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.
It is impossible for me to see how these are not dogmatic definitions by the Church.
But you missed my point. What they dogmatically teach is directed at (1) Pelagians who deny original sin's gravity entirely, (2) Anabaptists who are effectively Pelagian on this point, (3) those who deny baptismal regeneration (which includes the Anabaptists), (4) or other parents who might carelessly delay baptism because they are closet-pelagians, have been mistaught about baptismal regeneration etc.--in which case the teachers who mistaught them are the target here. So, while these are dogmatic teachings they are dogmatic on the above points but not dogmatic on the theological hypothesis known as limbo. Clearly they touch on it, approach it obliquely, but they do not dogmatically resolve it because they were not intended to do so.
All of what your four prooftexts have to say about the fate of unbaptized infants (aimed at convincing parents who are able to do so, to get their children baptized in a timely manner and to refute any pelagian or non-baptismal regeneration beliefs) are modified by the loophole of "baptism of desire" that covers those infants who die under the very different circumstances of having parents who (1) do believe in baptismal regeneration, (2) do believe baptism is necessary for salvation, (3) wanted to have their children baptized but could not do so through no fault of their own.
And much the same applies to adults who desired to be baptized but were prevented through no fault of their own.
And with widespread abortion the issues is raised in a new way but it is the same issue raised in the early church--the baptism of desire question. The person who procures an abortion has committed a terrible sin and is accountable to God for it to the degree that it was deliberate (with the half-truths and lies spread so widely by false-teachers, the culpability may be shared with those who falsely instructed and lied and denied the information needed to make an informed, deliberate choice). Natural law, conscience probably in most cases means that the mother, even if falsely taught and misinformed may carry at least some level of culpability.
All that is one aspect. But the innocent child here is a different aspect that cannot be ignored. I have no good answer. Limbo was an attempt to deal with it--natural bliss, carentia visionis beatificae. Ratzinger said 20 years ago that he thought it was a theologically inadequate way to deal with it. JPII called for reconsideration of limbo before he died. Whether "baptism of desire" gets extended from parents to grandparents or bystanders (a bystander can baptize an infant in an emergency, so bystanders, nurses etc. as emergency "ministers of baptism of desire" is not an unimaginable solution) or some other way of dealing with it will be eventually proposed, I don't know.
But what is clear is that three or four doctrinal factors have to be somehow brought into relation with each other:
(1) The Church cannot abandon the "necessity of baptism" or baptismal regeneration. Protestants have challenged these teachings and, as your prooftexts show, they have been affirmed definitively.
(2) The Church cannot simply assert a highway to heaven or syncretistic "many paths to heaven" or "do your own thing" or "I'm okay, you're okay" theology. Neither JPII nor Cantalamessa nor Benedict XVI have come close to that.
(3) But recognizing how circumstances beyond the good-willed parent or adult catechumen can prevent access to baptism, the Church cannot ignore the need for some loophole like "baptism of desire."
To assert that innocent children, afflicted with original "sin" alone suffer eternal punishment is a claim that some Catholic theologians have advanced but that has been rejected by the Eastern tradition and has been rejected de facto though not expressis verbis by Western theologians since Anselm and Innocent III and yes, the Big T himself.
Right here we see how ambiguous the tradition still remains--this is the theological ambiguity that Ratzinger was concerned about. You and others insist in good faith that the tradition is clearcut about limbo being part of hell, snuggled up next to Hell and having nothing to do with heaven.
But others, equally in good faith, assert that there's another way to read the same prooftexts: as the tradition, even in your own prooftexts, found more and more ways to minimize the "poena" aspect (distinguishing between poena damnis and poena sensus, introducing carentia visionis beatificae language, introducing "natural bliss") the content of this intermediate state was de facto moving away from Hell-Hell and toward heaven even if they could not bring themselves to delink it from the term Hell entirely.
Yes, of course, Hell consists in alienation from God and loss of beatific vision. But if there is another status that is short of the b.v. but lacks all external torment and is "natural bliss" then just how "alienated" and how "hellish" is that?
So we were left with the situtation of two camps interpreting Limbo almost in opposite ways--associating it closer to Hell-Hell or closer to Heaven. And Aquinas' "natural bliss" etc. made this equivocation possible.
You see things black and white. Limbo is part of hell, cannot be interpreted otherwise; tough luck, but unbaptized infants (lacking even baptism of desire) end up in hell, deprived of the vision of God--people should realize this, get their babies baptized fast, evangelize the world so no one ends up in this horrible fate to which God rightly and justly condemns them because of the sin of Adam and Eve.
Calvin and Jansenius made their peace with such a God, with calling those acts of God, just. But what if, there were some other way to reconfigure this assortment of theological principles? What if the "natural bliss" of Limbo were in fact closer to the Beatific Vision than the "tough line" believed it to be? Deprivation of b.v. moves toward hell, yes; natural bliss moves back toward heaven. Thomas's Limbo is by its very nature ambiguous and has been. You would like to read the tradition in such a way as to make it unambiguously an antechamber to hell. But that simply is not the case--it has been read otherwise.
And this sort of ambiguity is what dissatisfied Ratzinger as a theologian and led to JPII's call to reexamine things. (I assume that JPII's call to do so and his earlier comments at the end of Evangelium Vitae in part grew out of consultation with Ratzinger and undoubtedly others.)
I do not begrudge you your having raised these issues, only the manner in which you have done so--quick on the heresy trigger. I think by raising them (as others obviously have--a chorus of criticism must have led Cantalamessa to issue his "clarification") you do the ITC, Benedict, Cantalamessa and likeminded theologians a service--reminding them to be careful in their theological work not to lapse into a syncretistic "highway to heaven" theology.
But what I dispute is (1) your claim that Limbo and the fate those infants who die without baptism through no fault of their parents has been unambiguously clarified by theologians and councils of the past, and (2) the wisdom and Christian charity of leaping to accuse Cantalamessa (and by implication, Ratzinger and JPII) of overturning past definitive and settled dogma on this matter or, much worse, of heresy.
I would propose that the matter has not been settled, remains ambiguous, and precisely because efforts to address the topic have aroused such a firestorm, needs to be the subject of serious theological exploration.
But if that is true, then the theologians addressing it cannot helpfully enter the discussion with their minds already made up--with the presupposition that the matter has been dogmatically settled by the councils you cite.
And so I would ask that we kibbutzers on the sidelines of the ITC and Benedict's rexamination of the topic pipe down, pull in our horns, and let them give the topic the sort of careful attention it has not yet had, despite it's tangential treatment by councils in the past.
So, once more, can we desist from using the term heretic?