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

[PRmerger]

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).

The above is certainly an option for us to embrace.

But it is not the only option for us to consider.

 

[littlestsouls2]

The above is certainly an option for us to embrace.

But it is not the only option for us to consider.

You’re right. I would like to know of the other “dwelling-place” to which Ven. Mary of Agreda refers. I don’t wish to speculate on this, however.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re right. I would like to know of the other “dwelling-place” to which Ven. Mary of Agreda refers. I don’t wish to speculate on this, however.

What do you mean you’d like to “know of”? Do you mean you’d like to know to what concept she is referring to?

Or do you mean you’d like to know it by experiencing it?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

There is a hierarchy of Catholic beliefs, ronald, and as such, somethings which popes profess, even in encyclicals, are of less import than other things which popes have professed.

(Did you know that there is an encyclical on Dante Alighieri? As a good, devout Catholic I can go my entire life without ever knowing what the Magisterial position is on Dante.)

If you can’t tell how much weight to give a proclamation by a pope, a good source to seek succor in is Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

amazon.com/Fundamentals-Catholic-Dogma-Dr-Ludwig/dp/0895550091#

 

[littlestsouls2]

What do you mean you’d like to “know of”? Do you mean you’d like to know to what concept she is referring to?

Or do you mean you’d like to know it by experiencing it?

The former

 

[PRmerger]

The former

Well, she’s referring to limbo of course.

 

[Robyn_p]

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

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

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”?

This is true, baptism is not optional for us. Nobody can refuse baptism and be saved. That’s why the Church emphasizes it so much, that’s why canon law requires us to baptize our children within the first few weeks of birth. It’s not an option or something to take lightly.

But here’s the thing, recognizing that God, in his infinite power and mercy, CAN (not that he does) bestow the grace of baptism on certain people without physical water baptism is not the same as saying baptism itself is optional. That would be like saying because God is all-powerful and can heal diseases, modern medicine is optional. No, that’s simply not true. God gave us these tools because, for whatever reason, that’s how he has willed us to fight diseases. God CAN heal without the help of a doctor, sure, but that doesn’t give us the permission to not use all the means he has given us. And if we purposefully refuse to see a doctor because we expect God to heal us, that would be sinful. (and stupid) That would be testing God.

The same thing with baptism. We don’t have the freedom to reject it or call it optional, which is what Trent was condemning. But that’s OUR restriction. Not God’s.

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?

Except there simply is no abandonment, Roger. Even the Council of Trent, which you quoted earlier, just a few canons before that makes clear that the desire for the sacrament is itself salvific:

On the Sacraments in General:

CANON IV.-If any one says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

It has never been part of the Deposit of Faith that water baptism is the absolute, only means of salvation. Desiring it, if there’s no other way, can be enough. So it’s not abandoning the faith to say God can save us without physical water being poured.

Sure, God could do what you are suggesting. He could also infuse the grace of baptism into a soul without any water at all. He’s God. (BTW, St. Bernard of Clairveaux in the 12th century speculated that the faith of the parents and the desire for their baby to be baptized could be enough to save it, so this idea that God can save without water isn’t actually very new. It’s at least 900 years old.) The thing is though, all of these theories are just that, theories. We simply don’t know what God does because it’s not been revealed.

I think this whole debate of whether or not unbaptized infants are in heaven, hell or limbo could be avoided just by following these words of St. Paul:

Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart.

All we can do is follow the commands God gave us and trust him to sort out the rest.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Well, she’s referring to limbo of course.

She says that “the infants shall be transported [from Limbo] to another dwelling–place.”

I only meant to say that I am curious about this new “place” she refers to, irrespective of what name we give to it.

 

[PRmerger]

She says that “the infants shall be transported [from Limbo] to another dwelling–place.”

I only meant to say that I am curious about this new “place” she refers to, irrespective of what name we give to it.

Ok then.

 

[rogergosselin]

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.

“I have baptized you with water; he will baptize you with the Holy Ghost…
So Jesus was baptized, and as he came straight up out of the water, suddenly heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God coming down like a dove and resting upon him. And with that, a voice came from heaven, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” [Matt3: 11-17]

I am not well read on the Baptism of Jesus. It seems clear that His was a Baptism of “water and Spirit” , whereas John’s baptism was only preparatory, being a Baptism of water and repentence.Thus, while the baptism was performed by John, it was certainly distinct from any baptism John had previously performed.I believe there is agreement that this event marked the institution of sacramental Baptism, only after which did Jesus search for water to perform Baptism, Himself.

I am not clear, if after Jesus “purified the waters” with His baptism, baptisms performed by John then took on the sacramental character, though it does seems likely to me.

 

[clem456]

There is a hierarchy of Catholic beliefs, ronald, and as such, somethings which popes profess, even in encyclicals, are of less import than other things which popes have professed.

(Did you know that there is an encyclical on Dante Alighieri? As a good, devout Catholic I can go my entire life without ever knowing what the Magisterial position is on Dante.)

If you can’t tell how much weight to give a proclamation by a pope, a good source to seek succor in is Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

amazon.com/Fundamentals-Catholic-Dogma-Dr-Ludwig/dp/0895550091#

And the end point is, I think, that when we have doubts, Christ lives through the living Magisterium of the Catholic Church. How does the living Magisterium express itself?
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/aposcons.htm
Look for the words “sure norm”.

1. Arrangement of the Material

A catechism should faithfully and systematically present the teaching of Sacred Scripture, the living Tradition in the Church and the authentic Magisterium, as well as the spiritual heritage of the Fathers, Doctors and saints of the Church, to allow for a better knowledge of the Christian mystery and for enlivening the faith of the People of God. It should take into account the doctrinal statements which down the centuries the Holy Spirit has intimated to his Church. It should also help to illumine with the light of faith the new situations and problems which had not yet emerged in the past.
…
3. The Doctrinal Value of the Text

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.

So while the many disputes about various issues rage on, the main impediment to Catholicism is pride and rebellion, the clinging to one’s own opinion rather than assenting to what the Church proposes for our own beatitude.
The Church proposes, God help me to listen, to ob-audiere, to obey.

 

[AbideWithMe]

… the main impediment to Catholicism is pride and rebellion, the clinging to one’s own opinion rather than assenting to what the Church proposes for our own beatitude.

Clem, that’s not your judgment call to make.

For non-Catholics, at least, for example, you can’t expect us to use critical thinking to reject our own churches but then discard all critical thinking to become Catholics. If there are no contradictions between past teachings and current teachings then that should be something which becomes evident with careful, patient and humbly critical examination.

 

[clem456]

Clem, that’s not your judgment call to make.

For non-Catholics, at least, for example, you can’t expect us to use critical thinking to reject our own churches but then discard all critical thinking to become Catholics. If there are no contradictions between past teachings and current teachings then that should be something which becomes evident with careful, patient and humbly critical examination.

The context of my post was like this:
three posts ago DRronald spoke about “if I became Catholic etc…” Pr Merger responded to his post. I am not judging DR’s or your specific articles of faith, I was reinforcing what PR merger was saying (or I was trying to anyway) about Catholicism. My post was in the context of what Catholics believe.

My point was -not- to propose specific Catholic beliefs or solve contradictions for your acceptance, or to encourage you to reject your faith. But to point out that pride and rebellion are an impediment to Catholic belief, and Christian belief generally.

“If I became Catholic” involves adherence to a living Magisterium, other churches do not require this. I don’t agree with that viewpoint, but my point wasn’t to dispute it.

 

[rogergosselin]

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?

The catechism you provide is inescapable. I thank you for confronting the issue directly, though this causes a dilemma for me. Could you follow up with what the faithful are to conclude?

To do so, I’d like to reiterate two proclamations for sake of comparison, without attribution of the source, only to present the positions as dispassionately as possible in the interests of logical analysis:

Proposition A

“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”.

Proposition B

“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Now which of the following is to be concluded?

1. Magisterial teachings of the Church are contradictory (Unthinkable to me).

2. There is no contradiction. The two propositions can be reconciled and their original meaning maintained. (How?)

3. The Magisterium is consistent, but one (or both) proposition contains human error and is not to be taken “de fide”

4. The Magisterium is consistent, but Her teachings evolve. They can change with the times or with the prevailing culture. (The Living Magisterium?)

5. The true Magisterium is consistent. One of the propositions actually belong to a different religion.

6. Other. (Please specify)

.

 

[clem456]

The catechism you provide is inescapable. I thank you for confronting the issue directly, though this causes a dilemma for me. Could you follow up with what the faithful are to conclude?

To do so, I’d like to reiterate two proclamations for sake of comparison, without attribution of the source, only to present the positions as dispassionately as possible in the interests of logical analysis:

Proposition A

“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”.

Proposition B

“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Now which of the following is to be concluded?

2. There is no contradiction. The two propositions can be reconciled and their original meaning maintained. (How?)

4. The Magisterium is consistent, but Her teachings evolve. …(snip) (The Living Magisterium?)

1215 This sacrament is also called “the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."7

If one lives in the unity of the Holy Spirit with God in heaven, are they baptized?
Yes, by definition they have been baptized. No one can be united with God without being renewed by the Holy Spirit. Those who live in the presence and unity of God are reborn in the unity of the Holy Spirit.
That leaves you with your question above “How…” could these people come to life in the Holy Spirit without being dunked in the font?

To answer that question you must first accept this basic truth about who God is:

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

Put simply, God is God, and he can do whatever he pleases. Not “as he pleases” in a capricious way, but in a loving and living way. We can begin to know how God is, because we have seen and heard Christ.

Baptism is a sacrament. A sacrament is an efficacious sign of God’s hidden attributes. It is not the essence of God himself, who is not fully knowable in his essence. Your formulation of the sacrament of Baptism is akin to idolatry, it is making the sacrament (the sign) into God himself, as if God were as large as the baptismal font. Does that make sense?

How can the Magisterium proclaim seemingly contradictory statements about baptism? The answer is they don’t contradict, the successive statements complete one another, they grow and “flower”. The Church is organic, it is a growing organism, because Christ has defeated death and lives. The Church is not static, dead in the tomb, or dead in the words of “sola scriptura” or “Papal Bull”, or the Council of Trent. The Church and it’s Magisterium lives and breathes (inspira) with all that came before, all that is, and all that will come.

Growth in understanding the faith

94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:

95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."62

How can it be possible that the expression of doctrine can grow?
Consider:
At the birth of the Church there were no explicit formulations of doctrine, no explicit papal statements etc…
I think you can see that the nascent Magisterium had no explicit statement of the Trinity, no statement of the Eucharist, no statement of Baptism. The seed of Catholic doctrine and dogma is alive within them. Christ’s words had been spoken, and the living Church begins to understand them and give them to the world, as his revelation grows in their hearts and minds.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The same thing with baptism. We don’t have the freedom to reject it or call it optional, which is what Trent was condemning. But that’s OUR restriction. Not God’s.

The Church teaches that God has decided to offer salvation to all human persons, but that this salvation can only be obtained by dying in the state of grace. The Church also teaches that God has decided that the state of grace can only be obtained, by us poor fallen sinners conceived with original sin, through one of the three forms of baptism. God cannot change His mind because He is infinite perfection. So baptism is the one path to Heaven, but it exists in three forms:

1. the formal Sacrament of baptism by water
2. non-formal baptism by desire, which can be implicit
3. non-formal baptism of blood

The Church has not yet clarified the extent of baptism by desire and by blood. But any approach that excludes the non-formal types of baptism is certainly contrary to the constant teaching of the Magisterium.

I don’t think we should give any weight to fallible personal interpretations of a past infallible teaching when these are contrary to the interpretation and understanding presented by the Magisterium, including in Redemptoris Missio and the CCC.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Proposition A

“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”.

Proposition B

“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
2. There is no contradiction. The two propositions can be reconciled and their original meaning maintained. (How?)

There is no contradiction, properly understood. Baptism includes three forms, just as Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, just as the CCC teaches. A person who does not receive baptism with water can receive an implicit baptism of desire and so be saved.

Some teachings of the Magisterium are infallible (no possibility of error). But those teachings still need to be properly interpreted, just as infallible Scripture requires proper interpretation. And the Magisterium itself is the proper authority to provide this interpretation.

Non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium allow for the limited possibility of error and reform. Theological opinions and pious opinions are fallible, yet useful. We cannot live by infallible teachings alone.

 

[rogergosselin]

So, just as with the Good Thief, which I showed in a previous post, these innocents cannot be used as a counter example to the necessity for baptism, they died under the Old Law, not the New Law. The Holy men and women who observed Sabbath, practiced circumcision, and obeyed the Mosaic Law are in Heaven, even though they did not have Baptism.

I may have been in error here (the underlined part) because I just found this:
Our fathers were hidden, all of them, under the cloud, and found a path, all of them, through the sea; all alike, in the cloud and in the sea, were baptized into Moses’ fellowship. They all ate the same prophetic food, and all drank the same prophetic drink, watered by the same prophetic rock which bore them company, the rock that was Christ. [1 Cor 10:1-4]

 

[Robyn_p]

The Church teaches that God has decided to offer salvation to all human persons, but that this salvation can only be obtained by dying in the state of grace. The Church also teaches that God has decided that the state of grace can only be obtained, by us poor fallen sinners conceived with original sin, through one of the three forms of baptism. God cannot change His mind because He is infinite perfection. So baptism is the one path to Heaven, but it exists in three forms:

1. the formal Sacrament of baptism by water
2. non-formal baptism by desire, which can be implicit
3. non-formal baptism of blood

The Church has not yet clarified the extent of baptism by desire and by blood. But any approach that excludes the non-formal types of baptism is certainly contrary to the constant teaching of the Magisterium.

I don’t think we should give any weight to fallible personal interpretations of a past infallible teaching when these are contrary to the interpretation and understanding presented by the Magisterium, including in Redemptoris Missio and the CCC.

Yes I agree. When I said baptism was our restriction, not God’s, I was referring to the formal sacrament by water.

 

[rogergosselin]

The Church teaches that God has decided to offer salvation to all human persons, but that this salvation can only be obtained by dying in the state of grace. The Church also teaches that God has decided that the state of grace can only be obtained, by us poor fallen sinners conceived with original sin, through one of the three forms of baptism. God cannot change His mind because He is infinite perfection. So baptism is the one path to Heaven, but it exists in three forms:

1. the formal Sacrament of baptism by water
2. non-formal baptism by desire, which can be implicit
3. non-formal baptism of blood

I don’t think we should give any weight to fallible personal interpretations of a past infallible teaching.

Here are some “past infallible teachings”:

The Nicene-Constantinople Creed, 381, ex cathedra: “We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.”

"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]

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5], are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “Likewise (I profess) that baptism is necessary for salvation, and hence, if there is imminent danger of death, it should be conferred at once and without delay, and that it is valid if conferred with the right matter and form and intention by anyone, and at any time.”

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence,“Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra,… ‘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.” ]

There is no contradiction, properly understood.

I’m sorry, but that’s a stretch. It seems you are forcing me to conclude:

"5. The true Magisterium is consistent. One of the propositions actually belong to a different religion".

But, I am not yet willing to conclude that.