# 95. What do we mean when we say in the Apostles' Creed that Christ descended into hell?
...we mean that, after He died, the soul of Christ descended into a place or state of rest, called limbo, where the souls of the just were waiting for Him.
96. Why did Christ go to limbo?
...to announce to the souls waiting there the joyful news that He had reopened heaven to mankind.
97. Where was Christ's body while His soul was in limbo?
...Christ's body was in the holy sepulcher.
320. Why is Baptism necessary for the salvation of all men?
...because Christ has said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?
Those...can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.
322. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of blood?
...when he suffers martyrdom for the faith of Christ.
323. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire?
...when he loves God above all things and desires to do all things necessary for his salvation.
My comments: We all know that the Jewish Holy Innocents are in heaven and we have a feast for them during the Octave of Christmas. They fulfill the baptism of blood.
But when Jesus' soul descended to Limbo to set free the just, not those condemned to the eternal flames of hell, like Satan and the fallen angels and anyone else in the hell of eternal damnation, among those just would be the experience of eternity, no? The battle is won and the souls of all the just from all eternity are there, to include all those who through no fault of their own were not baptized!
So if one understands that Limbo as described by the BC is in fact dogma, and that salvation and the winning of the "battle" with Satan is eternal, it just is, like "I AM" then we can say in an eternal way our souls who are just and not condemned are in heaven having been released from limbo. Like the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross is now eternal and celebrated in a temporal way at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, so too are all those who through no fault of their own, to include infants not baptized, now in heaven. They await the resurrection of the body as that which is temporal comes to a conclusion and eternity is all there is.
What baby or fetus would not want to be close to God since they are closest to God and desire to be with Him since He created them? Of course they would choose baptism of desire.
There is only one Limbo and it is for the just and Jesus' emptied it out on Holy Saturday when His soul descended to it--no one is there now!
24 comments:
In 2017 the unbaptised who through no fault of their own who are not baptised are theoretical cases for us.We do not know of any one saved as such. So they cannot be an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is not even relative to the dogma EENS except for the confusion in the Baltimore Catechism and the blatant error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
The Letter assumed that these cases of invincible ignorance were personally known. So it inferred wrongly that they excluded the baptism of water and were exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The same error in thinking was repeated in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14 etc). So there are now philosophical errors in the Council text.
APRIL 11, 2016
This error is all over Vatican Councl II and it should be enough for any one to reject the Council if they wanted to :its also there in Amoris Laetitia
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/this-error-is-all-over-vatican-councl.html
Catholic Mission,
Are you sitting on the Chair of Peter as you pronounce your corrections?
1. The Holy Innocents do not fulfill the baptism of blood since an act of the will is required for baptism of blood. An act of will is not possible for those who have not reached the age of reason. The Holy Innocents are not relevant to this discussion since they died prior to the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ.
2. Aside from you, I am not aware of anyone suggesting that the limbo of the fathers to which Christ descended is the same as the limbo of the infants. The limbo of the fathers no longer exists -- those souls who were there are either in heaven or in hell now. The limbo of the infants is a part of hell, but it is a place where there is no torment since it is a place of natural happiness, yet lacking the beatific vision.
3. Your idea suggests that unbaptized souls are entitled to heaven, which is a denial of Original Sin. Or, at least, what you are suggesting is that Original Sin is somehow not present until someone is born. In either case, your idea finds no support in any Church teaching.
4. Infants are not covered by baptism by desire because that would require an act of the will, which, again, those without reason cannot make. Baptism by desire is very limited according to the Church, applying (at most) only to catechumens under particular circumstances.
I certainly understand the idea of wanting unbaptized infants to be in heaven (and given certain recent events in my life, I empathize with those who wish this were the case). Unfortunately, the reality is that, as a result of original sin, no one is entitled the beatific vision. Prior to our baptism, we merit only damnation. Thankfully, our merciful God has given us baptism to cleanse us from sin. And he has established a place of natural happiness for those infants who do not receive the sacrament of baptism.
I am afraid that, based on Our Lord's words (see Jn 3:5), the Sacred and Holy Ecumenical and General Council of Trent defines the opposite to your conclusion: Baptism is absolutely essential to salvation, even for children who have not committed personal sins (Session 5, nº 4):
If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,—whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, —let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Therefore, the Baltimore Catechism does not solve this question, because it was already solved by this definitive Teaching of the Church.
God is not limited by the sacraments. If God chooses to welcome into heaven, not Limbo, when, through no fault their own they die unbaptized, then I rejoice.
The Holy Innocents who were not baptized and could not make a choice to "accept" Christ--a Protestant notion of salvation, btw, are now in heaven, period. So too are those Christ released from the "limbo" where Moses, the prophets, St. Joseph, etc were awaiting the Paschal Mystery. Many of them did not know the historical Jesus nor did they actually accept them. But there is a tradition that Adam and Eve are saints in heaven!
But the limbo that the Apostle Creed makes dogma is dogma. This pastoral theology about unbaptized babies being in limbo is not a formal doctrine much less dogma of the Church. It does not undermine the teachings of the Church about the necessity of baptism since the Church has a theology of baptism of desire and of blood. A parent or grandparent or godparent who desire that a child be baptized, has made arrangements for it only to have the child die prior to the actual ceremony is a baptism of desire. And certainly the One who desires it the most is Almighty God! I think Marc and others like him want to limit God and box Him in. Of course this fails every time.
One person cannot have the desire necessary for baptism by desire on the behalf of another person. Your opinion is completely novel, finding no support in Church teaching.
I have no desire to limit God. If the doctrine of limbo limits God, then doesn't every doctrine limit God. Why is it only this doctrine that causes you to accuse me of this? I do desire to limit people from teaching error, especially when those people are priests.
Dialogue says:
Are you sitting on the Chair of Peter as you pronounce your corrections?
____________
I am saying that there are no known cases of people saved with the the baptism of desire in 2017 or in the past, with or without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. So there are no concrete exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made this objective mistake and the Chair of St. Peter over looked.
Marc said...
1. The Holy Innocents do not fulfill the baptism of blood since an act of the will is required for baptism of blood. An act of will is not possible for those who have not reached the age of reason. The Holy Innocents are not relevant to this discussion since they died prior to the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ.
Lionel.
The Holy Innocents cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2017. They do not exist in our present times.
_______________________________
4. Infants are not covered by baptism by desire because that would require an act of the will, which, again, those without reason cannot make. Baptism by desire is very limited according to the Church, applying (at most) only to catechumens under particular circumstances.
Lionel: The baptism of desire of a catechumen was a theoretical case always. So it was not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.How can zero cases of someone be an explicit exception to all needing to be incorporated into the Church as a member ? I agree with you.
______________________
I certainly understand the idea of wanting unbaptized infants to be in heaven (and given certain recent events in my life, I empathize with those who wish this were the case). Unfortunately, the reality is that, as a result of original sin, no one is entitled the beatific vision. Prior to our baptism, we merit only damnation. Thankfully, our merciful God has given us baptism to cleanse us from sin. And he has established a place of natural happiness for those infants who do not receive the sacrament of baptism.
I agree.
_______________________
Regular Reader said...
I am afraid that, based on Our Lord's words (see Jn 3:5), the Sacred and Holy Ecumenical and General Council of Trent defines the opposite to your conclusion: Baptism is absolutely essential to salvation, even for children who have not committed personal sins (Session 5, nº 4):
If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,—whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, —let him be anathema.
Lionel: Let Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston be anathema?They were teaching heresy. There are no known cases of the baptism of desire and they postulated exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
__________________________________________
For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Lionel: Exacly.All need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no practical exceptions of the baptism of desire and blood or being saved in invincible ignorance.
________________________
Therefore, the Baltimore Catechism does not solve this question, because it was already solved by this definitive Teaching of the Church.
Lionel:
The Baltimore Catechism contributed to the confusion when it placed the case of the unknown catechumen as a known baptism like the baptism of water, in the Baptism Section of the Catechism. They also called it a baptism ofdesire.
In 1949 in Boston they used to confusion to suggest that invisible cases of the baptism of desire were visible. Then they inferred that these 'visible cases' were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known for centuries.
Then Cardinl Cushing and the Jesuits of Boston placed this error in Vatican Council II.
_________________________
Anonymous said...
God is not limited by the sacraments. If God chooses to welcome into heaven, not Limbo, when, through no fault their own they die unbaptized, then I rejoice.
______________
April 2, 2017
There are philosophical errors in Vatican Council II and Archbishop Guido Pozzo does not discuss it
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/there-is-philosophical-error-in-vatican.html
April 1, 2017
CDF made a doctrinal mistake in the excommunication of Lefebvre :Guido Pozzo knows VCII is Feeneyite
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/cdf-made-doctrinal-mistake-in.html
April 1, 2017
Vatican Council II simple trick.Try it!.Most Catholics don't know about it
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/vatican-council-ii-simple-tricktry_1.html
Marc, unless you have a very precocious baby, did your child answer the questions posed in Latin concerning Her? desire to be baptized and did she answer the questions of rejecting Satan and believing in God or in the Tridentine Rite, didn't the God Father answer those questions? Who's desire was it/is it, that your child be baptized, meaning making visible in a temporal way the eternal one Sacrifice of Christ and the blood that was shed that cleanses the world of Original Sin and actual sin? It was God's desire and He will decide and we will know this Mystery completely in heaven.
A parent or grandparent or godparent who desire that a child be baptized, has made arrangements for it only to have the child die prior to the actual ceremony is a baptism of desire.
Father are you sure about this? I have never heard this. What if arrangements were not made? Let's say the parents don't want to baptize their child but the grandparents 'desire' it?
Father, you are mixing up two different things: baptism by desire and sacramental baptism. If you can point to any Church teaching that supports your idea, I'd happily read it. But I know that you cannot. First, you'd have a difficult time proving that the Church actually teaches baptism by desire. Second, even if you could prove that, what the Church says on that subject is limited to very particular circumstances having to do with catechumens.
It is definitely God's will that all be saved. But not all are saved due to the Fall and the consequence of Original Sin. That you dislike that reality does not give you license to create a new teaching that has no basis in the Church's teaching.
What you're telling people is dangerous. I recently had to have a child emergency baptized in the hospital. If I had a priest like you giving me your specious opinion, I might have not felt compelled to do that. Thankfully, my son has pulled through so far. But I shudder to think about the eternal consequences of your spreading your erroneous opinion if you're able to convince people that your opinion is what the Church teaches (and I know for a fact that you have told people your erroneous opinion before and proposed it as if it were the Church's teaching -- I pray you will stop doing that and consider the consequences).
The Church actually teaches Baptism by desire:
Baptism of Desire: From Fr. John Hardon's Question and Answer Catechism:
WHAT IS BAPTISM OF DESIRE? Baptism of desire is the implicit desire for
baptism of water by a person who makes an act of perfect love of God,
based on faith and with a sincere sorrow for one's sins. Such was the case
in the Acts of the Apostles, when Peter encountered pagans who, moved by
the grace of the Holy Spirit, proclaimed the greatness of God. "Peter
himself then said, 'Could anyone refuse the water of baptism to these
people, now they have received the Holy Spirit....?'" (Acts 10:46-47).
IS BAPTISM OF DESIRE A SACRAMENT? Baptism of desire is not a sacrament;
it does not imprint the baptismal character or enable a person to receive
the other sacraments. Nevertheless, it does confer sanctifying grace.
From Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
"2. Substitutes for Sacramental Baptism
In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire
or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)
a) Baptism of desire (Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti) Baptism of
desire is the explicit or implicit desire for sacramental baptism (votum
baptismi) associated with perfect contrition (contrition based on
charity).
"Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows Sanctifying Grace,
which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments
for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted
according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal
character is not imprinted nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments."
From Encyclical On Promotion of False Doctrines (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore) by Pope Pius IX, 1863
"Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
From Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized:
"17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."
And if Limbo is such an acceptable final destination for the in-Baptized - perfect natural happiness - why would one "shudder to think" of these consequences? A resident of limbo would be perfectly happy, not knowing that he/she was not enjoying the Beatific Vision...
Anonymous, perhaps you're fine with your children going to hell--who am I to judge--but I am not.
But, the unbaptized, in your vision, to Limbo - perfect, natural happiness. How is this shudder-causing?
That a child could lose the eternal beatitude of heaven because his or her parents failed to adequately ensure baptism in dependence on the erroneous views of a priest should make any Catholic shudder. Nothing compares to heaven, even the state of natural happiness experienced in limbo.
johnnyc said...
A parent or grandparent or godparent who desire that a child be baptized, has made arrangements for it only to have the child die prior to the actual ceremony is a baptism of desire.
"In the case of an infant, who of course cannot know enough to make a choice, the
desire is supplied by the parents or grandparents. Those who are baptized as infants
did not make that choice, but to paraphrase St. Augustine, "if we had no choice or participation in committing Original sin,why is it necessary that a choice is required in order to be baptized?"
Marc said: "That a child could lose the eternal beatitude of heaven because his or her parents...". That is not the reason. The reason is the original sin, which every human being has contracted by generation and needs to be expiated by the sacrament of Baptism for the obtaining life everlasting. Children do not 'lose' anything because heaven is not a human 'right' they deserve.
Anonymous, I agree with you, and I appreciate your fastidiousness in pointing out my less-than-precise phrasing.
Post a Comment