Father Cantalamessa on Limbo and the Unbaptized

Zenit News Agency ^ | January 24, 2006 | Father Cantalamessa

[InterestedQuestioner]

Jo Kus,

Thank you for your thoughts. I haven't been on FR very much of late, and will have to take a look at what you've been discussing.

Best Regards,

iq

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Sir, This shows that you use the heresy label too loosely and therefore unfairly. Fr. Kelly has not denied original sin, has he? To be Pelagian he needs to do that. What does he mean by "original grace"? It's not a particularly lucid term and I make no brief for his use of it, because I don't know what he means by it. I'd gladly fault him for vague language, but until I know what he means by it, neither you nor I can call him a Pelagian. Banking on "hope" does not one a Pelagian make. Pelagius was not interested in hoping. He knew that our original condition is pure and total innocence and for that, not for hoping in God's mercy, he was condemned. Please do not call people pelagian unless they truly are pelagian. That's a Calvinist-Jansenist cheap shot.

Did Fr. Kelly equate the condition of all new human individuals with the Virgin Mary? Unless he did, your equating of his "original grace" (whatever it means) with the Immaculate Conception is your doing, not his. You jumped to a conclusion that so far as I can see is unwarranted.

I am not endorsing his terminology or his explanation. It doesn't sound theologically very helpful. But you have made no case, yet, for heresy. And this illustrates the way you overinterpret your evidence from the tradition. Indeed, consistently on this thread what you have been denouncing as heretical Pelagianism comes perilously close to the central teachings of the entire Eastern/Greek tradition. You will not be satisfied until you are guaranteed that those afflicted with original sin/mortality but not guilty of actual sin are all safely nestled in hell. The Greek tradition has never endorsed that line. Among other things, your polemic has ecumenical implications. But perhaps you are one of those Integralists who thinks that anyone seeking resolution of the Great Schism is a modernist-Pelagian??

All that JPII did (presumably with the Prefect of the CDF's support, not merely the private speculations of an obscure German bishop) was to say that we entrust the unbaptized not yet guilty of actual sin to the mercy of God and do not insist that they go to limbo-hell.

What "entrust to the mercy of God" means has not been explained with any degree of precision or with any degree of authority. That is what JPII and B16 have asked the ITC to take up. Whatever the ITC concludes will not be authoritative unless incorporated into conciliar or papal magisterial teaching. We are a long way from that.

Fr. Kelly may have done a poor job of formulating things. If you have real evidence he is a Pelagian modernist, please reveal it. But what you quoted from him is far short of the smoking gun needed to call him a heretic.

And gbcdoj, you who protested that your guys hadn't been calling anyone heretics--Hermann here did not expressis verbis call Fr. Kelly a heretic but he did expressis verbis call Fr. Kelly's words heretical. I will now stipulate your sophistic distinction and ask once more, please call off the heresy-hunting (note, not heretic-hunting) dogs.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

His words are clearly heretical.

He doesn't even seem to realize that the Father's of the Old Testament knew of Original Sin, claiming that "If Christ had not risen from the dead, we never would have thought of original sin". Apparently he never has prayed Psalm 50, or read Job's laments, or Genesis 3.

We didn't "[think] of original sin". The Lord revealed it to us in the Holy Scriptures.

I'm really surprised that a person who claims to be a Christian cannot see how spiritually unbalanced people such as this Fr. Kelly truly are. He clearly lacks an understanding of basics like the sources of revelation and dogma, and the reason's for Christ's coming. Christ came because of Original Sin. It was prophesies to Adam and Eve at the time of their sin by the Lord God. We didn't think up Original Sin to explain Christ's coming. We knew He was coming because we also knew we are sinners.

And yes, Fr. Kelly appears to be relating the condition of everyone coming into the world with Our Lady's Immaculate Conception. That is the plain meaning of a term like "Original Grace" used in the context of a discussion of the salvation of unbaptized infants. Apparently, according to him, we are all Immaculately Conceived.

You are welcome to this crowd. To paraphrase St. Augustine, please just don't pretend it has anything to do with the Catholic Faith.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Sir, show me where he expressis verbis denied original sin. Show me where he expresis verbis equated everyone with the Blessed Virgin's immaculate conception. The claim that he did so is absurd on its face.

You yourself in the post to which I reply admit that you interpret him as equating everyone with the Vigin Mary. You do not offer his words explicitly making the equation. You offer your interpretation of his words and then you insist that your interpretation is "the plain meaing" of Fr. Kelly's statement. I'd rather hear from Fr. Kelly an explicit equation. Why are you so darn sure that you are the sole authoritative interpretater of Fr. Kelly's words? Or did he say more than what you quoted and in the rest of what he said did he explicitly equate all of us with the Theotokos? I would be very, very surprised if he did that--can he be that stupid? Think for a moment of what you are accusing him of.

You are doing exactly what the Protestant biblicists do. To you your interpretation of the tradition on limbo is utterly and absolutely clear. You do not hesitate to declare those who interpret it differently to be saying heretical things (notice I did not say "heretics"). You cannot entertain the possibility than an honest Catholic of good will could arrive at a different interpretation of the tradition or of Fr. Kelly's words.

And if you were a Protestant, that would be fine. But you are a Catholic. Catholics are supposed to let the Magisterium decide these matters. Of course, your interpretation is that the Magisterium has already decided this matter and, unsurprisingly, that the Magisterium's decision agrees completely with your interpretation.

But the present pope, unfortunately, doesn't agree with your conclusion that the Magisterium has definitively resolved the matter.

Now please take note: if it were not the case that at the highest level (two popes) the Church right now, in the present, is asking for a study of the matter and a greater and clearer resolution of the matter, it would be just you and me, twoCatholics, arguing over whether a particular doctrine has or has not been definitively resolved. And there'd be no way to resolve that among us unless one of us took it to "church court" and asked for a ruling, in which case, unless the dispute involved huge blocs of Catholics, we would never get a hearing.

But that's not the situation. We don't need to ask the Church for a ruling. JPII himself said the matter is open and needs study and a ruling.

If I were you, instead of throwing the word heresy around, I would, having stated my interpretation of the matter, leave it that instead of labeling the statements of everyone who disagrees with you heretical.

But since you steadfastly insist that your interpretation is utterly plain and clear, conversation becomes impossible. You are as invincible on this point as any invincibly ignorant Protestant is when he insists that the "plain meaning" of Scripture is that the Catholic Church is the Babylonian Whore of the Apocalypse.

I would not say this if the pope himself had not said the matter is still open. But he has. For you to insist that it is utterly and plainly clear that the matter is not open, stikes me as bullheaded in the extreme and very un-Catholic.

And now I will end my involvement on this thread. I've made my case as bluntly as I can.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Caution! Modernistic Pelagianism in the making!

This is where what you are pushing is heading. Read the whole document carefully. This is from the Holy Ghost Fathers, God help them, the former Congregation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The theology contained within is pure Pelagianism, and explains exactly what Fr. Kelly is getting at with the term Original Grace.

---

http://web.archive.org/web/20040708040719/http://www.ralphcssp.usanethosting.com/s_prbless.htm

5. Blessings and Sacraments

Blessings are Not Ways Around God

The word, "blessing," has different meanings. It can refer to something given by God, words of good will spoken over people, the setting of something aside for religious purposes. There are historical reasons for these different meanings, but history is not under consideration at present. These three examples are an arbitrary beginning in an attempt to understand what blessings can mean in an adult's religious life.

If a person perceives something as having been given by God that particular thing can be considered a blessing. The forgiveness of sins by a loving God is a blessing.

To bless a rosary, for example, means to officially set it aside for religious purposes. Particular prayer intentions, backed up by the rosary are not more effective because the rosary is blessed. The one saying the rosary does not stack up more graces because the rosary is blessed. If the pope, ten bishops, twenty priests bless a rosary, that rosary does not thereby become a more grace-filled vehicle.

The blessing of crops does not insure a greater harvest. The blessing does not cause crops to become holier and thereby more under God's protection. Blessing a car does not make driving that car safer.

A religious leader is often asked to bless articles. No religious leader has any more power than the lay member of the congregation. The leader does not make an article holier. Any man can thank God for his crops and dedicate them for holy work. Any woman can can bless her car, promising to put it to holy and considerate use. Neither the car nor the crops become better, or holier, because a priest said words over them.

A blessing does not increase grace-giving power. Blessings do not make things better. What is important is how people are affected. A blessing is a reminder. It is a call to respond to God. If it helps one’s resolve in responding to God to have a priest do the blessing then it has some meaning.

Blessing people is a similar matter. In church after mass the priest says, "May almighty God bless you...." People do not get a spiritual snack each time the priest says the words. More good marks are not added to a person's name after the words are said. It would be better to say that people sign themselves for the purpose of setting themselves aside for divine service. It would be better to say, "Almighty God needs you, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Or to say, “The Father needs you to create a new world. The Son needs you to be a light of truth in the world. The Holy Spirit needs you to love, help, guide the world." Signing oneself is receiving the commission and dedicating oneself to it.

It would change the liturgy for the better if at the end the priest were to say to the congregation, "I sign you with the sign of the Father to create a new world, and of the Son to be a saving light to others and of the Holy Spirit to bring love into the world." The meaning of the word, "blessing," would change considerably, and the change would be for the better. The "Amen" of the people would have more meaning. It would mean, “Yes I accept this, my identity, my commission and I dedicate myself to it.”



Sacraments are not Ways Around God


There are many ways to talk about the Sacraments. They can be talked about as signs that do something, as celebrations of certain facts, as hints as to what life is all about, as binding forces within a community, as identity symbols, as expressions of interpersonal relationships. This short list does not exhaust the subject, of course, but it does suggest that if these are to be taught they cannot all be taught in one lesson. One's understanding of the sacraments has to grow. The teacher has to choose the sequence in which the different aspects will appear.

By this time it should be abundantly clear that we do not view the Sacraments as ways of manipulating God. Neither do we see them as somehow containing magic within themselves and having power, by virtue of an act, to cause an effect which is out of proportion to the cause. That would be more reminiscent of a medicine man claiming there is power in the very words he uses to cast a spell. It might be matter for television enjoyment but it is not reality.

Sacraments, therefore, are not to be represented by the following drawing which shows a priest (1) regulating the instrument (2) that moves God (3) who is waiting to be put in action for the sake of the poor soul (4) who is in need.

Similarly, Sacraments are not represented by the following drawing which shows a priest (1) standing inside of a big "grace-funnel" (2) pushing God (3) through the "Sacramental pipe line" (4) to a receptive person (5). God is not confined to a funnel.

What appears first about sacramental rites is that there is a Christian community in one place responding to and celebrating what God did, is doing, and will do, with the hope and purpose of strengthening its bonds with God, the community, individuals and so to get results outside the place. This is similar to the purpose of heritage.

Society needs whatever can bind it together in good identity. Heritage is present in most people, be it family, church, school or whatever. Heritage in practice makes present something people like, it identifies them and binds them together. Heritage is needed for its binding and identifying power.

We need sacraments, at least if they do the work of heritage. And Christians claim them as a heritage which goes back to Christ. Let’s consider baptism, for example.

Baptism is not a Way Around God

Early in Christian history people merely called upon the name of Jesus while being baptized. Then came the "Trinitarian Question" for baptism - do you believe in the Father, Son, Holy Ghost? In the 5th century in the Eastern Church baptism became a declarative sentence. In the 9th century it became a declarative sentence in the West. In the first and second centuries no infant baptisms were recorded; not until the third century do we find such evidence. The Church up to Augustine never knew of any sense in which baptism forgives fault inherited in children. I Cor. 7:14 speaks of the children of Christians as holy, not unclean. In 1972 the Rite of Christian Initiation nowhere suggests that infants need be absolved from any original sin.

Some people rush to get their baby baptized. Some of them have the idea that if their baby dies not having been baptized it cannot go to heaven. They claim that unless one gets baptized one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Such belief shows a terrible attitude about God. It says that God refuses heaven to an infant unless some witch doctor pours water over it and says the prescribed words. Talk about God on the end of a stick! The God of that faith is pouting on the end of his stick and seemingly is reluctant to allow babies into heaven. That belief does not make God good even when it says he gives people a way to get to heaven through baptism. That would only indicate that God is a racist, preferring the western world above those, for example, in Muslim countries. And saying that is the way God wants things to be does not make sense. Who said God wants things that way? Saying it does not make it so. Why should God prevent most of the world from getting to heaven just because someone did not rattle some bones in a cow's horn or do a baptism dance or pour water over a person? The bones, horn, dance, water, are not in control of the situation. They are signs of what already is, signs of people putting themselves into a particular point of view, and dedicating themselves to it. People are dedicating themselves to what was from all eternity not to some mythical aberration created by a human (Adam) eons ago. To think that one human can turn God against all humans is an insult to God.

Children inherit humanity. They do not inherit deserved punishment from God. We humans can choose to do good or evil. We are pulled both ways. We are not perfect. We are not Gods. Of course we inherit original sin - if we mean that we inherit the original human condition in which sin is possible. It should be noticed that we also inherit original grace, original love, original power for good. While we are at it, we also inherit original blessings, original favor, the original plan.

Seeing all we have received, we respond. Baptism is a response. It is not an attempt to cause God to change toward us. It is not a rite of magic that gets one around God.

Baptism is more than baptizing a baby to keep it out of some imaginary state called limbo. Baptism is expressive of a spirit, a giving in front of God and the Christian community. It is like saying out loud, " God, in a spirit of thanksgiving, for all you have already done, and calling forth the "god inside" and wishing to be consciously part of Christ's body on earth, I say take me for work in community. And so I embark on a journey and I say this in public, in symbols (salt, water, fire, oil, cross)."

These symbols are recognized by the body of Christ on earth. Their meaning changes over the years just like words change their meaning. The body could have had other symbols. These symbols "work." They don't work on God. They work on us. They don't work for God. They work for us.

Baptism is a language of love, not magic. It is a language of love of an adult getting baptized and of parents who present a child for baptism.

In presenting a child for baptism the parents are responding to God in love. They are promising before God and their Christian community to do their best for their child. They are saying, "God, for all you have done, take me for this child work in this community. See God, the reason we did not delay was because we want to show you we believe it is important to respond to you in love."

The parents respond with the language of spoken words and with the language of signs. Each part of the ceremony can be seen as another way the parents are making vows to God and before the community about how they will be for the child.

The priest is not the only one to do the liturgy. When the parents also trace the sign of the cross on the forehead of the child, they are vowing a relationship with a child of God. Presenting the child for the oil is a vow to work for the health of the child. The laying on of hands is a vow to impart one's own faith. The prayer of the faithful should be not one of begging but one of promises. The litany of the saints should include the names of those to be baptized. For the parents are vowing to place their child in that special company. They reject evil for the sake of their child. At the font holding the child they are vowing to bring the "god inside" their child to birth and life. They introduce the messianic time to their child. The white cloth is a vow to do all in one's power to keep the child pure. In receiving the light from the Easter Candle the parents vow to be the light of Christ to their child. Touching the ears and mouth, the parents vow that their child will hear from them about God so that the child will grow up to speak in a Godly way. Praying the Lord's Prayer together says they will teach their child prayer and join the community in prayer.

After all this serious vowing, the minister and the parents realize that after they have done all they can do it is still up to the child to confirm their vows in another sacrament.



Original Sin


To someone who was not indoctrinated there are problems with the Immaculate Conception. The teaching on it is that from the moment of Mary's conception she was preserved from what is called 'Original Sin.' That proposition seems to presume that Original Sin is some sort of stain on one's soul. To be preserved from that stain is said to be proper for Mary because she was to be God’s mother and God, who is holiness itself, would not be born of someone who ever was ever stained with sin. She was to be God's mother, and God would do the best he could for his mother.

The problem with that scenario is its presumption about Original Sin and also that it presents a rather mean arbitrary deity, one who could easily do something for one person, but nevertheless denies it to others. It makes more sense to say Mary wasn’t born in sin, and neither was anyone else. Being born human is not being born in sin.

It makes much more sense to view original sin as simply human nature. That is what we all inherit. It is neither good nor bad. As humans we can choose good or evil. We have free will.

Truth would be better served if the proponents of the Immaculate Conception stated that Mary’s immaculate conception is a theological example which is saying that as in the example of Mary, we all are blessed. No one said we could not apply an Immaculate Conception to everyone. The arguments given for the defense of the Immaculate Conception and original sin presume an all too human God created by humans.

---

You can see the blasphemous Mass Liturgy these folks are pushing here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040604195540/www.ralphcssp.usanethosting.com/s_prrbmass.htm

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Okay, this is too outrageous to let pass. I asked for explicit words from Fr. Kelly to justify your interpretation and you give me a screed from someone else and once more, insist that "this is what Fr. Kelly is getting at."

Dear friend, you first need to connect the dots.

You would be justified in explaining what Fr. Kelly means if you gave evidence from Fr. Kelly to support your interpretation. But you tee off on two words he used (original grace) and give us pages of what HE means.

With each reply you dig yourself deeper into your hole. If this is the sort of "interpreting" you do with Fr. Kelly, why should anyone take seriously your interpretation of the tradition on limbo and original sin?

I don't expect you to grasp the absurdity of your line of argument but perhaps others reading this will see it.

You can have the last word as I'm sure you would take it anyway. There can be no reasoning with you. Everything is plain, clear, obvious to you, except the possibility that another faithful Catholic could disagree with you without being a holder of heresy (not a heretic, of course, merely a holder of heretical beliefs).

But perhaps I'll forward your screed to Benedict XVI so he can be sure to track down the neo-Pelagian heresy-holders in the church, including myself, I guess.

[InterestedQuestioner]

This has been an extraordinary conversation. Many of us have been sidelined due to the level of the conversation, and one Freeper has compared it to a professional tennis match.

I think the conversation has reached a point of completion. Several views have been strongly articulated and well supported, and the result is a very informative thread which has been widely read. The principle participants have laid out the relevant concerns related to the question regarding the ultimate fate of infants who die without the sacrament of Baptism. They have also done a very good job of highlighting the differences in their views.

As one who is only beginning to learn about the faith, it would be helpful to summarize the points of agreement in this discussion, in order to present it as clearly as I can to others. Here is what I see as a consensus based on this conversation:


1. The fate of infants who are not baptized has not been revealed to us.

2. Baptism is the only means know to the Catholic Church by which Salvation may be conferred, therefore, it is urgent that we baptize infants.

3. Those who die with no actual sin will not suffer pain in the afterlife.



Have I understood this correctly? Can any of you think of other points of consensus?

[bornacatholic]

You will not be satisfied until you are guaranteed that those afflicted with original sin/mortality but not guilty of actual sin are all safely nestled in hell. The Greek tradition has never endorsed that line.

*I'm not about to UnPope but that makes sense to my way of thinking.

All humans have a spiritual soul, the properties of which are will, intellect, and memory.

An infant unBaptized, through no fault of his own, dies. He has not chosen against God, he has not willed to live apart from God. Limbo is living apart from God.

If someone can explain this to me in a way that doesn't sound like Calvinism, I'd be interested.

We have a Loving, Just God.

Now, if the commission decides in favor of the manual theologians, I will keep my face shut and maintain the Bonds of Unity. I wonder if those opposed to any reform/development of the speculative doctrine of Limbo will be as pacific if the commission rules, and the Pope accepts that decision, that Limbo is merely speculative; that, within bounds (which they will set) Lay and Christian Theologians are free to speculate but they are not free to accuse one another of heresy in matters ruled speculative.

Frankly, everything else in our Theology "makes sense" to me. Limbo doesn't.

[bornacatholic]

(I was doing some searhing and ran across this on Amy Wellborn's blog. Apparently, the manual theologians did not treat as heretics the theoogians speculating about Limbo.)

The Latin dogmatic theology manuals used before Vatican II did not present limbo as DOCTRINA CATHOLICA, but as A probable opinion. The fine print always quoted approved theologians who speculated about the possibility of eternal salvation for "unbaptized infants", theories ranging from the fanciful view that the BVM baptizes them to the view that they are given a momentary use of reason to choose Christ (a form of baptism of desire). The rejection of limbo was widespread among dogmatic theologians prior to Vatican II. Most theological libraries contain at least two books written prior to the Council in English that survey the salvation theories. The allusions to Florence and Innocent III are treated extensively in these books which place these statements in their historical context (a necessity not only with Scripture, but also with all documents of the magisterium).

The trendy liberal denial of any content to the dogma of original sin mentioned in the Realist's interesting post would not pass muster among more serious speculative theologians working on Original Sin. However, a few things can be said. (1) O.S. can't be washed away because it's a privation. O.S. is a way of talking about the absence of sanctifying grace. You don't get rid of a privation. You get something positive. O.S. is "sin" in an analogous, not a univocal sense. In some ways it's like actual sin; in other ways it isn't. (2) Mark Shea has introduced one of the threads on his blog by pointing out that it is the job of theologians to venture out and not just repeat the past. Not all musings will pass the orthodoxy test. But musings by definition cannot be heresy. In the matter of O.S., orthodox theology (like the kind conducted by systematic theologians at the pontifical universities) is in a state of flux ever since Pius XII's HUMANI GENERIS implicitly invited theologians to address the connection between the universality of the need for redemption with problems connected with evolutionary accounts of human origins. There are now a variety of speculative efforts to present Original Sin in the context of the modern concerns with evolution of the human body, historical critical approaches to all the Scriptural data, and historical analysis of previous magisterial interventions. We're living in the middle of a process, not at the beginning (like Augustine), not at the end.

Posted by: Tom Haessler at Jan 13, 2006 12:44:20 PM

[bornacatholic]

Good summary. Although, next time, think yourself at liberty to add, "BAC, the ballboy in this tennis match, is prolly right."

[sitetest]

Dear Dionysiusdecordealcis,

"This is very close to von Balthasar's 'Dare we hope,' which the residual Jansenists at New Oxford Review have calumniously turned into an accusation of 'universalism.'"

LOL!

I let my NOR subscription lapse a while back.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Hermann the Cherusker,

"This is a very monstrous opinion if you would step back and think about it. The eternal fate of infants is left not in the hands of God, but in their parents, so that infants cursed with careless parents are not the beneficiaries of divine miracles, while those blessed with merely misfortunate parents are. Why would a loving God be so capricious?"

One could say the same thing in differentiating between infants who are baptized, and those who aren't. In that no infant asks for baptism, nor can any refuse it, it is entirely the discretion of the parents that determines whether an infant has received the salvific gift of baptism.

So, the infant baptized in the first days or weeks of life, who then dies, is saved, but the infant not baptized, whose parents didn't bother, were careless or too busy, or whatever, this unbaptized baby who then dies, is not saved. The eternal fate of each child was left in the hands of his parents. Why would a loving God be so capricious?


sitetest

[gbcdoj]

Fr. Kelly does sound Pelagian there. I think St. Augustine would have been horrified at that kind of talk (what in the world does he mean by "original grace" except what Hermann highlights?). If you read the article Fr. Kelly also claims that we have a conviction that all unbaptized children go to heaven - again, this is contrary to the catechism, and you are again wrong in claiming that only a "hope" is being expressed.

I googled him and apparently he is also a supporter of women's ordination: (the note also mentions his "glowing review" of Fr. McBrien's Catholicism which, recall, was censured by the NCCB Committee on Doctrine as "com[ing] very close to denying, if it does not actually deny, an article of faith" and "inevitably impl[ying] a Nestorian or an adoptionist Christology")

In Australia, this clarification by the Magisterium again met with dissent from members of the theological community. In describing himself as "a loyal Catholic", Fr Tony Kelly, President of both the Yarra Theological Union and the Australian Theological Association, publicly accused the Vatican of attempting to "theologically bully" both clergy and laity. In expressing concern about what he perceived as the Pope's "autocratic" style, Fr Kelly referred to the CDF Reply as a "ham-fisted" attempt to mould public opinion and "a very depressing development".

Hardly the best candidate for a defense, in any case, although I suppose it could be argued with little plausibility that this "original grace" assuring the salvation of infants is not effectively negating the doctrine of original sin. The article certainly presents it as doing so. On the other hand, strictly speaking it's not Pelagianism.

Where in the Eastern/Greek tradition do they speak of a conviction that all infants go to heaven, baptized and unbaptized? How is such a claim compatible with the condemnation by the Synod of Diospolis (415) of the proposition that "that infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life"? I have already called your attention to this and other pertinent statements from the Oriental tradition (see post #43). Yet you continue to say that this condemned idea is actually the Eastern tradition, or close to it. Why are we supposed to believe this? I think that the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem was far more representative of the Eastern tradition when it declared:

We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord saith, “Whosoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, it is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord shewed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whosoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Saviour would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.” And forasmuch as infants are men, and as such need salvation; needing salvation, they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved; so that even infants ought, of necessity, to be baptised.

And the Pope has not said the matter is open. The Catechism says that its of the greatest urgency to baptize little children. These theologians are saying that infant baptism doesn't matter for salvation. They are flat-out in disagreement with the Catechism and with all Catholic tradition.

You haven't really provided any evidence in favor of the doctrine that's actually in question here. What you've defended is the doctrine of the catechism, and you've also pointed out that the doctrine of the limbo of the children is not dogmatically certain (and certainly further study is encouraged by the Church). You've also made very questionable assertions about the content of the Catholic tradition on the subject, making out minor speculations by a few (e.g. baptism of desire for infants) to be major divergences in the tradition, asserting that the Greek Fathers believed all infants to be saved (something St. Gregory Nazianzen explicitly denies: he says they all go to what is, in effect, limbo).

But what's under question here are those who go around saying that infant baptism is not necessary, that all children dying without the use of reason are saved, etc., etc. This is not a fictional error (Hermann gives another example - wow!) and at least one poster on this very thread does embrace it. Your posts haven't defended this error itself, but you create the impression that it's okay by classing these people with those who agree with the doctrine of the Church. They don't. JP II's invitation to study the question of the limbo of the children is not a blank check to do away with the necessity of the sacraments, which is a truth of the faith.

[gbcdoj]

NOR has gone downhill, and I haven't renewed. But von Balthasar's "dare we hope" is contrary to Scripture as JP II himself pointed out in Crossing the Threshold of Hope (albeit as a private theologian).

All the Fathers interpret scripture as teaching that some men will be damned, and as Balthasar admits this, I hardly see how he "dared" to hope that all men are saved. Anyway, here is the article from NOR on the subject (unless they ran another?). It doesn't accuse him of universalism, but of contradicting the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the Church by teaching that hell may end up without any men in it.

[sitetest]

Dear gbcdoj,

My comment was specifically aimed at NOR, not at any position vis a vis von Balthasar. When I read their criticisms of von Balthasar, although I wasn't certain that I entirely agreed, my recollection is that their criticisms were moderate and balanced. Their later criticisms of Fr. Neuhaus, on the other hand, seemed to be unbalanced caterwauling. I'd actually read Fr. Neuhaus' book that they attacked, and wondered if I'd read the same book as the NOR folks.

The poor treatment of Fr. Neuhaus was, for me, the last straw, that and their tendency to beat up on, and have the last word on, their letter-writing critics.


sitetest

[gbcdoj]

An infant unBaptized, through no fault of his own, dies. He has not chosen against God, he has not willed to live apart from God. Limbo is living apart from God.

All men merited eternal condemnation in the transgression of Adam. A personal choice is not necessary as Adam's will suffices (cf. St. Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 4.51: "This sin is voluntary by the will of our first parent, as the action of the hand has the character of a fault from the will of the prime mover, reason. In a sin of nature different men are counted parts of a common nature, like the different parts of one man in a personal sin."). All the Fathers teach this (cf. St. Augustine, Contra Julianum, I, nos. 5-34 where he gives the testimony of previous Fathers for original sin). The Council of Trent declares:

If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. (Canon 2 on Original Sin)

So all men are born in a state where they are living apart from God. This is dogmatic. To be reconciled to God (and this is what salvation is) is under the economy of the New Testament able to be effected only by the sacraments of the New Law or the desire for them, as Trent also declares. God's justice deprives men of heaven unless they be reconciled and justified through grace and faith, and He in his love and mercy has provided the sacrament of baptism for them to be made just, even while lacking the use of reason.

[gbcdoj]

Yeah, I have to agree with you there.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Maybe that's my problem. I don't believe in evolution (my faith is in the Lord Jesus). Therefore, I dont' understand modern speculative theology which attempts to explain (away?) original sin in terms of human evolutionary history.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

NOR has gone downhill, and I haven't renewed. But von Balthasar's "dare we hope" is contrary to Scripture as JP II himself pointed out in Crossing the Threshold of Hope (albeit as a private theologian).

Not only is "Dare we hope" contrary to Scripture, e.g.:

"And they went down alive into hell, the ground closing upon them, and they perished from among the people." (Numbers 16.33)

"Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It were better for that man if he had not been born." (St. Matthew 26.24)

It also contradicts the Liturgy:

O God, from whom Judas received the punishment of his guilt, and the thief the reward of his confession ... (Collect of Holy Thursday and Good Friday, Roman Missal)

And it of course is squarely contradictory to the plain testimony given in sources as diverse as the Dialogues of Pope St. Gregory the Great and the visions of the children at Fatima.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Hermann the Cherusker and gbcdoj,

You are both way out of my league, and I hope you won't mind if I ask for your help in understanding this issue. I'm seeking to understand the Faith, and would not willingly embrace heresy, and I seek to be obedient to the will of God.

With regards to universal salvation, I used to hold that opinion, because I did not believe that hell was eternal, but rather a very long purgation. I no longer hold that opinion because I have been told that the Church has condemned that position, and the Scripture cited by Hermann is reasonably interpreted to mean that hell is permanent and people actually go there. (Specifically, Matthew 26:24, where it says that it would be better for Jesus' betrayer that he had never been born. Presumably this was not Semitic hyperbole for a particularly severe purgation after the death of Judas, although he did repent of what he did, but subsequently committed suicide..)

With regards to infant baptism, however, there are several Scriptures which can be read against their going to hell. For example:

"Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he went into the house of the LORD, and worshiped; he then went to his own house; and when he asked, they set food before him, and he ate. Then his servants said to him, "What is this thing that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while it was alive; but when the child died, you arose and ate food." He said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?' But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me."" (2 Samuel 12: 20-23)

Here David speaks of going to his son.

It seems there are three interpretations which would be consistent with this view. The first, which I would reject outright, is that David and his son both went to hell. Since David is no longer mourning, and we would understand that David presumably went to Heaven, this reading is a bad one. The second is that the Limbo of the Fathers is the same as the Limbo of the infants, and that David would be with his son there, until the Resurrection of Christ. The final interpretation is that David and his son both went to Heaven. What are your thoughts on this?

In the Gospel of Matthew we read:

"and He said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18: 3)

and again:

Then children were brought to Him, that he might lay his hands on them and pray, and the disciples rebuked the people; but Jesus said to them, "Let the Children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19: 13-14)

It seems that these Scriptures would support a position that unbaptized infants go to Heaven, as Jesus says that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these. What are your thoughts on this?

iq