When I was in catechist training, the priest said the church is considering that God may ask an aborted child or one who dies before Baptism - if they wish to recognize and adore Him. This could be a Baptism of Desire. What say you?
I say that we should-- especially in *catechist *training or when teaching children as catechists-- stick to what the Church actually teaches and refrain from speculating on what God may do. From the Catechism:
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.
Incorrect. From Ven. Pius XII:
“An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open…”
(Acta Apostolicae Sedis, December 20, 1951)
“But infants since they are not capable of this desire are excluded, faith teaches us, from the kingdom of heaven … if they die unregenerated by baptism.”
- Roman Catechism, part 2, chapter 2, n. 24
It is true Limbo is not a Dogma of the Church. However, even the most recent Church documents recognize the possibility of Limbo. It is possible that some unbaptized infants, such as those who are victims of abortion, have Baptism of Blood like the Holy Innocents (Baptism of Desire is not possible for an infant as it requires use of reason). It is error, though, to say that all unbaptized infants make it to heaven. Hoping is one thing, declaring so, is completely erroneous, knowing what we have learned from the Church Councils.
Read this for further information:
In my speculative theology, I argue that a non-formal Baptism (a mystical Baptism) is applied to all who die before the age of reason (including prenatals and infants), at least in the last moment of life, because the suffering of their death at such a young age unites them to the suffering and death of Christ on the Cross, which is the source of all Baptism.
As for Limbo, there is no third final destination; no one could have perfect natural happiness in Limbo while not knowing God in the Beatific Vision, for even natural reason on its own can reason to the existence of the Creator. There is a fringe of Hell, but it is not for infants. And there is a fringe of Purgatory, called the Limbo of the Fathers, though others may also make use of the place.
Well then, why don’t we just kill all of those under the age of seven then? It would be the charitable thing to do, you know, so they could all make it to heaven. Why don’t we just go with universal salvation while we’re at it?
As for Limbo, there is no third final destination;
You’re right about that. Too bad Limbo is actually a part of hell, and not a third final destination.
no one could have perfect natural happiness in Limbo while not knowing God in the Beatific Vision, for even natural reason on its own can reason to the existence of the Creator.
So says you. Too bad St. Thomas Aquinas would disagree with you. No offense, but I’ll take him and many other theologians over your opinion any day. Outright denial of limbo is not the answer. What’s the point of Original Sin, if God is just going to “lift” it from everybody?
There is a fringe of Hell, but it is not for infants.
I’m glad you were given the authority to once and for all declare that Limbo is a non-existant place, when it refers to unbaptized infants.
And there is a fringe of Purgatory, called the Limbo of the Fathers, though others may also make use of the place
Incorrect. From the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia:
“It is principally on the strength of these Scriptural texts, harmonized with the general doctrine of the Fall and Redemption of mankind, that Catholic Tradition has defended the existence of the limbus patrum as a temporary state or place of happiness distinct from Purgatory.”
I’ll stick with ACTUAL theology, thank you.
To be honest (and I mean no offense), your speculative theology has little value when it actually has no support in the teaching of the Church. But I would still like to hear your argument.
Can that idea be backed up in any way? No, it simply can’t. I guess it’s theoretically possible, but there is absolutely nothing that would suggest it so I’m not persuaded. Now, since public revelation has stopped with the end of the last apostle, the Church cannot just come up with a new teaching.
Umm, for the same reason we don’t kill all newly-baptized people? Or people walking out of the confessional?
C’mon, this is just dumb.
Better question would be why do we bother baptizing infants? Why does the Church require all parents to baptize new born babies as soon as possible. In fact, it is a mortal sin not to do so or delay it without a sufficient reason. I mean, really, why bother?
No they are not saved. All the church fathers and everyone up to St Thomas believed this and after. It is not till this modern age did the church try to push this truth to the side by saying we can Hope because they can not outright change a doctring but they can soften it till its meaningless.
This is also what makes abortion so horrible and I think the church should scream this fact from the towers. These women and men that work together for abortion are sending these children to hell by the millions. The church is right to accept them back, but that woman should not be given these false hopes of seeing their children again. These women should know that this sin has for ever seperated their children from God, to burn in hell for all eternity in suffering agony and the church should teach that this is also an act of mercy from God.
I wanted to respond but then I checked your profile.
So instead of asking: “On what grounds do you reject Limbo” I will ask: “Are you having fun”:
In the countries where I come from we kill trolls and then make some very tasty sausages out of them. I guess you’re lucky you don’t come from I come from.
The teaching of the Church is:
- everything taught explicitly and implicity in Sacred Tradition
- everything taught explicitly and implicity in Sacred Scripture
- the teachings of the Magisterium
The Deposit of Faith is Tradition and Scripture. The Magisterium teaches only from Tradition and Scripture. But there are many truths found implicitly in the Deposit of Faith that have not yet been taught by the Magisterium. If not, then the teaching of the Popes and Bishops would consist in merely repeating what has been said previously.
In my view, the answer to the question on how those who die prior to the age of reason might receive eternal salvation must certainly be implicit in the Deposit of Faith, for these truths have been given to us for salvation.
As for speculative theology, it is useful to the Church. Pope John Paul II criticized “the scant consideration accorded to speculative theology” (Fides et Ratio, n. 55).
On another topic, speaking generally, I’ve noticed, in a number of different threads, many different persons writing the types of posts which show disrespect and a lack of charity for their fellow members of this group. Are we not here to discuss the Catholic Christian faith? But such uncharitable comments are contrary to that same faith.
1 Tim 2:4 “Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”
Paul teaches that God desires that all are saved, yet, in His goodness He does not impose salvation upon us. If God desires something, then it must be possible, for “all things are possible” with God.
Those unbaptised who die before reaching the age of reason are in the same broad category as those covered by “invincible ignorance” whom the church teaches “may be saved”.
The significant difference of course is that those unbaptised who reach the age of reason, ignorant of the teachings and claims of the church, may come to know Christ through His creation, and by this become members (however imperfectly) of the Body of Christ (the Catholic Church)
For those who do not reach this stage of development, we can trust that there is some other mechanisim by which they may be saved, but the nature of this mechanism remains obscure to us.
I am not a troll and I am not having Fun. Especially on this day of all. I personally align more with christianity (Due to higher concept of God ) and muslim (due to their ultimate understanding service to God) belief systems. I do not trust the Catholic church yet because of issues such as this. Orthodox seems to me to be a better choice but also has its faults ABC for one.
BTW Limbo does not mean they are saved it means they are not punished in a certian way.
Yet I believe God is a perfectionist and can not stand any imperfection before him and his justice demands that imperfection but suffer for its exsitence.
Original sin is a true and real sin which is a teaching of your church. I accept that but you seem to deny that.
They are in hell and all your church fathers testify to this. (Limbo is in hell in case you do not understand this.)
For anyone who believes they have actually consumed a troll, I have a nice bridge going to brooklyn for cheap
That could be one way that God might save the un-Baptized. If He does or how He does is known only to Him. But it would not be Baptism of Desire.
It’s the difference between assurance and hope. Which is essentially the difference between Catholicism and everything else.
I read somewhere that 15% (I think that’s the right number) of all “menstrual cycles” are natural miscarriages with the mother not even knowing she’s pregnant. If life begins at conception and God is the creator of all life and unborn babies cannot go to Heaven, then that would mean that God is deliberately creating how many millions of souls that He knows are going to hell. That doesn’t fit with a merciful and loving God.
Great post. “Invincible ignorance” seems appropriate and reasonable in this situation.
And are we subject to original sin from birth or while still unborn? Is it possible that the unborn are still under the protection and grace of God?