What is Catholic position on what happens to soul of unbaptized infant who dies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tommy999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tommy999

Guest
Just curious what the position of Catholic Church is on the spiritual fate of an infant who dies unexpectedly before he or she could be baptized. Is there hope for the soul of such a child?. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
From the Catechism:
1261 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. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.
Click to expand...
Not what the Church teaches.

No. Limbo is not doctrine. It’s not that it’s “antiquated”; it’s that it’s not a magisterial teaching. None of your magisterial pronouncements teach ‘limbo’.
 
After a person leaves this mortal life they are immediately judged. The ones who accept God’s mercy enter the Beatific Vision (possibly through purgatory) and the ones who don’t are eternally damned through their own self-exclusion.
 
Last edited:
Unless the Church definitively teaches that Limbo is the destination of the souls of the unborn, it is more difficult to make the case that abortion is evil. Because if everyone thinks that aborted babies just directly go to heaven, then many will see abortion as a mercy rather than a sin. After all, those babies would avoid a life of hardship, suffering, possible eternal damnation, etc. and go straight to heaven. Basically, the Church seems afraid that Limbo will sound too mean and unfair to pronounce as a doctrine, and instead puts forth vague language such as “entrusted to the mercy of God” which implicitly reads like they go to heaven.
 
It would seem kind of harsh to me for the unbaptized infant to not be allowed heaven, especially if the parents had every intention to baptize the infant in the near future when the baby suddenly dies in the night of SIDS or some other cause before getting baptized. Would “baptism of desire” possibly come into play in such a case, if the parents had already scheduled a baptism date in the near future when the death of the infant occurred? Mainly just curious. By the way, I am Methodist and am not familiar with the term “limbo”. Is that similar to purgatory or is it a different state altogether? Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. I appreciate it.
 
Thanks for the clarification, (name removed by moderator)
 
Last edited:
If the teaching had been consistent, universal, and throughout all times. It wasn’t.
Tommy999 said:
Would “baptism of desire” possibly come into play in such a case, if the parents had already scheduled a baptism date in the near future when the death of the infant occurred?
Click to expand...
No. The document @Mtatum1958 cited discusses this.

And, as taught by other Church Fathers, is a region in heaven. In other words, there’s no single consistent teaching on the matter. It just isn’t doctrine, plain and simple.
 
From The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die without being Baptized
The Bull “Auctorem fidei” of Pope Pius VI is not a dogmatic definition of the existence of Limbo: the papal Bull confines itself to rejecting the Jansenist charge that the “Limbo” taught by scholastic theologians is identical with the “eternal life” promised to unbaptised infants by the ancient Pelagians. Pius VI did not condemn the Jansenists because they denied Limbo, but because they held that the defenders of Limbo were guilty of the heresy of Pelagius.
Click to expand...
 
…unless God allows it. After all, He’s not constrained by the sacraments.

Except that the report authorized by Pope Benedict XVI, and accepted by him, says that while it’s possible to hold to the idea of Limbo, it’s not required.
 
Funny how everyone these days thinks they know better than Benedict XVI…
 
…except that it wasn’t “the constant tradition”. Funny how you keep missing that point. 😉
 
And that’s your opinion. The opinion of the ITC differs. So, if you want to talk about who’s the more reliable source for opinions on what’s binding doctrine and what’s not… I’ll go with the Vatican. 😉
 
It is a de fide teaching of the Church that those who die in original sin do not go to Heaven:
“Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)” -Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

However, the Church does not definitively teach that every unbaptized infant that dies is excluded from Heaven and goes to Limbo. If the child remains in the state of original sin at death then yes, the Church infallibly teaches they don’t go to heaven. But it is possible that God somehow grants the child sanctifying grace so they depart this life in the state of grace rather than a state of original sin. There is very little to support this idea and plenty of saints & popes have taught the opposite, but it is something Catholics are allowed to believe.
 
Everyone here seems to disagree with you. There are no Church documents stating Limbo for Infants was doctrine. It is simply your opinion.
 
For those who wish to know what the Church actually teaches:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

“it is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo , understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium…”
 
Actually it is you who dissents from Church teaching which is CCC 1261.

See also CCC 1257:

THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, _but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
 
Last edited:
The CCC per se is neither infallible nor non-infallible.

It contains the teachings of the Church, both infallible and non-infallible and Catholics are BOUND by all the teachings contained therein.
Are you saying you reject some teachings in the CCC?
 
The CCC is authoritative when it comes to Church teachings and it contains footnotes to relevant Church documents, be it Sacred Scripture or other Church documents that underpin doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top