Prompt Baptism of Infants Urged -Canon 770

[Pug]

Does that mean that the classes required that you have to schedule that are hard to find time for are actually against Church teaching?

He is already baptized. Is your pastor requesting that you have him conditionally baptized for some reason? I’m assuming you told the parish when you baptized him yourself, so that they could record that.

The pastor is required by law to try and see to proper formation before the baptism. Classes with groups of parents seem to be the way many parishes do this. Our parish has the deacon do all this. See section two here:

Can. 851 The celebration of baptism must be prepared properly; consequently:
1/ an adult who intends to receive baptism is to be admitted to the catechumenate and is to be led insofar as possible through the various stages to sacramental initiation, according to the order of initiation adapted by the conference of bishops and the special norms issued by it;
2/ the parents of an infant to be baptized and those who are to undertake the function of sponsor are to be instructed properly on the meaning of this sacrament and the obligations attached to it. The pastor personally or through others is to take care that the parents are properly instructed through both pastoral advice and common prayer, bringing several families together and, where possible, visiting them.

That is not to say that there is no detail in your experiences that is in violation. Just, in general, classes of families appear to be okay.

 

[SFD]

You are again trying to digress away from limbo (infantium).
Let me make it simple so you can then give us a short answer.

Are you telling us that limbo (infantium) was a Church doctrine that Catholics were obligated to believe and accept.

YES or NO??

Do you think it is not a Catholic teaching?

:
Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.

Theologians also call attention to the fact that as God sincerely wishes all men to be saved, He does not exclude infants, for whom baptism of either water or blood is the only means possible. The doctrines also of the universality of original sin and of the all-comprehending atonement of Christ are stated so plainly and absolutely in Scripture as to leave no solid reason for denying that infants are included as well as adults.

The perpetually insane, who have never had the use of reason, are in the same category as infants in what relates to the conferring of baptism, and consequently the sacrament is valid if administered.

If at one time they had been sane, baptism bestowed upon them during their insanity would be probably invalid unless they had shown a desire for it before losing their reason. Moralists teach that, in practice, this latter class may always be baptized conditionally, when it is uncertain whether or not they had ever asked for baptism (Sabetti, no. 661). In this connection it is to be remarked that, according to many writers, anyone who has a wish to receive all things necessary to salvation, has at the same time an implicit desire for baptism, and that a more specific desire is not absolutely necessary.

Is the CE wrong here…or do we just need not accept it?

The principles are very clear here…you can’t deny them. That’s why almost every theologian for the past 800 years teaches what they teach. That’s why the CE says what it says. That’s why the Catechisms say what they say.

You must believe these things with ecclesiastical faith. You must submit your intellect and will to them.

SFD

 

[Seatuck]

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

 

[Roy5]

ETERNAL LIFE AND ITS REQUIREMENTS

Hm! I was taught that Catholics had to believe in Heaven, Hell, Purgatory and Limbo - Limbo being a place of no pain for unbaptized babies as well as people who lived worthy lives but had not heard of Christ (lived before Christ or lived where the Gospel had not been preached). I am aware that a gew years back Limbo was minimized in some statement, probably issued by the Vatican. The details escape me at the moment.

In Luke 10:25-37, Jesus is specifically asked how to enter eternal life. Jesus said nothing about Baptism, only that we should love God and one another. 

Baptizing a baby provides an occasion for a religious celebration focusing on the child's arrival, and that is good. But I doubt if God views that baby any differently before or after the baptism. Some Christian groups require 'believer's baptism' - assuming baptismal vows only when the person is old enough to make up his/her mind to believe in Christ. That has its appeal, too. We have confirmation, which provides the same opportunity - to confirm the baptismal vows taken by parents and godparents years earlier.

 What does disturb me is the widespread practice of baptizing without commitment. Has the baby been 'done' yet - baptized? A ridiculous question one hears. We all know parents and godparents who treat baptism only as a family/social occasion and all but forget their vows as the years go by.

 In any case, a just God would never punish in any way a baby who died before being baptized. The very thought is outrageous.

 

[TAS2000]

quoted by thisle:
You are again trying to digress away from limbo (infantium).
Let me make it simple so you can then give us a short answer.

Are you telling us that limbo (infantium) was a Church doctrine that Catholics were obligated to believe and accept.

YES or NO??

Do you think it is not a Catholic teaching?

SFD

AGAIN you don’t answer the question except with another question. thisle has stated and is CORRECT that this is NOT a Catholic teaching that we are obliged to accept. It is a possible theological theory. Do you have some objection to actually answering a question in your own words?

 

[japhy]

In Luke 10:25-37, Jesus is specifically asked how to enter eternal life. Jesus said nothing about Baptism, only that we should love God and one another.

If you love God, you will follow His commandments. His commandments include baptism. If you take Luke 10:25-37 out of context, Jesus doesn’t say anything about believing in Jesus himself or being a member of his Body, the Church.

Baptizing a baby provides an occasion for a religious celebration focusing on the child’s arrival, and that is good. But I doubt if God views that baby any differently before or after the baptism.

Please read Pastoralis Actio, linked to earlier in this thread. God most certainly views a baptized baby “differently”: the baptized baby has been washed clean of original sin and has been incorporated into the Body of Christ, the Church.

 

[Aramis]

Could you posit as to why Pope Pius XII didn’t just come out and say “limbo” here? Why beat around the bush?

Because Limbo was a theologumen specific to the Roman Church, and has never been widely accepted in the Eastern Catholic Churches in Union with Rome), and further, while widely taught, it has little biblical basis. It also had constant detractors in the Roman hierarchy, and never had sufficient approval to even be doctrinal.

Limbo was a pervasive non-doctrinal teaching of the church. It’s quite possible his holiness was trying to keep it that way.

 

[SFD]

AGAIN you don’t answer the question except with another question. thisle has stated and is CORRECT that this is NOT a Catholic teaching that we are obliged to accept. It is a possible theological theory. Do you have some objection to actually answering a question in your own words?

I answered it. Did you just miss it?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4224838&postcount=42

SFD

 

[SFD]

Because Limbo was a theologumen specific to the Roman Church, and has never been widely accepted in the Eastern Catholic Churches in Union with Rome), and further, while widely taught, it has little biblical basis. It also had constant detractors in the Roman hierarchy, and never had sufficient approval to even be doctrinal.

Limbo was a pervasive non-doctrinal teaching of the church. It’s quite possible his holiness was trying to keep it that way.

So theology is not a science? It is merely politics? Amazing.

SFD

 

[TAS2000]

I answered it. Did you just miss it?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4224838&postcount=42

SFD

Yes and I am still missing it. I see you answer a yes or no question with the question “Do you think it is not a Catholic teaching?” I don’t see any answer there. For my benefit, please state without a quote to some pope or past document whether you are asserting that this is a teaching we as Catholics are obliged to believe in.

 

[lillydew]

I agree that you are not answering in your own words exactly where you stand on this issue…yes, you keep regurgitating church teaching on this matter… but even the theologians, as has been said, have been debating it for 800 years. It is only through dialogue that we can hope to come to some clearer understanding ourselves on these issues. If one is bound by everything the Church instructs, we are in danger of living by the letter of the law itself, and not the spirit. Did not Jesus say to the Jews, when stoning Mary Magdalen; Yes, you are following the Law, but let the one who has not sinned, cast the first stone? I believe what is missing in this dialogue is love, and is not God Love? (not Law). When there is a barrage of quotes, these, as I imagine it would be for a lot of Catholics, just make my eyes glaze over. That’s why I like this forum because it allows people to discuss what they make of all these documents,etc.
So, I still have a question that I perceive to have four answers to:
Is my unbaptised stillborn baby

1. Baptised with a Baptism of Desire?(of the parents)
2. Baptised with a Baptism of Blood?
3. taken to Limbo?
4. In God’s loving mercy, taken to Him?(Because Jesus
   died for all men, even before He lived)
5. Gone to Hell?
6. None of the above?

So in all sincerity I ask the above. Love can be messy, I should know!

 

[Pug]

So, I still have a question that I perceive to have four answers to:
Is my unbaptised stillborn baby

1. Baptised with a Baptism of Desire?(of the parents)
2. Baptised with a Baptism of Blood?
3. taken to Limbo?
4. In God’s loving mercy, taken to Him?(Because Jesus
   died for all men, even before He lived)
5. Gone to Hell?
6. None of the above?

So in all sincerity I ask the above. Love can be messy, I should know!

lillydew,

A theological discussion is easier to carry on without knowing that my answer might hurt or discourage a person with a very real stake in the matter. How one answers a person in a situation must be done with gentleness, with no taint of my silly love of pursuit of truth and ideas. I came on the thread to discuss ideas, learn things, etc. This is why I did not answer you, so perhaps others were concerned as well for similar reasons.

I cannot claim to know the fate of your dear child. Truly, I do not know. I do trust God to be true to Justice. Mercy and Justice are much related, so just because I mention Justice does not mean Mercy is not near at hand. I do not think God’s way are our ways, though. It is God who will enact true Justice. I am a human. I cannot say what his idea of Justice is. That is my answer to you, I cannot say for sure, but whatever it is, it will be Just. He will not overlook any aspect.

However, if you want my silly human opinion, I tend to wonder if St. Augustine might not have something valuable to say, so I’m on the outs with most everyone here. (He is known for a “harsh” answer in this situation…) But I have not thought upon the issue for years. I read him long ago. If I went back and pursued the matter with diligence at this time, I don’t know if I would tend the same or reject everything he says out of hand. I grew up having vast troubles understanding hell (I was raised by a Universalist) and it has been a hard road to come to grips with many aspects of Church teaching. This past perhaps colors how I answer questions. I probably have not come to live with it all by the same route as another would.

But what I think hardly matters to anyone. Listen to what the Church tells you and trust God, who is ever faithful.

 

[lillydew]

quote:

"lillydew,

A theological discussion is easier to carry on without knowing that my answer might hurt or discourage a person with a very real stake in the matter. How one answers a person in a situation must be done with gentleness, with no taint of my silly love of pursuit of truth and ideas. I came on the thread to discuss ideas, learn things, etc. This is why I did not answer you, so perhaps others were concerned as well for similar reasons.

I cannot claim to know the fate of your dear child. Truly, I do not know. I do trust God to be true to Justice. Mercy and Justice are much related, so just because I mention Justice does not mean Mercy is not near at hand. I do not think God’s way are our ways, though. It is God who will enact true Justice. I am a human. I cannot say what his idea of Justice is. That is my answer to you, I cannot say for sure, but whatever it is, it will be Just. He will not overlook any aspect.

However, if you want my silly human opinion, I tend to wonder if St. Augustine might not have something valuable to say, so I’m on the outs with most everyone here. (He is known for a “harsh” answer in this situation…) But I have not thought upon the issue for years. I read him long ago. If I went back and pursued the matter with diligence at this time, I don’t know if I would tend the same or reject everything he says out of hand. I grew up having vast troubles understanding hell (I was raised by a Universalist) and it has been a hard road to come to grips with many aspects of Church teaching. This past perhaps colors how I answer questions. I probably have not come to live with it all by the same route as another would.

But what I think hardly matters to anyone. Listen to what the Church tells you and trust God, who is ever faithful."


I could just give you a big hug, Pug! You have been honest enough to come out and say it as you see it! It really takes a man of God to do that! You have answered with wisdom, which is knowledge infused with compassion and experience, but most importantly with love! I also believe in a God of justice…and mercy…and love…thank you. I do understand that there is a time for theological debate over topics, but I am ever so tired of ‘white ivory tower’ thinking, that does not always consider the consequences of such thought in the light of the people involved. You have really renewed the Spirit of God within me by this, and isn’t this what we are supposed to do anyway?
Thank you again and may there be more postings like this!:hug1: P.S. I do care about how you understand these things - don’t we all have a background of one kind or another that taints how we perceive Truth?

---

 

[SFD]

Yes and I am still missing it. I see you answer a yes or no question with the question “Do you think it is not a Catholic teaching?” I don’t see any answer there. For my benefit, please state without a quote to some pope or past document whether you are asserting that this is a teaching we as Catholics are obliged to believe in.

SFD:

The principles are very clear here…you can’t deny them. That’s why almost every theologian for the past 800 years teaches what they teach. That’s why the CE says what it says. That’s why the Catechisms say what they say.

You must believe these things with ecclesiastical faith. You must submit your intellect and will to them.

I don’t see any question there.

SFD

 

[japhy]

I don’t see any question there.

Let me help you.

Are you telling us that limbo (infantium) was a Church doctrine that Catholics were obligated to believe and accept. YES or NO??

Do you think it is not a Catholic teaching?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? For a person who I assume is committed to the clarity and definitiveness of the Catholic faith, you are beating around the bush.

 

[SFD]

I agree that you are not answering in your own words exactly where you stand on this issue…yes, you keep regurgitating church teaching on this matter… but even the theologians, as has been said, have been debating it for 800 years.

The moral unaniminity of theologians have been TEACHING it for 800 years. That’s how it got into the Catechism! It’s Catholic teaching.

*86 Q. Did Christ’s soul descend into the hell of the damned?
A. The hell into which Christ’s soul descended was not the hell of the damned, but a place or state of rest called Limbo, where the souls of the just were waiting for Him.

Hell had many meanings in olden times. The grave was sometimes called hell. Jacob, when he heard that wild beasts had devoured his son Joseph, said: “I will go down with sorrow into hell.” He meant the grave. Limbo is not the same as Purgatory. It does not exist now, or, if it does, is only for little children who have never committed actual sin and who have died without Baptism. They will never get into Heaven or see God, but they will not have to suffer pains as they who are in Purgatory or Hell endure.

This is consistent with the dogmas of the Church. The place of limbo (infantium) is a theological conclusion based on the the dogmas of the Church.
CE:

Theologians also call attention to the fact that as God sincerely wishes all men to be saved, He does not exclude infants, for whom baptism of either water or blood is the only means possible. The doctrines also of the universality of original sin and of the all-comprehending atonement of Christ are stated so plainly and absolutely in Scripture as to leave no solid reason for denying that infants are included as well as adults.

There is no room for doubt here. Since it is de fide that supernatural faith is required…Water Baptism (the sacrament) or Blood “Baptism” are required for those who cannot make an act of supernatural faith.

You seem to be hung up on the notion that limbo (infantium) has never been defined by the Church. It has not…but the doctrines behind it have been defined.

It is only through dialogue that we can hope to come to some clearer understanding ourselves on these issues. If one is bound by everything the Church instructs, we are in danger of living by the letter of the law itself, and not the spirit.

That’s pure liberalism. Should one not be bound by what the Church instructs? What is your rule of faith?

So in all sincerity I ask the above. Love can be messy, I should know!

So can keeping the Faith.
Matt. Ch.10; 32-40:

32 Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. 33 But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. 34 Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. 35 For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

35 “I came to set a man at variance”… Not that this was the end or design of the coming of our Saviour; but that his coming and his doctrine would have this effect, by reason of the obstinate resistance that many would make, and of their persecuting all such as should adhere to him.

36 And as a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it. 40 He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.

SFD

 

[SFD]

SFD:

This is the Holy Office speaking here, with the approval of the Pope:

Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism.

Pug's Source:

In the 1940s, renewed interest arose in this area. Using the argument of baptism by desire, some theologians speculated that God in His mercy would look favorably upon the desire for salvation of the Church, the family, the unbaptized infant, and even of Himself, and welcome the unbaptized child to Heaven. Here again the Magisterium provided succinct guidance. Pope Pius XII asserted that “an act of love can suffice for an adult to acquire sanctifying grace and supply for the lack of baptism; to the unborn or newly born infant, this way is not open” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLIII, 84). Later in 1958, the Holy Office (now the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) admonished, “The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature” a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism. Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible…" (Acta L, 114). Again, the Magisterium neither defined nor rejected the idea of limbo.

**The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons **to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation.

Summary:

The ITC has no known theological reason, states a vague “liturgical” reason…which is exactly what was warned against in 1958 as “lacking solid foundation”.

SFD

 

[thistle]

I answered it. Did you just miss it?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4224838&postcount=42

SFD

Why are you so scared to answer yes or no to a very simple question? You are not answering the question by copying and pasting information that does not answer the question.
The fact you refuse to answer yes or no simply means you know you are wrong but don’t like to admit it.

In case you didn’t understand the question I will give you another chance.

**Are you telling us that limbo (infantium) was a **Church doctrine **that Catholics were **obligated to believe and accept. **
YES or NO. **

I’ll give you a clue. The answer is NO!

 

[japhy]

The moral unaniminity of theologians have been TEACHING it for 800 years. That’s how it got into the Catechism! It’s Catholic teaching.
Limbo is not the same as Purgatory. It does not exist now, or, if it does, is only for little children who have never committed actual sin and who have died without Baptism. They will never get into Heaven or see God, but they will not have to suffer pains as they who are in Purgatory or Hell endure.

Wait, so which is it? Does that Catechism say that Limbo does or doesn’t exist?

 

[SFD]

Why are you so scared to answer yes or no to a very simple question? You are not answering the question by copying and pasting information that does not answer the question.
The fact you refuse to answer yes or no simply means you know you are wrong but don’t like to admit it.

In case you didn’t understand the question I will give you another chance.

**Are you telling us that limbo (infantium) was a **Church doctrine ****that Catholics were **obligated to believe and accept. **
YES or NO.

I’ll give you a clue. The answer is NO!

Your “question” is vague. What is a “Church doctrine”? Are you asking if limbo (infantium) has been defined? Or is it taught by the Church?

The statement “obligated to believe and accept” is also vague. Do you mean with a divine and Catholic Faith? Or Ecclesiastical faith? Assent of certitude? Assent of religious obedience?

If you can say, “I don’t believe in limbo (infantium)” … can you also say “unbaptised infants go to heaven” without denying a defined dogma?

SFD:

CE:

Theologians also call attention to the fact that as God sincerely wishes all men to be saved, He does not exclude infants, for whom baptism of either water or blood is the only means possible. The doctrines also of the universality of original sin and of the all-comprehending atonement of Christ are stated so plainly and absolutely in Scripture as to leave no solid reason for denying that infants are included as well as adults.

There is no room for doubt here. Since it is de fide that supernatural faith is required…Water Baptism (the sacrament) or Blood “Baptism” are required for those who cannot make an act of supernatural faith.

You seem to be hung up on the notion that limbo (infantium) has never been defined by the Church. It has not…but the doctrines behind it have been defined.

SFD