Salvation of Unbaptized

[jmcrae]

This is getting incredibly absurd. You say God created Hell? Why would he need to? That is insane. So God created Hell for the punishment of the damned.

God created Hell to be the abode of Satan and his demons, since they rejected His authority in Heaven.

Is there a devil with a pitchfork,and horns stoking the fires of Hell too??? If you say “yes” you can not on the other side of your mouth say that there is a realm of this idea of hell with perfect happiness. That is a CRAZY argument. I can see it now, “Here Satan, take all these babies into your lake of fire, but make sure they are in total happiness”

This, I agree with. It is absurd to think that Hell is anything like the popular cartoon. Strictly speaking, Hell is the chaos and sorrow of separation from God - the “outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth,” as Christ described it in the parable of the wedding feast.

 

[MTD]

It does not state that limbo exists. In fact if you go to the section that says limbo it will redirect you to the section on infants who have died without baptism, that we trust God to take them into his MERCY!

Just because it doesn’t state that it exists doesn’t mean that it states that it doesn’t exist. Also, Limbo is not contrary to God’s infinite mercy. I think I’ve gone to great pains trying to illustrate why by talking about how Original Sin forfeited the right to heaven and how the Incarnation was a totally undeserved and merciful act on the part of God by giving us again the opportunity to reach heaven. Mercy is a divine attribute; it is impossible for God to be unmerciful even in the least degree. And it is good to remember that God is also infinitely just; in fact, if I’m not mistaken, He is merciful precisely because He is just. This justice could have left us in the state of Original Sin; He chose not to do that, however, through pure mercy.

And FYI-, no doctrine EVER contradicted scripture.

Of course not! Both Scripture and Tradition are from God, who is Truth! How can truth contradict truth?

May I ask: how does the doctrine of Limbo contradict Scripture?

You say that anyone who says that limbo does not exist is a heretic, including JP2, Benedict etc. How do you know the popes that you are citing aren’t heretics?

Gorman said that Limbo is not de fide doctrine. If he then said that, how can you claim that he is saying the denial of Limbo is the equivalent of heresy?

This is starting to sound like the Protestant “By faith alone” argument. Instead it is “By baptism alone”

Well, it is de fide that Baptism is necessary for salvation, whether that Baptism is by water, blood, or desire. This doctrine is based on the Scripture: “Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)

Maria

 

[marybee]

God created Hell to be the abode of Satan and his demons, since they rejected His authority in Heaven.

This, I agree with. It is absurd to think that Hell is anything like the popular cartoon. Strictly speaking, Hell is the chaos and sorrow of separation from God - the “outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth,” as Christ described it in the parable of the wedding feast.

I guess, I was stating that God never intended us to go to Hell. I don’t even know if it is phyiscal place as much of a state of mind or soul so to speak.

I beleive that those who are in Hell choose it. Much like Satan. He was a fallen angel, he knew what God wanted and Chose to be disobedient.

Someone mentioned not too long ago the book, “An exorcist tells his story” Read Fr. Amorths intro. It explains a lot about Heaven and Hell, yes I know he is not infallible, but it did change my way of thinking.

I am paraphrasing here…We think that we are tested and if we fail we go to Hell. We think that it is almost predestined (kind of like what you are saying about the babies, they can’t decide). He states that I quote, **“Evil, suffering, death, and Hell are not acts of God”

Then he states
“The BIBLE spells it out for everyone: God wants every man to be saved, Christ died for EVERYONE, no one is predestined to go to HEll, and EVERYONE is given sufficient graces for salvation.”**
When he was exorcising a demon he told it “get outa here, God has a warm home prepared for you” the demon retorted, “You don’t know anything, It wasn’t He who made Hell, it was us.”

You don’t have to believe that last quote, but the first are taken STRAIGHT from Holy Scripture.

 

[marybee]

Just because it doesn’t state that it exists doesn’t mean that it states that it doesn’t exist. Also, Limbo is not contrary to God’s infinite mercy. I think I’ve gone to great pains trying to illustrate why by talking about how Original Sin forfeited the right to heaven and how the Incarnation was a totally undeserved and merciful act on the part of God by giving us again the opportunity to reach heaven. Mercy is a divine attribute; it is impossible for God to be unmerciful even in the least degree. And it is good to remember that God is also infinitely just; in fact, if I’m not mistaken, He is merciful precisely because He is just. This justice could have left us in the state of Original Sin; He chose not to do that, however, through pure mercy.

Of course not! Both Scripture and Tradition are from God, who is Truth! How can truth contradict truth?

May I ask: how does the doctrine of Limbo contradict Scripture?

Gorman said that Limbo is not de fide doctrine. If he then said that, how can you claim that he is saying the denial of Limbo is the equivalent of heresy?

Well, it is de fide that Baptism is necessary for salvation, whether that Baptism is by water, blood, or desire. This doctrine is based on the Scripture: “Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)

Maria

Maria, as jmcrae stated, cite your documents from the Vatican. Maybe I will believe it.

 

[MTD]

So far in my reading, I have never found the term “limbo” in any official document of the Church or in any writing of the Early Fathers, or even in any Church magazine or daily devotional book, other than in the context of explaining that it is a pious belief; not a doctrine of the Church.

First, I’m not sure the term itself is very common, but the idea of a place of natural happiness is. Second, many of the early Fathers held a position similar to that of St. Augustine; i.e., that unbaptized babies are condemned to the hell of punishment although the punishment would be of the lightest degree.

Can anyone cite an official Church document that states that limbo is required for belief? Preferably something that comes out of the Vatican.

Limbo is not required for belief.

This is getting incredibly absurd. You say God created Hell? Why would he need to? That is insane. So God created Hell for the punishment of the damned. Is there a devil with a pitchfork,and horns stoking the fires of Hell too??? If you say “yes” you can not on the other side of your mouth say that there is a realm of this idea of hell with perfect happiness. That is a CRAZY argument. I can see it now, “Here Satan, take all these babies into your lake of fire, but make sure they are in total happiness”

The term hell is often used much more widely than you are using it here. Indeed, the Apostles’ Creed says that Christ descended into hell! Does that mean He descended into the hell of the demons? No. Likewise, the Limbo of the Children is not the hell of the demons; it is a place of natural happiness although because they are deprived of the vision of God, it merits the term hell in the broad sense.

Maria

 

[marybee]

First, I’m not sure the term itself is very common, but the idea of a place of natural happiness is. Second, many of the early Fathers held a position similar to that of St. Augustine; i.e., that unbaptized babies are condemned to the hell of punishment although the punishment would be of the lightest degree.

Limbo is not required for belief.

The term hell is often used much more widely than you are using it here. Indeed, the Apostles’ Creed says that Christ descended into hell! Does that mean He descended into the hell of the demons? No. Likewise, the Limbo of the Children is not the hell of the demons; it is a place of natural happiness although because they are deprived of the vision of God, it merits the term hell in the broad sense.

Maria

Actually the correct interpretation says, “He descended into the abode of the dead” The Greek word that we translate as “Hell” has the literal translation, “The abode of the Dead”

I am not trying to sound snippy, and I am sure it might come off that way, but you who believe in limbo can not even decide what it is. I have heard,
“It is a place where they can not see God”
“It is in Hell, but not where they feel pain”
“It is in the outerskirts of Hell”
“It is in Heaven but they can not see God or share in his Beatific Vision”
Now the last one is the best,
“Limbo of children is not the place of demons, it is a place of natural happiness…it merits the term Hell”

So where is it, in a proverbial Hell, the real hell, the outerskirts of hell, or the outerskirst of Heaven?

And if it is not required to believe, than why are we wrong to believe that infants MAY find happiness WITH God?

 

[MTD]

Maria, as jmcrae stated, cite your documents from the Vatican. Maybe I will believe it.

Okay, I’ll take a look. It might take me a day though, so please have a little patience with me.

And if you don’t mind, it would be very helpful if you could cite documents from the Vatican for your position too.

Maria

 

[marybee]

Okay, I’ll take a look. It might take me a day though, so please have a little patience with me.

And if you don’t mind, it would be very helpful if you could cite documents from the Vatican for your position too.

Maria

I did, i said that in the Catechism it does not even dignify limbo with an answer, it merely forwards you to look at what they say about infants who dies without baptism. Its hard to cite something when it does not exist. (I mean in the Catechism.)

I aslo cited the priest that I quoted, who was quoting scripture.

I also bleive that St. Augustine said those things, we do not have to believe everything a Church Father, Dr. or Saint says.

In a nutshell, I believe the thought that God does not will these children, nor give them an opportunity for salvation, is contrary to what the Bible says, (in the quotes I mentioned above! I also don’t believe Hell is a happy place where there is total happiness.

 

[Christophorus]

Pax Vobiscum,

I believe ‘all things are possible in our God’ and so I have ‘hope’ that through ‘desire, prayer and the mercy of our God’ Salvation can be had for those whom through not fault of their own have not formally entered into the Church through the Sacrament of Baptism.

For those of us who are so fortunate might be offer prayers for those whom are less?

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I believe that if one were to compare the Eastern Orthodox concept of God with the traditional Catholic concept of God, with an eye for who portrayed God as being the most just and merciful, the Eastern Orthodox would win hands down, no question. Western theologians, including those who are highly respected, such as St. Augustine, have been working hard for centuries to make the narrow road narrower.

This doesn’t say anything about which Church is actually the most correct. It’s just an observation.

 

[Christophorus]

I believe that if one were to compare the Eastern Orthodox concept of God with the traditional Catholic concept of God, with an eye for who portrayed God as being the most just and merciful, the Eastern Orthodox would win hands down, no question. Western theologians, including those who are highly respected, such as St. Augustine, have been working hard for centuries to make the narrow road narrower.

Pax Vobiscum,

I might agree that of the two ‘traditions’ we Latins tend to be the more somber of the two. That said, I don’t believe that St. Augustine necessarily ‘worked’ to narrow the narrow road but appears to have put aside any Platonist leanings once he embraced Christianity where as in the East Platonism continued to play a much larger role with their eigesis/exegesis of Sacred Scripture.

Clearly something to ponder.

Pax

 

[LilyM]

Well, it is de fide that Baptism is necessary for salvation, whether that Baptism is by water, blood, or desire. This doctrine is based on the Scripture: “Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)

Maria

Yes, and he also said ‘unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you do not have life within you’ in John 6. Are we to conclude from this that those who haven’t yet received First Communion are similarly unsaved and consigned to Limbo? Surely one who does not ‘have life within’ cannot enter heaven either?

If the two situations are not the same then why not? It is an equally strong statement as the one about baptism.

Or could it be just possibly that an omnipotent God cannot be said to be restricted to operating within the form of the Catholic sacraments and them alone in this way? At least not in regard to those who have no opportunity to learn about or receive such sacraments.

 

[MTD]

Yes, and he also said ‘unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you do not have life within you’ in John 6. Are we to conclude from this that those who haven’t yet received First Communion are similarly unsaved and consigned to Limbo? Surely one who does not ‘have life within’ cannot enter heaven either?

If the two situations are not the same then why not? It is an equally strong statement as the one about baptism.

We must rely on the Church’s interpretation of Holy Scripture. The Church has always held as divinely revealed that no one can enter heaven without having been baptized, which Baptism can be by water, blood, or desire.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, III, Q. 68, A. 1

“Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, III, Q. 68, A. 2, Reply to Objection 3

“The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; ‘which, with God, counts for the deed.’ (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).”

St. Augustine, III de Anima

“If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before Baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1277

“Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord’s will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.”

Baltimore Catechism, 154

“Q. Is Baptism necessary for salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Catechism of St. Pius X

“Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.’”

Or could it be just possibly that an omnipotent God cannot be said to be restricted to operating within the form of the Catholic sacraments and them alone in this way?

He does operate outside the form of Catholic sacraments in regards to Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire. Both of these confer the sacramental effect, but they are not properly sacraments. See St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, III, Q. 66, A. 11, Reply to Objection 2. And from the 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.”

Maria

 

[LilyM]

He does operate outside the form of Catholic sacraments in regards to Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire. Both of these confer the sacramental effect, but they are not properly sacraments. See St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, III, Q. 66, A. 11, Reply to Objection 2. And from the 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.”

Maria

Excellent, so we’re agreed on one thing at least. Thanks for Augustine and Aquinas, but they’re not binding authority or anything like. St Thomas didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, for heaven’s sake, so we can’t consider him binding authority.

Now - I find two parts of St Pius X’s catechism interesting. The first is the phrase “AN ACT OF PERFECT LOVE OF GOD”. The Church seems to be agreed that anyone can evince Perfect Contrition for sin, so also, we can be fairly confident that anyone also can evince perfect love of God.

The second AT LEAST IMPLICIT DESIRE of baptism. It’s the definition of this, obviously, that is key.

Do you really think that someone who has an overwhelming and all-consuming desire to do the will of God in all things, such that if they heard of baptism they wouldn’t hesitate to be baptised, but has been denied, through no fault of their own any chance or opportunity to hear of baptism, will be abandoned by God to Limbo, a region of Hell, and denied heaven and the closeness with God that they so crave?

I think their EXPLICIT and intense desire to do God’s will above all may (not that we an be certain) be sufficient to constitute an implicit desire for baptism. To me it’s obvious that we can at least be permitted to HOPE that such are saved.

 

[rescath]

On the topic of the formal motive of faith and Protestants.

If someone were baptized as an infant and yet somehow, say, his parents died and he ended up being raised by animists, the infused theological virtue of faith would die out as the child reached the age of reason simply through a deficiency or absence of faith – and there need not be some active pertinacious denial of revealed truth to extinguish the virtue.

Formal motive of faith means that faith is an acceptance of the truths of faith in response to the authority of God revealing as proposed by the authority of the Church.

That’s why we call heresy formal in some cases, in that formal heresy involves a positive sin against and destruction of the formal faith, i.e. the formal motive of faith.

In the case of a Catholic who becomes a formal heretic, that person has extinguished the faith because he has sinned against and destroyed the formal motive of faith.

In the case of a Protestant, there’s an absence of a formal motive of faith even if there was never any explicit pertinacious adherence to some particular heretical proposition.

So Catholics become formal heretics, positively, through sin; while Protestants are formal heretics, negatively, through an absence of this formal motive of faith – and just as in the case of the child raised by animists, when the child reaches the age of reason, that faith infused at baptism dies out. Until a baptized child has reached the age of reason, he’s considered essentially a Catholic.

If the dogmatic definition regarding the fact that heretics or schismatics cannot be saved does NOT state that Protestantism does not provide or embody a formal motive of faith, then it says nothing at all.

Now, that’s not to say we can judge any particular Protestant who has passed away. God is certainly capable of illuminating someone’s mind and allowing a free act of the will on someone’s deathbed even, and giving the grace to make a perfect act of contrition. So we cannot speak certainly about the faith of any particular individual, but we can say that so long as one embraces Protestantism, there is no formal motive of faith there.

We have to be very careful when we speak about invincible ignorance, etc., not to slide into a Pelagianism which holds that good will and good intentions somehow supply for a lack of faith and merit salvation. That’s where the misinterpreted notion of purely material heresy can lead.

 

[gorman64]

Do you really think that someone who has an overwhelming and all-consuming desire to do the will of God in all things, such that if they heard of baptism they wouldn’t hesitate to be baptised, but has been denied, through no fault of their own any chance or opportunity to hear of baptism, will be abandoned by God to Limbo, a region of Hell, and denied heaven and the closeness with God that they so crave?

LilyM:

Who is saying this? The issue is infants and those who do not or do not yet have the use of reason. After the use of reason is available, the implicit desire for it would suffice.

I think their EXPLICIT and intense desire to do God’s will above all may (not that we an be certain) be sufficient to constitute an implicit desire for baptism.

This may be true with the use of reason…but the issue was infants who do not have this means available.

Pope Pius XII very clearly states this in his address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (Oct. 29, 1951) :

“If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open…”

Gorman

 

[LilyM]

This may be true with the use of reason…but the issue was infants who do not have this means available.

Pope Pius XII very clearly states this in his address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (Oct. 29, 1951) :

Gorman

Hardly an infallible statement of dogma for starters.

Let’s look at the issue with a bit of commonsense. A child who, through no doing of their own, dies before the age of reason and without receiving baptism is irredeemably cut off from the Beatific Vision with no possible extrasacramental means of attaining same? When every single person over the age of reason in fact has that chance? You’d seriously believe that?

The life of every child’s* body* is so precious to God that anything that smacks of artificial contraception or lack of openness to its creation is a grave and usually mortal sin. But as for the state of the child’s eternal *soul *- He cares so little for it that for a mere accident of the timing of its death He will deny it the same hope and chance of attaining the Beatific Vision that every other human being has?

It goes against everything we know of God’s infinite mercy and love and care for his creatures. I see nothing that prevents me from hoping, and I will continue to hope, thank you very much.

 

[Potato1]

Is there anyone here that is arguing for the hope of salvation of unbaptized. infants that is not babtized, would not or have not babtized thier children by choice or neglect… Come on, if Gods mercy is so infinite, then why even do it?

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Is there anyone here that is arguing for the hope of salvation of unbaptized. infants that is not babtized, would not or have not babtized thier children by choice or neglect… Come on, if Gods mercy is so infinite, then why even do it?

Because He tells us to do so. We can be obedient to God by baptizing our children, while still have hope for the salvation of those who are not given baptism.

 

[rescath]

What is this premise that not receiving the beatific vision is some punishment from God, a deprivation of something owed to anyone? To receive the beatific vision is a free supernatural gift, one that goes beyond our nature to comprehend. It is not owed to anyone. In Limbo, souls innocent of actual sin enjoy a completely fulfilling natural happiness. Imagine yourself the happiest you could ever be in this life, with no pain, no sorrow, no illness, no suffering of any kind. Does that some like some kind of unjust punishment? It’s more than possible, in my mind likely, that God simply spared those souls by allowing them to die in this state, for given the world we live in, most souls probably die and go to hell proper where they suffer for all eternity. These innocent ones are spared that horror.