« Msgr. Schuler, RIP | Main | Minority Report »
April 21, 2007
If you're wondering about Limbo...
Please go read Zadok. And remember - Beliefnet published a piece by him on this very subject. From his most recent post:
That darned McBrien
Now, maybe he's being quoted out of context, but he reportedly says:"If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame
*Rolls eyes*
That does not follow. Note the fact that this document gives various theological theories which give a motive for prayerful hope:The document outlined several ways by which unbaptized babies might be united to Christ:
-- A "saving conformity to Christ in his own death" by infants who themselves suffer and die.
-- A solidarity with Christ among infant victims of violence, born and unborn, who like the holy innocents killed by King Herod are endangered by the "fear or selfishness of others."
-- God may simply give the gift of salvation to unbaptized infants, corresponding to his sacramental gift of salvation to the baptized.NONE OF THOSE THEORIES IMPLY THAT MAN IS BORN IN A STATE OF GRACE. They all 'compensate' in some sense for the lack of baptism and make Christ's grace available in an extraordinary way analagous to the so-called baptisms of blood and of desire which in other circumstances can 'compensate' for the lack of sacramental baptism. The fact that such an extraordinary and compensatory act of God can happen in some cases, is not a universalization of the state of grace.
McBrien allegedly adds:"Baptism does not exist to wipe away the "stain" of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church," he said in an e-mailed response.
Again, that is at best misleading, and at worst outright Pelagianism. One might just stay within the boundaries of orthodoxy if one says the above sentence with the intention that membership of the Church is the primary purpose of baptism, and the removal of the stain of Original Sin (does McBrien put the word stain in scare-quotes?) is some kind of secondary effect of baptism. However, if it is intended to mean that Baptism is all about initiation into the Church and has nothing to do with Original Sin... well, that position has been condemned as heretical more times than I care to remember.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Amy,
Of course McBrien is right regarding baptism, and the true purpose of Sunday worship is celebrating community. [snark]
Actually, I have to agree with McBrien regarding the other matter though. "saving conformity to Christ", "A solidarity with Christ among infant victims of violence", and "God may simply give the gift of salvation to unbaptized infants, corresponding to his sacramental gift of salvation to the baptized." all imply that Christ's sacrifice is unnecessary. Jesus doesn't even appear in the "equation".
Of course, that's what the Church seems to believe more often than not anyway. Your post regarding the prayer for the conversion of the Jews during the (old) Mass really got at the heart of the matter: it's gauche to imply that someone might not be "going to Heaven": Jews, Muslims, dead newborns and aborted babies, and anyone else who hasn't been baptised.
I wonder what the Orthodox teach about this matter?
Posted by: Kozaburo at Apr 21, 2007 3:29:02 AM
As someone who teaches the RCIA, I find MCBrien's comments to be outside the mainstream of Catholic thought and outside the boundaries of the Catechism.
He, like Reese, tend to de-emphasize the centrality of Jesus' death and resurrection as the central event of our faith; they seem so uncomfortable with Jesus as THE Lord and prefer Jesus as one of many saviors. At every chance they get, they appear to undermine the deposit of faith. This is why Mcbrien is not well received by all bishops and why Reese was removed from the Jesuit magazine. Why do they always want to create controversy? What purpose does it serve except for dividing the untiy fo faith.
This statement from the Vatican is clear: if these children would have known about baptism, they would have desired it, therefore, they are saved through their desire to be baptized into the faith of the church. It is very simple. It says absolutely nothing about not needing baptism to be saved. Instead, it reveals the perfect will of the Father: that all come into the full knowledge of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Posted by: DJP at Apr 21, 2007 7:06:34 AM
McBrien proposing heresy! Dog bites man! Film at eleven!
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Apr 21, 2007 7:52:13 AM
I have a vague recollection that somewhere in the NT Jesus reminded us all that we ought not to be about the business of consigning people to the places in the after-life. That's God's work, and I am perfectly willing to leave that responsibility in His Hands. I have never been a limbo devotee, so I guess I am delighted that the Pope finally acknowledges that there are some things beyond even Papal theological competence. McBrien's comment, even stripped of context, makes no sense at all. But that's another issue.
Posted by: dan crawford at Apr 21, 2007 8:08:35 AM
"A solidarity with Christ among infant victims of violence", and "God may simply give the gift of salvation to unbaptized infants, corresponding to his sacramental gift of salvation to the baptized." all imply that Christ's sacrifice is unnecessary.
No, they don't, any more than Mary's Immaculate Conception does. Christ's sacrifice is necessary for anyone to be saved, including the Blessed Virgin Mary and unbaptized infants.
What is implied is that physical baptism, though the normal means of removing the stain of original sin, may not be necessary for everyone. God is not limited by the sacraments.
The Church has always taught that, as far as I know.
Posted by: Karen LH at Apr 21, 2007 8:15:05 AM
I wonder what the Orthodox teach about this matter?
I'm not Orthodox, but to keep the discussion moving:
Poke around Pontifications blog for a recent post quoting Bishop Hilarion of Vienna for an Orthodox take on the Fall and Original Sin.
I'd say the Catechism's treatment of original sin has incorporated more of an Eastern approach to describing these things.
Orthodoxy has a different perspective on Original Sin, "inherited guilt", purgatory, etc. They don't have a doctrine of Limbo and don't really susbscribe to Purgatory the way the Catholic Church has often described it. In rejecting the Council of Florence, they haven't "boxed themselves in" by the idea that all who die in original sin go to hell.
Orthodox offer all 3 sacraments of initiation to infants, and Eastern Catholic churches are recovering this tradition. And Orthodoxy stresses the mercy of God. (Try and count how many times Lord Have Mercy is said in the Divine Liturgy.)
Mainly, Orthodoxy is more content than Roman Catholicism to leave things at the level of divine mystery and not make as many doctrinal and dogmatic pronouncements. But Orthodox would never encourage delaying infant Baptism and they don't treat the sacrament lightly because both Scripture and Tradition teach Baptism as necessary.
To Orthodox readers: I hope I haven't misrepresented the facts here, but I think I the main points are: we don't inherit personal guilt for Adam's sin, God doesn't punish you for sins you don't commit, without God's grace you are not saved, and Baptism is the method Christ instituted for us to begin our life of grace in God, and as for the unbaptised: Lord Have Mercy, Lord Have Mercy, Lord Have Mercy, through the prayers of the Theotokos O Savior Save Us!
Posted by: tony c at Apr 21, 2007 8:41:25 AM
To a commenter above, allow me to humbly disagree with the following:
... all imply that Christ's sacrifice is unnecessary. Jesus doesn't even appear in the "equation".
Of course, that's what the Church seems to believe more often than not anyway. ...
Any human being who attains heaven does so precisely through the free gift of God who chose to SACRIFICE himself on a cross precisely so that the gift of salvation would be available to us after our first parents' rebellion against God's offer of communion.
The ordinary means of entering into that salvific communion with the crucified and risen Lord is through Baptism.
Yet God is not bound by the sacraments. If the Father of mercies chooses to offer the gift to the non-baptized in extraordinary circumstances using other means than who are we to question Him. But however the gift of salvation is offered, it is done so only BECAUSE our Lord sacrificed himself for us. He is the Lamb slain (Rev 5:6) from eternity for our sins (Rev 13:8 KJV,NIV), and no one can come to the Father but by Him (John 14:6).
see Dominus Iesus at
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
especially paragraphps 20-22, excerpt:
Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.78
The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”,79 since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.80 For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.82
God bless!
Posted by: john at Apr 21, 2007 8:50:37 AM
The online Greek Orthodox Catechism at http://www.gocanada.org/Catechism/catech.htm says: "You may ask what happens to a little baby that dies before it is baptized? We cannot answer this question. What we do know is that the baptized person is saved."
Posted by: Becky at Apr 21, 2007 9:24:22 AM
The reason why God can save unbaptized infants is the same reason why he can save those infants baptized through their parents' choice and not their own: namely, that he wishes extend his saving grace freely to those who are incapable of choosing for or against him, in spite of original sin their inherit.
Posted by: ContraMundum at Apr 21, 2007 9:25:52 AM
McBrien--baptism doesn't wash your sins away, it's just joining the church, a sign for other believers.
He has just become a Baptist.
I live in Baptist land. When they start telling me about baptism, they say it's not like every time you take a shower you're getting saved.
I reply, but you don't believe that baptism truly washes away sin and puts the divine life of the trinity in the soul. You doubt the power and promise of God and make it a mere human symbol only to prove something to other people--even less than Jewish ritual washings of the old covenant! There is ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins. If you really believed in the power of God, you wouldn't rebaptize.
In the words of Flannery O Connor:
If it's a symbol, to hell with it.
Posted by: kentuckyliz at Apr 21, 2007 9:56:55 AM
I know I'm coming to the right place when I ask this question: Historically, what events or context caused the need for a doctrine of Limbo in the first place? The more I learn about the development of doctrines and dogmas, there's almost always some pressing practical need for a ruling based in a situation in the church or world. I'm thinking, hypothesizing, that needing to have a category of Limbo perhaps came from the parish-level question of where to bury the body of the stillborn -- does he get buried in the church cemetery with all the other folks who might be in Heaven, or not? Does he get a mass said for him in hopes he's in Heaven, or not allowed b/c he's flat out not in Heaven period. Did it make sense to allow indulgences for stillborns if there was utterly no chance he was in Heaven or Purgatory.
I'm not in any way trying to be snarky with this ... I'm hypothesizing and hoping someone with a deeper knowledge of history can shed light on this.
It seems very rare in history that doctrines were simply "set down" because some smart theologians decided to sit and talk about them.
Thanks!
Mark
ps. And, I find the Orthodox (and Byzantine rite Catholic Divine Liturgy's repetition of "Lord Have Mercy" quite a beautiful thing!
Posted by: MarkAA at Apr 21, 2007 10:26:44 AM
I know I'm coming to the right place when I ask this question: Historically, what events or context caused the need for a doctrine of Limbo in the first place? The more I learn about the development of doctrines and dogmas, there's almost always some pressing practical need for a ruling based in a situation in the church or world. I'm thinking, hypothesizing, that needing to have a category of Limbo perhaps came from the parish-level question of where to bury the body of the stillborn -- does he get buried in the church cemetery with all the other folks who might be in Heaven, or not? Does he get a mass said for him in hopes he's in Heaven, or not allowed b/c he's flat out not in Heaven period. Did it make sense to allow indulgences for stillborns if there was utterly no chance he was in Heaven or Purgatory.
I'm not in any way trying to be snarky with this ... I'm hypothesizing and hoping someone with a deeper knowledge of history can shed light on this.
It seems very rare in history that doctrines were simply "set down" because some smart theologians decided to sit and talk about them.
Thanks!
Mark
Posted by: MarkAA at Apr 21, 2007 10:27:44 AM
Mark,
Father Al at Pontifications has some excellent stuff on the topic under discussion. He also provides links to other good articles, especially by Mike Liccione.
http://catholica.pontifications.net/?page_id=2025
God bless!
Posted by: john at Apr 21, 2007 11:26:24 AM
My guess is that it was probably occasioned by the understandable concern of parents whose babies had died without baptism for the destiny of their souls.
From what I can tell, there's not a lot of evidence in the early record, but what there is indicates that the early church Fathers discussed the possibility of limbo for unbaptized infants who die as an aspect of understanding the nature and consequences of original sin. They took a lenient position, whereas St. Augustine in the 5th century, involved in the Pelagian heresy, moved to a more extreme position that babies who die without baptism go to hell.
St. Augustine's view held for awhile, but things went back and forth until St. Thomas Aquinas came along, and took a more moderate view of limbo, which prevailed.
However, the actual destiny of babies who die without baptism, whether heaven, limbo, or hell, has never been definitively defined as doctrine by the Church, which is why there is ongoing theological speculation about it.
There’s a (somewhat dense) article on the theological history here, if you’re interested: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Apr 21, 2007 11:58:46 AM
"In rejecting the Council of Florence, they haven't 'boxed themselves in' by the idea that all who die in original sin go to hell."
Just to be clear, though, the Catholic doctrine that all who die in original sin go to hell was not defined by the Council of Florence in the 1400s, but by the Second Council of Lyons in 1274:
"The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with only original sin soon go down into hell, but there they receive different punishments."
We know that baptism remits original sin, and that ordinarily those who die without baptism would die in a state of unremitted original sin. We also know that God has extraordinary means of remitting original sin for adults, apart from baptism. So the only question remaining is whether or not God ever extraordinarily remits original sin in the case of unbaptised infants. The Church knows of no such means, and although this new study paper from the International Theological Commission argues that we have reason to hope that their is such a means, it still admits that there we know of no such means. Like it or not, that leaves Limbo on the table as a viable option. It is conceivable that someday the Church could issue a formal definition either affirmimg Limbus Infantium as a doctrine, or definitively excluding it. But for now the question remains open.
Posted by: Jordan Potter at Apr 21, 2007 12:08:01 PM
Pius XII's Allecutio to Midwives is on point. In discussion the duties of midwives, he stresses the supreme importance of the supernatural care of the child, who has to remedy for original sin save baptism.
"If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. Therefore, if it is considered that charity to our fellowman obliges us to assist him in the case of necessity, then this obligation is so much the more important and urgent as the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided is the greater, and in the measure that the needy person is incapable of helping or saving himself with his own powers; and so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death's threshold.
Undoubtedly this duty binds the parents in the first place, but in case of necessity, when there is no time to lose or it is not possible to call a priest, the sublime office of conferring baptism is yours."
Posted by: Breier at Apr 21, 2007 12:50:13 PM
I'm not usually one to go into a spin about everything that McBrien says. (And his "Catholicism" was the tool that got me and my confreres through comps many years ago.) But I always wonder about someone who wants to do away with the doctrine of Original Sin. Mostly because it is the one doctrine for which we have empirical proof.
Posted by: anon at Apr 21, 2007 1:37:32 PM
I know I'm coming to the right place when I ask this question: Historically, what events or context caused the need for a doctrine of Limbo in the first place?
The Holy Father goes into this a little bit in "The Ratzinger Report":
Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally — and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation — I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism. To put it in the words of Jesus to Nicodemus: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God" (Jn 3:5). One should not hesitate to give up the idea of "limbo" if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed "limbo" also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be.
Posted by: Jason at Apr 21, 2007 2:36:11 PM
Parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer.
Now, that's interesting. As with baptism of desire for adults, there is a possibility of baptism of desire for infants - the intercessory desire of the parents on behalf of the infant. I like that. Very Christian, considering that we do believe that God hears and answers our prayers.
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Apr 21, 2007 2:43:50 PM
Just a follow up on the Orthodox/eastern Catholic perspective - the concept of original sin as a stain doesn't really exist in the orthodox churches. To the Orthodox, the result of Adam and Eve's fall is simply death, which has been passed on to all mankind. Baptism, and Christ's death and resurection, gives us eternal life.
The catechism of the Catholic church definitely makes use of the eastern perspective, and to me, the combination of the two perspectives makes perfect sense - i.e., the stain of original sin is death, and Baptism removes that stain so that we may have eternal life in Christ.
To the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches, this also has a bearing on the concept of the Immaculate Conception. While the Eastern Catholic Church accepts the dogma since they are in union with the Holy See, they see it in a different light. Mary was preserved from death, so in a sense, she did not inherit death from Adam and Eve. But the concept of being born without original sin doesn't really make sense in an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox perspective.
Now, I'm neither Orthodox nor Eastern catholic, so I hope I am presenting this correctly. I would be happy to be corrected.
Posted by: Jim at Apr 21, 2007 2:52:21 PM
If we are to consider the decrees of the Second Council of Lyons to be infallible it seems that Limbo (the "Fringes" of hell) is in fact the reality whatever we might like to be true.
Posted by: Matthew at Apr 21, 2007 2:59:30 PM
Jim (4/21, 2:52pm) gives a nice explanation without tautologies or universalism, IMHO. In his first paragraph, he summarizes my beliefs.
Karen LH writes
What is implied is that physical baptism, though the normal means of removing the stain of original sin, may not be necessary for everyone. God is not limited by the sacraments.Another writes
This statement from the Vatican is clear: if these children would have known about baptism, they would have desired it, therefore, they are saved through their desire to be baptized into the faith of the church.This statement is invalid, inasmuch as it logically implies that all people will become Christians once they learn of Jesus.
Then we move to the next point and say,
- "what about the babies of the unbelievers"
- "what about the young children of the unbelievers?"
- "what about the unbelievers of the 'age of reason'?"
- "what about all unbelievers?"
If "God is not limited by the sacraments" then Christ's death and resurrection are meaningless. We could have all been saved without any sacrifice whatsoever. I'm sure Jesus would have preferred it that way...
Posted by: Kozaburo at Apr 21, 2007 3:42:25 PM
This isn't hard, really. Would a just God condemn infants to spend eternity dancing under those sticks?
Posted by: Mike Schiling at Apr 21, 2007 4:53:46 PM
What's all this "stain of Original Sin" nonsense? Are we back to the black and white milk bottles? And "parents...desiring its (the baby's) baptism"? Good gracious, what about free will? How do you know that the baby would even want to be baptized? If you're going to talk in such specious idioms, it seems to me you've got to allow for the fact that the dead infant might overrule its parents desires. Or is there a lot of "goo-goo" talk in the afterlife, with babies stunted for all eternity because of their untimely deaths?
Baptism is a sacrament of inititation into the Church, the bride of Christ and the Mystical Body of Christ. It is CHRIST who saves us and not by "removing" some fabulous stain. He saves not only through His once and for all Sacrifice on Calvary(sacrifice = to make holy) but in our other encounters with Him as well, both sacramentally and in the "real world" actions he calls us to perform. "Outside the Church there is no salvation" presumes that the Church is the Body of Christ, that we enter into the actual life of Christ and are an organic part of who He is. It is not the particular Christian denomination that matters, for Christ transcends these petty differences that drove us apart. It is Christ, "the Sacrament of the Encounter with God" to borrow a book title, who saves and it is through initiation that we become part of Christ.
We don't lose any "stain". Unlike some born-again Christians who seem to believe that their rebirth means by definition that they are no longer sinners, most Christians(certainly all Catholics)recognize that we continue, after baptism, with the burden of a tendency towards evil. That, my friends, is Original Sin, and no water, blessed or otherwise, can remove that tendency. It redounds to our glory that we, in Christ, choose the good and when we fail, we acknowledge our sin and are forgiven. It's "orthodoxy" like the notion that Original Sin is some sort of "stain" with which we are conceived and that can be removed by some form of baptism (talk about stretches) that drives so many good, thinking people away from the Church and keeps many of its remaining members in a state of infantile, uncritical acquiescence(limbo, anyone?). And acquiescence is not acceptance, for you can not accept what you have not evaluated.
As for Father McBrien, consider this: the state of grace exists side by side with the tendency towards evil. Good, practicing Christians fail, but as Paul notes "nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus." It is the gift of grace, the continued state of grace no matter how diminished it might become as we sin, that enables us to acknowledge our sins and strive to amend our ways. We are born sinners, yes, but we are also born children of God.
In the end, the limbo issue was always nonsense, because infant baptism as a singularly monumental religious event is nonsense. There is no assent, only the "faith of the community" which stands in for the infant's assent. In any other situation, we'd call that the first step towards brainwashing. Infant baptism can not be an initiation into the Church, because only a person can answer for him/herself. What infant baptism does, however, is signal the community's desire to incorporate that person into the community, if he/she so chooses to join when he/she is of a consenting age. So that is why Baptism is always joined with Confirmation as a Sacrament of Initiation and it is why it makes sense to put some time between the administration of the two. Baptize the infant, sure, but the initiation is not complete until he/she is able to consent to being part of the community. And, of course, that consent doesn't end with the chrism of Confirmation. We are continuosly assenting to be a member of the Church, thus daily saying "yes" to Christ's invitation to "come, follow me".
So drop the "stain" talk and let up on Father McBrien. We are in a time when we worship not in orthodox dogma but in spirit and the truth. Don't be afraid to think, folks. Jesus will still love you.
And, honest to God, did it ever make sense that the Father who sent his Son as our Redeemer would permit infants or fetuses or kids who have not completed the initiation rites to wander for all eternity in limbo. Please, give Him more credit. Ratzinger finally got something right.
Posted by: Mike at Apr 21, 2007 4:53:48 PM
Did you ever stop and just think about the mental gymnastics you are going through to support this self-reinforcing dogma? My god (pun intended) you people are loony. No offense though. Have a nice day.
Posted by: Mark the Atheist at Apr 21, 2007 5:55:14 PM
