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

[Isaiah45_9]

Unless I have misunderstood their theology, it appears to me that the Orthodox believe that EVERYONE is immaculately conceived. Sort of.

Source please.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Source please.

This forum. But I want to be clear on what I’m saying.

What I have heard from EO in this forum is that we are NOT born with original sin but we must live with the consequences of Adam’s sin in the world around us.

This was explained in a thread wherein the Immaculate Conception was being disputed by an Orthodox, Nekarios Lady.

Now, Catholics say that Mary was conceived immaculately by a special privilege. But EO reject this. And if NONE of us are born with that stain, then we are all “clean” or immaculate from the time of our conception.

That is what I have pieced together from assorted posts, and that is why I wrote:

Unless I have misunderstood their theology, it appears to me that the Orthodox believe that EVERYONE is immaculately conceived. Sort of.

If I have misunderstood, please explain where my error lies.

Thanks.

 

[MelCath]

no, i believe they are in limbo

 

[JoyintheCross]

Well, I do not believe that unbaptized babies go to Heaven (that is…receive the Beatific Vision. (Now there is such a theory as Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood, and I would encourage research on these topics)

But they do not suffer the fires of damnation…and they enjoy a perfect, natural beatitude. According to St. Thomas, the angels likely catechumize them. In my opinion, if this is true, then the blessed might hold converse with them as well. Maybe I’ll even meet my miscarried sibling (unless my sibling received Baptism of Desire, then I’d meet them in Heaven.)

And that’s not it, they will also receive their own bodies, fully mature and immortal, though they will not possess the spiritual qualities of the blessed. It is also the opinion of some theologians that the New Earth will serve as their abode. (Read Part 5 Ch XIII of The Future Life by Joseph C. Sasia S.J., Chapter Title “Condition of Unbaptized Infants After the Final Resurrection”)

 

[PRmerger]

If we [all] inherited the loss of sanctifying grace, I can only conclude that all conceptions are hell bound until a means of sanctifying grace is installed. For without it, it is impossible to enter heaven. I mean, after all that’s why we baptize infants.

Yep.

If that is the case, how come we are not [then] baptizing at the moment we learn of conception?

How do you propose we do this? There must be water, sprinkled or poured, for it to be a valid baptism. And chrism as well.

Are we not [then] guilty of possessing a knowledge that can save a soul and install a means of sanctifying grace?

Well, that’s why I think there ought to be an urgency to getting our infants baptized.

But do you see what is being said here?

Not really. I think you are trying to create some sort of dilemma where none exists.

God commands us to be fruitful and multiply.

and then on the other hand we say:

We don’t have sanctifying grace even though we are being obedient to a command.

This is a nonsequitur.

How can we say God is merciful when what is being proposed is an eternity in hell with no culpability of the soul being condemned?

We couldn’t say he was merciful unless he offered us some way to be redeemed…

and, yet! He did!

 

[Kurisu35712]

I admit I’m really struggling with the idea of original sin but no actual sin equaling an inability for the soul of an infant to enter Heaven. That seems to be where the discussion is turning. The way I’m beginning to read it is that original sin is either equivalent to actual sin in that it bars us from Heaven, or that it doesn’t.

I always understood the inheritance of original sin to be a consequence of all human souls being of the same species, and descending from the same parent souls, very much unlike the souls of angels, which are all different species. I believe St. Thomas Aquinas explained that? Anyway. I thought Original Sin was our inheriting the fallen nature of Adam and Eve, in the sense that we are able to be more easily tempted to sin and do not have the same connection to God that they had before the fall. But Original Sin has always been explicitly differentiated from actual sin. Baptism restores our connection with God and consecrates us to Him, but if we consider a baby to be below the age of reason and thus incapable of committing actual sin, it doesn’t make sense to me that only the stain of Original Sin would bar them from the Beatific Vision.

The reason we go to Hell is through our choices, i.e. by being in a state of mortal sin at death. Not being in a state of original sin at death. I would imagine that an unbaptized infant soul would at least go to Purgatory until they were made fit to enter Heaven. If we believe that a human soul who dies with venial sins on their souls can enter Heaven after a stay in Purgatory, I can’t understand the justification behind infant souls being forever cut off from the full Beatific Vision for what isn’t even an actual sin.

Please don’t take from this that I don’t believe in Original Sin, or that I don’t believe that it’s a serious thing. It is, certainly, and partly the reason for Christ’s Passion, but our mortal and venial sins were also reasons for His Passion. All this said, I cannot claim with utmost certainty that unbaptized babies go to Heaven. However, I certainly believe that the majority would at least. Original Sin as I understand it is the reason for suffering in the world, but that mortal sins are the reason for suffering in the afterlife. I’ll admit that my understanding may just be flawed.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

No one can know for certainty, but I would hope so. The miscarried children and unbaptized, I can only hope, have a place in heaven and will grow older. The same for aborted children. Their mothers, hopefully, will have deeply regretted “giving them up,” while their true murderers, the abortionists, will burn in hell and hear their screaming cries for all eternity.

 

[Peter_J]

And if we say that some aren’t then can we say that they all aren’t? Or if we say that some are, shouldn’t we just as easily be able to say that all are?

Thank you for saying that!!!

Okay, I might not have really needed three exclamation points, but I’m just so glad that you said that. Many, many posts here have been hinted/implying/assuming that, I believe, but without making it explicit.

So I guess the follow up question should be, why do you think that all unbaptized babies must end up in the same place? Is it because you believe that there is no more choice after death?

 

[rogergosselin]

Well, heaven was not available until Jesus.

CCC 1026

In light of this, when we take into consideration Christ’s statement of ““unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

It is then understood that all who enter the Kingdom of God have been born of water and spirit.

I don’t know of any exceptions to this statement that includes an absolute: “unless”…

I think the Good Thief story does give insight to this topic, after all.

I don’t know of any magisterial statements that contadict the absoluteness of the necessity of Sacramental Baptism, either. If so, it is forbidden to claim that someone is saved through blood or desire, after Jesus committed his disciples to go out and Baptize. That would be a contradiction.

I am not completely clear on the following and do invite corrections, but in regards to the holy men and woman of the Old Testament, they did not know of Baptism, so they also could not have a desire for it. Not all of them shed their blood for Christ. But they are saved under a totally different dispensation, that of circumcision and the Mosaic law. They have to wait in the Abode of the Dead until Christ completes His salvific sacrififice. When Jesus enters this abode, on the day of His death, it will become Paradise, and the righteous who are there will raise up with Him on the third day.

Jesus told the Good Thief that: you will be with me tonight in Paradise. Thus, the Good Thief was not Baptized, but saved under the Old Law.

Whether or not all men currently in Heaven have been Baptized depends on whether the holy men and women of the Old Testament are miraculously Baptized with real and natural water after their deaths. I don’t know.

The necessity of Baptism applies absolutely after Christ made it binding, subsequent to His Ressurection, so before that commission no “exception” was required; the Old Law was required. The Old Law now avails us nothing, because it has been fulfilled and completed in Christ.

Anyway, that is my basic understanding.

 

[rogergosselin]

Scripture is silent on this. So those who say, definitively, “The Good Thief went to heaven without being baptized” are adding to Scripture.

Similarly, those who say, definitively, “The Good Thief was baptized!” are adding to Scripture.

We simply do not know. Thus, it is* an option* to say “He was baptized” or “He wasn’t baptized”, as both are entirely possible, given the silence of Scripture on this.

I think you might be correct in this, and I was wrong in a previous post.

There I stated that the Good Thief was not Baptized, because he had to wait in the Abode of the Dead (also called the Limbo of the Fathers) along with the Holy Innocents of the Old Testament. But now I suppose’ anyone who was saved through Baptism during Christ’s three year ministry would also have to wait there until the Ressurection.

 

[marymary1975]

I think the Good Thief story does give insight to this topic, after all.

I don’t know of any magisterial statements that contadict the absoluteness of the necessity of Sacramental Baptism, either. If so, it is forbidden to claim that someone is saved through blood or desire, after Jesus committed his disciples to go out and Baptize. That would be a contradiction.

I am not completely clear on the following and do invite corrections, but in regards to the holy men and woman of the Old Testament, they did not know of Baptism, so they also could not have a desire for it. Not all of them shed their blood for Christ. But they are saved under a totally different dispensation, that of circumcision and the Mosaic law. They have to wait in the Abode of the Dead until Christ completes His salvific sacrififice. When Jesus enters this abode, on the day of His death, it will become Paradise, and the righteous who are there will raise up with Him on the third day.

Jesus told the Good Thief that: you will be with me tonight in Paradise. Thus, the Good Thief was not Baptized, but saved under the Old Law.

Whether or not all men currently in Heaven have been Baptized depends on whether the holy men and women of the Old Testament are miraculously Baptized with real and natural water after their deaths. I don’t know.

The necessity of Baptism applies absolutely after Christ made it binding, subsequent to His Ressurection, so before that commission no “exception” was required; the Old Law was required. The Old Law now avails us nothing, because it has been fulfilled and completed in Christ.

Anyway, that is my basic understanding.

I don’t think is a good idea to look at the OT in this matter for the simple reason that in the OT and any time before Jesus entered in heaven right after his death, Heaven was closed for everyone. No one could go into heaven so there is no point in baptism in the OT because heaven is close. It is not until Jesus himself opens the doors of heaven for human that baptism becomes relevant.

Again all this is just speculation because this is something that has not been revealed to us. The only one that knows is Jesus and he didn’t reveal that so all we can do is trust that he is fair and just.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

How do you propose we do this? There must be water, sprinkled or poured, for it to be a valid baptism. And chrism as well.

On Mom’s belly of course .

Well, that’s why I think there ought to be an urgency to getting our infants baptized.

I agree.

Not really. I think you are trying to create some sort of dilemma where none exists.

How can you say there is no dilemma, when a couple of posts before you said that we are born without sanctifying grace.

When I posted this:

If we [all] inherited the loss of sanctifying grace, I can only conclude that all conceptions are hell bound until a means of sanctifying grace is installed. For without it, it is impossible to enter heaven. I mean, after all that’s why we baptize infants.

You agreed. And still you see no dilemma in millions of souls going to hell I don’t even know what to say to that. This actually endorses double predestination. That soul through no fault of its own will go to hell just because the parents obeyed a command.

This is a nonsequitur.

See above. By the way, non-sequitur does come from “sequitur” which is the conclusion of an inference. An inference is the process of reaching a conclusion about something from known facts.

In the inference I posted, I presented that we are commanded to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 9 - which I see no evidence of having being cancelled). The mean for being fruitful and multiply is conceiving. If, like you presented, we are conceived without sanctifying grace until we are baptized. Then, like you agreed, those souls that perish before baptism and are not baptized after birth through no fault of their own (since you made no exceptions and presented an absolute) are then lacking sanctifying grace to go to heaven. I can only conclude that they go to hell.

In short, the conclusion of what you have said is:

Conception = hell until baptism.

How you reached a non-sequitur is beyond my analytical capabilities.

We couldn’t say he was merciful unless he offered us some way to be redeemed…

and, yet! He did!

For those that are baptized.

However, what you are saying is that unborn babies lack sanctifying grace and therefore go to hell. For how can you enter heaven without sanctifying grace?

 

[rogergosselin]

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?

It is important to note that this is not a magisterial teaching. Quanto Conficiamur Moerore and Singulari Quadem are letters to cardinals, not addressed to all the faithful, and thus not infallible.

Nevertheless, it is beneficial to consider what Pope Piux IX has to say on the issue. From what I gather from exerpts from these letters, the Pope is addressing the invincibly ignorant. He states that "We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion AND WHO ZEALOUSLY KEEPING THE NATURAL LAW AND ITS PRECEPTS ENGRAVED IN THE HEARTS OF ALL BY GOD, AND BEING READY TO OBEY GOD, LIVE AN HONEST AND UPRIGHT LIFE, can, by the OPERATING POWER OF DIVINE LIGHT AND GRACE, attain eternal life since God…will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.”

However, as other Popes, and St. Thomas Aquinas, have stated, God will bring the truth to such men of good will and bring them the opportunity for Baptism. Pope Pius IX did not state they can be saved in their present condition, as witness below:

Pope Pius IX,Singulari Quadem: “For, in truth,when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”

 

[PRmerger]

On Mom’s belly of course .

Then mom is getting baptized, not baby. (And if she’s already been baptized, all she’s getting is wet.)

There is no way to baptize a baby at the moment we know of its existence, so the question is an absurd question which you posed.

 

[PRmerger]

And still you see no dilemma in millions of souls going to hell

It would be if we believed the millions of souls go to hell.

Do you have any Church teaching which states that?

Nope?

Then there is no dilemma.

 

[PRmerger]

However, what you are saying is that unborn babies lack sanctifying grace and therefore go to hell.

Nope.

I said we deserve hell.

Not that we’re going there if we’re unbaptized.

 

[rinnie]

No one can know for certainty, but I would hope so. The miscarried children and unbaptized, I can only hope, have a place in heaven and will grow older. The same for aborted children. Their mothers, hopefully, will have deeply regretted “giving them up,” while their true murderers, the abortionists, will burn in hell and hear their screaming cries for all eternity.

Or quite possibly will be granted mercy by Christ and serve their time in Purgatory with regret and unbelievable pain and remorse for what they did.

We as Christians have to believe God will forgive all sin, no matter how horrid they may be.

Although in our human minds we cannot find in in our hearts to grant mercy, we must remember we cannot judge, or know the mind of God.

The best we can do on this earth is pray that somehow these people will find a change of heart and truly understand the horrible damage they are doing.

 

[meltzerboy]

Nope.

I said we deserve hell.

Not that we’re going there if we’re unbaptized.

Do Catholics believe that a person, particularly an infant or, even more so, an unborn infant, through no fault of their own and not having committed any (knowable) sin, DESERVES to go to hell due only to having inherited original sin? IOW, the sins of the fathers (and mothers) are automatically revisited on their children? If so, does this not seem to convey the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law?

 

[PRmerger]

Do Catholics believe that a person, particularly an infant or, even more so, an unborn infant, through no fault of their own and not having committed any (knowable) sin, DESERVES to go to hell due only to having inherited original sin?

Yes, meltzerboy. The CC believes that not a single person (save 1) deserves heaven. Only those who are pure, with God’s sanctifying grace infused in their soul, can enter heaven.

IOW, the sins of the fathers (and mothers) are automatically revisited on their children? If so, does this not seem to convey the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law?

No. The sins of the parents are not automatically revisited on their children.

However, the effects of their sins are indeed revisited upon their children.

And that’s quite logical. Consequential. Natural.

We see that in other areas–if parents receive an inheritance, and then squander it…the natural effects of their sin (extravagant spending) is limned in their children’s subsequent poverty.

 

[Tomyris]

Yes, meltzerboy. The CC believes that not a single person (save 1) deserves heaven. Only those who are pure, with God’s sanctifying grace infused in their soul, can enter heaven.

No. The sins of the parents are not automatically revisited on their children.

However, the effects of their sins are indeed revisited upon their children.

And that’s quite logical. Consequential. Natural.

We see that in other areas–if parents receive an inheritance, and then squander it…the natural effects of their sin (extravagant spending) is limned in their children’s subsequent poverty.

As usual I find your posts lucid, intelligent, knowledgeable and charitable, and I am in agreement with most of what I’ve read on this thread that you’ve posted.

I would say we don’t have an absolute knowledge one way or the other. Where God has chosen to be silent we must follow. BUT there are a few things we do know that we can use to “bracket” the issue.

1. God is perfect love and justice. Whatever He does with this issue, then, is not something we can cite as an infringement on either.
2. God does save some, others he allows to perish. I also think of Esau and Jacob in Romans 9, where Esau was in trouble even before he was born.

I don’t think we can say either that all unbaptized babies go to heaven, or that all perish. We can say we don’t know, and be comforted with understanding my point 1.