Water and the Spirit

Contents

• The Witness of the Scriptures
• The Witness of the Fathers
• Confirmation
• Answers to Objections
• Justification by Faith
• Spiritual Religion
• Baptism of Desire
• Infant Baptism

Introduction

For a Catholic, baptism is linked up with almost every other part of theology. To discuss it in isolation from the nature of sin and justification , the role and constitution of the Church , the Incarnation, the Trinity and the sacraments of Confirmation and Penance is necessarily to distort it. Nevertheless, a beginning must be made somewhere. Baptism is a sacrament, an outward sign of an inward grace. Thus it is not primarily a form for the profession or manifestation of faith, nor a declaration or ratification of something that has already happened. Baptism does not have an indirect effect, by eliciting a response of faith in the heart of the person baptized and this response then having some import. Rather, the sacrament of baptism by the grace of God directly causes what it signifies. Now, baptism - as we shall see - signifies the transition from "being in Adam" to "incorporation in Christ", cleansing from sin and a sharing in Christ's saving life, death and resurrection: so Baptism is instrumental in causing these effects.

Naturally, it is not the external physical ritual that directly causes these spiritual consequences, rather it is the presence of  Holy Spirit in and through the symbolic rite that is crucial and causal. However, God has pledged HimSelves to always honour and be active in the sacrament, for the spiritual benefit of its recipient, providing that (s)he does not harbour a hostile intention.

Baptism is the beginning of a Christian's new life: it incorporates them into Christ; forgives all past actual sins; and imparts Holy Spirit to his/her soul, thereby removing the stain of original sin and making the neophyte God's friend, a coheir with Jesus of His Kingdom. This is remarkable and may sound extravagant. It will, however, be found to be both scriptural and also the teaching of the earliest of the Fathers of the Church.

  The Witness of the Scriptures

The ministry of St John Baptist

The baptism of Jesus

Jesus' baptism was:

• an act of at-one-ment and association with those Hebrews who responded to the Baptist's vocation;
• an epiphany (manifestation, demonstration, advertisement or proclamation) of his Kingship;
• an anointing or chrismation (Christ = Messiah = "the Anointed One"), save that no human mediation was appropriate to inaugurate His Messianic status [Mat 3:16-17].

The teaching of Jesus

Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles

We find exactly the same pattern in Ananias' words spoken to Saul in Damascus after he had been cured of his blindness: "....be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His Name" [Acts 6:2-4]. This could be a figure of speech and mean that "as you call upon Jesus, your sins will be forgiven you as if they were dirt to be washed off and I will wash your body in water to symbolize this." However, apart from the untrustworthy prejudice of common sense I see no reason to reject the more obvious interpretation: that baptism itself washes away sins.

The teaching of St Paul

St Paul has a good deal to say about baptism. In his letter to the Church of Rome, we are told that baptism unites the Christian with Jesus in His death: the old self being crucified so that a justified (wo)man might rise from the dead to a new life, freed from slavery to sin by the gift of the indwelling Spirit [Rom 8:11]. In his letter to the Church in Galatia, the roles of faith and baptism are contrasted [Gal 3:26-29]. Baptism is referred to in the past tense as having had an effect: "....you were baptized into Christ ...." so "....you are all one in Christ Jesus .... heirs according to promise." Faith is talked of in the present tense, as now having an effect: "....in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith" . It is as if Baptism initiated a relationship with God, of which faith (as also hope and charity) is the life.

In St Paul's epistle to the Church of Ephesus, whilst speaking of marriage, Paul indulges in a characteristic aside. He speaks of Christ "cleansing" the Church by a "washing of water with the word...." that she might be "....holy and immaculate" [Eph 5:25-27]. It is plausible that the phrase "with the word" refers to the baptismal formula, the form of words given by Jesus to His Apostles. Here, at least, it is explicitly stated that a spiritual cleansing is brought about by a "washing of water", and it would do violence to the text to insist on a symbolic interpretation. Here also we have the important teaching that it is Jesus Himself who is active in baptism. It is not the human minister of the sacrament that remits sin: it is the action of Jesus within the human drama that is the primary cause of the change in status of the person being baptized.

In St Paul's epistle to the Church of Colossi, baptism is presented as an inward circumcision, "made without hands...." by a total ".... putting off of the body of flesh...." through identification with the crucified Lord and leading, through faith, to resurrection and a new life [Col 2:11-12]. This is more significant than it first seems. Circumcision is the Jewish rite of incorporation into the People of God: into "Abraham and Moses of the promises". Baptism serves the comparable function of grafting a man who was in Adam into Christ. It is therefore obvious that original sin is remitted by baptism. Original sin is the state of affairs in which we find ourselves at the start of life. We are descendants of the First Humans who - rightly - disobeyed God's command not to taste the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil and so gained independence from God at the price of loosing any automatic claim to the intimacy with Him that is called "a  state of grace". When someone is baptized, they are made anew and enter the race of the Second Adam: Jesus Messiah. They are united with and incorporated in Him. They leave the negative aspects of the legacy of our First Parents behind.

In St Paul's epistle to bishop Titus, we read of God having "....saved us .... by the washing of re-birth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" [Tit 3:5]. This text in isolation is ambiguous, it could mean either that there exists some "washing" which causes "re-birth and renewal" or that "re-birth and renewal" is like a washing. However, it is difficult to see how either "re-birth" or "renewal" is in any regard like "washing".

The Witness of the Fathers

"Being baptized we are enlightened: being enlightened we are adopted as sons: being adopted as sons we are made perfect: being made complete we are made immortal .... This work has many names: gift of grace; enlightenment; perfection; washing. Washing, by which we are cleansed from the filth of our sins; gift of grace, by which the penalties of our sins are cancelled; enlightenment, through which that holy light which saves us is perceived, that is, by which our eyes are made keen to see the divine; perfection means the lack of nothing, for what is still lacking to him who has the knowledge of God? ...."
[Clement, Patriarch of Alexandria: "Paedagogus" I vi (26)  c 200 AD]

"If remission of sins is granted even to the worst of offenders, and to those who have previously committed many sins against God, when they have afterwards believed, and if no one is shut out from baptism and grace: how much less ought an infant to be shut out, who being newly born has committed no sin, except that being born of Adam's line according to the flesh he has at his first birth contracted the contagion of the ancient death? Indeed, the infant's approach to the reception of the remission of sins is the easier from the very fact that the sin remitted is another's, not his own." [Cyprian, Archbishop of Carthage: "Epistle LXIV" c 250 AD]

"It is utterly impossible for the soul to attain salvation unless it has believed while in the flesh; so truly does salvation hinge on the flesh. In fact, when the soul is admitted to God's company, it is the flesh that makes that admission possible.
The flesh indeed is washed that the soul may be cleansed;
the flesh is anointed that the soul many be consecrated;
the flesh is signed that the soul may too be fortified;
the flesh is shadowed by the imposition of hands that the soul also may be enlightened by the Spirit:
the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ that the soul should be nourished by God."
[Tertullian "De Resurrectione Carnis" c 200 AD]

".... listen to David when he says, "I was conceived", so it runs, "in iniquity and in sin my mother hath borne me", proving that every soul which is born in the flesh is tainted with the stain of iniquity and sin. This is the reason for that saying which we have already quoted above, "No man is clean from sin, not even if his life be one day long". To these, as a further point, may be added an enquiry into the reason for which, while the church's baptism is given for the remission of sin, it is the custom of the church that baptism be administered even to infants. Certainly, if there were nothing in infants that required remission and called for lenient treatment, the grace of baptism would seem unnecessary." [Origen: Homilies on Leviticus, in "Selections from the Commentaries and Homilies of Origen", p 211 translator: R.B. Tollinton]

"The Lord indeed says: 'Forbid them not to come to me.' Let them come, then, when they are growing up. Let them come if they are learning, if they are being taught whither they are coming, let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ. Why does the age of innocence hasten to the remission of sins? .... For no less reason, the unwed should be deferred; for temptation is waiting for them alike in the case of virgins because of their maturity, as in the case of the widowed because they are without partners. Let them wait until they marry, or until they are strengthened for continence. Those who understand the importance of baptism will rather fear its attainment than its delay; unimpaired faith is certain of salvation "
[Tertullian "De Baptismo" c 200 AD]

• It is a fact that the Church baptizes infants.
• Either
• this practice is futile, misguided and should be stopped,
• or
• baptism must have an objective effect.
• Now, there has never been any will in the Church to stop the practice of infant baptism on the ground of futility:
• Therefore
• it must be the belief of the Church that baptism has an objective effect.

---

The Witness of the Contemporary Church

Confirmation

The practice of Confirmation

• Confirmation and baptism have always been closely related.
• Originally, as far as adults were concerned, both were ordinarily carried out by the bishop at the Easter Vigil.
• As far as infants were concerned, Presbyters and Deacons were also considered to be ordinary ministers of baptism.
• In case of reasonable necessity (not emergency) Presbyters and Deacons were allowed to baptize adults.
• The laity were always allowed to baptize in case of emergency.
• Originally, confirmation was simply part of an extended process of initiation consisting of:
• exorcism
• anointing with the oil of catechumens
• credal scrutiny and profession of faith
• bathing in water
• anointing (by pouring?) with the oil of chrism
• marking by the thumb of the sign of the cross in the chrism on the forehead
• laying on of hands with prayer for the Holy Spirit
• reception of the eucharistic species
• The first passage from Tertullian clearly envisages this sequence of events,
• Some elements of this process were clearly sacraments, others clearly sacramentals .
• Some of the boundaries were unclear, the elements highlighted happening in quick succession.
• In the stories of the deacon Philip and Simon [Acts 8:9-24] and the Ethiopian Eunuch [Acts 8:26-40], a clear distinction is made between baptism, which Philip was competent and happy to perform and laying on of hands which was the province of the Apostles [Acts 8:14-17].
• It is not absolutely clear whether the Apostolic laying on of hands is to be identified with confirmation.
• The alternative is that there are three elements:
• water baptism
• a sacrament
• normally administered by deacon, presbyter or bishop
• can be lay administered
• confirmation
• a sacrament
• normally administered by a bishop
• can be administered by a presbyter
• " baptism in the spirit"
• a sacramental
• originally restricted to the Apostles
• can be lay administered
• The difficulties with this second account are:
• why is no mention made anywhere in the New Testament of chrismation or confirmation,

but only "baptism in the spirit"?
• where and how and why did confirmation arise?
• and most importantly: why did "baptism in the spirit" die out so rapidly and thoroughly?
• In neither Western nor Eastern practice is laying on of hands a prominent part of the sacrament of confirmation. Of course, a form of this inevitably occurs when someone is anointed and signed.
• Confirmation was always and everywhere restricted to Bishops and Presbyters.
• In both East and West, baptism with water outside the Easter Vigil was followed immediately by an anointing with consecrated oil (chrism).
• In the East:
• it was normal for confirmation to be administered by presbyters.
• the anointing at baptism was identified with confirmation, and called  chrismation.
• an anointing with chrism may be repeated later in life.
• In the West:
• presbyters were only allowed to confirm in exceptional and rare circumstances, until very recently.
• the chrismation at baptism was not considered to be confirmation.
• a bishop would generally confirm children or young adults by the laying on of hands and chrismation.
• This divergent understanding is based on a superficially similar praxis.
• In both cases, almost all infants are baptized by a priest, who then anoints them with chrism.
• In both cases, chrismation is liable to be repeated later in life.
• The differing practice can be reconciled in the following way:
• The ordinary minister of confirmation, who has the intrinsic authority of office to do so validly, is the Bishop.
• It is unclear whether this is because it
• belongs to a peculiar Episcopal character, or
• is canonically restricted to holders of this office.
• However, in the East:
• The necessary authority to confirm is routinely and implicitly delegated to presbyters.
• Presbyters regularly exercise this extraordinary authority when they chrismate infants after their baptism, in the absence of but acting for the bishop.
• In the West:
• The chrismation at baptism is usually a sacramental rather than the sacrament of confirmation.
• It is a prefiguring, promise and anticipation of the sacrament.
• The Eastern practice of repeated chrismation is sacramental: not a repeat of the sacrament of confirmation.
• Similarly, the modern Western practice of "reaffirmation of  baptismal vows, followed by a sprinkling with water", is a sacramental: not a repeat of the sacrament of baptism.
• The use of chrism in confirmation was not original, but is sacramental, just like the use of the oil of catechumens.
• Once the practice of chrismation became established, the act of laying on of hands was subsumed in the act of anointing and signing.
• The fact that the sacramental chrism is consecrated by the bishop, even when used by a presbyter, links the bishop to every confirmation.

---

The Theology of confirmation

• Like baptism, confirmation grants a status.
• Unlike baptism (but like ordination), the status granted by confirmation relates to other human beings, not to God.
• Hence it is not "necessary for salvation".
• It gives the authority to act as a "priest and apostle", in the sense of "the priesthood of all believers".
• Specifically, the confirmed Christian has the roles of:
• intercessor for sinners;
• proclaimer of the Gospel, by word as well as deed; and
• ambassador for Jesus in the world.
• Hence, confirmation is the sacrament that constitutes the lay person, as indicated by the following facts:
• The ritual of the sacrament is very similar to that of ordination:
• imposition of hands,
• chrismation and
• invocation of Holy Spirit.
• The sacrament imprints a character on the soul and is, therefore, unrepeatable: like baptism and ordination.
• Although quite properly and legitimately conferred in the East upon infants, in the West it was reserved as a sacrament of maturity.
• Its name suggests a strengthening in grace, as appropriate for the discharge of the commission of the Lay Apostolate.
• The phenomena nowadays associated with "baptism in the spirit" were originally associated with confirmation.
• Such phenomena are not intrinsically linked to any sacrament [Acts 10:44-48], but are generally only elicited via sacramental action.

---

Answers to Objections

How does this doctrine not conflict with St Paul's teaching that justification is by faith and not by works?

Baptism in isolation from faith is meaningless; however, an active faith is not the cause of the baptismal transformation. To baptize an adult who believed nothing would be a mockery. In this case, not to believe is indistinguishable from disbelieving in an active way. This is not true for someone who has not reached the age of reason.

In the case of infant baptism, faith is involved in two ways.

• First as a context. Although it is not possible for one person to believe on behalf of another; the sacrament is always celebrated by a minister who acts on behalf of the Church, the Community of Faith. This authority gives definite meaning to the action. The Church allows that even an unbaptized atheist can validly baptize, so long as they adhere to the core ritual and have the minimal intention of "doing what the Church does, whatever in fact this is".
• Second, as a ratification. The fact that the neophyte is a friend of God and hence member of the Church should lead (unless it is impeded or frustrated in some way [cf  Mat 13:1-23]) to a mature life of faith. As the child gains understanding of the Gospel and makes the Apostolic Tradition their own, then (s)he ratifies and acknowledges what was done for them by God at Baptism by the ministry of the Church.

When St Paul contrasts faith with works he is contrasting faith in and love of the person of Jesus with a kind of cold-hearted and calculating obedience to the Jewish Law which saw this as a means of obligating God towards one. Works of faith, whether of religious ritual character, or - more importantly - of charity and simple humanity and friendship have a crucial part to play in the sustenance of the Christian's relationship with God. "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you" [Jn 6: 53], "Faith without works is dead" [Js 2:26], "all who do not do what is right are not from God, nor are those who do not love his brother" [1Jn 3:10]. Baptism is the work of faith instituted explicitly by Jesus that initiates the process of justification by forgiving sins; imparting the Holy Spirit; and incorporating into His Mystical Body: the Church.

The doctrine you propose is foreign in character to Christianity, which is a  Spiritual Religion.

"It is utterly impossible for the soul to attain salvation unless it has believed while in the flesh; so truly does salvation hinge on the flesh. In fact, when the soul is admitted to God's company, it is the flesh that makes that admission possible. The flesh indeed is washed that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed that the soul many be consecrated; the flesh is signed that the soul may too be fortified; the flesh is shadowed by the imposition of hands that the soul also may be enlightened by the Spirit: the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ that the soul should be nourished by God." [Tertullian "De Resurrectione Carnis" c 200 AD]

The incarnation sets the precedent for this. God, who is spirit par excellence, came to participate in our life and reality by taking upon Himself the form of man. He plunged, as Fire from Heaven, into our physicality: redeeming and ennobling it. This incarnation is prolonged through history in the visible Church, His Mystical Body, and the Seven Sacraments - especially the Holy Eucharist.

You say baptism forgives sins, and yet all that is needed is repentance. Explain yourself!

"We are horrified, I confess, that anyone is found of such great impiety, that he despaires of the love of God, as if He were not able at any time whatever to hasten to the aid of the one who runs to him for help and to free from his burden a man endangered by the weight of sins, from which he longs to be liberated ..... Since God, most ready to succor, inviting to repentance, thus promised: 'In whatever day', He says 'the sinner shall be converted, his sins shall not be imuted to him' [cf Ezech 33:16]."  [Pope St Celestine I, "Cuperemus quidem", 428 AD, Denz 111]

It is true that baptism, penance and extreme unction are now the necessary means for the forgiveness of original and mortal sin. In this sense they are an additional condition over and above "repentance and restitution", but this is of no practical consequence. Anyone who does repent of whatever sin they are conscious of, by that act of repentance necessarily (though perhaps only implicitly) has a intention (or desire) to take part in the relevant sacramental act, and the Church has quite clearly recognized that such a desire is quite good enough for salvation. Just as faith is an adequate anticipation of sanctification, desire - even implicit desire - for the sacrament is an adequate anticipation of its performance. God is never one to make things difficult!

Tertullian was obviously somewhat confused about this issue. We have already read him saying "Those who understand the importance of baptism will rather fear its attainment than its delay;" (because baptism is both necessary for salvation and unrepeatable) and yet immediately adding: "unimpaired faith is certain of salvation", as though baptism was superfluous! Equally St Monica's postponement of her son's baptism indicates a conflict between a conviction that baptism was absolutely crucial and yet somehow not necessary! As it became clearer, in particular via papal teaching, that all repented post baptismal sins were forgivable without exception, and as the Church's penitential discipline became less draconian, this tension resolved itself. The following is a proper view of the matter:

• Baptism is the only means by which someone can enter the Church.
• Entering the Church is identical with Justification.
• Both are identical with the wiping out of the stain of original sin and becoming God's friend.
• Baptism of Desire is adequate to Justify:
• to associate invisibly with the Church and
• to remit original sin.
• It may not automatically remit all the temporal penalty due to original sin, as the sacrament proper does.
• Hence in adults:
• Few if any Sacramental Baptisms in fact remit original sin.
• The desire for baptism has already done so!
• The external ceremony serves to ratify and celebrate what has already happened.
• The external rite is not superfluous, however, because

if its actual performance hadn't been desired,
then it couldn't have been so anticipated in desire!
• The sacrament still constitutes the neophyte's formal entry into the visible Church.
• It may still remit all the temporal penalty due to original sin.
• Any person who (even only implicitly)
• "believes that God exists and rewards those that seek Him" [Heb 11:6]
• acknowledges their dependence on God
• acknowledges their ethical frailty
• tries to do good
• attempts to make restitution for whatever injustices they may have committed
• necessarily has an implicit desire for baptism:
• is therefore Justified and
• is an associate (invisible) member of the Church.
• This membership of the Church will be ratified at the moment of death at their particular judgement.
• For an instant, they will become subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontif.
• Mortal sins committed after reception of the Sacrament of Baptism can only be forgiven by repentance and restitution through the sacrament of penance.
• However, an implicit desire for this sacrament is enough to obtain forgiveness.
• The function of  the sacrament of penance is to help people
• to repent,
• to accept the responsibility for making amends,
• to believe that God will forgive or has forgiven them.

What can it possibly mean for an infant to be baptized?

"If remission of sins is granted even to the worst of offenders, and to those who have previously committed many sins against God, when they have afterwards believed, and if no one is shut out from baptism and grace: how much less ought an infant to be shut out, who being newly born has committed no sin, except that being born of Adam's line according to the flesh he has at his first birth contracted the contagion of the ancient death? Indeed, the infant's approach to the reception of the remission of sins is the easier from the very fact that the sin remitted is another's, not his own." [ Cyprian, Archbishop of Carthage: "Epistle LXIV" c 250 AD]

".... if anyone says that .... in the Kingdom of Heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism ..... let him be anathema. For .... what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the Devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left."
[A disputed canon of the local Council of Meleum, 416 AD,  given as a footnote to Denz 102]

"The souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments".
[The Second Oecumenical Council of Lyons, 1274 AD:
"The Profession of Faith required of the Emperor Michael Palaeologus" ]

".... we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence ..... the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. [Pope Eugenious IV at the Oecumenical Council of Florence, 1439 AD]

On the contrary, the principal that: because an infant has committed no actual sin, it cannot deserve any punishment, properly speaking, must be maintained, even though it seems to be contradicted both by the teaching of the Council of Trent and the excellent Catechism written in its name.

"If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema."
[The Oecumenical Council of Trent, Session Five "On Original Sin"]

"Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all posterity."
[The Catechism of the Oecumenical Council of Trent]

Moreover, an infant cannot possibly have positively rejected God, either explicitly or implicitly.

• Hence a dying unbaptized infant cannot possibly finish up in Hell proper.
• This contradicts any simple reading of the Oecumenical Councils of Lyons II and Florence.
• Hence it must be presumed
• either that these councils use the term "hell" loosly,
• or that unbaptised infants that die do not "depart this life".

• Hence a dying unbaptized infant has no positive claim to enter Heaven.
• Hence medieval Councils and theologians taught that unbaptised infants went to hell.

• The lack of the Beatific Vision is construed as a punishment, in order to escape directly contradicting the teaching of  Lyons II and Florence.
• This position seems to be in conflict with a (disputed) and non-infallible canon of the local Council of Meleum, which may or may not have been ratified by either Pope Innocent or Zozimus.

1. Many foetuses spontaneously miscarry.
• Conventionally, ensoulment is understood to occur either at or very shortly after conception.
• Accepting the notion that the "Limbo of the Innocents" is the fate of the souls of these foetuses implies accepting that a significant proportion of the human race has no chance whatsoever to be saved.
• This directly contradicts the generally accepted (though not defined) doctrine that everyone receives sufficient grace to be saved [Ott IV.1.11.2.c].
2. The Church celebrates the feast of the "Holy Innocents".
• Conventionally, these children who died at the will of Herod are accounted as martyrs and to have been baptized in their own blood. [Ott II.25]
• However, unlike all other martyrs, they had no intention, ether explicit or implicit, of "dying for the faith".
• Rather, they were "martyrs" only by accident, not from any free choice of their own.
• What is the difference between the status of these saints and that of the multitude of aborted foetuses?
• Both died at the will and the hands of those who considered the termination of their lives expedient.
3. The Church enthusiastically baptizes infants whose parents or guardians ask for it.
• The Church has a desire, aligned with the revealed will of God, that all who can be saved should be saved.
• Hence, God and the Church have a common desire that all children should be baptized before dying.
• For what reason, then, should God not treat unbaptized innocents in the same way as baptized innocents?
• The fact that because they are in a state of original sin God is not obligated to them does not imply that He will fail to be gracious towards them because He is Love.
• This view has been espoused by Cajetan and called "vicarious baptism of desire". [Ott II.25]
4. Jesus descended "into Hell" to deliver the souls of the Just who died before the Redemption.
• Why should he not preach to and so seduce and convert the souls of unbaptized infants?
• Perhaps they are never sufficiently aware or reasonable to respond.
• At the particular judgement of each unbaptised innocent, they will certainly encounter God.
• It cannot be said that their wills are at this moment in any way fixed in antipathy to God.
• It isn't even clear that they have a will to be fixed one way or another!
• Given that they have no personal sin, what is to prevent each infant soul responding positively?
• This view has been espoused by Klee [Ott II.25].

It is also possible that when someone dies without attaining the use of reason, God may, exceptionally, re-incarnate their soul. This view is recommended by the consideration that there must be some point to mortal life before death. If this purpose (whatever it is) is not achieved by some individual (as would be ascertained at their particular judgement) then it would be fitting for them to be given some additional means of achieving it.

Now, it is clearly the official teaching of the Church that reincarnation is not the norm! When someone dies, they go first to judgement and then Heaven (perhaps via purgatory) or Hell. On the other hand, there is no index entry in either Ott or Denzinger for "reincarnation"; and, as far as I know, no direct condemnation of the theory. The only basis for rejecting it is, as far as I am aware, is the implicit positive teaching of the Second Oecumenical Council of Lyons and the explicit definition of the Oecumenical Council of Florence that has already been quoted.

• The first says that after they "die" souls immediately pass to Heaven or Hell,
• This teaching is positive (rather than negative, with an anathemetization attached),
• It is in the form of a profession of faith that was required of the Emperor Michael Palaeologus.
• It is therefore hardly infalible!
• The second says that after "departing this life" a soul straightaway passes to Heaven or Hell.
• This teaching is clearly in the form of a definition.
• Neither teachings mention the particuar judgement, rather seeming to exclude it as a possibility!
• This suggests that they should be subject to careful interpretation.