Can the Church change its teaching?

[una_fides]

Hi Una fides, Okay original sin. Original sin the the sin that we got because Adam and Eve sinned. Now that was a sin that because of Adam and Eve we were all thrown out of the Garden of Eden. So we are all born into it. Okay Now. You know how they Call Jesus the New Adam, and the Blessed Mother the new Eve?

Okay now here is where you are getting confused. I did for awhile before too. Original sin is wiped out completely with baptism. Its done its over its forgiven. Now actual sin is where you are getting confused. Actual sin is indeed we agree the stain of Original sin, the URGE to sin, but Actual sin is what we do ourself. Jesus paid the full price for original sin. BUt actual sin he did not pay for. That is why he left us the sacraments and while his death and ressurrection made it possible with the sacraments, we still have to do our part. I am clear, or do I need to explain it better? Let me know.

Rinnie, again you seem so confident, but if you checked Church teaching you would find that we inherit our bent to sin as a result of Original Sin, not Actual Sin. Are you familiar with concupiscence? Do you know what that is? Do a search on the word and where it comes from according to Church teaching. You will find we inherit it from Adam because it is a part of our human nature. Baptism wipes out the entire guilt and entire penalty of original sin but it does not wipe out the defects in our human nature. Jesus paid the full price not only for original sin but for all the sins in the entire world that ever have been and ever could be committed. It’s called the infinite sacrifice of the Cross. We have an unlimited source of grace available to us so that all our actual sins can be forgiven! Our actual sins could not be forgiven without Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary. It was that sacrifice that paid the price for the sins of the world, as St. John rightly records in Scripture. The merits of Christ are applied to us through his grace in the sacraments.

 

[una_fides]

Correct, sorry I should have said that by his dying on the cross for our sin (original sin) he made it possible by Baptism to have that sin washed away. But while the effects ( I call it stain left behind) remain, the actual Original sin is wiped away. What the effect that is left over (which is the urge to sin that remains in us) when we sin it is not original sin it is now called Actual sin. But Jesus left us the sacraments of confession to once again make us one with Christ again.

Christ died on the Cross for all sins not just original sin. Concupiscence is not actual sin. It is not sin at all. It is a defective nature that inclines one to sin. It is an incentive for sin. But it is not sin itself. The fathers at Trent were quite clear on this matter.

 

[una_fides]

Well, notice also that throughout the Old Testament, there are non-Jews that are pleasing to God individually who were not given share in the covenant. … So how could God be pleased with some of the non-Jews if they were of the “unclean nations” and they do not have share in the covenant.

Can you please list the non-Jews of whom you are speaking? Any who are called out by name or explicitly called righteous?

Well, like Peter and the unclean animals in Acts, they are unclean to the Jews because the Jews fail to bring them to God. But to God, it is a different story. Only He can judge in their hearts. One incident comes to mind of a foreign nation that eventually conquered the Israel people that God was please with. These people, the Nevites (if I remember correctly) were going to be destroyed by God. But God in His mercy sent Jonah to call them to repentance. Jonah really didn’t want to because Jonah knows that if they repent, they will conquer Israel and oppress his people who themselves are in a sinful state. But God did not take no for an answer and got Jonah there irregardless. The Nevites repented and God spared them. So in effect, while they do not have the ordinary means of life, God has extraordinary means to offer them mercy. From what it sounds like the Nevites had much less demanded from them than the Jews. But having more demanded is the call to holiness.

Good point, but does Scripture say that they were actually justified before God and forgiven their sins or that he simply spared them from their punishment? Also could it be possible that at the preaching of Jonah that these Ninivites were converted to the God of the Jews as well? There certainly wasn’t a lot of revelation available to them otherwise…

It is a serious sin, a mortal (literally:deadly) sin if we fit the criteria for mortal sins, to practice any other religion but that of the faith given to us by Christ through His Apostles within the One, Holy, Apostolic, and Catholic Church. What about those outside of the faith that know what the Church teaches. When they read the teachings they are told that they cannot continue their faith and need to enter the Body of Christ. And what about those that read the teaching but do not know the Catholic faith? Well, they are told truth but they do not have ears to hear. They are like those nations in ancient times who do not have the covenant but are exposed to it in parts and parcel. They can still be pleasing to God if God so chooses.

God doesn’t choose whether they are pleasing to him. God is truth so they are either pleasing to him or not. God does not change or decide whether some are pleasing or not. Just wanted to clarify that last statement there.

However, since they do not understand Catholic teaching and are not interested in finding out why the Church teaches such, they do hear and so the words are lost on them. In other words, these words, may plant seeds, but are not going to affect them when they hear it. What about those that never hear the teaching, then they never refused the gift that the Church offers. In the end, we are all responsible for refusing or accepting the free gift of God’s love and relationship individually. What the Church teaches is for all peoples, but what we need to do is to understand it and follow it ourselves, while in community, yes, but as individuals in a united community.

Read about the sower who soed seeds. Some seeds fell upon weeds, others on rocks, some along the wayside. If the seed does not take root then there is no plant and if there is no plant then there is no fruit and if there is no fruit then there is no salvation.
Luke 3:9 For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be cut down and cast into the fire.
They must receive the seed once it has been sown. If not, they are lost.

 

[una_fides]

I will have to call you on John the Baptist. Luke 1:15 said John the Baptist will be filld with the Holy Spirit even from his mothers womb. Would you say a man who was filled with the Holy Spirit his entire life, even before he was born was a sinner?

Thats how also I say that we have proof that the Blessed Mother also never had sin. Luke 1:28 Hail full of Grace the Lord is with you;. Mary was also full of grace even before Jesus was conceived. Would someone full of grace, full of the very life of God be considered a sinner?

I know you agree with me completely on the Blessed Mother but I am just taking this opportunity to show others just cause is all.

The Church never teaches that John the Baptist never committed a sin ever in his life. It only teaches this of the blessed Virgin Mary. That said, St. John the Baptist is the greatest of human saints other than Mary and possibly St. Joseph (I’m not sure if he’s higher up on the chain of saints than St. Joseph). That said, he most likely still sinned. He had concupiscence despite the fact that he was filled with the Spirit from his mother’s womb. Thus, he still most likely sinned, but I would argue he likely did so less than any other person other than the blessed Virgin who was entirely sinless. But again there’s no proof here that he never sinned at any point in his entire life. The only reason I’m arguing this at all is that you were earlier trying to say that people go their whole lives without sinning. Because of concupiscence that doesn’t happen. As Scripture says, “all have sinned.” Jesus and Mary would be the only two exceptions.

 

[StillWondering]

If Jesus did not pay for actual sin then who pays for it?

Thanks Ron for bringing out this question. I was taught that Jesus, when his sweat fell like blood at Gethsemane, He saw all the sins of the past and all the sins of the future and it pained Him that we do so much to seperate ourselves from God’s love. However, without the Mercy of Christ, how would we ever be reconciled to God. So I think Jesus death washes away all sins, not just the one sin of our parents a long long time ago. But all sins. also if His death did not wash away sins, would the Sacrament of Reconciliation be the same? This is the way I always thought it was. If I’m wrong, I’ll gladly be educated.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I may have been unclear with what I was trying to say. What I’m trying to say is this: Since there is no time in eternity I now realize that the covenant made with Abraham was a faith honoring covenant just like the New Covenant, that went back in time as well as forward. My question is this: Why didn’t the popes of the middle ages, inspired by the same Holy Spirit that is guiding the Church today, teach the world about God’s love for the Jewish people when they were spelling out God’s plan of salvation?

Thank you for taking the time to read. I do hope the post is useful to you.

Honestly, I cannot answer *that *question because I cannot speak for them. However, I can tell you what I as a trusting simple man think. I think that at the time the Church knows about the salvation of non-Catholics but would not dare to teach it clearly as official teaching until our spiritual fathers can find out more. The Church learns like we do, except the Church is 2000 years old while I’m less then 30 and you’re probably less then 60 years old. The Church studies the scriptures and the Liturgy to learn from them before making official Church teachings. Because of the rigorous process the Church takes, the Magisterium seems slow to develop new details and understanding because it is charged with a very great task, that of teaching and defending truth. However from my experience, the Church is actually way ahead of its time and the rest of us are slow to understand . So one very plausible answer I can imagine is that the Church officially was still investigating how and if non-Catholics can be saved even though unofficially they may have an sense of the salvation for non-Catholics. My conjecture is that the Pope back then know about non-Catholics who may be saved but they know enough detail to teach about it. What they do know is what they promulgated and it is still Church teaching.

Can you please list the non-Jews of whom you are speaking? Any who are called out by name or explicitly called righteous?

One of the coolest ladies in the Old Testament is Ruth, a Moabite women who later becomes the great-grandmother if David. There are a few others, and if I can find this great sermon by Father Barron about the salvation history involving non-Jews, I will link it for you. Maybe it was from Dr. Hahn. Either way, the Book of Ruth is only four chapters long and I remember she was blessed because she was faithful to her mother-in-law.

One way to think about this is how God told us that He has put his law in man. As for the citation, this is from memory. It is possibly from the Psalms or the Proverbs (I’m not scholar, I just remember tidbits as I travel along). Well, if we are given God’s laws in our hearts, even though it may not be as detailed and clear as what the Church teaches us (it is the Church’s job to teach and defend the faith after all), those that hear God’s laws, even imperfectly, and follow them faithfully are rewarded with good fruits from their efforts. One of the best fruits I can imagine is to come to know the Catholic Church.

Good point, but does Scripture say that they were actually justified before God and forgiven their sins or that he simply spared them from their punishment? Also could it be possible that at the preaching of Jonah that these Ninivites were converted to the God of the Jews as well? There certainly wasn’t a lot of revelation available to them otherwise…

Hehe, did the scriptures talk about anyone being justified before the New Testament. I think that’s a trick question . Either way, the Nineveh believed in God, fasted and repent upon Jonah’s prophesy against their city.

God doesn’t choose whether they are pleasing to him. God is truth so they are either pleasing to him or not. God does not change or decide whether some are pleasing or not. Just wanted to clarify that last statement there.

Do you mean God the Father did not *choose *to send His only begotten Son? If God does choose, He would choose in eternity and His choices does not change. Maybe you are thinking that I am using choose in the way we as humans choose. I would argue that God chooses because God is love and all-powerful. Because He is all-powerful and gave us free-will, He surely has free-will Himself. Because if he cannot choose, He does not have free-will. But since He has free-will He can choose. Even though God always chooses God, it does not necessary mean that He does not choose. To say that He does not choose, implies that His love is not freely given by His own will.

 

[StillWondering]

Read about the sower who soed seeds. Some seeds fell upon weeds, others on rocks, some along the wayside. If the seed does not take root then there is no plant and if there is no plant then there is no fruit and if there is no fruit then there is no salvation.
Luke 3:9 For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be cut down and cast into the fire.
They must receive the seed once it has been sown. If not, they are lost.

As for the Parable of the Sower. Jesus says, “he who has ears to hear, let him hear.” In that quote, does it not leave the possibility of those who do not have ears to hear? In tha parable, (Luke 7:4-8), there is no mention of those plots of land without seeds. Maybe they are destined to be barren, or maybe it is something else. But because of this, when looking at this parable, we cannot know what happens to non-Catholics who have never given seeds. There are other places that talk about the faith, but I’m just referring to this one to stay on topic of your post.

On the other part of your post, in Luke chapter 3, we see the need for true repentance in the context of baptism. However, note who is baptizing and what the baptism is. The person who is calling us to baptize is John the Baptize who says: “Bear fruits that befit repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the threes; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” And the multitudes asked him, “What then shall we do?” And he answered them, “He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.” (Luke 3: 8-10)

According to the apologist here at Catholic Answers, John’s baptism is a baptism of repentance and seeks forgiveness and a returning to God. It is not the same baptism as that prescribed by the Lord. During these biblical times, there are many who teaches that we need to repent and baptism is a symbolic and public form of repentance. It is not till the New Covenant that baptism is elevated, through the trinitarian formula, to the level of a Sacrament. So using the quote you have, you can see that John is telling them to bear good fruit by changing their way to the way of God. So those without the proper baptism into the Catholic faith can bear good fruit because the law of God is written in them. This does not mean that people can simply choose not to join the Catholic Church if they know that this is the Church Christ built and is continuing to shape. However, it not quite what you are saying Una Fides.

 

[rinnie]

If Jesus did not pay for actual sin then who pays for it?

geeeeeeeze, Ron, you are Catholic you should understand what I mean. But I will take the long road. When we are baptised according to our faith as you should know we are free from original sin once and for all. Jesus paid for that sin completely. But with actual sin it is forgiven from the price that Jesus paid but we have to do our part to and repent, and confess that sin. All sin is forgiven throough Jesus Christ, but its not the same as original sin.

 

[rinnie]

The Church never teaches that John the Baptist never committed a sin ever in his life. It only teaches this of the blessed Virgin Mary. That said, St. John the Baptist is the greatest of human saints other than Mary and possibly St. Joseph (I’m not sure if he’s higher up on the chain of saints than St. Joseph). That said, he most likely still sinned. He had concupiscence despite the fact that he was filled with the Spirit from his mother’s womb. Thus, he still most likely sinned, but I would argue he likely did so less than any other person other than the blessed Virgin who was entirely sinless. But again there’s no proof here that he never sinned at any point in his entire life. The only reason I’m arguing this at all is that you were earlier trying to say that people go their whole lives without sinning. Because of concupiscence that doesn’t happen. As Scripture says, “all have sinned.” Jesus and Mary would be the only two exceptions.

I agree, but it does not have a teaching on it one way or another. Not that I am sure of anyway. But it is a good point to be debated, Don’t you agree. But another point is we can live a live free of sin. It is through the sacraments that it is made possible.

 

[rinnie]

Christ died on the Cross for all sins not just original sin. Concupiscence is not actual sin. It is not sin at all. It is a defective nature that inclines one to sin. It is an incentive for sin. But it is not sin itself. The fathers at Trent were quite clear on this matter.

What I was trying to stress once again uan is there is a difference between actual sin and original sin. That yes comcupiscence is the stain of OS as we call it there is still a difference. If we are baptised from original sin and we die right that second we are clean from sin, rather the stain remains or not. But actual sin if we die in it, and it is mortal sin our sin is in mortal danger. I don’t want to come out and say it but I will now, I did not want this to turn into OSAS, Thats what I wanted to avoid is all. I hope you are understanding what I am saying now.

 

[una_fides]

Do you mean God the Father did not *choose *to send His only begotten Son? If God does choose, He would choose in eternity and His choices does not change. Maybe you are thinking that I am using choose in the way we as humans choose. I would argue that God chooses because God is love and all-powerful. Because He is all-powerful and gave us free-will, He surely has free-will Himself. Because if he cannot choose, He does not have free-will. But since He has free-will He can choose. Even though God always chooses God, it does not necessary mean that He does not choose. To say that He does not choose, implies that His love is not freely given by His own will.

I think we are just getting lost a bit in terminology and word choice. What I’m trying to communicate is that God is God, he is immutable, unchangeable. He always acts in complete perfection. Yes, God does choose, but at the same time he always chooses according to perfection and in accordance with his holiness. The reason I commented on that specific phrase is that I know that there are some who say that God just saves whoever he chooses. I find that explanation somewhat lacking. There is a distinction to be made regarding the will of God in the sense of his will that is done and his will that he desires, the good of his creatures, which is frustrated by our sins and as a result demonstrates his justice. Furthermore, because man has free will, he can choose to rebel against God (through sin). The thing I have a problem with is people saying that God can save those people or save anyone he chooses because the choice also resides on the individual as well who has free will. If man’s free will does not cooperate, then man cannot be saved. God cannot just save a person who is still in his sins unless the man is also willing to convert. The reason God can’t save a sinner in such a rebellious state is that it is contrary to his nature and his holiness as has been revealed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

 

[ron77nyc]

geeeeeeeze, Ron, you are Catholic you should understand what I mean. But I will take the long road. When we are baptised according to our faith as you should know we are free from original sin once and for all. Jesus paid for that sin completely. But with actual sin it is forgiven from the price that Jesus paid but we have to do our part to and repent, and confess that sin. All sin is forgiven throough Jesus Christ, but its not the same as original sin.

So Jesus really did pay for original sin and actual sin = all sin. That’s what I thought. Just checking

 

[rinnie]

So Jesus really did pay for original sin and actual sin = all sin. That’s what I thought. Just checking

Spot on buddy you got it:thumbsup:

 

[una_fides]

As for the Parable of the Sower. Jesus says, “he who has ears to hear, let him hear.” In that quote, does it not leave the possibility of those who do not have ears to hear? In tha parable, (Luke 7:4-8), there is no mention of those plots of land without seeds. Maybe they are destined to be barren, or maybe it is something else. But because of this, when looking at this parable, we cannot know what happens to non-Catholics who have never given seeds. There are other places that talk about the faith, but I’m just referring to this one to stay on topic of your post.

If you don’t have fruit, you cannot be saved. That is a fact. If you never have a seed, you can’t have a plant and if you don’t have a plant you can’t have fruit. To state the argument that you are missing, you would need to argue that if one was not Catholic he could still receive seeds from the limited truth available to him and somehow manifest perfect contrition and charity and thereby have a plant capable of producing fruit.

Here’s what is meant by having “ears to hear” as explained in Haydock’s Commentary drawn from the fathers:
Mat 13:9 He that hath ears to hear. By these words, we are exhorted to examine the meaning of the parables. (St. Jerome) See Chap. xi. 15. — We are also taught that not all, but only such as have had the sense of the Scriptures opened to their understanding from above, can properly understand them. The apostles themselves were in ignorance till Jesus Christ gave them the true meaning: aperuit illis sensum, ut intelligerent Scripturas: “he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures.” (St. Luke xxiv. 45.) It is God who speaketh in the Scripture, and it is God who giveth us to understand what is therein delivered. His truths he conceals from the proud, while he reveals them to the little and humble. How can any persons pretend that the most mysterious, as well as the most sacred book in the world, is open to every understanding? St. Paul (Acts xiii. 26.) tells the Jews, that although the Scriptures were read to them every sabbath-day, their very rulers did not understand them; and St. Peter, in his 2d Epistle (iii. 17.) assures us, that there are many passages hard to be understood. — all comes from God. It is He who openeth our ears to hear, our heart to believe, and our mind to understand. Agar was near a well, and yet she wept, because she had no water to give her son to drink, God opened her eyes, and she saw the well that was close to her. Thus, says Origen, we may read the Scripture, and find no nourishment for the soul, unless God opens our mind, to see therein on what we are to nourish it. It contains salutary waters, but only those can be benefited by them, who see how to drink of the heavenly source. It is the Holy Ghost alone who can effectually open our eyes, to see these waters that spring up to life eternal; and this special grace we are to obtain by humble and fervent prayer. Knock, and it shall be opened to you.
And if you read the full context, Christ actually does speak about those who do not have “ears to hear.”
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables? Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given. For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath. Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. For, amen, I say to you, many prophets and just men have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them: and to hear the things that you hear and have not heard them. (Matthew 13:9-17)
The Pharisees did not have their understandings opened and therefore did not have “ears to hear.”

Interesting side note in reference to this parable:
And as we find that only one-fourth part of the seed produced fruit, we may thence infer how many and great are the obstacles in the way of salvation, and how few will be the number of the elect. (Haydock)

So those without the proper baptism into the Catholic faith can bear good fruit because the law of God is written in them. This does not mean that people can simply choose not to join the Catholic Church if they know that this is the Church Christ built and is continuing to shape. However, it not quite what you are saying Una Fides.

If one is not been baptized in the Church, he cannot bear fruit, for if one has no seed, he has no roots or tree, and if he has no tree, he cannot possibly bear fruit. Otherwise, where would the fruit be coming from? You need to be a branch attached to the Vine in order to produce fruit. To be a branch attached to the Vine, we must “abide” in him. This word “abide” is also used in reference to receiving Christ in holy Communion (John 6), so to abide we must be receiving Christ in his sacraments so we can produce fruit.

 

[una_fides]

What I was trying to stress once again uan is there is a difference between actual sin and original sin. That yes comcupiscence is the stain of OS as we call it there is still a difference. If we are baptised from original sin and we die right that second we are clean from sin, rather the stain remains or not. But actual sin if we die in it, and it is mortal sin our sin is in mortal danger. I don’t want to come out and say it but I will now, I did not want this to turn into OSAS, Thats what I wanted to avoid is all. I hope you are understanding what I am saying now.

At baptism the stain is removed. Really “stain” isn’t the best word because it makes it seem like it’s just something washed away, but in reality we are born. Life is infused into our dead soul that was completely and totally lacking the life of God within it. It was filled. The guilt of original sin (“the stain” as I understand it) is completely removed, but it’s effects remain, i.e. concupiscence. It is our human nature that remains warped in its outlook, but again the soul would be completely free from any guilt of sin as this warping or disfigurement of our nature is not itself sin.

Here’s an analogy I just thought of. Let’s say a man gets very very drunk to the point that it causes him some brain damage. Well within a day the alcohol would be completely gone from his system so he would no longer be considered drunk; nevertheless, he would have to suffer with the effects of that original sin in that he would not be able to see things clearly like he once did before. Adam and Eve in their original state of innocence had perfect virtue and had understanding to an exponential degree higher than we do. They could see things so clearly. Their sin so drastically changed their beings that not only they but everyone else now that inherits Adam’s human nature suffers from not seeing things clearly like they should. If we did, we would have the capacity to be able to clearly see sin the way God sees it. As completely empty and repulsive. It would be so much easier for us to rather die than commit any one mortal sin against God. The saints make it to that place in holiness, and that’s what we aspire toward and hopefully one day will attain. But we need the sacraments! Frequently! To ever make it to that point.

 

[una_fides]

What I was trying to stress once again uan is there is a difference between actual sin and original sin. That yes comcupiscence is the stain of OS as we call it there is still a difference. If we are baptised from original sin and we die right that second we are clean from sin, rather the stain remains or not. But actual sin if we die in it, and it is mortal sin our sin is in mortal danger. I don’t want to come out and say it but I will now, I did not want this to turn into OSAS, Thats what I wanted to avoid is all. I hope you are understanding what I am saying now.

If we die in a state of actual mortal sin or in original sin only, the result is the same: hell.

 

[Hesychios]

He [St. John the Baptist] had concupiscence despite the fact that he was filled with the Spirit from his mother’s womb. Thus, he still most likely sinned,

Is it your position that Saint Mary the mother of God did not have concupiscence?

 

[Hesychios]

If we die in a state of actual mortal sin or in original sin only, the result is the same: hell.

Does that mean (according to your understanding) a child who dies without the rite of baptism is destined for hell?

 

[una_fides]

Is it your position that Saint Mary the mother of God did not have concupiscence?

Yes, she was preserved from all stain of original sin and its effects on her human nature. She was conceived in a state of original justice, such as that state in which Adam and Eve were originally created before the fall.

             **"...was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin..."**

The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

 

[Hesychios]

The Church never teaches that John the Baptist never committed a sin ever in his life. It only teaches this of the blessed Virgin Mary. That said, St. John the Baptist is the greatest of human saints other than Mary and possibly St. Joseph (I’m not sure if he’s higher up on the chain of saints than St. Joseph). That said, he most likely still sinned.

When the messengers of John had left, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John. "What did you go out to the desert to see–a reed swayed by the wind?

Then what did you go out to see? Someone dressed in fine garments? Those who dress luxuriously and live sumptuously are found in royal palaces.

Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.

This is the one about whom scripture says: ‘Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, he will prepare your way before you.’

I tell you, among those born of women, no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."
Luke 7 24:28

These words were spoken by Our Lord Himself of John, before his beheading. I just thought I’d throw that into the mix of thoughts on the subject.

 

[una_fides]

Does that mean (according to your understanding) a child who dies without the rite of baptism is destined for hell?

If an infant, child, or anyone dies in a state of original sin only, then it goes to hell. This is a dogma of the faith. The soul would be lacking sanctifying grace, without which it could not enter into heaven. “You must be born again”

The Church has in recent years speculated that there could be a way unknown to us that God saves these children who die without being baptized (i.e. he takes them out a state of original sin and places them into a state of grace). First, God desires the salvation of all souls, so we know that he gives all souls the possibility of salvation. He does not make souls with the intended purpose of condemning them to hell. According to his consequent will, man chooses sin and then merits the consequences of his actions, and then God’s will is then done when he is punished. Nevertheless, God had desired their salvation and given them a chance in some way or another. Since infants that die without baptism seem to have not had any real chance of their own to be saved, the Church has speculated that perhaps they are saved some other way. There has been speculation that it could be a type of baptism of desire, as the Church prays for these souls and offers them up to the mercy of our all merciful and just God.

All that said, I personally am not completely sold on this argument for several reasons including that Scripture says, “Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Joh 3:5). In addition, I would say these infants did have a chance of baptism, but their parents neglected in some way or another to do it, and God, who is in control of all things, permitted them to die without baptism. It is quite possible that God, according to his foreknowledge, may have known that these infants would have grown into very evil sinners and would have received great punishment so he permitted them to die at their most innocent state so that they would not receive a much greater punishment.

I believe that these souls will not go to heaven, but that their punishment will be in proportion to the crimes they have committed personally. Since infants have not committed any personal sins, they will not receive any punishment, but will be in a blissful state in the highest region of hell where they also will not suffer from loss of the beatific vision since they never had the capacity to know God or who he is. This explanation was given by St. Thomas Aquinas, who in my humble opinion and the opinion of many popes was the greatest theologian in the history of the Church.
Innocent VI: “His [Aquinas’] teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.”

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13cph.htm