baptism of desire Vs Limbo

Limbo has been a well established doctrine in the same vain as baptism of desire, even more authoritatively proposed. But Cardinal Ratzinger feels free to discard it or at least question its validity

Cardinal Ratzinger:
"Limbo was never a defined truth of Faith. Personally--and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation-- I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism. To put it in the words of Jesus to Nicodemus: 'Truly, truly, I say to you , unless one is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.' (Jn.3:5). One should not hesitate to give up the idea of 'limbo' if need be ( and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed 'limbo' also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be."
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_067_RatzLimbo.htm

The Catholic Catechism also seems to call it into question:
"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.
"
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1261

The Holy father in an audience on January 19, 2007, approved the text of "THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED" for publication:
"Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered ... give serious theological and
liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision,"
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

So it seems that Pope B16 has the same perspective as he did as theologian Cardinal Ratzinger-- 'Limbo can be discarded if need be.'

But the theological pedigree of Limbo is as significant as baptism of desire. So can't we question baptism of desire and discarded it if need be, as the Ratzinger suggests?

Oh man, here we go again.

Duckbill, it appears that you missed a lot of this discussion during your protracted leave of absence.

I don't think so. You put down cowboy for bring this point up with no explanation just your usual put downs. I was sad to see no one called you on it.

duckbill wrote:I don't think so. You put down cowboy for bring this point up with no explanation just your usual put downs. I was sad to see no one called you on it.

Well, I think you have missed a lot since you ignored what was previously written on this topic and begin all over again with some stale quote from Tradition In Action that Cardinal Ratzinger made 36 years ago, followed by the teaching of the Roman Catechism whereby you draw the conclusion that Pope BXVI believes that "Limbo can be discarded" and that "the hope of salvation" means that the Church knows of another means of salvation for these un-baptized infants.

Oh no, we've never discussed this before!

And I don't remember a "put down" of Cowboy, but I do remember correcting his rash statement that the Catechism did away with Limbo, or promised salvation to un-baptized infants, or something to that effect.

That you enter these discussion with the old "MRyan is a bully" attitude and how I "put down" everyone does not surprise me. You always were highly strung to the point that one feels he has to walk on egg shells around you lest your sensitive nature be offended.

Here we go again.

So are you saying that the Pope didn't approve the committee that says we believe that Limbo doesn't exist?
How does that show he has changed his opinion?

Beyond that it shows that a "theological theory" like baptism of desire can be called into question unlike your usual argument that it can't be questioned.

duckbill wrote:So are you saying that the Pope didn't approve the committee that says we believe that Limbo doesn't exist?
How does that show he has changed his opinion?

I didn’t say that he changed his opinion; I’m trying to say that the Faith of the Church is not necessarily dependent on an “opinion” of a Cardinal Ratzinger he volunteered as a private theologian some 36 years ago; an opinion, he was at pains to make clear, that he did not offer in his official capacity as “prefect for the congregation”.

Furthermore, I am trying to say that the Church knows of no means other than the sacrament of baptism for the salvation of un-baptized infants still holds true as a doctrine and it is still taught by the Church (see the CCC), but the Church also teaches that there may be a reason for hope that God will find a way to bring these same souls to salvation. This is indeed an area of "development" that belongs exclusively to the magisterium to develop. But we need to listen carefully to what she is saying without flying off the handle with unseemly remarks or false statements.

Why don’t you read the actual International Theological Commission report, and get back with us, instead of making these brash and inaccurate statements. Make sure you read the parts where it speaks of the traditions of baptism of blood, for example, as being a part of the Church’s liturgical actions, whereas Limbo never has been. The Church would not offer her Liturgical prayers for un-baptized infants who would have been baptized if she believed there was no possibility of salvation.

That she knows of no other means than baptism for salvation does not mean that God cannot save these children; that’s all she is saying.

You said that the committee “says we believe that Limbo doesn’t exist”.

Show us where it said that. I just read the entire document, and for some reason, I could not find that statement, or anything like it.

While demonstrating how certain doctrines such as Limbo develop over the centuries, it does in fact state that Limbo is a “common doctrine”, and that “the theory that the privation of the beatific vision is their sole punishment, to the exclusion of any other pain, this is a theological opinion, despite its long acceptance in the West. The particular theological thesis concerning a 'natural happiness' sometimes ascribed to these infants likewise constitutes a theological opinion.”

duckbill wrote:Beyond that it shows that a "theological theory" like baptism of desire can be called into question unlike your usual argument that it can't be questioned.

No, it doesn’t; otherwise the Church would not be teaching the doctrines of baptism of desire and baptism of blood in her Roman Catechism with such forceful statements as these:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

There is no mention of Limbo in the CCC, and there is no mention of it in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. And need I remind you that both of these Roman Catechisms teach the "common doctrine" of Baptism of desire?

Your tying to explain away the clear fact that they are trying to say a baby can be saved without baptism. This is a novelty but the point I am making is that they have no problem calling it into question. While the final judgment is always with the Magesterium, clearly theologians have been proposing this for years, just like Ratzinger, who was not acting in a magisterial position, but as a theologian, so it isn't only for the Magestrium to debate.

The conclusion would seem to be that Limbo dosen't exist because what is the criteria for God saving one infant and not another?
It contradicts the need for Sacramental Baptism for infants:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”DZ 712

The council clearly says that there is not another way.

The committee calls into question the need for infant baptism, by the mere fact of saying that we may hope there are other ways to save infants?


Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) in 1958 provided as follows:

"The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature--a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism.

Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible. . . . Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfillment of this obligation."

So according to the Holy Office 1958 there is no solid foundation, but the Pope approved a committee that disagrees. Which one should we believe? The common consensus until the 1950's or the common consensus now?

Clearly there has been an effort to circle the wagons against Fr. Feeney who pointed to the common consensus of Church at his time that Limbo was a place for NON-baptized infants, and they are the most invincibly ignorant but they can't be saved without Sacramental Baptism.

So something that was a common consensus of the Church and had solid foundations was called into question. Why not baptism of desire too? That is my point.

Yes, it is absolutely true that Limbo was never defined. However, what was defined was that infants who die without sacramental Baptism are forever excluded from the Beatific Vision:

http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-4.html

The choices are to believe in Limbo (the Hell of Separation) or in the more strict view of Saint Augustine, who consigned the unbaptized children to the Hell of Suffering, albeit, the mildest level. What is heresy is to say that there is a "way of salvation to the eternal beatitude" for infants who die (and remain dead) without Baptism.

I do not believe that we have to interpret #1261 of the CCC as referring to Heaven, but, rather, as preferring the view of Saint Thomas over that of Saint Augustine, without discarding, entirely, the latter view.

As a side note, I do not believe that infants who die without Baptism, while deprived forever of the Beatific Vision of the One and Triune God, are necessarily deprived of the vision of their parents.

Limbo, by the way, is mentioned in the CCC. It's in the Index.

WOW! very kind of you to allow the unbaptised infants to see their parents.
Why do you find it necessary to to state absolutely, 'that infants who die without sacramental Baptism are forever excluded from the Beatific Vision' when it is well known that this theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium.
Can you not accept that the Church has given a more merciful interpetation than yours when it states "that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness", and, "there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ". http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Simple faith wrote:
Can you not accept that the Church has given a more merciful interpetation than yours when it states "that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness"

Does anyone know what the theological and Liturgical reasons are for this hope?
I'm not saying they don't exist but I haven't seen them produced yet.
And how would they conform to the the dogmatic pronouncements concerning the necessity of Baptism for infants?

simple Faith wrote:WOW! very kind of you to allow the unbaptised infants to see their parents.
Why do you find it necessary to to state absolutely, 'that infants who die without sacramental Baptism are forever excluded from the Beatific Vision' when it is well known that this theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium.
Can you not accept that the Church has given a more merciful interpetation than yours when it states "that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness", and, "there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ". http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

See this:

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html

Jehanne wrote:Yes, it is absolutely true that Limbo was never defined. However, what was defined was that infants who die without sacramental Baptism are forever excluded from the Beatific Vision:

http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-4.html

No, it was never "defined" that infants who die without sacramental Baptism are forever excluded from the Beatific Vision". You are just like Duckbill; falsely state what the Church or what a Theological Commission has taught or written, and then run and hide when you are called out on your false statements.

Duckbill refuses to demonstrate where in its report the Theological Commission said that "we believe that Limbo doesn’t exist”.

He can't, so he spins by giving us his opinion that the Catholic Church is playing fast and loose with an established doctrine, and by saying "Your tying to explain away the clear fact that they are trying to say a baby can be saved without baptism." Actually, what they are trying to say is that God in His mercy may find a way to save them by the grace of baptism, even without the sacrament itself. The CCC says the same thing.

And you never could admit that your strange thesis was absolutely wrong when you said that if an implicit desire for baptism does not become explicit, it is formal heresy.

When you were corrected, you evaded, you changed the subject, you did everything in your power to skirt your manifest error without ever once admitting you were wrong. Then you recently posted a quote from St. Thomas affirming the validity of an implicit desire as if what you said in the past did not contradict it by alleging that it is "formal heresy" if it never became "explicit".

You also refuse to acknowledge the clear difference in teaching between St. Thomas Aquinas and Fr. Feeney on the salvific nature of justification "by the desire thereof" by spinning Fr. Feeney's words so they mean something other than what he clearly said.

Tornpage also tried to correct you - but you are so immersed in your own spin zone that you can't even acknowledge the truth. Instead, you refer to the present day St. Benedict Center as if it has anything to do with the discussion at hand, or as if we are incapable of reading Fr. Feeney's own words. If they are not his own words, then let someone come forward and say so.

Back to the subject at hand:

To "prove" your erroneous statement that "what was defined was that infants who die without sacramental Baptism are forever excluded from the Beatific Vision", you provide this link to the St. Benedict Center:

http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-4.html

Try as we might, though, we cannot find where the Church ever defined that "infants who die without sacramental Baptism are forever excluded from the Beatific Vision".

How about this citation:

Pope St. Innocent I, in 417, wrote to the Synod of Milevis, that: “The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life even without the grace of baptism is utterly foolish” (DS 219).

Yes it is utterly foolish, but that is not what the Theological Commission or the CCC suggested. If God, in His mercy, saves an un-baptized child, He will not do so without the grace of baptism. The Church does not know HOW He will accomplish this end, for she knows of no other means other than water baptism that can save the infant, but has grounds to place hope in His mercy that He will.

Neither does the Council of Florence "define" what you allege:

The Council of Florence (the Bull Cantate Domino of February 4, 1442): “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, . . . but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently” (DS 1349).

Again, neither the Theological Commission nor the CCC contradicts this teaching.

Jehanne wrote:The choices are to believe in Limbo (the Hell of Separation) or in the more strict view of Saint Augustine, who consigned the unbaptized children to the Hell of Suffering, albeit, the mildest level. What is heresy is to say that there is a "way of salvation to the eternal beatitude" for infants who die (and remain dead) without Baptism.

So, it is heresy to say that God may provide the means of salvation "for infants who die (and remain dead) without Baptism."? Is it heresy to say:

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," 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.

Would that be "formal heresy" or just your run of the mill denial of a dogma of Faith?

Jehanne wrote:I do not believe that we have to interpret #1261 of the CCC as referring to Heaven, but, rather, as preferring the view of Saint Thomas over that of Saint Augustine, without discarding, entirely, the latter view.

Let me get this straight: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," and "allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation" does NOT refer to Heaven, but to Limbo, where these same children will be denied the beatific vision and salvation.

That's quite a unique and mind-numbing spin; but one to which we should be accustomed.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:I do not believe that we have to interpret #1261 of the CCC as referring to Heaven, but, rather, as preferring the view of Saint Thomas over that of Saint Augustine, without discarding, entirely, the latter view.

Let me get this straight: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," and "allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation" does NOT refer to Heaven, but to Limbo, where these same children will be denied the beatific vision and salvation.

That's quite a unique and mind-numbing spin; but one to which we should be accustomed.

Your memory must be failing, because you were the one who posted this article:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/apostolates/mancipia-press/8-pointpamphlet/31-point-january-2001.html

Here's another:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/apostolates/mancipia-press/8-pointpamphlet/30-point-january-2006.html

Jehanne,

Is it a rule of this forum, or even a rule in general, that when someone provides a link containing an article that the poster believes will be of interest to the forum, that the person who provides the link agrees with everything that is presented in the article?

But, as I said, we have come to expect such mind-numbing arguments from you, haven't we.

In fact, I remember when I posted the article(s) that you came back with a very appreciative remark for having found the hermeneutic of continuity that finally allows you to “interpret” no. 1261 of the CCC precisely as the article tells us, which goes like this:

How about the New Catechism?
Recent catechisms of the Church explain that the infant dying without Baptism can hope for the mercy of God. This is not a contradiction of Church tradition because as we have explained above, Limbo is a merciful part of God’s salvific plan. “The present or ‘current’ teaching of the Church does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction.” (Pope John Paul II)

And now you repeat the jargon while also ignoring what 1261 actually says. The fact that Limbo is not a contradiction of Church tradition or of God's mercy is not the subject of 1261. The subject is the teaching that “the great mercy of God … allow[s] us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism”.

And it briefly tells us why we may have hope (which is neither a "reversal nor a contradiction") without telling us that we can know this with any certainty because, as she also teaches, she knows of no means other than water baptism by which these infants can be saved. Do you think that by changing the subject and by ignoring what 1261 actually says, you can tell us that whoever wrote the article has provided the true meaning of 1261?

Why do you persist in playing these games of denial whereby reality is what you say it is, and not that which is actually presented by a St. Thomas Aquinas, by a Fr. Feeney or by the CCC?

MRyan.
I don't need to support my statement because that is not the point, and you know it. You are just trying to distract from the real issue.
The issue is that the Church has taught quite authoritatively, with the unanimous consent of theologians, that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation for infants.
It even taught pretty recently:
Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) in 1958:

The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature--a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism.

Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible. . . . Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfillment of this obligation."

But the Church now says there are grounds to hope for their salvation, but before She said there was no solid foundation. Well this teaching that infants cannot be saved without Baptism is as strong (even more so) than baptism of desire. Your theory doesn't work.

You say we can't question baptism of desire but we can question whether infants need the Sacrament of Baptism. It just shows your personal arm chair opinion of those who question the validity of baptism of desire is wrong. We can question whether baptism of desire is legitimate as much as those who question whether the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for infants.

duckbill wrote:MRyan.
I don't need to support my statement because that is not the point, and you know it. You are just trying to distract from the real issue.

Of course you don't; who cares that your total misrepresentation of what the Theological Commission actually said is patently false, that is not the "real issue".

In other words, you can totally misrepresent what the Commission said in order to tell us what the Commission "really" said.

Did I tell you that I'm not buying your spin? If you say something that is objectively false, you will be called out on it, though I can't be expected to keep up with your false and/or misleading statements.

duckbill wrote:The issue is that the Church has taught quite authoritatively, with the unanimous consent of theologians, that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation for infants.

Yes, that what she teaches, and she still teaches the same doctrine, for she knows of no means other than baptism by which these infants can be saved. So what part of this do you not understand, and where does the Theological Commission or the CCC contradict this teaching?

duckbill wrote:It even taught pretty recently:
Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) in 1958:

The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature--a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism.

Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible. . . . Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfillment of this obligation."

Again, where has the Church "changed" this teaching? Even 1261 of the CCC makes it quite clear that the urgency of baptism remains and "All the more urgent" that infants are baptized as soon as possible.

So tell us, how does the hope of salvation by the mercy of God change this teaching? Are you suggesting that unless the Church teaches that we are not allowed to have hope in the mercy of God for these infants, that such a hope contradicts the "no-hope" doctrine of the Church and formally eliminates the common doctrine of Limbo as it was commonly taught since the Middle ages?

duckbill wrote:But the Church now says there are grounds to hope for their salvation, but before She said there was no solid foundation. Well this teaching that infants cannot be saved without Baptism is as strong (even more so) than baptism of desire. Your theory doesn't work.

The Church says; you mean the ordinary Magisterrium, about which the Church tells us is the very same authority our Lord referred to when he said: "He who hears you, hears Me". You mean the authentic, the living and the permanent Magisterium, that now says there are grounds of hope for their salvation, yet you do not even have the decency to read the Theological Commission report and tell us why the Scriptural, Traditional and Liturgical reasons given for this hope are wrong.

duckbill wrote:You say we can't question baptism of desire but we can question whether infants need the Sacrament of Baptism. It just shows your personal arm chair opinion of those who question the validity of baptism of desire is wrong. We can question whether baptism of desire is legitimate as much as those who question whether the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for infants.

You can question all of the ordinary teachings of the Magisterium that you want. You can toss VCII and the entire CCC for all I care. Just don't tell me that Catholics can "reject" her teachings or that her Ordinary teachings do not demand the religious submission of the mind and will.

If you can't reconcile these teachings, that's your problem, not mine. The Church gives you some guidance here, I suggest you take it.

MRyan wrote:And it briefly tells us why we may have hope (which is neither a "reversal nor a contradiction") without telling us that we can know this with any certainty because, as she also teaches, she knows of no means other than water baptism by which these infants can be saved. Do you think that by changing the subject and by ignoring what 1261 actually says, you can tell us that whoever wrote the article has provided the true meaning of 1261?

Why do you persist in playing these games of denial whereby reality is what you say it is, and not that which is actually presented by a St. Thomas Aquinas, by a Fr. Feeney or by the CCC?

If you read the index of the CCC and look up "Limbo," it references #1261, so we may concluded that paragraph of the CCC is talking about Limbo. The "way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism" would be salvation from the Hell of Suffering (the view of Saint Augustine) but not from the Hell of Separation (the view of Saint Thomas), which would be Limbo.

columba wrote:
Does anyone know what the theological and Liturgical reasons are for this hope?
I'm not saying they don't exist but I haven't seen them produced yet.
And how would they conform to the the dogmatic pronouncements concerning the necessity of Baptism for infants?

Why don't read the actual Theological Commission report and find out for yourself:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Jehanne wrote:

If you read the index of the CCC and look up "Limbo," it references #1261, so we may concluded that paragraph of the CCC is talking about Limbo. The "way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism" would be salvation from the Hell of Suffering (the view of Saint Augustine) but not from the Hell of Separation (the view of Saint Thomas), which would be Limbo.

See, this is what I mean about being "obtuse".

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," 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.

So you "concluded" by looking up "Limbo" and seeing a reference to 1261 that "let the children come to me" refers to the "salvation" of Limbo and the salvation of eternal separation from our Lord, and that "the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children ... allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism" means that we are allowed to "hope" that "salvation" means that there is a way of "salvation from the Hell of suffering", but there is no hope that these infants can escape the "Limbo" of eternal separation, and no hope that God will provide a way (of salvation) for the children to go to our Lord in heaven.

And THAT is the real meaning of 1261. I really don't know what to say.

Black is white and white is black. And that was really appropriate to cite St. Augustine on the eternal torments of non-baptized infants as if "salvation" from such torments is what 1261 is talking about, rather than eternal salvation with and in our Lord.

Has it occurred to you that any indirect reference to Limbo in the Index has to do with the fact that "hope" is not the assurance of salvation; therefore, as 1261 concludes: "All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

Why? Because the Church does not know of any means other than baptism that can assure their salvation. While she leaves a hope in God's mercy alive, Limbo is still a very real possibility -- and a common doctrine.

Do words have any meaning to you at all?

Salvation may be salvation from the torments of your logic.

If you read the following two articles, once again,

http://www.saintbenedict.com/apostolates/mancipia-press/8-pointpamphlet/31-point-january-2001.html
http://www.saintbenedict.com/apostolates/mancipia-press/8-pointpamphlet/30-point-january-2006.html

you will see the following quote,

"The present or ‘current’ teaching of the Church does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction." (Pope John II) Now, is this quote true or false?

If what Pope John Paul II, the apostolic authority behind the CCC, said is true, then the following must also be true:

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God..." (Council of Florence)

Continuing:

duckbill wrote:But the Church now says there are grounds to hope for their salvation, but before She said there was no solid foundation. Well this teaching that infants cannot be saved without Baptism is as strong (even more so) than baptism of desire. Your theory doesn't work.

The “grounds for hope” is not the same thing as having a “solid foundation” for salvation. If the foundation were solid, the Church would not use the language of an un-solid-like “hope” and "trust" in the mercy of God; rather, she would employ the same language she uses for the very solid doctrines of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, where she teaches that 'The Church has always held the firm conviction that … This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament” and that each “assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.”

If you weren't so biased and blinded by your "Feeneyite" prejudices, you would see that the 1958 Holy Office instruction and the CCC (1261) are in perfect accord. When 1261 says, for example, that the mercy of God and our Lord's tenderness towards children “allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism”, she immediately adds to this the very same admonition as the 1958 Holy Office instruction regarding the sense of urgency in bringing children to Christ through Baptism:

CCC, 1261: All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

1958 Holy Office instruction: Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible.

Is there something here you do not understand?

duckbill wrote:You say we can't question baptism of desire but we can question whether infants need the Sacrament of Baptism. It just shows your personal arm chair opinion of those who question the validity of baptism of desire is wrong. We can question whether baptism of desire is legitimate as much as those who question whether the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for infants.

I never said that "we can question whether infants need the Sacrament of Baptism"; and I resent such a baseless and scurrilous accusation. This is typical of you, though, isn't it. Notice there is no question mark.

This is just one more example of your flawed and biased rendition of what the Church actually teaches; and I don't know why I am still surprised at such tortured and sloppy argumentation.

If you wish to use your erroneous spin as an argument against the exact citations of the authentic ordinary Magisterium, and if you wish to challenge the fact that I have clearly demonstrated that the Church does not suggest as you allege, to wit, that she now teaches or implies that infants do not have to be baptized as soon as possible because the “hope” that our Lord might save them in His mercy places their salvation on “solid foundation”; well, go right ahead, but you already lost the argument and are standing on very shaky ground.

As I said previously, you can question whatever authentic teachings of the Church that you want, why stop now?

Jehanne wrote:If you read the following two articles, once again, you will see the following quote, [xxx]

"The present or ‘current’ teaching of the Church does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction." (Pope John II) Now, is this quote true or false?

It is true, and only a biased and ill-formed mind would see a reversal or a contradiction to the Catholic doctrine on Baptism in the CCC. But did you notice that there was no source given for this citation by Pope John Paul II, so we do not even know the context?

Have you ever heard the very Catholic idea that a true development can only develop what is already there, even if it is only implied, and even if it was never developed previously? Did you know that a true development in the understanding of in Catholic doctrine cannot in any way contradict or reverse Catholic doctrine?

Are you suggesting that the allowance of “hope” for the salvation of un-baptized children is a reversal or contradiction to Catholic doctrine?

If so, then why, “In an interview with Inside the Vatican magazine, Sister Butler, who teaches dogmatic theology at St. Joseph's Seminary in Yonkers, New York [and is a member of the Commission], says 'the report concludes that limbo remains a 'possible theological opinion.' Anyone who wants to defend it is free to do so. This document, however, tries to give a theological rationale for hoping that unbaptized infants may be saved."

She added: "The commission is trying to say what the Catechism of the Catholic Church — Nos. 1260, 1261, 1283 — has already said: that we have a right to hope that God will find a way to offer the grace of Christ to infants who have no opportunity for making a personal choice with regard to their salvation."

The document "is trying to provide a theological rationale for what has already been proposed in several magisterial documents since the council," Sister Butler said. "Generally, the [commission] documents offer a point of reference for bishops and theology professors in seminaries, for example, to offer an explanation for the development of doctrine.

"But I doubt whether this would lead to a further statement from the magisterium, because it says no more than what has already been said in the [Catechism], in the funeral rites for infants who have died without baptism in the 1970 Roman Missal, and in 'Pastoralis Actio' — the document from 1980 from the [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] on the baptism of infants.

"It says nothing new; it is simply trying to make explicit the theological grounding for this hope. 'Gaudium et Spes,' 22, and 'Lumen Gentium,' 14 and 16, at the Second Vatican Council, opened the way for this development. Actually, some wanted the teaching on limbo formally defined at the council, but the topic was excluded from the agenda."

Yeah, that was some “reversal and contradiction” to Catholic doctrine.

Jehanne wrote:
If what Pope John Paul II, the apostolic authority behind the CCC, said is true, then the following must also be true:

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God..." (Council of Florence)

Of course its true, and the CCC says the very same thing when she teaches:

“The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude” (1257).

In other words, “the only remedy available to them [the Church knows of no other] is the sacrament of baptism”; though we are also allowed to hope that God will provide a remedy (unknown to the Church) for their salvation. The latter part is a "development" in doctrine that neither removes nor "defines" Limbo, but gives hope - and that's all it does.

Jehanne wrote:The thing is, Vatican II has never promulgated anything new in dogma or doctrine demanding the assent of the faithful. The things quoted by C.T. are not put before us as "of the faith." We are still free to follow all the traditional teachings as we always have (even if the means to do so aren't universally available and have to be sought out). However, if a Pope were to declare something concerning Faith, Morals or Discipline as Binding on all the faithful then we would be duty bound to humbly submit to any such declaration.

Here we go again with the old “VCII did not 'define' any 'new' doctrines; therefore, it cannot demand the assent [of faith] of the faithful; therefore, we are free to reject whatever we believe is not in accord with our version of tradition and what appears to be 'erroneous'.” In other words, “we can reject whatever we see fit that does not fit into our “interpretation” of tradition and established doctrine”.

Of course, Jehanne gives it all away when he actually says that only “if a Pope were to declare something concerning Faith, Morals or Discipline as Binding on all the faithful then we would be duty bound to humbly submit to any such declaration”, when the Church clearly teaches that whatever teaching is proposed by the Magisterium, even if it is not an “infallible” revealed truth, requires of the faithful at least the religious (and humble) submission of the intellect and will.

Gee, where have we heard this before?

Actually, I am beginning to tire of this.

Let's examine MRyan's logic some more, shall we? Consider the following proposition, let's call it P:

P : No Dodos are alive in the world today.
Not P: At least one dodo is alive in the world today.

Now, by the law of non-contradiction, P and Not P cannot both be true.

So, with respect to the absolute necessity of Baptism for infants, the Council of Florence infallibly declared:

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God..." (Council of Florence)

Now, if Florence is correct, then the following proposition is true:

P: Sacramental Baptism is the only remedy for children to attain eternal life.
Not P: Some remedy other than Sacramental Baptism is available for children so that
they may attain eternal life.

Both P and Not P cannot be true at the same time. Since the Council of Florence, an ecumenical Council, is of higher authority than the CCC or any theological commission, its decrees take precedence.

Jehanne wrote:Let's examine MRyan's logic some more, shall we? Consider the following proposition, let's call it P:

P : No Dodos are alive in the world today.
Not P: At least one dodo is alive in the world today.

Now, by the law of non-contradiction, P and Not P cannot both be true.

So, with respect to the absolute necessity of Baptism for infants, the Council of Florence infallibly declared:

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God..." (Council of Florence)

Now, if Florence is correct, then the following proposition is true:

P: Sacramental Baptism is the only remedy for children to attain eternal life.
Not P: Some remedy other than Sacramental Baptism is available for children so that
they may attain eternal life.

Both P and Not P cannot be true at the same time. Since the Council of Florence, an ecumenical Council, is of higher authority than the CCC or any theological commission, its decrees take precedence.

It is true, we have living proof that the Dodo lives.

That the Church teaches that the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism does NOT "define" or necessitate that God is so bound to provide the remedy of sacramental baptism.

What it means, as the Church also teaches, is that the only KNOWN remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism; but she allows us to hope that God will provide a remedy unknown to His Church.

In other words, both your "Dodo bird" and Council of Florence analogies are examples of logical fallacies, and you get an "F" in logic.

Yeah, right, and all the theological manuals and catechisms prior to Vatican II were wrong:

Baltimore Catechism No. 3 -- "Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven" (Q. 632).

You get Fs in history, logic, and biology -- Dodos are extinct, that is, they are all dead. The last one was strangled alive over a century ago.

Trust me; the Dodo lives!

Well, sir, your election to the National Academy of Sciences is guaranteed! However, you should publicize your results in Science or Nature to gain maximum visibility for your "discovery"!

P.S. If you are alluding to me personally, it only shows your further ignorance (and arrogance.)

MRyan wrote:

What it means, as the Church also teaches, is that the only KNOWN remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism

You are now telling us -by your own infallible authority- what the Church means and you do this by adding the word "known" when the operative word in the statement is "ONLY."
Isn't this what Luther done by adding the word "ALONE" when the words in scripture didn't conform to his own personal, skewed theology?

MRyan,
Your methodology is wrong.
All can see by your responses you are just confused, nothing wrong with that; there is confusion in the Church. It just shows that to question baptism of desire is just as ligitamate as questioning is the Sacrament of Baptism is the ONLY hope for infants.

It's really irrelevant as far as I am concerned. IMHO, the Catechism of Trent teaches the infallible truth of the Catholic faith:

"should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters..."

Father Feeney said,

"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you." (Bread of Life, page 56).

Now, I am not endorsing everything that Father Feeney taught and believed, but as the Fathers at Trent knew, with God, "nothing is impossible," so He is certainly capable of bringing sacramental Baptism to whomever He wishes. Likewise, "and just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27), so the One and Triune God has complete control over life and death.

My point in this threat was to show there is room for debate on the subject of absolute necessity of Baptism for salvation and the hypothetical catechumen. It isn't as cut and dry as MRyan wants to present it. Infants not being able to be saved without Baptism is a solid teaching but the Church has seemed to allow some debate to be had on the subject. If this is true then there is room for debate whether baptism of desire is legitimate theory.

Whether one position is right or wrong isn't the point; it is if we are allowed by the Church to debate it and still be Catholics in good faith-- the answer is yes.

columba wrote:MRyan wrote:

What it means, as the Church also teaches, is that the only KNOWN remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism

You are now telling us -by your own infallible authority- what the Church means and you do this by adding the word "known" when the operative word in the statement is "ONLY."

Isn't this what Luther done by adding the word "ALONE" when the words in scripture didn't conform to his own personal, skewed theology?

The hypocrisy here is actually quite revealing in that it reveals itself on more than one level.

First of all, I have no “infallible authority”, so your hyperbole is misplaced, as usual.

Next, columba is trying to tell us that the operative word in the cited passage from the Council of Florence is “ALONE”, meaning that this “ex cathedra definiton” (it is an infallible declaration, but it is NOT an “ex cathedra definiton”) can mean ONLY what columba says it means, that the word "ALONE" positively excludes that very same understanding of the ordinary Magisterium when she teaches that:

1. God is not bound by His sacraments to effect the grace of His sacraments.
2. “The Church does not KNOW of any means [for infants] other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude” (CCC, 1257).

So when I use very same expression of the Church to convey the same meaning, I am accused of being another Martin Luther who added “alone” to a passage of Scripture so that it would convey the meaning that he wanted.

But isn't it a bit strange that the citation in question (Florence) provided by Jehanne is NOT the same citation provided by Duckbill, with the latter being the exact translation of Denzinger, and goes like this:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”DZ 712

I'm sorry, but I do not see the word “alone” in this passage, though perhaps columba has the infallible authority to tell us, like Martin Luther, that “alone” is “infallibly” implied in the “definition”, or that it means the very same thing. As such, perhaps columba, the dogmatic purist, will also tell us with infallible certitude that the “definition” positively excludes the Church's stated understanding as she presents it in the CCC, 1261.

In other words, just like "faith ALONE" is alleged to justify, so too "ONLY sacramental baptism" ("baptism ALONE") allegedly provides the ONLY remedy for effecting sanctifying grace and salvation. And I'll be darned, but neither Scripture not Florence say (let alone "define") what is alleged.

And I'm the "Martin Luther" in the group! Man, next I'll be interpreting dogma in stated opposition to the Church's own understanding!

The cited passages from Florence mean the same thing for the Church knows of no other remedy that can be brought to infants than the sacrament of baptism – the ONLY remedy by which an infant can be assured of his salvation (with the exception of baptism of blood), as the Church teaches.

Of course, columba also rejects the possibility of baptism of blood for infants because; well, only a Church infected with the heretical spirit of Martin Luther would provide an understanding of Florence at odds with the infallible interpretation of columba.

I think that about sums it up.

By my infallible authority, I hereby amend "ALONE" to read "ONLY" in the following passage: "Next, columba is trying to tell us that the operative word in the cited passage from the Council of Florence is 'ALONE', ..."

I mean, I'd hate to be accused of another Lutheresque change of the very same word that does not even appear in the Denzinger translation of the Council of Florence.

P: no help by another remedy
Not P: Some help by another remedy.

Both P and Not P cannot both be true.

I think I understand what you are saying.( Not sure though) Before you can prove your point we need to agree we can discuss it.

Jehanne wrote:P: no help by another remedy
Not P: Some help by another remedy.

Both P and Not P cannot both be true.

P: no help can be brought to them by another remedy (other than Baptism) that can assure the infant's salvation

Not opposed to P: an allowance for 'hope' in a remedy known to God alone … but only by baptism can we be assured of the infant's salvation.

Your “F” stands. Quit making up your own inaccurate renditions and listen to the Church.

That's not what Florence said. You are adding words, just like the heretic Luther. You say that I get an 'F' in logic, but please tell me my error below:

P is the set of all natural numbers that are prime, that is, divisble by themselves and 1.

Not P is the set of all natural numbers that are not prime, that is, composite numbers.

Conclusion: A natural number cannot be both a prime number and a composite number.

If I am in error, please explain.

Jehanne wrote:That's not what Florence said. You are adding words, just like the heretic Luther. You say that I get an 'F' in logic, but please tell me my error below:

P is the set of all natural numbers that are prime, that is, divisble by themselves and 1.

Not P is the set of all natural numbers that are not prime, that is, composite numbers.

Conclusion: A natural number cannot be both a prime number and a composite number.

If I am in error, please explain.

Actually, you mean the Church is like the heretic Luther when she teaches that:

“The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude” (1257).

And, she “added” these words as well:

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," 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.

Which is why I said: "Not opposed to P: an allowance for 'hope' in a remedy known to God alone … but only by baptism can we be assured of the infant's salvation."

And you accuse ME of “adding words” to the Counsel of Florence, which dogmatically confirmed:

“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”DZ 712

Once again, where does your “definition” declare that the sacrament of baptism is the ONLY means by which God can effect the sanctification and salvation of an un-baptized infant?

That there is no help that can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism does not mean that God binds Himself to bringing the only remedy known to the Church that can assure their salvation.

“The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude” (1257); As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the 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.” (1261)

Oh yeah, I'm the one accused of “adding words” to the Council of Florence, when it is the Church that provides for the correct understanding of her own dogmatic teaching.

I am really impressed with your "logic", and would be even more impressed if your interpretation of the Council of Florence had anything to do whatsoever with the set of all natural numbers that are not prime (your subjective and erroneous interpretation of Florence) such that they do not allow for an interpretation by the Church that you falsely allege is made up of "added words" (prime numbers).

You not only get an "F", you are hereby confined to one week's detention.

MRyan I think you've misunderstood my point.
This is your quote which I referred to in my previous post.

MRyan wrote
That the Church teaches that the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism does NOT "define" or necessitate that God is so bound to provide the remedy of sacramental baptism.

What it means, as the Church also teaches, is that the only KNOWN remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism; but she allows us to hope that God will provide a remedy unknown to His Church.

So; you say in the first half of your quote that the "ONLY" remedy available to them is the sacrament of Baptism.
Then you interpret that in the second part of your quote to mean "the only KNOWN remedy available to them is the sacrament of Baptism.
Do you see where you've changerd the meaning now?
You imply that there is somehow an "unknown remedy" besides Baptism when in fact the Church teaches that the "ONLY" remedy is Baptism.

But I think we may have veered off the the main point of the thread as stated by Duckbill. As there is room for debate concerning the necessity of Baptism for the salvation of infants, there is also room on the same grounds for debating baptism of desire.

Owing to the usual, confusing post Vat II permitted speculation, I take back the Martin Lurther analogy.

1261 wrote: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," 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.

As I said before, it is possible to interpret #1261 as referring to Limbo, which, if you look up in the Index, references #1261:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/apostolates/mancipia-press/8-pointpamphlet/31-point-january-2001.html

How do you interpret the Roman Catechism, which states,

Roman Catechism -- Infant Baptism: It's Necessity wrote:That this law extends not only to adults but also to infants and children, and that the Church has received this from Apostolic tradition, is confirmed by the unanimous teaching and authority of the Fathers.

Besides, it is not to be supposed that Christ the Lord would have withheld the Sacrament and grace of Baptism from children, of whom He said: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me; for the kingdom of heaven is for such; whom also He embraced, upon whom He imposed hands, to whom He gave His blessing.

Moreover, when we read that an entire family was baptised by Paul, it is sufficiently obvious that the children of the family must also have been cleansed in the saving font.

Circumcision, too, which was a figure of Baptism, affords strong argument in proof of this practice. That children were circumcised on the eighth day is universally known. If then circumcision, made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, was profitable to children, it is clear that Baptism, which is the circumcision of Christ, not made by hand, is also profitable to them.

Finally, as the Apostle teaches, if by one man's offence death reigned through one, much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. If, then, through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This, however, cannot be effected otherwise than by Baptism.

Pastors, therefore, should inculcate the absolute necessity of administering Baptism to infants, and of gradually forming their tender minds to piety by education in the Christian religion. For according to these admirable words of the wise man: A young man according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Now, of course, the Roman Catechism lasted how long? 400 hundred years!

Of course, they simply forgot to add the "does not know of any means" part. Of course, the correct interpretation of that phrase is that since the Church "does not know of any means" is because there are NO other means. There, QED.

columba wrote:MRyan I think you've misunderstood my point.
This is your quote which I referred to in my previous post.

MRyan wrote
That the Church teaches that the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism does NOT "define" or necessitate that God is so bound to provide the remedy of sacramental baptism.

What it means, as the Church also teaches, is that the only KNOWN remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism; but she allows us to hope that God will provide a remedy unknown to His Church.

So; you say in the first half of your quote that the "ONLY" remedy available to them is the sacrament of Baptism.
Then you interpret that in the second part of your quote to mean "the only KNOWN remedy available to them is the sacrament of Baptism.
Do you see where you've changerd the meaning now?
You imply that there is somehow an "unknown remedy" besides Baptism when in fact the Church teaches that the "ONLY" remedy is Baptism.

More obfuscation and misdirection. Listen, columba, why must we play these games?

When I said “What it means, as the Church also teaches, is that the only KNOWN remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism; but she allows us to hope that God will provide a remedy unknown to His Church.”; “what IT means” is a direct reference to the citation (immediately preceding my response) provided by Jehanne from the Council of Florence (from a source unknown):

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God..." (Council of Florence)

Now I am supposed to believe that you were not referring to the meaning of IT (the statement of the Church), but to my own statement when you made this accusation: “You are now telling us -by your own infallible authority- what the Church means and you do this by adding the word "known" when the operative word in the statement is "ONLY."

So you are telling me what the operative word “ONLY” is the operative word in MY statement, and not the operative “ONLY” in the statement of the Church provided by Jehanne (which is not the translation of Denzinger); the very statement I was addressing.

First you accuse me of having some “infallible authority”, then you accuse me of adding the the word “known” to my own “infallible” pronouncement that contains the word "only".

Please give me a minute to soak in this new-found infallible authority over my own infallible pronouncements and “definitions”; it can be quite intoxicating.

If you took the time to actually read my responses, you would know that I added nothing to the Church's own understanding, but provided ONLY her own words.

If you have a problem with that; fine, but let's not play these games as if you don't know what the Church presents to the Faithful; and then accuse me of “adding words” (the words of the Church) which, allegedly, contradict the dogmatic Council of Florence.

columba wrote:But I think we may have veered off the the main point of the thread as stated by Duckbill. As there is room for debate concerning the necessity of Baptism for the salvation of infants, there is also room on the same grounds for debating baptism of desire.

Not at all, and my responses to Duckbill about the alleged identical "pedigree" of the common doctrines of Limbo and baptism of desire/baptism of blood have gone unanswered.

And please do not talk to me about "veering" off course when my thread on the Immaculate Conception and St. Thomas was immediately hi-jacked into a "debate" over what Fr. Feeney taught on justification, vs. the doctrine of St. Aquinas (which are clearly opposed).

My source was EWTN:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

MRyan wrote:And please do not talk to me about "veering" off course when my thread on the Immaculate Conception and St. Thomas was immediately hi-jacked into a "debate" over what Fr. Feeney taught on justification, vs. the doctrine of St. Aquinas (which are clearly opposed).

You also reject the sacramental theology of Saint Thomas:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/1997/November/St%20Thomas%20on%20the%20Limbo%20of%20Children.htm

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:And please do not talk to me about "veering" off course when my thread on the Immaculate Conception and St. Thomas was immediately hi-jacked into a "debate" over what Fr. Feeney taught on justification, vs. the doctrine of St. Aquinas (which are clearly opposed).

You also reject the sacramental theology of Saint Thomas:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/1997/November/St%20Thomas%20on%20the%20Limbo%20of%20Children.htm

Since you made the incredibly ignorant accusation, I will insist that you prove how I "reject the sacramental theology of Saint Thomas".

The only relevant piece in the cited article is St. Thomas' reference to the teaching of St. Greogory Nazianzen (the same St. Gregory who offers the "hope" of universal salvation), who, speaking of un-baptized infants, says that a just and eternal Judge will consign them neither to heavenly glory nor to the eternal pains of hell, for although they have not been signed with Baptism, they are without wickedness and malice and have suffered rather than caused their loss of Baptism.

This says nothing about whether God may choose, as the Church now allows for such "hope", to provide the grace of the sacrament.

Put up ... or shut up.

It's near the bottom of the article:

"Although unbaptised children are separated from God as regards the union of glory, they are not utterly separated from Him: in fact they are united to Him by their share of natural goods and so will also be able to rejoice in Him by their natural knowledge and love."

Jehanne wrote:It's near the bottom of the article:

"Although unbaptised children are separated from God as regards the union of glory, they are not utterly separated from Him: in fact they are united to Him by their share of natural goods and so will also be able to rejoice in Him by their natural knowledge and love."

And you call this entirely speculative theology of St. Thomas "sacramental theology"; and a "sacramental theology" that I "reject"? And what does this have to do with the CCC, 1261? Oh, let me guess, 1261 is "really" talking about Limbo, and not the hope of "salvation"; as if Limbo is another form of "salvation", a "salvation from the torments of hell"; but still "hell".

So, "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the 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," really means "do not hinder them from coming to Me in Limbo"; and "allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism" means that the mercy of God and our Lord's tenderness towards children "allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation [from the torments of hell, but not eternal separation from God's glory] for children who have died without Baptism". And thus it follows: "All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."; lest they be deprived of Limbo.

I take it back; you are not "obtuse", you are simply and totally incompetent.

Funny, how this "way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism" was never discussed by Saint Thomas nor anyone else until the era of Vatican II. Are you saying that Saint Thomas also believed that children who died without Baptism could attain Heaven, the Beatific Vision? I am at a loss to interpret the following:

"If anyone says that it might be understood that, in the kingdom of Heaven, there will be some middle place or some place anywhere that infants live who departed this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven which is eternal life: Let him be anathema.” (Pope Zosimus, Council of Carthage)

But, what you are telling me is that Pope Zosimus also believed that there was a "way of salvation" for infants who died without Baptism. Funny how he never mentioned it.

And, how about Pope Pius VI? Apparently, he also believed in a "way of salvation" for infants who died without Baptism, when he wrote,

"The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name Limbo of the 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 fire, just as if by this very fact, that those who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state, free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk: [Condemned as] false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools (Denz. 1526)."

Funny how he never mentioned this "hope"? Or, how about the authors of the Baltimore Catechism? Did they also believe in this "hope" of a "way of salvation" when they wrote of children who died without Baptism:

"A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven neither will they go to Hell. After the Last Judgment there will be no Purgatory. Where, then, will they go? God in His goodness will provide a place of rest for them, where they will not suffer and will be in a state of natural peace; but they will never see God or Heaven. God might have created us for a purely natural and material end, so that we would live forever upon the earth and be naturally happy with the good things God would give us. But then we would never have known of Heaven or God as we do now. Such happiness on earth would be nothing compared to the delights of Heaven and the presence of God; so that, now, since God has given us, through His holy revelations, a knowledge of Himself and Heaven, we would be miserable if left always upon the earth. Those, then, who die without Baptism do not know what they have lost, and are naturally happy; but we who know all they have lost for want of Baptism know how very unfortunate they are.

Think, then, what a terrible crime it is to willfully allow anyone to die without Baptism, or to deprive a little child of life before it can be baptized! Suppose all the members of a family but one little infant have been baptized; when the Day of Judgment comes, while all the other members of a family-father, mother, and children-may go into Heaven, that little one will have to remain out; that little brother or sister will be separated from its family forever, and never, never see God or Heaven. How heartless and cruel, then, must a person be who would deprive that little infant of happiness for all eternity-just that its mother or someone else might have a little less trouble or suffering here upon earth."

Funny, why do they never mention this "hope" of a "way of salvation" for infants who die without Baptism? Did they just forget to mention it?

Or, how about the Catechism of Pope Pius X,

"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. "

Funny, where's this "hope" of a "way of salvation" for infants who die without Baptism?

Sorry, but you are a very, very poor historian!

Reminds me of Protestant positions of “either/or” instead of the Catholic positions of “both/and.” Protestants often will choose between faith or works, instead of both faith and works. Because the Bible says we are saved by faith and the bible says we are not saved by “works of man.” (ignoring that there are works of God that men can participate in.) Praying to Christ or to Saints instead of praying to both. Scripture or Tradition instead of both. We are saved by God’s grace alone instead of God’s grace that we accept and participate in by our free will. That Holy Communion is only spiritual instead of it being spiritual and physical.

They take some Words of Scripture and form a decision one way, while ignoring the rest of the Words of Scripture. And they interpret the Word of Scripture differently and apart from the way the Church interprets them.

Reminds me of what is going on hear with the Words of Tradition. Taking some and not taking them as a whole. Ignoring other Words and not trying to reconcile them all together. And interpreting Tradition differently and apart from how the Church interprets it.

Both/and:

That Baptism is necessary for salvation, but that God can provide the effects of baptism to some (not the norm) in some other way known only to Himself.

Both parts of that statement being true. Not either/or like Protestant mentality.


So Jehanne takes part of the Baltimore Catechism:


Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.


But he ignores this part:

Q. 644. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: 1.Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood for the faith of Christ.

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.


All that can be true, as well as this part:

Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.


We need to trust that ALL that the Church teaches is true and can all be reconciled, even if we do not understand it.

The dodo example doesn’t compare to these discussions.

One is a scientific fact. (and even those can be changed when there is further evidence. A dodo could be discovered somewhere. It happens all the time with species previously deemed extinct) A fact is not subject to interpretation by the Church.

Theology is subject by interpretation by the Church. (But not subject to private interpretation) You are equating dodos with what we are saying and it doesn’t equate.

Same with the math equation. God is not a mathematical equation.

Please read my post on the other thread about how you are interpreting salvation to be limbo incorrectly. The Church has NEVER in 2,000 years called salvation anything other than Heaven.

Mryan,

“your own infallible interpretation” and “his own personal skewed theology?”

Yet it agrees with the catechism of the catholic church and authoritative statements by Popes.

Does that make sense to anyone? lol

Good night all.
God bless you.
Love,
Elisa