Children who die without baptism

[itsjustdave1988]

De Maria,

1. What is condign merit?

There are two kinds of merit: condign and congruous. Only condign merit is merit strictly so-called. Congrous merit is also called pseudo-merit.

Condign merit - just pay for work complete. Likened to a military guy like myself earning a paycheck for a days work. It is owed to me as a matter of associative justice. In theology, saving grace comes only due to the the condign merit of Christ.

Congruous merit - reward for good deeds. Likened to a military guy being awarded a medal, or a gratuity for your waiter. It is not owed to me, but as an act of kindness, my supervisor rewards those that act meritoriously. It is a matter of distributive justice, not associative justice. Which means that if it is not gifted, there’s no insjustice involved, as it was never owed to begin with. In theology, the justified (those in a state of grace) can merit (be rewarded gratuitously by God) further grace and gifts congruously. This gratuitous grace is not owed. No injustice occurs if God does not shower you with gifts. It is gratuitous. This grace has its source in Christ’s condign merit, and is never understood to be a different source of grace.

Those in original sin are not in a state of grace.

See more here: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Merit

4. However, isn’t it doctrinal that only mortal sin will keep a soul from enjoying the beatific vison? I am equating the beatific vision with heaven.

No. All souls who die in a state of original or mortal sin go to hell. It is simply that there is differing punishments for those who die in original sin, compared to those who die in mortal sin (see quote from Innocent III provided above). There is also a hope that those who die without *sacramental baptism may be sanctified by God extra-sacramentally. *This is a hope, a prayer for infants and children, not something that can be proved from Divine Revelation, either from Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition.

So, according to Catholic theology, EVERYONE in heaven will have been washed of original sin by God, either sacramentally or extra-sacramentally. EVERYONE in hell will have been finally impenitent of mortal or merely original sin. The “place” commonly called limbo of the children is more properly referred to in Catholic doctrine as the differing punishment of those in hell who are guilty of merely original sin (poena damni) as compared to the punishment of those guilty of mortal sin (poena sensus).

According to the Council of Lyons II (1274):

***those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with differnt punishments ***[Denzinger 464]

According to the Council of Florence (1493):

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 [Denzinger 693]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to Fr. John Hardon,
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/7-8-98/Questions.html

*It is true that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not speak of limbo. Over the centuries, the Church has understood limbo to be the abode of souls who enjoy the happiness that would have been our destiny if human beings had not been elevated to the supernatural order. The limbo of infants would therefore be a state or place of perfect happiness, but without the beatific vision of God.
*
Some theologians of renown have thought that God might supply the wont of Baptism by some other means. St. Bernard, for example, suggested that infants who died without Baptism could reach heaven because of the faith of their parents. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not deny the possibility or the existence of limbo. It merely says we may trust that, in God’s mercy, innocent children, whether born or unborn, do reach heaven. To be noted, however, is that we may trust, but without being certain of their entering the beatific vision.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

We know that the ordinary means of removing Original Sin from the soul is Baptism.

In this life, correct.

If you die with Original sin, you go to hell. You may not be convinced of this, but Catholicism clearly holds this doctrine. Those washed of original sin have no means other than sacramental baptism, or if it be God’s will, extra-sacramental sanctification while on earth.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

De Maria,

The Pope recently asked that this inquiry be re opened.

Children Who Die Without Baptism: A Nagging Question

Pope Asks Theological Commission to Look Into the Matter

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 7, 2004 (Zenit.org).- John Paul II asked some well-known Catholic theologians to study further a question that has stood for centuries: What is the fate of children who die without baptism? …

Apparently the Pope believes it is possible that the matter may still be proved by the Revelation of God.

You are reading way too much into this article, which says nothing about what the pope believes.

This investigation could simply be into whether infants can be extra-sacramentally sanctified by baptism of desire or baptism of blood (martyrdom).

Cardinal Cajetan before the council of Trent opined that infants who die without sacramental baptism can be sanctified by vicarious baptism of desire. This was not a condemned proposition, yet many, like St. Thomas Aquinas, disagree. I believe this is the question the theological commission will be investigating, not whether or not to REVERSE the decrees of the Council of Lyons II or the Council of Florence.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Isn’t it doctrinal that only heaven and hell are eternal?

Yes. And it is also doctrinal that those who die in mortal or merely original sin go to hell.

If so, then what of those who do not attain eternal glory (i.e. heaven) and yet have committed no actual sin?

According to the Council of Lyons II and the Council of Florence, they go to hell, “but to unergo punishments of differnt kinds” such as the lack of the Beatific Vision of God.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

itsjustdave1988:

Yes. And it is also doctrinal that those who die in mortal or merely original sin go to hell.

The Catechism suggests that it is not so clear-cut:

1261 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,"63 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.

 

[Exporter]

I. LIMBUS PATRUM

Though it can hardly be claimed, on the evidence of extant literature, that a definite and consistent belief in the limbus patrum of Christian tradition was universal among the Jews, it cannot on the other hand be denied that, more especially in the extra-canonical writings of the second or first centuries B.C., some such belief finds repeated expression; and New Testament references to the subject remove all doubt as to the current Jewish belief in the time of Christ. Whatever name may be used in apocryphal Jewish literature to designate the abode of the departed just, the implication generally is

• that their condition is one of happiness,
• that it is temporary, and
• that it is to be replaced by a condition of final and permanent bliss when the Messianic Kingdom is established.

In the New Testament, Christ refers by various names and figures to the place or state which Catholic tradition has agreed to call the limbus patrum. In Matt. 8:11, it is spoken of under the figure of a banquet “with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven” (cf. Luke 8:29; 14:15), and in Matt. 25:10 under the figure of a marriage feast to which the prudent virgins are admitted, while in the parable of Lazarus and Dives it is called “Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 16:22) and in Christ’s words to the penitent thief on Calvary the name paradise is used (Luke 23:43). St. Paul teaches (Eph. 4:9) that before ascending into Heaven Christ “also descended first into the lower parts of the earth,” and St. Peter still more explicitly teaches that “being put to death indeed, in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit,” Christ went and “preached to those souls that were in prison, which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noah” (I Pet 3:18-20).

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dr. Colossus:

The Catechism suggests that it is not so clear-cut:

What isn’t clear cut? The Catechism suggests that infants MAY be extra-sacramentally sanctified (washed of original sin) if that be the will of God. I don’t argue with this. This does not teach contrarily from the Council of Lyons II or Florence or Trent, if understood correctly. This has been speculative theology, neither condemned nor defined since before Trent.

I argue with any who suggest that those who die in original sin do not go to hell. The Church teaches otherwise.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

What is clear cut is what is taught in the Council of Lyons II, the Council of Florence, and this from the Council of Trent:

***this translation ***[to justification] cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it (Council of Trent, D 796)

This means that if any go to heaven, they will have been washed of their original sin either sacramentally, or by desire.

Can infants have baptism of desire? St. Thomas Aquinas says no. Others, including St. Bernard, disagrees. This question remains sepculative in Catholic theology, and it is this quesiton that CCC 1261 addresses, affirming that Catholics can hope for extra-sacramental means of santification by God before the death of infants.

 

[De_Maria]

Hi,

Wow. Another great post

Shiann:

First of all, I believe our misunderstanding generates from the definition of soul.

Agreed.

Catholic Encyclopedia definition of soul:

The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated. The term “mind” usually denotes this principle as the subject of our conscious states, while “soul” denotes the source of our vegetative activities as well.

Great. I agree with this definition but would like to note that it divides the human being into three principles, body, mind and soul. For my purposes, at this time, I only need two. The body (or flesh) and the soul (soul and mind).

It is my understanding that the flesh is the principle in which Original Sin resides the vehicle by which it is passed on. Do we agree on this?

The will resides in the mind and therefore in the soul, doesn’t it?

God brought us into being through Adam and Eve. Perfect in every way.

Correct. God created Adam and Eve in perfect holiness and justice. Their soul had control of their flesh.

It is through the decision of A&E to make their desires more important than that of their Creator and God. This separation of wills caused a profound rift in the relationship between mankind and God which shook throughout all of mankind forever.

Correct. It was a separation of wills. A conflict of wills so to speak.

Since Adam and Eve, we ARE seperated from God from the moment of our conception. WE must choose to reach across the rift and accept Him again. Though His arms are forever open to everyone- only some will make that decision.

Ok. I think this is the crux of our difference. The will is the key. The question being, does a child who dies before baptism in a condition of Original Sin, separated from God, will to do so?

When you speak of a pristine soul, I am not sure what you are referencing. I realize that we have no personal culpability to the decision made by Adam and Eve to become seperated by God. If this is what you mean by pristine, I guess I could go along with that.

That is what I mean.

But I duly note that even without culpability I am still not welcome into Heaven until the effects of Original Sin are washed away.

Agreed.

So before I can comment further, I believe we should develop a common definition for soul.

Agreed.

As a side note, this conversation is very much like one I had with another individual whose question centered on why they needed to feel gratefull that Jesus died on the Cross for mankind, when it was not their sin in the first place… I find myself referencing that conversation as we move through this one.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=21473

The infant has not had an opportunity to go against these dictates as he has not the capacity for this reasoning- therefore he remains free from the effects of sin until the ‘age of reason’ (6-8) generally around the time of their First Confession.

Excellent. From your referenced conversation, what would be the final destination of a child’s soul, free from the effects of sin before the age of reason, should he die without baptism?

Note also, that purgatory scours our souls clean from the temporal effects of ANY sin, mortal or venial.

How about the effects of Original Sin?

It will not take away actual sins.

I think it will take away unconfessed venial sins. Otherwise, how are they removed?

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God…

You asked also, for a source for the comment regarding Limbo. There are a number of references in this source describing Limbo the same way Br. Rich did. I’m sure he has more specific sources, but I felt the need to work through some of these irregularities and misconceptions of what each of us were communicating- before we could get to the heart of the discussion.

Limbo- Catholic Encyclopedia

And maybe in the definition, you can find clarity.

Thanks, it seems that the Catholic Encyclopedia considers Limbo a part of hell.

Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God.

Its hard to swallow.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Shiann]

De Maria:

Wow. Another great post

You too

Great. I agree with this definition but would like to note that it divides the human being into three principles, body, mind and soul. For my purposes, at this time, I only need two. The body (or flesh) and the soul (soul and mind).

It is my understanding that the flesh is the principle in which Original Sin resides the vehicle by which it is passed on. Do we agree on this?

The will resides in the mind and therefore in the soul, doesn’t it?

I’m not sure if this distinction makes any difference. We as human beings are not separate from our bodies until we die. Whichever part of us (body mind or soul) inherits Original Sin, we are imbued with it, and carry it in all our “parts” until baptism of water, desire or blood washes it away.

Ok. I think this is the crux of our difference. The will is the key. The question being, does a child who dies before baptism in a condition of Original Sin, separated from God, will to do so?

Ok, so if we have agreement to this point, the wonderment here is whether it is justified for us to believe that a child, who has had no way to personally CHOOSE God and be baptised by water, is destined for anything short of heaven.

This is where I noted, and others here, (much more knowledgable than me) have noted that this is indeed the teaching of the church. BUT, that it is also possible that God grants specific Graces to those people/souls and allows them to choose. There is no way for the Church to determine this from Tradition or Scripture.

It has therefore become the position of the Church, that we are to Hope and have Faith that God has Mercy on these souls.

The options of the destinies of these souls range from just short of Hell, to just short of Heaven. In otherwords- somewhere in between.

My personal belief is that God must show His Mercy on such cases.

Excellent. From your referenced conversation, what would be the final destination of a child’s soul, free from the effects of sin before the age of reason, should he die without baptism?

The Church’s position isn’t clear. The Church doesn’t want to definatively say they are welcomed into Heaven- as they still have Original Sin. But because they have not made the choice by logic, they must be somewhere short of the beatific vision promised to those who have removed Original Sin. That is, unless God intervenes somehow- that we are unaware of. (Which is my belief.)

I think it will take away unconfessed venial sins. Otherwise, how are they removed?
1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God…

Yes you are right. I stand corrected.

Venial Sins

All sins are not equal before God, nor dare anyone assert that the daily faults of human frailty will be punished with the same severity that is meted out to serious violation of God’s law. On the other hand whosoever comes into God’s presence must be perfectly perfectly pure for in the strictest sense His “eyes are too pure, to behold evil” (Hab., i, 13). For unrepented venial faults for the payment of temporal punishment due to sin at time of death, the Church has always taught the doctrine of purgatory.
Purgatory Venial Sins- Catholic Encyclopedia

Thanks, it seems that the Catholic Encyclopedia considers Limbo a part of hell.

Yes, anything outside of Heaven could be considered hell. But NOT just the Hell of damnation.

Its hard to swallow.

A lot of God’s teachings can be just that… hard to swallow. I personally find “prayer for my enemies” a hard one to swallow.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I have read Augustine directly, although some time ago.
In the links I have followed from this thread, I do not see the same man whose work I have read.

The meaning of the statement: Original sin is a sin only by analogy, relates to Augustine. It means that the lack of sanctifying grace has the same effect as sin. (hence the reasoning by analogy).

I do not know Latin, but I do know Greek. In Greek the scriptural variations of words translated merely as ‘sin’ leads to confusion in the English. I wonder if some of the confusion relates to translation of the council Latin.

If there are multiple hells (sheol, peona d., peona s.) ( temporary hell = purgatory? ), what does the latin of the Councils indicate.
Which hell? (or is it ambiguous?)
(Florance, Orange, etc.)

Augustine’s view was that the statement of Jesus in conjunction with Nicodemus had no known method of circumvention. This is the same statement which the Feenyites use to the extreme.
(Augustine did not use it in the absolute – martyrs can enter heaven, and he placed those desiring baptism ahead of others.).

Augustine claimed that he did not understand how our Lords words could be, but none the less he believed them.
For Augustine, the child went to hell/(sheol?), but received only the lightest possible punishment. He did not define ‘lightest’ and the context implies that he didn’t know.

In my opinion, the infant has already suffered one punishment.
The child died – with the seperation of body and soul.
In other words, a child who did no actual wrong suffered a punishment – because of the inconsiderate lack of action of Adam.

Limbo, as a third eternal state, is nonsense.

The limbo of the fathers was not eternal.
Their limbo is equivalent to purgatory, where part of their purgation was waiting for the cleansing.

As intimated in many of the replies, any eternal state which is not in the beatific vision would be Hell. That does not mean the child receives unjust punishment inflicted by God – e.g. flames and fire for the punishment of hell is related to the severity of the sin.

It is not even clear that infants are capable of resenting ‘punishment’. Does a child mature after death? (I don’t pretend to know).

Toddlers and young children could resent the punishment, but they are also capable of desire when presented with Jesus. (Baptism of Desire).

God is not unjust – if it really is injustice, it won’t happen.

Also, in the thread there is a tendency to see eternity in the sense of spirit only. Aren’t we forgetting that there is a resurection of the body? If (hypothetically) it is the body which has the effect of original sin, that does not exempt a ‘pure’ spirit from suffering. If the body is not redeemed then it is a suffering of concupiscence (at least) for all eternity.

I hope that there is a baptism of water, perhaps with only God saying the words. I hope.

 

[De_Maria]

Br. Rich SFO:

What is the condition of the soul which has not sinned personally and has not willfully opposed God before Baptism?

It is separated from God’s Sanctifying Grace because of Original Sin.

The Catechism says that “It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice…” Is that the same thing as “Sanctifying Grace”?

If the deprivation of original holiness and justice is the same as “Sanctifying Grace” then that would mean that Adam and Eve were conceived in “Sanctifying Grace”.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

I was under the impression that Sanctifying Grace did not come until the advent of Jesus. Therefore, the Jewish Fathers remained in a temporary state of Limbo before they were admitted into Heaven by Jesus Christ.

Therefore Original Sin does not deprive us of Sanctifying Grace but of original holiness and justice.

Baptism does not “restore” Sanctifying Grace but “imparts” it. Just as the Jewish Fathers (and they were not baptized) were admitted into Heaven by Jesus Christ, why couldn’t the same happen with unbaptized children.

What of purgatory? Isn’t it an ordinary means of removing actual, venial sin? Isn’t venial sin more grave than Original Sin which is not an actual willful offense against God but only a condition of being born in the fallen nature of the flesh inherited from Adam and Eve?

Original Sin separates the soul from God’s sanctifying grace. Venial Sin does not sever the soul from God’s grace.

1. The Catechism says that Original Sin separates the soul from original holiness and justice (see above).
2. Correct, Venial Sin does not sever the soul from God’s grace.

My question, does Original Sin sever the soul from all God’s grace. Obviously, life itself is a grace of God, a participation in the life of God, as the Scriptures say, “God is He in whom we live, breathe and have our being.” And I believe it was St. Therese Liseaux who said, “All is grace!”

Purgatory perfects the soul that has remaining temporal punishment due to forgiven mortal sins and unforgiven venial sin.

Agreed.

Purgatory has no effect on Original Sin.

Is Original Sin, which is not an actual sin, greater and more heinous than an actual sin?

It is thought that God may supply the Grace of Baptism for those who may never have had the chance to receive Baptism. However it is thought that God does not supply the “Mark of Sacramental Baptism” on the soul. Thus allowing the soul to enter Heaven but not share in the beatific vision.

Question: I believe this idea that the beatific vision will be denied those who die in an unbaptized state comes from a certain interpretation of John 3 where Jesus says that to enter heaven, “One must be born of water and the Spirit.”

Now, please be patient and see if you can follow my logic. When interpreting Paul’s statement, “All have sinned…” we Catholics maintain that the word “All” is used in a general sense not to be interpreted (as Protestants do) as all inclusive. We maintain that Jesus did not sin and Mary did not sin nor have babes in the womb or those who have not achieved the age of reason, therefore Paul did not mean all as in everyone without exception.

So then, why do we now maintain that everyone without exception must be born of water and Spirit? And what does that mean concerning the Jewish Fathers, aren’t they in heaven? If they are, then they are an exception to this rule. Why can’t there be others?

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

The Church holds two positions (I will find the references for you).

That no sin Original or Actual can enter Heaven.
That the soul that dies with only Original Sin is not punished with punishments of the condemned in Hell.

I look forward to seeing them.

I’m sorry to be late responding, besides work it has been an eventful two weeks for us Catholics.

God bless Pope John Paul ll (the Great)!

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Shiann:

I’m not sure if this distinction makes any difference. We as human beings are not separate from our bodies until we die. Whichever part of us (body mind or soul) inherits Original Sin, we are imbued with it, and carry it in all our “parts” until baptism of water, desire or blood washes it away.

I see your point.

Ok, so if we have agreement to this point, the wonderment here is whether it is justified for us to believe that a child, who has had no way to personally CHOOSE God and be baptised by water, is destined for anything short of heaven.

Agreed.

This is where I noted, and others here, (much more knowledgable than me) have noted that this is indeed the teaching of the church. BUT, that it is also possible that God grants specific Graces to those people/souls and allows them to choose. There is no way for the Church to determine this from Tradition or Scripture.

It has therefore become the position of the Church, that we are to Hope and have Faith that God has Mercy on these souls.

I was just remembering that it is stated in 1 John (I believe), that there are three witnesses, “the water, the blood and the Spirit”.

**
1 John 5
5: Who is it that overcomes the world but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 6: This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. 7: And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8: There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree. **

I don’t know if this verse has anything to do with Baptism, it just came to me.

The options of the destinies of these souls range from just short of Hell, to just short of Heaven. In otherwords- somewhere in between.

My personal belief is that God must show His Mercy on such cases.

Agreed. Essentially that is the position held by the Catholic Church “1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy and to pray for their salvation.”

The Church’s position isn’t clear. The Church doesn’t want to definatively say they are welcomed into Heaven- as they still have Original Sin. But because they have not made the choice by logic, they must be somewhere short of the beatific vision promised to those who have removed Original Sin. That is, unless God intervenes somehow- that we are unaware of. (Which is my belief.)

I agree with your belief and more strongly now because I recall that the Jewish Fathers were not baptized and yet enjoy the beatific vision. God is absolute and does not change His ways.

Yes, anything outside of Heaven could be considered hell. But NOT just the Hell of damnation.

Yes, but to be outside the beatific vision, which is where every soul is meant to be, what inconsolable grief for the soul. I believe as Augustine maintained, “Our souls do not rest until they rest in you.” Every soul is created to return to its Creator, denied that, how pleasant could it be?

A lot of God’s teachings can be just that… hard to swallow. I personally find “prayer for my enemies” a hard one to swallow.

Oh yeah! I know. But we must submit to the teachings of God’s Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[bogeyjlg]

I don’t know if this was mentioned (there was much to read), but there are 3 (three) types of baptism:

1. baptism of water (the litergical norm)
2. baptism of desire (if you die with full intention of being baptised)
3. baptism of blood (one is matyred for the faith without receiving the first mentioned form)

God’s mercy is infinite!!!

As to the end, there will only be two places, heaven and hell. Purgatory is the state where souls go for the remission of the temporal effects of the sins they committed in thier lifetime. There they are purified of these effects. This state is not eternal. All souls who go to purgatory will go to heaven.

 

[bogeyjlg]

Remember also that Christ decended to Sheol to preach to the dead in Sheol. Christ’s sacrifice is infinite and spans all time.

This is not in Church doctine that I know of but it seems to follow logically:

Those who died unbaptized could very well have been among the dead in Sheol and the ones Christ preached to and may (depending on whether they accpected or not) have been baptized by desire. Thus obtaining salvation.

 

[BibleReader]

De Maria:

Hi,

Subject: Children who die without Baptism

I’ve recently been studying this question. I believe my understanding falls completely within
Catholic parameters but I’'ll let you be the judge.

Children who die without being baptized should go to heaven based
upon the God’'s Mercy and Justice.

First. Original Sin is not actual sin. It is the propensity to sin.
Because a soul directly created by God we know that at the time of conception it is perfect, without stain of sin.

382 “Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity” (GS 14 § 1). The
doctrine of the faith affirms that the spiritual and immortal soul is
created immediately by God.

Therefore, a soul which has not sinned has not willfully opposed God and remains in a state of Grace.
himself from God and is still in a state of Grace.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,original sin does not
have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’'s
descendants…

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his
descendants?.. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in
an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a
state and not an act.

1850 Sin is… a revolt against God through the
will…

In the end there will be only heaven and hell. No other states or
conditions will exist. Unless the conjectured Limbo is a part of
heaven or hell it will cease to exist. That would leave the
unbaptized child outside of heaven and either permanently erased from
existence or stuck in hell.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created
immediately by God…and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the
body at death…

1038 The resurrection of all the dead, "of both the just and the
unjust,"623 will precede the Last Judgment…Then Christ will come “in his glory, and all the angels with him. . . . Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate
them one from another. . . . And they will go away into eternal punishment, but
the righteous into eternal life.”*

It would be wrong for a soul that has not sinned to remain outside of heaven when the only option left is hell.

What do you think?

Sincerely,

De Maria*

Before (1) the age of reason, at which time grace may be willfully accepted, and before (2) infant Baptism, at which time the free gift of Sanctifying Grace through Baptism is poured upon even infants, infant humans are nothing but needful, demanding flesh attached to a free will. It is a will which has nothing shouting at it but flesh screaming, “Gimme, GIMME, GIMME!” The infant has not revolted against God, but the infant has nothing but revolution in him.

As such, it is repulsive to God, Who will not let that flesh enter into the Divine Presence in a state which is more comfortable than that into which the baby was born.

There is no initial “state of grace,” before infant Baptism.

So, rest assured that the unbaptized little ones do not enter into any kind of Beatific Vision upon their death.

My personal belief is that this post-life state for unbaptized infants will be about as comfortable and as uncomfortable as life here on Earth. God would do that for the sake of equality.

 

[De_Maria]

Huiou Theou:

I have read Augustine …Original sin is a sin only by analogy, …means that the lack of sanctifying grace has the same effect as sin…

Perhaps it is my misunderstanding. But I don’t equate Original Sin with a removal of Sanctifying Grace from the soul.

***1999 ****The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the *sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism…

Therefore, Original Sin does not deprive the soul of Sanctifying Grace but deprives the soul of Original holiness and justice. And Baptism does not restore Sanctifying grace but imparts it.
*
405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin … is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted:… Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God,… *

I do not know Latin, but I do know Greek. In Greek the scriptural variations of words translated merely as ‘sin’ leads to confusion in the English. I wonder if some of the confusion relates to translation of the council Latin…

I am even more baffled than you.

Augustine’s view was that the statement of Jesus in conjunction with Nicodemus had no known method of circumvention… .

Does Augustine consider the Jewish Fathers (i.e. Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, etc.)?

…For Augustine, the child went to hell/(sheol?), but received only the lightest possible punishment…

Augustine also said, “Our souls will not rest until they rest in you.” Implying that, in my opinion, those who don’t enter heaven are in a state of continual unrest.

In my opinion, the infant has already suffered one punishment.
The child died – with the seperation of body and soul.
In other words, a child who did no actual wrong suffered a punishment – because of the inconsiderate lack of action of Adam.

Suffering is redemptive.

1 Peter 4 1: Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same thought, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,

… any eternal state which is not in the beatific vision would be Hell. That does not mean the child receives unjust punishment inflicted by God – e.g. flames and fire for the punishment of hell is related to the severity of the sin.

I keep feeling that the soul who is denied the beatific vision is enduring the ultimate punishment. The soul that is not encumbered by the flesh knows and remembers where it came from. It wants to return. Doesn’t it?

It is not even clear that infants are capable of resenting ‘punishment’. Does a child mature after death? (I don’t pretend to know).

They cry when injured. I think they feel pain. I would think that the crying is the way in which they object to the pain so I believe they resent the pain inflicted upon them. Or maybe I missed your point?

Toddlers and young children could resent the punishment, but they are also capable of desire when presented with Jesus. (Baptism of Desire).

Just as they are capable of desire when presented with their mother (they search for the teat).

Also, in the thread there is a tendency to see eternity in the sense of spirit only.

Jesus said, “the spirit is life, the flesh will avail nothing”.

Aren’t we forgetting that there is a resurection of the body?

No. But it will be a spiritualized body. A body which conforms to the Spirit as the Spirit now conforms to the Body.
1 Cor 15
44: It is sown a physical body*, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

If (hypothetically) it is the body which has the effect of original sin, that does not exempt a ‘pure’ spirit from suffering. If the body is not redeemed then it is a suffering of concupiscence (at least) for all eternity.

I don’t follow your reasoning.

I hope that there is a baptism of water, perhaps with only God saying the words. I hope.

I do too.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

bogeyjlg:

Remember also that Christ decended to Sheol to preach to the dead in Sheol. Christ’s sacrifice is infinite and spans all time.

This is not in Church doctine that I know of but it seems to follow logically:

Those who died unbaptized could very well have been among the dead in Sheol and the ones Christ preached to and may (depending on whether they accpected or not) have been baptized by desire. Thus obtaining salvation.

Brilliant! It takes into account the timelessness of eternity.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

itsjustdave1988:

De Maria,

You are reading way too much into this article, which says nothing about what the pope believes.

I don’t think so Dave.

More from the same article:

"John Paul II asked some well-known Catholic theologians to study further a question that has stood for centuries: What is the fate of children who die without baptism?

The Pope entrusted this task today to members of the International Theological Commission, an institution of the Holy See headed the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Although it was never defined as a dogma, the existence of limbo was posed as a possibility by some theologians wrestling with the question. Limbo was suggested as an intermediary place between heaven and hell, which spared the innocent who died without baptism from the punishments of hell.

After the Second Vatican Council, Catholic theology has sought answers that are in accord with the mercy of God the Father.

When John Paul II received the participants in the plenary assembly of the International Theological Commission, he said: “It is not simply an isolated theological problem.”

“Many other fundamental topics are closely related to it: the universal salvific will of God; the unique and universal mediation of Jesus Christ; the role of the Church, universal sacrament of salvation; the theology of the sacraments; the meaning of the doctrine on original sin,” the Holy Father said."

This investigation could simply be into whether infants can be extra-sacramentally sanctified by baptism of desire or baptism of blood (martyrdom).

Cardinal Cajetan before the council of Trent opined that infants who die without sacramental baptism can be sanctified by vicarious baptism of desire. This was not a condemned proposition, yet many, like St. Thomas Aquinas, disagree. I believe this is the question the theological commission will be investigating, not whether or not to REVERSE the decrees of the Council of Lyons II or the Council of Florence.

I don’t think the Pope intended to REVERSE any Catholic Doctrines. Simply to make better sense of them. It seems obvious to many that the last word on the subject of Limbo has not been written.

Sincerely,

De Maria