Does original sin condemn unborn babies?

Status
Not open for further replies.
CathBoy1 said:
Or other teachings by saints and popes alike.
Click to expand...
So here’s the problem with your approach. You’re taking the dogma and pitting it against the rest of the Magisterium, when you should be harmonizing them. This includes Scripture and all other Magisterial sources, including the 1997 Catechism. The reason we don’t know is because Scripture itself is very clear that God desires the salvation of all and wishes none to perish and yet Christ himself made clear the absolute necessity of baptism.

This makes it clear to us that yes, Baptism is absolutely necessary. Original sin cannot be in the Beatific Vision. But, given what God has revealed of himself, it allows us to hope that there are extrasacramental means by which original sin can be remitted in the absence of personal sin. However, God stopped short of revealing what that is, or even if he has provided any such means.

Now if we are to just accept hands down that God automatically condemns such souls to hell, then we might as well accept Calvinism, because that’s exactly what it would imply: God predestined them to hell without any consideration of their free response to his grace. That outright denies Scripture, it is completely unbiblical. But at the same time, we cannot also just say they automatically go to heaven, otherwise, Jesus’ words would have no real force.

So we have two truths that need to be reconciled: the universal desire for salvation, and the necessity of baptism. What he did not provide us is the means to reconcile these two truths. All God provided us is a little sliver of hope, but nothing definite.

Limbo is not a solution either. There are only four Last Things: death, judgment, heaven and hell. Those who espouse Limbo are in fact admitting, if unknowingly, that such souls still go to hell. Limbo means rim, and it’s not a third state: it is the rim, or the outer edge of hell where the pains are at their lightest and the souls are in a state of natural joy (lightest does not mean nonexistent, because they are deprived of the Beatific Vision).

This is why you have to read Ott’s treatment because he provides the reasoning behind the Catechism’s teaching.
 
Yes, it’s technically Hell, but it’s not a place of torment. It’s been believed to be a place of perfect natural happiness. It isn’t Heaven as it would lack the beatific vision.
That’s the belief concerning limbo.

However, we don’t know the extent of God’s mercy. It may be that our or loved ones’ desires for the baby to go there Heaven can sort of stand as a kind of baptism by desire. We don’t know for sure how everything is worked out in these cases, so pray for them and trust in God’s Mercy.
 
If invincible ignorance does not preclude the possibility of salvation, nor would the souls of unborn babies be automatically condemned. Nobody can be more invincibly ignorant than unborn babies.

Beyond that we do not know, but we must trust in God’s perfect mercy, and that God above all, is not a tyrant.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely, however nowhere in there it is explicitly affirm that all who die without baptism will go there. What it does say is that GOD can work as HE please and we believe HIM to be a just GOD.
The Church does believe that there are other “places” apart from Hell and from Heaven. Since Jesus Himself spoke explicitly about these and there is a tension between knowing that Baptism is the “normal” way for salvation and that there can be ways by which GOD can choose to save someone.
Remember, Baptism is the normal way for salvation but one can trow away that and choose perdition instead. It is up to us to choose.
The destiny of the souls of the infants that have died without Baptism has not been settled on this side of eternity. We don’t know and the Church allows for speculation. No Dogma on it.
Peace!
 
It just seems to me that it was the churches teaching and hasn’t been so much done away with as buried or rebranded.
Consider the quotes provided by rose:

The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only…immediately descend into Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments". —Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274

“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”. —Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli , 6 July 1439

That is official church teaching, how do we reconcile this?
 
CathBoy1 said:
It just seems to me that it was the churches teaching and hasn’t been so much done away with as buried or rebranded.
Consider the quotes provided by rose:

The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only…immediately descend into Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments". —Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274

“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”. —Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli , 6 July 1439

That is official church teaching, how do we reconcile this?
Click to expand...
I’ve given you my treatment of the question. I’m leaving this thread now.
 
Hello rose, it seems as though you’ve answered my question, this is exactly how I took the traditional teaching, yet it seems harsh.

My question came up when reading the EO perspective on the Immaculate Conception.

In my readings the question of unborn/unbaptized babies didn’t come up, but rather it was stating that the idea of the Immaculate Conception doesn’t necessarily conflict with eastern orthodox teaching as they believe that all are born sinless, yet inheriting from Adam’s original sin a fallen nature the punishment of which is death, hence no need to define that Mary was immaculately conceived only that she continued throughout life without sin.

Well reading about this it dawned on me the question of original sin and unbaptized or unborn babies, this question may have come to me because my wife and I lost a baby due to miscarriage.
Now I find myself with conflicting beliefs wondering if the traditional Catholic teaching is correct or if not the EO teaching is correct.

It almost seems to me that the EO teaching is correct and if they are correct on this teaching, are they possibly correct on other teachings?

The more I ponder this, I am more confused.
Honestly it’s headache inducing.
 
Nigel7 said:
God is free to operate outside of his sacraments. That includes baptism
Click to expand...
CathBoy1 said:
This is where I get confused, either the Dogma correct or it isn’t .
Click to expand...
CCC, section 1261

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,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.
 
Last edited:
I have heard of an abortionist in Eastern Europe, who had a dream with St Thomas aquinas in it. Apparently in the dream he was in heaven and, all these children were there playing, and apparently when they seen him the children ran away, to a monk clothed in a robe. The monk then approached him and told him that he was St Thomas aquinas, and the children were running away from him because he killed them. Apparently after this he converted to Catholicism and never done abortions again. I think he still alive too.
 
CathBoy1 said:
oes original sin condemn unborn babies?
If not, how do we reconcile this with the Catholic Dogma:

Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.

I’m trying to understand this, because as I understand it if original sin doesn’t condemn unborn/unbaptized babies this Dogma is wrong, yet the idea that it does condemn them seems seriously wrong.
I understand that Catholic teaching has changed its view on limbo, but that doesn’t really answer the question.
Thanks for any help.
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t know.
 
Ultimately we only have theological speculation on what happens to unbaptized persons who pass away before the age of reason. “Limbo” is generally seen as a part of Hell (broadly construed). St. Thomas Aquinas taught that such babies and children would be resurrected, that they would not have the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision, but that they would have a natural happiness in their existence, experience a natural level of goodness, and would not suffer the pains of Hell, even the pain of loss.

The Church has somewhat retreated from speculation (we shouldn’t treat that as a dirty word in this context, though) and instead seems to just say we don’t know but we can hold out hope in the mercy of God to forgive them of original sin.
 
The limbo is a place of great natural happiness. And this is where God sends unborn babies. It is called limbus puerorum. This isn’t declared dogma (yet).

Remember that God is Justice, so He would neve send innocent people to hell, which is eternal suffering.

It is also important to understand that every human is stained by original sin. However, this isn’t a punishment on us by God because of our fathers’ sin. Instead, think of this as if we were a generation of a community that lives where a nuclear bomb exploded not long ago because our fathers messed up. We didn’t explode it, but we have to deal with the radiation nonetheless.
 
God can cleanse them of original sin gratuitously. St. Thomas Aquinas explains:
Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.
Click to expand...
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article11

If He chooses not to, then they would be excluded from the beatific vision. He has not revealed what He chooses for each soul. Pray for their salvation.
 
Last edited:
Things like this are just not for us to know. We should entrust them to the mercy of God.
 
Limbo is a dubious concept in CATHOLOCISM I think.
The Nicene Creed seems to have spurred on a necessity for limbo. ( He desended into hell).
And something I haven’t yet researched is the first 1000 years where Ransom Theory of Atonement was predominant.
Satan didn’t seem to have a two tier system of souls ( contemplated by the theory). This Christian/ Catholic theory of Atonement overlaps the Nicene Creed. “Hell” should have been consistent for both. It doesn’t change until Saint Anselm.
The passages of Saint Augustine and later Saint Thomas on this subject with children represent the ones I found most difficult to swollow.
 
Limbo is not a condemnation; it’s “happily ever after” in the most natural way, though “deprived” of glory (which they will never experience as a deprivation since they were never in sanctifying grace). The demons will not torment those souls. We are free to believe that. Baptism is still ordinarily necessary for eternal glorification. We are also free to believe that God gives the Beatific Vision to whomever he wills, and we cannot limit his mercy. A mother whose child is miscarried or who regrets an abortion can pray that God grant an extraordinary grace so they can join them in heaven.
 
Last edited:
I don’t disagree with your explanation being accurate.
I just have a million problems with Limbo.
( As opposed to purgation)
Our purpose is Divine Union with God.
Anything other than Divine union represents the very definition of Hell to many.
I don’t go in for demons with pitch forks but I do consider our purpose, Divine union, central to my faith.
Limbo does not seem to fit. Either you are with God or not. Not is hell.
 
Maximus1 said:
I don’t disagree with your explanation being accurate.
I just have a million problems with Limbo.
( As opposed to purgation)
Our purpose is Divine Union with God.
Anything other than Divine union represents the very definition of Hell to many.
I don’t go in for demons with pitch forks but I do consider our purpose, Divine union, central to my faith.
Limbo does not seem to fit. Either you are with God or not. Not is hell.
Click to expand...
Again, you hit a right point. If it is to be accepted, Limbo is still not a third final state. It is hell. That’s why it’s called limbo to begin with.
 
Last edited:
There is," he who pass these gates hath no hope," hell, and this other place. The other place is apparently not purgatory either, as purgation does not help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top