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

[Corki]

Is your last statement referring to the possibility that unbaptized infants are in purgatory or that they are in limbo?

Purgatory is temporary. It is a state of cleansing prior to the definite eternal place in Heaven and it is not without pain or distress even if it is only the pain of knowing that the beatific vision is close but not yet. The unbaptized infants would have no place in Purgatory since they have no actual sin.

The concept of Limbo is that of a place of complete natural happiness. There is no pain and no suffering. A soul in Limbo does not enjoy the beatific vision but is not aware of its absence and is eternally happy. Even though the concept is purely a theological hypothesis, I find it very logical to believe that this is the eternal destination of unbaptized infants and children even within the limitations of what has been revealed to us.

To believe that all unbaptized babies are in Heaven requires us to go beyond divine revelation into speculation.

 

[Peter_J]

Utmost certainty? I would have to answer No.

Likewise, I would say No if you asked “Do you believe with utmost certainty that all adults go to Heaven?”

 

[Indifferently]

I am certain per covenant theology that children of believers dying in infancy are saved whether baptized or not. I am uncertain as to the fate of children of unbelievers dying in infancy, whether baptized or not. But we must know that there is no such thing as an “innocent child”. Even those who die in infancy need God’s mercy and Christ’s death to cleanse them from sin.

 

[benjohnson]

I think it’s helpful to keep in mind that God’s ability is infinite: Perhaps children that die to us are given a full life elsewhere to work out their salvation in fear in trembling just as we do.

 

[Joe_5859]

Catholics, do not be deceived! The Church has taught infallibly by its ordinary Magisterium (i.e., the perennial teachings of Popes and Councils) on the existence of Limbo.

Just because some truths are difficult for us to swallow with our merely human intellects, nevertheless the truth remains. Our Catholic faith teaches us that the human race is under the curse of original sin, from which we are freed only by baptism (with extraordinary exceptions noted).

Thus, if an unbaptized adult is destined for the pains of hell, then there is no logical reason why a much younger person (e.g., a 2 year old and even infants in the womb) will not meet with the same fate. The teaching on “Limbo of the Infants” is the Catholic version of what secular people cannot see about the great evil of Abortion, namely, that at the moment of conception a human being, with soul and all, comes into existence; a human being stained by Original Sin.

If the doctrine of Limbo is not true, then the gravity of abortion is lessened, for in a certain sense the crime itself becomes the means of instant salvation for the victim.

We pray to thee, oh Blessed Lord, for your infinite Mercy, and thank thee for thy infinite Goodness, that you have prepared for thy innocent children an eternal resting place where they will enjoy natural happiness forever and ever. May these truths be a cause of our own contrition.

I submit for your faithful discernment the following:

1. traditioninaction.org/religious/e012rp_Limbo24Reasons.html
2. audiosancto.org/sermon/20131110-Limbo-of-the-Infants.html

The Vatican’s International Theological Commission disagrees with you that limbo is infallible Catholic doctrine. They refer to it rather as a theological theory.

Grant it, a document from the International Theological Commission is not itself infallible and is really more advisory than anything else. But the word “limbo” does not appear in the Catechism at all. Not even once. That would be pretty curious if limbo were an infallible perennial doctrine of the church.

 

[PaulDupre1]

The Vatican’s International Theological Commission disagrees with you that limbo is infallible Catholic doctrine. They refer to it rather as a theological theory.

Grant it, a document from the International Theological Commission is not itself infallible and is really more advisory than anything else. But the word “limbo” does not appear in the Catechism at all. Not even once. That would be pretty curious if limbo were an infallible perennial doctrine of the church.

Exactly.

 

[openmind77]

I think it’s helpful to keep in mind that God’s ability is infinite: Perhaps children that die to us are given a full life elsewhere to work out their salvation in fear in trembling just as we do.

A full life elsewhere? You mean like another planet?

 

[Indifferently]

We must also be reminded here that if God has chosen to reprobate an infant, he is perfectly just in doing so. Remember - Adam’s sin is imputed to all mankind after the fall. The only reason we can’t see babies sinning is because they haven’t developed the mental and physical capabilities to manifest it yet. We are all conceived spiritually dead and liable to God’s wrath.

 

[CommonWeal]

The Vatican’s International Theological Commission disagrees with you that limbo is infallible Catholic doctrine. They refer to it rather as a theological theory.

Grant it, a document from the International Theological Commission is not itself infallible and is really more advisory than anything else. But the word “limbo” does not appear in the Catechism at all. Not even once. That would be pretty curious if limbo were an infallible perennial doctrine of the church.

The Vatican’s International Theological Commission disagrees with you that limbo is infallible Catholic doctrine. They refer to it rather as a theological theory.

Grant it, a document from the International Theological Commission is not itself infallible and is really more advisory than anything else. But the word “limbo” does not appear in the Catechism at all. Not even once. That would be pretty curious if limbo were an infallible perennial doctrine of the church.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for correcting my somewhat rash hyperbole, although I do believe the Church’s ordinary Magisterium has spoken on this subject, if not expressly than implicitly in its dogmatic articulation of original sin and baptism.

Further, the fact that the word “limbo” does not appear in any modern catechism is not good evidence that the reality of its existence is not taught infallibly. One might be skeptical if the idea of limbo was nowhere to be found among the popes, councils and doctors of the Church. But that is certainly not the case.

To give an example, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception wasn’t formally defined until 1854, and we may presume that the official catechisms of the day (if there were any) did not include the teaching, again at least expressly. Nevertheless, Pope Pius IX’s decree merely ratified what was already taught by the ordinary Magisterium. Like any symbol (or symbolic act), words express realities; they are not the reality.

As for the ITC, I am aware of its advisory opinion and its nonbinding character. Putting that aside, however, I would like to suggest that the difficulty people have with Limbo has less to do with the highly emotional subject of babies than with the seemingly unjust doctrines of Original Sin, the necessity of Baptism, and the terrifying reality of Hell, all three infallible dogmas of the Catholic faith.

Indeed, the conclusion honest men we would rather not reach (though we must) is that Hell is real, and that our original sin will take us there unless we repent, accept the Catholic faith and are baptized. (This of course in no way implies predestination, as others have suggested, for God desires all people to be saved.)

Does that sound unfair to my human ears? You bet it does. Do I accept it? You bet I do. And once we have accepted this divinely revealed truth, we come to see that a person’s age plays no part in the salvific equation, just as a person’s age cannot be the cause of our dignity as human beings. Existence is an awesome responsibility!

In sum, the doctrine of Limbo is a merciful exception to God’s perfect justice, and one cannot easily or logically deny it without seriously undermining the doctrines of original sin and baptism.

The alternatives are simple: (1) the Church is wrong about Baptism, or (2) the Church is wrong about Original Sin.

 

[CommonWeal]

We must also be reminded here that if God has chosen to reprobate an infant, he is perfectly just in doing so. Remember - Adam’s sin is imputed to all mankind after the fall. The only reason we can’t see babies sinning is because they haven’t developed the mental and physical capabilities to manifest it yet. We are all conceived spiritually dead and liable to God’s wrath.

Amen. Amen.

 

[dmar198]

Dear Sir,

Thank you for correcting my somewhat rash hyperbole, although I do believe the Church’s ordinary Magisterium has spoken on this subject, if not expressly than implicitly in its dogmatic articulation of original sin and baptism.

Further, the fact that the word “limbo” does not appear in any modern catechism is not good evidence that the reality of its existence is not taught infallibly. One might be skeptical if the idea of limbo was nowhere to be found among the popes, councils and doctors of the Church. But that is certainly not the case.

To give an example, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception wasn’t formally defined until 1854, and we may presume that the official catechisms of the day (if there were any) did not include the teaching, again at least expressly. Nevertheless, Pope Pius IX’s decree merely ratified what was already taught by the ordinary Magisterium. Like any symbol (or symbolic act), words express realities; they are not the reality.

As for the ITC, I am aware of its advisory opinion and its nonbinding character. Putting that aside, however, I would like to suggest that the difficulty people have with Limbo has less to do with the highly emotional subject of babies than with the seemingly unjust doctrines of Original Sin, the necessity of Baptism, and the terrifying reality of Hell, all three infallible dogmas of the Catholic faith.

Indeed, the conclusion honest men we would rather not reach (though we must) is that Hell is real, and that our original sin will take us there unless we repent, accept the Catholic faith and are baptized. (This of course in no way implies predestination, as others have suggested, for God desires all people to be saved.)

Does that sound unfair to my human ears? You bet it does. Do I accept it? You bet I do. And once we have accepted this divinely revealed truth, we come to see that a person’s age plays no part in the salvific equation, just as a person’s age cannot be the cause of our dignity as human beings. Existence is an awesome responsibility!

In sum, the doctrine of Limbo is a merciful exception to God’s perfect justice, and one cannot easily or logically deny it without seriously undermining the doctrines of original sin and baptism.

The alternatives are simple: (1) the Church is wrong about Baptism, or (2) the Church is wrong about Original Sin.

I think I agree with the substance of your post, but I don’t think you’ll see it that way because I disagree with the conclusion: I don’t think those are the only two alternatives to Limbo. I think the tradition of the Church says that the grace of salvation can be given apart from water baptism, at least in some cases. Is that your understanding as well?

 

[CommonWeal]

I think I agree with the substance of your post, but I don’t think you’ll see it that way because I disagree with the conclusion: I don’t think those are the only two alternatives to Limbo. I think the tradition of the Church says that the grace of salvation can be given apart from water baptism, at least in some cases. Is that your understanding as well?

Yes it is. There are some extraordinary exceptions to water baptism, notably martyrdom for the faith (and baptism of desire?).

 

[Shin]

• How to Baptize in Case of Miscarriage *

'By reason of my great love I give the kingdom of heaven to all of the baptized who die before reaching the age of discretion. As it is written: It has pleased my Father to give the kingdom of heaven to such as these. By reason of my tender love, I even show mercy to the infants of pagans.

If any of them die before reaching the age of discretion, given that they cannot come to know me face to face, they go instead to a place that it is not permitted for you to know but where they will live without suffering. Those who have advanced from the one road reach those two roads, that is, the age of discretion between good and evil. It is then in their power to choose what pleases them most. Their reward will follow the inclination of their will, since by that time they know how to read the sign written at the crossroads telling them that it is better to experience a little pain at the start and joy ready and waiting for them than experience joy at the start and pain at the end.’

Our Lord, to St. Bridget of Sweden, ‘The Revelations’

 

[CommonWeal]

• How to Baptize in Case of Miscarriage *

'By reason of my great love I give the kingdom of heaven to all of the baptized who die before reaching the age of discretion. As it is written: It has pleased my Father to give the kingdom of heaven to such as these. By reason of my tender love, I even show mercy to the infants of pagans.

If any of them die before reaching the age of discretion, given that they cannot come to know me face to face, they go instead to a place that it is not permitted for you to know but where they will live without suffering. Those who have advanced from the one road reach those two roads, that is, the age of discretion between good and evil. It is then in their power to choose what pleases them most. Their reward will follow the inclination of their will, since by that time they know how to read the sign written at the crossroads telling them that it is better to experience a little pain at the start and joy ready and waiting for them than experience joy at the start and pain at the end.’

Our Lord, to St. Bridget of Sweden, ‘The Revelations’

God love you! This is a great resource for Catholic families.

Gratefully yours,

 

[10gr8kids]

“How to Baptize in Case of Miscarriage”

I don’t know how helpful this is in most cases. I know not all experiences are the same, but I’ve had 8 miscarriages and in the last 6 I knew the babies heart had stopped beating well before I actually miscarried. All would appear well, I would start bleeding, go in immediately for an ultrasound and the baby would already be dead. In one instance it was over a week before I actually miscarried. So unless I could baptize the baby in the womb there is not much that can be done, and my understanding is we cannot baptize babies in the womb.

 

[simspt]

So I was talking about this in another thread, but I think it’s a good topic for all Religions/denominations (I don’t only seek Christian opinions).

My question isn’t “Is it possible?” but rather “Are you certain?”

A stillborn baby, an aborted baby, or parents who just didn’t think a baby should be baptized; can you say with certainty that the baby goes to Heaven?

I’m really interested in all opinions.

If God is loving and just, of course babies get an E ticket to heaven. Babies liable to God’s wrath is nonsense. This isn’t divine speculation but common sense! Nothing is certain, It is possible God doesn’t exist however unlikely. To think that millions of aborted babies could be in hell because of original sin…Thats a sick thought.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[dmar198]

Yes it is. There are some extraordinary exceptions to water baptism, notably martyrdom for the faith (and baptism of desire?).

I think baptism of desire is very relevant in this case, though without divine revelation on the subject I cannot say for sure. The Council of Trent says: “although all [the Sacraments] are not necessary for every individual, [yet] without them or without the desire of them…men [cannot] obtain from God the grace of justification.” Council of Trent Session 7 Canon 4 source.

That canon seems to raise it to the level of dogma that a desire for the Sacraments can suffice for the purpose of obtaining justification. At least, that’s how I read it. I could be wrong.

In light of that, I think it is possible, but uncertain, that unbaptized infants can be saved through some application of baptism of desire. Without divine revelation on the subject, I don’t think we can know if they can be saved, but perhaps the parents of the unbaptized child can desire it by proxy, or perhaps God enlightens the minds of children at the moment of death to give them an opportunity to desire the Sacraments. Again, without divine revelation on the subject, I don’t think we can know, but I don’t think it’s impossible.

Does that make sense?

 

[meltzerboy]

I think baptism of desire is very relevant in this case, though without divine revelation on the subject I cannot say for sure. The Council of Trent says: “although all [the Sacraments] are not necessary for every individual, [yet] without them or without the desire of them…men [cannot] obtain from God the grace of justification.” Council of Trent Session 7 Canon 4 source.

That canon seems to raise it to the level of dogma that a desire for the Sacraments can suffice for the purpose of obtaining justification. At least, that’s how I read it. I could be wrong.

In light of that, I think it is possible, but uncertain, that unbaptized infants can be saved through some application of baptism of desire. Without divine revelation on the subject, I don’t think we can know if they can be saved, but perhaps the parents of the unbaptized child can desire it by proxy, or perhaps God enlightens the minds of children at the moment of death to give them an opportunity to desire the Sacraments. Again, without divine revelation on the subject, I don’t think we can know, but I don’t think it’s impossible.

Does that make sense?

Wouldn’t baptism of desire in this instance mean that the baby’s parents or caregivers desired to baptize them but they died before being baptized?

 

[steido01]

We must also be reminded here that if God has chosen to reprobate an infant, he is perfectly just in doing so. Remember - Adam’s sin is imputed to all mankind after the fall. The only reason we can’t see babies sinning is because they haven’t developed the mental and physical capabilities to manifest it yet. We are all conceived spiritually dead and liable to God’s wrath.

However He acts, He is just.

 

[OmegaPoint]

I have actually read a very bizarre argument against this idea because it would actually encourage abortion. The example goes as follows. If a mother truly loved her unborn child, truly loved her, she would not want to take the risk that her child might grow up and through the child’s actions the child would either be condemned to purgatory, or even worse the child could possibly go to hell. To prevent this possiblity, the mother, out of pure love for her child, would abort her child to assure that the child would go to heaven, even at the risk of her own soul, which in a sense would be the most selfless loving act one could perform, thus ensuring her own salvation as well.