The Fate of Unbaptized Infants

[CatholicCrusade]

twf:

But my question is, in light of the Magisterial statements provided on this thread, how can there be any question? If the Church says that out of God’s mercy some infants could go to heaven, how could that be reconciled with the seemingly, at least to me, clear meaning of the Council of Trent’s decree? Limbo, it seems, is the only alternative that does not contradict the infallible proclamations of Holy Mother Church on this matter.

Hello. I am new. I attempted earlier to make a post under this topic, but for some reason it said I was not logged in, and my post did not go through.

Basically, I agree with you 100% (except the last part of the last sentence, but I will address that later).

I quoted two of St. Augustine’s writings in my last post, as well as much more, but for lack of time and sleep right now I will merely re-post the two from St. Augustine:

“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.” An stronger writting from St. Augustine reads: “Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and CONDEMNS THE WHOLE CHURCH which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ.”

He could not be clearer. Neither could the quotes already presented from the Councils of Florence and Carthage be any clearer. There is no possible way for an infant to be saved except through Baptism. They will go to hell, to suffer different punishments, if they die in Original Sin (c.f. Florence).

A few other things from the original post I attempted to make: I suggest anyone interested in this get the Gerry Matatics tape on this. It is called Abortion as Satanic Sacrifice. The tape deals specifically with this topic very well, quoting Fathers, Doctors, and infallible Church declarations. It is the sixth tape of a six-tape set. The set deals also much with freemasonry, and one tape is dedicated to the design of Washington, D.C. by the masons. The set is called Wake Up, America. It is $35.00 from Catholic Treasures (catholictreasures.com/cartdescrip/20264.html). The one tape on abortion is $7.00 from the same publisher: (catholictreasures.com/cartdescrip/20290.html).

Also, to address the idea that the Holy Innocents were not baptized. Yes, that is true, but they did not need to be. Baptism had not been instituted yet. Christ would not even proclaimed it as a necessity for over 30 years, and the necessity did not take place until Pentecost Day (c.f., St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, and other Doctors). These Holy Innocents were also murdered to save Christ, which is also another circumstance that differentiates them from an aborted infant. And lastly, even though they were murdered, they were still incorporated under the Old Law by circumcision, which Law still held validly at the time.

Now, to address the one thing I said I disagree with you on. You said that Limbo is the only Catholic option. I disagree. I think that the infants being punished to the Hell of the Damned is a Catholic OPTION. I am not saying it is correct, but I actually right now lean toward that over Limbo. The Church has never defined that a person cannot go to Hell for Original Sin alone. That, in fact, is what was proclaimed at Florence (and actually that was based upon Lyons II). The idea of Limbo is merely speculative. There is nothing wrong with believing it, but it is not to be held as we would hold the Immaculate Conception or certainly not as we would the Incarnation. It is not an Article of Faith, and it could be wrong.

 

[CatholicCrusade]

(continued from above)

We do know, though, that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to go to Heaven without Baptism, as was proclaimed by our Lord in St. John iii. 5 and St. Mark xvi. 16, as well as through the Holy Ghost in the literally thousands of times the Church has proclaimed this throughout history. Infants have no means of salvation except Baptism, as is true for all men, according to the words of God Himself.

 

[HagiaSophia]

The Vatican’s International Theological Commission was last week determining that the question of Limbo - the supposed destination for the unbaptised - would be studied “in the light of God’s mercy”.

The Commission - which includes Redemptorist Fr Anthony Kelly of the Australian Catholic University’s Brisbane campus - said that the response to calls to resolve long-standing doubts about the status of limbo should not focus on limbo in isolation from its larger context.

Last week’s media revelation of the fact of improperly baptised Catholics in Brisbane brought the question of Limbo into fresh focus. Archbishop John Bathersby declared that children baptised at a South Brisbane church using non-traditional words would have to be re-baptised.

Commission Secretary Fr Luis Ladario told Zenit after a recent session that “to concentrate only on the question of limbo would be to lose the focus of the problem.”

He stressed that it would be studied “in the light of God’s mercy”.

He affirmed that “limbo is not the problem; in fact, it was a historical attempt to proffer a solution in the face of the death of a child who has not been baptised.”

“What is interesting is to study this topic in the light of God’s universal saving will, the unique mediation of Jesus Christ, and the Church’s sacramentalism,” he said.

In addition to limbo, the theologians of this commission, which forms part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, are studying natural law – moral norms that correspond to man’s nature and that can be known by the use of reason – and the status of theology and its methods.

The commission comprises theologians of various schools and nations, distinguished for their knowledge and faithfulness to the Church’s magisterium. The members, whose number does not exceed 30, are appointed by the Pope for five years after being proposed by the prefect of the doctrinal congregation in consultation with the bishops’ conferences.

cathnews.com/news/411/163.php

 

[amarischuk]

twf:

Adam: I mean no offence, but is it possible that you doubt infallibility because you, with your limited human understanding, have not been personally able to reconcile certain perceived contradictions? Many have alledged errors in Sacred Scripture as well, but orthodox scholars have answered every charge.

Don’t worry about offending me. But I must admit that I haven’t heard of any orthodox scholars resolving the problems I brought up (not that I was the first to notice them). Not Aquinas, not Fr. Most, nor the less orthodox Raymond Brown, Donald Senior, Karl Rahner, Lawrence Boadt or any other scholar.

What does grow tiring is the constant falling back on my limited knowlegde or my lack of open minded reading, faith etc. Search my user name (amarischuk) on this site and you will see that in almost ever thread I have posted on, I am constantly regaled by that criticism, yet never does anyone attempt to resolve the problem. It is a resort to ad hominem attacks and frankly irrationalism: it is a confession that I cannot resolve the problem so I will ignore it and just assume that a 2000 year old colelction of Jewish books is a more accurate presentation of reality than the collective scientific labours of the rest of the world.

As for orthodox scholars, my first thread here was dedicated to proving that I think there is no such thing as a conservative scholar. The more I sturdy the more the two terms seem almost mutually exclusive. I cannot think of a single scholar who follows the Church’s teachings to the level that most people on this site insist is necessary to remain a Catholic. Simply because, as Chesterton said, theology is nothing more than thought applied to faith and most popular Catholic faith is not a coherent whole, and I include the present pontif in that category.

Not Etienne Gilson, not Marie-Dominique Chenu, not Jacques Maritain, not Christopher Dawson, not Bernard Lonergan, not Norris Clarke, not Karl Rahner, not Eduard Schillibeeckx, not Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, not Frederick Copleston, not John Henry Cardinal Newman, not Lord Acton, not Johann Adam Mohler, not James Anderson, not Yves Congar, not Henri de Lubac, not Donald Senior, not Raymond Brown, not Lawrence Boadt, not Joseph Hartel, not Hans Urs von Balthasar, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Dan-Man916]

"

Baptism of Desire is when a person personally and specifically makes known their desire to receive Baptism. But are prevented from receiving Baptism because of their unexpected death.

An example would be an adult Catechumen. Who through the Rite of Acceptance publically states their desire for Baptism. But who is killed before being Baptized. They receive the full Mass of Christian burial.

Br Rich
But in the council of Trent, they merely said that justification cannot be obtained without the laver of regeneration in water or the desire of it.
Trent limited itself to saying desire only. It did not denote **explicit **desire. Baptism may also be also possible through implicit desire.
I know that the question is still opn on this, and the CHurch has not yet ruled on this. However, i do think that the possiblility is still there.

Also, in regards another poster who posted about the infallible statement made by the Council of Florence.
What Florence says is infallibly true. No doubt there.
However, if the unborn or unbaptized infant is given the grace of justification by baptism of implicit desire, then they would go to heaven and not to hell. Baptism of desire works ex opere operanti, not ex opere operato according to theologian Dr. Ludwig Ott. The grace of justification is given, but the baptismal character is not imprinted upon the soul, meaning that it works as a quasi-Sacrament.
Therefore, The infallible statement by Florence wouldn’t apply to them in this case.

At this time, we just don’t know because the Magesterium has not specifically ruled on baptism of implicit desire for unbaptized infants who die before receving water baptism.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Br. Rich SFO:

There are more than two Excathedra statements and the Church specifically condemns the opinion that unbaptized children are punished in the Hell of the damned.

It’s my understanding that the only two excathedra statements that have been made dealt with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. Do you know where I can find inforation on the others?

Baptism of Desire is when a person personally and specifically makes known their desire to receive Baptism. But are prevented from receiving Baptism because of their unexpected death.

Jimmy Akin puts it this way:

Recent doctrinal development has made clear that it is possible for one to receive baptism of desire by an implicit desire. This is the principle that makes it possible for non-Christians to be saved. If they are genuinely committed to seeking and living by the truth, then they are implicitly committed to seeking Jesus Christ and living by his commands; they just don’t know that he is the Truth they’re seeking (cf. John 14:6).

In that case I guess it does exclude infants, but it’s not a reference only to those who have made their desire for baptism specifically known.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[twf]

Adam: Your reference to a 2000 year-old collection of Jewish books suggests that it is with Sacred Scripture that you have a problem. I am fully confident that every Scriptural problem that has been suggested has either been answered by someone already (whether Catholic or Protestant) or will be as time progresses. There are many commonly held ‘errors’ in Scripture that are really quite simple to dispel…such as the alledged “Pi” value error, in which skeptics do not take into account that the Scriptures also mention a brim around the bowl a hand’s width, which would account for the seemingly incorrect value of Pi.

 

[JGC]

amarischuk:

Read what Brother Rich said:

Current Catholic teaching is not at all in line with the quote from the CE 1913 ed. You are trying to mix water and oil. It is a historical anachronism to look for a justification of the Church’s present position by appealing and altering the meaning of the term baptism by desire.

I am not saying unbaptized infants are in hell, far from it. I find that a disgusting statement. Especially considering the fact that anywhere from 10-33 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriages.

I am saying that this is actually one of the issues which cause a great shift to the liberal side of Catholicism for me. I no longer have such a static view of the Church and as such, the doctrine of infallibility has lost a lot of its potency.

Adam

That 1913 Encyclopedia is of its time and was compiled by lay people, as far as I am aware, and should not be considered a source of Church teaching. A resource to be used with care and mindful of its age? Perhaps. A statement of Church teaching, even in 1913? No.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Catholic4aReasn:

It’s my understanding that the only two excathedra statements that have been made dealt with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. Do you know where I can find inforation on the others?

Hi nancy,
i know that this statement wasn’t directed at me, but i thought i’d give it a shot anyway.
At least as far as I know, (and i am no authority), there have been only 2 ex-cathedra statements made by the pope.
Ex-cathedra statements by the pope are infallible.

However, the Church’s infallibility is not limited to ex-cathedra statements.

Infallibility means that the Church when she teaches a matter of faith and morals to be believed by the whole Church cannot err since she is led into truth by the Spirit of Truth. Since the Bishops as a college and the Bishop of Rome as the presiding Bishop of the college have the ministry of articulating the teaching of the Church, when they speak on these matters they teach with the Church’s infallibility.

The College of Bishops acting in Solemn Council and the Pope, acting as the Head of the College, only exercise their infallible magisterium in an act which:
(a) deals with faith or morality
(b) is addressed to the whole Church
(c) is taught by a definitive act

 

[Dan-Man916]

Regarding infallibility:

---

Theological Grades of Certainty

1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgement of faith (definition) of the Pope or a General Council, the are “de fide definita”.
2. Catholic truths of Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). There truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.

Dr. Ludwig Ott , Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, fourth edition, May 1960, p. 10 (TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., Rockford, Illinois)

The belief in Limbo does not have this degree of theological certainty.

 

[CatholicCrusade]

Dan-Man916:

Br Rich
But in the council of Trent, they merely said that justification cannot be obtained without the laver of regeneration in water or the desire of it.

First of all, where did Trent in its infallible pronouncements, not in a short, explanative paragraph, define a possibility for salvation outside of Baptism of water? The Council does say one cannot come to a forgiveness without the laver of redemption or desire thereof, but 1) it does NOT say: one CAN come to forgiveness without water or desire–it is a negative, not a positive statement 2) that part of the Council is not an infallible declaration. The Canons of the Council are infallible, yes, but not every word of it is infallible.

At this time, we just don’t know because the Magesterium has not specifically ruled on baptism of implicit desire for unbaptized infants who die before receving water baptism.

That sounds like saying: the Magisterium hasn’t ruled on whether or not the Trinity is Three Persons in One God, so we just don’t know. The Magisterium doesn’t have to repeat every single pronouncement past Popes have made to make them “keep effect” or “take effect”. This seems very clear:

It has been defined that Baptism is necesssary for salvation.

There has not been defined any exception for this case (or any case–but to keep to topic, for unbaptized infants).

Therefore, we CANNOT say there is any possibility for salvation unless or until there is a qualification from the Church saying unbaptized infants can be forgiven of Original Sin.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Yes baptism is necessary for salvation.
here is what Trent says specifically:

Council of Trent 6th Session, Decree Concerning Justification
****CHAPTER IV Jan 13, 1547 AD
****A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER
AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE

• In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior**. This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.***[Jn 3:5]
• Now, this statement may or may not fit the criteria for being an infallible statement, however, it does have the highest degree of authority since it comes from a Council.*

The understanding of the Church is that Baptism is necessary for salvation. However, as St Thomas explains, that baptism has always been understood as a baptism of water, desire, or blood, all 3 of which are only one baptism, the other 2 deriving their efficacy from water baptism. Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood will also Justify a person. So yes, Baptism of desire will forgive on of their sins.

The Baltimore Catechism teaches this:

(cont’d)

 

[Dan-Man916]

Baltimore Catechism #3

**Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire? **

A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

**Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood? **
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ.

**Q. 652. What is the baptism of blood most commonly called? **
A. The baptism of blood is most commonly called martyrdom, and those who receive it are called martyrs. It is the death one patiently suffers from the enemies of our religion, rather than give up Catholic faith or virtue. We must not seek martyrdom, though we must endure it when it comes.

---

**Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water? **
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible toreceive the Baptism of water.

**Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water? **
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Catholic4aReasn:

It’s my understanding that the only two excathedra statements that have been made dealt with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. Do you know where I can find inforation on the others?

These two are as well as two others from prior Popes that also meet the requirements. I will have to find the reference. But I do remember reading this and then going off and reading the Papal statements myself.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

No theologian know exactly how many ex cathedra statements have been made throughout history. One would simply have to take every proclamation by every Pope and apply Vatican I’s criteria. There is, of course, always the possibility that a key papal document has been lost to us by history. So there is no such exhaustive list.

 

[amarischuk]

JGC:

That 1913 Encyclopedia is of its time and was compiled by lay people, as far as I am aware, and should not be considered a source of Church teaching. A resource to be used with care and mindful of its age? Perhaps. A statement of Church teaching, even in 1913? No.

See post 16 in this thread.

twf:

I am fully confident that every Scriptural problem that has been suggested has either been answered by someone already (whether Catholic or Protestant) or will be as time progresses.

Then provide an answer for me or point me in the right direction. If in 2000 years no one has provided an answer yet, then there is a serious problem. So far no one has done this. All the answers I ever come across would either be considered heretical (Donald Senior, Lawrence Boadt, Leslie Hoppe, Raymond Brown) or they are simply dismisive, or worse, like Fr. Most on Abraham and Isaac, they take a position contrary to Catholic moral philosophy, logic, history etc.

You are right about having a problem with scripture though. Read Rahner’s book “Inspiration and Scripture” or de Lubac’s book “Scripture in tradition” or M-D Chenu’s “Nature, Man and Society in the Twelvth Century” (chapter on Symbolist Mentality or the Old Testament Exegesis)

I must admit that I have no confidence in scripture, and this comes after seriously studying it, including studying scripture at a seminary only last year.

Adam

 

[TNT]

amarischuk:

Post 16. Council of Trent Fifth Session, fourth paragraph:

Br Rich wrote:

It is true that Pope Pius IX said (Quanto conficiamur moerore): “God in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.”

Actually, this is a false translation that is propagated out of ignorance and on purpose by clergy who should know better, all over the internet.
The Literal Latin translation is:
“…since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin” (encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, DS 1677).

Unless this is stated correctly as torment, then reading this encyclical in its entirety, an average (non-liberal) reader would find some baffling contradictions. Since liberals embrace contraditions, they use them liberally.

Clearly, the Blessed Pope is stating that the otherwise perfect person without baptism is not tormented.
All torment is punishment, but all punishment is not torment.

Well, if the Church has also taught that unbaptized infants do not go to heaven, and they do not go to the hell of the damned (suffer positive punishement) where do they go? A rose by any other name…There is an implicit historical teaching of limbo as a place without positive punishment.

Where did the OT justified go before the gates of heaven were opened at the Ascension?
Hell is a general application for those who exist in the supernatual realm without being within the Beatific Vision of God.
There are many levels of hell. From the state of the righteous before the Ascension, to the Lake of Fire.
Christ says simply, …“cannot enter the Kingom of Heaven.” He does not say they will arrive in the part of hell known as the Lake of fire, brimstone, sulfur, (I call it Hitler’s hell). A lazy Catholic is not going to receive the same torment as Stalin.
A punishment in the Pope’s encyclical is simply the absence of something desirable to those OUTSIDE the state of sanctifying grace. Torment is here refering to punishment with pain of the senses.

An anology: A ciminal is put into torment by whipping, In addition, he is never allowed to vote. They are both punishments, only the 1st is a torment.
Unbaptised infants are clearly not in the state of sanctifying Grace, they have not been “born again of water and the Spirit”. They are born in a natural state. No one in the natural state enters the Kingdom of Heaven. Period. That is De fide. This is not necessarily a torment. It is certainly a punishment.

 

[TNT]

amarischuk:

See post 16 in this thread.

Then provide an answer for me or point me in the right direction.

Could you repeat the question??

You are right about having a problem with scripture though. Read Rahner’s book “Inspiration and Scripture” or de Lubac’s book “Scripture in tradition” or M-D Chenu’s “Nature, Man and Society in the Twelvth Century” (chapter on Symbolist Mentality or the Old Testament Exegesis)

I must admit that I have no confidence in scripture, and this comes after seriously studying it, including studying scripture at a seminary only last year.

K Rahner is to theology what Marx is to economics, and if you are imbued by the litany of characters you list in your post, then you have every reason to vote “no confidence”.

 

[amarischuk]

LOL at TNT anyone who quotes Feeney is to the right of Ganghis Khan.

catholicism.org/TTAS/chapter_9esi.htm

The sad thing about the ariticle is that it nearly always gives the original latin, except for the passage from Quanto Conficiamur Moerore.

In either case, you are proving my point of the existence of levels of hell and positive punishment. What I am saying is that the current position that there is hope for the unbaptized is contrary to the traditional view. You are saying the same thing except I am regecting the past absurdity which leads to a tyrant anthropomorphic Calvinist God, you are rejecting the present Church position.

Fine, be a sede vacantist for all I care, there is no shortage of religious fundamentalists all over the world. But know that your religion disgusts me and I equate your version of Catholicism to be akin with the Muslims who inserted planes into buildings or the Aztecs who performed any number of human sacrifices: all in the name of God.

But for the rest, check out this catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=90

Adam

 

[CatholicCrusade]

amarischuk:

LOL at TNT anyone who quotes Feeney is to the right of Ganghis Khan.

catholicism.org/TTAS/chapter_9esi.htm

The sad thing about the ariticle is that it nearly always gives the original latin, except for the passage from Quanto Conficiamur Moerore.

In either case, you are proving my point of the existence of levels of hell and positive punishment. What I am saying is that the current position that there is hope for the unbaptized is contrary to the traditional view. You are saying the same thing except I am regecting the past absurdity which leads to a tyrant anthropomorphic Calvinist God, you are rejecting the present Church position.

Fine, be a sede vacantist for all I care, there is no shortage of religious fundamentalists all over the world. But know that your religion disgusts me and I equate your version of Catholicism to be akin with the Muslims who inserted planes into buildings or the Aztecs who performed any number of human sacrifices: all in the name of God.

But for the rest, check out this catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=90

Adam

1. Fr. Feeney taught EENS as the Church teaches it. The ‘current Magisterium’, if it has declared authoritatively that a non-Catholic can be saved, is incorrect. It is a fact that the current Mag. has not stated such a claim infallibly, and as Catholics we know the Pope is not infallible in all he says; and he is not guaranteed from teaching error (even outright heresy) in the private realm, e.g. John XXII.
2. The Muslims who fly planes into the WTC are the ones who are following what muhammad actually taught… it says in the Qu’ran to kill all “infidels” (non-Muslims). That is what they were doing on 9-11. Just as those are the “true Muslims”, those who believe Outside the Church no salvation without hesitation or exception, which is the teaching of the Church, are the true Catholics.