Infant baptism

[Ceeboo]

Ceebo,

On household baptisms, one has to read into them infant baptism and the like. Such is called eisegesis, and it begs many questions.

Furthermore, in passages that speak of baptism, it is always those who have the capacity to believe, something infants do not have (e.g., Acts 2:38; Matthew 28; etc [Mark 16:16 is disputed, being part of the longer Marcan ending]).

Infant baptism is a development within Christianity, being tied closely with the question of the nature of man's depravity and the nature of original sin. Throw in the overwhelming acceptance of baptismal regeneration (even anti-Catholics like Webster in his The Church of Rome at the Bar of History admits such a doctrine has "unanimous consent" amongst the Patristics), the acceptance of infant baptism being an accepted belief was inevitable.

Ferguson and other scholars, however, show that infant baptism (1) is not taught in the New Testament (thus the "implicit evidence" argument by the likes of Robert Sungenis and other Catholics and Presbyterians) and (2)was not practiced by the earliest Christians. This is not just a "Mormon" novelty; it is based in fact and exegesis. In other words, you are wrong in stating that it is clearly supported by these sources. Now, of course, if you are Catholic (I live in Ireland, so it is Catholic country <g>), you may argue the "development theory" like Newman did with doctrines like Catholicism's high Mariology (a member of the SSPX used this when I discussed Mormonism with him for three hours in his home a few weeks ago).

It is interesting, however, that the origial hand written manuscript of D&C 84 has John the Baptist being baptised in his mother's womb, not "in his youth" as the edited verse reads (see pp. 276-7 of the Manscripts Revelation book in the JS Papers). I believe the original revelation is, well, original/intended, as the modified form disrupts the chronology/movmenet of the passage; off-topic, but interesting . . .

Robert Boylan

Hi RBoylan,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and a bigger thanks for the obvious kind manner you have chosen to share them.

Perhaps, I will take a look at the scholar you noted. To be fair though, there are indeed many scholars who I am fairly confident would support my "opinion" that the early Church did practice infant baptism.

At any rate, I am probably over my pay grade in adding anything else but I do appreciate your contributions.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[3DOP]

If infant baptism was so common I wonder why in the (IIRC) second council of Nicaea that it even had to be discussed?

Priest 1: We baptize infants

priest 2: I know but we need to discuss it and make sure we know we baptize infants.

Priest 1: If we do, what is the reason for discussion?

priest 2: To make it official.

Priest 1: It is already official.

priest 2: Then why do we need to vote on it?

Priest 1: IDK your the one who asked....

priest 2: Whatever....

This was what 787 AD? and you think infant baptism wasn't "so common" yet?

If believer's baptism was so common I wonder why in the Book of Mormon that it even had to be discussed?

I am not using that argument against the Book of Mormon and you shouldn't use it in relation to Second Nicea. Infant baptism presumably arose in some places in the Book of Mormon in opposition to the common practice. At the time of the Council in question there were those who questioned the common practice.

[SearchDog]

Was this ever a doctrine of the Catholic Church? Even the concept of the Limbo of Infants was never doctrinal. While it may have been widely taught, it was never actually a doctrine. It seems as if both the LDS Church and the Catholic Church are criticized for teachings that may have not been doctrines, may have been practices/policies but not doctrines, statements by Church authorities, etc.

Catholicism teaches that to go to Heaven, one must be free from "original sin" and any mortal sin. If one dies in mortal sin, they go to Hell. Baptism is believed to remit all sin, including "original" sin. Infants do not have any personal sins, so original sin is the only thing that is remitted. So, Catholics thought about what happens to unbaptized infants, who have no personal mortal sins to send them to Hell, yet die in original sin, which would preclude Heaven (here it is important to note that Catholics do not believe that God sends someone to Hell. People send themselves to Hell. By definition, a "mortal sin" requires full knowledge). Therefore, the concept of the Limbo of Infants was speculated on heavily. It was thought to be a place of natural joy, but without the presence of God. Now, this could be seen as a sort of Hell, in the sense that being outside of the presence of God is Hell. However, there is no eternal punishment as is received by those that die in mortal sin, and go to Hell.

Catholicism now teaches that one can also hope that God can save unbaptized infants in some manner. Catholics would say that God can act outside of the sacraments, and therefore hope that He can do so in this case. The International Theological Commission published "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized", which can be read here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

So, a Catholic is free to believe in Limbo of Infants, and/or to hope that God saves them outside of baptism (perhaps similarly to baptism of desire).

If one is coming from the Catholic/Orthodox perspective, one must also answer the question "Where in the Bible does it say that everything must be said in the Bible?" Then, one must also answer "Where does the Catholic Church teach that unbaptized infants go to Hell"? See above.

This ignores that it is not only the "RCC" that baptizes infants, but other ancient churches (some that were out of communion with Rome earlier than others), such as the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, etc. It is also interesting to read about the development of liturgy and iconography, since, if the Bible was published for the general public, could the general public actually read in the first place?

And again, it must be demonstrated that it was/is doctrine in any of these churches that unbaptized infants go to Hell.

Catholicism does not teach that we are accountable for Adam's sin in the same sense that we are accountable for personal sins. I assume that LDS agree that the "original sin" did have an affect on us.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Which of course Catholics agree with.

'ChristKnight',

As usual your presentation shines brightly off the armor you carry; unfortunately it only proves a reflection of the existing and glaring errors in Catholic doctrine.

You may deny that hell for unbaptized infants is taught, but I know that LDS missionaries have come to crying mothers in many third world countries and heard their stories of the priest telling them of the horrible fate of their dead baby, naming the mothers as guilty for not rushing their newborn to the font in time. If the Catholic church is unaware of what words come out of her priest's mouths, then that does not speak well of their control over those they ordain to the priesthood. So please don't tell me that it is not taught, because I know better. My own Mom feared for the salvation of her children because this idea was forged in the foundation of the RCC she grew up in. This idea remains in the RCC today, and it is foolish to imagine it didn't come from the hierarchy of the church. So please don't think I am so naive as to believe that in spite of what you or the Catholic church teach today, such horrors were not taught in the past. The witness will come from every mother who was ever told this lie.

Even if I give you and the Catholic church the benefit of the doubt and except your excusive explanation it does not mean that the Catholic church is teaching the right doctrine, which is that babies and their mothers and fathers need not worry in regards to the salvation of their children. Which brings me to the link you provided entitled: "THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED." If you think that I am going to read 18,500 words of Catholic understanding on this matter you are mistaken because the LDS Church has the sure words that salvation comes to infants and children under the age of eight regardless of whether or not they received baptism. All I have to do is read the title of your link to know that this too is false teaching and wasted theological dialog.

In regards to original sin: Adam's transgression only impacts us in as much as we are obliged (because we chose to be part of God's family) to enter a mortal world and pass through death. Therefore, since LDS doctrine professes the salvation of all souls under the age (or condition) of accountability, and because salvation removes the sting of death for all those who are baptized into the Church and who maintain their covenants with the Lord unto death, original sin and the burden of death is removed.

Again, the Catholic view on these matters proves erroneous under the Light of Christ which has come to and shines forth from the LDS Church.

[SearchDog]

I would venture that it stems from an extrapolation of the OT and early-NT practice of infant circumcision.

The reasoning perhaps being that if they were old enough to enter into that covenant, that the same might apply to a new covenant.

Here's a discussion of that premise from a different apologetics site.

Granted that it did, but since when should the true Church of Christ allow itself to be ruled by extrapolation, supposition, speculation, or popular practice, traditions, and culture, even superstition?

What is quite evident in all this is that the RCC lacked true guidance from the Holy Ghost.

[ChristKnight]

'ChristKnight',

As usual your presentation shines brightly off the armor you carry; unfortunately it only proves a reflection of the existing and glaring errors in Catholic doctrine.

You may deny that hell for unbaptized infants is taught, but I know that LDS missionaries have come to crying mothers in many third world countries and heard their stories of the priest telling them of the horrible fate of their dead baby, naming the mothers as guilty for not rushing their newborn to the font in time. If the Catholic church is unaware of what words come out of her priest's mouths, then that does not speak well of their control over those they ordain to the priesthood. So please don't tell me that it is not taught, because I know better. My own Mom feared for the salvation of her children because this idea was forged in the foundation of the RCC she grew up in. This idea remains in the RCC today, and it is foolish to imagine it didn't come from the hierarchy of the church. So please don't think I am so naive as to believe that in spite of what you or the Catholic church teach today, such horrors were not taught in the past. The witness will come from every mother who was ever told this lie.

You said that it was/is a doctrine of the Catholic Church that unbaptized infants go to Hell, and I am simply asking you demonstrate that it was/is such. I have noticed that in similar discussions between LDS and critics, the critics will characterize what they were taught as former LDS, or various statements by LDS authorities in the past as doctrinal, when they were not. Also, some critics may confuse policies/practices with doctrine. The same goes for the Catholic Church.

As I have stated, the prevalent speculative teaching (theologoumenon) in the past was that unbaptized infants went to the Limbo of Infants. The Limbo of Infants is not the same as Hell, since infants do not have personal mortal sins that they are guilty of which would send them to Hell. Limbo of Infants could be considered a type of Hell if we consider that Hell is really eternity outside of the presence of God. However, there is no punishment, as is characteristic of Hell, in the Limbo of Infants.

Even if I give you and the Catholic church the benefit of the doubt and except your excusive explanation it does not mean that the Catholic church is teaching the right doctrine, which is that babies and their mothers and fathers need not worry in regards to the salvation of their children. Which brings me to the link you provided entitled: "THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED." If you think that I am going to read 18,500 words of Catholic understanding on this matter you are mistaken because the LDS Church has the sure words that salvation comes to infants and children under the age of eight regardless of whether or not they received baptism. All I have to do is read the title of your link to know that this too is false teaching and wasted theological dialog.

So what is the purpose in posting here if not to learn from each other and engage in "dialogue and discussion"? The point is that I am trying to accurately present the Catholic position on this issue, and if you are interested in that, the article is there for you to read. This thread is about why people baptize infants. You said that the Catholic Church doctrinally taught that unbaptized infants went to Hell, so I am showing that this never was a doctrine (otherwise there would be no need for the Limbo of Infants theologoumenon, or the "hope of salvation" view).

In regards to original sin: Adam's transgression only impacts us in as much as we are obliged (because we chose to be part of God's family) to enter a mortal world and pass through death. Therefore, since LDS doctrine professes the salvation of all souls under the age (or condition) of accountability, and because salvation removes the sting of death for all those who are baptized into the Church and who maintain their covenants with the Lord unto death, original sin and the burden of death is removed.

Right. My point was that Catholicism agrees that no one is personally guilty of original sin (except Adam) in the sense that they are guilty of personal sins. Hence why Limbo of Infants was brought into the picture, since only personal mortal sins can send one to Hell, and original sin is not one of them.

[3DOP]

Search Dog

If you think that I am going to read 18,500 words of Catholic understanding on this matter you are mistaken because the LDS Church has the sure words that salvation comes to infants and children under the age of eight regardless of whether or not they received baptism. All I have to do is read the title of your link to know that this too is false teaching and wasted theological dialog.

3DOP

Nobody expects you to read one word on the Catholic understanding of anything. To those who are looking to your Mom and anonymous LDS missionary anecdotes as the best guides to know what the Catholic Church teaches, you will be a credible source as to what the Catholic Church teaches.

[Ceeboo]

SearchDog,

I have typed (then deleted) a very long, not so Christian response concerning the many posts I have read from you as of late (This thread and others).

The VERY shortened version with a dash of Christianity added:

Please consider, at the very least, that the things you post freely about are the very things that some (Ceeboo included) hold as very precious and have deep seated belief and great respect for. (Surely, as a devout LDS, you can relate)

Peace,

Ceeboo

[SearchDog]

SearchDog,

I have typed (then deleted) a very long, not so Christian response concerning the many posts I have read from you as of late (This thread and others).

The VERY shortened version with a dash of Christianity added:

Please consider, at the very least, that the things you post freely about are the very things that some (Ceeboo included) hold as very precious and have deep seated belief and great respect for. (Surely, as a devout LDS, you can relate)

Peace,

Ceeboo

I apparently struck the wrong nerve; I was trying to pin-prick the intellect and over-looked the heart. Sorry about that but this is a debate forum not a support group meeting.

I've been through the wringer with anti-LDS types, so I can understand your point of view even if I don't agree with its emotional cry.

My bottom line is: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

As whole-heartedly as I believe this, I also believe in shearing the naked truth (as I see it, of course).

Carry-on my friend, believe what you will, carry-on. We are judged by our deeds not our church's deeds. I am no more saved or lost because of my church than you are because of yours. All glory and all justice comes from God and your acts in faith.

[USU78]

oth men reject baptismal regeneration; those who believe in baptismal regeneration and original sin argue that one must be baptised to remit such a sin on one's soul (e.g., Catholicism).

Hope this helps in some way.

Robert Boylan

Tralee, Ireland.

Thanks, and welcome to the board! Good to see you

.

[mfbukowski]

Bold mine, I would disagree with the notion that infant baptisms were indeed started with the first Christians. Your argument from Acts, disregards the possibility that infants were not in any of the aforementioned households and to assume that there were infants in the household is speculative. Furthermore previous to these household baptisms we could preface Peters statement earlier in the book of Acts.

Furthermore we baptize "whole families" all the time, but of course it is understood that that does NOT include children under 8. It is a given that we would not do so, and it would not even be said, because those to whom such a message might be sent (perhaps the parents of a missionary) would already know that of course, we do not baptize infants.

[SearchDog]

Search Dog

If you think that I am going to read 18,500 words of Catholic understanding on this matter you are mistaken because the LDS Church has the sure words that salvation comes to infants and children under the age of eight regardless of whether or not they received baptism. All I have to do is read the title of your link to know that this too is false teaching and wasted theological dialog.

3DOP

Nobody expects you to read one word on the Catholic understanding of anything. To those who are looking to your Mom and anonymous LDS missionary anecdotes as the best guides to know what the Catholic Church teaches, you will be a credible source as to what the Catholic Church teaches.

Thank you??

To argue that infant baptism is not part of the doctrine of the RCC is ridiculous. Their own literature professes a "hope for the salvation of infants who die without baptism". In other words, infants do not attain salvation. Yet the plea of Christ was, "Do not prevent the children from coming to me." The doctrine of the RCC is that they do not reach a salvation in Christ.

Catholics understand that baptism is a requirement for salvation but they don't understand that it is only effectual upon those of an accountable age.

[mfbukowski]

The first historical reference to infant baptism is not recorded until about 200 AD where without denying the validity of infant baptism, Tertullian advises waiting. Tertullian argued that it was better for the child to come to the time of reason and being better able to participate more fully. It seems doubtful that the teaching associated with "the circumcision of Christ" where infants were also to partake of the covenant was in Tertullian's understanding. It also seems clear that one who opposed the practice would have appealed if possible to any knowledge that it was of recent origin. Significantly, he didn't challenge its Apostolic origin. Nor did he require a "rebaptism" when the child comes to reason. For him it was only a question of prudence. Tertullian ultimately went into schism. He should have been more humble instead of criticizing an Apostolic practice of the Church. Being unfamiliar with the reasons for the practice of infant baptism, his own logic led him down the wrong path. So even the first historical opponent of infant baptism is an encouragement to those who have a willingness to consider that the "circumcision of Christ" is baptism!

Even though he eventually went into schism, I find it curious that he did not mention that infant baptism was important in case the child died in his youth, as I think this is one of the chief present rationales for Catholic infant baptism today. It seems the issue wasn't even a consideration. Should the baby die under original sin, the belief is that the consequences might not be pleasant, though I think that some adjustment has taken place in the belief in purgatory in the last 30 years or so in favor of "invincible ignorance".

Did I get that close to right?

[mfbukowski]

When a Christian rejects the practices of the early church, they are making Joseph Smith's case for him.

I agree and have not quite ever understood how this works for Protestants.

[SearchDog]

You said that it was/is a doctrine of the Catholic Church that unbaptized infants go to Hell, and I am simply asking you demonstrate that it was/is such. I have noticed that in similar discussions between LDS and critics, the critics will characterize what they were taught as former LDS, or various statements by LDS authorities in the past as doctrinal, when they were not. Also, some critics may confuse policies/practices with doctrine. The same goes for the Catholic Church.

As I have stated, the prevalent speculative teaching (theologoumenon) in the past was that unbaptized infants went to the Limbo of Infants. The Limbo of Infants is not the same as Hell, since infants do not have personal mortal sins that they are guilty of which would send them to Hell. Limbo of Infants could be considered a type of Hell if we consider that Hell is really eternity outside of the presence of God. However, there is no punishment, as is characteristic of Hell, in the Limbo of Infants.

So what is the purpose in posting here if not to learn from each other and engage in "dialogue and discussion"? The point is that I am trying to accurately present the Catholic position on this issue, and if you are interested in that, the article is there for you to read. This thread is about why people baptize infants. You said that the Catholic Church doctrinally taught that unbaptized infants went to Hell, so I am showing that this never was a doctrine (otherwise there would be no need for the Limbo of Infants theologoumenon, or the "hope of salvation" view).

Right. My point was that Catholicism agrees that no one is personally guilty of original sin (except Adam) in the sense that they are guilty of personal sins. Hence why Limbo of Infants was brought into the picture, since only personal mortal sins can send one to Hell, and original sin is not one of them.

By the link you provided which led to an article entitled, "THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED", may I assume that Catholic doctrine denies salvation to infants?

Doesn't the Bible teach that those who die in their sins are damned and go to hell?

Will you admit that salvation means that we will not go to hell because our sins are forgiven and we are no longer damned?

It seems to me that without salvation infants too would be damned.

Since your defense of the first error rests upon the doctrine of a Limbo for Infants who die without baptism, I must ask you where in the Bible does this Limbo doctrine come from?

It seems to me that error would naturally branch from error.

[ChristKnight]

Even though he eventually went into schism, I find it curious that he did not mention that infant baptism was important in case the child died in his youth, as I think this is one of the chief present rationales for Catholic infant baptism today. It seems the issue wasn't even a consideration. Should the baby die under original sin, the belief is that the consequences might not be pleasant, though I think that some adjustment has taken place in the belief in purgatory in the last 30 years or so in favor of "invincible ignorance".

Did I get that close to right?

Not sure if you've read the article that I recommended to SearchDog, but you may want to check it out, as it covers the history of the Catholic position, and touches on how the Catholic Church views the matter as found in the Catechism.

To make a long story short, the Catholic position is "we don't know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants, but there are good reasons to believe that they are saved". The article discusses this conclusion in depth, and I think it really highlights the difference between the LDS Church and the Catholic Church on the issue of infant baptism (without of course mentioning the LDS Church). In the LDS Church, the Book of Mormon clearly states that infant baptism is wrong and unnecessary (I am not sure if the D&C also touches on it). The Catholic article states near the end "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)." So, the position is that in what has been revealed (in the Bible and Sacred Tradition), there is nothing that explicitly states that infants do not need to be baptized, or that unbaptized infants are saved. In contrast, the LDS Church does have revelation and "sure knowledge" that unbaptized infants are saved.

So, the Catholic Church continues to allow individuals to believe in Limbo of Infants, or to hope that God saves them. From the article, it seems as if the Catholic Church is more in favor of (and finds stronger scriptural and liturgical support for) the latter rather than the former (though it may have endorsed Limbo of Infants more historically, without making it dogma).

I am unsure of the relationship of Purgatory to invincible ignorance and the state of unbaptized infants. I would also be interested in looking into the history of the belief in "baptism of desire"/invinicble ignorance.

[hagoth7]

Granted that it did, but since when should the true Church of Christ allow itself to be ruled by extrapolation, supposition, speculation, or popular practice, traditions, and culture, even superstition?

You misunderstand. My response was a respectful attempt to fathom why/how a people could arrive at such a belief.

[ChristKnight]

By the link you provided which led to an article entitled, "THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED", may I assume that Catholic doctrine denies salvation to infants?

No it doesn't. Please see my last post for a quick summary of the Catholic position. The title of the article indicates that there is "hope" for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

Doesn't the Bible teach that those who die in their sins are damned and go to hell?

Yes, which is what the Catholic Church teaches. I believe I mentioned the distinction between original sin and mortal sin earlier. Catholicism teaches that one is not guilty of original sin in the sense that someone is guilty of mortal sin:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

This distinction is very important to understand if one is to understand why the Catholic Church developed the Limbo of Infants speculative teaching. Catholicism teaches that one goes to Hell if they die in mortal sin, which they are personally responsible/accountable for (in essence, a person sends himself to Hell). The dilemma therefore was/is: if one goes to Hell because of mortal sin only (which original sin is not), and original sin denies one entrance to Heaven, then where do unbaptized infants go, who have no personal sins? Thus Limbo of Infants was born.

Will you admit that salvation means that we will not go to hell because our sins are forgiven and we are no longer damned?

Yes.

It seems to me that without salvation infants too would be damned.

Except the Catholic Church does not see it in that way. See above. Limbo of Infants is seen as a state of natural joy, but without the immediate presence of God (i.e. Heaven). It is neither salvation (Heaven) nor damnation (Hell), and isn't strictly Purgatory (since unbaptized infants wouldn't meet the definition for going to Purgatory).

Since your defense of the first error rests upon the doctrine of a Limbo for Infants who die without baptism, I must ask you where in the Bible does this Limbo doctrine come from?

Why must it be found in the Bible? Where does the Bible say that all teachings must be found within the Bible (I thought that LDS agreed with Catholics on this erroneous teaching of some Protestants)? The Catholic Church has never claimed that the Limbo of Infants teaching is to be found in the Bible, especially since this is a speculative teaching ("theologoumenon"), and is not doctrine.

[mfbukowski]

From that great source, Wikipedia on St. Augustine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin.[21][22] The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.[23] In the later mediaeval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view, others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the "limbo of infants".[24] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: "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,'[25] 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." But the theory of Limbo, while it "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium ... remains ... a possible theological hypothesis".[26]

From an article in Catholic News in 2007

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702310.htm

ITC-ANALYSIS Apr-25-2007 (680 words) With photos posted April 20. xxxi

Critiquing limbo: Vatican responds to changes in theological thought

By John Thavis

Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- In its recent document on unbaptized children, the Vatican's International Theological Commission demonstrated how church teaching can be responsive to changes in theological thought, Christian beliefs and the "signs of the times."

The document, published April 20, critiqued the traditional understanding of limbo, arguing instead that there was good reason to hope unbaptized babies who die go to heaven.

Some people saw that as a reversal of a centuries-old Catholic principle. But rather than announcing a radical break with the past, the commission said it was assessing an issue in theological evolution.

The very first sentence of the document signaled an important distinction when it spoke of the "hierarchy of truths" in Catholic doctrine. The teaching on limbo was among those never addressed by Scripture and never defined as dogma and is therefore subject to theological development, it said.

"When the question of infants who die without baptism was first taken up in the history of Christian thought, it is possible that the doctrinal nature of the question or its implications were not fully understood," it said.

More specifically, the commission said the theological tradition of the past, specifically the Augustinian tradition, seems to have a "restricted conception of the universality of God's saving will."

That's an extremely sensitive issue today, one that goes beyond the fate of unbaptized babies and has implications for the church's relations with non-Christian religions.

And another:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm

ITC-LIMBO Apr-20-2007 (1,240 words) xxxi

Vatican commission: Limbo reflects 'restrictive view of salvation'

By John Thavis

Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- After several years of study, the Vatican's International Theological Commission said there are good reasons to hope that babies who die without being baptized go to heaven.

In a document published April 20, the commission said the traditional concept of limbo -- as a place where unbaptized infants spend eternity but without communion with God -- seemed to reflect an "unduly restrictive view of salvation."

The church continues to teach that, because of original sin, baptism is the ordinary way of salvation for all people and urges parents to baptize infants, the document said.

Edit

As usual, ChristKnight, it appears that you are exactly on the money!

[SearchDog]

Not sure if you've read the article that I recommended to SearchDog, but you may want to check it out, as it covers the history of the Catholic position, and touches on how the Catholic Church views the matter as found in the Catechism.

To make a long story short, the Catholic position is "we don't know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants, but there are good reasons to believe that they are saved". The article discusses this conclusion in depth, and I think it really highlights the difference between the LDS Church and the Catholic Church on the issue of infant baptism (without of course mentioning the LDS Church). In the LDS Church, the Book of Mormon clearly states that infant baptism is wrong and unnecessary (I am not sure if the D&C also touches on it). The Catholic article states near the end "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)." So, the position is that in what has been revealed (in the Bible and Sacred Tradition), there is nothing that explicitly states that infants do not need to be baptized, or that unbaptized infants are saved. In contrast, the LDS Church does have revelation and "sure knowledge" that unbaptized infants are saved.

So, the Catholic Church continues to allow individuals to believe in Limbo of Infants, or to hope that God saves them. From the article, it seems as if the Catholic Church is more in favor of (and finds stronger scriptural and liturgical support for) the latter rather than the former (though it may have endorsed Limbo of Infants more historically, without making it dogma).

I am unsure of the relationship of Purgatory to invincible ignorance and the state of unbaptized infants. I would also be interested in looking into the history of the belief in "baptism of desire"/invinicble ignorance.

It is good to know that the Catholic church admits it lacks sure knowledge and revelation on the matter. In that regard the honesty is refreshing. I also appreciate your inclusion that "the LDS Church does have revelation and 'sure knowledge' that unbaptized infants are saved," even if you don't believe it.

I have another question: In the absence of ongoing revelation to the Catholic church, shouldn't the source of doctrine rely more on the Bible and less on Sacred Tradition? How does the church balance its traditions with the word of God? In regards to infant baptism which was never recorded in the Bible, is it therefore more dependent on sacred tradition?

[ChristKnight]

From that great source, Wikipedia on St. Augustine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

From an article in Catholic News in 2007

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702310.htm

And another:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm

Yep, pretty much reiterating my previous few posts. The Catholic Church has no dogma on what happens to unbaptized infants (as the Catholic News article states "The teaching on limbo was among those never addressed by Scripture and never defined as dogma and is therefore subject to theological development", and leans towards the "hope" for their salvation, however this is not sure knowledge (since there was no revelation on it, according to the Catholic Church), and still allows for people to believe in Limbo of Infants if they want to.

[SearchDog]

Yep, pretty much reiterating my previous few posts. The Catholic Church has no dogma on what happens to unbaptized infants (as the Catholic News article states "The teaching on limbo was among those never addressed by Scripture and never defined as dogma and is therefore subject to theological development", and leans towards the "hope" for their salvation, however this is not sure knowledge (since there was no revelation on it, according to the Catholic Church), and still allows for people to believe in Limbo of Infants if they want to.

Again you say that the Catholic church has received no revelation on it. Has the Catholic church claimed revelation on other matters.

[ChristKnight]

It is good to know that the Catholic church admits it lacks sure knowledge and revelation on the matter. In that regard the honesty is refreshing. I also appreciate your inclusion that "the LDS Church does have revelation and 'sure knowledge' that unbaptized infants are saved," even if you don't believe it.

Well, that's another story.

I have another question: In the absence of ongoing revelation to the Catholic church, shouldn't the source of doctrine rely more on the Bible and less on Sacred Tradition? How does the church balance its traditions with the word of God? In regards to infant baptism which was never recorded in the Bible, is it therefore more dependent on sacred tradition?

Yes, I think that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are more dependent on "Sacred Tradition" for their practice of infant baptism, since it isn't explicitly stated at all in the Bible.

Also, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church regard both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (the Bible) as encompassing the word of God. Doctrine in these churches is not only found in Scripture, but in Sacred Tradition as well (the Orthodox Church actually views Scripture as the written form of Sacred Tradition). Now, I have my own personal...issues with the concept of Sacred Tradition, however I just want you to know that Catholics view Sacred Tradition (not the same as "traditions" such as statues, candles, fasting on fridays, etc.) as being the word of God as much as Scripture is. Here are a few quotes from the Catechism that may be helpful on that issue:

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

[ChristKnight]

Again you say that the Catholic church has received no revelation on it. Has the Catholic church claimed revelation on other matters.

Do you mean if the Catholic Church claims to have received "modern" revelation on other matters? What I mean by "there was no revelation on it" is related to the Catholic Church's view on "public revelation". Catholicism teaches that all public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle (noting also that Catholicism teaches that private revelation (perhaps equivalent to LDS "personal revelation") continues). So, Catholics believe that the entirety of public revelation was given anciently. Within that public revelation, the Catholic Church is saying that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture that says what happens to unbaptized infants. There will never be a new revelation stating definitively what happens to them, since such revelations ended anciently according to Catholicism.

The conclusion of the article I've mentioned that there is "hope" for the salvation of infants is based on what has been revealed, excluding an explicit scripture verse or something in Tradition that states "infants do not need to be baptized because they would be saved if they die". This is hope, and not sure knowledge (as the LDS Church would claim that it has on this issue).

[SearchDog]

Well, that's another story.

Yes, I think that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are more dependent on "Sacred Tradition" for their practice of infant baptism, since it isn't explicitly stated at all in the Bible.

Also, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church regard both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (the Bible) as encompassing the word of God. Doctrine in these churches is not only found in Scripture, but in Sacred Tradition as well (the Orthodox Church actually views Scripture as the written form of Sacred Tradition). Now, I have my own personal...issues with the concept of Sacred Tradition, however I just want you to know that Catholics view Sacred Tradition (not the same as "traditions" such as statues, candles, fasting on fridays, etc.) as being the word of God as much as Scripture is. Here are a few quotes from the Catechism that may be helpful on that issue:

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Thank you, this explains much.

[mfbukowski]

deleted.