Children who die without baptism

[De_Maria]

itsjustdave1988:

***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]

I searched the Second Council of Lyons at this page
geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8920/churchcouncils/Ecum14.htm#%3Ch3%3ECONSTITUTIONS%3C/h3%3E

I assumed it was a quote from the council and I searched for the words mortal sin, original sin, hell, heaven and beatific vision and I could find no such reference. The Second Council of Lyons doesn’t seem to address the issue. Or did I misunderstand something?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[jimmy]

Being born with original sin means that we are born without the grace of God. It is a lacking of Sanctifying Grace. But God is not bound by the sacraments, we are. God can give a person grace at any time if he wants. It is very possible that a baby is in heaven, but we can’t know.

 

[De_Maria]

itsjustdave1988:

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits.** But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. **

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

However, this one does address the issue.

I wonder then, how the Jewish Fathers fit into this picture?

**

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.
**

thanks. I think that gives me a handle on it.

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

agreed.

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.

I disagree. I don’t think the Pope would have asked the for the issue to be studied otherwise.

There are other issues which have seemed clear cut based on Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture which have surprised many Theologians. On the other hand, further study may simply prove what you have already stated.

So, according to Catholic theology, EVERYONE in heaven will have been washed of original sin by God, either sacramentally or extra-sacramentally.

Agreed.

EVERYONE in hell will have been finally impenitent of mortal or merely original sin.

impenitent means unrepentant. This word doesn’t seem to fit as pertains to children as they have no control as to whether they are baptized or not.

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).

Is purgatory a part of hell?

Are the fires of hell the same as those of purgatory?

Is the Limbo of the Fathers a part of hell as well?

If so and if the Limbo of the Fathers was temporary, mightn’t this place in hell of different punishment be temporary as well?

Or is it also doctrinal that those who suffer death while under the penalty of original sin will suffer punishment in hell eternally?

Just questions. I don’t think Pope John Paul the Great was satisfied with what we have on the subject until now and thought it was worth investigating further.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Catholic_Heart]

The Church wisely leaves the fate of children who die before being baptized up to God…It is my personal feeling that He takes them unto himself…Jesus rebuked the deciples for not allowing the little ones to come to him…The mercy of God knows no limits…I just cannot see Him not allowing a little one into His heavenly kingdom because his parents did not see fit to have him baptized.

---

And…The Church has no where taught the existence of limbo…It has never been an official teaching…

 

[IsaiahStar]

Dr. Colossus:

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.

I wonder… how come Catholic infants aren’t baptized in the hospital as soon as they are born? That would make the most sense, seeing as how we never know when anyone might die…especially at such a vulnerable stage of life as a newborn. I’ve never had a child, but knowing what I do of Baptism I would want him/her baptised ASAP.

Also, could a mother have surgery in order to have her unborn baby baptized if there is a major risk of death in-utero (i.e. doctors have said 99% chance the baby’s going to die)? What if the doctors refused surgery for baptism but the parents desperately wanted it…could their desire be transmitted to a Baptism of Desire for their child? I could go on and on with questions. This is why I feel like Catholicism sometimes drives me NUTS.

God is MERCIFUL, people. I guess perhaps you have personally experience His love and mercy to understand what I’m talking about. Forget all these arguments for a second. To believe He condemns infants to Hell is entirely contrary to what the Church (and individual believers) knows of Christ’s undying love and limitless mercy. WE haven’t made the Sacraments based on our limited reason…GOD made the Sacraments, and He is not bound by them.

Nicole

---

 

[IsaiahStar]

BibleReader:

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.

I don’t quite understand your first statement. The “neediness” is a PURELY biological, natural function of infants (especially within the womb) has nothing whatever to do with sin of any kind. God created us within our mothers wombs, and within families so as to be DEPENDENT on our parents at a young age…this is a beautiful, natural thing. A baptised infant does not cease to cry ‘GIMMI’.

My personal belief is that unbaptised infants, born and unborn, are with Jesus. Some of you have been suggesting they are in some special place in Hell that is not quite so hellish… well I suggest (yes, this is only my opinion) they are in a special place in Heaven with their Father. And Limbo is not officially taught by the Church.

Nicole

 

[Huiou_Theou]

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

There is a major difference between that which Adam and Eve had and what we receive in Baptism, to be sure.

But to sanctify is to make holy. Sanctifying Grace is the gift of becoming Holy – which allows us to please God. Adam and Eve had that.
There may be a nuance in the way the word sanctifying grace used – I’ll look into it again to refresh my memory.

However, Adam and Eve were destined for heaven even without baptism, for they shared the friendship with God – he walked in the garden with them – except they fell through sin into death.

Original sin does not ‘deprive’ as a verb. It is the state of not having sanctifying grace, or justice, or holiness. Adam deprived us of justice and holiness. There is no way to retrieve these without sanctifying grace.

There is an additional gift to us through baptism whereby we are granted to be partakers in divinity … literally we become children of God – because – Jesus became one of us and shared in our humanity allowing us to share in his divinity. Adam did not have this in the sense of familial relationship, but only in the sense of God being the Father-Creator.

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

Yes! yEs!!! YeS!!!
That is Augustine’s forte!

Take for example the covenant with Abraham, and the LAW of Moses.
If a child is not circumcised by the eighth day he is ruthlessly cut off from his people. That is the LAW. (side note:The eighth day prefigures the new creation, and God’s new rest.)

The circumcision is the entry into the Abramic covenant Just as baptism is the entry into the Christian covenant.
The problem is identical.

There are exceptions, such as Seth, and Elijah, but no generalized rule. All the rest go to Sheol, where they awaited the arrival of the saviour. And while in sheol they suffered the seperation of body and soul.

If you are referring to Jesus’ descent into sheol, and the release of the captives there - I would point out that Jesus specifically intervened on their behalf. It is also a point that WHO these people were is traditionally taken to be the naturally repentant/just.
Infants may/not fit in this category, but this is exactly what we are ‘hoping’ he does for infants – without proof.

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.

Amen.

Suffering is redemptive.

Yes, but not all: Hell of the damned and the unquenchable fire?
… if I give my body over to be burned, but have not love …

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?

Who on earth (now) has the beatific vision — this valley of tears.

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?

I think its the latter, but I am not sure, and it was because I did not develop the thought fully. Abortion and the like are wrong because of what they do to the image of God – a human being. They are the inflicting of pain, but that is not why they are wrong primarily.
A doctor, however, will commonly operate of an infant who will suffer pain, and the infant will never ‘later’ return and sue the doctor. The reason is that the developmental state of the infant is such that the response is primarily instinctive.
What I call ‘resentment’ presupposes the ability to say ‘why did you do this to me’ or ‘I hate you’. Children have not developed these complex responses for they have not even developed memory recall.
What I was saying is that it is not clear that they would suffer in the same way that you and I would.
I am NOT saying that the everlasting horror of seeing the image of God in hell is a good thing, any more than it would be in the case of an adult in hell.

– continues –

 

[Huiou_Theou]

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

Umm, yes, but we are also saved by his flesh sacrificed on the cross! This statement does not stand in isolation.

It is the spirit (soul) which allows the flesh to move. If the spirit is gone, the flesh is dead. In the Eucharist, the body, blood, soul, and divinity are present. This is precisely the point:
The spirit gives life to the flesh – hence eating just the flesh will not grant eternal life. That in fact would be cannabalism. The injunction to eat Eucharist is possible because the spirit gives life – which cannot be destroyed or hurt by eating.

To say our bodies will be spiritualized means that the spirit will be able to have the creative powers which are called ‘life’. Jesus’ resurected body is an example of the fullness of ‘life’.

However, those who go to hell do not have ‘spiritualized’ bodies for they are corrupt. The power of sin places the body at war with the spirit. The spiritualized body is a ‘redeemed’ body. It has physical properties, although these properties are super-physical.

Hence, my next statement was a reflection of that: if the body is not sanctified, then it could be a body of death like we have right now – or any degree of ‘worseness’ which the crimes of the individual dictate. In the case of an infant there is no crime – just a lack.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Or is it also doctrinal that those who suffer death while under the penalty of original sin will suffer punishment in hell eternally?

This seems to be the teaching of popes and councils of the Catholic Church, in my opinion. This is also the opinion of MSgr Ronald Knox’s *The Belief of Catholics, *Fr. John Hardon’s *The Catholic Catechism, *Fr. Leo Tese’s *The Faith Explained, *Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma and Henry Denzinger’s *Enchridion Symbolorum. *So, in my opinion, it is doctrinal and while such doctrine can develop, true doctrinal development is never a reversal.

Just questions. I don’t think Pope John Paul the Great was satisfied with what we have on the subject until now and thought it was worth investigating further.

I understand. I got the sense that you were sincerely seeking greater understanding and not simply wanting to argue.

You will likely be comforted by the following, by Fr. William Most …

Original Sin by Fr. William Most
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/ORIGSIN.TXT

 

[Shiann]

De Maria:

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”.

That is correct. Adam and Eve were created with a perfect relationship with God- including the beatific vision. This is what made the “original sin” so profound. Can you imagine having full knowledge of God and the beatific vision and reject it because of something YOU wanted? (I know, off topic, but these types of discussions always bring this incredulity up for me.)

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.

Sanctifying Grace existed with Adam and Eve, but because of their disobedience, those born after them would be required to make a concerted effort to ask God for that Sanctifying Grace.

Up until Christ, there was no way for the Jewish Fathers to ask and be rewarded with those Sanctifying Graces. Because up until the coming of the Messiah, there was no way for ANYONE to achieve the beatific vision. The Messiah gave us BAPTISM so that we could ask, and be rewarded with Sanctifying Grace.

The Jewish Fathers were separated from the Beatific vision because the Messiah hadn’t come to pay our way back to the beatific vision. But by their very devotion to God in their obeying of the Laws, and the goodness of their lives kept them from the fires of damnation hell, and yet SEPERATE from the beatific vision because they didn’t have Sanctifying Grace. Jesus had to descend into hell to advise those Jewish Fathers of the new gospel and offer Sanctifying Grace at that time.

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

It is the same thing.

Moreover, Santifying Grace imparts four “states” on a human soul.

Sanctity:
The sanctity of the soul, as its first formal operation, is contained in the idea itself of sanctifying grace, inasmuch as the infusion of it makes the subject holy and inaugurates the state or condition of sanctity. So far it is, as to its nature, a physical adornment of the soul; it is also a moral form of sanctification, which of itself makes baptized children just and holy in the sight of God. This first operation is thrown into relief by the fact that the “new man”, created injustice and holiness (Eph., iv, 24), was preceded by the “old man” of sin, and that grace changed the sinner into a saint (Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii: ex injusto fit justus). The two moments of actual justification, namely the remission of sin and the sanctification, are at the same time moments of habitual justification, and become the formal operations of grace. The mere infusion of the grace effects at once the remission of original and mortal sin, and inaugurates the condition or state of holiness. (See Pohle, Lehrb. der Dogm., 527 sq.)

Beauty
Although the beauty of the soul is not mentioned by the teaching office of the Church as one of the operations of grace, nevertheless the Roman Catechism refers to it (P. II, cap. ii, de bap., n. 50). If it be permissible to understand by the spouse in the Canticle of Canticles a symbol of the soul decked in grace, then all the passages touching the ravishing beauty of the spouse may find a fitting application to the soul. Hence it is that the Fathers express the supernatural beauty of a soul in grace by the most splendid comparisons and figures of speech, for instance: “a divine picture” (Ambrose); “a golden statue” (Chrysostom); “a streaming light” (Basil), etc. Assuming that, apart from the material beauty expressed in the fine arts, there exists a purely spiritual beauty, we can safely state that grace as the participation in the Divine nature, calls forth in the soul a physical reflection of the uncreated beauty of God, which is not to be compared with the soul’s natural likeness to God.

Continued…

 

[Shiann]

Friendship
The friendship of God is consequently, one of the most excellent of the effects of grace; Aristotle denied the possibility of such a friendship by reason of the great disparity between God and man. As a matter of fact man is, inasmuch as he is God’s creature, His servant, and by reason of sin (original and mortal) he is God’s enemy. This relation of service and enmity is transformed by sanctifying grace into one of friendship (Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii: ex inimico amicus). According to the Scriptural concept (Wis., vii, 14; John, xv, 15) this friendship resembles a mystical matrimonial union between the soul and its Divine spouse (Matt., ix, 15; Apoc., xix, 7). Friendship consists in the mutual love and esteem of two persons based upon an exchange of service or good office (Aristot., “Eth. Nicom.”, VIII sq.). True friendship resting only on virtue (amicitia honesta) demands undeniably a love of benevolence, which seeks only the happiness and well-being of the friend, whereas the friendly exchange of benefits rests upon a utilitarian basis (amicitia utilis) or one of pleasure (amicitia delectabilis), which presupposes a selfish love; still the benevolent love of friendship must be mutual, because an unrequited love becomes merely one of silent admiration, which is not friendship by any means.

Sonship
In the Divine filiation of the soul the formal workings of sanctifying grace reach their culminating point; by it man is entitled to a share in the paternal inheritance, which consists in the beatific vision. This excellence of grace is not only mentioned countless times in Holy Writ (Rom., viii, 15 sq.; I John, iii, 1 sq., etc.), but is included in the Scriptural idea of a re-birth in God (cf. John, i, 12 sq.; iii, 5; Titus, iii, 5; James, i, 18, etc.). Since the re-birth in God is not effected by a substantial issuance from the substance of God, as in the case of the Son of God or Logos (Christus), but is merely an analogical or accidental coming forth from God, our sonship of God is only of an adoptive kind, as we find it expressed in Scripture (Rom., viii, 15; Gal., iv, 5). This adoption was defined by St. Thomas (III:23:1): personae extraneae in filium et heredem gratuita assumptio.

newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

These states are only available through Sanctifying Grace, and Sanctifying Grace is only possible through a specific act of God or of our own volition through Baptism. (of water, blood or desire).

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.

I would agree, Sanctifying Grace is always given as a gift from God. But from a spiritual health perspective, we are missing something essential to our spiritual health if we do not have Sanctifying Grace. We can no more live a healthy spiritual life without it, than we could live an earthly physical life without a heart or kidneys.

The Jewish Fathers were admitted to Heaven after Jesus preached to them at their temporary resting place. In addition, they would have passed the Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood for their martyrdom and/or for their adherance to the Jewish Laws.

Again, the belief is that infants are under God’s protection and Mercy.

Continued…

 

[Shiann]

1. The Catechism says that Original Sin separates the soul from original holiness and justice (see above).

Yes Original Sin, or the lack of Sanctifying Grace, keeps us from being “adopted” by God (note above).

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!”

Yes, our entire existence is a gift from God. But we still must choose to accept Him in this life before we are accepted into His Eternal Embrace. And what a shame for those who have the gift of life, and choose such sinful or Godless activities. Yeah free will!

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

Good question. I would say that because I have no culpability in my Original Sin- it is just a state of being. But this state of being is easily remedied with Christ’s Sacrifice, and my choice to accept God. How can we say those who CHOOSE to avoid Christ are any better than those who are baptised and Choose to separate themselves from God through actual sin?

Again, we all agree that we must trust to God’s Mercy in the cases where the Choice was not available- such as the case of infants.

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?

We have already talked of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire- both of which fall under “non water” baptisms. So there are other ways for those to be imparted with Grace, without the water ceremony. I believe the Jewish Fathers fall under these baptisms.

Further, I don’t think anyone here is offering that infants ARE NOT in Heaven. We have only discussed the reality of the information available to us… That is, that no Scripture, no Tradition has offered any information to the status of these souls. There is no way of knowing. And though the Catholic Church insists that those who are not baptised, remain distant from the Beatific Vision- it certainly does NOT follow that this means conclusively that infants are in this group. The Catholic Church recognizes the situation of souls who are unable to make the choice to accept God. And again, we can only hope that God shows Mercy on their Souls.

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)

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)!

WELL SAID!!!

God Bless~

 

[Huiou_Theou]

You asked JustDave1988 these:

Is purgatory a part of hell?

Are the fires of hell the same as those of purgatory?

Is the Limbo of the Fathers a part of hell as well?

If so and if the Limbo of the Fathers was temporary, mightn’t this place in hell of different punishment be temporary as well?
\QUOTE]

I can’t answer these questions definitively, but from reading variuous saints who were given visions of Heaven and Purgatory, and church teaching, I can give an estimated opinion.

Heaven is defined by the presence of divinity. (there are out of scope qualifiers in that statement. ).
Purgatory, inasmuch as it is not the fullnes of the presence of God, is hell. Inasmuch as Jesus visits those in Purgatory, it is heaven.

From the saints I have read, the main difference between purgatory and hell is that those in purgatory have the knowledge and the anticipation of purgatory ending. This is why it is called the vestubule of Heaven. (Is the glass half full or empty? Lets be optimistic with the saints!)

I have also read that hell and purgatory are the same with respect to the suffering of what is described likened to “fire” — which is in proportion with the sins committed.

In the sense that sheol is “hell” for the fathers, it is really purgatory which awaited the sole visit of Jesus.

To your last quoted question, if that is the case – just call it purgatory.

Unfortunately, they couldn’t be in purgatory without something of a baptism – desire, martyrdom, or water baptism.
See the above response of itsjustdave1988.

Hence, we must hope for a baptism of some kind or an exception provided by Jesus himself who is not bound to withold grace because of the lack of a sacrament.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

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

Actual sin can be venial. Venial sins only merit purgatory.

Unrepented original sin (e.g. I don’t feel like being baptised, I don’t mind the way I am) leads to the hell of eternal punishment.

At least in the case of actual venial sins, the original ‘sin’ is worse.
(Or do you prefer to say unrepentance is an actual additional sin?)

 

[De_Maria]

Hi,

BibleReader:

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.

That hasn’t been my experience. I am a father of four and I have been at every one of my children’s births. My first impression of all my children and of all other children before baptism is that they need and want “love”. That which they received from God before they were knit in the womb they still expect to find on this earth and cry for it from their parents. There is nothing revolutionary in that.

I have also experienced those poor children who have not had a proper upbringing but have been indulged upon their every whim. Their consciences have not been properly formed in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church and they do become that which you describe.

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.

God says in the Scriptures “Even if your mother should forsake you, I would never forsake you.” I doubt if you and I are talking about the same God. The God I know is “Love”. (1 John 4:8)

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

Like the Protestants you take the statement “no state of grace before Baptism” too literally. The Scriptures say, "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant–not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Cor 3:6)

Unless you are going to claim that our very life is not grace and that even if we should stub our toe this is also a grace and if you are going to contradict the Scriptures which say that “God is He in whom we live breathe and have our being” (Acts 17:28) and the definition of grace is a participation in the life of God (CCC #1997) then you will understand that there is a state of grace before baptism although not a state of “sanctifying” grace.

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

1. This is not assurance.
2. You may be right, but the question is not whether they enter into it upon their death but whether they remain always outside of it for eternity.

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.

Equality with whom? Satan?

A child who only knows how to love and to be loved does not deserve to be condemned to eternity outside the consoling presence of God. Jesus Christ died to assure us of our salvation and it seems contradictory to His purpose that those that most resemble Him in their innocence should be condemned to eternity in hell, no matter what kind of hell it may be. As the negro slaves used to say, “even a small chain is a chain.”

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Huiou Theou:

Unrepented original sin (e.g. I don’t feel like being baptised, I don’t mind the way I am) leads to the hell of eternal punishment.

At least in the case of actual venial sins, the original ‘sin’ is worse.
(Or do you prefer to say unrepentance is an actual additional sin?)

Are you claiming that infants who die without baptism are unrepentant?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Huiou Theou:

You asked JustDave1988 these:

Is purgatory a part of hell?

Are the fires of hell the same as those of purgatory?

Is the Limbo of the Fathers a part of hell as well?

If so and if the Limbo of the Fathers was temporary, mightn’t this place in hell of different punishment be temporary as well?
\QUOTE]

I can’t answer these questions definitively, but from reading variuous saints who were given visions of Heaven and Purgatory, and church teaching, I can give an estimated opinion.

Heaven is defined by the presence of divinity. (there are out of scope qualifiers in that statement. ).
Purgatory, inasmuch as it is not the fullnes of the presence of God, is hell. Inasmuch as Jesus visits those in Purgatory, it is heaven.

From the saints I have read, the main difference between purgatory and hell is that those in purgatory have the knowledge and the anticipation of purgatory ending. This is why it is called the vestubule of Heaven. (Is the glass half full or empty? Lets be optimistic with the saints!)

I have also read that hell and purgatory are the same with respect to the suffering of what is described likened to “fire” — which is in proportion with the sins committed.

In the sense that sheol is “hell” for the fathers, it is really purgatory which awaited the sole visit of Jesus.

To your last quoted question, if that is the case – just call it purgatory.

Unfortunately, they couldn’t be in purgatory without something of a baptism – desire, martyrdom, or water baptism.
See the above response of itsjustdave1988.

Hence, we must hope for a baptism of some kind or an exception provided by Jesus himself who is not bound to withold grace because of the lack of a sacrament.

I enjoyed reading your rambling answer.

Here’s something I’d like to add to the pot just to shake you up a bit.

Seraphim, a type of angel, means “fiery one” and in the Bible both God and Hell are described as fire.

**Heb 12:29
** for our “God is a consuming fire.

Matt 25:41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Could it be that Heaven, Purgatory and Hell burn with the same fire?

Remember, it is Catholic doctrine that hell is eternal. It is also Catholic doctrine that only One is eternal. There is only One with no beginning and no end. And that is the definition of eternal. What does that mean to you?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

itsjustdave1988:

This seems to be the teaching of popes and councils of the Catholic Church, in my opinion. This is also the opinion of MSgr Ronald Knox’s *The Belief of Catholics, *Fr. John Hardon’s *The Catholic Catechism, *Fr. Leo Tese’s *The Faith Explained, *Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma and Henry Denzinger’s *Enchridion Symbolorum. *So, in my opinion, it is doctrinal and while such doctrine can develop, true doctrinal development is never a reversal.
I understand. I got the sense that you were sincerely seeking greater understanding and not simply wanting to argue.

You will likely be comforted by the following, by Fr. William Most …

Original Sin by Fr. William Most
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/ORIGSIN.TXT

Thanks. That was awesome. Definitely a keeper.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Huiou Theou:

There is a major difference between that which Adam and Eve had and what we receive in Baptism, to be sure.

But to sanctify is to make holy. Sanctifying Grace is the gift of becoming Holy – which allows us to please God. Adam and Eve had that…

I looked it up in Trent and in the CCC. They both refer to what Adam and Eve had as “original holiness and justice”. Therefore I would agree with the first part of this quote but not with the second.

There may be a nuance in the way the word sanctifying grace used – I’ll look into it again to refresh my memory.

It isn’t a nuance. Sanctifying Grace is almost synonymous with Jesus Christ.

2023 Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.

However, Adam and Eve were destined for heaven…
There is an additional gift to us through baptism whereby we are granted to be partakers in divinity … literally we become children of God – because – Jesus became one of us and shared in our humanity allowing us to share in his divinity. Adam did not have this in the sense of familial relationship, but only in the sense of God being the Father-Creator.

Is it doctrinal or only speculation that Jesus would have come even if Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned?

…What I was saying is that it is not clear that they would suffer in the same way that you and I would.
I am NOT saying that the everlasting horror of seeing the image of God in hell is a good thing, any more than it would be in the case of an adult in hell.

Does the spirit of a child remain infantile when it is freed from the body? Angels are pure spirits and they are considered to have more intelligence than humans because they aren’t encumbered by the flesh. At the moment of the death, the spirit (soul) is separated from the body until the resurrection. Wouldn’t the child’s spirit have equal faculties of discernment and understanding as an adult’s?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Shiann:

That is correct. Adam and Eve were created with a perfect relationship with God- including the beatific vision. This is what made the “original sin” so profound. Can you imagine having full knowledge of God and the beatific vision and reject it because of something YOU wanted? (I know, off topic, but these types of discussions always bring this incredulity up for me.)

Sanctifying Grace existed with Adam and Eve, but because of their disobedience, those born after them would be required to make a concerted effort to ask God for that Sanctifying Grace.

Thanks. I enjoyed and agree with the rest of your post(s). However, the quote above is problematic. If Adam and Eve had what we have then it wouldn’t be Christian doctrine that the New Covenant is superior to the Old, would it?

Even if Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned, wouldn’t Jesus have become incarnate inorder to impart to them the sanctifying grace which would unite them to God in the more perfect way that we are united to Him who live in His Grace?

Sincerely,

De Maria