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

[PRmerger]

My defense is that the church teaches that God loves everyone.

So…you believe the Church gets it right when it teaches that God loves everyone.

And yet…you believe the Church gets it wrong when it teaches about homosexuality?

How do you know the Church got it right about God loving everyone?

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

Well, all of us should believe in something because it’s true, right? Not because it makes us feel good, eh?

For example, you wouldn’t encourage your teenage sister to keep believing in Santa Claus (and I do mean the fictional jolly elf who lives in the North Pole and delivers gifts via a flying sleigh–not the real St. Nicholas), right?

Even if it makes her happy and good to believe in Santa.

Why? Because it’s not true. And truth trumps everything. Someone who believes something that’s not true…is a fool.

Are you familiar with the story The Emperor’s New Clothes?

Don’t you think he’s a fool for believing he’s dressed in finery, because he’s actually buck nekkid.

Even if he’s happy?

He’s believing a lie.

We should all strive to believe something because it’s true.

Just sayin’…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

If God sends anyone to hell, we can rest assure that His judgement is righteous.

It is one thing for God to make the judgement and another to say the unborn, babies and infants “deserve” hell. Who knows the mind God and who has been His counsel?

 

[rogergosselin]

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

This is really an excellent article, schorlarly, informative, comprehensive, objective, and with many valuable cross-references. This New Advent website seems to be a tremendous, encyclopedic resource. I hadn’t been aware of it. Thank you for sharing.

While I’m at it, I’d like to thank Isaiah45_9 for sharing another valuable resource, Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma referenced here: [POST=12662638]Post #136[/POST]

 

[steido01]

This is really an excellent article, schorlarly, informative, comprehensive, objective, and with many valuable cross-references. This New Advent website seems to be a tremendous, encyclopedic resource. I hadn’t been aware of it. Thank you for sharing.

Generally, it represents Catholic doctrine well. Though it does, at times, defend rather hard-line stances on certain issues, even when the Church herself permits a diversity of opinion, or has not spoken definitively. It also has a curious habit of using older, more polemical sources when discussing other religious groups. Not that it doesn’t provide a good encyclopedic starting point – just that its references ought to be considered in their context.

 

[clem456]

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.

“I believe” is not a statement of merely individual understanding. Faith is not an individual assertion. Faith is also an acceptance of of unity, of submission, of obedience, assent, trust. (all those ideas that Christ embodies).

The words you use: “I want to believe” are not the end point of faith. Our faith is not true because we as individuals want to believe it. Wanting to believe is perhaps the beginning of the journey faith. “I want to believe” is always united to the faith of the whole, the “holos”. Our faith is true because it adheres in unity to the Body of Christ.

 

[RyanBlack]

“I believe” is not a statement of merely individual understanding. Faith is not an individual assertion. Faith is also an acceptance of of unity, of submission, of obedience, assent, trust. (all those ideas that Christ embodies).

The words you use: “I want to believe” are not the end point of faith. Our faith is not true because we as individuals want to believe it. Wanting to believe is perhaps the beginning of the journey faith. “I want to believe” is always united to the faith of the whole, the “holos”. Our faith is true because it adheres in unity to the Body of Christ.

Well, when we say “I believe” in the creed, no it is not a statement of merely individual understanding. Or when we say as a Catholic “I believe” followed by an articulation of Catholic teaching, it is not a statement of merely individual belief. In both cases, the faith to which we refer is the fides quae creditur–the faith that is believed, or the content of the faith. On the other hand, of course saying “I believe” can be a statement of merely individual understanding, as for individual people the content of their faith can include both that which is in fact in contradiction to the faith that is revealed and taught and that which does not necessarily opposed to the faith that has been revealed and taught, but is merely beyond that which has been revealed and explicitly taught, such as belief that unbaptized infants go to heaven.

Also, there is faith in the sense of fides qua creditur–the faith by which one believes, or the act of faith. I think most people, when they say “I believe” followed by an articulation of something that is outside what has been definitively revealed are stressing more the faith by which one believes than they are the content of faith. For example, I do in fact believe, as an act of faith that unbaptized infants to to heaven. However, I also know this is not a matter of specifically revealed teaching, and that it is not a matter of the faith of the Church, in the sense of the actual content of the faith that has been revealed, and therefore, in my act of belief on this matter, there is some sense (however small it might be) of reservation that I have about this that I don’t have about a matter of revealed faith such as the doctrine of the Trinity, or the divinity of Christ, and so on.

 

[rogergosselin]

Generally, it represents Catholic doctrine well. Though it does, at times, defend rather hard-line stances on certain issues, even when the Church herself permits a diversity of opinion, or has not spoken definitively. It also has a curious habit of using older, more polemical sources when discussing other religious groups. Not that it doesn’t provide a good encyclopedic starting point – just that its references ought to be considered in their context.

OK. Noted.

 

[rogergosselin]

… for individual people the content of their faith can include both that which is in fact in contradiction to the faith that is revealed and taught and ….

I hope your meaning is that such beliefs “can” be included, in the sense that they are possibe, or even common. Of course, it is not possible to knowingly and pertinaciously retain beliefs which contradict the Faith, without severing oneself from the Body of Christ.

For example, I do in fact believe, as an act of faith that unbaptized infants to to heaven. However, I also know this is not a matter of specifically revealed teaching, …

Do you mean that you, personally, hold this belief, or are you giving it as an example of a false belief, held by others?

Just so the non-Catholic subscribers not be misled: It is specifically and divinely revealed, by Scrpture and by the Magisterium, that the unbaptized do not go to Heaven.

 

[RyanBlack]

I hope your meaning is that such beliefs “can” be included, in the sense that they are possibe, or even common.

My meaning is that it is possible for such beliefs to be included in what an individual person believes.

Do you mean that you, personally, hold this belief, or are you giving it as an example of a false belief, held by others?

I personally hold this belief.

 

[clem456]

I hope your meaning is that such beliefs “can” be included, in the sense that they are possibe, or even common. Of course, it is not possible to knowingly and pertinaciously retain beliefs which contradict the Faith, without severing oneself from the Body of Christ.

Do you mean that you, personally, hold this belief, or are you giving it as an example of a false belief, held by others?

Just so the non-Catholic subscribers not be misled: It is specifically and divinely revealed, by Scrpture and by the Magisterium, that the unbaptized do not go to Heaven.

Are you asserting that only those explicitly baptized by the Catholic Church by water can attain salvation? If so, that is not the whole truth.
Just so non-Catholic subscribers have the full picture:

God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Baptism by water is the normative way. But a person who has not been explicitly baptized by the Church can be saved as God wills, as was detailed throughout this thread.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

This statement is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is the catechism promulgated by the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm
Is this sufficiently authoritative?

 

[rogergosselin]

My meaning is that it is possible for such beliefs to be included in what an individual person believes. .

Thank you for the clarification. In that case, point well taken. When we respond to a person’s “beliefs”, care should be taken to discern the context, whether individual understanding, or “fides quae creditur”.

However, in response to “I believe what I want to believe”, I’m sure that you’d agree, clem456’s exposition of the meaning of “Faith” is entirely apropos and cogent.

I personally hold this belief.

Then, I wonder how you respond to the apostle John and to such Papal declarations as [POST=12681119]quoted earlier[/POST] in this thread.

 

[RyanBlack]

Thank you for the clarification. In that case, point well taken. When we respond to a person’s “beliefs”, care should be taken to discern the context, whether individual understanding, or “fides quae creditur”.

However, in response to “I believe what I want to believe”, I’m sure that you’d agree, clem456’s exposition of the meaning of “Faith” is entirely apropos and cogent.

I agreed with much of clem456’s post. My point is that the terms faith and *belief *have a range of meanings.

Then, I wonder how you respond to the apostle John and to such Papal declarations as [POST=12662638]quoted earlier[/POST] in this thread.

When you say the apostle John, I suppose you refer to his record of Jesus’s conversation with Nicodemus. I don’t read anywhere in where Jesus said that the requirement for sacramental baptism is something to which God has bound himself without any possibility of exception. As to the papal declarations, I trust that the Church, in providing the Catechism was aware of them, and yet still proclaims in the CCC (1257) “The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are ‘reborn of water and the Spirit.’ God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” Also, the Church, in the CCC (paragraph 1261) states “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”

 

[Robyn_p]

I agreed with much of clem456’s post. My point is that the terms faith and *belief *have a range of meanings.

When you say the apostle John, I suppose you refer to his record of Jesus’s conversation with Nicodemus. I don’t read anywhere in where Jesus said that the requirement for sacramental baptism is something to which God has bound himself without any possibility of exception. As to the papal declarations, I trust that the Church, in providing the Catechism was aware of them, and yet still proclaims in the CCC (1257) “The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are ‘reborn of water and the Spirit.’ God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” Also, the Church, in the CCC (paragraph 1261) states “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”

Just to let you know, Ryan, other posters have already tried to explain this to him several times, but Roger is still convinced that physical water baptism is the only possible means of salvation. Not just the normative means.

Unfortunately I don’t think there’s much point in discussing this again.

 

[rogergosselin]

Just to let you know, Ryan, other posters have already tried to explain this to him several times, but Roger is still convinced that physical water baptism is the only possible means of salvation. Not just the normative means.

Unfortunately I don’t think there’s much point in discussing this again.

“tried” being the operative word here. If you look back, open mindedly, you will find many questions that have just been ignored. In other instances the implication has been that I should simply accept some new teachings and ignore any possible rifts in Tradition. Maybe you find that acceptable.

This apparent rift is causing a real crises of faith, for me and thousands of others. You should see my perseverance as a plea for help, not as an opportunity to shut me out of the discussion.

I would like to take my next opportunity with clem456 and Ryan. May I have your permission?

 

[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.

This is something I have always believed. It comes from my parents. My cousin passed away when I was little and my mom ALWAYS assured us that he was in heaven. Every year on his birthday we released helium balloons into the sky so he could get them in heaven. If the church says I can’t believe that because it’s not what they want me to believe, then they’re going to have to literally go inside my head and change it since that is the only way I’ll stop believing.

RIP to my cousin, Max. :angel1:

 

[PRmerger]

This is something I have always believed. It comes from my parents. My cousin passed away when I was little and my mom ALWAYS assured us that he was in heaven. Every year on his birthday we released helium balloons into the sky so he could get them in heaven. If the church says I can’t believe that because it’s not what they want me to believe, then they’re going to have to literally go inside my head and change it since that is the only way I’ll stop believing.

RIP to my cousin, Max. :angel1:

I get that you believe your mom, soup.

I am simply asking you to be consistent. If you believe your mom (who gets the idea that God loves everyone from the Church), then why don’t you believe the Church about other issues, such as homosexuality?

Consistency is important when evaluating what you believe.

Otherwise, you are just having blind faith or blind belief…and that is something very foolish to have.

 

[PRmerger]

Just to let you know, Ryan, other posters have already tried to explain this to him several times, but Roger is still convinced that physical water baptism is the only possible means of salvation. Not just the normative means.

Unfortunately I don’t think there’s much point in discussing this again.

I understand your sentiment. Sometimes it is best, as a prudential judgement, to do as Scripture states and pick up our mats, wipe the dust from our shoes, and go on to try to speak to someone who is amenable to the Word. (Read here: put a poster on “ignore”)

However, sometimes, despite knowing that a poster is recusant to reason and apologia, it is important to continue the dialogue for the sake of lurkers and others who may be influenced by incorrect or obfuscatory language. (Read here: continue to dialogue, knowing that your arguments are not really for the poster, but for those others who are lurking).

 

[Robyn_p]

I understand your sentiment. Sometimes it is best, as a prudential judgement, to do as Scripture states and pick up our mats, wipe the dust from our shoes, and go on to try to speak to someone who is amenable to the Word. (Read here: put a poster on “ignore”)

However, sometimes, despite knowing that a poster is recusant to reason and apologia, it is important to continue the dialogue for the sake of lurkers and others who may be influenced by incorrect or obfuscatory language. (Read here: continue to dialogue, knowing that your arguments are not really for the poster, but for those others who are lurking).

True.

 

[Robyn_p]

“tried” being the operative word here. If you look back, open mindedly, you will find many questions that have just been ignored. In other instances the implication has been that I should simply accept some new teachings and ignore any possible rifts in Tradition. Maybe you find that acceptable.

This apparent rift is causing a real crises of faith, for me and thousands of others. You should see my perseverance as a plea for help, not as an opportunity to shut me out of the discussion.

I would like to take my next opportunity with clem456 and Ryan. May I have your permission?

I wasn’t trying to shut you down, Roger, I’m sorry for saying that. It just seemed like the discussion was going to repeat itself again.

I’m glad you’re persevering though. You seem like you’re genuinely searching for the truth, so I apologize again for implying you weren’t open to reason. That was wrong of me.

I’ll be praying for you in your journey, and please pray for me as well.

 

[rogergosselin]

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.”

However, sometimes, despite knowing that a poster is recusant to reason and apologia, it is important to continue the dialogue for the sake of lurkers acand others who may be influenced by incorrect or obfuscatory language. (Read here: continue to dialogue, knowing that your arguments are not really for the poster, but for those others who are lurking).

I can live with that, … (and here I have just deleted some uncharitable comments. Robyn has saved me from a moment of weakness. I mention it only because the following may seem like a non sequitor).

The worst shame is that you , PRmerger, have been the only one in this forum, able to make me reconsider, to dissuade me, at least for a moment, from accepting certain positions, which though I abhor, see no other way to avoid. ([POST=12681119]Post 285[/POST] and following). Now it appears, I cannot trust in your good will.

.