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

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 [athanasiuscm.blogspot.com].

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.