Salvation of Unbaptized

[paramedicgirl]

I am just saying the word “earn” could imply, to an outside observer, that Catholics believe they earn their salvation by their own effort. This is not true, of course, and I don’t think you believe this.

God bless!

Salvation is a gift from God, and not one that we can presumptuously expect is owed to us, or must automatically be rewarded to us. We must abide by by the laws and the precepts of the Church, and love God in order to receive this gift. That is what I meant by “earn.”

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

All right. Sorry for the confusion! Have a good week!

God bless!

 

[MTD]

But what IS ‘the sacrament itself’? Certainly no-one is baptised by the mere following of the form of baptism alone. Otherwise every actor who’s ever played Jesus and every child actor who’s ever played in a baptism scene in a movie has been unintentionally baptised.

And the formal ceremony is not always required either - hence the notions of baptism of blood and desire when it is impossible to perform the actual ritual.

So the minister of baptism - either the parent or the priest or paramedic who’s baptising that child - forms the intention that makes the ceremony sacramental, yes?

…]

So why cannot an angel or saint or Christ or God the Father himself, if any of these wish the child to be cleansed of their original sin, form the same intent? And is the ceremony itself necessary if the requisite intent is there?

Yes, it is. The intention would be nothing if not accompanied by the formula. In other words, no intention on the part of any angel or saint can bring about the Baptism of another person if it is not accompanied by the baptismal formula and the washing with water.

The Baptism of Desire is an entirely different situation. It involves a desire on the part of the person to be baptized for Baptism. If you don’t believe me, just check out nos. 1258-1260 of the CCC. You’ll see that it specifically talks about, not desire on the part of others, but desire on the part of the person to be baptized. Not only that, but if infants truly had the level of reason required for Baptism of Desire, no. 1261 wouldn’t even have been written in the CCC, for it would have been superfluous. The CCC obviously recognizes the problem that infants are incapable of the desire necessary for Baptism of Desire.

We know that the ritual of Confession isn’t if Perfect Contrition and intent to confess are present.

Perfect contrition is to Confession what Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are to Baptism. Let’s compare apples to apples.

Maria

 

[LilyM]

Yes, it is. The intention would be nothing if not accompanied by the formula. In other words, no intention on the part of any angel or saint can bring about the Baptism of another person if it is not accompanied by the baptismal formula and the washing with water.

The Baptism of Desire is an entirely different situation. It involves a desire on the part of the person to be baptized for Baptism. If you don’t believe me, just check out nos. 1258-1260 of the CCC. You’ll see that it specifically talks about, not desire on the part of others, but desire on the part of the person to be baptized. Not only that, but if infants truly had the level of reason required for Baptism of Desire, no. 1261 wouldn’t even have been written in the CCC, for it would have been superfluous. The CCC obviously recognizes the problem that infants are incapable of the desire necessary for Baptism of Desire.

Perfect contrition is to Confession what Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are to Baptism. Let’s compare apples to apples.

Maria

The catechism doesn’t specifically restrict baptism of desire to catechumens alone.

And of course 1261 would still be necessary - we don’t KNOW that infants are capable of baptism of desire, neither can we be sure that they aren’t.

 

[MTD]

The catechism doesn’t specifically restrict baptism of desire to catechumens alone.

I didn’t say it did. Did you read those nos. 1258-1260?

And of course 1261 would still be necessary - we don’t KNOW that infants are capable of baptism of desire, neither can we be sure that they aren’t.

No, nos. 1259 and 1260 explain Baptism of Desire. The reason no. 1261 is tacked on at the end of that section in the CCC is because it is presumed that infants can have no Baptism of Desire, so the CCC merely says that the hope can be entertained that there is some way for infants to be saved outside Baptism.

As to whether infants are capable of Baptism of Desire, we do know they are incapable of it. An act of faith is required as part of the Baptism of Desire; it is of the essence of Baptism of Desire. And as Gorman pointed out in post #317, the Church holds that infants are incapable of making an act of faith.

Maria

 

[paramedicgirl]

The catechism doesn’t specifically restrict baptism of desire to catechumens alone.

And of course 1261 would still be necessary - we don’t KNOW that infants are capable of baptism of desire, neither can we be sure that they aren’t.

It is a stretch, but I have read that infants may receive baptism of desire by the intentions of the mother.

 

[MTD]

It is a stretch, but I have read that infants may receive baptism of desire by the intentions of the mother.

Yes, there was a theologian who thought that: Cajetan. But when he taught that doctrine in his commentary to Aquinas’s Summa, it was struck out of the commentary by the pope. In other words, it is a condemned doctrine. And rightly so; it contradicts the very idea of Baptism of Desire.

Maria

 

[Walking_Home]

It is a stretch, but I have read that infants may receive baptism of desire by the intentions of the mother.

---

Do not think that would work—we cannot desire baptism for someone else–even if the child is our own. From the time of conception they are their own person with their own soul. Baptism of desire is an act of will that a person desires for themselves.

 

[paramedicgirl]

---

Do not think that would work—we cannot desire baptism for someone else–even if the child is our own. From the time of conception they are their own person with their own soul. Baptism of desire is an act of will that a person desires for themselves.

Yes, it seems similar to the belief that one can offer up as penance the suffering of a loved one who had no intention of making the offering as their own penance.

 

[Walking_Home]

Yes, it seems similar to the belief that one can offer up as penance the suffering of a loved one who had no intention of making the offering as their own penance.

---

I had not heard of this.

 

[paramedicgirl]

---

I had not heard of this.

You will.

 

[rescath]

Yes, there was a theologian who thought that: Cajetan. But when he taught that doctrine in his commentary to Aquinas’s Summa, it was struck out of the commentary by the pope. In other words, it is a condemned doctrine. And rightly so; it contradicts the very idea of Baptism of Desire.

Maria

Yes, Cajetan had quite a few things struck out of his works – I actually feel sorry for the guy – including the “short form” theory regarding the words of consecration in the Mass, but that’s an entirely different thread

 

[MTD]

Yes, Cajetan had quite a few things struck out of his works – I actually feel sorry for the guy – including the “short form” theory regarding the words of consecration in the Mass, but that’s an entirely different thread

Yes, and he also held the theory that a heretical pope retains office.

Maria

 

[GreenJeans]

Biologists tell us that more fertilized human eggs naturally persish than are born. Therefore, the majority of the human race is not even born. What is the fate of this majority? Is salvation for the minority who are born, or does it include the majority who are not born?

 

[cor]

Biologists tell us that more fertilized human eggs naturally persish than are born. Therefore, the majority of the human race is not even born. What is the fate of this majority? Is salvation for the minority who are born, or does it include the majority who are not born?

Thomas Aquinas held that the human soul is not infused into the fetal matter until some time after the beginning of pregnancy. This doctrine was also taught by the Catechism of Trent (a teaching vehicle that those who favor Limbo seem to like):

“But what surpasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.”

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed03.htm

I want to say that that’s the last most authoritative word on the matter of ensoulment, but I don’t have the acquaintance with magisterial texts to be able to say with certainty. In any event, in Donum Vitae, the Church said it doesn’t make certain philosophical committments about the matter:

"This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person. The Congregation recalls the teachings found in the Declaration on Procured Abortion: “From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual evidence…modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the program is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time…to find its place and to be in a position to act.” (25) This teaching remains valid and is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote resulting from fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted.

"Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable. (26)

“Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.”

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/donumvitae.htm

So the Church has not said that the rational soul is infused at fertilization. If Aquinas and the Catechism of Trent are right, then the question you pose is not applicable. The souls that would have been created would be created with the help of different parents or would not be created at all.

 

[FTS]

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

This is your personal interpretation of baptism of desire. There is no official understanding explaining to whom this truth can extend. We obviously differ in our personal opinions on the matter. There is no official Church teaching that clarifies is baptism of desire could extend to infants. Also, oddly enough, the first theory, in which you made no rebuttal towards, is what I feel is most plausible, that preceding the moment of death they are given an infusion of free will and reason, and God presents them the choice to deny or accept Him. This may be a choice to accept Him or deny Him, or a some sort of moral test for them, similar towards the way in which the angels were tested, the good entering Heaven and the bad entering Hell. I do not believe that God would make it impossible for someone to be with Him in Heaven forever, I believe strongly that He gives all people this opportunity to accept Him.

But I recognize all three of those possible theories as valid and plausible. I feel that baptism of desire can extend towards all those under the age of reason, and those who do not truly possess free will and reason, like a mentally retarded person. According to your position, a mentally retarded person of a non-Christian family, an aborted baby, or a baby who dies days unexpectantly before their scheduled baptism, all of whom will never experience water baptism, have no chance at entering Heaven to be with God. I do not agree. I think God is perfectly just, merciful, and loving, and allows all His children the opportunity to be with Him in Heaven forever, despite the unique circumstances they face in this life. I don’t think God bans His innocent children from His heavenly kingdom, but rather welcomes them with open arms.

 

[FTS]

Yes, we all inherit the sin of Adam and Even, Original Sin. Yet this sin is analogical in nature, it is not committed sin. Obviously an innocent child cannot commit sin. We are guilty of Original Sin from the moment of conception, but if you can’t tell the difference between Original Sin and personal, committed sin, you have a major problem. We are born with Original Sin, and at baptsim this sin is washed away and the Holy Trinity dwells within us, putting us in a state of grace. A baby IS innocent, as it has committed no personal sin. Calling babies anything other than innocent and precious in God’s eyes is quite contrary to Christianity. Original sin is NOT the same as committed sin. This is just common sense.

Also, in order to be saved, a person must be baptised and have their Original Sin washed away. I believe that infants can be baptised by desire, which would wash away Original Sin. This is consistent belief, and in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Limbo is not an infallible doctrine, but rather theological speculation. And let me also make it known that I am in good company when I state that I believe these infants can be saved. Pope Benedict XVI is on my side. In 1985 he spoke of his personal opinion on the matter, rejecting Limbo.

 

[FTS]

Biologists tell us that more fertilized human eggs naturally persish than are born. Therefore, the majority of the human race is not even born. What is the fate of this majority? Is salvation for the minority who are born, or does it include the majority who are not born?

From what I have heard, this is just total speculation among biologists, nobody really knows how often this happens. Personally I believe these babies will enter into Heaven, and be baptised by desire, via one of the three theories I have previously talked about. Here, I will re-state them for you…

1. Preceding the moment of death they are given an infusion of free will and reason, and God presents them the choice to deny or accept Him. This may be a choice to accept Him or deny Him, or a some sort of moral test for them, similar towards the way in which the angels were tested, the good entering Heaven and the bad entering Hell. I do not believe that God would make it impossible for someone to be with Him in Heaven forever, I believe strongly that He gives all people this opportunity to 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 lack free will and reason, some would say immediately preceding death this built-in desire for God would create a valid baptism of desire.

I do not believe that God would make it impossible for someone to be with Him in Heaven forever, I believe strongly that He gives all people this opportunity to accept Him. I hope we all can realize that Limbo is not an infallible teaching of the Church, but rather is merely theological speculation. In the past this was the leading belief of the Church on this subject. It appears currently the leading belief on this subject is the hope for eternal salvation for these individuals, as has been spoken of by Pope JPII, Pope Benedict XVI, and many Church theologians. A faithful Catholic may hold either opinion, just as creationism vs. theistic evolution, personal preference of Tridentine vs. Novus Ordo, personal preference of celibate priesthood vs. married priesthood, etc…

 

[MTD]

This is your personal interpretation of baptism of desire.

No, it is not. It is the understanding proposed in all the theology and catechetical texts I’ve encountered. To name a few:

Catholic Encyclopedia, “Baptism”:

“The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. …] Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.”

Catechism of St. Pius X:

“Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.”

An Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead:

"59 Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

“‘Ardent wish’ by one who has no opportunity of being baptized–for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible.”

Summa Theologica, III, Q. 68, A. 2:

“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of ‘faith that worketh by charity,’ whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly.”

Summa Theologica, III, Q. 66, A. 11:

“In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.”

The CCC doesn’t say much about Baptism of Desire, but in what it does say, it implies the same thing; i.e., the desire must be on the part of the person baptized.

I do not believe that God would make it impossible for someone to be with Him in Heaven forever, I believe strongly that He gives all people this opportunity to accept Him.

This seems similar to saying you do not believe God could, in justice, have denied the Redemption to us and left us in Original Sin. He needed to grant us the Redemption because otherwise He would be making it impossible for us to be with Him in heaven forever.

Limbo is not an infallible doctrine, but rather theological speculation.

Limbo may not be certain doctrine, but the doctrine that those without the use of reason are incapable of Baptism of Desire is, as is also the doctrine that no one can enter heaven without Baptism by water, blood, or desire.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

Yes, we all inherit the sin of Adam and Even, Original Sin. Yet this sin is analogical in nature, it is not committed sin. Obviously an innocent child cannot commit sin. We are guilty of Original Sin from the moment of conception, but if you can’t tell the difference between Original Sin and personal, committed sin, you have a major problem. We are born with Original Sin, and at baptsim this sin is washed away and the Holy Trinity dwells within us, putting us in a state of grace. A baby IS innocent, as it has committed no personal sin. Calling babies anything other than innocent and precious in God’s eyes is quite contrary to Christianity. Original sin is NOT the same as committed sin. This is just common sense.

Dear FTS:

The Church teaches us the difference between original sin and actual sin. Infants are guilty of original sin by generation. They are not guilty of any actual personal sin. This should be quite clear by now.

Also, in order to be saved, a person must be baptised and have their Original Sin washed away. I believe that infants can be baptised by desire, which would wash away Original Sin.
This is consistent belief, and in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

No it is not. Pope Pius XII was quite clear in his Address to Midwives. He was expressing the Church’s consistent teaching.

Again, from that address (by a Pope, on a subject of faith and morals):

Supernatural life
If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.

Limbo is not an infallible doctrine, but rather theological speculation.

This is false. Limbo is not defined dogma…but it is not a subject of free opinion, which is what you are saying. It is certain doctrine. I mean by this that one who denies limbo either puts the unbaptised infants in the Hell of the damned…or in Heaven. There is no other choice. The Church teaches that they are not in the hell of the damned…nor are they in Heaven. In that sense…one cannot deny limbo without creating a situation where he must contradict Church doctrine that is either certain or de fide.

And let me also make it known that I am in good company when I state that I believe these infants can be saved. Pope Benedict XVI is on my side. In 1985 he spoke of his personal opinion on the matter, rejecting Limbo.

Yes, you are in his company. You are incorrect however…and that should bother everyone. Both you and he are denying certain doctrine.

Gorman