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

[PRmerger]

I know I’ve looked - there are small lists of infallible pronouncements from the Chair of St. Peter concerning dogma, but I’ve been unable to find a comprehensive list from that Vatican on a lot of the smaller issues like Limbo of the Infants.

It leads to confusion - but I understand why such a list would be extremely difficult to produce.

Yeah. It would be like asking scientists to produce a list of all the scientific truths that have been discovered.

 

[Joe_5859]

As I understand it, the best interpretation of “no salvation outside the Church” is that whoever is saved receives salvation, whether they know it or not, through the Church by means of the mystery of G-d’s mercy. The proclamation does NOT mean that people must be Catholic to be saved.

With regard to the Sacrament of Baptism, therefore, it would stand to reason that the mercy of G-d can also apply to those Catholics (and non-Catholics) who were not baptized. G-d is NOT bound by the Sacraments even though people are.

Think for a moment what it would mean according to the other interpretation. It would mean that G-d cannot show mercy because He is limited to the rules that He Himself instituted. It would also mean that infants, through no fault of their own, are being punished by G-d because they have not obeyed the rules of the Church, despite their not having any choice in the matter. Therefore, not only would there be a lack of mercy on the part of G-d, but a lack of justice as well.

You have a better grasp of what the Church teaches than many Catholics, meltzerboy.

 

[rcwitness]

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 would not say its right to say for certain that anyone is saved or damned, on account of substituting ourselves for the judge of man.

I would say that I have personal hope that babies are much more inclined to receive God´s grace than those who have been subjected to the temptations in this life. Either way, I tend to believe that babies are able to believe and have trust in their creator in the basic, fundamental ways that a baby sees and hopes.

Im not one who believes that any unbaptized person does not possess any grace at all since there is a natural law written into the nature of man. A state of saving grace comes along with Baptism and in cases where there is no fault of the person for not receiving Baptism, there is the desire for baptism.

 

[rogergosselin]

As far as limbo being infallibly professed…
Pope Benedict XVI, while still a cardinal and speaking as a theologian, stated:
“Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally—and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation—I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism. To put it in the words of Jesus to Nicodemus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5). One should not hesitate to give up the idea of “limbo” if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed “limbo” also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be.” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report (1985), pp. 147-148)
]

So, do you believe the de fide statement of Pope Pius VI (post #244), or the personal theological opinion of Benedict XVI before he was elected pope?

 

[rcwitness]

So, do you believe the de fide statement of Pope Pius VI (post #244), or the personal theological opinion of Benedict XVI before he was elected pope?

You are assuming that a baby cannot possess the desire of baptism and so accepting the removal of original sin. Or at least it seems. Maybe I´m assuming too much?

 

[rogergosselin]

Excuse me, but doesn’t the Church believe that adults, not only infants and children, who are not even Christian, let alone Catholic, can attain heaven if they believe in their own religion and practice what they believe? Maybe it is not easier for them since Catholics, in particular, have the Sacraments, but doesn’t the Church still teach that salvation, while always through Jesus and His Church, is achievable?
If the above is correct, how does it square with the Popes’ purportedly infallible declarations regarding the necessity of Baptism?

It doesn’t square, which is exactly the point. The Popes’ infallible declarations are the authoritative teachings of the Church.

As I understand it, the best interpretation of “no salvation outside the Church” is that … The proclamation does NOT mean that people must be Catholic to be saved.

As far as I can tell, “saved outside the Church, but by (or through) the Church” is a modernist innovation.

I do not wish to be hurtful, but I believe it would be more of an offense to hide the truth from you. You should know that Catholics are bound to believe and profess the following, which is declaired to them authoritatively:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church, outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”

… It would also mean that infants, through no fault of their own, are being punished by G-d because they have not obeyed the rules of the Church, despite their not having any choice in the matter. Therefore, not only would there be a lack of mercy on the part of G-d, but a lack of justice as well.

Those infants baptized by non-Catholic families, are considered as Catholics by the Church, at least until they reach the age of reason. This is a case where invincible ignorance does not condemn a person, as pointed out by Robyn, post 332. That is certainly just and merciful.

 

[rogergosselin]

You are assuming that a baby cannot possess the desire of baptism and so accepting the removal of original sin. Or at least it seems. Maybe I´m assuming too much?

No, you are not assuming too much.

A baby, not fully developed intellectually, is not capable of understanding the Incarnation and the Trinity, or who Jesus truly is. So that baby cannot explicitly desire baptism.

God in His infinite justice and mercy recognizes the faith of the family to suffice for infant baptism (I suppose, analogously, as His justice demands they we inherit the sin of Adam).

 

[rcwitness]

No, you are not assuming too much.

A baby, not fully developed intellectually, is not capable of understanding the Incarnation and the Trinity, or who Jesus truly is. So that baby cannot explicitly desire baptism.

God in His infinite justice and mercy recognizes the faith of the family to suffice for infant baptism (I suppose, analogously, as His justice demands they we inherit the sin of Adam).

Salvation is not dependent on a certain level of intellect. There are millions of mentally handicapped persons who would be denied even the desire of Baptism.

No, we are judged upon what we know. That must be considered in all situations of those outside a full communion with the Church. The Church was given the source of Salvation. This we know. As for those who are unaware of the Gospel or the understanding of the Incarnation, or the Trinity (which isn´t even the requirement, but assent of faith regarding them), they cannot be held responsible for rejecting it.

And as for Unam Sanctam (and this is my small and limited knowledge on the document), there is much to be taken into consideration. It is a pre reformation document and is more about the political relationship with the secular powers and the Church. It is to those who think that earthly power is above all. It was not intended to pertain to various Christians in an imperfect communion, which do have the saving Gospel given to the one Church.

 

[Per_Crucem]

As far as I can tell, “saved outside the Church, but by (or through) the Church” is a modernist innovation.

I do not wish to be hurtful, but I believe it would be more of an offense to hide the truth from you. You should know that Catholics are bound to believe and profess the following, which is declaired to them authoritatively:

Honesty is always a good thing. Protestants are much more likely to respect Catholics who actually hold to Catholic teaching on these issues. Unfortunately, it’s few and far between nowadays (given the very squishy zeitgeist of the modern age).

 

[meltzerboy]

It doesn’t square, which is exactly the point. The Popes’ infallible declarations are the authoritative teachings of the Church.

As far as I can tell, “saved outside the Church, but by (or through) the Church” is a modernist innovation.

I do not wish to be hurtful, but I believe it would be more of an offense to hide the truth from you. You should know that Catholics are bound to believe and profess the following, which is declaired to them authoritatively:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church, outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”

Those infants baptized by non-Catholic families, are considered as Catholics by the Church, at least until they reach the age of reason. This is a case where invincible ignorance does not condemn a person, as pointed out by Robyn, post 332. That is certainly just and merciful.

The first proclamation, ex cathedra, by Pope Boniface VIII, may still be interpreted as THROUGH the Church ALONE.

The second proclamation, ex cathedra, by Pope Eugene IV, says one must hold the Catholic faith, whole and inviolate, to be saved. But the question still remains as to what the Catholic faith actually SAYS about all the means of salvation. IOW, what IS the whole and inviolate teaching of the Church on this issue?

If, however, you disagree and admit to contradictory statements made by these early Popes compared to modernist Church teaching, you must realize the consequences of this conclusion, namely, that the Pope, ex cathedra, is NOT infallible. I find it slightly amusing that it is I who am defending the Pope’s infallibility by attempting to affirm a consistency in Church proclamations, while you, in your admirable search for the truth, are inadvertently doing the opposite.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The first proclamation, ex cathedra, by Pope Boniface VIII, may still be interpreted as THROUGH the Church ALONE.

The second proclamation, ex cathedra, by Pope Eugene IV, says one must hold the Catholic faith, whole and inviolate, to be saved. But the question still remains as to what the Catholic faith actually SAYS about all the means of salvation. IOW, what IS the whole and inviolate teaching of the Church on this issue?

You are correct. The keywords to consider are: Church, Faith, and Roman Pontiff.

As for the CC stand on Church, the most recent explanation can be found in Dominus Iesus.

As to the Faith, I think the Creed summarizes what the essence of the Faith contains. It can be argued, however, that “De Fide” statements are to be held as well — If we are to maintain the Catholic Faith as a whole and inviolate. In which case, NONE of us can truly do that and it would be the equivalent to attempting at keeping the Law of Moses .

As to the subjection to the Roman Pontiff, well… Roger’s position takes a much stronger stand by Pope Boniface’s declaration. However, the Church still maintains to not hold accountable those who have “invisible ignorance” of these mysteries of divine revelation.

As to infallible declarations… Anything, Anyone says is just an Opinion, until the Church and/or the Pope declares what is or isn’t infallible.

 

[rogergosselin]

Salvation is not dependent on a certain level of intellect. There are millions of mentally handicapped persons who would be denied even the desire of Baptism. .

Agreed. “…those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter ” [Pope Pius IX]. A severely mentally handicapped person would qualify as invincibly ignorant. Scripture and the Church teach the viability of infant baptism based on inheriting the faith of the family and their desire for baptism for their child. I think this would also apply to mentally handicapped persons being baptized later on in life.

. As for those who are unaware of the Gospel or the understanding of the Incarnation, or the Trinity (which isn´t even the requirement, but assent of faith regarding them), they cannot be held responsible for rejecting it. .

Certainly, if they are unaware of the Gospel, through invincible ignorance, they are not held responsible for this ignorance! That is the teaching of Pope Pius IX, discussed in previous posts, on which, I think, we all agree.

But, nor does invincible ignorance save, or else, what would be the point of missionary work? St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the unbaptized invincibly ignorant are not held responsible for not knowing the Faith, but they will die in their other sins.

“Therefore, I said to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.” (John 8:23-24)

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “which isn´t even the requirement, but assent of faith regarding them”, but explicit faith in a few elemental doctrines are required as “a necessity of means” for the Sacraments to be effective in remitting sin:

Pope Benedict XIV, *Cum Religiosi{/I] (# 1), June 26, 1754:
“We could not rejoice, however, when it was subsequently reported to Us that in the course of religious instruction preparatory to Confession and Holy Communion, it was very often found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even those matters which must be known by necessity of means; consequently they were ineligible to partake of the Sacraments.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: “After grace had been revealed,** both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ**, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.”

And from the “Apostle of Love”:

John 3:16:“For God so loved the world, as to give His only begotten Son:*** that whosoever believeth in Him***, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.”

John 3:36: “He that believeth in the Son hath life everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

And as for Unam Sanctam (and this is my small and limited knowledge on the document), there is much to be taken into consideration. It is a pre reformation document and is more about the political relationship with the secular powers and the Church. It is to those who think that earthly power is above all. It was not intended to pertain to various Christians in an imperfect communion, which do have the saving Gospel given to the one Church.

How can you say " It was not intended to pertain to various Christians in an imperfect communion,…"?

Quoting again from Unam Santam (post 341): “we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

So, do you believe that Christians “in imperfect communion” are not human creatures?*

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger, could you please cite where the Church has defined (by definition I mean Magisterial teaching) anything about Baptism of Desire or Blood? I have asked around, and no one has seemed to be able to produce anything.

Instead of asking around and coming up empty, perhaps you should have done the most convenient thing, : consult your Catechism.

It’s available online if you don’t have one.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1258.htm

The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

 

[PRmerger]

So, do you believe the de fide statement of Pope Pius VI (post #244), or the personal theological opinion of Benedict XVI before he was elected pope?

What statement by Pope Pius VI is “de fide”?

 

[clem456]

As to infallible declarations… Anything, Anyone says is just an Opinion, until the Church and/or the Pope declares what is or isn’t infallible.

How do you square what you call “just an opinion” with this:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[clem456]

Instead of asking around and coming up empty, perhaps you should have done the most convenient thing, : consult your Catechism.

It’s available online if you don’t have one.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1258.htm

The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

Yes. The catechism is inconvenient evidently.
None of this is rocket science. It boils down to being docile to the Holy Spirit. Reading, praying, accepting, trusting. Giving the Church our "good faith’, rather than our reflexive doubt.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

How do you square what you call “just an opinion” with this:

No need to square. It still doesn’t say which statements are infallible.

92 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

I actually acknowledge this fact in the adherence to Faith in my reply to Roger.

What the Church says is authoritative without necessarily being infallible.

The only infallible vehicle to declare what is and isn’t infallible is the Church/Pope.

Anything Anyone else says it’s just an Opinion.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes. The catechism is inconvenient evidently.
None of this is rocket science. It boils down to being docile to the Holy Spirit. Reading, praying, accepting, trusting. Giving the Church our "good faith’, rather than our reflexive doubt.

It is good faith to ask and inquire. If that wasn’t the case we would not have had Augustine, Aquinas, Bernard, and many others. Not being afraid to ask the hard questions and use our God given intellect is actually a good thing and it helps defend the faith and grow stronger in it. We can’t be like the lazy servant that didn’t do anything with his talent.

 

[clem456]

It is good faith to ask and inquire. If that wasn’t the case we would not have had Augustine, Aquinas, Bernard, and many others. Not being afraid to ask the hard questions and use our God given intellect is actually a good thing and it helps defend the faith and grow stronger in it. We can’t be like the lazy servant that didn’t do anything with his talent.

When the Church plainly proclaims the faith and we do not even give it a glance, that is not good faith questioning. That is obstinance.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

When the Church plainly proclaims the faith and we do not even give it a glance, that is not good faith questioning. That is obstinance.

That’s an entire new subject and not what we are discussing.

Asking about a matter of faith is done because at the very minimum it has been glanced. At the very best, it has been read and meditated upon.

:tiphat: