Unbaptized Babies and Salvation

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I would like to thank everybody who has posted in this thread for such a rich, charitable, and productive conversation that has taken place so far. This is at times a touchy subject and everybody here has participated admirably. Some might believe that these sort of conversations are overly academic and not profitable for souls, but I disagree.

---

And the ‘age of reason’ is not doctrinal. It is a practice, based on prudential judgment. There is no magical number given for when a person becomes accountable for their actions.

Because Our Lord commanded us to be baptized, and because it is Tradition to baptize our children. Because it is the ordinary means of receiving sanctifying grace and initiates a person as a Christian, and if done within the Church, as a Catholic as well. And because it is morally obligatory for a Catholic to have their child baptized.

I don’t believe baptized infants automatically go to Heaven because this assumes that there is no consent that takes place before a soul departs from the body and enters the Beatific Vision: that free will is abrogated and ignored. Something which is so important to God that he allowed his Son to die on a cross. I do not believe this is correct, and - in my opinion - does not follow the internal logic & 2000-year-old teachings of Christianity and in particular of Catholicism.

The Church has never ‘canonized’ baptized infants. It teaches - officially - that at the moment of baptism, a person is put into a state of sanctifying grace, and that those who die in a state of sanctifying grace go to Heaven, and that those who do not die in state of sanctifying grace go to hell. That is what it teaches and has always taught. Many people infer that this means baptized infants must go to Heaven, but it is an inference and in my opinion a faulty one that does not conform to the logic of God’s salvific mission.

I believe infants going to hell (or more specifically to limbo) is faulty for the same reason. Limbo is also the speculated dwelling of the righteous pagans, because they were not baptized and presumably were unable to receive a baptism of desire, so instead of entering the Beatific Vision, they dwell in a part of hell that is not unpleasant, but where God’s supernatural graces don’t exist either. All of this is assuming that no divine intervention takes places between the person and God, and at the very least, private revelation would suggest otherwise.

Yes this has been a great discussion. And I think your posts have been very educational.

If course “age of reason” is not a magical number like the day you turn 7 or something. But mortal sin is mortal sin and it only is remitted in perfect contrition or reconciliation.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

For babies as well as foetuses, baptized or otherwise, they can’t choose. What happened to them are the decisions of their parents. You could have babies kidnapped and sold, swapped at the hospital, miscarriages, pregnant women dying along with their unborn, and a hundred other ways that prevented salvation. Do you think a just and loving God will discard/disown them for a mere technicality which is not of their own doing?

My personal belief is that a magnanimous God would just adopt them.

The relevant verses would be:

Matthew 19:14 “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them…” For those unbaptized , they were hindered.

Matthew 18:10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.” For some reason, you have little ones in heaven before the institution of baptism. We do not know whether these include circumcised babies or babies that didn’t make it by the eighth day for circumcision or those that died in the mother’s womb due to sickness or war or accident.

Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Babies are pure in heart.

By adopting the unwanted, the discarded, the unfortunate, God’s justice /mercy/love come together. We are adopted as children of by reason of our freewill/choice. For those who are not able to exercise their freewill/choice, they rely on One who could determine it for them. Whether God house them in different mansions or special rooms in the mansion, is his prerogative.

So at what age does the sacrament matter? Or does it?

 

[Memaw]

Do you believe that by his creation Man is due heaven?
By the way. Though a highly charged topic, I’m enjoying the discussion. I hope you are as well.

Do you believe that simply by his creation Man is due Hell or even anywhere near it, thru absolutely NO fault of his own??? God Bless, Memaw

 

[Vico]

Just to start off, I am in full communion with the Church and accept all of its teachings… however, there is one thing left which still bothers me. And I do not understand why the Church does not declare this as doctrine:

That unbaptized babies, who, through no fault of their own, die prior to baptism, may or may not go to heaven or may not get to have the beatific vision.

I understand the utter importance of baptism, so that we can wipe away original sin. And without that, we are lost. But at the same time, an aborted baby or a baby lost to illness in the womb, or a baby who is not baptized and dies immediately after birth or even on it’s way to baptism, may not spend an eternity with God, is EXTREMELY difficult for me to understand and accept. Why would the Church not declare that when through no fault of its own, the soul would go to Heaven? I’ve heard over and over again from priests (on EWTN) and other apologists state that we simply have to trust in the mercy of God.

By saying this, it leaves it open to unborn aborted babies spending an eternity in hell.

Is it possible the Church is indirectly saying that because God is omniscient that He knows if that soul which was never baptized would have chosen Him or not if he had lived and therefore the question is left open?

Please help on this one. It really bothers me.

Thanks.

Have you read this from the International Theological Commission?

1. c) It is also possible that God simply acts to give the gift of salvation to unbaptised infants by analogy with the gift of salvation given sacramentally to baptized infants.[118]We may perhaps compare this to God’s unmerited gift to Mary at her Immaculate Conception, by which he simply acted to give her in advance the grace of salvation in Christ.

[118] The situation of unbaptised infants may be considered by analogy with that of baptised infants, as here. More problematically, it may also perhaps be considered by analogy with the situation of unbaptised adults, see below, footnote 127.

…

1. Baptism for salvation can be received either in re or in voto. It is traditionally understood that the implicit choice for Christ that adults who are not actually baptised can make constitutes a votum for Baptism and is salvific. In the traditional view, such an option is not open to infants who have not attained the use of free‑will. The supposed impossibility of Baptism in voto for infants is central to the whole question. Hence, many, many attempts have been made in modern times to explore the possibility of a votum in the case of an unbaptised infant, either a votum exercised on behalf of the infant by its parents or by the Church,[126] or perhaps a votum exercised by the infant in some way.[127] The Church has never ruled out such a solution, and attempts to get Vatican II to do so significantly failed, because of a widespread sense that investigation of this matter was still ongoing and a widespread desire to entrust such infants to the mercy of God.

[127] With regard to the possibility of a votum on the part of the infant, growth towards free‑will might perhaps be imagined as a continuum which unfolds towards maturity from the first moment of existence, rather than there being a sudden qualitative jump to the exercise of mature, responsible decision. The existence of the unborn is a continuum of human life and growth; it does not suddenly become human at some point. Consequently, infants may actually be capable of exercising some kind of rudimentary votum by analogy with that of unbaptised adults. Some theologians have understood the mother’s smile to mediate the love of God to the infant, and have therefore seen the infant’s response to that smile as a response to God himself. Some modern psychologists and neurologists are convinced that the infant in the womb is already in some way conscious and has some use of freedom. Cf. V. FRANKL, Der unbewusste Gott. Psychotherapie und Religion, München 1979; D. AMEN, Healing the Hardware of the Soul, New York 2002.

​

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Do you believe that simply by his creation Man is due Hell or even anywhere near it, thru absolutely NO fault of his own??? God Bless, Memaw

I believe in man’s need of a savior. I believe in the doctrine of original sin outlined in the catechism. Particularly 402-412.

I believe in the Dogma of the immaculate conception.
I believe the need for baptism and in mankind’s fallen nature. As outlined in the catechism. Particularly, 1250.

I believe man was created Good and fell.

That the only way for this to be reconciled to God’s justice was through the bloody violent and total sacrifice of God himself. And I believe in that God’s words and commands.

And yes, that tainted “hell worthy” state needs cleansing even for babies.
Even for the baby God himself who needed the new ark to be holy, worthy, clean from the taint of original sin. The immaculate conception. I believe 4 humans were created without this Original, hell worthy sin.
Adam and Eve, and they screwed that up. And Mary and Jesus.

Now if you will be so kind as to answer the question?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Have you read this from the International Theological Commission?

1. c) It is also possible that God simply acts to give the gift of salvation to unbaptised infants by analogy with the gift of salvation given sacramentally to baptized infants.[118]We may perhaps compare this to God’s unmerited gift to Mary at her Immaculate Conception, by which he simply acted to give her in advance the grace of salvation in Christ.

[118] The situation of unbaptised infants may be considered by analogy with that of baptised infants, as here. More problematically, it may also perhaps be considered by analogy with the situation of unbaptised adults, see below, footnote 127.

…

1. Baptism for salvation can be received either in re or in voto. It is traditionally understood that the implicit choice for Christ that adults who are not actually baptised can make constitutes a votum for Baptism and is salvific. In the traditional view, such an option is not open to infants who have not attained the use of free‑will. The supposed impossibility of Baptism in voto for infants is central to the whole question. Hence, many, many attempts have been made in modern times to explore the possibility of a votum in the case of an unbaptised infant, either a votum exercised on behalf of the infant by its parents or by the Church,[126] or perhaps a votum exercised by the infant in some way.[127] The Church has never ruled out such a solution, and attempts to get Vatican II to do so significantly failed, because of a widespread sense that investigation of this matter was still ongoing and a widespread desire to entrust such infants to the mercy of God.

[127] With regard to the possibility of a votum on the part of the infant, growth towards free‑will might perhaps be imagined as a continuum which unfolds towards maturity from the first moment of existence, rather than there being a sudden qualitative jump to the exercise of mature, responsible decision. The existence of the unborn is a continuum of human life and growth; it does not suddenly become human at some point. Consequently, infants may actually be capable of exercising some kind of rudimentary votum by analogy with that of unbaptised adults. Some theologians have understood the mother’s smile to mediate the love of God to the infant, and have therefore seen the infant’s response to that smile as a response to God himself. Some modern psychologists and neurologists are convinced that the infant in the womb is already in some way conscious and has some use of freedom. Cf. V. FRANKL, Der unbewusste Gott. Psychotherapie und Religion, München 1979; D. AMEN, Healing the Hardware of the Soul, New York 2002.

​

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Fascinating!

I think if one really looks at it. A declaration of universal salvation of infants would undermine many Dogmas we would never connect to infant baptism.

 

[Vonsalza]

Fascinating!

I think if one really looks at it. A declaration of universal salvation of infants would undermine many Dogmas we would never connect to infant baptism.

She (the Church) can do it. Petrine and Pauline exceptions could be argued to undermine what we otherwise understand of many other doctrines related to the image and model of marriage.

They exist nonetheless.

She has the power to both bind and loose.

This declaration is 2000 years past due, imo.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

She (the Church) can do it. Petrine and Pauline exceptions could be argued to undermine what we otherwise understand of many other doctrines related to the image and model of marriage.

They exist nonetheless.

She has the power to both bind and loose.

This declaration is 2000 years past due, imo.

Nope.

 

[Memaw]

I believe in man’s need of a savior. I believe in the doctrine of original sin outlined in the catechism. Particularly 402-412.

I believe in the Dogma of the immaculate conception.
I believe the need for baptism and in mankind’s fallen nature. As outlined in the catechism. Particularly, 1250.

I believe man was created Good and fell.

That the only way for this to be reconciled to God’s justice was through the bloody violent and total sacrifice of God himself. And I believe in that God’s words and commands.

And yes, that tainted “hell worthy” state needs cleansing even for babies.
Even for the baby God himself who needed the new ark to be holy, worthy, clean from the taint of original sin. The immaculate conception. I believe 4 humans were created without this Original, hell worthy sin.
Adam and Eve, and they screwed that up. And Mary and Jesus.

Now if you will be so kind as to answer the question?

In the beginning, God created man for Heaven. Only those who turn from God of their own free will, risk Hell. Only God is the judge. HE doesn’t explain His every plan to us. He surely wants us to TRUST Him and NOT try to tell Him how it has to be. For all we know, when Jesus said, we must be born again of water and the Spirit in order to enter the kingdom of Heaven, HE may have been talking to those who have use of their free will. And what about the Good thief, he was not baptized!!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

In the beginning, God created man for Heaven. Only those who turn from God of their own free will, risk Hell. Only God is the judge. HE doesn’t explain His every plan to us. He surely wants us to TRUST Him and NOT try to tell Him how it has to be. For all we know, when Jesus said, we must be born again of water and the Spirit in order to enter the kingdom of Heaven, HE may have been talking to those who have use of their free will. And what about the Good thief, he was not baptized!!! God Bless, Memaw

None of the patriarchs were baptized. St. Joseph probably was not baptized

Little tiny John the Baptist leapt for joy in his mother’s womb when Elizabeth met Mary. Tradition has said that John the Baptist lost original sin at this moment, by recognizing in joy the even more tiny Savior.

I’ve been reading and somehow frustrated with these discussions for almost 10 years when I suffered two miscarriages.

In essence, I am being asked to believe simultaneously in a God that can move baby John the Baptist to move in joy at the presence of the Savior. But my babies, who came to Mass, who were in the closest presence with the Lord in the Eucharist, who were and are loved by their parents, and were prayed for, cannot possibly have had original sin cleansed from them, because they were not physically baptized.

God, who is all knowing and all loving, creates humans that have no possibility of salvation? Yet in December we celebrate the Feast of the Holy Innocents.

 

[Memaw]

None of the patriarchs were baptized. St. Joseph probably was not baptized

Little tiny John the Baptist leapt for joy in his mother’s womb when Elizabeth met Mary. Tradition has said that John the Baptist lost original sin at this moment, by recognizing in joy the even more tiny Savior.

I’ve been reading and somehow frustrated with these discussions for almost 10 years when I suffered two miscarriages.

In essence, I am being asked to believe simultaneously in a God that can move baby John the Baptist to move in joy at the presence of the Savior. But my babies, who came to Mass, who were in the closest presence with the Lord in the Eucharist, who were and are loved by their parents, and were prayed for, cannot possibly have had original sin cleansed from them, because they were not physically baptized.

God, who is all knowing and all loving, creates humans that have no possibility of salvation? Yet in December we celebrate the Feast of the Holy Innocents.

I agree and I TRUST my babies to the God that created them in the first place. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I agree and I TRUST my babies to the God that created them in the first place. God Bless, Memaw

:hug1:

 

[In_His_Grace]

For babies as well as foetuses, baptized or otherwise, they can’t choose. What happened to them are the decisions of their parents. You could have babies kidnapped and sold, swapped at the hospital, miscarriages, pregnant women dying along with their unborn, and a hundred other ways that prevented salvation. Do you think a just and loving God will discard/disown them for a mere technicality which is not of their own doing?

My personal belief is that a magnanimous God would just adopt them.

The relevant verses would be:

Matthew 19:14 “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them…” For those unbaptized , they were hindered.

Matthew 18:10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.” For some reason, you have little ones in heaven before the institution of baptism. We do not know whether these include circumcised babies or babies that didn’t make it by the eighth day for circumcision or those that died in the mother’s womb due to sickness or war or accident.

Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Babies are pure in heart.

By adopting the unwanted, the discarded, the unfortunate, God’s justice /mercy/love come together. We are adopted as children of by reason of our freewill/choice. For those who are not able to exercise their freewill/choice, they rely on One who could determine it for them. Whether God house them in different mansions or special rooms in the mansion, is his prerogative.

Also:

He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” (2 Samuel 12:22-23)

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I think it’s important in the discussion to separate the emotional and personal from the theological excercise if exploring the topic. That may be hard for some.

Personally, I believe in the necessity of baptism enough to have that be my first thought at birth if a baby even a crowning baby is in danger. No Catholic parent should be in a delivery room without the ability to baptize. I’ve seen it done. I’ve known parents who did it seconds before death. It’s a powerful image.
Baptism is necessary, period. Though there are other forms of baptism.

 

[RyanBlack]

Baptism is necessary, period.

As far as we are concerned. However, God is not bound by any such necessity.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

As far as we are concerned. However, God is not bound by any such necessity.

So everyone says. And yet in scripture and the Church we have a statement to the positive of the necessity of baptism. So much so that even outside of the sacrament itself we have baptism of desire and blood.

So, please, what is this “other way” that God is not bound by?
I often think of the Cross, of Jesus, asking the Father for another way, knowing that He was the Way. And His cup, was God’s justice.

And yet God, was not bound by the Cross, certainly not by Pilate. He could have chosen another way, but He did not.

And yet hell still will have a population, though God wills none of His children there.

 

[RyanBlack]

So everyone says. And yet in scripture and the Church we have a statement to the positive of the necessity of baptism. So much so that even outside of the sacrament itself we have baptism of desire and blood.

So, please, what is this “other way” that God is not bound by?
I often think of the Cross, of Jesus, asking the Father for another way, knowing that He was the Way. And His cup, was God’s justice.

And yet God, was not bound by the Cross, certainly not by Pilate. He could have chosen another way, but He did not.

And yet hell still will have a population, though God wills none of His children there.

I am simply saying that we do not know what God does with those who never had the opportunity to receive baptism. We cannot positively state their fate one way or the other. Perhaps baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation–without any exception. However, if that is the case, it is because God has willed it to be so, not because God is bound by the sacraments.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I am simply saying that we do not know what God does with those who never had the opportunity to receive baptism. We cannot positively state their fate one way or the other. Perhaps baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation–without any exception. However, if that is the case, it is because God has willed it to be so, not because God is bound by the sacraments.

We agree 100 percent on what you wrote

 

[RyanBlack]

I would also add that the CCC 1260 suggests that sacramental baptism is not absolutely necessary without exception:

“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”

Also CCC 848 states, “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him…”

 

[ericc]

So at what age does the sacrament matter? Or does it?

As soon as practicable. Don’ t you want to sign up your children in God’s household as soon as you can? Why would anyone want to procrastinate? There is no logic in waiting. If there is an inheritance for eternal happiness in the next life for your kid that he can keep were he to leave suddenly, won’t you sign him up immediately out of love and concern for the child?

Or should one wait till he is old enough to decide for himself? That appears taking a laissez faire approach towards the salvation of the child. That’s why we have to appeal to God’s mercy when kids were to face such non-certainty when parents fails to enroll him in God’s family register.