Limbo

Originally posted by lioyank
"No Baptism, no salvation"

How can you baptize someone when they aren't born yet?

That's exactly the problem, and probably the reason why limbo was invented. It certainly isn't the fetuses' fault that they can't get baptized, but on the other hand the same is true for all the infants who die without getting baptized. They can't avoid "original sin", and they can't get absolved. Bad luck.

Originally posted by Nordlys
That's exactly the problem, and probably the reason why limbo was invented. It certainly isn't the fetuses' fault that they can't get baptized, but on the other hand the same is true for all the infants who die without getting baptized. They can't avoid "original sin", and they can't get absolved. Bad luck.

It's not bad luck - they deserved it for not accepting Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. They were bad babies. Very bad.

Do Freaky, LH, DJ, or Ivanhoe have anything to say on the matter?

Originally posted by Palynka
Rubbish. There's no official RCC doctrine about unbaptized children.

If you bothered to check the site I gave, you would have seen that it was authoritative as regards the necessity of baptism for salvation. Typical laziness on your part.

EDIT: "The Decree for the Armenians", in the Bull "Exultate Deo" of Pope Eugene IV, is often referred to as a decree of the Council of Florence. While it is not necessary to hold this decree to be a dogmatic definition of the matter and form and minister of the sacraments, it is undoubtedly a practical instruction, emanating from the Holy See, and as such, has full authenticity in a canonical sense. That is, it is authoritative. The decree speaks thus of Baptism:

Holy Baptism holds the first place among the sacraments, because it is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church. And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Originally posted by no1marauder
Redmike started a thread in Debates with this post which soon want into off-topic bigoted territory (Hello, Debates!). But I actually am somewhat interested in the theological implications:

So, it seems that the pope is about to ditch the concept of limbo - that place where unbaptised babies and folk born before JC end up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/ ...[text shortened]... raight to paradise if they die, so islam is a better bet in areas of high infant mortality.

The concept of limbo was never incorporated into Catholic doctrine. It has only ever been a popular hypothesis - but has never, ever, been taught as infallible. Benedict had made this observation before his papacy.

And also, you seem to be perpetuating throughout this thread the myth that Catholic teaching expresses that only baptised Catholics can go to heaven. Firstly, baptism does not necassarily occur through water, but also desire, and martyrdom. Secondly, the Catholic Church teaches that only people who consciously, without any defect of mind or ingrained prejudice, reject the Church and its teaching cannot receive salvation (note that this says nothing about fetuses.)

Originally posted by Conrau K
The concept of limbo was never incorporated into Catholic doctrine. It has only ever been a popular hypothesis - but has never, ever, been taught as infallible. Benedict had made this observation before his papacy.

And also, you seem to be perpetuating throughout this thread the myth that Catholic teaching expresses that only baptised Catholics can go to ...[text shortened]... he Church and its teaching cannot receive salvation (note that this says nothing about fetuses.)

See my edit above. Apparently at least one Pope felt differently.

Originally posted by no1marauder
See my edit above. Apparently at least one Pope felt differently.

Catholics, nor previous Popes, are bound to believe in "authoritative" teaching. They are bound to believe infallible statements. Please cite where the concept of limbo was recognized as an infallible pronouncement.

EDIT: And again, baptism can still occur through blood or desire, not just water.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Catholics, nor previous Popes, are bound to believe in "authoritative" teaching. They are bound to believe infallible statements. Please cite where the concept of limbo was recognized as an infallible pronouncement.

I never said it was; in fact if you bothered to read my posts, I said on page 1 it wasn't official doctrine. However, the necessity of baptism for salvation is. Hence, the problem.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I never said it was; in fact if you bothered to read my posts, I said on page 1 it wasn't official doctrine. However, the necessity of baptism for salvation is. Hence, the problem.

I have not disagreed with the statement that baptism is necassary for salvation. However, the Church is very broad in its recognition of baptism. Those who die defending the faith, or who want to become baptized, are also recognized as baptized. The Church also recognizes baptisms in other Churches.

It could be argued that infants, still innocent (original sin does not negate innocence), would qualify as baptised by desire (not an articulated or expressible desire, but by their closeness to God) or their inevitable desire.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have not disagreed with the statement that baptism is necassary for salvation. However, the Church is very broad in its recognition of baptism. Those who die defending the faith, or who want to become baptized, are also recognized as baptized. The Church also recognizes baptisms in other Churches.

It could be argued that infants, still innocent (origi ...[text shortened]... an articulated or expressible desire, but by their closeness to God) or their inevitable desire.

Anything can be "argued". However that particular argument is specious as well as contrary to the teachings of the major Catholic theologians (Read the NewAdvent article section on the "Necessity of Baptism" in the cite I gave).

Originally posted by Conrau K
It could be argued that infants, still innocent (original sin does not negate innocence), would qualify as baptised by desire (not an articulated or expressible desire, but by their closeness to God) or their inevitable desire.

From that link no1marauder gave: "Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire."

Originally posted by no1marauder
Anything can be "argued". However that particular argument is specious as well as contrary to the teachings of the major Catholic theologians (Read the NewAdvent article section on the "Necessity of Baptism" in the cite I gave).

Major Catholic theologians?

You don't even know what you're saying anymore.

As I have said, the Church teaches that baptism can be achieved three different ways. It might be argued that infants can achieve baptism through one of these way (and this srgument is no way specious). And if not, then the Church cannot propose any authoritative teaching in regards to limbo. All they can do is emphasise the merciful nature of their God.

Originally posted by Nordlys
From that link no1marauder gave: "Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire."

I would clarify in the catechism first. But nonetheless, the teaching of the Church is most suitable, the fate of infant's soles can only be entrusted with the mercy of God.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you bothered to check the site I gave, you would have seen that it was authoritative as regards the necessity of baptism for salvation. Typical laziness on your part.

EDIT: "The Decree for the Armenians", in the Bull "Exultate Deo" of Pope Eugene IV, is often referred to as a decree of the Council of Florence. While it is not necessary to hold this ...[text shortened]... m of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm[/b]

I see you're back at using your usual crutch made of derogatory comments. How quaint.

What's this fixation with the newadvent site? Why not try the official RCC source: The Vatican.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#1261

I quote for your 'convenience':

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.

Originally posted by Palynka
I see you're back at using your usual crutch made of derogatory comments. How quaint.

What's this fixation with the newadvent site? Why not try the official RCC source: The Vatican.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#1261

I quote for your 'convenience':

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Ch ...[text shortened]... to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

.... and that is all there is to say about this subject.