STILLBORN BABIES?!

[cmotherofpirl]

Its not de fide.
STM we have pointed out church teaching on the matter and you are still arguing.
Why?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 3 2006, 10:19 PM'] is only guariteed to those who are Catechumins, though some speculate it may also be recieved by those whose parents plan to baptize them, but die before that is able to happen. [/quote]Actually it is not just restricted to those.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Feb 3 2006, 10:21 PM']Its not de fide.
[/quote]That is my point.

[Resurrexi]

I would like to see the offocial Church teaching on Baptism of Desire. If it does not EXPLICITLY say that infants whose parents were going to baptize them are always included by Baptism of Desire, then your point is just as good as mine.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 3 2006, 11:19 PM']NO I AM NOT A FEENYITE!!!!!! DONT CALL ME A HERETIC!!!!!! THATS VERY INSULTING!!!!!!!!!
[right][snapback]875237[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I didn't call you one, and I figured you weren't a Feeneyite. But on such a board where things are hard to know for sure, it is always best to ask and clarify over assumptions.

[quote]Of course, if the parents were Catholic and planned on baptizing the child VERY soon after birth (it is a mortal sin to prospone baptism more that a month) then there may have been a Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire, though, is only guariteed to those who are Catechumins, though some speculate it may also be recieved by those whose parents plan to baptize them, but die before that is able to happen.[/quote]

With the last part of this, I would assume that with respect to the original question of this thread, there is still a possibility that babies all could have gone to Heaven through Baptism of desire. I say this because you seemed very adamant about them going to Limbo, which is fine (though I would caution you not to think the Church calls it a place of torments, for as I posted a few theologians think not), but I think that even the slightest hope of Heaven is enough that there is no reason to say for certain they are in Limbo.

Lastly, the parents don't have to be Catholic to desire a valid Baptism. Most Baptisms are valid as it is.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 3 2006, 10:27 PM']I would like to see the offocial Church teaching on Baptism of Desire. If it does not EXPLICITLY say that infants whose parents were going to baptize them are always included by Baptism of Desire, then your point is just as good as mine.
[right][snapback]875252[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." 63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," 64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Our point was that you cannot say with certainty what happens. Like I said it is speculation. Limbo is a disputable point.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Most Baptisms are valid as it is[/quote]

not if they dont have the intent to "do what the Church does". That is straight from the Baltimore Catechism.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." 63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," 64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. [/quote]

If this quote is from the CCC then (which I presume it is) please get a different quote because I do not believe the CCC to be wholly authorative.

[KnightofChrist]

VATICAN LETTER Dec-2-2005 (840 words) Backgrounder. xxxi

Closing the doors of limbo: Theologians say it was hypothesis

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- An international group of Vatican-appointed theologians is about to recommend that the Catholic Church close the doors of limbo forever.

Many Catholics grew up thinking limbo -- the place where babies who have died without baptism spend eternity in a state of "natural happiness" but not in the presence of God -- was part of Catholic tradition.

Instead, it was a hypothesis -- a theory held out as a possible way to balance the Christian belief in the necessity of baptism with belief in God's mercy.

Like hypotheses in any branch of science, a theological hypothesis can be proven wrong or be set aside when it is clear it does not help explain Catholic faith.

Meeting Nov. 28-Dec. 2 at the Vatican, the International Theological Commission, a group of theologians led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger until his election as Pope Benedict XVI, completed its work on a statement regarding "the fate of babies who have died without baptism."

A press release said the commission's statement would focus on the question "in the context of God's universal saving plan, the uniqueness of the mediation of Christ and the sacramentality of the church in the order of salvation."

U.S. Archbishop William J. Levada, president of the theological commission in his role as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told Pope Benedict Dec. 1 that he hoped the statement would be published soon.

Archbishop Levada said the question is important because "the number of babies not baptized has increased considerably" and the church knows that salvation "is only reachable in Christ through the Holy Spirit."

But the church, "as mother and teacher," also must reflect on how God saves all those created in his image and likeness, particularly when the individual is especially weak "or not yet in possession of the use of reason and freedom," the archbishop said.

Redemptorist Father Tony Kelly, an Australian member of the commission, told Catholic News Service "the limbo hypothesis was the common teaching of the church until the 1950s. In the past 50 years, it was just quietly dropped.

"We all smiled a bit when we were presented with this question, but then we saw how many important questions it opened," including questions about the power of God's love, the existence of original sin and the need for baptism, he said.

"Pastorally and catechetically, the matter had been solved" with an affirmation that somehow God in his great love and mercy would ensure unbaptized babies enjoyed eternal life with him in heaven, "but we had to backtrack and do the theology," Father Kelly said.

A conviction that babies who died without baptism go to heaven was not something promoted only by people who want to believe that God saves everyone no matter what they do.

Pope John Paul II believed it. And so does Pope Benedict.

In the 1985 book-length interview, "The Ratzinger Report," the future Pope Benedict said, "Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally -- and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the congregation -- I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis.

"It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism," he said.

In "God and the World," published in 2000, he said limbo had been used "to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible" to ensure that they had the "sanctifying grace" needed to wash away the effects of original sin.

While limbo was allowed to disappear from the scene, the future pope said, Pope John Paul's teaching in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and the encyclical "The Gospel of Life" took "a decisive turn."

Without theological fanfare, Pope John Paul "expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament," the then-cardinal said.

Father Kelly said turning away from the idea of limbo was part of "the development of the theological virtue of hope" and reflected "a different sense of God, focusing on his infinite love."

The Redemptorist said people should not think the changed focus is a lightweight embrace of warm, fuzzy feelings.

"The suffering, death and resurrection of Christ must call the shots," he said. "If Christ had not risen from the dead, we never would have thought of original sin," because no one would have needed to explain why absolutely every human needed Christ's salvation.

The fact that God loves his creatures so much that he sent his Son to die in order to save them means that there exists an "original grace" just as there exists "original sin," Father Kelly said.

The existence of original grace "does not justify resignation," or thinking that everyone will be saved automatically, he said, "but it does justify hope beyond hope" that those who die without having had the opportunity to be baptized will be saved.

END

[qfnol31]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 3 2006, 11:32 PM']not if they dont have the intent to "do what the Church does". That is straight from the Baltimore Catechism.
[right][snapback]875263[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Right, but do not most people have the intent of the Church when Baptizing? This is very grey area, but it specifically says that even the Baptisms of heretics and non-believers can be valid if a person wishes to do as the Church does. That's pretty simple to fulfill.

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 3 2006, 11:34 PM']If this quote is from the CCC then (which I presume it is) please get a different quote because I do not believe the CCC to be wholly authorative.
[right][snapback]875265[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What would you say is unauthoritative about/in the Catechism?

New Advent holds up what the Catechism says in about 50x the amount of words:

[quote]
XI. UNBAPTIZED INFANTS

The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull "Lætentur Caeli" of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.

In speaking of souls who have failed to attain salvation, these theologians distinguish the pain of loss (paena damni), or privation of the beatific vision, and the pain of sense (paena sensus). Though these theologians have thought it certain that unbaptized infants must endure the pain of loss, they have not been similarly certain that they are subject to the pain of sense. St. Augustine (De Pecc. et Mer., I, xvi) held that they would not be exempt from the pain of sense, but at the same time he thought it would be of the mildest form. On the other hand, St. Gregory Nazianzen (Or. in S. Bapt.) expresses the belief that such infants would suffer only the pain of loss. Sfondrati (Nod. Prædest., I, i) declares that while they are certainly excluded from heaven, yet they are not deprived of natural happiness. This opinion seemed so objectionable to some French bishops that they asked the judgment of the Holy See upon the matter. Pope Innocent XI replied that he would have the opinion examined into by a commission of theologians, but no sentence seems ever to have been passed upon it. Since the twelfth century, the opinion of the majority of theologians has been that unbaptized infants are immune from all pain of sense. This was taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, St. Bonaventure, Peter Lombard, and others, and is now the common teaching in the schools. It accords with the wording of a decree of Pope Innocent III (III Decr., xlii, 3): "The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell." Infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin.

Other theologians have urged that, under the law of nature and the Mosaic dispensation, children could be saved by the act of their parents and that consequently the same should be even more easy of attainment under the law of grace, because the power of faith has not been diminished but increased. Common objections to this theory include the fact that infants are not said to be deprived of justification in the New Law through any decrease in the power of faith, but because of the promulgation by Christ of the precept of baptism which did not exist before the New Dispensation. Nor would this make the case of infants worse than it was before the Christian Church was instituted. While it works a hardship for some, it has undoubtedly improved the condition of most. Supernatural faith is now much more diffused than it was before the coming of Christ, and more infants are now saved by baptism than were justified formerly by the active faith of their parents. Moreover, baptism can more readily be applied to infants than the rite of circumcision, and by the ancient law this ceremony had to be deferred till the eighth day after birth, while baptism can be bestowed upon infants immediately after they are born, and in case of necessity even in their mother's womb. Finally it must be borne in mind that unbaptized infants, if deprived of heaven, would not be deprived unjustly. The vision of God is not something to which human beings have a natural claim. It is a free gift of the Creator who can make what conditions He chooses for imparting it or withholding it. No injustice is involved when an undue privilege is not conferred upon a person. Original sin deprived the human race of an unearned right to heaven. Through the Divine mercy this bar to the enjoyment of God is removed by baptism; but if baptism be not conferred, original sin remains, and the unregenerated soul, having no claim on heaven, is not unjustly excluded from it.

As to the question, whether in addition to freedom from the pain of sense, unbaptized infants enjoy any positive happiness in the next world, theologians are not agreed, nor is there any pronouncement of the Church on the subject, Many, following St. Thomas (De Malo, Q. v, a. 3), declare that these infants are not saddened by the loss of the beatific vision, either because they have no knowledge of it, and hence are not sensible of their privation; or because, knowing it their will is entirely conformed to God's will and they are conscious that they have missed an undue privilege through no fault of their own. In addition to this freedom from regret at the loss of heaven, these infants may also enjoy some positive happiness. St. Thomas (In II Sent., dist. XXXIII, Q. ii, a. 5) says: "Although unbaptized infants are separated from God as far as glory is concerned, yet they are not separated from Him entirely. Rather are they joined to Him by a participation of natural goods; and so they may even rejoice in Him by natural consideration and love," Again (a. 2) he says: "They will rejoice in this, that they will share largely in the divine goodness and in natural perfections." While the opinion, then, that unbaptized infants may enjoy a natural knowledge and love of God and rejoice in it, is perfectly tenable, it has not the certainty that would arise from a unanimous consent of the Fathers of the Church, or from a favorable pronouncement of ecclesiastical authority.

[Editor's note: On this subject, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."] [/quote]

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Many Catholics grew up thinking limbo -- the place where babies who have died without baptism spend eternity in a state of "natural happiness" but not in the presence of God -- was part of Catholic tradition.

Instead, it was a hypothesis -- a theory held out as a possible way to balance the Christian belief in the necessity of baptism with belief in God's mercy.[/quote]

Limbo is a part of Tradition. There is no reason to throw it away like Medjegorue should be thrown away. Many Church Fathers and Popes believed in it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 3 2006, 11:34 PM']If this quote is from the CCC then (which I presume it is) please get a different quote because I do not believe the CCC to be wholly authorative.
[right][snapback]875265[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
that is your issue, not ours.
It is authorative, and disbelieving it puts you treading in dangerous waters.

[qfnol31]

KnightofChrist,

Those theologians wouldn't have any authority in the matter. Only the Holy Father.

[cmotherofpirl]

Those theologians were called by the Holy Father to discuss this issue.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 3 2006, 11:38 PM']Limbo is a part of Tradition. There is no reason to throw it away like Medjegorue should be thrown away. Many Church Fathers and Popes believed in it.
[right][snapback]875269[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Just because many people believed in it doesn't mean that it's tradition.

This is something I'm pretty sure you hold authoritative in some sense:

[quote]Limbo is not the same as Purgatory. It does not exist now, or, if it does, is
only for little children who have never committed actual sin and who
have died without Baptism.[/quote]

This is Limbus Infantium in the Baltimore Catechism, #4.