Posted on 01/24/2006 4:54:21 PM PST by NYer
ROME, JAN. 24, 2006 (Zenit.org).- A commentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, published Jan. 6 in ZENIT, prompted questions about the status of unbaptized children who die.
The topic has been under the consideration by the International Theological Commission, at the urging of Pope John Paul II (see ZENIT, Oct. 7, 2004).
Father Cantalamessa, the preacher to the Pontifical Household, offered these further reflections on the topic.
* * *
Some readers have said that they are perplexed by my affirmation that unbaptized children will not go to limbo but to heaven, which I expressed in my recent commentary on the Gospel of the feast of Christ's Baptism, published by ZENIT News. This gives me the opportunity to clarify the reasons for my affirmation.
Jesus instituted the sacraments as ordinary means to salvation. They are ordinarily necessary and people who can receive them and refuse are accountable before God. But God didn't bind himself to these means. Also of the Eucharist Jesus says: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man you shall not have life" (John 6:53), but this doesn't mean that anyone who has never received the Eucharist is not saved.
Baptism of desire and the feast of the Holy Innocents are confirmations of this. Some may counter that Jesus is involved in the death of Innocents who died because of him, which is not always the case of unbaptized babies. True, but also of what is done to the least of his brothers Jesus says: "You have done it to me" (Matthew 25:40).
The doctrine of limbo has never been defined as dogma by the Church; it was a theological hypothesis mostly depending on St. Augustine's doctrine of original sin and was abandoned in practice long ago and theology too now dismisses it.
We should take seriously the truth of God's universal will for salvation ("God wants everybody to be saved," 1 Timothy 2:4), and also the truth that "Jesus died for all." The following text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to hold exactly the same position:
"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,' 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" (CCC, 1261).
I don't think that to affirm that unbaptized babies are saved will encourage abortion. People who neglect Church doctrine on abortion are scarcely concerned about other doctrines of the same Church. Even if there were grounds for such a fear, the abuse of a doctrine should never prevent us from holding it.
I must confess that the mere idea of a God eternally depriving an innocent creature of his vision simply because another person has sinned, or because of an accidental miscarriage, makes me shudder … and I am sure would make any unbeliever happy to stay away from the Christian faith. If hell consists essentially in the deprivation of God, limbo is hell!
The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
I don't know where all the lay theologians developed their expertise but I suspect their educational and experential Theological expertise compares unfavorably to the knowledge and orthopraxis of Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict. THey are absolute Theological genuises.
I think you had better prepare yourself for a crisis of Faith.
You are dead sure your personal opinions about Tradition re the unBaptized dead must be in Limbo will, I predict, not be sustained by the committee.
Now, I don't expect the Magisterium to cite my posts here (although they are free to do so if they desire) but I really do think there wil be an abandonment of the position you and gbc insist is THE orthodox one
. Be prepared.
However, if the Magisterium takes a decision all speculation must end, and that the position taken by you and gbc is the correct one, I will congratulate you two on your prescience and I will shut my face. Roma locuta est...
Huh? Where are these "thousands"? I had no idea that there were mobs outside the Vatican protesting in favor of limbo while demanding the Pope sack the preacher of the papal household and "submit" to the doctrine of limbo. Can we see some news articles about this?
I never said anything about how the unbaptized dead (presumably you mean those dying without the use of reason) must be in the limbus puerorum. I think that limbo is the most valid theological hypothesis for where they go, but, as Bishop Hay said (and I already agreed with): "As for what becomes of such unbaptized children, divines are divided in their opinions about it; some say one thing, some another; but as God Almighty has not been pleased to reveal it to His Church, we know nothing for certain about it." So limbo, as an answer to where the children go if not to heaven, is only a well-grounded theological hypothesis.
We know that, at least ordinarily, they don't go to heaven. We know that, contrary to what is said here and elsewhere, men need the grace of Christ to go to heaven. We know that Trent anathematized anyone who says "that [infants] are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining of life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false ..." (Session 5, Canon 4 on Original Sin) We know that Carthage XVI defined that without baptism, infants "cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven, which is life eternal," and we know that the Holy Office has warned that no trust should be placed in theories about the salvation of little children without baptism:
The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature, a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism. Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible [. . .]
So, please, give your own "personal interpretation of tradition." How does "lacking solid foundation" equate to "should be taught and preached publicly"? How is the dogma that infants derive original sin from Adam "which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining of life everlasting" compatible with the theory that if infants make no personal choice against God, they go to heaven, and it's "Calvinist" to say otherwise? How does the doctrine that without baptism, infants "cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven, which is life eternal" fit with the "affirmation that unbaptized children will not go to limbo but to heaven"? These are questions that have been asked on this thread, and no attempt has even been made to provide an answer.
Instead we are told, and falsely, that the Pope has approved the same opinions the Holy Office called "lacking solid foundation," and that by admitting hope for the salvation of infants in the Catechism and reinforcing the urgent necessity of infant baptism, he actually meant to approve the doctrine that infant baptism is in no wise necessary for salvation and that all little children certainly go to heaven if they die before attaining the use of free-will. We are told that the Greek Fathers did not believe original sin excluded from heaven, as if the East held a different faith from the West. But nowhere has it been attempted to show that a "personal interpretation of tradition" is even possible to justify these unjustifiable affirmations, which, if preached and taught widely, would endanger the salvation of many children by downplaying the necessity of baptism. "For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Council of Trent, Session 5, Canon 4 on Original Sin) Personally interpret that, if you will.
*Check Daily Catholic, Angelqueen, Catholic Family News, The Remnnat, SSPX, all the "trad" sites.
Jim Noble,
That is again, a remarkable Scripture. How do you relate that to Romans 5: 14,
"Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam,..."
and 1 Cor 15:22:
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
It seems to me that God has told us a very limited amount of stuff, about Himself and about what comes before and after, for our own good.
We know from Jeremiah that we exist before we are formed in our mother's wombs, and that He knows us. We know from Matthew that the little ones who die become angels, angels which always behold His face in heaven.
The unbaptized and the stillborn, as well as the aborted (oh, tremble, America) are all known to God. They have not entered into the sacramental system He provided for us, but He loves them and has plans for them.
Actually this passage seems to be referring to the guardian angels of the children. From the Catena Aurea:
Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. ...Gloss., ap. Anselm: Therefore are they not to be despised for that they are so dear to God, that Angels are deputed to be their guardians; “For I say unto you, that in heaven their Angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.”
Origen: Some will have it that an Angel is given as an attendant minister from the time when in the laver of regeneration the infant is born in Christ; for, say they, it is incredible that a holy Angel watches over those who are unbelieving and in error, but in his time of unbelief and sin man is under the Angels of Satan.
Others will have it, that those who are foreknown of God, have straightway from their very birth a guardian Angel.
Jerome: High dignity of souls, that each from its birth has an Angel set in charge over it!
Chrys.: Here He is speaking not of any Angels, but of the higher sort; for when He says, “Behold the face of my Father,” He shews that their presence before God is free and open, and their honour great.
Greg., Hom. in Ev., 34, 12: But Dionysius says, that it is from the ranks of the lesser Angels that these are sent to perform this ministry, either visibly or invisibly, for that those higher ranks have not the employment of an outward ministry.
Greg., Mor., ii, 3: And therefore the Angels always behold the face of the Father, and yet they come to us; for by a spiritual presence they come forth to us, and yet by internal contemplation keep themselves there whence they come forth; for they come not so forth from the divine vision, as to hinder the joys of inward contemplation.
Hilary: The Angels offer daily to God the prayers of those that are to be saved by Christ; it is therefore perilous to despise him whose desires and requests are conveyed to the eternal and invisible God, by the service and ministry of Angels.
Aug., City of God, book xxii, ch. 29: They are called our Angels who are indeed the Angels of God; they are Gods because they have not forsaken Him; they are ours because they have begun to have us for their fellow citizens. As they now behold God, so shall we also behold Him face to face, of which vision John speaks, “We shall see Him as he is.” [1 John 3:2]
For by the face of God is to be understood the manifestation of Himself, not a member or feature of the body, such as we call by that name.
Its dishonest to mention the speculations of Cardinal Cajetan, and not also note that the Pope ordered these speculations expunged from his works as a blot upon them.
Heaven consists of union with the Divine Redeemer. They could only be saved by knolwedge of Him.
Your description of hell is the most interesting description of hell that I have ever seen.
Thank you. I think hell is greatly misunderstood, mostly because people take the images spoken of in Scripture, and apply them literally, instead of realizing that the reality is far worse, and that the images such as "lakes of fire" and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" are meant to instill in us the horror of what the reality is that cannot truly be described.
In your description of the afterlife, however, the difference between Heaven and Hell is the nature of the relationship to God: defined by love of God for those in Heaven, and defined by hatred of God for those in Hell.
Heaven and hell are states of being based upon our relationship to God. It is not as though God has passions, and loves some and hates others, and therefore some are saved and others are damned.
In this sense, believing in God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent is a foretaste of Heaven: the basic relationship is established, but we do not have the vision.
I believe you can also see the Eucharistic element in this in what you have just stated if you just think about it for a moment. The Eucharist is a temporal foretaste of the total union we will have with Christ in heaven.
I'm having a hard time reconciling what seem to be two separate views of hell, however. One sounds a lot like anhilation--eternal death, that is deprivation of and separation from God who we understand to be everywhere. In another sense, it seems that both the damned and the saved are looking upon God, both see God, but the experience is supernatural bliss for those who love God, and supernatural pain for those who hate God.
There isn't a real difference here. Seperation from the Love of God is eternal death, because life consists of our sustenance by the Love of God. Once we have permanently consigned ourselves to rejection of the Love of God, we suffer eternal death, and become supernal refuse. This is why Christ calls hell "gehenna" which was the name of the garbage dump where refuse was incinerated.
Am I understanding that correctly? If so, how does one square this later view with Matthew 7:23: And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'
The departure is spoken of in a figurative or metaphorical sense. It is impossible to escape the presence of God, since God is omnipresent. There is nowhere He is not.
This is echoed in the Catechism, which describes hell as a deprivation of God (#633), and as an eternal separation from God (#1057)
What I described above was that hell is within us, and consists of our permanent and eternal rejection of God and His Love. We are deprived and seperated from Him in hell because we have chosen to shut Him out of ourselves.
We usually think of death as a one time event, but eternal death sounds like a perpetual, ongoing experience of death, which is something none of us have ever experienced. It sounds like an extinction of self that is never quite completed.
That is as good an explanation as any of what it is. Eternal destruction would be another. It is never completed since God does not choose to annhilate us because of his great love for all of us, thus those in hell suffer the torment of not being utterly annhilated, but continuing to be sustained by God, the principle of life, when they so desperately want nothing more than their own final death and destruction.
Thank you for the ping, gbdoj.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.