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

[marymary1975]

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?

Limbo has never been an official teaching of the church. Limbo has always been a theologist doctrine, a theory that certain theologist have come up yo address the issue. For many years it has been very popular between theologist but it has never been held as a teaching of the church. The church’s official position has always been that the church doesn’t know. We can’t confusse theological theories with actual teaching of the church.

 

[Petaro]

We live in the hope of the promises of Christ in His salvific desire that all men may be saved. As we all rely on His promise given to the good thief on the cross, so shall His little children, that died in Original sin but with the desire of all creation to be with the Creator, call upon the same Christ in their thirst for that Creator, their loving Father.
Looking good for the innocent; worry more about us guilty.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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. )

Nah…I really only have about two dozen that I use over and over…

 

[CommonWeal]

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.

Limbo is most assuredly not hell, which is the place where the souls of poor sinners go to be punished for all eternity. I wish others would pay attention to this definition, for they seem to think Limbo and Hell are the same thing. Your definition of Limbo is essentially correct: Limbo is a state of natural happiness, what the Schoolmen called “delight.” When delight follows reason, as Aquinas teaches, we experience joy.

To illustrate, imagine a two year old who is laughing at something, maybe the child’s mother as she kisses the child on the belly. The child experiences delight, while the mother experiences joy. Anyhow, this is the kind of natural happiness God gives to the souls of children in Limbo.

 

[triumphguy]

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.

Put me down as certain (prudentially).

 

[pnewton]

“Believe” and “certainty” are not words that go well together. However, yes, I am reasonably certain that the nature of God means they will be in Heaven.

 

[CommonWeal]

We live in the hope of the promises of Christ in His salvific desire that all men may be saved. As we all rely on His promise given to the good thief on the cross, so shall His little children, that died in Original sin but with the desire of all creation to be with the Creator, call upon the same Christ in their thirst for that Creator, their loving Father.
Looking good for the innocent; worry more about us guilty.

My Dear Sir,

All of humanity succeeds by natural generation unto the guilt of Adam, which we Catholics call the stain of original sin, as St. Paul teaches and what the Catechism calls “an essential truth of the faith.” Thus we are all guilty in God’s eyes, from the very moment of our conception.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Nature of Original Sin:

The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us . . . . Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

 

[AbideWithMe]

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.

Randy–

I haven’t read this whole thread, so apologize if this was addressed already. I’m not having any fits, but I do find it troubling that, at least in Ireland (and I think elsewhere, IIRC) it used to be standard practice to bury unbaptized infants outside the consecrated Catholic cemetery grounds. That, to me—if I had been one if those mothers grieving the loss of my stillborn, unbaptized child, and concerned for his or her fate—would speak loud and clear to my heart and soul that in practice the Church did indeed have a rather “firm position” on the separated destiny of unbaptized babies. I’m not saying this to be argumentative; as I said, I do find it very troubling, though.

 

[Petaro]

My Dear Sir,

All of humanity succeeds by natural generation unto the guilt of Adam, which we Catholics call the stain of original sin, as St. Paul teaches and what the Catechism calls “an essential truth of the faith.” Thus we are all guilty in God’s eyes, from the very moment of our conception.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Nature of Original Sin:

The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us . . . . Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

So? I don’t doubt your theology. However I am not willing to limit the power of our loving God to call his children, rejected in abortion or natural selection, to His arms. The price of the Cross, in my Faith, bought more than we realise in any presumptuous analysis of His Will. I still have certainty in His unbounded love as expressed in the Scriptures. Mary is His exemplar of God’s power over original sin. It now longer has power over me since my baptism of water. It will have no fear for those offered that baptism by desire.

 

[steido01]

I don’t understand why the Christians (and Jews, to a lesser degree) in this thread aren’t showing a greater deferment to Scripture on the topic.

 

[dronald]

I don’t understand why the Christians (and Jews, to a lesser degree) in this thread aren’t showing a greater deferment to Scripture on the topic.

I really like this one because it’s a segway into Jesus’s coming:

Jeremiah 31:27 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and the seed of beast. 28 And it shall come to pass that as I have watched over them to pluck up and break down, to overthrow, destroy, and bring harm, so I will watch over them to build and to plant, declares the Lord. **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 iniquity. 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 For 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.”

Notice that above passage is quoted in Hebrews at length. I also love the tradition of this saying; as Ezekiel also states the same.

Ezekiel 18 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “What do you 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.

 

[CommonWeal]

So? I don’t doubt your theology. However I am not willing to limit the power of our loving God to call his children, rejected in abortion or natural selection, to His arms. The price of the Cross, in my Faith, bought more than we realise in any presumptuous analysis of His Will. I still have certainty in His unbounded love as expressed in the Scriptures. Mary is His exemplar of God’s power over original sin. It now longer has power over me since my baptism of water. It will have no fear for those offered that baptism by desire.

You speak of faith as though you had yours and I had mine, which is flatly false. Any man who rejects even one article of the faith has neither living faith nor lifeless faith, but simply holds to his own opinion, which is in error, as St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrates. See here.

I am not the one advocating a presumptuous analysis, you are. As you know, our Blessed Mother is the exception to the rule, she having received a “singular” grace; and the “unbounded love” to which you refer has indeed made a gracious and loving accommodation for those who die in the state of original sin only, which we call by the name of Limbo. Indeed, Almighty God is both merciful and just. If there is no Limbo, then the sacrament of Baptism is entirely unnecessary, which contradicts the teaching of our Blessed Lord. Matthew 28:19-20.

If you study the development of the doctrine of original sin, you will see that the doctrine of Limbo is in fact the milder, more loving view taught by the great theologians regarding the punishment due to original sin, against the doctrine set forth by St. Augustine.

Again, I would like to stress the point that this subject only gives us difficulty because it happens to involve infants, even those in the womb, who have not committed any actual sins. But if you admit an exception for infants in the womb, then you must admit an exception for children living outside the womb, and even therefore any child up to the elusive age of reason. However, the fact is that we are not at all talking about some speculative “theology of infant deaths,” but rather the infallible teaching on ORIGINAL SIN, which it seems you have not accepted with the virtue of faith or simply don’t understand.

Just out of curiosity, are you in favor of admitting to Holy Communion divorced and remarried Catholics who have not had their prior marriages declared null?

If you ever want to know the truth about Limbo (with ample magisterial authority cited) then listen to this sermon:

audiosancto.org/sermon/20131110-Limbo-of-the-Infants.html

You might also read the article on Limbo from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[CommonWeal]

I don’t understand why the Christians (and Jews, to a lesser degree) in this thread aren’t showing a greater deferment to Scripture on the topic.

I for one don’t believe it would help. People argue about the meaning of Scripture all the time, but the doctrine of original sin, at least for Catholics, is infallible teaching. Sure, we could cite Sacred Scripture but then we’d be recreating the wheel. Armed with true premises, all we need to establish the truth is an argument from reason.

 

[rogergosselin]

I have to thank CommonWeal for professing the true faith in this matter.

While I don’t have his erudition, it just seems logical to me that to believe any unbaptized person can enter into Heaven is a complete rejection of the doctrine of Original Sin. Taken to it’s ultimate conclusion, it also is a denial of the horror of abortion. It would lead to the absurd conclusion that an abortionist is performing God’s will, because he is sending souls to Heaven.

I don’t have the quote with me at the moment, but isn’t it a magesterial teaching that all who die in mortal sin, or original sin only, do not enter into Heaven, but descend directly to Hell, but to suffer punishments of a different kind? Those that do not have actual sin do not suffer the “flames” of Hell, but suffer eternal separation from the beatific vision. (Maybe someone can help me with the exact pronouncement.)

I do sympathize with those who find this a difficult teaching. I do, also. It is difficult for me to reconcile God’s love and mercy with God’s justice. For that matter, how is it just, in human terms, that we all suffer punishment for the sins of others, Adam and Eve? But God’s ways are not Man’s, and we must accept his revealed truths.

 

[dmar198]

If there is no Limbo, then the sacrament of Baptism is entirely unnecessary, which contradicts the teaching of our Blessed Lord. Matthew 28:19-20.

I have to thank CommonWeal for professing the true faith in this matter.

While I don’t have his erudition, it just seems logical to me that to believe any unbaptized person can enter into Heaven is a complete rejection of the doctrine of Original Sin.

I agree with your appreciation for CommonWeal’s dedication to the true faith, but I wonder what you think about the following line of questioning: hasn’t the Church officially interpreted the necessity of baptism to allow for either baptism in water or simple desire for baptism, at least in some circumstances? (Earlier I cited a passage where I think the Council of Trent dogmatically defines that desire for baptism, without water baptism, suffices for receiving saving grace.) If so, couldn’t some application of baptism by desire save infants who haven’t received water baptism?

I think that line of questioning, unless I’m missing something, leads to the possibility that infants who die without water baptism could, at least theoretically, be saved through baptism by desire. My first thought is that baptism could be desired for them, as faith is desired for them in the case of water baptism, but another thought is this: it seems God could enlighten unbaptized infants just before death so that they could desire the Sacraments. Does that seem possible?

I don’t have the quote with me at the moment, but isn’t it a magesterial teaching that all who die in mortal sin, or original sin only, do not enter into Heaven, but descend directly to Hell, but to suffer punishments of a different kind?

I think I have heard something similar to that, but there is also this magisterial teaching: “Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.” (Blessed Pope Pius IX, 1863, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore 7)

It seems that this Magisterial teaching excludes infants from suffering eternal punishments, unless I’m missing something. What do you think?

 

[10gr8kids]

I don’t understand why the Christians (and Jews, to a lesser degree) in this thread aren’t showing a greater deferment to Scripture on the topic.

Then you also have passages like this

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

Hence the trouble with scripture alone. We have to listen to the Church, and if the Church cannot be certain because it has not been revealed to her, then I, neither, can be certain.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

For the benefit of baptismal discussion:

From Fundamentals of Catholic dogma (p. 357) Ott, L. (1957).

Quote:

1. Necessity of Baptism for Salvation

Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation. (De fide.)

The Council of Trent declared against the Reformers, whose idea of justification led them to deny it, the necessity of Baptism for salvation: Si quis dixerit, baptismum liberum esse, hoc est non necessarium ad salutem, A.S. D 861. Cf. D 791. As to the moment of the beginning of the baptismal obligation, the Council of Trent declared that after the promulgation of the Gospel (post Evangelium promulgatum) there could be no justification without Baptism or the desire for the same. D 796. The necessity of Baptism for salvation is, according to John 3:5 and Mk. 16:16, a necessity of means (necessitas medii), and, according to Mt. 28:19, also a necessity of precept (necessitas praecepti). The necessity of means does not derive from the intrinsic nature of the Sacrament itself, but from the designation of Baptism as an indispensable means of salvation by a positive ordinance of God. In special circumstances the actual use of the prescribed means can be dispensed with (hypothetical necessity).

Tradition, in view of John 3:5, strongly stresses the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Tertullian, invoking these words, observes: “It is determined by law that nobody can be saved without baptism” (De bapt. 12, 1). Cf. Pastor Hermae, Sim. IX 16.

1. Substitutes for Sacramental Baptism

In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood. (Sent. fidei prox.)

a) Baptism of desire (Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti)

Baptism of desire is the explicit or implicit desire for sacramental baptism (votum baptismi) associated with perfect contrition (contrition based on charity).

The Council of Trent teaches that justification from original sin is not possible “without the washing unto regeneration or the desire for the same” (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto). D 796. Cf. D 847, 388, 413.

According to the teaching of Holy Writ, perfect love possesses justifying power. Luke 7:47: “Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much.” John 14:21: “He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.” Luke 23:43: “This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.”

The chief witnesses from Tradition are St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. In the funeral oration on the Emperor Valentine II, who died without Baptism, St. Ambrose says: “Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed? Certainly: As he desired it, he has attained it … His pious desire has absolved him” (De obitu Valent. 51, 53). St. Augustine declared: “I find that not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace that which is lacking in Baptism, but also faith and conversion of the heart (fidem conversionemque cordis), if perhaps the shortness of the time does not permit the celebration of the mystery of Baptism” (De bapt. IV 22, 29). In the period of early Scholasticism St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Ep. 77, 100. 2 n. 6–9), Hugo of St. Victor (De sacr. II 6, 7) and the Summa Sententiarum (V 5) defended the possibility of Baptism of desire against Peter Abelard. Cf. S. th. III 68, 2.

Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis. It bestows Sanctifying Grace, which remits original sin, all actual sins, and the eternal punishments for sin. Venial sins and temporal punishments for sin are remitted according to the intensity of the subjective disposition. The baptismal character is not imprinted nor is it the gateway to the other sacraments.

b) Baptism of blood (baptismus sanguinis)

Baptism of blood signifies martyrdom of an unbaptised person, that is, the patient bearing of a violent death or of an assault which of its nature leads to death, by reason of one’s confession of the Christian faith, or one’s practice of Christian virtue.

Jesus Himself attests the justifying power of martyrdom. Mt. 10:32: “Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in Heaven.” Mt. 10:39 (16:25): “He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me shall find it.” John 12:25: “He that hateth his life in this world keepeth it unto life eternal.”

From the beginning the Fathers regarded martyrdom as a substitute for Baptism. Tertullian calls it “blood Baptism” (lavacrum sanguinis) and ascribes to it the effect of “taking the place of the baptismal bath if it was not received, and restoring that which was lost” (De bapt. 16). According to St. Cyprian, the catechumens who suffer martyrdom receive “the glorious and most sublime blood-Baptism” (Ep. 73, 22). Cf. Augustine, De civ. Dei XIII 7.

As, according to the testimony of Tradition and of the Church Liturgy (cf. Feast of the Innocents), young children can also receive blood-Baptism, blood-Baptism operates not merely ex opere operantis as does Baptism of desire, but since it is an objective confession of Faith it operates also quasi ex opere operato. It confers the grace of justification, and when proper dispositions are present, also the remission of all venial sins and temporal punishments. St. Augustine says: “It is an affront to a martyr to pray for him; we should rather recommend ourselves to his prayers” (Sermo 159, 1). Baptism by blood does not confer the baptismal character. Cf. S. th. III 66, 11 and 12.

Carry on, :tiphat:

 

[onenow1]

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.

I am certain of one thing in these instances God will be the judge we have no way of knowing. I am certain he judges with mercy in mind.

God Bless

 

[benjohnson]

I don’t understand why the Christians (and Jews, to a lesser degree) in this thread aren’t showing a greater deferment to Scripture on the topic.

Why would I do that? I want to show everybody how clever I am!

 

[rogergosselin]

I agree with your appreciation for CommonWeal’s dedication to the true faith, but I wonder what you think about the following line of questioning: hasn’t the Church officially interpreted the necessity of baptism to allow for either baptism in water or simple desire for baptism, at least in some circumstances?

I am new to the forums, this being my second post, and find myself a bit embarrassed. Not just because I mispelled magisterial : ), but because there seem to be quite a number of formidible Catholic thinkers in this thread. I hope to benefit.

dmar198, the quote you provide from Pope Pius IX is challenging for me. I have to research that and some of the material from Trent that was just provided by Isaiah 45_9. If it takes me a few days to respond, I hope the thread will not have dried up, because I would like to continue.

My understanding, till this point, has been that “Baptism of Desire” does not have the power to save on its own, but may confer sufficient grace to finally lead a person to water Baptism. I know that some ( a minority?) of early church fathers considered the idea of salvation through Baptism of Desire, but that it only applied to Catachumens.

I was under the impression that Trent subsequently put the matter to rest by declaring the necessity of water Baptism. Now I see people claiming just the opposite from Trent; thus my need to research the matter.

I will also have to admit that this will be a hard sell for me, because in the dogmatic Athanasian Creed we profess ONE Baptism, not three; and scripture itself proclaims one Lord, one Faith, One Baptism. I would need help from forum members in resolving any apparent inconsistencies between de fide statements.