Limbo

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.

The Catholic Encyclopedia which I quoted from is an authoritative source:

The Encyclopedia bears the imprimatur of the Most Reverend Archbishop under whose jurisdiction it is published. In constituting the Editors the ecclesiastical censors, he has given them a singular proof of his confidence and of his desire to facilitate the publication of the work which he has promoted most effectively by his influence and kindly co-operation.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html

The Vatican page pretty much concedes that there is nothing in Catholic theology which is consistent with the idea that children who die without Baptism can gain salvation. "Allow[ing] us to hope" is not a replacement for a coherent theology.

Originally posted by Conrau K
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.

The laziness of some people is astounding. From the cite I gave:

The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (II, xxii): "Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God,infants, children, and youths" (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (III De Anima) says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Ep, xxviii, Ad Hieron.) reads:"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ," St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity." In the Pelagian controversy we find similarly strong pronouncements on the part of the Councils of Carthage and Milevis, and of Pope Innocent I.


Does St. Iraneus, St. Augustine and the rest rate as "major Catholic theologians" to you?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Vatican page pretty much concedes that there is nothing in Catholic theology which is consistent with the idea that children who die without Baptism can gain salvation. "Allow[ing] us to hope" is not a replacement for a coherent theology.

So you agree with me that the RCC has no official doctrine regarding the salvation of unbaptized infants?

Your source also has the quote I mention, if you had bothered to read what you link.

Editor's note: On this subject, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "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," allows 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."

Originally posted by Palynka
So you agree with me that the RCC has no official doctrine regarding the salvation of unbaptized infants?

Your source also has the quote I mention, if you had bothered to read what you link.

Editor's note: On this subject, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrus ll not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

No, I don't.

The Church's position is that Baptism is essential to "cleanse" original sin. This is central to Catholic theology. The Church's position is also that the stain of original sin must be removed through Baptism in order for salvation to be possible. Putting these beliefs together, the only logical conclusion is that unbapitized infants are not eligible for salvation as St. Augustine and others pointed out. So either the concept of original sin has to be modified, or the concept that Baptism is essential must be modified or unbaptized children are not eligible for salvation. What part of this is hard to follow?

That the Church throws in a "with God all things are possible" escape clause is rather pathetic. Why bother to have a theology at all if any part of it can be wiped away by such gymnastics?

EDIT: 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm XI - Unbaptized Infants

Originally posted by no1marauder
The laziness of some people is astounding. From the cite I gave:

The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (II, xxii): "Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God,infants, children, and youths" (infantes et parvulos et puero ...[text shortened]... s St. Iraneus, St. Augustine and the rest rate as "major Catholic theologians" to you?

I have already explained that the sacrament of baptism is very broadly defined. I don't why you find thise so difficult to understand. You seem to keep implying that baptism merely refers to the water baptism. I am not disputing the necessity of baptism. I am just disputing that an infant is unbaptised.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, I don't.

The Church's position is that Baptism is essential to "cleanse" original sin. This is central to Catholic theology. The Church's position is also that the stain of original sin must be removed through Baptism in order for salvation to be possible. Putting these beliefs together, the only logical conclusion is that unbapitized in ...[text shortened]... d salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Now you are claiming that you know more about RCC doctrine than the Vatican. It's pathetic.

Your conclusion is not the current opinion of the Vatican, as expressed by the text I quoted in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

That you don't find it logical is absolutely irrelevant. What part of that is hard to follow?

The whole concept that this world is some sort of judgement stage to sort out the good from the bad before placing them either in heaven or hell is flawed from the beggining as the majority of 'souls' never make it far past birth and therefore dont have time for sin.
I find it interesting that the concept of being able to sin in heaven has never really come up in major religions. Does this mean that we loose all free will after death?

Originally posted by Palynka
Now you are claiming that you know more about RCC doctrine than the Vatican. It's pathetic.

Your conclusion is not the current opinion of the Vatican, as expressed by the text I quoted in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

That you don't find it logical is absolutely irrelevant. What part of that is hard to follow?

So you're a stubborn jerk. That I already knew.

Perhaps you'd care to explain how the Church's position on the necessity of Baptism is compatible with the "Who knows with God" phrasing (which does not, of course, indicate that unbaptized children can acheive salvation).

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have already explained that the sacrament of baptism is very broadly defined. I don't why you find thise so difficult to understand. You seem to keep implying that baptism merely refers to the water baptism. I am not disputing the necessity of baptism. I am just disputing that an infant is unbaptised.

Your one example of baptism by desire is expressly refuted by the Catechism itself. What other type of baptism would be possible for a fetus?

EDIT: It was a short conceptual jump from a temporary Limbo of the Fathers to a permanent Limbo of Infants. Clearly, the one thing the unbaptized groups we have discussed have in common is a desire to be with God. The presumption has generally been that infants cannot have this desire. Therefore, when the Council of Trent said that passing from our original state into “the state of grace and adoption as sons of God” cannot take place “without the water of regeneration or the desire for it”, it seemed to confirm a widespread medieval belief that limbo must be the final destination for unbaptized infants, who could not be damned because they had no personal sin.

Later, Pope Pius VI condemned the Jansenists as teaching something “false, rash and injurious to Catholic education” because they claimed that a place “which the faithful generally designate by the name limbo of children” was a Pelagian fable. Still later, Pius XII wrote that “an act of love can suffice for an adult to acquire sanctifying grace and supply for the lack of baptism; to the unborn or newly born infant this way is not open” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLIII, 84).

http://www.catholicculture.org/highlights/highlights.cfm?ID=62

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Catholic Encyclopedia which I quoted from is an authoritative source:

Depends on what you mean by "authoritative". Is the Cath. Enc. an official source? No.

The Encyclopedia bears the imprimatur of the Most Reverend Archbishop under whose jurisdiction it is published.

An imprimatur is simply a certificate that the work is free of doctrinal error.

"Allow[ing] us to hope" is not a replacement for a coherent theology.

"Allowing us to hope" is coherent theology. It simply means that men are bound by the sacraments, but God is not.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Depends on what you mean by "authoritative". Is the Cath. Enc. an official source? No.

[b]The Encyclopedia bears the imprimatur of the Most Reverend Archbishop under whose jurisdiction it is published.

An imprimatur is simply a certificate that the work is free of doctrinal error.

[b/]"Allow[ing] us to hope" is not a replacement ] coherent theology. It simply means that men are bound by the sacraments, but God is not.[/b]

Yes, the Church through its organs has said that the Cath. Enc. is free from doctrinal errors. So what's in it are authoritative statements of Church doctrine.

What's the point of teaching the Baptism is a necessity for salvation IF you are going to use such an opt out clause? Couldn't the same clause be invoked as regards ANY teaching of the RCC?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, the Church through its organs has said that the Cath. Enc. is free from doctrinal errors. So what's in it are authoritative statements of Church doctrine.

Er, no.

It just means that what's in it is not in conflict with authoritative statements of Church doctrine.

EDIT: That too, at the time of publication. Naturally, it may conflict with later authoritative statements.

What's the point of teaching the Baptism is a necessity for salvation IF you are going to use such an opt out clause?

Because it does not take away from the obligation to baptise and be baptised.

Couldn't the same clause be invoked as regards ANY teaching of the RCC?

Do you have any specific teaching in mind?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Er, no.

It just means that what's in it is not in conflict with authoritative statements of Church doctrine.

EDIT: That too, at the time of publication. Naturally, it may conflict with later authoritative statements.

[b]What's the point of teaching the Baptism is a necessity for salvation IF you are going to use such an opt out clause? ...[text shortened]... invoked as regards ANY teaching of the RCC?

Do you have any specific teaching in mind?[/b]

Thanks for the pointless nitpicking. So far as the discussion is concerned, it is enough to say that what's in the Cath. Ency. is an accurate statement of Church doctrine.

No, but "who knows but we can hope" seems like a rather vague formulation for a coherent theology, doesn't it?

Originally posted by no1marauder
So you're a stubborn jerk. That I already knew.

Perhaps you'd care to explain how the Church's position on the necessity of Baptism is compatible with the "Who knows with God" phrasing (which does not, of course, indicate that unbaptized children can acheive salvation).

I'm the stubborn jerk? Now that's comedy.

Again:

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," allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

It's quite clear, actually. The Church doesn't not claim to know yet if there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism, although they claim such a salvation appears to be in the perceived nature of God.