Pope says fate of unbaptized babies touches important beliefs

Catholic News Service ^ | Oct-7-2004 | Cindy Wooden

[Stubborn]

The Second Vatican Council's reforms and the new theological challenges it posed placed the question of unbaptized babies on the back burner for most theologians, but many bishops around the world have asked the doctrinal congregation for guidance on the question.

[Kolokotronis]

"As I mentioned, Limbo is a speculative theological venture first broached in the written record by a Greek Father, St. Gregory Nazianz, in his Oration on Baptism; not by a Latin."

I just read the entire Oration on Baptism and have found nothing which can be twisted into "Limbo" What I did see is that St. Gregory is quite clearly speaking to adult Catechumens. The sin or sins he is speaking about are those actually committed by his listeners. He does mention children is a couple of places, and speaks about their baptisms as a sealing and a sanctification, but not for the wiping out of any sin. Here is what he says:

" Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptise them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.

A proof of this is found in the Circumcision on the eighth day, which was a sort of type of the seal, and was conferred on children before they had the use of reason. And so is the anointing of the doorposts, which preserved the firstborn, though applied to things which had no consciousness. But in respect of others I give my advice to wait till the end of the third year, or a little more or less, when they may be able to listen and to answer something about the sacrament, so that, even though they do not perfectly understand it, yet at any rate they may know the outlines, and then to sanctify them in soul and body with the great sacrament of our consecration. For this is how the matter stands: at that time they begin to be responsible for their lives, when reason is matured, and they learn the mystery of life (for of sins of ignorance owing to their tender years they have no account to give), and it is far more profitable on all accounts to be fortified by the font, because of the sudden assaults of danger that befall us, stronger than our helpers."

I sincerely do not see where you get Limbo out of this, Hermann. I similarly do not see anything like "original sin" here, no mention that we were born with a "macula" on our souls as some have described "original sin" though there is extensive discussion of sins and the purification of baptized persons. But again, it is important in that respect to remember that St. Gregory is speaking to grown-ups. Now Origen did write something like what you and others have been saying

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And, indeed, if there were nothing in infants that required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would be superfluous."

Origen, of course, was condemned as a heretic.

If I missed something in the Oration on Baptism, please give the cite, even to the Greek if you have it as I am more than willing to be corrected on this. In the meantime, what I read in your prior post seemed to me, as it did to Kosta, to be perfectly Orthodox, but your explanation of Limbo thereafter seemed to take back what you had previously said.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I just read the entire Oration on Baptism and have found nothing which can be twisted into "Limbo" What I did see is that St. Gregory is quite clearly speaking to adult Catechumens. The sin or sins he is speaking about are those actually committed by his listeners. He does mention children is a couple of places, and speaks about their baptisms as a sealing and a sanctification, but not for the wiping out of any sin.

See here (cited by St. Thomas Aquinas to establish the doctrine of Limbo - http://www.newadvent.org/summa/600101.htm):

But then, you say, is not God merciful, and since He knows our thoughts and searches our desires, will He not take the desire of Baptism instead of Baptism? You are speaking in riddles, if what you mean is that because of God's mercy the unenlightened is enlightened in His sight; and he is within the kingdom of heaven who merely desires to attain to it, but refrains from doing that which pertains to the kingdom. I will, however, speak out boldly my opinion on these matters; and I think sensible men will range themselves on my side. Of those who received the gift, some were altogether alien from God and from salvation, both addicted to all manner of sin, and desirous to be bad; others were semi-vicious, and in a kind of mean state between good and bad; others again, while they did that which was evil, yet did not approve of their own action, just as men in a fever are not pleased with their own sickness. And others even before they were illuminated were worthy of praise; partly by nature, and partly by the care with which they prepared themselves for Baptism. These after their initiation became evidently better, and less liable to fall; in the one case with a view to procuring a good, and in the other in order to preserve it. And amongst these, those who gave into some evil are better than those altogether bad; and better still than those who were more zealous, and broke up their fallow ground before Baptism; they have the advantage over the others of having already labored; for the font does not do away with good deeds as it does with sins. But better even than these are they who are cultivating the Gift, and are polishing themselves to the utmost beauty.

And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift, some are altogether animal or bestial, according as they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift, but look upon it as a mere gift - to be aquiesced in if given them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know and honor the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish. As then in the former case we found much difference, so too in this. They who altogether despise it are worse than they who neglect it through greed or carelessness. They are worse than they who have lost the Gift through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error. And I think the first will have to suffer punishment, as for all their sins, so for their contempt of Baptism; and that the second will also have to suffer, but less because it was not so much through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure; and that the third will neither be glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and not yet wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not everyone who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honored; just as everyone who is not good enough to be honored is bad enough to be punished. And I look upon it as well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired Baptism apart from the reception of Baptism. But if you cannot do the one, how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or if you like, we will put it thus: - If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual Baptism, then judge in the same regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?

St. Gregory of Nazianz, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40.22-23, AD 381

And also:

Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.

St. Gregory of Nazianz, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40.28, AD 381

The whole essense of original sin is the absence of grace in the soul of a person, not a personal fault. Baptism "remits" original sin by infusing grace into the soul where none existed before. Just so we are clear on what the Roman Church teaches: "Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405, citing the Council of Trent).

For St. Gregory to speak of infants needing sanctification is the same as saying they need the washing away of original sin or any number of other means of phrasing the same thought.

This is why we have to admit the utter impossibility of salvation for infants without divine intervention - man in his pre-Baptismal state, is unsanctified, and utterly unfit for the union of glory with God. His own personal sins he will commit later matter not a whit in this judgement of his state immediately upon his conception - at conception, man is bereft of God and His life. This state is what Christ came to save us from.

[Kolokotronis]

"For St. Gregory to speak of infants needing sanctification is the same as saying they need the washing away of original sin or any number of other means of phrasing the same thought."

No, this is not what St. Gregory taught. Read the Oration in its entirety. He said what he said, comparing the baptism of children to the dedication of Jewish male babies to God and in another place saying that a mother should "seal" her child as the ancient Jews did. In fact he makes quite a distinction between adult baptism and that of children. Nowhere does he say that infant baptism wipes out any sin, "original" or otherwise. he notes that infants and young children are incapable of sin. He does say that its grace strengthens the child for the battle to come, and when he speaks of adults he is very clear about wiping out sins committed prior to baptism. If he were to hold the position you attribute to him, why does he recommend that arents wait until a child is three years old before the child is baptized? Wouldn't that be a monstrous position to hold?

"This is why we have to admit the utter impossibility of salvation for infants without divine intervention - man in his pre-Baptismal state, is unsanctified, and utterly unfit for the union of glory with God."

Hermann, NONE of us can come into a state of theosis without God's intervention because we (not our Father Adam) sin. Your position is dependent on Thomas Aquinas. It is at least a little amusing that the Roman Church raises Aquinas on the issue of "original sin", yet rejects him on the issue of the so very interconnected issue of the Immaculate Conception. Your apparent belief that "salvation" is like some single level thing is very Western, vaguely protestant to me. Theosis is a process that we advance upon (or not) at different paces and at death arrive at a different level of theosis. One could posit, I suppose, that the soul of a hypothetical 90 year old monastic who has spent his or her entire life in the practice of ascesis and thus has advanced far into theosis will be in a "more glorious state" at death than the soul of an aborted child. But this is not to say that soul of that aborted innocent will not in some way become glorified to some level because of Rome's idea of the stain or dark spot (macula, as in its opposite Immaculate)of original sin on its soul.

In the end, the Roman doctrine of original sin speaks volumes about Roman sotierology and is a prime example of the Rome's "Do this or you will go to Hell" as against the Orthodox East's "Do this and you will become like God." Now, that phronema has worked in the West for 1400-1500 years. Roman Catholics like it. Fine. In the East we don't buy it.

[Arguss]

"This is why we have to admit the utter impossibility of salvation for infants without divine intervention - man in his pre-Baptismal state, is unsanctified, and utterly unfit for the union of glory with God. His own personal sins he will commit later matter not a whit in this judgement of his state immediately upon his conception - at conception, man is bereft of God and His life. This state is what Christ came to save us from."

Excellent! This is what the Church believes and has taught from the beginning, even though she seems to forget sometimes.

Pope John Paul hasn't forgotten. The efficasy of Baptism is at the crux of this thread, which is the existance of Limbo. Without the need of Baptism, there is no need to speculate on Limbo. It is therefore Limbo only that John Paul wants definitively defined, because the Churchs' dedication to Baptism is not in question, except possibly by the crowd that brings us clown Masses.

I hope that Catholics do not fall into the trap that theological liberals are laying. Question Limbo if you wish, but not Baptism. I know it's too late for many.

"He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved" mk16

"All power in Heaven and on Earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." mt28

St. Peter: "Do penance, and be baptized, everyone of you, in the nameof Jesus Christ, for the remision of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." acts 2

St. Paul was baptized immediately after his miraculous conversion acts 9

[kosta50]

Excellent! This is what the Church believes and has taught from the beginning, even though she seems to forget sometimes

False. The Church did not teach about the Limbo. The Latin Church, after the Schism, added this to the original faith. Shall we assume that we now know more than the Apostles or the Church Fathers who didn't teach it? Don't you know that the faith was delivered in toto and not piecemeal?

There were some theologians who speculated, but the entire Church did not buy into these and therefore they were not binding. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It is hopeless to attempt to take legalisitic Latin theological terms and stuff them into a Greek tehological box, and come out with something understandable.

If you wish to understand our terms, you must do so on our terms, not yours.

Again, Original Sin is defined at Trent as the death of the soul. It is the fact that God created man in justice and grace, but Adam lost that for us by his sin while also wounding our human nature by causing it to incline to sin, and passed on that wounded and deprived nature by natural generation.

Original Sin is not an actual sin or personal fault.

Unbaptized children are innocent and spotless. But they are also bereft of grace and participation in the divine life.

The "stain" or "macula" of Original Sin on the soul is its exsitence without grace.

I'm not aware of St. Gregory reccomending waiting until three. I do know he says "Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit." (On Baptism, 40.17)

The Roman Church does not reject St. Thomas Aquinas on the Immaculate Conception, nor did St. Thomas Aquinas reject the Immaculate Conception or the doctrines of the Roman Church. This sort of ignorant nonesense is spread about far and wide, but is simply not true. St. Thomas did hold to the Immaculate Conception. What he did not do was use the terminology of the Franciscan Bl. Duns Scotus and Bl. Pope Pius IX, from which the definition of 1854 was ultimately created.

"Purity is constituted by a recession from impurity, and therefore it is possible to find some creature purer than all the rest, namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin; such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin, yet under God, inasmuch as there was in her the potentiality of sin." (Commentary on the Book of Sentences, Chapter 44, Q. I ad 3)

Sts. Ambrose and Augustine also held to this. Ambrose said Mary was "a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin" and Augustine said "excepting the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom ... I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins, - for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her ..."

Salvation is a single level thing. Either one is or is not saved. One is set to the left or to the right at the judgement.

Theosis concerns the level of perfection one attains in salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas (and Roman Theology) actually has quite a lot to say on the subject of theosis despite what some Greeks seem to think. For example:

"... since the natural power of the created intellect does not avail to enable it to see the essence of God, as was shown in the preceding article, it is necessary that the power of understanding should be added by divine grace. Now this increase of the intellectual powers is called the illumination of the intellect, as we also call the intelligible object itself by the name of light of illumination. And this is the light spoken of in the Apocalypse (Apoc. 21:23): `The glory of God hath enlightened it'--viz. the society of the blessed who see God. By this light the blessed are made `deiform'--i.e. like to God, according to the saying: `When He shall appear we shall be like to Him, and [Vulg.: 'because'] we shall see Him as He is' (1 Jn. 2:2)." (Summa, I, q. 12, art. 5)

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The Latin Church, after the Schism, added this to the original faith.

Fine, answer my question then. What is the fate of unbaptized infants and why? Are they born with grace or not? Is there some mode of salvation for them besides Baptism?

[kosta50]

There is no Limbo, of course.

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16)

The necessity for salvation is belief. If you believe and are not baptized, that is your doing! You are condemned. If you don't believe, whether you are baptized or not, you are condemned. What this is saying is that, because they don't believe, the infants are condemned regardless if they are baptized or not, simply because they don't believe!

Does anyone here seriously believe that (Calvinists notwithstanding)? I don't.

"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these" (Matthew 19:14)

In Mark 16:15, Jesus says preach the gospel and baptize...just who do you think this applies to? Infants? All references to the need to be baptized and to repent apply to grown ups who have sinned and who are weak in their faith.

I think rationalization got the better of Christian minds, and then legalism killed whatever spirit was left in them.

[kosta50]

/Is there some mode of salvation for them besides Baptism?

Baptism alone is not salvation. Baptism, as a condition for salvation, together with faith, is. (Mark 16:16).

The Gospels were not written for infants, but for grownups. I have no doubt that God does not send infants to a never-never place for souls, as rejects enslaved by legalism.

Remember, with God all things are possible. Why don't we just leave it at that -- it's a Mystery.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Infants who are baptized believe in potentiality, but not actuality. They do have the infused virtue of faith, given at Baptism. Baptism is the Sacrament of Faith.

Limbo is not a condemnation of infants, but a recognition of their spiritual condition without the sacraments.

Humans are not born with grace. No grace, no eternal life.

The necessity of Baptism for all is one of the most universally witnessed teachings of the Fathers. I'm surprised to see it denied here.

[kosta50]

Infants who are baptized believe in potentiality

Infants believe -- in potentiality? Hmmmm.

I will refer back to Mark: one must believe AND be baptized. Baptism by itself did not save anyone who didn't believe, macula or not on their soul.

Infants, by definition cannot believe, Hermann. I am surprized that anyone is even contemplating they do "believe" -- not in God, but in some potentiality.

Infants have no concepts, no words, no understanding; their life is a bundle of "feels good" or "feels bad" sensations.

God gave us free will, which enables us to turn to Him. If we choose to turn to darkness instead of God, we are the architests of our own perdition -- and it's is our doing, not God's. We are free to choose God or to choose sin. Infants are not free to choose anything

What God does with infants who die is an uncertainty and an unknown even to Catholic theologians. We trust that whatever God does is completely and always just and merciful, but we do not know the particulars of His decision.

[Kolokotronis]

"It is hopeless to attempt to take legalisitic Latin theological terms and stuff them into a Greek tehological box, and come out with something understandable."

That is becoming increasingly obvious to me!

"I'm not aware of St. Gregory reccomending waiting until three."

As I said before, read the Oration. The very next paragraph after the one you quote says:

"A proof of this is found in the Circumcision on the eighth day, which was a
sort of typical seal, and was conferred on children before they had the use of
reason. And so is the anointing of the doorposts,(z) which
preserved the firstborn, though applied to things which had no consciousness.
But in respect of others(h) I give my advice to wait till the
end of the third year, or a little more or less, when they may be able to
listen and to answer something about the Sacrament; that, even though they do
not perfectly understand it, yet at any rate they may know the outlines; and
then to sanctify them in soul and body with the great sacrament of our
consecration. For this is how the matter stands; at that time they begin to be
responsible for their lives, when reason is matured, and they learn the
mystery of life (for of sins of ignorance owing to their tender years they
have no account to give), and it is far more profitable on all accounts to be
fortified by the Font, because of the sudden assaults of danger that befall
us, stronger than our helpers."

[kosta50]

Humans are not born with grace. No grace, no eternal life

That is a little presumptious, don't you think? romans 8:32 suggests that you are. Even your own Church does not agree with what you potray as absolute truth here

"...we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery." (Gaudium et Spes 22, Vatican II)

Even the Cathecism of the Catholic Church

"...the great mercy of God, who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children...allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism... (CCC 1261)

...thereby leaving room for a humble but spiritual conclusion that just because the Church is not aware of any other way of attaining salvation does not mean there aren't other ways known but to God.

And this fate does not apply only to the infants: it applies to people born before Christ; the autistic children; the fertilized egg; and so on.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Humans are not born with grace. No grace, no eternal life

That is a little presumptious, don't you think?

Not at all. The quotations you note concern the possibility of their obtaining grace from some unrevealed way apart from Baptism due tot he universal salvific will of God. Not that they are found automatically in grace. These are totally different concepts.

Its one thing entirely to hold out hope that God offers such infants a way to grace besides Baptism, and another to say that they are born in grace.

[Stubborn]

Excellent post!

[Stubborn]

Excellent! This is what the Church believes and has taught from the beginning, even though she seems to forget sometimes. So true!

[Stubborn]

**Its one thing entirely to hold out hope that God offers such infants a way to grace besides Baptism, and another to say that they are born in grace.**

There it is - in a nutshell! Awesome!

[biblewonk]

This post and topic oozes election from every pore.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Infants, by definition cannot believe, Hermann. I am surprized that anyone is even contemplating they do "believe" -- not in God, but in some potentiality.

Ok, I think you are misunderstanding me.

The Roman Church teaches that with Baptism, the virtues of faith, hope and love are infused into the soul along with the life of God. These virtues in the soul are what gives one the ability to combat the ill effects of concupiscence - our inclination to evil.

In an adult, because of their mental maturity, these virtues are "actualized" and ready for immediate use by the person. In an infant, because of their mental immaturity, these virtues are "potentialized" and must be cultivated prior to their being used once they have come to the ability to make rational decisions.

When I say "Infants who are baptized believe in potentiality", I mean not that they believe in the concept of "potentiality", but that they have the spiritual faculty of being able to hold the faith, which is a gift from God, not a natural human ability, althought they cannot yet exercise it.

St. Thomas says on this: "Now the source of their error was that they did not recognize the distinction between habit and act. And so, seeing children to be incapable of acts of virtue, they thought that they had no virtues at all after Baptism. But this inability of children to act is not due to the absence of habits, but to an impediment on the part of the body: thus also when a man is asleep, though he may have the habits of virtue, yet is he hindered from virtuous acts through being asleep." (Summa III, q. 69, art. 6)

[biblewonk]

The child, once baptised, becomes a Christian and can enter into eternal life.

A child becomes a Christian at baptism!? Amazing.