Doctrine change on the fate of the unbaptized infants?

[Anesti33]

What does “official teaching” mean? Is it different from “unofficial teaching”?

 

[NSmith]

I put the phrase in quotes because I was not sure of the phrase in the sense that it is used in this thread. A teaching can be shared by popes and theologians, thus “official,” without reaching to the level of dogma or even of doctrine.
It is a historical fact that Catholic teachers have held for hundreds of years, since the earliest days of the church, that the unbaptized go immediately to Hell upon death. This has been confirmed in Council and by Popes. It is therefore a doctrine, and cannot be denied by the faithful.
The teaching of Limbo is similarly ancient, spoken of by Church Fathers without using the explicit term, defined by scholastics, but it never attained to a Conciliar definition. It is not a doctrine, but it is a pious opinion.
The teaching of baptism of desire and baptism of blood were included in the Council of Trent alongside a condemnation of all who say that men can be saved without baptism. Anathemas are usually considered to be an expression of the infallible office of the Church. The fact that these extraordinary means of baptism exist, then, is doctrinally established and cannot be denied. The time and manner of their application, however, is mysterious and unknown to men.
The implicit caveat to baptism of desire seems to be developed from theological questions about invincible ignorance, and has recently found support from the pontificates of the 20th century and the current pontiff. It has not attained to conciliar definition or ex cathedra pronouncement.
How these relate to the fate of the unborn or the unbaptized child seems like a straightforward application of rules. Are they baptized? By the nature of the question, we can say no. Are they martyrs? No. Do they explicitly desire baptism like catechumens do? No. Do they implicitly desire baptism like the invincibly ignorant do? I would argue no, for this requires the assent of will and reason, which is lacking in the very young and the unborn.
Without further teachings, I conclude that the unbaptized descend immediately to Hell because this is what God has taught through the magisterium. But, because this is a harsh teaching where it concerns those innocent of willful sin, the Church prefers to say, “we offer them up to the Lord’s mercy, trusting in his desire to save all men.” It can be true that they are damned as far as we can reasonably ascertain given what we know, but that we also hope and pray for the Lord’s kindness without presuming as to what form that mercy might take.
An unofficial teaching would be one that is short-lived, only taught regionally, or which finds very little support in the magisterium. Opposition to the death penalty “per se” is an example.

 

[otjm]

What I find fascinating is how adult converts are denied such a sense of urgency, with regard to baptism.

In the early Church, the process of becoming a Catholic was a three year process.

 

[ThomasMT]

Even more fascinating.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I think it needs to be a general rule in the Church, that babies born in Catholic hospitals to Catholic parents, are baptized the day they are born by the chaplain on call, to be followed up by some kind of ceremony (possibly adopt the Eastern practice of chrismation and communion?) a few weeks after the baby comes home.

At present, canon law forbids that except in limited cases.

Can. 860 §1. Apart from a case of necessity, baptism is not to be conferred in private houses, unless the local ordinary has permitted it for a grave cause.

§2. Except in a case of necessity or for some other compelling pastoral reason, baptism is not to be celebrated in hospitals unless the diocesan bishop has established otherwise.

Canon law can be, and sometimes is, changed. It would be entirely within the Church’s power of binding and loosing, to make such a change. It’s not doctrine.

Pardon me for interjecting, but would I be correct in summarizing that the dogma of the church, which has been repeatedly and infallibly declared, is that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

A well-supported and long-standing theological opinion with doctrinal support is that there are exceptions to the need for a water baptism for those who are martyred prior to attaining it or who explicitly desired baptism but were prevented from attaining it. In these cases they are considered to have been granted baptism extraordinarily by God, but they are by no means saved apart from baptism itself. These also are not as certain as the sacrament when it is observed in its proper form.

Thank you. How often this is forgotten in our day.

 

[Anesti33]

Canon law can be, and sometimes is, changed. It would be entirely within the Church’s power of binding and loosing, to make such a change. It’s not doctrine.

Often, baptizing babies is the only evangelization opportunity given to a parish for young couples. The baptismal catechesis ensures that the couple knows what is really going on and what they are getting into, beyond “nana wants it done.”

So I would look dimly on a scenario in which the parish is bypassed each and every time, by a hospital chaplain who baptizes right there and then, without even knowing the couple or having prior meetings with them. I guarantee you that 90% of those couples will never darken the door of a church again, no matter how much you tell them they need to come back to “complete the rites”. The baby is baptized, they got their certificate, they’re outta here.

 

[Phemie]

HomeschoolDad:

Canon law can be, and sometimes is, changed. It would be entirely within the Church’s power of binding and loosing, to make such a change. It’s not doctrine.

Often, baptizing babies is the only evangelization opportunity given to a parish for young couples. The baptismal catechesis ensures that the couple knows what is really going on and what they are getting into, beyond “nana wants it done.”

So I would look dimly on a scenario in which the parish is bypassed each and every time, by a hospital chaplain who baptizes right there and then, without even knowing the couple or having prior meetings with them. I guarantee you that 90% of those couples will never darken the door of a church again, no matter how much you tell them they need to come back to “complete the rites”. The baby is baptized, they got their certificate, they’re outta here.

I do baptismal preparation. You are correct. For some it’s just to tick off a box.

It’s not quite as bad here since we are no longer able to use a Certificate of Baptism for civil purposes. When it could be used for things like obtaining social insurance numbers, drivers licence or provincial ID, and, more importantly, for a provincial health care card, a significant number of parents had their child baptized just to get that free piece of paper in their hands. I even had social services request baptism for a child in care to get a certificate so they could apply for a provincial health care card for him. The case worker had to be told that children who were up for adoption were not baptized unless they were in danger of dying and she could simply apply for a birth certificate in order to avail of a health care card for him. You work for the government, you should know these things.

I was angry and sad when I did a pre-ceremony walk-through with a young couple. As we got to the Renunciation of Sins part of the Rite they joked about being unmarried and living in sin. The dad was presenting his child only because that’s what his parents and grandparents expected. They really had no interest in Baptism, whatsoever.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Canon law can be, and sometimes is, changed. It would be entirely within the Church’s power of binding and loosing, to make such a change. It’s not doctrine.

Often, baptizing babies is the only evangelization opportunity given to a parish for young couples. The baptismal catechesis ensures that the couple knows what is really going on and what they are getting into, beyond “nana wants it done.”

So I would look dimly on a scenario in which the parish is bypassed each and every time, by a hospital chaplain who baptizes right there and then, without even knowing the couple or having prior meetings with them. I guarantee you that 90% of those couples will never darken the door of a church again, no matter how much you tell them they need to come back to “complete the rites”. The baby is baptized, they got their certificate, they’re outta here.

If, as you say, 90% of Catholic couples are only nominally Catholics, then we have a far greater problem than just babies being baptized or not being baptized.

I was angry and sad when I did a pre-ceremony walk-through with a young couple. As we got to the Renunciation of Sins part of the Rite they joked about being unmarried and living in sin. The dad was presenting his child only because that’s what his parents and grandparents expected. They really had no interest in Baptism, whatsoever.

The “renunciation of sins” part always reminds me of the scene from The Godfather where several people are being massacred at the same time the baptism is taking place.

If the godparents are faithful Catholics who can, sincerely, recite the renunciation, then perhaps that somewhat “fills in” any deficiencies the parents might have. I have to question whether the babies should be penalized (by having baptism withheld) because their natural parents are something less than fervent apostolic Catholics.

 

[Anesti33]

Also, baptism is the time of incorporation into the Body of Christ and introduction to the community. While many parishes have “private” baptisms outside of Mass, I know a few communities which fruitfully practiced infant baptism during a regular Sunday Mass. It was a great way for the parents to stand up and publicly profess their intentions with the child, and the community could get to know and support the family.

 

[Phemie]

Also, baptism is the time of incorporation into the Body of Christ and introduction to the community. While many parishes have “private” baptisms outside of Mass, I know a few communities which fruitfully practiced infant baptism during a regular Sunday Mass. It was a great way for the parents to stand up and publicly profess their intentions with the child, and the community could get to know and support the family.

Pre-covid, most of our baptisms were done during Mass. That’s why I usually have a walk-through the night before. But, when you know they are professing something they don’t believe and have no intention of following through on, it’s hard to not be cynical.

 

[Vico]

…

…

Interestingly, a dogma of faith is that (phrasing from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott):

Without special Divine Revelation no one can know with the certainty of faith, if he be in the state of grace. (De fide.)

For salvation there must be finally a state of sanctifying grace, which of course can be lost after it is gained, and sanctifying grace may not be gained immediately in those baptized, for baptism must be truthful. However, per Catechism No. 1280 “Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship.” But also there must be rebirth. Catechism No. 1263 “In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God”.

Saint Thomas Aquinas remarks that for baptism “that general confession suffices which they make when in accordance with the Church’s ritual they “renounce Satan and all his works.” " (S.T. III Q68 A6)
And for infants: " For the same reason they [infants] can be said to intend, not by their own act of intention, since at times they struggle and cry; but by the act of those who bring them to be baptized.” (S.T. III Q68 A9)

 

[NSmith]

I agree that it is impossible to know with certainty whether anyone is saved or damned. That was why I qualified my conclusion by saying, “as far as we can know.”

I am a bit confused by:

But also there must be rebirth .

Are you saying that regeneration occurs separate from baptism? My understanding from RCIA has been that baptism is the rebirth, in accordance with Christ’s teaching to Nicodemus and the words of Paul in Romans.

that general confession suffices which they make when in accordance with the Church’s ritual they “renounce Satan and all his works.”

Also, do you mean that St. Thomas Aquinas believed baptism to have its effect separate from the act of the minister at the general confession? This would seem to contradict sacramental theology which attaches the effects of the sacrament to the matter and form.

Edit: I just read the relevant article, and St. Thomas is referring to the confession of the sinner, not to the effects of baptism. So the renunciation of Satan suffices as a confession, but does not confer the grace of baptism.

 

[Vico]

I agree that it is impossible to know with certainty whether anyone is saved or damned. That was why I qualified my conclusion by saying, “as far as we can know.”

I am a bit confused by:

Vico:

But also there must be rebirth .

Are you saying that regeneration occurs separate from baptism? My understanding from RCIA has been that baptism is the rebirth, in accordance with Christ’s teaching to Nicodemus and the words of Paul in Romans.

that general confession suffices which they make when in accordance with the Church’s ritual they “renounce Satan and all his works.”

Also, do you mean that St. Thomas Aquinas believed baptism to have its effect separate from the act of the minister at the general confession? This would seem to contradict sacramental theology which attaches the effects of the sacrament to the matter and form.

Edit: I just read the relevant article, and St. Thomas is referring to the confession of the sinner, not to the effects of baptism. So the renunciation of Satan suffices as a confession, but does not confer the grace of baptism.

A person that is not in a state of sanctifying grace does not receive an increase in sanctifying grace in receiving any of these sacraments of the living: Confirmation, Communion, Holy Orders, Matrimony, Anointing of the Sick. The sacrament of Penance requires proper disposition. An indelible spiritual mark (character) is made in the soul of those receiving Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, which cannot be removed by sin. Baptism makes that mark regardless of sin, however may not give sanctifying grace if an obstacle (obex) is placed in the way even when it is properly administered.

Catholic Encyclopedia

But even if all these essential requisites for constituting the sacrament be present, there can still be an obstacle put in the way of the sacramental grace, inasmuch as an adult might receive baptism with improper motives or without real detestation for sin. In that case the person would indeed be validly baptized, but he would not participate in the sacramental grace.

Fanning, W. (1907). Baptism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

 

[NSmith]

Fascinating. I am not sure if it is relevant to the fate of the unbaptized infants, but it does explain why the baptisms of heretical groups don’t produce edification leading to the conversion of the heretic in every case. Thanks!

 

[Vico]

Fascinating. I am not sure if it is relevant to the fate of the unbaptized infants, but it does explain why the baptisms of heretical groups don’t produce edification leading to the conversion of the heretic in every case. Thanks!

You are welcome. The Catholic Encyclopedia article also stated:

In treating of the grace bestowed by baptism, we presume that the recipient of the sacrament puts no obstacle (obex) in the way of sacramental grace. In an infant, of course, this would be impossible, and as a consequence, the infant receives at once all the baptismal grace. It is otherwise in the case of an adult, for in such a one it is necessary that the requisite dispositions of the soul be present.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

The uncertainty and possibility of the worse case scenario is why the church has always encouraged and urged infant baptism.

Better to be safe than sorry when possible.