Limbo

[TK421]

Baptizing infants is a command whom the parent’s are answerable for, not the infant. This is clearly demonstrated because the priest actually has an obligation to refuse baptizing an infant if the infant will not be raised in the faith. You don’t need to believe in a limbo for infants in order to believe in infant baptisms. Baptism is administered to infants because that’s the current Church law, and it is an affirmation that sin is not something we develop later in life, but is something that is with us from the beginning. It also affirms that sacramental graces are a top-down reality, not a bottom-up reality; this is why it does not matter if the infant doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to understand what is happening.

The idea of limbo still exists because this is essentially what Sheol was; a place where the damned and the virtuous went until the keys of Heaven were unlocked by Christ’s ascension. The teaching that became common in the Middle Ages was sort of a loose extension of this; if you weren’t baptized but you didn’t have any personal sin, you would just go to a state of limbo.

Among other things, the idea has two very severe theological problems which are hard to reconcile.

1. IF there is a limbo for humanity, THEN it follows that there are people - all of whom are universally created in the image of God - who God has ordained to never enter the Beatific Vision.
2. IF there is a limbo for humanity, THEN it follows that creation has sovereignty over their Creator to altar the eternal destiny of creation. An abortionist wields the power to countermand God by aborting an infant and thus deprive it of the Beatific Vision.

This is why limbo is no longer commonly believed. There are some people that believe all infants go to Heaven, however this runs into theological inconsistencies that are perhaps just as severe as the problem with believing in limbo, which is a topic for another thread, and then there is the belief that we may hope for the salvation of infants because they may still choose God and thus enter Heaven.

 

[JimG]

Of course, the above two arguments can also be arguments against the existence of hell. An infant can’t choose to reject God, but an adult can. The creature has been given the radical freedom to reject the Creator.

 

[TK421]

Do you mean a case against the existence of Hell in general, or a case for why it isn’t possible for young people to go to Hell?

This presupposes that choosing or rejecting God is strictly an intellectual decision, rather than a mysterious spiritual one that is separate (or at least not wholly resting upon) our mental faculties. After all, enormous anecdotal experience over 2000 years tells us that even amongst adults, it is not possible to ‘win over converts’ through just academic dialogue. Two intelligent people can present their cases for hours on end and go nowhere. What else is at work in this then?

If our lifelong conversion experience is not strictly intellectual, does this suggest that baptism by desire (or lack thereof) is entirely possible for children, infants, fetuses, etc.? If so, then this eliminates limbo.

 

[JimG]

Do you mean a case against the existence of Hell in general, or a case for why it isn’t possible for young people to go to Hell?

This presupposes that choosing or rejecting God is strictly an intellectual decision, rather than a mysterious spiritual one that is separate (or at least not wholly resting upon) our mental faculties. After all, enormous anecdotal experience over 2000 years tells us that even amongst adults, it is not possible to ‘win over converts’ through just academic dialogue. Two intelligent people can present their cases for hours on end and go nowhere. What else is at work in this then?

If our lifelong conversion experience is not strictly intellectual, does this suggest that baptism by desire (or lack thereof) is entirely possible for children, infants, fetuses, etc.? If so, then this eliminates limbo.

I meant an argument against hell generally. For, to paraphrase the first argument, if there is a hell, then it follows that there are people who God has ordained to never enter the Beatific Vision.

And looking at the second argument, if there is a hell, then it follows that creation—i.e. human beings—have sovereignty over their Creator by being able to counter his desire to have them in heaven.

I agree that the choice for God is never strictly intellectual, and also that God, like a persistent lover, has more ways to pursue the beloved than we can know.

But theologians, at least in the past, were unable to conclude that “baptism of desire” could be attributed to infants. They could be wrong, of course. If there can be a baptism of desire for infants, that’s one solution, but it’s unclear just what that might mean. I suppose that’s why we have to leave it up to the mercy of God, while never neglecting the command of Jesus to baptize, as the means to entry into his kingdom.

 

[TK421]

I meant an argument against hell generally. For, to paraphrase the first argument, if there is a hell, then it follows that there are people who God has ordained to never enter the Beatific Vision.

And looking at the second argument, if there is a hell, then it follows that creation—i.e. human beings—have sovereignty over their Creator by being able to counter his desire to have them in heaven.

Right, but the difference is that God has intended everybody to be in Heaven in an eternal family union of fellowship & praise, and, by nature of it being communal and mutual, it is something that can be obstinately rejected. Satan was intended to be St. Satan, but he is in reality just Satan.

If we observe baptism as being essential in the absolute sense (not essential in the ordinary sense), then the idea of rejection is removed from the table. It means there are infants that go to a state of limbo, and that’s all there is to it, and yet they were created in the image of God, with an immortal soul, in as much as you and I are.

The second point is understood through the prophet Ezekiel’s proclamation that “it is the soul who sins that shall die”. As an immortal rational soul, we are - as the reading at Mass on Feb. 16th just recently said - able to reach out our hand and choose water or fire. Whichever we choose shall be given to us. The autonomy of the human being falls apart on the idea of an infant limbo, because in this case, the sins of one person - let’s say an abortionist as an example - would theoretically wield the power to terminate not just an earthly life, but also an eternal life in Heaven.

JimG:

I agree that the choice for God is never strictly intellectual, and also that God, like a persistent lover, has more ways to pursue the beloved than we can know.

But theologians, at least in the past, were unable to conclude that “baptism of desire” could be attributed to infants. They could be wrong, of course. If there can be a baptism of desire for infants, that’s one solution, but it’s unclear just what that might mean. I suppose that’s why we have to leave it up to the mercy of God, while never neglecting the command of Jesus to baptize, as the means to entry into his kingdom.

Yeah, this is a (relatively) recent development. If there were intellectual musings about it in the distant past, it didn’t seem to make its way on any official work which I am aware of. St. Aquinas was unable to conclude that an infant would in any way be able to undergo a baptism of desire, and so he was unable to reconcile the possibility of the Beatific Vision for infants with the reality of Original Sin. Again, this is because people commonly viewed - and still do commonly view - the idea of choice strictly being a conscious, intellectual decision, rather than perhaps something that occurs on a more intimate level of our being. We cannot easily imagine the idea of mysteriously making a choice while our physical intellectual capacities are still undeveloped, because it is not something we have any conscious experience with.

Another way to look at it: there is no reason why God could not miraculously enable a person to make a conscious decision.

 

[otjm]

Cause souls “could” be perishing…

the vast majority of “late” baptisms are from families in which the parents do not attend Mass on a regular basis. anyone who is attending Mass on a regular basis is going to be approached while pregnant about baptism of the child because there will be classes for the parents before the baptism, so the issue of baptizing “late” is highly likely to not occur.

As for those who don’t attend, they also don’t read up on what the Church is saying; they are not attending classes to find out what the Church teaches; they art, in short, disengaged. So the likelihood of them even hearing about any change is so close to zero as to not be measurable.

If Limbo doesn’t exist, then it is between God, Christ who said “do not hinder the children to come to me”, and the child. As in, it is not a matter of the child going to hell. Hell requires an intent. If it is a matter that the child is given the opportunity to choose, then intent will trump baptism - that is called intentional sin.And as far as souls perishing? Limbo supposedly says they don’t. Neither does what Benedict said imply that.

 

[JimG]

Another way to look at it: there is no reason why God could not miraculously enable a person to make a conscious decision.

That’s certainly a possibility. It also raises the possibility that given a chance at a free choice, a person could still choose to reject God.

It also raises the possibility perhaps of a ‘temporary’ limbo, where an immature human is able to grow in mind and spirit to enable such a choice. But that contradicts the idea that separation of the soul from the body at death forecloses all future choices, i.e. that nobody gets a ‘second chance’ after death.

I’m sure that better minds than mine have considered the issue at great length. I’m also sure that God has considered the issue in an even more perfect way, that his ways are not mine, and his love is perfect. So I’m quite satisfied with the new formulation that we leave unbaptized infants to the mercy of God. I would also note that His mother is their mother too, and that she has as much concern for them as do their earthly mothers. Perhaps she somehow sees to their Baptism.

 

[otjm]

I meant an argument against hell generally. For, to paraphrase the first argument, if there is a hell, then it follows that there are people who God has ordained to never enter the Beatific Vision.

And looking at the second argument, if there is a hell, then it follows that creation—i.e. human beings—have sovereignty over their Creator by being able to counter his desire to have them in heaven.

I agree that the choice for God is never strictly intellectual, and also that God, like a persistent lover, has more ways to pursue the beloved than we can know.

But theologians, at least in the past, were unable to conclude that “baptism of desire” could be attributed to infants. They could be wrong, of course. If there can be a baptism of desire for infants, that’s one solution, but it’s unclear just what that might mean. I suppose that’s why we have to leave it up to the mercy of God, while never neglecting the command of Jesus to baptize, as the means to entry into his kingdom.

The problem with that first argument is that it essentially puts God in time. We say “God ordained for all time” misses that God gave us free will; if he “ordains” then there is no such thing as free will. All time is present to God as one; that is, there is no progression as progression requires change, and God is unchangeable. Our birth and death are all present to God at once, immediately, with no time element.

As to humans having sovereignty, if that means we have free will, then yes, He gave us sovereignty. That, or it is a misinterpretation of the meaning of sovereignty.

 

[TK421]

That’s certainly a possibility. It also raises the possibility that given a chance at a free choice, a person could still choose to reject God.

It also raises the possibility perhaps of a ‘temporary’ limbo, where an immature human is able to grow in mind and spirit to enable such a choice. But that contradicts the idea that separation of the soul from the body at death forecloses all future choices, i.e. that nobody gets a ‘second chance’ after death.

I’m sure that better minds than mine have considered the issue at great length. I’m also sure that God has considered the issue in an even more perfect way, that his ways are not mine, and his love is perfect. So I’m quite satisfied with the new formulation that we leave unbaptized infants to the mercy of God. I would also note that His mother is their mother too, and that she has as much concern for them as do their earthly mothers.

Yeah, it is not necessary for us to understand it all. If we accept that God is Justice and God is Love, then we can be completely confident that it’s all under control.

 

[codefro]

TK-421-

I really like your argument and find it compelling, but the problem I come up with is this:

It seems your argument generally is that it is unfair for God to deny the beatific vision to a child because it may come across as some predestination issue where God made a child and knew s/he would die before baptism. Yet the other side of the coin is this: the counterpoint that Limbo may not exist imposes a theology that states that original sin is a factor for everyone except babies. How would THAT be fair? A baby who dies unbaptized gets special exception that a fully reasoned child that wasn’t baptized does not get? Scripture states that God is not a respecter of persons, but views mankind as equals. So that seems to be a problem area.

Also: after reading the document published by the commission- one gets the sense that they do not HAVE THE ABILITY to abolish Limbo. Why? Why did Pope Benedict not infallibly declare Limbo to be not Catholic teaching? I believe they cannot. I believe Limbo has already been included in previous historical encyclicals (correct me if I am wrong? I’d wanna know), it was subscribed to by most of the biggest theologians of our faith, and that to do so may be problematic for Catholic theology of Original Sin. I love Pope Benedict and all he did. If he had infallibly declared Limbo as null and void, I wouldn’t have a problem. My problem is that he didn’t. The commission did not. The catechism did not. So… All we are given is the explicit statement is that one may HOPE that an unbaptized infant may be saved, just like we may HOPE that all be saved. That’s it. Yet that statement alone does nothing to remove or take anything away from the historical idea of Limbo. What we do have is Benedict (admitting his opinion is personal and not magisterial) saying Limbo should be thrown out. That’s it. Yet, every time Francis expresses a personal opinion non-magisterial, many Catholics sing “just his opinion, just his opinion!”. In this case I am inclined to sing this song about Benedict’s remark.

 

[otjm]

TK-421-

I really like your argument and find it compelling, but the problem I come up with is this:

It seems your argument generally is that it is unfair for God to deny the beatific vision to a child because it may come across as some predestination issue where God made a child and knew s/he would die before baptism. Yet the other side of the coin is this: the counterpoint that Limbo may not exist imposes a theology that states that original sin is a factor for everyone except babies. How would THAT be fair? A baby who dies unbaptized gets special exception that a fully reasoned child that wasn’t baptized does not get? Scripture states that God is not a respecter of persons, but views mankind as equals. So that seems to be a problem area.

Underneath your comment is the belief, it would seem, that God is bound by the Sacraments. As noted here, God is not bound - we are. Since the child has no control over whether or not its parents have it baptized, or for that matter has not control if its mother has it aborted, then by your line of argument, God is bound. The essence of the issue is thaqt God is not bound - and has not seen fit to tell us what God chooses to do.

Also: after reading the document published by the commission- one gets the sense that they do not HAVE THE ABILITY to abolish Limbo. Why? Why did Pope Benedict not infallibly declare Limbo to be not Catholic teaching?

For the same reason that he did not infallibly comment on issues brought up by hundreds, if not thousands, of other issues brought up by theologians; the Church has no history of acting that way. There is an issue that has divided two major orders for centuries; and their theological positions are in opposition to each other; all the Church has done is said that neither can claim the other is morally or theologically wrong. Even if Limbo had been mentioned in encyclicals, it has never been adopted by the Church infallibly. Period. It is simply a theological construct that answer the question of what happens to infants. It may have been subscribed to by some of the best theologians since the time of Christ; theologians propose. Only the Church, through a council or through an infallible declaration by the Pope, adopts. And that has never happened.

The bottom line is that it may make you uncomfortable, but there is a whole lot in theology that is not formally defined, and the Church appears, after 2000 years, to allow things to be that way. You can choose to believe that God cares so little about children that God has not found a way to remedy it you can believe that God is so loving, and so not bound by the rules God gives us, that there is a way these children may get to heaven. At some point you will know the answer; but that may be not in this world.
For anyone who has lost someone - a child, a parent, a spouse - we all yearn to know what has happened to them. We want them to be in heaven. That is not information we are privileged by God to know- with the exception of very few saints. And they have not answered the question.

 

[JimG]

TK-421-

I really like your argument and find it compelling, but the problem I come up with is this:

It seems your argument generally is that it is unfair for God to deny the beatific vision to a child because it may come across as some predestination issue where God made a child and knew s/he would die before baptism. Yet the other side of the coin is this: the counterpoint that Limbo may not exist imposes a theology that states that original sin is a factor for everyone except babies. How would THAT be fair? A baby who dies unbaptized gets special exception that a fully reasoned child that wasn’t baptized does not get? Scripture states that God is not a respecter of persons, but views mankind as equals. So that seems to be a problem area.

Also: after reading the document published by the commission- one gets the sense that they do not HAVE THE ABILITY to abolish Limbo. Why? Why did Pope Benedict not infallibly declare Limbo to be not Catholic teaching? I believe they cannot. I believe Limbo has already been included in previous historical encyclicals (correct me if I am wrong? I’d wanna know), it was subscribed to by most of the biggest theologians of our faith, and that to do so may be problematic for Catholic theology of Original Sin. I love Pope Benedict and all he did. If he had infallibly declared Limbo as null and void, I wouldn’t have a problem. My problem is that he didn’t. The commission did not. The catechism did not. So… All we are given is the explicit statement is that one may HOPE that an unbaptized infant may be saved, just like we may HOPE that all be saved. That’s it. Yet that statement alone does nothing to remove or take anything away from the historical idea of Limbo. What we do have is Benedict (admitting his opinion is personal and not magisterial) saying Limbo should be thrown out. That’s it. Yet, every time Francis expresses a personal opinion non-magisterial, many Catholics sing “just his opinion, just his opinion!”. In this case I am inclined to sing this song about Benedict’s remark.

This wasn’t addressed to me, but I’d like to address it as well. Limbo was always a theological opinion–a widely held one, but never a declared doctrine. So it would not have been appropriate to make a categorical magisterial judgment ‘nullifying’ something that was never a doctrine of the Church in the first place.

Limbo was (and still is) an attempt to deal with the question of what happens to unbaptized infants. The answer to the question is not a part of the deposit of faith.

 

[JimG]

The problem with that first argument is that it essentially puts God in time. We say “God ordained for all time” misses that God gave us free will; if he “ordains” then there is no such thing as free will. All time is present to God as one; that is, there is no progression as progression requires change, and God is unchangeable. Our birth and death are all present to God at once, immediately, with no time element.

As to humans having sovereignty, if that means we have free will, then yes, He gave us sovereignty. That, or it is a misinterpretation of the meaning of sovereignty.

I quite agree with you here. I was merely giving the common theological arguments that might be made.

 

[TK421]

TK-421-

I really like your argument and find it compelling, but the problem I come up with is this:

It seems your argument generally is that it is unfair for God to deny the beatific vision to a child because it may come across as some predestination issue where God made a child and knew s/he would die before baptism. Yet the other side of the coin is this: the counterpoint that Limbo may not exist imposes a theology that states that original sin is a factor for everyone except babies. How would THAT be fair? A baby who dies unbaptized gets special exception that a fully reasoned child that wasn’t baptized does not get? Scripture states that God is not a respecter of persons, but views mankind as equals. So that seems to be a problem area.

Hi Codefro,

To be clear: I don’t endorse the view that all unbaptized infants go to Heaven. I simply don’t think that a state of limbo is tenable. There is a Heaven and there is a Hell. I think the official explanation was that limbo actually was Hell, but since infants only had Original Sin but were not guilty of any personal sin, they would not be in torment.

The Church doesn’t teach that a reasoned unbaptized person goes to Hell. Baptism is the ordinary means by which a person becomes a Christian and receives sacramental cleansing of Original Sin and forgiveness of personal sin. Baptism by desire applies to those who are not baptized but would have wished to be baptized. So really, an unbaptized person could receive forgiveness the same way that an unbaptized infant could. If a person blasphemes the Holy Spirit and rejects it anyway, well… then they won’t be forgiven. There is no inconsistency in it.

Also: after reading the document published by the commission- one gets the sense that they do not HAVE THE ABILITY to abolish Limbo. Why? Why did Pope Benedict not infallibly declare Limbo to be not Catholic teaching? I believe they cannot. I believe Limbo has already been included in previous historical encyclicals (correct me if I am wrong? I’d wanna know), it was subscribed to by most of the biggest theologians of our faith, and that to do so may be problematic for Catholic theology of Original Sin. I love Pope Benedict and all he did. If he had infallibly declared Limbo as null and void, I wouldn’t have a problem. My problem is that he didn’t. The commission did not. The catechism did not. So… All we are given is the explicit statement is that one may HOPE that an unbaptized infant may be saved, just like we may HOPE that all be saved. That’s it. Yet that statement alone does nothing to remove or take anything away from the historical idea of Limbo. What we do have is Benedict (admitting his opinion is personal and not magisterial) saying Limbo should be thrown out. That’s it. Yet, every time Francis expresses a personal opinion non-magisterial, many Catholics sing “just his opinion, just his opinion!”. In this case I am inclined to sing this song about Benedict’s remark.

Well, I have a hunch that it never will be dogmatically thrown out; it will simply fade far away from any official teaching. It was never dogmatically defined and so there is no need for it to be dogmatically undefined… which would be impossible either way. Dogma is used extremely rarely, and always as a declaration to defend essential orthodoxy. Why was Mary dogmatically declared the Mother of God? Because there were sects who were competing against the Church and calling her the Mother of Jesus, because they thought Jesus Christ was not divine. To this day, there are 1+ billion Muslims who call her Mary, Mother of Jesus. Dogma is a defensive weapon of the Church to either spit people out or usher people in.

 

[codefro]

I found the list that leads one to subscribe to either Hell or Limbo for unbaptized infants.

Decree for the Jacobites at the Council of Florence in 1442: “There is no other way to come to the aid [of little children] than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God”.
Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: We define also that the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds. (Denz. 464)
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Letentur coeli, Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: We define also that the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds. (Denz. 693)
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this. - Condemned
Pope St. Innocent I, in 417, Synod of Milevis : “The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life even without the grace of baptism is utterly foolish” (DS 219).
Pope Innocent III asserted that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer “no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God” (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii—Majores). (Denzinger 410)
The provincial Council of Cologne: “Faith teaches us that infants, since they are not capable of this desire (Baptism of Desire), are excluded from the kingdom of heaven if they die [unbaptized].” (Collectio Lacensis, V. 320)
Pope Gregory the Great (-604) taught the eternal torment of infants in his Moralia on the Book of Job. “For there be some that are withdrawn from the present light, before they attain to shew forth the good or evil deserts of an active life. And whereas the Sacraments of salvation do not free them from the sin of their birth, at the same time that here they never did aright by their own act; there they are brought to torment. And these have one wound, viz. to be born in corruption, and another, to die in the flesh. … As if reviewing the woes of mankind he said in plain words; With what sort of visitation does the strict Judge mercilessly slay those, whom the guilt of their own deeds condemns, if He smites for all eternity even those, whom the guilt of deliberate choice does not impeach?” (Moralia 9)
Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic. But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism. (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)
Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: In my Fathers house there are many mansions [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left" (Denz. 102, authentic addition to canon 2.)
St. Augustine, A.D. 415: Anyone who would say that infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ. (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)
St Aquinis, Summa Theologica Question 68, Article 3 "I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism. On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when 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, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people.”

 

[codefro]

Pope Sixtus V, Effraenatam, Oct. 29, 1588: “Noticing that frequently by various Apostolic Constitutions the audacity and daring of most profligate men, who know no restraint, of sinning with license against the commandment ‘do not kill’ was repressed; We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? Who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety of him who will exclude a soul created in the image of God and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ has shed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and is destined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God, and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions, and has taken away the service to God by His creature?”

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) 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. (Denz. 1526)
Pius XII-Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951. “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.”

 

[codefro]

Hi Codefro,

To be clear: I don’t endorse the view that all unbaptized infants go to Heaven. I simply don’t think that a state of limbo is tenable. There is a Heaven and there is a Hell. I think the official explanation was that limbo actually was Hell, but since infants only had Original Sin but were not guilty of any personal sin, they would not be in torment.

The Church doesn’t teach that a reasoned unbaptized person goes to Hell. Baptism is the ordinary means by which a person becomes a Christian and receives sacramental cleansing of Original Sin and forgiveness of personal sin. Baptism by desire applies to those who are not baptized but would have wished to be baptized. So really, an unbaptized person could receive forgiveness the same way that an unbaptized infant could. If a person blasphemes the Holy Spirit and rejects it anyway, well… then they won’t be forgiven. There is no inconsistency in it.

Well, I have a hunch that it never will be dogmatically thrown out; it will simply fade far away from any official teaching. It was never dogmatically defined and so there is no need for it to be dogmatically undefined… which would be impossible either way. Dogma is used extremely rarely, and always as a declaration to defend essential orthodoxy. Why was Mary dogmatically declared the Mother of God? Because there were sects who were competing against the Church and calling her the Mother of Jesus, because they thought Jesus Christ was not divine. To this day, there are 1+ billion Muslims who call her Mary, Mother of Jesus. Dogma is a defensive weapon of the Church to either spit people out or usher people in.

Makes sense, but you believe some may go to heaven and some may go to Hell? Please explain if so.

 

[TK421]

Makes sense, but you believe some may go to heaven and some may go to Hell? Please explain if so.

That seems to be the most sound explanation in my opinion. I look at infants and the unborn the same way I look at the rest of humanity. They are given a choice either for God or against God. If you follow the sentiment that all unborn are saved, you negate the entire idea of free will and the consistency of the Church crumbles upon itself. You do the same thing if you believe that it is impossible to be saved outside of the ordinary means.

The Church continues to believe and always will believe that it is impossible to attain the Beatific Vision without being cleansed of Original Sin. That is a matter-of-fact: corruption and God don’t mix. What matters is that the ordinary means of sacramental forgiveness are not the only means of forgiveness. “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” (CCC 1257)

 

[codefro]

The Church continues to believe and always will believe that it is impossible to attain the Beatific Vision without being cleansed of Original Sin. That is a matter-of-fact: corruption and God don’t mix. What matters is that the ordinary means of sacramental forgiveness are not the only means of forgiveness. “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” (CCC 1257)

Understand, yet- So on top of Baptism by water, desire, or blood- a baptism of infant wrongful death? After all, the Church teaches that baptism is required for salvation. God may not be bound, yet the Church “knows of no other means of salvation outside of baptism.”

 

[TK421]

Understand, yet- So on top of Baptism by water, desire, or blood- a baptism of infant wrongful death? After all, the Church teaches that baptism is required for salvation. God may not be bound, yet the Church “knows of no other means of salvation outside of baptism.”

I don’t see a need to come up with another word. Baptism by desire works just fine. The conventional objection to this is that the unborn and infants supposedly don’t have the mental faculties to desire baptism, but I don’t consider that an issue. He’s God.