Question on infant baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter NMHS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NMHS

Guest
Here is a question regarding the baptism of infants.

We had our 2 month old daughter baptized this last weekend and during the process the Deacon said that if babys dont get baptized then they go to hell, but my mother-in-law said no they dont get to see the light of God. I have started to read some literature on this to get clarification but I haven’t found the answer yet. I thought that unbaptized infants go to heaven. Whats the real answer? Thanks,
 
Here is a question regarding the baptism of infants.

We had our 2 month old daughter baptized this last weekend and during the process the Deacon said that if babys dont get baptized then they go to hell, but my mother-in-law said no they dont get to see the light of God. I have started to read some literature on this to get clarification but I haven’t found the answer yet. I thought that unbaptized infants go to heaven. Whats the real answer? Thanks,
We don’t truly know.

Here’s what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say:
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.shtml#art1

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
 
Here is a question regarding the baptism of infants.

We had our 2 month old daughter baptized this last weekend and during the process the Deacon said that if babys dont get baptized then they go to hell, but my mother-in-law said no they dont get to see the light of God. I have started to read some literature on this to get clarification but I haven’t found the answer yet. I thought that unbaptized infants go to heaven. Whats the real answer? Thanks,
Your deacon is incorrect, because not only would he have absolutely no way of knowing that, but the Church has never taught such a thing.

As for your mother-in-law, I would assume that by “light of God” she is referring to the sharing in the Beatific Vision of the faithfully departed in Heaven so as to imply that un-Baptized babies do not go to Heaven, but maybe “limbo.” While the existence of an infant limbo is a matter of pure speculation, the Church has never defined that limbo exists, either and arguments in favor of limbo appear to have no evidence grounded in revelation.

While the Church offers no definite answer, it is sure that whatever conclusion one draws as to the fate of infants who have gone un-Baptized, it must be made with consideration for the immense love, justice, peace, and grace that is God–that He loves and wills good for all His children and that He, Himself, is not bound by the Sacraments of the Church.

You mention that you have been doing some reading on the topic. I suggest that you consult these tracts:
  1. Out On a Limbo
  2. Let the Children Come to Me
  3. An Excerpt from “The Hope of Salvation for Infants…”
  4. Limbo in Limbo? by Jimmy Akin
as well as these threads:
  1. Limbo
    2. Is the doctrine of limbo going to be done away with?
    3. Has limbo been abolished?
  2. Infant death
 
Both your mother and the deacon were right. Un-baptized babies can’t go to heaven so they go to Limbo, St. Thomas and the Scholastics taught that hell is the loss of the beatific vision, i.e. heaven. The suffering in hell is our conscience burning us for not responding to God’s love when we could. The more graces refused the more they suffer, e.g. A pope in hell will suffer more than say a pagan Roman dictator; a Catholic more than a Protestant; etc…

Babies only suffer the loss of the beatific vision. So they are technically in hell, i.e. loss of the vision of God, but St. Thomas and the whole Church accepted that these babies are in a natural paradise but suffer only in that they can’t ever go to heaven

To help you in your research here are some statements that will help:

**Infallable teachings **related to babies not entering heaven:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442:
“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people.”

Council of Lyons II, 1274
“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 Florence, 1438-1445:
"the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds" (Denzinger 694)

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 -
Proposition 6: "Those who claim, that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this ( [this theory is] Condemned)" Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 422

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session Va:
“If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

Authoritive: Ordinary Magisterium

16th Council of Carthage (aproved by Zosimus and Council of Ephases see above):

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my father’s house there are many mansions”(JN14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema.
For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left” (Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)

(catholic Ecyclo. “Zosimus”)
St, Pope Zosimus : “Tractoria, in which Pelagianism and its authors were condemned. Thus, finally, the occupant of the Apostolic See at the right moment maintained with all authority the traditional dogma of the Church, and protected the truth of the Church against error."

the Tractoria is referred to in the Council of Ephases ’ We[Zozimus], however, by the inspiration of God…have referred all things to the of our brothers and co-bishops. of the 16th Council of Carthage]’

The Pope Zosimus and Ephases points are related to the 16th Council of Carthage (see above for relevant quote). This council was local but it is held that the condemnations of the16th council of Carthage are echoed in the famous Tractoria of Pope Zosimus which would be infallable as described in the Catholic encyclopedia.(above)
 
You might find this interesting. It is from the Vatican’s International Theological Commission. It’s not an infallible declaration, but it’s a good explanation that should answer your question:

The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized

No where does the Church teach that these babies are definitely going to hell. At the very least, the answer is “We don’t know”.
 
We have no way of knowing for sure. By the Grace of God you were able to baptize your infant. For the unbaptized we must trust to the mercy of God.

Ahmen!🙂
 
Pope St. Innocent I, in 417, Synod of Milevis : “The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life even without the grace of baptism is utterly foolish” (Denzinger 219).

Pope Innocent III,
who asserted that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer " "no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God” (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii – Majores). (Denzinger 410)

John XXII, Nequaquam sine dolere, Nov 21, 1321:
“…the souls…of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places.” (Denzinger 493a)

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, Aug. 28, 1794,
“Baptism” section 3:
"The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,–[this Jansonist theory]–false rash injurious to Catholic schools." [Denzinger 1526]

Pius XII-Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951.
“An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism;** to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.**”

The Holy Office in 1958 (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) provided as follows:
“The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature–**a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism…**Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible. . . . Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfillment of this obligation.”

The provincial Council of Cologne:
“Faith teaches us that infants, since they are **not capable of this desire, are excluded from the kingdom of heaven if they die **[unbaptized].” (Collectio Lacensis, V. 320)

PS:
The Holy Innocents were martyrs for Jesus Himself. They died in his place therefore are martyrs .

Even so Jewish boys are circumcised at 8 days and received sanctifying grace. More than likely God in his providence would have allowed no births 8 or 9 days before Herod’s slaughter.

“We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision”
Summa newadvent.org/summa/4070.htm
 
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*

3…Moreover, the notion that infants who die without Baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the Church,…The necessary reconsideration of the theological issues cannot ignore the tragic consequences of original sin. Original sin implies a state of separation from Christ, and that excludes the possibility of the vision of God for those who die in that state.

35. a) The Pelagian understanding of the access of unbaptised infants to “eternal life” must be considered as contrary to Catholic faith.
  1. In summary: the affirmation that infants who die without Baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the Church
  2. Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion)
102. …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.

Of course this document isn’t infallible! It even contradicts itself (check out the read quotes) :rotfl:
 
Even so Jewish boys are circumcised at 8 days and received sanctifying grace. More than likely God in his providence would have allowed no births 8 or 9 days before Herod’s slaughter.

“We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision”
Summa newadvent.org/summa/4070.htm
No disrespect to Aquinas (I love the guy! ;)), but, as brilliant and holy as he was, just because he said it doesn’t make it Church teaching.

From what you have said above, it would seem that circumcision was basically a Sacrament for the Jewish people? Perhaps that is true, but it doesn’t sound right to me. Is there anything else that backs that up?
 
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*

3…Moreover, the notion that infants who die without Baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the Church,…The necessary reconsideration of the theological issues cannot ignore the tragic consequences of original sin. Original sin implies a state of separation from Christ, and that excludes the possibility of the vision of God for those who die in that state.

35. a) The Pelagian understanding of the access of unbaptised infants to “eternal life” must be considered as contrary to Catholic faith.
  1. In summary: the affirmation that infants who die without Baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the Church
  2. Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion)
102. …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.

Of course this document isn’t infallible! It even contradicts itself (check out the read quotes) :rotfl:
I think you’re taking these quotes a bit out of context.
 
No disrespect to Aquinas (I love the guy! ;)), but, as brilliant and holy as he was, just because he said it doesn’t make it Church teaching.

From what you have said above, it would seem that circumcision was basically a Sacrament for the Jewish people? Perhaps that is true, but it doesn’t sound right to me. Is there anything else that backs that up?
You can focus on Aquinas and read his Summa I gave a link & no he isn’t infallible.

What do you think about all the other councils and Popes on the subject?
 
You can focus on Aquinas and read his Summa I gave a link & no he isn’t infallible.

What do you think about all the other councils and Popes on the subject?
I admit, I’m not familiar with the many quotes you provided (you certainly earn points for thoroughness ;)). I think I’d have to look into the issue a lot more in depth to give you a proper response.

I suppose right now I’m operating under the assumption that the International Theological Commission wouldn’t contradict previous Church teaching (especially as the document was approved by Pope Benedict for publication). If they did somehow contradict Church teaching, I would think that it wouldn’t have been approved nor put on the Vatican website.
 
So aborted babies cannot enter heaven and therefore go to hell?

I mean purgatory is temporary, that leaves us with two other options: heaven & hell.
 
So aborted babies cannot enter heaven and therefore go to hell?

I mean purgatory is temporary, that leaves us with two other options: heaven & hell.
No, That is not what the statement, quoted in post #2, from the Catechism says.
 
Here is a question regarding the baptism of infants.

We had our 2 month old daughter baptized this last weekend and during the process the Deacon said that if babys dont get baptized then they go to hell, but my mother-in-law said no they dont get to see the light of God. I have started to read some literature on this to get clarification but I haven’t found the answer yet. I thought that unbaptized infants go to heaven. Whats the real answer? Thanks,
How would you get that, since Christ said “no unbaptized person can enter the Kingdom.”

Try this Document:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
 
No, That is not what the statement, quoted in post #2, from the Catechism says.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442:
“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people.”
Council of Lyons II, 1274
“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 Florence, 1438-1445:
“the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds” (Denzinger 694)
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 -
Proposition 6: “Those who claim, that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this ( [this theory is] Condemned)” Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 422
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session Va:
“If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)
I refered to those statements as quoted above.

furthermore:
theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-IX-Baptism
IX. Baptism
Baptism is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ.
The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water.
Baptism confers the grace of justification.
Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both eternal and temporal.
Even if it be unworthily received, valid Baptism imprints on the soul of the recipient an indelible spiritual mark, the Baptismal Character, and for this reason, the Sacrament cannot be repeated.
Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation.
Baptism can be validly administered by anyone.
Baptism can be received by any person in the wayfaring state who is not already baptised.
The Baptism of young children is valid and licit.
Now I ventured to yet a greater problem.
If the dogma is actually formulated that way, then how can it be right when we are taught the doctines of baptism by desire & blood???

Let us remember the thief on the cross (an example used far too often, I know, but the formulation “without exception” therefore gets in trouble…

Where are the apologists?

Help please
 
I refered to those statements as quoted above.

furthermore:
theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-IX-Baptism

Now I ventured to yet a greater problem.
If the dogma is actually formulated that way, then how can it be right when we are taught the doctines of baptism by desire & blood???

Let us remember the thief on the cross (an example used far too often, I know, but the formulation “without exception” therefore gets in trouble…

Help please
I believe the problem appears that you have elevated these teachings to “dogma”. They are not. To claim contradiction is to use this false premise, making the argument unsound.
Where are the apologists?
Have you posed this question to the CAF Apologist?
 
I believe the problem appears that you have elevated these teachings to “dogma”. They are not. To claim contradiction is to use this false premise, making the argument unsound.

Have you posed this question to the CAF Apologist?
  1. I got the information from the site claiming it to be dogma: hence why I ask.
  2. If the teachings presented as dogma is dogma in that very formulation, then there is a problem.
  3. Nope, not yet.
    Still gotta check the formalities there
 
  1. I got the information from the site claiming it to be dogma: hence why I ask.
  2. If the teachings presented as dogma is dogma in that very formulation, then there is a problem.
  3. Nope, not yet.
    Still gotta check the formalities there
What do you mean by “in that very formulation?” The Church has defined no doctrine, and certainly no dogma, on the matter of the existence of Limbo.

The website you consulted was incorrect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top