W
Walking_Home
Guest
It was God’s will and choice to reveal to us what He wanted. I am not about to bend His will to mine and to test His mercy.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
It was God’s will and choice to reveal to us what He wanted. I am not about to bend His will to mine and to test His mercy.
L
LilyM
Guest
That’s fine, and you may well be right, but don’t call it ‘hopeful’ to declare babies unquestionably and indisputably damned, because it isn’t.It was God’s will and choice to reveal to us what He wanted. I am not about to bend His will to mine.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
That’s fine, and you may well be right, but don’t call it ‘hopeful’ to declare babies unquestionably and indisputably damned, because it isn’t.
That would depend on whether a person believes they end up in the Hell fires of the damned or in Limbo–where they are perfectly happy.
L
LilyM
Guest
Wrong wrong wrong. They are not perfectly happy! We are taught in the Catechism that the chief pain of Hell - for all those who are there, not just some - is separation from God. And even those in Purgatory suffer intensely precisely because of this same separation from God - even though their suffering is shorter.
That would depend on whether a person believes they end up in the Hell fires of the damned or in Limbo–where they are perfectly happy.
Those in limbo are very much separated from God, every bit as much as all others who aren’t in heaven. So they are still suffering the worst of the pains of hell, regardless of whether they are free from the ADDITIONAL punishments of people who have actually sinned mortally or not. The one thing they cannot be is free of suffering.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Wrong wrong wrong. They are not perfectly happy! We are taught in the Catechism that the chief pain of Hell - for all those who are there, not just some - is separation from God. And even those in Purgatory suffer intensely precisely because of this same separation from God - even though their suffering is shorter.
Those in limbo are very much separated from God, every bit as much as all others who aren’t in heaven. So they are still suffering the worst of the pains of hell, regardless of whether they are free from the ADDITIONAL punishments of people who have actually sinned mortally or not. The one thing they cannot be is free of suffering.
Well LilyM—It is the Church who taught on the happiness in limbo.
What it comes down to is----God did not want us to know what happens----It is His will. I am not going to over-ride His will or test His mercy. I will not do it —to make me feel better.
F
FTS
Guest
1)Yes, the existence of baptism of desire is de fide, infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. However, it has not been explicitly revealed as to the extention to whom this could apply. We know that an explicit or implicit desire can suffice, but there is no clear definition as to what can constitute this explicit or implicit desire. Plainly said, we do not know if the baptism of desire could extend to infants, it is theological speculation.This is incorrect. The definition of Baptism of Desire presupposes a human act (that is, an act involving reason) on the part of the person to be baptized. This is the only possible interpretation of the teachings of the Church and her Doctors and theologians. Baptism of Desire is de fide doctrine, and this de fide doctrine is described by St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“Perfect conversion to God through contrition or love of God above all things, with the explicit or implicit desire [voto] for true Baptism of water, in whose place it may supply, according to the Council of Trent.”
…]
"It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.” (Theologia Moralis, ed. nova. [Rome: Vatican 1909] 3:96-7)
The 2nd and 3rd methods you mentioned are contrary to de fide doctrine; they are heretical.
The logical conclusion from this is that these infants have the built-in capacity to commit mortal sin. If they have the ability to love God and to will to receive Baptism, then they also have the ability to reject Him by committing mortal sin.
God doesn’t usually work outside the natural order He establishes, whether it’s in regard to the natural life (as in the use of reason) or to the supernatural life (as in the means of salvation). To say otherwise is basically to say He changes His mind or made a mistake He needs to undo; I mean, why didn’t He establish a different order in the first place so He doesn’t have to make all those exceptions?
Saying that He infuses reason into these infants is saying that exceptions are the norm. Why did He even establish the necessity for human acts in Baptism of Desire if so many millions and millions of times He has to intervene in the natural order to make this possible for those who would not be able to make those human acts? Why didn’t He just do away with that necessity altogether or at least make it conditional on whether the individual in question actually has the use of reason?
Maria
- None of the three possible theories are heretical. In the first theory, if God supernaturaly infused free will and reason to them before death, they would possess the reason to reject or accept God and be baptised by desire. Their choice would determine their eternal destiny, but the key is that they would be given the choice, rather than immediately be banned from Heaven. It would hard to square up this opinion with the knowledge that God is just, merciful, and loving. In the second theory, maybe the prayers and desire of the angels or saints could create a baptism of desire for the person. In the third theory, maybe all people are born with a natural, built-in desire for God their Creator, and since these individuals are innocent and incapable of rejecting God, a valid baptism of desire for the person is established in a supernatural manner, via their natural, built-in desire for their God and Creator. Yes these would be extraordinary means, but God is not bound by the Sacraments and can use extraordinary means to impart grace. Denying this WOULD be heretical. As another example, confessing your sins in the Sacrament of Confession is the ordinary means for forgiveness of sins. However, if someone has invisible ignorance of this, and has perfect contrition for their sins, they are forgiven and are in a state of grace. God can use extaordinary means to impart grace to His people. And we do not know with certainty to whom baptism of desire could extend. I believe it can be applied to infants.
F
FTS
Guest
Continued…God doesn’t usually work outside the natural order He establishes, whether it’s in regard to the natural life (as in the use of reason) or to the supernatural life (as in the means of salvation). To say otherwise is basically to say He changes His mind or made a mistake He needs to undo; I mean, why didn’t He establish a different order in the first place so He doesn’t have to make all those exceptions?
Saying that He infuses reason into these infants is saying that exceptions are the norm. Why did He even establish the necessity for human acts in Baptism of Desire if so many millions and millions of times He has to intervene in the natural order to make this possible for those who would not be able to make those human acts? Why didn’t He just do away with that necessity altogether or at least make it conditional on whether the individual in question actually has the use of reason?
Maria
- Again, the ordinary means of baptism would be water baptism, just as the ordinary means of forgiveness of sins is the Sacrament of Confession to a priest. However, God knows all people’s unique circumstances, and recongizes the validity of invisible ignorance. Therefore baptism of blood and of desire, as well as perfect contrition for forgiveness of sins exhibits God’s great mercy, justice, and love for all His people. He doesn’t expect the impossible, and recognizes our unique circumstances in life.
As Father Corapi says, God’s name is Mercy. And Sacred Scripture tells us God is love. Nobody can out-do God in mercy nor love. I lean on the side of God’s great mercy and love, and believe these individuals below the age of reason can be baptised by desire. However, I agree that you can have your opinion about Limbo. It is a valid opinion, although I disagree. As faithful Catholics, we can disagree on this. It is open for debate. But remember, with your sentiments you are saying God bans all aborted babies, miscarried babies, babies who die before a scheduled baptism, mentallly retarded people who live in non-Christian families, etc… from entering Heaven. One could say you are limiting His mercy and love when you say this. You are trying to restrict God when He is the author of life, and is not bound by the Sacraments. He can use extaordinary means to impart grace. You are free to have your opinion, believing in Limbo. But don’t be confused, we are free to have our contrary opinions that these individuals can enter into Heaven to be with God in glory and bliss forever.
L
LilyM
Guest
“The Church” has never consistently taught limbo - except in regard to those who died before Christ. ‘The Church’ has not taught that there is such a place any more, not that unbaptised infants are sent there, not that they are perfectly happy there, not anything about it.
Well LilyM—It is the Church who taught on the happiness in limbo.
What it comes down to is----God did not want us to know what happens----It is His will. I am not going to over-ride His will or test His mercy. I will not do it —to make me feel better.
And hoping and trusting in God’s mercy is the opposite of overriding his will. It is the position most consistent with all of the three chief virtues of faith, hope and love.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
“The Church” has never consistently taught limbo - not that there is such a place, not anything about it.
And hoping and trusting in God’s mercy is the opposite of overriding his will. It is the position most consistent with all of the three chief virtues of faith, hope and love.
Keep telling yourself that.
When we speak of Hope—it is within the realm of revealed Truth—that would consistent.
Inconsistency–is adding to revealed Truth–because It was God’s will not to tell us.
L
LilyM
Guest
And you keep telling yourself that it’s merciful for God to give unbaptised babies no chance or choice or hope of baptism by desire.
Keep telling yourself that.
When we speak of Hope—it is within the realm of revealed Truth—that would consistent.
Inconsistency–is adding to revealed Truth–because It was God’s will not to tell us.
How is the catechism, which allows us to hope for heaven for the unbaptised, not revealed Truth???
W
Walking_Home
Guest
And you keep telling yourself that it’s merciful for God to give unbaptised babies no chance or choice or hope of baptism by desire.
How is the catechism, which allows us to hope for heaven for the unbaptised, not revealed Truth???
It is His will for us not to know----not mine. I will not test Him.
As to the catechism—if taken within the context of limbo—the hope is that the infants to do end up in the Hell fires of the damned. Limbo does reference that section of the catechism.
M
MTD
Guest
No, it is a rational premise. We all know infants are incapable of mortal sin. It’s common sense.The problem here lies firstly in the premise that infants are without sufficient use of reason for baptism of desire - that is speculation pure and simple, not a rational premise.
But if an infant has the power to make an act that gains him heaven, he has the power to make an act that gains him hell (i.e., the power to commit a mortal sin). He cannot have the one power while lacking the other; such would be a contradiction.
Oh, so you think it would also be entirely inconsistent with the known nature of God for Him to have decided against the Redemption? In other words, it was impossible for Him to refuse the Redemption–He owed it to us because of His very nature?Whereas the very idea of a God who damns children either to hell or to limbo through no fault and no choice of their own seems entirely inconsistent with the known nature of God - every bit as inconsistent as a God who saves people through no merit and no choice of their own.
Cajetan proposed that opinion in his commentary on Aquinas’s Summa and it was struck out by the pope! It is a condemned doctrine.The second problem is that it has never been definitively stated that a person cannot be baptised by the desire of another - at least not that I’ve ever seen anywhere.
So you basically think it would have been unmerciful of God to not have redeemed us?It may be ever so just, and ever so much within God’s rights, but it’s certainly the opposite of merciful for God to damn a child who is too young to have a choice or say in the matter eternally to a suburb of hell - purely because of what their parents may have failed to do or been literally unable to do.
Maria
F
FTS
Guest
Your revealed premise is not de fide. As I’ve explained, there is no specific teaching that tells us whether or not the baptism of desire could extend to infants. It is theological speculation. You don’t think it can apparently, and I do think it can. We are free to disagree.Revealed premise: Those without the use of reason are incapable of Baptism of Desire.
Rational premise: Infants are without the use of reason.
Conclusion: Infants are incapable of Baptism of Desire.
Yes, limbo is not de fide doctrine, nor is it even certain doctrine. But the underlying doctrines are. So if you want to deny limbo, you must say the infants go to the hell of the damned because it is certain they do not go to heaven. The choice is between limbo and hell, not heaven and limbo/hell.
Maria
Your analysis is in stark opposition to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the beliefs of our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI. The choice is not merely Limbo vs. Hell, but it is Heaven vs. Limbo vs. Hell. The Catechism clearly states we can hope for their salvation! This is a no-brainer. Your opinion affirming Limbo is valid and acceptable, as is mine affirming Heaven for these infants.
F
FTS
Guest
You can have it both ways, because God can do all things and He is not bound by the sacraments. While water baptism is the ordinary means by which we are cleansed of Original Sin, God knows our circumstances and He can, through extraordinary means, impart grace to us by baptism of blood or desire, and in this way cleanse us of Original Sin. Likewise, sin can be forgiven by extraordinary means, through perfect contrition. It is acceptable belief that God could supernaturally allow these infants to be baptised by desire, by any of the three methods I have talked about.We can’t have it both ways. Either babies have the use of reason, and therefore can have baptism of desire, or they don’t, and when we baptize them, they are safe from the effects of sin until they reach the age of reason, which (by long-standing custom) we figure is about age seven or so, which is when we start sending them to Confession and giving them Holy Communion.
Both this and the concept of Limbo are what make the most sense to me. As others in this thread keep pointing out, there is nothing in the deposit of Revelation to help us out here, and Maria is just as likely to be right as you are.
You state that either Limbo or the 1st Theory regarding baptism of desire for infants are most plausible to you. And this is acceptable opinion. Personally, I recognize Limbo could be true but do not believe it is. I don’t know which theory is correct, but I believe these infants are baptised by desire, or at least given the opportunity to be, from one of those three theories.
F
FTS
Guest
Yes, there is no revelation from God on the matter, but obviously SOMETHING happens to them. They either go to Hell, Limbo, or to Heaven, and nobody can say with CERTAINTY that any of those specific destinations are true. It is theological speculation. In comparison, there is a creationism/theistic evolution debate among people. God hasn’t revealed this knowledge to us, and we are free to hold differing opinions. Not all knowledge is revealed to us, for some subjects only God knows, and we can only speculate.
I never saw limbo as hopelessness. It does reconcile revealed Truth and God mercy. To err on the side of believing the unbaptized do attain heaven—well that is going against what God Himself willed for us to know.
F
FTS
Guest
And you would be equally in error to guarantee with certainty that these infants go to Limbo, as you would be in guaranteeing with certainty that they go to Heaven. We do not know for sure, and we may have our personal beliefs on the subject.
It was God’s will and choice to reveal to us what He wanted. I am not about to bend His will to mine and to test His mercy.
F
FTS
Guest
When a person speculates about Limbo, yes you can claim that Limbo has perfect natural happiness. But as LilyM points out, to be deprived of the presence of God is to be deprived of real and authentic happines. You may believe in Limbo, but being in Heaven, being face-to-face with God, and enjoying yourself with all of the saints and angels, your many family and friends, cannot even be mentioned in the same sentence with Limbo, where this is not present. I believe God gives all of His people the opportunity to be with Him in Heaven forever, because He is perfectly just, merciful, and loving.
Well LilyM—It is the Church who taught on the happiness in limbo.
What it comes down to is----God did not want us to know what happens----It is His will. I am not going to over-ride His will or test His mercy. I will not do it —to make me feel better.
F
FTS
Guest
It really is not hard to understand. As the Catechism tells us, it is acceptable to hope and believe that these infants can achieve salvation. There are no inconsistencies. Because we don’t know with certainty doesn’t mean we cannot have our personal beliefs on the matter! According to your logic I should tell you to stop purporting belief in Limbo, simply because we don’t know with certainty that it is true. We are free to have our personal opinions on this situation.
Keep telling yourself that.
When we speak of Hope—it is within the realm of revealed Truth—that would consistent.
Inconsistency–is adding to revealed Truth–because It was God’s will not to tell us.
F
FTS
Guest
This is completely false. The Catechism says that we can hope for their salvation, that they will enter Heaven. It isn’t merely saying we can hope they go to Limbo, it states we can hope they go to Heaven. Need I remind you that Pope Benedict XVI personally does not believe in Limbo?
It is His will for us not to know----not mine. I will not test Him.
As to the catechism—if taken within the context of limbo—the hope is that the infants to do end up in the Hell fires of the damned. Limbo does reference that section of the catechism.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
1261-“As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as 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.”
L
LilyM
Guest
YES!!! I will never believe in salvation en masse OR damnation en masse (not even to limbo) for unbaptised children. I believe it most reasonable and most consistent (and most in line with God’s expressed wishes and hopes and plans for the human race) that he DOES give infants - and for that matter all unbaptised people - the chance to save or damn THEMSELVES - and there are any number of means by which this can happen!No, it is a rational premise. We all know infants are incapable of mortal sin. It’s common sense.
But if an infant has the power to make an act that gains him heaven, he has the power to make an act that gains him hell (i.e., the power to commit a mortal sin). He cannot have the one power while lacking the other; such would be a contradiction.
I do believe that God’s plan as revealed to us does NOT include anyone being sent to hell for circumstances that are totally beyond their control and knowledge.
I think it totally contrary to God’s revealed character, motives, past actions and everything else that I know of him that he would give some of us a chance at obtaining heaven and others no chance at all. Of course it is within his rights and powers, certainly, and may be his choice, and the right choice, for reasons I don’t comprehend. But it certainly doesn’t fit within the normal definition of merciful.So you basically think it would have been unmerciful of God to not have redeemed us?
Maria
- Status
- Not open for further replies.