Fate of Unbaptized Infants

[Vico]

I was catechized using the Baltimore Catechism series. No. 3 quoted before was for after Confirmation. No. 4 is a teaching edition of No. 2, pre Confirmation. It has more details:154 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven.
Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven—neither will they go to Hell. After the Last Judgment there will be no Purgatory. Where, then, will they go? God in His goodness will provide a place of rest for them, where they will not suffer and will be in a state of natural peace; but they will never see God or Heaven. God might have created us for a purely natural and material end, so that we would live forever upon the earth and be naturally happy with the good things God would give us. But then we would never have known of Heaven or God as we do now. Such happiness on earth would be nothing compared to the delights of Heaven and the presence of God; so that, now, since God has given us, through His holy revelations, a knowledge of Himself and Heaven, we would be miserable if left always upon the earth. Those, then, who die without Baptism do not know what they have lost, and are naturally happy; but we who know all they have lost for want of Baptism know how very unfortunate they are.

Think, then, what a terrible crime it is to willfully allow anyone to die without Baptism, or to deprive a little child of life before it can be baptized! Suppose all the members of a family but one little infant have been baptized; when the Day of Judgment comes, while all the other members of a family—father, mother, and children—may go into Heaven, that little one will have to remain out; that little brother or sister will be separated from its family forever, and never, never see God or Heaven. How heartless and cruel, then, must a person be who would deprive that little infant of happiness for all eternity—just that its mother or someone else might have a little less trouble or suffering here upon earth.

gutenberg.org/ebooks/14554

 

[TrueLight]

However, it appears most everyone is more concerned with being right or winning a debate than treating others with a little decency and respect. Top notch - on Good Friday to boot! Oh, yeah, but don’t mention the thief on the cross - surely God will save him, but not an innocent.

Happy Easter… My goodness, how sad.

Treating others with decency doesn’t mean one makes up truths so that everyone feels better. You are judging people’s hearts here. You don’t know who might have already said a prayer for the poster. Furthermore, you don’t know how many of the people who posted are agonizing over the loss of their babies through various means. Not everyone is able to share these types of losses.

Some things are painful, but it doesn’t change things.

We leave it up to God.

 

[Brendan]

So God can’t save or show mercy on whomever He sees fit? God is not the last word regarding salvation???

He can, but there are times when He has told us He does ( such as when a person recieves Baptism). If a child dies after recieving the Sacrament of Baptism, we have certitude that God has granted them enternal salvation. It becomes just as much a fact as 2+2=4

But there are time that He has not revealed His plan, such as in the death of unbaptized babies.
God has elected not to reveal His plan to us, therefore we have Hope, not Certitude.

That is what the Church has said, and that is what I hold to. No less, no more.

 

[BrJuniper]

He can, but there are times when He has told us He does ( such as when a person recieves Baptism). If a child dies after recieving the Sacrament of Baptism, we have certitude that God has granted them enternal salvation. It becomes just as much a fact as 2+2=4

But there are time that He has not revealed His plan, such as in the death of unbaptized babies.
God has elected not to reveal His plan to us, therefore we have Hope, not Certitude.

That is what the Church has said, and that is what I hold to. No less, no more.

You have no such thing. Baptism is for the remission of sin(s). The absence of IMMEDIATE messes up your argument. Let me ask you…The parents have their child baptized knowing they have no intention to raise them catholic but do it for the grandparents to avoid conflict. What then?

 

[Brendan]

You have no such thing. Baptism is for the remission of sin(s). The absence of IMMEDIATE messes up your argument. Let me ask you…The parents have their child baptized knowing they have no intention to raise them catholic but do it for the grandparents to avoid conflict. What then?

The Baptism is still valid, the stain of orginal sin is washed away, the child is restored to a state of Grace and the character of Baptism is imprinted upon the soul of the child.

The Baptism is illicit, in that it violates the norms of the Church, but it remains a valid sacrament.

If the child died before the age of reason, the child’s salvation is assured.

That is standard Catholic Sacramentology. You should take a class in it sometime.

 

[BrJuniper]

The Baptism is still valid, the stain of orginal sin is washed away, the child is restored to a state of Grace and the character of Baptism is imprinted upon the soul of the child.

The Baptism is illicit, in that it violates the norms of the Church, but it remains a valid sacrament.

If the child died before the age of reason, the child’s salvation is assured.

That is standard Catholic Sacramentology. You should take a class in it sometime.

Dancing on a pin I see. By that reasoning then, followed to its logical and reasonable conclusion, there is no need for the liturgy because there is a valid Baptism absent the intention of the parents. I disagree.

Now to your ignorance of Sacramental Theology. Since you claim intention only goes to illicitness, no Sacrament is invalidated or validated by intent, begging the question what does invalidate?

 

[Brendan]

Dancing on a pin I see. By that reasoning then, followed to its logical and reasonable conclusion, there is no need for the liturgy because there is a valid Baptism absent the intention of the parents. I disagree.

The Intent of the Sacrament of Baptism required for validity is that of the Minister. The intent to raise the child as a Catholic is that of the parents and guardians, which is a matter of validity.

We can see that in Canon Law ( which I have also taken class in )

Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized** licitly**:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

Now to your ignorance of Sacramental Theology. Since you claim intention only goes to illicitness, no Sacrament is invalidated or validated by intent, begging the question what does invalidate?

First of all, I made no mention of intent. If you thought so, perhaps you should re-read my post.

Every Sacrament requires intent, but the intent is on the part of the Minister. A valid Confirmation occurs when the Bishop intends to confirm the person before them. The person if above the age of reason, must give consent, but that is distinct from Intent ( if you doubt that, check a dictionary for the defintion of those two words)

The consent for Baptism for a child (defined as under the age of reason) occurs when a person brings forth the child for baptism. That can actually be anyone, even against the will of the parents.

Canon 868
§2. An infant of Catholic parentsm or even of non-Catholic parentsm is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

So even if the parents strongly object, a valid Baptism occurs, and, in the case of a child in danger of death, the Baptism is even licit.

As long as the person who is doing the pouring of the water over the child, while reciting the Trinitrarian Form has the intent to do what the Church does at Baptism, the Baptism is valid.

What the parents intend is relevant only to licitity.

No waltzing on pins required, just some basic reading on what the Church teaches

If you disagree, can you support your position with Church documentation?

 

[BrJuniper]

The Intent of the Sacrament of Baptism required for validity is that of the Minister. The intent to raise the child as a Catholic is that of the parents and guardians, which is a matter of validity.

We can see that in Canon Law ( which I have also taken class in )
First of all, I made no mention of intent. If you thought so, perhaps you should re-read my post.

Every Sacrament requires intent, but the intent is on the part of the Minister. A valid Confirmation occurs when the Bishop intends to confirm the person before them. The person if above the age of reason, must give consent, but that is distinct from Intent ( if you doubt that, check a dictionary for the defintion of those two words)

The consent for Baptism for a minor occurs when a person brings forth the child for baptism. That can actually be anyone, even against the will of the parents.

So even if the parents strongly object, a valid Baptism occurs, and, in the case of a child in danger of death, the Baptism is even licit.

No waltzing on pins required, just some basic reading on what the Church teaches

OK…I get it. Your ecclisiology is that which has no place for intention. BTW when you answered the interrogatory you accepted the conditions where intention was the issue, ergo you explicitly answered re intention. I disagree…a priest can intend to forgive my sins all day log but if I do not intend his intention is irrelevant. (Sacramental Theology see) Knowing the legalist position, I am not saying that there is no place for the intention of the Minister, but it is subordinate to the receiver and God.

 

[Brendan]

OK…I get it. Your ecclisiology is that which has no place for intention.

Actually not. Are you really reading my postes. I talked about Intent quite a lot. Catholic Sacramentology requires it on the part of the Minister.

And secondly, I was discussing Sacramentology, not Ecclesology. Assuming that we are talking about CATHOLIC Sacraments.

BTW when you answered the interrogatory you accepted the conditions where intention was the issue, ergo you explicitly answered re intention. I disagree…a priest can intend to forgive my sins all day log but if I do not intend his intention is irrelevant (Sacramental Theology see)

Actually, any sins that you confessed (sacramental matter) and are sorry for ( your consent) ARE in fact absolved, as long as the priest carries the Intent to absolve them. Without the priestly intent, your consent and penitence do not matter.

Knowing the legalist position, I am not saying that there is no place for the intention of the Minister, but it is subordinate to the receiver and God.

The Intent of God is a given, He makes that Manifest through His Church.

As for your subjection of the intent of the recpient vs that of the minister, can you back that up with Church documentation. or is it simply your personal speculation?

FYI, here is the Church’s take on where Intent falls into the Sacrament of Baptism

Can. 861 §1. The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 530, n. 1.

§2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly.

As you can see, the Church places the Intent on behalf of the Minister of the Sacrament.

 

[BrJuniper]

Actually not. Are you really reading my postes. I talked about Intent quite a lot. Catholic Sacramentology requires it on the part of the Minister.

And secondly, I was discussing Sacramentology, not Ecclesology. Assuming that we are talking about CATHOLIC Sacraments.

Actually, any sins that you confessed (sacramental matter) and are sorry for ( your consent) ARE in fact absolved, as long as the priest carries the Intent to absolve them. Without the priestly intent, your consent and penitence do not matter.
The Intent of God is a given, He makes that Manifest through His Church.

As for your subjection of the intent of the recpient vs that of the minister, can you back that up with Church documentation. or is it simply your personal speculation?

FYI, here is the Church’s take on where Intent falls into the Sacrament of Baptism

As you can see, the Church places the Intent on behalf of the Minister of the Sacrament.

wow…I said nothing about confession, so you add to. I got it you have some knowledge of theology so you make up the rest. No need for this to go on because your understanding is flawed, limiting culpability.

one last simple universal of Sacrament
Proper form lacking intention…invalid but licit
Proper intention lacking form…Valid and illicit
Improper form and Improper intent…Invalid and illicit

All subordinate to the Will of God.

 

[BrJuniper]

Dogma never changes Doctrine does.

 

[Brendan]

wow…I said nothing about confession, so you add to. I got it you have some knowledge of theology so you make up the rest. No need for this to go on because your understanding is flawed, limiting culpability.

It is interesting that you make these claims, but never seem to back it up with actual statements from the Church as to how my theology is lacking

one last simple universal of Sacrament
Proper form lacking intention of the minister…invalid but licit, licitity has no bearing when a Sacrament does not occur

Proper intention lacking form…Valid and illicit Nope, if a person intents to Baptize, but does so in the name of “Huey, Duey and Lewy”, there is no Baptism. Likewise, if two Catholics attempt marriage outside of Catholic form, there is no Marriage, the Sacrament is invalid
Improper form and Improper intent…Invalid and illicit

All subordinate to the Will of God, as articulated through His Church .

 

[Brendan]

wow…I said nothing about confession, so you add to.

\

Actually, you did. Post 106

…a priest can intend to forgive my sins all day log but if I do not intend his intention is irrelevant.

 

[BrJuniper]

It is interesting that you make these claims, but never seem to back it up with actual statements from the Church as to how my theology is lacking

Are you Tridentine? Doctrine is just an explanation, not the Dogma. See Real Presence

 

[Jeanne_S]

The Divine Mercy Novena begins today,in light of this topic ,all I can say is “Jesus I Trust in You”

 

[CatholicFireman]

Oh thanks for reminding me!

ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/novena.htm

 

[Brendan]

Are you Tridentine? Doctrine is just an explanation, not the Dogma. See Real Presence

Nope, I go to OF Masss,

And here is the definition of 'Doctrine" from the Modern Catholic Dictionary - Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.)

Doctrine - Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for the acceptance by the faithful. The truth might be either formally revealed (as in the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as in the canonization of a saint). or as a part of Natural Law (as in the sinfulness of contraception), In any case, what makes a doctrine is that the Church authoritatively teaches that it is to be believed.

Dogma - A Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed as part of Divine Revelation. All dogmas are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. They may be eitther explicitly in Scripture (such as the Incarnation) or implicitly (such as the Assumption)

Sorry, your defintion does not jive with the Church’s. A Dogma is a subclass of Doctrine.

( FYI, Fr. Hardon is now “Servant of God” John Hardon, as his Canonization process is well underway. In addition, he was the primary author of the 1975 edition of Catechism of the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II asked him to head up the 1992 edition, but he was too ill)

 

[BrJuniper]

Nope, I go to OF Masss,

And here is the definition of 'Doctrine" from the Modern Catholic Dictionary - Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.)

Sorry, your defintion does not jive with the Church’s. A Dogma is a subclass of Doctrine.

( FYI, Fr. Hardon is now “Servant of God” John Hardon, as his Canonization process is well underway. In addition, he was the primary author of the 1975 edition of Catechism of the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II asked him to head up the 1992 edition, but he was too ill)

wow…Even Hardon doesn’t say that. I now understand though. You are incorrect. NB The noted Jesuit references Real Presence, that is the Dogma. The Doctrine, currently, is transubstantiation, not to be confused with consubstantiation or transignification. Other Dogma are in the Creeds, they never change and are essential to the faith. Dogma is not a “subclass” of anything, even to a Jesuit. Recently added Dogmae conceern Mary and infallibility.

Your understanding is poor, I suggest you learn to apply the principle of noncontradiction in your thinking. The Church does.