Salvation of Unbaptized

[FTS]

It doesn’t change the necessity of baptising children, any more than hoping for Perfect Contrition at the moment of death changes the necessity of us going to confession if we sin mortally.

Exactly! Just like having Perfect Contrition, baptism by blood or desire are extaordinary means. Confession and Water baptism remain the ordinary means if possible.

 

[FTS]

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:

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!

Iambic Pen,

God Bless you as you search on your journey! I hope and pray that you will come to an understanding that the Catholic Church is the One, True, Church that Jesus Christ established, alone possessing the fullness of faith. I pray that you may come to believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I hope this forum has been a blessing to your journey and is helpful for you.

 

[FTS]

I was pointing out the horrific suffering death sentence upon the unqualified Innocents and how that fact does not conform to the “imaginary merciful God where every infant goes to heaven”, theory.

The point here is:

1. God does NOT see children as INNOCENT.
2. He does not idolize them the way modern humanism has come to do, ie Immaculately born or too close to it, and deserving of all Mercy.
3. Realize that Original Sin is of such proportion on the scale of horrid, that he sees none born into it as INNOCENT.

After all, EVEN if not another soul beyond Adam had any actual sin, the entire Passion, Death were needed for that ONE sin. Now that’s a big sin to be under, and all infants carry it. Thus they are not INNOCENT, but guilty.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. God DOES see children as innocent, and they are not guilty. We are all born with Original Sin, but this is not personal sin, but rather analogical. We do need this washed away by baptism. But it is not committed sin on our part. And yes, great suffering exists in this world, but the suffering in this world doesn’t compare with the slightest fraction of eternal bliss for those who are face-to-face with God in Heaven forever.

 

[FTS]

The Orthodox, whom you mention, would say that this has already happened (papal infallibility, purgatory, the immaculate conception, etc…). Is there some way of knowing the Orthodox are wrong? I’m not going to turn this into a Catholic-Orthodox debate, I’m must saying that the Catholic Church must have some way of knowing the doctrines it has defined are correct. I used to think Catholic teaching was that Christ would never allow the Church to formally teach error, the Church in this case being those in union with the pope. Perhaps I was mistaken…?

You are not mistaken. The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, who leads the Church “into all truth” in all official Church teachings of faith and morals. Jesus established His Church and declared the gates of Hell would not prevail against it, and His promise will always be kept. The Catholic Church has never declared anything infallible that is erroneous and untrue. All that is declared infallible is guaranteed truth. This has always been, and will forever be.

 

[FTS]

You are correct in that they don’t exclusively mean Baptism of Water; it has always been taught by the Church that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire, though not sacraments properly speaking, bring about the same sacramental effect as Baptism of Water.

About Baptism of Desire: The chief element here is desire, which means the person makes an act of faith and love, and if any actual sins have been committed, perfect contrition for those sins. However, no one can make such an act if he does not have the use of reason. Thus Baptism of Desire is impossible for one lacking the use of reason.

Maria

These theories showcase how infants could be baptised by desire…

1. At the very moment before death, they are supernaturally given an infusion of free will and reason, and God presents them the choice to deny or accept Him.
2. The prayers of saints or angels in Heaven for these babies could, through the unique allowance and power of God, enable a Baptism of Desire for the child.
3. All people have a built-in desire for God. Some of us pursue this and others don’t, through their own free will. Since babies are innocent and have not chosen to reject God but rather desire God, immediately preceding death this built-in desire for God that all humans have from the moment of conception would create a valid baptism of desire.

 

[LilyM]

---

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.

Tosh. You want to see* real* putting of God to the test, see Abraham bargaining for the lives of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, or Moses pleading for the people of Israel after they’ve worshipped the golden calf.

Moses especially in exactly so many words tells God that He owes it to Israel, having brought them out of Egypt and into the desert, to spare them even though they’ve just committed the heinous sin of idolatry!

 

[marybee]

This kind of reminds me of Jonah and the whale story. God was pleased after the people had stopped committing wrong and Jonah was upset. Jonah wanted God to strike them down. God didn’t. Everyone wants Mercy on themselves, but not for other people. We become jealous, upset, and argumentative when God decides to be Merciful on those we don’t feel he should be.

For those who think those babes go to the limbo Hell, why should God be merciful to you? Isn’t that exactly what God showed us through the story of Jonah?

Secondly, why does the Church allow a Catholic Burial for those they are sure they go to Hell? Even those who comitted suicide may have a Catholic Burial. Why? Because WE DON’T know how God saw them at the moment of death.

 

[Cobbfmly]

I can not answer this poll as neither answer reflects the Church’s teaching on the salvation of the unbaptized. A third option along the lines of “God decides what happens to the unbaptized.” needs to be added.

 

[MTD]

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.

No, it is not possible for the Church to err and to teach falsely. The Church is indefectible. Those who teach doctrines contrary to de fide doctrine are heretics–outside the Church. They may say they are Catholics but they are not. Those who teach doctrines contrary to doctrines always held by the Church as certain, although not de fide, commit mortal sin. Today there are many such people in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church; not all are that way, but the last 40 years or so have seen far too many. My own diocese had that; fortunately that particular bishop was removed.

As Christ said: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them.” (Matt. 7:15-16)

And we have from St. John: "Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

And from St. Peter: “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Pet. 2:1)

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 .

This is off-topic, but I’d like to ask this person: how does he know the Bible is the Word of God?

Where has the Church gone back on a doctrine which it has held as certain?

The Church herself has not gone back on a doctrine it has held as certain, but certain members of the Church have. In this Limbo issue, there are several doctrines that are being called into question: that persons who die in Original Sin only are excluded from the Beatific Vision; that persons who have not been baptized by water or blood and are incapable of Baptism of Desire cannot be cleansed of Original Sin, etc.

And how is a doctrine certain if it has not been declared as such?

There are different degrees of certainty/infallibility in doctrine. One way to tell is how unanimous the Fathers and Doctors of the Church have been on that doctrine. Or how often or emphatically in history the popes have condemned the contrary errors.

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?

I’m sorry; I actually don’t know much about the Orthodox, so I don’t think I can very well answer questions contrasting Catholics to the Orthodox.

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

Yes, there are some Catholics who say that, and I believe it is permitted for theological discussions to advocate such a position. But the position favored by the Church is that all those who make an act of supernatural faith and charity together with perfect contrition for actual sins committed are thereby “baptized” by desire. In other words, by infused faith, they explicitly believe those things which must be believed explicitly in order to be saved (I listed them in a previous post on this thread), they love God with infused charity and by this love will to do all those things necessary for salvation (which includes Baptism), and through that charity they also repent sincerely of the offenses they have committed against God.

Maria

 

[MTD]

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?

God is goodness itself; evil is contrary to His very nature since evil is the absence of good. A circle can never be a square, otherwise it would not be a circle. God can never do evil, otherwise He would not be God.

Robotic automatons presuppose a maker who designs them to act in a pre-set way. God is the uncreated Being.

Similarly, a human being who could do no evil is more desirable than a human being who could.

A human being to whom evil is impossible by nature must be goodness itself. It is impossible for a creature to be goodness itself because the Creator is already perfect goodness itself. To think that it would be possible for a creature to be goodness itself is to say that God is not perfection itself because there is possible perfection outside Him.

That is not to say God couldn’t have given such abundant grace to his creatures that they never fail to choose good instead of evil. He did this with the Blessed Mother. But it is impossible for Him to create a being that by nature could choose no evil because such a creature would mean that He Himself is not perfect goodness. In other words, a creature with free will must always in essence be able to choose between good and evil whereas God cannot choose between good and evil because He is goodness itself and evil is the absence of good.

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?

I do not see how it is offensive to the omni-benevolence of God to offer His creatures the choice of good and evil, to accept Him or to reject Him. Indeed, it is only fair that those who would enjoy the Beatific Vision forever must earn it in some way. While God is infinitely merciful, He is also infinitely just. And as I’ve said more than once, God is merciful precisely because He is just.

Maria

 

[marybee]

God is goodness itself; evil is contrary to His very nature since evil is the absence of good. A circle can never be a square, otherwise it would not be a circle. God can never do evil, otherwise He would not be God.

Robotic automatons presuppose a maker who designs them to act in a pre-set way. God is the uncreated Being.

A human being to whom evil is impossible by nature must be goodness itself. It is impossible for a creature to be goodness itself because the Creator is already perfect goodness itself. To think that it would be possible for a creature to be goodness itself is to say that God is not perfection itself because there is possible perfection outside Him.

That is not to say God couldn’t have given such abundant grace to his creatures that they never fail to choose good instead of evil. He did this with the Blessed Mother. But it is impossible for Him to create a being that by nature could choose no evil because such a creature would mean that He Himself is not perfect goodness. In other words, a creature with free will must always in essence be able to choose between good and evil whereas God cannot choose between good and evil because He is goodness itself and evil is the absence of good.

I do not see how it is offensive to the omni-benevolence of God to offer His creatures the choice of good and evil, to accept Him or to reject Him. Indeed, it is only fair that those who would enjoy the Beatific Vision forever must earn it in some way. While God is infinitely merciful, He is also infinitely just. And as I’ve said more than once, God is merciful precisely because He is just.

Maria

So Maria, would an unbaptized mentally retarded person be barred from every going to Heaven as well? Wow that is a merciful loving God, he discriminates against the handicapped too.

Maria, how do you reconcile the bible verse that every man has sufficient grace to be saved? Does that exclude mentally retarded people too? You might not like the idea of helpless, mindless people going to Heaven, but God doesn’t. After all, they can’t use reason, nor can people in comas.

 

[MTD]

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.

But you were talking about how God owed us the opportunity to regain the supernatural gift of the Beatific Vision.

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.

Look here. God’s justice is not in opposition to His mercy. God is perfectly simple. Each of His attributes is in perfect harmony with His other attributes. It follows that if it would be just for Him to carry out a particular action, it must also be merciful for Him to carry out that same action. Thus, if God in perfect justice could have left us in Original Sin, it is of necessity that it would also be perfectly merciful for Him to do so. In other words, the fact that God could in justice leave us in Original Sin means that it would also be merciful for Him to do so, for His justice is NEVER in conflict with His mercy.

And even IF pure justice means he owes a person their due - since when is the due of an innocent baby eternal damnation?

How is eternal natural happiness unjust?

For that they suffer, and don’t tell me they don’t suffer in limbo.

Let’s put aside personal prejudices and be objective. Limbo is specifically a place of natural happiness, not supernatural happiness. Remember, supernatural happiness can only be had through the supernatural life; i.e., grace here on earth and the light of glory in heaven. If one is not in heaven where there is supernatural happiness, does that automatically mean one cannot have natural happiness?

Eternal happiness can only be had in the presence of God, and any other fate must of necessity be suffering.

No. Eternal supernatural happiness can only be had in the presence of God.

Maria

 

[Walking_Home]

Tosh. You want to see* real* putting of God to the test, see Abraham bargaining for the lives of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, or Moses pleading for the people of Israel after they’ve worshipped the golden calf.

Moses especially in exactly so many words tells God that He owes it to Israel, having brought them out of Egypt and into the desert, to spare them even though they’ve just committed the heinous sin of idolatry!

---

What did our Lord Jesus Christ of the new covenant say----

You shall not put the Lord, your God to the test.

 

[MTD]

1. The prayers of saints or angels in Heaven for these babies could, through the unique allowance and power of God, enable a Baptism of Desire for the child.

I’m not exactly sure what your theory here is, but the prayers and desires of others never suffice for the desire of Baptism that must come from the unbaptized person in order for him to baptized by desire.

1. All people have a built-in desire for God. Some of us pursue this and others don’t, through their own free will. Since babies are innocent and have not chosen to reject God but rather desire God, immediately preceding death this built-in desire for God that all humans have from the moment of conception would create a valid baptism of desire.

No, the desire spoken of in Baptism of Desire is specifically a human act; i.e., an act of the will guided by the intellect. This is impossible without the use of reason.

Maria

 

[marybee]

I’m not exactly sure what your theory here is, but the prayers and desires of others never suffice for the desire of Baptism that must come from the unbaptized person in order for him to baptized by desire.

No, the desire spoken of in Baptism of Desire is specifically a human act; i.e., an act of the will guided by the intellect. This is impossible without the use of reason.

Maria

Maria, you have some invested interest in proving that an entire group of people, a very large one actually, will not be with God. Quite frankly, you can not do that with any certainty. You have not cited anything other than your personal beliefs, which you are entitled to. I am just extremely perplexed as to why you are doing this. You have not addressed any bible verses, you have not even challenged the ones I gave you. I can not believe that any son or daughter of Christ is without a chance of salvation, this is because Christ revealed this to us in the Bible. You, nor any pope can not say difinitively that any person, man, woman, or child IN FACT goes to Hell. You have not been given any more information from God than I.

Condemn, lest you be condemned.

I surely would take this bible verse seriously. You are condemning many, many people to Hell (limbo hell). [Edited by Moderator]

 

[MTD]

For those who think those babes go to the limbo Hell, why should God be merciful to you?

I am undeserving of it. I can only thank Him for allowing me the opportunity to gain heaven.

So Maria, would an unbaptized mentally retarded person be barred from every going to Heaven as well? Wow that is a merciful loving God, he discriminates against the handicapped too.

And what makes it impossible to baptize a handicapped person?

Are you talking about a handicapped person who is living in a pagan country where there are no Christians to baptize him? Well, I can tell you one thing: he’s a lot better off than the pagans who have the use of reason because it is very hard not to commit actual sins and then come to perfect contrition before one dies without the sacraments. And that’s not to mention the supernatural faith that must be given to such a person if he is to be saved.

Maria, how do you reconcile the bible verse that every man has sufficient grace to be saved? Does that exclude mentally retarded people too?

This is getting into theology that I’m not familiar with. I don’t claim to know all the answers. I know there is a difference between sufficient grace and efficacious grace, and that it has been an aspect of heated debate among theologians. I just try to remember: God’s ways are not our ways.

If you ask me, it’s very hard to understand how it could be just for God to inflict the inclination to sin in addition to the deprivation of the right to the Beatific Vision on all men because of Original Sin. I mean, that means almost all men would have ended up in the hell of the damned if God had not sent a Redeemer. But does that mean I dismiss the idea that it would have been a just thing to do, as the Church teaches? No. I believe God is infinitely just and merciful, and I trust Him that He is perfect. I realize that I do an injustice by trying to reduce His infinite justice and mercy to my infinitely imperfect conceptions of justice and mercy.

Maria

 

[marybee]

I am undeserving of it. I can only thank Him for allowing me the opportunity to gain heaven.

And what makes it impossible to baptize a handicapped person?

Are you talking about a handicapped person who is living in a pagan country where there are no Christians to baptize him? Well, I can tell you one thing: he’s a lot better off than the pagans who have the use of reason because it is very hard not to commit actual sins and then come to perfect contrition before one dies without the sacraments. And that’s not to mention the supernatural faith that must be given to such a person if he is to be saved.

This is getting into theology that I’m not familiar with. I don’t claim to know all the answers. I know there is a difference between sufficient grace and efficacious grace, and that it has been an aspect of heated debate among theologians. I just try to remember: God’s ways are not our ways.

If you ask me, it’s very hard to understand how it could be just for God to inflict the inclination to sin in addition to the deprivation of the right to the Beatific Vision on all men because of Original Sin. I mean, that means almost all men would have ended up in the hell of the damned if God had not sent a Redeemer. But does that mean I dismiss the idea that it would have been a just thing to do, as the Church teaches? No. I believe God is infinitely just and merciful, and I trust Him that He is perfect. I realize that I do an injustice by trying to reduce His infinite justice and mercy to my infinitely imperfect conceptions of justice and mercy.

Maria

REally? please explain. You really seem like you have thought about this pretty deeply. How can one contradict the bible? He was obviouly speaking of the grace that you need to attain for Heaven.

 

[Walking_Home]

Maria, you have some invested interest in proving that an entire group of people, a very large one actually, will not be with God. Quite frankly, you can not do that with any certainty. You have not cited anything other than your personal beliefs, which you are entitled to. I am just extremely perplexed as to why you are doing this. You have not addressed any bible verses, you have not even challenged the ones I gave you. I can not believe that any son or daughter of Christ is without a chance of salvation, this is because Christ revealed this to us in the Bible. You, nor any pope can not say difinitively that any person, man, woman, or child IN FACT goes to Hell. You have not been given any more information from God than I.

Condemn, lest you be condemned.

I surely would take this bible verse seriously. You are condemning many, many people to Hell (limbo hell). The stick that you measure others will be measured to you.

---

Then you should consider that this reflects back on God Himself. It was God that chose not to reveal to us what happens to the unbaptised. It was His will that we do not know. Even within His mercy and justice----He chose not to reveal this to us.

What God did choose to reveal—is that baptism makes us adopted sons and daughters of God and without baptism --no one enters heaven.

 

[InLight247]

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
This Church, according to my understanding has a broad meaning, it does not mean Catholic Church only. The Church is the Body of Christ. Can we say Protestants do not belong to the Body of Christ since they are not Catholics? Protestants are still our brothers and sisters in Christ even though some of them may not think Catholics as their brothers and sisters in Christ.

I often hear Protestants say if a person has not “accept the Lord”, no matter how good they have lived their lives, they are going to hell for sure. That is a very narrow saying. Only God can make that decision. Didn’t we hear the saying about people who commit suicide by jumping the bridge that salvation could happen between the bridge and the water? If we think Protestants saying of non-Christians all go to hell is incorrect, how can we say “outside the Church there is no salvation” by defining the Church as Catholic Church only?

God looks into our hearts. If a person has an implicit desire of being baptized, it should be as good as an explicit expression.
If a person is ignorant about the concept of baptism, I believe our merciful Lord will still give the person a last chance. How do we know the moment a person’s soul leaves his body, our Lord wouldn’t appear to the person and allow him a final choice at that moment? If so, if the person who has no God for his entire life but repents and chooses Jesus at the last critical second, who can say this person will not be saved? God wants all to be saved, not anyone to be lost. If a person repents at the last moment, God will forgive him. The person probably has to stay in Purgatory longer, but he will not go to hell.

Since there are so many questions we don’t really have answer, the important thing is not to take any chance but to live a life of virtues, to follow the Sacraments of the Church, to evangelize the salvation of Christ, to help people know Jesus and follow Him.

 

[Exalt]

God is goodness itself; evil is contrary to His very nature since evil is the absence of good. A circle can never be a square, otherwise it would not be a circle. God can never do evil, otherwise He would not be God.

Robotic automatons presuppose a maker who designs them to act in a pre-set way. God is the uncreated Being.

A human being to whom evil is impossible by nature must be goodness itself. It is impossible for a creature to be goodness itself because the Creator is already perfect goodness itself. To think that it would be possible for a creature to be goodness itself is to say that God is not perfection itself because there is possible perfection outside Him.

Maria: Don’t you think that this (“That is not to say God couldn’t have given such abundant grace to his creatures that they never fail to choose good instead of evil. He did this with the Blessed Mother”) contradicts what you said before (“It is impossible for a creature to be goodness itself because the Creator is already perfect goodness itself.”)?

I’m a bit confused.

But it is impossible for Him to create a being that by nature could choose no evil because such a creature would mean that He Himself is not perfect goodness. In other words, a creature with free will must always in essence be able to choose between good and evil whereas God cannot choose between good and evil because He is goodness itself and evil is the absence of good.

You’re saying that God cannot create a being that, by nature, could choose no evil because that would mean that God is not “perfect goodness.” What about all-but-perfect goodness? That is, maximized goodness, where doing evil is possible, but only infinitesimally so, and for all practical reasons, is highly unlikely of actually happening. Perhaps only just one creature in googolplex-times-a-googolplex of such creatures . The perfection of God is intact, but human beings, for all practical reasons are protected against evil.

I do not see how it is offensive to the omni-benevolence of God to offer His creatures the choice of good and evil, to accept Him or to reject Him. Indeed, it is only fair that those who would enjoy the Beatific Vision forever must earn it in some way. While God is infinitely merciful, He is also infinitely just. And as I’ve said more than once, God is merciful precisely because He is just.

Maria

It’s offensive to the omni-benevolence of God because a good God would eliminate the possibilty of evil, if he good. That is his nature, as an all-good God. But you saying that God *can’t *do that, because it would offend the perfectly good nature of God. You’re saying that he *can’t *create human beings without the possibility of doing evil.

Think of it like this: A good person, when he sees evil occuring, ought to do his best to try and stop it. A good God, when he sees evil occuring, ought to do his best to try and stop it. But the good person is limited by his power. A good God, however, is not.