"3.5. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi
100. Before Vatican II, in the Latin Church, there was no Christian funeral rite for unbaptised infants and such infants were buried in unconsecrated ground. Strictly speaking, there was no funeral rite for baptised infants either, but in their case a Mass of the Angels was celebrated and of course they were given a Christian burial. Thanks to the liturgical reform after the Council, the Roman Missal now has a funeral Mass for a child who died before Baptism, and there are also special prayers for such a situation in the Ordo Exsequiarum. Though the tone of the prayers in both instances is noticeably cautious, it is now the case that the Church liturgically expresses hope in the mercy of God, to whose loving care the infant is entrusted. This liturgical prayer both reflects and shapes the sensus fidei of the Latin Church regarding the fate of unbaptised infants who die: lex orandi, lex credendi. Significantly, in the Greek Catholic Church there is only one funeral rite for infants whether baptised or not yet baptised, and the Church prays for all deceased infants that they may be received into the bosom of Abraham where there is no sorrow or anguish but only eternal life.
101. “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 should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’ (Mk 10:14; cf.1Tim 2:4), 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”.[134]
3.6. Hope
102. Within the hope that the Church bears for the whole of humanity and wants to proclaim afresh to the world of today, is there a hope for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism? We have carefully re-considered this complex question, with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the Church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today. Reflecting within the one tradition of faith that unites the Church through the ages, and relying utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead his followers “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13), we have sought to read the signs of the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel. Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).
103. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church."
This is also interesting in light of Gaudium et Spes' teaching that, "since Christ died for all men,(32) and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery." (GS, 22)
I am interested in the theological discussion surrounding this question!
27 comments:
I believe the statement from Reginaldus is problematic.
A virtuous pagan is under pain of both "original" and "personal" sin, while the unbaptized infant is under pain of only "original" sin.
Are we saying, then, that the pagan has a better chance for salvation because through his "works", he has "earned" the right to be forgiven?
Or are we saying that the pagan has exercised a greater "faith" than the unbaptized infant - even though the infant had no opportunity to exercise faith?
This is the problem we are left with when doctrine develops so as to allow the salvation of pagans, but does not similiarly develop in the area of the salvation of unbaptized infants. The theology has remained stagnant on the latter (at least in traditionalist circles) since the high middle ages.
In a discussion I had with some friends a while back, we came to the conclusion that only two things could fully suffice theologically.
1. The complete acceptance of Limbo as a state after death (which the Theological Commission seemed to devalue, but not completely discredit)
2. A fourth type of Baptism (following Sacramental Baptism, Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood)
I would really like to see where theology leads this discussion in the future.
We know from revelation the names of (very few) persons who in special circumstances linked with the history of Salvation have been preserved from original sin or cleansed ("baptised") in utero. The contexts referred to would seem to point at a privilege that is granted the person due to the circumstances or role he or she is expected to fulfill. I find it more coherent to conclude that in all other cases original sin is left with the person yet to be born, why limbo remains a very valid - not to say necessary - doctrine. Btw, if accepting the salvation of unborn children (limbo however not being necessarily equivalent to damnation), thereby somehow accepting the idea of some kind of in utero baptism, why baptize children - or adults - at all? If our Lord commands us to go and make all peoples his disciples through baptism, does this not leave us with a presumption that until baptism we are unbaptised and therefore more fit for limbo than for paradise as first option?
For those interested, the previous posts I have made on the subject can be found here:
http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/12/st-francis-xavier-and-necessity-of.html
http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/09/marys-nativity-and-childrens-limbo.html
Also, I have never made a completely one-sided claim either for or against limbo, I have only stated the theological issues which are related to the subject.
@Campion, Thanks for the post! I hope you don't mind if I jump in on the discussion (e-mail me if you want me to back off and let the readers debate alone).
@PM, you would really like my article on "Mary's Nativity and the Children's Limbo" from September!
@Joseph A, I agree...there does not seem to be any other option than limbo in the theology which our tradition has claimed.
@Wade, Certainly I am not saying that a pagan is saved by his works...this is very clear from my articles.
Rather, the good works of a virtuous pagan are a witness that he may have divine and saving faith. Hence, we have some reason to hope. In the case of an infant who dies without baptism, there is nothing we can point to which would make us think that he has faith -- hence there seems to be no real reason to have hope that he is saved.
Finally, if you read the Catechism, it is very clear (from the language used) that the Church has more hope for the virtuous pagan than for the unbaptized infant.
Reginaldus,
I should have been more specific. I was referring to a comment you made in your great article about Saint Francis Xavier. In it you wrote:
"We certainly have more reason to hope for the salvation of a virtuous pagan than for a non-baptized child -- this can be seen in the language of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which speaks very positively about virtuous pagans, but with great reserve about non-baptized children (even if their parents are Christians)."
I am not saying I agree with the International Theological Commission's position, I would just like to explore this topic more and hopefully write something on it soon.
Talk to you soon.
In Christ,
Campion
Good day, sirs, I've just discovered the NTM and I think it's excellent. I've made it my browser's home page.
Re: the salvation of infants (and non believers), perhaps we might re-consider the possibility of a lesser kind of salvation, such as that described in the Shepherd of Hermas I, vis. 3, vii (“in this tower they cannot find a suitable place. But in another and much inferior place they will be laid…”). Perhaps Limbo or some other variant might be seen thus. After all, the long aversion in the one true Church to considering unbaptized infants or virtuous pagans either heaven-bound or hell-bound might manifest the sensus Ecclesiae that there is another ultimate destination for souls.
Furthermore, we see from St. Matthew 22: 31-32 that dead persons are deemed really alive because of their future resurrection; that is, because of an inchoate resurrection. Perhaps, then, the unbaptized (whether infants or pagans) might be thought of as inchoate members of the one true Church because they are, by God’s free choice, destined for baptism into Christ by virtue of their humanity, since God wants all of us “to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2: 4). This is compatible with our rejection of any belief in the total depravity of man, since the existence of potentiality for anything implies an actual compatibility or adequatio for it.
This might dovetail with the suggestion of M. Joseph Antoniello above for a fourth kind of baptism—that is, as an inchoate or uncompleted baptism that leads to an uncompleted paradise like Limbo. Also, regarding the comment of M. Wade St. Onge above, perhaps the “good works” of virtuous pagans might then be seen not so much as “saving” them as keeping them in their inchoate salvation. Thus they remain “pointed to” Christ, but because they are not baptized into Christ, they receive the corresponding lesser salvation unless they have, by their choices, fallen away.
In all things I submit to the magisterium.
Indignus, http://marcusapollo.wordpress.com
I was just wondering, if a hint could be had also from St Peter's "homily" on Pentecost recorded in the Acts (2:36-41); Peter tells the crowd - probably composed also of people who had been present at the crucifixion, possibly good people, but also possibly blaspheming, even part of the crucifge eum rioters - to repent and get baptised. He did not say "well, already when nailed to the Cross our Saviour prayed for you, so probably everything is ok". Would this not be an additional indication as to the necessity of baptism to make the fruits of redemption actual for the individual person? (and please excuse my bad English)
Session 6 of the Council of Florence (1439): "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."
It is clear that the Council is presuming that an infant who dies without baptism will go to hell (which theologians interpret as going to Limbo).
Why else would the Council refer to those who die "in original sin alone"? This can only refer to infants who die without baptism.
I'm not claiming that Florence has taught definitively in favor of Limbo, I am only stating that Limbo seems to be the most likely opinion, given the statement from Florence.
The quotation from GS 22, which Campion sites in the post, is clearly referring to adults and is not meant to be interpreted in relation to the question of Limbo. Immediately before the quoted text, the Council states: "All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way." It is clear that the Council is speaking of the "virtuous pagan", not the unbaptized infant.
Florence, on the other hand, is clearly referring to the unbaptized infants.
I think specifically of number 29 of the document on "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Baptism." They bring up another very vivid quote from the Council of Florence and particularly the Venerable Pius XII's insistence on the gratuity of grace. It then goes on to speak of Gaudium et Spes 22.
This is an important theological text which I hope to write on soon.
29. The Catholic Church's belief that Baptism is necessary for salvation was powerfully expressed in the Decree for the Jacobites at the Council of Florence in 1442: “There is no other way to come to the aid [of little children] than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God”.[57] This teaching implies a very vivid perception of the divine favour displayed in the sacramental economy instituted by Christ; the Church does not know of any other means which would certainly give little children access to eternal life...
30. It is equally necessary to note, among the debated questions with a bearing on this matter, that of the gratuity of the supernatural order. Before the Second Vatican Council, in other circumstances and regarding other questions, Pius XII had vigorously brought this to the consciousness of the Church by explaining that one destroys the gratuity of the supernatural order if one asserts that God could not create intelligent beings without ordaining and calling them to the Beatific Vision.[60] The goodness and justice of God do not imply that grace is necessarily or “automatically” given.
31. Without responding directly to the question of the destiny of unbaptised infants, the Second Vatican Council marked out many paths to guide theological reflection. The Council recalled many times the universality of God's saving will which extends to all people (1 Tim 2:4).[61] All “share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all humankind” (NA 1, cf. LG 16). In a more particular vein, presenting a conception of human life founded on the dignity of the human being created in the image of God, the constitution Gaudium et Spes recalls that, “[h]uman dignity rests above all on the fact that humanity is called to communion with God,” specifying that “[t]he invitation to converse with God is addressed to men and women as soon as they are born” (GS 19). This same constitution proclaims with vigour that only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of the human being take on light. Furthermore, there is the renowned statement of the Council which asserted: “since Christ died for all, and since all are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (GS 22). Although the Council did not expressly apply this teaching to children who die without Baptism, these passages open a way to account for hope in their favour.[62]
Campion, my good brother,
Sorry, I should not have made it seem like I was so much contesting your use of GS, rather I am contesting the use of it made by the ITC document.
I am not sure where you stand on the issue, but I apologize if my earlier comment seemed to be an attack on your post. Rather, I only mean to point out the very obvious fact that the ITC is grasping for straws from Vatican II (interpreting GS in a way that is far beyond the intention of the text itself and of the Council fathers) and more or less setting aside the very clear and most pertinent teaching of the Council of Florence.
Let's be honest, a document like this would probably not have been released by the ITC if Fr. Charles Morerod had been the President at that time (as he now is).
There is a great deal of ideology which certain members of that consultative body were trying to force through when they wrote this document...
"On account of this rule of faith, even infants are truly baptized unto the remission of sins. Moreover, if anyone says that in the kingdom of Heaven there will be someplace where infants live who departed this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven which is eternal life: let him be anathema." Pope St. Zosimus (DNZ: 102, n.2; Canon2, XVI Council of Carthage.) It's not so much about where these souls are, although Limbo is the most consoling and merciful place I've heard of for them, it's about where they are not, namely, in Heaven. "One Lord, One Faith, ONE Baptism. To try and inquire further is sinful." Ven. Pius IX ("Singulari Quadem" DNZ;86)
Mick,
I am here responding also to other comments you made on a previous post...
Have you no respect for the Holy Father Ven. Pius IX? How can you possibly quote his "Singulari Quadam" without accurately giving his position?
The venerable Pontiff of happy memory states most clearly, "on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God."
The whole point of this "invincible ignorance" of those who are virtuous yet are likewise pagan unbelievers is this -- there is a baptism of desire by which one can be saved and freed from all guilt.
Or would you have it that Pio Nono is claiming that a pagan can be saved without any sort of baptism at all, not even baptism of desire?
Either you have not read "Singulari Quadam" (which I suspect is most likely), or you have deliberately misrepresented the Venerable Pontiff's claim in your previous comments (on the post: "St. Francis Xavier and the necessity of baptism for salvation" from Dec 3).
Reginaldus@ I am sorry I included Pio Nono's quote, as it gilds the lily. Pope Zosimus' statement is quite sufficient. Let us remember that the baptism of "desire", to which you seem to cling so desperately, is only a theological speculation which is impossible to demonstrate as actually occurring or of ever having occurred. If ever having occurred, it would be only known to God and the recipient. God could easily get baptism of H2O to a person of good will, as He did to the Eunuch of Candace, Saul & Cornelius in ACTS ch. 8,9,&10. The problem is that BofD is being applied to virtually all non-baptized persons and is the "hole-in-the-dike" of the defined dogma EENS. The "problem" of unbaptized babies is just a ruse to try to undermine the necessity of WATER Baptism.
@Mick,
I must say that I am beginning to doubt your good intentions...
You dismiss Doctors of the Church (ie. St. Thomas) and even popes (ie. Pio Nono)...
Any Church teaching, which does not correspond with your view, you reject and dismiss...
Are you seeking the Truth, or are you grinding your own axe? Are you faithfully submitting to the Church of Christ, or are you picking and choosing the little bits of text which seem to support your pre-conceived opinions?
I have not and am not claiming that BoD in any way diminishes the necessity of Baptism of Water, I have never said anything that would lend to the idea that it is "ok" that so many people in the world are not baptized...
I have only stated that it is possible to have a real participation in the Sacrament of Baptism (i.e. with water) through a true desire for the Sacrament. This is the teaching of the Church, IT IS NOT THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION.
Ven Pius IX has stated most clearly: "IT IS NECESSARY TO HOLD FOR CERTAIN that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God."
The choice is yours: will you reject the sound doctrine of the Church of Christ, preferring instead your own (mis)interpretation of the Bible; or will you accept what Christ has taught through his Church and seek to understand in a spirit of filial submission.
In other words: Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?
Reginaldus states: "Finally, if you read the Catechism, it is very clear (from the language used) that the Church has more hope for the virtuous pagan than for the unbaptized infant."
I have read both sections in the Catechism, and I would paint the Catechism's treatment of both with the same brush as I painted Reginaldus's statement - namely, that it is illogical and inconsistent and thus problematic.
I would say, then, that the Catechism is a symptomatic proof of my earlier statement: namely, that doctrine has developed so as to allow pagans to be saved but has not similarly developed to allow the salvation of infants (or to have as much hope in their salvation as we do pagans).
Hence, I indeed have a problem with the Catechism in this regard, and thus I have a problem with the doctrinal development as expressed in the Catechism.
@Wade,
For someone with an MA from Steubenville I am more than a bit surprised to see how quickly you dismiss Church teaching!
Well, for my part, I am happy to be lumped in with the Catechism and the Doctors of the Church -- if you don't follow the Church, it is my hope that you would reject me as well! The Church's enemies are my enemies.
btw, there is nothing "illogical" or "inconsistent" about the Church's teaching... The "virtuous pagans" have shown by some external signs that they have received the grace of Christ. Little unbaptized babies have not shown this.
Hence, we have greater hope for the virtuous pagan.
I find your dismissing of the Tradition to be most "illogical, and inconsistent, and thus problematic".
I agree with what is in the Catechism - which simply teaches that pagans can be saved and that we should hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants because we trust in the mercy of God.
You say that "virtuous pagans" have demonstrated a certain "faith" that unbaptized babies do not demonstrate. But on the other side of the coin, could we not say that infants have a greater "innocence" than do adult pagans?
And if baptism is necessary for salvation (which is the whole reason for the Tradition taking a negative or pessimistic view towards the salvation of infants - and of pagans, by the way), how is it that pagans are more likely to be saved than unbaptized infants, since neither of them are baptized?
What I find illogical is this: the infant cannot get to heaven because through no fault of its own it cannot become "old enough" to receive baptism (i.e. stillborns or those miscarried) but the pagan can because he has lived into adulthood (or at least to the age of reason).
How about this as a possibility: both the adult pagan and the infant can be "baptized by desire". The infant is human, and as such, there is a "will" which at least must be oriented to a desire for Christ. As such, there is a "vague" and "seminal" and thus "implicit" desire for baptism.
I do have an MA from Steubenville, but I also wrote a paper entitled, "Drawing All Men to Himself: A Case for Universal Salvation" (which was deemed orthodox enough to be chosen for the annual colloquium!). So that gives you some insight into why I take the position I do.
Merry Christmas, Reginaldus! (and to the rest of you as well).
Wade, Christmas blessings to you!
I am sorry, but I am not able to continue this discussion. You are going back and forth too much, so that I cannot tell what you are trying to claim.
On Dec 24 (11:31am) you wrote: "I have read both sections in the Catechism ... it is illogical and inconsistent and thus problematic. ... I indeed have a problem with the Catechism in this regard."
But then, not 24 hours later (Dec 25, 9:32am) you wrote, "I agree with what is in the Catechism."
On the other hand, I thank you for not getting overly offended by my comment (as I re-read it now, I think I was a bit harsh...sorry about that).
A short answer to your last comment (and then I am done with this discussion) -- You are correct that (in a certain sense) the child is "more innocent" than the pagan, insofar as the child has never committed an actual sin.
However, the Church's Tradition hold that the gift of faith is what saves us, not "innocence", not our own inherent value considered apart from God.
Simply put, salvation is a gift and is not (in the absolute) dependent upon the "innocence" of the recipient. Hence, the great mercy of God is shown, in that he may perhaps give even some pagans the gift of faith -- this faith is then expressed in their virtuous lives.
Hope that helps.
btw, struct Universalism is condemned. Certainly, not everyone is saved -- since Satan and his angels are in hell, for ever.
Whether all human beings are saved is another question...the Tradition (nearly every Father and Doctor and Pope and theologian) is very much against it, but not dogmatically, only speculatively.
Peace to you in Christ.
With the weight of Councils (i.e. Florence), the teaching of Popes, Doctors and the Fathers, I fail to see how we can realistically adopt a more "optimistic" position on the salvation of the non-baptized, let alone anything even remotely "universal" in scope. Only with the advent of the mushy nouvelle theologie can such positions be even taken halfway seriously.
On a practical level, it seems to me that the rank and file have taken to this sloppy universalism in their understanding of infant baptism and the salvation of non-Catholics (baptized and unbaptized). Since God is their Great Marshmellow Sky Daddy, how could He ever allow little babies and all those nice non-Catholic folks go to hell? That just ain't fair...
As such, all the theological wrangling aside, limbo and a real sense that hell is not only a remote and "radical" possibility but a very real and not at all extraordinary possibility for anyone's eternal reward would be a much better thing to teach the masses than the "possibilities" of practically everyone getting saved.
The pastoral consequences, to me, seem to be the most pressing. The educated can split hairs all day for fun, but in actual teaching to the man in the pew it needs to be more somber.
Andrew (1:41am),
I am mostly in agreement. The only challenge I would make to your comment is that it might be better to give serious critiques of the Nouvelle Theologie rather than simply blast them with ad hominem attacks...on the other hand, I can certainly sympathize with your frustration.
Regarding preaching... I myself have preached from the pulpit that most people probably go to Hell (I think it is at least a "more probable" position, perhaps even "most probable"). I don't think I would go so far as to say it is a sententia certa, but I am leaning in that direction.
I also have said (in baptismal preparation classes) that non-baptized children are not only not yet "Children of God", but are in fact "Enemies of God". Without baptism, which is simply and absolutely necessary for salvation, we are supernaturally estranged from God (though, we maintain a natural orientation to Him which is not, and cannot be, profitable unto eternal life).
Fr.
That is true, I just figured that an actual argument against NT wasn't really in the scope of my rather limited post.
As to your preaching, thank you for holding up our traditional teachings! Now, if only more would do the same...
I will respect your decision not to continue this dialogue.
But I just want to say there is no contradiction in what I said regarding the Catechism, and I made my first statement about the Catechism clear in my second statement about it. I will repeat myself in an attempt to demonstrate this.
The Catechism says that (a) we have hope that non-baptized infants can be saved because we trust in the mercy of God; (b) virtuous pagans can be saved.
I agree with both of these statements. But what I find inconsistent is that (b) is the result of a great deal of doctrinal development from 1200 on whereas (a) is the result of a theology that has not developed at all since 1200 or has developed very little.
I agree with the teachings of the Catechism. But I believe there is a failure to fully flesh-out the implications of (a) in light of a further doctrinal development we see in (b).
Do you still think I am contradicting myself? Or have I made myself clear?
Wade said, "The Catechism...is illogical and inconsistent and thus problematic...I indeed have a problem with the Catechism..."
"I agree with what is in the Catechism."
@Wade, I am now perhaps even more confused...
What do you mean by "a great deal of doctrinal development" since 1200 regarding the salvation of virtuous pagans...first, why do you pick the year 1200? Most of the greatest development happened right around (and immediately after) the time of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)....
Second, are you trying to say that theologians in 1200 didn't think pagans could be saved? Have you studied anything from theologians in the period from 900-1200?
On the other hand, you say that there has been no development in theology (again, since 1200?!) regarding the possibility of salvation for non-baptized infants... A rather odd comment, since the doctrine of Limbo has certainly received a great deal of study and explanation in the past 800 years...
I'm sorry, to me it does not seem you have made yourself clear...
Reginaldus,
Are you saying you want to continue this dialogue? Or do you just want the last word?
Either way, I'll respect your wishes.
Wade,
I'll let you have the last word.
Peace to you in Christ.
I am sorry for the confusion as this could have been a fruitful exchange and one I would have enjoyed continuing.
Thank you for your patience, Reginaldus. I pray that God bless you abundantly. Thank you for responding to the call!
Post a Comment
If you want your comment to be published: Use a name or pseudonym, and keep it short (generally, less than 100 words), to the point, and civil.
All comments must be approved by a blog-administrator. If your comment is deleted, please don't take it personally.