What is the teaching on unbaptised babies?

[QuietKarlos]

So I saw a teaching by the Council of Florence on unbaptised babies: ''The souls of those who die in mortal sin or a state of original sin alone, go down at once into hell, to suffer, however, dissimilar punishments. ‘’

Is this infallible? Surely this couldn’t be true, right?

 

[TheLittleLady]

We trust them to the mercy of God.

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

 

[QuietKarlos]

So is that teaching not infallible then?

 

[Wesrock]

The teaching is infallible but God can especially confer the forgiveness of original sins on whomever he pleases.

Basically, there is no revelation on innocents who die before baptism, so there is theological speculation. The position of the Church is we don’t know, but we can have hope that God gives them salvation. We don’t have to assume they are denied the beatific vision.

 

[TK421]

So I saw a teaching by the Council of Florence on unbaptised babies: ''The souls of those who die in mortal sin or a state of original sin alone, go down at once into hell, to suffer, however, dissimilar punishments. ‘’

Is this infallible? Surely this couldn’t be true, right?

The Council of Florence is an ecumenical council and it is infallible.

For an unbaptized person, they need the grace of God to be removed of original sin. That either happens visibly by an act of God through the Sacrament or invisibly through an act of God.

A Sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace.

It doesn’t mean infants or other unbaptized persons go to hell. You’re reading too much into it.

Peace.

 

[Wesrock]

I don’t want to overcomplicate the thread, but even if there is a denial of the beatific vision that doesn’t mean they suffer. It was Saint Thomas Aquinas’ thought that they did not receive the beatific vision, but neither were they punished. He believed they would be resurrected and experience a natural level of happiness for eternity without the pain of loss.

St. Thomas is not the Church, though, and the Church’s position (like I wrote before) is that we don’t have to assume they are denied the beatific vision.

 

[QuietKarlos]

You’re reading too much into it.

I don’t get what you mean. If it is infallible then would that not mean the church teaches they go to hell. You seem to be saying: the church does teach they go to hell, but no the church doesn’t teach they go to hell.

I just don’t understand.

 

[QuietKarlos]

And it also says they suffer punishments.

 

[TK421]

I don’t get what you mean. If it is infallible then would that not mean the church teaches they go to hell. You seem to be saying: the church does teach they go to hell, but no the church doesn’t teach they go to hell.

I just don’t understand.

A person - every person, even the Blessed Mother - requires the saving grace of God in order to be saved and to enter the Beatific Vision. That happens visibly through the Sacrament of Baptism that is usually administered by the clergy, but God can also save a person without the Sacrament.

 

[QuietKarlos]

Does this not avoid the question? I am just wondering why there is a teaching saying unbaptised babies suffer punishments. How do you reconcile the fact that this teaching clearly says that un baptised babies do go to Hell.

 

[TK421]

???

That’s a conflation. The statements of Councils say things very precisely and they need to be read precisely.

As far as why it was said: I would need to study up on it but I believe they were responding to the false idea that the Church shouldn’t be baptizing infants. By the time of Florence there were some protestant ideas floating around even though there was no formal protestant revolution yet.

 

[twf]

It says that those in “original sin” go to hell. You’re assuming that unbaptized babies die in a state of original sin. Only God knows for sure the state of the soul of any given person, babies included. It is also clear that the sufferings are not equal…as pointed out earlier in the thread, historically many believed that unbaptized babies went to “Limbo”, which is technically hell, but without any torments. The “suffering”, in this case, would simply be the lack of the Beatific Vision…but it would still be a happy place.

 

[QuietKarlos]

Yes but does everyone not have original sin when born?

 

[QuietKarlos]

Okay but then I’d say to you why is being in original sin deserving of Hell since its inherited?

 

[TK421]

Okay but then I’d say to you why is being in original sin deserving of Hell since its inherited?

In the Augustinian view (which generally isn’t followed but I’m just giving some historical perspective to help you understand, because the Fathers of the Council of Florence would have been aware of the Augustinian view) “hell” was a broad term and it was any state outside of Heaven. So, for an unbaptized infant, they would go to hell but they wouldn’t be in torment. They would be in a pleasant state of natural happiness, but they would be denied the supernatural happiness of the Beatific Vision. For a person who committed personal sins, they would be in hell and they would be in torment.

Now, a more common perspective today is that God can/does work outside of the Sacrament, so even if an infant or an adult were to die unbaptized, they can still be saved by an act of God, along with their consent through the exercise of their free will.

Does that make sense?

Peace.

 

[QuietKarlos]

The souls of those who die in mortal sin or a state of original sin alone, go down at once into hell, to suffer, however, dissimilar punishments. ‘’

Okay my problem is that: this is saying the people with original sin suffer punishments. Punishments imply they did something wrong. But they’re saying those in a state of original sin deserve to be punished. How can it be taught that you can be punished for inheriting a characteristic. That would be ridiculous so I still don’t understand.

 

[SPBlitz]

I think the denial of the beatific vision has traditionally been considered ‘Hell’ and a form of punishment, even if it need not contain pain as we’d define it.

 

[TK421]

@QuietKarlos

The deprivation of a good is a form of punishment, but not in the sense that they are being punished for personal sins. Punishment for personal sin involves suffering, but being in original sin alone means that a person is separated from God.

Another way to look at it or at least a way that makes a lot of sense for me: people aren’t entitled to the Beatific Vision or entitled to existing at all. We owe every instant to God, and Heaven is likewise a gift rather than something we are entitled or owed. It would be morally wrong to say that God owes us Heaven. He does not.

 

[TMC]

I find that rather then try to parse what was said 700 years ago in a different language and vastly different circumstances, it makes more sense to go read what the Church is actually teaching today, which is available in the link already posted in this thread.

 

[twf]

Very glad you said it this way Deacon, as this is one of the biggest point of contentions between Catholics and Orthodoxy. When talking with Orthodox Christians, I always try to stress that original sin is primarily an absence of something (that is, the indwelling of the divine life of the Trinity) rather than a literal stain / substance / thing.