Was the theif on the cross able to go and be baptised? No. Did he know that he needed baptism? Not at that particular time. Had he known and was able to be baptised he surely would have, so that counts as his baptism so to speak.What about the thief on the cross? He most definitely was not baptized yet Christ said that he will be in paradise. Why not the same for children that could not have been baptized yet?
As to power, you are right, God could do such a thing. How original sin applied, or rather didn’t apply, to the Virgin Mary, though, is officially called “singular”. I’ve always taken that to mean “one of a kind” and “exceptional”. God also has the ability to change the intellectual powers of the infant, so that in the womb he/she could ponder and have will. In such a case, I imagine baptism of desire could apply to the child, if the child made the right choice of heart. The Church knows of no such pattern of events happening, though. not that I’ve heard.I don’t understand how God could deprive an infant of the happiness of God and Heaven because of something that is not their fault: inheriting original sin and not being baptized.
God, being the all-power, all-knowing being that he is, would know ahead of time that the child would die and would not be baptized. So why couldn’t he provide them with the same birth as Mary…born without original sin?
That kind of sounds like it could be on par with transubstantiation…it appears to be the same but in fact has changed. At least to me it sounds like it could be on the same level.As to power, you are right, God could do such a thing. How original sin applied, or rather didn’t apply, to the Virgin Mary, though, is officially called “singular”. I’ve always taken that to mean “one of a kind” and “exceptional”. God also has the ability to change the intellectual powers of the infant, so that in the womb he/she could ponder and have will. In such a case, I imagine baptism of desire could apply to the child, if the child made the right choice of heart. The Church knows of no such pattern of events happening, though. not that I’ve heard.
The CC teaches that those in this world who were unable to learn of Jesus are capable of being saved even if they never knew Christ and, therefore, never had the desire to be baptized simply because they’d never even heard of Christianity. But they would still be able to go to Purgatory and eventually Heaven.The thief on the cross is a good point, but it involves principles of Catholic THeology people don’t often explicate when talking about baptism of desire:
BUt without faith, it is impossible to please God. THerefore infants do not enjoy the vision of GOd, by Justice, and because of their Guilt which they have contraceted through generation and is in them as their own guilt.
- THe desire for baptism is not, by itself, enough to justify anyone. THere needs to be a repentance over sin, a display of Charity, an act of Faith, and Perfect Contrition; that is, sorrow for having offended God out of love for him and the desire to be baptized. THese are dispositions necessary to enjoy the graces of baptism in a rational creature.
- The good thief lived at a time when Baptism was not explicated as necessary for salvation by Christ yet. He had not issued the great commission, and the Holy Spirit had not come at a pentecost to vivify the Church yet. His act of Faith sufficed for rightewousness, and he died under the old law, provided he died before or at the same TIme as Christ.
- Infants are born guilty and enslaved to sin. They are not innocent, they are stained with the guilt of Adam’s sin. THey are not friends of GOd, they are children of wrath, and are judged.
- Infants cannot elicit an act of faith for baptism, therefore they need to be baptized in the faith of the Church. Faith is communicated to the infant in baptism. SO they are pleasing to God.
If that’s true, then the Catholic Church believes in universal salvation, which is patently false.The CC teaches that those in this world who were unable to learn of Jesus are capable of being saved even if they never knew Christ and, therefore, never had the desire to be baptized simply because they’d never even heard of Christianity. But they would still be able to go to Purgatory and eventually Heaven.
Yet, infants are unable to go to Heaven simply because they never had the cognitive ability to sin, desire to sin, or the desire to be baptized…all of which are because of the way God designed us in the development process?
I’m sorry, this must be a bit frustrating with having to write so much, but I’m still not seeing your point. “…a person in invincible ignorance could be saved if they were made aware of the Catholic faith and desired to meet the requirements of the Catholic faith”, as you said above. How could they be in invincible ignorance when made aware of the Catholic faith in order to be saved? Wouldn’t that meant that they are therefore in vincible ignorance and therefore required to fully know the faith and follow the rule? So wouldn’t infants be the epitome of invincible ignorance?If that’s true, then the Catholic Church believes in universal salvation, which is patently false.
THe Church does however have a doctrine about baptism of desire, and I think You need to understand a couple points about it, if I may:
Consider:
- Baptism of Desire is a way to be justified before God.
- Baptism of Desire, whenever it is defined in council documents is ever and ONLY talking about an explicit desire for water baptism. THis implies the faith has been preached, and not ignorance.
3.For baptism of desire to be effective, it is not enough to just want to be baptized: It is necessary to FIrst, be made aware of our sinfulness, to turn from sin, to make an act of perfect contrition (Which alone can justify outside of the sacrament of confession. Attrition cannot), to Make an act of Faith (To express faith in God), and to be living the way Christ has commanded.- If any of these elements are lacking, there can be no baptism of desire.
- Invincible ignorance is not sanctifying grace, which is an absolute necessity to be saved. Invincible ignorance simply means not being guilty of the sin of unbelief, because there was no way to know about the faith. THere are about a milllion other ways to sin that can send a person to hell, that a person who is living in ignorance of the gospel WILL commit. AS St. Augustine says, man “cannot not sin.”
A man lives alone on an island having never heard of CHrist. Like all men, he is born in original sin, and guilty of that sin. This means first that his will is darkened and inclined toward evil, that he is incapable of doing any supernaturally pleasing act, and unless GOd offers his grace, he has no reason to turn toward God, for God is not sought apart from his grace being given to the seeker. Now, one day, God gives this man actual grace: How will he know it? What will he do with it? Who will inform him?
A Man, having reached the age of reason, cannot receive sanctifying grace by automatic infusion: No, God does not force anyone to be saved. It must be a free choice.
But how will an ignorant person choose? What will he choose between? How can he choose sanctifying grace if he has no knowledge of it? How can he choose the means of sanctifying grace, which is baptism?
Suppose God sends an angel to this man to instruct him in the faith, as He did to Cornelius in Acts Chapter 10. After having heard the faith, this man desires baptism in order to be saved. Now, if he desired it but never had the intention of living his life as Christ wanted, would he be saved?
No. For we must keep the commandments.
Suppose he desired to be baptized, but only as fire insurance, without any desire to leave behind his sinfulness. IN other words, out of the fear of hell, attrition.
Would he be saved?
No. The Church teaches that attrition CANNOT justify outside the sacrament of penance.
Suppose he desired baptism, but without acknowledging the faith that accompanies it. Could he be saved?
No. For without faith it is impossible to please God, as the Scriptures say in Hebrews 11.
Suppose he desired sanctifying grace, but he did not desire baptism, because he saw it
as degrading: Could he be saved?
No. For since the preaching of the gospel, there is no other means of salvation apart from Baptism or the intention to receive it (Council of Trent).
**So, in a very specific and miraculous circumstance a person in invincible ignorance could be saved if they were made aware of the Catholic faith and if they desired to meet the requirements of the Catholic faith.
In other words, the invincibly ignorant could only be saved as Catholics or as intended Catholics who had the desire to be Catholic.**…
I guess what I am trying to get around to is that GOd does not allow ignorance to remain in the hearts of those who sincerely seek him. He dispels the darkness of ignorance and replaces it with the light of the Truth. THis is what happened in the BIble with the God-Fearing Gentile Cornelius and the Ethiopian Eunuch the Disciple Philip Preached to: GDespite their receptivity to GOd’s grace, did he leave them half-way? No, he made their faith explicit and brought them to the fullness of faith in the Catholic Church.I’m sorry, this must be a bit frustrating with having to write so much, but I’m still not seeing your point. “…a person in invincible ignorance could be saved if they were made aware of the Catholic faith and desired to meet the requirements of the Catholic faith”, as you said above. How could they be in invincible ignorance when made aware of the Catholic faith in order to be saved? Wouldn’t that meant that they are therefore in vincible ignorance and therefore required to fully know the faith and follow the rule? So wouldn’t infants be the epitome of invincible ignorance?
Is this a mandatory belief of the church? I had read online somewhere that it was up to the individual believer and that, in fact, the church had ridden itself of this teaching.I guess what I am trying to get around to is that GOd does not allow ignorance to remain in the hearts of those who sincerely seek him. He dispels the darkness of ignorance and replaces it with the light of the Truth. THis is what happened in the BIble with the God-Fearing Gentile Cornelius and the Ethiopian Eunuch the Disciple Philip Preached to: GDespite their receptivity to GOd’s grace, did he leave them half-way? No, he made their faith explicit and brought them to the fullness of faith in the Catholic Church.
My second point would be that infants are the epitome of invincible ignorance: But ignorance is not innocence. Neither is it righteousness, nor is it sanctifying grace.
St. THomas Aquinas taught that Ignorance is a punishment for sin. The invincibly ignorant are punished with ignorance: Or the ignorance is vincible and therefore sinful.
SO, It would not seem possible for infants to be saved without baptism because GOd not only wills for some to be saved, but he wills them to be saved in the means he established for salvation. Jesus said himself: “Unless a man be born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.”
No baptism, no go. No desire for it, no go.
Unbaptized infants cannot desire, they cannot will, they are already condemned, and thus cannot be with God. That which is cute is not necessarily innocent.
I guess I’m just having a hard time with this doctrine. I mean…its babies. I thought that God would make an exception for them since he created all the rules in the first place, both the reason why they are unable to comprehend at such a young age and the way of salvation.The church cannot rid itself of any teaching that is part of the universal magisterium. I am not sure if it can be considered an opinion. I mean, ALl the major Scholastic theologians taught it. And it still fits in line with the current catechism (Which does not say how those in invincible ignorance MAY be saved, which means they equally may not…)
I think it makes sense at least.
Let’s stop and think. DOes GOd will to be worshipped any old way, or in the way he has established in the mass?
The mass.
Does God will to bring salvation to many just any old way, or through the means he has established?
Well, he established those means for a purpose, so obviously he wishes to enforce them. He gave us the sacraments, and the Church has taught that the sacraments are necessary for our salvation.
Does God Change?
So I believe in my opinon thus far, that God wills not only the salvation of many, but that all be saved in the way he has established. Because it is not enough to come to God on our terms, we must come to him on HIS terms.
Never underestimate the darkness of the human heart.
Unless a man receive GOd’s grace, man does not seek after God.
Logically, and (as it seems) scripturally, it makes sense. I have always known that we inherit original sin from birth. What I had always thought about original sin was that it was not a sin in and of itself, but the spiritual tendency for man to WANT to sin, but not a sin itself. With that thought process, I figured that God would forgive children (especially infants) who had not been baptized and allow them to still get into Heaven.But the Church teaches that newborns are not innocent. THey are sinners. THey are guilty of original sin.
I think what you really need to look at is to ask yourself what the doctrine of Original sin is.
Here, Trent defines it really well. Why don’t you take a quick look and rad the session on original sin? It’s not too long, and Is very interesting.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html
Especially check out paragraph four, and tell me if you think I have taken this out of COntext. And then refer to posts 338 and 339 on this thread.
Notice how this canon applies the words of Christ to the salvation of infants? Notice also how it says in the beginning that they must be baptized, having their SINS washed away for “the obtaining of life everlasting.”?
- If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema.** For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.**
Well, tell me what you think.
This is a very long read, but it is why we are allowed to have hope (not certainty, but hope)I guess I’m just having a hard time with this doctrine. I mean…its babies. I thought that God would make an exception for them since he created all the rules in the first place, both the reason why they are unable to comprehend at such a young age and the way of salvation.
Indeed, I don’t think there is any way for a man to detect a baptized with water child from one that is not, so this would also be undetectable. What has happened has no effect upon the appearance of the child. But unlike transubstantiation, the child is still a child. The Church does know about individual baptized children, on account of having poured the water and said the words, as the Church has been instructed. The Church also knows about the Real Presence, on account of the same type of reasoning.That kind of sounds like it could be on par with transubstantiation…it appears to be the same but in fact has changed. At least to me it sounds like it could be on the same level.
You seem very knowledgeable about the subject. Can you tell me if it is permanent or temporary. Another person said that it is often thought to be temporary until the final day.But the Church teaches that newborns are not innocent. THey are sinners. THey are guilty of original sin.
I think what you really need to look at is to ask yourself what the doctrine of Original sin is.
Here, Trent defines it really well. Why don’t you take a quick look and rad the session on original sin? It’s not too long, and Is very interesting.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html
Especially check out paragraph four, and tell me if you think I have taken this out of COntext. And then refer to posts 338 and 339 on this thread.
Notice how this canon applies the words of Christ to the salvation of infants? Notice also how it says in the beginning that they must be baptized, having their SINS washed away for “the obtaining of life everlasting.”?
- If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema.** For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.**
Well, tell me what you think.
It is permanent. Limbo, if it does exist as an abode apart from the general suffering of hell, is usually placed in hell, and the dogmas of Florence and Lyons seem to confirm it:You seem very knowledgeable about the subject. Can you tell me if it is permanent or temporary. Another person said that it is often thought to be temporary until the final day.
Yeah, it makes sense. :sad_yes:It is permanent. Limbo, if it does exist as an abode apart from the general suffering of hell, is usually placed in hell, and the dogmas of Florence and Lyons seem to confirm it:
“THose who die in original sin alone, or in mortal sin, descend to hell where they are punished, but with different punishments.”
From this phrase we can make several infallible deductions.
Some secondary deductions (Not as weighty, but still compelling)
- There is a class of person who can die in original sin alone.
- The punishment for those who die in original sin alone is hell.
3.THeir punishment is different than those who die in mortal sin.- Original sin deserves eternal punishment (because it is punished in hell).
5.Mortal sin deserves eternal punishment.
6.Only two kinds of people can die in original sin alone: Infants and mentally handicapped. Or more generally, those without the use of reason.
7.Original sin has the nature of Sin, because it is punished.
8.Because it has the nature of Sin, it has the nature of personal guilt.
Does that make sense?
- Infants die in original sin. Original sin deserves eternal punishment. THerefore infants deserve eternal punishment.
2.The punishments infants suffer in hell is different than those who die in mortal sin.- Infants are subject to original sin, and are therefore guilty, not innocent.
- Because infants are sunject to original sin, they do not deserve heaven.