terms of what may happen in certain circumstances.”

I hope that clears it up for you. I am not some protestant denying the need for baptism or the reason for it nor am I the least unaware of Catholic teaching on the matter.

 

[pnewton]

Those souls are not “blocked” from heaven. They are in a state of being enemies of God. Think of it as enemy combatants in a war of good and evil. Their default state is one of “wrath” one of evil and without reception of the sacrament of baptism (being born of water and of spirit) “they cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Jesus was speaking to an adult man when he made that statement. We already note several exceptions that were never meant to be all part of Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus.

I agree with what you say about the state of Man. If that were all there was to God, then God would be more like the Allah of Islam. I am rather of the mind of St. Therese when it comes to Limbo:

“I realize that we aren’t all made alike. For me, God’s infinite mercy is the quality that stands out in my life, and when I contemplate and adore God’s other perfections, it’s against this background of mercy all the time.”

Here is what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

All of this is beyond me. I guess if the Church has not been able to pronounce anything more definitive, who am I? Those of you who believe in Limbo might be shown to be correct, but it not something that I find to be in concert with the nature of God.

 

[pnewton]

On more thing:

St. Gregory was one ot the first writers who hinted at the idea of Limbo.

Gregory of Nyssa distinguishes between the destiny of infants and that of adults who lived a virtuous life. “The premature death of newborn infants does not provide a basis for the presupposition that they will suffer torments or that they will be in the same state as those who have been purified in this life by all the virtues”.

Except, (and I only take exception with a Church Father when I will side with at least an equal peer) I have to say a big “Huh???” at this idea. After all St. Paul said all of his righteousness was as filthy rags. I think I understand what St. Gregory may be poorly saying (at least I hope I do), for we do gather a reward in heaven for our righteous deeds and our righteous. These righteous rewards are not something that are given to those who do no earn them. However, this logic would apply to baptized and unbaptized infants. But in no case, is it our works that earn our salvation by wiping out our sins. They do not purify us.

 

[Hesychios]

A child dies unbaptized… That child still has that horrible stain on their soul.

I really object to this.

The effects of Original Sin are mortality, weakness and frailty. Very well demonstrated by the fact that a child dies.

Why would God allow that stain to be swept under the rug if it is so bad that it infects all of us and none of us did anything at all to deserve it? It makes no sense at all.

You are right to state that it makes no sense, because the concept is wrong to begin with.

We only make it worse by trying to prop up a bad concept with theories like God damns innocent infants.

God set up the rules for us not for him. We are tied to his rules not he to ours. And His rule as stated by no less an authority on the subject than Jesus Himself said we have to be baptized by water and the spirit. He didn’t say in some situations.

This is a subjective reading of the scriptural texts. Jesus was speaking to one specific person when he said that, but other people in scripture were told other things by Him. It is unwise to speak in absolutes.

I understand that this (highlighted above) is the defined position of your church, I am suggesting that it is altogether wrong (of course, I expect Latin Catholic apologists to vigorously support their own church’s longstanding position, that’s OK as far as I am concerned, I just put my thoughts out there for consideration).

Because it is wrong, Catholic theologians have been coming up with other theories to (hopefully) make the doctrine more merciful. All of these efforts would be unnecessary if we understood the real meaning of baptism.

He didn’t say in some cases.

Yet He did make some exceptions in His own ministry, so perhaps we have been reading him in the wrong sense.

It is something that we have to do. Period.

Saint Paul baptized to bring people into the church. He had ample opportunity to express a theory of damnation of the innocent, but he did not.

He specifically declared that (in baptism) we die with Christ, and rise with Christ, and death no longer has hold on us. In other words, baptism brings one into the Body of Christ, which is the church. Before this *death *we are of this world. After this death we are Christ’s.

So yes, baptism is something we have to do. We have to baptize all nations. People who grow into adulthood without the benefit of the Holy church are at a severe disadvantage, indeed I say salvation is impossible for most of these without Christ.

However, some innocent little ones will not face the tests and trials of life we are facing, they have preceded us in death. For them God has His own purposes, and we need not speculate on God’s intent to damn them over some theory of stains.

… If God allows Original Sin in the first place, the why would He get rid of it in these situations. Wouldn’t it make more sense to just trash the whole thing? No it must mean something and something very vital, and I don’t think it can be dismissed quite so easily…

You very adequately express the paradox.

 

[surritter]

I really object to this.

The effects of Original Sin are mortality, weakness and frailty. Very well demonstrated by the fact that a child dies.
You are right to state that it makes no sense, because the concept is wrong to begin with.

You are mistaken here. You rightly note that original sin leaves the effect of bodily mortality on a person from the instant of his conception – he is destined to die a bodily death (unless God intervenes as He did for Elijah and probably Mary). But you are forgetting that this also includes spiritual mortality, which he is already destined for unless God intervenes (which He does through baptism).

 

[palmas85]

I really object to this.

The effects of Original Sin are mortality, weakness and frailty. Very well demonstrated by the fact that a child dies.
You are right to state that it makes no sense, because the concept is wrong to begin with.

We only make it worse by trying to prop up a bad concept with theories like God damns innocent infants.
This is a subjective reading of the scriptural texts. Jesus was speaking to one specific person when he said that, but other people in scripture were told other things by Him. It is unwise to speak in absolutes.

I understand that this (highlighted above) is the defined position of your church, I am suggesting that it is altogether wrong (of course, I expect Latin Catholic apologists to vigorously support their own church’s longstanding position, that’s OK as far as I am concerned, I just put my thoughts out there for consideration).

Because it is wrong, Catholic theologians have been coming up with other theories to (hopefully) make the doctrine more merciful. All of these efforts would be unnecessary if we understood the real meaning of baptism.

Yet He did make some exceptions in His own ministry, so perhaps we have been reading him in the wrong sense.

Saint Paul baptized to bring people into the church. He had ample opportunity to express a theory of damnation of the innocent, but he did not.

He specifically declared that (in baptism) we die with Christ, and rise with Christ, and death no longer has hold on us. In other words, baptism brings one into the Body of Christ, which is the church. Before this *death *we are of this world. After this death we are Christ’s.

So yes, baptism is something we have to do. We have to baptize all nations. People who grow into adulthood without the benefit of the Holy church are at a severe disadvantage, indeed I say salvation is impossible for most of these without Christ.

However, some innocent little ones will not face the tests and trials of life we are facing, they have preceded us in death. For them God has His own purposes, and we need not speculate on God’s intent to damn them over some theory of stains.
You very adequately express the paradox.

Of course you don’t agree with it. You are Orthodox. You have an entirely different concept of Original Sin in the first place. And since this forum is not for the discussion of which belief system is superior or to discuss the relative merits of each, why are you chiming in with what the Orthodox believe? I for one really don’t care. The Orthodox Forum itself is the place for such discussions. I do not go on the Orthodox Forum and dump on your faith and loudly proclaim that you guys are wrong in your beliefs. Why do you come here and dump on ours?

It seems almost as if some of the Orthodox have a mission of sorts on the Traditional Forum, one which I believe the moderators have already commented on.

What is it about Traditional Roman Catholicism that scares and bothers you guys so much?