Florence And Hell For Infants

[mortify ii]

Baptism is absolutely necessary for initiation into the Mystical Body and those deprived of the grace of baptism can not have eternal union with God. What happens to a particular infant soul that dies in this state we do not know, God is merciful and powerful and can do as He pleases. As in many of the threads started by the original author, it comes down to distinguishing between objective and subjective. Although we know of know objective means a non-Catholic can make it to heaven outside of baptism, it does not mean that God can not save a soul in a unique and particular way. I put my trust in the merciful and loving God in whatever he decides to do.

[Benedictus]

I would say the idea that babies go to hell or limbo (as in a place) is totally vile. But some writers, including biblical ones, use hell to refer to the grave or death. So it might not mean hell, as in burning fire or isolation.The idea of baby baptism to aviod hell or limbo was used to ensure families baptised children into the church (herd them in) out of fear and superstition. Aside from being ridiculously legalistic its overtones do very little to convince anyone that love is evident. The theology must have upset and hurt many mothers and familes who lost a baby during during childbirth or soon after. That aside the implications it had for aborted babies or those that are murdered after birth is equally horrid. Why anyone would propose that a baby would go to hell or limbo because a priest didn't spinkle some water and say some words over it seems crazy. Aside from the fact that it isn't 'water' baptism that is important the underlying theology sits on shaky ground. It was, and is, an example of a sad development in the churches theological history and thinking. Maybe its Augustine's fault for selling the idea of orginal sin that needed a way out for babies in the first place.The protestant criticisms of the past on this point seem totally justified. Thankfully the catholic church seems to be moving away from such positions as fast as it can (which is bound to be slow in church terms as it won't drop the issue in one go straight away, more the pitty).

[John Ryan]

This was an accepted belief among Catholics for hundreds of years.  You may benefit from making an effort to understand it, rather than dismissing it as hateful.  Normally a Catholic who claimed that unbaptized babies went to hell meant Limbo as a part of hell.  These souls could not enjoy the Beatific Vision, as the baptized could, but were not further punished.
 

Catholics of the past did not come up with this teaching because they were evil or hateful.  They were taking what they knew and trying to bring it together into a cohesive whole.  They read what Scripture said about the necessity of baptism and tried to understand how a loving and merciful God would respond to babies who died without baptism. 

 

Nobody likes the idea of the souls of babies going to hell or even to limbo.  The people who held that belief did their best to ensure that all infants received baptism.  In our times, it is common to find laxity concerning the baptism of babies, perhaps because there is a presumption on the mercy of God.  This sort of presumption is not a good thing.  We could learn from the example of our ancestors in Faith.

 

I should reply with the words of St. Clement of Rome: 

 

Ye understand, beloved, ye understand well the Sacred Scriptures, and ye have looked very earnestly into the oracles of God. Call then these things to your remembrance. When Moses went up into the mount, and abode there, with fasting and humiliation, forty days and forty nights, the Lord said unto him, “Moses, Moses, get thee down quickly from hence; for thy people whom thou didst bring out of the land of Egypt have committed iniquity. They have speedily departed from the way in which I commanded them to walk, and have made to themselves molten images.” And the Lord said unto him, “I have spoken to thee once and again, saying, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiff-necked people: let Me destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make thee a great and wonderful nation, and one much more numerous than this.” But Moses said, “Far be it from Thee, Lord: pardon the sin of this people; else blot me also out of the book of the living.” O marvellous love! O insuperable perfection! The servant speaks freely to his Lord, and asks forgiveness for the people, or begs that he himself might perish along with them.

[Perigrina]

I would say the idea that babies go to hell or limbo (as in a place) is totally vile. But some writers, including biblical ones, use hell to refer to the grave or death. So it might not mean hell, as in burning fire or isolation.The idea of baby baptism to aviod hell or limbo was used to ensure families baptised children into the church (herd them in) out of fear and superstition. Aside from being ridiculously legalistic its overtones do very little to convince anyone that love is evident. The theology must have upset and hurt many mothers and familes who lost a baby during during childbirth or soon after. That aside the implications it had for aborted babies or those that are murdered after birth is equally horrid. Why anyone would propose that a baby would go to hell or limbo because a priest didn't spinkle some water and say some words over it seems crazy. Aside from the fact that it isn't 'water' baptism that is important the underlying theology sits on shaky ground. It was, and is, an example of a sad development in the churches theological history and thinking. Maybe its Augustine's fault for selling the idea of orginal sin that needed a way out for babies in the first place.The protestant criticisms of the past on this point seem totally justified. Thankfully the catholic church seems to be moving away from such positions as fast as it can (which is bound to be slow in church terms as it won't drop the issue in one go straight away, more the pitty).

 

Describing baptism dismissively as "sprinkling water" and "saying some words" shows a very poor understanding of the Sacrament and reduces your credibility. 

 

As the CCC states: "Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.""

 

It is not legalistic to think that baptism is very important.
 

[mortify ii]

I would say the idea that babies go to hell or limbo (as in a place) is totally vile. But some writers, including biblical ones, use hell to refer to the grave or death. So it might not mean hell, as in burning fire or isolation.The idea of baby baptism to aviod hell or limbo was used to ensure families baptised children into the church (herd them in) out of fear and superstition. Aside from being ridiculously legalistic its overtones do very little to convince anyone that love is evident. The theology must have upset and hurt many mothers and familes who lost a baby during during childbirth or soon after. That aside the implications it had for aborted babies or those that are murdered after birth is equally horrid. Why anyone would propose that a baby would go to hell or limbo because a priest didn't spinkle some water and say some words over it seems crazy. Aside from the fact that it isn't 'water' baptism that is important the underlying theology sits on shaky ground. It was, and is, an example of a sad development in the churches theological history and thinking. Maybe its Augustine's fault for selling the idea of orginal sin that needed a way out for babies in the first place.The protestant criticisms of the past on this point seem totally justified. Thankfully the catholic church seems to be moving away from such positions as fast as it can (which is bound to be slow in church terms as it won't drop the issue in one go straight away, more the pitty).

 

I sometimes wonder why some people bother calling themselves Catholic on this form, be honest with your selves and live out the counterfeit sect you create for yourselves if that is what you choose. 

 

As to regards baptism, our Lord himself revealed it's necessity in the Gospel of John, it is absolutely necessary. God would not reveal it if it were not so. Is there such a thing as Limbo? I sure hope so because it implies the edge of hell is nothing like what we imagine when we speak of hell, in fact some theologians speculated that natural happiness exists in limbo! But whether all infants who die without baptism go there is another story, and like many other internal matters, we simply don't know what happens. Who is to say the merciful God can't pour the graces of baptism outside of the sacrament on a infant? Of course He could, but we can't say if he did. Ultimately our final destination is already known, and we will reach it whether we die young or old. 

[Eliakim]

Dear Dairygirl,

I believe the magisterium has been guilty of promulgating the belief that unbaptized infants go to hell (limbo to be specific, is as you rightly point out, a part of hell...a sort of "outerperimeter") without historically qualifying that there are means of hope for parents in this most grieving of positions.   

 

Benedict XVI recently came out a couple years ago stating one may in good conscience now believe it is possible that unbaptized babies may go to heaven: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/04/20/pope-revises-limbo-says-there-is-hope-for-unbaptized-babies/

 

This however is not a definitive promulgation, nor on the order of the Council of Florence, which I believe does conflict with this.  I understand there are creative ways to excuse many statements in Florence, but I believe Florence was merely reiterating what the medieval Church really believed since the time of St. Augustine and Fulgentius' rigorist interpretation of "No salvation outside the Church."  I believe the shift from the rigorist camp to lenient interpretation of "No salvation outside the Church" occurred during the Modern Era Age of post-enlightenment thought (roughly 19th century), concurrent with Pope Pius IX's reign - who incidentally appears to be the first pope to preach 'invincible ignorance', at least in a way that clearly gave hope for non-Catholics' salvation - and perhaps, by proxy, unbaptized infants too.

 

In my opinion, the best way to deal with this problem and contradiction without bending Florence's words beyond their original meaning, is to either state that:

1) That particular part of the council is not infallibly protected due to perhaps a criteria missing for infallibility and so could be in error. 

Or like one previous poster said:

2) That teaching which appears to preclude salvation for unbaptized infants was not intended to clearly define the dogma of the fate of unbaptized infants, but was meant to define something else, but the clumsy way in which it was written seems to also be, in itself, an actual definition that unbaptized infants cannot go to heaven. 

 

Both of these to me were never entirely satisfactory. It seemed to rely too much on linguistic gymnastics and did not 'own up' to the original meaning of the promulgation.  So I chose to put unbaptized infants into the category of those who are prayed for during "All Souls Day" and hope the prayers of the Church lift them out of limbo quickly.  This allows me to answer the problem with an actual historical Church teaching.  Why the Church never brings this forward as a solution to the problem indicates to me how out of touch the Church is with genuine problems like this, in my opinion.  I believe the Roman Catholic Church only hurts itself when it does not listen to some of the legitimate concerns of traditionalists and the all too few independent yet orthodox thinkers like yourself who are courageous and honest enough to admit contradictions like this have not officially been quite fully resolved.

 

I sympathize with you. 

God Bless and guide you, and may the magisterium increase its credibility by doing a better teaching job and admit its occasional misleadings and negligences.   :priest:

Eliakim

[Benedictus]

 I know what Baptism is and I stand by my point. Those are the actions ( maybe pouring and immersion could be debated as well), sorry if it offends you.  What I find lacks credibility is choosing to argue with my point on water baptism as a way of pulling down the gravity of what is being discussed. My credibility stands in my view as I'm not proposing God would send a baby to limbo or hell (or might so we better get the font out just in case). I believe God would take a baby directly to himself if it died, baptised or not. I don't see that as a questionable position and I'd be concerned for anyone I knew who did. That doesn't mean I'm dismissing Baptism at all. But my thinking is that some people give power to legalism and outward forms rather than substance. The Baptism that is needed above all is the one of the spirit, not the water.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Benedictus

[mortify ii]

 I know what Baptism is and I stand by my point. Those are the actions ( maybe pouring and immersion could be debated as well), sorry if it offends you.  What I find lacks credibility is choosing to argue with my point on water baptism as a way of pulling down the gravity of what is being discussed. My credibility stands in my view as I'm not proposing God would send a baby to limbo or hell (or might so we better get the font out just incase). I believe God would take a baby directly to himself if it died, baptised or not. I don't see that as a questionable position and I'd be concerned for anoyone I knew who did. That doen't mean i'm dismissing Baptism at all. But my thinking is that some people give power to legalism and outward forms rather than substance. The Baptism that is needed above all is the one of the spirit, not the water.

 

We are all born in a fallen state in separation from God, and St Paul even uses the term "children of wrath." If we are not born in a fallen state, the redemption is a moot point. 

 

The baptism we need is sacramental baptism.

[Benedictus]

I sometimes wonder why some people bother calling themselves Catholic on this form, be honest with your selves and live out the counterfeit sect you create for yourselves if that is what you choose. 

 

As to regards baptism, our Lord himself revealed it's necessity in the Gospel of John, it is absolutely necessary. God would not reveal it if it were not so. Is there such a thing as Limbo? I sure hope so because it implies the edge of hell is nothing like what we imagine when we speak of hell, in fact some theologians speculated that natural happiness exists in limbo! But whether all infants who die without baptism go there is another story, and like many other internal matters, we simply don't know what happens. Who is to say the merciful God can't pour the graces of baptism outside of the sacrament on a infant? Of course He could, but we can't say if he did. Ultimately our final destination is already known, and we will reach it whether we die young or old. 

 

 I don't think there's anything I've said that isn't debated in theological colleges by very faithful Catholics. Something, or somebody, isn't heretical simply for having a debate. Gods grace extends all outward forms. Anyone disgaree? I don't think being Catholic means, or has ever meant, leaving ones brain at the church door. I never said Baptism was to be ignored. But there is debate, and always has been, about the best time to be baptised (of water) and how this relates to baptism of spirit. Different practices have been followed at different times and with good reasons stated at the time. Although that wasn't the issue at hand.

[mortify ii]

 I don't think there's anything I've said that isn't debated in theological colleges by very faithful Catholics. Something, or somebody, isn't heretical simply for having a debate. Gods grace extends all outward forms. Anyone disgaree? I don't think being Catholic means, or has ever meant, leaving ones brain at the church door. I never said Baptism was to be ignored. But there is debate, and always has been, about the best time to be baptised (of water) and how this relates to baptism of spirit. Different practices have been followed at different times and with good reasons stated at the time. Although that wasn't the issue at hand.

 

Don't try to obfuscate the issue, it's not a matter of debate but one of denial. You've mocked and criticized several dogmas of the Catholic religion. It is one thing to believe yet struggle to understand, and another to reject and ridicule. So don't try to hid behind some sincerity in trying to understand, you do no such thing when you belittle Catholic doctrine. As I said before, be honest with yourself and others as to what you really are.

[Perigrina]

 I know what Baptism is and I stand by my point. Those are the actions ( maybe pouring and immersion could be debated as well), sorry if it offends you.  What I find lacks credibility is choosing to argue with my point on water baptism as a way of pulling down the gravity of what is being discussed. My credibility stands in my view as I'm not proposing God would send a baby to limbo or hell (or might so we better get the font out just in case). I believe God would take a baby directly to himself if it died, baptised or not. I don't see that as a questionable position and I'd be concerned for anyone I knew who did. That doesn't mean I'm dismissing Baptism at all. But my thinking is that some people give power to legalism and outward forms rather than substance. The Baptism that is needed above all is the one of the spirit, not the water.

Sacraments, by definition, have outward forms.  You apparently dismiss concern with outward forms as legalism.  This shows a poor grasp of Sacramental theology.  I am not offended by your lack of understanding.  For all I know you are not responsible for it.

 

[Benedictus]

Don't try to obfuscate the issue, it's not a matter of debate but one of denial. You've mocked and criticized several dogmas of the Catholic religion. It is one thing to believe yet struggle to understand, and another to reject and ridicule. So don't try to hid behind some sincerity in trying to understand, you do no such thing when you belittle Catholic doctrine. As I said before, be honest with yourself and others as to what you really are.

 

Apart from attacking me you've had little points to add to much of anything said.

[Benedictus]

Sacraments, by definition, have outward forms.  You apparently dismiss concern with outward forms as legalism.  This shows a poor grasp of Sacramental theology.  I am not offended by your lack of understanding.  For all I know you are not responsible for it.

 

Yes they have outward forms. But it is legalism to say an outward form comes before the destiny of the soul of a baby. You can sum it up with attacks as much as you like towards me. I'm sure it makes you feel better.  But you obviously can't address the fallout and contradictions in the position you apparently hold. The fact you'd rather distort and attack rather than face up to the reality of theological history, and changes, says more about you than me.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Benedictus

[Perigrina]

Yes they have outward forms. But it is legalism to say an outward form comes before the destiny of the soul of a baby. You can sum it up with attacks as much as you like towards me. I'm sure it makes you feel better.  But you obviously can't address the fallout and contradictions in the position you apparently hold. The fact you'd rather distort and attack rather than face up to the reality of theological history, and changes, says more about you than me.

 

The position I hold, as far as I am able, is the teaching of the Catholic Church.  As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it "It is the teaching of the Catholic Church and of Christians in general that, whilst God was nowise bound to make use of external ceremonies as symbols of things spiritual and sacred, it has pleased Him to do so, and this is the ordinary and most suitable manner of dealing with men."

 

A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.  We do not separate the sign from the grace, pit them against each other and label as legalism concern for the outward sign instituted by Christ.

 

I am sure that whatever God does with the souls of unbaptized babies is perfectly just and perfectly loving.  I do not consider myself qualified to make pronouncements on exactly what that is.
 

[Guest]

Don't let Mortify "2" get to you he's already been banned from the forum once by Dust the owner of this site...Hopefully his second banning is coming soon and it will be for good this time...

Edited May 19, 2014 by Guest

[Benedictus]

The position I hold, as far as I am able, is the teaching of the Catholic Church.  As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it "It is the teaching of the Catholic Church and of Christians in general that, whilst God was nowise bound to make use of external ceremonies as symbols of things spiritual and sacred, it has pleased Him to do so, and this is the ordinary and most suitable manner of dealing with men."

 

A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.  We do not separate the sign from the grace, pit them against each other and label as legalism concern for the outward sign instituted by Christ.

 

I am sure that whatever God does with the souls of unbaptized babies is perfectly just and perfectly loving.  I do not consider myself qualified to make pronouncements on exactly what that is.
 

 

Sure, there will always be an element of assertion as we don't know for sure. I understand why people hold the view you outline, and the reasons why the church taught it. What I'm saying is that to anyone thinking over these issues, be they Catholic or not, the position (past or present) on limbo or hell for babies seems distasteful, unjust and farsical. Attacking them or quoting church documents won't cut the mustard.The fact that some people can't say their faith in a loving God leads them to believe he will save the soul of a dead baby isn't exactly a positive evangelistic message. My faith in God leads me to think that he would and I don't think I'm holding him in unjust regard. If anyone thinks so, then I leave them to sort it out with him. I'd rather not get the flack, just the prayers.

What I find frustrating is a lack of debate about why the church come to these positions and held them (and why they are moving away from them in my view). Some people seem to think everybody should just blindly affirm things, I don't. If that were the case we'd not need theological colleges, just loads of rote schools. If noone is willing to talk about how the idea of orginal sin held both sin and guilt as part of the human condition (in a contrary view to the Orthodox church and Judaism) then we can't address how the church then began to react to the question of newborn babies and baptism. In the early church the focus was on delaying baptism, not doing it as soon as possible. The reasons for doing things changed over time and the church has informed, and reformed, its practices. Some churches don't even think Baptism should be performed on babies in the first place. I won't go into that debate for the flames I imagine that would be lit, but these are things that we shouldn't aviod discussing in general. It helps understand why we believe and do the things we do, and whether there is scope to inform, reform, or do them better.
 

[Perigrina]

Sure, there will always be an element of assertion as we don't know for sure. I understand why people hold the view you outline, and the reasons why the church taught it. What I'm saying is that to anyone thinking over these issues, be they Catholic or not, the position (past or present) on limbo or hell for babies seems distasteful, unjust and farsical. Attacking them or quoting church documents won't cut the mustard.The fact that some people can't say their faith in a loving God leads them to believe he will save the soul of a dead baby isn't exactly a positive evangelistic message. My faith in God leads me to think that he would and I don't think I'm holding him in unjust regard. If anyone thinks so, then I leave them to sort it out with him. I'd rather not get the flack, just the prayers.

What I find frustrating is a lack of debate about why the church come to these positions and held them (and why they are moving away from them in my view). Some people seem to think everybody should just blindly affirm things, I don't. If that were the case we'd not need theological colleges, just loads of rote schools. If noone is willing to talk about how the idea of orginal sin held both sin and guilt as part of the human condition (in a contrary view to the Orthodox church and Judaism) then we can't address how the church then began to react to the question of newborn babies and baptism. In the early church the focus was on delaying baptism, not doing it as soon as possible. The reasons for doing things changed over time and the church has informed, and reformed, its practices. Some churches don't even think Baptism should be performed on babies in the first place. I won't go into that debate for the flames I imagine that would be lit, but these are things that we shouldn't aviod discussing in general. It helps understand why we believe and do the things we do, and whether there is scope to inform, reform, or do them better.
 

 

God is not limited to acting in the Sacraments, but we are limited in making assertions about how God acts to what has been revealed.  We do not get to decide what God does based on what we wish to be true, what we find distasteful, or what we imagine a loving God would do.  I remember when I was much younger and even more foolish than I am now an occasion when I convinced myself that a loving God would want me to be happy and therefore was fine with me getting involved in an immoral relationship. Having once seriously sinned through projecting my desires onto the love of God, I tend to be distrustful of such arguments.  I prefer to rely on Church teaching.

 

What the Church teaches is that we are permitted to believe that God takes the souls of unbaptized infants to Heaven.  It does not follow from this that we should rant about how horrible people are who take the traditional view.  That view is also permitted. 

 

People rightly expect Church doctrines on faith and morals to be consistent with each other.  It is distressing and troubling when teachings appear to contradict each other.  Sometimes apparent contradictions occur when there is a change in practice rather than in doctrine.  However, more than this is happening in regard to this issue.  Those who are troubled deserve patient explanations, not being berated for how vile and hateful they are.  I encourage you to strive for a more gentle tone.  (And yes I know that mine also leaves something to be desired.  You get a penalty free throw.)

 

[Benedictus]

God is not limited to acting in the Sacraments, but we are limited in making assertions about how God acts to what has been revealed.  We do not get to decide what God does based on what we wish to be true, what we find distasteful, or what we imagine a loving God would do.  I remember when I was much younger and even more foolish than I am now an occasion when I convinced myself that a loving God would want me to be happy and therefore was fine with me getting involved in an immoral relationship. Having once seriously sinned through projecting my desires onto the love of God, I tend to be distrustful of such arguments.  I prefer to rely on Church teaching.

 

What the Church teaches is that we are permitted to believe that God takes the souls of unbaptized infants to Heaven.  It does not follow from this that we should rant about how horrible people are who take the traditional view.  That view is also permitted. 

 

People rightly expect Church doctrines on faith and morals to be consistent with each other.  It is distressing and troubling when teachings appear to contradict each other.  Sometimes apparent contradictions occur when there is a change in practice rather than in doctrine.  However, more than this is happening in regard to this issue.  Those who are troubled deserve patient explanations, not being berated for how vile and hateful they are.  I encourage you to strive for a more gentle tone.  (And yes I know that mine also leaves something to be desired.  You get a penalty free throw.)

 

 

I agree with your first point. What has been revealed? To me it's a God who is with us always, loving, healing, just and patient. A God who revealed his love for us through his own sacrifice. I agree that we can stumble and downplay the role of justice or correct being as conscious adults. But I hold our position, as persons able to make choices and mistakes (as well as reparation), in a different regard to a baby who cannot corrupt in the same way. Just to point out though that I view the limbo/hell position as vile and horrid, not any individual personally. My view is that a key theology dominated western Christianity and the limbo issue grew as a negative impact of that wholesale application, contrary to other opinions. It could have went a different way, but it didn't. If anyone wants to defend that theological trend I'd be glad to hear their points.

[Guest]

Don't let Mortify "2" get to you he's already been banned from the forum once by Dust the owner of this site...Hopefully his second banning is coming soon and it will be for good this time...

This was harsh and I apologize....I don't wish for anyone to be rebanned...Although I can't help but wonder what Mortify 3 or even 4 would be like ? I try to contiplate it but I'm not fully able to wrap my mind around it...

[Benedictus]

This was harsh and I apologize....I don't wish for anyone to be rebanned...Although I can't help but wonder what Mortify 3 or even 4 would be like ? I try to contiplate it but I'm not fully able to wrap my mind around it...

 

Maybe they'd have a set number of new regenerations, something like Dr Who :smile4: