Salvation of Unbaptized

[GreenJeans]

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.

That’s very interesting. Consider the ramifications of the idea that the fertilized egg has no soul in the debate over abortion.

 

[gorman64]

That’s very interesting. Consider the ramifications of the idea that the fertilized egg has no soul in the debate over abortion.

Abortion has been condemned many times. See the encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii.

1. But another very grave crime is to be noted, Venerable Brethren, which regards the taking of the life of the offspring hidden in the mother’s womb. Some wish it to be allowed and left to the will of the father or the mother; others say it is unlawful unless there are weighty reasons which they call by the name of medical, social, or eugenic “indication.” Because this matter falls under the penal laws of the state by which the destruction of the offspring begotten but unborn is forbidden, these people demand that the “indication,” which in one form or another they defend, be recognized as such by the public law and in no way penalized. There are those, moreover, who ask that the public authorities provide aid for these death-dealing operations, a thing, which, sad to say, everyone knows is of very frequent occurrence in some places.

1. As to the “medical and therapeutic indication” to which, using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is gravely imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: “Thou shalt not kill:”[50] The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it. It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty; nor is there here question of defense by bloodshed against an unjust aggressor (for who would call an innocent child an unjust aggressor?); again there is not question here of what is called the “law of extreme necessity” which could even extend to the direct killing of the innocent. Upright and skillful doctors strive most praiseworthily to guard and preserve the lives of both mother and child; on the contrary, those show themselves most unworthy of the noble medical profession who encompass the death of one or the other, through a pretense at practicing medicine or through motives of misguided pity.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s very interesting. Consider the ramifications of the idea that the fertilized egg has no soul in the debate over abortion.

The soul is not the intellect; it’s the life (volitional movement) of the body.

The reason the Fathers of Trent and St. Thomas thought that the soul didn’t come until after conception was that they didn’t detect any volitional movement in the zygote.

Today, we know that at the very moment that the sperm hits the centre of the egg, it begins to move volitionally and intentionally - it begins to swim towards the womb. Therefore, we have souls (we are alive) at the moment of conception. The modern Church doesn’t doubt this.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is veering off topic. Please keep to the original topic or start another one to discuss side issues. Thank you.

 

[parvenu74]

The soul is not the intellect; it’s the life (volitional movement) of the body.

The reason the Fathers of Trent and St. Thomas thought that the soul didn’t come until after conception was that they didn’t detect any volitional movement in the zygote.

Today, we know that at the very moment that the sperm hits the centre of the egg, it begins to move volitionally and intentionally - it begins to swim towards the womb. Therefore, we have souls (we are alive) at the moment of conception. The modern Church doesn’t doubt this.

And because we are alive – that is, we have an immortal soul – at the moment of conception, it’s imperative for that soul to receive baptism as soon as possible (typically about nine months later) because we can’t get to heaven otherwise.

There… that should veer us back toward being on-topic. Hopefully.

 

[jmcrae]

And because we are alive – that is, we have an immortal soul – at the moment of conception, it’s imperative for that soul to receive baptism as soon as possible (typically about nine months later) because we can’t get to heaven otherwise.

There… that should veer us back toward being on-topic. Hopefully.

Thank you!!

 

[FTS]

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

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.
QUOTE=MTD;2165150]

There have been no official declaration as to whether baptism
could be applied to infants. I feel it could. Catholic apologists have spoken of this possibility. The Catechism of the Catholic Church talks of hope for the salvation of these infants, but does not go into further speculation as to how this is possible. I feel it is possible via baptism of desire.

QUOTE=MTD;2165150]

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.
QUOTE=MTD;2165150]

I’m not saying God has to redeem us, He chose to out of His great mercy and love. I’m not saying that God ever HAD to give us the opportunity to accept us. What I am saying is that I feel He gives all people the opportunity to be with Him in Heaven forever, that He doesn’t expect the impossible, and He deals with each of us in our own unique circumstances.

QUOTE=MTD;2165150]

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.

QUOTE=MTD;2165150]

It is the teaching of the Church that one must be baptised in order to achieve eternal salvation. However, Limbo is no certain doctrine, and neither is the definition and extension to whom the baptism of desire could be applied. Through the possible baptism of desire methods I talked about, the 2nd or 3rd would not require the ability of reason (2nd was prayers of angels or saints supernaturally create a baptism of desire for the person, 3rd was from moment of conception all people have a built in desire for God their Creator, and for those under age of reason or those incapable of true free will and reason, such as the mentally retarded, since they are innocent and have not chosen to reject God, are supernaturally baptised by desire immediately preceding death, via this built-in desire for God). The first theory, that God supernaturally infuses these individuals with free will and reason before death, and that they can choose to accept or reject Him, would require possessing reason and free will.

Also, I remind all those who adhere to beliefs in Limbo…you are saying that all those who are mentally retarded and live in non-Christian homes, those infants who die before their scheduled baptism, aborted babies, miscarried babies, etc… are banned from Heaven, and are destined forever to Limbo, with no possibility of entering Heaven. I disagree, and feel they could be baptised by desire.

 

[FTS]

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

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 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

There have been no official declaration as to whether baptism
could be applied to infants. I feel it could. Catholic apologists have spoken of this possibility. The Catechism of the Catholic Church talks of hope for the salvation of these infants, but does not go into further speculation as to how this is possible. I feel it is possible via baptism of desire.

I’m not saying God has to redeem us, He chose to out of His great mercy and love. I’m not saying that God ever HAD to give us the opportunity to accept us. What I am saying is that I feel He gives all people the opportunity to be with Him in Heaven forever, that He doesn’t expect the impossible, and He deals with each of us in our own unique circumstances.

It is the teaching of the Church that one must be baptised in order to achieve eternal salvation. However, Limbo is no certain doctrine, and neither is the definition and extension to whom the baptism of desire could be applied. Through the possible baptism of desire methods I talked about, the 2nd or 3rd would not require the ability of reason (2nd was prayers of angels or saints supernaturally create a baptism of desire for the person, 3rd was from moment of conception all people have a built in desire for God their Creator, and for those under age of reason or those incapable of true free will and reason, such as the mentally retarded, since they are innocent and have not chosen to reject God, are supernaturally baptised by desire immediately preceding death, via this built-in desire for God). The first theory, that God supernaturally infuses these individuals with free will and reason before death, and that they can choose to accept or reject Him, would require possessing reason and free will.

Also, I remind all those who adhere to beliefs in Limbo…you are saying that all those who are mentally retarded and live in non-Christian homes, those infants who die before their scheduled baptism, aborted babies, miscarried babies, etc… are banned from Heaven, and are destined forever to Limbo, with no possibility of entering Heaven. I disagree, and feel they could be baptised by desire.

 

[FTS]

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.

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):

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.

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

Gorman

1. I know, I was pointing this out to a person who seemed confused, the person acted as if Original Sin is a personally committed sin that a baby is guilty of, rather than realizing that this sin is analogical in nature, not personally committed, and is inherited through the sin of Adam and Eve.
2. That was Pope Pius XII’s personal opinion, not an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. It appears that both Pope JPII and Pope Benedict XVI have personal opinions that these individuals will be saved by God’s great mercy and love. This drives the point home that my opinion is just as acceptable as yours.
3. Your analysis is deeply flawed. The Church does NOT teach that these individuals cannot enter Heaven. There simply is no revealed revelation on this subject. They may go to Limbo, they may go to Heaven, we do not know with CERTAINTY. Believing that they go to Limbo, or that they go to Heaven, is perfectly acceptable according to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Those who act as if Limbo is an infallible doctrine of the Church are very erroneous.
4. Pope Benedict XVI and I are OBVIOUSLY not denying certain doctrine. Faithful Catholics CAN believe that these individuals can enter Heaven. Faithful Catholics CANNOT deny the fact that we may hold this position. Similarily, I as a faithful Catholic cannot deny you the right to hold your personal opinion on the matter. LIMBO IS NOT INFALLIBLE DOCTRINE!!! If everyone would understand this simple truth, I think it would be very helpful.

 

[FTS]

The soul is not the intellect; it’s the life (volitional movement) of the body.

The reason the Fathers of Trent and St. Thomas thought that the soul didn’t come until after conception was that they didn’t detect any volitional movement in the zygote.

Today, we know that at the very moment that the sperm hits the centre of the egg, it begins to move volitionally and intentionally - it begins to swim towards the womb. Therefore, we have souls (we are alive) at the moment of conception. The modern Church doesn’t doubt this.

Exactly. At the moment of conception, a human person is present, posessing a soul.

 

[FTS]

And because we are alive – that is, we have an immortal soul – at the moment of conception, it’s imperative for that soul to receive baptism as soon as possible (typically about nine months later) because we can’t get to heaven otherwise.

There… that should veer us back toward being on-topic. Hopefully.

Yes, baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, but this can be via water, desire, or blood. I believe that infants can be baptised by desire.

 

[MTD]

However, Limbo is no certain doctrine, and neither is the definition and extension to whom the baptism of desire could be applied.

This is incorrect. The definition of Baptism of Desire presupposes a human act (that is, an act involving reason) on the part of the person to be baptized. This is the only possible interpretation of the teachings of the Church and her Doctors and theologians. Baptism of Desire is de fide doctrine, and this de fide doctrine is described by St. Alphonsus Liguori:

“Perfect conversion to God through contrition or love of God above all things, with the explicit or implicit desire [voto] for true Baptism of water, in whose place it may supply, according to the Council of Trent.”

…]

"It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.” (Theologia Moralis, ed. nova. [Rome: Vatican 1909] 3:96-7)

Through the possible baptism of desire methods I talked about, the 2nd or 3rd would not require the ability of reason

The 2nd and 3rd methods you mentioned are contrary to de fide doctrine; they are heretical.

3rd was from moment of conception all people have a built in desire for God their Creator, and for those under age of reason or those incapable of true free will and reason, such as the mentally retarded, since they are innocent and have not chosen to reject God, are supernaturally baptised by desire immediately preceding death, via this built-in desire for God.

The logical conclusion from this is that these infants have the built-in capacity to commit mortal sin. If they have the ability to love God and to will to receive Baptism, then they also have the ability to reject Him by committing mortal sin.

The first theory, that God supernaturally infuses these individuals with free will and reason before death, and that they can choose to accept or reject Him, would require possessing reason and free will.

God doesn’t usually work outside the natural order He establishes, whether it’s in regard to the natural life (as in the use of reason) or to the supernatural life (as in the means of salvation). To say otherwise is basically to say He changes His mind or made a mistake He needs to undo; I mean, why didn’t He establish a different order in the first place so He doesn’t have to make all those exceptions?

Saying that He infuses reason into these infants is saying that exceptions are the norm. Why did He even establish the necessity for human acts in Baptism of Desire if so many millions and millions of times He has to intervene in the natural order to make this possible for those who would not be able to make those human acts? Why didn’t He just do away with that necessity altogether or at least make it conditional on whether the individual in question actually has the use of reason?

Maria

 

[MTD]

Your analysis is deeply flawed. The Church does NOT teach that these individuals cannot enter Heaven. There simply is no revealed revelation on this subject. They may go to Limbo, they may go to Heaven, we do not know with CERTAINTY. Believing that they go to Limbo, or that they go to Heaven, is perfectly acceptable according to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Those who act as if Limbo is an infallible doctrine of the Church are very erroneous.

No, the Church does teach that infants not baptized by water or blood cannot enter heaven. It is not de fide, but I believe it is certain. Let me illustrate:

It is de fide that those without the use of reason are incapable of Baptism of Desire. This is shown by the quote from St. Alphonsus in my last post.

Now a certain doctrine is strictly deduced from one revealed premise and one rational premise. Our revealed premise is shown by St. Alphonsus; our rational premise is based on the rational truth that infants lack the use of reason. So we get this syllogism:

Revealed premise: Those without the use of reason are incapable of Baptism of Desire.
Rational premise: Infants are without the use of reason.
Conclusion: Infants are incapable of Baptism of Desire.

Thus it is theologically certain that infants cannot by baptized by desire. If then they are incapable of Baptism of Desire and have not been baptized by water or blood, it follows that they cannot enter heaven because it is de fide that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Again, this is a theologically certain doctrine, as is shown by the following syllogism:

Revealed premise: Those not baptized by water, blood, or desire cannot enter heaven.
Rational premise: Infants not baptized by water or blood are not baptized by water, blood, or desire.
Conclusion: Infants not baptized by water or blood cannot enter heaven.

You see, these may not be de fide doctrines and thus it is not strictly heretical to deny them, but they are nevertheless certain doctrines. And it is a mortal sin to reject certain doctrines.

Pope Benedict XVI and I are OBVIOUSLY not denying certain doctrine.

More correctly, you are not denying de fide doctrine, but you are denying certain doctrine.

LIMBO IS NOT INFALLIBLE DOCTRINE!!! If everyone would understand this simple truth, I think it would be very helpful.

Yes, limbo is not de fide doctrine, nor is it even certain doctrine. But the underlying doctrines are. So if you want to deny limbo, you must say the infants go to the hell of the damned because it is certain they do not go to heaven. The choice is between limbo and hell, not heaven and limbo/hell.

Maria

 

[litllulu]

Maria, I am just going to say what everyone is thinking…GIVE IT UP!

You already got the salvation and hope post shut down.
You are not convincing…Your arguments are not even correct… stop posting a hundred times, and listen to what others are saying. Youre arguing out of ignorance and in total contrast to what the Pope and the Catholic Church says.

 

[LilyM]

No, the Church does teach that infants not baptized by water or blood cannot enter heaven. It is not de fide, but I believe it is certain. Let me illustrate:

It is de fide that those without the use of reason are incapable of Baptism of Desire. This is shown by the quote from St. Alphonsus in my last post.

Now a certain doctrine is strictly deduced from one revealed premise and one rational premise. Our revealed premise is shown by St. Alphonsus; our rational premise is based on the rational truth that infants lack the use of reason. So we get this syllogism:

Revealed premise: Those without the use of reason are incapable of Baptism of Desire.
Rational premise: Infants are without the use of reason.
Conclusion: Infants are incapable of Baptism of Desire.

Thus it is theologically certain that infants cannot by baptized by desire. If then they are incapable of Baptism of Desire and have not been baptized by water or blood, it follows that they cannot enter heaven because it is de fide that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Again, this is a theologically certain doctrine, as is shown by the following syllogism:

Revealed premise: Those not baptized by water, blood, or desire cannot enter heaven.
Rational premise: Infants not baptized by water or blood are not baptized by water, blood, or desire.
Conclusion: Infants not baptized by water or blood cannot enter heaven.

You see, these may not be de fide doctrines and thus it is not strictly heretical to deny them, but they are nevertheless certain doctrines. And it is a mortal sin to reject certain doctrines.

More correctly, you are not denying de fide doctrine, but you are denying certain doctrine.

Yes, limbo is not de fide doctrine, nor is it even certain doctrine. But the underlying doctrines are. So if you want to deny limbo, you must say the infants go to the hell of the damned because it is certain they do not go to heaven. The choice is between limbo and hell, not heaven and limbo/hell.

Maria

The problem here lies firstly in the premise that infants are without sufficient use of reason for baptism of desire - that is speculation pure and simple, not a rational premise.

Even if naturally an infant is without sufficient reason it is both possible and entirely consistent with the known and revealed nature of God who desires salvation for all that at some point before death each infant would be supernaturally infused with sufficient reason to be baptised by desire if they so wish. Of course if they are endowed with reason that reason can be exercised in a choice against God, so I am not implying that all infants are automatically saved or automatically cleansed of Original Sin.

Whereas the very idea of a God who damns children either to hell or to limbo through no fault and no choice of their own seems entirely inconsistent with the known nature of God - every bit as inconsistent as a God who saves people through no merit and no choice of their own.

The second problem is that it has never been definitively stated that a person cannot be baptised by the desire of another - at least not that I’ve ever seen anywhere. If I am wrong on this please show me the writing where is stated that one cannot be baptised by another’s desire. (And please, no Aquinas or Augustine, great though they are, I mean something with some Magisterial weight)

 

[litllulu]

Maria, I am just going to say what everyone is thinking…GIVE IT UP!

You already got the salvation and hope post shut down.
You are not convincing…Your arguments are narrow and not even correct…it just sounds ignorant.

 

[jmcrae]

The problem here lies firstly in the premise that infants are without sufficient use of reason for baptism of desire - that is speculation pure and simple, not a rational premise.

We can’t have it both ways. Either babies have the use of reason, and therefore can have baptism of desire, or they don’t, and when we baptize them, they are safe from the effects of sin until they reach the age of reason, which (by long-standing custom) we figure is about age seven or so, which is when we start sending them to Confession and giving them Holy Communion.

Even if naturally an infant is without sufficient reason it is both possible and entirely consistent with the known and revealed nature of God who desires salvation for all that at some point before death each infant would be supernaturally infused with sufficient reason to be baptised by desire if they so wish. Of course if they are endowed with reason that reason can be exercised in a choice against God, so I am not implying that all infants are automatically saved or automatically cleansed of Original Sin.

Both this and the concept of Limbo are what make the most sense to me. As others in this thread keep pointing out, there is nothing in the deposit of Revelation to help us out here, and Maria is just as likely to be right as you are.

 

[LilyM]

We can’t have it both ways. Either babies have the use of reason, and therefore can have baptism of desire, or they don’t, and when we baptize them, they are safe from the effects of sin until they reach the age of reason, which (by long-standing custom) we figure is about age seven or so, which is when we start sending them to Confession and giving them Holy Communion.

I would suggest the possibility that you can actually have it both ways. It’s possible that the threshold of reasoning ability in regards to personal sin, and hence confession, is set significantly higher than that required for original sin and baptism by desire.

But as you rightly point out there’s very little in the way of guidance from the deposit of Revelation here. I’d only say that if I err I’d much prefer to err on the side of hope than hopelessness.

 

[Walking_Home]

I would suggest the possibility that you can actually have it both ways. It’s possible that the threshold of reasoning ability in regards to personal sin, and hence confession, is set significantly higher than that required for original sin and baptism by desire.

But as you rightly point out there’s very little in the way of guidance from the deposit of Revelation here. I’d only say that if I err I’d much prefer to err on the side of hope than hopelessness.

---

I never saw limbo as hopelessness. It does reconcile revealed Truth and God mercy. To err on the side of believing the unbaptized do attain heaven—well that is going against what God Himself willed for us to know.

 

[LilyM]

I never saw limbo as hopelessness. It does reconcile revealed Truth and God mercy. To err on the side of believing the unbaptized do attain heaven—well that is going against what God Himself willed for us to know.

It may be ever so just, and ever so much within God’s rights, but it’s certainly the opposite of merciful for God to damn a child who is too young to have a choice or say in the matter eternally to a suburb of hell - purely because of what their parents may have failed to do or been literally unable to do.

In your opinion these children have never even had a hope at heaven - how is that not hopeLESS???