I was reading Richard Ibranyi on the salvation of children or infants baptized in heretical sects, such as Protestantism.  His debate was with the Dimonds, and it revolved around what age the child had to be, or what his IQ score was, before he could be considered to be at the age of reason.

I don't understand this.  I hate to sound more far-out than Feeneyites, but how can anyone in a heretical sect be saved, even a child?

Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:  "It is necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Is a child not a human creature?

Eugene IV, Cantate Domino:  "It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock..."

A Protestant infant has not been added to the flock.  The baptism has washed away his original and actual sins, but he is still part of a false sect.  While he may not be punished for it with the punishment of those who defy God, that doesn't mean he can be saved.  ( I'm not preaching here, just thinking out loud. )

What do theologians say about children baptized as Protestants?  CM, help me out.  Something doesn't feel right.

how can anyone in a heretical sect be saved, even a child?

The thing is Raoul that that child is not baptized in the heretical sect, but rather by a non Catholic person but incorporated into the Catholic Church. Sacramental character of baptism is that by which we are memebers of the Catholic Church (this is the explicit teaching of Fenton, Billot, Pius XII) and the 3 requisites laid down by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, namely, profession of the Catholic faith, submission to the R. Pontiff and not being excommunicated as vitandus are but conditions which can be done just by adults.

A Protestant infant has not been added to the flock.  The baptism has washed away his original and actual sins, but he is still part of a false sect.  While he may not be punished for it with the punishment of those who defy God, that doesn't mean he can be saved.  ( I'm not preaching here, just thinking out loud. )

So  if this (baptized) infant dies before reaching the age of reason... where will he go? if he is in a state of grace, why will he not obtain salvation?

Cristian

Et tu, Jehanne?

Pax said:

"There is one Baptism. If a human being receives a valid Baptism, they are bona fide members of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is one and the same thing as the most holy Roman Catholic Church, and are therefore automatically suibject to the Roman Pontiff until such time as they consciously and willfully renounce that jurisdiction."

You agree with this, Jehanne?  I'm shocked.  Do you believe someone is only damned if they "consciously and willfully renounce" the Roman Pontiff and the Church?  What if they renounce it because they are told all their lives, by their parents and other Protestants, that the Roman Pontiff is bad, but they never really gave it much thought.  Are you going to say that they WOULD HAVE done something differently IF THEY HAD known the truth, and that they aren't culpable?  Are all those people out there who are watching Jєωιѕн T.V. and having their minds melted going to be saved because if someone had brought the doctrine of the Church to them, they WOULD HAVE converted?

That is another topic, whether rejection must be conscious and willful, or how consciousness and willfulness is even defined -- it all sounds like sophistry to me, either you're in the Church or you're not.  

But as far as baptized infants who die before reaching the age of reason goes, I'm not making any pronouncements about this ( yet ).  I haven't studied the topic.  I am just bringing up what struck me as an overt denial of the most formal decrees possible -- but actually may not be.  I was hoping someone could tell me what early Church fathers thought, and what the ordinary and universal Magisterium taught throughout history.

Cristian said:

"The thing is Raoul that that child is not baptized in the heretical sect, but rather by a non Catholic person but incorporated into the Catholic Church. Sacramental character of baptism is that by which we are members of the Catholic Church (this is the explicit teaching of Fenton, Billot, Pius XII) and the 3 requisites laid down by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, namely, profession of the Catholic faith, submission to the R. Pontiff and not being excommunicated as vitandus are but conditions which can be done just by adults.

Cristian, I believe Pius XII and Fenton were heretics, in case you've missed my postings on that score, which is entirely possible!  I haven't studied Billot but he has a bad rep among those who tend towards my position ( that EENS has been stretched into unrecognizability ).  

I am looking for an older teaching, preferably a papal teaching, saying that someone who is baptized in a heretical sect, and who dies before reaching the age of reason, has a chance to be saved.   The opinion of 20th century theologians has about as much weight with me as the doctrine of Oprah Winfrey.

Didn't the Church eventually decide, after much wrangling with St. Cyprian and others, that though the baptism administered by heretics was still valid, you STILL had to come into the real Church, separating from the heretics, before you could have a chance at salvation?  When did the concept of the "age of reason" crop up?
 

We don't actually know when the age of reason/accountability is for each person. Pope St. Gregory I spoke of a baptized five year old who was carried off to hell after committing mortal sin (Dial. iv). St. Thomas confirms this.

For an infant, a valid baptism is always a fruitful baptism.

That`s true.

Cristian

Quote from: Raoul76

I am looking for an older teaching, preferably a papal teaching, saying that someone who is baptized in a heretical sect, and who dies before reaching the age of reason, has a chance to be saved.   The opinion of 20th century theologians has about as much weight with me as the doctrine of Oprah Winfrey.

 

I don't know if this helps any but traditionally in Catholic countries the age of consent for sɛҳuąƖ relations was set at 12 because that was the age which the Hebrews in Old Testament times had established for the onset of reason and responsibility. That also explains the significance in Luke 2:42 of Jesus being twelve years old when He stayed behind teaching in the Temple, doing "his father's business." It was at the age of twelve when a Jєωιѕн boy began to learn his father's trade. Jєωs today still celebrate a young boy's bar mitzvah, his coming of age, at twelve.

In fact there is not a rule. Before 12 years old children are excused legally (but not necessarily moraly) for a crime.
Remember that after (and thanks to) St. Pius X the first communion was taken usually around 7 or 8, therefore the age of reason is more or less at that age. Of course this is not for everybody, because it may happen that somebody may reach the age of reason before or after.

The Catholic Church would not baptize infants of Protestant parents.  

The Catechism of the Council of Trent says:

Quote

. . .we learn from holy traditionn that it has been the invariable practice to administer Baptism to no individual without previously asking him if he be willing to receive it.  This disposition even infants are presumed to have, since the will of the Church, which promises for them, cannot be mistaken.

It would seem to me that in Protestant baptism the Church does not promise for the infant receiving it.  Therefore the Protestant infant cannot have the disposition to be joined to the Catholic Church, the Protestant infant, though validly baptized, is not a member of the Catholic Church.

They are 2 different things. One thing is that the Church doesn`t baptize infants whose parents are not Catholics and other is that that child wouldn`t be Catholic if he were baptized. The reason for not baptizing the infants is not that they wouldn`t be Catholics but rather because of the non-Catholic education the infant will eventually receive.

What makes you Catholic is the Baptismal Character, and as long as one doesn`t break the externals bounds, namely Unity of Faith (Heresy-Apostasy), Unity of Government (Schism) and Unity of Communion (Mayor Excommunication) you`ll be Catholic.
But it is quite obvious that an infant is incapable of of Heresy, Schism, or being Excommunicated.
Therefore: that infant is Catholic.

I recommend to you (even to those who don`t agree with Fenton) to read this: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=647

Cristian said:

French translation: Par. 14. Enfin nous tenons pour assuré que ceux qui ont été baptisés par des hérétiques, lorsqu'ils sont parvenus à l'âge auquel ils peuvent distinguer par eux-mêmes le bien du mal et qu'ils adhèrent aux erreurs de celui qui les a baptisés, ils sont certes rejetés de l'unité de l'Eglise et privés des biens dont jouissent ceux qui ont leur demeure dans l'Eglise, mais ils ne sont pas cependant libérés de son autorité et de ses lois, comme Gonzales l'expose avec sagesse au "Sicut", n. 12, au sujet des hérétiques.

Thanks Cristian.  This is from Benedict XIV?  

The translation would be -- ooh, I get to show off! --

"Finally we hold it as a certainty that those who have been baptized by heretics, as soon as they arrive at the age where they can distinguish good from evil by themselves, if they adhere to the errors of those who baptized them, they are certainly rejected from the unity of the Church and deprived of the goods/biens ( graces? helps? ) that are enjoyed by those who remain in the Church, but they are not for that reason set free from its laws or its authority, as Gonzales has illustrated with wisdom in Sicut, No. 12, on the subject of heretics."

It doesn't confirm explicitly that children baptized by heretics who die before reaching the age of reason can be saved, but it does at least suggest it.  So at the very least, it is an allowable opinion, for the reason that you say:  An infant cannot be a heretic or schismatic.  

Are you French, Cristian?  

I'll read the Bellarmine Forums thread.  I often disagree with John Lane but those threads have helped me sort out many snaggles.