|
0 members (),
1,084
guests, and
78
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,466
Members6,151
| |
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: 467 Likes: 10
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 467 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: 14 Likes: 2
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2025
Posts: 14 Likes: 2 |
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; 02/24/25 05:35 PM.
|
|
1 member likes this:
bwfackler |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 467 Likes: 10
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 467 Likes: 10 |
I stand with St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Issac the Syrian, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Macrina the Younger and others in believing that God has ordained the salvation of all through the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. I also believe in the warning of Christ in Mark 9:49 For everyone shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. That same warning of Christ's redemptive cleansing of our souls is repeated in the well-known admonition in 1 Corinthians 3: 11-15, where we are warned that every man's work shall be tried by fire.
Having studied the history of Apokatastasis, I do see a distinct difference between Eastern and Western thinking. I furthermore see that many Fathers of the East were influenced by Roman thought in this matter. This would be the only way that they would jettison 500 years of Holy Tradition in which the vast majority of people believe in the full salvific work of Christ for all mankind and accepted the horrendous idea of a God who, foreknowing that the fall of mankind would cause billions of souls to experience dreadful torments with no relief ever, went ahead and created all that we know. This would mean, of course, that foreknowing such a fall and result (assuming that Eternal Conscious Torment is true) that it was the will of God to create sentient beings for no other purpose than to punish them forever that He might receive glory from their punishment. And thus, Calvinism is true (which is most certainly is not!)
As we approach Lent, I find it fascinating to read the various readings from the Lenten Triodion and the various services which we will serve in which I hear two distinctly different messages: one, that Christ died for all mankind, that death is destroyed by His death, and that Hades is destroyed, its gates broken down, and Adam and Eve restored. The other that Christ died only for those who will submit to Him, that death will last forever (death being separation from God, as seen in Genesis), that Hades was rebuilt and is running full speed ahead, and that not all shall partake of the restoration of mankind. I sometimes wonder if people actually LISTEN to what we are singing and chanting??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,762 Likes: 29
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,762 Likes: 29 |
Just for understanding, “guilt” has several layers of meaning in Latin.
1. Jean ValJean steals a loaf of bread, is caught, convicted, and sent to prison for the crime. He is guilty of this crime.
2. Because Jean ValJean has committed this crime and is in prison, he can not work to earn money and house and feed his family and they are homeless and hungry. John ValJean’s family is also guilty of this crime..
Guilt has two layers of meaning:
1) Guilty of doing crime.
2) Guilty of doing the time.
This sounds silly to Englush speakers, but we have to understand the original understanding. Adam and Eve are guilty of original sin. We inherit the guilt (effects) of their crime (fallen nature, propensity towards sin, etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2025
Posts: 8
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2025
Posts: 8 |
According to the Catholic Church, they go to Limbo. Of course Catholic teaching gets changed, ahem, I mean better defined, so not sure where they are said to go post Vatican 2.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2025
Posts: 14 Likes: 2
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2025
Posts: 14 Likes: 2 |
I've heard the idea of inherited guilt also described with the analogy to earthly inheritance. Imagine a father owns a beautiful estate. Throughout his life, he ceases to maintain the grounds or the building and refuses to pay the taxes. When he dies, he passes this run-down, debt-ridden property to his son. The property now becomes the son's responsibility, whether he likes it or not.
This is not the same situation as a father stealing bread and the son being thrown in prison in substitution to atone for the crime.
We do not inherit the personal fault of Adam. But we are still responsible for for his sin insofar as we inherit his sinful state. To my understanding, this is why the Fathers teach what they do. The Church has not spoken definitely on what God does with the souls of each unbaptized, only that, by our own limited knowledge, there is but one path to get to Heaven opened by Jesus Christ. How that is applies to the individual, only God knows.
I don't see a substantive difference on this teaching from East to West. In fact, I'm not even sure one can show definitively the idea that the unbaptized do not enter Heaven originated in the West.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,762 Likes: 29
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,762 Likes: 29 |
According to the Catholic Church, they go to Limbo. Of course Catholic teaching gets changed, ahem, I mean better defined, so not sure where they are said to go post Vatican 2. In times past “limbo” has been commonly held, but has never been official Catholic Teaching. The best thing is to entrust children who die to the mercy of the Lord.
|
|
|
|
|
