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

  • Thread starter Thread starter fineca
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fineca

Guest
Dear all,

I already posted this to the ask an apologist section but so far there has been no response and I found some more confusing information just now. First I read that the Ecumenical Council of Florence said that anyone who dies in mortal sin or only original sin descends immediately to Hell. That would mean that infants who didn’t get baptism or died due to miscarriage would all suddenly realise that they’re burning in eternal fire suffering everlasting punishment for nothing they have personally done. St.Augustine is said to have taught this too. I personally can’t fathom how this could be the truth if God loves those souls infinitely - why create souls foreseeing they go to hell? If you were Satan and you could create, ok, but a loving God - no…
But now it seems that almost nobody believes this - even orthodox Catholics like the Hahn family talk about their children in heaven (they had some miscarriages)! My spiritual director is a faithful Opus Dei (known as a rather conservative/orthodox organisation) priest and his little brother died after 3 days of life without getting baptism. He strongly believes his bro is in heaven and even has asked him favors sometimes, he said his parents had the desire to baptize him so he was saved through baptism of desire.
But then today I found the Catechism of the Council of Trent online and I read this:

the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction… infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism… (about adults not being baptized immediately: ) The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.

There is a clear distinction between the possibility of baptism of desire for adults and absolute necessity of baptism for infants.
But then the current Catechism states:
CCC 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,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

Now this is the faith I’ve come to know, and that I can accept and reconcile with the God of Christianity, but the problem remains: is this a new teaching, a new modernist invention? Previous Church Fathers, Councils and Catechisms seem to have taught the contrary, that unbaptized infants have no way of being saved if they die in original sin. And since this issue is an issue of faith taught by Ecumenical Councils, it cannot change, for truth doesn’t change. If indeed the Church has changed her teaching on this issue, she seems to have lost credibility to the claim to be infallible and one (in faith/doctrine at all times) and thus the Church led and headed by God, unchangeable Truth.

Until I find some evidence that the Church has always hoped for a chance of salvation for the unbaptized, there seem to be only three uncomfortable options left for the Catholic:
  1. become a Traditionalist and oppose the new CCC and Vatican 2 etc. and believe God creates souls just so that they might realise that suddenly they’re in Hell burning forever.
  2. Be a modernist and oppose earlier Church teaching as outdated and, well, basically stop believing in the infallibility of the Church…
  3. Abandon the Catholic Faith…
I don’t want to do any of those, so please HEEEELP!!!

Thanks so much! E

P.S. since the CHurch has never officially defined when God creates the soul, would it be ok to believe that perhaps all the people that died before they were born or so didn’t go anywhere, that they don’t in fact exist, GOd didn’t give the soul to them since he foresaw their destiny…?..this sounds heretical though.
P.P.S. LIMBO would be an ideal answer but guess what - the Catechism of Trent doesn’t teach it, the CCC doesn’t teach it, and now they’re talking about forgetting Limbo and starting with the assumption that God desires the salvation of all…meaning that this new theological committee is probably going to say unbaptized infants go to heaven - the opposite of the Catechism of Trent…! so please HEEELP! Thanks!
 
omigoodness we have not discussed limbo for at least 3 days, thanks for reminding us. if you want to beat this up again could you do us all a favor and search for the last 20 or so threads ont the topic. the rest of us are tired to death of this discussion (dead horse smiley, somebody)
 
fineca said:
LIMBO would be an ideal answer but guess what - the Catechism of Trent doesn’t teach it, the CCC doesn’t teach it, and now they’re talking about forgetting Limbo and starting with the assumption that God desires the salvation of all…meaning that this new theological committee is probably going to say unbaptized infants go to heaven - the opposite of the Catechism of Trent…! so please HEEELP! Thanks!
Click to expand...
Fineca, the Catholic Church has not abandoned the concept of limbo–nor can she. Limbo is a deduction from the Catholic dogmas of original sin and its punishments. The Church is not going to change her dogmatic teachings on these points.

Nor is it true to say that limbo is absent from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Please see the new catechism’s official analytical index under the word “Limbo” (page 816 of my hard-cover edition, published by the United States Catholic Conference in 2000). This index listing refers you to catechism section 1261, which speaks of a “hope” for “a way of salvation” for unbaptized infants.

In the light of Catholic tradition and the Catholic dogma concerning the afterlife penalty of those dying in original sin only, this “hope” should be understood as the hope for the *natural *happiness of limbo, not the ***supernatural ***happiness of the beatific vision in heaven.

When the Councils of Lyons II and Florence speak of “hell” for those dying in original sin only, they merely mean deprivation of the beatific vision, not the “pain of sense” that is the punishment of those who die in mortal sin.

You might be interested in checking out my posts on these previous limbo threads:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=115582
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=112890
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=115935

Please read Father John A. Hardon’s article on limbo in his Modern Catholic Dictionary (Garden City: Doubleday, 1979).

Please don’t be confused–even by confused Catholics on these forums! And please don’t leave the one true Church!

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
P.S. since the CHurch has never officially defined when God creates the soul,

But the Church has. At the moment of conception the fetus receives a soul. Hence the Church is against abortion.

The teaching of Limbo is not a dogma/doctrine of the Church. Bascially the Church does not know what happens to their souls. They have always assumed Limbo because Jesus said everyone must be baptised. They may reprise that teaching.
 
That would mean that infants who didn’t get baptism or died due to miscarriage would all suddenly realise that they’re burning in eternal fire suffering everlasting punishment for nothing they have personally done. St.Augustine is said to have taught this too.

Perhaps you have Augustine confused with Aquinas if not read on:

It is sometimes claimed that Thomas Aquinas believed that the unborn did not acquire a soul until several weeks after conception. This is not true. Aquinas believed that the unborn had a soul (a rational, human soul) from the time it was conceived. However, following Aristotelian science, he (and a few other Western writers) thought that conception was an extended process that did not finish until forty or ninety days into the pregnancy: “The conception of the male finishes on the fortieth day and that of the woman on the ninetieth, as Aristotle says in the IX Book of the Animals” (Aquinas, Commentary on III Sentences 3:5:2).

When viewed without the lens of Aristotelian science, the biblical view of ensoulment becomes clear. In the Old Testament, the psalmist assumes the humanity of the unborn child at conception when he says, “Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5, NRSV).

Clearly you have pushed the Panic Button. The most important thing as a Catholic is the belief that the Church cannot teach error. I believe that with all my heart and soul. Satan is always trying to destroy Gods’ Church. To consider one of the three options you listed shows you must have more faith. Jesus said the “Gates of hell would not prevail” against his Church and I believe him.
 
puzzleannie said:
omigoodness we have not discussed limbo for at least 3 days, thanks for reminding us. if you want to beat this up again could you do us all a favor and search for the last 20 or so threads ont the topic. the rest of us are tired to death of this discussion QUOTE]

My post wasn’t so much to do with limbo, I only included the word in a P.P.S. The point was that the Catechism of Trent talks about misery and destruction, doesn’t sound like natural happiness…and the Hell spoken of in Florence isn’t easy to dismiss as limbo, since it puts together people who die in mortal sin or original sin only…

this is why I’m worried the official teaching of the Church is that unbaptized infants go to hell…is there any evidence to show that this is not the case except for the new CCC?

Thanks!
E
Click to expand...
 
this is why I’m worried the official teaching of the Church is that unbaptized infants go to hell…is there any evidence to show that this is not the case except for the new CCC?

Did you read my previous post?

Your information is flat wrong. I have a CCC over 60 years old and it does not say that unbaptised infants are going to hell.
It says the same as the CCC does today. Again, the Church teaches that it does not know what happens as scripture is silent on their state.
 
Q: I heard that it’s Church teaching that unbaptized babies go to hell rather than limbo. Is this true?

A: No–but neither is it official teaching that they go to limbo. The fate of unbaptized children has not been determined.

Catholic Answers

To my knowledge the Church has never taught that babies go to hell.
 
ricko said:
Q: I heard that it’s Church teaching that unbaptized babies go to hell rather than limbo. Is this true?

A: No–but neither is it official teaching that they go to limbo. The fate of unbaptized children has not been determined.

Catholic Answers

To my knowledge the Church has never taught that babies go to hell.
Click to expand...
This pretty much sums it up. Why can’t people stop getting their shorts in a knot about this and just give it rest?
 
WEEEELLLLL …

The Council of Florence says CLEARLY that the souls of those who die in mortal sin or ORIGINAL SIN ONLY go straight to HELL to be PUNISHED - how on earth do you explain that away and say the Church does NOT teach that those people go to hell? Perhaps the Church doesn’t teach so any more, but clearly she did in the 1200-1500s, which would mean the Church has changed its teaching=lost its claim to infallibility and truth.
So far no help from here, please provide some evidence as to why the Church has never officially taught those babies go to Hell if all those medieval councils so clearly do just that. Thanks!
 
fineca said:
The Council of Florence says CLEARLY that the souls of those who die in mortal sin or ORIGINAL SIN ONLY go straight to HELL to be PUNISHED - how on earth do you explain that away and say the Church does NOT teach that those people go to hell?
Click to expand...
Look at what you said. The council clearly says that those who die in mortal or original sin go to hell for punishment. Show me where that council teaches that all unbaptized babies die in original sin. Certainly, the people at the council may or may not have believed that. But that ain’t what they officially taught. There may be other magisterial statements that say that, but what you quoted from Florence ain’t it.
 
Ok, that’s getting better. Perhaps God saves those babies from original sin in some special way - I found this response from Jimmy Akin’s website in a discussion on limbo…:
“Nothing in Florence contradicts the idea that God could and might grant extra-sacramental baptismal Grace & blot out an infant’s original sin. Naturally ANYONE dying in original sin only, wouldn’t go to Heaven. It will always be the Teaching of the Church that both mortal & Original sin keeps one from Heaven. But Florence was more concerned with re-union with the East & refuting the Eastern errors of postponement of final awards until the day of judgement than speculations on extra-sacramental salvation for unbaptised infants.”

This sounds good. But there is still the Catechism of the Council of Trent. As quoted before, it says:

“infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism” (the context being water baptism)

It also says that those that have attained the age of reason can be saved by baptism of desire as differentiated from infants…
this I still need to reconcile somehow with the modern CCCs teaching…

Thanks!
 
This I found too…perhaps Florence’s punishments don’t imply suffering in the case of the infant but only a punishment of a lack of beatific vision …

"There is also the possibility that delay will mean that a baby might die unbaptised. Should this tragedy occur, there is no good reason to think the child will ever see God face to face in heaven. The Catechism expresses the Church’s constant position: “The Church does not know of any means other than baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude” (n. 1257).

John Paul II’s words to mothers who have had an abortion (Evangelium vitae, n. 99), stating that the child is now “living in the Lord”, are sometimes quoted to the contrary. But those words were deleted from the official AAS text of the encyclical; and in any case they could possibly be said of limbo, which is a state of great natural happiness, with natural knowledge and love of God.

While the Church has not declared limbo to be a fact, she has declared that those who die in original sin do not go to heaven. Two Ecumenical Councils (the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence) taught infallibly: “But the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin or just in original sin go down promptly to hell, to be punished however by very different punishments” (DS 858).

The word hell here means separation from the vision of God, and does not imply that those with only original sin suffer. Pope Innocent III had already taught, in a letter to the Bishop of Arles in 1201, that “The penalty for original sin is the deprivation of the sight of God …” (DS 780).

The Council of Florence also ruled that baptism must not be delayed as long as forty days, giving as reason, “the danger of death, which can often happen” and the fact that “there is no other remedy available to these infants except the sacrament of baptism” (DS 1349).

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, in the 16th century, said: “Since infant children have no other means of salvation except baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the sacrament longer than necessity may require” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, translated by McHugh and Callan, p. 178).
 
More good stuff I found today…

The only time the Church has addressed the subject was in a 1794 document by Pope Pius VI entitled Auctorem Fidei. This document did not affirm the existence of limbo, but rather condemned the Jansenists as teaching something “false, rash, and injurious to Catholic education” when they taught that limbo was a heretical fable and that the eternal damnation of infants who die without Baptism was revealed doctrine. In other words, this papal document was issued to defend a common teaching from slander, and not to defend the existence of limbo. Limbo remained at that time–as it remains to this day–an open question that one may accept or reject so long as one’s beliefs do not conflict with other Church teachings. The Jansenists’ rejection of limbo was tolerated, but their public statements concerning those who held views different from theirs were censored.

There have been no magisterial pronouncement concerning limbo since Auctorem Fidei in 1794. Since that time, there have been relatively few theologians who have held the opinion that infants who die without Baptism are condemned to the fires of hell.
 
fineca said:
WEEEELLLLL …

The Council of Florence says CLEARLY that the souls of those who die in mortal sin or ORIGINAL SIN ONLY go straight to HELL to be PUNISHED - how on earth do you explain that away and say the Church does NOT teach that those people go to hell? Perhaps the Church doesn’t teach so any more, but clearly she did in the 1200-1500s, which would mean the Church has changed its teaching=lost its claim to infallibility and truth.
So far no help from here, please provide some evidence as to why the Church has never officially taught those babies go to Hell if all those medieval councils so clearly do just that. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Fineca, please see post #3 on this thread.

Again, when Lyons II and Florence speak of those who die in original sin only as descending into hell or the netherworld (*infernum *in Latin) to be punished, the punishment they mean is the punishment of being deprived of the beatific vision in heaven, not the punishment of the “fire” or “pain of sense” in hell.

In 1201, Pope Innocent III told us as much when he taught that the punishment of original sin is the absence of the vision of God.

With regard to using the term “hell” or “netherworld” to refer to what modern Catholics call “limbo,” please note that the Catholic Church can alter her technical terminology without altering her teachings. This linguistic fluidity is an example of the authentic concept of the development of Catholic doctrine.

The Catholic Church has not changed her teaching on the penalties of original sin, nor has she lost her claim to infallibility. Please don’t let anyone–including Catholics on this forum–confuse you.

In addition to the article on limbo in Father John A. Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, I recommend the article on the same subject in the online Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
Can someone please help me. I did not see the tv programme a friend of mine was talking about. He claims it said that Limbo has now officially gone. (A decision by an ecumenical council) I didn’t know it was ever ‘in’ to be ‘out.’ It was never declared infallible (as far as I know) What did the Church say about Limbo?
 
fineca said:
WEEEELLLLL …

The Council of Florence says CLEARLY that the souls of those who die in mortal sin or ORIGINAL SIN ONLY go straight to HELL to be PUNISHED
Click to expand...
Why do you deny the possibility that these infants may achieve baptism of desire? The Church does not deny it, nor does she proclaim it, because the fate of unbaptized infants simply has not been revealed by God.

Now to me it is inconceivable that these infants do have the opportunity for baptism by desire. No doubt the Church greatly hopes for this as well. But it has not been revealed, so the Church cannot teach it.
 
This passage from the Council of Florence is not infallible.
Many of the decrees of that Council were never ratified by the Pope.
Only the decrees of a Council approved by the Pope are authoritative.

In addition to formal Baptism (the ceremonial form of the Sacrament),
there is also non-formal Baptism. The Church has never said that
unbaptized prenatals or infants cannot obtain a non-formal Baptism.
This is an area of theology still under the development of doctrine.

Here are some articles which discuss this topic:
catholicplanet.com/RCC/mystical-baptism.htm
catholicplanet.com/RCC/baptism-limbo.htm

Concerning the fate of those who die in original sin, they do certainly go to Hell, but this does not mean that all prenatals or infants who die without a formal Baptism go to Hell. In my view they receive a non-formal (mystical) Baptism at least in the last moment of life. But an adult who dies in a state of original sin has committed the actual mortal sin of omission of not having found sanctifying grace in his life, through either a formal or non-formal Baptism. Such a sin deserves the fires of Hell, because such a person is like the servant who buries his talent in the ground, doing nothing substantially and selflessly good throughout his life.

Ron
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top