Unborn Babies Saved?

[Parysa]

What about simply, mercy?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

And are we subject to original sin from birth or while still unborn? Is it possible that the unborn are still under the protection and grace of God?

We are affected by Original Sin from the beginning of our lives at the moment of conception.

 

[Antithesis]

I read somewhere that 15% (I think that’s the right number) of all “menstrual cycles” are natural miscarriages with the mother not even knowing she’s pregnant. If life begins at conception and God is the creator of all life and unborn babies cannot go to Heaven, then that would mean that God is deliberately creating how many millions of souls that He knows are going to hell. That doesn’t fit with a merciful and loving God.

God creates millions of souls all the time that he knows are going to hell, what is the difference if they are born or not. God creates them because the act of creation is good. He sends them to hell too because it is good and just in his eyes. In no way does it take away from his mercy. Hell is an act of his mercy.

 

[VociMike]

God creates millions of souls all the time that he knows are going to hell, what is the difference if they are born or not.

The difference, it should be obvious, is that some are given the chance to make a choice for or against God, while others have no opportunity (that we know of) to make that choice. It is these latter who’s being sent to hell is highly difficult to square with God’s mercy.

 

[Antithesis]

The difference, it should be obvious, is that some are given the chance to make a choice for or against God, while others have no opportunity (that we know of) to make that choice. It is these latter who’s being sent to hell is highly difficult to square with God’s mercy.

Original sin is real, it can not be denied or sweeped away. The human race choose to go against God, those babies as part of the human race share in that choice and all that it entails. We all deserve hell from the moment of our creation. Its his super abundant mercy that he even gives any of us the smallest chance to go to heaven. It is also part of his mercy that he allows us to continue to exsist in hell even though we are an affront to him.

 

[VociMike]

Original sin is real, it can not be denied or sweeped away. The human race choose to go against God, those babies as part of the human race share in that choice and all that it entails. We all deserve hell from the moment of our creation. Its his super abundant mercy that he even gives any of us the smallest chance to go to heaven. It is also part of his mercy that he allows us to continue to exsist in hell even though we are an affront to him.

God desires that all be saved. This requires that all be given a chance of salvation, a chance to make a choice for God. We don’t know what form that choice might take for babies, the mentally incompetent, etc. But God’s desire that all be saved, which is scriptural and thus undisputable, requires that choice be available to all.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I am not a troll and I am not having Fun. Especially on this day of all. I personally align more with christianity (Due to higher concept of God ) and muslim (due to their ultimate understanding service to God) belief systems. I do not trust the Catholic church yet because of issues such as this. Orthodox seems to me to be a better choice but also has its faults ABC for one.

I apologise for my rush judgements.

BTW Limbo does not mean they are saved it means they are not punished in a certian way.

Yes

Original sin is a true and real sin which is a teaching of your church. I accept that but you seem to deny that.

How? The denial of the beautific vision is the consequence of the Original Sin. All else is then punishment for personal sin.

They are in hell and all your church fathers testify to this. (Limbo is in hell in case you do not understand this.)

I do undestand that. They however also believe that they will not be punished in the same way as adults due to absence of ANY personal sin. They thus believed in the concept of Limbo.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

It’s the difference between assurance and hope. Which is essentially the difference between Catholicism and everything else.

I do not deny that. I do not deny the possibility for hope which is what the Church teaches. I do however belief in Limbo. If I’m wrong than that’s only good.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

The difference, it should be obvious, is that some are given the chance to make a choice for or against God, while others have no opportunity (that we know of) to make that choice. It is these latter who’s being sent to hell is highly difficult to square with God’s mercy.

If you think of it then Limbo is actually pretty good. They will live in a state of natural happiness for eternaty. If you consider the fact that they are born with no right to go to heaven and thus are naturally heading to hell then limbo is mercy.

 

[SemperFidelis]

C’mon on now. Limbo is the merciful thing for those unbaptized infants. Yes, they are not saved, but they suffer not and are perfectly happy in Limbo. The argument has never been whether unbaptized infants go to heaven or hell, but whether they go to hell or Limbo, whether they suffer any punishment or not, and whether they are naturally happy or not. There is no Church document that says unbaptized infants go to heaven. The CCC and the ITC report only say we “can hope they can attain heaven.” That’s fine. I actually hope all can make it to heaven. However, we all know that that is not the case. Baptism is required for salvation, and there are only three Baptisms defined by the Church: actual water Baptism, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood. Two or these are completely ruled out for unbaptized infants. Some probably receive Baptism of Blood, like the Holy Innocents, however, it is presumptive and completely unfounded according to the Tradition of the Church, to say ALL receive such Baptism. If Limbo doesn’t exist, then that means some unbaptized infants actually go to hell and are punished. Personally, that is hard to take. If that is what the Church decreed, then I would accept it. However, in her wisdom, it was revealed to the Angelic Doctor, through the Early Church Fathers such as St. Gregory of Nazianzus, that these unbaptized infants do not suffer and are perfectly happy on the very edges of hell (ie: Limbo). Original Sin is a real thing, and it is punishable by fire. God in his mercy however, has allowed a location that is not only merciful, as those who go there don’t suffer, but is also just, as those who go there also don’t deserve the beatific vision. It is the most logical idea. It is not a Dogma of the Church, as Dogmas are usually only defined once they are questioned by a large section of the Church. That is happening today, so I would’nt expect it to be too long until the Church does such (ie: less than one century). While it is not Dogma, I wouldn’t be so quick to reject a teaching that has been taught for almost a millenium by Doctors of the Church, Popes, and Catechisms. It would be unwise and imprudent to do so.

 

[napad]

C’mon on now. Limbo is the merciful thing for those unbaptized infants. Yes, they are not saved, but they suffer not and are perfectly happy in Limbo. The argument has never been whether unbaptized infants go to heaven or hell, but whether they go to hell or Limbo, whether they suffer any punishment or not, and whether they are naturally happy or not. There is no Church document that says unbaptized infants go to heaven. The CCC and the ITC report only say we “can hope they can attain heaven.” That’s fine. I actually hope all can make it to heaven. However, we all know that that is not the case. Baptism is required for salvation, and there are only three Baptisms defined by the Church: actual water Baptism, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood. Two or these are completely ruled out for unbaptized infants. Some probably receive Baptism of Blood, like the Holy Innocents, however, it is presumptive and completely unfounded according to the Tradition of the Church, to say ALL receive such Baptism. If Limbo doesn’t exist, then that means some unbaptized infants actually go to hell and are punished. Personally, that is hard to take. If that is what the Church decreed, then I would accept it. However, in her wisdom, it was revealed to the Angelic Doctor, through the Early Church Fathers such as St. Gregory of Nazianzus, that these unbaptized infants do not suffer and are perfectly happy on the very edges of hell (ie: Limbo). Original Sin is a real thing, and it is punishable by fire. God in his mercy however, has allowed a location that is not only merciful, as those who go there don’t suffer, but is also just, as those who go there also don’t deserve the beatific vision. It is the most logical idea. It is not a Dogma of the Church, as Dogmas are usually only defined once they are questioned by a large section of the Church. That is happening today, so I would’nt expect it to be too long until the Church does such (ie: less than one century). While it is not Dogma, I wouldn’t be so quick to reject a teaching that has been taught for almost a millenium by Doctors of the Church, Popes, and Catechisms. It would be unwise and imprudent to do so.

Messy language uch: Semper the Catechism says

" allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism."

not as you quoted:
“can hope they can attain heaven.”

Salvation and Heaven can have different meanings just like it does in this quote. As you said the debate was never if babies can go to heaven but hell vs. Limbo.