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

[PRmerger]

Right. That **is **a far cry from saying they **deserve **hell, is it not?

You believe that a human creature, simply by being born (or even just conceived), deserves heaven?

 

[UbiCaritas]

A comment I’ve read several times on this thread, how a baby is so much more deserving of heaven than any of us who have committed actual sin. What about the children who are brought up to hate and kill, would God be more merciful to have allowed them to die at birth. We know there is always hope of repentance, but I wouldn’t think it would be easy in such a situation. What about all the children born into homes that their parents don’t teach them about God, or right from wrong. Even my own children, if I truly loved my children should I not have prayed that they lived long enough that I could hold them, nurture them, and watch them grow. If my children that died in the womb, automatically made it to heaven, and the ones that live may reject God, should I not have prayed that they survived? I often wondered if I was being selfish in my prayers when I begged God to allow my children to live.

This might not make sense to anyone, but it is the thought process I’ve gone through wondering about my children. This is one reason why I believe there still must be some sort of freewill involved with infants. Of course, it’s just my opinion, and I may be way off.

Actually, the late, great Fr. John Hardon had a similar idea. He theorized–and this was an idea of his, not an official teaching–that at the moment of every person’s death, no matter who, when or where, Christ would appear to them and offer His hand in friendship, for them to choose to follow Him (ie, perfect contrition for past sins) or not (ie, persistence in sin). I had never thought of this as applying to those below the age of understanding, but it really would make perfect sense.

PRMerger, as far as extending your question to adults, my point was that adults have the ability to commit actual sin, so there are many variables (arguably, as many variables as there are human beings) pertaining to adult souls. By the same token, there aren’t any variables to the lives of miscarried babies, who are created, live for a time in a place where baptism isn’t possible, and then die in that same place, having committed no actual sin.

Isaiah: indeed. Miscarried babies are actually the precise reason that I hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants, and believe that they are, indeed, almost certainly in Heaven. It makes no logical sense for God to create beings for the sole purpose of eternal suffering.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You believe that a human creature, simply by being born (or even just conceived), deserves heaven?

A human creature (Read unborn babies and infants) doesn’t deserve heaven inasmuch as it doesn’t deserve hell.

To **deserve **is to do something that grants a reward or a punishment. We know not one of us can deserve heaven.

Quid pro quo.

Do you believe that unborn babies and infants deserve hell?

 

[PRmerger]

We know not one of us can deserve heaven.

Right. Not even sweet little babies.

Do you believe that unborn babies and infants deserve hell?

Yes. “Deserve”. In quotation marks.

Only as a corollary to the truth as you so rightly proclaimed above in bold.

 

[Robyn_p]

Right. Not even sweet little babies.

Yes. “Deserve”. In quotation marks.

Only as a corollary to the truth as you so rightly proclaimed above in bold.

Just wondering, why can’t we say both? That while a human being doesn’t deserve heaven simply for being born, it doesn’t automatically deserve hell either. (And when I say hell, I mean the place where damned souls that reject God are punished for all eternity.) Isn’t that why the theory of limbo originated? A sort of in-between state?

I can see how it would be just of God to send an unbaptized infant to limbo, since He doesn’t owe heaven to anyone. But I can’t really see how it would be just to send it to hell. (Again by ‘‘hell’’ I mean the place of the damned.)

 

[PRmerger]

Just wondering, why can’t we say both? That while a human being doesn’t deserve heaven simply for being born, it doesn’t automatically deserve hell either. (And when I say hell, I mean the place where damned souls that reject God are punished for all eternity.) Isn’t that why the theory of limbo originated? A sort of in-between state?

I can see how it would be just of God to send an unbaptized infant to limbo, since He doesn’t owe heaven to anyone. But I can’t really see how it would be just to send it to hell. (Again by ‘‘hell’’ I mean the place of the damned.)

Yep. Egg-zactly.

We need sanctifying grace to enter heaven.
We don’t have sanctifying grace at the moment of our conception, thanks to Original Sin.

And that’s why I stick with the Church and say: we can hope for the salvation of unbaptized babies…but, in the end, we don’t know what happens to them.

Remember: the Bible doesn’t tell us their fate.

God has chosen not to reveal this fact to us.

 

[Peter_J]

Actually, the late, great Fr. John Hardon had a similar idea. He theorized–and this was an idea of his, not an official teaching–that at the moment of every person’s death, no matter who, when or where, Christ would appear to them and offer His hand in friendship, for them to choose to follow Him (ie, perfect contrition for past sins) or not (ie, persistence in sin).

I don’t have a problem with that, but why does it have to be just that moment? I mean, why couldn’t it continue after his/her moment of death?

 

[rogergosselin]

And that’s why I stick with the Church and say: we can hope for the salvation of unbaptized babies…but, in the end, we don’t know what happens to them.
Remember: the Bible doesn’t tell us their fate.
God has chosen not to reveal this fact to us.

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.

I find it distressing that some seem to be avoiding the issue of the fate of aborted babies by claiming that we do not know, or “it has not been revealed”. PRmerger, I am not clear if you are actually engaging in such avoidance, because elsewhere you seem to solidly uphold Catholic teaching.

It has been revealed, and Limbo is official Catholic teaching:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,“Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

I have seen other Papal proclamations concerning Limbo, but would have to perform more research to find them.

Pope Pius VI confirms that in the end there is only Heaven and Hell, no middle ground (Purgatory is a third realm, but is temporal and temporary). It will come to an end.

Limbo is a part of Hell, but on the outer edge of that realm. The souls there suffer deprevation from the beatific vision (as we also do now, on Earth), but do not suffer the flames of Hell, which is punishment for actual sin.

The former, we are bound to believe. To deny that it is revealed is to deny the Author of Truth.

Barring other magisterial teachings, of which I am not aware, and would appreciate further edification, we are free to speculate on how happy the souls in Limbo can be. I saw a previous post in this thread to that effect, and it did provide me some consolation.

 

[meltzerboy]

I find it distressing that some seem to be avoiding the issue of the fate of aborted babies by claiming that we do not know, or “it has not been revealed”. PRmerger, I am not clear if you are actually engaging in such avoidance, because elsewhere you seem to solidly uphold Catholic teaching.

It has been revealed, and Limbo is official Catholic teaching:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,“Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

I have seen other Papal proclamations concerning Limbo, but would have to perform more research to find them.

Pope Pius VI confirms that in the end there is only Heaven and Hell, no middle ground (Purgatory is a third realm, but is temporal and temporary). It will come to an end.

Limbo is a part of Hell, but on the outer edge of that realm. The souls there suffer deprevation from the beatific vision (as we also do now, on Earth), but do not suffer the flames of Hell, which is punishment for actual sin.

The former, we are bound to believe. To deny that it is revealed is to deny the Author of Truth.

Barring other magisterial teachings, of which I am not aware, and would appreciate further edification, we are free to speculate on how happy the souls in Limbo can be. I saw a previous post in this thread to that effect, and it did provide me some consolation.

There still seems to be some confusion regarding whether the place or state called Limbo is or is not official Catholic teaching as endorsed by the Church. Also, as long as you brought it up, is the notion of “flames of Hell” official Church teaching?

 

[PRmerger]

I find it distressing that some seem to be avoiding the issue of the fate of aborted babies by claiming that we do not know, or “it has not been revealed”. PRmerger, I am not clear if you are actually engaging in such avoidance, because elsewhere you seem to solidly uphold Catholic teaching.

It has been revealed, and Limbo is official Catholic teaching:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,“Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

I have seen other Papal proclamations concerning Limbo, but would have to perform more research to find them.

Pope Pius VI confirms that in the end there is only Heaven and Hell, no middle ground (Purgatory is a third realm, but is temporal and temporary). It will come to an end.

Limbo is a part of Hell, but on the outer edge of that realm. The souls there suffer deprevation from the beatific vision (as we also do now, on Earth), but do not suffer the flames of Hell, which is punishment for actual sin.

The former, we are bound to believe. To deny that it is revealed is to deny the Author of Truth.

Barring other magisterial teachings, of which I am not aware, and would appreciate further edification, we are free to speculate on how happy the souls in Limbo can be. I saw a previous post in this thread to that effect, and it did provide me some consolation.

No, Limbo is NOT official church teaching. It is theological speculation.

 

[PRmerger]

No, Limbo is NOT official church teaching. It is theological speculation.

“The idea of Limbo, which the Church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without Baptism,** has no clear foundation in revelation,** even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching”. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[PRmerger]

It has been revealed, and Limbo is official Catholic teaching:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,“Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

"As for the expression “Limbo of Infants”, it was forged at the turn of the 12th-13th century to name the “resting place” of such infants (the “border” of the inferior region). Theologians could discuss this question, however, without using the word “Limbo”. Their doctrines should not be confused with the use of the word “Limbo”.–ibid

 

[irenaeuslyons]

We don’t have definite knowledge but we can hope.

• "Your faith spoke for this child. Baptism for this child was only delayed by time. Your faith suffices. The waters of your womb — were they not the waters of life for this child? Look at your tears. Are they not like the waters of baptism? Do not fear this. God’s ability to love is greater than our fears. Surrender everything to God.”*
  St. Bernard of Clairvaux

 

[onenow1]

I hear this line of reasoning a lot, and I have to admit that it is very attractive. It is hard to imagine a merciful God allowing slaughtered innocents to be lost for eternity.

There are many truths that I don’t understand, but have to accept, because they are revealed. For instance, I struggle with how I could truly be happy in Heaven, if it were to be that my wife, or one of my five children, or one of my eight brothers and sisters descended into Hell. Yet, that is a possibility; many of my siblings have left the Church.

HI Roger

In church yesterday watching the people come back from communion, I looked at all the faces and realized all the accumulative knowledge; I could not but recognize Jesus in their faces. From here I cannot see heaven but I know we have not seen God’s ultimate beauty in His creation also the knowledge He has waiting for us to have.

God Bless

 

[rogergosselin]

There still seems to be some confusion regarding whether the place or state called Limbo is or is not official Catholic teaching as endorsed by the Church. Also, as long as you brought it up, is the notion of “flames of Hell” official Church teaching?

These are Ex Cathedra statements. Remeber, Catholics are bound not only to believe, but to actively profess dogmas of the Church. Where is the confusion about Limbo?

Is it the teaching of eternal punishment for sin, or the exact phrase “flames of Hell” that you question as official Church teaching? Here is what I just found with a quick random search:

Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431:
"… all heretics corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame.

 

[dronald]

Actually, I need go no further.

It’s a kind of weird assertion that is being made by dronald that Sts. Augustine and Ambrose would be creating a god in one’s own image for proclaiming that the unbaptized cannot be “vivified in Christ”.

That’s kind of the OPPOSITE of creating a god in one’s own image, right?

I mean, if I were going to make up some rules, I certainly wouldn’t make it HARDER to get to heaven.

What dronald is asserting is kind of like saying: my teenagers made up their own rules and they say that they want to be grounded for a month for not unloading the dishwasher.

Rather, what would be more logical would be: my teenagers made up their own rules and they said that they have to go on a cruise because they didn’t unload the dishwasher.

My question is, how could this be so easily taught if it wasn’t true? The problem is Ambrose doesn’t treat it as ‘opinion’.

While I think you’re ultimately right and dronald is misreading the fathers here… if he only finds those two, they’re a heckuva two to find. Let’s not fall into a goofy numbers game, let’s look at the text and its context:

Here Augustine is correcting the errors of Vincentius Victor. This particular passage is simply explaining how Original Sin (which VV effectively denied) absolutely corrupts the human being from the very moment of conception. He even, rightly, quotes from Romans. But dronald is reading more than what Augustine is writing. All Augustine has noted is that however God decides to judge, He does so justly. Frankly, we all deserve eternal punishment. We admit as much every time we confess our sins in the confessional or at Mass. But take care; Augustine is not saying that God would not or could not have mercy on the unborn in a similar way that He sent His Son for us. He is only insisting on the Truth: that only one means of redemption has been revealed to humankind, and that means begins with one baptism for the remission of sins. Can we decisively state that infants go to Heaven? No. Can we decisively state that infants go to Hell? No. Can we state that we have a just, yet loving and merciful, God who desires the redemption of His Creation? With great trust in His promises, we do.

I haven’t taken anything out of context. If you read the link I posted it comes right from New Advent.

 

[dronald]

I guess it just seems odd (to me, as a Jew) to say that we deserve divine punishment just as our human nature, body and spirit, is being created by G-d, through our parents, in His image and likeness.

I want to dive deeper into this…

Assuming the Catholic position is correct, shouldn’t the Jews know about it? Do Jews have the same concept of original sin in Babies, and why not? Their tradition has existed for quite a while, shouldn’t they have similar beliefs?

It has been revealed, and Limbo is official Catholic teaching:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,“Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.

This is what I’ve been getting at. The CC will not ever make a statement like this ever again. Whatever happened to this sort of boldness?

Were these men out to lunch?

 

[PRmerger]

I haven’t taken anything out of context. If you read the link I posted it comes right from New Advent.

That’s a nonsequitur.

People can take things out of context yet still post a link. One doesn’t negate the other.

 

[benjohnson]

Reading your last posts, I agree. Scripture does lead us to a faith in God, and thus with a moral certainty that He is a God of greater mercy than we can know. How can we even consider doubting the mercy of the God of John 3:16?

Yet, for Catholics, this is not something we believe to be revealed with absolute certainty.

For Lutherans too I think - we can’t proclaim with certainty what God will do specifically for these children, but we can proclaim with absolute certainty God’s love, justice, and mercy for all of us.

I think the whole idea of Limbo is an intellectual way of reconciling our own lack of understanding of the nature of God. Oh, and thank you for bouncing this back and forth with me.

Agreed!

In my opinion, no Lutheran should every chastise a Catholic who finds solace in the old teaching of Limbo - for while the specifics may be doubted, the love of Christ that is embodied in the idea of Limbo of the Infants is evident in abundance.

Pnewton - I enjoy your steadfastly Catholic contributions to this forum and even though we don’t interact a lot, you’ve been a solid part of my faith-formation over the last few years.

 

[benjohnson]

Do you believe that unborn babies and infants deserve hell?

I really hate to say it - but yes, we all deserve hell.

Our own best reasoning in the sciences indicate that we all become nothing in the grave. It’s only in the hope of Christ that we can escape the nothingness that is our fate from the time we’re conceived.

I dearly wish that we could share some specific revelation with mothers and fathers who mourn, but we have a much more powerful revelation to proclaim- that of our shared hope with those that were unborn. That Christ alone will judge us. And, that He is both Justice and Mercy.