Posted on 01/24/2006 4:54:21 PM PST by NYer
Gentlemen,
Thank you for a very lively and intelligent conversation. I'm finding this discussion to be very helpful.
iq
Ping to a very interesting discussion. I don't know if you are following this, but I would be very interested in your thoughts. I've been wrestling with this myself for several years, and am glad to see some heavyweights tackling this issue.
But the Catholic Church most certainly does teach dogmatically, on the basis of St. John 3:5, that, after the promulgation of the Gospel, justification - which is absolutely necessary for salvation, by an absolute and intrinsic necessity of means - cannot be effected without baptism or at least the desire for it (whether formal, as in the case of adults, or virtual, as in the Holy Innocents). This is expressly taught by the Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, chapter 4: "quae quidem translatio post evangelium promulgatum, sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest; sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei."
Baptism, therefore, is for all men absolutely necessary for salvation, and so it must be received in fact or at least in true desire for anyone to be saved. This is also laid down clearly both in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (can. 849: "Baptismus, ianua sacramentorum, in re vel saltem in voto ad salutem necessarius") and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (as discussed above).
So anyone who goes around claiming that Baptism is only an "ordinary means of salvation," (as if it were not, strictly speaking, the _only_ means of salvation for men "post evangelium promulgatum") and that unbaptized infants are ordinarily and always saved without the sacraments, is simply not in accord with the Church on this matter.
Neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI have _ever_ taught or even proposed that we can consider all infants dying without baptism to be saved. And clearly they do not believe this either, otherwise they would not urge the grave necessity of baptizing little children: "§1 Parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptized within the first few weeks. As soon as possible after the birth, indeed even before it, they are to approach the parish priest to ask for the sacrament for their child, and to be themselves duly prepared for it. §2 If the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptized without any delay." (1983 Code of Canon Law, can. 867) "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God [. . .] 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)
The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of Heaven, the loss of the Beatific Vision. Why would you refer to Innocent III here? He teaches this explicitly in his letter of Jan. 12, 1206 to the Archbishop of Lyons (Denz. 410):
Although original sin was remitted by the mystery of circumcision, and the danger of damnation was avoided, nevertheless there was no arriving at the kingdom of heaven, which up to the death of Christ was barred to all. But through the sacrament of baptism the guilt of one made red by the blood of Christ is remitted, and to the kingdom of heaven one also arrives, whose gate the blood of Christ has mercifully opened for His faithful. For God forbid that all children of whom daily so great a multitude die, would perish, but that also for these the merciful God who wishes no one to perish has procured some remedy unto salvation [. . .] The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell.
Now Innocent III clearly teaches that those dying in original sin are punished with deprivation of the vision of God, suffer "damnation" and "perish."
Limbo has always been taught as an annex to hell. "Hell" simply means being deprived of the vision of God. There is nothing wrong with saying that those dying in original sin are condemned to hell. The Catholic Church teaches that there are only two final destinations, heaven and hell: a third place for the unbaptized children is an anathematized heresy.
It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: 'In my Father's house there are many mansions' [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God' [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left. (16th Council of Carthage, can. 3)
The Greek Fathers also did teach that the unbaptized infants do not attain salvation. The locus classicus for the doctrine of Limbo is St. Gregory Nazianzen's passage in the 39th Theological Oration. The Synod of Diospolis required of Pelagius that he anathematize the doctrine that "that new-born infants are in the same condition that Adam was before the transgression" and also the doctrine "that infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life" (see St. Augustine, On the Proceedings of Pelagius, chapter 65). St. Cyril of Jerusalem teaches "If any man receive not Baptism, he hath not salvation; except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom" (Catechetical Lectures, III, no. 10) and similiar passages can be found in all the great Doctors of the Eastern Church.
The Church certainly has intervened on the question of the fate of unbaptized infants. For instance, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office declared in 1958:
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 [. . .]
It simply is not permitted to teach the "affirmation that unbaptized children will not go to limbo but to heaven."
"As for this man, however, although he acknowledges that infants are involved in original sin, he yet boldly promises them, even without baptism, the kingdom of heaven. This even the Pelagians had not the boldness to do, though asserting infants to be absolutely without sin. See, then, what a network of presumptuous opinion he entangles, unless he regret having committed such views to writing." (St. Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin, I, 12)
I have been quite involved with another gentleman, so I haven't been deeply following the issue. I do know, though, that the Church tells us that God is NOT bound by the Sacraments, thus, Baptism is not absolutely required for salvation. Thus, Justin the Martyr could say that Socrates was a "Christian", which is also in-line with Paul and Romans regarding the "law written on their {pagans} hearts" who are circumcised spiritually. I am a bit confused how St. Augustine, fighting the Donatists, could propose the above, but then propose mass damnatia of infants because they had not been baptised...
Mercy over justice, says James...
Brother in Christ
Sorry, I mean St. Gregory's 40th oration, not his 39th.
Nor did I say that the Church teaches that all unbaptized infants go to heaven. I explicitly said that JPII did not say that, that he left it a mystery, but that Ratzinger and he think that the traditional hypothesis about limbo simply goes beyond what the Church can legitimately say about this.
You must have misunderstood what I wrote about Innocent III. Take a look at Ludwig Ott's note where he distinguishes between the poena damna and the poena sensus. The latter is Hell as it is normally known, externally sensed suffering. The former is what Aquinas meant by "natural bliss." Innocent III explicitly denies poena sensus for unbaptized infants. Poena sensus is what most people understand by Hell. Ott also is the one who says that most of the Greek Fathers rejected poena sensus (or its equivalent) for the unbaptized infants--that is, they believed in no external suffering for them, in what Aquinas would call natural bliss, which if translated into popular understandings of Hell, means not-Hell or hell in a technical sense only.
But all of this has little to do with Limbo. The three places where Hermann the Cherusker claims that Limbo was dogmatically taught (that was the issue we started with, was it not) do not teach Limbo in any definitive way but refer to something compatible with a limbo doctrine tangentially in the course of dealing with another issue.
In other words, precisely the argument we are having has been had for centuries in the Church and it has never been defined, resolved, put to rest. For that reason, JPII called for a formal examination of the question by the International Theological Commission; presumably Cardinal Ratzinger had a hand in that call since Ratzinger is on record many years ago as saying that the limbo hypothesis is not very helpful.
If as a result of JPII's call to visit the matter (not revisit) for the first time in a formal, specific, theological manner, a more definitive teaching is arrived at and that teach affirms something like Aquinas's limbus puerorum, then I would agree that Limbo has been definitively and dogmatically taught. But the topic has never, I repeat, never, been dealt with for its own sake by formal magisterial authority, which has left theologians free to argue, speculate, explore it. That's what Ratzinger meant 20 years ago when he said it is merely a theological hypothesis. And that's what I meant when I said it has not been dogmatically taught, pace the Lyons II, Florence, and Pius VI.
I am perfectly open to discussing the merits and demerits of the various solutions to the problem of unbaptized infants, but what I object to is the claim that a doctrine of limbo (as distinct from the various statements about poena sensus, poena sensus, carentia visionis beatificae etc.) has been taught magisterially as a doctrine.
Finally, I'll readily grant you the "necessity of baptism" as long as you grant that "saltem de voto" ("at least by intent") is a loophole big enough to drive St. Peter's Basilica through and that this blows out of the water a crypto-Feeneyite reading of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus." Baptism is necessary, yes, at least in intent. . . . that is, not absolutely necessary. One can affirm this without putting the unbaptized on a highway to heaven or making baptism peripheral or becoming a Pelagian.
All of the above theologians who speculated about various forms of a fate short of Hell-Hell for the unbaptized infants innocent of actual sin (poena damni, carentia visionis beatificae etc.) would have affirmed that baptism is necessary, saltem de voto because they usually took care to explain that only by some kind of desire on the part of parents, even a wish that the poor infant be spared damnation, and therefore only by some form of baptism of desire, could this "short of Hell-Hell" solution work. They were trying to combine both the necessity (sort-of) of baptism with the recognition that for the unbaptized who had not knowingly and deliberately sinned to be condemned for all eternity to Hell-Hell with poena sensus and all the rest would make God into an unjust monster. In other words, to them the doctrine of free will was non-negotiable, which meant that only actual sin could condemn to Hell. And that meant that, if one was to hold on to the "necessity of baptism" one had to create a de voto loophole.
We can hope that B16 will indeed pursue this after the ITC has done its work and teach something about it dogmatically, if only to teach definitively that we cannot say much at all about the fate of baptized infants except to entrust them to God's mercy.
Of course, that wouldn't be very definitive--some would read it as a cheap-grace highway to heaven and others would keep it an unknown quantity and they'd wrangle about it on FR threads and somewhere down the road B16's successor (I forgot--how many does Malachy say we have left?) will have to re-visit the matter.
Or, on the other hand, we could wrangle about more important matters. Wrangling is too important a human activity to waste.
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 [. . .].
I dealt with this in # 40. This is the same as the Council of Trent--it has to do with parents insouciantly delaying baptism, which would indicate a lack of a desire for their salvation so that, should the infant die because the parents delayed, the "baptism de voto" or "baptism of intent" loophole--that otherwise would have benefited their children--would be closed off. These are not unbaptized infants in the "normal" way the question has been posed--infants who die suddenly before opportunity for baptism--their fate is the difficult one to resolve theologically and the one JPII and Ratzinger wanted examined.
Instead, these infants would be victims of their parents' lack of faith, lack of love for their children. Even so, the Church does not tell the parents, get those darn children baptized or they will burn in the fires of hell for ever or be "naturally blissful" in the lobby of hell. No, even in this quote the Church tells the parents that you will burn in hell for not caring enough about your children to get them baptized when you had the chance.
Okay, so I'm using a bit of poetic license. But that is the import of this ruling, is it not? It certainl forbids a "highway to heaven" approach to unbaptized infants but it says nothing one way or another about limbo or the Full Monty Hell or whatever. It's aimed at the parents.
Well, firstly, the "highway to heaven" approach to unbaptized infants is exactly what's under discussion here, as Fr. Cantalamessa has proposed precisely that. He has not grounded the salvation of unbaptized infants in some desire of the parents, but solely upon the universal salvific will of God:
"The fate of children who are not baptized is no different from that of the Holy Innocents, which we celebrated just after Christmas. The reason is that God is love and 'wants all to be saved,' and Christ also died for them!"
Secondly, the decree says that the opinions being circulated about the eternal salvation of unbaptized infants such as to permit a delay in the baptism of the children, for reasons ostensibly liturgical or grounded in convenience, are "lacking solid foundation." This certainly includes an opinion such as that of Fr. Cantalamessa, which equates all unbaptized children with the Holy Innocents, and it is not only dealing with the matter of whether children should be baptized, but also with why they should be baptized quickly: because the opinions allowing them heaven although they be unbaptized lack solid foundation, and this for those born to Catholic parents!
As regards the passage in the Tridentine Decretum de peccato originali, it clearly rejects the opinion that infants "derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life." Therefore, without the laver of regeneration (at least in desire), infants cannot attain eternal life, and anyone dying in original sin does not attain eternal life. The same can be drawn from cap. iv. of the Decretum de justificatione, as I pointed out, and likewise from canon 3 of the 16th Council of Carthage: "baptism, without which [infants] cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven, which is life eternal." Innocent III testifies to the same thing.
The sacraments are absolutely necessary for salvation, in re aut saltem in voto. Fr. Cantalamessa is simply wrong to dismiss them as only "ordinary means" necessary only by a necessity of precept ("They are ordinarily necessary and people who can receive them and refuse are accountable before God.") His opinion is at variance with the CCC, which says that Baptism is the only means of salvation known to the Church, and that there is a great urgency to baptize little children.
"The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than 'salvation,' and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than 'life.' Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which we already quoted. For wherein does their opinion, who designate baptism by the term salvation, differ from what is written: 'He saved us by the washing of regeneration?' or from Peter's statement: 'The like figure where-unto even baptism doth also now save us?' And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord's Supper life, than that which is written: 'I am the living bread which came down from heaven;' and 'The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world;' and 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you?' If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord's body and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them." (St. Augustine, On the Just Desserts and Forgiveness of Sins, and Infant Baptism, I, chap. 34)
Of course what one affirms by the word "limbo" is beyond this, and would include, for instance, the exclusion of those dying in original sin from the hell of the damned, which has never been dogmatically taught. And the Church does not teach, unless I'm mistaken, that those dying in original sin only are not aware of their loss of the beatific vision (as Thomas and the other theologians who defend the limbo of the children do).
I understand what you're trying to say about limbo not being "hell-hell," that is, a place of eternal torment with everlasting fire, the worm of conscience, and so on, but I don't see why you'd bring it up on this thread. Hermann was quite clear in the original post that he was using "hell" simply to encompass all those deprived of the Beatific Vision, whether they are punished with the pain of sense or not. Fr. Cantalamessa himself said the same thing: "If hell consists essentially in the deprivation of God, limbo is hell!" No one here was saying that infants are punished with the pain of sense. I think St. Robert Bellarmine was the last theologian to hold this opinion and Bl. Pius IX's Quanto Conficiamur Moerere effectively rules it out, albeit not dogmatically. So what's the point of bringing it up? Not being punished with the pain of sense doesn't translate into having everlasting life, which is what Fr. Cantalamessa here proposes.
St. Thomas does teach baptism of desire and also that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. So I don't think there's any problem with using "absolutely" here.
I don't see why you say that theologians held that a desire on the part of the parents was necessary to rescue children from the hell of torment into the children's limbo. St. Thomas makes no mention of such a theory and Innocent III's letter would rule it out; I've certainly never seen it anywhere else.
And what we are wrangling about here is Fr. Cantalamessa's assertion that all unbaptized infants go to heaven, just like the Holy Innocents did. That is not committing them to God's mercy. It is presuming on God's mercy, and such a teaching is sure to promote neglect of infant baptism. It's also heretical (I do not say he is a heretic) because it asserts that there is another ordinary means of salvation besides baptism: in this case, the means is dying unbaptized without having attained the use of reason. For the same reason theologians always rejected as heretical Cajetan's theory about saving unbaptized infants through the sign of the cross or some other external sign of faith on the part of the parents.
Gentlemen,
This is one of the most interesting conversations that I've seen on FR.
* :) We both know his "prophecies" are unreliable, are forgeries
I still see no proboem with Fr. C. theologizing that all unbaptized infants, like dogs, go to Heaven. As I understand him, he is advancing his ideas as a theologian and not imposing his theologizing as normative.
For me, the simple key to unlock the door to the essence of the arguement is the obvious placidity of two great Popes who both know and hear the preaching of Fr. C.
Breathes there a Christian man rash enough to claim he knows more about theology than Johannes Paulus Magnus or Pope Benedict?
BTW, I have googled Fr. C's homilies and I find him radically Christian engaged in the great spiritual enterprise of getting us to turn away from rules and regulations and focus ourselves on our relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the action of Grace in the Divine Economy of Love. And I don't for a moment think he is suggesting we abandon infant Baptism or adopt antinomianism
The eternal fate of those dying only in original sin is a defined dogmatic truth.
We believe ... the souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin, descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places. (Second Council of Lyons, Profession of Faith of Michael Palaeologus, 1274)"[The Roman Church] teaches ... that the souls ... of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places. (Pope John XXII, Letter Nequaquam sine dolore [to the Armenians], November 21, 1321)
"[The holy general Council of Florence] has likewise defined ... 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. (Council of Florance, Bull Laetentur Coeli [Decree for the Greeks], July 6, 1439)
It is impossible for me to see how these are not dogmatic definitions by the Church.
Innocent III speaks to the quality of the existence of the souls in these two categories, not of different fates.
"The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell." (Gregorian Decretals)
The same distinction is made by Bl. Pius IX.
"It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, 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."
Original sin is not a deliberate fault in anyone except Adam and Eve, therefore, it does not make one liable for the torments of hell. But original sin is in its essence seperation from God, since it is the deprivation of grace from the soul at the time of its creation. No one deprived of grace is fit enjoy eternal life.
The cure of original sin is to be found in Baptism. This is perfectly clear from any number of citations already aduced here, all based upon St. John 3.5.
Contrary to what gbcdoj stated above, although I am not sure if it was intentional or not, the Canons on Original Sin explicate St. John 3.5 as covering all of humanity, not just adults.
If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they 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 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, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. 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." (St. John 3.5) (Council of Trent, Canon 4 on Original Sin)
Because of this, theologians have always interpreted this passage universally as applying to all, even those hindered by infancy.
The word water in this text has always been understood by the Fathers in the literal sense, and the Council of Trent has anathematized those who, with Calvin, distort its meaning by taking it metaphorically ... There can be no doubt, therefore, that the meaning of Our Savior's words, "to be born again of water," is simply "to be regenerated by Baptism," and this is declared necessary to salvation.Moreover, the expression implies that it is necessary, not merely as the fulfillment of a precept is necessary, because its voluntary omission would be a sin, but that it is absolutely necessary as a means positively conducing to salvation, so that without it salvation could not be attained, even though its omission were involuntary. This is shown by the universality of the form, "Nisi QUIS," etc., by which it extends to all, even those to whom a precept could not be addressed, as infants, but still more perhaps to the implied assertion, that this regeneration is necessary to spiritual life and admission into the kingdom of God as birth according to the flesh is to natural life, an assertion which is confirmed by what our Savior immediately adds: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," for what St. Paul so clearly expresses is here understood, viz, "that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God." (Fr. James O'Kane, Notes on the Rubrics of the Roman Ritual)
Now regarding what Limbo is. Canon 3 of Carthage cited by gbcdoj certainly condemns any notion that Limbo can be some sort of annex to heaven so to speak. It is not permitted to speak of Limbo as near to heaven. Since there are only two fates - eternal life and eternal death, this leaves it necessarily to be part of the latter.
Of necessity, everyone suffering eternal death is aware that they are cut-off from the vision of God. St. Thomas explains that this does not mean that unbaptized infants need to suffer the worm of conscience on this account, seeing as they would know they in nowise deserved eternal life, but that also they did nothing of their own meriting punishment, they would not suffer on account of not attaining life, just as a wise man does not suffer from being unable to fly like a bird on account of a lack of wings.
I think the above clarifies the extent of dogmatic teaching on this topic.
1) Baptism is absolutely necessry for salvation.
2) Everyone dying without Baptism (i.e. in original sin), or also in actual mortal sin is condenmed to hell.
3) Those who die merely in original sin only suffer the loss of the vision of God, whle those with actual mortal sin suffer eternal torments.
Limbo is a theological explanation to reconcile God's mercy with the above facts concerning the fate of the unbaptized.
Then we are left with the statement that if unbaptized infants are to not be condemned, their regeneration must occur while they are yet living, but not by Baptism. However there is no means we are aware of which can do this. This is what Pope John Paul II means that we must entrust them to God's mercy, since he has chosen to reveal nothing to us in this regard.
One certainty we do have is that it does not occur by Baptism of Desire on the part of the infant, which is an imposibility, or the parents, which leads to monstrous problems (i.e. the infant being condemned because of the neglect of the parents). Cajetan held that latter theory, and the Pope forced to be expunged from his books.
If there is any sort of positive solution to this quandry, it is to be found in the desire for the Church for the welfare of mankind, as Fr. Jurgens notes in Vol. 3 of his "The Faith of the Early Fathers", pp. 14-15. Just like the Church desires that all the baptized receive the Eucharist, and vouches for the faith of those unable to confess for themselves, so the Church would desire that all the unbaptized receive Baptism. This would not of course save unrepentant sinners from themselves, but it would help the inculpably unbaptized. Is this really what happens? We don't know. Its as reasonable as any other speculative theory, but it is just that.
Given all the uncertainty on this whole topic, it seems safest to stick to what Archbishop George Hay wrote in "The Sincere Christian Instructed in the Truths of the Faith of Christ", Chapter 20 - Of Baptism:
Q. 21. What becomes of young children who die without baptism?A. If a young child were put to death for the sake of Christ, this would be to it the baptism of blood, and carry it to heaven; but except in this case, as such infants are incapable of having the desire of baptism, with the other necessary dispositions, if they are not actually baptized with water, they cannot go to heaven; our Savior's words being perfectly clear and express, "Except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," (John 3:5). 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.
This is exactly what the new Catechism says in #1261.
I also have a few other comments on things noted here.
Regarding the Holy Innocents, (1) they were Circumcised Jewish males, and Circumcsion was a sacrament which remitted original sin. (2) They died prior to the promulgation of the Gospel, so they were in no-wise under an obligation to be baptised.
Regarding Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire must be held in conjunction with the basics of the faith concerning the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. St. John 17.3 makes it perfectly clear that eternal life consists of knowing the Lord Jesus, something also emphasized in the new Catechism (cf. No. 161), and found explicitly in the Liturgy in the Athanasian Creed. Baptism of desire is a solemn vow (hence both a promise and a resolve of the will), implicit or explicit, made to God to recieve Sacramental Baptism. This is why the Church uses the word "votum" (solemn vow to the divinity) and not "desiderium" (desire) to explicate it. Given the general corruption and ignorance of mankind, we should not be lead to the folly of thinking this state to necessarily be widespread among non-Christians, or that one who at some point has this desire does not necessarily lose it later through subsequent sins, since he does not have the help of the Sacraments. Especially obvious, such a state cannot be present in an idolator or polytheist, who does not know God.
The obligation of Baptism. This necessarily commences upon the preaching of the Gospel in the region where one lives, since one cannot be held to account for something he has never heard. It would be monstrous of God to hold people liable for things they could not have heard because of the limits of humanity in spreading the good news.
Hi Hermann,
"Contrary to what gbcdoj stated above, although I am not sure if it was intentional or not, the Canons on Original Sin explicate St. John 3.5 as covering all of humanity, not just adults."
I'm not sure where you saw this. Just to make things clear, I do agree with you on this point.
God can't break his promises.
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.