Pope says fate of unbaptized babies touches important beliefs

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.

I think you've asked the wrong question, at least from an Orthodox pov. Children are conceived in the image and likeness of God. The consequences of the sin of Adam are that our natures were corrupted so that we have a tendency to sin. I think it was +Kallistos Ware who wrote that God did not create us as puppets or automatons, but rather to be His partners in the theosis of creation, thus we were created with free will. Our inherited tendency to sin perverts that free will, but by the grace of Baptism we "Put on Christ" and are thus strengthened against our own nature to sin. Little babies who have not committed any sin, indeed are incapable of sin wouldn't seem to be in need of forgiveness by the grace of Baptism. In our Holy Saturday liturgy, we hear about the descent of Christ to the dead and the bursting of the bonds of Hell:

"Today Hades lets out a groan: "Would that I had not received the son of Mary: for when He came upon me He dissolved my power; He shattered the gates of bronze; the souls I had held captive, as God He raised up." Glory, Lord, to Your Cross and Your Resurrection.

Today Hades lets out a groan: "My sovereignty is destroyed. I received Him as a mortal, one among the dead; but this One I am powerless to contain; instead with Him I lose all I had governed. I had held the dead for ages, but behold, He resurrects all." Glory, Lord, to Your Cross and Your Resurrection.

Today Hades lets out a groan: "My might is swallowed up: the shepherd was crucified but raised up Adam. All I ruled over I have lost; all I was able in my power to consume, I have disgorged. The crucified One has emptied the graves. The sway of death is no more." Glory, Lord, to Your Cross and Your Resurrection."

The Icon of the Resurrection shows the gates of Hell burst open and Hell itself emptied, while the righteous dead stand around the Risen Christ. None of these people had been Baptized. So, from an Orthodox pov, the question of whether unbaptized babies are infused with or bereft of grace is really neither here nor there in the event they should die without committing sin, though I suspect that the Orthodox would say they don't know the answer to the question. But then again, we maintain that we don't know about the theosis of non Christian people either. These are matters the Orthodox Church leaves to God.

By the way, I do know that some Orthodox writers express Augustinian thought. As a general proposition, much of that stems from the fact that his writings were virtually unknown in the East until quite late (he wasn't translated into Greek until around 1300) while in other cases, such as that of Peter of Moghila, it appears that they wrote under Western theological influences.

Jesus came, not to change, but to fulfill the laws of the OT.

Mat. 5:17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

5:18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.

Until the Ascension of Our Lord into Heaven, the state for those just departed souls was known as "Hell" or "the Limbo of the Just." This Limbo was for those who, antecedent to the coming of Our Lord, believed He was coming, and believed He was to be the Saviour and the Redeemer of the world. Well, we no longer believe He is coming, we believe He came and established His Kingdom here on earth, i.e. His Church, of which we must all belong to if we wish to get into His kingdom in heaven.

The reason the saints of the OT were there in hell, i.e., Limbo, and not in heaven, is original sin, which they had contracted from Adam, and from which, as members of the human race, they could not be delivered except by Christ.

Also, note that the only reason we even needed a Redeemer at all is strictly on account of the sin of Adam, i.e. Original Sin. Were it not for Original Sin, there would be no Limbo or middle place, only Heaven (for us) and Hell (only for the fallen angels).

Many folks seem to think that Baptism has always been - but thats simply not so. It is a Sacrament of the New Law - one of the Seven Sacraments established by God before He ascended into Heaven.

Baptism is so necessary that thats why the Precursor, the one who readied the world for Christ was, St. John the Baptist. All St. John the Baptist did was preach the importance of and perform Baptisms. Also interesting to note is that unlike most other martyrs, although he was beheaded, he is not known as St. John the Martyr.

Jesus came, not to change, but to fulfill the laws of the OT.

Mat. 5:17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

So, do we have to keep Kosher any more, or not? Saying that the law has not been changed, but has only been fulfilled sounds like a lawyer's answer...kind of like what the meaning of "is" is.

The laws were changed. End of story.

Until the Ascension of Our Lord into Heaven, the state for those just departed souls was known as "Hell" or "the Limbo of the Just." This Limbo was for those who, antecedent to the coming of Our Lord, believed He was coming, and believed He was to be the Saviour and the Redeemer of the world.

Did Adam and Eve believe the Lord was coming? Are they in this "Limbo of the Just"? Is Limbo mentioned in the Bible at all? Is this just a concept once again made up by lawyers to rationalize beliefs? If this hell, this limbo of the just, is where those who believed god was coming went to after they died, where did those who did not believe in the coming of the lord, perhaps those who were on the other side of the planet, go?

The reason the saints of the OT were there in hell, i.e., Limbo, and not in heaven, is original sin, which they had contracted from Adam, and from which, as members of the human race, they could not be delivered except by Christ.

A contract typically requires the agreement between at least two parties. How did the saints of the OT, or anyone for that matter, agree to be burdened by the sins of Adam? How did Adam contract with God that any sin of his would be passed down to future generations? Using the language of contract is not appropriate here. It is, in actuality, a "curse" that is passed on from one generation to the next, just like in those old witch stories.

Many folks seem to think that Baptism has always been - but thats simply not so. It is a Sacrament of the New Law - one of the Seven Sacraments established by God before He ascended into Heaven.

There you go. You said it. There is a new law, different from the old. The law changed.

I think the question is very simple. If someone is joined to God, they are sanctified with his grace and filled with the divine life.

If they are not, then they are seperated from God.

When people come into this world, their souls can either be filled with grace, or devoid of grace. There isn't a middle ground here, and it has nothing to do with St. Augustine and his theories.

The fundemental reason for Baptism is to join us to Christ. To be joined to Christ is to be sanctified.

If little children are already born sanctified, then Baptism is nothing but an empty formality (what many Protestants preach).

If little children are born seperated from God, what we then term "the remission of sins" or "the remission of original sin" is the filling of their infant souls with grace, and the infusion of faith, hope, and charity, through the instrumentality of the Sacrament.

To have a sould devoid of grace, and to be living apart from God is to be living in a state of sin. This is what the Roman Church teaches regarding the state of humanity before Baptism. Mortal sins comitted later in life compound this state of sin by adding the guilt of actual sin and the meriting of the divine wrath to the already existant state of not being united to God in grace.

Basically, original sin is a state of existence, not an action for which anyone is formally guilty besides Adam and Eve. Trent says that Adam "transfused ... into the whole human race ... the death of the soul", because the deprivation of grace for the soul also deprives it of union with Christ. Thus, "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."

Basically, infants contract by generation the absence of grace, "the death of the soul", and this is cleansed away by Baptism which infuses grace and creates life in the soul where none previously existed.

"Also, note that the only reason we even needed a Redeemer at all is strictly on account of the sin of Adam, i.e. Original Sin."

This is becoming a very interesting discussion. I have observed over the past many years that the Roman Church seems, to an outsider, to place much more emphasis on the Passion and Crucifixion as an atonement for the sins of mankind than the Orthodox East has (this not to say that we don't hold similar views), a sort of quid pro quo, so to speak. Given that the Roman doctrine of Original Sin seems to focus on a sort of inherited guilt rather than inherited consequences this would stand to reason. On the other hand, if what we inherit is a propensity to sin quite on our own, then what the Icon of the Resurrection shows us is that Christ freed the OT saints from the consequences of their own sins, not that of Adam, and that the New Law gives us, through the Faith and the Church a way to overcome, through God's grace, our own nature and our own sins. And if this is true, what does it say about unbaptized babies who die?

Do you suppose that differing views on the nature and consequences of the sin of Adam has anything to do with this?

"Basically, original sin is a state of existence, not an action for which anyone is formally guilty besides Adam and Eve. Trent says that Adam "transfused ... into the whole human race ... the death of the soul", because the deprivation of grace for the soul also deprives it of union with Christ. Thus, "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.""

I see your point, but of course, the Orthodox East doesn't accept Trent. The real rub seems to come with the idea of "cleansing" of the soul. If, as the Orthodox believe, there is no inherited guilt, only inherited consequences (death and a propensity to sin) then for a tiny baby to die without committing sin, there could be nothing to "cleanse". In the Creed we say " Omologo enna Baptisma eis afesine amartiown", "We profess one Baptism for the remission of sins." The Greek word "amartiown" is plural, "sins", not original sin, or the sin of Adam. And if God's grace is given to us in order to allow us the ability to overcome our human nature and, in spite of that human nature, advance in theosis, while it would be a sine qua non of theosis for those who live and sin, what relevance would it have to one who has not sinned?

So, do we have to keep Kosher any more, or not? Saying that the law has not been changed, but has only been fulfilled sounds like a lawyer's answer...kind of like what the meaning of "is" is.

No, don't keep Kosher anymore. I can see your point and can agree with your reasoning - but as He said, He did not destroy the old law, he came to fulfill it.

Did Adam and Eve believe the Lord was coming? Are they in this "Limbo of the Just"? Is Limbo mentioned in the Bible at all? Is this just a concept once again made up by lawyers to rationalize beliefs? If this hell, this limbo of the just, is where those who believed god was coming went to after they died, where did those who did not believe in the coming of the lord, perhaps those who were on the other side of the planet, go?

Eph 4:9, Mat 12:40 are a few references. Those who did not believe in a Redeemer to come and died in sin went to Hell for all eternity.

A contract typically requires the agreement between at least two parties. How did the saints of the OT, or anyone for that matter, agree to be burdened by the sins of Adam? How did Adam contract with God that any sin of his would be passed down to future generations? Using the language of contract is not appropriate here. It is, in actuality, a "curse" that is passed on from one generation to the next, just like in those old witch stories.

Original Sin is no contract, it is a sin we inhereted from our first parents.

There you go. You said it. There is a new law, different from the old. The law changed.

I see what you are saying and can agree with you. No matter though, the New Law was fortold of in the OT, but baptism was not the requirement until the NT. Same as circumcision was required in the OT, but not in the NT.

There seems to be differing views on the value of baptism.

Protestants believe that baptism is a proclamation that one has made a decision to accept Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior. Jesus Himself was baptised, and since He was without sin, His baptism could not take away any sin.

I have personally never been able to find, nor have I ever heard of any comandment in the Scriptures that infants be baptised. Since baptism is basically a public announcement of a decision to accept Christ, and infants are incapable of making that decision, there is no justification in Christianity for baptising infants. It can actually be harmful in the sense that it can give individuals who were baptized as infants the (in the absence of an actual salvation decision and experience) false belief that their sins are forgiven in God's eyes based on their infant baptism.

We believe that along with original sin, we are all born with a tendancy toward evil. Baptism erases all sin, but it does not remove our tendancy toward evil. This tendancy or inclination toward evil we call concupiscence.

The saints of the OT who were in Limbo may well have been there not only because they could not get into heaven yet, but also because of there own sins - no one knows. The thing is, is that as long as they made it to Limbo, heaven was a sure thing - just a matter of time.

No one knows for positive what the fate of the unbaptised baby is. All we know for sure is that no one gets into heaven with any trace of sin on their souls. Since we are all conceived and born with sin on our souls and since Baptism is the remedy Christ left us for original sin, conventional reasoning tells us the only way an unbaptised infant can enter heaven if it were to be conceived without sin.

Now, we know that, aside from Our Lord, only Our Lady was conceived without sin. We know that in order to be free from original sin, we must be baptised. If an infant dies before it is baptised, it dies in original sin, only guilty of the sin of Adam. To you and I and probably all people everywhere, that baby is innocent and should go straight to heaven with sin on its soul. But if we hold to that thinking, we will no longer believe Christ's words "Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

"But if we hold to that thinking, we will no longer believe Christ's words "Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Yes, there are a few problems when one holds to a literal interpretation when a symbolic interpretation is demanded by the context. For example, the Good Thief- was he baptized? Now, if you look at the scripture you quoted in the context of the entirety of scripture, it becomes quite clear that the water in baptism is symbolic of true, inner repentence from sin and a true faith in Jesus as God. Water doesn't save- the resurrection of Jesus saves: "And this water SYMBOLIZES baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the PLEDGE of a good conscience toward God. IT SAVES YOU BY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST" 1 Peter 3-21 (emphasis mine)

Regarding infants and children before the age of accountability, they are saved by the same thing everyone else is saved by- the resurrection of Jesus.

Every unborn child who dies without Baptism as well as every infant or child who dies before the age of reason without first being baptized will never see the face of God - because they come into this world with sin i.e. the sin of Adam.

I'm not arguing here because I applaud you for taking Baptism as the gravely important sacrament that it is, and my comment/opinions involve infants only.

By speaking in absolutes aren't we cancelling out God's Mercy? Aren't we essentially saying He must stick to His own rules? Rather than being a hard fast rule, isn't it better to think that in the case of infants it should absolutely be left to God to handle?

Thats why since only baptism can give a child certain access to Heaven, that the Church teaches (taught) the importance of infant baptism for every child without undue delay, so much so that in an emergency, anyone can perform the baptism

That's right, and how tragic and shameful that so many Catholic couples wait months on end to have their little ones baptized.

What of the child who is sadly and unexpectedly delivered still-born? God, in His Infinite Wisdom, has decided that that particular soul should leave the body. While we of course cannot know the mind of God, I think we can at least wonder: 'Why would God chose the soul of a baby knowing full well it never (humanly speaking) had a chance to be Baptized? Why would He call that soul to only to banish it from His Sight for eternity?

"No one knows for positive what the fate of the unbaptised baby is. All we know for sure is that no one gets into heaven with any trace of sin on their souls. Since we are all conceived and born with sin on our souls and since Baptism is the remedy Christ left us for original sin, conventional reasoning tells us the only way an unbaptised infant can enter heaven if it were to be conceived without sin."

And then:

"Now, we know that, aside from Our Lord, only Our Lady was conceived without sin."

Your two comments quoted above demonstrate, clearly in my opinion, a very basic difference between the theology of the Eastern and Roman Churches, notwithstanding that the words used seem so very alike. I say basic because so much of our praxis as Orthodox or Roman Christians depends on our view of the sin of Adam or "Original Sin". There are multiple other differences, filioque springs immediately to mind, but the fundamental theological difference we are talking here about reaches right down into the pews, to the laity and expands out even to the way we look at the Cross and Resurrection and theosis. Your posts are important because they demonstrate that unity between the Roman and Eastern Churches will not be a simple matter of "you believe your way and I'll believe mine", much as that might be desired by many. We really are not two lungs of the same Church as the Pope would have it (much as that might be desirable). It has often been posited on these threads that re-union can only be accomplished if the Roman Church discards its dogma proclaimed after the 7th Ecumenical Council and both sides put everything that has developed since then on the table for decision. Divergent views on the Sin of Adam will undoubtedly top the discussion list, and frankly, filioque is a piece of cake compared to that one.

Well, can it not also be said that God's mercy is that he gave us water, by design the most plentiful substance on earth, even made it easy enough for even a small child to baptize - I mean, aside from not needing it at all, how much simpler could He have made it? I see that as being mercifull. He could have commanded that we needed to perform some rigorus task or even something hard, but in His Mercy, all He wants us to do is be sprinkled, dunked, immersed or sprayed, so long as that water touches us while saying the proper words with the proper intentions at the same time - could it be any easier?

Many years ago, my sister mis-carried in her 7th or 8th month, as soon as that baby's skin started to show, before it (he) was even fully out of the womb, the nurse, anxiously waiting, instantly baptised that infant because ya just never know. Well, perhaps these days they *would* know if and for how long the baby had been dead - but we never knew for sure if that baby made it to heaven or not - we never believed for sure that he made it but under the circumstances, to this day we hope God saw fit to allow him to be baptized before taking his soul.

If God saw fit to wait for that baby to be baptised before taking him, that baby is without one doubt, happy for all eternity in heaven, hopefully with my sister - if God however did not wait but instead took him hours or days? prior to the actual baptism, then we never believed that the baby went to heaven because no one makes it there with original sin - thats why baptism is so important. Its black or white, I fail to see that there can be another answer. We are all conceived with sin, no way around that, if God chooses to grant those infants with original sin into heaven, he never made mention of it and the Church has been cautiously quiet about it for a long time.

We simply cannot know why God would take a helpless baby out of this world at all, with or (God forbid) without Baptism. He has His own reasons - and we have hope, beyond that, we can only surmize our thoughts that perhaps in His mercy, He knew it was better to take that child out of this life than to allow him to be baptised then sin his whole life and end up suffering in Hell. That too would be mercifull. We will never know that till the next world.

>>Some Protestants challenged infant baptism, at the time of the Reformation, saying that it ought to be a choice taken by an adult (as it seems to have been in Gospel accounts.) <<

There is no such assertion in the bible that baptism was an adult choice. Naturally, since the key characters in the New Testament are all adults, the stories about baptism revolve around adults. But when the leader of a household was baptized, his entire household was baptised with him. It would be inconceivable that an entire household would include no children, for a household included not only the nuclear family, but also in-laws, kinfolk, slaves, and all their children! There is no chance that there were no children baptized.

Divergent views on the Sin of Adam will undoubtedly top the discussion list, and frankly, filioque is a piece of cake compared to that one.

Been doing a little reading myself and found the following to be really interesting and comforting. Hope it interests others too.

Following is the first creed that an ecumenical council decreed. It was the Creed of the 318 Fathers of Nicaea in 325:

We believe in one God, Father, All-ruler, maker of everything visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God, begotten unique out of the Father, that is out of the being of the Father; God out of God, light out of light, genuine God out of genuine God; begotten, not made; identical in being with the Father; the one through whom the universe was made, the things in heaven as well as the things on earth; for us human beings and for our salvation come down and incarnated, become man, executed, risen on the third day, gone up into heaven, and coming to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic (and apostolic) church condemns those who say that there was 'then' when there was no son of God, and that he was not before he was begotten, and that he was made out of the things that are not, or who allege that he is out of a different hypostasis or being [from that of the Father] or that he is a creature or mutable or subject to change.

And here's the Second Creed, Creed of the 150 Fathers of Constantinople. Attributed to the second ecumenical Council.

We believe in one God, Father, All-ruler, maker of heaven and earth, of everything visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the unique son of God, begotten out of his Father before all ages; light out of light, genuine God out of genuine God; begotten, not made; identical in being with the Father; the one through whom the universe was made; for us human beings and for our salvation come down from heaven and endowed with flesh out of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and made a human being; crucified on our behalf under Pontius Pilate and executed and buried, and risen the third day according to the Scriptures, and gone up into heaven; and seated at the right hand of the Father, and coming again with glory to judge both the living and the dead; of whose kingly rule there shall be no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the lordly and life-giving one; proceeding out of the Father; jointly adored and jointly glorified along with the Father and the Son; the one that spoke through the prophets.

In a single holy catholic and apostolic church.

We confess a single baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the coming age. Amen.

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.