An unbaptized infant goes to Hell...

[Asubit]

Nowhere in this thread have I stated my own personal beliefs on the subject. I was attempting to start an interesting theological discussion, which failed miserably because too many people here are unable or unwilling to read a post carefully enough to grasp its meaning

it failed miserably because you began the thread by making a false claim about the catholic church and made the fatal mistake of including in the same sentence the fact that you had just finished watching the movie stigmata.

I think what happened here is that you were slightly intoxicated and said something which was inaccurate and now after being somewhat clear headed you are insulting all of the people including myself with things like questioning our reading comprehension or calling us 14 year olds in order to save face.

Regardless I want to know what caused you to say:

According to Catholic doctrine (and several other Christian religious beliefs), an infant goes to Hell if he or she dies before baptism.

because that is a 100% inaccurate interpretation of catholic doctrine.

and go ahead and call me 14 or insecure, that won't change the fact that you haven't answered the questions.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

Hello Asubit

Red, I dunno, maybe it's happened before?

 

[Asubit]

hi

 

[reitz]

Let me try this one last time. My quote:

<< It is not a blanket statement on those who consider themselves Christians, but find their beliefs for themselves. >>

could be rephrased as:

<< It is not a blanket statement on those who follow no particular doctrine and have found their own beliefs, yet still consider themselves to be Christians. >>

Also, I never stated that every Christian religion shares those beliefs, and nowhere did I specifically mention your religion. Do you have a learning disability here? Nowhere did I even begin to paint you as a &quot;pseudo-wannabe Christian&quot;, or accuse you of being part of any particular group (obviously a comprehension problem here). Those that are historically the first to protest catch-all statements on Christianity on this board are those who belong to no particular denomination. I phrased it that way to cater to those individuals. I also made no blanket statements. &quot;Why are Christians not spending all of their collective energy on baptizing those souls?&quot; does not qualify as such, since I was referring to those who believe that an unbaptized infant goes straight to Hell when he dies.

Why are you even bringing up the key to salvation? Not once did I mention that, and it has nothing to do with my original post. Let me state it again, in bold and caps, so that you may finally be able to understand: NOT ONCE HAVE I POSTED ANY OF MY PERSONAL BELIEFS. THE WHOLE POINT OF MY TOPIC WAS TO DISCUSS THE BELIEFS THAT SOME PEOPLE HOLD! I find it an interesting contradiction that those who hold that belief are some of the most vehement anti-abortion critics, yet it is rare to hear a person speak out on the issues of baptism, even though an aborted fetus and an unbaptized child share the same fate [ACCORDING TO THOSE WHO SHARE THOSE BELIEFS].

In first-grade terms:

A person holds a certain belief. According to that belief, a certain thing happens in the end that is bad. That same person holds a second belief, which has the same bad thing happen in the end as with his first belief. For some reason, that person only speaks out on one of his beliefs, not both, even though the exact same bad thing will happen in the end in both situations. Why is that?

Good Lord! I think I would have had more success trying to explain myself to my girlfriend's cat! :disgust:

And as for my &quot;condecending attitude,&quot; in is in direct response to the most assinine statement so far in this thread:

<< So now I'm not a Christian? I did not &quot;find [my] beliefs for [my]self&quot;. Irregardless, are you to argue that baptism is all one needs to be saved and go to Heaven? You seem to assume so... >>

Even though I have not once stated any of my personal beliefs, you seem to be able to tell me what they are. Might I make a suggestion? Go back and read my posts (go slowly, and sound out the big words if you have to), and actually comprehend my statements and the questions I was trying to pose. Optimus seemed to have no problems with it; why do you?

 

[dennilfloss]

&quot;My roommate and I just finished [a case of beer and] the movie Stigmata, and got to talking. According to Catholic doctrine (and several other Christian religious beliefs), an infant goes to Hell if he or she dies before baptism. What if the child's mother has decided that the child will not be baptized? Should that child die before baptism, he is going to spend the rest of existence in Hell.

Why not abort the fetus now, since it is headed for Hell anyway? Where is the &quot;crime&quot; in abortion, since the action is only expediting the child's destiny?

The Catholic Church has labelled abortion as a crime; it is wrong in nearly all cases. Why is the refusal to baptize an infant as a Christian not considered a travesty in the same light? Both souls are headed towards Hell...where is the distinction? What about a child who is raised Hindu, and dies before he is able to realize the &quot;truth&quot;? He is heading to Hell, since he has not been baptized. Why are Christians not spending all of their collective energy on baptizing those souls?&quot; (underlying mine)

The excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia I cut and pasted earlier are quite clear on this matter and this official body is the most credible source of Catholic Dogma, way more reliable than any local priest or bishop. When it comes to dogma, only official Church Doctrine matters. Whether one accepts it or not is off course a personal matter but the personal decision does not validate or invalidate the Doctrine. Whoever is truly believing what I underlined above would qualify as a heretic in the strict sense (no negative or positive implication from me) on this subject according to The Negative Document On Baptism.

&quot;(2) The Negative Document: &quot;De Baptismo&quot;

The negative document we call the canons on baptism decreed by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, De Baptismo), in which the following doctrines are anathematized (declared heretical):

The baptism of John (the Precursor) had the same efficacy as the baptism of Christ,

True and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and therefore the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ &quot;Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost&quot; are metaphorical.

The true doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is not taught by the Roman Church,

Baptism given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost with the intention of performing what the Church performs, is not true baptism,

Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation.

A baptized person, even if he wishes it, can not lose grace, no matter how much he sins, unless he refuses to believe.

Those who are baptized are obliged only to have faith, but not to observe the whole law of Christ.

Baptized persons are not obliged to observe all the precepts of the Church, written and traditional, unless of their own accord they wish to submit to them.

All vows made after baptism are void by reason of the promises made in baptism itself; because by these vows injury is done to the faith which has been professed in baptism and to the sacrament itself.

All sins committed after baptism are either forgiven or rendered venial by the sole remembrance and faith of the baptism that has been received,

Baptism although truly and properly administered, must be repeated in the case of a person who has denied the faith of Christ before infidels and has been brought again to repentance.

No one is to be baptized except at the age at which Christ was baptized or at the moment of death.

Infants, not being able to make an act of faith, are not to be reckoned among the faithful after their baptism, and therefore when they come to the age of discretion they are to be rebaptized; or it is better to omit their baptism entirely than to baptize them as believing on the sole faith of the Church, when they themselves can not make a proper act of faith.

Those baptized as infants are to be asked when they have grown up, whether they wish to ratify what their sponsors had promised for them at their baptism, and if they reply that they do not wish to do so, they are to be left to their own will in the matter and not to be forced by penalties to lead a Christian life, except to be deprived of the reception of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments, until they reform.

The doctrines here condemned by the Council of Trent, are those of various leaders among the early reformers. The contradictory of all these statements is to be held as the dogmatic teaching of the Church.&quot;

BTW, I do not pretend that I follow all the Church's Doctrine to the letter but I do not also pretend that I speak as an authority on the Doctrine or in the name of Catholics in general. I let the proper authority speak on Doctrine as people can read the excerpts and draw the appropriate conclusions.

Only One (Goo Goo Dolls)

 

[reitz]

Asubit,

Go back and read my earlier post. I'll quote it here for you:

<< I will concede that the fate of an unbaptized child is not official Church doctrine, but it is a commonly held belief among many Catholics, and several parishes preach the fate as I described (as a child in religious-ed classes, we used to have penny jars in the classrooms where we could donate money to help &quot;...baptize pagan babies&quot; in third world countries). Also, many smaller Protestant denominations either preach the beliefs, or have a great many members who hold them. >>

dennilfloss corrected me, and I posted a qualification to my original assertation. That still fits with the original point to my thread.

 

[Siva]

oops

 

[Raspewtin]

<< The Catholic Church has labelled abortion as a crime >>



They also firmly stated the world was flat and only recently forgave Galileo The Vatican is a bunch of sexist, all white old men, feet firmly planted in a world that no longer exists, making opinions about children they will never raise nor ever take care of. Their support shrinks by the day (number of clergy). Their views on abortion or anything regarding children are meaningless. I doubt Christ would be proud about the puppet show created in his name. There is a lot of good in the Catholic church, precious little of that good sits in the Vatican.

 

[Asubit]

way more reliable than any local priest or bishop. When it comes to dogma, only official Church Doctrine matters.

Unless the priests I spoke with growing up were pulling sh*t out of thin air when answering my retorical asinine typically ten year old questions I'm not entirely sure I would be so quick to reject what they say.

What I've found is that they are great for interpretating catholic doctrine so that the average joe can understand it.

But I base most of my knowledge on upbringing and asking questions.. which is why my initial statements when this thread began were accurate. Perhaps not as 'credible' as pasting exerps from the catholic encyclopedia but accurate nonetheless.

anyway, I take it you are catholic? non practicing as am I?

 

[Asubit]

Vote Democrat; it's easier than getting a job.

switch vote democrat out with 'join a union'..

 

[ThisIsMatt]

man, are you still drunk? What are you talking about? You did make assumptions about my religion and in not-too-different terms called me a wannabe Christian. You're making a blanket statement when you characterize all Christians as Catholics, which you pretty much did.

<< Why are you even bringing up the key to salvation? Not once did I mention that, and it has nothing to do with my original post >>

What? Yes you did, you're talking about baptism as the key to salvation. You're just justifying your statements by then saying &quot;according to those that hold the beliefs I'm talking about and agree 100% with me&quot;. My statements are all 100% correct according to those who believe the same thing. duh

 

[reitz]

dennilfloss,

Optimus was still the only person who understood the original intent of my post, and responded in kind.

Since we are now discussing Catholic doctrine, there are a few points that can be argued. While the excerpts you posted make it impossible for me to prove my original assertation correct, they can not be used to prove it incorrect.

<< The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Pal&aelig;ologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull &quot;L&aelig;tentur Caeli&quot; of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed. >>

Official Catholic Doctrine, according to the portions that I highlighted, states that an infant in that situation will not spend eternity in Heaven. Catholic theologians are unable to agree, however, as to where the infant's soul resides. I'm interested as to what other states of existence are part of doctrine according to your encyclopedia (I don't claim to have any idea). What are the conditions required to spend eternity in those states? What if the unbaptized infant does not fit those requirements...can we then conclude that his soul spends eternity in Hell? Catholic theologians are unable to agree on that situation.

So yes, my original assertation was not necessarily correct. However, one could easily argue that according to certain theologians (namely those who do believe the infant's soul goes to Hell) it was correct.

<< the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church states: &quot;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 who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: &quot;Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,&quot; allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.&quot; >>

That last section goes right back to one of the core question of my thread, though.

<< Why are Christians not spending all of their collective energy on baptizing those souls? >>

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<< My question Matt, is why you would say something like this?

<< matt awaits classic flames because he is not 3133t like some members... >>

Are 3l33t members the only ones allowed to state their opinion? Do you feel like you've been persecuted by me and other 3l33tes? >>



Red, that wasn't directed completely at you, just some in general. Yes, it seems that way at times - they are usually the ones that band together to &quot;beat down&quot; and mock &quot;younger&quot; members (both age and post count) for having differing opinions. Sometimes they make rational arguments and sometimes they seem to get away with saying other things that any &quot;normal&quot; member gets flamed off his a$$ for. I wouldn't go so far as to say anyone has been &quot;persecuted&quot;, but I believe a double standard does indeed exist. For example, in this thread there is an &quot;elite&quot; who in another thread said he was sick of &quot;14-year-old&quot; level posts, yet numerous times in this thread has resorted to such.

 

[reitz]

ThisIsMatt,



<< Yes you did, you're talking about baptism as the key to salvation. >>

Not at all; I'm talking about the absence of baptism preventing salvation, which is not even in the same ballpark.

As for my statements about your religion, please quote them for me.

edit: Changed my mind.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<< That last section goes right back to the core question of my thread, though.

<< Why are Christians not spending all of their collective energy on baptizing those souls? >>

>>

Like I said, because &quot;Christians&quot; do not believe that baptism is the most important thing! That's why I said it's a blanket statement - that &quot;Christians&quot; all follow Catholic doctrine.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

I guess that's better than arguing with your girlfriend's cat, eh?

 

[acexg1]

I gotta agree with others about how condescending you were, reitz.
How was Optimus the only one who responded &quot;correctly&quot; to your original post? Several people said that that was incorrect... How does someone respond &quot;correctly&quot; to an incorrect post, except by correcting it? And you then go on to insult other repliers, when you were the one who made an incorrect post on something you heard in a movie you saw while you were drinking?
And Raspewtin, I presume, is not Catholic, and in my opinion is being an ass.

 

[reitz]

<< Like I said, because &quot;Christians&quot; do not believe that baptism is the most important thing! That's why I said it's a blanket statement - that &quot;Christians&quot; all follow Catholic doctrine. >>

Once more, that last question was about those Christians who hold the beliefs that I stated. The first sentence of my thread should have made it quite clear that I was talking only about those specific people. Nowhere did I state that all Christians follow Catholic doctrine.

Damn, I'm starting to feel like a broken record here.

 

[limsandy]

I don't think the baby would go to hell. Saying &quot;An unbaptized infant goes to Hell...&quot; is as good as saying that all people who adopt other religions such as Muslims, Buddhism and Hinduism would go to hell, which is not true.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

So you used a poor choice of words then...bu-bye.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<<

<< Red, that wasn't directed completely at you >>

I would hope not. If I recall correctly, I have always treated you with some respect.

Now if you felt that my statement were I said that I was glad that &quot;I wasn't haunted by the thought there might be a Hell&quot; was a Nef then fine. Frankly, I do not see it that way. The discussion was about certain Christian Groups believing that an infant not being baptized would end up in hell. My comment was that of a Non Believer. I did not say anyone else?s beliefs were BS nor did I say that mine were better. I am trying to be tolerant of other religious and personal beliefs and it seems that I have been a little more successful at it than some others in this thread have.
. >>



A nef post in that it didn't really hold any substance in the discussion of the thread. If the &quot;some others in this thread&quot; refers to a post or posts of mine, feel free to PM me pointing them out, if you will please. I've been informed that all the &quot;Christian&quot; terms in the original post should be replaced with the term &quot;Catholic&quot;, so I have nothing further to say in this thread because I'm not Catholic.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<<

<< So you used a poor choice of words then...bu-bye. >>



Never..later >>



That was towards the other &quot;elite&quot; member

 

[Optimus]

Oh wow - go BBQ some burgers and a lot can happen in a thread!

Let me try to cover as much as I can:

Reitz: Thanks - I'm just thrilled to have an intelligent conversation on the topic in OT without some of the bashing I've seen from some members.


<< THE WHOLE POINT OF MY TOPIC WAS TO DISCUSS THE BELIEFS THAT SOME PEOPLE HOLD! >>


True, some people do hold the beliefs you outline, including some in the Catholic Church - while not official Church teaching, it certainly is a good discussion topic - Thanks for bringing it up.


<< The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. >>


Just wanted to mention that this is a true statement, but that a child/unbaptised good person will be given a true and real chance to make the choice freely - and a choice for God is a Baptism of Desire. Actually, the whole &quot;A native on an island who is good but never heard of Christ&quot; falls into the Baptism of desire area - that God knows his heart and will judge more fairly than we can fathom.


Kranky:


<< But I cannot believe that a loving God would condemn children to Hell on what to me is a &quot;technicality&quot;. >>


God doesn't. True Catholicism doesn't think God condemns on technicalities for one second.

Raspewtin: Your comments seem to contain a certain venom that is not a fair judgement against the Church:


<< They also firmly stated the world was flat and only recently forgave Galileo >>


The Galileo condemnation was not an act of the Church, even though some individuals in the Church acted wrongly on several accounts. Those Church members were also Italian and Spanish, some acting in the name of the King - yet those countries names are no more tarnished by those actions.


<< The Vatican is a bunch of sexist, all white old men, feet firmly planted in a world that no longer exists, making opinions about children they will never raise nor ever take care of. Their support shrinks by the day (number of clergy). Their views on abortion or anything regarding children are meaningless. I doubt Christ would be proud about the puppet show created in his name. There is a lot of good in the Catholic church, precious little of that good sits in the Vatican. >>


This is quite a venomous attack on the Vatican - and not a valid one. While the Clergy are male, they represent every race and ancestry in the world. The next Pope is very likely to be either Latin or African. While the clergy are male because of the nature of the Priesthood, the work of countless women Nuns and lay workers is enormous and cannot be trivialized. The Church cares for countless children over the world - through orders such as Mother Theresa's and countles other charities and movements funded and guided by the Vatican. While not able to raise every child, the Vatican does hold that it is responsible for their souls.
The Church's views on abortion are as valid as those people that follow them. Whether through faith or human reasoning, many many people agree - that is not worthless.
Christ promised that the foundation of the Church of Peter would be as rock, and that hell cannot prevail against it. This is the basis for Catholic's belief that despite the enormous number of human errors any large group of humanity will make over 2000+ years, the Church herself would remain true and infallible.
Even non-Catholics can see and know the tremendous works of John Paul II's life. He has been a force of good for poverty, faith, and humanity.

Tremendous good and truth sits in the chair of Peter.

Please read the above an reply - I would like to discuss your views on the Vatican in further detail if you would like.

Asubit:

<< What I've found is that they are great for interpretating catholic doctrine so that the average joe can understand it. >>


The clergy have a tremendous responsibility to interpret and present/explain Church teaching, but as they are human to they are as prone to failure as any person would be. While listening to clergy is a vital part of understanding faith, they are no correct if they go against published Church teaching. The word of the priest does not overspeak the word of Rome.


I'll add here my own belief on this topic, which is in line with that of the Catholic Church:

Everyone is judged perfectly by God. We can only imagine, based on our own senses of justice tempered with mercy, the perfect judgement of God. So perfect that I believe &quot;judgement&quot; is an unclear term. C.S. Lewis described the Final Judgement as each soul would walk before God and either turn away or stand beside him. Our lives are our choice and every single soul will have a free choice - including unbaptised babies. Baptism is necessary for salvation, but it is not a &quot;technical&quot; necessity - but rather one of the heart.
But faith is a choice - one parents should introduce a child to with early baptism, but in the end it is one for the child to grow into.

Those who are going to Hell will go baptised or no, and those who are going to Heaven are going baptism or no. But along that way, a free choice against Baptism, against that communion with God, is a choice against Him and weighs mightily on where you have decided to go.

What a loooooong post - please read it if you are truly interested thoguh, and ask me questions if you like!

 

[acexg1]

That's the best post I've seen in this thread Optimus.

 

[Dually]

<< My roommate and I just finished [a case of beer and] the movie Stigmata, and got to talking. According to Catholic doctrine (and several other Christian religious beliefs), an infant goes to Hell if he or she dies before baptism. What if the child's mother has decided that the child will not be baptized? Should that child die before baptism, he is going to spend the rest of existence in Hell.

Why not abort the fetus now, since it is headed for Hell anyway? Where is the &quot;crime&quot; in abortion, since the action is only expediting the child's destiny?

The Catholic Church has labelled abortion as a crime; it is wrong in nearly all cases. Why is the refusal to baptize an infant as a Christian not considered a travesty in the same light? Both souls are headed towards Hell...where is the distinction? What about a child who is raised Hindu, and dies before he is able to realize the &quot;truth&quot;? He is heading to Hell, since he has not been baptized. Why are Christians not spending all of their collective energy on baptizing those souls? >>



You do realize the falacy in the idea of a religous doctrine that is revised over time don't you?

It proves either two things:
1)There is no God
2)or that the church is out of contact with God and only the bible itself should be cosnidered as true and even then in a broad sense.