Fate of non-Baptized infants

[javelin]

reen12:

Please see my reference links, above, that cite
the actual teachings of same, in the 1950’s.
[post #6]

Hello, Maureen. God’s Peace to you.

In all fairness, I read the Baltimore Catechism you linked to, and it said this:

[Limbo]
does not exist now, or, if it does, is only for little children who have never committed actual sin and who have died without Baptism. They will never get into Heaven or see God, but they will not have to suffer pains as they who are in Purgatory or Hell endure.

(emphasis mine)

I don’t think anyone could say this definitively states there is a Limbo for children. What it does say is reaffirming the very biblical position that only those baptized in Christ will participate in the fullness of Heaven.

Also, it does not say that only water baptism counts.

Hence children, even unborn, can be saved by Christ through a “Baptism” granted them by His Mercy.

I try to remember that the Lord said “to whom much is given, much will be expected”, and that children taken very young have not been given enough in life to be expected to “choose Christ”. (In contrast, I choose to believe I have been given much, and try to live with the high heavenly expectations that go with that)

So, I believe we can live with confidence that we will see our departed, little loved ones once again, and that they will be at the very minimum, perfectly happy.

What is so bad about that?

Peace,
javelin

 

[reen12]

Dear javelin,

Thank you for checking out the link I provided.
I do appreciate your doing same.

I ask you to look at the second sentence, in #86,
that you quoted, in your post above this one,
starting with the words: “They will never get…”

And your own words:

So, I believe we can live with confidence that we will see our departed, little loved ones once again, and that they will be at the very minimum, perfectly happy.

What can I say?

This is not the God, to me, Who said:

Even if your mother and father forget you,
I will not forget you.
See? I have written your name on the
palm of My hand.

A Church that would produce a theology [doctrines]
that would make the Beatific Vision a matter of “might” or “maybe”, for these little souls, is not a Church capable of instructing either my heart or soul, in the things of God, IMHO.

If the RCC can only trust these little souls to
the “mercy of God” and cannot say -definitely- that
they see God in the Face…because of misguided
and overly valued “theological constructs”…
well, as I said above…it is not where I can find the
Savior, Who spoke in the gospels.

I believe that those who find God in the RCC, love
Him, and pray to Him, will spend eternity with Him.

But you’ll find me in that place in heaven [by the grace
of God] with the other sheep, bleating out Blessed
Assurance, to the God Whom, we sheep were always
*certain, *gave these little persons a home in His eternal heart.

God bless you, javelin,

reen12

 

[Dan-Man916]

waxednwaned,

It is a dogma of faith that since Christ instituted Baptism and His Church, EVERYONE who dies with the stain of Original Sin goes to Hell.
Yes, I quoteed the pertinent council documents above.
However, if these unbaptized were to somehow receive the grace of Justification and Sanctifying grace, then they would no longer be under the stain of original sin.
IF (and this is still an open question), Baptism of desire can apply to these infants, then they would be saved since Baptism of desire or baptism of blood can replace baptism with water.
The question remains, can Baptism of desire apply to infants. Can the desire of the parents suffice for the unborn who is not at the age of reason.
these questions are theologically open.

*All infants who die before Baptism cannot have a Mass said for it; *
Not a funeral mass, but they can have a mass offered for them.
This would be true for any non-Catholic.

and, it cannot be burried on “holy ground” - surely this says alot.
Truthfully, this topic cannot be “discussed among Catholics” since the Church has already given the word, in Dogmatic form. You must agree with Her.
This statement is true if and only if the unbaptized infant is unable to be Justified either extra-sacramentally or through baptism of desire.
The infallible statements of the Church do not dogmatically say that the unbaptized infant has no other way of being Justified.
This needs to be stated lest we assume that the infant must be in hell. We simply do not know if the infant had the stain of original sin removed. We can only make a theological guess.

 

[Dan-Man916]

reen 12,

*You might check the catechism, #1261
*
And if you do, you see that it has no footnotes, meaning that it does not have the weight of an infallible ecumenical council or encyclical.
This is also the theological opinion of the Church at this time.
It is not meant to be a dogmatic statement.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Dan-Man916,

Please note my post #19, in this thread, toward the
end of the post.

Many thanks, and best regards, to you.

reen12

 

[Fox]

By means of which God alone knows, babies can receive eternal life.

 

[reen12]

Hello, Joseph Bilodeau

quote: Joseph Bilodeau re: Limbo]

…is not official Church teaching. Sometimes complex concepts are oversimplified when taught to children…

Limbo, as defined in the Baltimore Catechism,
was taught to more than one generation of children.

Look at the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, from
the early part of the last century.

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Surely, this was not written for children, by those who
were not theology sophisticated? Had one of these
teachers consulted this source- before presenting
the Baltimore Catechism’s sterling presentation
on same- what would have been the “nuance” that
said teacher would have derived, that would have
differed, in any substantial way, from that of the Baltimore
Catechism?

---

I can sense the aroma of burning rubber, as the
current incarnation of Church leadership, tries to
put as much distance between this concept …
as it was taught…by making reference to #1261,
in the current catechism.

And even *that *presentation is unendurable, in my view.
[please see my post # 22, in this thread.]

Ah, well…

Best,

reen12

 

[VociMike]

I voted “don’t know” because you didn’t have my belief listed. I think that every baby will be allowed to make the same choice as every adult. They will be allowed to choose God or choose no God.

I believe this because I can’t see God partitioning off a set of human souls forever. He wants us with Him, and the only other state besides with Him is not with Him. I can’t see any in-betweens.

 

[Dan-Man916]

reen,

the newadvent entry states:

*Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the “children’s limbo.” *

True this was the common teaching, but again, we have no authoritative statements from the Magesterium to back this up.

So while it may have been taught as infallible back in the 40’s-50’s, it really wasn’t.

Besides, we have abigger problem of catechesis in that time in that the level of training of religious in those days was not nearly as advanced as it was today.
This is why the Church no longer has the Baltimore Catechism as it’s type of catechesis formation.

The naunces of differen thought in the Church age are lost in a simple catechism formula.

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

…*All infants who die before Baptism cannot have a Mass said for it; *
Not a funeral mass, but they can have a mass offered for them.
This would be true for any non-Catholic…

This is not correct:
The Order of Christian Funerals:

Through the celebration of the funeral rites, the Church manifests its care for the dead, both baptized members and catechumens. In keeping with the provisions of Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1183, the Church’s funeral rites may be celebrated for a child who died before baptism and whose parents intended to have the child baptized

At the discretion of the local Ordinary, the Church’s funeral rites may be celebrated for a baptized member of another Church or ecclesial community provided this would not be contrary to the wishes of the deceased person and provided the minister of the Church or ecclesial community in which the deceased person was a regular member or communicant is unavailable.

The Order of Christian Funerals also has several selections of Readings, Psalms, Alleluia verses and Gospel Readings for funerals for children who died before Baptism.

…and, it cannot be burried on “holy ground”…

This is also not correct. Unbaptized children of Catholic parents can be burried in Catholic cemeteries. The Rite of Committal includes a blessing over the place of committal if the place is not already blessed. Whether non-Catholic adults or children of non-Catholics may be burried in a particular Catholic cemetery depends on that particular cemetery’s policies.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Joe,

thanks for the clarification.
i must have been mistaken then.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Dan-Man,

So while it may have been taught as infallible back in the 40’s-50’s, it really wasn’t.

OK. Would you consider the effect this teaching may have
had, later in that child’s life, as an adult? The heartache,
uncertainty and misery that that “uninfallible” teaching
may well have caused, before it was more carefully
nuanced?

Please see my post #22, for the most complete reply
I can give to this issue, Limbo, as well as post #27,
which addresses the issue in your quote, above.

Thanks, Dan-Man,

reen12

 

[VociMike]

reen12:

I can’t believe it needs a Papal commission to decide
what is the probable fate of aborted babies, in the
hereafter.
.
Absolutely incredible, to me. Are they serious?
Have they not looked into an infant’s face?

Your reaction is understandable, but have you thought it through? We know that free will is a great gift (partially because of all the evil that God allows because we abuse it). If every aborted baby went to heaven without a choice on their part, then that would mean that God had compelled them to love Him (for can anybody be in heaven who does not love God?). Does God compel anybody to love Him? Does He deprive anybody of the gift of freely choosing to love Him? Does God knock at their doors, or does He kick them in?

Further, when then does a baby cease to have an automatic ticket to heaven? When does the infinite change in destiny from heaven to hell happen? Can any single act justify such a change in destiny? If an infant can only be imagined as going to heaven, what about a 3 year old? What about a 6 year old? A 9 year old? When does heaven cease to be inevitable?

Based on such considerations it seems clear to me that even babies will be allowed to use their free will to choose between eternity with God and eternity without Him.

 

[mhansen]

VociMike:

Based on such considerations it seems clear to me that even babies will be allowed to use their free will to choose between eternity with God and eternity without Him.

Even this I think I can accept, because babies will have the choice, then, BEFORE they get indoctrinated with this “theology of fear” that the rest of us have. It’s only when we’re laden with feelings of guilt, fear, and worthlessness that any of us ever begin to doubt God…especially a God of love, mercy, and compassion.

I am fully confident that without human interference and theology no soul would EVER choose anything except God.

 

[E.E.N.S]

mhansen:

I am fully confident that without human interference and theology no soul would EVER choose anything except God.

What about Adam and Eve? Was the devil human?

 

[Dan-Man916]

Reen,

OK. Would you consider the effect this teaching may have had, later in that child’s life, as an adult? The heartache, uncertainty and misery that that “uninfallible” teaching may well have caused, before it was more carefully nuanced?

I can certainly see the heartache and sadness brought about by the families in which this situation hits home, not as an intellectual discussion here, but as a reality of their situation.

As I said in my other post, Limbo is an answer to reconcile 2 beliefs. No one has a natural right to Heaven, but must be born again in baptism. And God desires that all be saved, and in His mercy wishes that none perish.

Now, from a personal opinion, I believe that Baptism of desire is applicable here.

I can also see why you say what you say. Hold a newborn child or any infant in your arms and how do you not see the beauty of God’s creative gift. You truly see the image and likeness of God in that little one (and even in the case of the unborn who dies in utero). I know this myself, being a Dad.

So it is reasonable to then assume that since we love this beautiful infant (and even unborn child in the womb), how could God ever love this child any less than we do? If we, as parents, would give our life in a second for our children, how could God ever let that child spend an eternity without beholding the face of the Lord in the Beatific vision.

It makes no logical sense if we consider love and the power of love.
So how do we then respond?

Well, one could assert that our ways are not God’s ways, and eventhough the love we are capable of is certainly from God, God’s love is greater, and we just may not completely understand. We simply may not have the capacity to understand why God would allow for Limbo, a place of natural happiness yet void of the Beatific vision.

However, experientially, I think the case can be made that the love we have for an unborn child or unbaptized infant is only a fraction of God’s love for the child, and our desire to have that child saved must be in accordance with God’s will for the child to be saved because we know that God desires that all men be saved.

If God desires that all be saved, then God will also make a way for all to be saved, whether that be by the desire of the parents, or some other extra-sacramental way.

However, this subject cannot be discussed theologically like other areas of doctrine because there is simply no authoritative teachings on it in the Church’s Tradition.

I think that this discussion can only be had in the realm of what it means for God to love and how that love is expressed through redemption and the possibility for that redemption to be applied to all. For I see that love calls for mercy, not justice.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[reen12]

Dear VociMike,

Now that is a position I can relate to, with integrity.

quote: VociMike

Your reaction is understandable, but have you thought it through? We know that free will is a great gift (partially because of all the evil that God allows because we abuse it). If every aborted baby went to heaven without a choice on their part, then that would mean that God had compelled them to love Him (for can anybody be in heaven who does not love God?). Does God compel anybody to love Him? Does God knock at their doors, or does He kick them in?

Especially:

…without a choice on their part, then that would mean that God had compelled them to love Him (for can anybody be in heaven who does not love God?).

And, the clincher, for my mind, trained in metaphysics:

Based on such considerations it seems clear to me that even babies will be allowed to use their free will to choose between eternity with God and eternity without Him

You know, I suppose it’s possible that the infant- who
posesses an immortal soul - has the powers of that soul -
“undiminished” by the fact that h/she is an infant,* as*
h/she enters eternity.

quote: VociMike

Does He deprive anybody of the gift of freely choosing to love Him?

Oh, well done, VociMike ! Let me think about this some, OK?

Kindest regards,

reen12

 

[VociMike]

mhansen:

I am fully confident that without human interference and theology no soul would EVER choose anything except God.

How does this explain Adam and Eve?

 

[Matt16_18]

The question asked in this thread is what is the “fate of non-Baptized infants”? But the question that people are answering is what is the ultimate fate of non-Baptized infants.

People get pretty sloppy when they discuss this question, because they say things such as aborted infants go straight to heaven. But that would mean that abortion is a sacrament of salvation! I think the Catholic Church is clear - abortion is not a sacrament of salvation, and aborted infants do not go straight to heaven. Aborted infants go to limbus infantium, a place that is certainly not in the flames of hell, nor is it a place where infants see the beatific vision either.

The real question that should concern Catholics is this: does the Church Militant have any means at her disposal to help infants that have not received the Sacrament of Baptism escape eternity in the limbus infantium? Can unbaptized infants ever see the beatific vision? The Catholic Church has no definitive teaching on this matter, but she does allow Mass to be said for these infants.

This is my personal opinion - aborted infants are in a place where they are suffering from the wound of being rejected by their parents. These infants need to be loved by someone, and they are seeking that love. The Church Militant can help these aborted infants the same way that the Church Militant can help those in Purgatory – by prayer, obtaining indulgences for the sake of the suffering dead, and above all, by Masses offered by the parents of aborted infants for the sake of their dead children.

The parents of aborted infants also need to be healed of the wound they have inflicted on themselves by the sin of abortion. The parents can be forgiven of the sin of abortion through the Sacrament of Confession. It seems strange to me to think that God would forgive the person that inflicted death on an innocent child and allow him or her to enter Heaven, but would permanently bar the victim of abortion from ever achieving union with God.

The hardcore Feeneyites deny that the Church Militant can help an aborted infant, so they won’t even bother to pray for these children. The Catholic Church rightly condemns Feeneyism and the errors that flow out of this heresy.

 

[mhansen]

VociMike:

How does this explain Adam and Eve?

My explanation will not satisfy you. Your question assumes that I consider the story of Adam and Eve to be something other than Hebrew mythology.