Salvation of Unbaptized Infants

[Jehannette]

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.

What has been revealed is that we are all born with original sin, and if we end this life without at least the grace of Baptism, then we are lost. It’s the Sacraments which provide certainty, at least in the absence of martyrdom.

 

[Hesychios]

meltzerboy;9445898:

Wouldn’t it be logical, though? How can an innocent baby not go directly to Heaven? Except for original sin, what sins have they committed? So maybe original sin is the reason.

Apparently not if the Church is hesitant about making it dogmatic. Considering how in-depth the Church has been on so many other doctrines it doesn’t make sense that one as ‘apparently’ obvious as that would be left untouched at this point in history.

I do agree with you that it would probably have to do with original sin though. That’s the only thing I can see hindering the proposed idea at this point - but I haven’t been particularly indulgent, thus far, in this specific issue, so I may be missing something else.

Compared to everything else the church teaches this does seem to be muddy water.

I should point out that Original Sin is viewed differently in the rest of Apostolic Christianity. This more than likely explains why no other Apostolic Christian church knows any such teaching or argument as Limbo for Infants and has not either seen a pressing need for one.

The great Saint Augustine of Hippo believed that the unbaptized infants are damned, straight out bound for hell, and his teaching on this subject was well known all over the west.

However, he actually was born in the mid fourth century and did not become a Christian until 30 or more years later. That is about 350 years after Christ. His theories on the damnation of infants were essentially unknown and not taught among Christians anywhere before his time. Since his writings in Latin did not circulate much in the east he had very little influence in that direction and the rest of Apostolic Christianity does not speculate on the damnation of infants, nor a mitigated merciful punishment like limbo for them.

In other words Original Sin (the great First Sin of Adam) does not have the same exact meaning to eastern Christians of Apostolic origin. It’s a big deal, but not the same.

Probably the reason the Roman Catholic church has not dogmatized on Limbo is that it is well known to have derived from speculation on Saint Augustine’s speculations and not from a teaching received from the Apostles. The Age of Revelation closed before Saint Augustine was born.

The idea that infants might go to the forecourts of hell, or limbo, occurred to someone later and it caught on in a big way because most Christians are appalled by the idea that babies go to hell. The concept of Limbo was a hope for mercy over against Saint Augustine’s ideas. Now of course, people are hoping limbo doesn’t exist, that children can go right to heaven. That fundamentally affects the western notion of Original Sin at a very basic level, and skews a lot of other understandings as well, such as the meaning of and need for an immaculate conception.

However this may actually be closer to what the early Christians thought.

It is complicated.

 

[thistle]

Was the decision made by The Council of Carthage XVI in 418 AD (I don’t think this was an Ecumenical Council) approved by Pope St Zosimus that unbaptised infants go to Hell infallible doctrine?
I’m assuming not based on the current known teaching of the Church but if its not, why not?

 

[Jehannette]

Was the decision made by The Council of Carthage XVI in 418 AD (I don’t think this was an Ecumenical Council) approved by Pope St Zosimus that unbaptised infants go to Hell infallible doctrine?
I’m assuming not based on the current known teaching of the Church but if its not, why not?

Here’s the canon:

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my house there are many mansions’: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ?" (Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45, note 2).

Note that “baptism” is unqualified. The Council could have stated, “sacramental,” “the sacrament of,” “in water,” etc. to qualify “baptism.” For instance, Pope Innocent, around the time of Carthage stated,

“But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” (Pope St. Innocent, 414)

Again, he could have stated, “sacramental,” “sacrament of,” etc.

As for Saint Augustine, his position on the fate of infants who die without sacramental Baptism was not consistent:

Objectors oppose to this the teaching of St. Augustine, who in some places shows that his opinion was that children are condemned even to the pain of sense. But in another place he declares that he was very much confused about this point. These are his words: “When I come to the punishment of infants, I find myself (believe me) in great straits; nor can I at all find anything to say.” And in another place he writes that it may be said that such children receive neither reward nor punishment: “Nor need we fear that it is impossible there should be a middle sentence between reward and punishment; since their life was midway between sin and good works.” This was directly affirmed by St. Gregory Nazianzen: “Children will be sentenced by the just Judge neither to the glory of heaven nor to punishment.” St. Gregory of Nyssa was of the same opinion: “The premature death of children shows that they who have thus ceased to live will not be in pain and unhappiness.” (The Great Means of Salvation & Perfection by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church)

 

[thistle]

Here’s the canon:

Note that “baptism” is unqualified. The Council could have stated, “sacramental,” “the sacrament of,” “in water,” etc. to qualify “baptism.” For instance, Pope Innocent, around the time of Carthage stated,

Again, he could have stated, “sacramental,” “sacrament of,” etc.

As for Saint Augustine, his position on the fate of infants who die without sacramental Baptism was not consistent:

I had read all of that before posting.
My question was is the decision of the Council which was approved by the Pope infallible or not. If not, (which I assume based on the current teaching on unbaptised infants) why not?

 

[Jehannette]

I had read all of that before posting.
My question was is the decision of the Council which was approved by the Pope infallible or not. If not, (which I assume based on the current teaching on unbaptised infants) why not?

I believe that the canon is infallible:

“Pope Zosimus of blessed memory directs us, when writing to the bishops of the whole world.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 134)

“We[Zozimus], however, by the inspiration of God have referred all things to that of our brothers and co-bishops.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 134)

“The same teacher Zosimus trained us, who, when he spoke to the bishops of the whole world.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 135)

“Furthermore that which was determined in the decrees of the synod of Carthage [418 AD], we have embraced as the Apostolic See’s own.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 136),

“But although we do not dare to esteem lightly the deeper and more difficult parts of the questions which they [Augustine and Zozimus] have treated in more detail who have restrained the heretics, we do not consider it necessary to add what their writings, according to the aforementioned regulation of the Apostolic See, have taught us.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 142)

 

[Jehannette]

I had read all of that before posting.
My question was is the decision of the Council which was approved by the Pope infallible or not. If not, (which I assume based on the current teaching on unbaptised infants) why not?

Here’s an interesting article on Carthage:

philvaz.com/apologetics/num17.htm

 

[thistle]

I believe that the canon is infallible:

But if that canon is infallible it contradicts current Church teaching on unbaptised infants because it condemns them.

 

[Hesychios]

But if that canon is infallible it contradicts current Church teaching on unbaptised infants because it condemns them.

Does the church actually teach that they are not condemned?

What I recall was some polite phrase about hope for them.

Bear in mind that the Council of Carthage was a council of the local synod of the north African church. It was not ecumenical and not binding outside of the synod.

However, sometimes these synodal gatherings set precedents, much as in jurisprudence. Other synods could (and probably did) adopt a similar position later.

The Council in question is problematic, because local synodal gatherings/councils did not actually need or seek the approval of the bishop of Rome in those days. This one especially.

The common practice was to publish the findings of a Council and send them to other synods of the church. Naturally the bishop of Rome would get a copy like everyone else. If the other synods did not like what the local/regional Council did there was little they could do about it, unless there was a suspicion of rank heresy in the Councils statements, then they would start screaming .

Saint Augustine apparently called this “the Great Council of Africa”, the Archbishop-Metropolitan of the African Synod sat in Carthage, and he chaired the assembly. Saint Augustine would have taken part as a sitting member of the synod, with one vote like everyone else. He was already famous for his great debates with Pelagius the Celtic clergyman and his theory about damnation of the unbaptized. So it was this local council, among his friends and colleagues, that the idea was first formally adopted.

 

[thistle]

**Does the church actually teach that they are not condemned? **

What I recall was some polite phrase about hope for them.

Bear in mind that the Council of Carthage was a council of the local synod of the north African church. It was not ecumenical and not binding outside of the synod.

However, sometimes these synodal gatherings set precedents, much as in jurisprudence. Other synods could (and probably did) adopt a similar position later.

The Council in question is problematic, because local synodal gatherings/councils did not actually need or seek the approval of the bishop of Rome in those days. This one especially.

The common practice was to publish the findings of a Council and send them to other synods of the church. Naturally the bishop of Rome would get a copy like everyone else. If the other synods did not like what the local/regional Council did there was little they could do about it, unless there was a suspicion of rank heresy in the Councils statements, then they would start screaming .

Saint Augustine apparently called this “the Great Council of Africa”, the Archbishop-Metropolitan of the African Synod sat in Carthage, and he chaired the assembly. Saint Augustine would have taken part as a sitting member of the synod, with one vote like everyone else. He was already famous for his great debates with Pelagius the Celtic clergyman and his theory about damnation of the unbaptized. So it was this local council, among his friends and colleagues, that the idea was first formally adopted.

The current Church teaching is that the Church does not know what happens to unbaptised infants and so entrusts them to the mercy of God.

 

[Jehannette]

But if that canon is infallible it contradicts current Church teaching on unbaptised infants because it condemns them.

As I said earlier, “baptism” is unqualified. How about infants who are martyred? Do they deserve to “be coheirs of Christ”?

 

[thistle]

As I said earlier, “baptism” is unqualified. How about infants who are martyred? Do they deserve to “be coheirs of Christ”?

Listen. I personally believe unbaptised infants, which of course includes the aborted, miscarried and still-born, go to Heaven but that is my opinion only and not what the Church teaches. The Church says it does not know what happens to them and entrusts them to God’s mercy.
What I am trying to establish if the canon from the Council of Carthage is an infallible teaching then that contradicts the current teaching of the Church which does not make sense because an infallible teaching cannot be changed. The canon from Carthage condemns all the unbaptised to Hell.

On your specific question, how do you define “infants who are martyred”? Baptism of Blood means non-Catholics dying for the Catholic faith.

 

[snarflemike]

Let us not forget that there are two questions at hand.

1. Can those who are not baptized gain salvation?
2. Are there ways unknown to us that someone can be baptized, akin to Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire?

If the answer to both questions is YES, then both Carthage and the CCC can be right.

 

[Jehannette]

Listen. I personally believe unbaptised infants, which of course includes the aborted, miscarried and still-born, go to Heaven but that is my opinion only and not what the Church teaches. The Church says it does not know what happens to them and entrusts them to God’s mercy.
What I am trying to establish if the canon from the Council of Carthage is an infallible teaching then that contradicts the current teaching of the Church which does not make sense because an infallible teaching cannot be changed. The canon from Carthage condemns all the unbaptised to Hell.

On your specific question, how do you define “infants who are martyred”? Baptism of Blood means non-Catholics dying for the Catholic faith.

“The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized” by the International Theological Commission states:

1. The Council of Carthage of 418 rejected the teaching of Pelagius. It condemned the opinion that infants “do not contract from Adam any trace of original sin, which must be expiated by the bath of regeneration that leads to eternal life”. Positively, this council taught that “even children who of themselves cannot have yet committed any sin are truly baptised for the remission of sins, so that by regeneration they may be cleansed from what they contracted through generation”. It was also added that there is no “intermediate or other happy dwelling place for children who have left this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, that is, eternal life”. This council did not, however, explicitly endorse all aspects of Augustine’s stern view about the destiny of infants who die without Baptism.

Let’s look at the canon again:

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my house there are many mansions’: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ?" (Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45, note 2)

.

Consider a mother who is expecting, yet before she delivers, she is martyred for Christ. Clearly, she will go to Heaven; I am sure that you will agree. Now, how about her unborn baby? Clearly, yes; the baby was killed along with Mom, so the baby experienced a Baptism of Blood, and all the Fathers are unanimous that such is salvific. No doubt this is what Saint Thomas was thinking when he wrote this:

“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)

As for the canon from Carthage being infallible, I already posted that for you:

philvaz.com/apologetics/num17.htm

Clearly, the canon was infallible, however, as I said before, “baptism” is unqualified. The Fathers at Carthage could have said “sacramental baptism,” “sacrament of baptism,” “baptism in water,” etc., so I believe that Carthage is teaching at least “baptism of blood” in addition to “baptism of water,” but also, per Saint Thomas, the “grace of sanctification” at least in some instances, or per Pope Innocent I, “the grace of Baptism.”

Clearly, Limbo was part of the Church’s authentic Magisterium. From the ITC report:

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.

I have already posted the bull Effraenatam from Pope Sixtus V, which the ITC report failed to mention. Clearly, the existence of Limbo is not a heretical idea. The ITC is wrong, by the way; “Limbo” is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the Index.

 

[TEPO]

Listen. I personally believe unbaptised infants, which of course includes the aborted, miscarried and still-born, go to Heaven but that is my opinion only and not what the Church teaches. The Church says it does not know what happens to them and entrusts them to God’s mercy.
What I am trying to establish if the canon from the Council of Carthage is an infallible teaching then that contradicts the current teaching of the Church which does not make sense because an infallible teaching cannot be changed. The canon from Carthage condemns all the unbaptised to Hell.

On your specific question, how do you define “infants who are martyred”? Baptism of Blood means non-Catholics dying for the Catholic faith.

Isn’t it true that according to the teachings of “Divine Providence”, that all of mankind are created for the purpose of manifesting the glory of God…? If each and every one of us are, from the moment of conception, then an infant or fetus will naturally receive a Baptism of Desire from God, because God Himself desires them to be Baptized. Babies would naturally desire it as well because they are created in His likeness.

So really, we should believe that all babies who die go to heaven…

 

[thistle]

Isn’t it true that according to the teachings of “Divine Providence”, that all of mankind are created for the purpose of manifesting the glory of God…? If each and every one of us are, from the moment of conception, then an infant or fetus will naturally receive a Baptism of Desire from God, because God Himself desires them to be Baptized. Babies would naturally desire it as well because they are created in His likeness.

So really, we should believe that all babies who die go to heaven…

But that is not what the Church teaches.
The Church teaches that it does not know what happens unbaptised babies and entrusts them to God’s mercy. That means the Church does not know if they fall under baptism of blood or baptism of desire.
So while I personally believe such babies are saved the Church does not teach that and Catholics are free to believe whatever they will. There is no “should believe”.

I was merely trying to reconcile Carthage with the current Church teaching.

 

[TEPO]

God leaves us with a choice, but we are to believe that He actually wants us to enter into eternal salvation. Not just some of us, but all of us. If He wants it, and babies have free will, then it’s a Baptism of Desire.

 

[thistle]

God leaves us with a choice, but we are to believe that He actually wants us to enter into eternal salvation. Not just some of us, but all of us. If He wants it, and babies have free will, then it’s a Baptism of Desire.

Personally I believe they fall under baptism of desire - implicit (i.e. invincible ignorance) because for baptism of desire - explicit they would have to be of the age of reason to make a decision on what they wanted to do (e.g. catechumens in RCIA).

However, you cannot insist on your belief because that is NOT what the Church teaches. When the Church says it does not know then who are we to say we do know. We can have an opinion only.

 

[TEPO]

Personally I believe they fall under baptism of desire - implicit (i.e. invincible ignorance) because for baptism of desire - explicit they would have to be of the age of reason to make a decision on what they wanted to do (e.g. catechumens in RCIA).

However, you cannot insist on your belief because that is NOT what the Church teaches. When the Church says it does not know then who are we to say we do know. We can have an opinion only.

Well, actually I still think my last post was in line with Church teaching… After all- i said: “If He wants it”. In other words, it’s at His mercy.

 

[thistle]

Well, actually I still think my last post was in line with Church teaching… After all- i said: “If He wants it”. In other words, it’s at His mercy.

If that’s what you are getting at why didn’t you agree with my comments in several earlier posts when I said the Church entrusts such infants to God’s mercy??