Salvation of Unbaptized

[parvenu74]

Martyrs are people who die for their faith. These children much like aborted babies, miscarried babies, etc. did not have a knowledge of God. By your definition anyone who dies before baptism can go to heaven via “baptism of blood” which is fine. I believe that God is not bound to the means we understand.

Martyrdom relies on the intention of the one doing the killing and not on the dispositions of the one being killed. Herod ordered the death of the Holy Innocents because his intention was to kill Christ. Get it? The babies died for Christ. How much more clear of a case of martyrdom can this be? You can read more on the topic of the Holy Innocents in the Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org/cathen/07419a.htm).

 

[marybee]

Martyrdom relies on the intention of the one doing the killing and not on the dispositions of the one being killed. Herod ordered the death of the Holy Innocents because his intention was to kill Christ. Get it? The babies died for Christ. How much more clear of a case of martyrdom can this be? You can read more on the topic of the Holy Innocents in the Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org/cathen/07419a.htm).

So what are you saying? That God can not bring a person to heaven outside of the way you understand? Are you saying that God expects what is impossible?

 

[LilyM]

That only works if you can prove that Shiva or Kali (or the Amazonian equivalent) is actually the Triune God, but they are not (Psalm 95:5 “all the gods of the Gentiles are devils”). Appealing to a devil for salvation is clearly not the same as appealing to the One, True God, much less God made Man on the Cross.

A person is judged by what they have knowledge of. In the event that they have no chance for knowledge of the Christian triune God (or the Abrahamic one true God of the Muslims or the Jews for that matter), they are not bound to this. Any more than they are to Christ himself if they have no chance to know him.

 

[Dan-Man916]

The old law ends with the death of Christ…

This is a pretty interesting question the more I think about it, but ultimately you have the word of God Himself telling Saint Dismas – and all of us – that the Good Thief was justified and would be saved… He just didn’t tell us under which covenant or if this was a case of baptism of desire.

I think you are making an unneccesary distinction. My answer was directed to give a fuller understanding of what baptism is and why we baptize.
It isn’t a ritual. It is very incarnational and gets to the root of all of the sacraments, which are a participation in the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ.
The good thief participated in Christ’s passion and death literally.

 

[parvenu74]

LilyM:

A person is judged by what they have knowledge of. In the event that they have no chance for knowledge of the Christian triune God (or the Abrahamic one true God of the Muslims or the Jews for that matter), they are not bound to this. Any more than they are to Christ himself if they have no chance to know him.

Indeed. This is where baptism of desire comes in and only God can judge that. I’m just saying that positive “worship” in a “religion” which, as Sacred Scripture tells us, worships devils as Gods, the prospects for salvation are going to be significantly reduced. If such a soul is saved it’s in spite of whatever “religion” they were taught, and what determines their salvation is if they live a virtuous life in accordance with the natural law.

 

[marybee]

Every man is given sufficient grace for salvation. Not recognizing preborns or infants in that category seems very much like the pro choice movement not protecting the the preborn by the same laws that protect us.

 

[parvenu74]

Every man is given sufficient grace for salvation. Not recognizing preborns or infants in that category seems very much like the pro choice movement not protecting the the preborn by the same laws that protect us.

This is precisely why anyone who has, performs, pays for, or in some other direct way facilitates or enables an abortion is excommunicated latae sententiae (Canon 1389).

In 1588 Pope Sixtus V commanded that “anyone in the Papal States who carries out abortions and sterilizations is to be put to death” (the document is called something like “Ephrenatum” though I might have the spelling wrong). He continues:

Who, indeed, would not detest a crime as horrific as this? For it’s certain outcome is that not just bodies, but still worse, even souls are wantonly sacrificed. The soul of the unborn infant bears the imprint of God’s image. It is a soul for whose redemption Christ Our Lord shed His Precious Blood, a soul capable of eternal blessedness and destined for the company of Angels. Who, therefore, would NOT condemn and punish, with the utmost severity, the desecration committed by one who has excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God? Such a person is as responsible as a human being can be for preventing the soul’s attainment of the throne prepared for it in heaven, and has deprived God of the service of His own creature. – Pope Sixtus V

In short: abortion prevents the soul of the unborn from ever seeing God because no soul which has not been cleansed from Original Sin can go to Heaven, and this is de fide.

 

[Dan-Man916]

In short: abortion prevents the soul of the unborn from ever seeing God because no soul which has not been cleansed from Original Sin can go to Heaven, and this is de fide.

In this statement, you are assuming that it is an absolute conclusion that it is impossible for these children to be sanctified.
The Church has not said that. The Church doesn’t know. We know, by faith that Baptism with water justifies and sanctifies. This is the sure thing. That is why the Church calls for little children to be baptized.
You cannot conclude the negative from this.

 

[parvenu74]

In this statement, you are assuming that it is an absolute conclusion that it is impossible for these children to be sanctified. The Church has not said that.

The Church has very clearly taught that without baptism you cannot go to heaven. She teaches there are three modes of Baptism: water, blood, and desire.

Baptism of desire requires positive desire, which can only happen with the use of reason, so that’s not a possibility here.

If an abortionist kills the baby specifically because the parents are Catholic and to prevent this child from becoming a baptized Catholic, then you have baptism of blood. I don’t see how this could be the case unless abortion were forced on the woman for in order to prevent the growth of the Catholic Church. I don’t think this is the case anywhere in the world, not even in China.

The last option is baptism of water, which is specifically excluded from this conversation since we’re talking about non-baptized babies.

The Church teaches no other way to cleanse the soul of Original Sin than Baptism. So if desire, blood, and water are not options, how could Original Sin possibly be removed from the soul of a baby prior to death?

 

[marybee]

The Church has very clearly taught that without baptism you cannot go to heaven. She teaches there are three modes of Baptism: water, blood, and desire.

Baptism of desire requires positive desire, which can only happen with the use of reason, so that’s not a possibility here.

If an abortionist kills the baby specifically because the parents are Catholic and to prevent this child from becoming a baptized Catholic, then you have baptism of blood. I don’t see how this could be the case unless abortion were forced on the woman for in order to prevent the growth of the Catholic Church. I don’t think this is the case anywhere in the world, not even in China.

The last option is baptism of water, which is specifically excluded from this conversation since we’re talking about non-baptized babies.

The Church teaches no other way to cleanse the soul of Original Sin than Baptism. So if desire, blood, and water are not options, how could Original Sin possibly be removed from the soul of a baby prior to death?

That is ridiculous and absolutey against what JP2 said in addition to the new pope! You can only believe that if you think that they are going against the true teachings of the Church. We trust them to the MERCY of God, not the WRATH of God.

 

[paramedicgirl]

That is ridiculous and absolutey against what JP2 said in addition to the new pope! You can only believe that if you think that they are going against the true teachings of the Church. We trust them to the MERCY of God, not the WRATH of God.

This is just a subjective discussion. The truth is that trusting the unbaptized to the mercy of God is an open statement that none of us have an answer to. Nothing is defined by saying we trust them to the mercy of God. And nothing parvenu74 said places them at the wrath of God, either.

 

[parvenu74]

marybee:

That is ridiculous and absolutey against what JP2 said in addition to the new pope! You can only believe that if you think that they are going against the true teachings of the Church.

I’ve already quoted a Pope (Sixtus V) who has taught that unbaptized babies are prevented from going to heaven and cited the document. Where does the Church definitively teach that it’s possible or likely to have Original Sin removed from the soul outside of baptism? If it’s a teaching of the Church then there will be sources to cite.

 

[marybee]

The kingdom of God is not some country club where you need to know someone to get in. We are talking about the most innocent of the innocent. Do you think that a Holy loving God would make them suffer in Hell? That is absurd. We know there is no limbo. Mother Angelica had made a statement about aborted babies that I thought was incredibly insightful. She said that they are martyrs and saints like Maria Goretti who would not allow the man to abuse or rape her. The babies are in the same way Saints because they do everything possible not to allow the abortion to take place. They will move away from the needles etc. This is Mother Angelica so write her a letter if you do not like it!

Secondly, How can God expect of us what is impossible? He desires that all men be saved but he will send us to Hell for something we have no control over? Makes no sense! There are extraordinary ways to be with Christ that we don’t fully understand.

 

[parvenu74]

marybee:

We are talking about the most innocent of the innocent.

We are talking about souls who have not yet been cleansed from Original Sin, a collective guilt we all have thanks to our first father Adam.

marybee:

Do you think that a Holy loving God would make them suffer in Hell?

Nobody is saying that such souls suffer; they go to the “Limbo of the Infants” and it’s commonly held that not only is there no suffering there, but there is total, complete, and eternal natural happiness enjoyed there.

 

[marybee]

We are talking about souls who have not yet been cleansed from Original Sin, a collective guilt we all have thanks to our first father Adam.

Nobody is saying that such souls suffer; they go to the “Limbo of the Infants” and it’s commonly held that not only is there no suffering there, but there is total, complete, and eternal natural happiness enjoyed there.

Didn’t Pope Benedict just say that there was in fact no “limbo”, that is what has been all over the news the past few days.

 

[parvenu74]

marybee:

Mother Angelica had made a statement about aborted babies that I thought was incredibly insightful. She said that they are martyrs and saints like Maria Goretti who would not allow the man to abuse or rape her. The babies are in the same way Saints because they do everything possible not to allow the abortion to take place. They will move away from the needles etc. This is Mother Angelica so write her a letter if you do not like it!

The statements of Mother Angelica are not part of the teaching magisterial of the Church, and are therefore subject to fallibility. Just because she said it doesn’t make it so.

 

[Dan-Man916]

quote=parvenu74;2139870]The Church has very clearly taught that without baptism you cannot go to heaven. She teaches there are three modes of Baptism: water, blood, and desire.
And in Redemptoris Missio, the Church teaches that God is not bound only to his Sacraments.

Baptism of desire requires positive desire, which can only happen with the use of reason, so that’s not a possibility here.

What does positive desire mean? Trent limited itself to saying “or the desire thereof”. The Church has not yet defined whether that desire MUST BE explicit, or not it can also include an IMPLICIT desire. That is still an open question.
Some theologians have given opinions that the desire of the parents suffices for the faith of the child. Some have posited that the faith of the Church can suffice as well.

The Church teaches no other way to cleanse the soul of Original Sin than Baptism.

And has also said that God is not bound by his Sacraments, and can sanctify extra-sacramentally.

 

[parvenu74]

Didn’t Pope Benedict just say that there was in fact no “limbo”, that is what has been all over the news the past few days.

Did he say so as the teaching head of the Church and in a formula which makes the statement binding on all Catholics as a matter of Faith? Not everything a Pope says is infallible! An excellent case in point was Pope Benedict’s statement prior to the publication of his book on Jesus that these were his personal thoughts and not meant to be binding on Catholics. Certainly what a Pope teaches must be taken seriously by all Catholics, but if what he says is ambiguous or seems to contradict previous teaching, then you go with the clearer definition, especially if that definition was made with more force (eg: an encyclical letter versus a press conference answer).

 

[guanophore]

A priest told me that unbaptized people can get to heaven. However, when you listen to Traditionalist priests they say, with out a doubt, that unbaptized people cannot enter heaven, and that it is extremely hard for people outside of the Catholic Church to enter heaven. What is the traditional doctrine of the church, and therefore is believed by Traditionalists?

The Church has always taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. However, more recently, the Church has recognized that there are valid ecclesiastical communities outside the boundaries of the visible Catholic institution. Part of the answer to this also relates to whether the baptism was a valid one. Some protestant communities do administer the baptism the way Jesus commaned, but others do not.

Jesus is able to save anyone He wants, whether they have ever heard of the Catholic church or not. Since there is only “one body, one church, one baptism, and one Lord of all” the Church recognizes that, in some mysterious way we do not understand, all these saved persons are members of His body, and therefore, members of Christ’s church, whether they recognize that, or the Church does, or not. Jesus knows those who are His.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html

1. Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (9*) through which He communicated truth and grace to all.

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. . . .

1. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth. . .

DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

vatican.va/archive/hist_c…gratio_en.html

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

 

[marybee]

Did he say so as the teaching head of the Church and in a formula which makes the statement binding on all Catholics as a matter of Faith? Not everything a Pope says is infallible! An excellent case in point was Pope Benedict’s statement prior to the publication of his book on Jesus that these were his personal thoughts and not meant to be binding on Catholics. Certainly what a Pope teaches must be taken seriously by all Catholics, but if what he says is ambiguous or seems to contradict previous teaching, then you go with the clearer definition, especially if that definition was made with more force (eg: an encyclical letter versus a press conference answer).

Or I could just go along with what some random person on a public forum says. Why should I use reason!