aren’t the traditionalist catholics correct?
isn’t it a cop out to say that God can do anything he wants, and that while he has bound us to the sacraments, he is himself not bound? and that we may hope for infant salvation without baptism?
using that reasoning, anything taught as dogma could be exempted by merely saying “X only… but God can do anything he wants, so Y perhaps too”.
"Some Traditionalist Catholics deny that salvation is (or may be) possible for non-baptized infants and maintain that the existence of a Limbo of Infants is certain, claiming that any other view would contradict the Church’s teachings on faith and morals. They say that the medieval Church statements indicate that no person could possibly be saved unless baptized, and that this was the meaning intended by the Popes of the time, whom they contend made no “lenient statements” on the matter.
Some traditionalists believe their understanding of the original doctrine to be correct and that, if the Church were now to teach that the salvation of infants outside baptism is possible, it would contradict its earlier teaching, and would violate the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility. Some sedevacantists hold that current teachings have in fact defected from the Church’s infallible teaching, and that what is today generally recognized as the Catholic Church is a counterfeit, which therefore is not infallible.
As evidence, traditionalists demonstrate that popes have taught the following concerning infants, hell, and limbo:
Decree for the Jacobites at the Council of Florence in 1442: “There is no other way to come to the aid [of little children] than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God”.
Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: We define also that the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds. (Denz. 464)
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Letentur coeli, Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: We define also that the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds. (Denz. 693)
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this. - Condemned
Pope St. Innocent I, in 417, Synod of Milevis : “The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life even without the grace of baptism is utterly foolish” (DS 219).
Pope Innocent III asserted that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer “no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God” (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii—Majores). (Denzinger 410)
The provincial Council of Cologne: “Faith teaches us that infants, since they are not capable of this desire (Baptism of Desire), are excluded from the kingdom of heaven if they die [unbaptized].” (Collectio Lacensis, V. 320)
Pope Gregory the Great (-604) taught the eternal torment of infants in his Moralia on the Book of Job. “For there be some that are withdrawn from the present light, before they attain to shew forth the good or evil deserts of an active life. And whereas the Sacraments of salvation do not free them from the sin of their birth, at the same time that here they never did aright by their own act; there they are brought to torment. And these have one wound, viz. to be born in corruption, and another, to die in the flesh. … As if reviewing the woes of mankind he said in plain words; With what sort of visitation does the strict Judge mercilessly slay those, whom the guilt of their own deeds condemns, if He smites for all eternity even those, whom the guilt of deliberate choice does not impeach?” (Moralia 9)
Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic. But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism. (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)
Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: In my Fathers house there are many mansions [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left" (Denz. 102, authentic addition to canon 2.)
St. Augustine, A.D. 415: Anyone who would say that infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ. (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)