Salvation of Unbaptized

  • Thread starter Thread starter mattheus09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Dan-Man916:
And has also said that God is not bound by his Sacraments, and can sanctify extra-sacramentally.
Click to expand...
1.The only way to God is through Jesus: “Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)
  1. The only way to Jesus is through the Church founded by Him for the salvation of all souls. Hence the dogma: “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus–Outside of the Church there is no salvation.”
  2. We enter into the Church of Christ through Baptism which removes the stain of Original Sin form the soul and gives us the life of Sanctifying Grace, without which we cannot enter into heaven.
 
guanophore said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not debating that point at all. Anyone can be the minister of Baptism; a Jew can baptize a Muslim, a Hindu can baptize a pagan, etc. The Church has always taught this.
 
rpp said:
Many early martyrs, some canonized saints, were never baptized.
Click to expand...
The martyrs didn’t need baptism of water because martyrdom is baptism of blood. From the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Baptism:
The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: “Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven” (verse 32); and: “He that shall lose his life for me shall find it” (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Adv. Valent., ii) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tr. lxxiv in Joan.): “He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him.” This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults. (Cf. Francisco Suárez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)
Click to expand...
 
Dan-Man916 said:
And has also said that God is not bound by his Sacraments, and can sanctify extra-sacramentally.
Click to expand...
:amen:

We know, for example, that God is not bound by the sacrament of Confession. He permits remission of mortal sin, and hence salvation and heaven, though not a return to the sacraments, if a person evinces perfect contrition.

We know He is not bound by the sacrament of Confirmation - the Apostles certainly received the Holy Spirit without any laying on of hands or anointing with oil or any such.

Where does it say that God is bound to only remit Original Sin by the sacrament of baptism? Every statement that salvation is possible for non-Christians and non-Catholics (which statements are required belief for every faithful Catholic) is another argument in favour of it being possible for unbaptised babies as well.

God’s mercy is fathomless beyond our understanding. So are all his ways. We are bound to what we know, God is certainly not! And we can’t say with any degree of certainty that unbaptised children are bound to what we know either.
 
paramedicgirl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly! 👍

I don’t think much about whether the unbaptized can make it into heaven or not. I evangelize. For those who die unbaptized (from unborn child to old, faithful Hindu), I will still pray for God’s mercy.

I don’t feel the need to make a pronouncement of condemnation on anyone.
 
LilyM said:
Where does it say that God is bound to only remit Original Sin by the sacrament of baptism? Every statement that salvation is possible for non-Christians and non-Catholics (which statements are required belief for every faithful Catholic) is another argument in favour of it being possible for unbaptised babies as well.
Click to expand...
Let’s separate apples from oranges, please. The question of salvation for non-Christians (by definition, non-Catholics are non-Christians; if you want to debate that, start another thread and I’ll dive into it with you) is a question of Baptism of desire, of which only God can be the judge. It’s a question of the acts of a person who has the use of reason, which is not the case with babies.

Babies do not have the use of reason. They cannot merit and they cannot sin. The question in this thread has only to do with babies who die without receiving baptism. Is it possible that there are extra-Sacramental means of being cleansed from Original Sin? Sure; but it’s not known to us nor are any taught by the Church. But that’s not the point of this discussion either. It’s about the unbaptized and can they be saved. The Church says no. Discuss all of the tangents and side topics you want, but the central point is this: no person who has not been baptized can enter heaven. This is de fide. End of story.
 
parvenu74 said:
Let’s separate apples from oranges, please. The question of salvation for non-Christians (by definition, non-Catholics are non-Christians; if you want to debate that, start another thread and I’ll dive into it with you) is a question of Baptism of desire, of which only God can be the judge. It’s a question of the acts of a person who has the use of reason, which is not the case with babies.

Babies do not have the use of reason. They cannot merit and they cannot sin. The question in this thread has only to do with babies who die without receiving baptism. Is it possible that there are extra-Sacramental means of being cleansed from Original Sin? Sure; but it’s not known to us nor are any taught by the Church. But that’s not the point of this discussion either. It’s about the unbaptized and can they be saved. The Church says no. Discuss all of the tangents and side topics you want, but the central point is this: no person who has not been baptized can enter heaven. This is de fide. End of story.
Click to expand...
You are the one who appears to be making the false distinction here. The church in all of its teachings that I have read simply refers to the ‘unbaptised’ and applies one and the same teaching to all, child and adult alike. No mention of ‘only those beyond the age of reason’ or any such, not that I’ve seen.

Which teaching is this and this only: that salvation is indeed possible for them and that we resign them to God’s mercy.

I may point out that this is the same as we are bidden to do for proven sinners such as suicides as well, since we cannot definitively pronounce any individual to be in hell! Not even the most hardened of sinners, a Hitler or a Stalin - and THAT, you can bank on it, is de fide.

God alone determines the fate of souls, and he does so by means that are between him and those souls alone and no-one else, except *possibly, *and partially at best, their religious instructors and parents. THAT too is de fide.

I’ve never seen a distinction made in Church teaching between unbaptised babies and unbaptised adults. Show me where such a distinction is made in any of the catechisms or any other official document.
 
parvenu74 said:
1.The only way to God is through Jesus: “Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)
  1. The only way to Jesus is through the Church founded by Him for the salvation of all souls. Hence the dogma: “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus–Outside of the Church there is no salvation.”
  2. We enter into the Church of Christ through Baptism which removes the stain of Original Sin form the soul and gives us the life of Sanctifying Grace, without which we cannot enter into heaven.
Click to expand...
Yes, undoubtedly. However, neither of those three things negates anything I said before. Extra-sacramental sanctification doesn’t negate any of that, so i don’t know what your point is.
 
The_Iambic_Pen said:
Forgive me, but I fail to see how these are not contradictory statements.
Click to expand...
AMEN!

You cannot say on the one hand that people can be cleansed of original sin by unspecified means other than baptism, and on the other hand that no-one who is unbaptised is cleansed of original sin.

Surely you do not presume to do more than the Church has ever done, and purport to bind God to particular ways of cleansing people of original sin???
 
On the issue of unbaptized infants listen to audiosancto.com/audio/20070422_Sermon_GoodShepherdSunday_OnLimbo.mp3

Also read “Could Limbo Be Abolished?” by Father Brian W. Harrison, O.S. He is theologian at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico.

It has always been the doctrine of the Church that unbaptized infants cannot enter Heaven because they die with Original Sin on their souls. And they cannot receive a Baptism of Desire because they have not the Use of Reason.
 
The_Iambic_Pen said:
Forgive me, but I fail to see how these are not contradictory statements.
Click to expand...
Either contradictory or said with an ironic tone. The antecedent to the “sure possibly” was that God is not bound to only remit Original Sin by Baptism. Sure, possible. Who knows the mind of God but God Himself? What I do know is what the Church teaches on the matter and that is this: no one who is not Baptized enters into Heaven. If you want me to drop the irony/contradiction, then drop the “Sure, possible” clause.
 
mattheus09 said:
It has always been the doctrine of the Church that unbaptized infants cannot enter Heaven because they die with Original Sin on their souls. And they cannot receive a Baptism of Desire because they are not at the Age of Reason.
Click to expand...
It has never been a doctrine. It has been a common teaching based upon theologians trying to recognize the need for baptism to enter thekingdom of heaven and God’s universal will that all be saved.

However, a common teaching and a doctrine are quite different things. The Church has never established that an infant that dies has absolutely no way of being sanctified. The Church admits the possibility and the hope that God somehow makes a way for these to be saved. It is not an assurance of faith, but it is founded in the virtue of hope.
 
Dan-Man916 said:
It has never been a doctrine. It has been a common teaching based upon theologians trying to recognize the need for baptism to enter thekingdom of heaven and God’s universal will that all be saved.

However, a common teaching and a doctrine are quite different things. The Church has never established that an infant that dies has absolutely no way of being sanctified. The Church admits the possibility and the hope that God somehow makes a way for these to be saved. It is not an assurance of faith, but it is founded in the virtue of hope.
Click to expand...
Saint Augustin said
“Whoever says that infants are alive in Christ even when they depart this life without being baptized is really both opposing the Apostolic Preaching and condemning the whole Church which runs hastily with infants to the baptismal font because it is believed without any doubt that otherwise these infants cannot possibly be alive in Christ”
Click to expand...
and
“If you want to be a Catholic do not believe, do not say, do not teach that infants carried off by death before they are baptized can obtain the remission of Original Sin.”
Click to expand...
Saint Augustin is a Doctor of the Church.
 
It is impossible to answer the poll, since we have no way of knowing what happens to unbaptized people after they die.

Some of them (those who are invincibly ignorant of the Church during this life), could potentially, in some way known only to God, become joined to the Church and go to Heaven. Others would not. But we have no way of knowing which, or by what criteria they are judged.

We can only know by what criteria we are judged, which is that we are to follow the teachings of the Church, and make use of her Sacraments as befits our station in life.
 
Is every utterance of St. Augustine the Tradition of the Church?
No doubt that he said this. The Church has not adopted this view as doctrine, however.
One is free to hold this opinion, I don’t deny that. However, it is equally valid to hold the opinion of the Church in the Catechism that they are entrusted to the mercy of God in the hope of their salvation.
My issue is with those who do not recognize that the teaching of the CHurch on this matter in the Catechism (which by the way is also the teaching of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches) is equally as valid as common teaching.

As the Church is universal, and there is no universal consensus among our Byzantine brothers in this area, it is not hard to see that limbo is not doctrine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top