St. Thomas Aquinas on the salvation of non-Christians

[Matt16_18]

USMC:

It is not a matter of my not wanting to pray for an aborted baby. It is a matter of you not believing what the Church teaches.

I believe that I am not being misled when the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. …the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy and to pray for their salvation.”

I have no problem praying that God would use extra sacramental means to sanctify a baby in the womb of its mother **prior ** to being aborted.

Some theologians believe that John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb. But praying for a child prior to abortion is begging the question.

Here is the real question: If you found out that someone you knew had aborted her child, would you ever offer a prayer to God for the salvation of the aborted child?

 

[Lazerlike42]

I’d just like more clarification on the statement in Florence. I wish I could find the text in Latin, but I can’t.

 

[jimmy]

Lazerlike42:

Actually, this is an interesting point. I have been reading Aquinas all day, and according to his own answers, he himself would be in a lot of trouble because he did not explicitly believe in the Immaculate Conception.

It depends. All that Thomas says on this issue of the IC is that she could not have been cleansed before conception which is in agreement with Catholicism. He does say that she never commited an actual sin and that she was cleansed from the womb as John the baptist.

 

[Lazerlike42]

jimmy:

It depends. All that Thomas says on this issue of the IC is that she could not have been cleansed before conception which is in agreement with Catholicism. He does say that she never commited an actual sin and that she was cleansed from the womb as John the baptist.

Right. My point is that if (there is a disagreement to if he meant this or not) he meant that points of faith must be explicitly believed, then he is in trouble because he did not explicitly believe in the IC.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Matt16_18:

Here is the real question: If you found out that someone you knew had aborted her child, would you ever offer a prayer to God for the salvation of the aborted child?

I haven’t, as I know that the child is either in Limbo or heaven. Only those who die justified already go to purgatory. We don’t pray for those in heaven or hell.

 

[Matt16_18]

itsjustdave1988:

I haven’t, as I know that the child is either in Limbo or heaven.

You would never pray for the salvation of an aborted child.

How is that you know more than the bishops that wrote the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Why would the CCC recommend an exercise in futility?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Matt16_18:

You would never pray for the salvation of an aborted child.

No. Prayer for the dead is limited to those suffering in purgatory. Aborted infants, according to Catholic teaching, where ever they may be, are not in purgatory. I believe the time to pray for these children is when they are alive, prior to their particular judgement. After their particular judgment, my prayer will not change that judgement.

How is that you know more than the bishops that wrote the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

You interpret the CCC differently than I do, and differently than my post-graduate professors of theology.

*Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi *applies, I think. The way we pray ought not to be contrary to Catholic doctrine. Praying for the dead pertains to those who died in a state of grace, but must still undergo purgation. That’s what I learned in my theology courses in accord with the doctrines manifest in the CCC.

Why would the CCC recommend an exercise in futility?

It doesn’t. No where does the CCC say to pray for the dead who are not among the Church Suffering in purgatory. The Church Militant (earth), Church Suffering (purgatory) and the Church Triumphant (heaven) does not include any who died in a state of original or mortal sin who descend immediately to *infernus *(Hell).

The CCC allows “us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism.” That way necessarily requires that they die without original sin. That is what we pray for. That they were justified extra-sacramentally before death.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to Fr Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University:

With respect to the advisability of offering the Mass for the “salvation” of unbaptized infants, No. 1283 invites us to pray for their salvation.

Since the Mass is also an intercessory prayer, then it should be possible, in general terms, to offer the Mass for such an intention even though we may not yet be theologically sure of what the concept of salvation might be in this particular case.

Thus, the existence of particluar rites offered for the dead does not necessarily equate to the conclusion that those prayed for have died in original sin.
Fr. McNamara continues…

Because of the mystery involved, the celebration of funeral rites for an unbaptized child usually requires the permission of the local bishop who considers the pastoral circumstances involved (see Canon 1183.2 of the Code of Canon Law).

These rites are usually done more for the sake of the living than for the dead. And this would be the principal factor to be considered in deciding to permit obsequies, especially when the parents clearly intended to baptize the child.

It is also a factor in deciding whether Mass or another simpler rite would be more appropriate.

It is also recommended that catechesis imparted on such occasions in no way confuse the faithful regarding the doctrine of the necessity of baptism.

The Mass formulas do not generally intercede for the salvation of the child but rather implore that God may comfort the grieving parents with the hope of his mercy, acceptance of his will and the consolation of knowing that he takes care of us.

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=69954

Our prayers ought to be in accord with Catholic doctrine, which teaches that only those who die in a state of grace go to heaven, either immediately or after they undergo purgation in purgatory.

Paul VI “We believe that the souls of all those who die in the grace of Christ…are the People of God in the eternity beyond death” (*Credo of the People of God, *1968)

 

[Lazerlike42]

Dave, do you happen to have any take on this problem of reconciling Florence with CCC 1037?

Or on the notion of Limbus Infantium?

 

[Matt16_18]

itsjustdave1988:

You interpret the CCC differently than I do, and differently than my post-graduate professors of theology.

True. But I also know post-graduate professors of theology that don’t disagree with what I have been saying.

It is the Magisterium, not professors of theology, that possesses the charism of infallibility. That is why I hope the Magisterium speaks definitively to the issue of whether or not it is futile to pray and offer Masses for the salivation of aborted infants.

 

[urban-hermit]

Dave, (re post #86)

I’ve been very interested to read your posts and thank you for sharing your knowledge here. You seem to be concerned about offering prayers for aborted infants because you feel it somehow goes against Catholic teaching. You have indicated that before they are aborted you have no problem praying that God will sanctify them extra-sacramentally, but that after they are aborted there is no need because they are already at their final destination (if heaven then they don’t need prayers, if limbo then prayers will not change anything as this is their permanent resting place.)

I want to suggest that you are going at this a bit too linearly - too chronologically. And maybe a bit too theologically. Remember that we have a very very big God, Who exists outside of time, and that it is from this vantage point that He receives our prayers. CCC#1283 explicitly invites us to pray for the salvation of unbaptized children. You should be doing it, as should we all. I would like to offer a way of looking at this which might encourage you to do so without feeling you are violating the concept of “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi”. Praying for the salvation of these children need not in any way engender rejecting any teaching of the Church!

I heard a priest on EWTN say that Padre Pio was at a certain time asked who he was just praying for. He replied that he was praying that his father had a happy death. The person who asked protested that Padre Pio’s father had died many years ago, but Padre Pio said that didn’t matter. I heard Mother Angelica mention this concept once too, of God foreseeing prayers and applying them at a previous point in time. You may put this in the category of “miracles”, but … what’s wrong with miracles? I think they are more common than most people realize. Prayer itself is a miracle.

I don’t know how convincing some anecdotes from EWTN will be for you, but I think you will agree conceptually with my point that it is never “too late” to pray for anyone, at least in theory. And in this particular area it seems it would be especially appropriate to pray “retroactively” for aborted children since we simply do not know the means God has at His disposal for extra-sacramentally sanctifying these defenseless innocents. Such prayers give us a way to express our sentiment for these children killed so early and so I am sure they are pleasing to our God. And how do we know He is not actually waiting for these prayers? The kid’s own father may not be praying, but hopefully we can stand in his place in some small way.

Again, regarding unbaptized children, CCC#1283 specifically invites us to pray for their salvation. If you need assurance that you are not doing something improper or something that doesn’t make sense, I hope this helps: Pray that they WERE (past tense) extra-sacramentally sanctified. Even though the time (from our perspective) is passed for them. Praying for a past event may take a little imagination, but I hope you will be comfortable enough with it to trust God to make sure your prayer is “orthodox”, and really a simple foster-fatherly plea of concern for these children, and that you are in no way questioning the doctrines of Heaven Hell and Purgatory or Limbo.

 

[Matt16_18]

urban-hermit:

… regarding unbaptized children, CCC#1283 specifically invites us to pray for their salvation …

Such prayers give us a way to express our sentiment for these children killed so early and so I am sure they are pleasing to our God. And how do we know He is not actually waiting for these prayers? The kid’s own father may not be praying, but hopefully we can stand in his place in some small way.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ubran-Hermit,

I want to clarify…

We can pray for infants who have died, but our prayer cannot be contrary to Catholic doctrine. In other words, our prayer ought to be as an expression of hope, that God saved the infant from the consequence of orginal sin such that they died in a state of grace.

This is different from the thesis proposed by Matt16_18 that those who died in original sin, descended to hell, and our prayers for those in hell are efficacious for them to be “born again” while in hell, such that they would transition from hell to heaven. If that is our prayer, than it contradicts Catholic doctrine. According to Catholic doctrine our particular judgement, it is immediate upon death and one is either sent to hell eternally or sent to heaven eternally, either immediately or after undergoing purgation in purgatory (not hell). The time for being born again ends upon death.

Paul VI’s Credo of the People of God–an exercise of the authentic magisterium–explicitly states what Catholic doctrine is authentically: "“We believe that the souls of all those who die in the grace of Christ…are the People of God in the eternity beyond death” Whatever our speculative theology consists of, it must be in accord with Catholic doctrine.

If Matt16_18 was proposing that we pray that infants were extra-sacramentally justified before death, as others have stated on various forums, I’d be saying “Amen!” He goes far beyond that, implying that a person can die in a state of original sin, descend immediately into hell (infernum), and while in hell be washed of original sin after death. This novel thesis is contrary to Catholic doctrine, and we are to avoid that which is contrary to the teachings of the Roman Pontiff and the authentic magisterium.

 

[Matt16_18]

itsjustdave1988:

Ubran_Hermit,

We can pray for infants who have died, but our prayer cannot be contrary to Catholic doctrine.

The assertion that there are infants that are condemned to spend eternity in Limbo is speculative theology, not Catholic dogma – at least according to some theologians that I respect.

In the 1985 book-length interview, “The Ratzinger Report,” the future Pope Benedict said, "Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally – and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the congregation – I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis.

“It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism,” he said.

In “God and the World,” published in 2000, he said limbo had been used “to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible” to ensure that they had the “sanctifying grace” needed to wash away the effects of original sin.

Closing the doors of limbo: Theologians say it was hypothesis
Catholic News Service

 

[Lazerlike42]

Matt, Dave is more or less saying that we can’t pray that a baby who died with original sin is in Heaven, we can only pray that a baby doesn’t die (or as some have pointed out, retroactively didnt die) in original sin.

On another note, I don’t think that Limbo is going to be done away with, because the notion of it actually has rather strong Magisterial support.

 

[Matt16_18]

Lazerlike42:

Matt, Dave is more or less saying that we can’t pray that a baby who died with original sin is in Heaven

Where has Dave ever said that a baby that died in a state of “original sin only” will be spending eternity in Heaven beholding the beatific vision?

Dave interprets the Council of Florence to say that ANYONE (infants included) that dies in a state of “original sin only” is sent to hell at their particular judgement, a place from which one can never escape.The last judgement

And I saw a great white throne and the one who sat upon it; from his face the earth and heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. And another scroll was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged out of those things that were written in the scrolls, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged according to their works. And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death, the pool of fire. And if anyone was not found in the book of life, he was cast into the pool of fire.
The Apocalypse 20:11-15

Confraternity Text, The Catholic Press, Inc.Scripture teaches that at the final judgement, hell will be cast into the pool of fire. Which would mean that the infants that cannot escape hell are going to be cast into the pool of fire at the final judgement. But the assertion that infants will be cast into the pool of fire contradicts scripture, because those that are damned to eternity in the pool of fire are judged and condemned according to their works.

What evil works could an aborted infant ever possibly commit? None. That is why the CCC says that to be counted among the damned, there must be "a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.”CCC 1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. …The idea that infants are sent to the “fringe” of the pool of fire where they are only lightly toasted, (or perhaps not even singed because they dwell in a state of “natural happiness” in the pool of fire) is only a theological speculation - a bad theological speculation that is impossible to reconcile with the scriptures that teach that the damned souls are judged according to their evil works (which can be the work of evil caused by sins of ommission, i.e. not sharing one’s riches with the hungry, naked, poor, etc.).

Some Catholics believe that infants that have died in “original sin only” are destined to dwell with the saints in Heaven, but that these infants will NEVER see the beatific vision. But a soul that cannot behold the beatific vision is a soul that is not in Heaven, since beholding the beatific vision and being in Heaven are synonymous. Where does scripture teach this idea? Nowhere. Scripture teaches at the final judgement, the goats and the sheep will be divided, and souls will either be condemned to eternity in the pool of fire, or they will spend their eternity in Heaven. It is only a theological speculation that infants that die in original sin will spend eternity in the dim light of “natural happiness” where they will hang around with the souls living in the light of the beatific vision.

All souls were created by God for union with God. That is what the Catholic Church teaches. No one merits the beatific vision because of their works. The beatific vision is the free gift of God, and our good works (if we are allowed to live on earth so that we can do good works) does not merit for us the joy of Heaven. Damnation, on the other hand, is brought about by doing the works of evil (i.e. committing mortal sin.) This is exactly what Paul taught - damnation is the wage that is paid mortal sin, eternal life in Christ is a free gift. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

God is not a Calvinist monster that predestines some infants to eternity in the pool of fire! And God is not obliged to withhold the gratuitous gift of the beatific vision from anyone that is a victim of abortion.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Lazerlike42:

Matt, Dave is more or less saying that we can’t pray that a baby who died with original sin is in Heaven, we can only pray that a baby doesn’t die (or as some have pointed out, retroactively didnt die) in original sin.

On another note, I don’t think that Limbo is going to be done away with, because the notion of it actually has rather strong Magisterial support.

Yes, my assertion is that anyone who dies in original sin only cannot ever be in heaven, because it is contrary to the teaching that only those who die in a state of grace can attain eternal life.

Whatever speculative Catholic theology is genuine must be in accord with Catholic doctrine. The magisterium has explicitly taught that only those who “die in the grace of Christ” are the People of God in the eternity beyond death.

So, Fr. William Most’s thesis on unbaptized infants is in accord with Catholic doctrine. Matt 16_18’s thesis is not.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Matt16_18:

The assertion that there are infants that are condemned to spend eternity in Limbo is speculative theology, not Catholic dogma

Yes, limbo is magisterially supported, yet speculative, called sententia communis. However, Pope Benedict XVI is an Augustinian, and they hold that those who die in original sin only actually suffer eternally in hell, the punishment of poena damni and poena sensus. St. Thomas differed, and asserted that they eternally suffer poena damni only, but do so in a state of happiness far better than their existence on earth.

What I belive to be speculative is twofold:

1. is there an extra-sacramental means of justification for baptism of infants, and if so, what is the nature of that means?
2. if there are some who die in original sin only, do they suffer only the “blissful” poena damni as St. Thomas asserts, or do they suffer both poena damni and poena sensus as St. Augustine asserts?

What I think Augustinians like Pope Benedict XVI have problems with is the notion that one can eternally exists “blissfully” while also suffering from peona damni.

It is far more in accord with the sensus fidei to have hope that God, in ways known only to Himself, can sanctify an infant in utero if that be his Holy Will. The prayer of the Church is not without power, even for those souls who suffer abortion at the hands of sinful parents.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Lazerlike42:

Dave, do you happen to have any take on this problem of reconciling Florence with CCC 1037?

I don’t believe CCC 1037 even attempted to address those who died in original sin only. That was already address at Florence and Lyons II, and it is absurd to think the CCC has reversed those pronouncements simply by omission. Instead, it is clear that CCC 1037 cites prior councils of the Church (Trent and Orange) in its teaching, giving the impression that it means to teach in accordance with the ecumenical councils of the past, not in contradiction to them.

Elsewhere in the CCC, we find that we can have hope for infants who die without baptism. St. Bernard’s thesis is that the “desire” for baptism is supplied by the parents. Cardinal Cajetan extended that desire as possibly being supplied by the Church in their prayers for these infants. This it is speculative Catholic theology that predates Trent and has yet to be discounted as erroneous by the Church. In fact, the CCC tends toward this pre-Trent position when it teaches that Catholics can have hope and trust their souls to the mercy of God.

I don’t see where CCC 1037 contradicts Florence and Lyons II, however. Surely it is possible that infants do not die in original sin simply because they have nto been sacramentally baptized. Infants can be sanctified in the womb, as this happened to Jeremiah, Mary and John the Baptist in accord with Scripture. Question is, are these the only three? Maybe, but I don’t think so. We don’t have to believer there were any others, but we are permitted to believe there may be others. St. Thomas speaks of sanctificaiton in the womb in his Summa. Infants are certainly washed of their original sin when they receive the grace of Christ, either sacramentally or extra-sacramentally.

 

[Matt16_18]

itsjustdave1988:

I don’t believe CCC 1037 even attempted to address those who died in original sin only.

Then who are the people that die in “original sin only” that are condemed to eternity in the fires of hell? They could only be infants that died before the age of reason without being baptized, or unbaptized adults that were so severely mentally disabled for their whole life that it was impossible for them to commit personal sin.

How do you reconcile your belief that the Church teaches souls not culpable of personal sin can be damned to the eternal fires of hell with Revelation 20:13-14? Revelation 20:13-14 explicitly says that that those in hell that will be cast into the pool of fire at the final judgement are those judged guilty of damnable offences against God because of their works. The CCC affirms this scriptural teaching that only those who willfully commit mortal sin and persist in unrepentance to the end will be damned to eternity in hell. Pope Pius IX teaches in Quanto conficiamur moerore that “God … in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.” If no one can suffer eternal punisment that has not fallen into sin by his own free will, then who are those that are damed to eternal punishment that die in “original sin only”?

Can you directly address the question of who it is that the Church teaches will be damned to the eternal fires of hell because they died “in original sin only”?

I understand that there is scriptural support for the idea that “Infants can be sanctified in the womb” as in the case of Jeremiah, Mary and John the Baptist. That is not the issue.