www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodoxy on the death of unbaptized infants/children

I have encountered some "traditional" Roman Catholics who insist that there is absolutely no possibility of salvation for the unbaptized, and that unbaptized children or infants who die are damned. Some even say that miscarried and aborted babies are damned. I personally find this idea to be utterly repugnant. How would the Orthodox respond?

Emotions are not the best guide in religion.

To be exact: the traditional Roman position is that unbaptized infants (which includes the aborted and miscarried) do not suffer, but are damned, that is, deprived of beatific vision. Their place or state is called limbo ("limbus puerorum" or "limbus infantium").

The exception are the Holy Innocents, because they died for Christ.

I don't know what the Orthodoxy teaches, but in my humble opinion teaching something essentially different would mean that there's no point in baptising infants.

We (that is, the Orthodox both in and out of communion with the Church of Rome) teach that God is infinite in his mercy, and don't engage in idle speculation about things not revealed to us.

What I'm talking about with respect to infants who die without being baptized is not damnation in terms of the state of the "limbus infantium," but in terms of being damned to hell.

In the Eastern understanding of baptism, teaching something different need not imply that there's no point in baptising infants. For that matter, to teach something different need not imply that there's no point in baptising infants in a Roman context either. Baptism "accomplishes" more than cleansing from sin. Baptism also grants participation in Christ and membership in the Church.

It has been revealed that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Limbus is considered a part of hell, precisely because of the deprivation ( = lack of membership in the Church = lack of participation in Christ). Hell ain't equal for everybody.

There are many forms of baptism, and it is presumptuous to say that God cannot save whom He wishes. The Catholic Church merely teaches that whosoever is saved, is saved through Christ's Church, whether there is a visible connection or not. In cases where there is not, a mystical connection must have existed. If you know God's mind better than the Church, I'm sure there are those who would be interested in hearing from you.


Limbo is not part of official Latin Church doctrine, but merely "theological speculation".

The other form is baptism of desire, as God will not save anybody who doesn't want to be saved. Infants are incapable of willing to be baptized because they're unable to use reason.

It's a theological opinion, but there are different levels of theological opinions. Believe me, I didn't made this up.

The International Theological COmmission has studied this and has published (with permission of the Holy See):

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED

The essence of this work is that we do not know the fate of these children with certitide of FAITH. However, we do have the real virtue of HOPE that these will somehow be saved.

Also, there is still an open question of hell. If Limbo exists, is it a part of the hell of the damned, or is it akin to the limbo of the Fathers in which these were liberated by Christ.
The question becomes, if Limbo exists, is Limbo the eternal fate of those?

The wording of the Councils that talk about those who die in original sin only descending directly to hell is vague enough that it is unclear whether this hell is the eternal hell of the damned or whether or not those in the hell of limbo may be liberated on the last day.

But I think that the commission was correct in characterizing that this question is not a question of faith, but is a question of hope. We know that hope is not just wishing. It is confidence in God's love and mercy.

I think we can be content with that.

And there are those who ahve also speculated that the faith of the parents or the faith of the Church can suffice. Since infants who are baptized cannot have faith, the parents profess their faith.

It's a bit presumptuous on your part to state this. My repugnance at the idea that God would damn to hell an infant who died without baptism, or a child who died in the womb is not determined by emotions. It is repugnant to me because it seems to me to be entirely inconsistent with the love and mercy of God as revealed in Holy Scripture.

I'm speaking about those who are claiming that infants who die without baptism or children who die in the womb are damned to hell with punishment, and who don't have limbo (deprivation of the beatific vision, but natural happiness) in mind.

No, but you're in bad company. And consider--if what you claim is true, then the Church has failed its mission, since even to this day, the vast majority of the world will not have been saved. Even Pio Nono recognized that, and interpreted Cyprian accordingly.

As for the requirement for reason, vastly overrated, a notion alien to the Fathers, and still unjustly used to keep the children of the Latin Church away from the Bread of Life. For if salvation is necessary for baptism, how much more the Eucharist? "Amen, Amen, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you". Heard that one?

PeterPeter:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

The CCC in paragraph 1261 says, "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God . . . and Jesus' tenderness toward children . . . allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism."

An earlier catechism (The Teaching of Christ, A Catholic Catechism for Adults, 1983--one of whose editors is the current archbishop of Washington, D.C.) states "The Church has never made any official pronouncement on the reality or nature of limbo; . . ." The same reference says that this is a 13th century theological opinion and that modern theologians have suggested other explanations, all of which are that--theological opinions, not official teaching.

So I wonder on what basis you make the statements you make. It would seem that they are not the teaching of the Latin Church.

Bob

And Limbo itself was disavowed recently.

The current teaching coming from Rome is "Trust in God's mercy" for these. and also If possible, to baptize them at birth, even as they die, just to be cautious.

Another common theologumenon is that, if a child's parents had arranged to have the child baptized, and it dies before the baptism, then the child is still united to the church by the desire of the parents. But being a theologumenon, it can not be counted upon.