Question on infant baptism

[MartyMcFly]

Seems to me like the theory of limbo has a lot more Papal, Conciliar, and Patristic weight to be just disregarded too easily.

I believe in limbo. And according to Pope Martin V, you can’t say I am stupid or presumptuous for believing it.

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 -
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 ( [this theory is] Condemned)” Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 422

A work of an “International Theological Committee” does not have as much weight as the Papal quotes quoted above. Actually, does anybody know what authority a “Committee” officially has anyway?

One wonders why this did not come out in a Papal Encyclical or a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith if this is supposedly the current way the Church is thinking. Instead, it is the product of a “Committee”?

I don’t think the document really explains adequately exactly how one would reconcile a non-limbo view with the dogma of original sin, baptism, etc.
Limbo however, is a perfect balance of those dogmas along WITH the mercy of God (the infants enjoy a state of natural happiness).

Many are using the current document to discredit limbo. I think that is similar to the “spirit of Vatican II” approach that the modernists used in regards to the Vatican II documents. This document even says that you may still believe in limbo.

 

[Shlomey]

Seems to me like the theory of limbo has a lot more Papal, Conciliar, and Patristic weight to be just disregarded too easily.

I believe in limbo. And according to Pope Martin V, you can’t say I am stupid or presumptuous for believing it.

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 -
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 ( [this theory is] Condemned)” Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 422

A work of an “International Theological Committee” does not have as much weight as the Papal quotes quoted above. Actually, does anybody know what authority a “Committee” officially has anyway?

One wonders why this did not come out in a Papal Encyclical or a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith if this is supposedly the current way the Church is thinking. Instead, it is the product of a “Committee”?

I don’t think the document really explains adequately exactly how one would reconcile a non-limbo view with the dogma of original sin, baptism, etc.
Limbo however, is a perfect balance of those dogmas along WITH the mercy of God (the infants enjoy a state of natural happiness).

Many are using the current document to discredit limbo. I think that is similar to the “spirit of Vatican II” approach that the modernists used in regards to the Vatican II documents. This document even says that you may still believe in limbo.

saved in what sense?

Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation.

That quote seems very clear in formulation.

“for all men WITHOUT exception”

One states without exception noone can be saved if not baptized with water. (presented as dogma form the site that I have posted the link to)

The other states: to say unbaptized children of the faithful will not be saved are basically in the wrong. (from an Ecumenical Council)

The Limbo of Infants is a hypothesis about the permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Since at least the time of Augustine, theologians, considering baptism to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered have debated the fate of unbaptized innocents, and the theory of the Limbo of Infants is one of the hypotheses that have been formulated as a proposed solution. Some who hold this theory regard the Limbo of Infants as a state of maximum natural happiness, others as one of “mildest punishment” consisting at least of privation of the beatific vision and of any hope of obtaining it. This theory, in any of its forms, has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope that these infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of Limbo; however, the directly opposed theological opinion also exists, namely that there is no afterlife state intermediate between salvation and damnation, and that all the unbaptized are damned.[3]

And if the one presented as dogma is truly a dogma, then baptism by water seems not to be “necessary without exception”: as there were exceptions.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Just to clarify: Pope Martin is saying here that THIS THEORY IS CONDEMNED (the theory that those who say infants dying with out baptism cannot be saved are stupid), see the parentheses below.

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 -
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 ( [this theory is] Condemned)” Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 422

 

[Shlomey]

Just to clarify: Pope Martin is saying here that THIS THEORY IS CONDEMNED (the theory that those who say infants dying with out baptism cannot be saved are stupid), see the parentheses below.

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 -
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 ( [this theory is] Condemned)” Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 422

But why is that theory condemned?

I am now checking a German source which seems even more odd.

source: paxetbonum.de/index.php/2007/01/25/zweihundertfuenfundvierzig/

1. Es gibt sieben Sakramente des Neuen Bundes.
2. Die Sakramente des Neuen Bundes sind für alle Menschen zum Heile notwendig.

164: there are 7 sacraments of the New Covenant
165: The Sacraments of the New Covenant are **necessary for all **humans for their salvation.

1. Die Wassertaufe (baptimus fluminis) ist seit der Promulgation des Evangeliums für alle Menschen ohne Ausnahme zum Heile notwendig.

my translation:

173: **Baptism by water **(baptismus fluminis) is - since the promulgation of the Gospel - **necessary for **the salvation of all humans without exception.

This validates the quote I had from an English source.

I am not talking about limbo.

I am raising the question whether baptism with water is truly necessary for salvation without exception as the dogma states.

paxetbonum.de/index.php/2007/01/25/zweihundertfuenfundvierzig/

 

[Shlomey]

What do you mean by “in that very formulation?” The Church has defined no doctrine, and certainly no dogma, on the matter of the existence of Limbo.

The website you consulted was incorrect.

I did not even make any reference to limbo. Your understanding is incorrect.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

The Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum on the Publication of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church states the following:

“The *Catechism of the Catholic Church, *which I approved 25 June last [1992] and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.” (John Paul II, Fidei Depositum IV)

As posted previously, the Cathechism of the Catholic Church states the following about “children who died without Baptism”:

“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,” allow 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.” (CCC 1261)

Since the Cathechism of the Catholic Church is the deposit of faith (fidei depositum) and “Catholic doctrine” approved by Pope John Paul II, we can conclude that the OFFICIAL position of the Church IS that “the Church can only entrust them [unbaptized infants] to the mercy of God…who desires that all men should be saved…” (CCC1261) That being said, we can certainly hope that the mercy of God would allow them to enter his Kingdom in Heaven (“Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these…” Mk 10:14).

 

[napad]

The Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum on the Publication of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church states the following:
As posted previously, the Cathechism of the Catholic Church states the following about “children who died without Baptism”:
Since the Cathechism of the Catholic Church is the deposit of faith (fidei depositum) and “Catholic doctrine” approved by Pope John Paul II, we can conclude that the OFFICIAL position of the Church IS that “the Church can only entrust them [unbaptized infants] to the mercy of God…who desires that all men should be saved…” (CCC1261) That being said, we can certainly hope that the mercy of God would allow them to enter his Kingdom in Heaven (“Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these…” Mk 10:14).

Limbo is the mercy of God. Look at the index of the Catechism and the number you quoted should link up with Limbo in the Index

 

[napad]

MartyMcFly saidope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 -
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 ( [this theory is] Condemned)” Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 422

This quote is confusing. in other words:
They are wrong who claim that the faithful are stupid and presumptuous who say,“Children who die without baptism will not be saved”

Does that help?

Shlomey;4710115]But why is that theory condemned?

I am now checking a German source which seems even more odd.

source: paxetbonum.de/index.php/2007/01/25/zweihundertfuenfundvierzig/

164: there are 7 sacraments of the New Covenant
165: The Sacraments of the New Covenant are **necessary for all **humans for their salvation.

my translation:

173: **Baptism by water **(baptismus fluminis) is - since the promulgation of the Gospel - **necessary for **the salvation of all humans without exception.

This validates the quote I had from an English source.

I am not talking about limbo.

I am raising the question whether baptism with water is truly necessary for salvation without exception as the dogma states.

paxetbonum.de/index.php/2007/01/25/zweihundertfuenfundvierzig/

It is an interesting problem because the canon gives no “desire” possibility but the article on Justification seems to. The whole reason to have a “Limbo Theory” is there is no salvation for children who die without baptism

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Something tells me that some infants are given the grace to desire baptism and are thus saved.

Having said that it must be said that maybe it is possible that not all infants are given that grace.

If God gives that grace to some but not to all–who could argue with that?

 

[mlchance]

If God can count my faith for the benefit of my children when they were baptized as infants, then He can certainly count my faith and my desire for baptism for my one child who died due to a miscarriage.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[napad]

If God can count my faith for the benefit of my children when they were baptized as infants, then He can certainly count my faith and my desire for baptism for my one child who died due to a miscarriage.

– Mark L. Chance.

The Church teaches, as we have learned her doctrine, that the infant validly baptized, by whomsoever the baptism is administered, receives in the sacrament the infused habit of faith and sanctity, and that his habit (habitus) suffices for salvation till the child comes to the use of reason; hence all baptized infants dying in infancy are saved.

But when arrived at the use of reason, the child needs something beyond this infused habit, and is bound to elicit the act of faith. The habit is not actual faith, and is only a supernatural facility, infused by grace, of eliciting the actual virtue of faith. The** habit** of sanctity is lost by mortal sin, but the habit of faith, we are told, can be lost only by a positive act of infidelity. This is not strictly true; for the **habit **may be lost by omission to elicit the act of faith, which neither is nor can be elicited out of the Catholic Church.

 

[Shlomey]

Does anyone here have an explanation to the issues that I have posted above?



Or simply overlook what seems to be a contradiction?

 

[napad]

Does anyone here have an explanation to the issues that I have posted above?



Or simply overlook what seems to be a contradiction?

what point can you link to the post number?

 

[tdgesq]

Does anyone here have an explanation to the issues that I have posted above?



Or simply overlook what seems to be a contradiction?

The website to which you link for sources of dogma is a brief paraphrase of only a handful of dogmas contained in Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. At p. 356, section 4(1) it states:

Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation (De fide.)

However, the very next enumerated paragraph on the same page (section 4(2)) states that:

In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)

Ott goes on to explain:

[A]ccording to the testimony of Tradition and of the Church Liturgy (cf. Feast of the Innocents), young children can also receive blood-Baptism . . . .

Several ECF’s attest to this as well.