Salvation of Unbaptized

[The_Iambic_Pen]

In other words, the Tradition of continuity from the beginning and well beyond the EO schism, is this Original Sin & consequences Dogma. The EO departed from it.

Do you know when they departed from it? I would be interested to read the Eastern statements in favor of the doctrine from before the shift in belief, as well as those that came after. Some have said that the Catholic Church’s present teaching on original sin did not really show itself until St. Augustine wrote about it. Obviously, you believe this is not the case?

You keep avoiding the point that God Positively does what the modern humanist says He would NEVER do…inflict pain & suffering & death on the most Innocent. Innocent in the Humanist’s eyes that is.

I don’t think I avoid the point. I am very aware that He does this. However, on the subject of eternally inflicting pain and suffering on the most innocent, that is where I struggle with the apparent traditional Catholic view of God.

I read an article by an Eastern Orthodox Christian, in which he criticized the anti-Western ideas presented in *Ancestral Versus Original Sin: An Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy *by the Very Rev. Fr. Antony Hughes, rector of St. Mary’s Antiochian Orthodox Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The blogwriter quotes the following passage from Fr. Hughes’ article:

The image of an angry, vengeful God haunts the West where a basic insecurity and guilt seem to exist. Many appear to hold that sickness, suffering and death are God’s will. Why? I suspect one reason is that down deep the belief persists that God is still angry and must be appeased. Yes, sickness, suffering and death come and when they do God’s grace is able to transform them into life-bearing trials, but are they God’s will? Does God punish us when the mood strikes, when our behavior displeases Him or for no reason at all? Are the ills that afflict creation on account of God? For example, could the loving Father really be said to enjoy the sufferings of His Son or of the damned in hell (Yannaras, 1984)? Freud rebelled against these ideas calling the God inherent in them the sadistic Father (Yannaras, 1984, p. 153). Could it be as Yannaras, Clement and Kalomiris propose that modern atheism is a healthy rebellion against a terrorist deity (Clement, 2000)? Kalomiros (1980) writes that there are no atheists, just people who hate the God in whom they have been taught to believe.

He then goes on to argue against it, saying that this is not the true view of God in Western Christianity. However, after having spent some time in this particular forum, I can see how those in the East get these ideas about the Western view of God.

I am not yet Catholic, and therefore I have not yet fully accepted all Catholic teachings. The teaching on original sin is, admittedly, one with which I still struggle. However, for the purposes of this thread, I am not arguing against the doctrine of original sin. My main purpose in being in the Traditional Catholic forum is to find out what Catholic teaching really is, not to argue against it. And, Catholic teaching, as presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, appears to offer far more hope for the unbaptized than is presented here on this forum.

Continued…

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Continued from previous post…

I cannot for the life of me figure out why this is all so repulsive or seemingly unjust or unmerciful to you.

What is repulsive to me is that there are people who claim to be Catholic and yet insist on limiting God’s mercy in ways in which the Church does not. As the Church says in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**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.

**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.

In whom shall I put my trust, in the Church which has existed for two thousand years, or in a few dissenters who think they know more about Catholic doctrine than every pope and loyal theologian since Vatican II?

The vast majority of people in the past lived and died without even getting a chance at baptism. Many lived before the sacrament was instituted, and many lived before news of it reached them. The missionaries of the Church have been bold, courageous and effective, but their work has taken time. I am deeply troubled by the insistence that God’s offer of salvation depends on when and where a person lives.

I do appreciate what you posted, and I agree that God does not “owe” us anything. However, as I believe God is not bound by the theories of theologians (from St. Augustine’s theory that the unbaptized yet sinless infants were damned to later theories that they were damned in a nicer way), I will continue to say, with the Church:

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have *desired Baptism explicitly *if they had known its necessity.

 

[LilyM]

I cannot for the life of me figure out why this is all so repulsive or seemingly unjust or unmerciful to you.

Maria

What seems unfair is the total arbitrariness of these criteria for damnation. It’s too akin to God just sticking everyone’s name in a hat and damning everyone whose name he draws out.

Why should a child’s age or ability to reason or speak, or indeed any other factor completely outside their control, be the *sole *factor in deciding that they go to hell for eternity? As I’ve said before, God doesn’t owe us heaven, but he sure owes each and every last one of us at least SOME say in our own eternal destiny - even if supernatural means be employed to allow us to make the choice for or against Him!

Babies may not have sufficient reason to sin mortally, but on what basis do we presume that they don’t have enough reason to love God and desire salvation and/or the remission of Original Sin? Or perhaps to choose the contrary? How do we know how much reason is sufficient for such a purpose? Simple answer is that we don’t, and neither did Augustine or Aquinas for sure.

 

[cor]

What seems unfair is the total arbitrariness of these criteria for damnation. It’s too akin to God just sticking everyone’s name in a hat and damning everyone whose name he draws out.

Why should a child’s age or ability to reason or speak, or indeed any other factor completely outside their control, be the *sole *factor in deciding that they go to hell for eternity? As I’ve said before, God doesn’t owe us heaven, but he sure owes each and every last one of us at least SOME say in our own eternal destiny - even if supernatural means be employed to allow us to make the choice for or against Him!

Babies may not have sufficient reason to sin mortally, but on what basis do we presume that they don’t have enough reason to love God and desire salvation and/or the remission of Original Sin? Or perhaps to choose the contrary? How do we know how much reason is sufficient for such a purpose? Simple answer is that we don’t, and neither did Augustine or Aquinas for sure.

Think of a pet. You may allow your pet into your house but not your bedroom. That would be akin to limbo, being in natural paradise with God but not in supernatural heaven with God. You don’t owe it to your pet to give him an opportunity to be in your bedroom and likewise God doesn’t owe it to any man to give him an opportunity to be in heaven.

But I believe he gives everyone the opportunity gratuitously.

 

[LilyM]

Think of a pet. You may allow your pet into your house but not your bedroom. That would be akin to limbo, being in natural paradise with God but not in supernatural heaven with God. You don’t owe it to your pet to give him an opportunity to be in your bedroom and likewise God doesn’t owe it to any man to give him an opportunity to be in heaven.

But I believe he gives everyone the opportunity gratuitously.

Yeah but you don’t make arbitrary rules like ‘no to puppies and border collies, yes to older dogs and shih-tzus’, do you?

You may say - ‘this particular puppy isn’t housetrained yet, or chews slippers’ or ‘this particular border collie runs in circles round the room all night and annoys me no end’ or some such. And I believe God similarly gives everyone a chance to prove themselves worthy of salvation.

 

[MTD]

In whom shall I put my trust, in the Church which has existed for two thousand years, or in a few dissenters who think they know more about Catholic doctrine than every pope and loyal theologian since Vatican II?

This is the root of the problem. The Church, which never changes her doctrine when it is certain, is suddenly changing it. This is very disturbing to us Catholics who are paying attention. In fact, that’s what this Traditional Catholicism forum is all about.

Some on this thread have spoken about developing doctrine. It is true that the Church does come to a better understanding of doctrines that were not so well understood in the past. And she settles points of disputes where necessary. But she never goes back on a doctrine she has held as certain even if it has not been declared or held from time immemorial as divinely revealed.

Some have brought up the Immaculate Conception as a point that has further developed over the centuries. But the thing is, the Immaculate Conception was always a controversy; in other words, there were theologians on both sides of the issue. So the Church only stepped in and made an infallible decision.

That is not the case with this unbaptized infants going to heaven issue. It has always been certain doctrine that they do not go to heaven. The Limbo controversy was never between heaven and Limbo; it was always between Limbo and hell. In other words, it was never even questioned that unbaptized persons could not enter heaven.

Now, suddenly, it’s up for debate. Centuries of unanimous teaching by the Church are called into question. This is very disturbing and suspicious. It is not to be trusted.

However, as I believe God is not bound by the theories of theologians (from St. Augustine’s theory that the unbaptized yet sinless infants were damned to later theories that they were damned in a nicer way), I will continue to say, with the Church:

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly

The Church has always held that those who desire Baptism, even implicitly, are considered baptized by desire. That is nothing new. What we’ve been talking about here, though, is unbaptized infants, who are incapable of such desire since they lack the use of reason.

Maria

 

[MTD]

As I’ve said before, God doesn’t owe us heaven, but he sure owes each and every last one of us at least SOME say in our own eternal destiny - even if supernatural means be employed to allow us to make the choice for or against Him!

To say that God owes us the opportunity to regain the supernatural gift of the Beatific Vision is the same as saying that God owed us the Redemption. Period.

Yeah but you don’t make arbitrary rules like ‘no to puppies and border collies, yes to older dogs and shih-tzus’, do you?

Yes, you could make arbitrary rules with perfect justice. Justice means giving to another his due. You do not owe any of those dogs the privilege of coming into your bedroom. Even if you should arbitrarily choose to let border collies in, the puppies do not suddenly obtain the right to go into your bedroom also. The bedroom is yours and you have the right to choose who goes in there, no matter the method of choosing. If the puppies have done nothing to earn entrance into the bedroom, you have absolutely no obligation to let them in regardless of whether or not you let the other dogs in arbitrarily.

Maria

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

This is the root of the problem. The Church, which never changes her doctrine when it is certain, is suddenly changing it. This is very disturbing to us Catholics who are paying attention. In fact, that’s what this Traditional Catholicism forum is all about.

So, it is possible for the Church to err and to teach falsely? And if it can do this in the 20th century, why not the 2nd or 3rd? If so, the Church is fallible, and all of its doctrines are subject to question. Perhaps there is something in the following statement, after all:

Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen .

Some on this thread have spoken about developing doctrine. It is true that the Church does come to a better understanding of doctrines that were not so well understood in the past. And she settles points of disputes where necessary. But she never goes back on a doctrine she has held as certain even if it has not been declared or held from time immemorial as divinely revealed.

Where has the Church gone back on a doctrine which it has held as certain? And how is a doctrine certain if it has not been declared as such?

That is not the case with this unbaptized infants going to heaven issue. It has always been certain doctrine that they do not go to heaven.

The Orthodox appear to differ, and they were in union with the Catholic Church for one thousand years. If this matter was settled during that time, would it not be reflected in their teaching?

it was never even questioned that unbaptized persons could not enter heaven.

Hmmmhh…it’s a bit late, and I need to go to bed, but I’ll have to look into this one.

Now, suddenly, it’s up for debate. Centuries of unanimous teaching by the Church are called into question. This is very disturbing and suspicious. It is not to be trusted.

A good time to be Orthodox, it would seem…

The Church has always held that those who desire Baptism, even implicitly, are considered baptized by desire.

I have heard people say that baptism of desire only applies to catachumens, with everyone else being out of luck. Is this true?

God bless!

 

[Exalt]

Maria: I’ve read your posts throughout this particular issue, and I have to say that I’m a bit surprised. You have said that the entire issue rests upon God’s justice. That is, Adam and Eve’s sin caused humanity to be damned. God simply saves people from that damnation. But I have a ***big ***problem with the original premise - that God created human beings with the freedom to do evil.

My question to you is this: Why could not have God created humans free only to choose good?

The typical answer is that he could have, but we would be robotic automatons – and, therefore, a will free to choose evil is more desirable. But is that really true? On the contrary**, orthodox Christianity already teaches that such a world will happen**, after the final Judgment and resurrection. Furthermore, is God a “robotic automaton” because he can not do evil? Is the love of God less sweet because Christians know that God will never turn his back on human beings? No, of course not. A God who could do evil is not more desirable than a God who could not do evil. Similarly, a human being who could do no evil is more desirable than a human being who could. Does one not prefer the company of a friend who you know will never betray you? Absolutely. **Freedom to do evil is nothing more than a risk for disaster, pain, and suffering. One must conclude that God could have made such a world in which evil is impossible. Such a world would be superior to the actual world. In fact, if God existed, it seems very reasonable that he would have made such a world, if he was all-good. In fact, the omni benevolent nature of God demands it. Perhaps an analogy would help.

Imagine that Black and Decker, a power tool making company, is designing a fantastic new tool. But at the final stages of design, they discover a fatal flaw. The power tool has a 1% chance of exploding in the user’s face; it is expected that the flaw has a serious chance of injury to the user. One of their scientists has a simple solution to fix the flaw, which will not hurt the power tool in any way – it will just solve the problem. But the company does not apply the necessary changes. What would you think of that company? Of course, it would have been a gross oversight. I am certain that the company would have been prosecuted. It is simply not a responsible decision.

Therefore, it seems to offend the omni-benevolence of God for him to create a world in which moral evil is possible. If he could have created a world without this “fatal flaw” but chose not to, then he is not all-good. If he is unable to create such a world, then he is not omnipotent. Either way, unfortunately, there seems to be no way out of this question that leaves the omnipotence or omni-benevolence of God intact.

What do you think?

 

[LilyM]

To say that God owes us the opportunity to regain the supernatural gift of the Beatific Vision is the same as saying that God owed us the Redemption. Period.

Yes, you could make arbitrary rules with perfect justice. Justice means giving to another his due. You do not owe any of those dogs the privilege of coming into your bedroom. Even if you should arbitrarily choose to let border collies in, the puppies do not suddenly obtain the right to go into your bedroom also. The bedroom is yours and you have the right to choose who goes in there, no matter the method of choosing. If the puppies have done nothing to earn entrance into the bedroom, you have absolutely no obligation to let them in regardless of whether or not you let the other dogs in arbitrarily.

Maria

Yes but that’s not what we know of God - he is not mere justice and only justice, nor even does justice dominate His other traits, or he would not have ‘so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten son’ for us.

God created each and every one of us, even the pagans and atheists and unborn babies, loves with unfathomable love each and every one of us, even the pagans and atheists and unborn babies, and desires as many of us as possible to achieve heaven. The word here is omnibenevolent.

That’s why his justice is tempered, in too many biblical examples to count, with extaordinary mercy, mercy well beyond reason.

And even IF pure justice means he owes a person their due - since when is the due of an innocent baby eternal damnation? It seems to me the due of every person is the option to choose heaven or hell. Those babies didn’t ask or choose to be created, given souls, nor to die before the age of reason, nor to die unbaptised. For that they suffer, and don’t tell me they don’t suffer in limbo. Eternal happiness can only be had in the presence of God, and any other fate must of necessity be suffering.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

What do you think?

Hmmhhh…well, I think most Christians, as well as other theists, ask themselves these kinds of questions all the time. However, the fact that the world is the way it is shows that God did not create the world in the way you desire. We don’t understand everything God has done, but we certainly cannot redefine Him based on what we want Him to be.

What is your answer to this great dilemma you propose?

 

[Walking_Home]

Yes but that’s not what we know of God - he is not mere justice and only justice, nor even does justice dominate His other traits, or he would not have ‘so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten son’ for us.

God created each and every one of us, even the pagans and atheists and unborn babies, loves with unfathomable love each and every one of us, even the pagans and atheists and unborn babies, and desires as many of us as possible to achieve heaven. The word here is omnibenevolent.

That’s why his justice is tempered, in too many biblical examples to count, with extaordinary mercy, mercy well beyond reason.

And even IF pure justice means he owes a person their due - since when is the due of an innocent baby eternal damnation? It seems to me the due of every person is the option to choose heaven or hell. Those babies didn’t ask or choose to be created, given souls, nor to die before the age of reason, nor to die unbaptised. For that they suffer, and don’t tell me they don’t suffer in limbo. Eternal happiness can only be had in the presence of God, and any other fate must of necessity be suffering.

---

Are you putting God to the test----If your are just—you owe a person their due.

 

[Exalt]

Hmmhhh…well, I think most Christians, as well as other theists, ask themselves these kinds of questions all the time. However, the fact that the world is the way it is shows that God did not create the world in the way you desire. We don’t understand everything God has done, but we certainly cannot redefine Him based on what we want Him to be.

What is your answer to this great dilemma you propose?

Two conclusions:

#1: The position of most religious people: “my personal view is that I cannot fathom why God does what he does, and thus I will never understand why this God permits evil. The author of Job had to accept his ignorance and trust in his God. So do I.”

#2: God is either not omnipotent or omnibenevolent, neither, or does not exist.

 

[LilyM]

Are you putting God to the test----If your are just—you owe a person their due.

Of course not. I trust that God gives innocent unbaptised babies their due - which is probably NOT to send each and every last one of them to eternal damnation for no fault of their own.

 

[Walking_Home]

Of course not. I trust that God gives innocent unbaptised babies their due - which is probably NOT to send each and every last one of them to eternal damnation for no fault of their own.

Quote=LilyM
And even IF pure justice means he owes a person their due

---

You said “owes” us our due. This is the second time you say–God “owes” us.

If God is Merciful and/or Just–He “owes” us : ----that is putting God to the test.

 

[FTS]

---

Can you please provide proof where Pope Benedict --(I mean now that he is Pope–and not before he sat in the Chair of Peter) has stated this. It is not quite truthful to attribute what was said when he was Not Pope to now that he is the Pope.

As Cardinal Ratzinger, in 1985, he voiced his personal opinion as a theologian against Limbo and favoring eternal salvation of these infants. He said,

“Limbo was never a defined truth of the faith. Personally - and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation - I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for the faith, namely, the importance of baptism. …. One should not hesitate to give up the idea of ‘limbo’ if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed ‘limbo’ also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for the faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be.”

It should be noted, as Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin has noted, since 1992 when the Catechism of the Catholic Church came out, the Church as not denied the possibility of Limbo put has been pointing more in the direction towards an alternative to Limbo, in the hope that these infants will be saved.

 

[FTS]

Dear FTS:

How does one know when the Pope’s teaching is in fact “heretical or a very poor decision”? Could that be the case with Benedict XVI?

So what you’re saying is that you just pick and choose the teachings (other than solemnly defined dogmas) that you think are not “heretical or bad decisions”. It that your position?

How do you know when a doctrine is infallibly defined? … there is no set introduction or formula, you know.

Limbo is not de fide. However, the basis for it is not “theological speculation”…what cannot be denied is that the unbaptised who die uncleansed of original sin do not enjoy the beatific vision…although they enjoy natural happiness. This is the constant teaching of the Church. There is nothing “unfair” about it.

Yours,

Gorman

Obviously, when we are free to have our own opinions on issues, we could even disagree with a Pope’s personal opinion. Popes in the past have leaned towards Limbo, and JPII and Benedict XVI have leaned towards the salvation of these infants. We don’t have to align our personal opinion with the current Pope’s opinion, we are free to have our own. Let us look at the issue of married priests. This is a discipline and not a doctrine. It can change. While we must respect the current Latin-Rite position of celibacy, and submit our will to the authority of the decision, we could personally prefer the possibility of a married priesthood, such as is practice in Eastern-Rite Catholicism. We must honor and respect the Church’s current teaching on various issues, but on issues that we are free to have our own opinion, we can can do just that, have our own personal preference and opinion. We could never however, prefer women ordination. That is official Church teaching and can never change. I think you can see what I am saying here. And we do know when a doctrine is infallibly defined. We have infallible truth via Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. Under the Magisterium, there are three modes of infallibility…

1. Pope declares a dogma…Example, The Assumption or Immaculate Conception
2. Bishops united with Pope define doctrine at General Council…Example, Council of Nicea defines doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ or Vatican 1 defines doctrine of Papal Infallibility

3)Bishops worldwide united with Pope collectively teach a truth to be held by the faithful…Example, immorality and intrinsic evil of homosexual acts, abortion

And despite your claim, Limbo is mere theological speculation. So is believing that these individuals are validly baptised by desire and enter Heaven. We are free to have our personal opinions on the matter.

 

[FTS]

Precisely, the Church cannot say something definitively that has not been revelaed by God. Limbo simply tells us there is a consequence for not being baptized by water…and that consequence according to God (Jesus) is no entrance into the kingdom of God.

You say Limbo tells us there is a consequence for not being baptised by water…but you leave our baptism by blood or desire. It is true a person cannot enter Heaven without baptism. But if a person is baptised by desire, their Original Sin is wiped away and they can enter Heaven.

 

[FTS]

Wow, some of the opinions expressed on this thread are a horrible window into the state of decay in the Church – a guage of how far the apostasy has come.

John Paul II was and Benedict is too busy fraternizing with animists and heretics to take care of business at home – rejecting Our Lord’s command to “feed [His] sheep”. And the insipid meaningless humanistic statements that emanate from Rome on a daily basis do absolutely no good whatsoever (just follow zenit.org for a while).

Remember what Father Corapi has said, there are liberals to the far left side of the boat and ultra-traditionalists to the far right side of the boat. Either way you are in the water drowning. JPII was an amazing Pope, a gift and blessing from God to our Church. While being ecumenical towards other faiths, which is a good thing I remind you, he still proudly upheld the truth that the Catholic Church is the one truth Church established by Jesus Christ.

 

[FTS]

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

I don’t call myself a Traditional Catholic, I am on this particular forum due to interest in the subject at hand. I call myself an orthodox Catholic who follows the teachings of the Catholic Church. There are those to the left and right of the Chuch that are being unfaithful Catholics.