Here's the deal. The Catechism specifically states that we trust babies who die before Baptism go to heaven based on the "Let the little Children come to me, do not hinder them" scripture in Mark's Gospel.
The Council of Florence says the unbaptised go to hell, period.
I'm inclined to believe the Catechism since it is the book of Catholic doctrines which is promulgated among the faithful, while I'd never heard of the Council of Florence before last week.
So which is it? Why the discrepancy?
Matt,
Here is the beginning of a document put together by the International Theological Commission. It is psoted at the Vatican website of which I have posted a link to the full document.
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*
The International Theological Commission has studied the question of the fate of un-baptised infants, bearing in mind the principle of the “hierarchy of truths” and the other theological principles of the universal salvific will of God, the unicity and insuperability of the mediation of Christ, the sacramentality of the Church in the order of salvation, and the reality of Original Sin. In the contemporary context of cultural relativism and religious pluralism the number of non-baptized infants has grown considerably, and therefore the reflection on the possibility of salvation for these infants has become urgent. The Church is conscious that this salvation is attainable only in Christ through the Spirit. But the Church, as mother and teacher, cannot fail to reflect upon the fate of all men, created in the image of God, and in a more particular way on the fate of the weakest members of the human family and those who are not yet able to use their reason and freedom.
It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.
The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.
Finally, an observation on the methodology of the text is necessary. The treatment of this theme must be placed within the historical development of the faith. According to Dei Verbum 8, the factors that contribute to this development are the reflection and the study of the faithful, the experience of spiritual things, and the teaching of the Magisterium. When the question of infants who die without baptism was first taken up in the history of Christian thought, it is possible that the doctrinal nature of the question or its implications were not fully understood. Only when seen in light of the historical development of theology over the course of time until Vatican II does this specific question find its proper context within Catholic doctrine. Only in this way - and observing the principle of the hierarchy of truths mentioned in the Decree of the Second Vatican Council Unitatis redintegratio (#11) – the topic can be reconsidered explicitly under the global horizon of the faith of the Church. This Document, from the point of view of speculative theology as well as from the practical and pastoral perspective, constitutes for a useful and timely mean for deepening our understanding this problem, which is not only a matter of doctrine, but also of pastoral priority in the modern era.
Remember, the Sun is always shining!
Tarheel,
From NewAdvent:
The Seventeenth Ecumenical Council was, correctly speaking, the continuation of the Council of Ferrara, transferred to the Tuscan capital because of the pest; or, indeed, a continuation of the Council of Basle, which was convoked in 1431 by Martin V. In the end the last-named assembly became a revolutionary conciliabulum, and is to be judged variously, according as we consider the manner of its convocation, its membership, or its results. Generally, however, it is ranked as an ecumenical council until the decree of dissolution in 1437. After its transfer to Ferrara, the first session of the council was held 10 Jan., 1438. Eugene IV proclaimed it the regular continuation of the Council of Basle, and hence its ecumenical character is admitted by all.
The Council of Constance (1414-18) had seen the growth of a fatal theory, based on the writings of William Durandus (Guillaume Durant), John of Paris, Marsiglio of Padua, and William of Occam, i.e. the conciliar theory that proclaimed the superiority of the council over the pope. It was the outcome of much previous conflict and embitterment; was hastily voted in a time of angry confusion by an incompetent body; and, besides leading eventually to the deplorable articles of the "Declaratio Cleri Gallicani" (see GALLICANISM), almost provoked at the time new schisms. Influenced by this theory, the members of the Council of Constance promulgated in the thirty-fifth general session (9 October, 1417) five decrees, the first being the famous decree known as "Frequens", according to which an ecumenical council should be held every ten years. In other words, the council was henceforth to be a permanent, indispensable institution, that is, a kind of religious parliament meeting at regular intervals, and including amongst its members the ambassadors of Catholic sovereigns; hence the ancient papal monarchy, elective but absolute, was to give way to a constitutional oligarchy.
While Martin V, naturally enough, refused to recognize these decrees, he was unable to make headway openly against a movement which he considered fatal. In accordance, therefore, with the decree "Frequens" he convoked an ecumenical council at Pavia for 1423, and later, yielding to popular opinion, which even many cardinals countenanced, summoned a new council at Basle to settle the difficulties raised by the anti-Hussite wars. A Bull of 1 Feb., 1431, named as president of the council Giuliano Cesarini, Cardinal of Sant' Angelo, whom the pope had sent to Germany to preach a crusade against the Hussites. Martin V died suddenly (20 February, 1431), before the Bull of convocation and the legatine faculties reached Cesarini. However, the new pope, Eugene IV (Gabriele Condolmieri), confirmed the acts of his predecessor with the reservation that further events might cause him to revoke his decision. He referred probably to the reunion of the Greek Church with Rome, discussed between Martin V and the Byzantine emperor (John Palaeologus), but put off by reason of the pope's death. Eugene IV laboured most earnestly for reunion, which he was destined to see accomplished in the Council of Ferrara-Florence. The Council of Basle had begun in a rather burlesque way. Canon Beaupère of Besançon, who had been sent from Basle to Rome, gave the pope an unfavourable and exaggerated account of the temper of the people of Basle and its environs. Eugene IV thereupon dissolved the council before the close of 1431, and convoked it anew at Bologna for the summer of 1433, providing at the same time for the participation of the Greeks. Cesarini, however, had already opened the council of Basle, and now insisted vigorously that the aforesaid papal act should be withdrawn. Yielding to the aggressive attitude of the Basle assembly, whose members proclaimed anew the conciliar theory, Eugene IV gradually modified his attitude towards them, and exhibited in general, throughout these painful dissensions, a very conciliatory temper.
The link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm
In Christ,
Remember, the Sun is always shining!
"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians." [Emphasis mine]My question would be whether this is a dogmatic statement specifically or simply a reiteration of Church teaching on the subject to the Armenians, to whom much of the document is addressed. Does this statement allow for further doctrinal development? In particular, that "[baptism] should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can" to me suggests that, while the imperative is still present, the Church recognizes in this council that though we are bound by the Sacraments, God is not. Else why convenience? Why not immediately? In Christ Michael
Tarheel,
Pope Benedict has addressed this, see post above.
In Christ,
Remember, the Sun is always shining!
The negative document ...decreed by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, De Baptismo), in which the following doctrines are anathematized (declared heretical): The baptism of John (the Precursor) had the same efficacy as the baptism of Christ, True and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and therefore the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost" are metaphorical. The true doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is not taught by the Roman Church, Baptism given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost with the intention of performing what the Church performs, is not true baptism, Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation. A baptized person, even if he wishes it, can not lose grace, no matter how much he sins, unless he refuses to believe. Those who are baptized are obliged only to have faith, but not to observe the whole law of Christ. Baptized persons are not obliged to observe all the precepts of the Church, written and traditional, unless of their own accord they wish to submit to them. All vows made after baptism are void by reason of the promises made in baptism itself; because by these vows injury is done to the faith which has been professed in baptism and to the sacrament itself. All sins committed after baptism are either forgiven or rendered venial by the sole remembrance and faith of the baptism that has been received. Baptism although truly and properly administered, must be repeated in the case of a person who has denied the faith of Christ before infidels and has been brought again to repentance. No one is to be baptized except at the age at which Christ was baptized or at the moment of death. Infants, not being able to make an act of faith, are not to be reckoned among the faithful after their baptism, and therefore when they come to the age of discretion they are to be rebaptized; or it is better to omit their baptism entirely than to baptize them as believing on the sole faith of the Church, when they themselves can not make a proper act of faith. Those baptized as infants are to be asked when they have grown up, whether they wish to ratify what their sponsors had promised for them at their baptism, and if they reply that they do not wish to do so, they are to be left to their own will in the matter and not to be forced by penalties to lead a Christian life, except to be deprived of the reception of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments, until they reform. The doctrines here condemned by the Council of Trent, are those of various leaders among the early reformers. The contradictory of all these statements is to be held as the dogmatic teaching of the Church.(Catholic Encyclopedia) Michael
Michael,
Yes, you're correct, obviously, about the ITC. It did receive Pope Benedict's approval to be printed, so we can presume no heretical ideas are expressed.
Remember, the Sun is always shining!
Thanks David T and michaelme fro the wealth of new knowledge. Reading information like this is the one bug reason I keep coming back to these posts on CE.
Thanks and may God bless you both.
Tarheel
Bobo,
Is it possible to be "too human"? What I mean is, you backed off the "spirit" or "faith" only stance of a short while ago, but it seems to be resurfacing again.
Faith and reason.
Jesus willed the Church.
Jesus new we would have men and women searching for the Truth and there would need to be an authority here on earth as it has been for all times.
In case you missed Joseph, Paul wrote and the apsotles taught as the Church. I would hardly call them silly men looking for evidence. Moreover, I hope to stand strong with these humans, in all their deficiencies as I am one with many, on the last day, claiming to know God not only by the faith that He gave to me but also by the reason He gave to me also, to possess, and use for His glory.
In Christ,
Remember, the Sun is always shining!
Actually, I don't think that there's necessarily a discrepancy. I do think that you might be misreading the CCC. I have highlighted a few sections in bold. (Italics are in the original.)
1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, (my emphasis) to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; (my emphasis) this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. (my emphasis) All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Notice that in this last paragraph, it says that God's mercy allows us to hope. It does not say that children who die without baptism go to Heaven. Coupled with the highlighted statements in the paragraphs above, I hardly think it could be concluded that the CCC now teaches that unbaptized children definitely go to Heaven. If you are interested, my pastor has an enlightening sermon on this very topic at this link: http://www.audiosancto.org/auweb/20070422-Contra-Sedevacantism-and-the-Recent-Document-on-Limbo.mp3 The first part mentioned has to do with a warning about a talk that was in our area that he didn't want anyone to go to; that part doesn't last very long.
@staceyjohnson
You left out the middle paragraphs which address the topic of "Baptism by Blood" and "Baptism by Desire".
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
Three paragraphs which support the idea that people not baptized with water can go to heaven. You have to read ALL of it.
Also, did the Council of Florence declare an infallible teaching regarding limbo, or was it merely something said by a Pope but not infallible? (In laymans terms please).
Matty,
Regarding the paragraphs that you cited, those all have to do with people who have reached the age of reason, which would be why I didn't include them in a discussion about the baptism of infants.
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
So an ecumenical council can define doctrine infallibly, though it does not necessarily follow that every statement from a council is such a statement. A catechism, while helpful, obviously does not possess the same authority, though it certainly can and generally does reiterate infallible teaching. I'll have to pull up the decrees of the Council of Florence in order to discuss this further, but I'll get back to you. 
Michael,
Beautiful post. Thanks.
Remember, the Sun is always shining!
Staceyjohnson,
It seems the current "position" of the Catholic Church is a non-position. You don't HAVE to believe in limbo (i.e...it is not dogma or doctrine). However, it has not been condemned as a concept either. You are free to believe either way.
Following the pope's most recent encyclical on HOPE, I think it is best - as you just said - to hope in the mercy of God.
Lpioch,
agree completely.
Bobo,
Good morning, sunshine, and thank you for that most encouraging post of last night.
You wrote: me converting to the "true Church" which in itself is rather redundant, because I first believed in 'Jesus Christ' and 'His whole doctrine' stated in the Gospels which were if you read them the first requisits to obtaining grace, {emphasis mine}
Have you thanked your priest today, as well as said a special prayer of thanksgiving that the Church, which Jesus Christ established in the ocean of a universe on the orb we call earth, put to parchment the beautiful Word of grace?
In Christ,
p.s. any mirrors in your abode?
Remember, the Sun is always shining!
"Here in is the problem which is cited by protestants, The Church says one thing but has very little evidence to proving certain points, like Limbo."
"Unless you are born of water and the Spirit...." is, I think, evidence that the unbaptized will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
"With God, all things are possible." is evidence they can, if God wants them there. Mixed theologies? Like what the devil does???
I think all the dicta you complain of is nothing more (or less) than man's attempt to split the hairs and resolve the contradictions. In some instances, Jesus' contradictions. 'Limbo' is one of the results.
"Seek and ye shall find." is man's excuse. If we say the Code of Canon Law is a worthless and confusing exercise, are we not saying God should not have written Deuteronomy?
Peace
You must log in to post.
Rock Solid with Mark Shea: April 14, 2008 - Confirmation: Piety and Knowledge