Baptism and Hell?

[HabemusFrancis]

I have a quesiton about baptism. I realize it is very important, and we as Catholics try and get kids baptized as babies as quick as we can.

My question is why? It is taught that baptism cleanses one from original sin. Yet many Baptized Catholics seem statistically no more or less sinful than anybody else…

Does Baptism keep one out of Hell? I know the prevailing thought in the Church for a long time was that if a baby does not get baptized they are destined to float around limbo until The Second Coming of Jesus.

That must have been very hard for parents who lost an unbaptized baby in years past.

Its funny, we never really got all that much into depth about baptism in my confirmation class. Could I get a little bit of clarification?

 

[Alec_Kais]

A confession:

The infallible church teaches that without baptism even infants cannot go to heaven. The holy church, not caring much how the aforesaid infants may come into this world, but that they should go from it according to the ritual of the Church, insists that the infant shall be baptized. This being done, and its soul thus fitted for heaven, the mother abbess gently takes between her holy fingers the nostrils of the infant, and in the name of the infallible church consigns it to the care of the Almighty; and I beg here to state, from my own knowledge through the confessional, that the father is, in nearly all cases, the individual who baptizes it. (p. 284)

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Revelation 18.4)

Babylon & the Beast.

 

[ellzeena]

A confession:

Huh?

Babylon & the Beast.

This has nothing to do with the OPs question so far as I can tell.

 

[ellzeena]

I believe the urgency to baptize newborns was the result of the plague where so many of them perished, and so many babies and children of all ages, perished. I’ve always wondered about the lack of conscious assent on the part of the infant. In Protestantism, to be “born again” means one is baptized (full immersion) at some point with full consent. But then, as Catholics we affirm our consent once a year. The age of “consent” is (I believe) seven. I have an enormous problem with a God who condemns/damns the souls of innocents who are not baptized. What happens during a miscarriage? Is the woman supposed to baptize the miscarrying embryo/fetus? I was baptized as an infant and so was my daughter, in obedience to the Church and to consecrate her to Jesus for all time. But I gotta say…I don’t think there’s a human being alive today, yesterday, nor will there be one tomorrow, who can speak for God with absolute certainty on this subject, I just don’t think so. I’m sure there’ll be those who jump all over me for this, but we cannot possibly know, nor can we approach an understanding of, GOD, whose constant thought/will keeps our creation in existence. We’re the mouse on the space station. That’s pretty much it.

 

[mskejj]

I have a quesiton about baptism. I realize it is very important, and we as Catholics try and get kids baptized as babies as quick as we can.

My question is why? It is taught that baptism cleanses one from original sin. Yet many Baptized Catholics seem statistically no more or less sinful than anybody else…

Does Baptism keep one out of Hell? I know the prevailing thought in the Church for a long time was that if a baby does not get baptized they are destined to float around limbo until The Second Coming of Jesus.

That must have been very hard for parents who lost an unbaptized baby in years past.

Its funny, we never really got all that much into depth about baptism in my confirmation class. Could I get a little bit of clarification?

From the CCC:
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,"64 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.

 

[mskejj]

I have a quesiton about baptism. I realize it is very important, and we as Catholics try and get kids baptized as babies as quick as we can.

My question is why? It is taught that baptism cleanses one from original sin. Yet many Baptized Catholics seem statistically no more or less sinful than anybody else…

Does Baptism keep one out of Hell? I know the prevailing thought in the Church for a long time was that if a baby does not get baptized they are destined to float around limbo until The Second Coming of Jesus.

That must have been very hard for parents who lost an unbaptized baby in years past.

Its funny, we never really got all that much into depth about baptism in my confirmation class. Could I get a little bit of clarification?

CCC 1265: Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a “partaker of the divine nature,” member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

Check out all the section on Baptism in the CCC…just google Catechism of the Catholic Church Baptism and it should give you a link to the CCC. We still have the “tendency to sin” that was a result of the fall just like everyone else, but with Baptism we become part of God’s family and the Holy Spirit lives within us. We are to grow in our faith and everyday grow closer to being the person God meant for us to be so that when we leave this earth we can go to our true home…which is with Him in heaven.

 

[Richca]

I have a quesiton about baptism. I realize it is very important, and we as Catholics try and get kids baptized as babies as quick as we can.

My question is why? It is taught that baptism cleanses one from original sin. Yet many Baptized Catholics seem statistically no more or less sinful than anybody else…

Does Baptism keep one out of Hell? I know the prevailing thought in the Church for a long time was that if a baby does not get baptized they are destined to float around limbo until The Second Coming of Jesus.

That must have been very hard for parents who lost an unbaptized baby in years past.

Its funny, we never really got all that much into depth about baptism in my confirmation class. Could I get a little bit of clarification?

The baptism of an infant definitely keeps an infant out of hell. In fact, if an infant died after baptism, he or she would go straight to heaven. Baptism cleanses one from original sin as well as all temporal punishment due to voluntary sin such as the case with an adult. An adult who died right after baptism would go straight to heaven as long as that adult was truly repentant of their sins. This repentance doesn’t have to be perfect, for the power of the sacrament will make up for an imperfect repentance.

Receiving baptism doesn’t mean we will not sin later nor is it an automatic passport to heaven. The spiritual life is a struggle and we have to always fight against our evil tendancies. Most of us will fall into sin, at least venial sin, time after time. If we fall into mortal sin, we should make an act of contrition right away and we also need to go to confession before we can receive the eucharist.

As far as the case of infants who die without baptism, the Church simply does not know their ultimate destiny. God has not revealed this. They certainly do not go to hell. A person can only go to hell for a voluntary unrepentant mortal sin. Original sin is not a voluntary sin we have committed but is transmitted to us from our first parents. The Catholic Church appointed a commission to study the fate of infants who die without baptism around 2005. The International Theological Commission, with the approval of the Holy Father, released a document titled “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized”
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

In this document, the Church stresses the mercy of God and we have strong hope that all these unbaptized infants go to heaven.

As for the case of adults who die without receiving baptism, they too can be saved by having the desire to receive baptism, even implicitly, such as peoples who have not heard of the Gospel of Christ. They can be saved by following the inspirations of the Holy Spirit and by doing God’s will to the best of their knowledge. A person who knows that baptism is necessary for salvation but refuses to be baptized will probably not be saved.

Baptism is a wonderful and powerful sacrament.

 

[TomD123]

I have a quesiton about baptism. I realize it is very important, and we as Catholics try and get kids baptized as babies as quick as we can.

My question is why? It is taught that baptism cleanses one from original sin. Yet many Baptized Catholics seem statistically no more or less sinful than anybody else…

Does Baptism keep one out of Hell? I know the prevailing thought in the Church for a long time was that if a baby does not get baptized they are destined to float around limbo until The Second Coming of Jesus.

That must have been very hard for parents who lost an unbaptized baby in years past.

Its funny, we never really got all that much into depth about baptism in my confirmation class. Could I get a little bit of clarification?

A few thoughts, hopefully they help:

1. Cleansing from original does not mean someone will necessarily live a holier life. There are two parts two original sin that matter here: The lack of sanctifying grace on the soul and the inherent selfishness/sinfulness a person has. Baptism gives a person sanctifying grace but does not remove that inherent selfishness. It removes the “original sin” but not necessarily all of the effects including that tendency to sin (selfishness) (for example, an effect of original sin is death, but we still die after baptism!)
2. So now on limbo and hell: The Church teaches that in order to get to heaven you need sanctifying grace. This is the “stuff” that makes us holy and pleasing to God, it enables us to participate in the happiness of heaven. Without it, we simply cannot be in heaven. Now, no one is born with this gift, and no one has a right to it. However, God gives this gift to everyone at baptism. So as you can see, it seemed as though unbaptized children who died could not get into heaven. The theological hypothesis then proposed was that they were in a state of perfect natural happiness. This was the complete fulfillment of them as human beings, it just was not the above and beyond that heaven was. This hypothesis became known as the “limbo of the infants” and became very popular.

HOWEVER, while the Church recognized without sanctifying grace a person could not enter heaven, they always also recognized extra-sacramental means in which an individual could receive sanctifying grace (for example baptism of desire for adults). There is no clear reason to believe that infants who die without baptism DO receive sanctifying grace in some extra-sacramental way. BUT, it is certain that it has not been ruled out by the Church nor is it theologically impossible. This is why the Church hopes for the salvation of all, even unbaptized infants…

Certainly infants who die without baptism are beyond happiness we can understand.
Whatever the result may be (heaven or limbo), it is important to get the child baptized. It is God’s will and the Church’s law. If infants cannot be saved without baptism, then its obviously necessary. If infants can be saved either way, it is still of course important. First, we do not know that infants are saved without baptism, and second, besides the removal of original sin, baptism has other effects. These too are great gifts and a child should receive them as soon as possible!

Hope that helps

 

[Alec_Kais]

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3.3-6)

Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5.5, 6)

To come by water is to be born of the flesh. To come by blood is to be born of the Spirit.

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (John 6.54, 55)

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life (John 6.63)

I [John] indeed have baptized you with water: but he [Jesus] shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. (Mark 1.8)

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1.23)

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3.3)

Water baptism is a type of our being born in the flesh & of repentance, to perform it won’t make you born of the Spirit.

 

[aemcpa]

I haven’t heard a satisfactory explanation that reconciles the modern notion that unbaptized infants are saved with the constant Church teaching that infants need to be baptized ASAP.

 

[HabemusFrancis]

If Limbo turned out to be true, (and not just a theory as benedict said) then it would mean that the millions of aborted fetus’ would be stuck in limbo since they did not know the joys of baptism!

 

[Alec_Kais]

Baptism is a type of being born of water. But you need to be born of blood to be saved. To be born of blood is to be born of the Spirit, to be born again.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3.3)

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3.5, 6)

To put one’s hope in water baptism testifies to one’s not being born of the Spirit

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8.5-8)

Water baptism is the law, to perform water baptism & not to follow the law is hypocrisy. Do the Catholics follow the law?
Why this insistence on water baptism? Why should one lie?

(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) (John 4.2)

This works like this: the priests know how wicked they are & they fear death. But, conveniently, they find

And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward [the priests]; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward [thou shalt die]. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they [those whom he forgave] may receive me into their houses. So he called every one of his lord’s debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness [that is, as they understand, make the fools sin & forgive them their sins because to write fifty instead of an hundred is sin]; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. (Luke 16.1-9)

They also know that they are those that are first

But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first. (Matthew 19.30)

So what shall these priests, doctors, fathers etc. do? They shall “lead captive silly
women laden with sins” (2 Timothy 3.6) by compelling them to sin (e.g., praying to the saints or water baptism & breaking the law) 'til they become worse than themselves, becoming of the last

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. (Matthew 23.15)

Then those that are first forgive the sins of those that are last, magnanimous as it were. Those that are last shall be first in the hereafter and will receive them into everlasting habitations because they forgave their sins.

And the LORD said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd. For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.
Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened. (Zechariah 11.15-17)

 

[Alec_Kais]

But whence comes that such false doctrines persist?

And the same time there arose no small stir about that way. For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen; Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth. Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands: So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. (Acts 19.23-27)

Is not Diana the moon goddess? Is not Mary the Catholics’ goddess? Doesn’t “Demetrius” mean “follower of Demeter”? Isn’t Demeter the goddess of corn and harvest? Isn’t Tammuz the god of harvest: a type of the Antichrist? Is not the cross a symbol of Tammuz? Aren’t crosses found in graveyards? Isn’t the cross the mark of the Beast? Are not Catholics mourning their dead Jesus, the Antichrist?

He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do.
Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD’S house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these. (Ezekiel 8.13, 15)

As per the first quotation, wealth i.e., Mammon is the reason for such a persistent lie, aren’t priests luxuriant?

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Matthew 6.24)

 

[ellzeena]

The baptism of an infant definitely keeps an infant out of hell. In fact, if an infant died after baptism, he or she would go straight to heaven. Baptism cleanses one from original sin as well as all temporal punishment due to voluntary sin such as the case with an adult. An adult who died right after baptism would go straight to heaven as long as that adult was truly repentant of their sins. This repentance doesn’t have to be perfect, for the power of the sacrament will make up for an imperfect repentance.

Receiving baptism doesn’t mean we will not sin later nor is it an automatic passport to heaven. The spiritual life is a struggle and we have to always fight against our evil tendancies. Most of us will fall into sin, at least venial sin, time after time. If we fall into mortal sin, we should make an act of contrition right away and we also need to go to confession before we can receive the eucharist.

As far as the case of infants who die without baptism, the Church simply does not know their ultimate destiny. God has not revealed this. They certainly do not go to hell. A person can only go to hell for a voluntary unrepentant mortal sin. Original sin is not a voluntary sin we have committed but is transmitted to us from our first parents. The Catholic Church appointed a commission to study the fate of infants who die without baptism around 2005. The International Theological Commission, with the approval of the Holy Father, released a document titled “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized”
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

In this document, the Church stresses the mercy of God and we have strong hope that all these unbaptized infants go to heaven.

Limbo is NOT a matter of doctrine. It is a theological argument. Now: when a soul is being tested by God (and you bet that happens), anything that occurs during that testing that is not the direct result of an action by the soul being tested (s/he did not bring this on him/her self as a consequence of choice), it is definitely God’s will. An unborn child is incapable of making any choices (so far as we know, although the soul might make one, only God knows this). If that unborn baby is aborted or miscarried, it is then a victim. Does God inflict separation from Himself for all eternity upon victims and innocents? I think not. Moreover, the Popes and others have debated the concept of limbo for centuries.

 

[TomD123]

I haven’t heard a satisfactory explanation that reconciles the modern notion that unbaptized infants are saved with the constant Church teaching that infants need to be baptized ASAP.

I don’t see what is wrong with the above explanation I gave. Without sanctifying grace, nobody goes to heaven. No one is born with sanctifying grace. The ordinary way of receiving sanctifying grace is through baptism. Seems obvious why infants would need to be baptized. At the same time, it does not exclude the possibility of infants recieving grace through some other means as God is not bound by the sacraments.

If Limbo turned out to be true, (and not just a theory as benedict said) then it would mean that the millions of aborted fetus’ would be stuck in limbo since they did not know the joys of baptism!

Of course this is another reason to work for the end of abortion!
However its good to remember as I said above that limbo is not some sort of middle ground nothing state. It is a state of perfect and complete natural happiness. Actually, it is human nature’s real natural end…which is perfectly fitting for human beings and 100% satisfying as well. It just isn’t above and beyond the natural, its not supernatural which heaven is.

That said, its only a theological hypothesis and has fallen out of favor in recent years. I tend to think that God saves infants who have died before baptism in a way known only to Him because of His infinite mercy…

 

[ellzeena]

Baptism is a type of being born of water. But you need to be born of blood to be saved. To be born of blood is to be born of the Spirit, to be born again.

To put one’s hope in water baptism testifies to one’s not being born of the Spirit

Water baptism is the law, to perform water baptism & not to follow the law is hypocrisy. Do the Catholics follow the law?
Why this insistence on water baptism? Why should one lie?

This works like this: the priests know how wicked they are & they fear death. But, conveniently, they find

They also know that they are those that are first

So what shall these priests, doctors, fathers etc. do? They shall “lead captive silly
women laden with sins” (2 Timothy 3.6) by compelling them to sin (e.g., praying to the saints or water baptism & breaking the law) 'til they become worse than themselves, becoming of the last

Then those that are first forgive the sins of those that are last, magnanimous as it were. Those that are last shall be first in the hereafter and will receive them into everlasting habitations because they forgave their sins.

I’m sorry…but WHAT Forum is this??? Which god do YOU serve (oh, let me guess.)

 

[Alec_Kais]

Which god do YOU serve (oh, let me guess.)

The Father.

 

[devoutchristian]

I haven’t heard a satisfactory explanation that reconciles the modern notion that unbaptized infants are saved with the constant Church teaching that infants need to be baptized ASAP.

If the lack of mortal sin is all that is required for implicit baptism of desire then it logically follows that unbaptized infants recieve this. If however perfect charity is required for implicit baptism of desire, then unbaptized infants would go to limbo. Seems simple enough to me.

 

[ellzeena]

If the lack of mortal sin is all that is required for implicit baptism of desire then it logically follows that unbaptized infants recieve this. If however perfect charity is required for implicit baptism of desire, then unbaptized infants would go to limbo. Seems simple enough to me.

Matthew 19:14
New International Version (NIV)
14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

To quote Michael Liccione:
“…on what is to be counted as baptism. For those in a position to recognize the truth of the Christian faith and undergo ordinary water baptism, ordinary water baptism is necessary for salvation. But the Church has always recognized that some who are not in a position to be baptized in the ordinary fashion can still undergo a kind of baptism, e.g., the “baptism by blood” of the Holy Innocents and others who were martyred for the truth, and the “baptism of desire” on the part of catechumens who, through no fault of their own, died before baptism. Those cases are a kind of participation in baptism that God, who is not bound by the forms of the sacraments, permits in his mercy. Thus the question arises whether it is possible for still other classes of people who die without ordinary baptism to be incorporated into Christ by a kind of baptism.”

I don’t think we, not one among us, are in any position to make decisions for God. I don’t think we are remotely capable of comprehending God. I don’t think God has to abide by our rules. While it’s true the soul is “mature” even in the condition of infancy (where the individual is a neonate and has not “done” anything to merit punishment: and let’s remember that original sin is the concept of St. Augustine, not Jesus Christ), this is still a purely innocent life. Whether a victim of murder (abortion), unhappy circumstance (complication of pregnancy), etc., this soul has not had the opportunity to choose one single thing. It’s impossible for me to experience God as capable of removing such a soul from Himself for eternity. I could be wrong, I often am; but the God I’ve come to know is far and away more loving and merciful than any one of us can even imagine.

 

[guanophore]

If the lack of mortal sin is all that is required for implicit baptism of desire then it logically follows that unbaptized infants recieve this.

I think your conclusion is true, but the premise is false. I don’t think that a lack of mortal sin is all that is required for implicit baptism. Baptism is never offered by the Church without a profession of faith, and this requires an act of the will, intellectual assent, and a commitment/covenant to persist in the baptismal vows.

If however perfect charity is required for implicit baptism of desire, then unbaptized infants would go to limbo. Seems simple enough to me.

Fortunately perfect charity is not required for anything but entrance into heaven. While we are on this earth, we cannot know the secret intentions of our hearts, and therefore, cannot be confident in perfection.