What happened to Limbo?

[Will_S]

And this is a dictum of the Church, yes? This is something the Church requires for baptism, that one be physically born?

The requirement is that water must be poured on the body (preferably the head) of the person to be baptized. If any part of the child is available, the child can be baptized. In the past, midwives were taught to do an emergency baptism of infants in a breech situation by immediately baptizing whatever part of the body presented itself first at birth. (Obviously the appearance of some part other than the head is what tipped the midwife off to the breech situation in the first place back then). If the child was then born living, a conditional baptism was done after the birth (in the church if they child was healthy) by pouring water on the head.

But infants are baptized before they have the Catholic faith and the desire for baptism. By your logic, wouldn’t being below the age of reason make them ineligible for baptism, if faith and desire are both required for the Sacrament?

Faith and desire are required for the baptism of desire, not for the sacrament of baptism.

My parish requires parents to bring a copy of the child’s birth certificate to the class. Could you tell me how I could bring a copy to of my child’s birth certificate prior to his/her birth?

It is not unheard of that parishes make unreasonable and illicit demands. While I do not assert that doing such a thing is contrary to canon law, which states:

“Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.”

It is certainly contrary to the spirit of the law, that infants should be baptized as soon as possible.

And you believe that is the action of a just God, to punish an innocent party for something that is through no fault of its own? Or to punish the parents for doing what their parish asks of them?

Parents would be punished for willful neglect. If they are following the requirements of the parish then they could not be accused of willful neglect. But whoever instituted the requirements of the parish might well be.

Well, my parish does, and I’d like to see the citation in canon law that says it is illicit to do so.

Discussed above. Incidentally, the 1917 Code of Canon Law says simply “Infants shall be baptized as soon as possible.” The current code is pretty much the same, but adds the request for “preparation”. For which there is certainly no need to wait until after the birth. The requirement to produce a birth certificate is certainly extraneous to the requirements of canon law and seems ridiculous on its face.

 

[Will_S]

This is what is printed in every copy of our parish bulletin:

“To have your child baptized at [Parish] you need to be a registered, participating parishioner of [Parish] for a minimum of three months, complete a Baptism inquiry form with the help of our Baptism Coordinator and register for a Baptism Preparation Session.

And mine says:

Baptism: Contact the parish at least six weeks before the birth of your child

 

[wanner47]

The requirement is that water must be poured on the body (preferably the head) of the person to be baptized.

And this is a requirement* of the Church*, correct?

Faith and desire are required for the baptism of desire, not for the sacrament of baptism.

So the requirements for the *extraordinary *means of salvation are not the same as the requirements for the *ordinary *means of salvation?

By the way, regarding our earlier conversation, the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

While the opinion, then, that unbaptized infants may enjoy a natural knowledge and love of God and rejoice in it, is perfectly tenable, it has not the certainty that would arise from a unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church, or from a favorable pronouncement of ecclesiastical authority.

It is not unheard of that parishes make unreasonable and illicit demands. While I do not assert that doing such a thing is contrary to canon law, which states:

“Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.”

It is certainly contrary to the spirit of the law, that infants should be baptized as soon as possible.

Why, then, does Catholic teaching not say, “All children must be baptized within X days after birth” or something similar?

If they are following the requirements of the parish then they could not be accused of willful neglect. But whoever instituted the requirements of the parish might well be.

Even though the parish administrator was following the letter of the law?

Discussed above. Incidentally, the 1917 Code of Canon Law says simply “Infants shall be baptized as soon as possible.” The current code is pretty much the same, but adds the request for “preparation”. For which there is certainly no need to wait until after the birth. The requirement to produce a birth certificate is certainly extraneous to the requirements of canon law and seems ridiculous on its face.

For the record, I agree with you on this and intend to have the baby I’m currently carrying baptized as soon as possible. We did wait to get the birth certificate with my last baby, so she was baptized at six weeks, but I’d prefer to do it even sooner. The only reason we waited as long as we did with my last baby is that my sister and brother-in-law, who live 1800 miles away, were her godparents and that was the only time they could fly in for the baptism. This time we are choosing godparents that are local residents.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no emotional attachment in the Catechism which states “the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude” but also "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but* he himself is not bound by his sacraments***

God chooses whether or not to use other channels of grace in accordance with His infinite love and mercy. It is not for us to lay down rules for our Creator…

 

[sojo]

Given that the Church has never authoritatively taught the existence of an “extraordinary means of salvation” for unbaptized infants and has authoritatively (though not infallibly) taught that unbaptized infants are deprived of Heaven, I don’t see any grounds for expecting the salvation of unbaptized infants.

Am I the only one feeling shocked and sickened by Will’s posts? I ask all of you to join me in praying for him - he has some serious issues. He seems to “know” all sorts of scripture and legalities but seems to have experienced none of God’s love and mercy. To put it bluntly, I see no God in him at all, and with his attitude, he is at risk of turning more people away from God’s saving love than any atheist I know.

I’m sorry to be so blunt, but I was away from this thread for a bit, and I’m positively sickened by seeing his posts since I last posted. He makes the Pharisees look like so much fluff. Yikes!

Will, I hope you are just a troll trying to stir stuff up and don’t really believe the garbage you are spouting about our merciful Lord and Savior and Holy mother church.

 

[alongexpected]

Anyone who would prefer such a thing deserves to spend eternity in hell.

Perhaps you do. What you’ve said is actually sickening.

Let’s say we flash back to before you were born and some slight thing changed and you ended up being miscarried. Then you went to limbo, or hell, or any place without god and your parents. Would you still be touting "well, this is perfectly justified! I deserve to be here, because some random thing that was beyond Anyones control got screwed up and god, in its infinite wisdom sentenced me to a torturous eternity because of it!

If you say yes, then your ill-logic and non-thinking is very warped and delusional indeed.

If you recant, then congratulations, because you’ve taken the first step towards rationality.

 

[alongexpected]

I am on your side Will. I agree with everything that you have said so far.

I will also say one more time: Will, I support what you are saying.

No!!!

Of all the sick and crazy things I’ve read and heard from the ultra religious, this ranks up there with most things out of pat Robertsons mouth.

Alright then. What I want you guys to do is put your money where your mouth is and next time a sister, aunt, niece, friend, or whoever of yours miscarries a baby, or one dies before its baptized, console her with your belief that the baby is probably in hell (or limbo, or some place where they’ll never see it). Hopefully they’ll then know what coldhearted, dogmatic bastards you are.

 

[alongexpected]

Am I the only one feeling shocked and sickened by Will’s posts? I ask all of you to join me in praying for him - he has some serious issues. He seems to “know” all sorts of scripture and legalities but seems to have experienced none of God’s love and mercy. To put it bluntly, I see no God in him at all, and with his attitude, he is at risk of turning more people away from God’s saving love than any atheist I know.

I’m sorry to be so blunt, but I was away from this thread for a bit, and I’m positively sickened by seeing his posts since I last posted. He makes the Pharisees look like so much fluff. Yikes!

Will, I hope you are just a troll trying to stir stuff up and don’t really believe the garbage you are spouting about our merciful Lord and Savior and Holy mother church.

Thank you sojo. Im an atheist myself but you said it right. And yes, you never know for sure if it’s trolling or not. Let’s hope it is.

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you sojo. Im an atheist myself but you said it right. And yes, you never know for sure if it’s trolling or not. Let’s hope it is.

I have pointed out that putting the letter before the spirit of the law as the Pharisees did brings Christianity into disrepute and inflicts unnecessary suffering on parents who have already had to endure the grief of losing their children. My wife had a stillborn baby girl whose innocent, beautiful face convinced me she is in the presence of God rather than in eternal darkness, let alone condemned to everlasting agony…

 

[tonyrey]

No!!!

Of all the sick and crazy things I’ve read and heard from the ultra religious, this ranks up there with most things out of pat Robertsons mouth.

Alright then. What I want you guys to do is put your money where your mouth is and next time a sister, aunt, niece, friend, or whoever of yours miscarries a baby, or one dies before its baptized, console her with your belief that the baby is probably in hell (or limbo, or some place where they’ll never see it). Hopefully they’ll then know what coldhearted, dogmatic bastards you are.

You’re identifying all Catholics with some one who is probably not even a Catholic but certainly ignorant of the meaning of Christ’s love for us on the Cross…

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you sojo. Im an atheist myself but you said it right. And yes, you never know for sure if it’s trolling or not. Let’s hope it is.

It is encouraging to know that although you’re an atheist you believe in injustice!

 

[TomD123]

I have to say that what Will has been saying is not incorrect. Sure you may disagree with him, but what he says is actually in accordance with the CC teachings. Since no one has a right to supernatural happiness, if God chooses not to give some supernatural happiness, this is his decision and it is justified no matter what. We do know that the ordinary means for salvation is baptism, what we do not know is if God chooses to extend his mercy to those who die without it. We do not know for sure, almost all people in the past thought that unbaptized whent to Limbo, this is what Aquinas taught, and you can do a lot worse than agree with him. That being said, I would disagree with Will because I do think that the unbaptized infants are saved, but of course I am not sure of it.

 

[Will_S]

Am I the only one feeling shocked and sickened by Will’s posts? I ask all of you to join me in praying for him - he has some serious issues. He seems to “know” all sorts of scripture and legalities but seems to have experienced none of God’s love and mercy. To put it bluntly, I see no God in him at all, and with his attitude, he is at risk of turning more people away from God’s saving love than any atheist I know.

I’m sorry to be so blunt, but I was away from this thread for a bit, and I’m positively sickened by seeing his posts since I last posted. He makes the Pharisees look like so much fluff. Yikes!

Will, I hope you are just a troll trying to stir stuff up and don’t really believe the garbage you are spouting about our merciful Lord and Savior and Holy mother church.

I’m telling you what the Church teaches. It seems that you don’t like the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

 

[Will_S]

Let’s say we flash back to before you were born and some slight thing changed and you ended up being miscarried. Then you went to limbo, or hell, or any place without god and your parents. Would you still be touting "well, this is perfectly justified! I deserve to be here, because some random thing that was beyond Anyones control got screwed up and god, in its infinite wisdom sentenced me to a torturous eternity because of it!

I sure would. Who am I to question God?

If you say yes, then your ill-logic and non-thinking is very warped and delusional indeed.
If you recant, then congratulations, because you’ve taken the first step towards rationality.

Everything I have said is perfectly logical. What’s more it is the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

 

[Will_S]

Alright then. What I want you guys to do is put your money where your mouth is and next time a sister, aunt, niece, friend, or whoever of yours miscarries a baby, or one dies before its baptized, console her with your belief that the baby is probably in hell (or limbo, or some place where they’ll never see it). Hopefully they’ll then know what coldhearted, dogmatic bastards you are.

So lying to people is a work of charity now?

And you should not assume that you know what has or has not happened in my life.

 

[Will_S]

You’re identifying all Catholics with some one who is probably not even a Catholic but certainly ignorant of the meaning of Christ’s love for us on the Cross…

Not only am I Catholic, I am also not ignorant of the doctrine of the Church.

Actually, you’re not ignorant of the doctrine of the Church either Tony. At least, not anymore. The only difference is that you reject the teaching of the Church on unbaptized infants. I don’t.

 

[TedDC]

I sure would. Who am I to question God?

News flash: it wasn’t God talking. It was men - unless of course you can prove otherwise.

 

[wanner47]

News flash: it wasn’t God talking. It was men - unless of course you can prove otherwise.

Actually, the Church can and has. Jesus founded that Church, after all.

 

[TedDC]

Actually, the Church can and has. Jesus founded that Church, after all.

According to words written by men, and interpreted by the very same men who claim that the words give them the authority of God.

 

[wanner47]

According to words written by men, and interpreted by the very same men who claim that the words give them the authority of God.

You are an atheist, then?