|
1 members (1 invisible),
1,165
guests, and
76
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,458
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2023
Posts: 1
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2023
Posts: 1 |
Hi, I am wondering what Eastern Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) believe about where do unbaptized babies go when they die? Thanks all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,330 Likes: 95
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,330 Likes: 95 |
Christ is in our midst!!
Troubled Guest,
Welcome to the forum. We hope your time with us is spiritually enriching.
My own opinion is that I let the Lord take care of that question. The question that should be directed at one who asks is why I want to control what is beyond my control. Do I not trust Him?
Bob
Moderator
|
|
2 members like this:
bwfackler, Troubled Guest |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 16
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 16 |
"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. ...and that [they] will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished." St Gregory Nazianzen Oration 40 on Holy Baptism (which is the work cited in the Summa in the article on limbo of the infants) https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 466 Likes: 10
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 466 Likes: 10 |
What I heard on an Orthodox site (and with which, after thought) I must agree with, is that they go to be with the Lord.
Why wouldn't they? They have no sin. Remember, sin requires three things: knowledge that you are about to commit an act that is sinful, willing consent to the action, and taking the action itself. If any of these three are missing, you cannot say the person has sinned. For instance, if I take an action, not knowing that the Church teaches that it is a sin, there is no complicity or willingness to sin against God, and therefore, no sin.
Augustine's idea that babies somehow "inherit" the guilt of Adam's sin and therefore are condemned to an eternity in hell is . . . ahem, well, let's keep my opinion of this thought family friendly, shall we? Let's just say I find it contemptible on several levels.
Babies are born subject to death, as we all are. This is why Christ died, that by death He trampled death and made it of no account. It is Western thinking, influenced by Rome, that sees everything in judicial terms of guilty or not guilty and is consumed with the idea of punishment. As best as I can tell, Orthodoxy rejects this thinking (penal substitution) and the ancillary ideas and doctrines that come with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,330 Likes: 95
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,330 Likes: 95 |
Christ is in our midst!!
Maybe we need to expand this question. Where do any and all of the unbaptized go?
Heaven is Christ's wedding feast. "No one comes to the Father except through me." "Enter by the narrow gate."
It seems to me that the great 20th century heresy that everyone goes to Heaven regardless of one's life's actions is a rather dangerous delusion. I recently watched a video by a priest. One of his statements that has stuck with me: "you don't slide into Heaven," meaning that half measures or a partial commitment don't cut it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2025
Posts: 12 Likes: 1
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2025
Posts: 12 Likes: 1 |
What I heard on an Orthodox site (and with which, after thought) I must agree with, is that they go to be with the Lord.
Why wouldn't they? They have no sin. Remember, sin requires three things: knowledge that you are about to commit an act that is sinful, willing consent to the action, and taking the action itself. If any of these three are missing, you cannot say the person has sinned. For instance, if I take an action, not knowing that the Church teaches that it is a sin, there is no complicity or willingness to sin against God, and therefore, no sin.
Augustine's idea that babies somehow "inherit" the guilt of Adam's sin and therefore are condemned to an eternity in hell is . . . ahem, well, let's keep my opinion of this thought family friendly, shall we? Let's just say I find it contemptible on several levels.
Babies are born subject to death, as we all are. This is why Christ died, that by death He trampled death and made it of no account. It is Western thinking, influenced by Rome, that sees everything in judicial terms of guilty or not guilty and is consumed with the idea of punishment. As best as I can tell, Orthodoxy rejects this thinking (penal substitution) and the ancillary ideas and doctrines that come with it. How is this an East vs West distinction? The majority opinion of the Church Fathers both East and West is that all unbaptized inherit Adam's guilt and cannot enter into paradise. Added emphasis is mine: Ambrose of Milan, On the Death of Satyrus, Book 2:6In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of Paradise, in Adam I died; how shall the Lord call me back, except He find me in Adam; guilty as I was in him, so now justified in Christ. If then, death be the debt of all, we must be able to endure the payment. Man, then, was thus snared by the assault of the arch-fiend, and broke his Creator's command, and was stripped of grace and put off his confidence with God, and covered himself with the asperities of a toilsome life (for this is the meaning of the fig-leaves ); and was clothed about with death, that is, mortality and the grossness of flesh (for this is what the garment of skins signifies); and was banished from Paradise by God's just judgment, and condemned to death, and made subject to corruption. That saying that calls no one sinless except God, even though he has lived only one day on earth, does not refer to those who sin personally, because how can a one-day old child sin? But in this is expressed that mystery of our Faith, that human nature is sinful from its very conception. God did not create man sinful, but pure and holy. But since the first-created Adam lost this garment of sanctity, not from any other sin but from pride alone, and became corruptible and mortal, all people also who come from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sin. And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift [baptism], 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 acquiesced 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. These are worse than they who have lost the Gift through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error. And I think that 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 be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not 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 not everyone who is not good enough to be honored is bad enough to be punished. I'm not necessarily concurring with the Fathers on this. But their position seems pretty clear and ought to be given some weight. The tension seems more to be between historical vs modern interpretation, as modern authors seem much more uncomfortable with claiming that those who are not personally culpable of sin are held responsible for it. I'm also somewhat uncomfortable with throwing the East and West in two separate baskets on atonement theory. The West maintains Christ's victory as destroying death and opening the gates to Paradise, even if it is not always emphasized. And the juridical nature of Christ's sacrifice is repeated by Church Fathers East. True, it is emphasized to different degrees, depending on the author. But I'm sure I could pull some from Eastern Fathers on that theme as well. I note the upcoming Great Vespers Triodion from the Third Sunday of Great Lent: O Christ our God, of Thine own will Thou hast accepted the Crucifixion, that all mankind might be restored life. Taking the quill of the Cross, out of love for man in red ink of totality with bloody fingers Thou hast signed our absolution.
Last edited by EMagnus; 5 hours ago.
|
|
|
|
|
