Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1306274607' post='2245498'] 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). [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] [/quote] It was also a theological commission which advised Pope Paul VI to change the teaching on contraception... the Holy Father rejected the commission's majority report and this was what spawned [i]Humanae Vitae[/i]. In addition, the document "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized" is rife with contradiction... it makes the case for limbo, and then decides we should do away with it?? The kind of doublespeak and theological gymnastics performed by the theologians of the commission is worrisome. It is also worth noticing that when this document first came out and all the media outlets were reporting that Pope Benedict XVI was going to do away with limbo our Holy Father made no such statements. From the commission's document: "In the church's tradition, the affirmation that children who died unbaptized are deprived of the beatific vision has for a long time been "common doctrine."" "The Pelagian understanding of the access of unbaptized infants to "eternal life" must be considered as contrary to Catholic faith." "In summary: The affirmation that infants who die without baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the church, which must be distinguished from the faith of the church." etc., etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306274613' post='2245499'] '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] I fail to see how this is relevant. You're reiterating something that I already responded to without adding anything new and pertinent. [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306274613' post='2245499']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] I'm not really interested in discussing innuendo and insinuation but I'll indulge for a second. Look around? Okay, if you want my anecdotal "take" on things it seems to me that the contemporary magisterium sees limbo as a superfluous pastoral opinion, and that sentiments like that found in the current universal catechism are preferable to assertions of limbo. [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306274613' post='2245499']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).[/quote] Yeah, okay, limbo as hell minus the pain (which is an odd enough concept in itself), or so-called natural happiness, is the common Latin-Augustinian meaning of limbo. I believe you're right about that and I'll avoid caricatures. I haven't really thought about limbo in years but I once studied it in depth and concluded that it is horse cr[s][/s]ap. This thread is highly nostalgic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306275227' post='2245502'] It was also a theological commission which advised Pope Paul VI to change the teaching on contraception... the Holy Father rejected the commission's majority report and this was what spawned [i]Humanae Vitae[/i]. In addition, the document "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized" is rife with contradiction... it makes the case for limbo, and then decides we should do away with it?? The kind of doublespeak and theological gymnastics performed by the theologians of the commission is worrisome. It is also worth noticing that when this document first came out and all the media outlets were reporting that Pope Benedict XVI was going to do away with limbo our Holy Father made no such statements. From the commission's document: "In the church's tradition, the affirmation that children who died unbaptized are deprived of the beatific vision has for a long time been "common doctrine."" "The Pelagian understanding of the access of unbaptized infants to "eternal life" must be considered as contrary to Catholic faith." "In summary: The affirmation that infants who die without baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the church, which must be distinguished from the faith of the church." etc., etc. [/quote] I'll make my own decisions about it. I will say that a couple cherry-picked contradictory statements doesn't really do it for me. The bit about [i]Humanae Vitae[/i] is more baseless innuendo. Meh. What is your position anyway? Do you believe that [i]limbus infantium[/i] is a doctrine? Are you scandalized by the modern magisterium's apparent disregard for this doctrine? My hunch is that [i]limbus infantium[/i] is an highly questionable conjecture that is being superseded. Anyway, the vicarious baptism of desire thing hasn't been touched imo. Is it true? I dunno, prolly not. If it were that simple I imagine we'd be hearing about it. Still, I think it is an interesting idea and wish someone here would tackle it on proper terms. Edited May 24, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1306275806' post='2245505'] I fail to see how this is relevant. You're reiterating something that I already responded to without adding anything new and pertinent.[/quote] If you would've answered my question, I could've made it relevant to the discussion about the necessity of baptism... [quote]What is your position anyway? Do you believe that limbus infantium is a doctrine? Are you scandalized by the modern magisterium's apparent disregard for this doctrine? My hunch is that limbus infantium is an highly questionable conjecture that is being superseded. [/quote] The term itself is not doctrine, but that souls who die in Original Sin only go to hell is doctrine. That this includes infants because there is no remedy for them other than Baptism is also doctrine. That's my position. I avoid speculation because it's fruitless. It's interesting that you are so sure of your own opinions, confident enough to call the idea of limbo "horsecrap" when (even as the commission admits) it was the common doctrine of the Church for centuries! How can any "common doctrine" of the Church be done away with or even superseded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306278310' post='2245511'] If you would've answered my question, I could've made it relevant to the discussion about the necessity of baptism...[/quote] Okay, I'll take the bait. "If a person is a recipient of 'baptism of desire', are they still obliged to receive sacramental Baptism? They already have the grace, right?" If a person is a "recipient" of baptism of desire they're dead. [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306278310' post='2245511']The term itself is not doctrine, but that souls who die in Original Sin only go to hell is doctrine. That this includes infants because there is no remedy for them other than Baptism is also doctrine. That's my position. I avoid speculation because it's fruitless. [/quote] There is no salvation apart from Christ and his Church. If you're implying absolutism with respect to the ordinary means of salvation then I'd say you're guilty of what they call an unduly restricted view of salvation. P.S. First, thanks for reiterating the first premise of my argument for the third time. Second, I'll spell out briefly why the issue is important: real life babies belonging to Catholic people often die without baptism. Just about every Catholic family I know has experienced miscarriage, and many have experienced stillbirth or sudden infant death. Most Catholic parents hope to be in heaven with their children and explaining why God took away their baby and sent him or her to the fringes of hell is pastorally significant. There are other grave issues of relevance, e.g., abortion, but this is the first thing that comes to mind for me. If it is your position that the fate of such children is not revealed and you refuse to speculate, fine. That's closer to my view than the assertion that [i]limbus infantium[/i] (i.e., happy hell, natural happiness, etc) is a doctrine of the Church and there is no hope that they are saved. [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306278310' post='2245511']It's interesting that you are so sure of your own opinions, confident enough to call the idea of limbo "horsecrap" when (even as the commission admits) it was the common doctrine of the Church for centuries! How can any "common doctrine" of the Church be done away with or even superseded? [/quote] Because my insinuated character defects are so pertinent to the soundness of my argument. If you're going to quote something to support your position you should make sure that it actually supports your position first. The main idea of that paragraph is in fact that limbo does not have a clear foundation in revelation and that there is good reason to question it. I don't really want to dance around in circles of irrelevancy [i]ad nauseum[/i] so if you don't have anything interesting to say about my actual argument I'm going to call it a day. edit: added teh P.S. above. Edited May 25, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1306279403' post='2245514'] Okay, I'll take the bait. "If a person is a recipient of 'baptism of desire', are they still obliged to receive sacramental Baptism? They already have the grace, right?" If a person is a "recipient" of baptism of desire they're dead.[/quote] Now this is interesting... when did this dead person receive 'baptism of desire'--before or after their death? (I do apologize for all the questions, but if you ask 10 different Catholics about baptism of desire you will get 10 different answers about the specifics of what precisely baptism of desire is and what it entails) [quote]Because my insinuated character defects are so pertinent to the soundness of my argument. If you're going to quote something to support your position you should make sure that it actually supports your position first. The main idea of that paragraph is in fact that limbo does not have a clear foundation in revelation and that there is good reason to question it. I don't really want to dance around in circles of irrelevancy [i]ad nauseum[/i] so if you don't have anything interesting to say about my actual argument I'm going to call it a day. [/quote] The point is this: the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude. All these theological gymnastics relating to 'baptism of desire' are simply fruitless speculations. The question of the unbaptized was settled long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306279955' post='2245517'] Now this is interesting... when did this dead person receive 'baptism of desire'--before or after their death? (I do apologize for all the questions, but if you ask 10 different Catholics about baptism of desire you will get 10 different answers about the specifics of what precisely baptism of desire is and what it entails)[/quote] If you actually have some point to make just make it directly and spare me this condescending posturing. [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306279955' post='2245517']The point is this: the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude.[/quote] Premise 1 of my argument for the fourth time. [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306279955' post='2245517']All these theological gymnastics relating to 'baptism of desire' are simply fruitless speculations.[/quote] Appeal to ridicule fallacy followed by an unsubstantiated judgement of the subject. I'm seeing some patterns here. [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306279955' post='2245517']The question of the unbaptized was settled long ago.[/quote] Quite evidently this is not the case. [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306279955' post='2245517'] [/quote] Okay, an eye-rolling smiley is the end of the line for me. Bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) I am not being condescending by seeking to understand what exactly you mean by 'baptism of desire' instead of just assuming. Why are you so hesitant to explain 'baptism of desire' or answer whether or not a person who has received 'baptism of desire' is still obligated to receive sacramental Baptism? It is the case that the fate of the unbaptized was settled long ago. The relevant Conciliar texts have already been posted in this thread. The entire point of my responding to your argument is that your first premise is undermined by the exceptions you create below it. You say "Baptism is necessary" but then go on to point out situations in which Baptism is, effectively, [i]not [/i]necessary (i.e., 'baptism of desire' in nos. 2 & 4). This is contradictory, and this is why fleshing out what you mean by 'baptism of desire' is very relevant to discussion. (edit: spelling/grammar) Edited May 25, 2011 by Fides_et_Ratio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 seems pretty straightforward to me Council of Lyons II “…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished with different punishments…-- (Denzinger 464) Council of Florence: “…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.— (Denzinger 693) now the onus is one those claiming contra to find papal documents showing differently, which would lead to contradiction. im pretty sure limbo was in the catechism at one point, could be wrong, not that its infallible. but perhaps there's nothing definitive on that point, contra that they go to hell. i know there is contradictions in extra nulla.. etc etc, as i earlier quoted. so those catholics opposing babies going to hell are left with two options: admit that that catholic church contradicted itself, or admit that babies go to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306282503' post='2245523'] I am not being condescending by seeking to understand what exactly you mean by 'baptism of desire' instead of just assuming. Why are you so hesitant to explain 'baptism of desire' or answer whether or not a person who has received 'baptism of desire' is still obligated to receive sacramental Baptism? It is the case that the fate of the unbaptized was settled long ago. The relevant Conciliar texts have already been posted in this thread. The entire point of my responding to your argument is that your first premise is undermined by the exceptions you create below it. You say "Baptism is necessary" but then go on to point out situations in which Baptism is, effectively, [i]not [/i]necessary (i.e., 'baptism of desire' in nos. 2 & 4). This is contradictory, and this is why fleshing out what you mean by 'baptism of desire' is very relevant to discussion. (edit: spelling/grammar) [/quote] The three premises are not controversial from a Roman Catholic pov. Baptism of desire means that a person who dies without baptism, but with the desire to be baptized, and who was in a pre-baptismal equivalent of the state of grace (namely contrition and charity), receives the fruits of baptism extraordinarily. The doctrine is not worked out and defined in elaborate technical detail or anything but the concept is sound and accepted as orthodox by the Church. (Incidentally, I think the theology of indulgences may be pertinent to this discussion as well. Maybe another time.) Tolle lege [quote] 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. 1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. 1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. 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] I wish I had time to keep at this but I really don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306284253' post='2245535'] i know there is contradictions in extra nulla.. etc etc, as i earlier quoted. [/quote] There are no contradictions in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, as the Church teaches it. Where are these supposed contradictions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306284253' post='2245535'] seems pretty straightforward to me Council of Lyons II “…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished with different punishments…-- (Denzinger 464) Council of Florence: “…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.— (Denzinger 693) now the onus is one those claiming contra to find papal documents showing differently, which would lead to contradiction. im pretty sure limbo was in the catechism at one point, could be wrong, not that its infallible. but perhaps there's nothing definitive on that point, contra that they go to hell. i know there is contradictions in extra nulla.. etc etc, as i earlier quoted. so those catholics opposing babies going to hell are left with two options: admit that that catholic church contradicted itself, or admit that babies go to hell. [/quote] I won't indulge you and here's why: It is easy to quote mine and put together lists of alleged contradictions. 'Tis one of the oldest tricks in the book. You know better than that. A real theological discussion goes beyond cherry picking and proof-texting. Here's a little bone: The doctrines of baptism of blood, baptism of desire, extraordinary means of salvation, and all that undermine what seems to be your reading of those quotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 L_D First, 'baptism of desire' is not a doctrine, but a theological opinion. Second, the definition you gave excludes infants since they are incapable of dying with the desire to be baptized. Regarding the CCC, limbo (or even hell without punishment for actual sins) is entrusting infants to the mercy of God. That is part of the General Judgment: we will see the justice and mercy of God revealed for His greater glory even in those souls which are damned. And the CCC's assertion that we can hope for another way does not make it doctrine. The CCC is only infallible where it references infallible teachings. Previous catechisms have explicitly stated that infants who die without baptism are in limbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' timestamp='1306285750' post='2245553'] L_D First, 'baptism of desire' is not a doctrine, but a theological opinion. Second, the definition you gave excludes infants since they are incapable of dying with the desire to be baptized. Regarding the CCC, limbo (or even hell without punishment for actual sins) is entrusting infants to the mercy of God. That is part of the General Judgment: we will see the justice and mercy of God revealed for His greater glory even in those souls which are damned. And the CCC's assertion that we can hope for another way does not make it doctrine. The CCC is only infallible where it references infallible teachings. Previous catechisms have explicitly stated that infants who die without baptism are in limbo. [/quote] 1. Your first statement is irrelevant as I've already explained twice. (please no more aimless merry-go-round.) 2. I know that the doctrine of baptism of desire refers to adults, specifically adult converts, that is not in dispute; I have not predicated any assertions on the idea that the doctrine of baptism of desire is defined to include infants. 3. You're redefining limbo and moving goal posts again. 4. I don't recall claiming that some "other way" was doctrine. Stop being so intensely fallacious. I can't take it anymore. 5. Yes, limbo theory was long a popular part of the catechetical/pastoral tradition but it is not considered to be a doctrine of the Church. If your primary argument against my original post is that "limbo theory is doctrine therefore I won't even entertain your post on its own terms" then let's cut ties now in a somewhat civilized fashion. edit: post changed. Edited May 25, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) see page 6 of this debate where me and Rasha debate this. he's one who says that the church was 'strict' when they taught 'no salvation outside...' in the middle ages. you two agree on the infant point, but i can't just assume you will on this one. "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16). Pope Pius IX wrote in Quanto conficiamur moerore, 7: There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. he tries to argue that these are 'lesser' statements and apparently, to him, ambiguous. as ambiguouis, he maintains, read the more concrete quotes for the answer. i quoted saints who said things like 'all protestants go to hell' around page six, and many of them, showing what hteir understanding, and their times' understanding was of course, in this extra nulla debate, as in the limbo v hell v etc debate, they are trying to 'develop' doctrine when it's clear that the intention of the popes teaching originally precluded any such development. i'm all about not being rigid in interpretation, but all the context clues in the reading and in the historical accounts, show rigid reading is proper. === of course the 'rigid' popes, juste xamples boniface We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Innocent III (1198–1216), Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians: "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved Innocent III published with the synod of the Lateran IV, these things are written: 'There is one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved.' Edited May 25, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts