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

[PRmerger]

Well, I guess that’s it, then. I’m no longer Catholic: I am sundered from the Church.

I cannot hold or accept a Feeneyite view of salvation, that reduces the sacrament of Baptism to a magic spell that prevents God from exercising His own power to save as He desires.

I mean, how do I even know I’m baptized, myself? I mean, I could work my behind off to love the Lord my God with all my heart and strength and mind, and love my neighbour as myself, and even die a martyr for my faith: only to end up at the Judgement and have God say, “Y’know, John, kudos on the effort down there! But it turns out that Fr O’Malley, the priest who ‘baptized’ you, withheld his intent at the time (he was having some issues), so unfortunately, it didn’t ‘take’…I’d love to save you, but, sorry, what can I do? My Hands are tied. Go to Hell.”

So where do I go now?

That is the position espoused by some here.

But let me assure you that the above is NOT the Catholic position. Baptism by desire/blood is, most assuredly, a teaching of our faith, John.

 

[dronald]

Well, I guess that’s it, then. I’m no longer Catholic: I am sundered from the Church.

I cannot hold or accept a Feeneyite view of salvation, that reduces the sacrament of Baptism to a magic spell that prevents God from exercising His own power to save as He desires.

I mean, how do I even know I’m baptized, myself? I mean, I could work my behind off to love the Lord my God with all my heart and strength and mind, and love my neighbour as myself, and even die a martyr for my faith: only to end up at the Judgement and have God say, “Y’know, John, kudos on the effort down there! But it turns out that Fr O’Malley, the priest who ‘baptized’ you, withheld his intent at the time (he was having some issues), so unfortunately, it didn’t ‘take’…I’d love to save you, but, sorry, what can I do? My Hands are tied. Go to Hell.”

So where do I go now?

Come hang out with us!

In all seriousness though, I think that the CC really is moving away from the idea that it’s possible an infant won’t go to Heaven without Baptism. They’re taking baby steps, but are certainly toning down the strong language they once held in the past. I love reading past documents on what the CC used to say about Islam, Protestants and babies and compare to how much more open and accepting it is of everything now. I guess you could call that the Church ‘evolving’?

In conclusion I will say however, that if you read the Bible; you’ll find nothing of Jesus or anyone else spreading this idea that babies could possibly go anywhere else but Heaven. I would actually say the opposite is quite prevalent in the Bible, both old and new Testament. I don’t know if you had a chance to look at some of the past passages I posted?

 

[religioussoup]

Absolutely. My baby cousin had leukemia and was never baptized, and he was never going to be since my uncle and aunt are not religious. I have never doubted for a second that he’s in heaven right now.

 

[PRmerger]

Absolutely. My baby cousin had leukemia and was never baptized, and he was never going to be since my uncle and aunt are not religious. I have never doubted for a second that he’s in heaven right now.

We can certainly hope and pray he’s in heaven right now!

 

[dronald]

Absolutely. My baby cousin had leukemia and was never baptized, and he was never going to be since my uncle and aunt are not religious. I have never doubted for a second that he’s in heaven right now.

I’m so sorry to hear that.

He is absolutely in Jesus’s loving arms now.

 

[rcwitness]

I’m so sorry to hear that.

He is absolutely in Jesus’s loving arms now.

The Church has never been able to say with certainty that anyone without the evident fruits of Jesus is in Heaven. Nor has She said children are incapable of receiving the Holy Spirit.

The Church simply says that she hopefull in His great mercy that this child is received in Him. We know that men are born in the state of needing the Lord’s grace and forgiveness. Baptism brings this grace personally to us, whether as an Infant order adult. But reception of that grace is neither guaranted our known by the Church, unless fuits of conversion are evident.

So if someone wants to use the fact that God has not revealed the final judgement of all babies in order to deny the faith, that is their foolishness.

 

[PRmerger]

So if someone wants to use the fact that God has not revealed the final judgement of all babies in order to deny the faith, that is their foolishness.

It is an example of creating a god in one’s own image.

If we have a god that never disagrees with our own palates, ideations, constructs, then we are essentially worshipping the god of the Almighty Self.

 

[bloodfang]

**** no. All babies go to ****ing hell you little ****. I HOPE YOU DIE AND GO To ****ING HELL WITH YOUR LITTLE BABY FRIENDS. YOUD LIKE THAT, pedophile.

also babies havent been given a chance to discrimate against faggots yet and carry out the sacred mission of GOD and have you seen cherubs? yea **** you gay cherub

 

[Peter_J]

I’ve seen this Timothy Keller partial quote (“If your god never disagrees with you, you might just be worshiping an idealized version of yourself.”)

Interesting quote.

However, I think you’d find yourself in a bit of a Catch-22: if you see yourself and God disagreeing on something, than wouldn’t that make you arrogant?

 

[Peter_J]

.

 

[Peter_J]

This thread is interesting. It’s interesting to note how many different views coexist within the Catholic tent. We’ve seen Catholics say that one pope’s words qualify as ex cathedra, while another Catholic says they don’t, that a given council was authoritative and essentially infallible, and another that it wasn’t — yet all these views are Catholic. Out of curiosity, is it possible for a Catholic to hold that councils and popes can err? How is a Catholic supposed to know the difference between and infallible statement and an errant one, if later popes and councils seemingly contradict?

I don’t know how well-read you are on the works of Carla Tortelli, but I think this one quote might help with your question: “This ain’t a religion for sissies.”

 

[rogergosselin]

Well, I guess that’s it, then. I’m no longer Catholic: I am sundered from the Church.

I cannot hold or accept a Feeneyite view of salvation, that reduces the sacrament of Baptism to a magic spell that prevents God from exercising His own power to save as He desires.

I mean, how do I even know I’m baptized, myself? I mean, I could work my behind off to love the Lord my God with all my heart and strength and mind, and love my neighbour as myself, and even die a martyr for my faith: only to end up at the Judgement and have God say, “Y’know, John, kudos on the effort down there! But it turns out that Fr O’Malley, the priest who ‘baptized’ you, withheld his intent at the time (he was having some issues), so unfortunately, it didn’t ‘take’…I’d love to save you, but, sorry, what can I do? My Hands are tied. Go to Hell.”

So where do I go now?

If I understand you correctly, you are addressing the principal that a valid Sacrament requires correct matter, form, minister, and intent. (I believe that Baptism is considered so essential that any person is acceptable as minister. So, for instance, a Muslim who performs an emergency Baptism, say as a favor for a Catholic friend, as long as he is doing what the Church intends, that Baptism is valid). But, what if Fr. O’Malley withheld his intent? Doesn’t this example indicate that our Salvation is simply left up to the vagaries of fate?

First off, I would posit that the Fr. O’Malley case, as well as the friendly Muslim, while both possible, are both highly unlikely, and would have occurred infrequently in History.

Nevertheless, St Thomas, I think, does deal directly with the idea that our Salvation might be left open to blind fate:
St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection- “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith. St. Thomas replies- It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”
So, God knows the heart. He will provide even in circumstances of invincible ignorance, either through natural means or miraculously, if that be His will. Likewise, He would not allow that fault of Fr. O’Malley to rob Salvation from one of His elect.

My simple faith, (simple, though well informed by St. Thomas), is that the Savior simply would not allow the scenario you fear, as long as you are a man of good will.

Keep the Faith!

 

[rogergosselin]

You might just as well have underlined the first use of the word UNDERSTANDING in this ex cathedra statement. There is no guarantee that the initial understanding is easy or does not require deep reflection. No need, therefore, to worry about deeper understanding.

What you really need to interpret these ex cathedra proclamations is a Talmudic scholar.

Oy vey ist mir!

 

[rogergosselin]

Absolutely. My baby cousin had leukemia and was never baptized, and he was never going to be since my uncle and aunt are not religious. I have never doubted for a second that he’s in heaven right now.

I feel for you. I am the oldest of nine children. My youngest brother died recently of Heroin addiction. He had not been attending Church.

Remember: “God knew you before you were knit in your mother’s womb” (paraphrase - Isaiah, I believe). He loves your cousin, and knows beforehand of your cousin’s good will. We know of many instances of miraculous baptisms in history and are told that even an angel can Baptize. So, trust in your Heavenly Father, Pray for your cousin. God knows what to do with those prayers.

 

[rogergosselin]

Absolutely. My baby cousin had leukemia and was never baptized, and he was never going to be since my uncle and aunt are not religious. I have never doubted for a second that he’s in heaven right now.

Please, I am sorry. I am probably spamming this thread too much. I feel that I have offended some well-meaning people. I endeavor to profess the Faith on an intellectual level, but in my personal life, I am a grave sinner.

But, right now, I cannot get your cousin off my mind.

For what it is worth, I will dedicate a decade of my rosary, tonight, to your cousin, to you, to your family, and to all who have suffered the loss of one of the Father’s great creations before even being able to know them.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Council of Florence is a dogmatic council, just as is Trent. I’ve never heard the claim that Florence was not infallible. Can you elaborate?

Can you also cite the document that you are referring to from Pope Pius VI? It should be straightforward enough to determine if it meets the criteria enumerated in Vatican I to determine infallibility;i.e., 1) does it address all the faithful on a matter of faith or morals, 2) does it do so in the capacity of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, 3) does it use solemn language indicating dogma?

The Council of Florence taught infallibly. They simply did not specifically teach the existence of a limbo of Hell or that infants go there.

The Council of Florence: “But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”

The teaching of unequal punishments supports the idea of a distinct part of Hell (its limbo or fringe). But that term is not explicitly used. And nothing is said of infants.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, n. 26.
“that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of 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…”

The Pontiff says that the faithful call it “the limbo of children”, but he makes no assertion that children go there.

So there is no infallible teaching that the limbo of Hell exists, but I would say it is implied by the different punishments for those who die in original sin alone. Even so, the Magisterium has never infallibly taught that unbaptized infants go there. The CCC says we may hope for their salvation (n. 1261).

 

[PRmerger]

The Council of Florence taught infallibly. They simply did not specifically teach the existence of a limbo of Hell or that infants go there.

The Council of Florence: “But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”

The teaching of unequal punishments supports the idea of a distinct part of Hell (its limbo or fringe). But that term is not explicitly used. And nothing is said of infants.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, n. 26.
“that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of 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…”

The Pontiff says that the faithful call it “the limbo of children”, but he makes no assertion that children go there.

So there is no infallible teaching that the limbo of Hell exists, but I would say it is implied by the different punishments for those who die in original sin alone. Even so, the Magisterium has never infallibly taught that unbaptized infants go there. The CCC says we may hope for their salvation (n. 1261).

Egg-zactly.

This comment, cited below, is erroneous and I urge the Lurkers who were questioning the veracity of the statement to reject what is proclaimed.

**The Popes have infallibly revealed the doctrine of Limbo, **but you deny it based on theological speculation from fallible sources.

It is treacherous for Catholics to profess incorrect things which may lead others away from the One True Church

 

[John_Lazarus]

Please, I am sorry. I am probably spamming this thread too much. I feel that I have offended some well-meaning people. I endeavor to profess the Faith on an intellectual level, but in my personal life, I am a grave sinner.

But, right now, I cannot get your cousin off my mind.

For what it is worth, I will dedicate a decade of my rosary, tonight, to your cousin, to you, to your family, and to all who have suffered the loss of one of the Father’s great creations before even being able to know them.

What good is that going to do, if as you and Pope Eugene say, without physical baptism it’s straight to hell?

 

[religioussoup]

Please, I am sorry. I am probably spamming this thread too much. I feel that I have offended some well-meaning people. I endeavor to profess the Faith on an intellectual level, but in my personal life, I am a grave sinner.

But, right now, I cannot get your cousin off my mind.

For what it is worth, I will dedicate a decade of my rosary, tonight, to your cousin, to you, to your family, and to all who have suffered the loss of one of the Father’s great creations before even being able to know them.

That is so considerate, rogergosselin. It was many years ago, and we don’t really ever mourn for him, because we know that he is in a much better place. He suffered a lot here on earth, during the one year that he lived. There is absolutely no way that God would punish an ill baby just because he was never baptized. God is a hero. He saved my cousin from suffering on earth. Your dedicated rosary is so special. Peace be with you.

 

[PRmerger]

God is a hero.

Not that I disagree with you, soup, but where do you get the idea that “God is a hero”?