Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: The torments of unbaptized infants.  (Read 5360 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cantarella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7782
  • Reputation: +4577/-579
  • Gender: Female
Re: The torments of unbaptized infants.
« Reply #30 on: January 24, 2018, 10:28:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is proximate to heresy to believe that aborted infants can be saved. For one thing, they are not members of the Church and they are incapable of even making any type of Act of Faith or Perfect Contrition.

    Secondly, the notion of salvific Baptism of Blood does not apply here because aborted infants are not dying for the sake of Jesus Christ, nor the Faith, nor the Church. Actually, they are dying precisely for the lack of Faith on the part of their murderer parents (most often, mothers), and against the clear precepts of Jesus Christ and His Church.

    This is an example of why modern sentimental theology is fertile soil for grave theological errors. 
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline Cera

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5208
    • Reputation: +2290/-1012
    • Gender: Female
    • Pray for the consecration of Russia to Mary's I H
    Re: The torments of unbaptized infants.
    « Reply #31 on: January 27, 2018, 03:00:20 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is proximate to heresy to believe that aborted infants can be saved. For one thing, they are not members of the Church and they are incapable of even making any type of Act of Faith or Perfect Contrition.

    Secondly, the notion of salvific Baptism of Blood does not apply here because aborted infants are not dying for the sake of Jesus Christ, nor the Faith, nor the Church. Actually, they are dying precisely for the lack of Faith on the part of their murderer parents (most often, mothers), and against the clear precepts of Jesus Christ and His Church.

    This is an example of why modern sentimental theology is fertile soil for grave theological errors.
    You are not God and cannot presume to know God's ways. Those who died before the birth of Jesus, and those who lived in nations where the Gospel had not yet been preached were not members of the Church. Yet God made provision for the former group as we know from the Gospel. It is illogical to suggest that He does not also make provision for the latter group as well.
    Secondly, you seem to say the Holy Innocents were "dying precisely for the lack of Faith on the part of their...(ruler Herod.)" And yet they have their own feast day.
    If you listen to or read the Catholic Zachary King, who was once a satanist and abortionist, in abortions performed by satanists, the infant is being sacrificed to the enemy in an attempt to anger God. So these infants are dying for the sake of God, just as the Holy Innocents were.
    Gods ways are not our ways.
    And the greatest of these is Charity.
    Pray for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41860
    • Reputation: +23918/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The torments of unbaptized infants.
    « Reply #32 on: January 27, 2018, 03:54:35 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is proximate to heresy to believe that aborted infants can be saved.

    I disagree.  IMO it's a direct heretical denial of Florence.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41860
    • Reputation: +23918/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The torments of unbaptized infants.
    « Reply #33 on: January 27, 2018, 03:56:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You are not God and cannot presume to know God's ways.

    Uhm, God has revealed His ways to us in the Deposit of Revelation as presented to us by the teaching of the Church.  And the Church clearly and dogmatically teaches that unbaptized infants cannot attain to the beatific vision.  To say otherwise is Pelagian heresy.

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3293
    • Reputation: +2076/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The torments of unbaptized infants.
    « Reply #34 on: January 31, 2018, 12:43:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You are not God and cannot presume to know God's ways. Those who died before the birth of Jesus, and those who lived in nations where the Gospel had not yet been preached were not members of the Church. Yet God made provision for the former group as we know from the Gospel. It is illogical to suggest that He does not also make provision for the latter group as well.
    Secondly, you seem to say the Holy Innocents were "dying precisely for the lack of Faith on the part of their...(ruler Herod.)" And yet they have their own feast day.
    If you listen to or read the Catholic Zachary King, who was once a satanist and abortionist, in abortions performed by satanists, the infant is being sacrificed to the enemy in an attempt to anger God. So these infants are dying for the sake of God, just as the Holy Innocents were.
    Gods ways are not our ways.
    And the greatest of these is Charity.

    Just reread this thread and it reminded me that the Irish (80% so-called Catholic population) are about to VOTE away a constitutional protection for unborn children. The question of the eternal destination of these souls is now paramount in the minds of some traditional Catholics in Ireland today.

    There is no doubt, as you say Cera, that there is a Catholic feast of the Holy Innocents. Surely if these children were all in the fires of Hell as some posters have been led to believe, then there is a very serious contradiction here. Where are those 'innocent souls,' some perhaps up to a year or so old? The idea that Catholics celebrate children in the Hell of the damned who died instead of Christ is hard to believe. Are these however to be separated from billions of other dead non-baptised under the age-of-reason children of non-Catholics? They would have to be, wouldn't they?

    Aborted and the death of non-baptised living children are two different things surely. Emotion of course plays a part in those who 'hope' there is no conscious punishment of such human beings. An aborted baby has no consciousness of knowledge or of being, has it? We comment as though an aborted child is aware like us of happiness or sorrow, heaven, hell etc. When they die does God infuse their would-be personality and adult awareness into their soul as they go to their place for all eternity? If they are what they are in death, without any consciousness, then they will not be aware where they go for eternity.

    When I think of the parents in Ireland now, once Catholic, who refuse to baptise their children, I think it is they who should carry the consequences of it. Baptism is not something children can do themselves, let alone understand it. I can fully understand the Catholic position with regard to those who deliberately remain unbaptised, but like many of us am confused as to the same fate being in store for the aborted and children below the age of reason.

    Finally, the only compromise I can think of is that the Hell unbaptised infants go to is not the Hell of the demons, but the same hell (Limbo) or a similar one used by God to accommodate the unbaptised just before Christ died on the Cross. And yes, there are heretical traps in this debate, none intentional of course, and we pray to God for faith in that His justice will prevail in such cases. 


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4577/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The torments of unbaptized infants.
    « Reply #35 on: January 31, 2018, 12:50:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I disagree.  IMO it's a direct heretical denial of Florence.

    You are right. The word "tantamount" would have been a better choice. 
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4577/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The torments of unbaptized infants.
    « Reply #36 on: January 31, 2018, 01:00:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Secondly, you seem to say the Holy Innocents were "dying precisely for the lack of Faith on the part of their...(ruler Herod.)" And yet they have their own feast day.

    I did not say such a thing. Indeed, I would not ever compare aborted infants to the Holy Innocents. First, the Holy Innocents were saved under the Old Law. They did not need membership in the Church. In the New Testament, under the New Covenant, Baptism was made obligatory for salvation and is defined infallibly that all must be saved IN Christ (not only through). Second, the Holy Innocents did die morally for Christ, whereas the aborted infants do not. As St. Augustine says:


    Quote
    "Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ"


    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Cera

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5208
    • Reputation: +2290/-1012
    • Gender: Female
    • Pray for the consecration of Russia to Mary's I H
    Re: The torments of unbaptized infants.
    « Reply #37 on: February 18, 2018, 04:31:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Finally, the only compromise I can think of is that the Hell unbaptised infants go to is not the Hell of the demons, but the same hell (Limbo) or a similar one used by God to accommodate the unbaptised just before Christ died on the Cross. And yes, there are heretical traps in this debate, none intentional of course, and we pray to God for faith in that His justice will prevail in such cases.
    This makes more sense than the original post which claimed that innocent unbaptised infants suffer the torments of hell.
    Pray for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary


    Offline Luke3

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 57
    • Reputation: +8/-17
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The torments of unbaptized infants.
    « Reply #38 on: February 18, 2018, 07:22:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • I find it incredibly presumptuous to say that unbaptized infants who say die during an abortion would receive any punishment from God with regards to sense or soul. That just doesn't make sense. They go to the limbo of the infants, which is technically Hell, but not that part of Hell which is reserved for the damned.

    God is all-knowing, he would not create a child who is innocent, who has made no single act of the will against Him, to be punished by the true pains of Hell. The only "punishment" they receive is not being in Heaven, which is not really a punishment since they have done nothing to merit it.

    It goes against Justice to punish someone who has done nothing wrong except for being born into the world, especially if they have committed no sin. With that said, it seems contradictory to say that an unbaptized infant would merit in any way, shape, or form the punishment that the damned endure.
    I would like to offer some thoughts for you to consider.

    You say God is all-knowing and this is true.  And you say all children are born innocent.  This is not true.

    Ephesians 2:3  In which also we all conversed in time past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:

    Unbaptized infants do go to hell.

    Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.” (Denzinger 102, authentic addition to Can. 2.)

    Pope St. Innocent, 414: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

    St. Augustine, Letter to Jerome, 415: “Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3:1439)

    With the exceptions of Jesus and Mary, all persons are born in original sin, children of wrath.  Water baptism, takes away original sin.  It is Catholic dogma, that few are saved, which means those above the age of reason who die and go to hell, suffer hell-fire.  Infants that die in original sin only, do not suffer hell-fire but undergo, other punishments.  

    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

    Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
    “26.  The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1596)

    God is all-knowing and the fact that few are saved, He knows that if He allowed the unbaptized baby to live a full life, and lose his soul, that soul would suffer hellfire.  So the fact that the baby died in original sin only, that was an act of mercy on the part of God.  I hope that you can see that, after all you said God is all-knowing.

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3293
    • Reputation: +2076/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The torments of unbaptized infants.
    « Reply #39 on: February 22, 2018, 01:35:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I would like to offer some thoughts for you to consider.

    You say God is all-knowing and this is true.  And you say all children are born innocent.  This is not true.

    Ephesians 2:3  In which also we all conversed in time past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:

    Unbaptized infants do go to hell.

    Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.” (Denzinger 102, authentic addition to Can. 2.)

    Pope St. Innocent, 414: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

    St. Augustine, Letter to Jerome, 415: “Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3:1439)

    With the exceptions of Jesus and Mary, all persons are born in original sin, children of wrath.  Water baptism, takes away original sin.  It is Catholic dogma, that few are saved, which means those above the age of reason who die and go to hell, suffer hell-fire.  Infants that die in original sin only, do not suffer hell-fire but undergo, other punishments.  

    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

    Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
    “26.  The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1596)

    God is all-knowing and the fact that few are saved, He knows that if He allowed the unbaptized baby to live a full life, and lose his soul, that soul would suffer hellfire.  So the fact that the baby died in original sin only, that was an act of mercy on the part of God.  I hope that you can see that, after all you said God is all-knowing.

    Wow Luke, you seem to have settled this point. At this stage all I can do is trust in God, and ask him to forgive those of us who do not understand why His infinite mercy does not cover such circuмstances as children who are aborted or who die before baptism.

    Offline Cera

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5208
    • Reputation: +2290/-1012
    • Gender: Female
    • Pray for the consecration of Russia to Mary's I H
    Re: The torments of unbaptized infants.
    « Reply #40 on: March 16, 2018, 02:13:12 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • I guess some people are happy to "know" that God delights in sending infants who, unlike us, have NEVER OFFENDED GOD to suffer the eternal torments of hell.
    Pray for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary


    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3327/-1937
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The torments of unbaptized infants.
    « Reply #41 on: March 16, 2018, 03:26:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I guess some people are happy to "know" that God delights in sending infants who, unlike us, have NEVER OFFENDED GOD to suffer the eternal torments of hell.
    How do you deduce that from this thread?
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4577/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The torments of unbaptized infants.
    « Reply #42 on: March 16, 2018, 06:55:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I guess some people are happy to "know" that God delights in sending infants who, unlike us, have NEVER OFFENDED GOD to suffer the eternal torments of hell.

    It is an accepted belief that the babies do not actually "suffer" any torments in Hell; but enjoy a perpetual state of natural happiness. They are still deprived of the Beatific Vision; so they do not enjoy supernatural happiness.

    Everyone who has ever been born to this world have already offended God. All of us carry the guilt of our first parents Adam and Eve. This is, the Original Sin, which is remitted in sacramental Baptism.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Cera

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5208
    • Reputation: +2290/-1012
    • Gender: Female
    • Pray for the consecration of Russia to Mary's I H
    Re: The torments of unbaptized infants.
    « Reply #43 on: March 27, 2018, 07:02:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How do you deduce that from this thread?
    See post from Luke 3 above.
    Pray for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3327/-1937
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The torments of unbaptized infants.
    « Reply #44 on: March 27, 2018, 07:18:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I guess some people are happy to "know" that God delights in sending infants who, unlike us, have NEVER OFFENDED GOD to suffer the eternal torments of hell.
    You misunderstand what Luke3 wrote. Nowhere does he say that infants suffer the eternal torments of hell. Moreover, your comment that some people are happy to "know" that God delights in sending infants ....to eternal torments of hell, is blasphemous. If you are so concerned about the fate of unbaptized infants you should study the subject yourself. New Advent encyclopedia is from 1907 more or less, and very reliable. You can start there.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

    Limbus infantium
    The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see BAPTISM, subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul's teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Romans 5:12 sqq.). On the other hand, it is clear from Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq., 2 Corinthians 5:10; see also APOCATASTASIS). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."
    The best way of justifying the above statement is to give a brief sketch of the history of Catholic opinion on the subject. We shall try to do so by selecting the particular and pertinent facts from the general history of Catholic speculation regarding the Fall and original sin, but it is only right to observe that a fairly full knowledge of this general history is required for a proper appreciation of these facts.
    Pre-Augustinian tradition
    There is no evidence to prove that any Greek or Latin Father before St. Augustine ever taught that original sin of itself involved any severer penalty after death than exclusion from the beatific vision, and this, by the Greek Fathers at least, was always regarded as being strictly supernatural. Explicit references to the subject are rare, but for the Greek Fathers generally the statement of St. Gregory of nαzιanzus may be taken as representative:
    It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished. [Oration 40, no. 23]
    Thus, according to Gregory, for children dying without baptism, and excluded for want of the "seal" from the "honor" or gratuitous favor of seeing God face to face, an intermediate or neutral state is admissible, which, unlike that of the personally wicked, is free from positive punishment. And, for the West, Tertullian opposes infant baptism on the ground that infants are innocent, while St. Ambrose explains that original sin is rather an inclination to evil than guilt in the strict sense, and that it need occasion no fear at the day of judgement; and the Ambrosiaster teaches that the "second death," which means condemnation to the hell of torment of the damned, is not incurred by Adam's sin, but by our own. This was undoubtedly the general tradition before St. Augustine's time.
    Teaching of St. Augustine
    In his earlier writings St. Augustine himself agrees with the common tradition. Thus in De libero arbitrio III, written several years before the Pelagian controversy, discussing the fate of unbaptized infants after death, he writes: "It is superfluous to inquire about the merits of one who has not any merits. For one need not hesitate to hold that life may be neutral as between good conduct and sin, and that as between reward and punishment there may be a neutral sentence of the judge." But even before the outbreak of the Pelagian controversy St. Augustine had already abandoned the lenient traditional view, and in the course of the controversy he himself condemned, and persuaded the Council of Carthage (418) to condemn, the substantially identical Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of "an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness" (Denzinger 102). This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state (Of Sin and Merit I.21; Contra Jul. V, 44; etc.). But this Augustinian teaching was an innovation in its day, and the history of subsequent Catholic speculation on this subject is taken up chiefly with the reaction which has ended in a return to the pre-Augustinian tradition.
    Post-Augustinian teaching
    After enjoying several centuries of undisputed supremacy, St. Augustine's teaching on original sin was first successfully challenged by St. Anselm (d. 1109), who maintained that it was not concupiscence, but the privation of original justice, that constituted the essence of the inherited sin (De conceptu virginali). On the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin after death, St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized children share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point. According to him there was no guilt (culpa), but only punishment (poena), in the proper notion of original sin; and although this doctrine was rightly condemned by the Council of Soissons in 1140, his teaching, which rejected material torment (poena sensus) and retained only the pain of loss (poena damni) as the eternal punishment of original sin (Comm. in Rom.), was not only not condemned but was generally accepted and improved upon by the Scholastics. Peter Lombard, the Master of the Sentences, popularized it (Sent. II, xxxiii, 5), and it acquired a certain degree of official authority from the letter of Innocent III to the Archbishop of Arles, which soon found its way into the "Corpus Juris". Pope Innocent's teaching is to the effect that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer "no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God" (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii — Majores). It should be noted, however, that this poena damni incurred for original sin implied, with Abelard and most of the early Scholastics, a certain degree of spiritual torment, and that St. Thomas was the first great teacher who broke away completely from the Augustinian tradition on this subject, and relying on the principle, derived through the Pseudo-Dionysius from the Greek Fathers, that human nature as such with all its powers and rights was unaffected by the Fall (quod naturalia manent integra), maintained, at least virtually, what the great majority of later Catholic theologians have expressly taught, that the limbus infantium is a place or state of perfect natural happiness.
    No reason can be given — so argued the Angelic Doctor — for exempting unbaptized children from the material torments of Hell (poena sensus) that does not hold good, even a fortiori, for exempting them also from internal spiritual suffering (poena damni in the subjective sense), since the latter in reality is the more grievous penalty, and is more opposed to the mitissima poena which St. Augustine was willing to admit (De Malo, V, art. iii). Hence he expressly denies that they suffer from any "interior affliction", in other words that they experience any pain of loss (nihil omnino dolebunt de carentia visionis divinae — "In Sent.", II, 33, q. ii, a. 2). At first ("In Sent.", loc. cit.), St. Thomas held this absence of subjective suffering to be compatible with a consciousness of objective loss or privation, the resignation of such souls to the ways of God's providence being so perfect that a knowledge of what they had lost through no fault of their own does not interfere with the full enjoyment of the natural goods they possess. Afterwards, however, he adopted the much simpler psychological explanation which denies that these souls have any knowledge of the supernatural destiny they have missed, this knowledge being itself supernatural, and as such not included in what is naturally due to the separated soul (De Malo loc. cit.). It should be added that in St. Thomas' view the limbus infantium is not a mere negative state of immunity from suffering and sorrow, but a state of positive happiness in which the soul is united to God by a knowledge and love of him proportionate to nature's capacity.
    The teaching of St. Thomas was received in the schools, almost without opposition, down to the Reformation period. The very few theologians who, with Gregory of Rimini, stood out for the severe Augustinian view, were commonly designated by the opprobrious name of tortores infantium. Some writers, like Savonarola (De triumpho crucis, III, 9) and Catharinus (De statu parvulorum sine bapt. decedentium), added certain details to the current teaching — for example that the souls of unbaptized children will be united to glorious bodies at the Resurrection, and that the renovated earth of which St. Peter speaks (2 Peter 3:13) will be their happy dwelling place for eternity. At the Reformation, Protestants generally, but more especially the Calvinists, in reviving Augustinian teaching, added to its original harshness, and the Jansenists followed on the same lines. This reacted in two ways on Catholic opinion, first by compelling attention to the true historical situation, which the Scholastics had understood very imperfectly, and second by stimulating an all-round opposition to Augustinian severity regarding the effects of original sin; and the immediate result was to set up two Catholic parties, one of whom either rejected St. Thomas to follow the authority of St. Augustine or vainly try to reconcile the two, while the other remained faithful to the Greek Fathers and St. Thomas. The latter party, after a fairly prolonged struggle, has certainly the balance of success on its side.
    Besides the professed advocates of Augustinianism, the principal theologians who belonged to the first party were Bellarmine, Petavius, and Bossuet, and the chief ground of their opposition to the previously prevalent Scholastic view was that its acceptance seemed to compromise the very principle of the authority of tradition. As students of history, they felt bound to admit that, in excluding unbaptized children from any place or state even of natural happiness and condemning them to the fire of Hell, St. Augustine, the Council of Carthage, and later African Fathers, like Fulgentius (De fide ad Petrum, 27), intended to teach no mere private opinion, but a doctrine of Catholic Faith; nor could they be satisfied with what Scholastics, like St. Bonaventure and Duns Scotus, said in reply to this difficulty, namely that St. Augustine had simply been guilty of exaggeration ("respondit Bonaventura dicens quod Augustinus excessive loquitur de illis poenis, sicut frequenter faciunt sancti" — Scots, In Sent., II, xxxiii, 2). Neither could they accept the explanation which even some modern theologians continue to repeat: that the Pelagian doctrine condemned by St. Augustine as a heresy (see e.g., On the Soul and its Origin II.17) consisted in claiming supernatural, as opposed to natural, happiness for those dying in original sin (see Bellarmine, De amiss. gratiae, vi, 1; Petavius, De Deo, IX, xi; De Rubeis, De Peccat. Orig., xxx, lxxii). Moreover, there was the teaching of the Council of Florence, that "the souls of those dying in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone go down at once (mox) into Hell, to be punished, however, with widely different penalties."
    It is clear that Bellarmine found the situation embarrassing, being unwilling, as he was, to admit that St. Thomas and the Schoolmen generally were in conflict with what St. Augustine and other Fathers considered to be de fide, and what the Council of Florence seemed to have taught definitively. Hence he names Catharinus and some others as revivers of the Pelagian error, as though their teaching differed in substance from the general teaching of the School, and tries in a milder way to refute what he concedes to be the view of St. Thomas (op. cit., vi-vii). He himself adopts a view which is substantially that of Abelard mentioned above; but he is obliged to do violence to the text of St. Augustine and other Fathers in his attempt to explain them in conformity with this view, and to contradict the principle he elsewhere insists upon that "original sin does not destroy the natural but only the supernatural order." (op. cit., iv).
    Petavius, on the other hand, did not try to explain away the obvious meaning of St. Augustine and his followers, but, in conformity with that teaching, condemned unbaptized children to the sensible pains of Hell, maintaining also that this was a doctrine of the Council of Florence.
    Neither of these theologians, however, succeeded in winning a large following or in turning the current of Catholic opinion from the channel into which St. Thomas had directed it. Besides Natalis Alexander (De peccat. et virtut, I, i, 12), and Estius (In Sent., II, xxxv, 7), Bellarmine's chief supporter was Bossuet, who vainly tried to induce Innocent XII to condemn certain propositions which he extracted from a posthumous work of Cardinal Sfrondati and in which the lenient scholastic view is affirmed. Only professed Augustinians like Noris and Berti, or out-and-out Jansenists like the Bishop of Pistoia, whose famous diocesan synod furnished eighty-five propositions for condemnation by Pius VI (1794), supported the harsh teaching of Petavius. The twenty-sixth of these propositions repudiated "as a Pelagian fable the existence of the place (usually called the children's limbo) in which the souls of those dying in original sin are punished by the pain of loss without any pain of fire"; and this, taken to mean that by denying the pain of fire one thereby necessarily postulates a middle place or state, involving neither guilt nor penalty, between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation, is condemned by the pope as being "false and rash and as slander of the Catholic schools" (Denz. 526).
    This condemnation was practically the death-knell of extreme Augustinianism, while the mitigate Augustinianism of Bellarmine and Bossuet had already been rejected by the bulk of Catholic theologians. Suarez, for example, ignoring Bellarmine's protest, continued to teach what Catharinus had taught — that unbaptized children will not only enjoy perfect natural happiness, but that they will rise with immortal bodies at the last day and have the renovated earth for their happy abode (De vit. et penat., ix, sect. vi, n. 4); and, without insisting on such details, the great majority of Catholic theologians have continued to maintain the general doctrine that the children's limbo is a state of perfect natural happiness, just the same as it would have been if God had not established the present supernatural order. It is true, on the other hand, that some Catholic theologians have stood out for some kind of compromise with Augustinianism, on the ground that nature itself was wounded and weakened, or, at least that certain natural rights (including the right to perfect felicity) were lost in consequence of the Fall. But these have granted for the most part that the children's limbo implies exemption, not only from the pain of sense, but from any positive spiritual anguish for the loss of the beatific vision; and not a few have been willing to admit a certain degree of natural happiness in limbo. What has been chiefly in dispute is whether this happiness is as perfect and complete as it would have been in the hypothetical state of pure nature, and this is what the majority of Catholic theologians have affirmed.
    As to the difficulties against this view which possessed such weight in the eyes of the eminent theologians we have mentioned, it is to be observed:
    we must not confound St. Augustine's private authority with the infallible authority of the Catholic Church; and
    if allowance be made for the confusion introduced into the Pelagian controversy by the want of a clear and explicit conception of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural order one can easily understand why St. Augustine and the Council of Carthage were practically bound to condemn the locus medius of the Pelagians. St. Augustine himself was inclined to deny this distinction altogether, although the Greek Fathers had already developed it pretty fully, and although some of the Pelagians had a glimmering of it (see Coelestius in August., De Peccat. Orig., v), they based their claim to natural happiness for unbaptized children on a denial of the Fall and original sin, and identified this state of happiness with the "life eternal" of the New Testament.
    Moreover, even if one were to admit for the sake of argument that this canon of the Council of Carthage (the authenticity of which cannot be reasonably doubted) acquired the force of an ecuмenical definition, one ought to interpret it in the light of what was understood to be at issue by both sides in the controversy, and therefore add to the simple locus medius the qualification which is added by Pius VI when, in the Constitution "Auctoreum Fidei", he speaks of "locuм illium et statum medium expertem culpae et poenae."
    Finally, in regard to the teaching of the Council of Florence, it is incredible that the Fathers there assembled had any intention of defining a question so remote from the issue on which reunion with the Greeks depended, and one which was recognized at the time as being open to free discussion and continued to be so regarded by theologians for several centuries afterwards. What the council evidently intended to deny in the passage alleged was the postponement of final awards until the day of judgement. Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty. Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo, while from the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of nαzιanzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God's justice and other attributes.



    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24