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

[rogergosselin]

I wasn’t trying to shut you down, Roger, …

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

It is very generous of you to say that. I am sorry to be a bore or disagreeable.

Thank you for praying for me. I will offer a decade of my rosary tonight, for you, and for the protection of Christian families.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

.

Your assertion is a peculiar one.

It’s as if you are saying, “I don’t like my Calculus professor, so that means that what she professes can’t be true.”

 

[Robyn_p]

It is very generous of you to say that. I am sorry to be a bore or disagreeable.

Thank you for praying for me. I will offer a decade of my rosary tonight, for you, and for the protection of Christian families.

Thanks Roger. I appreciate that.

And no, you’re not a bore. The blame is entirely on me for being impatient like that. Something I’m slowly working on. That’s what the sacraments are there for though, right?

 

[rogergosselin]

… 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).

Correction to the link from previous message:
[POST=12679295]Post 285[/POST] and following

 

[rogergosselin]

Your assertion is a peculiar one.

It’s as if you are saying, “I don’t like my Calculus professor, so that means that what she professes can’t be true.”

Not that I don’t like the Calculus; just that I found incorrect limits being applied to the integral equation.

 

[PRmerger]

Not that I don’t like the Calculus; just that I found incorrect limits being applied to the integral equation.

So we are agreed that even if you don’t like your Calc professor, it doesn’t detract from the truth of what she teaches.

 

[rogergosselin]

So we are agreed that even if you don’t like your Calc professor, it doesn’t detract from the truth of what she teaches.

Absolutely. And this formula also applies to a teacher who does not like her capable student.

 

[PRmerger]

Absolutely. And this formula also applies to a teacher who does not like her capable student.

So please don’t blame me for your putative rejection of what is actual Catholic teaching.

You should accept it because it is what the Church proclaims, not reject it because you don’t like how I’ve addressed your posts.

 

[dronald]

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 Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism [the Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”

The sources are cited. I trust you can search for the links as well as I can. If you find a translation that seems to convey a different meaning, please let me know.

From Ron Conte (bold mine) : The limbo of Hell was taught by Pope Pius VI and by the Council of Florence, but not infallibly.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1573652&postcount=3

Assuming I one day become Catholic, I do really need help understanding what kind of mental gymnastics I would need to actually believe this.

I can’t imagine an objective, non-Catholic reader ever looking at this and making any sense of it without a darn good explanation. There’s really no way around it.

Pope says [X] Pope was just giving opinion; even though Pope seemed really serious.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Assuming I one day become Catholic, I do really need help understanding what kind of mental gymnastics I would need to actually believe this.

I can’t imagine an objective, non-Catholic reader ever looking at this and making any sense of it without a darn good explanation. There’s really no way around it.

Pope says [X] Pope was just giving opinion; even though Pope seemed really serious.

Indeed. And bear in mind, all of this is supposed to ensure the rest of us that if we become Catholic, we will really be able to interpret, say, Romans 5:1.

 

[Joe_5859]

Assuming I one day become Catholic, I do really need help understanding what kind of mental gymnastics I would need to actually believe this.

I can’t imagine an objective, non-Catholic reader ever looking at this and making any sense of it without a darn good explanation. There’s really no way around it.

Pope says [X] Pope was just giving opinion; even though Pope seemed really serious.

I don’t see a conflict between the quote from Pope Eugene IV and what the current Catechism says about our hope for the unbaptized.

Think of what mortal sin and original sin are. By definition, they mean the person is cut off completely from God. How could such a person go anywhere but hell? They are cut off from God and they go to where – by definition – people are eternally cut off from God.

Yet, since God Himself is not bound by the sacraments, who is to say that God is not able to offer them a possibility for repentance in order to be cleansed from these sins and have the connection to God restored – even apart from the sacraments of Baptism and/or Confession? If that were the case, they would not be “depart[ing] this life in actual mortal sin or in original sin.” Rather, they would be healed in a way unobservable to outside observers and known only to God – even perhaps at the very moment of death, just before their final departure.

Does that make sense?

 

[dronald]

I don’t see a conflict between the quote from Pope Eugene IV and what the current Catechism says about our hope for the unbaptized.

Think of what mortal sin and original sin are. By definition, they mean the person is cut off completely from God. How could such a person go anywhere but hell? They are cut off from God and they go to where – by definition – people are eternally cut off from God.

Yet, since God Himself is not bound by the sacraments, who is to say that God is not able to offer them a possibility for repentance in order to be cleansed from these sins and have the connection to God restored – even apart from the sacraments of Baptism and/or Confession? If that were the case, they would not be “depart[ing] this life in actual mortal sin or in original sin.” Rather, they would be healed in a way unobservable to outside observers and known only to God – even perhaps at the very moment of death, just before their final departure.

Does that make sense?

I certainly see a conflict. To say that these Popes/Councils and some Early Church Father’s may have had hope for unbaptized infants is an argument from silence. Unless you can provide evidence that these same men/councils pronounced hope for the unbaptized?

 

[Joe_5859]

I certainly see a conflict. To say that these Popes/Councils and some Early Church Father’s may have had hope for unbaptized infants is an argument from silence. Unless you can provide evidence that these same men/councils pronounced hope for the unbaptized?

I’m not saying that the two say the same thing in the same way, simply that they are compatible ideas. The idea that those in mortal sin go to hell and the idea that someone who is not baptized might still be saved apart from the sacraments are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Doctrine does not change, but it does develop. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that ecclesial writings from centuries ago don’t articulate things in exactly the same way. The key point for Catholics is that there is no contradiction. And I see no contradiction here.

 

[rogergosselin]

I don’t see a conflict between the quote from Pope Eugene IV and what the current Catechism says about our hope for the unbaptized.
Think of what mortal sin and original sin are. By definition, they mean the person is cut off completely from God. How could such a person go anywhere but hell? They are cut off from God and they go to where – by definition – people are eternally cut off from God.

…, who is to say that God is not able to offer them a possibility for repentance in order to be cleansed from these sins and have the connection to God restored – even apart from … Confession? If that were the case, they would not be "depart[ing] this life in actual mortal sin or in original sin – Rather, they would be healed … …even perhaps at the very moment of death, just before their final departure.
Does that make sense?

Amen. All of the above makes sense. “ pray for us, sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen”

Rather, they would be healed in a way unobservable to outside observers and known only to God

Also very possible. From the lives of the saints, we do know of miraculous baptisms.

even apart from the sacraments of Baptism?

This is the only part that does make no sense to me, because it does, indeed, contradict Pope Eugene IV, as well as the Council of Trent. Even if one does not hold to the words used by the Pontiff and preferring the new formulation, can anyone deny that these words “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.” contradict the idea of attaining Heaven “apart from the sacrament of Baptism”?

Yet, since God Himself is not bound by the sacraments?

But Jesus did bind Himself to this particular sacrament. He did so by His Father’s will, just as He submitted Himself to frail human form, though He is omnipotent. Jesus submitted to water Baptism. Later the apostle, John, tells us that Jesus took His disciples, searching for a body of water, so that He could baptize them.

Why does “holding hope for the unbaptized” necessitate the abandonment of what was hitherto held as a Deposit of Faith? If God is omnipotent, benevolent, and also omniscient, thus knowing the heart, can He not lead a worthy soul to baptism, even at the hour of death, if need be? Consider Saint Patrick. He resuscitated about ten men in Ireland so that they could be baptized, after which they finally passed.

Does that make sense?

 

[RyanBlack]

But Jesus did bind Himself to this particular sacrament. He did so by His Father’s will, just as He submitted Himself to frail human form, though He is omnipotent. Jesus submitted to water Baptism.

Jesus submitted to the baptism of John, not to sacramental Christian baptism.

 

[religioussoup]

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.

I do not have blind faith. The reason that sometimes I pick and choose what I want to believe in relation to some areas is simply because I don’t have blind belief. On the specific issue of gay marriage, I believe that homosexuals can get married. A few years ago, I did not think the same way. The church told me not to do it, so I didn’t. But I didn’t really know what I had agreed to, simply, I had blindly agreed not to accept something that I didn’t know anything about. I gave myself the opportunity to learn about certain church issues for myself so I was not just blindly agreeing with the church on everything. I simply choose to believe what I think is right.

 

[PRmerger]

I simply choose to believe what I think is right.

I am simply trying to direct you away from blind faith, soup.

It is outside the norms of logic and reason to believe that the Church got it right about God loving everyone (and you base this on no other reason except that the Church told you so. You/your parents wouldn’t know this except that you believe the Church)…

while also believing that the Church got it wrong about homosexuality.

When someone says, “I believe what I want to believe” but has no consistency or logic to it…that is a blind faith.

 

[PRmerger]

The church told me not to do it, so I didn’t. But I didn’t really know what I had agreed to, simply, I had blindly agreed not to accept something that I didn’t know anything about. I gave myself the opportunity to learn about certain church issues for myself so I was not just blindly agreeing with the church on everything. I simply choose to believe what I think is right.

Can you articulate in your own words why the Church teaches what she does about homosexuality (without seeking recourse in Fr. Google. )

Maybe if you could offer a paragraph or two about how you understand the Church to be against homosexuality that would prove your point better.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Again, I would like to stress the point that this subject only gives us difficulty because it happens to involve infants, even those in the womb, who have not committed any actual sins. But if you admit an exception for infants in the womb, then you must admit an exception for children living outside the womb, and even therefore any child up to the elusive age of reason. However, the fact is that we are not at all talking about some speculative “theology of infant deaths,” but rather the infallible teaching on ORIGINAL SIN, which it seems you have not accepted with the virtue of faith or simply don’t understand.

You raise an excellent point!

Ven. Mary of Agreda: “To the other side [of Hell] is limbo [a state of natural happiness] with two different divisions: The one for the children, who die unbaptized and tainted only with original sin, without either good or bad works of their own election… After the final judgment heaven and hell only are to be inhabited, since purgatory shall become unnecessary and since even the infants shall be transported to another dwelling–place.”

I do not offer this quote as fact; but it does complement the writings of the Doctors and Saints (incl. the Revelations of St. Bridget, already referred to by Shin).

 

[AbideWithMe]

I am simply trying to direct you away from blind faith, soup.

It is outside the norms of logic and reason to believe that the Church got it right about God loving everyone (and you base this on no other reason except that the Church told you so. You/your parents wouldn’t know this except that you believe the Church)…

while also believing that the Church got it wrong about homosexuality.

When someone says, “I believe what I want to believe” but has no consistency or logic to it…that is a blind faith.

Can you articulate in your own words why the Church teaches what she does about homosexuality (without seeking recourse in Fr. Google. )

Maybe if you could offer a paragraph or two about how you understand the Church to be against homosexuality that would prove your point better.

PRmerger—How about going to PM’s with religioussoup if he/she cares to continue with you?

I know you and I have disagreed over these kind of derailments before, so before things get even more off topic, I’m going make my request clear. I’m following this subject, hoping for more discussion, raising of questions, and receiving of answers. As this is Catholic Answers and not Catholic Interrogations, I’d love to see us stay on topic.