HELP! Unbaptized infants- change in Church's teaching?

[cvrabel]

Dear Fineca, I understand what you are saying…but the point is, the children that are under the age of reason, cannot be held accountable and therefore, it would seem to me that God Himself would have the desire of Baptism for them, which would remove the Original sin.

 

[minkymurph]

The Church used to say one thing, & act accordingly: so unbaptised babies were buried in unconsecrated ground. It was “known” that they could not enter heaven. Now it has reversed itself. How is the meaning of infallibility not destroyed, when the Church can afform contradictory positions ?​

Yes, and in the past those who where baptised and committed suicide were not allowed to be buried on consecrated ground. The Church thankfully is older and wiser now. I take you point that when the Church appears to backtrack, it discredits the teaching of infallibty and is a tremendous test of faith. Infallibility does not mean the Church understands everything in the divine sense. That does not mean it cannot issue infallible teaching but it does mean they may well have to backtrack because of past ignorance in explaining infallible teaching. The question is, does infallible teaching exist and if it does, what is it? If infallible teaching does not exist, there is no revealed truth.

 

[minkymurph]

This is the part that I do not generally agree with.

While I can see your point, I can also see the perspective of a mother who does raise a person who turns terrible and dies in mortal sin. It’s true that we may not know for sure the eternal fate of the person. But if they died unrepentant, for example, during the act of trying to kidnap a child, it truly seems highly unlikely that the mother’s child who is now “grown up” will ever be comforted with the idea that her son will meet her in Heaven.

There are many examples of this and the list that could be generated from these kinds of scenarios would be too large to include in this post.

I agree, which is why I said the Church cannot draw up a ‘criteria’ that will cover every eventualty. I said at the outset this is my view of things and you have enlarged on a lot of what I said which is the whole purpose of discussing complex issues; in order to draw out greater understanding. There is I believe a comfort in the idea that those we love are with God when they die and I don’t think you can talk of it in terms of being ‘grown up’ as we receive immortal bodies in heaven and time does not exist. That has little meaning to us now as we only understand things in terms of the finite and we have human perceptions of things. I don’t know there is much that does comfort someone who has lost a child. Those I know who have never to me, seem to get over it. They accept it and learn to live with it but they never really stop greiving. The reason I would say the Church has been silent is for the very valid reasons you discuss. They cannot invalidate baptism being one. This topic has been discussed from the third century and before. We should not think that because we are now in the 21st century it is easier to answer. However I take the point that perhaps it should be explained with greater clarity as a heart renching issue, and someone who would say ‘your child’s in heaven as it wasn’t baptised’ sends a chill up my spine. God above all things is love and this is not love.

 

[minkymurph]

My second response was to Cameron in case you are confused. I can’t even figure out how to place quotes in my posts properly never mind the question of the unbaptised.

 

[cvrabel]

Dear Fineca, I understand what you are saying…but the point is, the children that are under the age of reason, cannot be held accountable and therefore, it would seem to me that God Himself would have the desire of Baptism for them, which would remove the Original sin.

 

[cvrabel]

Camron, In answer to your thread…and forgive me, I am new, and haven’t figured out yet how to use the quote box. Re this following quote:

For example, I think that God does allow us to know that the Holy Innocents who suffered in Christ’s name during the reign of King Herod are considered Saints in Heaven. They certainly were not baptized by any visible sacrament of baptism that I’m aware of. And yet the Church venerates these children as martyrs (flores martyrum) because they are the first buds of the Church killed by the frost of persecution. They died not only for Christ, but in His stead

You put this very well. Martyrdom, I remember being taught, was a baptism as well…we had water, desire and blood.

I mean no offence, but it simply smacks one of a monstrous and ineffective deity if one really promulgates the idea that God is really powerless to save an unbaptized infant from hell. Indeed, if one does make this proclamation, then they really are saying that the Church is more powerful than the God who created her, precisely because they are saying that God cannot save these babies if the Church fails in her mission.

Also a very excellent observation. The Church was created by God not God by the Church. We really do need more clarification on this. And finally,

While I can see your point, I can also see the perspective of a mother who does raise a person who turns terrible and dies in mortal sin. It’s true that we may not know for sure the eternal fate of the person. But if they died unrepentant, for example, during the act of trying to kidnap a child, it truly seems highly unlikely that the mother’s child who is now “grown up” will ever be comforted with the idea that her son will meet her in Heaven.

I totally agree with this, as we are speaking of a grown, past the age of reason son in this instance. And, as my father told me once, in his second grade class in Catholic school, the sister asked the children if Judas went to hell, and they all said yes. Sister then said, we cannot presume to know this. At the very last moment, he could have repented. We cannot make judgments. Only God can know. Now, this is just a scenario my father told me when I was young, but basically he got his point across to me, that we cannot judge others. We pray for them. The judging is up to Our Lord. I also would add, that if that hypothetical mother, prayed for her wicked son continually, and he died in the act of a crime…it may be her very prayers that put him in Purgatory, rather than Hell…we don’t know! As for the babies and children…I keep going back to this. These are babies and children, UNDER THE AGE OF REASON. They cannot commit mortal sin. But imperfect as they are, God has made a way for us, who are imperfect…the sacraments, prayer…Mass, and eventually for the majority, Purgatory. Why wouldn’t He make a way for those children. He loves them, He created them, and the circumstances of their parents and lives are totally out of their control. I say, I truely believe in the Mercy of God, and we will all be very, very surprised to see who else is in heaven in eternity with us. Maybe not, if they have been the subject of our constant prayers. God’s Mercy and Grace. Undeserved, unmerited, yet given when asked for. That is what I believe in. Thanks Camron…very helpful.

 

[expectthebest]

I just want to preface my answer by noting that I’ve never lost a child, so I cannot begin to imagine how this would feel. To go one step further, I also have not lost a child that has not been baptized either, so I definitely don’t know how this would feel at all.

However, I can try to place myself in the shoes of others who have gone through this and try to feel what they might feel. This is the perspective I am trying to take when pondering this deep question.

Technically, I agree with you that such a teaching could lead into serious error, because even little babies do need to be baptized in name of the Trine God. There is simply no getting around this part from a Catholic perspective.

But I think it is important to tackle exactly which error would come from this kind of teaching, namely the pernicious idea that babies and infants do not need to be baptized, which is exactly what many would conclude if indeed the Church were to make such a formal declaration.

Some could go too far with this and think that baptism is, for all practical purposes, virtually unnecessary precisely because God will ultimately save them even if they are not baptized.

In this sense, one could move further and further from the Truth and ultimately conclude that one needs to reach an age of accountability before they must ‘decide’ to be baptized, which is most surely a heretical error.

Some could even go further and instead conclude that our baptism is merely symbolic and therefore not really required after all, regardless of how old one gets. This is surely another heretical error.

Some could even go way too far the other way; totally distorting God loving potential for salvation and conclude that they were sending babies to heaven by aborting them in the womb before they have the chance to do an actual sin. This isn’t just another heretical error. This is murder.

And these are just some of the potential dangers associated with this teaching…

There are dangers with someone misinterpreting any teaching.

 

[jmcrae]

My second response was to Cameron in case you are confused. I can’t even figure out how to place quotes in my posts properly never mind the question of the unbaptised.

There is an orange “quote” button at the bottom of each post. Simply click it once to quote the entire post. Then, use your mouse to highlight the parts of the quote that you are not responding to, and use the delete key to erase those parts.

Be careful not to erase the BBcode that makes the quote box, though. It is enclosed in square brackets - ]

 

[minkymurph]

There is an orange “quote” button at the bottom of each post. Simply click it once to quote the entire post. Then, use your mouse to highlight the parts of the quote that you are not responding to, and use the delete key to erase those parts.

Be careful not to erase the BBcode that makes the quote box, though. It is enclosed in square brackets - ]

Wheeeeeeeeey!

 

[expectthebest]

This is the part that I do not generally agree with.

While I can see your point, I can also see the perspective of a mother who does raise a person who turns terrible and dies in mortal sin. It’s true that we may not know for sure the eternal fate of the person. But if they died unrepentant, for example, during the act of trying to kidnap a child, it truly seems highly unlikely that the mother’s child who is now “grown up” will ever be comforted with the idea that her son will meet her in Heaven.

There are many examples of this and the list that could be generated from these kinds of scenarios would be too large to include in this post.

I agree, which is why I said the Church cannot draw up a ‘criteria’ that will cover every eventualty. I said at the outset this is my view of things and you have enlarged on a lot of what I said which is the whole purpose of discussing complex issues; in order to draw out greater understanding. There is I believe a comfort in the idea that those we love are with God when they die and I don’t think you can talk of it in terms of being ‘grown up’ as we receive immortal bodies in heaven and time does not exist. That has little meaning to us now as we only understand things in terms of the finite and we have human perceptions of things. I don’t know there is much that does comfort someone who has lost a child. Those I know who have never to me, seem to get over it. They accept it and learn to live with it but they never really stop greiving. The reason I would say the Church has been silent is for the very valid reasons you discuss. They cannot invalidate baptism being one. This topic has been discussed from the third century and before. We should not think that because we are now in the 21st century it is easier to answer. However I take the point that perhaps it should be explained with greater clarity as a heart renching issue, and someone who would say ‘your child’s in heaven as it wasn’t baptised’ sends a chill up my spine. God above all things is love and this is not love.

One of my struggles is looking for the love within the Church. After I get done making sure the rules are followed, I don’t have much endurance left to think about love. It seems that for some it takes everything just to follow the rules of the Church let alone love it.

 

[expectthebest]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvrabel
Dear Fineca, I understand what you are saying…but the point is, the children that are under the age of reason, cannot be held accountable and therefore, it would seem to me that God Himself would have the desire of Baptism for them, which would remove the Original sin.

The problem is that the Church has not defined it for sure though. It just seems amazing to me that the Church cannot define this issue when there are so many other seemingly less important issues that it can define in minutia to the extreme!

 

[minkymurph]

One of my struggles is looking for the love within the Church. After I get done making sure the rules are followed, I don’t have much endurance left to think about love. It seems that for some it takes everything just to follow the rules of the Church let alone love it.

My arguement would be, this is exactly what was wrong with past dogma. The focus was ‘rules’ and not love which is why those who committed suicide or unbaptised children where considered to be in hell. In some circumstance it MAY have been right, dependent on other mitigating factors, but it was devoid of love and God above all things is love. Even those who have had infallibility bestowed on them fail in regard to divine love. I would say, put love first then think about the rules because the rules are meaningless in the absence of love. Accept spirtitual guidance yes, but when you’ve got a gut feeling, go with it. I myself am a convert to Catholicism. I was raised Jehovah’s Witness and I had this arguement with them. My statement and quote, ‘I would rather stand before God accused of being too forgiving, than accused of not forgiving when I should have.’

 

[expectthebest]

My arguement would be, this is exactly what was wrong with past dogma. The focus was ‘rules’ and not love which is why those who committed suicide or unbaptised children where considered to be in hell. In some circumstance it MAY have been right, dependent on other mitigating factors, but it was devoid of love and God above all things is love. Even those who have had infallibility bestowed on them fail in regard to divine love. I would say, put love first then think about the rules because the rules are meaningless in the absence of love. Accept spirtitual guidance yes, but when you’ve got a gut feeling, go with it. I myself am a convert to Catholicism. I was raised Jehovah’s Witness and I had this arguement with them. My statement and quote, ‘I would rather stand before God accused of being too forgiving, than accused of not forgiving when I should have.’

I wish the Church had that view. If it does, I don’t feel it. It’s a very heavy burden for me right now in my life. I wish the Church would forgive a little easier. I feel so little love that sometimes I don’t even feel better of confession. Part of it is the burden of confession and the rules that go along with it. After I’m done, I don’t have room left to feel love and forgiveness. I wish I could feel like God would forgive me without confession but I guess He won’t unless a person has the almost impossible to obtain (as far as I’ve been taught) perfect contrition. In my heart I feel like He does forgive me but at the same time the Church is bearing over me like a crushing weight.

 

[clmowry]

In my heart I feel like He does forgive me but at the same time the Church is bearing over me like a crushing weight.

How does the Church / Sacrament of reconciliation do this to you?

Do you have sins for which you are refused absoluiton?

Chuck

 

[expectthebest]

How does the Church / Sacrament of reconciliation do this to you?

Do you have sins for which you are refused absoluiton?

Chuck

Nope. It just leaves a negative cloud over my head. More rules, little love.

 

[ALFREDENEUMAN]

toto those of you who say the issue has not been settled by the church yet. i dont believe this is true except in the broadest sense. the church has aklways taught that ubbaptized children go to hell, then changed it to limbo defined as a place without god, without the happiness and fulfullment of grad grace and a place of eternal yearnig for those qualioties. the only sense that you can say that the issue is not decided yet is to fudge a little. as i understand it the church is either in the proces of creating a special council to decide the issue or it has already convend such a council to do so… it should be emphasized that since the church cannot teach eror in faith and moral, the council findings must go along previous beliefs,

 

[Camron]

There are dangers with someone misinterpreting any teaching.

There are dangers with someone misinterpreting any teaching.

True. But this one has some very strong dangers attached to misinterpreting it. I think we have serious theological and liturgical grounds for hoping that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and brought into eternal happiness. But I also think there are very good reasons to not formally declare this hope as a sure knowledge.

I myself do believe that God will save these children and bring them into Heaven. But I do not think it is safe to teach that God will automatically do this, especially without baptism. For me the mystery is focused on how God will allow these children to be baptized, something which we have good thoughts to believe will happen but are still not exactly sure how God will achieve this.

 

[ALFREDENEUMAN]

to cyrabel. you are not free to remain a true Catholic and not accept the churchs teachings on matters of faith and morals. whaterver the church’s teching on this matter you may not not believe it… it is not as if you have a choice in the matter… the church does not want to lose any of its faitful, therfore i suggest you consider your position on this matter and do whay you must. nobody ever said being a Roman Catholic was easy.

 

[ALFREDENEUMAN]

everybody who has written on this thread should go back and reread what has been said about babies, baptism and the naure of a Kind, Loving, Forgiving, Genrerous, etc ad infinitum God. Dio you really understand what you are talikg about in practical terms. How in the world can you even begin to think of an embryo going anyplace but heave, or more likely based on past church teaching to hell or limbo(Aplace which has been definedby the Church(although not officially) as a place of suffering. how can you posibly look inot the eyes of a newborn and sesd God in them and then pray to that God not to take that baby before yiou have a chance to baptize him. think for a second about your definition of god iin thses situations. What is wrong with yo Today and every day for the past few years, and unless you and a lot of people start getting busy, 25000 children under the age of 12 will die in this world, from starvation, or tainted water or from an illness that we already have the cure for, they are n=mostly as you would suspect from third world countries and therefor very very likelay unbaptized. most probably would not know the meaning of the word or the rite. They, according to church teaching will go to hell or limbo, but certainly not heaven. How can a church which has had authority fo 2000 years and virtually complete ecclesiastical and political power for many of those years, and who did very litle if anything to help these people, sit back and in all their majesty, proclaim that the gates of hell had better open wide each day to take in these 25,000. what kind of people are these. can they spell mercy. what kind of god is this. no where near the god i was raised to believe in, or i hope not the one you were raised in either… they ought to be ashamed of themselves, but if they can allow what i have talke about to happen, they are incapable iof feeling shame, or perhaps any worthwhile human emotion.

 

[ALFREDENEUMAN]

expect the best. have a litttle courage. ths church does not and cannot forgive or not forgive anything. god either does that or doesnt. have faith