Posted on 10/10/2004 4:38:20 PM PDT by Stubborn
I wonder if someone will bring up "the age of accountability", that well known extra-biblical concept.
Good post.
It's truly amazing what people will accept as truth. Back when we were Lutherans, my wife and I actually talked about 'sneaking' our toddler nephew to church to get him baptized, just in case anything were to happen to him. Thankfully, we procrastinated and eventually saw the light.
Of course, now we know he was covered all along by The Age Of Accountability doctrine. ;O) *<;OD
Isn't it interesting that God would leave this important fact out of the bible.
Funny! My sis and I have talked about doing the same with her 1 1/2 year old twins grand-daughters. We were going to do it ourselves in Lake Erie! Of course, then we came to our senses. (well...that's debatable :) )
So many words - so little Scripture! I guess this isn't about the Bible.
kosta50 wrote: "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."
That expresses perfectly what this Catholic believes.
I think that the rest is speculation.
Now, it is possible that God could reveal the answer, through a saint or an apparition, if He chose to. For the past 2000 odd years He has not chosen too, because He doesn't seem to think that it is terribly important for us to know the answer to this question. Indeed, I can probably tell you why He thinks that: because there isn't anything we can do about it anyway, so revealing this would simply be God performing parlor tricks for man. After all, if we could save the baby in the first place, we would. Since God takes lots of babies and lots of the unborn before baptism, and before there is even the chance for baptism, a divine revelation that gave us perfect vision into exactly what God does with those infant souls would not do anything for us: we couldn't change anything. (I would suppose that if it was something we COULD change, then God would have already revealed what to do.) Worse, any such divine revelation would be disputed, since there are vast bodies of Christians who would not want to believe, and therefore not accept, the content of the revelation because it conflicted with their religious prejudices. Divine revelation is perilous to everyone's soul, because if God takes the trouble to reveal Himself and make something clear, those who continue to cling to their pre-existing prejudices and to assert them over against the authority of God, such as the Pharisees did, get no credit from God for their zeal, but actually dig themselves a deeper hole for refusing the change their religion completely, on a dime, and drop all at once two thousand years of tradition because one man stood up, performed some miracles, and said "God says so."
We don't know what happens to unbaptized infants, or for that matter, unbaptized Hindu adults in Uttar Pradesh who have never had any exposure to the Church. We don't know what happens to devout Jews. We don't know what happens to saintly Christians who had a passel of lustful thoughts qualifying as "adultery in the heart" (per Jesus) just before a fatal car accident in which they died unshriven.
We don't know.
We trust in the mercy and justice of God, and rely upon that in believing that things will come out right in the end.
What we do know is that if we cling to the sacraments and keep our souls clean and keep turning to God, we will certainly go to Heaven. There is no doubt about that at all. Our knowledge, therefore, is of a positive nature. IF you are baptized and confirmed, confess your sins to keep your soul clean, and keep returning to God in communion, when you die, you will certainly be accepted into Heaven, without any doubt or concern whatsoever. You can die happy and in peace, knowing that you have gained the crown. That we know for sure, because we have done as God said to do, and kept drawing near to Him in the sacraments that He provided so that we would have a sure way of always accessing Him.
What happens when we try to "game" this and do part of it, but not all of it? Or if our parents were pagans who taught us wrong? All that we know for certain is that we will die and face God. What the nature of that encounter will be, we do NOT know for sure, but given who God is...and given the harshness and sharpness of God visible in this world...we know that the encounter is extremely perilous.
An analogy would be letting your family go without health insurance. Everything may turn out fine in the end. Indeed, probably nobody will get cancer or get hit by a truck. But maybe not. Not many people want to run that risk. Of course, children don't have a say in whether their parents insure them, and folks growing up in Uttar Pradesh can't get insurance if they wanted it.
The Sacraments are our spiritual insurance policy. They render what is unsure, and potentially very scary and alarmingly bad very sure, very safe, and certain of outcome. That we know.
What we don't know - in spite of our strenuous efforts to opine in ignorance and without clear divine instructions on the matter - is the outcome of every case that doesn't avail itself of the sacraments, or can't get them, or never heard of them.
I anticipate that the response will be a strenuous: "We do know, and it is divinely revealed", with some Biblical quotes. But those quotes are contradicted by other quotes and circumstances in the Bible, and the Bible does not provide a tool that says "This sentence has more authority than that sentence that says the opposite thing." Yes, there is an authoritative Church to help interpret those things, but even there we have to be careful. God didn't give the Church authority simply to give it authority. He gave it authority to be able to surely administer His sacraments. He revealed what he revealed, directly through visions, apostles, saints and Jesus. A thousand scholars poring over old letters coming to a consensus is NOT divine revelation. John being taken to Heaven to see the Apocalypse unfold is revelation. Mary standing before the Soubrious girl is revelation.
Fortuntately, the Church as a whole really does understand it, which is why the official position on the Church is: WE DON'T KNOW. We don't know, but we have faith in the loving and merciful God we worship. The catechism of the Church says that, and that is the OFFICIAL position of the Church. The cathechism, of course, trumps Acquinas, Origen, Augustine, and anyone else who has expressed his own opinion on the subject for the past 2000 years, because the Catechism is the teaching authority of the Church.
Now, if some individual over the past two millennia had written "God has revealed to me" it would be a different affair, because then it MIGHT be a divine revelation, and not the product of reasoning in the dark about things unknown. But in fact nobody HAS stood up and said "God revealed to me what happens to unbaptized babies", so we haven't faced whether to believe such a person or not.
He certainly hasn't revealed an answer to that question to ME, but I have no doubt at all that unbaptized babies are in Heaven, because that would accord with my belief in the nature of the God I worship. If, in fact, unbaptized babies are all cast into the eternal lake of fire, then God is a demon and I'd hate him rather than worship Him.
But I don't believe the latter for an instant.
I do find it interesting that there are people who actually want to believe that about God. (They will assert that they HAVE to believe that about God, because the Bible says x, but I respond "The Bible also says y, which is the opposite of x, and there is no basis at all for your privileging x over y.")
Kosta50's expression was short and to the point. I would say: "We don't know. God is good. God is love. Therefore, assume the best." And I think that is as complete a theological statement as we can make about the status of the unbaptized infant from the revealed record. Everything past that is speculation, and reveals more about the personal character and temperament of the opiner than it tells us anything about God.
I don't remember (nor could i think of why I would be) saying that anyone is born in grace. You keep repeating this as if under impression that I did (that would be un-Orthodox, that is one of our disagreements about the mosy holy Theotokos). What I did say (over and over one way or another) is that we simply don't know what happens to the unbaptized babies and that no amount of rationalization will provide a certain answer. The Orthodox leave it up to God, confident that what happens to them is just and merciful. Apparently the official teaching of the Church held that before and it seems that it holds that line today. The Church is not nearly as sure as you are Hermann.
Now, it is possible that God could reveal the answer, through a saint or an apparition, if He chose to
With God everyting is possible, but this one is not probable. The faith delivered is divine Word. Our Lord didn't give us a defective or incomplete product. He told us what we have to know, not more and not less. Adding to the faith, diminishes God's work. If we today know more than those before us, that would make the Apostles and early Fathers real amateurs! It is rather the other way around. The Church may clarify and reword something that will not change the meaning in order to dispell heresies, but not add or substract from the Holy Tradition that our Lord deposited in its perfect form.
What we do know is that if we cling to the sacraments and keep our souls clean and keep turning to God, we will certainly go to Heaven
This is where you are definitely not thinking Orthodox! :-) There is no certainty to salvation, and there is no amount of "merit" that makes you worthy of salvation; we don't earn it; we can't buy it; we don't deserve it. You and are and all our human brethren are sinners. We are saved by God's mercy alone. Our works are expressions and statements of faith, not benefits that add up in a spiritual piggy bank.
The heart of Orthodoxy is in our relationship with God. It's all about pleasing God -- not out of obligation, but out of love. Not because we figured it out, but be cause we simply believe.
Congratulations! A perfectly condecending post, considering that you take no position yourself.
FYI, the discussion among the players though has taken a turn where first Baptism itself must be decided. There is no sense discussing Limbo if the necessity of Baptism cannot be agreed upon. And frankly, to me, this thread sounds like the tower of babel.
If we are to put any faith in the Bible or the Apostles at all, which you seem disinclined to do, taking a wait and see what happens attitude, then we can plainly see that Baptism is a necessity.
Infant Baptism seems to be a particular stumbling block, but I don't see it as any different than infant circumcision by the Jews.
In fact, the Catholic Church has never considered infant Baptism the end of the process, nor even first Communion at approximately the age of seven.
Confirmation is the final step of being 'sealed' in God, when the grown up infant can make his or her own declaration. Everything in the process conforms to biblical teaching, but God has covered the eyes, and closed the ears of those who can't see or hear it.
Roman Catholic Christians among other denominational Christians, e.g., Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc., believe in the efficacy and practice of baptizing infants.
Acts 2:38-39
Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call."
There never has been nor is there any official Roman Catholic doctrinal position or teaching on the existence of or state of limbo.
Kosta50 wrote: "Thanks, Vicomte. Your "problem" is that you think like an Orthodox Christian (well, almost). It actually makes sense without too many details, and philosophical proofs. It's an inner knowledge that fills your heart."
Remember, I don't accept that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches are different churches. I think that they are two squabbling wings of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. And the things that the squabblers want to squabble about bore me, because they haven't anything to do with the faith that I live anyway. So of course I'm [O]rthodox.
Kosta50 wrote: "With God everyting is possible, but this one is not probable. The faith delivered is divine Word. Our Lord didn't give us a defective or incomplete product. He told us what we have to know, not more and not less."
I agree, it's not likely at all. But private revelations have continued since the age of the Apostles, and have led to some world-changing (though not Sacrament-changing) events like the conversion of Ireland and the establishment of the miraculous Shrine to Our Lady at Lourdes. Again, I really do think as you do. I think that God didn't reveal, and hasn't directly revealed, the fate of unbaptized infants and aborted babies because He doesn't think we need the answer. And I think that if He thinks it is not necessary to reveal it, that although we can speculate mildly on such matters, it is necessary that we not assert that we know the answer. We don't. Focus on what we do know, contemplate what we don't, but certainly don't fight about it!
I wrote: "What we do know is that if we cling to the sacraments and keep our souls clean and keep turning to God, we will certainly go to Heaven."
Kosta50 responded: "This is where you are definitely not thinking Orthodox! :-) There is no certainty to salvation, and there is no amount of "merit" that makes you worthy of salvation; we don't earn it; we can't buy it; we don't deserve it. You and are and all our human brethren are sinners. We are saved by God's mercy alone. Our works are expressions and statements of faith, not benefits that add up in a spiritual piggy bank."
Ok, Kosta, take a deep breath. I really said what you said, and I really think what you think. I just said it in a way that looked very different. Let me unpack the meaning of what I said, so that you will see that I am completely on the same page with you.
I said that the Sacraments are primordial, because they were established by God to give us direct and sure access to Him. That's true, but more than that, what it is saying is that the Sacraments are overt signs of God's grace, His invitation of all men to a share in His grace by sharing the table He has laid for us.
I referred to confession keeping the soul clean. But it is not the act of confession that cleanses the soul. It is the grace of God that does so, and only the grace of God. God forgives the sins because He chooses to, not because we go through a rite. God infuses His grace at Baptism/Confirmation/Chrismation because He chooses to, not because we go through a rite. What he did in instituting the Sacraments was promise that IF we presented ourselves to Him in this way, with a pure and seeking heart, He WOULD except us. So, it is not the pouring of water and smearing of oil, or the pronouncement of the words of absolution that infuses the Holy Spirit or washes away the sin. Rather, it is because we have obeyed God and followed the forms that he set up for us as safe harbors so that we would be certain of His grace that we know He has done these things for us. It isn't because WE did anything. HE did it all. He even told us what to do. But what that "doing" does only gives US the sign and security that He has done as He promised to do if we clung to Him.
I truly think that much of the rancor and bitterness we see on the FR religion board between Catholics and Protestants, or among different flavors of Protestants, is not really the desire to dominate. It is motivated by a sincere desire of seekers of God to do absolutely everything they can to get closer to God. If one believes that the absolute best thing one can do is to read and reread and reread the Bible again, and to hang on every word as coming straight from God's lips, then inevitably the desire to get close to God in this way will lead to clashes, because different people read the same words differently, and then become very stressed and vexed that someone else is "willfully marching away from God" or some such thing because he understands the words differently.
Now, I observe that God didn't leave a Bible, which would inevitably give rise to such dissensions ESPECIALLY among the most sincere true seekers of God, but instead left Sacraments. Is it that by performing the sacraments we guarantee our place in heaven by our own merit? NO! It is because God promised that He would be present to us in the Sacraments, so when we take Communion, we KNOW that we have received the grace of God, directly. And the same with baptism, and confirmation or chrismation. It is not because we confess that are sins are forgiven. It is because God promised that he would cover our confessions with His grace and blot out our sins that we know that we leave confession with a clean soul.
This IS because of God's grace, not our own acts.
But God did promise that if we stayed in His grace, we would go to Heaven. And He spelled out ways for us to know that we were, overt, tangible signs, in the Sacraments, for overt, physical beings such as we. We don't make ourselves holy by taking the Sacraments. The Sacraments are holy because they are of God. He told us we could keep ourselves in his grace if we keep turning back to Him. And by returning constantly to the Sacraments and going forth determined to sin no more, that is what we do.
This really is what you said, it's just expressed very differently.
Arguss wrote: "Congratulations! A perfectly condescending post, considering that you take no position yourself.
...
There never has been nor is there any official Roman Catholic doctrinal position or teaching on the existence of or state of limbo."
I do indeed take a position, and it is the position of the Roman Catholic Church, in the Cathechism: We don't know the status of unbaptized infants, but our belief in a loving and merciful Father permits us to believe that He looks after these little ones.
For that reason, I believe that unbaptized babies are in Heaven. Of course, I don't KNOW that, but that is what I believe, and it is a belief that flows logically from what the Catechism says.
Infant baptism? By all means.
Yes, the Roman Church in its austere, Catechismal form, and the Orthodox are in accord in the ways you have said.
Of course that does not mean that every Roman Catholic agrees with you, or with what the Catechism says. There are as many opinions on things as there are people.
The Catechism agrees with what you have said.
And so do I.
Of course there is One Church, not two. I didn't say you believe Orthodox -- I said "you think like an Orthodox Christian (well, almost)." I don't doubt that true Catholics and true Orthodox think orthodox.
If one could make an Orthodox-Catholic dictionary, it would take a whole page for each word or concept because you would have an Orthodox word, and the rest of the page would be Catholic explanation of it, and why it means one and the same thing.
In that case, you believe in the Roman doctrine of Original Sin. This is what I was trying to elict from you. When we say original sin, we mean that unborn children are born with souls devoid of grace, a nature wounded by an inclination to sin, and a body destined for physical death. Nothing more, nothing less. And certainly nothing personal.
The Church is not nearly as sure as you are Hermann.
I am not "certain" as to the fate of unbaptized infants. I find the explanation of Limbo to be the most reasonable. But I recognize it is a speculation, not a dogma.
I would go further and say with St. Gregory Palamas that theosis is next to impossible without the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist. This is the whole point of the Sacraments, and especially the Eucharist.
I know that the Orthodox express no opinion on the possibility of "salvation" outside the Church, say for Hindus, saying simply that we do not know. Am I correct in saying the Roman Church now holds this opinion, or is the official teaching still no salvation outside the Church?
The Roman Church considers that a settled dogma. But we would also say God does not condemn people who simply are not Christians, unless they purposefully reject the Church. So a person living off in non-Christian lands is not being thrown into hell for failure to become a Christian. The Tridentine Catechism notes a greater concern - the people who are not part of the Church do not have direct access to the ordinary channels of grace, which are the Sacraments, and that this leaves them in a precarious situation as regards their ability to avoid and repent of sin.
The dogma is truly aimed at those who leave the Church, not those who have never heard of it in pagan lands. This is certainly the thrust of Origen, St. Cyprian, Lactantius, and St. Augustine in their comments on it.
As to the possibility of the salvation of Hindus and the like, our official position is that faith in Christ, and love of Christ are the sine qua non of salvation, per St. John 17.3. We do not pretend to limit how God might reveal the mystery of redemption to those to whom the Gospel has never been preached, and we allow that they might have a Baptism by Desire should it please God to reveal Truth to them. However, we also say with St. Paul that it is very necessary for the Church to be missionary and bring the Gospel to these people who are so desirous of Truth among the pagans.
"How are they to call upon Him in whom they have not believed? But how are they to believe Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to head, if no one preaches? And how are men to preach unless they be sent? ... Faith depends on hearing, and hearing on the word of Christ." (Romans 10.14-15,17)
Not quite. Of course, both sides of the Church teach that there is a loss of grace, but the Orthodox see the consequence of Adam's disobedience and pride changing (corrupting) human nature. Then Adam, begetting his progeny in his own image, passed it on and humanity assumed a soul gravely deficient in grace and a mortal body. The Catholics see loss of grace and mortality as Adam's punishment for his sin.
"... the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse ..." (Council of Trent, Canons on Original Sin, Canon 1)
"... If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius ..." (Council of Orange, Canon 1)
I'm not sure your distinction is real.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.