Prompt Baptism of Infants Urged -Canon 770

[1ke]

We are two pages into this thread and I have no idea what the OP (original poster)'s point is?!?

So, SFD, what is your point? You did not ask a question or post any comment.

You posted a statement that no one here disagrees with.

So, what point are you trying to make?

 

[japhy]

The Holy Office was concerned that “Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism.”

Do you think the Holy Office was referring to limbo (infantium) here? Obviously not, as limbo was not “an opinion devoid of any solid foundation”.

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

And as for “In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason”, does that mean [IGod* has no way to communicate that life to a child (outside of baptism), or we have no way to communicate that life to a child (outside of baptism)?

 

[Pug]

The Holy Office was concerned that “Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism.”

Do you think the Holy Office was referring to limbo (infantium) here? Obviously not, as limbo was not “an opinion devoid of any solid foundation”.

SFD

I did not try to suggest that the monitum was calling *Limbo *the baseless opinion. I was wondering about an opinion that an eternal destiny of going to limbo is essentially as good as one of going to heaven, or at least some opinion that the two were close enough that it would be fine to ignore the duty to baptize one’s child promptly. That opinion seems a fine candidate to point to and call it baseless or unsound. It would be nice if the quote were more clear about the exact nature of the opinions that were floating about in 1958 in the unnamed “certain places”.

Perhaps the monitum is not interested in informing us of what the unsound opinions are nor in otherwise noticing them. Surely it does wish to encourage prompt baptism. I assume everyone on this thread agrees with prompt baptism. You appeared interested in discussing the content of the unsound opinions, though, since that is a part that you highlighted.

(And, if it matters for understanding here, no, I do not hold the opinion that all unbaptized infants go to heaven).

 

[thistle]

The Holy Office was concerned that “Such postponement draws support from certain opinions, devoid however of any solid foundation, regarding the eternal destiny of infants who die without baptism.”

Do you think the Holy Office was referring to limbo (infantium) here? Obviously not, as limbo was not “an opinion devoid of any solid foundation”.

SFD

Limbo (infantium) was never a teaching of the Church. It was simply a theological hypothesis. We have always been free to accept or reject that hypothesis which has no basis in scripture.

 

[lillydew]

Why can we both just read it? Do you want to be able to disagree with me instead of Pope Pius XII?

My position is that I accept what Pope Pius XII said and the certain doctrine behind what he said. Btw, the 1958 warning by the Holy Office was approved by the Pope and the Holy Office is one of the Roman Congregations.

SFD

I merely want to ask you the consequential result of such a legal requirement put forth by the Church. I want you to be able to own the result, if this is what you believe, by stating it in your own words rather than conveniently posting quotes. I am not here to dispute what the Church teaches but to gain a better appreciation and sometimes to put a human face to these decisions being made. Thank you to Phemie who gave her honest answer to the question about 'what has happened to our daughter who died suddenly, in utero, and therefore was unable to be baptised?

 

[SFD]

Back off, man. Maybe she wants to know how you are reading it because she doesn’t exactly know what it’s saying. You are being awfully militant about this.

I think she knows what it is saying as it is very clear. Pope Pius XII was also very clear in his Address to Midwives:

**Supernatural life **

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. 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. Therefore, if it is considered that charity to our fellowman obliges us to assist him in the case of necessity, then this obligation is so much the more important and urgent as the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided is the greater, and in the measure that the needy person is incapable of helping or saving himself with his own powers; and so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death’s threshold.

Undoubtedly this duty binds the parents in the first place, but in case of necessity, when there is no time to lose or it is not possible to call a priest, the sublime office of conferring baptism is yours.

Do you disagree with this, japhy? Or do you think Pope Pius XII made a theological error in his address?

SFD

 

[SFD]

I merely want to ask you the consequential result of such a legal requirement put forth by the Church.

It is not a legal requirement. Where did you get that idea? Do you think the necessity of baptism or the desire for it is an ecclesiastical law? Or is it divine law?
lilydew:

I want you to be able to own the result, if this is what you believe, by stating it in your own words rather than conveniently posting quotes.

I believe what Pope Pius XII has said. There is no need to “put it into my own words”. His words are clear and he “owns the result”.
lilydew:

I am not here to dispute what the Church teaches but to gain a better appreciation and sometimes to put a human face to these decisions being made.

So you give your intellectual assent to with what Pope Pius XII has clearly said? Do you think his teaching lacks a “human face”?
lilydew:

Thank you to Phemie who gave her honest answer to the question about 'what has happened to our daughter who died suddenly, in utero, and therefore was unable to be baptised?

Does Phemie’s opinion have as much weight as Pius XII’s clear statement?

SFD

 

[japhy]

Do you disagree with this, japhy? Or do you think Pope Pius XII made a theological error in his address?

First, I will point out that a Pope could make a theological error in an address to midwives. This address does not contain any infallible proclamations, although it may refer to infallible proclaimed and firmly held truths of the Church.

Second, no, I do not think Pope Pius XII made an error here, unless he presumes to say that God cannot intervene the case of an infant who dies before receiving baptism when he says that “in the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason”.

Is Pope Pius XII speaking specifically of the “limbo of infants” when he says that “without [the state of grace] salvation and supernatural happiness — the beatific vision of God — are impossible”? If so, I am curious why he didn’t just come out and say it.

Furthermore, he says that “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.” Is an “act of love” on the part of the parents for their infant not sufficient if the whole lot of them get killed in a car crash on the way to baptism?

If anyone is interested in reading the whole address, it can be found here.

 

[SFD]

Limbo (infantium) was never a teaching of the Church. It was simply a theological hypothesis. We have always been free to accept or reject that hypothesis which has no basis in scripture.

We may reject things that have no basis in Scripture? Really?

The point is that there are certain doctrines behind this opinion. Is one free to reject those as well. Are we free to reject the teaching of Pius XII?

SFD

 

[Pug]

In attempting to find out what unfounded opinions the monitum actually had in mind, I googled upon an article written by a Fr. Saunders. According to him (I know nothing about his background), the monitum may indeed have been addressing the idea of all the infants going to heaven on account of ideas that arose in the 1940’s. I could only find it on the google cache, not on the original site. Here is the relevant passage:

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.

link

I wonder if this happened in Germany, the US, or where, and how long before it made it from theologians to regular pew sitters? I had assumed this idea became common more recently than the 1940’s.

 

[SFD]

In attempting to find out what unfounded opinions the monitum actually had in mind, I googled upon an article written by a Fr. Saunders. According to him (I know nothing about his background), the monitum may indeed have been addressing the idea of all the infants going to heaven on account of ideas that arose in the 1940’s. I could only find it on the google cache, not on the original site. Here is the relevant passage:

link

I wonder if this happened in Germany, the US, or where, and how long before it made it from theologians to regular pew sitters? I had assumed this idea became common more recently than the 1940’s.

Interesting.

This idea of “imputed desire” came from Cajetan, I believe. Some Catholic theologians in the past, most notably Cajetan, said the unbaptized infant in the womb can be saved by an act of desire by the parents. This theory, however, was ordered to be expunged from Cajetan’s commentary on St. Thomas by Saint Pius V.

Any human act of the will requires the use of reason. Those without the use of reason cannot make such an act and must be baptised for the remission of original sin. This is the same reason why a person without the use of reason cannot be culpable for a mortal sin.

Also, The Catholic Encyclopedia, on Baptism:

:
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.

SFD

 

[thistle]

We may reject things that have no basis in Scripture? Really?

The point is that there are certain doctrines behind this opinion. Is one free to reject those as well. Are we free to reject the teaching of Pius XII?

SFD

You are trying to digress. The only topic I commented on is limbo (infantium). Please stick to that. That has NEVER been a doctrine of the Church and Catholics have NEVER been obliged to believe in it. There has NEVER been an infallible teaching on limbo (infantium) so if Pope Pius XII was expressing his opinion then no we are not obliged to accept that.

 

[DD2007]

I read the OP.

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

I thought that was silly. I didn’t understand why the Church would want to wait at all regarding baptism. That class and the fact that you can only schedule it once a month and it always falls at a time of most inconvienience is one of the major gripes I have with the Church.

It is this reason that I baptised my child as an infant myself. He is two years old now.

I still haven’t managed to have him baptized in the Church…it’s a very difficult bureocracy sometimes.

 

[SFD]

You are trying to digress. The only topic I commented on is limbo (infantium). Please stick to that. That has NEVER been a doctrine of the Church and Catholics have NEVER been obliged to believe in it. There has NEVER been an infallible teaching on limbo (infantium) so if Pope Pius XII was expressing his opinion then no we are not obliged to accept that.

You are kidding, aren’t you?

We must only believe infallible definitions?

SFD

 

[SFD]

“With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the Sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or woman in the form of the Church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.” (Decree for the Jacobites, Denz. 696)

The Council of Florence also defined, in Session VI, the following: “But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”

Pope Innocent III (III Decr. 42:3): “The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell.”

Limbo is the theological conclusion which is taught by nearly every theologian for the past 800 years. It is taught as theological conclusion by the moral unanimity of the Church’s theologians…why do you think it is “optional”?

SFD

 

[thistle]

You are kidding, aren’t you?

We must only believe infallible definitions?

SFD

You can’t even read properly. I said we are not obliged to accept the personal opinions of popes.

We are obliged to accept all offical teachings (doctrine and discipline) as set out in the CCC which contains a summary of ALL Church teachings. We are also obliged to accept Canon Laws.

Limbo for unbaptised infants has NEVER EVER been a doctrine of the Catholic Church. That means Catholics have NEVER EVER been obliged to accept it.
It was simply a theological hypothesis which Catholics were free to accept or not.

 

[SFD]

You can’t even read properly. I said we are not obliged to accept the personal opinions of popes.

We are obliged to accept all offical teachings (doctrine and discipline) as set out in the CCC which contains a summary of ALL Church teachings. We are also obliged to accept Canon Laws.

Limbo for unbaptised infants has NEVER EVER been a doctrine of the Catholic Church. That means Catholics have NEVER EVER been obliged to accept it.
It was simply a theological hypothesis which Catholics were free to accept or not.

You have not grasped my point here.

The point is that there are dogmas and theologically certain doctrines behind this opinion and the opinion has been taught by the moral unanimity of the Church’s theologians for 800 years. Is one free to reject those as well. Are we free to reject the teaching of Pius XII?

Pope Innocent III (III Decr. 42:3): “The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell.”

Do you reject the above doctrine?

SFD

 

[TAS2000]

You do know the current pope doesn’t believe in limbo, right? Thistle is correct that we are under no more obligation to believe in limbo than we are to believe in a literal 7 day creation. The church has never made a firm position on either topic though individual thoelogins have stated their opinons and debated it for centuries.

I’m with 1ke, what the heck was supposed to be your original point? You post a quote, which says babies should be baptised promptly. We all agree. Do you want to debate how soon promptly should be, or what? Some of us fail to see which element of the quote you wish to debate here.

 

[thistle]

You have not grasped my point here.

The point is that there are dogmas and theologically certain doctrines behind this opinion and the opinion has been taught by the moral unanimity of the Church’s theologians for 800 years. Is one free to reject those as well. Are we free to reject the teaching of Pius XII?

Do you reject the above doctrine?

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??

 

[japhy]

“The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell.”
Do you reject the above doctrine?

So one with only original sin goes to Hell and suffers pain (not equal to the pains of those who have committed sin), correct? And this pain is, at least in part, the deprivation of the beatific vision, correct?