Florence And Hell For Infants

[Perigrina]

I thought unbaptized infants go to limbo.

 

This has been a commonly accepted belief but has not been defined as doctrine.  There has been Church teaching in recent years that questions this, but not at a level that we are obliged to accept. 
 

[Perigrina]

can you show me where it says 'everyone' goes 'either' to heaven or hell? i just dont see what you are referring to.

 

all i see is references to 'if you are good enough to you straightaway to heaven' and then some people 'go straightaway to hell'. which is what is already believed.

 

i also am still curious about how you get that their purpose wasn't to define doctrine.

 

I misspoke.  I should have said the purpose was not to define doctrine regarding Limbo.  If that had been the intent there would have had to be far more detail.  This was defining doctrine only insofar as it affected reunification of East and West.  I apologize for any confusion due to my lack of precision.

 

The passage describes the fate of those stained by sin and those free of the stain.  What other options are there?  The keyword is "straightaway" which addressed the concern at the time.  Trying to deduce a teaching on Limbo from a statement that was not intending to make a statement on Limbo is not wise.
 

Edited May 17, 2014 by Perigrina

[reminiscere]

As I was taught, Limbo has traditionally been considered a part of hell, though not the same as the hell of the damned. 

[Guest]

So unbaptized babies in hell lol Keep on believing that...And don't forget to throw the God is love in after that...I honestly dont blame some atheist and agnostics complaints about Catholicism when it has to do with topics like this...I'm actually in agreement with them...

[Perigrina]

So unbaptized babies in hell lol Keep on believing that...And don't forget to throw the God is love in after that...I honestly dont blame some atheist and agnostics complaints about Catholicism when it has to do with topics like this...I'm actually in agreement with them...

 

This was an accepted belief among Catholics for hundreds of years.  You may benefit from making an effort to understand it, rather than dismissing it as hateful.  Normally a Catholic who claimed that unbaptized babies went to hell meant Limbo as a part of hell.  These souls could not enjoy the Beatific Vision, as the baptized could, but were not further punished.
 

Catholics of the past did not come up with this teaching because they were evil or hateful.  They were taking what they knew and trying to bring it together into a cohesive whole.  They read what Scripture said about the necessity of baptism and tried to understand how a loving and merciful God would respond to babies who died without baptism. 

 

Nobody likes the idea of the souls of babies going to hell or even to limbo.  The people who held that belief did their best to ensure that all infants received baptism.  In our times, it is common to find laxity concerning the baptism of babies, perhaps because there is a presumption on the mercy of God.  This sort of presumption is not a good thing.  We could learn from the example of our ancestors in Faith.

[mortify ii]

Baptism is absolutely necessary for initiation into the Mystical Body and those deprived of the grace of baptism can not have eternal union with God. What happens to a particular infant soul that dies in this state we do not know, God is merciful and powerful and can do as He pleases. As in many of the threads started by the original author, it comes down to distinguishing between objective and subjective. Although we know of know objective means a non-Catholic can make it to heaven outside of baptism, it does not mean that God can not save a soul in a unique and particular way. I put my trust in the merciful and loving God in whatever he decides to do.

[Benedictus]

I would say the idea that babies go to hell or limbo (as in a place) is totally vile. But some writers, including biblical ones, use hell to refer to the grave or death. So it might not mean hell, as in burning fire or isolation.The idea of baby baptism to aviod hell or limbo was used to ensure families baptised children into the church (herd them in) out of fear and superstition. Aside from being ridiculously legalistic its overtones do very little to convince anyone that love is evident. The theology must have upset and hurt many mothers and familes who lost a baby during during childbirth or soon after. That aside the implications it had for aborted babies or those that are murdered after birth is equally horrid. Why anyone would propose that a baby would go to hell or limbo because a priest didn't spinkle some water and say some words over it seems crazy. Aside from the fact that it isn't 'water' baptism that is important the underlying theology sits on shaky ground. It was, and is, an example of a sad development in the churches theological history and thinking. Maybe its Augustine's fault for selling the idea of orginal sin that needed a way out for babies in the first place.The protestant criticisms of the past on this point seem totally justified. Thankfully the catholic church seems to be moving away from such positions as fast as it can (which is bound to be slow in church terms as it won't drop the issue in one go straight away, more the pitty).

[John Ryan]

This was an accepted belief among Catholics for hundreds of years.  You may benefit from making an effort to understand it, rather than dismissing it as hateful.  Normally a Catholic who claimed that unbaptized babies went to hell meant Limbo as a part of hell.  These souls could not enjoy the Beatific Vision, as the baptized could, but were not further punished.
 

Catholics of the past did not come up with this teaching because they were evil or hateful.  They were taking what they knew and trying to bring it together into a cohesive whole.  They read what Scripture said about the necessity of baptism and tried to understand how a loving and merciful God would respond to babies who died without baptism. 

 

Nobody likes the idea of the souls of babies going to hell or even to limbo.  The people who held that belief did their best to ensure that all infants received baptism.  In our times, it is common to find laxity concerning the baptism of babies, perhaps because there is a presumption on the mercy of God.  This sort of presumption is not a good thing.  We could learn from the example of our ancestors in Faith.

 

I should reply with the words of St. Clement of Rome: 

 

Ye understand, beloved, ye understand well the Sacred Scriptures, and ye have looked very earnestly into the oracles of God. Call then these things to your remembrance. When Moses went up into the mount, and abode there, with fasting and humiliation, forty days and forty nights, the Lord said unto him, “Moses, Moses, get thee down quickly from hence; for thy people whom thou didst bring out of the land of Egypt have committed iniquity. They have speedily departed from the way in which I commanded them to walk, and have made to themselves molten images.” And the Lord said unto him, “I have spoken to thee once and again, saying, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiff-necked people: let Me destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make thee a great and wonderful nation, and one much more numerous than this.” But Moses said, “Far be it from Thee, Lord: pardon the sin of this people; else blot me also out of the book of the living.” O marvellous love! O insuperable perfection! The servant speaks freely to his Lord, and asks forgiveness for the people, or begs that he himself might perish along with them.

[Perigrina]

I would say the idea that babies go to hell or limbo (as in a place) is totally vile. But some writers, including biblical ones, use hell to refer to the grave or death. So it might not mean hell, as in burning fire or isolation.The idea of baby baptism to aviod hell or limbo was used to ensure families baptised children into the church (herd them in) out of fear and superstition. Aside from being ridiculously legalistic its overtones do very little to convince anyone that love is evident. The theology must have upset and hurt many mothers and familes who lost a baby during during childbirth or soon after. That aside the implications it had for aborted babies or those that are murdered after birth is equally horrid. Why anyone would propose that a baby would go to hell or limbo because a priest didn't spinkle some water and say some words over it seems crazy. Aside from the fact that it isn't 'water' baptism that is important the underlying theology sits on shaky ground. It was, and is, an example of a sad development in the churches theological history and thinking. Maybe its Augustine's fault for selling the idea of orginal sin that needed a way out for babies in the first place.The protestant criticisms of the past on this point seem totally justified. Thankfully the catholic church seems to be moving away from such positions as fast as it can (which is bound to be slow in church terms as it won't drop the issue in one go straight away, more the pitty).

 

Describing baptism dismissively as "sprinkling water" and "saying some words" shows a very poor understanding of the Sacrament and reduces your credibility. 

 

As the CCC states: "Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.""

 

It is not legalistic to think that baptism is very important.
 

[mortify ii]

I would say the idea that babies go to hell or limbo (as in a place) is totally vile. But some writers, including biblical ones, use hell to refer to the grave or death. So it might not mean hell, as in burning fire or isolation.The idea of baby baptism to aviod hell or limbo was used to ensure families baptised children into the church (herd them in) out of fear and superstition. Aside from being ridiculously legalistic its overtones do very little to convince anyone that love is evident. The theology must have upset and hurt many mothers and familes who lost a baby during during childbirth or soon after. That aside the implications it had for aborted babies or those that are murdered after birth is equally horrid. Why anyone would propose that a baby would go to hell or limbo because a priest didn't spinkle some water and say some words over it seems crazy. Aside from the fact that it isn't 'water' baptism that is important the underlying theology sits on shaky ground. It was, and is, an example of a sad development in the churches theological history and thinking. Maybe its Augustine's fault for selling the idea of orginal sin that needed a way out for babies in the first place.The protestant criticisms of the past on this point seem totally justified. Thankfully the catholic church seems to be moving away from such positions as fast as it can (which is bound to be slow in church terms as it won't drop the issue in one go straight away, more the pitty).

 

I sometimes wonder why some people bother calling themselves Catholic on this form, be honest with your selves and live out the counterfeit sect you create for yourselves if that is what you choose. 

 

As to regards baptism, our Lord himself revealed it's necessity in the Gospel of John, it is absolutely necessary. God would not reveal it if it were not so. Is there such a thing as Limbo? I sure hope so because it implies the edge of hell is nothing like what we imagine when we speak of hell, in fact some theologians speculated that natural happiness exists in limbo! But whether all infants who die without baptism go there is another story, and like many other internal matters, we simply don't know what happens. Who is to say the merciful God can't pour the graces of baptism outside of the sacrament on a infant? Of course He could, but we can't say if he did. Ultimately our final destination is already known, and we will reach it whether we die young or old. 

[Eliakim]

Dear Dairygirl,

I believe the magisterium has been guilty of promulgating the belief that unbaptized infants go to hell (limbo to be specific, is as you rightly point out, a part of hell...a sort of "outerperimeter") without historically qualifying that there are means of hope for parents in this most grieving of positions.   

 

Benedict XVI recently came out a couple years ago stating one may in good conscience now believe it is possible that unbaptized babies may go to heaven: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/04/20/pope-revises-limbo-says-there-is-hope-for-unbaptized-babies/

 

This however is not a definitive promulgation, nor on the order of the Council of Florence, which I believe does conflict with this.  I understand there are creative ways to excuse many statements in Florence, but I believe Florence was merely reiterating what the medieval Church really believed since the time of St. Augustine and Fulgentius' rigorist interpretation of "No salvation outside the Church."  I believe the shift from the rigorist camp to lenient interpretation of "No salvation outside the Church" occurred during the Modern Era Age of post-enlightenment thought (roughly 19th century), concurrent with Pope Pius IX's reign - who incidentally appears to be the first pope to preach 'invincible ignorance', at least in a way that clearly gave hope for non-Catholics' salvation - and perhaps, by proxy, unbaptized infants too.

 

In my opinion, the best way to deal with this problem and contradiction without bending Florence's words beyond their original meaning, is to either state that:

1) That particular part of the council is not infallibly protected due to perhaps a criteria missing for infallibility and so could be in error. 

Or like one previous poster said:

2) That teaching which appears to preclude salvation for unbaptized infants was not intended to clearly define the dogma of the fate of unbaptized infants, but was meant to define something else, but the clumsy way in which it was written seems to also be, in itself, an actual definition that unbaptized infants cannot go to heaven. 

 

Both of these to me were never entirely satisfactory. It seemed to rely too much on linguistic gymnastics and did not 'own up' to the original meaning of the promulgation.  So I chose to put unbaptized infants into the category of those who are prayed for during "All Souls Day" and hope the prayers of the Church lift them out of limbo quickly.  This allows me to answer the problem with an actual historical Church teaching.  Why the Church never brings this forward as a solution to the problem indicates to me how out of touch the Church is with genuine problems like this, in my opinion.  I believe the Roman Catholic Church only hurts itself when it does not listen to some of the legitimate concerns of traditionalists and the all too few independent yet orthodox thinkers like yourself who are courageous and honest enough to admit contradictions like this have not officially been quite fully resolved.

 

I sympathize with you. 

God Bless and guide you, and may the magisterium increase its credibility by doing a better teaching job and admit its occasional misleadings and negligences.   :priest:

Eliakim

[Benedictus]

 I know what Baptism is and I stand by my point. Those are the actions ( maybe pouring and immersion could be debated as well), sorry if it offends you.  What I find lacks credibility is choosing to argue with my point on water baptism as a way of pulling down the gravity of what is being discussed. My credibility stands in my view as I'm not proposing God would send a baby to limbo or hell (or might so we better get the font out just in case). I believe God would take a baby directly to himself if it died, baptised or not. I don't see that as a questionable position and I'd be concerned for anyone I knew who did. That doesn't mean I'm dismissing Baptism at all. But my thinking is that some people give power to legalism and outward forms rather than substance. The Baptism that is needed above all is the one of the spirit, not the water.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Benedictus

[mortify ii]

 I know what Baptism is and I stand by my point. Those are the actions ( maybe pouring and immersion could be debated as well), sorry if it offends you.  What I find lacks credibility is choosing to argue with my point on water baptism as a way of pulling down the gravity of what is being discussed. My credibility stands in my view as I'm not proposing God would send a baby to limbo or hell (or might so we better get the font out just incase). I believe God would take a baby directly to himself if it died, baptised or not. I don't see that as a questionable position and I'd be concerned for anoyone I knew who did. That doen't mean i'm dismissing Baptism at all. But my thinking is that some people give power to legalism and outward forms rather than substance. The Baptism that is needed above all is the one of the spirit, not the water.

 

We are all born in a fallen state in separation from God, and St Paul even uses the term "children of wrath." If we are not born in a fallen state, the redemption is a moot point. 

 

The baptism we need is sacramental baptism.

[Benedictus]

I sometimes wonder why some people bother calling themselves Catholic on this form, be honest with your selves and live out the counterfeit sect you create for yourselves if that is what you choose. 

 

As to regards baptism, our Lord himself revealed it's necessity in the Gospel of John, it is absolutely necessary. God would not reveal it if it were not so. Is there such a thing as Limbo? I sure hope so because it implies the edge of hell is nothing like what we imagine when we speak of hell, in fact some theologians speculated that natural happiness exists in limbo! But whether all infants who die without baptism go there is another story, and like many other internal matters, we simply don't know what happens. Who is to say the merciful God can't pour the graces of baptism outside of the sacrament on a infant? Of course He could, but we can't say if he did. Ultimately our final destination is already known, and we will reach it whether we die young or old. 

 

 I don't think there's anything I've said that isn't debated in theological colleges by very faithful Catholics. Something, or somebody, isn't heretical simply for having a debate. Gods grace extends all outward forms. Anyone disgaree? I don't think being Catholic means, or has ever meant, leaving ones brain at the church door. I never said Baptism was to be ignored. But there is debate, and always has been, about the best time to be baptised (of water) and how this relates to baptism of spirit. Different practices have been followed at different times and with good reasons stated at the time. Although that wasn't the issue at hand.

[mortify ii]

 I don't think there's anything I've said that isn't debated in theological colleges by very faithful Catholics. Something, or somebody, isn't heretical simply for having a debate. Gods grace extends all outward forms. Anyone disgaree? I don't think being Catholic means, or has ever meant, leaving ones brain at the church door. I never said Baptism was to be ignored. But there is debate, and always has been, about the best time to be baptised (of water) and how this relates to baptism of spirit. Different practices have been followed at different times and with good reasons stated at the time. Although that wasn't the issue at hand.

 

Don't try to obfuscate the issue, it's not a matter of debate but one of denial. You've mocked and criticized several dogmas of the Catholic religion. It is one thing to believe yet struggle to understand, and another to reject and ridicule. So don't try to hid behind some sincerity in trying to understand, you do no such thing when you belittle Catholic doctrine. As I said before, be honest with yourself and others as to what you really are.