Limbo And Extra Ecclesiam

[Laudate_Dominum]

I agree with whatever Aloysius has to say about it.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1306197420' post='2245133']
I agree with whatever Aloysius has to say about it.
[/quote]


Where is aloysius anyway.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Amppax]

ok old threads that mention dump:

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=54792&st=0"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=54792&st=0[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=58340"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=58340[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=4469"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=4469[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=104494"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=104494[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=67688"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=67688[/url]

Also this

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm[/url]

And this

[img]http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/limbo.JPG[/img]

[kafka]

my thread freshly created here:

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=112980&pid=2245263&st=0&#entry2245263"]Salvation of Prenatals, Infants, and Young Children Resource[/url]

alright I'm out.

[Don John of Austria]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=32947&st=0"]and also here[/url]



AND


multiple other threads I won't bring up becuase many of the were contentious to say the least..

[Laudate_Dominum]

Just throwing something out there for the sake of discussion.

1. Baptism is necessary for salvation.
2. A catechumen who dies has the possibility of a baptism by desire.
3. Infant baptism is theologically valid.
[i]3a. I mean here that infants, who do not have faith in Christ and are incapable of understanding or assenting to baptism, are able to acquire the sanctifying grace of baptism through the representation and desire of their parents. Evidently parents, and perhaps guardians, custodians or God-parents, are able to represent a young child or infant and validly give assent to baptism on their behalf.[/i]
4. Infants who die without baptism may have the possibility of vicarious baptism of desire as a consequence of premises 2 and 3.

This is not a direct argument against limbo, the [i]limbus infantium[/i] may still yet exist for infants who are not, as it were, infant catechumens.

What is the nature of infant baptism and are there in fact implications for the fate of unbaptized children? Is the concept (or analogy) of an infant catechumen real? Is the idea of vicarious baptism of desire legitimate? If the premises are true and the conclusion sound, I'd say that limbo has little or no pastoral value as parents can have moral assurance of the salvation of a child who has tragically perished before baptism could be administered.

Again, just throwing something out there, I actually do deny the existence of [i]limbus infantium[/i] altogether for different reasons.

As an aside, our experience having our infant baptized was awful and if this experience was at all commonplace, and if unbaptized infants are indeed robbed of eternal salvation, I hereby charge the Church with an epic fail.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

L_D... is your argument based on emotion or Revelation? How could infants be robbed of something they never possessed to begin with? We are not born deserving of Eternal Life and God is not obliged to save us. Original Sin is not a triffling stain... saying persons (even babies) who die with Original Sin on their souls can go to Heaven makes Original Sin meaningless; or if we say that they can be saved from Original Sin without Baptism, then Baptism is meaningless.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Fides_et_Ratio

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306270291' post='2245462']
L_D... is your argument based on emotion or Revelation? How could infants be robbed of something they never possessed to begin with? We are not born deserving of Eternal Life and God is not obliged to save us. Original Sin is not a triffling stain... saying persons (even babies) who die with Original Sin on their souls can go to Heaven makes Original Sin meaningless; or if we say that they can be saved from Original Sin without Baptism, then Baptism is meaningless.
[/quote]
You seem to be responding only to my last line, which was an aside not an argument; and you've misunderstood the meaning and purpose of that aside completely. I do suggest that a person dying without baptism is a tragedy, but this was not my argument, just something that I consider to be a given in this conversation. If you want to understand what I meant by "robbery" in the scenario I alluded to (which I figured was obvious), here's an illustration: A couple fervently desires to have their infant baptized but are prevented from doing so by rude and evidently power tripping church people. If said infant died prematurely I would say yes, they have been robbed of something by the behavior and possible negligence of others. How you read this as a claim of salvation entitlement is beyond me. Further, I don't recall suggesting that people are saved without baptism, I seem to recall indicating the necessity of baptism as my first premise.

edit: trimmed of unnecessary verbiage.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Your example was not specific, so I apologize for misunderstanding your meaning.

Regarding your argument, no. 2 is not a formal teaching of the Church, but a theological opinion.
No. 4 flies in the face of the Conciliar statements posted previously in this thread.

We cannot say that Baptism is necessary, and then turn around and attempt to create several different exceptions. If there is one exception, we will find one thousand, and the necessity is rendered meaningless.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Just throwing something out there for the sake of discussion.

1. Baptism is necessary for salvation.
2. A catechumen who dies has the possibility of a baptism by desire.
3. Infant baptism is theologically valid.
[i]3a. I mean here that infants, who do not have faith in Christ and are incapable of understanding or assenting to baptism, are able to acquire the sanctifying grace of baptism through the representation and desire of their parents. Evidently parents, and perhaps guardians, custodians or God-parents, are able to represent a young child or infant and validly give assent to baptism on their behalf.[/i]
4. Infants who die without baptism may have the possibility of vicarious baptism of desire as a consequence of premises 2 and 3.[/quote]


I think this is a good arguement, it certianly has implication for those infants who die from faithful parents, wh odesire baptism for thier baby, but not any other.
Even this seems contradicted by the statement of Constance,it is not firectly contradicted by it, that condemned the attack on the belief that they were going to Hell, It did not condemn the hope that they would not go to Hell.
[quote]
This is not a direct argument against limbo, the [i]limbus infantium[/i] may still yet exist for infants who are not, as it were, infant catechumens.

What is the nature of infant baptism and are there in fact implications for the fate of unbaptized children? Is the concept (or analogy) of an infant catechumen real? Is the idea of vicarious baptism of desire legitimate? If the premises are true and the conclusion sound, I'd say that limbo has little or no pastoral value as parents can have moral assurance of the salvation of a child who has tragically perished before baptism could be administered.

Again, just throwing something out there, I actually do deny the existence of [i]limbus infantium[/i] altogether for different reasons.

[u][[i]b]As an aside, our experience having our infant baptized was awful and if this experience was at all commonplace, and if unbaptized infants are indeed robbed of eternal salvation, I hereby charge the Church with an epic fail.[/b][/i] [/u] [/quote]
AS for you last statment... AMEN!

Getting your child baptised should not be the trial that it is.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306272324' post='2245474']
Even this seems contradicted by the statement of Constance,it is not firectly contradicted by it, that condemned the attack on the belief that they were going to Hell, It did not condemn the hope that they would not go to Hell.[/quote]
The statement of the Council regarding children says clearly that there is no other remedy than the sacrament of Baptism... how then can we derive a hope for salvation without it?

(Denzinger 712) "... Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians [n. 696]." (Council of Florence)

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306272203' post='2245472']
Your example was not specific, so I apologize for misunderstanding your meaning.

Regarding your argument, no. 2 is not a formal teaching of the Church, but a theological opinion.
No. 4 flies in the face of the Conciliar statements posted previously in this thread.

We cannot say that Baptism is necessary, and then turn around and attempt to create several different exceptions. If there is one exception, we will find one thousand, and the necessity is rendered meaningless.
[/quote]
1. The theological grade of certainty of premise 2 doesn't invalidate the argument at all. If I were claiming that my conclusions has some degree of certitude above the premises on which it rests I would be overstepping, but I have not done this.
2. I don't consider conciliar statements to be revelation or particularly binding and perspicuous in themselves. There are plenty of conciliar statements that seemingly contradict other conciliar statements. Theological and historical context, inner logic, proper scope, etcetera, are decisive.

"We cannot say that Baptism is necessary, and then turn around and attempt to create several different exceptions."
I haven't created any new exceptions. Besides, baptism of blood and baptism of desire are not exceptions to the necessity of baptism, they're extraordinary means of obtaining the grace of the sacrament. I've only suggesting that the already existing doctrine of baptism of desire has applicability to the domain of infant baptism.

"If there is one exception, we will find one thousand, and the necessity is rendered meaningless."
I don't see how that follows at all. Prove it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306273396' post='2245487']
The statement of the Council regarding children says clearly that there is no other remedy than the sacrament of Baptism... how then can we derive a hope for salvation without it?

(Denzinger 712) "... Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians [n. 696]." (Council of Florence)
[/quote]
The same thing applies to the baptism of converts, and yet conventional baptism of desire is possible. I don't hold that infant baptism is frivolous and that intention is enough, anymore than I would say this of adult baptisms. This decree doesn't change anything as far as my argument is concerned.

I mean, really, taking that decree at face value, without any further discussion, seems to suggest that the theory of limbo is a fancy and that unbaptized infants are bound to hell. I don't think that framing baptism of desire within the theology of infant baptism is any more fanciful than positing a place or state called limbo. Quite the contrary in fact.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[Laudate_Dominum]

This may well have been posted already but here's what contemporary theologians have to say about it (namely the International Theological Commission, the group of theologians appointed by the pope and CDF to advice the magisterium). It's a bit teal deer but I hope to read it soon before presuming to flap my trap on this subject too much.

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7529&CFID=82184128"]The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized[/url]

Edited May 24, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote]I haven't created any new exceptions. Besides, baptism of blood and baptism of desire are not exceptions to the necessity of baptism, they're extraordinary means of obtaining the grace of the sacrament. I've only suggesting that the already existing doctrine of baptism of desire has applicability to the domain of infant baptism.[/quote]
'baptism of desire' and 'baptism of blood'* (as replacing sacramental baptism) are also theological opinions.

If a person is a recipient of 'baptism of desire', are they still obliged to receive sacramental Baptism? They already have the grace, right?

(baptism of blood, as the case of the martyrs is a second baptism... but does not replace sacramental baptism)

[quote]"If there is one exception, we will find one thousand, and the necessity is rendered meaningless."
I don't see how that follows at all. Prove it.[/quote]
Look around. How many theologians are jumping on Karl Rahner's "anonymous Christian" bandwagon and pretending that anyone and everyone is saved simply because "if they had known, they would've desired it"? It's practically the standard response when someone asks about the Church's teaching on Baptism and/or No Salvation Outside the Church. 'baptism of desire' has morphed into nothing more than a smokescreen denying the necessity of Baptism.

[quote]The same thing applies to the baptism of converts, and yet conventional baptism of desire is possible. I don't hold that infant baptism is frivolous and that intention is enough, anymore than I would say this of adult baptisms. This decree doesn't change anything as far as my argument is concerned.

I mean, really, taking that decree at face value, without any further discussion, seems to suggest that the theory of limbo is a fancy and that unbaptized infants are bound to hell. I don't think that framing baptism of desire within the theology of infant baptism is any more fanciful than positing a place or state called limbo. Quite the contrary in fact.[/quote]
Limbo is a part of hell (in that hell is loss of the Beatific Vision). That's why the Conciliar statements clarify that those who die in Original Sin only are punished with different punishments (i.e., those lacking actual sin suffer only the loss of the Beatific Vision).