Heaven or hell.

Dedesmond's picture

If a baby (child) died immediately after birth. Where will the child go?

De Maria's picture

Re: Do you all really believe this?

Dan,

Do you really subscribe to the idea that God saves the baptized child but the soul of the unbaptized child is in a questionable state?

We base our belief on Scripture which says:
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Seems pretty clear that someone who is not baptized is in a sticky position. The Catholic Church is not in the business of contradicting Scripture. And saying that one does not need to be baptized to be saved, would contradict at least this verse of Scripture.

Can you show me another verse of Scripture which says that Baptism is unnecessary for salvation?

If so, then your theology truly is only a theology of works because there is not a shred of grace or faith in any of that.

Really? Tell me, what works has an infant done who dies right after he is baptized?

1. He didn't baptize himself.
2. He didn't express belief in Christ.
3. He was carried to the altar.
4. He didn't teach anyone anything.

What works did he perform? At the most, all we can say is that he didn't commit any sin.

I ask because, coming from a background that dedicates the family rather than baptizes the child, I realize some protestant denominations baptize children too.

That was a question? Sounded more like an accusation. ;)

My understanding of the Lutheran practice gives to the baptized child no special relationship until that child later has her/his own living faith in Christ alone. This is a familial commitment to see the child is raised Christian. But, as I understand Trent, the rite itself is sufficient for the Catholic meaning faith is not a necessary ingredient at all. Does Trent go to great lengths to spell out that faith is not even part ... all you need is the right words from the priest and, presto, you are in. Please confirm with Trent if I am mistaken but that is my recollection of it.

Faith is necessary. But it is the faith of the Parents and the Community which saves the infant. Do you remember the cripple who was lowered through the roof to Jesus? What did Jesus say?

Mark 2

1And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house. 2And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them. 3And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. 4And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. 5When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

So you see, Jesus doesn't just take the faith of the person into account. But also the faith of the Community.

Christ said "suffer the little children to come to me and forbid them not." He did not say it "is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." WOuld He not have said what He meant? Do we get to interpret what Christ meant when Scripture is clear what was said? Thus, RCC again voids teh command of God through her traditions, does she not?

You certainly want that to be the case. The Church doesn't say that the unbaptized infants are not saved. Only that we don't know.

The Church says, "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God." (1 Corinthians 4:5)

The Church doesn't play God. God knows whether unbaptized infants are saved. We don't.

You CLAIM grace and faith but they are really subservient attributes to the RITES and RITUALS you have created over the years.

It is by grace and the obedience of faith that we perform the rituals which God has prescribed for our worship in the Church.

By that I mean the RCC view of grace and faith seem to be a totally different dictionary such that God's grace leads to the Church which only by extension is Christ, and a direct relationship with Christ (which by default makes one part of teh Church) is impossible.

On the contrary. A direct relationship with Jesus Christ is only possible through the Church and the Traditions established by Jesus Christ. Anyone who disobeys the Church, also disobeys Christ and thus voids any relationship he claims to want with Christ.

It is a matter that coming to Christ makes one part of the Church (nonCatholic/nonLutheran) vs becoming part of the Church through baptism makes one identified with Christ (Catholic/Anglican/Lutheran).

Great! I'm glad you could spell out the conflict so clearly. It should make it easy for you to find Biblical substantiation for your stance.

Let me give you a couple for mine:
Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Colossians 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Obviously, one must be a member of the Church in order to be a member of Christ.

WHile one may quibble over the wording I am using, is that essentially the case, fairly speaking?

No. Neither are you fairly speaking. You are simply accusing of things which are foreign to Catholic Teaching.

In Christ,

May you be blessed.

Sincerely,

De Maria




Advertisements