Replies

I just read the entire Oration on Baptism and have found nothing which can be twisted into "Limbo" What I did see is that St. Gregory is quite clearly speaking to adult Catechumens. The sin or sins he is speaking about are those actually committed by his listeners. He does mention children is a couple of places, and speaks about their baptisms as a sealing and a sanctification, but not for the wiping out of any sin.

See here (cited by St. Thomas Aquinas to establish the doctrine of Limbo - http://www.newadvent.org/summa/600101.htm):

But then, you say, is not God merciful, and since He knows our thoughts and searches our desires, will He not take the desire of Baptism instead of Baptism? You are speaking in riddles, if what you mean is that because of God's mercy the unenlightened is enlightened in His sight; and he is within the kingdom of heaven who merely desires to attain to it, but refrains from doing that which pertains to the kingdom. I will, however, speak out boldly my opinion on these matters; and I think sensible men will range themselves on my side. Of those who received the gift, some were altogether alien from God and from salvation, both addicted to all manner of sin, and desirous to be bad; others were semi-vicious, and in a kind of mean state between good and bad; others again, while they did that which was evil, yet did not approve of their own action, just as men in a fever are not pleased with their own sickness. And others even before they were illuminated were worthy of praise; partly by nature, and partly by the care with which they prepared themselves for Baptism. These after their initiation became evidently better, and less liable to fall; in the one case with a view to procuring a good, and in the other in order to preserve it. And amongst these, those who gave into some evil are better than those altogether bad; and better still than those who were more zealous, and broke up their fallow ground before Baptism; they have the advantage over the others of having already labored; for the font does not do away with good deeds as it does with sins. But better even than these are they who are cultivating the Gift, and are polishing themselves to the utmost beauty.
And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift, some are altogether animal or bestial, according as they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift, but look upon it as a mere gift - to be aquiesced in if given them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know and honor the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish. As then in the former case we found much difference, so too in this. They who altogether despise it are worse than they who neglect it through greed or carelessness. They are worse than they who have lost the Gift through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error. And I think the first will have to suffer punishment, as for all their sins, so for their contempt of Baptism; and that the second will also have to suffer, but less because it was not so much through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure; and that the third will neither be glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and not yet wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not everyone who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honored; just as everyone who is not good enough to be honored is bad enough to be punished. And I look upon it as well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired Baptism apart from the reception of Baptism. But if you cannot do the one, how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or if you like, we will put it thus: - If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual Baptism, then judge in the same regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?

St. Gregory of Nazianz, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40.22-23, AD 381

And also:

Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.

St. Gregory of Nazianz, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40.28, AD 381

The whole essense of original sin is the absence of grace in the soul of a person, not a personal fault. Baptism "remits" original sin by infusing grace into the soul where none existed before. Just so we are clear on what the Roman Church teaches: "Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405, citing the Council of Trent).

For St. Gregory to speak of infants needing sanctification is the same as saying they need the washing away of original sin or any number of other means of phrasing the same thought.

This is why we have to admit the utter impossibility of salvation for infants without divine intervention - man in his pre-Baptismal state, is unsanctified, and utterly unfit for the union of glory with God. His own personal sins he will commit later matter not a whit in this judgement of his state immediately upon his conception - at conception, man is bereft of God and His life. This state is what Christ came to save us from.

"For St. Gregory to speak of infants needing sanctification is the same as saying they need the washing away of original sin or any number of other means of phrasing the same thought."

No, this is not what St. Gregory taught. Read the Oration in its entirety. He said what he said, comparing the baptism of children to the dedication of Jewish male babies to God and in another place saying that a mother should "seal" her child as the ancient Jews did. In fact he makes quite a distinction between adult baptism and that of children. Nowhere does he say that infant baptism wipes out any sin, "original" or otherwise. he notes that infants and young children are incapable of sin. He does say that its grace strengthens the child for the battle to come, and when he speaks of adults he is very clear about wiping out sins committed prior to baptism. If he were to hold the position you attribute to him, why does he recommend that arents wait until a child is three years old before the child is baptized? Wouldn't that be a monstrous position to hold?

"This is why we have to admit the utter impossibility of salvation for infants without divine intervention - man in his pre-Baptismal state, is unsanctified, and utterly unfit for the union of glory with God."

Hermann, NONE of us can come into a state of theosis without God's intervention because we (not our Father Adam) sin. Your position is dependent on Thomas Aquinas. It is at least a little amusing that the Roman Church raises Aquinas on the issue of "original sin", yet rejects him on the issue of the so very interconnected issue of the Immaculate Conception. Your apparent belief that "salvation" is like some single level thing is very Western, vaguely protestant to me. Theosis is a process that we advance upon (or not) at different paces and at death arrive at a different level of theosis. One could posit, I suppose, that the soul of a hypothetical 90 year old monastic who has spent his or her entire life in the practice of ascesis and thus has advanced far into theosis will be in a "more glorious state" at death than the soul of an aborted child. But this is not to say that soul of that aborted innocent will not in some way become glorified to some level because of Rome's idea of the stain or dark spot (macula, as in its opposite Immaculate)of original sin on its soul.

In the end, the Roman doctrine of original sin speaks volumes about Roman sotierology and is a prime example of the Rome's "Do this or you will go to Hell" as against the Orthodox East's "Do this and you will become like God." Now, that phronema has worked in the West for 1400-1500 years. Roman Catholics like it. Fine. In the East we don't buy it.

"This is why we have to admit the utter impossibility of salvation for infants without divine intervention - man in his pre-Baptismal state, is unsanctified, and utterly unfit for the union of glory with God. His own personal sins he will commit later matter not a whit in this judgement of his state immediately upon his conception - at conception, man is bereft of God and His life. This state is what Christ came to save us from."

Excellent! This is what the Church believes and has taught from the beginning, even though she seems to forget sometimes.

Pope John Paul hasn't forgotten. The efficasy of Baptism is at the crux of this thread, which is the existance of Limbo. Without the need of Baptism, there is no need to speculate on Limbo. It is therefore Limbo only that John Paul wants definitively defined, because the Churchs' dedication to Baptism is not in question, except possibly by the crowd that brings us clown Masses.

I hope that Catholics do not fall into the trap that theological liberals are laying. Question Limbo if you wish, but not Baptism. I know it's too late for many.

"He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved" mk16

"All power in Heaven and on Earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." mt28

St. Peter: "Do penance, and be baptized, everyone of you, in the nameof Jesus Christ, for the remision of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." acts 2

St. Paul was baptized immediately after his miraculous conversion acts 9

There is no Limbo, of course.

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16)

The necessity for salvation is belief. If you believe and are not baptized, that is your doing! You are condemned. If you don't believe, whether you are baptized or not, you are condemned. What this is saying is that, because they don't believe, the infants are condemned regardless if they are baptized or not, simply because they don't believe!

Does anyone here seriously believe that (Calvinists notwithstanding)? I don't.

"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these" (Matthew 19:14)

In Mark 16:15, Jesus says preach the gospel and baptize...just who do you think this applies to? Infants? All references to the need to be baptized and to repent apply to grown ups who have sinned and who are weak in their faith.

I think rationalization got the better of Christian minds, and then legalism killed whatever spirit was left in them.