Salvation of Unbaptized Infants

[Hesychios]

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

I don’t think you will be able to.

The local council at Carthage in 418AD had a teaching, the modern catechism backs away from a definite teaching, preferring to state nothing definite. How is one supposed to interpret that?

If Carthage 418 had stated nothing on the subject then there could be some odd sort of consistency,

 

[Jehannette]

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…

I find it difficult to believe that abortion is a form of “angel making.” In addition, consider what the First Vatican Council stated:

1. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

1. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

Like it or not, Pope Sixtus V taught that:

Noticing that frequently by various Apostolic Constitutions the audacity and daring of most profligate men, who know no restraint, of sinning with license against the commandment “do not kill” was repressed; We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? Who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety of him who will exclude a soul created in the image of God and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ has shed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and is destined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God, and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions, and has taken away the service to God by His creature? Who has deprived children of life before they could naturally see light or could be protected by maternal body from ferocious cruelty? Who will not abhor the cruelty and unrestrained debauchery of impious men who have arrived into such a state of mind that they procure poisons in order to extinguish the conceived fetuses within the viscera, and pour them out, trying to provoke by a nefarious crime a violent and untimely death and killing of their progeny. Finally who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the crimes of those who with poisons, potions and evil actions sterilize women or impede that they conceive or give birth by pernicious medicines and drugs? Sorcerers and evil magicians says the Lord to Saint Moses, you will not suffer, allow and tolerate to live: because they oppose overly shamefully against God’s will and, as St Jerome says, while nature receives seed, after having received nurtures it, nurtured body distinguishes in members, meanwhile in the narrowness of the uterus the hand of God is always at work who is Creator of both body and soul and who molded, made and wanted this child and meanwhile the goodness of the Potter, that is of God, is impiously and overly despised by these people. Saint Ambrose says that it is no small and trivial gift of God to give children in order to propagate mankind. It is a Divine gift the fecundity of childbearing woman and at the same time by this cruel and inhuman crime parents are deprived of their offspring that they have engendered; the engendered children of their life; mothers of the rewards of maternity and marriage; earth of its cultivators; the world of those who would know it; the Church of those that would make it grow and prosper and be happy with an increased number of devoted faithful… (Pope Sixtus V, Effraenatam)

Again, one can find no mention of the above Papal bull, not even a footnote, anywhere in the recent ITC report – they overlooked it. Is abortion a form of “angel making”?

 

[tafan]

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…

The logic in your first paragraph does not work, if it did there would be no doctrine of original sin. And I have never seen the concept of Baptism of Desire extended to God; that seems like a theological innovation with no basis.

Should we believe this? We should hope it is the case, but faith and hope are not the same thing. I would say the church does not forbid us to believe it; but it is not a teaching of the church.

The church is honest and admits it just does not know; hence the requirement for infant baptism. We should realize that Augustine and Aquinas and others who have addressed this issue were great minds. And the church is not satisfied with their answers; some things we just do not know.

 

[Jehannette]

The church is honest and admits it just does not know; hence the requirement for infant baptism.

The Church no where says this. The CCC states,

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

The above in bold is different than saying that the Church does not know what happens to infants who die without Baptism. Indeed, the Catechism implies that the Church does know:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

 

[thistle]

The Church no where says this. The CCC states,

The above in bold is different than saying that the Church does not know what happens to infants who die without Baptism. Indeed, the Catechism implies that the Church does know:

The Church does NOT know.

CCC 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,” 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.

 

[Jehannette]

The Church does NOT know.

CCC 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,” 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.

You are neglecting to read what Pope Benedict XVI, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, stated about the Catechism of Saint Pius X:

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, when discussing the forthcoming Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church referred to the catechism of Saint Pius X.: “The faith, as such, is always the same. Therefore, St. Pius X’s catechism always retains its value, … There can be persons or groups that feel more comfortable with St. Pius X’s catechism. … that Catechism stemmed from a text that was prepared by the Pope himself [Pius X] when he was Bishop of Mantua. The text was the fruit of the personal catechetical experience of Giuseppe Sarto, whose characteristics were simplicity of exposition and depth of content. Also because of this, St. Pius X’s catechism might have friends in the future.”[1]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_Saint_Pius_X#Pope_Benedict_XVI

Now, here’s what the Catechism of Saint Pius X has to say:

11 Q. When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptised?

A. Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptised as soon as possible.

12 Q. Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?

A. There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptised because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.

13 Q. Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism, or who defer it?

A. Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it.

ewtn.com/library/catechsm/piusxcat.htm

Paragraph #1250 in the CCC is an exact repetition of what Saint Pope Pius X taught. Now, if you are going to say that his catechism was in error, then the principle author of the current Catechism, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, contradicted himself and/or that the current Catechism is, itself, in error.

 

[TEPO]

I find it difficult to believe that abortion is a form of “angel making.” In addition, consider what the First Vatican Council stated:

So salvation for infants has been completely handed over to the hands of men…? If this is true, then it’s a strange type of authority.

 

[Jehannette]

At this point, I am done (for this thread, of course.) Thank you all for a wonderful discussion! Until next time.

 

[White_Peony]

The age of reason is 7 years old. That means at 7, you should be able to tell the difference between right and wrong. An infant cannot. God has mercy on these little children because they do not know.

 

[TEPO]

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??

Because I changed my mind… Because of you.

 

[TEPO]

The age of reason is 7 years old. That means at 7, you should be able to tell the difference between right and wrong. An infant cannot. God has mercy on these little children because they do not know.

Not only that, but free will is an essential part of the soul. Can one have a soul and not free will, I don’t think so. Therefore, if even a fetus were to confront God, it would surely recognize God as God.

With that said, I have a two month old daughter who I’m waiting to get baptized. The Church told me I have to be a parishioner for 6 months before I can baptize her… But I’ll be moving again before then… If the diocese continues to deny me, after a whiIe I will baptize her myself with Holy water.

This is how important baptism is to me. In case anyone had any doubts. But God forbid she dies before then, I think she certainly has some hope of salvation.

 

[bilop]

The age of reason is 7 years old. That means at 7, you should be able to tell the difference between right and wrong. An infant cannot. God has mercy on these little children because they do not know.

Limbo (as speculated) is merciful. It is a place of natural happiness.

They suffer none of the pains of Hell, they just don’t see the Beatific Vision. I would imagine that if their parents/family members are in Heaven, those souls may be granted some knowledge or interaction with them

That’s better than what most of mankind will actaully end up with, i.e. the full experience of Hell. If one could be guaranteed Limbo Infantum today, it would be a bold gamble to reject it. Who knows if we will perserve to the end?

God Bless

 

[bilop]

Not only that, but free will is an essential part of the soul. Can one have a soul and not free will, I don’t think so. Therefore, if even a fetus were to confront God, it would surely recognize God as God.

With that said, I have a two month old daughter who I’m waiting to get baptized. The Church told me I have to be a parishioner for 6 months before I can baptize her… But I’ll be moving again before then… If the diocese continues to deny me, after a whiIe I will baptize her myself with Holy water.

This is how important baptism is to me. In case anyone had any doubts. But God forbid she dies before then, I think she certainly has some hope of salvation.

That Church is wrong. If you are a practicing Catholic they have no right to deny you the Sacraments. Find a priest who will baptize her.

IMHO, a baby should be baptized the first Saturday after they come home from the hospital, like in the old days.

God Bless

 

[meltzerboy]

Limbo (as speculated) is merciful. It is a place of natural happiness.

They suffer none of the pains of Hell, they just don’t see the Beatific Vision. I would imagine that if their parents/family members are in Heaven, those souls may be granted some knowledge or interaction with them

That’s better than what most of mankind will actaully end up with, i.e. the full experience of Hell. If one could be guaranteed Limbo Infantum today, it would be a bold gamble to reject it. Who knows if we will perserve to the end?

God Bless

I might be wrong, but I don’t believe the Church teaches that “most of mankind will actually end up with…the full experience of Hell.”

 

[thistle]

I might be wrong, but I don’t believe the Church teaches that “most of mankind will actually end up with…the full experience of Hell.”

He may be referring to what Jesus said.

Matthew 7:13-14

13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many.
14 How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few."

 

[Gamera]

I know this has been a frequent topic on the Forum. My particular question is regarding why the Catechism of the Catholic Church expresses HOPE in the salvation of unbaptized infants, who lack baptism through no fault of their own, rather than CERTAINTY of their salvation. I believe at least some Protestant denominations express certainty due to infants’ complete innocence except for original sin.

Is one reason due to the traditionally-held importance of baptism for salvation throughout the history of the Church? I realize there are several forms of baptism apart from the traditional Sacrament, including baptism of desire and baptism of blood, so is another reason because the infant does not fit under any of these categories, assuming the parents did not intend to baptize their child before its death? Might a third reason be that one can never say for certain who will be saved and who will not be saved by G-d’s mercy? And perhaps original sin counts as another reason as well.

What are your thoughts about this, based on Church doctrine?

I’m the father of an unbaptized daughter Bella who died in miscarriage. Had she survived to birth, my wife and I would have had her baptized, as we did all our other children. In my view, this means Bella benefitted from the Catholic principle of baptism by desire.

 

[snarflemike]

I’m the father of an unbaptized daughter Bella who died in miscarriage. Had she survived to birth, my wife and I would have had her baptized, as we did all our other children. In my view, this means Bella benefitted from the Catholic principle of baptism by desire.

I think this makes perfect sense. May your tiny saint live in the presence of God forever.

 

[TEPO]

Limbo (as speculated) is merciful. It is a place of natural happiness.

They suffer none of the pains of Hell, they just don’t see the Beatific Vision. I would imagine that if their parents/family members are in Heaven, those souls may be granted some knowledge or interaction with them

That’s better than what most of mankind will actaully end up with, i.e. the full experience of Hell. If one could be guaranteed Limbo Infantum today, it would be a bold gamble to reject it. Who knows if we will perserve to the end?

God Bless

I wonder if all the babies will return with Jesus when He comes again. I’ve heard that everyone from hell and purgatory will be there. Maybe there’s still a chance for the beatific vision after that… For the babies in “Limbo”.

 

[snarflemike]

Since we are made for God (as Augustine says, “You made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”), the notion of perfect natural happiness in limbo sounds like an oxymoron. Restless for a God you can never know, for all eternity? Doesn’t sound like happiness to me.

 

[Jehannette]

That Church is wrong. If you are a practicing Catholic they have no right to deny you the Sacraments. Find a priest who will baptize her.

IMHO, a baby should be baptized the first Saturday after they come home from the hospital, like in the old days.

God Bless

The other thread that I opened for this was closed without explanation. so I will post my final comments here. As I stated in my other posts, I baptized my fourth and fifth child Some here have said that I have given “bad advice,” however, I once told my present parish priest about this in an email, and he had nothing to say to me about it! And, this is a priest who asks about artificial contraception in the confessional! (I am not sure about “face to face.”) Let’'s look at the CCC again:

1284 In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate’s head while saying: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Now, what defines “necessity”? None of us are canonists, and I would certainly be open to hearing from a Roman Catholic canonist on this question, and especially, an authority in the Curia. However, if you have the full intention of raising your newborn in the One True Faith & Church and cannot find a priest to baptize your baby, for me, that would constitute “a necessity.”

I was typing this up but found the other thread to be closed after trying to post it.