P
pohandes
Guest
Yes, But it is just a hope, But an unbaptized infant is not guilty. S/he has no personal sin to be forgiven by God.
- Status
P
pohandes
Guest
I ask orthodox members, to join to this discussion.
W
Wesrock
Guest
When we speak of “forgiveness” of original sin, we are speaking of justification and being made holy, the infusion of God’s grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.Wesrock:
Yes, But it is just a hope, But an unbaptized infant is not guilty. S/he has no personal sin to be forgiven by God.
Yes the Church hopes that God does this as God can do anything He so chooses.
However, at the end of the day the official teaching of the Church is that those who die in mortal sin or in original sin alone both go to hell but suffer unequal punishments.
It is a hard pill to swallow for many, but beyond a shadow of a doubt, this is the Church’s teaching.
P
PilgrimMichelangelo
Guest
This is heterodox.
I second this. St. Augustine of Hippo is considered a Holy Father of the Undivided Church in the East regardless of what his modern “Orthodox” detractors say.
Forgive me, since this will take a bit of research on my part, I will refer you first to the Orthodoxwiki article on Ancestral Sin here: Original sin - OrthodoxWiki.
And will presume to say this; since there is a disparity of pious opinion between the Holy Fathers of the East and the West regarding the degree of fallenness caused by our first parent’s sin, (although both seem to be in concord that baptism is necessary for salvation), we cannot know the ultimate fate of an infant deprived of the laver of regeneration, nor can we comprehend the great mercy of God towards those innocent of personal guilt, nor his justice towards those who did not have to struggle against sinful passions. Therefore, this is a great mystery that has not been revealed to us in full, for who can approach the unapproachable judgements of the Supreme Judge of the Universe? Or who can plumb the depths of the Merciful Lord Who loves mankind, even unto uniting His Divinity with our Humanity and dwelling among us, being crucified, risen and ascended, Who even now sits Incarnate, fully God and fully man at the right hand of the Everlasting Father?
Let us not set limits to the mercy of the Lamb, nor cast aside the justice of the Eternal Father, nor abandon the providence of the Holy Spirit. @CathBoy1 my heart hurts for your loss, yet is hopeful that by God’s providence your dear child is with Christ in a place of blessedness.
Worth posting again from our last discussion: “St. Paisios of the Holy Mountain speaks about the unbaptized souls of babies being a place of great joy surrounding Christ’s Throne, such that they have eternal bliss, yet they are not allowed entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven proper, because they have not been baptized, nor had the chance to struggle against temptations. But since they have not known any other pleasure to them the bliss surrounding Christ’s Throne is their greatest reward.”
Peace be with you.
G
George720
Guest
Mat 19:14
But Jesus said,
Suffer little children,
and forbid them not,
to come unto me:
for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Yes he is…
Rom 5:12 [My literal translation]
Through which,
(Just) as through one man
Sin entered into the world,
and through (this) sin Death (also entered into the world);
and in this manner Death passed into all men,
Upon which (Death) all (men) have sinned:
This is the exegetical basis for the Orthodox understanding of the Original Sin of Adam…
Most of the Church Fathers do not take the subject of the Original Sin so head on - They describe it as a “darkening of the nous (mind)”, and infirmity, and the sensual nature of the flesh, and infirmity… But the basic fact is that in Eden, when Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good AND evil, as God foretold, they both died that very day, and in that death, they begat all mankind, transmitting their Death to all men, and upon that inherited Death, all have sinned who have sinned…
We do not inherit Adam’s Sin, but we do inherit his death, and while many describe it as our death to come that will put us in the grave, we are much more like walking and talking dead men and women who do not have Adam’s original Life in us… Because he lost it, and could not give it to us in his gift of our procreation…
Hence the need for Baptism, which gives us the Life of Christ as we are re-born into Christ coming out of the Baptismal Waters of Regeneration… And we live lives of dying to the death into which we are born in Adam, utilizing the Power of the New Life in us from Christ, IF we then live as Christ discipled the Disciples to disciple us to live…
Your unborn child who died in the womb is dear to God - Do not worry for him or her… Give a name, and pray regularly for him or her, as you do or will do for all your children every day…
God bless your good and fatherly heart, my Brother…
geo
Last edited:
P
pohandes
Guest
Are you Orthodox?
G
George720
Guest
Last edited:
I absolutely agree with this statement, but it is more of an Orthodox viewpoint.
The RCC is too legalistic in manners such as these and instead of declaring such matters as a mystery, the RCC prefers to judge on such matters, and their judgment is as follows:
Those who die in mortal sin or in original sin alone both go to hell but suffer unequal punishments.
This teaching has been declared by Popes at councils, making it the official teaching of the RCC on this matter.
Thank you, and it is my hope as well, I will just say that I find myself agreeing with the Eastern Church on this particular subject.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
Really the Latin view is about merit. Merit is required for the Beatific Vision and cannot be obtained without a state of sanctifying grace. Since all are conceived without a state of sanctifying grace, death without baptism will mean no merit and no Beatific Visions and heaven is defined as receiving the Beatific Vision (in varying degrees based upon the amount of merit).Wesrock:
Actually It is a de fide teaching of the Church that those who die in mortal sin or in original sin alone both go to hell but suffer unequal punishments.
The Church now says that we should hope for these children, but seeing as though it is a de fide teaching of the RCC, they cannot change this original stance, so saying that we should hope for these children is nice and all, but it doesn’t carry any real weight behind it.
Therefore limbo of infants was speculated as a state without the Beatific Vision but with a natural state of peace and no physical suffering (like those with demerit get).
Last edited:
Limbo literally meant the borders of hell, the Church taught/teaches that unbaptized/unborn children go to the limbo of infants (border of hell).
In the past the Church was upfront about its teaching, now the Church shy’s away from the phrase “limbo of infants” and the like, nonetheless the Church’s official teachings do not change, hence it cannot be denied that the Church teaches:
Those who die in mortal sin or in original sin alone both go to hell but suffer unequal punishments.
This teaching is backed up by teachings of multiple Popes at multiple councils:
The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only …immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments". —Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274
“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”. —Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli , 6 July 1439
W
Wesrock
Guest
You put a lot of emphasis on the word Hell, but the speculative teaching on limbo was not the Gehenna with eternal hellfire. Following St. Thomas, the majority view in the past with regards to Limbo was that they would experience great natural happiness for all time without the pain of loss.Vico:
Limbo literally meant the borders of hell, the Church taught/teaches that unbaptized/unborn children go to the limbo of infants (border of hell).
In the past the Church was upfront about its teaching, now the Church shy’s away from the phrase “limbo of infants” and the like, nonetheless the Church’s official teachings do not change, hence it cannot be denied that the Church teaches:
Those who die in mortal sin or in original sin alone both go to hell but suffer unequal punishments.
This teaching is backed up by teachings of multiple Popes at multiple councils:
The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only …immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments". —Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274
“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”. —Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli , 6 July 1439
And again, the Church does not assume the infants who die before baptism die in original sin. It does not assume they do not, true, but it does not assume they do, either.
Last edited:
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
The idea that unbaptized infants would descend to eternal torment, albeit a milder form of it, is repellent.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Who has said anything about torment for unbaptized infants at all?
Last edited:
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
I’m saying if that were the Latin Church’s stance, it would be repellent. And I’d be firmly on @CathBoy1 side. But I’m not really convinced that is the Latin Church’s stance in the first place.
Yes the Church assumes exactly that, the only person who received the grace of baptism in the womb is the Virgin Mary, otherwise there is no need of the Immaculate Conception (which is why the EO do not feel the need to declare anything on the immaculate conception).
I do not disagree, although I am not saying that the Church teaches that unbaptized infants are actually tormented, the Church teaches that unbaptized infants go to the borders of hell (limbo) where they suffer unequal punishment (the most popular opinion being that they do not suffer per say, living in a natural state of peace, rather they are suffering by not experiencing the beatific vision/heaven, not actually being tormented).
What do you make of this then?:
It is a teaching that is backed up by teachings of multiple Popes at multiple councils:
The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only …immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments". —Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274
“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”. —Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli , 6 July 1439
The above is a de fide teaching of the Church, which means it cannot be changed.
Although it is true the Church has softened its language on the subject, when you get down to the nitty gritty of it, no one can deny that this is what the Church teaches.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
I understand the reason for Catholics hoping and that the character of Jesus suggests that the hope is not in vain.
But against that hope must surely be placed what I understand to be the Catholic belief that the pain and suffering of non-humans - chimps, dolphins, flies, antelopes, lions, cows - exists as a result of human original sin. These creatures have no personal sin to be forgiven by God and have no prospect at all of eternal life (again as I understand Catholic teaching).
What is the reason for hope in the case of unbaptised children given the lack of hope for other creatures who not only lack personal sin to be forgiven, but also original sin?
Is this not evidence of the approach likely to be taken by God and a reason to be less hopeful?
D
dochawk
Guest
Yes.
Absolutely.
Full stop.
The understanding is different, and without the augustinian notion of personal guilt (which is generally accepted in the west), but in our fallen state and death [no, I’m not going to proof quote councils over exit terms]. @vico’s description is pretty good.
Also, note that Limbo is not actual Catholic doctrine, although it got taught for centuries.
It comes from the latin “limbus”, meaning margin–specifically, Augustine’s note in the margin questioning his own position in the case of very small infants who hadn’t been baptized.
I’d also note that @PilgrimMichelangelo’s response is quite informative.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Saint Paul talks about those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and he says that can be saved.
Are you familiar with Church teaching on invincible ignorance?.. now could there be stronger invincible ignorance than in infant?
For what it’s worth Church never states that “all” of those… but that those… technically it still allows for exception such as with infants. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is also a dogma and yet we understand that invincible ignorance exists. I think that interpretation and circumstances matter more than official declaration in this scenario. At the same time, Church says “those who die in original Sin” and God can work outside Sacraments to purify. God does not punish us for what is not up to us- hence if baby dies before birth, or if there is invincible ignorance, mercy should apply.
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople states this:
logy mentioned (just as there is none for most saints of the Church):
We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith.
So… yeah.
Council of Carthage was accepted by 7th Ecumenical Council (which is accepted by the East of course). Council of Carthage teaches:
"whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration , from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema ".
Clearly Eastern Church also states that Original Sin “needs” to be removed by Baptism.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Well, no. St. John the Baptist is typically taught to have received the Holy Spirit in the womb. The Blessed Mother was immaculately conceived–something different–whereas St. John the Baptist was not. The IC dogma teaches that Blessed Mother was never not sanctified and justified by God’s grace. This is different than being conceived with original sin but justified after (even only a moment later).Wesrock:
Yes the Church assumes exactly that, the only person who received the grace of baptism in the womb is the Virgin Mary, otherwise there is no need of the Immaculate Conception (which is why the EO do not feel the need to declare anything on the immaculate conception).
The Church does not teach that God can never provide justification to the unborn or the unbaptized infants. Only that the ordinary means of justification is through Baptism.
Last edited:
- Status