What is so objectionable about Limbo?

[TomD123]

Your personal favorite has absolutely no ground to stand on though.

It is merciful, I agree. But this is still a limit on God’s mercy for these Children. everybody else is given the chance to have the full extent of God’s mercy (heaven) therefore giving these people less than the full chance is inconsistant, it is merciful but not to the full extent of God’s mercy, which is not given to all but offered to all.

Remember, according to what Vatican I defined, once a dogma is defined by the extraordinary Magisterium, then the meaning of that dogma has ALREADY BEEN determined and DEFINED for all time. This is the very PURPOSE AND NATURE of a dogmatic definition: TO DEFINE for ALL time what the Church means and HOW we are to understand and believe it. what I mean is that the dogma can be explained and applied further

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.”
Deeper understanding implies a change to the dogma, an explanation implies a re-wording so that all can understand it and can see it from a different angle and how it may apply in real life.

Remember also, Catechisms certainly can quote dogmatic definitions, but NO catechism can in and of itself pronounce its OWN dogmatic definition. True, but that does not mean we throw out the catechism as worthless?

Last point: you said in post 66 that Satan is interested in abortion because of how it brings children away from the beatific vision. And I commented on this before but I have to ask: If this is what makes abortion sinful, would murdering people right after baptism be not sinful? you will probably say that it is sinful but why then in your opinion?

 

[Gregory_I]

First regarding the Holy innocents: Baptism was not yet made the necessary means of salvation. Plus, the “Baptism” of blood undergone by the holy innocents has always been understood as having the quality of martyrdom.

Second, I cannot Find a single source for St. Bernard’s quote. I know that he favored Augustine and taught unconditional election though, and upheld his interpretation of original sin.

This is what Bernard Said of Peter Abelard: “Our redemption, he [Abelard] says, consists in that supreme love which is inspired in us by the passion of Christ. Therefore, infants have no redemption because they have not that supreme love. Perhaps he holds that as they have no power to love, so neither have they necessity to perish, that they have no need to be regenerated in Christ because they have received no damage from their generation from Adam. If he thinks this, he thinks foolishness with Pelagius.”

I do not therefore doubt he held to his conclusions about unbaptized infants: I suppose he could have tried to qualify it with the parents faith argument, but even that could not be universal: What about the Children of Pagan Parents?

St. Bernard’s quote is one quote given from his entire life in one circumstance. People change their minds: Plus, keep in mind that he basically hated Peter of Abelard because his rationalistic inquiries were seen as a denial of Faith. But Pope Innocent III accepted Abelard’s Theories and his theological speculation on Limbo. In fact, Abelard was the First to qualify the teaching of St. Augustine on infant damnation, saying that since Augustine taught that unbaptized babies suffered in hell, but the lightest of torments, he simply qualified that the lightest of torments was loss of the beatific vision. But he still qualified as well that they did suffer from that loss. It was not until Aquinas that limbo was seen as a place of natural happiness.

The heart of the matter is:

Apply the dogma to our actual lives: “All those who die in mortal sin, or in ORIGINAL SIN ALONE, descend to hell where they are punished, but with DIFFERENT punishments.”

No, you can’t toss out the Catechism, but the catechism doesn’t make the rules; The magisterial documents do, of which the catechism is only a compendium written by a committee.

 

[TomD123]

Apply the dogma to our actual lives: “All those who die in mortal sin, or in ORIGINAL SIN ALONE, descend to hell where they are punished, but with DIFFERENT punishments.”

No, you can’t toss out the Catechism, but the catechism doesn’t make the rules; The magisterial documents do, of which the catechism is only a compendium written by a committee.

We apply this to our own lives because we must baptize infants to free them from original sin. But what we do not know, is if it is possible for God to free these infants from original sin in some situations other than baptism of water, so we MUST baptize. The Church here is also clarifying that original sin, although it places us in hell, does not deserve the same punishments as those who die in mortal sin

 

[TomD123]

1. Explicit desire of the infants- God gives those who die in original sin alone a choice at the moment of death (a choice like the one described by St. Faustina for all who have commited mortal sin) to obtain forgiveness and sanctifying grace.

While this sounds plausible, it is specious: The church cannot err, and the church says those who die in original sin alone descend to hell to be punished by the lack of the beatific vision AGREED! but this is the question: do they die in orignal sin alone, maybe not! And plus I have to add: “I contend that they may be saved but it will be in the ressurection” and “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.” - your own words that would basically summarize my theory. BUT: my theory states that this choice happens at the MOMENT of death- ie before death, and therefore when we still have the ability to choose, your theory happens AFTER death, when we believe there is no choice and that once in hell always in hell.

This is what I posted earlier, you even admit to a possible way for infants who die w/o baptism may be saved

Also, what about the abortion issue? (post 121)

 

[angelic06]

YOu are bound to believe this much:

THose who die in original sin only descend to hell to be punished with different punishments.

No, the punishment for original sin only is the loss of the beatific vision.

INFANTS that die unbaptized die in original sin only, as do the mentally handicapped and virtuous pagans,

THEREFORE…

One of these groups is definitely and infallibly going to suffer the loss of the vision of GOd, if not all.

THat is Catholic Dogma, followed up by common sense.

DO you deny that the punishment for original sin alone is loss of the beatific vision?

And, like I said, "Limbo" is the common doctrine of the church as stated by the church. THe limbo part is the theory.

THat the unbaptized that die in original sin cannot see GOd is the fact.

Is that true or not?

You write something, and then you tear it down in the same paragraph. Read the document again. It says that the loss of the beatific vision is the common doctrine of the church, not limbo as such. And even in the other thread (you know which one I’m talking about), you, yourself concede that we don’t have to believe in limbo as such, but in the loss of the beatific vision for non-baptized children, which underlies the theory of limbo, but which is not the same as it.

 

[angelic06]

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?

Wait, wait, wait a minute. By “heavenly Jerusalem”, you meant the beatific vision, right? You have changed your ideas between yesterday and today. In the other thread (you know which one I’m talking about) you denied the possibility that God may be merciful at all in the end towards the unbaptized children, did you not?

But now, you say that it is possible to for these people to be saved, even it be in the resurrection. So, now, we have some room for agreement. And I have never denied that this may be the way that God does indeed save these children, that is, at the Parousia, have I? Nor did I say that these children will most certainly be saved, in obvious contravention of Church teaching for anyone who has even a miniscule idea of what it is. I have instead reaffirmed what the Church teaches in the CCC that we leave this matter to the mercy of God. Do you not realize that within the possibility of God’s mercy, you have room to expound on the possibility that these children may be saved, even if it be, “in the resurrection”?

And I have never, ever denied the possibility of limbo. I just said that it is not Catholic teaching that one be Catholic to believe in it, meaning, you can believe or not. As you expounded on it, it is probably the best hope we have for children. My understanding of limbo, (as my religion teachers related it to me), was a place which is eternal.

Why did we need to fight among ourselves yesterday? Have you not clarified your views, I would have been satisfied.

 

[Gregory_I]

My only and main contention is simply this: Why do wepretend not to have answers to these tough questions when they have been answered for over 1600 years? And for 1600 Years the Fate of unbaptized infants has been that they do not have the Beatific Vision.

You have to understand, I am not being inconsistent, I am acknowledging the difference between dogma and speculation. There is a line where dogma ends, and speculation Begins. Dogma ends at the fact that all who die in original sin alone are punished in hell. But this punishment is different from those who die in mortal sin.

SPECULATION begins AFTER that point, when talking about what KIND of punishment unbaptized infants undergo.

And IF in our speculation we choose to assign them a place OUTSIDE of Hell (Though I contend with the Majority of the saints and scholastics that what they Do experience, however mild, or naturally happy is experienced in a part of hell),

then it is possible that place may be a temporal abode, and not an eternal one. Some saints and later scholastic theologians thought the souls of those in limbo would populate the reconstituted earth at the second coming. I contend that if this were true, we could see them being saved possibly, since they are without faith, and may be able to make an act of faith: Perhaps their ongoing conversion will be part of our job in the ressurection, so they can take a final place in the Heavenly New Jerusalem, or the Lake of Fire.

About abortion, I do contend satan wants everything bad for us, so I don’t disagree with you at all. regardless of what happens to the souls of unbaptized infants, he wants to make us miserable, and this is definitely an effective method.

But to have definite answers all along and real solutions, and then for us now to be playing ostrich with all this “Well, we don’t REALLY know what happens…”

Yeah right. THe Church’s constant tradition and the constant teaching of her theologians and the common witness of the saints in their locutions (Like St. Bridget of Sweden) AFFIRM that the souls of unbaptized babies do not see God.

“You ask why one infant dies in the mother’s belly while another emerges alive. There is a reason. All the strength of the child’s body comes, of course, from the seed of its father and mother; however, if it is conceived without due strength, because of some weakness of its father or mother, it dies quickly. As a result of the negligence or carelessness of the parents as well as of my divine justice, many times it happens that what was joined together comes apart quickly. Yet a soul is not brought to the harshest punishment for this reason, however little time it had for giving life to the body, but, rather,** it comes to the mercy that is known to me**. Just as the sun shining into a house is not seen as it is in its beauty - only those who look into the sky see its rays - so too the souls of such children, though they do not see my face for lack of baptism, are nevertheless **closer to my mercy **than to punishment, ***but not in the same way ***as my elect.”

• The Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden

“…But consider my goodness and mercy! For, as the teacher says, I give virtue to those who do not have any virtue. By reason of my great love I give the kingdom of heaven to all of the baptized who die before reaching the age of discretion. As it is written: It
has pleased my Father to give the kingdom of heaven to such as these. By reason of
my tender love, I even show mercy to the infants of pagans.If any of them die before reaching the age of discretion, given that they cannot come to know me face to face, they go instead to a place that it is not permitted for you to know but where they will live without suffering.”

-The Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden.-

 

[Robert_Burns]

Can you find one Church Father who said that unbaptized infants go to heaven? How about an Ecumenical Council? Is there any support in the sources of Revelation for unbaptized infants going to heaven (after the promulgation of the Gospel), other than the new, post-Vatican II teaching?

I thought the Church Teaches that only JESUS can judge whether anyone goes to heaven, Purgatory or Hell either at the Particular Judgement or the General Judgement. Isnt the Church relegated to the role of Forgiving or Retaining Sins with its ultimate goal and very purpose the Salvation of Souls as the supreme law of the Church even Trumping Ecclesiastic laws? It would appear that the very context of this argument has lost its very focus - that many of the quotes used are quotes directed at the Faithful who are not invincibly ignorant of Original Sin and thus are compelled to have their Children Baptised as a result - but do the same rules apply to those who are invicibly ignorant and thus under the parameters of Natural law as defined by Aquinas?

 

[TomD123]

My only and main contention is simply this: Why do wepretend not to have answers to these tough questions when they have been answered for over 1600 years? And for 1600 Years the Fate of unbaptized infants has been that they do not have the Beatific Vision.

You have to understand, I am not being inconsistent, I am acknowledging the difference between dogma and speculation. There is a line where dogma ends, and speculation Begins. Dogma ends at the fact that all who die in original sin alone are punished in hell. But this punishment is different from those who die in mortal sin.

SPECULATION begins AFTER that point, when talking about what KIND of punishment unbaptized infants undergo.

And IF in our speculation we choose to assign them a place OUTSIDE of Hell (Though I contend with the Majority of the saints and scholastics that what they Do experience, however mild, or naturally happy is experienced in a part of hell),

then it is possible that place may be a temporal abode, and not an eternal one. Some saints and later scholastic theologians thought the souls of those in limbo would populate the reconstituted earth at the second coming. I contend that if this were true, we could see them being saved possibly, since they are without faith, and may be able to make an act of faith: Perhaps their ongoing conversion will be part of our job in the ressurection, so they can take a final place in the Heavenly New Jerusalem, or the Lake of Fire. This is like number 1 and number 7 of my earlier speculations: That there would be a possibility of God remmiting original sin from the children. The only difference in our thoughts would be when this occurs: MOMENT OF DEATH vs DURING RESSURECTION

THe Church’s constant tradition and the constant teaching of her theologians and the common witness of the saints in their locutions (Like St. Bridget of Sweden) AFFIRM that the souls of unbaptized babies do not see God. St. Bridget of Sweden’s revelations have less authority than the Catechism. Plus, if we are going to use private revelation as a source for truth, I could argue that Bl. Anne Emerich saw pagans in purgatory along with a Jew, would this convince you that there is implicit baptism of desire?

Why would God limit his mercy for the unbaptized infants but not anyone else?

Maybe there is a limbo but we are permitted to believe otherwise, its not a must, otherwise the** Catechism would be lying** when it says that we may have hope for unbaptized infants to go to heaven.

 

[TomD123]

From the 1941 Baltimore Catechism:
166. Are all obliged to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved?

All are obliged to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” (John 14:6)
167. What do we mean when we say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation?”

When we say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” we mean that Christ made the Catholic Church a necessary means of salvation and commanded all to enter it, so that a person must be connected with the Church in some way to be saved.
168. How can persons who are not members of the Catholic Church be saved?

Persons who are not members of the Catholic Church can be saved if, through no fault of their own, they do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, but they love God and try to do His will, for in this way they are connected with the Church by desire.

1. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation.

If anyone love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)

From Baltimore Catechism #3"
Q. 509. Are all bound to belong to the Church?

A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved. Allows for invincible ignorance I guess

And yes, these same Catechisms support Limbo of the infants so I would say they are not infallible but still what I have posted here is still in line with what the most recent Popes have taught and what the CCC teaches now, wheras limbo, which we are permitted to believe in, are not bound to believe in, otherwise JPII was not the true Pope. (he would be a heretic)

 

[Iotaunum]

Why would God limit his mercy for the unbaptized infants but not anyone else?

Maybe there is a limbo but we are permitted to believe otherwise, its not a must, otherwise the** Catechism would be lying** when it says that we may have hope for unbaptized infants to go to heaven.

Cardinal Ratzinger explained in his introduction to the Catechism:

"The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church.

Thus the Catechism presents the teaching of the Church without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have. Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism. Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions (esp. in the area of social teaching), there remains due liberty for theologians (and others) when they encounter something that has been proposed only tentatively."

Besides, we all know that the Catechism states:

"841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330
vatican.va/archive/catech…23a9p3.htm#III

Muslims clearly do not worship the One True God who will judge mankind on the last day - Jesus Christ.

As Cardinal Ratzinger explained, the teachings in the Catechism "receive no other weight than that which they already possess" and frankly the notion that unbaptized infants go directly to Heaven has no great theological weight to say the least. Thus, even the Catechism leaves us free to reject this doctrine, which is indeed novel and not inline with previous teaching and Church practice on the matter.

Infact, the "other documents and the tradition of the Church" to which Cardinal Ratzinger directs us in order to establish the doctrinal weight suggest that Limbo exists indeed.

 

[TomD123]

Muslims clearly do not worship the One True God who will judge mankind on the last day - Jesus Christ. I agree and I’m pretty sure back in the days before Vatican II people would be shocked at such a statement that Muslims worship the true God.

Infact, the "other documents and the tradition of the Church" to which Cardinal Ratzinger directs us in order to establish the doctrinal weight suggest that Limbo exists indeed.

What I was trying to say is that the Catechism PERMITS us to HOPE for the salvation of the infants. It does not state that they will be saved, so I am not elevating the Catechism to doctrine but I am stating that I do hold this hope and that I am allowed to believe that infants CAN be saved w/o sacramental Baptism. I do not believe that everything the Catechism says is the absolute truth or even that it is a very good statement (see above) but what I do believe is that we are not BOUND to believe in limbo because if we were, the Catechism would be denying a teaching that we are BOUND to and so would the recent Popes, which would make the CCC and the Popes heretical making us all sedevacantists.So I have admitted that unbaptized infants may be in hell or limbo but I would hope that God would save them in some way.

 

[Robert_Burns]

From the 1941 Baltimore Catechism:
166. Are all obliged to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved?

All are obliged to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” (John 14:6)
167. What do we mean when we say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation?”

When we say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” we mean that Christ made the Catholic Church a necessary means of salvation and commanded all to enter it, so that a person must be connected with the Church in some way to be saved.
168. How can persons who are not members of the Catholic Church be saved?

Persons who are not members of the Catholic Church can be saved if, through no fault of their own, they do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, but they love God and try to do His will, for in this way they are connected with the Church by desire.

1. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation.

If anyone love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)

From Baltimore Catechism #3"
Q. 509. Are all bound to belong to the Church?

A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved. Allows for invincible ignorance I guess

And yes, these same Catechisms support Limbo of the infants so I would say they are not infallible but still what I have posted here is still in line with what the most recent Popes have taught and what the CCC teaches now, wheras limbo, which we are permitted to believe in, are not bound to believe in, otherwise JPII was not the true Pope. (he would be a heretic)

But according to Aquinas - those saved through Natural law are saved through The Church

 

[TomD123]

But according to Aquinas - those saved through Natural law are saved through The Church

First of all, I’m not aware of Aquinas’ opinion on the subject because I thought that he only supported explicit baptism of desire and he believed that no one could be saved wile invincibly ignorant. But I don’t know…
Secondly, I would agree. Those saved by following natural law are connected to the Church through their desire to know the truth and accept it along with their love of God above all things. I don’t see how the Catechism quotes would deny this?

Another quote from a Catechism on baptism of implicit desire

“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.”

 

[James224]

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?

Personally, I’ve never had a problem with it. I do believe God, in His mercy, could provide a way for unbaptized children to go to heaven just like the native in the woods who never knew Christ but, sticking strictly with dogma, no one with Original Sin can be in the Presence of God. As the church says, we have to leave it to the mercy of God. I like some of the things you quoted and maybe they are right but we just don’t know.

 

[Gregory_I]

What I was trying to say is that the Catechism PERMITS us to HOPE for the salvation of the infants. It does not state that they will be saved, so I am not elevating the Catechism to doctrine but I am stating that I do hold this hope and that I am allowed to believe that infants CAN be saved w/o sacramental Baptism.

So, you trust the CCC when it affirms you here…

I do not believe that everything the Catechism says is the absolute truth or even that it is a very good statement (see above) but what I do believe is that we are not BOUND to believe in limbo because if we were,

You also admit that it can err here…

the Catechism would be denying a teaching that we are BOUND to and so would the recent Popes, which would make the CCC and the Popes heretical making us all sedevacantists.So I have admitted that unbaptized infants may be in hell or limbo but I would hope that God would save them in some way.

And some how out of that you still are treating the Catechism like a source of faith. It’s not. It’s a compenidum put together by a committee, which can err. It was approved by JPII in his capacity as a personal theologian, in which he can also err: He did not bind the church to the Catechism. He basically gave a recommendation for it, if you read his Apostolic constitution. It’s just one big recommendation. There is nothing that is binding under pain of mortal sin to accept this catechism whole and entire. You simply cannot reject it whole and entire.

And this is why I do not accept the section on unbaptized infants. It flies in the face of Dogma, and is not in accord with the constant teaching of the church. THe Church has ruled what the DEFINITIVE fate is of those who die in original sin alone, that is unbaptized, without having ever commited any actual sin.

I do not see any realistic way around this conclusion: THe DOGMA makes the fate CERTAIN: IF you die, and you die in original sin only (Either an infant or mentally handicapped THERE ARE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES) you descend to some part of hell where you are punished, but punished differently from those who died in mortal sin.

Can anyone here seriously rework this Definitive affirmation of faith to mean other than what it says?

THe Holy innocents do not FULLY constitute an exception since they died under the old law, which technically places them in the limbo of the Fathers. They are venerated as Martyrs, but they did not attain the immediate vision of God on account of their martyrdom because the gates of paradise were closed, and the gates of hell were still locked. After Christ’s descent, they were freed, and considered righteous on account of their martyrdom on his behalf.

Time-Delay “Baptism” of blood. Pretty much.

***1261 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,"64 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. ***

Notice something here, the entire catechism has footnotes to magisterial documents backing up the teachings it presents…

…This Paragraph has NONE! The one, 64, is a bible verse referring to what Jesus said, But THERE is NO Reference in this paragraph to any magisterial documentation! SO it’s just like somebody’s opinon. Someone just assumed it, wrote it, and threw it in there KNOWING there is no Magisterial reference for this kind of a novel claim.

THese are the parts I completely disregard. Any Assertion not coming from any magisterial source is no dogma, or even Probable, it is speculative. And since the Catechism is not a source of dogma or even doctrine, it is a compendium, what does this tell us? The Catechism has no authority to rule on any topic.

What do you make of that?

 

[TomD123]

And this is why I do not accept the section on unbaptized infants. It flies in the face of Dogma, and is not in accord with the constant teaching of the church. THe Church has ruled what the DEFINITIVE fate is of*** those who die in original sin alone***, that is unbaptized, without having ever commited any actual sin. No dissagreement, what I have been saying is that there is some way in which children can be freed of original sin other than baptism of water that is not known to us, not revealed to us, and therefore never defined. This is a maybe. This is why I listed those possibilities numbered 1-7 which you say have no backing in doctrine but I am saying they are speculative, just like your theory of what could happen at the ressurection

**Also, this is similar to the statement of those who die in mortal sin descend into hell- a dogma of the faith. We know what a mortal sin is, we know how one commits a mortal sin and we know how God forgives mortal sin. We do not know if one has made a perfect act of contrition and we also do not know if at the moment of death God gives those in mortal sin a last chance (as in St. Faustina’s diary) (and also, I’m not saying I fully back this idea, but I’m trying to say that there is hope just as you have said you hope for salvation for unbaptized infants at the ressurection, which I agree may be possible) **

THe Holy innocents do not FULLY constitute an exception since they died under the old law, which technically places them in the limbo of the Fathers. They are venerated as Martyrs, but they did not attain the immediate vision of God on account of their martyrdom because the gates of paradise were closed, and the gates of hell were still locked. After Christ’s descent, they were freed, and considered righteous on account of their martyrdom on his behalf. True, but they were still freed from original sin without baptism of water— what happened in your mind to those children under the old law who died for whatever reason?

THese are the parts I completely disregard. Any Assertion not coming from any magisterial source is no dogma, or even Probable, it is speculative. And since the Catechism is not a source of dogma or even doctrine, it is a compendium, what does this tell us? The Catechism has no authority to rule on any topic.

What do you make of that?

I disagree with the Catechism in some places (841 especially) but I would like to think that it would not PERMIT us to believe in anything that would be heresy. If the fact that unbaptized infants CANNOT EVER get into heaven is dogma, the Catechism would be heretical and so would JPII and B16.

 

[Iotaunum]

What I was trying to say is that the Catechism PERMITS us to HOPE for the salvation of the infants. It does not state that they will be saved, so I am not elevating the Catechism to doctrine but I am stating that I do hold this hope and that I am allowed to believe that infants CAN be saved w/o sacramental Baptism. I do not believe that everything the Catechism says is the absolute truth or even that it is a very good statement (see above) but what I do believe is that we are not BOUND to believe in limbo because if we were, the Catechism would be denying a teaching that we are BOUND to and so would the recent Popes, which would make the CCC and the Popes heretical making us all sedevacantists.So I have admitted that unbaptized infants may be in hell or limbo but I would hope that God would save them in some way.

I see the point you are making. I was only pointing out the fact that not everything in the Catechism is de fide. Every statement or teaching must be weighed up in light of the authoritative pronoucements and infallible decrees etc as well as Church Tradition.

In saying this, and this may seem like a contradiction of sorts; the problem with modern theology (and theologians) is that there is a very strong tendancy towards liberalism and modernism. Minimism is rampant in theological circles of every school today. This is used as the basis for rejecting what was once held by common consent amoung the vast majority of Popes, Saints and Theologians for the past 2000 years. Minimism, of course is the belief that Catholics are bound only to accept those points of doctrine that have been solemnly and explicitly decreed by the Councils or the Pope etc. Anything which has not been solemnly defined does not demand the religious assent of Catholics. This is a falsehood which was strongly denounced under Pope St Pius X and by the greatest theologians of the age.

Minimism was also strongly denounced by Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton - editor of the AER. He also wrote a good article on the theological status of Limbo (I think in the 50’s or 60’s). Theologians today succumb to minimism when they speculate: Limbo is not dogmatically defined therefore it can be rejected completely. While technically it is true that it has not been dogmatically defined, it was generally held by the majority of theologians for almost the entire history of the Church and more to the point, it was based on doctrines which were dogmatically defined.

Since:

1/ It is de fide that Baptism alone remits Original Sin:

2/ It is de fide that souls who depart this life in the state of original sin ONLY are excluded from the Beatific vision.

The Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence taught infallibly:

  ***"The souls of those who die in original sin as well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell, but their punishment is very different."5 ***

Thus, Limbo was a Theological conclusion which was the logical conclusion when considering these two infallible dogmas. Thus it was and is more than theological speculation on the part of Saints and theologians.

My personal opinion is that ecumenism and a downgrading/watering down of the Dogma EENS and the liberalism rampant in theology today is responsible for a great error: namely getting rid of this doctrine for personal feelings. The average theologian today tries to push every pagan, Jew, Schismatic and heretic through the “loophole” of invinsible ignorance/Baptism of desire. It only follows from this that they would try to make a loophole for unbaptised infants. Indeed, the reason the Church Baptised infants so early, contrary to the so-called reformers, was because it was always and everywhere seen as the only remedy for cleansing original sin. The Age old Law of the Church regarding ecclesiastical burial is a result of this and is proof of the mind of the Church in this regard.

When we hear comments today such as: “why would God deprive an innocent infant from heaven” etc we can only blame those responsible for teaching these people the Faith.

Regarding your point, while it is technically valid, I would think carefully beofre engaging in anything which is permitted by the Vatican today, simply because it is permitted. We all know why this is.

 

[TomD123]

Since:

1/ It is de fide that Baptism alone remits Original Sin: Not for adults. Desire is sufficient in some instances, therefore, is it possible that there be some form of baptism of desire for the infants?

2/ It is de fide that souls who depart this life in the state of original sin ONLY are excluded from the Beatific vision. True

The Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence taught infallibly:

Thus, Limbo was a Theological conclusion which was the logical conclusion when considering these two infallible dogmas. Thus it was and is more than theological speculation on the part of Saints and theologians. I do not completely deny limbo, I simply hold out hope that there be a way for the infants to be saved.

My personal opinion is that ecumenism and a downgrading/watering down of the Dogma EENS and the liberalism rampant in theology today is responsible for a great error: namely getting rid of this doctrine for personal feelings. The average theologian today tries to push every pagan, Jew, Schismatic and heretic through the “loophole” of invinsible ignorance/Baptism of desire. It only follows from this that they would try to make a loophole for unbaptised infants. Indeed, the reason the Church Baptised infants so early, contrary to the so-called reformers, was because it was always and everywhere seen as the only remedy for cleansing original sin. The Age old Law of the Church regarding ecclesiastical burial is a result of this and is proof of the mind of the Church in this regard. EENS has been completely watered down but being too literal is also an error, I quoted earlier the Catechism of St. Pius X on this. I defiantly think that the CCC does a poor job at explaining EENS and the Baltimore Catechism and St. Pope Pius X Catechism do a pretty good job.

When we hear comments today such as: “why would God deprive an innocent infant from heaven” etc we can only blame those responsible for teaching these people the Faith. I could see the infants being deprived because of origianal sin but why would God not give these children some chance to have the beatific vision as he gives all other humans a chance.

Regarding your point, while it is technically valid, I would think carefully beofre engaging in anything which is permitted by the Vatican today, simply because it is permitted. We all know why this is.

True, that is why while I personally believe that the infants may be saved somehow, I know that this is only speculation that could very well be incorrect.

 

[Gregory_I]

I would like to reempahsize:

CCC

1261 "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,“64 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.”

Notice something here, **the entire catechism **has footnotes to magisterial documents backing up the teachings it presents…

…This Paragraph has NONE! The one, 64, is a bible verse referring to what Jesus said, But **THERE is NO Reference in this paragraph to any magisterial documentation! **SO it’s just like somebody’s opinon. Someone just assumed it, wrote it, and threw it in there KNOWING there is no Magisterial reference for this kind of a novel claim.

***THese ***are the parts I completely disregard. Any Assertion not coming from any magisterial source is no dogma, or even Probable, it is speculative. And since the Catechism is not a source of dogma or even doctrine, it is a compendium, what does this tell us? The Catechism has no authority to rule on any topic.

By saying “The Catechism allows” is a mistake. The Catechism has no magisterial authority beyond the documents they quote. THis paragraph references no documents, therefore it has no magisterial authority, therefore IT IS NOT WORTHY OF BELIEF.

Make sense?

Therefore, I devolve to the commone taching of the former Catechisms, ALL of which explicitly AFFIRM that the unbatized infants have no vision of God.

As St. Augustine says, and cannot be ignored:

“If you want to be a Catholic do no believe, do no say, and do not teach that infants carried off by death before they are baptized can attain the remission of original sin.”
-Saint Augustine, Father, Doctor, and Bishop of the Church, On the Soul and its Origin Book II

Or Pope St. Innocent I

“The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life without even the grace of baptism is utterly foolish.”
-Pope Saint Innocent I, Letter to the Bishops of the Church, 417 AD