Complete title: THE FOUR LAST THINGS ---- DEATH, JUDGMENT, HELL and HEAVEN
Posted on 04/28/2009 9:00:27 PM PDT by GonzoII
Complete title: THE FOUR LAST THINGS ---- DEATH, JUDGMENT, HELL and HEAVEN
It is precisely the last thing one would hear in a mainstream Catholic Church nowadays.
The difference between the world of yore and ours is that most people, Catholic or not, had this sort of theology in their database.
Like it, love it, hate it, or be indifferent to it; it nevertheless was the coin of their daily meditation and thought. It colored their speech and influenced their legislation.
We have lost this, and now anyone who propounds it is a pariah; nevertheless it is the order of the Universe.
I’m sorry that I missed the earlier titles.
The Limbo of Infants is a hypothesis about the permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed from original sin.
Since at least the time of Augustine, theologians, considering baptism to be necessary for the salvation of those to whom it can be administered have debated the fate of unbaptized innocents, and the theory of the Limbo of Infants is one of the hypotheses that have been formulated as a proposed solution.
Some who hold this theory regard the Limbo of Infants as a state of maximum natural happiness, others as one of "mildest punishment" consisting at least of privation of the beatific vision and of any hope of obtaining it. This theory, in any of its forms, has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, but it is permissible to hold it.
Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope that these infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of Limbo; however, the directly opposed theological opinion also exists, namely that there is no afterlife state intermediate between salvation and damnation, and that all the unbaptized are damned.
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," 64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church
I am quite familiar with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I also have two stillborn siblings buried, without names, in unmarked graves.
Many people have lost siblings to still births, my sympathies; what does that have to do with your spreading untruth about the Catholic Church, after all you admit you have the catechism.
I'm taking it you wanted to lead people into believing that The Catholic Church teaches that unbaptized infants burn in hell...?
Some Church leaders have commented on the fate of unbaptized infants:
4th century CE: St. Gregory of Nazianzus (circa 329 - circa 390) commented in Orat., XL, 23 that infants dying without baptism "will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked." This was the common view of the early Church Fathers.
Pope St. Siricius insisted on the baptism of infants as well as adults lest "each one of them on leaving the world, loses both [eternal] life and the kingdom."
5th century CE: St. Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) convinced the Council of Carthage (418 CE) to reject the concept of limbo "of any place...in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness." According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all." i.e. they go to Hell for eternal punishment, but are not as badly treated as other inmates. According to Revelation 14:10, the infants would be tortured in the presence of Jesus. However, this verse is ambigous about whether Jesus is directing or merely observing the torture.
11th century: St. Anselm (1033 - 1109 CE) supported St. Augustine's belief that "unbaptized children share in the positive sufferings of the damned [in Hell]."
12th century: Peter Abelard (1079 - 1142) deviated from St. Augustine by rejecting material torment (poena sensus) and retained only the pain of loss (poena damni) as the eternal punishment of unbaptized infants for their original sin.
13th century: St Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274), who was the first major theologian to speculate about the existence of a place called limbo. Its name is derived from the Latin limbus which means "hem" or "edge". There, on the edge of heaven, the unbaptised would exist in a state of what he described as "natural happiness".
14th century: Pope John XXII's issued an Epistle to the Armenians in 1321 CE. Fr. Brian W. Harrison writes that the Epistle, along with two earlier ecumenical councils:
"... teach that the souls of those who die in original sin ... go down without delay into Hell' where, however, they suffer 'different punishments' from those who die in actual mortal sin."
Harrison suggests that this "... could only be infants and the mentally retarded who never reach the use of reason," and who were never baptized. Presumably, the "different punishments" would involve a lighter level of torture of the infants than is experienced by adults who die in moral sin.
15th century: Later writers, {e.g. Griolamo Savonarola (1452 - 1498) and Ambrose Catharinus (16th century)} believed that "the souls of unbaptized children will be united to glorious bodies at the Resurrection."
The Ecumenical Council of Florence wrote in 1442: "Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, ... but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently."
16th century: Cardinal Cajetan speculated that unbaptized newborns, fetuses, etc people may benefit from a "vicarious baptism of desire." i.e. even though an actual baptism may not have occurred, it might have been desired by the parents, or the church or by someone else. "desired baptism" which had never actually been conducted might have the same power as a real sacrament.
Pope Sixtus V declared in a papal statement that aborted fetuses do not attain the beatific vision in Heaven. From the content of his statement, it appears that newborn and infants who die before being baptized suffer the same fate.
The Council of Trent stated that justification includes the remission of original sin in infants as well as moral sin in adults. They state that justification "cannot take place without the washing of regeneration [i.e. baptism] or the desire for it." Since infants cannot have a desire for baptism, it would appear that only baptism will make it possible for an infant to attain heaven at death.
18th century: A group known as the Jansenists reverted to St. Augustine's belief. They rejected the idea of Limbo in favor of eternal torture of unbaptized infants, etc. in Hell. In response, Pope Pius VI wrote Auctorem Fidei in 1794. It condemned their teaching as being "false, rash, and injurious to Catholic education" because they denied the existence of a place "which the faithful generally designate by the name of limbo for children." Pope Pius VI implied that there are two possibilities: that unbaptized infants might spend eternity comfortably in Limbo or they might spend it being tortured in Hell. The Jansenists' denial of the possibility of Limbo was un-Catholic. 19th century: Theologian Heinrich Klee speculated that God might enlighten the infant at the instant of death and enable them to make a decision for or against God.
20th and 21st century Catholic teachings: 1905: Pope Pius X made a definitive declaration confirming the existence of Limbo. However, this was not an infallible statement by the pope:
"Children who die without baptism go into limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they do not suffer either, because having Original Sin, and only that, they do not deserve paradise, but neither hell or purgatory."
1958: The Holy Office (once the Inquisition and now the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) was critical of some believers who delayed baptism because of their belief in Limbo. They concluded: "Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible..." (Acta L, 114).
1960s: The Second Vatican Council stated, in Gaudium et Spes 22: "For since Christ died for all (Rom. 8:32)...we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all [humans] the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery."
1984: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated his personal disbelief concerning Limbo during an interview in . He said that:
"Limbo has never been a defined truth of faith. Personally, speaking as a theologian and not as head of the Congregation, I would drop something that has always been only a theological hypothesis."
He has became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005.
1992: Pope John Paul II is reported as having been troubled by the concept of limbo and had mention of it removed from the church's 1992 catechism.
1995: In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae ("The Gospel of LIfe") Pope John Paul II discussed women who have had abortions. He gave an ambiguous statement implying that aborted embryos and fetuses may be in Heaven or Limbo. He wrote: "...You will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord."
1999: Fr. L.E. Latorre comments:
"Children should be baptized within the first weeks after birth. Children in danger of death should be baptized without delay. Catholic parents who neglect or unreasonably put off for a long time the Baptism of their children commit a mortal sin. It would be a mortal sin, for example, to delay or postpone indefinitely the Baptism of a child in order to save-up or prepare for a big feast, a great worldly show, with dances and dinners and what not. Or, to delay the Baptism in order to wait for the coming of a VIP godparent."
Circa 2004: In an article on 2005-NOV-30, the Scotsman newspaper states that Pope John Paul II had written:
"The Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God. In fact the great mercy of God, who wants all men to be saved, and the tenderness of Jesus towards children allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who die without baptism." {We have not been able to find a citation for this quotation.}
2005: Fr. Brian W. Harrison conducted a survey of relevant historical Catholic magisterial statements and concluded:
"... that those who now talk about Limbo as only ever having been a mere 'hypothesis', rather than a doctrine, are giving a very misleading impression of the state of the question. They are implying by this that the pre-Vatican II Church traditionally held, or at least implicitly admitted, that an alternate 'hypothesis' for unbaptized infants was their attainment of eternal salvation — Heaven.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Limbo for unbaptized infants was indeed a theological "hypothesis"; but the only approved alternate hypothesis was not Heaven, but very mild hellfire as well as exclusion from the beatific vision! In short, while Limbo as distinct from very mild hellfire was a 'hypothetical' destiny for unbaptized infants, their eternal exclusion from Heaven (with or without any 'pain of sense') — at least after the proclamation of the Gospel, and apart from the 'baptism of blood' of infants slaughtered out of hatred for Christ — this was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis.
No, it was never dogmatically defined. But the only question is whether the doctrine was infallible by virtue of the universal and ordinary magisterium, or merely "authentic".
2000's: The Church has long taught that infants slaughtered out of hatred for Christianity experienced "baptism of the blood" and would attain Heaven as martyrs. Some contemporary theologians have suggested that aborted fetuses may be considered martyrs and are therefore saved through the same "Baptism of Blood."
Current official Catholic teaching: The current Catechism does not contain a direct mention of Limbo:
So where is the official teaching on the fate of unbaptized infants?
Theological speculation is one thing Magisterial teaching another.
Showing different opinions amongst the Fathers in no way proves error in the Magisterial teachings of the the church.
You tell me
I'll say it again - depends. Popes of the Roman Catholic Church have taken four contrary positions regarding the fate of infants who die without baptism.
The lot assigned by popes to the infants has gradually changed from including hell fire, through involving the pain of loss only and then no pain at all, to full beatitude in heaven.
1. Popes of the patristic era infallibly defined the doctrine of Augustine that unbaptized infants have the eternal torments of the damned in the fires of hell with the devil. We cite Pope Gregory the Great, Pope Zosimus and Pope Innocent I amongst others who taught this.
2. Pope Innocent III adopted the position of Abelard in the twelfth century that unbaptized infants will have the pain of loss but not the pain of fire.
3. Pope Pius X was the first pope to teach that unbaptized infants have no sufferings in his 1905 Catechism.
4. Recent popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, have given us to “hope” that all unbaptized infants, and indeed all of humanity, will go to heaven.
The Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas THE FIFTH ARTICLE: "He Descended into Hell."
Objection: The Council of Florence in 1439 taught (DS 1306)[693]: "The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or only original sin descend into the realm of the dead (infernum), to be punished however with unequal "punishments".
"unequal punishments" ( poenis disparibus )
dispar.ibus ADJ. unequal, disparate, unlike;
Reply: 1) The word "poena" in Latin need not always be the same as English "pain" - it can mean merely deprivation of something. As we saw above, Pius IX taught that God does not allow anyone to be punished with eternal punishments without the guilt of personal fault.
Vatican II, "On ecumenism" #6, taught that if any language in older teachings is in need of improvement, it should be improved. Such is the case here, at least if we do not think of the difference of Latin "poena" and English pain. Paul VI in "Mysterium fidei" did not contradict the Council, but said that the older texts are not untrue in themselves, if properly understood.
2) The word "infernum" in Latin means merely the realm of the dead, not hell in the English sense. Cf. the Creed in which we read that after His death, Jesus "descended into hell"- the archaic English use of the word.
3) Our reasoning above tends to show that the aborted babies, and probably other unbaptized babies also, are given grace by God outside the Sacrament of Baptism, and so do not depart this world in original sin, which is merely the lack of grace that should be there.Source: EWTN Library: SCRIPTUR/INFANT
Gosh, your reasoning has persuaded me. It all depends on what “hell” means. I am defeated!
It is Catholic doctrine that any soul that remains in original sin will not be saved.
The speculation of perhaps God having some way of removing original sin before they die by some other means than that of baptism by water is what has been speculated on.
“The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extrasacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism by blood of the children of Bethlehem). Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire – Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire – H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering – H. Schell), are indeed, possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation.” Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 114. -Ludwig Ott.
Oh, I'm quite aware of that.
The speculation of perhaps God having some way of removing original sin before they die by some other means than that of baptism by water is what has been speculated on.
Or perhaps the entire doctrine needs to be reexamined.
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.