Salvation of Unbaptized

[LilyM]

---

All is conjecture–outside of what our Lord has revealed to us.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, a perfectly valid and authoritative exercise of the Magisterium, which tells us to hope for the salvation of the unbaptised, is outside of what our Lord has revealed to us?

 

[TNT]

LilyM:

And why can’t YOU trust in God’s mercy in regard to the salvation of the unbaptised, as the Church herself bids us do in the Catechism, which is also an authoritative exercise of the Magisterium? JP2 himself declared as much.

Ex Cathedra:
“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? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [cf. Matt. 25:41,46].” Council of Carthage, XVI.

---

Ex Cathedra:

“The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church.”Council of Florence (1438-1445)

---

Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent:
“If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they [infants] are born to eternal misery and destruction**. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel:** ‘Unless anyone be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’”

---

 

[TNT]

The** Catechism of the Catholic Church**, a perfectly valid and authoritative exercise of the Magisterium, which tells us to hope for the salvation of the unbaptised, is outside of what our Lord has revealed to us?

Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent:

“If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they [infants] are born to eternal misery and destruction**. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel:** ‘Unless anyone be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’”

 

[Walking_Home]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, a perfectly valid and authoritative exercise of the Magisterium, which tells us to hope for the salvation of the baptised, is outside of what our Lord has revealed to us?

---

Not when we take in context that the salvation mentioned in the CCC—means the infants will not suffer (will be saved from) the Hell of the damned----not that they will go to heaven.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Ex Cathedra:
“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? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [cf. Matt. 25:41,46].” Council of Carthage, XVI.

---

Ex Cathedra:

“The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church.”Council of Florence (1438-1445)

---

Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent:
“If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they [infants] are born to eternal misery and destruction**. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel:** ‘Unless anyone be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’”

---

But NONE of these define Baptism! We KNOW they can’t exclusively mean baptism of water, and we DON’T know precisely how far Baptism of Desire extends.

We DO know God is omipotent, unfathomably merciful and has gone to extraordinary lengths to make salvation possible for us.

If the compilers of the most recent Catechism, and our past and present Holy Fathers, as well as the majority of bishops, agree that we can hope for salvation for the unbaptised then there is no reason that we can’t!

 

[cor]

So the ancient and venerable pious belief that John the Baptist was cleansed of original sin in the womb of Elizabeth is also in your opinion heretical then?

Even if John the Baptist were cleansed of original sin when he lept in Elizabeth’s womb, he still would have first contracted original sin when he was conceived/ensouled. So he wouldn’t have been an exception to the universality of original sin. I’m not sure exactly how they do this but I believe baptism can be administered to a baby still in the womb – it’s mentioned in Catholic texts that this can be done if the baby is in danger of dying.

BTW, there is a theological strain in Catholic tradition that John the Baptist was sinless (not at all a dogma of course) (see below for documentation of this) I don’t think it is stated though that he is free of concupiscience – whereas the Blessed Virgin Mary was so and was furthermore according to the traditional common teaching incapable of sin (impeccable see:

“Theologians assert that Mary was impeccable, not by the essential perfection of her nature, but by a special Divine privilege. Moreover, the Fathers, at least since the fifth century, almost unanimously maintain that the Blessed Virgin never experienced the motions of concupiscence.”

newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

To assure you that it is fine to believe that John the Baptist was cleansed of original sin before being born (as I understand it some babies have been by baptism) let me quote also from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

““And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant” – filled, like the mother, with the Holy Ghost – “leaped for joy in her womb”, as if to acknowledge the presence of his Lord. Then was accomplished the prophetic utterance of the angel that the child should “be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb”. Now as the presence of any sin whatever is incompatible with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul, it follows that at this moment John was cleansed from the stain of original sin.”

newadvent.org/cathen/08486b.htm

Here’s St Catherine of Sienna on John the Baptist’s sinlessness:

“John the Baptist never sinned and was sanctified in his mother’s womb”

ccel.org/ccel/catherine/dialog.iv.iv.ii.html

IIRC there’s also a strain in Catholic tradition that says St Joseph never sinned but I couldn’t find anything on the web about it except this anecdotal story:

homeschoolalumni.org/viewtopic.php?t=4395&start=30

(this is also not a dogma)

 

[TNT]

LilyM:

And why can’t YOU trust in God’s mercy in regard to the salvation of the unbaptised, as the Church herself bids us do in the Catechism, which is also an authoritative exercise of the Magisterium? JP2 himself declared as much.

Ex Cathedra:
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate punishments.” Council of Lyons II.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

And this is a “Traditional” “Catholic” forum?

Well, the forum attracts both, it seems. Those who hold to their understanding of the Church’s tradition, but do not accept the Church’s authority, argue one side. Those who continue to trust in the Church’s authority, to include its interpretation of tradition, argue the other side. I posted the following in another thread, which has since fallen down the list. I think it is more relevent here:

…do you believe that the Catholic Church itself has begun to teach false doctrines, just as the Protestants said back in the sixteenth century, or do you believe the true Church has continued in some other form outside the visible Church, perhaps similar to the claims of the successionist Baptists (who believe the true Church was pushed underground by Rome)? How can one find the true Catholic Church, and if it is this secondary traditional Church (“T-Church,” as you called it), how do its claims to be the true Church outweigh those of the Orthodox, who hold to even older traditions and also reject later exercises of authority by the popes?

Once again, I am not mocking your position. Catholic apologists often point to union with Rome as being the sign that one is in the Church, a safe and sure anchor, as it were. It appears that traditionalists define this differently, and I desire to know their position.

I truly sympathize with your concern for the Church. May God bless you!

To get back on topic, if I want to know the Church’s position on the salvation of the unbaptized, I want to know where the Church is, and where I can find its teachings. It seems that this is not an easy time in history to enter the Catholic Church.

God bless!

 

[LeahInancsi]

I don’t believe this is a “yes” or “no” answer. It all depends on God’s mercy.

There are any number of reasons a person (adults, too) dies unbaptized and deserves a place in heaven as much as JPII. Until a year ago, I could have been one of those people. Because I was not baptized, that did not mean I deserved hell.

On top of all that, it’s not our place to judge.

 

[LilyM]

Even if John the Baptist were cleansed of original sin when he lept in Elizabeth’s womb, he still would have first contracted original sin when he was conceived/ensouled. So he wouldn’t have been an exception to the universality of original sin. I’m not sure exactly how they do this but I believe baptism can be administered to a baby still in the womb – it’s mentioned in Catholic texts that this can be done if the baby is in danger of dying.

BTW, there is a theological strain in Catholic tradition that John the Baptist was sinless (not at all a dogma of course) (see below for documentation of this) I don’t think it is stated though that he is free of concupiscience – whereas the Blessed Virgin Mary was so and was furthermore according to the traditional common teaching incapable of sin (impeccable see:

“Theologians assert that Mary was impeccable, not by the essential perfection of her nature, but by a special Divine privilege. Moreover, the Fathers, at least since the fifth century, almost unanimously maintain that the Blessed Virgin never experienced the motions of concupiscence.”

newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

To assure you that it is fine to believe that John the Baptist was cleansed of original sin before being born (as I understand it some babies have been by baptism) let me quote also from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

““And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant” – filled, like the mother, with the Holy Ghost – “leaped for joy in her womb”, as if to acknowledge the presence of his Lord. Then was accomplished the prophetic utterance of the angel that the child should “be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb”. Now as the presence of any sin whatever is incompatible with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul, it follows that at this moment John was cleansed from the stain of original sin.”

newadvent.org/cathen/08486b.htm

Here’s St Catherine of Sienna on John the Baptist’s sinlessness:

“John the Baptist never sinned and was sanctified in his mother’s womb”

ccel.org/ccel/catherine/dialog.iv.iv.ii.html

IIRC there’s also a strain in Catholic tradition that says St Joseph never sinned but I couldn’t find anything on the web about it except this anecdotal story:

homeschoolalumni.org/viewtopic.php?t=4395&start=30

(this is also not a dogma)

Thanks

Not that I have an opinion one way or the other on John the Baptist, but I was aware of the pious tradition about him being cleansed of Original Sin when he leapt.

As for baptising babies in the womb - sounds interesting. possibly could be done if only part of the baby’s head is accessible or something?

So it does appear that babies can be cleansed of Original Sin in the womb.

Now a question - just a little off track. I know some saints, St Faustina and the seers of Fatima being two examples - were gifted with visions of Hell. I haven’t read their writings in this regard, does anyone know if they or any other saint who has seen Hell ever mentioned the souls of the unbaptised being in limbo and free of physical pain? I don’t know of any who have.

 

[TNT]

But NONE of these define Baptism!

…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

---

That means WATER regeneration Baptism.
Note the reference to Jn 3:5:
Jn3:5:
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Ex Cathedra:
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate punishments.” Council of Lyons II.

Again, assuming that baptism and only baptism remits original sin - you’re taking a narrow definition of what constitutes baptism. Especially baptism of desire.

And no it CANNOT mean water baptism alone - plenty of catechumens and martyrs never received water baptism and yet we’ve never believed other than that their baptism of blood and/or desire saved them without water.

The Catechism directs us to hope that God’s definition is a little broader than yours I’m entitled to stick with it and stick with it I shall. Thanks for playing.

 

[TNT]

Let us observe what we can regarding this humanist all merciful God. Here is what we know:

“‘A baby or toddler under age five dies nearly every day in a residential fire,’ said Homeland Security Under Secretary Michael D. Brown. ‘These young children have a disproportionately higher risk of fire death than the rest of the population. They depend on their parents and caregivers to keep them safe, to prevent residential fires from starting, and to increase the chances that the entire family can escape a fire quickly and safely. From 1989 through 1998, U.S. children younger than age five were twice as likely as the rest of the population to die in a residential fire; in that decade 5,712 children died in fires in this country, according to the U.S. Fire Administration, part of FEMA and the initiator of the campaign.’” (Marinwood Fire Department, August 27, 2003)

They were all INNOCENT! And, God saw fit to allow them to suffocate and/or burn to death. Why no intervention…No preservation?
He could if He wanted to? Yes. Did He? NO.

---

In the great tsunami of Dec 05. It is estimated that 80,000 children under 10 were smashed to death or drowned. That’s 666/minute for 2 grisly hrs. Many have never been seen again.
Is this a Merciful & Just God? He could have prevented this horror.

 

[Greg27]

I think a conservative/traditionalist Catholic who did not accept the Vatican II council’s declarations would tell you that the fate of the unbaptised can be divided into two destinations; hell for unbaptised pagan adults, and limbo for unbaptised infants. Limbo was defined as a place of ‘natural happiness’ where unbaptised children would be deprived of the beatific vision because of original sin but would not endure everlasting torment, whereas the pagans would go to hell and their punishments would depend on their deeds in this life, however bad or good.

However, a Catholic who accepts the Vatican II reforms would say it is possible that those who were never ‘formally’ baptised may be baptised through desire or by following their conscience and doing God’s will, and it also looks like the Pope will also abolish the idea of Limbo, so all unbaptised infants who died before baptism or without baptism will go immediately into paradise (a sensible position in my view). However, the Church in my understanding still emphasizes the reality and eternity of hell, and we can’t say in specific cases either who is saved in the unbaptised or who is damned, which only God alone knows.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

In comparison to eternity, all analogies ultimately fail. Yes, God allowed these children to die. However, we do not know if God also allowed them to go to Hell (even the fashionable high-end suburbs of Hell). If God, by some means, allowed them to go to Heaven, we could truly say that His ultimate mercy proved to be far greater than the earthly circumstances showed.

Everyone dies eventually. Is God unjust if He takes some at a younger age than others? What ultimately reveals both God’s justice and His mercy is what happens to these people after they die.

 

[LilyM]

Let us observe what we can regarding this humanist all merciful God. Here is what we know:

They were all INNOCENT! And, God saw fit to allow them to smother and/or burn to death. Why no intervention…No preservation?
He could if He wanted to? Yes. Did He? NO.

---

In the great tsunami of Dec 05. It is estimated that 80,000 children under 10 were smashed to death or drowned. That’s 666/minute for 2 continous hrs. Many have never been seen again.
Is this a Merciful & Just God? He could have prevented this horror.

Couldn’t agree more with my friend IP here. The horror of damning someone to hell for eternity for no fault of their own is just a little worse

Making their inevitable death a bit earlier and more messy and painful than average is positively benign by comparison.

 

[Walking_Home]

…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

---

That means WATER regeneration Baptism.
Note the reference to Jn 3:5:
Jn3:5:
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

---

Hey—TNT. I don’t know about you—I am starting to believe–there are some who believe—doctrine started after Vat II.

 

[TNT]

…
Everyone dies eventually. Is God unjust if He takes some at a younger age than others? What ultimately reveals both God’s justice and His mercy is what happens to these people after they die.

You missed the point. Why make the most innocent of all, without qualification, suffer so horrifically AT ALL?

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

---

Hey—TNT. I don’t know about you—I am starting to believe–there are some who believe—doctrine started after Vat II.

There are also those who believe the Church’s ability and authority to come to a greater understanding of doctrine did not stop after Vatican I.

 

[LilyM]

Hey—TNT. I don’t know about you—I am starting to believe–there are some who believe—doctrine started after Vat II.

Not in the slightest

But IF you believe in Christ’s continuing promise to lead his Church into all truth then you must believe that each succeeding generation achieves a fuller and more refined expression of it - or at least doesn’t REgress :yup: