Translation of Bellarmine's De Amissione Gratiae, Bk. VI

Lastly, it remains for us to discuss the third and fourth opinion, whereof
the former exempted infants from all pain, whether inward or outward,
while the latter left them inward pain but freed them altogether from
the outward. The former is probable by reason of the authority of St.
Thomas, St. Bonaventura, and many other illustrious theologians ; but
I deem the latter the more probable by reason of the authority of the
holy Fathers St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Gregory, and others ;
who have been followed by some even among the Schoolmen.

Necessity of Baptism

If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

tornpage wrote:Not sure where to post this, but some may find this interesting. I post it here because it somewhat deals with necessity of baptism for salvation, as it addresses the fate of unbaptized infants who die in infancy.

This is St. Robert Bellarmine's view on the issue in a translation of De Amissione Gratiae, Book VI. I'm not aware of a translation of it being available otherwise:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Infant_Perdition_in_the_Middle_Ages/3DHrq1R8KZAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=infant+perdition+medieval+studies&printsec=frontcover

Here's St. Robert's ultimate opinion on the question:

Lastly, it remains for us to discuss the third and fourth opinion, whereof
the former exempted infants from all pain, whether inward or outward,
while the latter left them inward pain but freed them altogether from
the outward. The former is probable by reason of the authority of St.
Thomas, St. Bonaventura, and many other illustrious theologians ; but
I deem the latter the more probable by reason of the authority of the
holy Fathers St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Gregory, and others ;
who have been followed by some even among the Schoolmen.

MRyan wrote:

tornpage wrote:Not sure where to post this, but some may find this interesting. I post it here because it somewhat deals with necessity of baptism for salvation, as it addresses the fate of unbaptized infants who die in infancy.

This is St. Robert Bellarmine's view on the issue in a translation of De Amissione Gratiae, Book VI. I'm not aware of a translation of it being available otherwise:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Infant_Perdition_in_the_Middle_Ages/3DHrq1R8KZAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=infant+perdition+medieval+studies&printsec=frontcover

Here's St. Robert's ultimate opinion on the question:

Lastly, it remains for us to discuss the third and fourth opinion, whereof
the former exempted infants from all pain, whether inward or outward,
while the latter left them inward pain but freed them altogether from
the outward. The former is probable by reason of the authority of St.
Thomas, St. Bonaventura, and many other illustrious theologians ; but
I deem the latter the more probable by reason of the authority of the
holy Fathers St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Gregory, and others ;
who have been followed by some even among the Schoolmen.

I hold "The former ... probable by reason of the authority of St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, and many other illustrious theologians". The reason I do not "deem the latter the more probable by reason of the authority of the holy Fathers St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Gregory, and others" is, rather, simple.

What is the greatest pain suffered by the poor souls in purgatory, even, we are told, greater than the intense fires of hell (as relayed by the many saints and mystics)? It is the excruciating pain of the sense of loss.  

So why would the unbaptized infants in the "limbo of the infants", with no personal sins, incur the same excruciating sense of loss as the souls in Purgatory, and for all eternity? This is truly a "Hell" (outer edges or not), and there is no sugarcoating it by suggesting, "the pain of loss is mild"? Really? Invincibly ignorant souls in the Limbo of the Infants? Or, do these souls fail to gain the use of reason?   

I've come to appreciate the 1983 Catechism and its teaching on this matter, which, while acknowledging the Church does not know of any other means other than Baptism that can assure infants of salvation, we are allowed to have a certain hope that God will regenerate them, through the intention of Church, and/or through the intention of parents, and/or through the prayers of the faithful, according to His mercy, His justice and His will.  

I've read some scholarly theological papers on the reason we may have some hope for aborted infants. I shudder at the thought of unbaptized infants, who die or are murdered before baptism, who will suffer an eternity of loss, an intense pain we can't even imagine, through no fault of their own, and with no sin on their soul, except that which was inherited, and must be removed.

The "Limbo of the Infants" is a theological attempt at addressing a great mystery, which is why we have seen its theology develop over the centuries.  I'm surprised Bellarmine doesn't agree with Aquinas, rather than making camp with Augustine. Hmmm.

Well, I posted this mainly because it's interesting material on something which we've discussed here. Btw, I was reading some of our old exchanges . . . Now light that guy on fire for a bit more accuracy.

I "hope" St. Thomas is right, but I don't see these infants as "suffering" even if Augustine is right. I go down the road opened by Innocent III (and definitely forbear going beyond it):

the punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell. DZ 410.

tornpage wrote:One of the things that I never noticed before, the author quotes  a portion of the following from the Catechism of Trent:

Necessity of Baptism

If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I would think that, at a minimum, supports St. Robert's view.

tornpage wrote:

tornpage wrote:One of the things that I never noticed before, the author quotes  a portion of the following from the Catechism of Trent:

Necessity of Baptism

If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I would think that, at a minimum, supports St. Robert's view.

Mike,

What do you say about that quote from the Catechism of Trent?

Mark

intereō (present infinitive interīre, perfect active interiī or interīvī, supine interitum); irregular conjugation, irregular, no passive

(intransitive) to go among, become lost in
(intransitive) to disappear, vanish
         Synonyms: cedō, discedō, decēdō, concēdō, excēdō, pereō
         Antonyms: cresco, exorior, orior, coorior, oborior, appāreō, pāreō, ēmergō,
         procedo
(intransitive) to be ruined, undone
(intransitive) to die
         Synonyms: morior, pereō, occumbō, dēfungor, exspīrō, dēcēdō, cadō, occidō,
         discēdō, dēficiō

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intereo#Latin

Nec fortasse falso: propterea quod si animorum habitus utrimque spectetur, plus quidem videntur adhibere contentionis qui inferunt religioni bellum, quam qui propulsant. At vero salutem cupientibus nihil medium inter laboriosum certamen aut interitum.

Nor is this perhaps false; especially since if the dispositions of both sides be inspected, those who wage war on religion seem to show more energy than those who repel it. But for those who seek salvation there can be no middle ground between laborious struggle and destruction.

https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_08121892_inimica-vis.html

2626 1526 26. Doctrina, quae velut fabulam Pelagianam explodit locum illum inferorum (quem limbi puerorum nomine fideles passim designant), in quo animae decedentium cum sola originali culpa poena damni citra poenam ignis puniantur; perinde ac si hoc ipso, quod, qui poenam ignis removent, inducerent locum illum et statum medium expertem culpae et poenae inter regnum Dei et damnationem aeternam, qualem fabulabantur Pelagiani: - falsa, temeraria, in scholas catholicas iniuriosa.

https://patristica.net/denzinger/enchiridion-symbolorum.html


The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,--false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

https://www.patristica.net/denzinger/#n1500

tornpage wrote:

My knowledge of Latin is poor, but perhaps "interritum" is being used in the Roman Catechism in the sense of the place of the "damned," with whom, since there are only two eternal and final categories - saved and damned - and no "middle ground," the infants are numbered, albeit, as I hope, simply "suffering" deprivation of the beatific vision.

St. Augustine looked at the relevant Scriptural passages, which indicate a final judgment to the "right hand or the left," to a heaven or hell. He addresses those passages in the cited Sermon 294. As I said, it is accepted by Church teaching that there is "no middle place," and that one ends up either in heaven or hell, whether that place is called "Limbo" for the infants because it is on the border or outer reach of hell or not; it's still part of the one, hell, and not the only other, heaven. Necessarily, and so Augustine quite clearly reasons.

Augustine describes the infants as consigned to the "fires of hell" because that is how Scripture describes hell, i.e., a place of eternal flame. He does not do more than reason, a) there are two eternal resting places, heaven and hell; b) hell is Scripturally described as a place of eternal fire, and c) these infants don't go to heaven, but go to hell, the place Scripture describes as of "eternal fire." I've looked at the passages I think fairly closely, and I do not see him indicating these infants are "tormented," or undergo some punishment beyond deprivation of the beatific vision. I say again, if he says they do, let's see the passages and address them.

What he does say, explicitly, is that the "condemnation" these infants undergo is "the lightest condemnation of all," and he says this with "no doubt" whatsoever.