Limbo In Limbo?

129 thoughts on “Limbo In Limbo?”

1. Something doesn’t sound right here. If a Pope says something is IMPOSSIBLE, that sounds pretty definitive, and if it’s definitive and doctrine, then is that not infallible?
   Why is the Church contradicting itself? This is bullcrap.

2. Jimmy, did you read through the following interview on kath.net?
   Unbaptized Children: Limbo, Vision of God or Rahner’s reincarnation?
   Johannes M. Schwarz Ph.D. recently completed and defended his doctoral dissertation on the fate of unbaptized children. In the interview he does not betray a traditionalist or otherwise radical mindset. Please allow me to provide the paragraphs from the interview which, for me, packed the biggest punches:
   I would however like to point out two rarely noted problems I have encountered with these arguments [against the existence of Limbo of unbaptized infants and other unbaptized innocents]. The first is, that the concept of limbo is not as homogeneous as modern discussion often assumes. Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Suarez and modern limbo theologians describe limbo quite differently. For this reason some critiques of limbo apply only to a certain variation of the limbo theory, leaving the others untouched.
   The second problem in many modern works is the theological discussion of church documents. It might be true that there are no definitory statements on the questions, but there is a firm tradition in the ordinary magisterium, that can not simply be discarded. It is insufficient to state that limbo was never defined, and therefore unbaptized children might equally be thought to be in heaven. Historically the doctrinal alternative to limbo never was infant salvation, but a stricter Augustinian interpretation assigning also pain of sense to the state of the children. That limbo was never defined had much to do with leaving room for the Augustinian theory as a study of the Jansenist controversy helps to see. The non-salvation of children was not disputed, except for very limited exceptions (Cajetan and some others). In my opinion a detailed study is yet to be done of some church documents with a focus on the question, but in particular of the third canon of the Council of Carthage. It seems to decide the question in favour of non-salvation, but is missing in different collections of canons. In my study, I found, that the answer usually given, namely that Rome did not accept it because of its content, needs to be reviewed, as there are statements of popes before and after the ratification of that council to the same effect as the disputed canon.
   But so much to the question whether the theory of limbo is to be considered outdated. I do not think so …
   … As a dissertation it is an academic not a pastoral work, although the pastoral implications of the question are quite clear. Therefore it is directed at the scholarly community, at pastors and the theologically interested laity. It is not a pastoral guide for parents dealing with the unfortunate loss of a child, as it provides merely an insight into a chapter of the history of theology. I would however like to conclude with the following personal remark. In my study I found that limbo is not only valid as an explanation, it also has a greater probability than most other theories and as a model of non-salvation a longstanding tradition with authority. I do not rejoice over the fact, that such a state could be the state of unbaptized children. But then, there are many things in this world, I find hard and difficult. I often fail to understand why God permits this or that, but I do not believe in God because he conforms to my image, but simply because God is. I trust, that how he ordains things it is right, just and merciful.
   [emphasis mine]
   I would love to read the whole dissertation, but as indicated in the interview, it is only published in German at present. Jimmy, do you read German? Perhaps you could read it for us and let us know if you come across something that deserves another blog entry. 🙂
   I wonder if Pope Benedict read it; maybe that is why he decided to hold off on publishing the ITC’s document … maybe not …
   IC XC NIKA

3. It will be interesting to see how the Pope will deal with what the Council of Florence stated, that “the souls of those dying in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone go down at once (mox) into Hell, to be punished, however, with widely different penalties.”
   Perhaps one way to reconcile it, would be to say that their descent into hell, will not be permanent, but rather be a baptism of fire. After which, they would be released.

4. Jimmy, sorry, I see now that you had linked to the article on kath.net.

5. Jimmy,
   Cutting to the truth and through all of the “theospeak” regarding limbo: limbo was invented to make original sin a viable dogma. If limbo is sent to the dust bin, original sin necessarily will also go there and that is the real reason B16 is reluctant to do the “delimbo”.
   Actually “delimboing” and “deorigining sin” have already been finalized as per a good friend who teaches theology at a large Catholic university.
   “Yes, I teach Original Sin as symbolic of the sins of our origins — in our
   families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
   profoundly. The “sins of our origins” approach helps to account for certain
   patterns of sin in particular families and societies.
   Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist.
   Yes, the old “laundry of the soul,” approach to Baptism is no longer accepted.
   Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents andgodparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home.
   Yes, but, since baptism is now celebrated at Sunday Eucharist, all the members of the parish family are encouraged to pledge their support and care for the faith life of the newly baptized. (A manifestation of this is
   persons volunteering to teach other people’s kids the basics of Catholicism.)”

6. Oh Realist!
   How many times must Jimmy warn you?
   Take care and God bless,
   Inocencio
   J+M+J

7. Realist,
   the religion you describe is anglicanism, not Catholicism.
   Original sin is a revealed dogma, it will not be abandoned. Limbo is not necessary for original sin, it’s not a dogma, but a theological conclusion.
   I think many are overreaching here. It seems to me that all that is likely to occur is to affirm the Catechism teaching that we “entrust them to God’s mercy”, and that we don’t teach they go to limbo. That doesn’t say they don’t go to limbo, that they do go to hell, or that they do go to heaven. It says we don’t know, we just trust God.
   This lack of assurance gives us all the more motivation to ensure that children are baptised. It does not indicate a change to the urgency to baptise a dieing child regardless of the wishes of the parents. Me must not neglect our Christian duty to do all in our power to see that souls get to heaven.
   God Bless,
   Matt

8. Thanks, Jimmy, this is very helpful and informative.
   FWIW, here is my private speculation on the subject.
   First, regeneration or rebirth is closely associated with death in the NT and in sacramental theology. Baptism regenerates us by uniting us to the death of Christ (cf. Rom 6:1ff); in fact, baptism itself is a symbolic dying and rising again, most clearly signified by immersion.
   I suppose the best-attested example of extra-sacramental regeneration is “baptism of blood,” or the martyrdom of unbaptized catechumens. Here, too, rebirth is connected with death — in this case, the literal death of the catechumen, rather than the symbolic death of baptism.
   In other words, the sanctifying grace that the catechumen would have received by “dying” with Christ symbolically through baptism, he now receives by dying literally in his flesh.
   Thus, it would seem that, under the right circumstances, physical death of the flesh may possibly serve the same function as the symbolic death of baptism in uniting the soul to the death of Christ and giving rebirth in sanctifying grace.
   I suspect that something akin to this could also be the case with respect to “baptism of desire.” Take the case of a catechumen who is not martyred, but dies of a heart attack or something similar before receiving baptism.
   Once again, I suppose it would generally be allowed that the catechumen is saved through “baptism of desire.” Otherwise, it would seem wildly irresponsible to defer baptism rather than administering it at the earliest possible point.
   But when would such a catechumen be regenerated? When would the “baptism of desire” take place?
   Perhaps if he realizes he is dying, the catechumen might make a special act of desire and faith that God would honor by giving him the grace of regeneration. But let’s suppose that he dies in his sleep, or is otherwise unaware of his death until it is upon him. When then would we suppose such a person to be reborn?
   I see only two likely possibilities. Either he was already regenerated at whatever point he began to desire baptism, or else he was not regenerated prior to the heart attack, and received the grace of regeneration at the moment of death.
   If the first is true, it would seem that most or at least many catechumens are going around regenerated prior to their baptism. This may be possible, and indeed I suppose it is likely that something like this does happen at least some of the time, just as penitent Catholics who make a perfect act of contrition are restored to grace even before receiving absolution.
   However, I would not want to assume that either the catechumen had already been regenerated, or else he is consigned to hell. The case of a catechumen who dies while anticipating baptism seems a special case, and it seems plausible to me that in this special case the death of the catechumen becomes the occasion of the grace he would otherwise have received in baptism.
   Thus, once again literal physical death would take the place of the symbolic death of baptism in uniting the soul to the death of Christ and bringing about regeneration.
   Obviously, literal physical death would not always have this effect; for that matter, even baptism would not always have this effect; you cannot baptize a man who is unwilling, since his unwillingness is an impediment which prevents the sacrament from being valid.
   But I would like to consider another special case: the “Holy Innocents,” the infants slaughtered by Herod in an attempt to kill the newborn King of the Jews.
   I have never looked into the question whether the “Holy Innocents” are generally regarded as being in heaven, but I would be surprised if this were not the case. The adjective “holy,” and the fact that they have their own feast day, seems to me to suggest that they are numbered among the Blessed. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were even regarded as “martyrs,” slain for the sake of the infant Jesus, saved by the “baptism of blood.”
   But of course they wouldn’t be “martyrs” in the ordinary sense, since there was no faith and no choice involved in their death. Nor do they qualify for “baptism of desire” in the ordinary sense, even “implicit desire.”
   The most we can say is that, like ordinary babies at baptism, they pose no impediment or obstacle to the grace of God. They are innocent victims, and if ordinary physical death can suffice to link one to the death of Christ and bring about rebirth, they would seem to be eminent candidates for such a “baptism.”
   But how different is their condition from, say, the unborn victims of abortion? Are they not equally innocent victims of a spirit of antichrist, victim souls whose innocence poses no more obstacle or impediment to God’s grace than the souls of the Holy Innocents — or a baby at baptism? And isn’t the soul of a baby who dies of natural causes prior to baptism in essentially the same position?
   This is how I think it may work — for infants, for catechumens, for men of good will who have never heard the gospel.
   Under the right circumstances, the unregenerate can receive the grace of rebirth through physical death rather than through the sacramental death of baptism. For such souls, death is baptism, just as for the baptized baptism is death and rebirth.
   These disposing circumstances include the innocence of infancy and the explicit desire of the catechumen — both of which would equally dispose the subject to the regeneration of baptism — as well as the “implicit desire,” spoken of in the 1949 condemnation of Fr. Feeney, of a man of good will who through no fault of his own has not had the opportunity to believe the gospel and desire baptism.
   Thus, my opinion is that all unbaptized babies go to heaven, receiving at the moment of death the grace of regeneration.
   Incidentally, if there is anything to all this, it may be that “baptism of desire” would not generally bring about regeneration of the unbaptized in life. In other words, you wouldn’t have unbaptized non-Christians running around in a state of grace. Rather, non-Christians who are invincibly ignorant and disposed to God’s will would typically receive regeneration at the moment of death.
   FWIW.

9. Jimmy, you’re a fantastic writer and thinker and researcher. But for the time-impaired, it’d be nice to have a summary headline or sentence. “Limbo Still In Limbo”, for example 🙂

10. People seem to forget that saying the Church, and the pope in particular, are infallible is not to say they are omniscient. Sometimes they say, “we don’t know.”
    Quoting something Pope Benedict said before being elected is unhelpful, if you ignore what I am fully confident his holiness does not: that there is a world of difference between being just one theologian, even the head of the holy office, and being successor to Peter.
    I will go out on a limb (oh!) and predict that the holy father will not say or do anything definitive on this subject. The matter will remain murky.

11. First, a very good summary Jimmy.
    A few questions that perhaps somebody could answer:
    It seems to me that this discussion on Limbo really needs to be placed within a teleological context. Is the end of man naturally deification, or is this an additional supernatural grace? Look at this from the point of the controversy over the conditioned/unconditioned predestination of the incarnation. It seems that all the arguments that are being used are directed at the Thomistic approach on the conditioned predestination, and that such a shift to remove limbo really shows a shift away from Thomism.
    Additionally, perhaps it would be beneficial to discuss the location of Limbo instead of dropping it. People get queezy at saying its location is hell, however we here on earth do not have the beatific vision, and we are not in hell. Additionally there is the Limbo of the Fathers which was not Hell but not in the beatific vision. Purgatory can also be counted as such a place. Clearly then there exists states of existence that are not hell but also lacking of the beatific vision. The theory of limbo therefor can be refined.
    Also at the end of the day, are we simply not discussing theological opinion? Limbo cannot be removed without declaring it heretical. I do not see that happening. I am of the belief that it is important to teach all opinon so as to spur on deeper theological reflection into these matters.

12. “…limbo was invented to make original sin a viable dogma.” Wrong. Original sin is a revealed truth.
    “Actually, ‘delimboing’ and ‘deorigining sin’ have already been finalized as per a good friend who teaches theology at a large Catholic university.” What other ex cathedra pronouncements does this heretic make?
    “Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist.” Wrong again. Baptismal regeneration is also a revealed truth.
    “Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation…” Baptism is a rite of intiation, but not only that.

13. >It will be interesting to see how the Pope will deal with what the Council of Florence stated, that “the souls of those dying in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone go down at once (mox) into Hell, to be punished, however, with widely different penalties.”
    I reply: Nothing in Florence contradicts the idea that God could and might grant extra-sacramental baptismal Grace & blot out an infant’s original sin. Naturally ANYONE dying in original sin only, wouldn’t go to Heaven. It will always be the Teaching of the Church that both mortal & Original sin keeps one from Heaven. But Florence was more concerned with re-union with the East & refuting the Eastern errors of postponement of final awards until the day of judgement then speculations on extra-sacramental salvation for unbaptised infants.

14. Sorry that last was me.

15. I understand why people would not want the dogma of original sin to be true; so they can live immoral lives and not have to fear for their salvation. Just so, a small child will turn away and pretend a stranger is not in the house because the child doesn’t want him to be there. Of course, the last time I checked, that didn’t make the stranger disappear.

16. Trackback Pontifications

17. The Catechism doesn’t have any magisterial authority to overturn pre-existing Church doctrine. Cardinal Ratzinger’s remarks during its promulgation indicated that the Catechism only enjoys the authority that its contents already had before the Catechism’s promulgation.
    Including something in the Catechism doesn’t raise its theology status or authority.
    It is therefore incorrect to cite the Catechism as being revolutionary on this point. By its very nature, it can’t be.
    Moreover, it is not at all clear that the “way of salvation” refers to heaven, and not to Limbo. A state of radical natural happiness and natural love of God surely seems more aptly described as a “way of salvation” than of damnation, no? A more modest doctrinal “devepment”, perhaps, but one consistent with the universal infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium.
    I’m told the language of a “way of salvation” is the language the influential Cardinal Journet, a Frenchman, used to describe Limbo. It is significant that the Catechism was written in French.
    “Limbo” is not the question here.
    The question is the Church’s teaching on the necessity of sacramental water baptism, excepting martyrdom, for the salvation of infants.
    It will not not do to simply say “doctrinal development,” and set aside the enormous monuments of Christian tradition on the subject.
    The scholastics, take Thomas Aquinas, were aware of all the difficulties we moderns wring our hands over. But they felt absolutely bound to the Church’s teaching on the necessity of baptism.
    There is a very strong argument that the teaching on the necessity of baptism is infallible by virtue of the universal and ordinary magisterium. We should not turn a blind eye to that.

18. I can’t help but be struck by parallels between the present situation and the build-up to Humanae Vitae.
    You can contemporary theologians questioning the Church’s teaching on contraception.
    You had the majority of laypeople and theologians doing so.
    You had the second Vatican Council remaining silent on the question and seemingly leaving the possibility open for a change in church teaching.
    You had a massive media buildup to the same end.
    You had Pope Paul VI convening a commission on birth control, ostensibly for the purposes of allowing contraception.
    You had the vast majority of the commission come out in favor of changing Church teaching.
    And what did the progressive Pope Paul VI do?
    He issued Humanae Vitae.
    Could it happen again?
    Let us pray.

19. Interestingly, in regard to Can.868, I recently attended a conference for permanent deacons in which the bispop of my diocese was the presenter. The topic of the second half of the day was baptism. The bishop said there had been a case at one of the local Catholic hospitals where a nurse was baptizing infants that were being placed in incubators. He indicated that the nurse was reprimanded for her actions and that under no circumstances were infants to be baptized without the permission of their parents.

20. Sorry that last was me.

21. Sorry that last was me.

22. Well, Ben Yachov, it wasn’t you… but if you want to claim it feel free.

23. I can see how prots view us as I read this exchange. I understand the need for theologians to hammer out the “rules” but we are speaking of babies here for goodness sake.
    How did our church even get to this point? We are talking about what Jesus is going to do with a baby who did not get the chance to be born. Do the theologians know Jesus well enough to figure out that puzzle?

24. What, there are two Me’s?
    Something is messed up here. I did not post those last three. My comments to Barbara where may last post; all others belong to someone else.

25. Realist, the least you could do would be to re-phrase your tired old heresies instead of pasting in the same phrases over and over.
    I continue to pray that you will convert to the Christian faith.

26. The texts in this new article seems to contradict the “Holy Innocents”, the children mentioned in St. Matthew, ii, 16-18; those children 2 years old and under (including babies) who were killed in Bethlehem by Herod’s men at his behest. In fact, we celebrate a Feast Day for them in the Catholic Church because, as the Catholic Encyclopedia states, they ‘gave their life for the newborn Saviour’.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07419a.htm
    “The Church venerates these children as martyrs(flores martyrum); they are the first buds of the Church killed by the frost of persecution; they died not only for Christ, but in his stead (St. Aug., “Sermo 10us de sanctis”).”
    How does any of the information put forth above reconcile with the Holy Innocents?
    For example, above it states, “Here the pontiff affirms that a child cannot make the kind of personal act of charity needed to obtain sanctifying grace apart from baptism…”
    Yet, we, the Catholic Church, venerate the Holy Innocents as Martyrs for the faith.
    I think the article above may be neglecting (I’m not saying this was done intentionally, though; as I have but the greatest respect for J.A.) other vital elements that need to be elaborated in order that the teachings of the Church are not further distorted as they’ve already been by the main stream media on this point.

27. Mike,
    It was Jesus who taught “Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of God.”
    The issue at stake here is the very necessity of baptism, and intricately tied to the Gospel message.

28. Esau,
    To be technical, the Church teaching is that, excepting martyrdom, baptism in reality or desire is necessary for salvation *since the promulgation of the Gospel*.
    Hence in the catechetical tradition, one hears of baptism of water, baptism of blood, baptism of desire.
    The examples you cite are before the promulgation of the Gospel.
    They would also fall under the category of martyrdom.

29. +J.M.J+
    >>>In my opinion a detailed study is yet to be done of some church documents with a focus on the question, but in particular of the third canon of the Council of Carthage. It seems to decide the question in favour of non-salvation, but is missing in different collections of canons. In my study, I found, that the answer usually given, namely that Rome did not accept it because of its content, needs to be reviewed, as there are statements of popes before and after the ratification of that council to the same effect as the disputed canon.
    This refers to the Council of Carthage’s condemnation (inspired by St. Augustine of Hippo) of the Pelagian teaching of “an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness.” St. Augustine definitely believed that infants experienced the positive suffering of the damned (poena sensus). His view was supported by later African Fathers (such as Fulgentius) and by St. Anselm. For a long time, that was considered pretty definitive.
    The “softer” idea that they only suffered poena damni – the pain of being forever deprived of the Beatific Vision – was first proposed by Abelard and later Peter Lombard and Pope Innocent III. The Council of Florence taught that “the souls of those dying in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone go down at once into Hell, to be punished, however, with widely different penalties.”
    St Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics, OTOH, rejected the idea that they suffer any pain whatsoever. In a sense, they returned to what had formerly been the Pelagian view and rehabilitated it, purifying it of its Pelagian error.
    Yet even this Scholastic understanding of Limbo, though not heretical, was opposed by some prominent Catholic theologians at the time of the Protestant revolt, particularly St. Robert Bellarmine. They considered it a departure from the teaching of St. Augustine and the Council of Florence (it’s ironic to hear some modern Catholics cite Florence in support of Limbo, since some theologians back then argued that the notion of a happy eternity for unbaptized infants contradicts Florence!).
    So there have been a number of alternate views competing with Limbo throughout Church history. In addition to those enumerated so far, St. Bernard proposed the idea of “vicarious Baptism of Desire,” arguing that God may apply the desire for baptism on the part of Christian parents to their unbaptized children. Cardinal Cajetan later supported this view as well. Pope St. Pius V evidently disagreed with that and had the passage removed from Cajetan’s works, yet the Pontiff never formally condemned the notion. In fact, AFAIK no pope or Council has ever condemned vicarious Baptism of Desire.
    Other theologians have suggested that God may illumine the child’s mind at the moment of death by a special grace, giving them the opportunity to accept or reject him. The problem here is that this seems contradict various popes, councils and catechisms which said that infants cannot desire baptism for themselves. The idea of vicarious Baptism of Desire, OTOH, does not contradict that teaching since it places the desire on the part of the parents rather than the child. If the faith and decision of the parents is enough to allow them to be baptized before they can express personal faith in Christ, then why can’t the desire of the parents be accounted to the infants as a form of Baptism of Desire?
    Add to this the fact that the Church has always recognized that Baptism of Blood can apply to infants under certain circumstances, as is evident from the Feast of the Holy Innocents. Modern theologians have suggested that this may apply to victims of abortion since the abortion industry hates Catholicism so there is an element of odium fidei in the killing of these babies.
    This might just be the direction in which the Church is moving; qualifying that salvation is possible for these infants under certain circumstances. I don’t know whether this will translate into “Limbo absolutely does not exist at all.” It may just be “Limbo exists but it is possible for some unbaptized infants to avoid it through BOB or vicarious BOD
    In Jesu et Maria,

30. Limbo is not the issue at stake here.
    The real issue is whether baptism is necessary for children.
    This is tied to the question of original sin, and also implies practices like infant baptism, the canons discussed, etc.
    It is interesting that the Pelagians, who denied original sin, did not dare deny the necessity of infant baptism to enter into the Kingdom of God.
    This indicates that the tradition regarding baptism was so strong at the time, that even the enemies of Church teaching durst not question it.
    That might give us pause before we set aside a teaching that troubles us.

31. For further consideration:
    The Holy Innocents
    The slaughter the Holy Innocents marred the mood created by the birth of the Prince of Peace. If the Child was hailed appreciatively by the simple shepherds and the wise Magi, his death was soon sought by the local king.
    Herod in no way deserved the obsequious title bestowed on him: “The Great.” He was a petty tyrant who would stop at no cruelty to preserve his throne and retain the support of the Roman Emperors, although even they barely tolerated him. When he learned of the birth of the Messiah from the Magi, he pretended to show kindly interest in this newborn “king of the Jews”. But to prevent Jesus from ever becoming his political rival, he ordered that all boy-children in Bethlehem up to the age of two be massacred.
    Jesus, of course, escaped the blood-letting. His hour to die had not yet come, so God through an angel told Joseph to hurry the Mother and Child out of the country. But the other boy infants of Bethlehem were slain. The number of victims may not have been more than a dozen since Bethlehem was a small village. But for that village the decimation was a disaster, and the “sobbing and loud lamentations” of its mothers rose to high heaven.
    Since those days, many Christian mothers have lost children who for one reason or another were never baptized, or could not be baptized because of circumstances. This has been for them a true anxiety, because of the official teaching of the Church, following Christ, that “no one can enter into God’s Kingdom without being begotten of water and Spirit” (John 3:5). It is also a general concern of Christians in these days of the new Holocaust, the slaying of infants – by abortion – in the womb. Will those who suffer death before birth also be deprived by God of heaven because nobody baptized them?
    People who are sincerely worried about the fate of unbaptized infants can find consolation in the feast of the Holy Innocents. These little victims were not old enough to receive baptism by desire. Although the Church venerates them as martyrs, they were certainly not typical martyrs. The typical martyr is one who chooses to obey God rather than man; and the Holy Infants had no such choice. Yet the Church has always held that they are in heaven, despite the lack of baptism of water or blood or desire. As St. Augustine said, they are the “flowers of the martyrs” – “the first buds of the Church killed by the frost of persecution; they died not only for Christ but in His stead.”
    If Jesus demanded that all men – including infants – be baptized by water or at least by blood or by desire, we must heed that rule, and be most careful to have our children baptized as quickly as possible. That is vital. But the fact that God laid down this rule does not mean that He himself cannot make exceptions to it. Other passages in Scripture testify that Jesus died for all mankind, and that He wanted all mankind to be saved. These passages must be balanced with the passage on baptism; for they show the mercy of the Creator.
    So let those who have lost children before their baptism, and those who worry about the salvation of the victims of abortion, console themselves with the thought that God does not forget any of His children. Who are we to place limits on His special generosity?
    Since Vatican II there has been a lovely new Mass in our missal called “Funeral Mass of a child who died before Baptism.” The opening prayer will give comfort to the Rachels of today: “Father of all consolation, from whom nothing is hidden, You know the faith of these parents who mourn the death of their child. May they find comfort in knowing that he (she) is entrusted to your loving care.”
    –Father Robert F. McNamara
    http://www.stthomasirondequoit.com/SaintsAlive/id829.htm

32. Thank you Brier, I had no idea that Jesus ever said that.

33. “Blessed are you, Bethlehem in the land of Judah! You suffered the inhumanity of King Herod in the murder of your babes and thereby have become worthy to offer to the Lord a pure host of infants. In full right do we celebrate the heavenly birthday of these children whom the world caused to be born unto an eternally blessed life rather than that from their mothers’ womb, for they attained the grace of everlasting life before the enjoyment of the present. The precious death of any martyr deserves high praise because of his heroic confession; the death of these children is precious in the sight of God because of the beatitude they gained so quickly. For already at the beginning of their lives they pass on. The end of the present life is for them the beginning of glory. These then, whom Herod’s cruelty tore as sucklings from their mothers’ bosom, are justly hailed as “infant martyr flowers”; they were the Church’s first blossoms, matured by the frost of persecution during the cold winter of unbelief.
    — St. Augustine

34. Esau,
    The Holy Innocents are not really relevant to the issue at hand, because they died before the promulgation of the Gospel.
    They do show that infants can be martyrs, but that doesn’t address the problem of unbaptized infants generally, most of whom are not martyrs.
    If the idea is that God allowed an exception of martyrdom, therefore he can allow lots of other exceptions, and must because he wants everyone to be saved, then one runs afoul of the Gospel text and the traditional teaching of the Church.
    Martydom is a special case, one too rich to go into here, but worthy of greater detail. Cardinal Billot wrote some interesting things on the subject; his Latin commentary on the Summa articles on this question can be found in most seminary libraries.

35. +J.M.J+
    >>>Moreover, it is not at all clear that the “way of salvation” refers to heaven, and not to Limbo. A state of radical natural happiness and natural love of God surely seems more aptly described as a “way of salvation” than of damnation, no?
    What you are proposing here is a novelty. Limbo has always been considered a form of damnation, natural happiness aside, and salvation has always been defined as receiving the Beatific Vision. Going to the children’s Limbo can never be seen as salvation.
    The idea of some that Limbo is THE traditional teaching is bogus. There is no official tradition or doctrine regarding infant damnation. All we know from past teachings of the Church is that original and mortal sin keep you out of heaven and that children cannot personally desire baptism. But even Aquinas talking of stillborn infants who die in the womb said that God makes a way of salvation for them, though they have no chance to be water baptized.
    It is clear from Church history that several theories on this matter have gained favor and later fallen out of favor. It’s also clear as Jimmy Akin pointed out that Catholics are allowed to speculate that God may be able to save unbaptized infants in some extra-sacramental way – excluding personal baptism of desire.
    The Church’s actions in this matter have always been pastoral. If at the time she did not for certain that God does save unbaptized infants, then it is better to do everything you can to encourage baptism and be wrong about infant damnation than to neglect infant baptism and be wrong about infant damnation.
    Another thing that is for certain, even though we have baptism of desire for adults the Council of Trent anathematizes adults who sinfully neglect persuing water baptism for salvation and entrance into the Church. In a like manner, hypothetically if the Pope were to teach that God somehow saves unbaptized infants after all, we will still be under an anathema and sin mortally if we neglect to persue water baptism for our infant children.
    Personally I do not believe in infant damnation because the Church does not officially teach it but I could be wrong. Practically speaking I would do everything possible to see that a dying baby is baptized.
    In Jesu et Maria,

36. This is unrelated to the topic of limbo, but I do wish Mr. Akin would take care to avoid his frequent employing of the term “radical traditionalist.”
    Shocking as it may sound, not even everyone who attends an SSPX Mass (in those areas with bishops such as His Excellency Tod Brown, who refuse the Tridentine Mass (so traditional Catholics must drive 45 minutes to a packed, crowded Mass at 8:00 a.m., arriving 45 minutes early just to get a seat) in favor of liturgical dance and yanking women off the floor who wish to kneel to receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/060420) is a radical traditionalist.
    Given, in fact, the type of teachings which Mr. Akin cited above (Pope John Paul’s troublesome use of the prhase (or the troublesome rendering of the translation) about aborted babies “being with the Father”) or various explicit admissions of new Conciliar teaching (e.g., Gaudium et Spes 19-22 on atheists, Dignatatis Humanae vis-a-vis Quanta Cura, Pope John Paul’s admission, in Ecclesia Dei Aflicta, that:
    “Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.” ), one cannot fault certain SSPX hierarchs for manifesting grave, grave concern about the diminishing of Christ’s own absolute statement of John 3:5, and the steady universalizing of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in the 21st century Church.
    It for that reason that I’ve heard not a few traditionalists propose that, in line with many universalist elements within the Council, the Vatican will decide to declare that all unbaptized babies, like Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, worshippers of the Great Thumb, and various other heretics, schismatics, and idolaters, are all part of the Church of Christ, in which the Catholic Church merely “subsists” (Lumen Gentium) and so are all saved.

37. Just to let you know, that last post really was my husband’s, not mine. He dictated it to me, which is why my own affectations were in there.
    BTW, I (Rosemarie) don’t necessarily disbelieve in infant damnation. I think Limbo may exist, but I also think vicarious BOD may possibly prevent some infants from getting there. Nonetheless, our children were all baptized at about a month old – which is as soon as we could manage to get it done – and I was more than ready to perform an emergency baptism if necessary during that first month. I’d rather be certain that my children have sanctifying grace than leave it up to the unknown (and my husband agrees with that).
    In Jesu et Maria,

38. Limbo has always been considered a form of damnation, natural happiness aside, and salvation has always been defined as receiving the Beatific Vision.
    No doubt you’re right objectively speaking, but calling limbo “infant damnation” can be very misleading since damnation is so deeply associated with suffering in our minds and, at least according to some conceptions of limbo, infants wouldn’t experience any kind of suffering.

39. Ben,
    Obviously exclusion from beatitude is damnation, if one uses traditional terminology. But Cardinal Journet used the words of a “way of salvation” to describe his theory of Limbo. And lo, we find those words in the French edition of the Catechism.
    If an equivocation is used, and it clearly is here, then there is no difficulty. It’s less of a novelty to call Limbo a “way of salvation” than to deny the Church’s traditional teaching on the absolute necessity, saving martyrdom, of water baptism for the salvation of infants.
    Why say a “way of salvation” rather than “salvation”? Is salvation qualified?
    I am proposing a way to read the Catechism that doesn’t require overthrowing Church teaching. I also pointed out that the Catechism has no special authority; it’s a compilation of texts that have no more authority than they did before their inclusion in the catechism, as then Cardinal Ratzinger indicated.
    There is a massive tradition on the necessity for infant water baptism for salvation. Let this quote from Augustine, the Doctor of Grace, suffice. He says that if you want to be Catholic, don’t teach that infants can have their original sin forgiven without baptism. I shall provide it in original Latin:
    “Noli credere, nec dicere, nec docere infantes antequam baptizantur morte preaventos pervenire posse ad orignalium indulgentiam peccatorum, si vis esse catholicus.” (De anima et eius origine 3,9,12)
    I would also point out that both Augustine, and his Pelagian opponents(!), believed that baptism was necessary for infants to enter into the Kingdom of God.
    The tradition was so strong on the subject, that the case of infants is used by Augustine to show how grace is a free gift from God, and not a result of our merits. One infants is baptized and saved, another is not and is not saved. What distinguishes the two?

40. This whole topic brings up a question I have had for some time.
    Hell, Heaven, Purgatory (and Limbo, if it really exists or not) are no longer considered places, they are only “states of existence,” as Jimmy makes reference in his article and several commenters make as well. The term makes me think of a person in a mental hospital in a catatonic state. They are existing and experiencing maybe happiness or maybe hell but it is their own world without interaction with anyone else except maybe God. Is that what is meant by Heaven being a “state of existence?”
    Such a heaven hardly seems worth working or fighting temptation for.

41. “State of Existence”
    Personally, I can come to grips with this term better since Purgatory, for example, can be better thought of as a state of purification rather than a place for obvious reasons that I care not to go into detail here.
    Heaven (and/or Hell) can be thought of as a ‘state’, too, since in Heaven (or Hell), there, it may not be the same as how matter occupies space in our world here.
    It’s not really using ‘state’ as in a ‘mental’ state but rather it addresses how Heaven (or Hell) may not be the same as how, in our world, matter occupies space and has mass — at least, that’s may take any way on how J.A. might be using it.
    The world in the after-life may be completely different than it is in our world since it is a spiritual world.

42. Breier,
    Until the Church rules formally on the matter you & I are entitled to our respective differing opinions. But I see no reason to accept Cardinal Journet novelty(calling Limbo a “way of Salvation”) over & against Cardinal Ratzinger’s(droping Limbo and or Infant Damnation) all things being equal.
    You can call infant damnation a “strong tradition” and that judgement is a valid opinion however in my judgement the Church of God has had many opertunities to clearly define this matter & to formally condemn competing teachings & yet she has not (the Holy Spirit restraining Her perhaps?). Thus until the Church CLEARLY tells me different I see no reason to believe in Limbo or Infant Damnation however since I could be wrong I contemn without question those who down play the importance of seeking water baptism for their children.
    >I am proposing a way to read the Catechism that doesn’t require overthrowing Church teaching.
    I reply: This is another place where you & I differ. Since it seems to me there has never been a clear teaching on this matter(the existence of competing teachings seems to be proof). Thus nothing is in fact overthrown.
    Theology has a lot of simantics. We know there is no salvation outside the Church however some non-believers by negation may be saved. Why? Because in some sense they where made part of the Church.
    In a like manner you wrote:
    >I would also point out that both Augustine, and his Pelagian opponents(!), believed that baptism was necessary for infants to enter into the Kingdom of God.
    I reply: I agree baptism is necessary for infants to get to Heaven However that baptism could be water, blood or some extra-sacremental baptism given by God.
    All that I know is I James Scott IV CANNOT instrimentally convey saving grace to my Children in any manner appart from water baptism & I am charged by my Mother the Church to do everything in my power to see it happen.
    But until the Pope formally & clearly tells me different I personally reject infant damnation. Why not?
    BTW even thought the CCC isn’t infallible i WE still must grant it assent as per Vatican One & Vatican Two. But you are within your rights to offer your interpretation of it and defend it subject to a more diffinative ruling by the Magesterium.
    Cheers mate!:-)

43. Jimmy,
    This talk about development of doctrine with regards to limbo is rank tomfoolery.

44. +J.M.J+
    >>>He says that if you want to be Catholic, don’t teach that infants can have their original sin forgiven without baptism.
    Taken in an absolute sense, that would rule out BOB as well. St. Augustine was not always right; the Church has not accepted some of his teachings, such as that grace is irresistible. I believe Augustine was correct in that original sin is normatively removed through the Sacrament of Baptism. BOB and (vicarious) BOD are extraordinary circumstances, not the norm.
    However, whether or not Limbo exists, baptism of infants is very important and should not be unduly delayed. Cardinal Ratzinger made that point in the Ratzinger Report even as he was stating his personal opinion about Limbo. I’m sure any future document the Church releases will re-emphasize the importance of baptizing babies.
    Frankly, if Christian parents can really only be motivated to baptize their children in a timely manner out of fear, that’s profoundly tragic. All parents should want what is best for their children, and sanctifying grace is the absolute best thing anyone could have. So Christian parents should be diligent in getting it for their newborns ASAP – out of LOVE for them, not fear of Limbo.
    In Jesu et Maria,

45. It simply cannot be demonstrated that limbo for children is a definitive dogma of the Church. It has not been defined as such by the extraordinary magisterium of the Church, and it does not fulfill the criteria of infallible doctrine taught by the ordinary magisterium. It may be a strong Western tradition. It might well have qualified–in the past–as a doctrine deserving of our religious assent (perhaps); but that does not make it irreformable. It would be nice to believe that absolutely everything that is taught by the bishops and pastors of the Church, at any given point in time, is absolutely true, without qualification; but the Catholic Church does not make such a claim for its teaching.
    All doctrines point us to the reality of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and must be interpreted in light of that reality. Therefore the more important question is, What does Jesus Christ, in his life, death, and resurrection, teach us about God’s love for humanity and what he has done for us on our behalf? If we are not clear about that, all reflection on limbo will be skewed from the beginning.

46. For the sake of completeness and for those that have not read the many books about the historic Jesus:
    (And yes as is with everyone’s comments on this thread, it has been said before.)
    The Story of the Holy Innocents appears only in Matthew and appears to be an attempt by Matthew to fullfill the “prophecy of Jeremiah”. And as we all know, there is no such thing as prophets since Future is one of our many gifts from God i.e. even God does not know the Future of the world. Conclusion: The Story of the Holy Innocents did not happen in reality.
    “Unless a man be born again of water (the innocence of a child?) and the Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of God.” is Jesus- historic as per Crossan’s analyses 20+. Kingdom and Children: (1) Gos. Thom. 22:1-2; (2) Mark 10:13-16 = Matt 19:13-15 = Luke 18:15-17; (3) Matt 18:3; (4) John 3:1-5,9-10. Jesus was apparently demanding that we make ourselves anew and equivalent to the innocence of children. For example, in Mark 10:13-16, Jesus says ” Let the children come to me, and do not stop them, because the the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I assure you that whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it”. Note there is no mention of cleansing of original sin only the demand to be innocent like a child. And of course the Jewish children in these passages were not baptized into the Catholic religion but had they died right there, Jesus assured them of a place in Heaven.

47. For the sake of completeness, Realist, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J
    St. Inocencio de la Immaculada pray for us!

48. Inocencio,
    (As note previously)
    ……..And we will continue to search for modern dogmas uncluttered by thoughts from the age of poor theological reviews and the irrational thinking of a few old white guys who have contaminated our Catechism with their inane conclusions.
    And just where in the NT is that reference to my/your original sin?

49. In Acts 2:38, when a man comes up to Peter on the Day of Pentecost, where Peter preaches his first famous sermon on Jesus Christ and they come to him and say, “What must we do?” He says, “Repent and be baptized each one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and this promise is for you and for your children and for your children’s children.” Now, when he said that to a group of Jewish folks, they knew exactly what he was talking about. See, we as Catholics understand – as the Jews did in those days – what it means to have a covenant relationship with God. People talk about how necessary it is to have a personal relationship with Jesus. We as Catholics say, “Amen! Absolutely!” – But even more, we have a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ and a Covenant Relationship is more than just a personal relationship because a Covenant involves the entire family.
    See, the Jews, when they came to God, they understood that the whole family comes to God – the People of God involves more than just one person. Circumcision involved the children – the children were brought into a covenant relationship with God when they were eight days old because the parents had a covenant relationship with God. Well, in the New Testament – Colossians 2:11-12 tells us that Baptism is the circumcision of Christ. In Romans 2:27-28, Paul talks about how he is not a true Jew who has received circumcision but the true Jew is he who has received the circumcision of the spirit. And what is that? Baptism – as Paul says!
    And so if Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision, of course, we would baptize our children just as in the Old Testament the children were brought into that covenant relationship with God as well. And isn’t this the mind of Jesus? In Luke 18 when he says, “Suffer the little children to come unto me.” Remember, the people were bringing their children to Jesus to be blessed and if you look at the Greek text there, it’s paidion (pahee-dee’-on), which is the Greek word meaning ‘infants’ – it’s not children – it’s actually ‘infants’. There are two other words that could be used for children, but, there, it is specifically ‘infants’ that were being brought to Jesus and Jesus says, “Do not forbid them for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.” We, too, must come to God absolutely open to Jesus and the movement of the Holy Spirit in our lives and so everywhere, the idea that baptism only being for adults is just contradicted by the very pages of the New Testament.

50. In addition, ‘Realist’, how can you say, ‘even God does not know the Future of the world’?
    Who has the mind of God? Who can even know the mind of God? His is an infinite mind and is Omniscient.
    Jb:38:4: Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
    Jb:38:5: Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
    Jb:38:6: Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
    Jb:38:7: When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
    Jb:38:8: Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
    Jb:38:9: When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
    Jb:38:10: And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
    Jb:38:11: And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
    Jb:38:12: Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
    Jb:38:13: That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
    Jb:38:14: It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
    Jb:38:15: And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.
    Jb:38:16: Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
    Jb:38:17: Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
    Jb:38:18: Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

51. God certainly does see our future, because He exists outside time, and sees all times in His eternal now. He doesn’t remember the past; He sees the past in His eternal now. He doesn’t foresee the future; He sees the future in His eternal now. Of course, God is not the limited “god” that some believe in because they can get their puny minds around the concept of such a limited “god”. Any “god” a man can completely understand isn’t much of a “god”.

52. Original Sin has to be one of the most easily proven dogmas the Church professes. Most of need only a mirror to see the evidence.

53. Some of the commentors talked about St. Bernard and Cardinal Cajetan’s notion of vicarious baptism by desire. I would like someone to comment on whether 1 Cor. 15:29 might provide a solution to this issue, especially since St. Paul did not condemn the practice of baptism by proxy for the dead?

54. Realist wrote: The Story of the Holy Innocents appears only in Matthew and appears to be an attempt by Matthew to fullfill the “prophecy of Jeremiah”. And as we all know, there is no such thing as prophets since Future is one of our many gifts from God i.e. even God does not know the Future of the world. Conclusion: The Story of the Holy Innocents did not happen in reality.
    Concerning God’s knowledge of the future, you might be interested to read what Pope Pius XII solemnly taught concerning the knowledge of Christ:
    Now the only-begotten Son of God embraced us in His infinite knowledge and undying love even before the world began. And that He might give a visible and exceedingly beautiful expression to this love, He assumed our nature in hypostatic union: hence – as Maximus of Turin with a certain unaffected simplicity remarks – “in Christ our own flesh loves us.” But the knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all that the human intellect can hope to grasp. For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the Beatific Vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love. O marvelous condescension of divine love for us! O inestimable dispensation of boundless charity! In the crib, on the Cross, in the unending glory of the Father, Christ has all the members of the Church present before Him and united to Him in a much clearer and more loving manner than that of a mother who clasps her child to her breast, or than that with which a man knows and loves himself. (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 75, published in 1943)

55. I am totally confused. What’s the difference between doctrine and dogma? How can the Church’s official teaching change? I’ve been telling my Lutheran cousins that yes, things were messed up in the 1500s, but it was what people were doing that was the problem, not the official Church teaching. I understand that this was mentioned in the original post, but it wasn’t described thoroughly. Can somebody help? Thanks.

56. Realist,
    The only one that has contaminated “your” catechism is you.
    Since you have no understanding of doctrine or dogma here are the definitions from the Catholic Dictionary:
    DOCTRINE Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority. Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God.
    Now that you have a good definition you can see that you preach heresy when you deny Original Sin.
    You are in my prayers.
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

57. Terah,
    I am in the “Conservative Jewish camp” when it comes to the OT i.e. none of the OT is historic i.e. the Job commentary was added by a well-meaning Jewish scribe to the fictional story of a man who through all of God’s imposed hardships, still loves God. There is probably some parallel story in Greek and/or Babylonian mythology.

58. none of the OT is historic i.e. the Job commentary was added by a well-meaning Jewish scribe to the fictional story of a man who through all of God’s imposed hardships, still loves God.
    Well, how very refreshing that you, a self-titled “realist” trolling the boards are of such intellectual character as to dismiss whole and entire the Holy Book that many billions of Catholics, Christians, and Jews, countless thousands of them saints, Church doctors, scholastics, philosophers, apostles, popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, biblical scholars, and theologians believe in stridently and disagree with you just as vehemently vis-a-vis your sweeping denial.
    But I’m glad you’re here to right the errant and poor misinformed millions who’ve been systematically fooled.
    There is probably some parallel story in Greek and/or Babylonian mythology.
    Yes, just as Homer’s mythical Iliad tells the story of Greek war, which must mean that all subsequent purported wars fought by ancient Greeks are ipso facto rendered fictional and mythological, because a parallel myth exists.
    I think most historians get around the “If something similar happened in a myth, it must not be true” phase right around the 8th grade.
    Maybe you’d best run along now and have a parent drive you to the library where you can undo the scholastic excrement which has evidently been fed to you by Borg, Crossan, and other aging eccentrics who consider themselves of such immense intellectual caliber that a simple vote is enough to overturn the inspired Word of God if it won’t conform to their modern tastes.
    Your posting is pathetic, transparent, and worthy of a polite request that you bow out now, for good.

59. Here’s my tentative thoughts on the matter. (Posted already over at Amy Welborn, but no comments elicited. So, comments here gratefully accepted, for my education.)
    The proposed ‘abolition’ of the limbus infantium in the case of the those who die in utero is logically compatible with the doctrines that 1. all men are conceived with original sin (Virgin Mary & Jesus Christ excepted) and that 2.no-one in the state of original sin can enter heaven
    ONLY if the following obtains:
    That there is a means whereby the unborn can cleansed of original sin (ie “sanctified”) before their death.
    This process would not be baptism, since (as St Thomas says) baptism is a ‘rebirth’ and one has to be born before one can be reborn. It would, nevertheless be a sanctification, a removal from the state of original sin.
    While it has not been revealed that the unborn dead have been routinely so blessed, there is a biblical precedent for this sanctification in the womb: namely, St John the Baptist, who tradition holds was sanctified in the womb when Mary visited Elizabeth and who was thus born without original sin on his soul.
    Aquinas offers two other insights which might be of assistance here:
    1.) That angels (and even the saints in heaven) can perform the sacraments. (He cites the fact that some churches were consecrated by angels, according to the New Testament.)S Th: III, q. 64, art. 7 Response
    2.) That children in the womb are not subject to the action of men, but are subject to the action of God.
    As he says:
    “Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.”
    III q. 68 art. 11 ad 1
    If we accept and combine all these points, the way is open for the following proposition:
    That children in the womb whom God forsees will die there – ie, before becoming subject to the rule of men, may be sanctified – for example, by angels, before they die, so that they may enter heaven.
    In this way the doctrine that ‘baptism is necessary for salvation’ (for all those born into the world) and that the unborn who die unbaptised can enter heaven are compatible. The solution lies in this possible sanctification of the unborn forseen to die in utero by Providence.
    However, there are two comments which must be added.
    1.) Since we have very little positive evidence that such an event occurs, we are not able to do any more than hope for the salvation of those who die in utero . That is what the Catechism notes we are permitted to do, and, unless the Commisssion has unearthed new positive evidence from the tradition, I believe it cannot go beyond this in the matter.
    2.) As to the problem of children who die unbaptised after birth the case is significantly different. They are, as St Thomas notes, subject to the action of men, and so it would seem a case for including them under this hypothesised supernatural intervention is more difficult to sustain:
    a.) The revelation of such an intervention would seem to undermine the evangelical mandate to baptise all nations, which grounds the doctrine of the necessity of baptism for all (ie all born into the world and subject to the action of man).
    b.)Moreover, why would parents bother to baptise their children if they were assured in the knowledge that their unbaptized child would go to heaven if it died before reaching the age of reason (and thereby being capable of baptizm of blood or desire)?
    So it is harder to see from the tradition of thought on this matter how the ‘limbus infantium’ can be abolished in the case of young children who die than it is in the case of those who die in utero .
    A final thought.
    I don’t see anything in tradition opposed to this idea: that supposing that there be a limbus infantium , that the inhabitants thereof communicate with the saints in heaven. True, they lack the beatific vision. But it doesn’t seem clear that they would be prevented thereby from interacting on a purely natural level with the saints, enjoying a friendship with them (and, of course, with God and His angels.) After all, here on earth, people in the state of original sin conversed with Our Lady, and Jesus Christ. I’ve not come across this idea in the tradition, so perhaps it’s a bit rash or maybe even mala sonorum , but I’d like to know why & am ready to be advised. Thoughts appreciated.

60. With all due respect, this is the kind of discussion that makes me profoundly glad to be a Methodist….
    Sorry, but I calls ’em as I sees ’em.

61. It’s been my understanding that there are only three ways a soul can receive the sanctifying grace of baptism, and this is either thorugh:
    1) the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism itself
    2) the desire for baptism, which is not to be seperated from and act of perfect charity (c.f. Suprema Haec Sacra)
    and
    3) Dying for the faith, or, martyrdom.
    If they are going to open up the possibility of salvation for infants who die before the age of reason and having been baptized, it seems to me that it’s going to have to be some application of either two or three. For, “the Church has thus shown by her teaching and practice that she knows no other way apart from baptism for assuring children’s entry into eternal happiness.” (CDF’s Instruction on Infant Baptism)

62. You just stopped conversions from Protestantism to Catholicism. The Eastern (“Orthodox”) have a point about us being too scholastic–this thread and discussion proving that point.
    Let us reflect on mystery, the mystery of baptism, mercy, justice and all these topics–words cannot answer or at least not answer alone. I do not need to logically think about this when there has too be acceptance and meditation.
    Do not be so cruel as to assume damnation, punishment, or even a Buddhistic nothingness or absence of the “Face” of God for babies, stillborn, aborted (babies not fetuses–the idea they do not see heaven is something for pro-aborts), miscarriages, or children who die–Let God decide and have mercy not these ridiculous theologians and logic games.
    It is all straw, and in this case burning straw with the fires from hell.

63. As noted previously-
    From http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm
    “New Torah For Modern Minds
    Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
    Such startling propositions — the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years — have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity — until now.
    The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ”Etz Hayim” (”Tree of Life” in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document. ”
    After the International Theological (or is it “Theoillogical” with respect to limbo???) Commission finishes their voting on limbo, hopefully they will turn their old male Caucasian eyes toward the likes of Job et al.

64. Abraham didn’t exist several thousand years ago, and this is proved by archeologists who dug for 25 years???? I don’t get this sort of ‘proof’, though I guess if none of the bible is true you don’t have to respond to God or take responsibility for your actions. Hmmm, maybe that’s why you use such contorted logic.

65. Frankly, if Christian parents can really only be motivated to baptize their children in a timely manner out of fear, that’s profoundly tragic. All parents should want what is best for their children, and sanctifying grace is the absolute best thing anyone could have
    People should want what is best for themselves, too, but Jesus showed no compunction at all about laying on the fear in hopes of motivating them. He either didn’t think it tragic or didn’t care.

66. Mary: Condemnation is a fearful prospect, yes? Tragic, even? Mark 16: 15-16 15 “Jesus said to them, ‘Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.'”

67. Realist,
    Hopefully before you die you will turn your eyes towards God, not the image you like but the One who had revealed Himself through His Church.
    You remain in my prayers.
    St. Francis Borgia pray for us!
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

68. I agree with Hans, this discussion can be counterproductive and overly speculative. We should all hope for mercy from God and pray for mercy for ourselves and all souls.

69. Might it be significant that unbaptized infants have not had the gospel promulgated to them?
    JV, how is that different than if you were to go to a Lutheran divine service, which also lacks the defects you can’t stand (e.g. traditional Lutheran pastors face ad orientem, no liturgical dance, all kneel for reception of the Blessed Sacrament, etc), and like SSPX lacks genuine Roman Catholic priests?
    Realist: “We all like sheep have gone astray, and God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”
    Paul, I’ve heard it said that “baptism for the dead” is more likely “baptism on account of the dead” or “because of the dead” – their witness to the one being baptised, which would have been useless in the false teaching that the resurrection has already happened, or will never happen, since the one who was the witness is dead. This being contrary to the Mormon practice of baptism to bring the dead into the Mormon ‘church.’
    TGP, the cause of Reunification -would- be helped if the difference between dogma and doctrine and folk piety were made clear and exactly what the dogmae -are- were made clear.
    Realism, scholarship has rejected Bultmannianism. You are living in the past of an obsolete heresy. And the archaeological evidence from Kenyon’s own records shows that the walls “came a-tumblin down” as the old spiritual puts it.

70. I really don’t understand Catholics.

71. Thanks for sharing Brian. I’m glad you got that off your chest.

72. “I do not need to logically think about this…”
    I disagree with Hans.

73. I am sorry but limbus infantum is the most ridiculous teaching ever proposed. Do y’all really think that sprinkling a little bit of magic water over somebody is what keeps them out of hell?

74. “I complain of Curly.”
    “I complain of Nibs.”
    “I complain of Michael.”
    (just having fun, pay no attention)

75. I am sorry but limbus infantum is the most ridiculous teaching ever proposed.

    I’m glad you’re sorry.

    Do y’all really think that sprinkling a little bit of magic water over somebody is what keeps them out of hell?

    No, thanks for asking. Next question?

76. “Historically the doctrinal alternative to limbo never was infant salvation, but a stricter Augustinian interpretation assigning also pain of sense to the state of the children”
    A god that creates a person in order to torture them for eternity hardly seems worthy of praise. I really don’t see how people actually believe this.

77. A god that creates a person in order to torture them for eternity hardly seems worthy of praise. I really don’t see how people actually believe this.

    Prescinding from the question whether God “tortures” people in hell, are you saying that you don’t believe in hell at all, Mike?

78. no SDG, just saying I don’t think God would send an innocent person to hell. By innocent I mean somebody that is free from any personal sin.

79. It would be torture to create a person and then for no fault of their own damn them to hell. It is because i don’t believe that God tortures people in hell that i don’t believe he sends innocent people to hell.

80. If Jesus demanded that all men – including infants – be baptized by water or at least by blood or by desire, we must heed that rule, and be most careful to have our children baptized as quickly as possible. That is vital.
    But the fact that God laid down this rule does not mean that He himself cannot make exceptions to it. Other passages in Scripture testify that Jesus died for all mankind, and that He wanted all mankind to be saved. These passages must be balanced with the passage on baptism; for they show the mercy of the Creator.
    So let those who have lost children before their baptism, and those who worry about the salvation of the victims of abortion, console themselves with the thought that God does not forget any of His children.
    Who are we to place limits on His special generosity?
    –Father Robert F. McNamara

81. Jared,
    You quoted ” Mark 16: 15-16 15 “Jesus said to them, ‘Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.'”
    Many exegetes have concluded that Mark 16: 8-20 was a later addition to Mark’s Gospel. Crossan (please don’t “yell” unless you have written 14 books about the historical Jesus), gives the following estimate:
    Item: 522
    Stratum: IV (120-150 AD/CE)
    Attestation: Single
    Historicity: not said by the historical Jesus.
    A Google search will give added information about the history of Mark 16: 8-20.

82. “please don’t ‘yell’ unless you have written 14 books about the historical Jesus”
    14 Books!!! Oh, my goodness!
    That should well be enough to topple over 2000 years of Church Teaching and, not to mention, the traditional Jewish religion who believed and put their faith wholeheartedly in the Torah for well over that!
    If the bible was nothing but a bunch of made-up stories as you suggeset, then why even believe in a person ‘Jesus’ in the first place?
    Isn’t it Jesus is said to be the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah? But, of course, Isaiah never existed in the first place since he was probably made up as well as he was likely nothing more than ‘a well-meaning Jewish scribe’, as you suggested the person who wrote the ‘fictional’ story Job was.

83. Ur,
    The Jewish scribe who composed the fictional account of Job was probably from the same family of scribes who composed the fictional accounts of Adam and Eve and also Noah. You have to agree that these scribes had good imaginations to the point that they were probably heavily influenced by the Greek scribes who concocted the mythcial Gods of Greece.

84. Again, if all the books in the bible are just made-up stuff, then why even need to ponder on a historical Jesus?
    I mean, for all you know, this ‘historical Jesus’ you’re so obsessed with is nothing more than some regular Joe down the street as there were others in those days that had the name ‘Jesus’ back then just as there are those people who have that name now?
    Your fascination with the historical Jesus is in vain if there but for some inkling of recognition that this person could very well be a fulfillment of some prophecy in the Old Testament.
    To outrightly disregard the testimony and teachings of a holy people (from the Jewish people God had chosen right down to the Church Christ established) that have come down from several centuries just because of some guy who wrote 14 books is astonishing, to say the least!
    There’s a bunch of questionable prolific authors out there writing a whole series of novels on questionable ‘truths’ such as U.F.O.s but you don’t see me worshipping the stars and waiting to join a cult awaiting the day a U.F.O. will come and land to pick up a handful of us in a spaceship in the all too near or distant future!

85. See, Realist is too sophisticated to believe that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, but then (for some reason) he uncritically accepts that the work of J.D. Crossan IS inerrant and infallible.
    Of course, I’m sure he would be willing to accept the work of any “scholar”, as long as they were in the business of bashing real, historical Christianity.
    Be gone, troll. I thought Jimmy gave you the boot, once, for your Christian-baiting.

86. Crossan: “Christ’s body was probably eaten by wild dogs.”

87. I don’t know why this discussion would cause someone not to want to be Catholic. The discussion is simply Catholics trying to determine the truth about the fate of unbaptized babies. Are Protestants saying they’re glad that they don’t have to think about that, or they are glad not to know things?
    This is coming from a Catholic convert – I’ve been on both sides, and I don’t get this criticism. Probably the answer for now is that we simply don’t know how to resolve the matter definitively, but perhaps someday in the future, thanks to the HOly Spirit’s action in the Church, we will know! Maybe one of the combox denizens will be the next Duns Scotus.
    OK, maybe I’m going a bit overboard now…

88. +J.M.J+
    Hans writes:
    >>>You just stopped conversions from Protestantism to Catholicism.
    If the Holy Ghost is moving someone to convert, I doubt a discussion such as this one will stop them.
    >>>Do not be so cruel as to assume damnation, punishment, or even a Buddhistic nothingness or absence of the “Face” of God for babies, stillborn, aborted (babies not fetuses–the idea they do not see heaven is something for pro-aborts), miscarriages, or children who die–Let God decide and have mercy not these ridiculous theologians and logic games.
    That’s basically what the Catechism says; we leave them to the mercy of God.
    Realist writes:
    >>>After the International Theological (or is it “Theoillogical” with respect to limbo???) Commission finishes their voting on limbo, hopefully they will turn their old male Caucasian eyes toward the likes of Job et al.
    Are you sure they’re all Caucasians? Have you met them all? Seen pictures of each and every one? Or are you saying that because you think a politically-correct (white males = evil) ad hominem attack will somehow add to your argument?
    In Jesu et Maria,

89. Realist is the High Priest of Crossanity and he needs our prayers.
    St. Francis Borgia pray for us!
    J+M+J

90. +J.M.J+
    From Wikipedia:
    “John Dominic Crossan (born Nenagh, Co. Tipperary, Ireland, 1934) is an Irish American biblical scholar.”
    An Irish man born in 1934? You mean he’s an old male Caucasian???
    In Jesu et Maria,

91. 😀

92. Check this out! Scott Hahn and John Dominic Crossan was actually in a Dateline special together last year!
    Now, if only they had actually debated each other, that would have made for some interesting dialogue! Talk about a prolific writer and thinker, Scott Hahn would have posed as a heavy weight!
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10005045/print/1/displaymode/1098/

93. Rosemarie,
    I stand corrected, 23 of the 30 members of the International Theological Commission are old white guys some being descendents of the conquerors of South America (i.e. no peasant representation). Shocking as it may seem, they allowed two women on the commission. There are also male representatives from Korea, China(Hong Kong), Lebanon, India and the Congo. http://www.solt3.org/internationaltheologicalcommission.htm
    J.D Crossan and Karen Armstrong will hopefully be added in 2009 when new members are chosen.

94. “J.D Crossan and Karen Armstrong will hopefully be added in 2009 when new members are chosen.”
    Hee hee!

95. From Scott Hahn’s site regarding the infamous ‘Crossan’:
    A Brief History of Biblical Interpretation
    “One of the most radical results of the historical critical method – when divorced from the living tradition that accompanied the Gospels from the first – is the so-called “Jesus Seminar,” which began in 1985.
    Begun by R. Funk and J.D. Crossan, the seminar consists of 50 to 100 scholars who meet regularly and write papers about what they think the historical Jesus really said and did. With a definite bias against miracles and supernatural happenings, it has been notorious in denying the authenticity of Christ’s words in the Gospels – claiming that He did not say fifty percent of the words attributed to Him.
    Though rejected by many Scripture scholars today, the claims of the Jesus Seminar have been greatly propagated by the secular media. ”
    http://salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/wordofgod/learninggodsword8.cfm

96. From the St. Paul Center for Theological Biblical Study Mission Statement – http://www.salvationhistory.com/mission/mission.cfm
    “We read the Bible from the heart of the Church, in light of the Church’s Liturgy and living Tradition. In this way, we hope to help people experience the heart-to-heart encounter that Jesus’ disciples experienced on that first Easter night, when they knew Him in the breaking of the bread: “Did not our hearts burn within us while He talked to us…while He opened to us the Scriptures?” (see Luke 24:13-37)
    If J.D. Crossan, Karen Armstrong, Marus Borg, Jonathan Reed, and the Jesus Seminarians were heading up the St. Paul Center, the mission statement would read:
    And now for the real Jesus!!!!!
    Luke 24:13-37 as per Crossan and others was not said by the historic Jesus.
    3±. Bread and Fish: (1?) 1 Cor 15:6; (2) John 6:1-15; (3a) Mark 6:33-44 =Matt 9:36; 14:13b-21 = Luke 9:11-17; (3b) Mark 8:1-10 = Matt 15:32-39; (4) Luke 24:13-33,35; (5) Luke 24:41-43; (6) John 21:9,12-13- see http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb003.html

97. Realist,
    You whole problem is pride. You refuse to submit to the authority Christ Himself established. So you search and have found those who preach what you want to hear. And lo and behold because you want to hear it…it is the “truth”.
    We have been down this road before. It is all about authority. You ignore the Church because you think its authority comes from you and deny it comes from God.
    Jimmy has clearly warned you before, so don’t be surprised when the rope you used to make a noose hangs you.
    You remain in my prayers.
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

98. “Luke 24:13-37 as per Crossan and others was not said by the historic Jesus.”
    Realist, how can you boldly assert and even declare what Jesus say or did not say?
    Were you there?
    Is there some sort of Tardis or DeLorean that you have that none of us do that can bring you back to the days of Jesus that helped you figure all this out?
    In charity, I hope that your ‘historical Jesus’ can save you in the end because my Jesus, who established the Church in order that people would not be (Eph:4:14) ‘tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive’, is the Christ.
    As Paul declares:
    1Jn:2:22: Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?

99. Esau,
    Realist believes Crossan (who had no authority whatsoever but writes books he likes) is infallible because he agrees with him.
    And the Church (which was established by Christ Himself) is fallible because he disagrees with it.
    Reason and fact have no place in Realist’s mind.
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

100. +J.M.J+
     >>>Shocking as it may seem, they allowed two women on the commission.
     Why would the presence of women on the commission be shocking? It’s a group of theologians, not just clergy. Women can be theologians, too.
     The Catholic Church recognizes three female Doctors of the Church: Sts. Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila and Therese of the Child Jesus. Many other women have enriched our Faith, such as St. Bridgit of Sweden and Hildegarde of Bingen. So I don’t really see what’s so surprising about female theologians on the commission.
     In Jesu et Maria,

101. I addition to what Rosemarie has mentioned regarding “>>>Shocking as it may seem, they allowed two women on the commission.”:
     I don’t know why non-Catholics would even have such a perception that the Catholic Church puts down women (e.g., The Da Vinci Code), when all along, throughout history, her greatest ‘Saint’, Mary, the Mother of God, had been venerated all through history by the Church for her ‘Yes’ to God as she became the Mother of Our Lord and Saviour, the Son of God, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, and, thus, one of the Church’s foremost greatest and treasured People of God!

102. William Lane Craig made J. D. Crossan look like a fool when they debated a couple of years ago.
     Jesus’s body was eaten by dogs????-.
     C’mon…it takes more faith to believe in that, than the resurrection account!.

103. Rosemarie,
     Considering the ban on female priests, I was shocked to see that the International Theology Commission even considered that a contemporary female would know anything about theology. I wonder if their votes count??

104. Considering the ban on female priests, I was shocked to see that the International Theology Commission even considered that a contemporary female would know anything about theology.

     Because, of course, the essential sacerdotal function is….
     Ye gods, whatta meesa saying? Rave, Realist, rave. I won’t bother writing you a reality check. You wouldn’t bother to cash it.

105. Considering the ban on female priests, I was shocked to see that the International Theology Commission even considered that a contemporary female would know anything about theology.
     Middle term, please? (You know, the logic thing.)

106. +J.M.J+
     >>>Considering the ban on female priests, I was shocked to see that the International Theology Commission even considered that a contemporary female would know anything about theology.
     What does the fact that Christianity never had priestesses have to do with anything? Women can still learn about God. Also, a lot has changed just over the past forty years, with women taking may non-clerical positions in the Church, including becoming theologians and canon lawyers. Where have you been?
     >>>I wonder if their votes count??
     If you think that we gals are so horribly oppressed in the Church, you really should learn a little more about Catholicism.
     In Jesu et Maria,

107. I’m sorry, and I don’t mean to judge, but Rosemarie, are you pro-feminism and female “priests” or are you against it?

108. +J.M.J+
     I believe that the Catholic Church never had priestesses and has no authority to ordain them. That does not mean that women may not hold other positions in the Church that don’t require Holy Orders, however, such as becoming canon lawyers.
     Of course, the most important things is not gaining some kind of “power” in the Church, but becoming part of the heirarchy of holiness in Heaven. There women can even potentially surpass men, since “the last shall be first and the first last”.
     In Jesu et Maria,

109. surpass?
     errata est

110. See the commentary at http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/for an op-ed on allowing the better half of humankind to become Catholic priests.

111. For what purpose?

112. Realist,
     Yawn…
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

113. Okay, before anyone says anything more about how the Church supposedly oppressed women throughout history and that they were relegated to such inferior positions in the Church and were laid to mediocre tasks, they should first read about such individuals like St. Catherine of Siena.
     For goodness sake, the woman basically commanded the Pope in her letters (handing strict instructions to the Vicar of Christ that were albeit wise yet very bold if you consider the times she lived in and the underlying politics of the days and risked death and punishment through it all);nevertheless, the strength of her will and words caused even the highest authorities of her time to take heed of her pronouncements.
     Further, even today we have such women in the Church such as Mother Angelica who actually established the largest Catholic network in the world!
     Needless to say, you need not be a priest to carry such power and force in the Church. Nuns and other orders in the Church held even by women can prove far reaching.
     Again, why in the world, if the Church meant to put down women and held such a low opinion of women, hold in the highest esteem the Virgin Mother Mary? Wouldn’t that contradict such views? If they regarded women with such a condescending perspective, the last thing it would want to do is venerate a woman!

114. Re: the Jesus Seminar approach
     “It follows then, as of course, that these men must either receive the rest of his narrative, or else reject these parts also. For no persons of common sense can permit them to receive some things recounted by Luke as being true, and to set others aside, as if he had not known the truth.”
     St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 15.
     Re: female theologians/ordination
     The last I saw, it wasn’t against the law to have male obstetricians and gynecologists talk, study and assist the very body parts and experiences they’ll never have.
     And if you think this is a frivolous comparison, I assure you that a good deal of energy is expended in this world on male pregnancy stories. Not usually written by males, strangely enough. 🙂

115. +J.M.J+
     Better half? Flattery will get you nowhere, Realist. 🙂
     The ministerial priesthood is an icon of Christ the Bridegroom, who gives Himself to His Bride the Church in the Holy Eucharist. It is therefore a male vocation. Having a Catholic “priestess” would be as bizarre as having a man play the Virgin Mary in a Christmas pageant. Not because men are somehow bad, but because Our Lady is a woman and a man could never pretend to be her without making a drag-queen mockery of the whole thing. Ditto a Catholic “priestess” – just can’t happen, not because women are somehow bad but because Jesus was and remains a man. So a woman cannot put on male clerical garments and pretend to be “married to the Church,” who is our Mother.
     We women don’t need to become poor imitations of men in order to be worthwhile. Christian women have managed to hold positions of temporal authority without possessing Holy Orders; consider the power of medieval abbesses, for instance. An abbess over a double monastery (both monks and nuns living separately but worshipping together) was the superior of the monks as well as the nuns! There is precident in Church history for women possessing non-sacramental authority in the Church, and as long as the women in those positions are orthodox and don’t seek Holy Orders then I see no problem with that.
     In Jesu et Maria,

116. Rosemarie,
     As note previously, limbo will eventually find its way to the dust bin of bad ideas. Original sin will follow and we and all those before us will acquire our rightful description i.e. “Immaculate”.

117. Hear ye, hear ye his un-holiness anti-pope wannabe MM has just informally “defined” and “declared” his “dogma” about his “immaculate self-proclaimation.”
     Realist,
     You will better recieved when you just stop pretending to be Catholic.
     You remain in my prayers.
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

118. Realist,
     You keep on harping on ‘Original Sin’ and how it’s such a false doctrine. Why don’t you take time to read up on what the Catholic Church actually teaches about it before you make such hasty declarations on something you don’t even really know anything about?
     If you’re really interested in knowing about Original Sin, here’s an extract from an article about it from Catholic Answers:
     The doctrine of original sin is that “in” Adam all have sinned. This parallels the doctrine of justification that “in” Christ all are righteous. Many Catholics do not fully understand or appreciate the importance of this parallel and how it weaves through much of Catholic teaching.
     We can begin to understand this parallel—namely, through the first Adam all have died and through the second Adam (Christ) all have life—by looking at Romans 5. Verse 12 says that “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin.” And look at the evidence throughout verses 15–19: “Many died through one man’s trespass. . . . For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation. . . . Because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man. . . . Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men. . . . By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.”
     Look at verse 16: “For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation.” Who did it bring condemnation for? Adam only? No—verse 18 says, “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men” (emphasis added). This is stated even more clearly by the King James rendering the same verse: “Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation.”
     These passages are all about the Church’s doctrine of original sin. Because of Adam’s sin, all men were made subject to sin and death. That is Scripture’s teaching on the doctrine of original sin.
     This sin of Adam’s was not your ordinary sin. This was a sin that affected all mankind forever. This sin changed the course of human history. It did not just affect Adam personally; it also affected his human nature—which means it affected our nature, since we inherited it from him. Adam and Eve were created with immortal bodies. They knew no suffering, they knew no disease, they knew no death. Before the fall, their bodies would not have been subject to cancer or to Alzheimer’s disease or heart attacks or muscular dystrophy or sickle cell anemia or any one of a host of other diseases. But ours are.
     Adam was tested by God not just as Adam but as the representative of the whole human race, since we are all the seed of Adam. Just as David and Goliath met on the battlefield as champions of their respective armies, Adam was our champion. If your champion lost in battle to the other army’s champion, then you lost the battle—even though you never unsheathed your sword and were never bloodied in battle. David slew the Philistines’ champion and the Philistines took off running (cf. 1 Sam. 17:51). In the battle against the evil one, Adam lost. As a result, we also lost.
     Some folks have a problem with the concept that we, Adam’s posterity, should have to pay a price for a sin we didn’t commit. They do not understand how the Church is using the term original sin. As the Catechism says, “original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act” (CCC 404).
     Adam’s sin changed everything—for him and for us. There was a fundamental change in man’s relationship with God. God no longer walked the earth with man. What’s more, Satan was now ruler of the world. There was a fundamental change in the relationship of man to nature and a fundamental change in nature itself (cf. Rom. 8:19–22). A fundamental change in the relationship between man and woman. A fundamental change in relationships among all men, since sin and death had entered the world. A fundamental change in the nature of man himself. It’s all right there in the Bible. And it is the Church’s teaching on the doctrine of original sin.
     But for each of those verses in Romans 5 about how Adam’s disobedience affected us, there is a parallel verse describing how Jesus’ obedience affected us. This parallel is paramount. One man’s disobedience leads to death for all; one man’s obedience leads to life for all. We see this parallel in 1 Corinthians 15:21–22: “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”
     Let’s expand for a minute on this concept of being “in” Adam. The writer of Hebrews says something interesting in referring to when Abraham and Melchizedek met in Genesis 14: “Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham. For he was still in the loins of his ancestor [Abraham] when Melchizedek met him [Abraham]” (Heb. 7:9–10).
     Levi wasn’t born for another seventy years or so after this incident of Abraham paying a tithe to Melchizedek, yet the Bible says that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek. How is that possible? Because Levi was in Abraham—in his loins, according to the Bible.
     This is the same concept we are talking about with original sin and being in Adam and with salvation and being in Christ.
     We are born with a fallen nature, a nature that is separated from God as a result of Adam’s sin. We have to be born again to become joined to God, to be in Christ, to become a member of the body of Christ, to be saved. We are born of Adam’s body into condemnation. We are born of Christ’s body unto salvation.
     Finally, we reach the part where this ties into infant baptism. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says, “Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). In verse 5 he repeats himself: “Unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
     In other words, being born again is the same thing as being born of water and the Spirit, and it is a necessary condition for entering the kingdom of God. Jesus is saying that a man must be born of water and the Spirit—in other words, he must be baptized. The Bible tells us that you cannot enter the kingdom of God if you are not baptized.
     “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). Remember that: The Bible says that which is born of the flesh is flesh. Not only that, but “it is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” (John 6:63).
     Now, when a child is born, it is born into the flesh. But the Bible tells us that the flesh is of no avail because of the consequences of original sin. That’s why Jesus says we have to be born again. The first birth is birth of the flesh, but we need something more in order to have life.
     What is that something more? The Bible tells us: Everyone must be born of the Spirit in order to have eternal life; it is the Spirit that gives life, not the flesh. And how do we receive the Spirit? The Bible tells us that we receive the Spirit by being born again—by being born of water and the Spirit—by being baptized. We find this in Ezekiel 36:25–27, John 3:3–5, Acts 2:38, and elsewhere. When we are baptized we put on Christ (cf. Gal. 3:27). We are buried with him in baptism (Rom. 6:4). We become members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). We receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). We become a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).
     To sum up these last few paragraphs: Adam is the representative of the flesh. Christ is the representative of the Spirit. When we are born physically, born into the flesh, we are in Adam. When we are baptized—when we are born again, when we are born of the Spirit—we are in Christ. Infants need to be baptized, just like anyone else, so that they can be “in Christ,” so that they can put on Christ, so that they can become children of God, so that they can become members of the body of Christ, so that they can be granted eternal life.
     One other Scripture passage that I like to use when discussing original sin is found in Ephesians 2:3: “Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” We see here another very clear reflection of Catholic teaching in the Bible. Ephesians 2:3 is, in a nutshell, the Catholic teaching on original sin: We were by nature children of wrath. That’s what the Catholic Church teaches.
     So can I give you a Bible verse on infant baptism? Yes, if you remember two things:
     1. We are by nature children of wrath. Original sin is real. It is not something the Catholic Church invented. We are born of the flesh, not of the Spirit. We are not born in a state of holiness. We are born in a state of original sin.
     2. Through baptism we are “born again” and made new creatures in Christ; through baptism our sins are forgiven. Through baptism we become members of the body of Christ, which is the Church. Through baptism we receive the Holy Spirit; through baptism we are saved. Baptism is necessary for salvation.
     The washing away of original sin is a good and necessary thing. The joining of the infant to the body of Christ, the Church, is a good and necessary thing. The infant receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a good and necessary thing. The infant receiving the free gift of God’s salvation is a good and necessary thing.
     It’s that simple. As Catholics, we want all these things for our children, not just for adults. Why would anyone want to deny infants and children the incredible gifts received through baptism? As the Bible tells us, the promise is to you and your children (cf. Acts 2:39).

119. Esau,
     Our family trees do not go back to Adam and Eve but to a number of genealogy trees composed of various hominid species out of Africa some 60,000 years ago. There was no talking snake and no magical garden. We evolved just like all the species on earth and maybe on other earths. The National Geographic’s Genographic Project continues to probe where we really came from.
     “Where do you really come from? And how did you get where you live today? DNA studies show that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who –about 60,000 years ago- began a remarkable journey. “
     See https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
     And to repeat again, here is the “take” as currently being taught in theology classes in many Catholic universities (and yes, these conclusions took into consideration everything you have noted):
     “The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
     Yes, this story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
     and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question” Why are we not happy?” may have risen. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting
     Adam [Solomon]).
     Original sin is therefore only symbolic of man’s tendencies to sin.
     Yes, I teach Original Sin as symbolic of the sins of our origins — in our families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person profoundly. The “sins of our origins” approach helps to account for certain
     patters of sin in particular families and societies.
     Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. Yes, the old “laundry of the soul,” approach to Baptism is no longer
     accepted.
     Infant Baptism is only a rite of initiation and commits parents and godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home.
     Yes, but, since baptism is now celebrated at Sunday Eucharist, all the members of the parish family are encouraged to pledge their support and care for the faith life of the newly baptized. (A manifestation of this is
     persons volunteering to teach other people’s kids the basics of Catholicism.)”

120. Realist,
     You and your professor friends are proclaiming heresy.
     HERESY-Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.
     Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith. (Etym. Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice, sect, heresy.)
     I hope you see the error of your ways before the day of your death.
     God have mercy on both our souls.
     Take care and God bless,
     Inocencio
     J+M+J

121. 100 % agree with Matt! I also have another thought. If something were ‘going down’ at the Vatican right now it is interesting to me that it is happening before the Pope’s trip to Turkey. He will meet with the Patriarch Bartholomew I on the Feast Day of St. Andrew. St. Andrew the brother of St. Peter.
     To me, we are at the dawn of the ‘lungs’ of the Church reuniting. Now perhaps I have too much hope, but perhaps we are seeing more movement to this reconcilation?????
     Peace be with you all, Carla

122. Original sin is therefore only symbolic of man’s tendencies to sin.
     Yes, I teach Original Sin as symbolic of the sins of our origins — in our families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person profoundly. The “sins of our origins” approach helps to account for certain
     patters of sin in particular families and societies.

     I know I’m going to regret this, but…
     Do you acknowledge the universe to be in any sense the work of an all-good God?
     Can an all-good God be the author of evil? If not, where does evil come from? Why does man have a “tendency to sin”?

123. SDG,
     God’s gifts of Free Will and Future basically put “the balls/sins in our human courts and souls”.
     For added details about sin, I suggest taking a theology course at a major Catholic university and/or talking to your local Catholic university theology professor.

124. You didn’t really expect an answer, did you SDG?

125. “To me, we are at the dawn of the ‘lungs’ of the Church reuniting. Now perhaps I have too much hope, but perhaps we are seeing more movement to this reconcilation?????”
     This would be one of the most beautiful things to look forward to, if it should be at all possible (and, hopefully, by God’s guidance, it will happen)!
     I’ve noticed that in many of the papal events that I’ve seen, at least, certain ones I’ve been able to catch, there have been representatives from the other ‘lung’ of the Church.
     However, there are certain historical as well as cultural difficulties (although, from what I gather, not so much the theological difficulties anymore — at least at this point in time unlike before based on some informed critics) that may still prove challenging to the efforts of reunification.
     We can only continue to pray and leave this to God’s hands.

126. Inocencio to Realist this morning:
     “You will better recieved when you just stop pretending to be Catholic.”
     My reaction: Realist thinks what he’s saying is Catholic?!?

127. Consigning Limbo to Oblivion

128. I guess we need to alert the Gideon Society to immediately start putting National Geographic magazines in all hotel rooms.

129. The mountain has brought forth a mouse. Bridget.

Comments are closed.