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

[dronald]

Scripture does not state explicitly that unbaptized babies go to heaven, so how are you certain of that extra biblical belief?

“Such belongs the kingdom of Heaven” is said by Jesus when infants were brought to Him.

Also Hebrews quotes at large Jeremiah 31:31. Let’s see what it says about children in the days of Jesus:

Jeremiah 31:29 In those days they shall no longer say: "'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. ’

30 But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.

31 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,

32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.

33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD, ’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. "

Obviously this belief in some kind of “inherited sin” was popular among the Jews but utterly rejected amongst the Prophets. Jeremiah quotes a Proverb as incorrect, and Ezekiel agrees; do you?

Eze 18:
2 "What do you { The Hebrew for b you b is plural } mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3 As I live, declares the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel.

4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die…

19 "Yet you say, 'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father? ’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live.

20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

 

[clem456]

[POST=12717433]In Post 468[/POST] I said that the catechism you provided is inescapable. I thanked you for it! Does that not indicate religious assent?

Now I simply ask if the Church demands that we also consider the whole catechism to be dogmatic and infallible (“assent of faith”). But you insinuate bad will on my part for doing so, and with a putative prayer!

That determination of “de fide” is critical for what we are to conclude from the various teachings on baptism. I would like to give “The Doctrinal Value of the Text”, which you provided, the attention that it deserves. But at the moment, you have left me too distracted to do so.

Until I can revisit this document, I would welcome opinions, especially if someone could find an authoritative source for exegesis on this text.

Roger, what are you criticizing me for? You you’ve been asking for proof of authoritative teaching for what, two weeks now? And when people say “there it is”, you shoot the messengers.

You are asking for “someone’s opinions” to scrutinize the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and it’s teaching document.

I would welcome opinions, especially if someone could find an authoritative source for exegesis on this text.

Really?
Whose opinion is sufficient for you, when this Catechism is titled (which I bolded)

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM

And is personally signed by Saint John Paul 2, while he was The Rock?

And you are still in a knot, about what exactly?
And so what kind of productive discussion are we going to have now?

 

[rogergosselin]

In case anyone is left scratching their head at my reference to St. Stephen in posts 486 and 488, that is because I was writing from memory, and greatly botched it!

St Stephen is known as the first martyr, not the first convert.

What I meant to reference was the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch by the apostle, Philip [Acts 8:26-38]. The eunuch desired baptism, but only after he was able to make a profession of Faith did Philip take him to water and administer sacramental baptism.

 

[rogergosselin]

You you’ve been asking for proof of authoritative teaching for what, two weeks now? And when people say “there it is”, you shoot the messengers. ?

FIDEI DEPOSITUM! Yes, I see it now.

Shoot which messenger? You’ve been the only one to show this to me, about 24 hours ago. I just simply thank you once again for pointing it out to me. It seems I can no longer attribute incongruencies among doctrine to simple human error

And you are still in a knot, about what exactly? ?

Evidently it is not only I who am in a knot:

… whether or not you were dunked in the font is the least of your worries…

But since you hold as a matter of Faith that ““Every man who is ignorant … (And yes, I admit to being ignorant of much of the current catechism), but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved”; then according to you, I have no worries after all. And neither do most atheists, animists, wiccans, etc.

And so what kind of productive discussion are we going to have now?

Well, how about the little matter of two claimants to the Papacy evidently binding Catholics to contradictory doctrines?

Now it’s right before our eyes. I guess I was in avoidance. I was hoping that the concept of a living, organic Church could account for apparent inconsistencies by allowing for some theological speculation, but that is inconceivable in a dogmatic proclamation.

“There will be false Christs and false prophets, who will rise up and shew great signs and wonders, so that if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived”. [Matt 24:24]

Revel in that, if you must.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

**One thing we can be 100% certain of is that every child who is unbaptized remains in the state of Original Sin. ** Another thing we can be 100% certain of is that if that child does indeed go to heaven, he is somehow cleansed of that stain and attains salvation only through the merits of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of our Lord. I don’t think it would be our place to say with assurance that unbaptized children definitely go to heaven. But we can be certain that our Lord is infinitely merciful and should hope that the merits of the Paschal Mystery are applied to such souls in a manner that remains mysterious to us.

True although Original Sin isn’t an actual sin committed but a condition to be prone to sin. If a baby doesn’t grows up to commit personal sins then they have no venial or mortal sins on their soul. And if they died at such an early age in life it’s probably due to suffering an illness. And in the case of abortion they severely suffered. Then they are closer to the Suffering Christ Who redeemed us all. They would be very much like the Holy Innocents that we venerate as the first martyrs for Jesus. Pristine souls who endured suffering in their short fleeting moments of life.

And if God can not conceal the truth it is likely they would know how and why they died. There would be virtually nothing to stop them from being drawn to God.

I think it is we who are not 100% certain of our part. I still think it is important to pray for them and also pray to end the evils that causes early death.

 

[clem456]

FIDEI DEPOSITUM! Yes, I see it now.

that’s great Roger