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/congre...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.

I find it peculiar that, while Luther's Larger Catechism makes a very persuasive case for the efficacy of Baptism of infants, it is utterly silent about the questions posed in this disussion.

Here is an excerpt from the Larger Catechism

http://www.bookofconcord.org/lc-6-baptism.php

Of Infant Baptism.

47] Here a question occurs by which the devil, through his sects, confuses the world, namely, Of Infant Baptism, whether children also believe, and are justly baptized. Concerning this we say briefly: 48] Let the simple dismiss this question from their minds, and refer it to the learned. But if you wish to answer, 49] then answer thus:-

That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. 50] But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost, as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. 51] This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints.

52] Further, we say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God. 53] This now is perhaps somewhat acute, but it rests entirely upon what I have said, that Baptism is nothing else than water and the Word of God in and with each other, that is, when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be wanting. For my faith does not make Baptism, but receives it. Now, Baptism does not become invalid even though it be wrongly received or employed; since it is not bound (as stated) to our faith, but to the Word.

Much farther in this section, there is a description of living in Baptismal grace that certainly mirrors theosis:

83] Thus it appears what a great, excellent thing Baptism is, which delivers us from the jaws of the devil and makes us God's own, suppresses and takes away sin, and then daily strengthens the new man; and is and remains ever efficacious until we pass from this estate of misery to eternal glory.

84] For this reason let every one esteem his Baptism as a daily dress in which he is to walk constantly, that he may ever be found in the faith and its fruits, that he suppress the old man and grow up in the new.

Limbo is the teaching of many eminent Western theologians, to begin with St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguori.

A brief summary of the limbo controversies is to be found here.

And yet, limbo was never accepted as official Church doctrine, ever. Thomas and Alphonsus are entitled to their opinion, just like anyone else. But it remains just that--their opinion.

I imagine some people are going to be very upset if St. Gregory of Nyssa turns out to be correct. Probably the same people who find the Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom to be scandalous.

I think that's where we get into a problem. There are many theologians today who are teaching things that are not official Church teaching, too. So I think we need to look beyond theolgians to those who have the authority to teach--the bishops who have been given the grace to "rightly define the Word of Truth."

I don't have the need to know everything, including this question. I take great comfort in the notion of the vast mercy of God. And I like to think of that mercy in the context of Pope John XXIII's attitude. It has been said that he turned everything over to the Lord each evening because the Church was His. And it is said he slept very well afterward.

Bob

One would think this would be a trivial matter in the Latin Church, given the proclivity for official pronouncements and the compilation of Church teachings into formal catechisms--but, apparently, there is much room for whatever the Latin equivalent of "Ya-Ya theology". As someone once put it, it's not what you don't know, but rather what you do know that isn't true, that gets you into trouble.

Besides the faith of the parents, 'air' baptism, and the mercy of God upon the innocents, I also remembered, (as we seem to be doing one in my parish just about every Sunday) the Orthodox tradition of the 40 day 'churching' of the infant. Prayers are said for the mother and child and the congregation affirms the prayers for the baby with their 'amen'. The baby is brought to the icons and the priest makes the sign of the cross with the infant before them, and if it is a male infant it is brought into the altar. Surely, if the baby (God forbid) dies after this, but before its baptism, it has been sufficiently blessed into the Christian (in this case, Orthodox) faith.

Also, atleast in the Greek tradition, there is no rush to baptize the baby, and the average age of christening is generally 6-7 months; some are so much later, that the baby is already walking. Perhaps the 'churching' is the reason why?

Ofcourse, this is only the Greek tradition...I cannot speak for the Russian.

Our ROCOR poster, Father David can best answer that. Father David!! Are you out there in cyberland to answer?!?

--Alice

Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlahos) discusses this issue in his work "Life After Death." In general, this book is a reasonably balanced and accurate representation of Orthodox opinion about death.

Dn. David

****

This hope is reinforced by the Resurrection icon "The Harrowing of Hades" Certainly Adam and Eve were not baptised in the traditional sense.

This is a question that particularly interests me, not because I am anxious about the salvation of infants who die without sacramental baptism--does God's love and mercy know any boundaries? is God limited by the sacramental ordinances he has established for our good? does not God genuinely will the salvation of every human being?--but because the answers given to the question reveal a great deal about one's understanding original sin, regeneration, and theosis. In what sense is Holy Baptism salvifically "necessary" for infants?

I have yet to come across an in-depth scholarly treatment of this question by an Orthodox theologian. There are, course, the usual polemical presentations. St John Chrysostom is often quoted:



If children are personally sinless, then how can they be excluded from Heaven should they die without baptism? Chrysostom is typically interpreted as indirectly witnessing against Canon 110 of the Council of Carthage (A.D. 419):



But do Chrysostom and Carthage actually conflict? It seems to me that the disagreement may be more semantic than real. I note that a millennium later the Eastern participants at the Council of Florence apparently had no difficulty signing off on a strong affirmation of the necessity of Holy Baptism for children. As far as I know the salvific necessity of baptism, unlike the Filioque and Purgatory, was not a matter of controversy between East and West.

My private opinion is that Chrysostom and Carthage, and thus East and West, may be harmonized and reconciled.

I see no discrepancy between being personally sinless, as Chrysostom says, and being subject to Original Sin, as Carthage says. Neither does it amount to a hill of beans whether Original Sin is seen as a stain of the soul or the soul being subject to corruption. An infant inherits Original Sin, even though he has no personal sins, and is baptized that he may be regenerated in Christ and become an heir of the Kingdom of God.

Yes, the difference is semantic, not real.

duh...what's "air baptism"?

One raises the baby in the air and makes the sign of the cross with it, baptizing him in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit...only in times of impending death where there is no priest around.

From my church website:

I periodically remind parishioners through the Sermon that any Baptized person may administer Holy Baptism in an emergency and explain how that is done.

The newest liturgy book/pew hymnal of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has instructions for emergency Baptism on the inside rear cover--easy to find when time is of the essence.