K
KathleenGee
Guest
Yes…an entrustment…
- Status
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
Well, this is true in the personal sense, however the difference here is in the group sense. What I mean by that is that the Church teaches that people that die in mortal sin go to Hell, people that die without mortal sin, venial sin or temporal punishment go to Heaven, and people that die without mortal sin but have some temporal punishment or venial sin go to Purgatory then Heaven. On the other hand, the Church teaches that we don’t know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants, though there are grounds to believe that they are saved (while also allowing the belief in Limbo of the Infants).
But you’re also right, no matter who it is, we should pray for the souls of the dead.
J
JonathonofOhio
Guest
I know the Church has addressed this question many times, but there seems to be conflicting answers, especially since there is no ‘official’ Church ruling. The Church seems to conclude that at this time it has not been revealed to us what happens to an unbaptized baby, and that all that can be concluded for certain is that an unbaptized person cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Yet, we can draw some obvious conclusions from scripture…
We are not born with sin, we are born into sin. God makes all things good, and so then a child is born good, not with a sin. Does something pure and good receive punishment? No. Yet, we are born into sin, and so then we are all cursed to die so not even the most innocent (not even our Lord, who gave His life willingly) was kept from death. But we do not die by the hand of God, we die at the hand of a murderer, the devil (Wisdom 1:13-15; 2:23-24), and he was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44). And Jesus said, “I have to be baptized with a baptism,” when he had been baptized already. For he had come “by means of water and blood” (1 John 5:6); that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us in like manner.
Therefore, no one should have any doubt when Jesus tells us “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14). There should be no question among us concerning the fate of an unbaptized child, because it is reasonable to conclude that the child enters the Kingdom of Heaven immediately upon death.
Yet, we can draw some obvious conclusions from scripture…
We are not born with sin, we are born into sin. God makes all things good, and so then a child is born good, not with a sin. Does something pure and good receive punishment? No. Yet, we are born into sin, and so then we are all cursed to die so not even the most innocent (not even our Lord, who gave His life willingly) was kept from death. But we do not die by the hand of God, we die at the hand of a murderer, the devil (Wisdom 1:13-15; 2:23-24), and he was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44). And Jesus said, “I have to be baptized with a baptism,” when he had been baptized already. For he had come “by means of water and blood” (1 John 5:6); that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us in like manner.
Therefore, no one should have any doubt when Jesus tells us “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14). There should be no question among us concerning the fate of an unbaptized child, because it is reasonable to conclude that the child enters the Kingdom of Heaven immediately upon death.
A
Adeodatus
Guest
Though it is a hotly disputed topic, I think it is quite clear that St. Thomas Aquinas ascribes a natural desire for beatitude to the human soul. If that is true, then before the commission of deliberate sin I wonder if in some sense the baptism of desire is not common to all of us, inasmuch as there is no impediment to the elemental desire of the creature to be reunited with its Creator.
I want to be clear that I’m not asserting that as a theological conclusion, rather just as an offhand thought I had when reading your statement.
C
Catholic20064
Guest
Actually, the Mormons do require willing consent. Mormons get baptized for the dead just in case the person accepts the gospel after death. The person would still have to choose between accepting their baptism or not. If someone has already heard the gospel of Mormonism before death and rejected it, the person’s opportunity to accept the Mormon gospel is restricted. Since a Mormon cannot know the disposition of the dead person to accept the gospel they do the baptism just in case the person can take advantage of it. There is no assurance the dead person will be saved in the Mormon Celestial Kingdom simply because a baptism for the dead is done by someone after death.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
As long as it doesn’t contradict Catholic teaching, I always held the belief that unbaptized infants go the Limbo of the infants, but are then saved at the end of time by Jesus during the second coming.
This, of course, is only a personal belief and not official teaching.
This, of course, is only a personal belief and not official teaching.
T
tbcrawford
Guest
[Baptism of desire is not the sacrament of baptism and yet applying the term “baptism” to the baptism of blood and baptism of desire has been a practice of the Church for centuries. Even if it is not a baptism in the strict sense, it nevertheless is a baptism in the analogical sense. Just as receiving the Eucharist by making a spiritual “Communion” is not a true Communion, but given the name “Spiritual Communion” in the analogical sense. In both cases, no one is denying the primary term. On the same point, St. Albert the Great says that the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire can only be called baptism when water baptism is lacking.[7]
In this sense, “Baptisms of desire” and “Baptism of blood” are not sacraments, but simply fulfill the requirements when the sacrament cannot be received due to extraordinary circumstances. Thus, one speaks metaphorically of “different Baptisms” yet they all obtain the same sanctifying grace. In fact, Our Lord Himself spoke of different Baptisms during His public ministry. There was “the Baptism wherewith I am to be baptized” (Lk. 12:50), referring to a Baptism of blood, which was His crucifixion. Describing the descent of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost, he says “For John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence” (Act. 1:5).
Concerning the necessity of the sacraments for salvation Peter Lombard (1160 AD) points out that, “God did not bind his power by the Sacraments.”[8] In other words, God is not bound by the sacraments to draw men to heaven (Cf. Job 33:15-18). St. Thomas Aquinas affirms the same as he points out “It belongs to the excellence of Christ power, that He (Christ) could bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior sacrament.”[9] ]
Exerpt from www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/…/bapdesire.htm
and this one from right here at CAF…www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp -
Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized” (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).
K
KathleenGee
Guest
TBCrawford…
Your post speaks to alot of hearts here…St. Thomas has his place, but so do other theologians…St. Thomas worked from the erudite tradition…most people reflect more from heart and spirit.
Your post speaks to alot of hearts here…St. Thomas has his place, but so do other theologians…St. Thomas worked from the erudite tradition…most people reflect more from heart and spirit.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
Thank you, yes I’m aware of the teaching of baptism of desire. What I was wondering was if a Church source could be cited that states that the desire of the parents could initiate a baptism of desire for the infant. Your sources are talking about desiring baptism for oneself, not desiring baptism for another (i.e. parents for their unbaptized infant).
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I am not saying that anyone here is personally advocating the following, but can you see that it might be perceived by some --and to be dangerous?
IF we had an authoritative belief that unborn infants who died automatically went to heaven. .
Can you see the people who would then argue that abortion wasn’t so bad? I mean, sure the babies die but if they go to heaven, then the ‘end result’ winds up being all happy.
Can you see then the people arguing for euthanasia of born children who were born severely ill, if 'they’ll wind up in heaven anyway?"
Or even for the euthanasia of the elderly (after a good confession of course) because, "now that they’ve had the sacraments, they’ll go to heaven anyway. We’re doing them a favor because they’ll be sure of heaven.’
In fact, one of the major tragedies of abortion is that the child is **deprived of life AND is perhaps deprived of eternal happiness in heaven. **
Of course we’d all like to think that the unborn wind up in heaven but again, it would not be through ‘personal merit’. While they are not guilty of personal sin they DO have original sin and that is enough to deprive them of heaven though not merit them for hell. God is just. His mercy cannot ‘contradict’ His justice. Therefore if there is a way for the children to enter heaven it will not be because they were not baptized and freed from original sin that way. God will not say that baptism is necessary for one group (the born) but not for another (the unborn). Rather, if the unborn are saved it will be through some other means that we do not yet know. and again, it is “if.”
Though it sticks in the human craw, the unborn do not ‘merit’ heaven on their own. Neither do we born. We aren’t entitled to heaven, ever.
IF we had an authoritative belief that unborn infants who died automatically went to heaven. .
Can you see the people who would then argue that abortion wasn’t so bad? I mean, sure the babies die but if they go to heaven, then the ‘end result’ winds up being all happy.
Can you see then the people arguing for euthanasia of born children who were born severely ill, if 'they’ll wind up in heaven anyway?"
Or even for the euthanasia of the elderly (after a good confession of course) because, "now that they’ve had the sacraments, they’ll go to heaven anyway. We’re doing them a favor because they’ll be sure of heaven.’
In fact, one of the major tragedies of abortion is that the child is **deprived of life AND is perhaps deprived of eternal happiness in heaven. **
Of course we’d all like to think that the unborn wind up in heaven but again, it would not be through ‘personal merit’. While they are not guilty of personal sin they DO have original sin and that is enough to deprive them of heaven though not merit them for hell. God is just. His mercy cannot ‘contradict’ His justice. Therefore if there is a way for the children to enter heaven it will not be because they were not baptized and freed from original sin that way. God will not say that baptism is necessary for one group (the born) but not for another (the unborn). Rather, if the unborn are saved it will be through some other means that we do not yet know. and again, it is “if.”
Though it sticks in the human craw, the unborn do not ‘merit’ heaven on their own. Neither do we born. We aren’t entitled to heaven, ever.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
There is baptism of blood…and it has been referred to that aborted babies particularly appear to fit this category.
I read stories around the world about innocent children being murdered…there was a 7 year old boy hanged for being a spy…and cannot but help but see this child taken immediately into the arms of Christ.
I read stories around the world about innocent children being murdered…there was a 7 year old boy hanged for being a spy…and cannot but help but see this child taken immediately into the arms of Christ.
J
JonathonofOhio
Guest
So are we to not teach the truth because someone will take it and twist it? They do that already. We know it is true that a murderer doesn’t inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, so what good would it do for them to further justify their murdering, which they already try to do?
C
Catholic20064
Guest
There is a part of me that believes we are born into original sin, but that Christ’s atonement takes care of that for everyone without any act of our own. That doesn’t negate the need for infant baptism because it is the way to enter the life of the Church and receive the grace that comes from that life. It would seem to me the reach of Christ’s atonement has priority over original sin.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
No, Jonathon, and I didn’t advocate not teaching the truth by any means.
I’m saying that we should teach the truth. The truth is that we do not know. Unfortunately there are some who think that the possibility that an unborn child may go to heaven due to God’s mercy somehow makes it not so ‘awful’ if the child is aborted because he will ‘go to heaven anyway.’
That is the distortion of the teaching that may be the trouble. The trouble is not with the correct teaching that Baptism is necessary and that those unbaptized will not enter heaven unless God through His mercy, in a way that we do not know and cannot verify actually occurs, acts otherwise.
Of course we can hope, but the teaching that the unbaptized cannot enter heaven is still true. The unbaptized cannot enter heaven–UNLESS God somehow intervenes but we do not know whether He does.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
But that is not the teaching of the Church.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
Is this what LDS teach? I feel like I’ve heard them say before that Christ’s atonement took care of original sin, hence why they believe that infants are saved.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
Right, I think that’s what the LDS church teaches.
C
Catholic20064
Guest
The Church doesn’t really seem to have a teaching on this subject. It says it doesn’t know. That gives me the right to state what I believe.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
No, it doesn’t. The Church DOES have a teaching; the teaching is that the unbaptized do not go to heaven but that God may save them.
What YOU are saying is something totally different. You’re saying that Christ’s sacrifice DID save them and there is no ‘need’ then for baptism to save, but that it only confers grace.
That is not the teaching of the Church.
C
Catholic20064
Guest
If the Church says they might be saved without baptism, I can posit how that might work. And it seems to me that Christ’s atonement is as good a place to start as anywhere. I can state as my belief they will be saved in heaven just as some continue to state their opinion they believe in Limbo. I admit the possibility that I may be wrong, but I can’t find any valid argument to believe that I am wrong.
I also think we need to make a distinction between the unbaptized and unbaptized children. The unbaptized may have been guilty of personal sin. That baptism of desire would definitely be necessary for them. We’re talking about children who have not had the opportunity to commit personal sin, a very different problem.
- Status