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

[benjohnson]

Anyway you seem to prefer speculating on complicated theories like the creation of duplicate worlds (among infinite ways) to take care of these babies rather than the simple one of reincarnation in the same world.

Any such theory is conjecture - but what you’ve said here is wrong from a Christian standpoint. This idle conjecture would complicated for us, but would not be for God.

So if when the Christ returns (which I believe will happen in a couple of years)

No need to wait! Christ is here in Word and Sacrament - any Catholic (or Lutheran) church would suffice.

What if he says reincarnation is a fact? Is that harder to believe or more of a blow to doctrine and faith?

If we meet God face to face, I pray that I accept his word.

What you’re bumping into is that Christians can idly speculate weird stuff to each other as friends, what we profess to each other should only be God’s revelation.

The reincarnation speculation usually isn’t given much traction in Christian thought as we’re not considered souls inhabiting a random body - but soul + a particular body.

 

[Peter_J]

Can Innocent’s be considered a statement of faith and morals from the chair of Peter and therefore binding? Why or why not?

“Pope Innocent’s statement cannot be considered a statement of faith and morals from the chair of Peter and therefore binding. If anyone so considers it, let him be anathema.”

(Note however that I’m not sure who said that.)

 

[benjohnson]

And let’s not forget The Great Divorce.

Ack! Now I’ll have to read it again!

 

[PRmerger]

Think about what you’re saying, dronald.

You are saying that there are Bible verses that the CC just ignores, regarding the fate of those infants who have never been baptized.

Given what you know of the CC, and your essential support of the Church (as you have stated in the past, you feel as if you’re stuck in the middle–offering apologia for the CC to uninformed anti-Catholic folks, yet offering objections here in the safety of the CAF)…does that make sense to you?

Why would the Church claim she doesn’t know what happens to unbaptized babies, yet the Bible states (allegedly) that all unbaptized babies go to heaven.

Think about what you’re proposing.

Does it make sense to you?

 

[Even_So]

Think about what you’re saying, dronald.

You are saying that there are Bible verses that the CC just ignores, regarding the fate of those infants who have never been baptized.

Why would the Church claim she doesn’t know what happens to unbaptized babies, yet the Bible states (allegedly) that all unbaptized babies go to heaven.

Does it make sense to you?

So the CC’s position officially is they do not know what happens to unbaptized babies? What about children in the pre teen stage age?

 

[dronald]

You are saying that there are Bible verses that the CC just ignores, regarding the fate of those infants who have never been baptized.

Given what you know of the CC, and your essential support of the Church (as you have stated in the past, you feel as if you’re stuck in the middle–offering apologia for the CC to uninformed anti-Catholic folks, yet offering objections here in the safety of the CAF)…does that make sense to you?

I do, but i’m not sure what your point is with regards to me supporting the Catholic Church by correcting inaccuracies.

Why would the Church claim she doesn’t know what happens to unbaptized babies, yet the Bible states (allegedly) that all unbaptized babies go to heaven.

Think about what you’re proposing.

Does it make sense to you?

Assuming that unbaptized babies did go to Heaven, and the CC announced such; it would diminish the long held Catholic belief that babies must be baptized.

However, making a statement that they don’t go to Heaven would be even more detrimental these days. I think the CC doesn’t want to just come out and say what it believes, but rather stays in the middle on such a big topic like “Where is my 1 week old son who died?”

But I am very interested in what others have to say. Would they believe that their infant if God forbid died, would go to Hell? Of course not. They know, you know and I know it’s illogical and not even Biblical.

I suppose it would be easy to state that maybe some infants go to Hell if one has never known an infant they’ve been close to that has died; but every single Catholic in the entire world who loses a baby would believe that baby would go to Heaven. And yes, that’s putting it boldly; but what Catholic is going to say “my baby is in Hell for it was not baptized in time.”?

 

[PRmerger]

So the CC’s position officially is they do not know what happens to unbaptized babies?

Since God has chosen not to reveal this Truth to us, the Church cannot make any official position. What she does say is that given our revealed dogma of the mercy of God, we can *hope *for their salvation.

The Church is the messenger. Not the editor.

She can’t make up what she wishes were true.

What about children in the pre teen stage age?

We can hope for their salvation as well. But as pre-teens can sin, and sin mortally, so we must entrust them to God’s mercy even more so.

 

[PRmerger]

Assuming that unbaptized babies did go to Heaven, and the CC announced such; it would diminish the long held Catholic belief that babies must be baptized.

So you are saying that the Catholic Church ignores some Bible verses which declare that unbaptized babies go to heaven?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Weird, isn’t it?

Normally, when the Catholic Church defines something that is not explicitly found in scripture (like the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception), non-Catholics have a fit.

But when the Church declines to take a firm position on something that is not explicitly stated in scripture (like the destiny of unbaptized babies), they have a fit about that, too.

 

[meltzerboy]

I do, but i’m not sure what your point is with regards to me supporting the Catholic Church by correcting inaccuracies.

Assuming that unbaptized babies did go to Heaven, and the CC announced such; it would diminish the long held Catholic belief that babies must be baptized.

However, making a statement that they don’t go to Heaven would be even more detrimental these days. I think the CC doesn’t want to just come out and say what it believes, but rather stays in the middle on such a big topic like “Where is my 1 week old son who died?”

But I am very interested in what others have to say. Would they believe that their infant if God forbid died, would go to Hell? Of course not. They know, you know and I know it’s illogical and not even Biblical.

I suppose it would be easy to state that maybe some infants go to Hell if one has never known an infant they’ve been close to that has died; but every single Catholic in the entire world who loses a baby would believe that baby would go to Heaven. And yes, that’s putting it boldly; but what Catholic is going to say “my baby is in Hell for it was not baptized in time.”?

Is limbo regarded as hell according to the Church? I thought it was separation from the beatific vision but not a place or state of discomfort in any way, unless such separation is considered a major part of the definition of hell, including for an infant.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is limbo regarded as hell according to the Church? I thought it was separation from the beatific vision but not a place or state of discomfort in any way, unless such separation is considered a major part of the definition of hell, including for an infant.

If limbo exists at all, it is a pleasant place with water, trees, etc…like the Limbo of the Fathers.

 

[Peter_J]

Weird, isn’t it?

Normally, when the Catholic Church defines something that is not explicitly found in scripture (like the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception), non-Catholics have a fit.

But when the Church declines to take a firm position on something that is not explicitly stated in scripture (like the destiny of unbaptized babies), they have a fit about that, too.

Good post.

Hmmm … maybe I should read all your posts. (You’ll have to be patient, of course, since it might take me a couple years. )

 

[Gorgias]

Whoever says that infants are alive in Christ even when they depart this life without being baptized is really both opposing the Apostolic preaching and condemning the whole Church which runs hastily with infants to the baptismal font because it is believed without any doubt that otherwise these infants cannot possibly be alive in Christ.’
St. Augustine, Father & Doctor of the Church

Note that Augustine could not make magisterial statements on his own. Therefore, by definition, this means that not every word out of his mouth – his status as a Doctor of the Church notwithstanding – is per se a doctrinal statement of the Church. Note, for example, his “massa damnata” theory, which is not the doctrine of the Church.

" The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life without even the grace of baptism is utterly foolish"- Pope St. Innocent I

Can you tell us where we can find this quote, or provide the quote in its context? A quick Google search suggests it was a synod of Milevis, but I can’t find the context in which this quote appears.

(Note, too, as others have stated, that a doctrinal statement of a pope appears with certain particular language. Moreover, it happens in particular types of writings. Synods aren’t one of these contexts.)

 

[meltzerboy]

Since God has chosen not to reveal this Truth to us, the Church cannot make any official position. What she does say is that given our revealed dogma of the mercy of God, we can *hope *for their salvation.

The Church is the messenger. Not the editor.

She can’t make up what she wishes were true.

We can hope for their salvation as well. But as pre-teens can sin, and sin mortally, so we must entrust them to God’s mercy even more so.

Then the Church never taught anything about unbaptized infants’ going to limbo rather than heaven or hell? Is this an unofficial position held by some Catholics?

 

[Gorgias]

Then the Church never taught anything about unbaptized infants’ going to limbo rather than heaven or hell?

Not as doctrine.

 

[Peter_J]

Then the Church never taught anything about unbaptized infants’ going to limbo rather than heaven or hell?

Some people in the Church taught that. But I wouldn’t say that’s the same as the Church teaching it.

 

[dronald]

Some people in the Church taught that. But I wouldn’t say that’s the same as the Church teaching it.

Why did they teach it with authority? As if it was blatantly obvious and you’d be a fool to disagree, if in fact it wasn’t a belief of the Church?

 

[dmar198]

Why did they teach it with authority? As if it was blatantly obvious and you’d be a fool to disagree, if in fact it wasn’t a belief of the Church?

I don’t think most people did teach it that way.

When I was in school, we were taught out of the Baltimore Catechism, and it seems to say limbo is only a popular theory: “[It] is the common belief [that unbaptized infants] will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.” source

I was always told that limbo was a popular theory among theologians, but not a dogma, and that’s what the Baltimore Catechism seems to say to me. Can you give an example of an official teaching document that taught that limbo was something more?

 

[Cider]

Since it is not part of that which has been divinely revealed, I would not claim 100% certainty in this regard. We hold out hope. It may even seem pretty likely. But to be absolutely certain? I don’t see how that is possible.

That’s how I feel. I did lose a child to miscarriage years ago and I hold out hope but it’s not divinely revealed so I can’t say I believe with 100% certainty.

 

[marymary1975]

Weird, isn’t it?

Normally, when the Catholic Church defines something that is not explicitly found in scripture (like the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception), non-Catholics have a fit.

But when the Church declines to take a firm position on something that is not explicitly stated in scripture (like the destiny of unbaptized babies), they have a fit about that, too.

Dammed if you do…dammed in you don’t!