Justice: a heaven and hell question

[PRmerger]

Okay, we’re getting mixed up here.

I’m starting this off with a premise: Let’s say that unbaptized infants go to Heaven. Of course, in real life we don’t know this, but we’re pretending we do for the sake of discussion.

Ok. Well, your premise is wrong.

It’s like a person saying: let’s say that we believe the Virgin Mary is a goddess.

Everything from that point is irrelevant, because the premise is wrong.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Ok. Well, your premise is wrong.

It’s like a person saying: let’s say that we believe the Virgin Mary is a goddess.

Everything from that point is irrelevant, because the premise is wrong.

The difference between what you said and what I said is that we ARE allowed to believe infants go to Heaven without baptism, even if it’s not defined teaching. We are not allowed to believe the Virgin Mary is a goddess.

Ugh, it always drives me nuts when people try and loophole out of discussions.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Let’s rephrase the question then. If you believe that infants do not need baptism to make it to Heaven, how do you explain away the issues I’ve mentioned?

There, now we can actually discuss them.

 

[PRmerger]

The difference between what you said and what I said is that we ARE allowed to believe infants go to Heaven without baptism, even if it’s not defined teaching. We are not allowed to believe the Virgin Mary is a goddess.

We are allowed to HOPE that they may be in heaven.

Not to say that they are. Nor that without baptism they are children of God.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

We are allowed to HOPE that they may be in heaven.

Not to say that they are. Nor that without baptism they are children of God.

Okay then. For people who HOPE it’s true, how would you explain away the issues I’ve mentioned?

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s rephrase the question then. If you believe that infants do not need baptism to make it to Heaven, how do you explain away the issues I’ve mentioned?

Infants DO need baptism to make it to heaven, Marc.

We are bound by the sacraments, as revealed to us by God through His Church.

However, we must always keep in mind that God is not bound by them. (St. Augustine? Or maybe it was Aquinas.)

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Infants DO need baptism to make it to heaven, Marc.

We are bound by the sacraments, as revealed to us by God through His Church.

However, we must always keep in mind that God is not bound by them. (St. Augustine? Or maybe it was Aquinas.)

Okay then. God is not bound by the sacraments. So how would one who hopes that infants who die without being baptized but still go to Heaven explain away the issues I’ve mentioned?

Those were legitimate issues and deserve a legitimate discussion, not dodges.

I’m NOT saying anything either way. Just have the discussion.

 

[PRmerger]

Okay then. For people who HOPE it’s true, how would you explain away the issues I’ve mentioned?

What issues specifically are troubling you? I just reviewed your posts and can’t see anything that needs to be grappled with.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

What issues specifically are troubling you? I just reviewed your posts and can’t see anything that needs to be grappled with.

Okay. It’s possible that infants can make it into Heaven without baptism-possible, meaning we don’t know either way.

But how do we square up this possibility with the fact that baptism of infants is considered extremely important? Since this is true it would seem to preclude the hope that infants can be saved without baptism.

Baptism of infants would not be necessary because:

1. “It inaugurates the New Covenant”-if you’re going to Heaven when you die anyway, why is this necessary?
2. Why do infants need grace to stay the course? They could just as easily be baptized any time at all before the age of reason.
3. If it’s true that children can go to Heaven without being baptized, then they would already be children of God.

The point here is that this possibility seems to minimize the importance of infant baptism, making it difficult to see how it can be considered a legitimate possibility. How would these issues be resolved?

 

[PRmerger]

Okay. It’s possible that infants can make it into Heaven without baptism-possible, meaning we don’t know either way.

Exactly.

But how do we square up this possibility with the fact that baptism of infants is considered extremely important? Since this is true it would seem to preclude the hope that infants can be saved without baptism.

Because, as the Theological Commission maintains, we believe in God’s mercy.

Baptism of infants would not be necessary because:

1. “It inaugurates the New Covenant”-if you’re going to Heaven when you die anyway, why is this necessary?

Because we are born in the enemy’s camp so to speak.

That’s why it’s necessary.

1. Why do infants need grace to stay the course? They could just as easily be baptized any time at all before the age of reason.

Infants don’t need grace to stay the course. Who has proposed that?

1. If it’s true that children can go to Heaven without being baptized, then they would already be children of God.

No. I don’t see that as a necessary conclusion.

The point here is that this possibility seems to minimize the importance of infant baptism, making it difficult to see how it can be considered a legitimate possibility. How would these issues be resolved?

That we can hope in the eternal bliss of unbaptized infants does NOT minimize whatsoever the importance of infant baptism.

Rather, it strengthens and enhances the doctrine: Get thee to a baptismal font NOW!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

There are several responses I find interesting here, but I’ll ask about this first:

That we can hope in the eternal bliss of unbaptized infants does NOT minimize whatsoever the importance of infant baptism.

Rather, it strengthens and enhances the doctrine: Get thee to a baptismal font NOW!

How do you figure this? Before the paper came out, people believed it was either baptism or Hell. But now that the possibility of salvation of infants without baptism has been admitted, I would think it would reduce urgency, even if subconsciously.

 

[PRmerger]

How do you figure this? Before the paper came out, people believed it was either baptism or Hell.

LOL! That paper came out in 2007. I propose that if you asked the average Catholic on the street in, say, 1990: “What happens to unbaptized babies?” the majority would not respond, “He goes to Hell!”

But now that the possibility of salvation of infants without baptism has been admitted, I would think it would reduce urgency, even if subconsciously.

And I think it increases the hope for parents of unbaptized babies. No decrease in urgency at all, as related to this possibility.

That there have been Catholics who claim, “I don’t really need to baptize my baby soon” I have no doubt.

That it is related to the teaching on the hope of salvation for infants who die without baptism…not so much.