Author Topic: Unbaptised infants, invincible ignorance and pelagianisn (Read 3111 times)

AnthonyPadua · « **on:** September 04, 2023, 07:40:16 AM »

Alright so if an invincible ignorant person who has reached the age of reason and be saved outside the Church, why can't unbaptised infants?

Clearly an infant is also invincibly ignorant. And yet the infant is in a better state than a non infant. For an infant has only original sin and literally cannot commit venial or mortal sin.

Yet a person who has the age of reason will have 100% commited venial sins, and venial sins lead to mortal sin. It is inevitable. So any invincibly ignorant non infant will be in the state or mortal sin + original sin.

So it is much worse to say that an invincibly ignorant person can be saved without baptism and the Catholic faith than to say that an unbaptised infant can be saved by invincible ignorance.

Crealy salvation in invincible ignorance is pelagianism. For it assumes that original sin does not matter for the invincible ignorant person, or that someone without baptism can be in the state of grace to be saved.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #1 on:** September 04, 2023, 09:14:32 AM »

Even the invincibly ignorant have to be baptized. Maybe they go to limbo as well.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #2 on:** September 04, 2023, 09:20:14 AM »

If all preborn and infants went to heaven, abortion would be a blessing and not such a heinous curse. If you let your child grow up just to risk hell what is the benefit? Better to have aborted it for a ticket to heaven.
Now if God in His great mercy does let the unbaptized unborn into Heaven, that is His choice, information He did not impart to His Church. We cannot know this.

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #3 on:** September 04, 2023, 09:27:36 AM »

Quote from: josefamenendez on September 04, 2023, 09:20:14 AM

If all preborn and infants went to heaven, abortion would be a blessing and not such a heinous curse. If you let your child grow up just to risk hell what is the benefit? Better to have aborted it for a ticket to heaven.
Now if God in His great mercy does let the unbaptized unborn into Heaven, that is His choice, information He did not impart to His Church. We cannot know this.

No this is condemned. It's a pelagian heresy.

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #4 on:** September 04, 2023, 09:30:59 AM »

Quote from: josefamenendez on September 04, 2023, 09:20:14 AM

If all preborn and infants went to heaven, abortion would be a blessing and not such a heinous curse. If you let your child grow up just to risk hell what is the benefit? Better to have aborted it for a ticket to heaven.
Now if God in His great mercy does let the unbaptized unborn into Heaven, that is His choice, information He did not impart to His Church. We cannot know this.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”[1]

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.”[2] - Condemned

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.”

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #5 on:** September 04, 2023, 09:32:18 AM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on September 04, 2023, 09:30:59 AM

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”[1]

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.”[2] - Condemned

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”[1]

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.[2]

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #6 on:** September 04, 2023, 09:36:38 AM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on September 04, 2023, 07:40:16 AM

Alright so if an invincible ignorant person who has reached the age of reason and be saved outside the Church, why can't unbaptised infants?

First, people who are outside the Church cannot be saved. People who are invincibly ignorant are not saved because of their ignorance, they are just not held accountable for thing which they are invincibly ignorant of.

Clearly an infant is also invincibly ignorant. And yet the infant is in a better state than a non infant. For an infant has only original sin and literally cannot commit venial or mortal sin.

An infant who is not baptized is not in a better state than someone who is baptized. Where did you get this idea?

Yet a person who has the age of reason will have 100% commited venial sins, and venial sins lead to mortal sin. It is inevitable. So any invincibly ignorant non infant will be in the state or mortal sin + original sin.

Venial sins don’t always lead to mortal sin.

So it is much worse to say that an invincibly ignorant person can be saved without baptism and the Catholic faith than to say that an unbaptised infant can be saved by invincible ignorance.

Crealy salvation in invincible ignorance is pelagianism. For it assumes that original sin does not matter for the invincible ignorant person, or that someone without baptism can be in the state of grace to be saved.

My remarks are in red.

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #7 on:** September 04, 2023, 09:47:10 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 04, 2023, 09:36:38 AM

My remarks are in red.

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on Today at 08:40:16 PM
Alright so if an invincible ignorant person who has reached the age of reason and be saved outside the Church, why can't unbaptised infants?

First, people who are outside the Church cannot be saved. People who are invincibly ignorant are not saved because of their ignorance, they are just not held accountable for thing which they are invincibly ignorant of.

A person who is invincibly ignorant still has original sin, so they will go to limbo (not saved) providing they have no mortal sins. Invincible ignorance is not what condemns them. Also belief in the Incarnation and Trinity is required for salvation.

Clearly an infant is also invincibly ignorant. And yet the infant is in a better state than a non infant. For an infant has only original sin and literally cannot commit venial or mortal sin.
An infant who is not baptized is not in a better state than someone who is baptized. Where did you get this idea?

You have misunderstood. Nowhere am I comparing a baptised person. But an unbaptised infant to an unbaptised invincible ignorant person above age of reason. There age of reason person will surely have venial and subsequently mortal sin.

Yet a person who has the age of reason will have 100% commited venial sins, and venial sins lead to mortal sin. It is inevitable. So any invincibly ignorant non infant will be in the state or mortal sin + original sin.
Venial sins don’t always lead to mortal sin.

Venial sins will lead a person into mortal sin, this is why receiving the sacraments are vital to salvation. It is extremely difficult to live without mortal sin if you don't get them. An invincible ignorant person is not baptised so they will eventually commit a mortal sin. They don't have access to those graces the sacraments provide.

Mine in blue.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** September 04, 2023, 11:06:16 AM »

Anthony, your comments are directed toward those who hold that invincible ignorance is somehow salvific ... and there are some. But the more reasonable of BoDers will recognized that ignorance can be exculpatory, but cannot and does not justify in itself. Many BoDers blur the thinking and claim that individuals can be saved on account of (implying due to) invincible ignorance. That is simply false. Invincible Ignorance excuses any guilt in THAT matter (cf. St. Thomas) but positive supernatural faith is required for justification. Infants can have supernatural faith by infusion only ex opere operato via the Sacrament of Baptism, but those at the age of reason cannot have a merely-infused supernatural faith but must also positively assent to certain propositions based on the formal motive of supernatural faith.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** September 04, 2023, 11:15:06 AM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on September 04, 2023, 07:40:16 AM

Yet a person who has the age of reason will have 100% commited venial sins, and venial sins lead to mortal sin. It is inevitable. So any invincibly ignorant non infant will be in the state or mortal sin + original sin.

It's not 100% certain or inevitable that all invincibly ignorant non-infants (those with the use of reason) have committed an actual mortal sin. Actual mortal sin is not required to not be saved. Original sin suffices. Now, via speculation about God's providence, St. Thomas holds that if an individual does not commit any sins that would be an obstacle to faith and salvation, God will enlighten all such souls with supernatural faith, even if He needs to send an angel to preach the Gospel to them. So this implies that those who die without supernatural faith must, in the practical order, have committed some sin serious enough to prevent their reception of supernatural faith. I hold, however, that God may also withhold supernatural faith even without an active mortal sin as an act of Mercy, since perhaps God knows that the individual would either reject the faith or else would receive it and then commit a grave sin and ultimately lose his soul, at which point his suffering in Hell would be greater.

PS: God could also have this same angel mentioned by St. Thomas baptize the individual as well. St. Cyprian referred to "BoB" ("martyrdom") as a Sacrament, which many later commentators have called an error. But elsewhere he states that in "Baptism of Blood", the martyr's blood replaces water as the matter for the Sacrament and that angels say the words (the form). There's no theological reason that would prevent an angel from being able to baptized. He's a rational being who can pour water on an individual and pronounce the words (since angels can move the air, cause sound waves, and thus speak).

Nous · « **Reply #10 on:** September 04, 2023, 12:01:18 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 04, 2023, 11:15:06 AM

It's not 100% certain or inevitable that all invincibly ignorant non-infants (those with the use of reason) have committed an actual mortal sin.

I happened to be clicking around the Summa last night on sections on venial sin and this was partly addressed coincidentally. St. Thomas does seem to think it impossible for venial sin to exist with original sin within one soul to the exclusion of mortal sin.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2089.htm#article6

“I answer that, It is impossible for venial sin to be in anyone with original sin alone, and without mortal sin. The reason for this is because before a man comes to the age of discretion, the lack of years hinders the use of reason and excuses him from mortal sin, wherefore, much more does it excuse him from venial sin, if he does anything which is such generically. But when he begins to have the use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or mortal sin. Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, through not doing that which is in his power to do. Accordingly thenceforward there cannot be venial sin in him without mortal, until afterwards all sin shall have been remitted to him through grace.”

Again I just stumbled on this last night and have never put any thought into the general matter, there might be some context I’m missing leading to me misinterpreting or misapplying his writings here.

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #11 on:** September 04, 2023, 09:35:04 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 04, 2023, 11:06:16 AM

Anthony, your comments are directed toward those who hold that invincible ignorance is somehow salvific ... and there are some. But the more reasonable of BoDers will recognized that ignorance can be exculpatory, but cannot and does not justify in itself. Many BoDers blur the thinking and claim that individuals can be saved on account of (implying due to) invincible ignorance. That is simply false. Invincible Ignorance excuses any guilt in THAT matter (cf. St. Thomas) but positive supernatural faith is required for justification. Infants can have supernatural faith by infusion only ex opere operato via the Sacrament of Baptism, but those at the age of reason cannot have a merely-infused supernatural faith but must also positively assent to certain propositions based on the formal motive of supernatural faith.

Sorry I should have been more clear. Many people I've spoken to hold that these invincible ignorant persons are somehow members of the Church by 'the soul of the church', and that they are somehow saved without baptism, which makes no sense to me.

Soubirous · « **Reply #12 on:** September 05, 2023, 04:18:20 PM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on September 04, 2023, 09:35:04 PM

Sorry I should have been more clear. Many people I've spoken to hold that these invincible ignorant persons are somehow members of the Church by 'the soul of the church', and that they are somehow saved without baptism, which makes no sense to me.

Stemming from the same modernist humanist egalitarian assumption that all schoolchildren must be given the same trophies and gold stars, since virtue and merit are unfairly elitist and retrograde notions.

I wonder also whether, in countries that are majority Protestant, the false dichotomy of heaven-or-hell unfortunately infects the beliefs of some under-catechized Catholics, post V2 and post Hans Urs von Balthasar especially.

Author Topic: Unbaptised infants, invincible ignorance and pelagianisn (Read 3111 times)

AnthonyPadua

Unbaptised infants, invincible ignorance and pelagianisn

josefamenendez

Re: Unbaptised infants, invincible ignorance and pelagianisn

josefamenendez

Re: Unbaptised infants, invincible ignorance and pelagianisn

AnthonyPadua

Re: Unbaptised infants, invincible ignorance and pelagianisn

AnthonyPadua

Re: Unbaptised infants, invincible ignorance and pelagianisn

AnthonyPadua

Re: Unbaptised infants, invincible ignorance and pelagianisn

Quo vadis Domine

Re: Unbaptised infants, invincible ignorance and pelagianisn

AnthonyPadua

Re: Unbaptised infants, invincible ignorance and pelagianisn

Ladislaus

Re: Unbaptised infants, invincible ignorance and pelagianisn

Ladislaus

Re: Unbaptised infants, invincible ignorance and pelagianisn

Nous

Re: Unbaptised infants, invincible ignorance and pelagianisn

AnthonyPadua

Re: Unbaptised infants, invincible ignorance and pelagianisn

Soubirous

Re: Unbaptised infants, invincible ignorance and pelagianisn