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

[religioussoup]

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

By saving us from our sins! How much more heroic can you get?

 

[PRmerger]

By saving us from our sins! How much more heroic can you get?

And where do you get the idea that God saved us from our sins?

 

[rogergosselin]

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

I recently asked a priest, a friend of mine, a similar question. “What good is it to pray for departed individuals, especially those whose lives appeared less than admirable, where their fate may already be sealed?” His simple answer was that “God knows what to do with those prayers”.

Maybe you are concerned, as am I, that such sentiments, to be meaningful, cannot offend the intellect, because God is also Truth.

I am placing my hope in a miraculous Baptism. For the case of a good willed person, born in a remote region, bereft of the Gospel, St. Thomas assures us that the Father would send a missionary, or even an angel, if need be. Admittedly, this would be an exceptional case, occurring infrequently.

I’m not sure how strong is the theological grounds for this idea, but it would seem to me that an angel could also produce real and natural water. After all, we know of angels taking physical form in Genesis, wrestling with Jacob, and seizing the knife from Abraham. So, just for instance, did the child ever awaken from a slumber in what appeared to be a sweat?

It may sound farfetched, but I do believe in miracles. I believe we live in a miracle daily, though some refuse to recognize it.

 

[religioussoup]

And where do you get the idea that God saved us from our sins?

How can I explain this to you? Okay, so God came down as Jesus and said that even though we are all sinners, we can all be forgiven and can make it to heaven someday. He saved us from living with our sins forever by forgiving us.

 

[PRmerger]

How can I explain this to you? Okay, so God came down as Jesus and said that even though we are all sinners, we can all be forgiven and can make it to heaven someday. He saved us from living with our sins forever by forgiving us.

You know this, how?

Is it because the Church told you this (either via your parents, your teachers, your priest)?

 

[rogergosselin]

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).

So, it is agreed that the Council of Florence taught infallibly, also that it does not “specifically teach the existence of” Limbo, but that “The teaching of unequal punishments supports the idea of a distinct part of Hell (its limbo or fringe). (By the way, is that how “Limbo” is translated? “Fringe”? I did not know that.)

You did not address the second part of my question, probably because I was not clear. The question is: Does Auctorem Fidei meet the requirements enumerated in Vatican I to be an infallible statement? You earlier identified it as a Papal Bull, which I believe, satifies 1) and 2), above. It uses the solemn language, “condemned”, which indicates that it comes from the Chair of Peter.

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

So, who does go there, or was the Pontiff speaking vainly?

It seems to me that “ in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin” could only refer to the very young, before they have had the chance to commit actual sin.

“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” [Rom 3:23] And here Paul is using “all” in the general sense, not an exceptionless “all”, because certainly Jesus and Mary are exceptions. And Paul, himself, later in Romans, refers to the very young (maybe it’s the unborn – I’ll have to look it up again) as those who before they have had a chance to sin.

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.” .

Peter told Jesus that the idea of eating His flesh was a difficult teaching. A multitude of His disciples actually walked out on Him because of it. Jesus allowed them to walk without any further explanation.

I find this to be an even more difficult teaching. But I give assent to it, nonetheless. The teaching of “Limbo of the Children” and the possibility of natural happiness for them aids my understanding and offers some consolation.

Do you believe in the Doctrine of Original Sin?

The CCC says we may hope for their salvation (n. 1261).

Do you see a contradiction here?

 

[Ron_Conte]

So, it is agreed that the Council of Florence taught infallibly, also that it does not “specifically teach the existence of” Limbo, but that “The teaching of unequal punishments supports the idea of a distinct part of Hell (its limbo or fringe). (By the way, is that how “Limbo” is translated? “Fringe”? I did not know that.)

Yes, limbo means fringe. Florence and Lyons II taught unequal punishments, which implies at least the figure of a different “part” of Hell for those with lesser punishment. The lesser punishment is the deprivation of Heaven only, not active pains (Pope Innocent III, Denzinger, n. 410).

You did not address the second part of my question, probably because I was not clear. The question is: Does Auctorem Fidei meet the requirements enumerated in Vatican I to be an infallible statement? You earlier identified it as a Papal Bull, which I believe, satifies 1) and 2), above. It uses the solemn language, “condemned”, which indicates that it comes from the Chair of Peter.

I don’t believe it meets the requirements for papal infallibility. Not every idea rejected by that document is said to be heretical; some ideas are merely labeled as “rash”.

So, who does go there, or was the Pontiff speaking vainly?

It seems to me that “ in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin” could only refer to the very young, before they have had the chance to commit actual sin.

My interpretation: an adult who was never baptized with water commits an actual mortal sin of omission if he never obtains any form of baptism despite ample opportunity.

We cannot hold that infants go to Hell because Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, n. 7. taught: “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.” And both Florence and Lyons II infallibly taught that those who die in original sin alone are punished in Hell.

“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” [Rom 3:23] And here Paul is using “all” in the general sense, not an exceptionless “all”, because certainly Jesus and Mary are exceptions. And Paul, himself, later in Romans, refers to the very young (maybe it’s the unborn – I’ll have to look it up again) as those who before they have had a chance to sin.

Pope Benedict XII (12th) taught (On the Beatific Vision of God) that infants cannot sin gravely at that young age because they do not have sufficient use of free will. So prenatals and infants cannot sin deliberately.

I find this to be an even more difficult teaching. But I give assent to it, nonetheless. The teaching of “Limbo of the Children” and the possibility of natural happiness for them aids my understanding and offers some consolation.
Do you believe in the Doctrine of Original Sin?
Do you see a contradiction here?

My opinion is that limbo as a place of perfect natural happiness is no longer a tenable theological position. Florence and Lyons II infallibly taught that all who die in original sin alone are punished in Hell. They have the punishment of deprivation (Innocent III), which the CCC says is the chief punishment of Hell. You can’t be happy in the limbo of Hell.

Yes, we are all conceived with original sin, which requires some form of baptism (water, desire, blood) to enter the state of grace and be saved. No, it is not a contradiction, as long as Jesus gives little children who die young some form of baptism before death.

 

[rogergosselin]

I don’t believe it meets the requirements for papal infallibility. .

Is that because you do not believe in Vatican I?

Not every idea rejected by that document is said to be heretical; some ideas are merely labeled as “rash”…

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)” – Condemned…

My interpretation: an adult who was never baptized with water commits an actual mortal sin of omission if he never obtains any form of baptism despite ample opportunity.

OK, actually, I have never thought of it that way. This is something to consider. However, Pope Pius VI is not making reference to adults who have committed a sin of omission, he is refering to those who have comitted no actual sin:

“… with the sole guilt of original sin…

We cannot hold that infants go to Hell because Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, n. 7. taught: “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.”

“We cannot hold that infants go to Hell…” Not true. We must hold quite the opposite, because the following is de fide:

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.”

As pointed out earlier, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore and Singulari Quadem are letters to Cardinals, and so not “ex cathedra”. (Thus, my question to you about Vatican I). So, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore should be interpreted in light of Letentur coeli; i.e., the “eternal punishments” Pope Pius IX does not permit refer to “the flames of Hell”, not that other kind of punisment, which is privation of the beatific vision. The only other alternative is to aver that , while we still hold , Quanto Conficiamur Moerore in high esteem and give it our general assent, there is an error in it, because the Council of Florence cannot err.

Consider what your interpretation of Quanto Conficiamur Moerore implies. Taken to its logical conclusion, abortion is really not that bad! Yes, it’s bad for the abortionist who violates the Commandment, but hundreds of his “victims” go to Heaven, which is God’s will! Absurd.

And both Florence and Lyons II infallibly taught that those who die in original sin alone are punished in Hell.

Also Lyons II? Go figure!

My opinion is that limbo as a place of perfect natural happiness is no longer a tenable theological position. Florence and Lyons II infallibly taught that all who die in original sin alone are punished in Hell. They have the punishment of deprivation (Innocent III), which the CCC says is the chief punishment of Hell. You can’t be happy in the limbo of Hell. .

Can we have no natural happiness in the Limbo of Children? Is there a magisterial teaching on this issue? I ask sincerely. I do not know.

Yes, we are all conceived with original sin, which requires some form of baptism (water, desire, blood) to enter the state of grace and be saved. No, it is not a contradiction, as long as Jesus gives little children who die young some form of baptism before death.

There is One Baptism, not three. That is the creed we publicly profess at Mass, every week. Let’s make sure we give the little children what they require.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, lest one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”. [John 3:1-13]

 

[religioussoup]

You know this, how?

Is it because the Church told you this (either via your parents, your teachers, your priest)?

The church told me this and I believe that god can save me from my sins.

 

[PRmerger]

The church told me this and I believe that god can save me from my sins.

Ah. Very good, then.

Now, why do you believe the Church got it right on this particular teaching? Is it because you like the idea of God saving you from your sins? That sounds kind of nice, doesn’t it?

 

[pnewton]

When we feel we can tear out pages of the Catechism because we don’t like what they say that makes us no better than Protestants.

The Catechism is, as Pope JP2 declared, the sure norm for the faith.

Again, this is what we profess as Catholics:

I think those are worse off that practice this type of Catholicism. At least Protestants who believe that each have the right to interpret the Bible for themselves are limited to a finite and measurable amount of data. Those that take on the mantle of interpreter of Church Tradition and Scripture take on an indeterminate and practically infinite amount of data. We forget that we are an apostolic Church, or at least forget what that means sometimes. Namely, that we have those with the authority of the apostles, and specifically the Keys of Peter, to guide us. “Infallible” vs. “fallible”, are not as critical as authoritative vs. self-taught, as even the understanding of infallibility must be rooted in authority. This is the great danger of being “traditional” to the point of establishing oneself as the authority by which tradition is measured. We can easily present a false understanding of Catholicism that confused some and drives others away.

The essence of this question is such that there is no doctrine that covers it. All discussion that gives a definitive answer should be viewed with suspicion for the speculation it is.

 

[Robyn_p]

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?

I’m glad you brought up Feeney. This is what the Church said about Fr. Feeney’s teaching back in the 1940’s:

…Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
**
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. **For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church…

**In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance **.

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

You can read the whole letter here: ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm

So don’t worry John, by rejecting that view of salvation, you’re not sundered from the Church at all. The Church herself rejects that view.

 

[Robyn_p]

I think those are worse off that practice this type of Catholicism. At least Protestants who believe that each have the right to interpret the Bible for themselves are limited to a finite and measurable amount of data. Those that take on the mantle of interpreter of Church Tradition and Scripture take on an indeterminate and practically infinite amount of data. We forget that we are an apostolic Church, or at least forget what that means sometimes. Namely, that we have those with the authority of the apostles, and specifically the Keys of Peter, to guide us. ** “Infallible” vs. “fallible”, are not as critical as authoritative vs. self-taught, as even the understanding of infallibility must be rooted in authority.** This is the great danger of being “traditional” to the point of establishing oneself as the authority by which tradition is measured. We can easily present a false understanding of Catholicism that confused some and drives others away.

The essence of this question is such that there is no doctrine that covers it. All discussion that gives a definitive answer should be viewed with suspicion for the speculation it is.

Well said.

 

[PRmerger]

I think those are worse off that practice this type of Catholicism. At least Protestants who believe that each have the right to interpret the Bible for themselves are limited to a finite and measurable amount of data. Those that take on the mantle of interpreter of Church Tradition and Scripture take on an indeterminate and practically infinite amount of data. We forget that we are an apostolic Church, or at least forget what that means sometimes. Namely, that we have those with the authority of the apostles, and specifically the Keys of Peter, to guide us. “Infallible” vs. “fallible”, are not as critical as authoritative vs. self-taught, as even the understanding of infallibility must be rooted in authority. This is the great danger of being “traditional” to the point of establishing oneself as the authority by which tradition is measured. We can easily present a false understanding of Catholicism that confused some and drives others away.

The essence of this question is such that there is no doctrine that covers it. All discussion that gives a definitive answer should be viewed with suspicion for the speculation it is.

 

[Kurisu35712]

I think those are worse off that practice this type of Catholicism. At least Protestants who believe that each have the right to interpret the Bible for themselves are limited to a finite and measurable amount of data. Those that take on the mantle of interpreter of Church Tradition and Scripture take on an indeterminate and practically infinite amount of data. We forget that we are an apostolic Church, or at least forget what that means sometimes. Namely, that we have those with the authority of the apostles, and specifically the Keys of Peter, to guide us. “Infallible” vs. “fallible”, are not as critical as authoritative vs. self-taught, as even the understanding of infallibility must be rooted in authority. This is the great danger of being “traditional” to the point of establishing oneself as the authority by which tradition is measured. We can easily present a false understanding of Catholicism that confused some and drives others away.

The essence of this question is such that there is no doctrine that covers it. All discussion that gives a definitive answer should be viewed with suspicion for the speculation it is.

Gonna repeat the last two posts.

 

[Tomyris]

I have always appreciated the depth of pnewton’s posts.

 

[religioussoup]

Ah. Very good, then.

Now, why do you believe the Church got it right on this particular teaching? Is it because you like the idea of God saving you from your sins? That sounds kind of nice, doesn’t it?

Could you explain to me why you are going off on me about this topic? I believe what I want to believe, and I believe that god can save us from our sins. This thread is about unbaptized babies going to heaven, which is something else that I believe and I posted about. You felt the need to comment in response to my comment “God is a hero”, so please explain what your issue is with me. Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

Could you explain to me why you are going off on me about this topic? I believe what I want to believe, and I believe that god can save us from our sins.

I am trying to help you provide apologia, or a defense, for your beliefs, that are steeped in reality.

And I am also trying to help you not worship a god created in your own image. The God of the Almighty is who you should be worshipping. Not the God of the Almighty Self (who is the god of “what I want to believe”.God is going to, by definition, make some demands on your personal beliefs who which you should conform.)

Let’s say that there’s a person who says, “I believe what I want to believe, and I believe that the laws of gravity don’t apply to me.”

You would, of course, try to steer this person in the direction of truth, yes?

That’s just what I am trying to do.

This thread is about unbaptized babies going to heaven, which is something else that I believe and I posted about.

I am just leading you in the direction of a logical defense of where you get the idea that unbaptized babies going to heaven.

I want you to consider where this belief comes from. And to be able to provide defense for your belief.

 

[religioussoup]

I am just leading you in the direction of a logical defense of where you get the idea that unbaptized babies going to heaven.

I want you to consider where this belief comes from. And to be able to provide defense for your belief.

My defense is that the church teaches that God loves everyone. How am I supposed to believe that he, who loves everyone with absolutely no exception, would send an innocent child to hell and not let them into heaven just because their parents never could/never chose to/never got the opportunity to baptize them?

You can believe whatever you think, and I’ll believe that my cousin in in heaven right now.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

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.

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm