Do you believe with utmost certainty that unbaptized babies go to Heaven?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dronald
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Robyn_p said:
No. I’m saying the full implication of what Adam’s sin did to us wasn’t understood until then.

Maybe a better example than the Trinity would be the Jewish understanding of the messiah. (since that one isn’t technically a new revelation, unlike the Trinity.) The Jewish people didn’t believe that the messiah was going to suffer and die and be resurrected, or even that he was going to come to redeem us from our sins. They still don’t believe that, as far as I know. (Please correct me if I’m wrong meltzerboy) That’s why the disciples were so shocked when it happened, and why Paul calls the cross a stumbling block.

Yet we don’t say that because they don’t have the same theology of the messiah as we do, that our understanding of the messiah is mistaken. I guess I just don’t see why the same principle can’t apply to the doctrine of original sin. If we’re not bound by their understanding of the messiah, why are we bound by their understanding of original sin?

Yes it’s true, our beliefs do stem from the Old Testament. (and I would say the doctrine of original sin is rooted in the Old Testament.) But that’s different than saying we need to have the exact same understanding of every point of theology as the Jewish people do, no? I feel like we should be more concerned with what the apostles taught.
Click to expand...
Correct. If Jews and Christians had the same understanding and beliefs about original sin, the Messiah, and the Trinity, we would all practice Judaism or we would all practice Christianity.
 
PRmerger said:
I wonder, roger, if you do not attend Mass during the Feast of the Holy Innocents?
Or do you attend Mass on this day and decide, contrary to the Church, that these Holy Innocents, being absolutely UNBAPTIZED, are actually in hell and the Church is in error in giving them honor…a title of HOLY?
Click to expand...
PRmerger said:
I can tell you right now the right conclusion you are going to get: you are wrong about the idea of Limbo being proclaimed infallibly.
Click to expand...
I thought your point about the Feast of the Holy Innocents was directed directly at the idea of the unbaptized entering into Heaven. I thought it was a good point and did look it up. This feast commemorates the slaughter of the children by King Herod, about 30 years before the Resurrection.
So, just as with the Good Thief, which I showed in a previous post, these innocents cannot be used as a counter example to the necessity for baptism, they died under the Old Law, not the New Law. The Holy men and women who observed Sabbath, practiced circumcision, and obeyed the Mosaic Law are in Heaven, even though they did not have Baptism. The Church is certainly not in error on this point.

However, under the New Law, which Jesus made binding after His resurrection, Baptism is necessary for Salvation:

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
 
rogergosselin said:
I thought your point about the Feast of the Holy Innocents was directed directly at the idea of the unbaptized entering into Heaven. I thought it was a good point and did look it up. This feast commemorates the slaughter of the children by King Herod, about 30 years before the Resurrection.
So, just as with the Good Thief, which I showed in a previous post, these innocents cannot be used as a counter example to the necessity for baptism, they died under the Old Law, not the New Law. The Holy men and women who observed Sabbath, practiced circumcision, and obeyed the Mosaic Law are in Heaven, even though they did not have Baptism. The Church is certainly not in error on this point.

However, under the New Law, which Jesus made binding after His resurrection, Baptism is necessary for Salvation:

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”
Click to expand...
Do you wish, then, to recant this quote you offered?
rogergosselin said:
Additionally, Pope Eugene IV infallibly proclaims, as many other Pope’s before and after him, as well as the dogmatic Council of Trent, that there is absolutely no hope of Heaven for the unbaptized
Click to expand...
It turns out that there is indeed hope of Heaven for the unbaptized. Millions of unbaptized folks are in heaven, roger, as they “died under the Old Law”.

It’s not right to make an absolute statement, when there are millions of exceptions, right?
 
Kurisu35712 said:
I don’t see what you have to reconcile since no pope has declared, ex cathedra, that unbaptized infants descend immediately to hell. If so, we’ll need a link to that declaration.
Click to expand...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

The sources are cited. I trust you can search for the links as well as I can. If you find a translation that seems to convey a different meaning, please let me know.
 
rogergosselin said:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

The sources are cited. I trust you can search for the links as well as I can. If you find a translation that seems to convey a different meaning, please let me know.
Click to expand...
From Ron Conte (bold mine) : The limbo of Hell was taught by Pope Pius VI and by the Council of Florence, but not infallibly.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1573652&postcount=3
 
PRmerger said:
Do you wish, then, to recant this quote you offered?

It turns out that there is indeed hope of Heaven for the unbaptized. Millions of unbaptized folks are in heaven, roger, as they “died under the Old Law”.

It’s not right to make an absolute statement, when there are millions of exceptions, right?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense. The Old Law is not an “exception” to Baptism. The Old Law is no longer in effect. As a matter of fact, the Church teaches that it is now sinful to place you hope in the Old Law (though it of course was appropriate for the people of the Old Testament)

As the Catechism of Trent makes clear, the law binding men to Baptism wasn’t instituted until after the Old Law was fulfilled. From that time forward, Baptism is the only hope for salvation.

The absolute statements are not mine, I just accept them.
 
meltzerboy said:
Correct. If Jews and Christians had the same understanding and beliefs about original sin, the Messiah, and the Trinity, we would all practice Judaism or we would all practice Christianity.
Click to expand...
I guess what I want to know from the Catholics here regarding this is; did the Jews know about original sin as long as Judaism existed (pre-BC) or is it something that God didn’t reveal until after Jesus died?
 
meltzerboy said:
Doesn’t “ex cathedra” mean infallible teaching?
Click to expand...
Yes.

It was defined in Vatican I:

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when,

  1. *]in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
    *]in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
    *]he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
    *]he possesses,

    by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
    that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
    Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

    In that Council, said session starts:
    Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record.
    Click to expand...
    So the 1st requirement is fulfilled.

    The entire paragraph of what rogergosselin quoted a potion of reads:
    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. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.
    Click to expand...
    So that there is no doubt. The sentence immediately following the “straightaway to hell” makes the unequivocal distinction of what the Bishop of Rome is.

    Therefore removing any doubts anyone should have on the supreme authority of the successor of Peter. In this case Pope Eugene IV.

    How can anyone claim that was not an ex-cathedra teaching… escapes my mind.
    meltzerboy said:
    However, does this teaching, whether or not infallible, take into account baptism of desire or baptism of blood?
    Click to expand...
    I don’t know. Would need to check on Ott/Denzinger to see the origin of those types of baptism.
 
meltzerboy said:
Doesn’t “ex cathedra” mean infallible teaching?
Click to expand...
Yes.

And there have only been 2 ex cathedra declarations: Mary’s IC and her Assumption.
However, does this teaching, whether or not infallible, take into account baptism of desire or baptism of blood?
Click to expand...
It does not address it. But the Church has defined that anyone who is baptized, either through water, desire or blood, and has no mortal sin, will go to heaven.
 
dronald said:
So was it a false teaching? A mistake?

The rules to when I should take a Pope seriously or not regarding proclamations at councils are confusing.
Click to expand...
It was theological speculation. Nothing more and nothing less.

As far as “proclamations at councils”, one needs to look at the language of what is being proclaimed in order to know how “seriously” to take them.
 
rogergosselin said:
I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense. The Old Law is not an “exception” to Baptism. The Old Law is no longer in effect. As a matter of fact, the Church teaches that it is now sinful to place you hope in the Old Law (though it of course was appropriate for the people of the Old Testament)

As the Catechism of Trent makes clear, the law binding men to Baptism wasn’t instituted until after the Old Law was fulfilled. From that time forward, Baptism is the only hope for salvation.

The absolute statements are not mine, I just accept them.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if you could re-state these absolute statements it would be helpful.

So when it is allegedly proclaimed that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE can enter heaven without baptism…and there could be MILLIONS of exceptions…this is an absolute statement, how?
 
dronald said:
So was it a false teaching? A mistake?

The rules to when I should take a Pope seriously or not regarding proclamations at councils are confusing.
Click to expand...
Again, from the wonderful itsjustdave1988:
Catholic doctrine is categorized into degrees or level of theological certainty as follows:
Click to expand...
Infallible truths (de fide). - must be assented to by all the faithful as Divinely revealed truth, an authentic part of the deposit of faith. This includes things immediately revealed by God (de fide divina). If the Church, through its infallible teaching authority vouches that the truth is contained in revelation, it is also called Catholic faith (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by solemn judgement of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide defina”. Truths taught solemnly pronounces, but are formally and universally taught by the body of Catholic bishops in communion with the Pope, they are also infallible (fides ecclesiastica). Failure to assent to de fide dogmas constitute heresy.
Click to expand...
Certain official doctrine, yet less-than-infallible teaching. all the faithful owe their religious submission of intellect and will to these teachings (religiosum obsequium). They do not have sufficient universal consent such that they can be reasonably judged fide ecclesiastica. However, they are not to be considered doubtful, but are in fact are to be believed with certitude and thus are not a matter of free opinion. Yet, “the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of Theologian issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has addressed this matter. It recognized that theologians (and others) might question not only the form but even the substantive content of some authoritatively proposed magisterial teachings. It held that it is permissible in such instances to withhold assent, to raise questions (and present them to the magisterium), to discuss the issues with other theologians (and be humble enough to accept criticism of one’s own views by them). Theologians (and others) can propose their views as hypotheses to be considered and tested by other theologians and ultimately to be judged by those who have, within the Church, the solemn obligation of settling disputes and speaking the mind of Christ. But it taught one is not giving a true obsequium religiosum if one dissents from magisterial teaching and proposes one’s own position as a position that the faithful are at liberty to follow, substituting it for the teaching of the magisterium.” [3, italics in original, underline added]. Dr. Ott describes this teaching as teaching proximate to faith (sententia fidei proxima), teaching pertaining to faith (sententia ad fidem pertinens), theologically certain (theologice certa), certain teaching (sententia certa), or common teaching (sententia communis). Withholding assent, if in accord with the instruction cited above, is not heretical, but may be considered heterodox.
Click to expand...
Free and tolerated opinions. These theological opinions may be held freely without heresy, and may be considered probable, more probable, well-founded, or pious. These are not the official doctrines of Catholicism. Some opinion may even be weakly founded, yet is tolerated by the Church.
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=162391&postcount=118
 
Kurisu35712 said:
I don’t see what you have to reconcile since no pope has declared, ex cathedra, that unbaptized infants descend immediately to hell. If so, we’ll need a link to that declaration.
Click to expand...
There have only been 2 ex cathedra proclamations in the 2000 year history of the Church.

As far as limbo being infallibly professed…



And this:

Pope Benedict XVI, while still a cardinal and speaking as a theologian, stated:

“Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally—and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation—I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism. To put it in the words of Jesus to Nicodemus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5). One should not hesitate to give up the idea of “limbo” if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed “limbo” also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be.” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report (1985), pp. 147-148)
“Pope [John Paul II] made a decisive turn in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already anticipated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament.” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World (2002), pp. 401-402)

Source: itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-about-limbo.html
 
dronald said:
So was it a false teaching? A mistake?

The rules to when I should take a Pope seriously or not regarding proclamations at councils are confusing.
Click to expand...
Some teachings of the Magisterium are infallible, other teachings are non-infallible.

The existence of a fringe or limbo of Hell is implied by infallible teachings on the different punishments given to those who die in a state of original sin alone, but there is no infallible teaching that infants go there, nor that it is a place of [alleged] natural happiness.
 
PRmerger said:
It was theological speculation. Nothing more and nothing less.
Click to expand...
Evidence please.
PRmerger said:
As far as “proclamations at councils”, one needs to look at the language of what is being proclaimed in order to know how “seriously” to take them.
Click to expand...
Okay. I read it pretty straight forward in English. How do you read it? What words did we screw up?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top