Can infants be sanctified in the womb?

[itsjustdave1988]

I see a similar reaction of traditionalists to the “novel” teachings of Pope John Paul II, as was seen regarding Pius IX’s “novel” teachings…

From the teaching of Pope Pius IX, August 10, 1863: “God… in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.”

Tragically, Leonard Feeney cited this text of Pius IX, and charged Pius IX with the heresy of Pelagianism, saying (in Thomas M. Sennott, They Fought the Good Fight, Catholic Treasures,
Monrovia CA. 1987, pp. 305-06):

“To say that God would never permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin is nothing short of Pelagianism.”

The subjective view of the *taught Church *regarding papal teachings does not prove manifest heresy. The *taught Church *are simply not competent to judge the doctrines of the Roman Pontiff.

 

[jimmy]

RSiscoe:

As I wrote above, I do not deny that anything is possible to God, but if we view doctrine through the lens of the subjective, or the possibility, the objective realm become meaningless. That is why so many people today reject the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation”, or else interpret it is such a way that the dogmatic statements becomes “a meaningless formula” (to quote Pius XII). Do you realize that this is the reason so many Catholics are confused today?

I agree with this. You can’t focus too much about what God could do or what what he may desire. But if you completely abandon this viewpoint you miss out on some things. I would say that it is definately possible that an unborn baby will be saved, but we can not focus on that because we would then forget about the point of baptism. Baptism removes sin and it brings us into Christs Church.

But if you completely reject the subjective you then lose the point of life. God desires us all to be saved, and he planned for us all to have life. Through this life we make the choice to accept Christ or to reject him. It is our choice. Now a baby is not given a choice to reject or accept.

My conclussion is that we can not judge either way. Although the baby has not been baptized, it is definately possible for God to sanctify the baby in the womb-as we saw with John the Baptist- and we also know that God loves all. We should always baptize babies with the thought that Christ is removing Original Sin through baptism, but we can not declare an aborted baby to be in hell.

The Church has never taught this way before. The subjective level was acknowledged rarely, while the objective was focused on primarily, like it should be. By changing the emphasis from the objective to the subjective, the average Catholic becomes either confused, or deceived, or both.

Agreed

Consider the quote from the John Paul II. He did not say the aborted babies might be in heaven - through a miracle of grace; he said that the aborted babies ARE in heaven. But, objectively, grace comes through the sacraments, which aborted babies do not receive. And if aborted babies go to heaven without the sacraments, why not children who die before reaching the age of reason?

I think that the Pope may have spoken a little pre-maturely. But I also think that it is possible that they are saved. God can adminnister Grace in whatever fassion he desires. It does not have to be through the sacraments. I think that non-Catholics recieve Grace that spurs them to become Catholic.

It is definately possible that a child that has not reached the age of reason can be saved. They are the same as a baby in the womb, so the same standards apply.

The Council of Trent clearly tells us that babies who die without baptism are lost, which of course is the objective truth.

“[T]he Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism … are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned” (St. Alphonsus ligouri, Explanation of Trent, Duffy Co., 1845, p.56).

That reference to Trent is clearly not an exclussive reference. The Church has always recognized “baptism of Blood” and Desire. God can certainly act without the water to save a man from hell. It is through baptism that he chooses to do this.

 

[TNT]

itsjustdave1988:

I see a similar reaction of traditionalists to the “novel” teachings of Pope John Paul II, as was seen regarding Pius IX’s “novel” teachings…

From the teaching of Pope Pius IX, August 10, 1863: “God… in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.”

Actually, this is a false translation that is propagated out of ignorance and on purpose by clergy who should know better, all over the internet.
** The Literal Latin translation is:**
“…since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin” (encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, DS 1677).

Unless this is stated correctly as torment, then reading this encyclical in its entirety, an average (non-liberal) reader would find some baffling contradictions. Since liberals embrace contraditions, it would be no problem.

Clearly, the Blessed Pope is stating that the otherwise perfect person without baptism is*** not tormented***.
This conforms with what I said earlier…a place of contentment, but NOT the Beatific Vision.
BTW: This part of the Encyclical is also the subjective. The objective is never quoted by a liberal. To them the exception becomes fastened as the rule.
*
All torment is punishment, but all punishment is not torment.

---

Please verify this for yourself. That is the only way I have gotten anyone to start quoting it correctly. Even the Latin original uses 2 different words.
**
Finally, the death of the Holy Innocents prior to the proclamation of the Gospel or the Sacrament of Baptism is a non-sequitor. The babes were all circumcised under the Law of Moses, thus fulfilling the Law perfectly. But, they were indeed killed for Christ…indirectly as were many of the OT figures.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

TNT,

I think we are in violent agreement regarding the eternal torment of the wicked. You can see my defense of this against Universalist claims here (starting with post #45): Hell and everlasting punishment

My point remains … fundamentalist Catholics who dissent with papal teachings in the pretense that he is teaching heresy commit the same Feeneyist error all over again. They either mischaracterize the papal teaching, and/or they imagine their “traditional” understanding based upon their own private lights is the true magisterial sense, while the pope’s understanding is error.

The answer Pius XII gave to Feeneyism remains true today for any who, in their misguided attempt to defend the “true” faith, dissent with papal teachings:

… dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church…

… it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute … presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities …

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused … Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation. [Letter of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949, approved by Pius XII)

[/quote]

 

[RSiscoe]

I am going to quote from the encyclical of Pius IX, where he discusses invincible ignorance, saying that a person who is “not guilty of sin” will not suffer the torments of hell, (the higher level of hell is not a place of torment, but of natural happiness, without the beatific vision), which I think we all agree on. I am also going to quote a portion of another encyclical by the same Pope.

Pay attention to how he teaches the objective truth clearly and strongly, while merely acknowledging the subjective “possibilities”. He tells the Bishops to teach their faithful the objective truth, to in order to overcome the error of religious indifferentism. He understood that focusing on the subjective level causes confusion and unlimately indifferentism (which is a sin against faith).

Pope Pius IX: SINGULARI QUIDEM: "**Among the many deplorable evils which disturb and afflict both ecclesiastical and civil society, two stand out in our day and are justly considered to be the cause of the others. In effect, you are aware of the innumerable and fatal damages which the hideous error of indifferentism causes to Christian and civil society. It causes us to forget out duties to God in whom we live and act and have our being. It causes us to slacken our concern for holy religion and shakes almost to destruction the very basis of all law, justice, and virtue. There is little difference between this hideous form of indifference and the devilish system of indifference between the different religions. This belief embraces people who have strayed from the truth, who are enemies of the true faith and forget their own salvation, and who teach contradictory beliefs without firm doctrine. They make no distinction between the different creeds, agree with everybody, and maintain that the haven of eternal salvation is open to sectarians of any religion. The diversity of their teachings does not concern them as long as they agree to combat that which alone is the truth.[1] **

**4. You see, dearly beloved sons and venerable brothers, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children.[2] There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,[3] outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father,…" **

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

Continuation of last post:
Pop Pius XI: QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE:** “Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal torments. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church”.

**In our day, the subjective, the part in italics, is beleived by all, while the objective - all the rest - is either treated as an outright error (radical traditionalism), or understood in a way that is meaningless, viz, that virtually everyone is invincible ignorant. But if you notice, the Pope speaks of the invincibly ignorant who are “not guilty of deliberate sin”. Invincible ignorance does not get a person to heaven, nor does in make them a member of the Church (outside of which no one is saved). It may keep them out of eternal torments, but “without faith it is impossible to please God”.

But today, the mere possibility that an invincibly ignorant person may have implicit faith, is exalted to such a high level, that many now reject the objective truth.

The exaltation of the subjective has (for the majority of Catholics - both laity and clergy), either diminished the objective truth, or cause them to reject it completely. And in my experience the latter is more often the case than the former. How often do we hear today: “the Church does not teach that only Catholics are saved”. But that is exactly what the Church teaches objectively.

"Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors [religious indifferentism]. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children.[2] There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,[3] outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation."

That is the objective truth!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

RSiscoe:

Is that really how you interpret that statement of the Pope? That he meant that for an instant, at their particular judgment, they were with the Lord?

He did not say “they were with the Lord for a moment”, but that are “now living in the Lord” - present tense.

My comment pertained to this statement:

“And be sure to notice that in the quote from John Paul II, he does not tell the women who had an abortion that their child may be “with the Lord”, but that the child is with the Lord.”

There are several odd terms in this thread. “Non-sacramental Baptism”? There is no such thing! There is the possibility that God may supply the Grace of Baptism outside of the Sacrament of Baptism. Most theologians hold that if this happens the “Mark of Sacramental Baptism” is not impressed on the soul.

 

[JLove]

RSiscoe:

The Cateshims of Pope Pius X taught the same objective truth:

---

**"12 Q: Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism: **

"A: There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptized because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism (THE CATECHISM OF ST. PIUS X).

I think it’s quite clear this quote is out of context. Pope Pius X was speaking not of the pre-born, but of the born.

 

[JLove]

RSiscoe:

It is also obvious that if aborted babies went to heaven, the devil would try everything to stop abortion.

I don’t think it is quite so obvious. What is Satan’s main purpose, to see as many souls condemed with him or have people worship him as opposed to Christ? The devil would support abortion because it would be “the greater of two evils.” In abortion you have people freely choosing damnation and rebelling against God. All out of selfish pride I might add.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

There are several odd terms in this thread. “Non-sacramental Baptism”? There is no such thing! There is the possibility that God may supply the Grace of Baptism outside of the Sacrament of Baptism. Most theologians hold that if this happens the “Mark of Sacramental Baptism” is not impressed on the soul.

The term used by Dr. Ludwig Ott is “extra-sacramental.” *Extra *connotes, in Latin, “outside of, beyond, without, beside.” I’ll try to stick to that term if it will cause you less grief. But given the context of what I’ve posted, you ought not to have been confused, as I explained what I meant from Dr. Ott’s reference on Catholic dogmatic theology.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

I agree that invincible ignorance alone is insufficient for salvation if it is without either sacramental baptism or sanctification in an *extra-*sacramental manner.

Pope St. Pius X states:

If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation (*Catechism of Pius X, *Ninth Article of the Creed).

Invincible ignorance is that kind of ignorance that is not a formal sin, according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Other than invincible ignorance, there are other kinds of ignorance, such as “vincible” ignorance, which is a sin if it is regarding something we are bound to know, and there’s also “affected” ignorance, which is a sin that can increase culpability for our wrongdoings, as it adds an element of malice.

The “councilar” Church taught me that at a Jesuit university in the 80’s

The “councilar” Jesuit wrote:

*invincible ignorance… *ignorance which a person cannot reasonably overcome given the amount of time, opportunity, and talent available to him or her, and given the degree of need which he or she has for that knowledge… destoys the voluntary character of an action, and consequently destroyes responsibility.

*vincible ignorance… *Ignorance that can be reasonably overcome, taking into account a person’s talent, the opportunity he or she has to acquire the needed knowledge, the urgency of the matter to be known… does not destory responsibility for a given action, though it does lessen it. [e.g. “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they are doing”]

affected ignorance… This is deliberately sought ignorance: I take means to ensure that I do not know something because of an obligation that would devolve on me if I did know it… does not destroy responsibility, and does not decrease it. In fact, it may increase responsibility, at least to the degree that it adds malice to the acts.

(Fr. Martin D. O’Keefe, S.J., *Known from the Things That Are - Fundamental Theory of the Moral Life, *Gonzaga Univ., 1985, pg. 38-39)

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

RSiscoe,

I agree that invincible ignorance alone is insufficient for salvation if it is without either sacramental baptism or sanctification in an *extra-*sacramental manner.

Pope St. Pius X states:
Invincible ignorance is that kind of ignorance that is not a formal sin, according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Other than invincible ignorance, there are other kinds of ignorance, such as “vincible” ignorance, which is a sin if it is regarding something we are bound to know, and there’s also “affected” ignorance, which is a sin that can increase culpability for our wrongdoings, as it adds an element of malice.QUOTE]

I agree with that post.

 

[Theodred]

LMAO

So, the Holy Innocents are going to hell?

It doesn’t take much effort to avoid making Councils address issues that they clearly were not addressing. All one really has to do is listen to the Magisterium of the Church, the whole Magisterium, not just what one wants to hear. What that interpretation of the Council of Florence is is nothing short of what Fundamentalist Evangelicals do to the bible.

 

[RSiscoe]

According to the revelation of the blessed Vrigin Mary to Ven. Mary of Agreda as recorded in the Mystical City of God - a book highly recommended by many popes - the holy innocents, who died before baptism was instituted, were given the use of reason, which enabled them to willingly offer their life for Christ.

It is a very great stretch to claim that aborted babies are martyrs. If they are, then so are all the babies who have been sacrificed to the flase gods.

Here are several quotes from a few more radical fundamentalists - St. Augustine and St. Ambrose:

"Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ’ (St. Augustine, Epistle to Jerome, Journel: 166).

"Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475).

"No one ascends to the kingdom of Heaven except by the Sacrament of Baptism. No one is excused from Baptism: not infants nor anyone hindered by any necessity. (St. Ambrose of Milam, “On Abraham” Bk 4, Ch 11:79).

When has the Church ever taught that an aborted baby is a martyr?

 

[JLove]

RSiscoe:

Here are several quotes from a few more radical fundamentalists - St. Augustine and St. Ambrose:

"Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ’ (St. Augustine, Epistle to Jerome, Journel: 166).

"Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475).

"No one ascends to the kingdom of Heaven except by the Sacrament of Baptism. No one is excused from Baptism: not infants nor anyone hindered by any necessity. (St. Ambrose of Milam, “On Abraham” Bk 4, Ch 11:79).

Again, I think it’s imperative to keep in mind that these quotes are dealing with the BORN not the un-born. Seeing that infants in the womb have no chance to be baptized how can you require it of them?

 

[Theodred]

RSiscoe,

The ONLY point I was making was that such a limited and narrow-minded interpretation of the Council of Florence would lead to the ridiculous conclusion that the Holy Innocents went to hell.

I’m not making any claims either way concerning aborted infants. What I am saying is that the Council of Florence was not addressing aborted infants, and neither were Sts Augustine or Ambrose in the quotes you provided.

Radical Traditionalists use this tactic often. They attempt to set at odds Tradition with Magisterium, claiming that the “current Magisterium” is in disagreement with “past Magisterium”. Such a claim is absurd, because there is no such thing as “past or current Magisterium”. There is only ONE Magisterium. One can not make this ONE Magisterium contradict itself by juxtaposing statements that address very different contemporaneous issues and circumstances.

When has the Church ever taught that an aborted baby is a martyr?

The question you need to ask is when has the Church ever taught that they weren’t. If the Magisterium were to conclude that an aborted infant is like a martyr or is a martyr, can you provide a quote that specifically says: “An aborted infant is not a martyr.” No?

You are required by your faith, by your faith, to assent to the all the teachings and disciplines of the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church… period.

It is a very great stretch to claim that aborted babies are martyrs. If they are, then so are all the babies who have been sacrificed to the flase gods.

Here is what I don’t understand. You seem to be concerned about who is NOT going to go to heaven. In regards to doctrine, I’m in agreement with the principles you employ. The main difference between you and I is that, while I can not possibly know the final end of anyone who dies without baptism, as baptism is the only sure means of justification and salvation, I certainly hope that those who die without baptism will somehow enter into eternal bliss. Why do I hope this? I hope that all men will be saved because love demands that I do. I don’t know if those babies who have been sacrificed to false gods go to heaven or not, but I do hope that they do.

If my hope somehow interferes with your understanding of doctrine, then I do apologize. However, I and the rest of Church can’t set aside our Christian duty just for you.

 

[bear06]

the ridiculous conclusion that the Holy Innocents went to hell

.

How about Sts. Joseph, Elizabeth, Joachim, etc., etc., etc. And then theirs Moses, Abraham, Ruth, etc., etc., etc.

I suggested this over at the previous thread but I’d read the history of the teaching on limbo. newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Here we have several saints at odd with each other’s teachings before during and after the Council of Florence and we are to believe that we have interpreted the truth of the matter.

I’m sure this is too over simplified for some but not being baptized is bad. That said, God is a just God, or so we are told, and I believe we can put our trust in that.

It would seem that you believe the Pope is in error on a matter of Faith in this area. I really can’t see it any other way than that you think that he is teaching a heresy (although I doubt you’d admit it).
While I certainly am not going to claim that I know the outcome of the souls of those children who die or are killed before birth, I’m not sure how you can definitively say he is wrong since this would fall under a matter of Faith.

Well, chaps, I know the Holy Father just put together a group to study the matter. It will be interesting to see what they come up with!

The Walk for Life was stellar! Even the press coverage was good which is a miracle in itself. While there was lunacy, obscenity, vulgarity and eggs, it all went off well and we outnumbered them by a mile with hoards of priests in tow!

 

[TNT]

RE: THEODRED #33
So, the Holy Innocents are going to hell?
and ** #36**
RSiscoe,

The ONLY point I was making was that such a limited and narrow-minded interpretation of the Council of Florence would lead to the ridiculous conclusion that** the Holy Innocents went to hell.**
RE: JLOVE #35
Again, I think it’s imperative to keep in mind that these quotes are dealing with the BORN not the un-born. Seeing that infants in the womb** have no chance to be baptized how can you require it of them?
**

We already addressed the Holy innocents in** post 23**: which said:

** Finally, the death of the Holy Innocents prior to the proclamation of the Gospel or the Sacrament of Baptism is a non-sequitor. The babes were all circumcised under the Law of Moses, thus fulfilling the Law perfectly. But, they were indeed killed for Christ…indirectly as were many of the OT figures. ( Co-mingling OT figures with NT Church on the efficacy of the Sacrament of baptism is poor exegesis! )**

**RE: “infants in the womb have no chance to be baptized how can you require it of them?”
**

This is true in the absolute sense. BUT, in the practical sense, many infants born die before a remote chance for baptism in 3rd world countries, including those born in Islam, and pagan families. So, this is really irrelevent also.

** ps I was raised in “HOLY INNOCENTS” parish.**

 

[bear06]

TNT:

We already addressed the Holy innocents in** post 23**: which said:

** Finally, the death of the Holy Innocents prior to the proclamation of the Gospel or the Sacrament of Baptism is a non-sequitor. The babes were all circumcised under the Law of Moses, thus fulfilling the Law perfectly. But, they were indeed killed for Christ…indirectly as were many of the OT figures. ( Co-mingling OT figures with NT Church on the efficacy of the Sacrament of baptism is poor exegesis! )**

This is true in the absolute sense. BUT, in the practical sense, many infants born die before a remote chance for baptism in 3rd world countries, including those born in Islam, and pagan families. So, this is really irrelevent also.

** ps I was raised in “HOLY INNOCENTS” parish.**

Ok, now how about women who died before the instution of the sacrament? They were not circumcized? Sarah, Ruth, etc.?

 

[bear06]

It also just occured to me that Herod’s instructions were that all children 2 years and under were to be killed. It would then be logical that some newborns under 8 days old were also killed thus more children who did not fulfill the Mosaic law.

Also, it is assumed that all of the children in Bethlehem at the time were Jewish. Is this a known fact?