S
SteveVH
Guest
I’m with you 100% on this. I think we can safely come to that conclusion based upon the nature of our loving, merciful God.
- Status
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
No, we can only know ‘for certain’ that God is merciful.
That is why if the unbaptized children are in heaven it would surprise no one.
But while we can say, “I strongly believe the children are in heaven”, we must stop short of saying, “I am certain that they are in heaven” IF by that we are expressing our own personal ‘belief’ and presenting it as truth.
Now if Jonathon and Catholic20064 want to say, “I am certain that the children are in heaven”. . .that’s fine.
But if they say, “IT is certain”. . .that isn’t.
Or “WE are certain”, or “As Catholics we can state that it is certain that. . .”
Those are problematic statements.
There is a big difference between my coming on say and stating, “I’m certain that God will be merciful to these children and bring them to heaven” (which is just my opinion which, as noted, we are all entitled to have, and which does not necessarily contradict church teaching) and my coming on and saying something like, “We as Catholics can be certain that God would not deprive these children of heaven based on the mere fact that they were not baptized, as baptism itself is not salvific” or “There is nothing at all contradictory with Catholic teaching for us to state that it is certain that these children are in heaven.”
The latter statements contain error (baptism IS salvific), or are incomplete (to be absolutely complete it should also be stated that it is not contradictory with Catholic teaching to state that it is certain that the children are NOT in heaven. Since we do not know, we can’t say that the ONLY possibility is for the children to be in heaven. We have to admit the possibility exists equally that they are not).
I don’t want to be unnecessarily pedantic or didactic but in my 53 years I have seen far too much misunderstanding of Catholic teaching because the language used in discussing the teaching has been ambiguous, incomplete, or otherwise problematic. When you can see the Catechism come flat out and state that the Eucharist is Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, the Real Presence of God. . .and yet see that a number of people who consider themselves good, practicing Catholics actually think the Eucharist is ‘only a symbol’, you can see that it is hard enough for Catholics to understand a teaching when it is out there PLAINLY. It is much, much worse when the teaching is NOT so plain and when in discussion it is so easy to take a word or sentence out of context and wind up thinking that the teaching is something that it is not.
Of course, I’m not perfect in my understanding by any means, and I think that most people here do understand the teaching adequately and are trying to express it clearly. I also think that even when the teaching is expressed and understood though by the posters, there are times when the language or sentiment is expressed in a way that is not so clear. And sometimes I’m guilty of that myself so again, I’m always glad if people either help me clear it up by giving a ‘better’ explanation or bring it to my attention so that I can try to do it ‘better’ myself.
That is why if the unbaptized children are in heaven it would surprise no one.
But while we can say, “I strongly believe the children are in heaven”, we must stop short of saying, “I am certain that they are in heaven” IF by that we are expressing our own personal ‘belief’ and presenting it as truth.
Now if Jonathon and Catholic20064 want to say, “I am certain that the children are in heaven”. . .that’s fine.
But if they say, “IT is certain”. . .that isn’t.
Or “WE are certain”, or “As Catholics we can state that it is certain that. . .”
Those are problematic statements.
There is a big difference between my coming on say and stating, “I’m certain that God will be merciful to these children and bring them to heaven” (which is just my opinion which, as noted, we are all entitled to have, and which does not necessarily contradict church teaching) and my coming on and saying something like, “We as Catholics can be certain that God would not deprive these children of heaven based on the mere fact that they were not baptized, as baptism itself is not salvific” or “There is nothing at all contradictory with Catholic teaching for us to state that it is certain that these children are in heaven.”
The latter statements contain error (baptism IS salvific), or are incomplete (to be absolutely complete it should also be stated that it is not contradictory with Catholic teaching to state that it is certain that the children are NOT in heaven. Since we do not know, we can’t say that the ONLY possibility is for the children to be in heaven. We have to admit the possibility exists equally that they are not).
I don’t want to be unnecessarily pedantic or didactic but in my 53 years I have seen far too much misunderstanding of Catholic teaching because the language used in discussing the teaching has been ambiguous, incomplete, or otherwise problematic. When you can see the Catechism come flat out and state that the Eucharist is Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, the Real Presence of God. . .and yet see that a number of people who consider themselves good, practicing Catholics actually think the Eucharist is ‘only a symbol’, you can see that it is hard enough for Catholics to understand a teaching when it is out there PLAINLY. It is much, much worse when the teaching is NOT so plain and when in discussion it is so easy to take a word or sentence out of context and wind up thinking that the teaching is something that it is not.
Of course, I’m not perfect in my understanding by any means, and I think that most people here do understand the teaching adequately and are trying to express it clearly. I also think that even when the teaching is expressed and understood though by the posters, there are times when the language or sentiment is expressed in a way that is not so clear. And sometimes I’m guilty of that myself so again, I’m always glad if people either help me clear it up by giving a ‘better’ explanation or bring it to my attention so that I can try to do it ‘better’ myself.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
BUT we also need to say (with certainty) that we can also be certain that our loving, merciful God, if He has decreed that the children are NOT in heaven, is equally loving and merciful for THAT decision.I’m with you 100% on this. I think we can safely come to that conclusion based upon the nature of our loving, merciful God.
The Church has not made a decision because the Spirit has not guided us to know yet.
While we know of no one in hell, and we do know of those in heaven, I do believe that none of those whom the Church has authenticated as saints (that is, as opposed to the earliest saints who were canonized by ‘acclamation’) is an unbaptized person, correct?
I think that we can trust in God’s mercy but I think it is presumptuous of us to insist that ONLY if the children are ‘in heaven’ can we be CERTAIN of God’s ‘loving mercy.’ That comes perilously close to us attempting to judge FOR God and saying that only the ONE action (the children in heaven) would be appropriate. And that is not correct Church teaching.
I
Indyann
Guest
God gave us both faith and reason. Based on these gifts, I believe that God has indeed, provided a means for unbaptized babies to enter into His Kingdom.
Is that an acceptable statement?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I think that is a very clear and acceptable statement. Very well put indeed.
S
SteveVH
Guest
All I am saying is that the God who has been revealed to us, through our Lord Jesus Christ, is a God of unfathomable love and mercy. We also know that, ultimately, there are only one of two places that we will spend eternity; eternal happiness or eternal punishment. Whatever God’s decision is we know that it is just. However, to believe that an innocent baby, through no fault of its own, would end up in eternal punishment goes against what has been revealed to us concerning God’s nature.
J
JonathonofOhio
Guest
Agreed, we cannot circumvent the Church’s teaching on such matters, but the Church has no set teaching or dogma concerning this topic. I will not deny the authority that belongs to the Church, and you are correct that careful wording should be used when expressing ones opinions on a matter that is considered ‘open for interpretation’, when the Church hasn’t decided on something like this (because, indeed, there is a potential to misrepresent the teachings of the Church).
That said, I do not deny that Baptism is saving, I understand and agree with this teaching 100%. I also do not deny what Jesus said concerning the children, and that was that the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to such as them. So, while I respect the authority of the Church on these matters, it is difficult for me personally to ignore the Word of God, and say, “I do not know for certain.” when I am asked to answer what I believe. Yes, I tell them what the Church teaches (which is basically ‘we do not know’), but then I tell what I have come to understand, which is reasonable since we are without any real answer.
What I have been saying is that we all should know, and we have a responsibility to know what Jesus revealed to us concerning this. For, if we do not know for certain, then how can we be certain that Martyrs are in heaven? Jesus revealed to us that whoever dies for his sake is saved, so then why, when Jesus reveals to us that the Kingdom of God belongs to the little children, is it a hard thing to grasp?
Now, saying “unbaptized children are in heaven” does not go against saying 'unbaptized people cannot get into heaven.", because we know for certain there is another type of baptism, and those who partake in that baptism are saved. But one might say that martyrs were murdered because of their belief, but this was not true of the thief on the cross who was saved because he repented of his sin, and who was unable to be baptized in water.
So when we take these things into consideration and we read from the Scripture what Jesus said concerning the Children we CAN say, “I know for certain they are in heaven.”, and we can say this without any offense to God, because we are not judging that person anymore then we judge a Saint or a Martyr. And if we say we don’t know for certain, then we are wrong in saying we are certain that anyone is in heaven. For if we doubt the Word of God on one thing, then how can we go on without doubting on another? If we entrust someone to Gods mercy (and we say we do), then we trust that God has saved them, because he is merciful, and God does not condemn the innocent. Then, therefore, if we turn around and say, ‘but we do not know there fate’, where then is our trust in God?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
edited; agree and for clarity).
So when we take these things into consideration and we read from the Scripture what Jesus said concerning the Children we CAN say, “I know for certain they are in heaven.”, otherwise we are wrong in saying anyone is in heaven. For if we doubt the Word of God on one thing, then how can be go on without doubting on the others? If we entrust someone to Gods mercy (and we say we do), then we trust that God has saved them, because he is merciful, and God does not condemn the innocent. Then, therefore, if we turn around and say, ‘but we do not know there fate’, where then is our trust in God?
YOU can say that you know (you singular, you personally).
Since the Church has not pronounced, you cannot just give the one option though, I believe. You can say that it seems most logical, most reasonable, most consistent with Catholic teaching, most consistent with God’s mercy. . .but you can’t say that you are certain this is absolutely what happens, only that you hope.
You can say that IF your understanding of the Church is correct, then logically it would follow that the children are in heaven. You really do have to say the if, though. I KNOW it’s difficult. I KNOW it’s hard to even think (from our FALLIBLE and LIMITED POV) that there could BE a case whereby these children could not be saved for heaven. BUT. . .the Church does not pronounce them to be certainly in heaven, and therefore we cannot pronounce our certainty unless we make it crystal clear that it is simply our ‘personal’ view and not “The Church’s” view.
So when we take these things into consideration and we read from the Scripture what Jesus said concerning the Children we CAN say, “I know for certain they are in heaven.”, otherwise we are wrong in saying anyone is in heaven. For if we doubt the Word of God on one thing, then how can be go on without doubting on the others? If we entrust someone to Gods mercy (and we say we do), then we trust that God has saved them, because he is merciful, and God does not condemn the innocent. Then, therefore, if we turn around and say, ‘but we do not know there fate’, where then is our trust in God?
YOU can say that you know (you singular, you personally).
Since the Church has not pronounced, you cannot just give the one option though, I believe. You can say that it seems most logical, most reasonable, most consistent with Catholic teaching, most consistent with God’s mercy. . .but you can’t say that you are certain this is absolutely what happens, only that you hope.
You can say that IF your understanding of the Church is correct, then logically it would follow that the children are in heaven. You really do have to say the if, though. I KNOW it’s difficult. I KNOW it’s hard to even think (from our FALLIBLE and LIMITED POV) that there could BE a case whereby these children could not be saved for heaven. BUT. . .the Church does not pronounce them to be certainly in heaven, and therefore we cannot pronounce our certainty unless we make it crystal clear that it is simply our ‘personal’ view and not “The Church’s” view.
J
JonathonofOhio
Guest
"YOU can say that you know (you singular, you personally). "
Yes, that is MY personal point of view, and in one way it does have the appearance that it doesn’t quite agree with the official Church teaching, in that ‘we can’t know for certain.’
But, hey, I agree on everything else
Yes, that is MY personal point of view, and in one way it does have the appearance that it doesn’t quite agree with the official Church teaching, in that ‘we can’t know for certain.’
But, hey, I agree on everything else
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
But you are entitled to your opinion so long as it’s clearly your opinion!"YOU can say that you know (you singular, you personally). "
Yes, that is MY personal point of view, and in one way it does have the appearance that it doesn’t quite agree with the official Church teaching, in that ‘we can’t know for certain.’
But, hey, I agree on everything else
S
sidbrown
Guest
Really? We can know this for certain? Then how come the Catholic Church has been teaching about limbo for hundreds of years?
I
Indyann
Guest
First link I came to concerning the abolishment of the theory of limbo. It was never dogma.
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549439/The-Pope-ends-state-of-limbo-after-800-years.html
I
Indyann
Guest
C
Catholic20064
Guest
Reading this I get the feeling the commission is saying Limbo is still a valid theory, but here are all the reasons it doesn’t make any sense to believe in Limbo. It’s as if the commission wanted to say that children are saved in heaven, but the Church is concerned that saying this would call into question its teaching on the necessity of baptism as a remedy for the stain of original sin. The Church is concerned that would cause some Catholic parents to neglect the baptism of their children. So the Church is caught between a rock and a hard place in its pastoral concern for those who have lost their babies before baptism and those who need to baptize their babies.
The scriptures are pretty clear that Jesus said let the little children come to him. That should be enough to justify both the teaching that unbaptized children are in heaven and that Jesus wants infants baptized.
S
sidbrown
Guest
So limbo was taught from the pulpit and in Catholic schools for hundreds of years, but now all of a sudden, the Church has changed its mind? Is the same thing possible with respect to artificial birth control or divorce and remarriage or the teaching on Purgatory?
C
Catholic20064
Guest
If you will take some time to read the document linked you will see that various theories have been put forth regarding the fate of unbaptized children with Limbo only being one of many. There never was a dogmatic statement regarding Limbo no matter who might have taught it from the pulpit. In fact some tried to make the teaching on Limbo dogmatic during Vatican II and they were shut down. There is a big difference between this teaching and the ones you cite. Take time to read the Catholic Encyclopedia’s history of the teaching on Limbo and it becomes clear it has never been accepted as dogmatic.
J
JonathonofOhio
Guest
Well, we came to know for certain that Mary was a virgin her entire life and that she was assumed into heaven, so why then is it such a shocker for me to say “we can know for certain.”? God has always revealed things to the Church throughout history, so it wouldn’t be a surprise to me if one day he reveals the answer to our question.
Limbo was a theory that was circulated through the church that has no basis in scripture or sacred tradition. I can find nothing that says the Church ever declared it doctrine, but apparently it was allowed to be taught as a possible answer to the question. I remember though that our church was told to stop teaching it, because too many churches got into teaching it as if it was doctrine. I suggest you read the links the others gave to learn more about it.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Limbo was never taught as definitive “The place where children go is called limbo”. it was always taught as a ‘popular belief’ and a POSSIBILITY for the children. Did you not see my earlier link to the Baltimore Catechism?
Furthermore, Limbo is not specifically ‘dismissed’. There is most certainly a limbo of the Fathers and there could exist a limbo for unbaptized infants.
The Church may deepen its understanding of doctrine but never ‘change’. Since there was never an official teaching that “All unbaptized children absolutely go to Limbo and nowhere else”, the current understanding that we DO NOT KNOW what happens to unbaptized children but trust in God’s mercy that they MAY be saved is in no way a contradiction to the earlier popular belief and THEORY that the children may have gone to a comparable type of ‘limbo’ such as those before the life of Jesus did in the "limbo of the fathers.’
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
Yes, the article and the Church state that one is allowed to believe in Limbo of the Infants, however there is a stronger theological basis to believe that infants may be saved through the mercy of God. The Church stops short of saying that this is a definitive belief (in comparison, the Church definitively believes that those that die in mortal sin go to Hell), since there has been no revelation given on the matter. This is why Tantum Ergo is having issues with other posters claiming that it is clear that unbaptized infants go to Heaven, when the Catholic Church itself doesn’t believe that it is clear.
Some have said that the Church has no teaching on the issue, but it actually does, as we see from the article. The Church teaches that baptism is essential for salvation. The Church teaches that if one dies in sin (mortal or original), they cannot enter Heaven. The Church teaches that Hell is punishment for personal, mortal sin, of which we are accountable for. So, if an infant has no mortal sin to be punished for in Hell, but has original sin that precludes them from Heaven, where do they go? The speculative teaching of Limbo of the Infants was born. It is not doctrine, however it is based on various doctrinal principles, and Catholics are allowed to believe in it. In addition, the Church teaches that we can hope for the mercy of God to save unbaptized infants in another way (such as God saving people through baptism of blood or baptism of desire).
*"The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation.
Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12).
"*
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
You are correct, original sin is not a personal sin as mortal sin is. However, what Tantum is saying is that both original sin and mortal sin preclude one from Heaven (I forgot which Ecumenical Council, but this has been said in Council). This is why the speculative teaching on Limbo of the Infants was created. The Church does not teach that “there is no Limbo”. It teaches that one is allowed to believe in Limbo of the Infants if they want to, however there is reason to believe that these infants are saved. That is what the Church teaches.
Yes, it does go against Church teaching. You can say that you believe that these children are in Heaven, however the Catholic Church itself (right in the article by the International Theological Commission) states that it has not been revealed to us the fate of the unbaptized child, but that, based on what has been revealed, there is solid ground to hope that they are saved. It is “prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge”. That is what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter. The Church states that we can’t know for certain since there is nothing in Revelation on the issue.
If the Church is not “certain”, then I am not certain, though we can certainly hope and believe that they are saved.
You are concluding this, but the Church is not concluding that “we have already been given a revelation concerning the fate of children who are not baptized”. It says so explicitly in the ITC article.
- Status