My problem with church teaching on baptism

[LateCatholic]

Many babies would have been baptized by their parents if possible

Why do the parents have any say in it? Are you saying all atheist babies go to Hell? All Muslim babies? All Jewish babies? All protestant babies? What about orphans?

I don’t understand how anyone could believe in a God that is so cruel and hateful.
The whole concept of baptism as an actual spiritual event is just silly to me. I feel the same about all the sacraments. I’m not saying they don’t have personal spiritual, cultural, educational, or traditional value. I’m just saying there is no “divine checklist” for each of us. God is not petty like that.

You all realize Hitler was baptized a Catholic. He was also confirmed. I refuse to believe God has a checklist and Hitler got two positive marks and a child that dies at child-birth has none.
I mean, do you seriously hold that viewpoint? It’s abhorrent.

 

[ZMystiCat]

So what is your belief? I am asking for YOUR personal belief

I’m unsure why you’re assuming that what I said isn’t my belief.

Do unbaptized, Catholic Children go to heaven?

See my last two post.

Do baptized Christian, but not Catholic children go to heaven?

We don’t know, but as with unbaptized children, our actions should be oriented towards believing that they do.

Do any non-Catholics go to heaven?

We don’t know, but it’s very likely many do.

Does a Catholic priest that raped dozens of children under his care, but repents in his last hour of life, go to heaven?

Given the stated assumption that he turned back to God, yes.

I guarantee you will get people that claim to be Catholic that will answer these four questions differently.

That doesn’t make Catholicism any less true.

I believe in a loving and just God.

As if we don’t?

 

[LateCatholic]

An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism;

So then, is the Pope saying Baptism is NOT required? Seems that way.

And if one says it is “easier” to get into heaven if you are baptized, I refute that as well. There is no calculus to get into heaven. You can’t buy your way into heaven. You can’t use the sacraments to buy your way either. If you deserve to get in, you get in.

Consider this thought experiment:
You and I live the exact same life, down to the nano-second, except that when we were born your parents called in a priest to say some words and wash your head with water. Mine did not.
You really think you get into heaven and I do not?
I suffer an eternity of suffering and you get an eternity of paradise?
God is not vindictive. There is no way I would believe in such a religion.

 

[StAugustine]

Cardinal Newman said you can tell when a development of doctrine is legitimate- when it doesn’t trivialize the past.

Unfortunately, that’s happening here. It is a dogmatic teaching of the Church that those who die with ONLY original sin on their souls go to Hell, but we don’t know what the details of that Hell is.

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.” (Denzinger 464) Council of Lyons II

“But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.” (Florence, Sixth Session, 6 July 1439.)”

That’s the universal teaching and consensus. Limbo is a part of Hell. I personally take the stricter view of personal suffering for unbaptized infants, because revelation is clear-

Revelation 20:15-

“And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire.”

Now here is a tight theological syllogism-

Because the Church teaches all those who die in original sin alone descend to Hell, their names are not written in the book of life.

Now, if their names are not written in the book of life, they are not sheep, but goats, and must be told to depart from Him, for he never knew them.

Therefore in the resurrection, they will share that common fate of all those whose names are not written in the book of life.

This is the teaching of all the Latin saints and Church Fathers from Augustine to Abelard, from 415-1200. That’s 800 years of consistent teaching.

 

[LateCatholic]

Scripture explicitly says that it saves us

Here’s MY struggle:
When people quote scripture, they need to realize it is not God speaking. It is a man who CLAIMS he heard God. Then other men say he really did hear God, so we should listen. And then it is translated, interpolated, altered, expanded, extended, abridged. And so on and so forth. Yet, we say it is “God’s word”. It is not. It literally is NOT. It does not mean it is wrong. But you cannot claim it is right, just by the nature that it is scripture.

That being said, regarding baptism - I personally question the validity of baptism being a requirement for salvation. It seems suspicious to me that an institution requires children, and their parents, to commit to a ceremony - psychologically shown to be one of the most effective forms of indoctrination - under the threat of eternal torment and suffering - for your child no less. Plus, they charge a fee.

I’m being a bit unfair about the fee part of course, but clearly I question the historical validity of baptism as a salvation requirement. Remember, we are talking about the same organization that at one time supported the idea (no to long ago actually) that you could buy your way to heaven by giving money to the Church.

 

[LateCatholic]

I believe in a loving and just God.

Do you consider a God that sends unbapized infants to Hell a loving and just God?
I do not.
Look - the Church has struggled with this for centuries. I’m not alone here in this thinking.

 

[ZMystiCat]

I’m not really sure it’s trivializing the past. It can be tempting to think that the answer was set in stone, but frankly, it’s one of the matters never Divinely revealed, and the various theories developed over the years have attempted to reconcile the gravity of original sin and God’s mercy. St. Augustine leaned heavily towards the former, and most modern Catholics lean heavily towards the latter. Of course, St. Augustine was dealing with Pelagians, who were in desperate need of recognizing the gravity of original sin. Today people perhaps have more trouble grasping God’s merciful side, so the preferences are also not entirely without some context in the struggles being faced for each time.

Do you consider a God that sends unbapized infants to Hell a loving and just God?

Of course I’ve never said that He does. But of course I also don’t think a loving God would force someone to spend eternity with Him against their will.

 

[Dovekin]

Infuse into the spirit and heart of the mother and father the esteem, desire, joy, and loving welcome of the newborn, right from its first cry. The child, formed in the mother’s womb, is a gift of God [Psalm 126:3], who entrusts its care to the parents. With what delicacy, with what agreeableness does Sacred Scripture show the gracious crown of children, united around the father’s table! Pius XII to midwives

This is from another part of the same Allocution from Pius XII. LateCatholic has been defending this teaching against the stringent trap you have been proposing. The “esteem, desire, joy, and loving welcome of the newborn” by the parents is a pale echo of God’s esteem, desire, joy and loving embrace of every child. Yet you would have us believe that this joyous esteem is replaced by a need to punish? An unbaptized child will receive eternal punishment?

You can produce all you want of syllogisms that prove this must be the case, of teachings that you think intend this, but it is not likely to convince. If this was “the teaching of all the Latin saints and Church Fathers from Augustine to Abelard, from 415-1200. That’s 800 years of consistent teaching“ it was met with an explicit rejection. The idea of limbo shows that not everyone accepted this teaching. They sought to negate the image of unjust punishment imposed on the innocent.

The teaching of the Church, and of the Synagogue and Temple before, is that a child is a blessing from God. It is a great gift that is not to be sacrificed to God, but welcomed and cherished. God does not abandon that position to impose punishments on the innocent who were not baptized. (Read Pius Xii, or JP2, if you doubt the children are innocent) What Pius encouraged the midwives to teach, that a child should be esteemed, embraced joyously, is what the Church teaches. If there is any truth in what you say about baptism, it has to acknowledge that God esteems and embraces the children he creates.

 

[StAugustine]

This is fundamental and not hard to comprehend-

none are born innocent.

From Trent-

CHAPTER I.

On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.

“The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.”

 

[Dovekin]

This more fundamental, and not at all difficult.

From some recent Popes:

When one thinks of this admirable collaboration of the parents, of nature and of God, from which is born a new human being in the image and likeness of God [cf. Genesis 1:26-27], how can the precious contribution which you give to such a work not be appreciated?..
The life of an innocent person is sacrosanct, and any direct attempt or aggression against it is a violation of one of the fundamental laws without which secure human society is impossible. We have no need to teach you in detail the meaning and the gravity, in your profession, of this fundamental law. But never forget this: there rises above every human law and above every “indication” the indefectible law of God. Pius XII

The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! John Paul II

 

[StAugustine]

How is that relevant? Where’s the contradiction? Again, any development of dogmatic teaching that trivializes the past is false.

All St. JPII is really saying here is new life is precious to God. It is! But it’s a fact that it’s a broken life. A guilty life. A life bound under the chains of Satan and death.

And yes, though infants newly born are relatively innocent under OUR laws, the laws of the human society they are born into, they are not innocent in comparison with the standard of God’s law and his justice.

Again, Chapter 3 of Session 6 at Trent-

CHAPTER III.

Who are justified through Christ.

“But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.”

Again, heading 4 of Session 5, On Original Sin, De Fide-

1. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[StAugustine]

Just three saints-

‘If you want to be a Catholic do not believe, do not say, do not teach that infants carried off by death before being baptized can obtain the remission of original sin.’

St. Augustine, Father & Doctor of the Church

‘For children, however the effect of baptism is that they are washed only from original sin that they contracted from Adam through their first birth. If they should have died before they are regenerated, without doubt they are separated from the kingdom of Christ, our savior testifying: “no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.” [John 3:5]’

St. Isidore of Seville, Father & Doctor of the Church

‘The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life without even the grace of baptism is utterly foolish.’

Pope St. Innocent I

 

[Dovekin]

How is that relevant? Where’s the contradiction? Again, any development of dogmatic teaching that trivializes the past is false.

Did I say there was contradiction? I quoted from a document you cited, to make the point that context matters. If you are really concerned about “trivializing the past,” you should not quote passages without acknowledging the teaching a few paragraphs earlier.

Pius XII taught that every child should be esteemed and welcomed, and you teach that God will not esteem and welcome a child if she is not baptized. And you do this by quoting this same document! There is something wrong here that you do not acknowledge for some reason.

You present a very bleak, hopeless view of the fate of the unbaptized. You manipulate our history to fit your facts; have you honestly heard of Mary being baptized, or needing to be?

Does God esteem and welcome a dead infant? Does God send dead infants away from heaven if they have not been baptized? Is there a coherent way to answer these two questions?

I do not have answers, but I do have hope that God is a loving God who will not abandon infants “ No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined.”

 

[StAugustine]

And there is mercy for unbaptized infants- that they are not punished the same way as the rest of the damned.

Listen to Our Lord and Lady speaking to St. Bridget of Sweden-

“Some of the condemned are greater sinners, others lesser. The conditions for their punishment and retribution are set up accordingly.

Although all the condemned are enclosed in darkness, not all of them experience it in one and the same way. Darkness differs from darkness, horror from horror, hell-fire from hell-fire. God’s rule is one of justice and mercy everywhere, even in hell. Thus, those who have sinned deliberately have their particular punishment, those who have sinned out of weakness have a different one, those who are being held only because of the damage done by original sin have a different one again.

While the torment of these latter consists in the lack of the beatific vision and of the light of the elect, still they come close to mercy and joy in the sense that they do not experience horrible punishments, since they bear no effects of any evil deeds of their own doing.

Otherwise, if God did not ordain the number and limit of the punishments, the devil would never show any limits in tormenting them.’ “

Our Lady, to St. Bridget of Sweden, ‘The Revelations’

“'By reason of my great love I give the kingdom of heaven to all of the baptized who die before reaching the age of discretion. As it is written: It has pleased my Father to give the kingdom of heaven to such as these. By reason of my tender love, I even show mercy to the infants of pagans.

If any of them die before reaching the age of discretion, given that they cannot come to know me face to face, they go instead to a place that it is not permitted for you to know but where they will live without suffering. Those who have advanced from the one road reach those two roads, that is, the age of discretion between good and evil. It is then in their power to choose what pleases them most. Their reward will follow the inclination of their will, since by that time they know how to read the sign written at the crossroads telling them that it is better to experience a little pain at the start and joy ready and waiting for them than experience joy at the start and pain at the end.’”

Our Lord, to St. Bridget of Sweden, ‘The Revelations’

 

[Dovekin]

'By reason of my great love I give the kingdom of heaven to all of the baptized who die before reaching the age of discretion.

Do you agree?

While the torment of these latter consists in the lack of the beatific vision and of the light of the elect, still they come close to mercy and joy in the sense that they do not experience horrible punishments, since they bear no effects of any evil deeds of their own doing.

Do you think this makes the same point as the other quote?

It seems odd to me, but the Lord sounds more merciful than Our Lady.

 

[StAugustine]

I think I adore the justice of Gods decision, which in all ages amounts to this- “the unbaptized infants who die do not see my face, but in my mercy I treat them differently than those who die in mortal sin.”

That’s the bottom line for ALL of Church history. You will not find any consensus before the 1960’s teaching the opposite because it’s so painstakingly obvious to all the saints and all the fathers involved (notice I said saints and fathers!). Even Pope Pius XII says Baptism of Desire doesn’t work for them. Pope Sixtus V says abortion is evil not only because it ends physical life, but it keeps souls from seeing God.

And let’s be honest, if all unbaptized infants go to heaven, where does the real EVIL of abortion lie? Who cares, in the end they get to heaven right? “Well you are depriving the mother of her right to have her own baby…” so the greatest good is human comfort? A comfort she is willingly abandoning??? No, the evil of abortion, the overwhelming objective horrror of abortion, according to the Popes, which you can read for yourself in the encyclical “Effrenatam” is that SOULS are lost which could potentially be in heaven.

And really, nothing else will suffice for the horror of abortion- for all of us are doomed to death. But unless there is a blessedness that can be lost, it’s just not that big a deal. Heck, it’s in God’s favor that so many souls are entering paradise isn’t it?

No, it isn’t, and THATS the tragedy, nothing less.

 

[Dovekin]

'By reason of my great love I give the kingdom of heaven to all of the baptized who die before reaching the age of discretion.

Do you agree with this, that you posted?

 

[StAugustine]

Of course. I try to be consistent. But God’s love by itself is not unjust. He cannot overlook the guilt of a sin for which there is neither conversion nor reparation and remains at the time of death.

Original sin, all by itself, is damnable. It is being born an enemy of God. But does God love his enemies? More than we ever could! He himself has said, “Love your enemies” and so he does too. But that doesn’t make them less enemies, less guilty, less children of wrath, less worthy of punishment. WE perceive it as a tragic, and I say good, maybe now we are finally getting a hold on the horror of sin!

For if he punishes original sin by not allowing into paradise, how much more will he punish our faithlessness, our anger, our malice and evil, unless he GIVES US the repentance he asks from us?

 

[hope]

I may have missed it but did anyone mention 1 Peter 3:21.

Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

[Usagi]

1. Do unbaptized, Catholic Children go to heaven?

If they are unbaptized, they are technically not Catholic (or Christian), but I will presume you mean children of Catholic parents.

WE DON’T KNOW FOR SURE. As you say, this is something the Church has struggled with throughout her history. We know that original sin alone can damn a person — no human, even an infant, naturally deserves Heaven. This led St. Augustine (the original, not the poster in this thread) and others to the conclusion that the unbaptized must go to Hell, though undoubtedly not to face the same punishments as actual sinners. Later, the theory of limbo for infants was proposed — a state of purely natural happiness that is still not Heaven. Most recently the Church has leaned on her understanding of God’s mercy and love to hope that such souls in fact go to Heaven. The reason she can’t go further than “hope” is that the definitive answer has not been revealed to us — but I think most of us agree with you in practice. Baptism is undeniably the normative means for the restoration of a human’s broken relationship to God, but God is the active agent there and doesn’t need the sacrament to do His thing. That doesn’t mean, though, that from the human side we can declare baptism absolutely unnecessary and simply neglect it in the belief that God will supply. God has supplied us with the sacraments. We trust Him to handle the emergency cases, but we have our instructions for the normal course of things.

1. Do baptized Christian, but not Catholic children go to heaven?

Presuming they are either incapable of, or have not committed, unrepented mortal sin (an easy presumption for kids), then yes they would, as would baptized non-Catholic Christian adults.

1. Do any non-Catholics go to heaven? Specifically, does a jew who lived a perfect, righteous and virtuous life by any definition (other than he was not a Catholic ) go to heaven?

If God wills, yes — and God wills the salvation of all. It won’t be the person’s Judaism or his perfect life that is the reason for his salvation, though, except to the extent that those things are evidence that he accepted and cooperated with God’s grace as he understood it. “We can’t earn Heaven” doesn’t just mean we can’t buy our way in with money or pious acts — no one’s good behavior is good enough to demand Heaven as a matter of justice. Salvation is always a gift.

1. Does a Catholic priest that raped dozens of children under his care, but repents in his last hour of life, go to heaven?

If his repentance is sincere, yes, though likely after considerable purgation. There is no sin that cannot be repented or that God will not forgive.