Don't worry, this isn't another exhaustive thread on this issue, rather, just consideration of one aspect. We read in the New Catechism that 

Quote:1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
- emphasis mine.

Given how the Catechism is universally accepted by the word's episcopate (by and large), would not the Catechism's contents therefore constitute (infallible) teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium - namely, that one is allowed to hope for an extra-Baptismal way of salvation for such infants? Or not necessarily, due to the ordinary/universal Magisterium not definatively holding this (as it does with abortion,  male-only priesthood etc), even though it clearly favours this viewpoint?

These questions are interesting in light of the fact some many will hold that (some form of) Limbo  cannot be dispensed with without falling into  heresy  due to the implications of negating  this concept.
It is hard to determine exaclty if the entire Ordinary Magisterium accepts it. Like I've said before I know of a few bishops who have endorsed the views of Fr. Feeney and declared a book defending his theology to "free from moral and doctrinal error."  I'm sure the Catechism of Trent was accepted by all the Catholic bishops yet is spoke error concerning enxoulment, which the pope had since then corrected. So how can we say something is trule universally excepted by the Ordinary? Who determines it?

The Extrordinary Magisterium is there to take care of such confusion, and since the Extrordinary Magisterium has only spoken in favor of Limbo, I must agree with them and not a catechism which is not protected by infallibility.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)