What is so objectionable about Limbo?

[MarkThompson]

Ok, you are laboring under the delusion that magisterial teaching is subject to interpretation IT IS NOT.

Dogma is not subject to interpretation because when the church TEACHES it teaches CLEARLY and not vaguely (at least it used to).

I know it must frustrate you not to have all the clear answers you want, but your approach here cannot stand. Pretty much everything needs to be interpreted. Take what seems like a crystal-clear, cut-and-dried commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” Well, does it mean what it says? Can I kill an animal? (Yes.) Can I kill someone in self-defense? (Yes.) Can I kill a fetus? (No.) Can I kill a tumor? (Yes.) Is withholding things necessary for life the same as actively depriving someone of life? (Usually.)

So “Thou shalt not kill” isn’t really that easy after all, since there are plenty of things and circumstances when it’s okay to kill. It’s open to interpretation. When the Church gives us binding interpretations (which on questions of life and death they usually do) then the issue is settled – but complicated topics, obviously, are not exhausted by some convenient four-word catchphrase: “Thou shalt not kill,” say, or “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.” And when the Church doesn’t give us binding interpretations, then there is some play in the joints for theologians and philosophers to write about. Did Thomas Aquinas just regurgitate “magisterial” statements ad infinitum as you are doing?

I can’t imagine what could possibly cause you to think that dogmas are incapable of being interpreted. My only guess would be that you personally disagree with the interpretations offered and are trying to find a way to delegitimize them without having to confront them head-on, but failing that, your position is most puzzling.

 

[Gregory_I]

NO, NO, NO, Dogmas are not subject to RE-interpretation. OF course they can be presented Differently, so long as that presentation is faithful to the CLEAR MEANING of the DOgma.

Okus, Dogmas work in the real world, and thus must be applicable to it. THerefore, they must mean what they say. THe Church does not teach vaguely.

Please allow me to quote the First Vatican Council:

"Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra:

“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding."

And the example you gave is one of teaching authority and the way the church develops doctrine.

Doctrine Can develop. But it develops into Dogma. Dogma is the full and mature crystallized vision of a particular issue of faith. It has to be: Because dogmas are by their nature irreformable.

Does that make sense?

Tommy, you are welcome back anytime. You keep me on my toes, so I don’t get sloppy. But you continuously ignore what I say, but that’s ok…

 

[santodomingo]

Ok, you are laboring under the delusion that magisterial teaching is subject to interpretation IT IS NOT.

Dogma is not subject to interpretation because when the church TEACHES it teaches CLEARLY and not vaguely (at least it used to).

Do to the fact that the magisterial teachings I have shown you are part of the Church’s constant teaching, I would say you should be bound to accept it.

But you say you are not. IN all but words.

SO I guess I gotsta ask you: DOes the church teach clearly when it teaches, or is its teaching set forth in magisterial documents subject to reinterpretation ad infinitum?

According to your way of thinking, we can never ultimately know WHAT the church teaches because you keep appealing to some authority within the church to interpret what the church has TAUGHT.

But that is Non-sensical becausze MAGISTERIAL teaching is TEACHING. It is meant for you to absorb*** as it is presented.*** That ***IS ***THE Interpretation of previously unclear teaching!

If someone asked you if you learned anything in a math class, would you say “It depends on how you interpret what was taught.”

THat is just silly. THere is only ONE way to acknowledge church teaching: AS IT IS PRESENTED.

Do you understand the principles of teaching and learning? YOu are taught, and you leanrn what you are taught AS YOU ARE TAUGHT IT.

It’s not my interpretation, it is the First Vatican Council’s, feel free to look it up.

Gregory, I admire your tenacity. But I have to tell you that it´s quite useless trying to convince modernists of anything. They ALWAYS find some kind of loohole. Everything to them is subject to interpretation (their own of course). No matter how clearly magisterial documents say X or Y, they will always dispute them.

If I were you, I´d just call it a day. You did well, though!

 

[ronin67]

Why do so many object to limbo? It has been called the “common teaching of the church” in the recent document on the Fate of unbaptized children, and it places them in a place of natural happiness.

I contend that they may be saved, but it will be in the ressurection.

According to "Limbo " in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Some writers, like Savonarola (De triumpho crucis, III, 9) and Catharinus (De statu parvulorum sine bapt. decedentium), added certain details to the current teaching—for example that the souls of unbaptized children will be united to glorious bodies at the Resurrection, and that the renovated earth of which St. Peter speaks (II Pet., iii, 13) will be their happy dwelling-place for eternity.”

I simply stand on these writers and say that God would offer his grace to these children, and since they would be in glorified bodies, they would respond positively, and be admitted to the heavenly jerusalem.

How about it? THis IS Theological speculation, but the basic tenets are built on incotrovertible Catholic dogma. As the Document on the Fate of Unbaptized children states:

“A theological reading of the history of Catholic teaching up to Vatican II shows in particular that three main affirmations which belong to the faith of the Church appear at the core of the problem of the fate of unbaptised infants. (i) God wants all human beings to be saved. (ii) This salvation is given only through participation in Christ’s paschal mystery, that is, through Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, either sacramental or in some other way. Human beings, including infants, cannot be saved apart from the grace of Christ poured out by the Holy Spirit. (iii) Infants ***will not ***enter the Kingdom of God without being freed from original sin by redemptive grace.”

For those who think I am overly old fashioned, this document was written only a few years ago.

Does the position outlined above reasonably solve the problem?

ONe other point I just considered: THe Virtuous pagans could go to limbo as well, since their own visions of the afterlife seem to correspond with the descriptions of limbo:

Perhaps , Just as Christ descended to the Limbo of Fathers and led the dead into heaven, Perhaps in the Ressurection he will descend to the Limbo of the unbaptized, or at least lead those in there out and into heaven: THey will be converted, experience sanctifying grace in the same way as the patriarchs, and be with God.

And everyone is Happy, those who want salvation for the unbaptized, THose who believe in limbo, and the justice that seems to be demanded for the virtuous pagan.

HOw about it?

 

[StTommyMore]

Gregory, I admire your tenacity. But I have to tell you that it´s quite useless trying to convince modernists of anything. They ALWAYS find some kind of loohole. Everything to them is subject to interpretation (their own of course). No matter how clearly magisterial documents say X or Y, they will always dispute them.

If I were you, I´d just call it a day. You did well, though!

I am NOT a modernist, thank you very much. Please cease and desist from calling someone who does not hold to Gregory’s incorrect interpretations of Magisterial documents as a “modernist.” I back my positions with the Catechism, which is to be our guide in understanding the teachings of the Church.

 

[Gregory_I]

I Back my position with 1962 years of Catholic thought From the Ordinary Magisterium of Papal Encyclicals, TO Letters Promulgated by Ecumenical Councils, From Apostolic COnstitutions, From the DOgmas of Ecumenical Councils, and from the Writings of the Church’s approved theologians, saints, and doctors:

Guess what:

Unbaptized Children do not receive eternal life. TO believe thus is the heresy of Pelagianism. Go ahead and look it up.

While I admire your fidelity to the CCC, the weight of the catechism lies in the sources it references, as Cardinal Ratzinger, the HEAD OF THE COMMITEE WHICH COMPOSED THE CATECHISM has said.

The documents receive no greater weight than that which they already posses as magisterial documents. THey do not get a magisterial “Boost” bu being part of a catechim.

Our immediate source of doctrine is in the magisterial documents themselves. THat’s theology. You can look it up yourself.

Your attitude of refusing to acknowledge the constant teaching of the Church is typical of modernists, even if you don’t intend to be one I am afraid. You fail to take the magisterium seriously if you limit it to only one period of time. THe church is not like that: She ijs the pillar of the truth, what was true once is true always, in all times, and all places.

If the CCC Just presented tradition differently (Debatable) YOu should have no problem admitting this.

 

[StTommyMore]

You have placed God in a box. You have placed limits on the way He may save individuals. I have never denied that the normative case of salvation requires Baptism, which is what you have consistently falsely claimed about me on multiple threads. I have simply said, that in certain cases, God is able to save who he wishes outside of the normal means of Salvation. This is the authentic teaching of the Church. To say otherwise would imply that we earn salvation by way of the Sacraments, which is absolutely not the case. To say such objectifies grace, making seem as something we “gain” and “lose.” Grace is much more than that. Grace is God’s self-revealing love, which he pours out on all men. It is what makes good works even possible. The Sacraments are means of grace (but not sources) that always work, But God is not limited to these seven modes of operation. I choose to believe, and rightly so, that if God chooses to bestow slavific grace without Baptism, it is well within his power to do so. What is impossible for God are not those things which are difficult, but those things which are against his nature. I would say that saving who He will is not against his nature, for salvation is an act of love, and God is love.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

You have placed God in a box. You have placed limits on the way He may save individuals. I have never denied that the normative case of salvation requires Baptism, which is what you have consistently falsely claimed about me on multiple threads. I have simply said, that in certain cases, God is able to save who he wishes outside of the normal means of Salvation. This is the authentic teaching of the Church. To say otherwise would imply that we earn salvation by way of the Sacraments, which is absolutely not the case. To say such objectifies grace, making seem as something we “gain” and “lose.” Grace is much more than that. Grace is God’s self-revealing love, which he pours out on all men. It is what makes good works even possible. The Sacraments are means of grace (but not sources) that always work, But God is not limited to these seven modes of operation. I choose to believe, and rightly so, that if God chooses to bestow slavific grace without Baptism, it is well within his power to do so. What is impossible for God are not those things which are difficult, but those things which are against his nature. I would say that saving who He will is not against his nature, for salvation is an act of love, and God is love.

I agree 100%!

 

[TMC]

I Back my position with 1962 years of Catholic thought From the Ordinary Magisterium of Papal Encyclicals, TO Letters Promulgated by Ecumenical Councils, From Apostolic COnstitutions, From the DOgmas of Ecumenical Councils, and from the Writings of the Church’s approved theologians, saints, and doctors:

Guess what:

Unbaptized Children do not receive eternal life. TO believe thus is the heresy of Pelagianism. Go ahead and look it up.

While I admire your fidelity to the CCC, the weight of the catechism lies in the sources it references, as Cardinal Ratzinger, the HEAD OF THE COMMITEE WHICH COMPOSED THE CATECHISM has said.

The documents receive no greater weight than that which they already posses as magisterial documents. THey do not get a magisterial “Boost” bu being part of a catechim.

Our immediate source of doctrine is in the magisterial documents themselves. THat’s theology. You can look it up yourself.

Your attitude of refusing to acknowledge the constant teaching of the Church is typical of modernists, even if you don’t intend to be one I am afraid. You fail to take the magisterium seriously if you limit it to only one period of time. THe church is not like that: She ijs the pillar of the truth, what was true once is true always, in all times, and all places.

If the CCC Just presented tradition differently (Debatable) YOu should have no problem admitting this.

You may have read lots of documents written by important theologians and past Popes and Saints, but you cannot deny that the Vicar of Christ and the Magisterium of the Church are those charged by God to faithfully say what the Church teaches. The Church does not teach that “unbaptized childred do not receive eternal life”. You can say you dissent from Church teaching on that point, but it is wrong to keep asserting that the Church teaches what it does not.

 

[santodomingo]

You may have read lots of documents written by important theologians and past Popes and Saints, but you cannot deny that the Vicar of Christ and the Magisterium of the Church are those charged by God to faithfully say what the Church teaches. The Church does not teach that “unbaptized childred do not receive eternal life”. You can say you dissent from Church teaching on that point, but it is wrong to keep asserting that the Church teaches what it does not.

Since you like the CCC, here´s a passage from St. Pius X´s Cathechism:

12 Q: Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?
A: There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptized because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.

13 Q: Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism, or who defer it?
A: Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it.

(The emphasis is mine.)

It seems pretty clear to me that the CCC **does **state that “unbaptized childred do not receive eternal life”. Unless, of course, you think that St. Pius X´s Catechism is no longer valid.

 

[santodomingo]

As I wrote earlier in this thread, the belief that unbaptised infants do not enter Heaven has nothing to do with belief in Baptism of Blood or of Desire. This is also patent in St. Pius X´s Catechism that I quoted above.

Just a few articles down from those quoted it says:

17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

So, to summarize, St. Pius X inequivocally teaches that unbaptised infants DO NOT enter the Kingdom of Heaven, despite also teaching in favour of the three baptisms: sacramental baptism, baptism of Blood and baptism of Desire.

Perhaps it´s just me, but I find this issue very clear. For me Gregory I has it right, the others have it wrong.

 

[TMC]

Since you like the CCC, here´s an exerpt from St. Pius X´s Cathechism:

12 Q: Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?
A: There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptized because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.

13 Q: Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism, or who defer it?
A: Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it.

(The emphasis is mine.)

It seems pretty clear to me that the CCC **does **state that “unbaptized childred do not receive eternal life”. Unless, of course, you think that St. Pius X´s Catechism is no longer valid.

All I can say is that it may be true that St. Pius X catechism contained those words, but the teaching of the Church is contained in the much fuller current catechism. Read in context, St. Pius X’s catechism is clearly explaining why baptism should be important to parents, the sections you quote are not intended to present the fullness of the Church’s teaching on salvation. Remember also that the Church’s teaching is that those that die without water baptism in their natural lifetimes may be saved by Christ through the grant of a Baptism of Desire, so even in the simplified form that it is presented, the teaching of St. Pius X is not actually inconsistent with that teaching.

I don’t claim that the older catechisms are no longer valid, and neither does the Church. Here is what the current Pope had to say (as a Cardinal) about the continuing validity of the St. Pius X catechism:

Q: Speaking of St. Pius X’s catechism, which continues to have sympathizers, will the publication of the compendium mean that it is definitively exceeded?

Cardinal Ratzinger: The faith, as such, is always the same. Therefore, St. Pius X’s catechism always retains its value. However, the way of transmitting the contents of the faith can change.

Consequently, one can ask if St. Pius X’s catechism can in this respect be regarded as still valid today. I think that the compendium we are preparing can respond better to today’s needs. But this does not exclude the fact that there can be persons or groups that feel more comfortable with St. Pius X’s catechism.

It should not be forgotten that that Catechism stemmed from a text that was prepared by the Pope himself [Pius X] when he was bishop of Mantua. The text was the fruit of the personal catechetical experience of Giuseppe Sarto, whose characteristics were simplicity of exposition and depth of content. Also because of this, St. Pius X’s catechism might have friends in the future. But this does not make our work superfluous.

 

[TMC]

As I wrote earlier in this thread, the belief that unbaptised infants do not enter Heaven has nothing to do with belief in Baptism of Blood or of Desire. This is also patent in St. Pius X´s Catechism that I quoted above.

Just a few articles down from those quoted it says:

17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.

So, to summarize, St. Pius X inequivocally teaches that unbaptised infants DO NOT enter the Kingdom of Heaven, despite also teaching in favour of the three baptisms: sacramental baptism, baptism of Blood and baptism of Desire.

Perhaps it´s just me, but I find this issue very clear. For me Gregory I has it right, the others have it wrong.

I guess it depends on what Gregory (or anyone) means by unbaptized. The Church teaches that an infant that dies without having received a valid baptism during his or her natural life can be saved. That salvation is described in two different ways, each of which may apply to unbaptized infants. First, the Church says that although the only way the Church knows to cleanse the soul of original sin is the Sacrament of Baptism, that sacrament is a gift God gave to the Church, but it is not a limit on God’s own power. God may choose to save anyone in anyway that He desires and determines fit, and we hope always in His Mercy. The Church also teaches that God may grant a Baptism of Desire to anyone that dies without having been baptized, but who would have sought and received baptism had the person known of its necessity and had an opportunity to receive it.

So I suppose there is a bit of a semantic argument going on here. The Church teaches that baptism is the only way we know for sure to be saved, but the Church always allows that God is omnipotent and all-merciful. The Church also teaches that the ordinary way to be baptised is through the receipt of the Sacrament during life, but that is not the only way to be baptized. So I guess the questions are, do you (or Gregory or anyone) believe the Baptism of Desire is available to otherwise unbaptized infants, and do you believe that God can act to save those that are not baptized?

 

[santodomingo]

So I guess the questions are, do you (or Gregory or anyone) believe the Baptism of Desire is available to otherwise unbaptized infants, and do you believe that God can act to save those that are not baptized?

TMC, this is the key to the issue. If you don´t want to believe literally what St. Pius X teaches in his Catechism, at least understand that a baby, born or unborn, has no way of desiring *anything *appart from warmth, affection, milk and other material comforts. How can you desire baptism if you have no capacity of knowing what it is?

Your question, “do you believe that God can act to save those that are not baptized?”, assumes a false premise; ie. that God can contradict Himself. You might as well ask the following questions:

• Could God allow The Catholic Church to totally sucumb to the forces of Evil? No, because He has given His word that it will never happen.
• Could God allow the jews to be completely exterminated before the End Times? No, because He has said that they will return Home at the End Times, and to return Home they must still exist.
• Could God allow the Pope to dogmatically define an error? No, because He has revealed to us that the Pope is protected from this kind of error by the Holy Spirit.

The Word of God says: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5.

As Gregory has proven with numerous magisterial documents, the Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted this to mean exactly the following: no unbaptised infant may enter Heaven.

I get the funny feeling we´re going round in circles, don´t you?

 

[StTommyMore]

TMC, this is the key to the issue. If you don´t want to believe literally what St. Pius X teaches in his Catechism, at least understand that a baby, born or unborn, has no way of desiring *anything *appart from warmth, affection, milk and other material comforts. How can you desire baptism if you have no capacity of knowing what it is?

Your question, “do you believe that God can act to save those that are not baptized?”, assumes a false premise; ie. that God can contradict Himself. You might as well ask the following questions:

• Could God allow The Catholic Church to totally sucumb to the forces of Evil? No, because He has given His word that it will never happen.
• Could God allow the jews to be completely exterminated before the End Times? No, because He has said that they will return Home at the End Times, and to return Home they must still exist.
• Could God allow the Pope to dogmatically define an error? No, because He has revealed to us that the Pope is protected from this kind of error by the Holy Spirit.

The Word of God says: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5.

As Gregory has proven with numerous magisterial documents, the Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted this to mean exactly the following: no unbaptised infant may enter Heaven.

I get the funny feeling we´re going round in circles, don´t you?

With all due respect, he has provided out of context snippets with no regard to the historical situation selected with his preexisting bias, coupled with disregard for the Catechism. Hardly an air-tight argument.

 

[TMC]

TMC, this is the key to the issue. If you don´t want to believe literally what St. Pius X teaches in his Catechism, at least understand that a baby, born or unborn, has no way of desiring *anything *appart from warmth, affection, milk and other material comforts. How can you desire baptism if you have no capacity of knowing what it is?

Do you deny that a new-born child has a human soul, infused with the same dignity that any grown person has? If not, then cannot an infant’s soul yearn to be connected with and loved by God?

Your question, “do you believe that God can act to save those that are not baptized?”, assumes a false premise; ie. that God can contradict Himself. You might as well ask the following questions:

• Could God allow The Catholic Church to totally sucumb to the forces of Evil? No, because He has given His word that it will never happen.

• Could God allow the jews to be completely exterminated before the End Times? No, because He has said that they will return Home at the End Times, and to return Home they must still exist.

• Could God allow the Pope to dogmatically define an error? No, because He has revealed to us that the Pope is protected from this kind of error by the Holy Spirit.

The Word of God says: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5.

As Gregory has proven with numerous magisterial documents, the Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted this to mean exactly the following: no unbaptised infant may enter Heaven.

I get the funny feeling we´re going round in circles, don´t you?

We are going around in circles, and I am no longer sure which side you are arguing. I say that the older catechism can be read to be consistent with the current catechism. You seem to disagree, but then you suggest that God would not allow the Pope to dogmatically define error. Which Pope are you referring to? Why would you presume that God would guard St. Pius X from error, but not guard all the bishops gathered in council from error and not guard Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI from error?

 

[santodomingo]

Do you deny that a new-born child has a human soul, infused with the same dignity that any grown person has? If not, then cannot an infant’s soul yearn to be connected with and loved by God?

I don´t deny a new-born baby has a human soul. I believe that the soul is infused into our bodies the moment we are conceived. Having said that, I´m not sure that the mere fact we have a soul necessarily means we can *desire * God. Do you have anything to back up this idea?

This alledged desire of God on the part of infants, I admit, is your best argument so far. And if it were not for the fact that traditionally it has generally been held that Baptism of Desire **cannot **be applied to infants, I would perhaps be swayed by it. If you were to provide some proof that Baptism of Desire has been traditionally applied to infants, that would impress me. But I very much doubt you can do such a thing.

We are going around in circles, and I am no longer sure which side you are arguing. I say that the older catechism can be read to be consistent with the current catechism. You seem to disagree, but then you suggest that God would not allow the Pope to dogmatically define error. Which Pope are you referring to? Why would you presume that God would guard St. Pius X from error, but not guard all the bishops gathered in council from error and not guard Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI from error?

Here you have fallen into one of the typical neo-catholic misunderstandings. I said that God cannot allow a Pope to dogmatically define an error, and I stand by that affirmation. The key word is “dogmatically”. You seem to think that every time the Pope opens his mouth he speaks the Truth, as revealed from Almighty God. This is obviously not true! The Pope can preach, and historically *has *preached, error. There is a huge difference between Papal Infallibility, as defined by Vatican I, and the neo-catholic papolatry, according to which the Pope is some kind of demi-god who is ALWAYS right.

As far as I´m concerned, the last time a Pope defined anything dogmatically, was in 1950, when Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. Since then, nothing at all has qualified as infallible.

Even the Second Vatican Council made no infallible pronouncements, because it was in the Pope´s own words a merely “pastoral” council, with no intention of defining doctrine. This takes us a little off topic, but it was you who brought it up.

I don´t believe that Pius X´s Catechism is in itself infallible. I trust it far more than the new one though, because it´s entirely in line with Tradition and all the previous Magisterium. Anyway, the sentence of the new CCC that you´re clinging to, like shipwrecks clinging to a loose piece of timber,doesn´t exaclty mean much. To say, “as regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God”, is a very ambiguous sentence. What exactly does this mean? If EVERYTHING is to be “entrusted to the mercy of God” it means pretty much nothing at all.

Then there´s this sentence: “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.”

To say that we can “hope” for this or that does not mean it is probable or even realistic. It´s like saying “if you shoot someone in the head, you can always hope they won´t die.” The best thing is not to shoot people in the head, just as the best thing is to baptise all children as soon as they are born. Unfortunately this is not done nowadays, because, like you, the modernists do not believe that Baptism is necessary for children to enter Heaven.

 

[TMC]

I don´t deny a new-born baby has a human soul. I believe that the soul is infused into our bodies the moment we are conceived. Having said that, I´m not sure that the mere fact we have a soul necessarily means we can *desire * God. Do you have anything to back up this idea?

This alledged desire of God on the part of infants, I admit, is your best argument so far. And if it were not for the fact that traditionally it has generally been held that Baptism of Desire **cannot **be applied to infants, I would perhaps be swayed by it. If you were to provide some proof that Baptism of Desire has been traditionally applied to infants, that would impress me. But I very much doubt you can do such a thing.

Here you have fallen into one of the typical neo-catholic misunderstandings. I said that God cannot allow a Pope to dogmatically define an error, and I stand by that affirmation. The key word is “dogmatically”. You seem to think that every time the Pope opens his mouth he speaks the Truth, as revealed from Almighty God. This is obviously not true! The Pope can preach, and historically *has *preached, error. There is a huge difference between Papal Infallibility, as defined by Vatican I, and the neo-catholic papolatry, according to which the Pope is some kind of demi-god who is ALWAYS right.

As far as I´m concerned, the last time a Pope defined anything dogmatically, was in 1950, when Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. Since then, nothing at all has qualified as infallible.

Even the Second Vatican Council made no infallible pronouncements, because it was in the Pope´s own words a merely “pastoral” council, with no intention of defining doctrine. This takes us a little off topic, but it was you who brought it up.

I don´t believe that Pius X´s Catechism is in itself infallible. I trust it far more than the new one though, because it´s entirely in line with Tradition and all the previous Magisterium. Anyway, the sentence of the new CCC that you´re clinging to, like shipwrecks clinging to a loose piece of timber,doesn´t exaclty mean much. To say, “as regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God”, is a very ambiguous sentence. What exactly does this mean? If EVERYTHING is to be “entrusted to the mercy of God” it means pretty much nothing at all.

Then there´s this sentence: “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.”

To say that we can “hope” for this or that does not mean it is probable or even realistic. It´s like saying “if you shoot someone in the head, you can always hope they won´t die.” The best thing is not to shoot people in the head, just as the best thing is to baptise all children as soon as they are born. Unfortunately this is not done nowadays, because, like you, the modernists do not believe that Baptism is necessary for children to enter Heaven.

So your argument boils down to your own opinion that an infant’s soul’s desire for God is insufficient to trigger the Baptism of Desire, your own opinion that the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church approved in Ecumenical Council by a super-majority of all then-living bishops is wrong (or at least less authoritative than other documents that you like better), and your own opinion that the mercy of God is not extended to the most innocent among us.

No one is saying (at least I am not) that infants should not be baptised. And no one really knows if any particular person (other than Saints) are in Heaven or not, including unbaptised infants. But the Church teaches that those most innocent of souls might be in Heaven–that makes sense to me and I agree with the Church.

 

[santodomingo]

So your argument boils down to your own opinion that an infant’s soul’s desire for God is insufficient to trigger the Baptism of Desire,

That´s my opinion, yes. However, it´s also exactly what the Cathechism of St. Pius states. I have good reason to believe this. You, however, have not supplied magisterial evidence for this idea that infants can desire baptism. I think the ball is in your court now.

your own opinion that the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church approved in Ecumenical Council by a super-majority of all then-living bishops is wrong (or at least less authoritative than other documents that you like better),

I didn´t say that anybody was wrong. All I said about the Second Vatican Council is that it was not dogmatic, therefore not infallible. Precisely what Pope Paul VI claimed. Anyway, this is not pertinent to the topic.

and your own opinion that the mercy of God is not extended to the most innocent among us.

Yes, new-born infants are a lot more innocent than you or me, because they have no PERSONAL sins. Yet the Church very emphatically teaches that they are conceived with ORIGINAL sin. This cuts them off from a life of grace, and until they are baptised they are unable to enter Heaven. Hey, you almost make me feel like I´m making this up! This is simply Catholic doctrine!!!

 

[TMC]

That´s my opinion, yes. However, it´s also exactly what the Cathechism of St. Pius states. I have good reason to believe this. You, however, have not supplied magisterial evidence for this idea that infants can desire baptism. I think the ball is in your court now.

I didn´t say that anybody was wrong. All I said about the Second Vatican Council is that it was not dogmatic, therefore not infallible. Precisely what Pope Paul VI claimed. Anyway, this is not pertinent to the topic.

Yes, new-born infants are a lot more innocent than you or me, because they have no PERSONAL sins. Yet the Church very emphatically teaches that they are conceived with ORIGINAL sin. This cuts them off from a life of grace, and until they are baptised they are unable to enter Heaven. Hey, you almost make me feel like I´m making this up! This is simply Catholic doctrine!!!

No Church documents that explicitly say that infants can have Baptism of Desire come to mind, but if I find one I’ll post it. At the same time, there are also none that come to mind that say they cannot. I am not aware of any doctrine that says that an adult can be saved by Baptism of Desire, but that those under X age cannot.

Like you, I am also not making this up. The Church teaches that the only sure way to salvation is receiving the Sacrament of Baptism during one’s life. But the Church also teaches that salvation is available to those that are not formally baptised in this life. That is the teaching of the Church, agreed upon by the bishops sitting in council.