What is so objectionable about Limbo?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gregory_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gregory_I said:
I think BOD only works when the person can assent with the will…no?
Click to expand...
I think you’re right, but I also wonder about the general principle of the will of the parents sufficing for the will of the child until the age of reason is reached. Don’t know if that would apply to Bapism of Desire or not. Interesting question, though.
 
The only problem with that is that one person cannot merit anothers salvation.
 
Gregory_I said:
The only problem with that is that one person cannot merit anothers salvation.
Click to expand...
Then how does a parent’s faith suffice for the baptism of an infant?
For example a devot couple have a miscarriage fully intending to baptise the baby when he/she was born?
 
It is not the parents faith that saves the Child, it is baptism. See, the Parents present the child to the church in order to receive the gift of faith from the Church. In the rite of Baptism, it says: “What do you ask of Christ’s Church?” the answer: “Faith.” But the gift of faith is conveyed to the child in baptism. THe Child does not have faith before baptism. And the parent’s desire to baptize the child is not an act of faith on the Child’s part,: It is enough to bring the child to the church and receive baptism, in other words, the faith of the Parents and of the Church is enough to create the proper disposition on the Child’s behalf, but is not in itself the gift of faith: THat is conferred on infants in the actual baptism, not in the parent’s will.
 
Gregory_I said:
The only problem with that is that one person cannot merit anothers salvation.
Click to expand...
It’s not a matter of merit, but of the will. The parents’ will suffices for the child’s until that child reaches the age of reason. The speculation is that the will of Christian parents is to baptize the child as quickly as possible after birth, and it may be possible that the will of the parent is regarded in a similar way as that of Baptism of Desire of an adult who dies before Baptism. Since the parental will is regarded as being the child’s will until he/she reaches the age of reason, it could be argued that their will to Baptize meets the requirement of desire for the child, since the child is unable, until the age of reason, to will or desire it for himself/herself. Merit doesn’t enter into the equation.

Anywho, that’s pure speculation, so I have no idea, lol.
🙂

Peace,
Andrew
 
COLOS, the will is not supplied for the child by parents in infant baptism, the child is brought to the church to receive the gift of the faith which is infused in them AT baptism. The parents faith is not the same as the Child’s faith, which it does not substitute.

This is very important to understand: FOr Children, faith is NOT vicarious, it is a supernatural gift that they receive IN BAPTISM. Because it is not vicarious, the unbaptized Child can have no Baptism of desire, because there is no act of the will.
 
I know this is an oldish (and disturbingly Feenyiteish) thread, but I happened to come upon this brief item in the American Ecclesiastical Review for 1899 which I thought might be of interest as a data point for those with a curiosity about the traditional view of this question. The bracketed insertions are mine:
DOES THE CHURCH PRAY FOR CHILDREN WHO DIE WITHOUT BAPTISM?
(Communicated.)

Allow me to call attention to a fact which has apparently been overlooked in the controversy about the future condition of children who depart this life without Baptism. In 1857, the S. Congregation was asked whether a mother, whose child had died without Baptism could receive the Benedictio mulieris post partum *; and if so, whether there should be any change in the prayer said over the mother. In that prayer we read the words : “Praesta ut post hanc vitam ad aeternae beatitudinis praemia cum prole sua pervenire mereatur.” “Grant that after this life she may merit to come into the reward of eternal blessing with her progeny.”] The S. Congregation answered that the prayer was to be said without change. I find this decree cited in the American Ecclesiastical Review (Vol. II, p. 382), in an answer to the query whether a mother whose child had died without Baptism should be “churched,” and think it a good argument against the extreme view of those who hold that such children are inevitably and eternally lost. *
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top