Salvation of Unbaptized Infants

[snarflemike]

They experienced a Baptism of Blood.

It’s a very strange set of rules that allows these babies to enter heaven through no act of will on their part, but forbids other equally innocent babies the same possibility of salvation. Which is why I personally reject it and maintain the hope that the Catechism speaks of.

I don’t even think I could be a Catholic if the Church taught definitively that e.g. aborted babies go to hell while the abortionist can go to heaven.

 

[Jehannette]

It’s a very strange set of rules that allows these babies to enter heaven through no act of will on their part, but forbids other equally innocent babies the same possibility of salvation. Which is why I personally reject it and maintain the hope that the Catechism speaks of.

I don’t even think I could be a Catholic if the Church taught definitively that e.g. aborted babies go to hell while the abortionist can go to heaven.

No one has a “right” to Heaven. The Triune God will save whom He will. Note that, per Saint Thomas, even an angel could baptize:

“As was observed above in the preceding article, the local motion of an angel can be continuous, and non-continuous. If it be continuous, the angel cannot pass from one extreme to another without passing through the mid-space; because, as is said by the Philosopher (Phys. v, text 22; vi, text 77), ‘The middle is that into which a thing which is continually moved comes, before arriving at the last into which it is moved’; because the order of first and last in continuous movement, is according to the order of the first and last in magnitude, as he says (Phys. iv, text 99). But if an angel’s movement be not continuous, it is possible for him to pass from one extreme to another without going through the middle…” (Summa Theologica, Ia, q.53, a.2)

“This objection is based on continuous time. But the same time of an angel’s movement can be non-continuous. So an angel can be in one place in one instant, and in another place in the next instant, without any time intervening. If the time of the angel’s movement be continuous, he is changed through infinite places throughout the whole time which precedes the last ‘now’; as was already shown (a. 2). Nevertheless he is partly in one of the continuous places, and partly in another, not because his substance is susceptible of parts, but because his power is applied to a part of the first place and to a part of the second, as was said above (a. 2).” (Summa Theologica, Ia, q.53, a.3, ad 3)

“But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of truth; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it should be considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels. But if demons, who are ‘lying spirits,’ were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as invalid.” (Summa Theologica, IIIa, q.64, a.7)

One could use the above argument to justify “Feeneyism,” in that all of the Triune God’s Elect will end this life with Sacramental Baptism in Water. The same could be said for the unborn, also:

“Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.” (Summa Theologica IIIa, q.68, a.11, ad 1)

So, we just don’t know; what we do know is that infants are to baptized soon after birth.

 

[TEPO]

Yep. Prudent bet-hedging, I suppose.

Now there are some who will insist, with extreme uncharity to those who disagree with them, that Limbo definitely does not exist because it’s not in the Catechism and that those who think the salvation of unbaptized infants is unlikely just want babies to go to Hell, etc. Setting aside for a moment that the Catechism isn’t and isn’t meant to be an exhaustive summary of theological knowledge, even if it doesn’t teach it explicitly, there is much to recommend the idea of Limbo.

Limbo is in Hell, where Hell is understood to be where God is not seen and possessed. i.e., it is the absence of the beatific vision. One cannot have the beatific vision without being forgiven original sin, and (as far as we know) original sin cannot be forgiven without baptism. So, the idea goes, unbaptized babies are denied possession of God. But being innocent of actual sin, they do not suffer in Hell as do mortal sinners. Rather they possess every natural happiness, since God still wills what is good for them and they have not merited punishment. They have a better life than anything we could hope for on earth.

The idea that this is a difficult teaching is a strange one. God doesn’t owe us Heaven. It’s a supernatural good, i.e., one which transcends our natures, not a natural good, i.e., one which fulfills our natures. It is given to us as a gift, with strings attached; to think you’re entitled to a gift is, well, self-entitlement. That was the whole point of the Fall: Adam and Eve didn’t keep up their end of the bargain so the gift was taken from them. If anyone can be saved and baptism is irrelevant, then there was never a Fall. So as far as I can tell, belief in Limbo flirts much less with heresy than does belief that unbaptized babies are always and everywhere saved.

The arguments against Limbo, i.e., in the 2002 international theological commission document on the topic, seem pretty weak. They amount to “God wants everyone to be saved” and “It would be pastorally appropriate to speak as if all unbaptized babies are saved.” They don’t cut the mustard with the evidence we have to the contrary, i.e., the plain words of Christ re: the necessity of baptism and faith. The only point against Limbo I can think of is the fact that the Church has repeatedly considered teaching it de fide and has declined to. That’s a point in itself. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is protecting them from error. We probably can’t know if that’s the case this side of the grave.

But if there were two seperate places for sinners to go, being either Purgatory or Limbo, that would mean that we get judged before the return of Jesus. Now I do understand that we are judged two seperate times, once for works and once for faith, (a dogmatic truth) but is it consistent with Catholic teaching that we are ever judged at all prior to Christs return?

There was different economy of salvation in place prior to the Resurrection. Baptism wasn’t necessary then.

Actually, there was no real-time plan for Salvation at all prior to the resurrection… So Except for the one that God took, nobody received salvation.

However, there “was” a predetermined plan that existed only in Gods eternal law, which exists outside of time as we know it.

 

[TEPO]

Can someone explain why the Church has a feast day for babies in hell?

newadvent.org/cathen/07419a.htm

That is strange considering that nobody gets judged until the return of Jesus…
…Am I missing something…?

 

[TEPO]

It’s a very strange set of rules that allows these babies to enter heaven through no act of will on their part, but forbids other equally innocent babies the same possibility of salvation. Which is why I personally reject it and maintain the hope that the Catechism speaks of.

I don’t even think I could be a Catholic if the Church taught definitively that e.g. aborted babies go to hell while the abortionist can go to heaven.

Unbaptized babies may not go to heaven… Yet. As sinners they must first go to Purgatory… Right?

 

[TEPO]

They experienced a Baptism of Blood, and so, they are not in Hell, at least not anymore.

They never were in hell though we’re they?

 

[TEPO]

No one thinks it was easier. The Holy Innocents were in Hell

Who cast them there?

 

[TEPO]

Also, no one was saved before Christ came. The just waited in Limbo for Christ to descend to Hell and preach to them after His death. They were only saved when they heard and accepted Christ.

God Bless

If this is true, then who’s images appeared to talk to Jesus…? Did God pull them out of hell or “limbo”?

 

[TEPO]

It wasn’t easier, you had to obey the natural law with no Baptism or Confession available to remove mortal sin.

Also, no one was saved before Christ came. The just waited in Limbo for Christ to descend to Hell and preach to them after His death. They were only saved when they heard and accepted Christ.

God Bless

So purgatory didn’t exist at that time?

 

[TEPO]

I think I baptized babies go to purgatory just like the rest of us sinners… There is no limbo.

 

[snarflemike]

Unbaptized babies may not go to heaven… Yet. As sinners they must first go to Purgatory… Right?

They have committed no personal sin.

 

[Jehannette]

They never were in hell though we’re they?

Heaven was closed until after Christ descended to the “Limbo of the Just” to open the gates of Heaven – that’s where the Holy Innocents were for a time. The “Limbo of the Just” is now empty.

 

[thistle]

But it hardly makes sense to think that salvation was somehow easier to obtain before Jesus came than after he came.

Before Jesus no humans were in Heaven. It was the death and Resurrection of Jesus that opened the doors of Heaven. Before that the doors to Heaven were closed.

 

[TEPO]

Heaven was closed until after Christ descended to the “Limbo of the Just” to open the gates of Heaven – that’s where the Holy Innocents were for a time. The “Limbo of the Just” is now empty.

But if the “limbo of the just” existed before, then purgatory must not have at that time because for the two to exist at the same time, with souls entering either one or the other, then that signifies judgement… There can be no judgement until Jesus returns.

…so if only one can exist at the same time, and they are said to be similar, then they both must be the same.

 

[sw85]

I think I baptized babies go to purgatory just like the rest of us sinners… There is no limbo.

Why in the world would they go to Purgatory, being innocent of actual sin?

But if the “limbo of the just” existed before, then purgatory must not have at that time because for the two to exist at the same time, with souls entering either one or the other, then that signifies judgement… There can be no judgement until Jesus returns.

This is false. Particular judgment occurs immediately after death.

 

[Jehannette]

But if the “limbo of the just” existed before, then purgatory must not have at that time because for the two to exist at the same time, with souls entering either one or the other, then that signifies judgement… There can be no judgement until Jesus returns.

…so if only one can exist at the same time, and they are said to be similar, then they both must be the same.

You have your particular judgment and then the General Judgement:

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, – or immediate and everlasting damnation.

1023 Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face:

By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who died after receiving Christ’s holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death, . . .) already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment - and this since the Ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into heaven - have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature.

 

[TEPO]

Why in the world would they go to Purgatory, being innocent of actual sin?

This is false. Particular judgment occurs immediately after death.

I think I may be in error now. But thanks for reminding me, I can’t believe I forgot that!

 

[TEPO]

You have your particular judgment and then the General Judgement:

Thank you.

 

[meltzerboy]

Wow! I didn’t realize all the intricacies related to this issue. Judaism doesn’t even focus on salvation matters. Thanks to all for their valuable (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[snarflemike]

Wow! I didn’t realize all the intricacies related to this issue. Judaism doesn’t even focus on salvation matters. Thanks to all for their valuable (name removed by moderator)ut.

It’s all due to the holes God deliberately left in his revelation. We can’t help it, we try to fill them in with “best guesses.” That’s OK, as long as we never forget that it it hasn’t been revealed, it’s not doctrine, only speculation.