Salvation of Unbaptized

[gorman64]

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.

Dear marybee,

As Catholics, we follow the proximate rule of faith, which is the preaching of the Church. The bible is the remote rule of faith. It is the Protestants who read and interpret the scriptures to their own liking…they have no proximate rule of faith because they have no Church to hear.

The fact is, and I am aware you find it unsettling, that this is what the Church has always taught. It may not be de fide, but it is at least certain. See this previous post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2157354&postcount=262

Also, you have no trouble quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia when it suits your purposes…how do you explain this?
Catholic Encyclopedia:

Theologians distinguish four meanings of the term hell:

•hell in the strict sense, or the place of punishment for the damned, be they demons or men;

•the limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment;

•the limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum), in which the souls of the just who died before Christ awaited their admission to heaven; for in the meantime heaven was closed against them in punishment for the sin of Adam;

•purgatory, where the just, who die in venial sin or who still owe a debt of temporal punishment for sin, are cleansed by suffering before their admission to heaven.

Finally, in regard to the teaching of the Council of Florence, it is incredible that the Fathers there assembled had any intention of defining a question so remote from the issue on which reunion with the Greeks depended, and one which was recognized at the time as being open to free discussion and continued to be so regarded by theologians for several centuries afterwards. What the council evidently intended to deny in the passage alleged was the postponement of final awards until the day of judgement. Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God.

In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty. Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children’s limbo, while from the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God’s justice and other attributes.

A harsher view cannot be reconciled…nor a more liberal view condoned.

Gorman

 

[marybee]

Dear marybee,

As Catholics, we follow the proximate rule of faith, which is the preaching of the Church. The bible is the remote rule of faith. It is the Protestants who read and interpret the scriptures to their own liking…they have no proximate rule of faith because they have no Church to hear.

The fact is, and I am aware you find it unsettling, that this is what the Church has always taught. It may not be de fide, but it is at least certain. See this previous post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2157354&postcount=262

Also, you have no trouble quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia when it suits your purposes…how do you explain this?

A harsher view cannot be reconciled…nor a more liberal view condoned.

Gorman

It is obvious to me that you do not give authority to the last few popes. You are not in union with Rome. If you were you would believe that there is a possiblity for God to have Mercy on such people. If we can not even agree on authority, there is no reason to continue with the conversation.

 

[LilyM]

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

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

He was quoting the Old Testament when he said that, Deuteronomy 6:16 to be precise - even Moses knew that bit of Scripture already, since He wrote it

It appears God has fewer problems with my sort of talk than you guys do. IF I said he owed us salvation that would be a different story, it would indeed be presumption and so one. That’s not what I’m saying, not nearly.

 

[TNT]

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.

**RE:
**God DOES see children as innocent, and they are not guilty.​

(Romans 5:12, 19, 18)
[One is only Condemned if one is GUILTY:]
“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death;
and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned…
For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners…
Therefore, as by the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation.”

---

Council of Trent [hereafter COT], Decree on Original Sin, 1546: “2. If any one asserts that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone and not his posterity, and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he being defiled by the sin of disobedience has only transfused death ‘and pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul,’ let him be anathema, whereas he contradicts the apostle who says: ‘By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.’ (Rom. 5:12)”

---

[Ibid.] Decree on Original Sin, 1546: “4. If any one denies that infants newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining of life everlasting,—whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false,—let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

---

Before candidates get baptized into the Catholic Church and hence have their original sin remitted, they must renounce their former master, Satan,

---

The Ceremonies of Baptism: Imposition of Hands, Summary of prayer: “Drive from thy servant, O Lord, all blindness of heart, break all the bonds of Satan by which he [the baptismal candidate] was tied…” And the Exorcism prayer: “I exorcise thee, unclean spirit, in the Name of the Father + and of the Son + and of the Holy Ghost +, that thou go forth and depart from this servant of God [name], …Therefore, accursed spirit, acknowledge thy sentence; give honor to the true and living God, to His Son Jesus Christ, and to the Holy Ghost, by withdrawing from this servant of God [name].”

---

Isa. 48:8:
*“*For I know that transgressing thou wilt transgress, and I have called thee a transgressor from the womb.”

**Ps. 57:4:
**The wicked are alienated from the womb; they have gone astray from the womb:

**Exodus 12:12
**“And I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and will kill every firstborn in the land of Egypt both man and beast: and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord.”

Osee 14:1
“Let Samaria perish, because she hath stirred up her God to bitterness: let them perish by the sword,** let their little ones be dashed**, and let the women with child be ripped up.”
From the above it’s obvious that “**God DOES see children as innocent, and they are not guilty”**http://www.alldeaf.com/images/smilies/popcorn.gifCan you Read? http://www.alldeaf.com/images/smilies/popcorn.gifNo, does that matter?

 

[gorman64]

“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.

Dear InLight247:

Read the Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi. Here is Pope Pius XII, in that very encyclical:

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

And Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum:

1. It is so evident from the clear and frequent testimonies of Holy Writ that the true Church of Jesus Christ is one, that no Christian can dare to deny it. But in judging and determining the nature of this unity many have erred in various ways. Not the foundation of the Church alone, but its whole constitution, belongs to the class of things effected by Christ’s free choice. For this reason the entire case must be judged by what was actually done. We must consequently investigate not how the Church may possibly be one, but how He, who founded it, willed that it should be one. But when we consider what was actually done we find that Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: “I believe in one Church.” “The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts…We say, therefore, that the Catholic Church is unique in its essence, in its doctrine, in its origin, and in its excellence…Furthermore, the eminence of the Church arises from its unity, as the principle of its constitution - a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it” (S. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stronmatum lib. viii., c. 17). For this reason Christ, speaking of the mystical edifice, mentions only one Church, which he calls His own - *"I will build my church; " any other Church except this one, since it has not been founded by Christ, cannot be the true Church. *

I often hear Protestants say …] 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?

Why not forget what “the protestants” say and follow the teaching of the Church? The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.

God looks into our hearts. …] 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.

I don’t think you’ve been reading this thread very carefully. I don’t believe anyone has really disputed this…the issue is those who cannot make justifying acts because they lack the use of reason.

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./

I don’t disagree…but there are things we can and do know…if we trust the teaching of the Church.

As for whether we know about individual cases or not, that is not really relevant, as the point is to establish which PRINCIPLES govern the question of salvation. The cases will then fall within or without those parameters.

I agree that we do not know with absolute certitude the disposition of another’s soul. However we can know with moral certitude. We must avoid the trap of saying that because we do not have absolute certitude we do not have certitude. Or because there are cases we cannot know about, that we can never know about any cases at all.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[palmas85]

My own take on it is that we just don’t know what happens. I do have my doubts that God sees childrens souls as essentially any different than an adults. We are all stained with original sin, every last one of us. Would God automatically remove it in case of non baptism? I don’t know and neither does the Church. God does appear to be pretty strict about most things so who can really say exactly what happens?. There are old legends that these souls may be re-born, but those are just legends although I can see that possibility.

 

[LilyM]

My own take on it is that we just don’t know what happens. I do have my doubts that God sees childrens souls as essentially any different than an adults. We are all stained with original sin, every last one of us. Would God automatically remove it in case of non baptism? I don’t know and neither does the Church.

I’m not thinking in terms of automatically remitting Original Sin either - more likely that God finds a way to offer the choice or the option to these souls to have it remitted in the same way that those over the age of reason have the choice.

I don’t think you’ve been reading this thread very carefully. I don’t believe anyone has really disputed this…the issue is those who cannot make justifying acts because they lack the use of reason.

Gorman

Not you nor anyone can possibly rightly claim with any certainty that infants or anyone lacks sufficient use of reason to make justifying acts - or else that others cannot make those justifying acts on behalf of the child as they do at baptism.

 

[Walking_Home]

He was quoting the Old Testament when he said that, Deuteronomy 6:16 to be precise - even Moses knew that bit of Scripture already, since He wrote it

It appears God has fewer problems with my sort of talk than you guys do. IF I said he owed us salvation that would be a different story, it would indeed be presumption and so one. That’s not what I’m saying, not nearly.

---

It does not matter who our Lord Jesus quoted–it what he said.

Satan led our Lord Jesus to the top of the temple and told Him–if He was the Son of God to leap off—God would not let Him be bashed on the rocks below.

Now it is the unbaptized infants being put on the top of the temple----and if God is merciful and Just --He will not let them be bashed on the rocks.

 

[TNT]

Not you nor anyone can possibly rightly claim with any certainty that infants or anyone lacks sufficient use of reason to make justifying acts - or else that others cannot make those justifying acts on behalf of the child as they do at baptism.

CATECHISM OF THE COUNSEL OF TRENT

BAPTISM OF INFANTS SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to
receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except [water] Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace **of the Sacrament **longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

 

[LilyM]

---

It does not matter who our Lord Jesus quoted–it what he said.

Satan led our Lord Jesus to the top of the temple and told Him–if He was the Son of God to leap off—God would not let Him be bashed on the rocks below.

Now it is the unbaptized infants being put on the top of the temple----and if God is merciful and Just --He will not let them be bashed on the rocks.

What matters is that God said it to Moses first, and THEN the very same Moses who heard and understood those words told God that He owed it to Israel to spare their lives! - AND God listened and spared them

You’re reading into what I’ve said the idea that I think salvation is certain for the unbaptised. I’ve never said or thought such. I’ve only ever talked about hopes and chances of salvation, never certainties.

To say salvation is certain for anyone is as senseless as to say that damnation is certain for anyone - to say either is presuming a level of knowledge of God’s mind and will that we just don’t have.

 

[LilyM]

CATECHISM OF THE COUNSEL OF TRENT

BAPTISM OF INFANTS SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to
receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except [water] Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace **of the Sacrament **longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

So whose Catechism trumps whose? Just because yours is related to the Council of Trent doesn’t make it more authoritative in itself.

Again, I said we can’t RIGHTLY presume to know such, not that some won’t think they do know.

 

[Walking_Home]

What matters is that God said it to Moses first, and THEN the very same Moses who heard and understood those words told God that He owed it to Israel to spare their lives! - AND God listened and spared them

You’re reading into what I’ve said the idea that I think salvation is certain for the unbaptised. I’ve never said or thought such. I’ve only ever talked about hopes and chances of salvation, never certainties.
To say salvation is certain for anyone is as senseless as to say that damnation is certain for anyone - to say either is presuming a level of knowledge of God’s mind and will that we just don’t have.

---

What matters is that our Lord Jesus said them.

Go back a re-read your own posts. You got to the point of saying God “owed” us—that is way beyond what you now claim above.

 

[LilyM]

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.

That’s the most I’ve ever said on the subject - I never said we’re owed salvation, merely that we’re owed an option or choice in regards to our eternal destination. That’s not stretching into presumption of salvation! And it’s less than God conceded to Moses - AFTER commanding not to be put to the test.

You’re the one who said earlier that God can do anything - except, it appears now, save the unbaptised!!! YOU are the one who is backtracking.

And Jesus, presumably, says the same thing to unbaptised babies that He has said to catechumens or martyrs who die without water baptism - ‘you can be baptised by desire or blood without being baptised by water’.

The question is how exactly baptism by desire works. Since we don’t know, we can’t assume that it’s impossible for babies to be baptised, by the desire of another person maybe, or to be given the chance after death or at the hour of death to express their desire in some way unknown to us.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by LilyM
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.

That’s the most I’ve ever said on the subject - I never said we’re owed salvation, merely that we’re owed an option or choice in regards to our eternal destination. That’s not stretching into presumption of salvation! And it’s less than God conceded to Moses - AFTER commanding not to be put to the test.

You’re the one who said earlier that God can do anything - except, it appears now, save the unbaptised!!! YOU are the one who is backtracking.

And Jesus, presumably, says the same thing to unbaptised babies that He has said to catechumens or martyrs who die without water baptism - ‘you can be baptised by desire or blood without being baptised by water’.

The question is how exactly baptism by desire works. Since we don’t know, we can’t assume that it’s impossible for babies to be baptised, by the desire of another person maybe, or to be given the chance after death or at the hour of death to express their desire in some way unknown to us.

Quote=LilyM
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!​

I included above what you left out.

So, LilyM—you say God “owes” us an option and/or SOME say—in our salvation. Now you are at the point of telling God —How to be God.

 

[LilyM]

Quote=LilyM
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!​

I included above what you left out.

So, LilyM—you say God “owes” us an option and/or SOME say—in our salvation. Now you are at the point of telling God —How to be God.

I’m no more telling God how to be God than Moses or Abraham did - and no more than those do who say confession is necessary for the remission of mortal sin, and I’m ordering God around a heck of a lot less than those who say that unbaptised persons definitely can’t be saved.

 

[MTD]

Maria, you have some invested interest in proving that an entire group of people, a very large one actually, will not be with God.

My only vested interest is to defend the constant teaching of the Church over the past centuries. I fear and mistrust the new-fangled doctrines that contradict teaching that has been unanimously held as certain by the Church, by her Fathers and Doctors. The Church didn’t start 40 years ago. It started 2000 years ago. Why the change from what has been taught as certain through all those centuries?

You have not cited anything other than your personal beliefs, which you are entitled to.

Do you want to know why? Because it doesn’t do any good; it gets dismissed. When St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas get quoted, they are dismissed as being almost certainly mistaken because they were mistaken in some controversies (they were never mistaken in non-controversial issues). When the Baltimore Catechism or Denzinger or the Catechism of the Council of Trent or the decisions of the councils are quoted, they are dismissed as being outdated (although the Church is never supposed to go back on certain doctrine; she only decides on controversial issues). When the popes, such as Pope Pius XII, are quoted, they are dismissed because after all they’re just speaking to “a bunch of nurses.” What can I do???

You have not addressed any bible verses, you have not even challenged the ones I gave you.

I have not been endowed with the ability to infallibly interpret Sacred Scripture, but the Church has. So I present the Church’s teaching, which explains those Scriptures.

REally? please explain. You really seem like you have thought about this pretty deeply.

The issue of grace is a complex issue, and it is controversial. I’d have to devote a lot of time to understanding the difference between sufficient and efficacious grace; I’d also have to study predestination. I actually have the book to do so, but this thread doesn’t give me enough time to study the info and present it. Besides, what good will it do if I do study it and recount it here? I’d most likely study St. Thomas Aquinas’s teaching on it, but he gets dismissed here.

How can one contradict the bible? He was obviouly speaking of the grace that you need to attain for Heaven.

Again, we rely on the Church to teach us the correct interpretation of Holy Scripture. The Holy Spirit, who is the author of Scripture, is needed for correct interpretation of Scripture. I do not presume to have such infallible guidance. I present the perennial teachings of the Church. That’s all.

Maria

 

[Walking_Home]

I’m no more telling God how to be God than Moses or Abraham did - and no more than those do who say confession is necessary for the remission of mortal sin, and I’m ordering God around a heck of a lot less than those who say that unbaptised persons definitely can’t be saved.

---

Really LilyM. Revealed Truth is not enough for you that you say God owes us options and/or some say in our salvation. You are telling Him—how to do His job.

 

[LilyM]

---

Really LilyM. Revealed Truth is not enough for you that you say God owes us options and/or some say in our salvation. You are telling Him—how to do His job.

And so are you, in a sense, every time you go to Confession. You think, if you don’t say and Church Teaching doesn’t say, that He owes you forgiveness because you’ve contritely and honestly confessed your sins to a priest.

You certainly assume to a greater or lesser degree that he has forgiven you, no? For example, that you’re worthy of receiving communion? Isn’t that telling him that he ‘owes’ you something? Namely forgiveness and the state of grace?

Revealed truth - as expressed in the current Catechism and the teaching of our present Holy Father and his predecessor, and many others besides - is that there IS hope for salvation for the unbaptised.

And it is certainly scriptural (and hence also revealed truth) that God desires heaven for all His children, whom he cherishes as a mother her child as Isaiah says.

 

[MTD]

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.

By nature, because a creature cannot be goodness itself, free will presupposes that one could choose between good and evil. If he can only choose good, he does not have free will. That is a whole different story from one who only chooses good in fact. Such a person still has the ability to choose evil, but the grace God gives so inclines his will that he always chooses good even though he still has the ability to choose evil. (God Himself, however, does not have the ability to choose evil because it is contrary to His very nature.)

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.

Well, God did create a person more perfect than all the angels and saints put together: the Blessed Mother. She had free will, so by nature she had the ability to choose evil. But God so showered her with His grace that she could never fail to choose good instead of the evil.

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.

I’m saying He can’t create human beings without the free will to choose evil without taking away that free will altogether. If the human beings do not have the option to commit evil, they do not have free will. BTW, that is different from the aspect of always being inclined to choose the good over the evil.

Maria

 

[Walking_Home]

And so are you, in a sense, every time you go to Confession. You think, if you don’t say and Church Teaching doesn’t say, that He owes you forgiveness because you’ve contritely and honestly confessed your sins to a priest.

You certainly assume to a greater or lesser degree that he has forgiven you, no? For example, that you’re worthy of receiving communion? Isn’t that telling him that he ‘owes’ you something? Namely forgiveness and the state of grace?

Revealed truth - as expressed in the current Catechism and the teaching of our present Holy Father and his predecessor, and many others besides - is that there IS hope for salvation for the unbaptised.

And it is certainly scriptural (and hence also revealed truth) that God desires heaven for all His children, whom he cherishes as a mother her child as Isaiah says.

---

Actually no—God does not owe us even forgiveness. He could just as well terminate us with the blink of an eye. He forgives --because he wants to forgive.

By you saying God “owes” us—you have put Him in our debt—He has become our subject—who now has an obligation to provide us with options and/or a say in our salvation.

You have put us above God.