The need for Baptism in the Modern Church

[Lithophyte]

I’m finally ready for answers to help with the internal conflicts I have, and I am coming here because I do not want to sound like a cymbal clashing in the desert dissuading people from becoming Catholic. I am not exactly the poster child of the modern loving God concept with rainbows, and butterflies. I am more the blood, suffering, and sacrifice type. Yesterday I was listening to Teresa Tameo on Ave Maria radio and she was interviewing a new full time member of Priests for Life, Fr.Stephen Imbarrato, and one comment he said aggravates me to no end. He said without any qualms that he had two children in heaven, the result of an abortion. As I priest I would expect better of him and would expect the modern version of saying “hope they are in heaven”. Yet this brings me to the core of my problem. My upbringing which was primarily informed by a more classical expression of church teachings makes me feel alien in the modern church and I want to know what is true.

This comment triggered my ingrained response - God has only revealed three forms of baptism: water, blood and desire, none of which of the requirements were fulfilled by the aborted child. Last time I checked Original sin is a real sin that needs to be removed by baptism. Those children are not innocent but guilty of sin and they have no life in them. The hope I was taught was that they went to limbo, a hell without the inflicted suffering but sadly they may be in actual full blown hell according to different Church Fathers. - This ingrained response make me want to say to this priest: “1950 years of church history has supported the idea your child is in hell and some of our greatest thinkers. How arrogant are you? This should be all them more reason why the catholic church should focus on stopping this atrocity. Its satan’s dream come true.”

Now I know the modern church has come out with limbo was never a teaching of the church and that we can all hope they are in heaven. So this is my first question that I hope can be answered. Does anyone have any church documents before 1960 that support the idea of Hope for infants dying without baptism? Because I do not know of any and would like to see this as a continuation of teaching that I am ignorant of.

My second question is: Am I the only one that see this as a falling away of the central importance of baptism and the implication it has for original sin? Today it seems the church is like well its important, but not really important (hand waving dismissively) because everyone who is good loves god and ultimately desires god. I feel like screaming : “BS these are reals souls we have to worry about. Wake up church, stop your stupid ecumenical lets agree that there is no difference and help people come to the true God in the true church and tell them why they are wrong. Also do you not know many of the doctrines that are declared requires there to be original sin and its effect or even Jesus was for naught.”

lf nothing else thanks for listening to my rants.

 

[Micosil]

I can’t answer your specific question about unbaptized aborted babies, but here’s some food for thought, from Pope Pius IX, in an 1863 encyclical letter to the bishops of Italy.

Well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff. …] There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.

 

[dans0622]

…
This comment triggered my ingrained response - God has only revealed three forms of baptism: water, blood and desire, none of which of the requirements were fulfilled by the aborted child. Last time I checked Original sin is a real sin that needs to be removed by baptism. Those children are not innocent but guilty of sin and they have no life in them. The hope I was taught was that they went to limbo, a hell without the inflicted suffering but sadly they may be in actual full blown hell according to different Church Fathers. - This ingrained response make me want to say to this priest: “1950 years of church history has supported the idea your child is in hell and some of our greatest thinkers. How arrogant are you? This should be all them more reason why the catholic church should focus on stopping this atrocity. Its satan’s dream come true.”

…
My second question is: Am I the only one that see this as a falling away of the central importance of baptism and the implication it has for original sin? Today it seems the church is like well its important, but not really important (hand waving dismissively) because everyone who is good loves god and ultimately desires god. I feel like screaming : “BS these are reals souls we have to worry about. Wake up church, stop your stupid ecumenical lets agree that there is no difference and help people come to the true God in the true church and tell them why they are wrong. Also do you not know many of the doctrines that are declared requires there to be original sin and its effect or even Jesus was for naught.” …

Hello,

First, why do you say that “God revealed” the three kinds of baptism? I think the only kind of baptism that was revealed is “of water.” ?

Second, the “traditional” understanding of what happens to unbaptized infants is a bit more complicated and variable than what you present here. The old Catholic encyclopedia is a good reference: newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

See especially the section titled “Post Augustinian Teaching.”

Third, I don’t think you are the only one and a religious indifferentism is certainly to be condemned and avoided.

Dan

 

[Lithophyte]

I like new advent too but apologize that I do not see what you mean. I apologize if I was not clear, since it agrees with what I said, Limbo for infants is a part of hell where you are denied the beatific vision (the pain of Loss) but you do not suffer the inflicted spiritual pains of hell. It could be “happy” but it is still hell. Yet what I would like to stress there was disagreements of there suffering during that time not if they were in heaven.

As for the three types of baptism you can read in new advent as well but is supported by tradition and scripture:

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Section:
Substitutes for the sacrament

“The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.”

You can read more there.

The next point after that is exactly why I say I am more traditional:

"The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull “Lætentur Caeli” of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed. "

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’m finally ready for answers to help with the internal conflicts I have, and I am coming here because I do not want to sound like a cymbal clashing in the desert dissuading people from becoming Catholic. I am not exactly the poster child of the modern loving God concept with rainbows, and butterflies. I am more the blood, suffering, and sacrifice type. Yesterday I was listening to Teresa Tameo on Ave Maria radio and she was interviewing a new full time member of Priests for Life, Fr.Stephen Imbarrato, and one comment he said aggravates me to no end. He said without any qualms that he had two children in heaven, the result of an abortion. As I priest I would expect better of him and would expect the modern version of saying “hope they are in heaven”. Yet this brings me to the core of my problem. My upbringing which was primarily informed by a more classical expression of church teachings makes me feel alien in the modern church and I want to know what is true.

This comment triggered my ingrained response - God has only revealed three forms of baptism: water, blood and desire, none of which of the requirements were fulfilled by the aborted child. Last time I checked Original sin is a real sin that needs to be removed by baptism. Those children are not innocent but guilty of sin and they have no life in them. The hope I was taught was that they went to limbo, a hell without the inflicted suffering but sadly they may be in actual full blown hell according to different Church Fathers. - This ingrained response make me want to say to this priest: “1950 years of church history has supported the idea your child is in hell and some of our greatest thinkers. How arrogant are you? This should be all them more reason why the catholic church should focus on stopping this atrocity. Its satan’s dream come true.”

Now I know the modern church has come out with limbo was never a teaching of the church and that we can all hope they are in heaven. So this is my first question that I hope can be answered. Does anyone have any church documents before 1960 that support the idea of Hope for infants dying without baptism? Because I do not know of any and would like to see this as a continuation of teaching that I am ignorant of.

My second question is: Am I the only one that see this as a falling away of the central importance of baptism and the implication it has for original sin? Today it seems the church is like well its important, but not really important (hand waving dismissively) because everyone who is good loves god and ultimately desires god. I feel like screaming : “BS these are reals souls we have to worry about. Wake up church, stop your stupid ecumenical lets agree that there is no difference and help people come to the true God in the true church and tell them why they are wrong. Also do you not know many of the doctrines that are declared requires there to be original sin and its effect or even Jesus was for naught.”

lf nothing else thanks for listening to my rants.

I understand your concern. I have shared it in the past.

I will offer you this. Limbo is a theological position that one may hold still. It has never been an official “teaching” of the faith but indeed it is a viable theory that satisfies your baptism question. I personally lean toward it. I think baptism needs to be refocused on as does the concepts of original sin. Especially in regard to human life at all stages.
To me, Limbo is a logical explanation and one that has been used and believed for centuries. I don’t know HOW God handles these situations, nor do I think it is important other than we need to have an urgency to baptize that seems to be lacking in this world. I think Pope Francis is moving to that end, he has stated in the past that he would like the process for baptism to be smoother and more attainable for all.

 

[dans0622]

I like new advent too but apologize that I do not see what you mean. I apologize if I was not clear, since it agrees with what I said, Limbo for infants is a part of hell where you are denied the beatific vision (the pain of Loss) but you do not suffer the inflicted spiritual pains of hell. It could be “happy” but it is still hell. Yet what I would like to stress there was disagreements of there suffering during that time not if they were in heaven.

As for the three types of baptism you can read in new advent as well but is supported by tradition and scripture…

Hello,

Certainly, the three types are supported by Scripture and tradition but I would still not say that all three are revealed by God. Anyway, that’s not the main point.

My earlier comments were mostly in response to your use of the word “guilt” and saying that limbo is part of hell. Unbaptized infants are guilty of nothing and not everyone described limbo in a way similar to hell.

Dan