"How to Baptize in Case of Miscarriage" (http://www.saintsworks.net/pamphlets/Alana%20M.%20Rosshirt%20-%20How%20to%20Baptize%20in%20Case%20of%20Miscarriage.pdf) by Alana Rosshirt
I saw this on an acquaintance's blog once (I think) and thought it would be a good resource to post here, just in case people here find themselves to be in this unfortunate situation.
Bookmarking this, thank you for sharing.
Thanks for sharing. Should be recommended reading for engaged and married couples.
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on May 02, 2013, 03:17:07 PM
Should be recommended reading for engaged and married couples.
Absolutely.
Quote from: Penelope on May 02, 2013, 11:40:40 AM
"How to Baptize in Case of Miscarriage" (http://www.saintsworks.net/pamphlets/Alana%20M.%20Rosshirt%20-%20How%20to%20Baptize%20in%20Case%20of%20Miscarriage.pdf) by Alana Rosshirt
I saw this on an acquaintance's blog once (I think) and thought it would be a good resource to post here, just in case people here find themselves to be in this unfortunate situation.
A friend of mine from our parish just did this a couple months ago. He helped to "deliver" the baby (about 5-6 weeks old) and baptized her. He said it was one of the hardest things he's ever had to do, but he also mentioned what an amazing experience it was to hold the little one in his hand while baptizing her.
Should I make this topic sticky so it's always easily accessible?
Quote from: Penelope on May 02, 2013, 07:48:30 PM
Should I make this topic sticky so it's always easily accessible?
I would. :)
Personally, I think it should be covered BEFORE pregnancy, so it isn't difficult for the mother. No pregnant mother wants to hear about miscarriage -- if a couple isn't aware of it before pregnancy, I think it would be better to pull the husband aside.
This should be something taught in all Catholic marriage prep classes, too, but there's no way that's ever happening.
Quote from: Penelope on May 02, 2013, 07:48:30 PM
Should I make this topic sticky so it's always easily accessible?
good idea
Quote from: totiusque on May 02, 2013, 06:45:05 PM
Quote from: Penelope on May 02, 2013, 11:40:40 AM
"How to Baptize in Case of Miscarriage" (http://www.saintsworks.net/pamphlets/Alana%20M.%20Rosshirt%20-%20How%20to%20Baptize%20in%20Case%20of%20Miscarriage.pdf) by Alana Rosshirt
I saw this on an acquaintance's blog once (I think) and thought it would be a good resource to post here, just in case people here find themselves to be in this unfortunate situation.
A friend of mine from our parish just did this a couple months ago. He helped to "deliver" the baby (about 5-6 weeks old) and baptized her. He said it was one of the hardest things he's ever had to do, but he also mentioned what an amazing experience it was to hold the little one in his hand while baptizing her.
I wonder how he recognized a baby that small?
Quote from: stitchmom on May 03, 2013, 06:12:30 AM
Quote from: totiusque on May 02, 2013, 06:45:05 PM
Quote from: Penelope on May 02, 2013, 11:40:40 AM
"How to Baptize in Case of Miscarriage" (http://www.saintsworks.net/pamphlets/Alana%20M.%20Rosshirt%20-%20How%20to%20Baptize%20in%20Case%20of%20Miscarriage.pdf) by Alana Rosshirt
I saw this on an acquaintance's blog once (I think) and thought it would be a good resource to post here, just in case people here find themselves to be in this unfortunate situation.
A friend of mine from our parish just did this a couple months ago. He helped to "deliver" the baby (about 5-6 weeks old) and baptized her. He said it was one of the hardest things he's ever had to do, but he also mentioned what an amazing experience it was to hold the little one in his hand while baptizing her.
I wonder how he recognized a baby that small?
Maybe she was further along than they thought. My own experience of that gestational age is that it's nearly impossible to recognize the baby because it is so small and undeveloped.
Quote from: stitchmom on May 03, 2013, 06:12:30 AM
Quote from: totiusque on May 02, 2013, 06:45:05 PM
Quote from: Penelope on May 02, 2013, 11:40:40 AM
"How to Baptize in Case of Miscarriage" (http://www.saintsworks.net/pamphlets/Alana%20M.%20Rosshirt%20-%20How%20to%20Baptize%20in%20Case%20of%20Miscarriage.pdf) by Alana Rosshirt
I saw this on an acquaintance's blog once (I think) and thought it would be a good resource to post here, just in case people here find themselves to be in this unfortunate situation.
A friend of mine from our parish just did this a couple months ago. He helped to "deliver" the baby (about 5-6 weeks old) and baptized her. He said it was one of the hardest things he's ever had to do, but he also mentioned what an amazing experience it was to hold the little one in his hand while baptizing her.
I wonder how he recognized a baby that small?
I've seen a four week old baby preserved in a jar in health class. You could tell she was a baby (our teacher said the child was female -- not sure how they knew unless they'd done genetic testing at some point).
Okay, squeemish types? Stop reading now, please. :tongue:
Based on the PDF, the parents would need to search a bit through the blood, etc, and examine all the blood clots, etc. I'm not sure how easy it is, but I imagine that if you try to keep a calm head and inspect everything, you would be able to the child.
Okay this is also TMI so squeamish stop reading here.
When I miscarried I was distressed that I never found the baby. I was like 12 or 13 weeks along. Blood clots end up everywhere and in my case this included the driveway, the sidewalks outside the hospital, and hospital floors and bathroom. So there was no gathering up of clots and methodically looking through them. Women who are miscarrying can very easily bleed out and they need immediate medical attention, so taking the time to look through the remains is most often unfeasible. I'm not saying this to discourage people from doing so, but I do think it would be good to prepare married couples for what might happen in the case of miscarriage and make sure they don't feel like they HAVE to baptize the remains. The woman's health should be a priority because her life may be at stake.
My first miscarriage was like Fluffy's. I got out of bed and there was a puddle of blood at my feet, down the stairs, to the car, in the waiting room seat at the ER, and a trail to the room. I actually had to have a procedure done to get some of the tissue out because it was stuck and causing me to hemorrhage. I was 10 weeks, but there was no baby the entire time.
My other miscarriage was at 5 weeks, but I could not see anything to baptize. I can't remember if we tried to or not, the whole thing can last for days to weeks, so who knows what is what.
We did emergently baptize a couple of our kids because they weren't doing so well after delivery. Between my mother, sister, husband and myself, our first probably got baptized 4 times. There was so much going on that we weren't aware of each other until things calmed down. ;D You can't say we didn't have our priorities straight.
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on May 02, 2013, 11:53:39 PM
Quote from: Penelope on May 02, 2013, 07:48:30 PM
Should I make this topic sticky so it's always easily accessible?
I would. :)
Personally, I think it should be covered BEFORE pregnancy, so it isn't difficult for the mother. No pregnant mother wants to hear about miscarriage -- if a couple isn't aware of it before pregnancy, I think it would be better to pull the husband aside.
No pregnant woman wants to have a miscarriage but they know it happens. Women are often less squeamish about blood than men are.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with doing a conditional baptism if there is doubt the baby is alive. I think the Church allows this for up to 3 hours after the apparent death of the person.
The form would be: "If you are alive, I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."
Or if the miscarriage is so early that you doubt it is a human or just a bloody blob, you could say:
"If you are human and alive, I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."
Quote from: piabee on November 03, 2013, 04:12:14 PM
Quote from: Geremia on October 28, 2013, 10:41:28 AM
The form would be:
Citation, please.
See this from the Ritual (http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/07-the-sacrament-of-baptism-general-rules.html):
Quote9. ... if one is to be baptized conditionally (see below), the condition is expressed in these words: If you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, etc.
Quote21. One should see to it that every abortive fetus, no matter of what period, be baptized absolutely if it is certainly alive. If there is doubt about its being alive, it should be baptized conditionally.
22. A monster or abnormal fetus should in every case be baptized at least with the following expressed condition: If you are a human being, I baptize you, etc. When in doubt as to whether there is one or several persons in the deformed mass, one part is to be baptized absolutely, and the others each with the condition: If you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc.
Regarding point 21., it seems the conditional form "If you are not baptized..." nor "If you are a human being..." would be used, so I'm pretty sure it's valid to say "If you are alive..."
Formulas of conditional baptism
If not sure if baptized:
Si non es baptizatus, ego te baptizo...
If not sure if living:
Si vivus es, ego...
If not sure, we have clean water:
Si materia haec est sufficiens, ego...
If not sure we have all the body available:
Si haec pars est sufficiens, ego...
CIC (1917) 748: Monstra et ostenta semper baptizentur saltem sub conditione; in dubio autem unusne an plures sint homines, unus absolute baptizetur, ceteri sub conditione
If not sure if it is a man:
Si homo es, ego...
Side comment -- when it comes to having "all the body available" does that mean that amputees are conditionally baptized if they convert post-amputation?
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on December 18, 2013, 01:17:58 PM
Side comment -- when it comes to having "all the body available" does that mean that amputees are conditionally baptized if they convert post-amputation?
No.
Quote from: Dextimus on December 18, 2013, 03:06:14 PM
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on December 18, 2013, 01:17:58 PM
Side comment -- when it comes to having "all the body available" does that mean that amputees are conditionally baptized if they convert post-amputation?
No.
What does it mean then?
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on December 18, 2013, 03:08:36 PM
What does it mean then?
When you can see only a part of body and you are not sure if this part is joined to the rest (e.g. head). This conditional is to avoid simulation of sacrament.
Quote from: Dextimus on December 18, 2013, 03:22:22 PM
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on December 18, 2013, 03:08:36 PM
What does it mean then?
When you can see only a part of body and you are not sure if this part is joined to the rest (e.g. head). This conditional is to avoid simulation of sacrament.
Ahhh okay -- so as long as one definitely sees a head there is no need to apply that condition?
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on December 18, 2013, 03:46:38 PM
Ahhh okay -- so as long as one definitely sees a head there is no need to apply that condition?
Sure. My friend, hospital chaplain from time to time does a baptism to miscarried babies which have e.g. 1 or 2 inches of length. At the first view you can see in a "red blend" only a tiny hand or leg, nothing more. So noone would start searching for its head before performing baptism. Heaven can't wait.
Quote from: Dextimus on December 18, 2013, 03:55:46 PM
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on December 18, 2013, 03:46:38 PM
Ahhh okay -- so as long as one definitely sees a head there is no need to apply that condition?
Sure. My friend, hospital chaplain from time to time does a baptism to miscarried babies which have e.g. 1 or 2 inches of length. At the first view you can see in a "red blend" only a tiny hand or leg, nothing more. So noone would start searching for its head before performing baptism. Heaven can't wait.
Understandable. :(
from the
Roman Ritual (http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/07-the-sacrament-of-baptism-general-rules.html):
QuoteA monster or abnormal fetus should in every case be baptized at least with the following expressed condition: If you are a human being, I baptize you, etc. When in doubt as to whether there is one or several persons in the deformed mass, one part is to be baptized absolutely, and the others each with the condition: If you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc.
Monster? That's horrible
Quote from: Chestertonian on June 09, 2014, 02:53:22 PMMonster? That's horrible
Probably a better word could've been used to translate the Latin, but it is a medical term, according to the
OED: "(Med.) a fetus, neonate, or individual with a gross congenital malformation, usually of a degree incompatible with life."
Quote from: Geremia on June 09, 2014, 03:31:56 PM
Quote from: Chestertonian on June 09, 2014, 02:53:22 PMMonster? That's horrible
Probably a better word could've been used to translate the Latin, but it is a medical term, according to the OED: "(Med.) a fetus, neonate, or individual with a gross congenital malformation, usually of a degree incompatible with life."
Perhaps in the archaic sense, but certainly not the colloquial sense.
I know a good Catholic woman who had a miscarriage, and certainly did not know the correct formulas to use in baptism in this case, and may not have discerned body parts (I don't know). She baptized the baby (or what was left) "just in case", but without any particular conditional formula. Couldn't such a baptism possibly be valid? A priest gives last rites to a person who most judge as dead, but the soul sometimes might not leave the body right away. Is the same possible for the child whom most would judge is dead after a miscarriage? I understand that this probably happens very rarely.
Quote from: Non Nobis on June 09, 2014, 04:36:53 PMI know a good Catholic woman who had a miscarriage, and certainly did not know the correct formulas to use in baptism in this case, and may not have discerned body parts (I don't know). She baptized the baby (or what was left) "just in case", but without any particular conditional formula. Couldn't such a baptism possibly be valid?
If it was a human, why not?
Quote from: Non Nobis on June 09, 2014, 04:36:53 PMA priest gives last rites to a person who most judge as dead, but the soul sometimes might not leave the body right away. Is the same possible for the child whom most would judge is dead after a miscarriage? I understand that this probably happens very rarely.
My priest said that they have 3 hours after the body appears to be dead to continue administering the sacrament. I haven't been able to find a canon mentioning 3 hours, but it's probably written down somewhere.
Quote from: Non Nobis on June 09, 2014, 04:36:53 PM
I know a good Catholic woman who had a miscarriage, and certainly did not know the correct formulas to use in baptism in this case, and may not have discerned body parts (I don't know). She baptized the baby (or what was left) "just in case", but without any particular conditional formula. Couldn't such a baptism possibly be valid? A priest gives last rites to a person who most judge as dead, but the soul sometimes might not leave the body right away. Is the same possible for the child whom most would judge is dead after a miscarriage? I understand that this probably happens very rarely.
God is not bound to the Sacraments, we are, and the intention of the woman was there. It's not as if He would say, "well Susie, you didn't say this one word/you got the phrasing wrong, so your baby is forever in Limbo..." We must remember that God is not a legalist -- Christ made this very much a strong aspect of His earthly teaching ministry. God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and the woman very well may have acted as a servant of grace in that situation.
The worst thing which could be done is to categorically say she didn't baptize the baby. Instead she should be consoled and assured of the Mercy of God, and instructed by a competent authority on how to better proceed if, God forbid, there would be a next time.
This sort of situation is a theological gray zone in its full implications and has many elements which are out of our sphere of competency.
Quote from: Gardener on June 09, 2014, 04:50:13 PM
Quote from: Non Nobis on June 09, 2014, 04:36:53 PM
I know a good Catholic woman who had a miscarriage, and certainly did not know the correct formulas to use in baptism in this case, and may not have discerned body parts (I don't know). She baptized the baby (or what was left) "just in case", but without any particular conditional formula. Couldn't such a baptism possibly be valid? A priest gives last rites to a person who most judge as dead, but the soul sometimes might not leave the body right away. Is the same possible for the child whom most would judge is dead after a miscarriage? I understand that this probably happens very rarely.
God is not bound to the Sacraments, we are, and the intention of the woman was there. It's not as if He would say, "well Susie, you didn't say this one word/you got the phrasing wrong, so your baby is forever in Limbo..." We must remember that God is not a legalist -- Christ made this very much a strong aspect of His earthly teaching ministry. God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and the woman very well may have acted as a servant of grace in that situation.
The worst thing which could be done is to categorically say she didn't baptize the baby. Instead she should be consoled and assured of the Mercy of God, and instructed by a competent authority on how to better proceed if, God forbid, there would be a next time.
This sort of situation is a theological gray zone in its full implications and has many elements which are out of our sphere of competency.
I agree, God's not going to damn a baby over a technicality. I have hope that all my babies in limbo will eventually be granted Heaven when this whole Earth thing is over and done with.
Quote from: verenaerin on June 09, 2014, 05:26:36 PM
Quote from: Gardener on June 09, 2014, 04:50:13 PM
Quote from: Non Nobis on June 09, 2014, 04:36:53 PM
I know a good Catholic woman who had a miscarriage, and certainly did not know the correct formulas to use in baptism in this case, and may not have discerned body parts (I don't know). She baptized the baby (or what was left) "just in case", but without any particular conditional formula. Couldn't such a baptism possibly be valid? A priest gives last rites to a person who most judge as dead, but the soul sometimes might not leave the body right away. Is the same possible for the child whom most would judge is dead after a miscarriage? I understand that this probably happens very rarely.
God is not bound to the Sacraments, we are, and the intention of the woman was there. It's not as if He would say, "well Susie, you didn't say this one word/you got the phrasing wrong, so your baby is forever in Limbo..." We must remember that God is not a legalist -- Christ made this very much a strong aspect of His earthly teaching ministry. God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and the woman very well may have acted as a servant of grace in that situation.
The worst thing which could be done is to categorically say she didn't baptize the baby. Instead she should be consoled and assured of the Mercy of God, and instructed by a competent authority on how to better proceed if, God forbid, there would be a next time.
This sort of situation is a theological gray zone in its full implications and has many elements which are out of our sphere of competency.
I agree, God's not going to damn a baby over a technicality. I have hope that all my babies in limbo will eventually be granted Heaven when this whole Earth thing is over and done with.
same here
What point is there in baptizing children before the age of reason then?
Original sin still exists on those childrens' souls. No, they did not themselves merit damnation, yet they are not entitled to Heaven.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on June 12, 2014, 08:11:33 AM
What point is there in baptizing children before the age of reason then?
Original sin still exists on those childrens' souls. No, they did not themselves merit damnation, yet they are not entitled to Heaven.
because we don't want to presume the fate of anyone's soul and baptism is the ordinary means of attaining sanctifying grace
Quote from: Kaesekopf on June 12, 2014, 08:11:33 AM
What point is there in baptizing children before the age of reason then?
Original sin still exists on those childrens' souls. No, they did not themselves merit damnation, yet they are not entitled to Heaven.
I am very aware of this. But these are our laws. As someone mentioned, we are supposed to follow them, but God is outside of these laws. When all is said a done, if He chooses to allow babies from limbo to come to Heaven- He can di it because He is God. He loves them more then I, He misses them more then I. So I hope that at some point He gathers these baby lambs and leads them to the same pasture that we are at.
I am not denying dogma. I maintain hope for the children I have lost. I am their mother, it is my job.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on June 12, 2014, 08:11:33 AM
What point is there in baptizing children before the age of reason then?
Original sin still exists on those childrens' souls. No, they did not themselves merit damnation, yet they are not entitled to Heaven.
Very correct, and in the case of those who are not competent to declare intention of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, the intention of another is the proxy.
However, in situations such as a miscarriage, there is potentially no opportunity to confer the Sacrament though fully intended. This leaves us with a conundrum, as the Sacrament's conferring is impossible. As the one who is Justified, the parent, intends to confer the Sacrament, it is potentially true that their intention, though the ability is lacking, suffices in sort of a Baptism of Desire by proxy, just as actual Baptism is done by intentional proxy.
While this is not defined by the Church, it is a possibility.
To take your argument to its extreme, we end up with the Protestant conclusion of excluding infant Baptism. To take the other argument to the extreme we have Universal Salvation. The key is a middle ground and gray area wherein we act in Faith and hope to obtain the Mercy of God for another.
"For God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes thee to do what thou canst and to pray for what thou canst not, and aids thee that thou mayest be able.[58]" - Trent, Session 6, Chapter XI
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm
The safest thing we can do is pray and hope, holding to the doctrine on Original Sin, not declaring for certain all the little babies are in Heaven, and neither can we say for sure they are all lost in light of the Mercy of God and the reality of a valid intention minus the Form and Matter.
It's admittedly not an opinion which is rigorous in its application, but it is a pastorally sound method which does not do injury to doctrine as it leaves it up to God.
Quote from: Geremia on June 09, 2014, 02:30:05 PM
from the Roman Ritual (http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/07-the-sacrament-of-baptism-general-rules.html):QuoteA monster or abnormal fetus should in every case be baptized at least with the following expressed condition: If you are a human being, I baptize you, etc. When in doubt as to whether there is one or several persons in the deformed mass, one part is to be baptized absolutely, and the others each with the condition: If you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc.
What's the purpose of the conditional formula? Is it so that we don't commit sacrilege by inadvertently attempting to baptize something that isn't capable of being baptized?
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 08:26:41 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on June 12, 2014, 08:11:33 AM
What point is there in baptizing children before the age of reason then?
Original sin still exists on those childrens' souls. No, they did not themselves merit damnation, yet they are not entitled to Heaven.
I am very aware of this. But these are our laws. As someone mentioned, we are supposed to follow them, but God is outside of these laws. When all is said a done, if He chooses to allow babies from limbo to come to Heaven- He can di it because He is God. He loves them more then I, He misses them more then I. So I hope that at some point He gathers these baby lambs and leads them to the same pasture that we are at.
I am not denying dogma. I maintain hope for the children I have lost. I am their mother, it is my job.
But if He was going to grant them heaven, what would be the purpose of limbo? The souls in limbo, if it exists, have already been judged.
Quote from: Daniel on June 12, 2014, 11:17:10 AM
Quote from: Geremia on June 09, 2014, 02:30:05 PM
from the Roman Ritual (http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/07-the-sacrament-of-baptism-general-rules.html):QuoteA monster or abnormal fetus should in every case be baptized at least with the following expressed condition: If you are a human being, I baptize you, etc. When in doubt as to whether there is one or several persons in the deformed mass, one part is to be baptized absolutely, and the others each with the condition: If you are not baptized, I baptize you, etc.
What's the purpose of the conditional formula? Is it so that we don't commit sacrilege by inadvertently attempting to baptize something that isn't capable of being baptized?
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 08:26:41 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on June 12, 2014, 08:11:33 AM
What point is there in baptizing children before the age of reason then?
Original sin still exists on those childrens' souls. No, they did not themselves merit damnation, yet they are not entitled to Heaven.
I am very aware of this. But these are our laws. As someone mentioned, we are supposed to follow them, but God is outside of these laws. When all is said a done, if He chooses to allow babies from limbo to come to Heaven- He can di it because He is God. He loves them more then I, He misses them more then I. So I hope that at some point He gathers these baby lambs and leads them to the same pasture that we are at.
I am not denying dogma. I maintain hope for the children I have lost. I am their mother, it is my job.
But if He was going to grant them heaven, what would be the purpose of limbo? The souls in limbo, if it exists, have already been judged.
I'm not aware of any of the Fathers addressing the issue of Limbo post-Final Judgement. If I recall correctly, Aquinas doesn't address it either.
Technically, Limbo is hell, but not Hell proper.
The Final Judgement only involves those going to Hell and those going to Heaven. No mention is made in Scripture about limbo post-Final Judgement, but very specifically Our Lord says there will be those on the Left (Goats - Hell) and those on the Right (Sheep - Heaven).
As they have no actual sin, they can't properly go to Hell as this would be unjust. But nor can they go to Heaven as it would also be unjust. Therefore something must occur which delineates the souls in Limbo.
Otherwise, we must assume a continuance of Limbo as part and parcel to Hell.
I'm interested in any resources on post-Final Judgement thoughts as relates to those with no actual sin but only Original, if anyone has any.
The only one I've found is:
'The other parts of hell have also the more particular names of purgatory and limbo. After the final judgment heaven and hell only are to be inhabited, since purgatory shall become unnecessary and since even the infants shall be transported to another dwelling place.'
Ven. Mary of Agreda
Quote from: Gardener on June 12, 2014, 10:33:42 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on June 12, 2014, 08:11:33 AM
What point is there in baptizing children before the age of reason then?
Original sin still exists on those childrens' souls. No, they did not themselves merit damnation, yet they are not entitled to Heaven.
Very correct, and in the case of those who are not competent to declare intention of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, the intention of another is the proxy.
However, in situations such as a miscarriage, there is potentially no opportunity to confer the Sacrament though fully intended. This leaves us with a conundrum, as the Sacrament's conferring is impossible. As the one who is Justified, the parent, intends to confer the Sacrament, it is potentially true that their intention, though the ability is lacking, suffices in sort of a Baptism of Desire by proxy, just as actual Baptism is done by intentional proxy.
While this is not defined by the Church, it is a possibility.
To take your argument to its extreme, we end up with the Protestant conclusion of excluding infant Baptism. To take the other argument to the extreme we have Universal Salvation. The key is a middle ground and gray area wherein we act in Faith and hope to obtain the Mercy of God for another.
"For God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes thee to do what thou canst and to pray for what thou canst not, and aids thee that thou mayest be able.[58]" - Trent, Session 6, Chapter XI
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm
The safest thing we can do is pray and hope, holding to the doctrine on Original Sin, not declaring for certain all the little babies are in Heaven, and neither can we say for sure they are all lost in light of the Mercy of God and the reality of a valid intention minus the Form and Matter.
It's admittedly not an opinion which is rigorous in its application, but it is a pastorally sound method which does not do injury to doctrine as it leaves it up to God.
This exactly.
Quote from: Daniel on June 12, 2014, 11:17:10 AM
But if He was going to grant them heaven, what would be the purpose of limbo? The souls in limbo, if it exists, have already been judged.
How do you know? Maybe God will change His mind- it's not as definitive as Heaven or Hell. We don't know what God has planned after final judgment. We just know (more or less) the order of things up to that point.
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 11:50:00 AM
Quote from: Daniel on June 12, 2014, 11:17:10 AM
But if He was going to grant them heaven, what would be the purpose of limbo? The souls in limbo, if it exists, have already been judged.
How do you know? Maybe God will change His mind- it's not as definitive as Heaven or Hell. We don't know what God has planned after final judgment. We just know (more or less) the order of things up to that point.
Whatever God may have planned after the final Judgement is already determined in the Eternal will of God. It is absolutely impossible for God to "change His mind" as this would indicate a defect in His previous decision or His having come to a deeper realization of a situation which He have previously misjudged.
Quote from: Roland Deschain2 on June 12, 2014, 11:58:12 AM
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 11:50:00 AM
Quote from: Daniel on June 12, 2014, 11:17:10 AM
But if He was going to grant them heaven, what would be the purpose of limbo? The souls in limbo, if it exists, have already been judged.
How do you know? Maybe God will change His mind- it's not as definitive as Heaven or Hell. We don't know what God has planned after final judgment. We just know (more or less) the order of things up to that point.
Whatever God may have planned after the final Judgement is already determined in the Eternal will of God. It is absolutely impossible for God to "change His mind" as this would indicate a defect in His previous decision or His having come to a deeper realization of a situation which He have previously misjudged.
OK, I will reword it. Perhaps God has plans for some/ all in Limbo that we don't know about.
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 12:18:44 PM
Quote from: Roland Deschain2 on June 12, 2014, 11:58:12 AM
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 11:50:00 AM
Quote from: Daniel on June 12, 2014, 11:17:10 AM
But if He was going to grant them heaven, what would be the purpose of limbo? The souls in limbo, if it exists, have already been judged.
How do you know? Maybe God will change His mind- it's not as definitive as Heaven or Hell. We don't know what God has planned after final judgment. We just know (more or less) the order of things up to that point.
Whatever God may have planned after the final Judgement is already determined in the Eternal will of God. It is absolutely impossible for God to "change His mind" as this would indicate a defect in His previous decision or His having come to a deeper realization of a situation which He have previously misjudged.
OK, I will reword it. Perhaps God has plans for some/ all in Limbo that we don't know about.
I share that hope...
Quote from: Roland Deschain2 on June 12, 2014, 12:21:54 PM
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 12:18:44 PM
Quote from: Roland Deschain2 on June 12, 2014, 11:58:12 AM
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 11:50:00 AM
Quote from: Daniel on June 12, 2014, 11:17:10 AM
But if He was going to grant them heaven, what would be the purpose of limbo? The souls in limbo, if it exists, have already been judged.
How do you know? Maybe God will change His mind- it's not as definitive as Heaven or Hell. We don't know what God has planned after final judgment. We just know (more or less) the order of things up to that point.
Whatever God may have planned after the final Judgement is already determined in the Eternal will of God. It is absolutely impossible for God to "change His mind" as this would indicate a defect in His previous decision or His having come to a deeper realization of a situation which He have previously misjudged.
OK, I will reword it. Perhaps God has plans for some/ all in Limbo that we don't know about.
I share that hope...
We must have hope, our babies are there. We might not have met them, but they are ours and have inherited our love and devotion. They are cherished and thought about. I often ask the BVM to let my little ones that I think of them and love them.
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Roland Deschain2 on June 12, 2014, 12:21:54 PM
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 12:18:44 PM
Quote from: Roland Deschain2 on June 12, 2014, 11:58:12 AM
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 11:50:00 AM
Quote from: Daniel on June 12, 2014, 11:17:10 AM
But if He was going to grant them heaven, what would be the purpose of limbo? The souls in limbo, if it exists, have already been judged.
How do you know? Maybe God will change His mind- it's not as definitive as Heaven or Hell. We don't know what God has planned after final judgment. We just know (more or less) the order of things up to that point.
Whatever God may have planned after the final Judgement is already determined in the Eternal will of God. It is absolutely impossible for God to "change His mind" as this would indicate a defect in His previous decision or His having come to a deeper realization of a situation which He have previously misjudged.
OK, I will reword it. Perhaps God has plans for some/ all in Limbo that we don't know about.
I share that hope...
We must have hope, our babies are there. We might not have met them, but they are ours and have inherited our love and devotion. They are cherished and thought about. I often ask the BVM to let my little ones that I think of them and love them.
that is a wonderful idea
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 12:18:44 PM
OK, I will reword it. Perhaps God has plans for some/ all in Limbo that we don't know about.
Because if we assume that limbo is a part of hell then the souls there are essentially damned. But I hadn't considered that maybe God has separate plans for hell and limbo after the Final Judgement.
Quote from: Chestertonian on June 12, 2014, 12:32:22 PM
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 12:25:41 PM
We must have hope, our babies are there. We might not have met them, but they are ours and have inherited our love and devotion. They are cherished and thought about. I often ask the BVM to let my little ones that I think of them and love them.
that is a wonderful idea
Agree'd.
I always figure New heaven and New Earth, the saved get heaven, those in Limbo get Earth.
Enviado desde mi SCH-I545 mediante Tapatalk
Quote from: Daniel on June 12, 2014, 02:28:37 PM
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 12:18:44 PM
OK, I will reword it. Perhaps God has plans for some/ all in Limbo that we don't know about.
Because if we assume that limbo is a part of hell then the souls there are essentially damned. But I hadn't considered that maybe God has separate plans for hell and limbo after the Final Judgement.
I can see how you would come to that conclusion. I am just holding out that that is not the end of the story.
Quote from: MilesChristi on June 12, 2014, 02:36:33 PM
I always figure New heaven and New Earth, the saved get heaven, those in Limbo get Earth.
Enviado desde mi SCH-I545 mediante Tapatalk
I hope not. I don't want to come back down here and I want my babies with me.
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 03:56:56 PM
Quote from: Daniel on June 12, 2014, 02:28:37 PM
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 12:18:44 PM
OK, I will reword it. Perhaps God has plans for some/ all in Limbo that we don't know about.
Because if we assume that limbo is a part of hell then the souls there are essentially damned. But I hadn't considered that maybe God has separate plans for hell and limbo after the Final Judgement.
I can see how you would come to that conclusion. I am just holding out that that is not the end of the story.
Quote from: MilesChristi on June 12, 2014, 02:36:33 PM
I always figure New heaven and New Earth, the saved get heaven, those in Limbo get Earth.
Enviado desde mi SCH-I545 mediante Tapatalk
I hope not. I don't want to come back down here and I want my babies with me.
I'm under the impression that in the consideration of the New Heaven and New Earth we could go anywhere via Resurrected Bodies. Able to move below our level but never above. It doesn't make sense to me to deny those in heaven the ability to visit with those on earth, though I've never done much study on it.
QuoteSacred Scripture and Catholic theology teaches that our glorified resurrected bodies will experience four properties as an outflow of the beatified soul enjoying the vision of God's essence:
1) Impassibility – the glorified body will no longer suffer physical sickness or death, as Saint Paul teaches regarding the glorified body in 1 Corinthians 15:42, "It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption."
2) Subtlety meaning that we will have a spiritualized nature in the sense of a spiritual body as did our Lord as we learn at 1 Corinthians 15:44: "It is sown a corruptible body, it shall rise a spiritual," i.e. a spirit-like, "body." We see that Christ's glorified body was able to pass through closed doors.
3) Agility – the glorified body will obey the soul with the greatest ease and speed of movement as we read in 1 Corinthians 15:43: "It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power," that is, according to a gloss, "mobile and living." Saint Thomas Aquinas says, "But mobility can only signify agility in movement. Therefore the glorified bodies will be agile." We discern agility our Resurrected Lord's ability to bilocate and travel great distances in an instant.
4) Clarity – the glorified body will be free from any deformity and will be filled with beauty and radiance as we read at Matthew 13:43: "The just shall shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father," and Wisdom 3:7: "The just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds." Here clarity refers not being "clear" but to being "bright."
St. Thomas Aquinas at Summa Contra Gentiles, IV, 86 summarized: "thus also will his body be raised to the characteristics of heavenly bodies — it will be lightsome (clarity), incapable of suffering (impassible), without difficulty and labor in movement (agility), and most perfectly perfected by its form (subtlety). For this reason, the Apostle speaks of the bodies of the risen as heavenly, referring not to their nature, but to their glory."
http://taylormarshall.com/2012/10/do-you-know-four-properties-of.html
Mobility only makes sense if you are able to go somewhere. Granted that could mean the infinite expanse of Heaven, but it could also mean the New Earth.
Quote from: Gardener on June 13, 2014, 11:46:52 AM
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 03:56:56 PM
Quote from: Daniel on June 12, 2014, 02:28:37 PM
Quote from: verenaerin on June 12, 2014, 12:18:44 PM
OK, I will reword it. Perhaps God has plans for some/ all in Limbo that we don't know about.
Because if we assume that limbo is a part of hell then the souls there are essentially damned. But I hadn't considered that maybe God has separate plans for hell and limbo after the Final Judgement.
I can see how you would come to that conclusion. I am just holding out that that is not the end of the story.
Quote from: MilesChristi on June 12, 2014, 02:36:33 PM
I always figure New heaven and New Earth, the saved get heaven, those in Limbo get Earth.
Enviado desde mi SCH-I545 mediante Tapatalk
I hope not. I don't want to come back down here and I want my babies with me.
I'm under the impression that in the consideration of the New Heaven and New Earth we could go anywhere via Resurrected Bodies. Able to move below our level but never above. It doesn't make sense to me to deny those in heaven the ability to visit with those on earth, though I've never done much study on it.
QuoteSacred Scripture and Catholic theology teaches that our glorified resurrected bodies will experience four properties as an outflow of the beatified soul enjoying the vision of God's essence:
1) Impassibility – the glorified body will no longer suffer physical sickness or death, as Saint Paul teaches regarding the glorified body in 1 Corinthians 15:42, "It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption."
2) Subtlety meaning that we will have a spiritualized nature in the sense of a spiritual body as did our Lord as we learn at 1 Corinthians 15:44: "It is sown a corruptible body, it shall rise a spiritual," i.e. a spirit-like, "body." We see that Christ's glorified body was able to pass through closed doors.
3) Agility – the glorified body will obey the soul with the greatest ease and speed of movement as we read in 1 Corinthians 15:43: "It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power," that is, according to a gloss, "mobile and living." Saint Thomas Aquinas says, "But mobility can only signify agility in movement. Therefore the glorified bodies will be agile." We discern agility our Resurrected Lord's ability to bilocate and travel great distances in an instant.
4) Clarity – the glorified body will be free from any deformity and will be filled with beauty and radiance as we read at Matthew 13:43: "The just shall shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father," and Wisdom 3:7: "The just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds." Here clarity refers not being "clear" but to being "bright."
St. Thomas Aquinas at Summa Contra Gentiles, IV, 86 summarized: "thus also will his body be raised to the characteristics of heavenly bodies — it will be lightsome (clarity), incapable of suffering (impassible), without difficulty and labor in movement (agility), and most perfectly perfected by its form (subtlety). For this reason, the Apostle speaks of the bodies of the risen as heavenly, referring not to their nature, but to their glory."
http://taylormarshall.com/2012/10/do-you-know-four-properties-of.html
Mobility only makes sense if you are able to go somewhere. Granted that could mean the infinite expanse of Heaven, but it could also mean the New Earth.
I will leave that to you an Aquinas. Right now the only way I imagine Heaven is having all my family close while I take one great big nap. :)
But what humanity desires does not correspond with that which is just.
Original sin sets man under the Devil, in his domain, and away from God.
Emotions and feelings won't change that. This is why we are sent to baptize and convert the nations.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on June 13, 2014, 01:41:46 PM
But what humanity desires does not correspond with that which is just.
Original sin sets man under the Devil, in his domain, and away from God.
Emotions and feelings won't change that. This is why we are sent to baptize and convert the nations.
So you deny the principles behind Baptism of Desire and the proxy intention of one Justified?
It's not about feelings and it doesn't deny Original Sin.
QuoteParental Desire
While Baptism is ordinarily required for salvation, the Church recognizes that God is not bound by His sacraments and can still bring about the salvation of the unbaptized.[1] In this vein, the Church has recognized Baptism of blood (dying for the faith) and Baptism of desire (when catechumens die before they actually receive the sacrament, or others who would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity) as having the same effects as sacramental Baptism (cf. Catechism, nos. 1258-60).
The Catechism summarizes the necessity of Baptism in paragraph 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; 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 (original emphasis, footnotes omitted)."
Just as an adult who is invincibly ignorant of the need for Baptism may be saved through an implicit Baptism of desire, even more can we hope that an infant who died without Baptism may be saved. St. Bernard of Clairveaux, a 12th-century doctor of the Church, proposed that an unbaptized baby could aspire to heaven because of the faith of his or her parents. This seems consistent with the fact that it is the parents' faith that brings about the child's Baptism and even with the larger reality of the Communion of Saints, through which our faith and prayers can help bring about others' salvation (cf. Lk. 5:18-20; 1 Cor. 7:12-14). And so the way of the Church, beautifully summarized in Catechism, no. 1261, above, is to confidently entrust these little ones to the mercy and loving providence of Our Heavenly Father.
http://www.cuf.org/2004/04/where-do-we-go-from-here-the-concept-of-limbo/
Quote from: Gardener on June 13, 2014, 02:01:19 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on June 13, 2014, 01:41:46 PM
But what humanity desires does not correspond with that which is just.
Original sin sets man under the Devil, in his domain, and away from God.
Emotions and feelings won't change that. This is why we are sent to baptize and convert the nations.
So you deny the principles behind Baptism of Desire and the proxy intention of one Justified?
It's not about feelings and it doesn't deny Original Sin.
No, I don't, at least I don't think so.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on June 13, 2014, 03:12:41 PM
Quote from: Gardener on June 13, 2014, 02:01:19 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on June 13, 2014, 01:41:46 PM
But what humanity desires does not correspond with that which is just.
Original sin sets man under the Devil, in his domain, and away from God.
Emotions and feelings won't change that. This is why we are sent to baptize and convert the nations.
So you deny the principles behind Baptism of Desire and the proxy intention of one Justified?
It's not about feelings and it doesn't deny Original Sin.
No, I don't, at least I don't think so.
The idea of the
possibility of a Baptism of Desire by Proxy is simply an integration of the concepts of BOD and the Intentional Proxy.
Its integration of the two concepts' principles is a recognition of Original Sin and is not out of emotion, but recognition of the very command of God; in short, it is a movement in, and desire through, Charity.
It's not a condemned proposition.
Quote from: Gardener on June 13, 2014, 02:17:14 PM
QuoteParental Desire
While Baptism is ordinarily required for salvation, the Church recognizes that God is not bound by His sacraments and can still bring about the salvation of the unbaptized.[1] In this vein, the Church has recognized Baptism of blood (dying for the faith) and Baptism of desire (when catechumens die before they actually receive the sacrament, or others who would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity) as having the same effects as sacramental Baptism (cf. Catechism, nos. 1258-60).
The Catechism summarizes the necessity of Baptism in paragraph 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; 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 (original emphasis, footnotes omitted)."
Just as an adult who is invincibly ignorant of the need for Baptism may be saved through an implicit Baptism of desire, even more can we hope that an infant who died without Baptism may be saved. St. Bernard of Clairveaux, a 12th-century doctor of the Church, proposed that an unbaptized baby could aspire to heaven because of the faith of his or her parents. This seems consistent with the fact that it is the parents' faith that brings about the child's Baptism and even with the larger reality of the Communion of Saints, through which our faith and prayers can help bring about others' salvation (cf. Lk. 5:18-20; 1 Cor. 7:12-14). And so the way of the Church, beautifully summarized in Catechism, no. 1261, above, is to confidently entrust these little ones to the mercy and loving providence of Our Heavenly Father.
http://www.cuf.org/2004/04/where-do-we-go-from-here-the-concept-of-limbo/
This gives me great hope. Thank you for this.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on June 13, 2014, 01:41:46 PM
But what humanity desires does not correspond with that which is just.
Original sin sets man under the Devil, in his domain, and away from God.
Emotions and feelings won't change that. This is why we are sent to baptize and convert the nations.
What is just is that we all go to Hell. None of us come even close to what we should be to merit Heaven. We have many instances where God has suspended the laws He has created and performed miracles. And it's not like He only does this for perfect people. We know that miracles have been preformed on ungrateful people- like the 10 lepers.
I know what the laws
for us are. I fully understand what original sin is. But we don't know everything. We don't know what God's plan is for limbo. So as a parent, I beg God to bring my lost children to Heaven. I am asking for the suspension of His own law, for the salvation of my innocent babies. He has saved sinners, surely He could consider saving my babies that have personally committed no sin. As a mother, what else am I supposed to do?
Ok, this is a random thought but here goes...
Baptism of Desire by proxy- I'm thinking of St. Margaret Clithero, an English saint in the Reformation. She was pregnant when she was executed for the Faith. There was nothing she could have done to have her child baptised. She died a martyr, so would her child have been baptised by desire, by proxy?
Following on from that, and it is stretching the point a bit, but if you can have baptism of desire by proxy, could you have this for babies who are aborted, if someone other than the mother earnestly desires that the child could have the chance of baptism?
Just thoughts :)
Quote from: Rose on January 01, 2015, 07:22:01 PM
Ok, this is a random thought but here goes...
Baptism of Desire by proxy- I'm thinking of St. Margaret Clithero, an English saint in the Reformation. She was pregnant when she was executed for the Faith. There was nothing she could have done to have her child baptised. She died a martyr, so would her child have been baptised by desire, by proxy?
Following on from that, and it is stretching the point a bit, but if you can have baptism of desire by proxy, could you have this for babies who are aborted, if someone other than the mother earnestly desires that the child could have the chance of baptism?
Just thoughts :)
I hope so. I guess we won't know till the very end. I hope that the unbaptized babies are allowed to Heaven, maybe at the final judgement.
Quote from: Rose on January 01, 2015, 07:22:01 PM
Ok, this is a random thought but here goes...
Baptism of Desire by proxy- I'm thinking of St. Margaret Clithero, an English saint in the Reformation. She was pregnant when she was executed for the Faith. There was nothing she could have done to have her child baptised. She died a martyr, so would her child have been baptised by desire, by proxy?
Following on from that, and it is stretching the point a bit, but if you can have baptism of desire by proxy, could you have this for babies who are aborted, if someone other than the mother earnestly desires that the child could have the chance of baptism?
Just thoughts :)
Execution of the mother = execution of the child in utero; as St. Margaret's willingness to be a martyr would then serve as entrusting the fate of her child to God for the purpose of being martyred herself (lest to save her child she deny Christ), it would be a baptism of blood by proxy of faith rather than baptism of desire by proxy solely; the desire is contained within the willingness to have one's blood shed for the purpose of confessing Christ.
As to your second point, we could ourselves desire that, and God willing it be so, but there is nothing to lend credence to such a belief. While it could be argued for the case of Catholic parents who lose a child to miscarriage, which itself is even a stretch (God willing it be less of one than we know), I find it hard to reconcile for all aborted babies. Where, exactly, does it stop? At some point we have to come to grips with Original Sin's consequences or else the teaching loses all weight. :(
I thought that baptism was a sacrament for those that are born. The babies that die in utero are never born and are not guilty of actual sin, although they were conceived with original sin. I do practice conditional baptism after miscarriage, but my real hope is in God's justice and mercy. Some people assert miscarried babies become fervent intercessors in heaven for their parents. Others assert they go to Limbo, which is described as a place of perfect natural happiness without being admitted to the Beatific Vision. Both these ideas are comforting and seem just to me, although the former seems more generously merciful to babies who cannot be baptized.
I don't see how the idea that miscarried babies go to heaven even without baptism leads to heresy, either universal salvation or restricting baptism to those over age of reason, for one big reason. All born persons are required to have the sacrament, but the sacrament cannot be administered to an unborn person. Unborn persons are therefore not bound to have baptism, unless and until they are born. God doesn't demand the impossible.
Also, my thoughts about aborted babies is that God, being just, would not offer the opportunity for repentance and an eternity in heaven to those who commit the murder of an unborn person, but send that unborn murder victim straight to hell with no chance of admittance to heaven and no hope for relief from unrelenting torment. I know God's ways are not our ways, but He is the One Who gave me an understanding of justice in the first place, and that would seem unjust.
I pray that this little one that I am carrying makes it to baptism, and lives a full and holy life, but if he should die in utero, I will be very grateful to have this thread and its links as resources. God bless!
Quote from: jmjZelie on March 25, 2016, 11:03:01 AMI thought that baptism was a sacrament for those that are born.
Some were sanctified in the womb, like Jeremiah, St. John the Baptist (not to forget Our B.V.M., who was sanctified not just in the womb but
ab initio).
See
Summa III q. 68 a. 1 "Whether a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb?" (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/TP/TP068.html#TPQ68A11THEP1).
Quote from: Geremia on March 25, 2016, 11:13:00 PM
Quote from: jmjZelie on March 25, 2016, 11:03:01 AMI thought that baptism was a sacrament for those that are born.
Some were sanctified in the womb, like Jeremiah, St. John the Baptist (not to forget Our B.V.M., who was sanctified not just in the womb but ab initio).
See Summa III q. 68 a. 1 "Whether a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb?" (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/TP/TP068.html#TPQ68A11THEP1).
The Angelic Doctor says: "It is essential to Baptism that some part of the body of the person baptized be in some way washed with water, since Baptism is a kind of washing, as stated above (Question [66], Article [1]). But an infant's body, before being born from the womb, can nowise be washed with water; unless perchance it be said that the baptismal water, with which the mother's body is washed, reaches the child while yet in its mother's womb. But this is impossible: both because the child's soul, to the sanctification of which Baptism is ordained, is distinct from the soul of the mother; and because the body of the animated infant is already formed, and consequently distinct from the body of the mother. Therefore the Baptism which the mother receives does not overflow on to the child which is in her womb. Hence Augustine says (Cont. Julian. vi): "If what is conceived within a mother belonged to her body, so as to be considered a part thereof, we should not baptize an infant whose mother, through danger of death, was baptized while she bore it in her womb. Since, then, it," i.e. the infant, "is baptized, it certainly did not belong to the mother's body while it was in the womb." It follows, therefore, that a child can nowise be baptized while in its mother's womb.
Reply to Objection 1: Children while in the mother's womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb."
Quote from: Geremia on March 25, 2016, 11:13:00 PM
Quote from: jmjZelie on March 25, 2016, 11:03:01 AMI thought that baptism was a sacrament for those that are born.
Some were sanctified in the womb, like Jeremiah, St. John the Baptist (not to forget Our B.V.M., who was sanctified not just in the womb but ab initio).
See Summa III q. 68 a. 1 "Whether a child can be baptized while yet in its mother's womb?" (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/TP/TP068.html#TPQ68A11THEP1).
Of course. But I was referring to the sacrament only, not the sanctification by the Holy Spirit by any other means.
I know this thread has died, but please forgive me a comment I would like to make. One of my family members who has just been married a year had married a young woman that was not Catholic. At Easter she was taken into the Church after her year of RCIA. I saw a picture of her on that night, she had been baptized, by immersion, which I know is unusual in the Church, and the photo showed her in very wet robe with her very pregnant stomach. Just a couple weeks later the baby boy was born. I was just struck by the idea that the baptized woman had a very close to being born child within. All I could think, was "awesome". I wonder how that effects the baby? Something else to wonder about. Also, my daughter and son-in-law baptized their tiny miscarried baby with the conditional form. I saw the baby, it was very small, but intact. It was barely an inch in size. Some things are just a mystery and we don't get to know until later, but it is so hard not to wonder how it all works.
Quote from: Azelie on May 19, 2017, 07:13:22 PM
I know this thread has died, but please forgive me a comment I would like to make. One of my family members who has just been married a year had married a young woman that was not Catholic. At Easter she was taken into the Church after her year of RCIA. I saw a picture of her on that night, she had been baptized, by immersion, which I know is unusual in the Church, and the photo showed her in very wet robe with her very pregnant stomach. Just a couple weeks later the baby boy was born. I was just struck by the idea that the baptized woman had a very close to being born child within. All I could think, was "awesome". I wonder how that effects the baby? Something else to wonder about. Also, my daughter and son-in-law baptized their tiny miscarried baby with the conditional form. I saw the baby, it was very small, but intact. It was barely an inch in size. Some things are just a mystery and we don't get to know until later, but it is so hard not to wonder how it all works.
So sorry for mom and dad, and siblings if there are any. You probably wonder if child within also received the sacrament of baptism. I think not because the waters never touched the baby's head. But I'll bet it was so sweet, knowing the child was right there, front and center for mama's baptism. Best seat in the House of God.
My little boy was born alive, baptized by a Catholic nurse, right in the operating room. I was not far enough along in the Faith to even know how to do it, yet the job got done, thanks be to God! Another one for the kingdom.
My sister worked as a gynae nurse for several decades, within her role she nursed many mothers who had lost their children both early and late term. Whenever she was on duty and came across an unborn infant she would give the infant a simple baptismal ceremony just so they had a chance of getting to heaven. When she told me this many years ago I thought it was such a lovely gesture of kindness and compassion