Salvation of children who died without baptism

 

Christ, reign over us!

On the day of the canonization of Father Stanisław Papczyński, called the patron saint of conceived children, it is good to continue the topic of the hope of salvation of children who died without baptism. It is all the more appropriate as the miracle approved for the earlier beatification consisted in the resurrection of the deceased child in the mother's womb. If God is able to give a new biological life to such a child, why for centuries Catholic theologians, that St. Augustine at the head, denied the Almighty the possibility of giving him supernatural life, a new birth for Heaven?

In the New Testament, the Greek word SOZO means both salvation and healing and deliverance. When the Lord Jesus (Ie-sous; Existing saves) healed, He said: your faith healed / liberated / saved you (Greek: sesoken). He who is able (Latin Qui potens est), as Mary said in Her Song (Lk 1:49), heal a child of all ages, is also able to save him. Faith is needed to receive any supernatural grace. With the same faith that an infant in the womb is able to receive healing from the Lord Jesus, he is also able to receive salvation.

In Akathist in honor of the Mother of God, we sing:

"A virgin, filled with God, ran to visit Elizabeth. The child in Elizabeth's womb immediately recognized her greeting with joy and a leap."

If John could know the Lord Jesus before his birth and actively accept His grace, then after him, in times of grace, every child of his age can do so, since the smallest in the Kingdom of God is greater than him.

Icon of the Visitation of St. Elisabeth, the workshop of the "Sacred Store"

On the feast of the Visitation of St. Elizabeth through Mary, the words of the Good News are read in churches around the world about how John the Baptist, already as a baby in his mother's womb, received God's grace, was filled with the Holy Spirit and jumped with joy, meeting his Savior, also in the womb of His Mother (see Luke 1: 41-45). That is why the Catholic Church celebrates the feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, because he was already sanctified by God then; therefore without baptism, circumcision, sacrifice, or any other ordinances. Also the feast of the Nativity of Mary, also in times when her Immaculate Conception was not believed, was celebrated because she was sanctified before her birth (the justification was presented, among others, by St. Thomas Aquinas). Meanwhile, for centuries, in the same churches, bad news was preached to people that their children had been miscarried, whether those who died without baptism as infants went to hell, and at "best" to some "abyss", because God is absolutely unable to sanctify them without baptism. Where did this theological contradiction arise, and why is it considered a "traditional" or even "infallible" teaching?

Christ the Lord taught in the Gospel that whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it. (Mk 10:15; Lk 18:17). Meanwhile, for sixteen hundred years, religious intellectuals have been trying to convince Christians that it is exactly the opposite: that it is little children who are unable to receive God's Kingdom because they "do not use reason", and saving faith is gained only through the effort of the intellect.

It therefore teaches that the only way a child can receive salvation is through sacramental baptism, as opposed to those who have "come to the age of reason" so that they can receive salvation by faith, such as "the baptism of desire." This view spread from St. Augustine of Hippo, who categorically stated: "Believe firmly and do not doubt at all that infants who have left this world without baptism will suffer torments." As a result of this approach, for many centuries, the parents of unbaptized infants were left in hopeless despair that their offspring would surely never see God.

Thus, all were presented with an image of God that excludes a whole group of people from salvation, on the principle: "Did you die the day before your baptism was scheduled? Well, you're unlucky, sorry, but there's nothing I can do for you. ” Others (including Catholics) linked this to the doctrine of predestination: "If the child died without baptism, apparently God did not destine him for salvation."

Should we then believe that Hitler and Stalin can be in heaven, because before their death, like the Good Rogue, they could repent of their sins and be reconciled with Christ, and they were both baptized; while hundreds of thousands of children killed and died without baptism through their own fault, had no chance of heaven?

Are we to believe that Bernard Natanson, author of the abortion propaganda, complicit in its legalization, who himself killed seventy thousand children in their mothers and then became a pro-life activist, converted to Catholicism and was baptized, now he is probably in heaven; but seventy thousand of his victims remain in hell, or the so-called "Abyss" because they were not baptized?

Mother of the Unborn, Lee Tidwell

What God do we believe in?

For centuries, more sensitive theologians have tried to get out of this blind alley of intellectual theology. The most popular proposal was expressed in the 13th century by St. Thomas Aquinas, namely "natural happiness", without any torments, enjoyed by children who die without baptism, but also without sins of actions: "They are not, however, completely separated from him [God]. After all, they connect with him through the use of the natural goods given to them. And this is also how they can enjoy Him in a natural way to know and love Him ” (Summary of Theology, Supl. 101, ad 5). Incidentally, in the words of St. Augustine, the Angelic Doctor was a deceived deceiver saying so, for the Doctor of Grace wrote: "He deceives greatly and is deceived who proclaims that unbaptized children will not be condemned." (I wonder how opponents of the salvation of such children, eagerly using various quotations , can simultaneously claim the authority of both doctors, without the slightest reflection that they were fundamentally different on this point.)

The crowning argument of the opponents are the decisions of the ecumenical councils in Lyon and Florence. These are discussed in the text: Infants who die without baptis and the decisions of the councils the decisions of the councils. Without discussing the fact that "those who die in a mortal sin, or even in original sin, immediately descend to hell" (Council of Florence), we discuss the question whether God can free anyone, including those who do not use reason, at the moment of death from this sin by granting him His grace?

And here lies the essence of the problem. Proponents of intellectualism (i.e. the supremacy of the intellect, in the sense of: the natural mind, narrowly understood, over other human abilities) argued that a child to "reach the age of using reason" (about 7 years) would not be able to make the act of knowing and accepting the Savior in the soul. nor even a vague desire to be baptized (votum Baptismi). For example, bishop Jakub Benignus Bossuet wrote in the 17th century (Jansenism times) :

“Infants cannot replace the lack of baptism by awakening in themselves acts of faith, hope, and love, nor can they arouse a desire to receive this sacrament. So we believe that if they did not actually accept it, they do not become partakers of the grace of redemption in any way, and therefore, dying in Adam, they have no part with Christ Jesus. "

Similarly, in the 20th century, Pius XII argued at the congress of the Italian Catholic Midwives Association in 1954 ( e.g. papal speeches are not dogmas of faith):

“What we have said so far is about caring for and caring for natural life, but much more so for the supernatural life that receives the newborn through Baptism. There is no other means in the present economy of God to impart this life to a child not yet using reason. However, the state of grace at death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is impossible to attain supernatural happiness, a vision that makes God blissful. For an adult to receive sanctifying grace, an act of love is sufficient and it completes the absence of baptism; this path is not possible for an unborn child or a newborn child ”.

Let us ask ourselves: Why is it not possible? Where is it written in the Bible? Is the human soul, created by God at conception, incapable of an act of love until the child is seven years old? Do you need the intellectual skills of the brain to go to school to enter a state of grace? This is neither a biblical nor a theological claim. It is a philosophical thesis resulting from the adoption of a specific anthropology. Humanly speaking, one just sees someone being disseminated with the power of authority in the West.

The document published by the Scientific Council of the Polish Bishops' Conference in 2002 proves how difficult it is to break free from this philosophical pattern . Studying the possibilities of solving the problem of salvating children without baptism, she wrote, among others:

"8. The desire to be baptized (votum Baptismi) must be understood differently in relation to adults (able to act freely) who cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism, and differently in relation to infants, unable to perform free acts. Both forms lead to the achievement of the goal of salvation, although the way in which it is achieved differs from the sacramental form. How should the Ecclesiae votum be understood , from which the salvation of an unbaptized child would depend? The problem is theologically difficult when we consider the natural relationship of every human being with original sin. Theological opinion about limbus puerorum developed in the Middle Agesit was seriously considered by the Magisterium of the Church, but never became the subject of its official judgment. "

As summarized by the weekly 'Niedziela' (Agnieszka Małecka, 'Will children who die without baptism be saved?'):

“ The solution to this issue, proposed by the Scientific Council of the Episcopate, is the reference to the idea of ​​votum Ecclesiae . The sacrament itself is administered in the bosom of the Church and through her. Thus, participation in the redeeming grace of Christ is accomplished through the saving will of the Church. This will, however, cannot exclude, as the document states, no one, including infants, even in an embryonic state. The Church, therefore, with her votum Ecclesiae- the desire to be baptized - everyone is interceded and embraced, including children who have died without baptism. "In this context of salvation history, it should be recognized that children who die without baptism are freed from original sin through the desire for baptism, contained in the Church's act of faith, expressed in her intercessory prayer for the salvation of all" - states the document.

One of the theologians, Fr. prof. Jacek Salij submitted a votum separatum (dissenting opinion) to the above opinion and took a slightly different position on this issue. Father Salij starts from the truth about God's love and justice that embraces all people. As he affirms, the redemptive sacrifice of Christ is also universal. Therefore, without denying the great importance of the gift of baptism, one should have confidence that "God will find a way to save children who died without baptism ..." (point 3). At the same time, the author emphasizes that it should be talked about in "the language of trust and hope". In his opinion, traditional formulas expressing the conviction that children who died in original sin will not be saved include the thesis that we do not know for sure whether they have been freed from it. "Undoubtedly, however, they do not contain the thesis that even God himself could not free them from original sin ", writes Fr Salij."

Thus, the Scientific Council of the Episcopate upheld the Western tradition of denying infants "the ability to perform free acts." In this situation, he sees the only possibility for the Church's will for all to attain salvation. "Decision of the Church" ( votum Ecclesiae), however, cannot replace each person's personal decision to accept God's love. The activity of the Church, as the Council itself stated, has the character of intercession, sacrifice, giving the possibility of receiving grace, e.g. by administering the sacraments. It will not, however, make their reception effective, without the necessary disposition of the person. Since the Lord God Himself does not violate human freedom to lead everyone and anyone to salvation, the Church does not have such authority or power. Unless one embraces the doctrine of predestination, along with the principle of "grace only" that cannot be resisted. But then all these considerations are pointless: God will save only those whom He has destined for it.

At the same time, however, the Council admitted that:

"There are no reasonable grounds for excluding unbaptized children from the universal salvific will of God, which includes adult non-Christians, as mentioned by the Second Vatican Council in LG n. 16. Since Christ's saving grace extends to all who" through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ and the Church Christ, [...] can achieve eternal salvation and God's Providence does not refuse the help necessary for salvation to those who, through no fault of their own, have not yet come to a clear knowledge of God, and are trying, not without God's grace, to lead an honest life "(ibid. ), it is even more verified in relation to an innocent child ”.

Finally, the great Pope Benedict XVI, combining knowledge, wisdom, courage and cordial faith, instructed the International Theological Commission to investigate the possibilities of a good solution to this question. In 2007, she published the document "A Hope of Salvation for Children Who Die Without Baptism," which is, of course, working material for further research. I consider them essential. The key point of this document is, in my opinion, the one that talks about the possibility of making a saving decision about accepting Christ by the child himself, regardless of his age, and therefore about the possibility of throwing the history of the ruling jure caduco in the West, for over one and a half millennia, the doctrine of The "age of using reason" as allegedly necessary for the act of the will to receive salvation:

94. Baptism for salvation can be received in re or in voto . Traditionally, for an unbaptized adult, indirectly following Christ is considered a votive , a desire to be baptized, and has a salvific character. According to the traditional interpretation, this option cannot be used by children who have not reached the age appropriate for free choice. The alleged impossibility of in voto baptism in the case of infants is a key element in the whole question. In recent times, there have been numerous efforts to assess the possibility of a votum in an unbaptized child, which could be either a votumexpressed on behalf of the child by his parents or by the Church, or even a votum expressed in some way by the child himself. The Church has never ruled out such a possibility , and various attempts to lead the Second Vatican Council to speak out against this hypothesis have failed. It resulted both from the widespread awareness that research on this issue had not yet led to final conclusions, and from the widespread desire to entrust these children to God's mercy.

Since the Church considers this matter to be open and requiring further research, it must certainly be pursued, which is the subject of this article.

A baby, as the name suggests, is a person who does not speak. From conception, however, he has an immortal spiritual soul created by God, endowed with the powers of the soul: reason, will and memory, as well as feelings. However, he cannot express them freely, because of the obstacle (Latin obex ) posed by the still not fully formed body (brain, peripheral nerves, tongue, vocal cords, limbs, etc.). If the possession of a rational soul was dependent on the work of the brain, then children conceived in the first trimester would not be rational beings, and therefore would not be legally protected as human beings, as requested by the Catholic Church.

Therefore, one cannot fight for the "protection of life from conception", and at the same time, in theology, deny a child the possession of free will and reason (that is, what in universally recognized anthropology determines humanity) , i.e. the ability to actively accept God's grace in the spirit, due to the alleged "non-use of mind". From the influence of intellectualism (the belief in the supremacy of the natural intellect , and even identifying it with the spirit), which for centuries has penetrated into anthropology and theology, destroying Christianity from the inside, the doctrine of the validity of baptism only after a "conscious profession of faith" (among contemporaries Protestants) and at the same time the doctrine that sacramental baptism is the only means of salvation for an infant (among traditional Catholics) .

According to the latter doctrine, infants who die without baptism certainly die in original sin because they cannot have faith, thirst baptism, or blood baptism because they have no will and understanding. But let us be consistent if their soul is incapable of anything, remaining completely passive, and unable to receive sacramental baptism, that is, its effects.

Hence, for centuries there was a discussion whether an infant was only smoothed out by original sin by baptism (since he is drawn to him without will and consciousness, he can be wiped out without them) but without grace and virtues, or whether grace is infused, but not active, whether grace and virtues are active. Those who baptize infants, although they consider them completely passive, de facto recognize the Reformation principle of "grace only", that is, grace effective without any cooperation on the part of man. Baptist Protestants, on the other hand, who refuse to baptize infants on the ground that they consciously do not express faith, thus deny this principle of "grace only". The source of this controversy was the superficial view of the infant as a completely inactive beingspiritually and mentally.

Pope Innocent III in 1201 wrote:

"For they claim that little children are baptized uselessly. ... We answer that baptism entered the place of circumcision... Hence, just as the soul of the circumcised did not perish from his people (cf. Gn 17:14), so whoever is born of the Holy Spirit will receive entry into the kingdom of heaven (cf. Jn 3: 5) […]. For let it be so that all little children, many of whom die every day, should perish, and also a merciful God, who wants none of them to perish, to provide for some means of salvation. […] What the opponents introduce, that faith or love and other virtues are not infused into little children as they disagree, unconditionally disagree with the majority […]; others say that, through the power of baptism, infants are forgiven for their wine, but no grace is granted; some say,(Letter from Maiores Ecclesiae Causas to Ymbertus , Archbishop of Arles).

St. Decades later, Thomas Aquinas explained:

“The reason for this error was that they couldn't tell fitness from activity. And seeing that the infants were incapable of performing the activities of virtues, they felt that after baptism they had no virtue at all [faith, hope, and love]. But this inability to do them is not due to lack of virtues, but due to an obstacle on the part of the body. It is similar with sleepers: although they have the dexterity of virtues, sleep prevents them from carrying out their activities" (Summary of Theology 3, 69, 6).

The same is true for profoundly mentally retarded, paralyzed, frozen and coma persons. It must not be denied that deep down they lead an interior life. The Bride in the Song of Songs confesses: I am asleep, but my heart is awake (Song 5: 2).

And since Aquinas said A, it should be consistently said B. It is worth recalling here that the question of unbaptized children is the last in the last part of the "Summa Theologica" ("Supplement"), and therefore edited after St. Tomasz. So this is a topic he has not finished. You need to continue his reflections:

Since infants have supernatural virtues immediately after baptism, although we find it difficult to see them fulfilling them, they may also possess sufficient virtues to cooperate with grace prior to baptism. Bp. Bossuet argued that "infants cannot replace the lack of baptism by awakening in themselves acts of faith, hope, love." And are adults without the state of grace able by themselves to evoke these divine virtues? The soul of an adult, as well as a child, does not have grace before it receives sanctifying grace. It is God who first grants grace, also enabling man to receive it in spirit. I do not see biblical and doctrinal bases for distinguishing between these two categories of persons regarding this dogma of faith.

If we recognize that a child of any age, even immediately after birth (before it cannot be baptized for physical reasons, because it is not technically possible, and not for spiritual reasons), in its soul it is capable of "receiving baptism", that is, a state of grace and able to come into contact with God, that is, before baptism, it is therefore capable of receiving an anticipatory grace, which enables them to receive the sanctifying grace infused by the Savior in a different way.

If a child cannot be saved other than by baptism, because he "does not use reason", it means that he cannot be saved by baptism because he is unable to "receive" him. Christ the Lord says you must believe and be baptized, baptized, to be saved (see Mark 16:16). So we assume, when baptizing them, that the child's soul is capable of this, otherwise we would agree with the Baptist neo-Protestant doctrine of denying such children the ability to be baptized.

The Bible opposes the intellectual doctrine of infants' inability to have an active relationship with God, praising Him with the words: You made the mouths of children and infants ( suckling ) give You glory in defiance of Your opponents(Ps 8: 3). "Popular" piety, disregarded by religious intellectuals, upholds this truth, for example by believing that an infant speaks spiritually with the Guardian Angel. In Eastern churches, newborns are given once baptized Holy Communion. (in the form of a drop of wine), this practice was also applied in the West to the children of kings. Several records say that these infants immediately afterwards uttered the words of the prayer in an extraordinary manner, as if in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures. Such a fact includes, for example, the life of St. Nicholas the bishop, about whom it was also written that "as a baby, on Wednesdays and Fridays he did not want to suck his mother's breast in order to fast".

The Lord God told the prophet Jeremiah: before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you came into the world, I consecrated you (Jer 1: 5). Intellectuals who wrote footnotes in the Millennium Bible commented on this, "it is about choosing a prophet." No, the question of choosing a prophet is meant in the next part of the sentence: I have made you a prophet for the nations . The Lord sanctified Jeremiah even before he was born, because he could and would. When the Holy Spirit filled Elizabeth at the meeting with Mary, she said: the baby in my womb leaped for joy.(Luke 1:44). John the Baptist was also filled with grace before his birth and reacted to it (he received it joyfully). The movement of St. John also proves that even a child before birth is not passive towards grace, but cooperates with it.

Contemporary prenatal psychology, and even more so the experience of praying for inner healing, clearly show the activity of the human soul from conception. People not only retain the influence of a body sensation called prenatal memory. There is no doubt that the soul remembers the moment of conception, the experience of the womb, birth, and the first years of life. It is certain that the facts from this period are important for the mental and spiritual development of a person and that he already has feelings and connection with the spiritual reality, and even undertakes some internal cognitive and volitional acts. In prayer, some people discover and remember their relationship with God at that time, including the moment of conception and baptism.

Memory is one of the three higher powers of the soul according to earlier medieval theology (eg, Peter Lombard). St. Augustine also mentioned it alongside reason and will, although he understood them integrally. From the time of St. Thomas Aquinas was usually regarded as part of the mind, hence it has been less studied until the present day. Preserving the facts from the moment of conception and the first weeks of existence in the soul's memory, i.e. before the nervous system is formed, proves the primacy of the soul in relation to the brain. In this light, and the theory of "brain junk" is unacceptable.

In the Catholic rites of the baptism of children, both in the classical Roman and Byzantine (Greek) rites, parents ask for baptism, renounce evil and confess their faith on behalf of the child . As his legal representatives, "they grant him their feet to come to the church and their mouths to say it" (as St. Augustine also wrote), because of the aforementioned obstacle of the body. The priest asks the child: "do you believe?", "Do you want to be baptized?" Parents and godparents are responsible for the child: "I believe", "I want". In the Eastern Rite, the priest asks them: "are you uniting with Christ?", The parents are responsible for the child: "I am uniting".

N ota b ene , modern science proves that children feel what is said to them, not only in infancy, but even in their mother's womb, so they should speak and bless them with kindness. So asking a child these questions is not just an empty ritual, as the "reformers" intellectuals of the 1960s recognized. In the new rite of baptism of children from 1969, parents ask for baptism for their child, only they renounce evil and confess only their faith. This is an expression of the aforementioned doctrine of complete passivity of a child. Baptism is therefore completely imposed on him, but it does not change the essence of the matter that the child receives grace on his own in his spiritual soul.

Since a baby is able to recognize its earthly mother and have a relationship with her from the very first moment after birth, and even develop psychological ties in her womb, it is even more able to recognize its Creator in the spirit. The only strange thing is a certain emotional fierceness and stubbornness of people who are, paradoxically, themselves convinced of the intellect of the ualistic point of view, to stubbornly deny these children any chance to see the Lord God who constantly cries out: Let the children come to Me, do not disturb them; for the role of God belongs to such.

(the text will be linguistically corrected)