Can we believe in infant damnation?

[cathdoki]

That’s right. This situation is possible. No one deserves heaven and certainly not someone who has committed the infinite sin (in a certain sense) against an Almighty God who created him. There are several dicta in the writings of the Fathers about those who were damned after their first mortal sin, including, according to St. Gregory the Great (if my memory serves me correctly; I read it quoted in the work of a different Doctor of the Church), the occasion of a 5-year-old boy who after his first mortal sin, that of blasphemy, was immediately swallowed up by the earth, his soul being sent to hell to await the return of his body at the end of time.

Okay, I’ll bite. Where does the Church teach that someone can be saved who is repentant but without a perfect act of contrition and the desire to go to confession (which is implied in the perfect act of contrition)?

What a sad excuse for God you believe in. As I said. You make salvation a matter of chance. Jesus NEVER did so. Fortunately, your God is not the Christian God. The God who lived for 33 years as a human to show us how to TRY to live. Then gave His life horrifically for those that believed in Him and lived as best they could. I couldn’t worship a God of chance. Sounds pretty pagan to me.

 

[grannymh]

I also mentioned the Roman Catechism, ordered to be published by the Council of Trent. I never said that I provided any citations.

Pardon me. I may have had a baby Tyrannosaurus Rex, as a childhood pet, but I do recognize the modern tactic of bait and switch.

I don’t really see the purpose of going back through the ten pages of responses to find each of my statements.

I was just looking for the “documents of the Church and theologians” which you kindly referred to in your post 142. If you see no purpose to my desire to read what you presented, perhaps what you presented is not as important as I originally thought.

The issue is very clear and explained by the OP.

granny asks if it is this OP–
Can we believe, as Catholics, in infant damnation? Is it still a valid theological opinion for those who take the second council of Lyons and Pope Gregory X seriously?

This is a well-worded OP. Perhaps, you missed the word opinion?
Catholicism does not have infallible opinions.

Blessings,
granny

All persons are sacred because each is an unique creation by a loving Creator.

 

[grannymh]

The Church has infallibly defined that those who die in mortal sin or original sin only descend immediately into hell but to be punished with different punishments.

My guess, since you declined to cite the source, is that this is one of those out-of-context quotes which means nearly zero by itself.

Yes, we can say of them (as we can say of any human being) that we entrust them to the mercy of God. That doesn’t change the weight of the infallible statement anymore than it changes the weight of the infallible statement that no one outside the Church will be saved (unless he be joined to her), that no one who commits willful murder will be saved (without confession), that no one who commits adultery will be saved, etc., etc., etc. You can list off any number of the teachings of the Church. “If one says x, anathema sit”;

Ah, one says. The famous anathema statements which must be read in context above and below. Personally, I have a bit of trouble connecting adultery with infants.

“if one does y, he will be damned”.

Oh dear! That teaching has been truncated!

Yes, we entrust all of these persons to the mercy of God. That doesn’t change the truth of the statements, which are based upon what God

has revealed to his Church. He does not deceive.

For those interested in the truth of the statements, which are based upon what God has revealed to his Church, please refer to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4 Link: www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

John 3:16-17

 

[IntegraCatholic]

This is a well-worded OP. Perhaps, you missed the word opinion?
Catholicism does not have infallible opinions.

Which is why in my first response I already assumed the state of limbo and addressed the opinion that they suffer no flame or physical punishment as opposed to the opinion that they do (which is how I interpreted damned). It is entirely possible for the Church to define (as she has) that no one who dies in original sin can be saved but “descends immediately into hell, to be punished with different punishments” from those who commit mortal sin. That doesn’t define what those punishments are, just that they are different. One can have an opinion about in what these consist while everyone still accepts the infallible decree that such persons must go to hell.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Lyons II: “The souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.” (Denzinger # 464)

Florence: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in original sin, immediately descend into hell.” (Denzinger # 693)

 

[grannymh]

Okay, I’ll bite. Where does the Church teach that someone can be saved who is repentant but without a perfect act of contrition and the desire to go to confession (which is implied in the perfect act of contrition)?

Dang! I hope my pet Tyrannosaurus Rex is doing better than I am. It took me four readings to find the oxymoron. Hint: put the word repentance in the search bar of this link.www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

One of the citations talks about repentance being honest. Can someone be honestly repentant without the desire to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation? Sounds like combined incongruous or contradictory terms to me. (The American Heritage College Dictionary) On the other hand, someone can be honestly repentant with any kind of contrition, besides the unexplained perfect act of contrition, during the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

 

[grannymh]

Lyons II: “The souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.” (Denzinger # 464)

Florence: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in original sin, immediately descend into hell.” (Denzinger # 693)

Sources of Catholic Dogma by Denzinger traces the development of doctrine and dogma in the Catholic Church from its earliest times. It should be noted that even though Divine Revelation has been completed, it has not been made completely explicit. It remains for Catholicism to gradually grasp Divine Revelation’s full significance over the course of the centuries.

#464 is from “Profession of Faith of Michael Palaeologus”
(Please refer to Post 40.)

#693 is from Decree for the Greeks – the Bull “Laetentur coeli,” July 6, 1439
Note that quote in post 160 was truncated.

The last complete sentence of #693 reads: “Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds [see n.464].” When one looks at the complete sentence, one needs to remember there is hell as in Hades and hell as in Gehenna.(Please refer to Post 40 ) Also see Catholic teaching regarding Christ descending to the dead.

Neither citation has the language associated with an official declaration of dogma.

Furthermore, the juxtaposition of those who are in “original sin only” with those who die in actual mortal sin strongly indicates that both [those] have the use of reason. There is no indication that those in “original sin only” are really infants who cannot commit mortal sin.

There are no explicit, dogmatic statements which eternally damn infants who die.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[grannymh]

OP
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregory I

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Can we believe, as Catholics, in infant damnation? Is it still a valid theological opinion for those who take the second council of Lyons and Pope Gregory X seriously?

Post 40

I’m not sure what your Gregory X reference is, but your Second Council of Lyons reference is clearly to a document that was actually preconciliar. It was a transcription by the eastern emperor of the text of a profession of faith that was proposed to him by the Pope. Although the document was read before the Council Fathers, it was not written at the Council, was not promulgated by the Council, or even discussed by the Council. Thus, the dogmatic impact of the document is questionable at best.

Even if you were to take the document as absolute dogma, it does not consign infants to everlasting damnation. It only talks about what happens immediately after dying in original sin only (as an unbaptized infant), i.e. descent into hell to receive different punishments than those who die in mortal sin. But the same document goes on to talk about the final judgment where everyone will be judged according to their works. You have to remember that there is hell as in Hades, and hell as in Gehenna. Gehenna is the final state of the damned. The document in question refers to those dying in original sin descending into Hades.

On the other hand there is Jesus, who said regarding little children that “their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.” For us to enter the kingdom of heaven, we must become like those little children.

By the way, when I read the Catechism, the only way that I see that one gets eternally damned is to die in mortal sin. Obviously, infants can’t commit mortal sin, and, in the end, heaven or hell are the only options.

So, to answer your question, I’m not aware of any direct prohibition against your holding such a belief. I suppose if you represent this belief as something that Catholics ought to believe, you may turn some away from the faith due to the doctrine’s utter repugnancy. But that wouldn’t be mortal sin in you, I don’t think, because you actually believe in the doctrine. How you can be happy or find motivation for serving God other than fear when you believe such a thing is something I can’t answer.

 

[mlldrl]

@ IntegraCatholic

I’ve been reading your posts with interest. Tell me, is it your position that God creates some people without any chance for salvation?

M

 

[cathdoki]

@ IntegraCatholic

I’ve been reading your posts with interest. Tell me, is it your position that God creates some people without any chance for salvation?

M

Unfortunately, I feel there may be some posting here that hope for that.

 

[cathdoki]

Huh? What did you say about my granny?

 

[grannymh]

@ IntegraCatholic

I’ve been reading your posts with interest. Tell me, is it your position that God creates some people without any chance for salvation?

M

While I often kid and get kidded about my age – post 166
I am not set in my ways. Understanding the different kinds of modern Catholic positions is important to me.

Therefore, I am looking forward to IntegraCatholic’s answer to your question in post 164 — "I’ve been reading your posts with interest. Tell me, is it your position that God creates some people without any chance for salvation?"

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I cannot know the mind of God. No one can, as St. Paul says: O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him? (Rom. 11. 33-35.)

Who can claim he has a right to heaven? No one does. The beatific vision is a free gift of God, and it is above man’s nature. The perfect natural happiness in limbo is the natural end of man (enjoyment of God through contemplation of the things of creation) but not face-to-face. Such a soul still is fulfilled in the natural end of his creation, but since he lacked the supernatural grace of Baptism, which God has required for the supernatural gift of the Beatific Vision, there is no injustice or lack of mercy for that soul. His very creation is an immense gift of God. Of course, God may know in his infinite wisdom that such a soul would have committed mortal sin and would have been confined to the prison of hell forever with the souls of the damned. In this way, God is actually showing this soul an immense mercy. We cannot say that the soul deserves the (also, free gift) of repentance. The situation with infants who are lost due to lack of Baptism does not contradict God’s will that all men be saved anymore than a single damned soul in hell contradicts it.

Neither citation has the language associated with an official declaration of dogma.

You asked for the Church documents rather than the constant interpretation of those documents, so I provided the former. These have always been considered infallible statements taken at face value. Do you have the original Latin source to substantiate your claims? Otherwise, it is a moot point.

 

[grannymh]

I cannot know the mind of God. No one can, as St. Paul says: O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him? (Rom. 11. 33-35.)

Who can claim he has a right to heaven? No one does. The beatific vision is a free gift of God, and it is above man’s nature. The perfect natural happiness in limbo is the natural end of man (enjoyment of God through contemplation of the things of creation) but not face-to-face. Such a soul still is fulfilled in the natural end of his creation, but since he lacked the supernatural grace of Baptism, which God has required for the supernatural gift of the Beatific Vision, there is no injustice or lack of mercy for that soul. His very creation is an immense gift of God. Of course, God may know in his infinite wisdom that such a soul would have committed mortal sin and would have been confined to the prison of hell forever with the souls of the damned. In this way, God is actually showing this soul an immense mercy. We cannot say that the soul deserves the (also, free gift) of repentance. The situation with infants who are lost due to lack of Baptism does not contradict God’s will that all men be saved anymore than a single damned soul in hell contradicts it.

You asked for the Church documents rather than the constant interpretation of those documents, so I provided the former. These have always been considered infallible statements taken at face value. Do you have the original Latin source to substantiate your claims? Otherwise, it is a moot point.

Thank you for your explanation of your personal opinions.

Blessings to you and yours,
granny

 

[cathdoki]

I cannot know the mind of God. No one can, as St. Paul says: O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him? (Rom. 11. 33-35.)

Who can claim he has a right to heaven? No one does. The beatific vision is a free gift of God, and it is above man’s nature. The perfect natural happiness in limbo is the natural end of man (enjoyment of God through contemplation of the things of creation) but not face-to-face. Such a soul still is fulfilled in the natural end of his creation, but since he lacked the supernatural grace of Baptism, which God has required for the supernatural gift of the Beatific Vision, there is no injustice or lack of mercy for that soul. His very creation is an immense gift of God. Of course, God may know in his infinite wisdom that such a soul would have committed mortal sin and would have been confined to the prison of hell forever with the souls of the damned. In this way, God is actually showing this soul an immense mercy. We cannot say that the soul deserves the (also, free gift) of repentance. The situation with infants who are lost due to lack of Baptism does not contradict God’s will that all men be saved anymore than a single damned soul in hell contradicts it.

You asked for the Church documents rather than the constant interpretation of those documents, so I provided the former. These have always been considered infallible statements taken at face value. Do you have the original Latin source to substantiate your claims? Otherwise, it is a moot point.

So a baby who dies within minutes of birth without the benefit of baptism goes to hell? That is NOT church teaching. Perhaps some saints have said such things, but they carry NO weight.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

So a baby who dies within minutes of birth without the benefit of baptism goes to hell?

Yes, according to the constant teaching of the Church, that’s right, as do those who die before birth.

That is NOT church teaching.

You say it isn’t. I say it is. This adds nothing to the discussion.

Perhaps some saints have said such things, but they carry NO weight.

The writings of saints, popes, and theologians carry no weight. Your opinion alone carries weight.

 

[cathdoki]

Yes, according to the constant teaching of the Church, that’s right, as do those who die before birth.

You say it isn’t. I say it is. This adds nothing to the discussion.

The writings of saints, popes, and theologians carry no weight. Your opinion alone carries weight.

That is purely wrong! Even JPII offered the hope that they attain heaven. Limbo of the infants was and is not an infallible teaching of the church.

 

[grannymh]

You say it isn’t. I say it is. This adds nothing to the discussion.

So?

 

[mlldrl]

@ IntegraCatholic

Was post 168 intended to address my post 164 to you? If so, I don’t believe you addressed my question.

M

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I wonder what happened to any miscarried babies, or stillborn infants that belonged to the Patriarchs?