Dulles, Final Paper

I’ve uploaded the final copy of my Dulles Paper.

Dulles Paper

Here is the link to the final draft of my Dulles Paper.

Research Log

Notes:  I realize that each footnote and bibliography entry should be indented, but WordPress will not allow me to indent.

Also, copying and pasting from Word created problems in some of my tables.  Fixing the problem in WordPress would have taken too much time, so wherever there was a problem I merely moved the information from that box to the box immediately to its left.

1:  Reference Works

1B:

1) Author	2) Title of Article	3) Title of Reference Work	4) Editor of Reference Work	5) City/publisher/year of publication	6 volume and inclusive page numbers
Cormac Burke	Church, Nature, Origin, and Structure of”	Our Sunday Visitor’s Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine	Russell Shaw	Indiana:  Our Sunday Visitor, 1997.	105-8
Not Given	“Dulles, Avery Robert”	The Harper-Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism	Richard P. McBrien et al.	New York:  HarperCollins, 1995.	435
J.J. O’Rourke	“Church II”	The New Catholic Encyclopedia	An editorial staff	Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1967.	vol. 3, 683-93

1C:  (Throughout this assignment, footnotes are listed first and the bibliography entry is listed second.)

Source 1:

Cormac Burke, “People of God,” in Our Sunday Visitor’s Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, ed. Russell Shaw (Indiana:  Our Sunday Visitor, 1997), 499.

Burke, Cormac.  “People of God.”  In Our Sunday Visitor’s Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, ed. Russell Shaw, 498-99.  Indiana:  Our Sunday Visitor, 1997.

Source 2:

“Dulles, Avery Robert,” in The Harper-Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, ed. Richard P. McBrien et al. (New York:  HarperCollins, 1995), 435.

“Dulles, Avery Robert.” In The Harper-Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, ed. Richard P. McBrien et al., 435.  New York:  HarperCollins, 1995.

Source 3:

J. J. O’Rourke, “Church II,” in The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 3, ed. An editorial staff (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1967), 688.

O’Rourke, J.J. “Church II.” In The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 3, ed. An editorial staff, 683-93.  Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1967.

1D:

“Dulles pioneered the use of models in Catholic theology in his Models of the Church (1974) and Models of Revelation (1983).  His ability to describe the characteristics of different groups of theologians sympathetically and to discover new avenues of dialogue are hallmarks of his work.”  (Harper-Collins, 435).

“It would be a radical misunderstanding of the biblical expression and of Vatican II’s intention in using it, to suggest that the Council thereby wished to introduce a more “democratic” notion of the Church, a Church where power would appear ultimately and properly derived from the people.  The Church, hierarchical by constitution (cf. Lumen Gentium, 18-29), is a people gathered under God.  Authority (rather than power) or jurisdiction exercised within the peoples comes “from above” (cf. Jn 19:11); in its fundamental aspects it can only come from a divine commission.” (Burke, 498)

“The growing loneliness that man people experience today, even in the Church, is ultimately due to a sense of not belonging to a people, of not feeling the strength of common values and a common inheritance, of not having learned to rejoice in the grace and truth of Christ.” (Burke, 498).

“In the mind of the Patristic writers the Episcopal order. . . exists to beget, sustain, and foster the Christian community of the Church . . . . The hierarchical order is a ministry commissioned by Christ to serve the communion of Christian faith . . . and above all to serve the community of sacramental life . . . and by administering the penitential procedures which issued in full Eucharistic communion.” (O’Rourke, 586)

2:  Online Tutorials

2B:

1. The following are two examples of how to expand one’s search.  First, choose a more general term for which to search.  For example, “ecclesiology” is a more specific term than Church.  Second, by choosing the “all text” category when searching for terms, the search engine will search not only the titles of articles or the abstracts, but within articles themselves.

2.  There are several ways to limit one’s search.  First, one can search for an exact phrase by adding quotations around the search term.  Second, one can limit a search to articles, reviews, etc. by clicking the appropriate boxes.  Third, we can limit the search to “peer-reviewed” publications by clicking the “peer-reviewed” box.  Fourth, if we want to search for articles written by a certain author or having certain words in the title, we can specify these through the pull-down bars next to the boxes in which we specify which terms for which we are searching.

3.After finding the source that you wish to save, click the “add to folder” button on the right side of the screen.  Repeat this process until the folder contains multiple sources.

3:  Book Reviews

3C:

Author of Review	Title of Book under Review	Author of Book under Review	Title of Journal	Volume, Issue, Date, and Page Numbers
D.W.D. Shaw	Models of the Church	Avery Dulles	Scottish Journal of Theology	31, no. 1 (January 1, 1978): 78-80.
Patrick J. Burns	Models of the Church	Avery Dulles	Theological Studies	35, no. 3 (1974): 564.

3D:

Book review available only in print in our library:

D.W.D. Shaw, “Models of the Church,” Scottish Journal of Theology 31, no. 1 (1978), 79.

Shaw, D. W. D. “Models of the Church.” Scottish Journal of Theology 31, no. 1 (January 1, 1978): 78-80.

Full Text Available online:

Patrick J. Burns, “Models of the Church,” Theological Studies 35, no. 3 (1974), 564.

Burns, Patrick J. “Models of the Church.” Theological Studies 35, no. 3 (September 1, 1974): 563-65.

3E:

“D. himself indicates a clear preference for the sacramental model of the Church.  He notes that the notion of an efficacious sign community is a highly sophisticated theological concept; paradoxically, the paradigm of a community of symbolic communication is itself difficult to communicate.” (Burns, 565)

“In the process of each individual [to create a supermodel] reveals the model he has already been working with implicitly in his reflection on the Church and attempts to compensate for its deficiencies by incorporating elements from the other models.” (Burns, 564)

“Fr. Dulles writes explicitly from the point of view of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, but he is familiar with the most important non-Roman contemporary ecclesiologies, and, without taking refuge in an unrealistic eclecticism, provides a thoroughly ecumenical approach.”(Shaw, 79)

“Fr. Dulles has now come up with a really helpful offering of models in the field of comparative ecclesiology.” (Shaw, 78).

4:  Journal Articles

4C:

Author of Article	Title of Article	Journal Title	Volume, Issue, Date, Page Numbers
Avery Dulles	“A Half Century of Ecclesiology”	Theological Studies	50 (1989), 419-42
Avery Dulles	“The Sacramental Ecclesiology of Lumen gentium” (Gregorianum)		86, no. 3 (2005):  550-62.
Stephen Mark Massa	“Avery Dulles, Teaching Authority in the Church, and the ‘Dialectically Tense’ Middle:  an American Strategic Theology	Heythrop Journal	48, no. 6 (November 2007):  932-51.

4D:

Avery Dulles, “A Half Century of Ecclesiology,” Theological Studies 50, (1989), 425.

Dulles, Avery.  “A Half Century of Ecclesiology.” Theological Studies 50, (1989): 419-42.

Avery Dulles, “The Sacramental Ecclesiology in Lumen gentium,”  Gregorianum 86, no. 3 (2005), 556.

Dulles, Avery.  “The Sacramental Ecclesiology in Lumen gentium.”  Gregorianum 86, no. 3 (2005):  550-62.

Stephen Mark Massa, “Avery Dulles, Teaching Authority in the Church, and the ‘Dialectically Tense’ Middle:  an American Strategic Theology,” Heythrop Journal, 48, no. 6 (November 2007), 941.

Massa, Mark Stephen.  “Avery Dulles, Teaching Authority in the Church, and the ‘Dialectically Tense’ Middle:  an American Strategic Theology.”  Heythrop Journal, 48, no. 6 (November 2007): 932-51.

4E:

“Drawing on the first schema of Vatican I and on the encyclicals of Leo XIII, the encyclical [Mystici corporis Christi] was by no means a repudiation of previous official teaching, but in many ways it was a welcome advance beyond the more juridical ecclesiologies of the manuals.” (Dulles I, 422)

“Like several Popes before him, Pius XII insisted that the Church could not be a body unless it were visible.” (Dulles I, 422)

“The term ‘sacrament’, as applied to the Church, contains a variety of implications, all of which should be kept in mind for a proper interpretation of the Council.  The sacrament is a sign or symbol, signifying the unity and communion willed by God; it is an efficacious sign, an instruments by which God effects this saving unity; and thirdly, the sacrament precontains the reality that it signifies and brings about.”(Dulles II, 553)

“Vatican II, however, refrained from calling the Church a “communion”.  Rather, it described the Church as a sacrament of communion, a corporate sign that signifies, contains, and establishes a supernatural communion of human beings with one another and with God in Christ.” (Dulles II, 553)

5:  Articles in Books

5B:

Author of Article	Title of Article	Title of Book	Editor of Book	City, Publisher, year of Publication
Avery Dulles	“Trends in ecclesiology”	Called to Holiness and Communion: Vatican II on the Church, 1-16.	Steven Boguslawski and Robert Fastiggi	Scranton, PA: University of Scranton Press, 2009.

5C:

Avery Dulles, “Trends in ecclesiology,” in Called to Holiness and Communion: Vatican II on the Church, ed. Steven Boguslawski and Robert Fastiggi (Scranton, PA: University of Scranton Press, 2009), 8.

Dulles, Avery.  “Trends in ecclesiology.” In Called to Holiness and Communion: Vatican II on the Church, ed. Steven Boguslawski and Robert Fastiggi, 1-16. Scranton, PA: University of Scranton Press, 2009.

5D:

1 Yes.  262.52 C157b

2 This book is “kind of” available on Mobius:  the only copy is in Kenrick-Glennon Seminary’s library!  1) Check to see if the book is available in Kenrick’s library.  2) If not, click the “search Mobius” button. 3) If it is available, the entry will show up in Mobius’s search engine results.  Hit the “request” button.

6:  Finding Church Documents

6B:

Author	Type of Document	Title of Document in English	Title of Document in Latin	Source Publication of Information
Paul VI	Dogmatic Constitution	Light of the Nations (Lumen gentium)		21 November 1964 www.vatican.va
Paul VI	Pastoral Constitution	Joy and Hope (Gaudium et spes)		7 December 1965 www.vatican.va

6C:

Church as Servant or Herald of the Gospel:  “The Church recognizes that worthy elements are found in today’s social movements, especially an evolution toward unity, a process of wholesome socialization and of association in civic and economic realms.” Gaudium et spes, 42.

Church as People of God:  “So it is that that messianic people, although it does not actually include all men, and at times may look like a small flock, is nonetheless a lasting and sure seed of unity, hope, and salvation for the whole human race.” Lumen gentium, 9.

7:  Websites

7B:

1. Who is the Sponsor of the Website (Organization, institution, individual)?

The website is a personal blog by Rich Vincent, the senior Baptist pastor at Immanuel Church in West Bend, Wisconsin.

2.Who is the author and what are his credentials?

The author is a Baptist pastor in Wisconsin.  He graduated with an M.Div in 2005 from Bethel Seminary after serving as an associate pastor for about ten years and two years at a small Bible college, from which he did not graduate due to the amount of work pressing him in his ministry.

3. Who is the intended audience for the site (general audience, scholars, Catholics)?

The intended audience is primarily his congregation in Wisconsin.  He has many homilies online, and his parishioners comment on them regularly.  He, however, sees his blog as a way to expand his ministry to the general public.

4. What seems to be the perspective or point of view of the site (popular, academic, a particular philosophical, theological, or political point of view)?

The author is a Baptist minister who summarizes his preaching style in the following ten statements:

Salvation is a process, and not merely a decision. The Christian life is a lengthy pilgrimage. Perseverance is necessary to reach our goal. The work of the Spirit is primarily to comfort us that we are children of God–not primarily to condemn us. Sanctification is the process of becoming authentically human, not odd or weird. Suffering is not evidence that God is far off or angry with you, nor is suffering evidence that your faith is too small. God is primarily known in the ordinary, not primarily in the ecstatic or miraculous. The goal of Bible study is personal knowledge of God, not greater knowledge of the Bible. Mystery pervades all and is to be embraced, not explained away. Love is the goal of all things–not being “right.”

5. How current is the information on the site?

The blog began in 2005, and currently is updated about once a month.

7C:

Richard Vincent, Models of the Church, 2005, [online], available from http://www.theocentric.com/ecclesiology/leadership/models_of_the_church.html, 20 September 2010.

Vincent, Richard.  Models of the Church. 2005. [online].  Available from http://www.theocentric.com/ecclesiology/leadership/models_of_the_church.html.  20 September 2010.

Annotation

(Note to readers:  as part of a seminary class, I am required to maintain a blog and post different assignments on it.  Just so you all have the context…)

The source used in my paragraph is:

Heidegger, Martin.   Introduction to Metaphysics. London:  Yale University Press, 2000.

Vox Day on Atheism

Atheists usually claim religion is behind all the problems in the world, but since they also believe religion is human-created, they are eventually forced to end up advocating mass murder of one form or another.  Vox Day

What a wonderful, pithy formulation of the problem.  If religion is the cause of all the world’s evils, and genocide remains part of the human condition after religion is eradicated, then genocide isn’t evil.  If atheists are right and all religion is a human artifact, then getting rid of religion will do nothing to solve the world’s problems.  Man will merely replace his religious ideology with some sort of secular ideology, leaving man’s irrational and superstitious tendencies in tact.

Day also has recently criticized the idea that scientists are more rational than the rest of us.  It’s not that “science” isn’t a rational pursuit; it’s that scientists are the weakest part of the scientific enterprise.  Merely participating in the scientific enterprise does nothing to make a person more rational and less susceptible to non-rational biases.  Thus, to eliminate all religions and replace it with “science” will do nothing to make people less superstitious and more rational.  We will live in a culture that lacks the means that has historically been most common and effective in teaching moral values to the younger generation.

A Thought on Liturgy

A brother seminarian recently made this observation, and I think it bears repeating.  The next 50 years are going to see a lot of liturgical changes.  Vatican II is still being worked out, and still may be not fully implemented until the end of this century.  Some people on both sides may like certain changes and hate others.  The most important question, however, is not what changes will be made; rather, it is this:  when the changes are made, will you be obedient and implement them?

Spring Cleaning

After archiving my blog today, I deleted a few dozen posts.  A priest I know recently said that 10% of your people will love you, 10% will hate you, and 80% just want you to administer the Sacraments.  Since 10% of the people in any given parish will not necessarily have my best interests in mind, it seems wise to reserve certain types of personal information for the private forum.

So after a cursory look through my archives I deleted posts which I felt contained too much personal information.  I also deleted posts that I wrote a while back from perspectives with which I now strongly disagree.  I also deleted several posts with certain types of political commentary.

Next up:  my Facebook page.

New Look

The blog has a new look.  For whatever reason the template that I had been using stopped working, and the text of my posts stretched outside the margins.  I selected a new template rather than spending the time to fix the problem with the previous one; it was time for a change anyway.

A Conversation on Limbo

Over at First Things I got involved in a discussion on Catholic conjectures about Limbo, a state of being proposed by some theologians as a state of perfect natural happiness that unbaptized infants go to after death.  Normally I do not get involved in internet debates–they tend to bring out the worst in me, but a friend requested that I get involved, so I did.  The following is a set of posts from different interlocutors and my responses to them.  Text in green are comments from one interlocutor; text in blue are from another interlocutor; text in black are my comments.

Mr. Hamilton,

I am only human, and I may have once again misrepresented myself in some way in any of the numerous posts that have appeared in this comment box. Given the misunderstandings that have arisen, I can see why you would be able to attribute to me the position that baptism can be applied after death in the time period following Christ’ death and resurrection. After all, in my last post I wrote: “It is fairly clear, then, that I recognize that infants who have died without baptism by water may receive baptism of some other kind.” I confess I did not put enough thought into that particular sentence. But the sentence immediately following that one is more detailed and, I think, places that sentence in its proper context: “My position is simply that one needs some form of baptism to be healed of original sin, and that if one has not received any form of baptism and then dies in original sin, that the teaching of the Council of Florence then applies to that person.”

Now, I can see where a misunderstanding would arise from a reading of those two sentences one after another, and, as I said above, I apologize for not being precisely clear. I also realize that no man’s patience is eternal, and it is not my intention to exasperate anyone.

So, to avoid any further misunderstandings of my position (all of which have arisen from my own fault), I offer the following formulation for your analysis. If I err at any step please correct me so that I can arrive at the truth.

Baptism is necessary for salvation, according to canon five of the seventh session of the Council of Trent in the section on baptism. There are many forms of baptism besides baptism by water, such as baptism by blood, and by implicit or explicit desire. According to the Council of Florence, anyone who dies in original sin alone is sent to hell to be tortured, though with unequal pains when compared to others found in hell. So, if an infant dies without receiving any form of baptism, he dies in original sin alone, and so, following the Council of Florence, is sent to hell. Paragraph 1056 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which cannot be said to be ignorant of the limbo of the fathers, says that “eternal death” is also called “hell.” Death is not a place but a state of being. So, eternal death is an eternal state. If “eternal death” is also called “hell,” then “hell” is also called “eternal death.” So, hell is an eternal state. The Council of Florence also says that those sent to hell are punished with unequal pains, and the Catechism, paragraph 1057, says that the principal punishment of hell is eternal separation from God. So, I conclude that, if an infant dies without any form of baptism that he dies in original sin, and so, according to the Council of Florence, is sent to hell, which is eternal death, and is punished with eternal separation from God.

Thanks for that formulation. Let’s take a small sample of what you said.

1) Baptism is necessary for salvation.
2) Those who die in original sin alone are sent ad infernum; those who do not receive any form of baptism go to hell.
3) Hell is eternal separation from God.

On each of these appoints, we agree, although on some we agree only verbally. We seem to agree on 1). Baptism is necessary for salvation, and baptism is understood in both its ordinary form, i.e. by water, and in certain extraordinary forms, such as by desire, by blood, and implicit desire. From this it logically follows that the group of people who have not received formal baptism is not the same as the group of people who die in original sin; this is because some people who die without formal baptism do not die in original sin, i.e. those who receive some extraordinary form of baptism. We also agree on 3), that those who are sent to hell are in eternal separation from God.

On 2) we also agree, to this extent: per Florence, those who die without any sort of baptism are in hell eternally because they are still in original sin. But we have already established that to die in original sin is not the same as to die without formal baptism. There are extraordinary forms of baptism which do not involve water. While we can determine that infants who die soon after formal baptism go to heaven, it is not necessarily known to man who receives extraordinary baptism; for example only God can determine who has the implicit desire to receive baptism and who doesn’t. The point of dispute among theologians is how flexibly the criteria for extraordinary baptism are to be interpreted.

The point in 2) on which we may disagree is the meaning of ‘infernum.’ Yes, every time we say hell, we translate it infernum; but it is not true that every time we say ‘infernum’ we translate it as hell. The counter-example repeatedly used in this thread is the limbo of the Fathers, which Christ harrowed after his death. It therefore does not logically follow that what the Catechism says of hell proper is true of every sense of the word ‘infernum’.

Hell, according to the Catechism, is “the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives” (CCC 1033; also, see the entry for ‘hell’ in the glossary). Now it is in no way clear how the ‘infernum’ discussed at Florence for those who die in original sin alone is the same as hell proper (from this point forward, assume that whenever we speak of Florence’s infernum we add the qualification “insofar as infants are concerned”). For it is in no way clear that infants who die are capable of exercising free choice prior to their deaths. Thus one of the criterion for entrance into hell proper is not met, and since hell and Florence’s infernum have different properties, they cannot be the same thing. Therefore, to say something about the permanence of hell is not to say anything about the permanence or lack thereof of Florence’s infernum. And this ties into one of Dr. Liccione’s suggestions, that infants may remain in a non-permanent infernum for a time, perhaps until the general resurrection before going permanently to heaven or hell. Furthermore in denying the permanence of the infernum mentioned at Florence, Dr. Liccione is not trapped into saying that hell proper is a temporary state.

Yet even if we assume for the sake of argument that the infernum of Florence is hell, Florence need not be interpreted as saying anything on the topic of extraordinary baptism. Florence says that those who die “in original sin” go ad infernum, so we can infer with certainty that any infant who dies without any sort of baptism goes to hell. We can also say with confidence that every person who is in a state of original sin is unbaptized; what is in dispute is the extent to which the extraordinary means of baptism are available to infants, and thus which infants count as unbaptized. The real question is what would be required of that infant actually to choose to go against God by its own free choice, and thus warrant eternal punishment for having rejected God and extraordinary baptism in the first place.

Florence, therefore, cannot be interpreted as saying anything definitive about infants in general after death beyond what the text *manifestly* says: any person who dies in original sin goes to hell. However, the text says nothing about how to determine who ultimately dies in original sin because it says nothing about how to determine who dies without some extraordinary form of baptism. Dr. Liccione and I think that God offers each infant some opportunity to choose extraordinary baptism after its death; others may disagree. But this discussion pertains to matters well beyond what was formalized at Florence and is assumed by both sides of the limbo debate.

In summary. Both of us can agree with your conclusion, though it is not clear that we interpret the words in the same way. While we both acknowledge the permanence of hell proper, it is unclear whether we both acknowledge that the infernum mentioned at Florence is the same thing as hell proper. And while we both agree that some form of baptism is necessary for salvation, it is not clear that a) we agree that Florence makes any definitive pronouncement against the position that Dr. Liccione and I defend, and b) we agree about how liberally we are to understand the phrase “extraordinary baptism.”

Paul Hamilton,

thanks.  I’m in agreement with much of what you’ve said, but I’m not sure you’ve answered the question I have re. the ITC’s statement I quoted.

That statement seems to be saying this: If Jack & Jill intend their baby Molly to be baptized, God will save Molly anyway if for some reason they are prevented from carrying this out. Well, let’s grant this arguendo, and call it baptism of (parental) desire. But consider the more interesting case not canvassed by the ITC, that Jack and Jill have no intention or desire whatsoever to baptise Molly, and she dies an infant. Does God save Molly anyway? If so, then why put in the words “when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do” when they have no bearing on the case? God is apparently going to save Molly who dies as an infant regardless of parental intentions. Thus, baptism by us of Molly in any form ­ actual or by desire  is not, after all, necessary for her salvation. If on the other hand we give these words a function in the sentence and take it to mean that God may not save Molly in this second case, then where does she go in all justice, but into a state wherein she lacks the beatific vision, but where there is no punishment due to personal sin, and perfect natural happiness forever?

Here is a theologically possible scenario. Under the guidance of Providence, no souls die merely in a state of original sin. But if there had been any, they would indeed go to a place that corresponds to St Thomas’s doctrine of limbo.

How could it be that no souls actually die in a state of original sin alone?

1.) Infants who die in utero cannot be baptised, physically and theologically (says St Thomas  because, for starters, you can’t be “born again” if you’re not born a first time.) So baptism is not necessary for them: they are not yet subject to the action of men (St Thomas) and it’s impossible for them to undergo it. But as St Thomas says, it’s perfectly possible that those who are going to die in utero, who are subject to the action of God, “in whose sight they live”, could be sanctified in the womb  as (eg) John the Baptist was. (III Q68 Art 11).

2.) For those children like Molly in the second case above, who die in infancy and unbaptised by disinclined parents, it’s theologically possible that God chooses to send an angel or a saint to administer the sacrament before the moment of death.(III Q64 Art 7  Whether Angels can Administer Sacraments.)

(I have a lot of theological problems the idea of baptism or sanctification after death, suggested in posts above. For one thing, it compromises the fundamental Christian idea of the finality of death. Plus, on the principle of Occam’s Razor, it’s superfluous to requirements. If God could sanctify in an extraordinary way after the moment of death, surely He can just as easily do so before the moment of death. Etc)

3.) For pagan adults who have the requisite dispositions, similar provision could be made as in 2) (viz. the vision of Venerable Maria Agreda and the pagan indian in South America.)

On this scenario, baptism is necessary for salvation in the strict sense (ie, baptism by someone, even an angel or saint) and while limbo is a valid and reasonble theological hypothesis, it’s in fact empty.

But this it’s impossible to say whether this scenario is wholly or partly the case. God in His wisdom has chosen never to reveal as definitive such information from us in the Church Militant, for reasons some of which are pretty obvious even to me. Therefore the thesis that limbo exists and is populated is equally possible, and is a valid, indeed I think compelling theological hypothesis, even if it does turn out to be unpopulated.

The only safe course for us is to desire and intend that our born children be baptized, and that everyone in the world is baptized or at least has it as their top priority in their hour of death. We must leave the rest to the infinitely merciful to God.

P.S. Limbo, hypothetically or actually existing, has had an unjustifiably bad press. I’m unable to see insuperable theological objections to the following possibilities for inhabitants of Limbo.

1.) That they commune and intermingle with the saints and angels in heaven, even though lacking their Beatific Vision. [After all, Jesus had the Beatific Vision while He interacted with us, sinners or otherwise,  on earth.]

2.) That they contemplate with restored preternatural gifts of knowledge the truths of the Faith which will unfold eternally for us all. [Even though the knowledge by which they will grasp these will not supernatural faith ­ after all, even “The devils believe and tremble.”]

3.) That they will meet know and enjoy an eternal relationship with Jesus Christ with all their (natural and possibly restored preternatural) powers. [Just as people with original sin on their souls encountered and befriended Jesus of Nazareth.] And possibly through Him, experience in some way with their heightened natural powers, the presence of the Father and the Holy Ghost. [As Abraham encountered the Trinity in the form of three angels.]

Naturally, I submit to the rulings of the magisterium on all of these points.

I was going to make my previous post my last, but you raise some interesting points that I would like to address.

a) If my account is correct (provided in detail in my previous post), the Molly in your example is still saved by baptism, even if she does receive baptism formally or by the desire of her parents. She is saved because she would be given an opportunity to choose to accept or reject God when, and through God’s power, she is capable of making such a choice–and this would be an extraordinary form of baptism. God does not save her “no matter what”, but by her desire for salvation, when in God’s time she becomes capable of desiring or not desiring God. It is also possible that she ultimately rejects God.

b) The possibilities you set forth about limbo are interesting, although I’m not sure that any of these states of affairs are equivalent to limbo as it is classically defined, i.e. as a state of perfect natural happiness. I don’t see how any of these scenarios matches that description–but that’s not due to any lack of interesting and creative thought on your part, but because a perfect state of nature independent of grace is probably impossible in the first place. But if we allow that children who die in original sin alone possibly spend their days in God’s grace, why not admit the possibility that they reach heaven?

c) Your point about the finality of death is interesting and worth addressing. However, there is no finality of death absolutely speaking; that is, there are ways in which death is said to be “not final” in a qualified sense, such as those who go to Purgatory prior to entering heaven, and the limbo of the Fathers. I say this not as a counter-example to your position (obviously because the people in these examples will ultimately have a final resting spot, and so their destinations really are final), but because it requires us to examine in exactly what way death is said to be final.

Death seems to be final in two ways: a) the desire for or aversion to God that we exhibit in this life is final, in that it determines b) our permanent destination after death–either heaven or hell. It is in both of these ways that our deaths are final.

Note that the destination of heaven or hell is not permanent due to any quality in the individual himself or just because God said so. They are permanent because the states of affairs are permanent. In Thomas Aquinas’ account, on earth we are capable of sinning because we do not know God with simple vision, and thus can choose to see God as just another good among goods. Yet when we reach heaven and see God with the simple vision of him as he is–as the highest good– we cannot but will him. Hell is permanent because the damned choose to live in a state of being without grace, and God in deference to their will sends them to a place without grace. Since without grace they can never make it to heaven, the state of the damned is permanent.

But it is unclear that the deaths of formally unbaptized children like Molly can be considered final in either of these ways. First, heaven or hell cannot be permanent for Molly because her situation is such that she does not have the credentials to belong to either. While original sin is sufficient to keep her out of heaven, having original sin alone is not sufficient to place her in hell proper, which the Catechism states is reserved for those who actively reject God. Nor can her choice or desire for or against God be considered final, since she never made a choice in the first place.

If limbo exists, it is unclear why it must be a permanent state of affairs. Its permanence cannot be explained by the abundant goodness and grace of God like heaven is; and if there is no such thing as a perfect state of nature lacking completely in grace–which theologians have given us no good reason to think exists–then its permanence cannot be explained in the same way as hell’s is. If limbo exists, then there doesn’t seem to be any clear reason to assert its permanence.

If my analysis is correct, I see no reason why we must assert that there is such a finality of death for infants that they cannot come to desire or reject God after their deaths in order that they might merit heaven or hell. Since they made no choice in this life–indeed, they were incapable of making a choice in this life– it is hard to see how the “choice” they made in this life was final.

Thanks for the references to St. Thomas on whether the angels can administer the Sacraments. I will enjoy reading them.

A Dialog on Confession

Person A:  Why do we have to go to Confession to a priest when we can just go directly to God?

Person B:  Why did God become man to die on the Cross when he could have just said that we were redeemed?

Person A:  Because it was important for us to see how much God loved us.

Person B:  Is it possible for someone to just know how much God love them without needing proof?

Person A:  Well, yes, but humans tend to process things better if they are able to experience them.

Person B:  And is not Christ’s death on the Cross like a Sacrament?

Person A:  How so?

Person B:  Is a Sacrament an outward sign of an inward reality instituted by Christ to mediate grace?

Person A:  Yes.

Person B:  And is not the Crucifixion an outward sign of God’s inward love for us, instituted by Christ to mediate grace?

Person A:  Yes.

Person B:  And couldn’t every event of Jesus’ life be considered sacramental?  For example, could not his healing miracles be seen as an outward sign of the inner, spiritual cleaning, a manifestation of the hidden grace of God working in that person’s soul?

Person A:  I suppose so.

Person B:  And can’t we consider nearly all of Jesus’ life in this way, as a manifestation of what is otherwise hidden, instituted by Christ to mediate grace?

Person A:  I suppose so.

Person B:  So if Jesus came to earth rather than not in order for us to experience him sacramentally, does it not make sense that the medium by which we encounter Christ after his death be sacramental?

Person A:  It does make sense.

Person B:  So even if Jesus could have forgiven men by non-sacramental means, does it not make sense that he chose to make a Sacrament the ordinary means of obtaining forgiveness?

Person A:  Yes, it does make sense.