Can infants be sanctified in the womb?


#1

RSiscoe asked the following:

Which of these do you believe?

Evangelium Vitae: “I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion.… You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord” (99).

The Council of Florence declared: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell” (Denz.693).

Which should I believe: The Council of Florence, which was infallible and is consistent with what the Church has always taught, or John Paul II who teaches that an un-baptized baby is “with the lord”? Which do you believe?

My answer is: I believe both.


Firstly, *Evangelium Vitae *is a papal encyclical addressed to the universal Church. As such, it demands my consent. It is not merely the pope’s opinion, but a teaching that is also guided by the Holy Spirit.

According to Pius XII, *Humani Generis, *20:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;

According to Vatican II’s Apostolic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 25:

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will (religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium)
must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence.

We can discuss *religiosum obsequium *and what that level of submission connotes. But one thing seems certain to me, religiosum obsequium is incompatible with explicit dissent of mind and will.

Secondly, those who die in mortal sin or merely original sin will certainly not attain eternal life. The Council of Florence affirms this and Pope John Paul II is not disputing or contradicting this teaching.

According to Jer. 1:5: “Before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee.” And of John the Baptist, Luke 1:15 says*: “He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.*”

It is certain from Catholic dogma that God can and does sanctify infants in the womb, if that be his will. The Church has never taught that God does so in all instances, nor has the Church taught that He never does so. Does this contradict the Council of Florence? No. Then neither can Pope John Paul II be contradicting the Council of Florence in his teaching in Evangelium Vitae.

It seems then, that it is possible for God to sanctify an infant in the womb. When will that be? I dunno. But it is certainly not against any dogma of the Church to teach that infants who are aborted will be “in the Lord.” On the contrary, I am morally bound to give my religiosum obsequium to such teaching, especially since the Vicar of Christ has taught this to the universal Church in an exercise of his authentic magisterium, "***of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”***.


#2

[quote=itsjustdave1988] Secondly, those who die in mortal sin or merely original sin will certainly not attain eternal life. The Council of Florence affirms this and Pope John Paul II is not disputing or contradicting this teaching.
[/quote]

Another important thing to keep in mind concerns the translation of the word “hell” in the decree from Florence. Specifically, in Latin, the word is infernus/infernum. This is always translated as “hell” into English (hence Inferno). However, in the Latin, it does not necessarily refer to “hell proper”. In fact, it would be more accurate to translate it as “the place of the dead”, since infernum/infernus is also used to refer to Purgatory and the Limbus Patrum.


#3

Evangelium Vitae: “I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion.… You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who*** is now living in the Lord***” (99).

To *** “women who have had an abortion”***.… is this a ceritude for them or an “I dunno”?
It’s unequivically a certitude. They’ll will now reject ANY objective Dogma. Period.

Look, let me honest as possible…
One cannot in good conscience, live with both the teachings of VATII Newchurch, and the historical Catholic Church UNLESS one first believes that :
[left]

Traditions, Dogmas and other De Fide are whatever the current Apostle, Prophet and Seer says it is Today.

[/left]

Which is the Supreme Dogma of Mormonism. That is why it is nearly impossible to reason with a Mormon on their contradictions from the past Prophets. They put their logic (and common sense) under permanent suspension. That’s the only way they can survive.
Same with JW’s I might add.
All this erodite philosophy, Subjective vs Objective, and Pretzel Logic is to no avail. Effective catechesis cannot be taught under the umbrella of subjectivity. NO one has the SUBJECTIVE answer to the destiny of a soul. Basing catechesis on such Subjectivity is both harmful and unsustainable to True Religion. Christ delivered Objective Truth, and the Church is to propogate it undiluted. It is not Her job to undermine them with Subjectivity and platitudes as Newchurch does.
The exceptions “in the womb” are just that. God had a specific mission for that person and specifically prepared him for it. Just like the Virgin Mary. It has no universal application.
We are not Immaculately conceived, but conceived and born in a natural state, without the Supernatural Salvational gift of Sanctifying Grace.
Newchurch is no Church. It is merely Subjective traditions of men that lead ever more deeply into the quicksands of confusion, disorientation, conflict, anarchy and endless debate about how this or that must be interpreted or re-interpreted, or quadra-interpreted.
Not a bit of it has the HS behind it any more than the Prophets of Mormonism.
Proof?
1 Corinthians 14: 33
**“He is not the God of Dissention”
** ** but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints.
**


#4

[quote=itsjustdave1988] I believe both.
[/quote]

Dave,

First let me compliment you on reconciling two appearant contraditions. Great job!

But, would you mind trying to reconcile one more papal teaching for me. Like the quote I provided from the Council of Florence, this one is also ex-cathedra:

“If anyone says that, because the Lord said ‘In My Father’s house are many mansions,’ 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 Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45,note 2).

Could you also reconcile that one with the others for me?

And be sure to notice that in the quote from John Paul II, he does not tell the women who had an abortion that their child may be “with the Lord”, but that the child is with the Lord.


#5

[quote=mtr01]Another important thing to keep in mind concerns the translation of the word “hell” in the decree from Florence. Specifically, in Latin, the word is infernus/infernum. This is always translated as “hell” into English (hence Inferno). However, in the Latin, it does not necessarily refer to “hell proper”. In fact, it would be more accurate to translate it as “the place of the dead”, since infernum/infernus is also used to refer to Purgatory and the Limbus Patrum.
[/quote]

These are excellent and consuling points.
I would add that HELL is anything short of the :
**Absorption into the Beatific Vision Which is Heaven.
**
Perfect NATURAL happiness is all that an otherwise innocent non-christian can achieve. We are assured that unbaptised infants enter into Perfect NATURAL Happiness. That is why the Church has taught that infants are in Limbo - as the place of Natural contentment.
But that is not Heaven. ANY STATE short of heaven is hell. Period. No matter how magnificent.
They have no faculty for *Supernatural Happiness. *They could not absorb it if it was gifted to them. Consequently, they will never miss it, any more than a canary misses having a 10000 sq ft mansion and a Lexus convertible…

In Summary:
Is JPII wrong?
Yes on 4 counts:
1. Teaching the faith poorly if not incorrectly.
2. Raising Subjectivity to the level of Objective Doctrine.
3. Diminishing the Faith to those who desire to have it so.
4. Neglecting to teach objective truth of the Church.


#6

[quote=TNT]Evangelium Vitae: “I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion.… You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who*** is now living in the Lord***” (99).

To ***“women who have had an abortion”***.… is this a ceritude for them or an “I dunno”?
It’s unequivically a certitude. They’ll will now reject ANY objective Dogma. Period.

Look, let me honest as possible…
One cannot in good conscience, live with both the teachings of VATII Newchurch, and the historical Catholic Church UNLESS one first believes that :

[left]

[/left]

Which is the Supreme Dogma of Mormonism. That is why it is nearly impossible to reason with a Mormon on their contradictions from the past Prophets. They put their logic (and common sense) under permanent suspension. That’s the only way they can survive.
Same with JW’s I might add.
All this erodite philosophy, Subjective vs Objective, and Pretzel Logic is to no avail. Effective catechesis cannot be taught under the umbrella of subjectivity. NO one has the SUBJECTIVE answer to the destiny of a soul. Basing catechesis on such Subjectivity is both harmful and unsustainable to True Religion. Christ delivered Objective Truth, and the Church is to propogate it undiluted. It is not Her job to undermine them with Subjectivity and platitudes as Newchurch does.
The exceptions “in the womb” are just that. God had a specific mission for that person and specifically prepared him for it. Just like the Virgin Mary. It has no universal application.
We are not Immaculately conceived, but conceived and born in a natural state, without the Supernatural Salvational gift of Sanctifying Grace.
Newchurch is no Church. It is merely Subjective traditions of men that lead ever more deeply into the quicksands of confusion, disorientation, conflict, anarchy and endless debate about how this or that must be interpreted or re-interpreted, or quadra-interpreted.
Not a bit of it has the HS behind it any more than the Prophets of Mormonism.
Proof?
1 Corinthians 14: 33

“He is not the God of Dissention”

****but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints.

[/quote]

That was one of the clearest and best posts I have read. “Subjective against obvective” is exacty what is happening. Also, “the exception against the rule”. The focus is no longer on the objective, or on the rule, but on the subjective, or the “possibility”.

That is why I didn’t answer Dave by arguing. This would have degenerated into my arguing the objective (the general order) and him the subjective (the particular order).

Certainly, anything is possible with God, but the objective truth is that infants receive sanctifying grace through baptism, not while they are in the womb. It is also obvious that if aborted babies went to heaven, the devil would try everything to stop abortion.

TNT, that was a great post.


#7

[quote=TNT]These are excellent and consuling points.
I would add that HELL is anything short of the :
Absorption into the Beatific Vision Which is Heaven.

Perfect NATURAL happiness is all that an otherwise innocent non-christian can achieve. We are assured that unbaptised infants enter into Perfect NATURAL Happiness. That is why the Church has taught that infants are in Limbo - as the place of Natural contentment.
But that is not Heaven. ANY STATE short of heaven is hell. Period. No matter how magnificent.
They have no faculty for *Supernatural Happiness. *They could not absorb it if it was gifted to them. Consequently, they will never miss it, any more than a canary misses having a 10000 sq ft mansion and a Lexus convetrible…

In Summary:
Is JPII wrong?
Yes on 4 counts:

  1. Teaching the faith poorly if not incorrectly.
  2. Raising Subjectivity to the level of Objective Doctrine.
  3. Diminishing the Faith to those who desire to have it so.
  4. Neglecting to teach objective truth of the Church.
    [/quote]

Another great post!

Thank you


#8

[quote=RSiscoe]Another great post!

Thank you

[/quote]

Is that a 2-hitter?
Besides, I got most of the points from past posts by you, and MrS.:yup:

Alas, I am not out of harm’s way. Wait til mama Bear06 gets home and checks my posts. All “hell” will break loose.
Keep my left flank covered.


#9

[quote=TNT] I got most of the points from past posts by you…
[/quote]

No wonder I liked them so much :slight_smile:


#10

TNT,

Have you ever read this article?

seattlecatholic.com/article_20030523.html

I think you will like it.


#11

RSiscoe & TNT,

Since TNT seems to want to blame everything under the sun on the “evils” of the “councilar” Church after Vatican II, and has shown great distrust for the “NEW” Vatican II Church, let me answer your question from a source that pre-dates Vatican II

I believe that if an infant is sanctified by God in the womb, they are baptized non-sacramentally, and cannot rightly said to be "departed from this life without Baptism."* Yet, *just as Cornelius was baptized non-sacramentally, that was no excuse not to be baptized sacramentally. This is why Peter “commanded” his baptism.

From Dr. Ludwig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *under heading “**25. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. **(De Fide)”, Book II, Section 1:

“The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism by blood of the children of Bethlehem). Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire–Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason (baptism of desire–H. Klee), or ***suffering and death of the child as quasi Sacrament (baptism of suffering–H. Schell)***, are indeed, possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. Cf. D 712.” [emphasis added]

(Dr. Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *Edited in English by James Canon Bastible, D.D., Translated from the German by Patrick Lynch, Ph.D., Tan Books, Rockford IL, Fourth Edition, 1960, first published in English in 1955, pg. 114)

It seems that even before the supposed “evil” counciliar Church, Catholic dogmatic theologians asserted without fear of heresy that it is indeed possible that our prayers may be answered ex opere operantis, prayed every day at Daily Mass (at least at my parish), such that the souls of infants who die prior to sacramental baptism may attain eternal life through some form of non-sacramental baptism.

RSiscoe,

You said:

… this one is also ex-cathedra:

“If anyone says that, because the Lord said ‘In My Father’s house are many mansions,’ 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 Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45,note 2).

Whether or not the above is *ex cathedra *is debatable. According to Denzinger, it was from the Council of Mileum II 416, approved by Innocent and the Council of Carthage (XVI) 418, approved by Zosimus. Whew! Yet, according to the footnote, it is an addition to a “certain codex.” It is labeled canon 3, but Denzinger shows a different canon 3 in the main text. Which was the canon 3 approved by Zosimus? I dunno. It is beyond my competence to establish with certainty the *ex cathedra *nature of this addition to a certain codex.

Nevertheless, as I understand the footnote, it says "if anyone says for this reason the Lord said: “In my Father’s house there are many mansions”, etc. It seems the “additonal” canon 3 is refuting a specific erroneous claim. Given the little we have to determine the context, it appears that some were saying that since heaven has many mansions, the unbaptized infants may depart to one of these “lesser” heavens. This too is contrary to Catholic doctrine. Heaven, no matter the mansion, consists in the beatific vision of God.

If infants die apart from the sanctification of either sacramental or non-sacramental baptism they will not attain eternal life in any mansion of heaven, and will not enjoy the beatific vision of God. That’s how I understand Catholic doctrine. Some theologians have maintained that there may be different kind of punishment than is reserved for the wicked, thus the notion of *limbus puerorum. *But it is certain that ANY unsanctified soul, if they die in an unsanctified state, will not attain eternal life.


#12

It is also obvious that if aborted babies went to heaven, the devil would try everything to stop abortion.

Hmmmm… obvious? Is it equally obvious that if martyrs went to heaven, the devil would try everything to stop martyrdom?


#13

[quote=RSiscoe]Dave,

First let me compliment you on reconciling two appearant contraditions. Great job!

But, would you mind trying to reconcile one more papal teaching for me. Like the quote I provided from the Council of Florence, this one is also ex-cathedra:

“If anyone says that, because the Lord said ‘In My Father’s house are many mansions,’ 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 Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45,note 2).

Could you also reconcile that one with the others for me?

And be sure to notice that in the quote from John Paul II, he does not tell the women who had an abortion that their child may be “with the Lord”, but that the child is with the Lord.
[/quote]

Every soul that departs a human body at death IS immediatly “with the Lord” for the particular judgement.
As to the Council of Carthage, IF Limbo exists it is NOT in the “Kingdom of Heaven”. It would be in the upper reaches of Hell.


#14

TNT,

During the papacy of St. Pius X, the Catholic Encyclopedia published the understanding of Tradition and the authority of the living magisterium in this article: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: TraditionLivingMagisterium

Here’s some excerpts:

The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–she judges them more than she is judged by them.

You seem to disagree with this understanding under the papacy of St. Pius X, of the “**proper mode of existence of revealed truth in the mind of the Church and the way to recognize this truth.” **I don’t. It wasn’t Mormonsim under St. Pius X’s papacy and it isnt’ Mormonism today.

On the contrary,

[the deposit of faith] in fact is not an inanimate thing passed from hand to hand; it is not, properly speaking, an assemblage of doctrines and institutions consigned to books or other monuments. Books and monuments of every kind are a means, an organ of transmission, they are not, properly speaking, the tradition itself…

The Spirit of God always living in His Church upholds the sense of revealed truth ever living therein.

Documents of all kinds (writings, monuments, etc.) are in the hands of masters, as of the faithful, a means of finding or recognizing the revealed truth confided to the Church under the direction of her pastors. There is between written documents and the living magisterium of the Church a relation similar, proportionately speaking, to that already outlined between Scripture and the living magisterium. In them is found the traditional thought expressed according to varieties of environments and circumstances, no longer in an inspired language, as is the case with Scripture, but in a purely human language, consequently subject to the imperfections and shortcomings of human thought. Nevertheless the more the documents are the exact expression of the living thought of the Church the more they thereby possess the value and authority which belong to that thought because they are so much the better expression of tradition. Often formulas of the past have themselves entered the traditional current and become the official formulas of the Church. Hence it will be understood that the living magisterium searches in the past, now for authorities in favour of its present thought in order to defend it against attacks or dangers of mutilation, now for light to walk the right road without straying. The thought of the Church is essentially a traditional thought and the living magisterium by taking cognizance of ancient formulas of this thought thereby recruits its strength and prepares to give to immutable truth a new expression which shall be in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within reach of contemporary minds. Revealed truth has sometimes found definitive formulas from the earliest times; then the living magisterium has only had to preserve and explain them and put them in circulation. Sometimes attempts have been made to express this truth, without success. It even happens that, in attempting to express revealed truth in the terms of some philosophy or to fuse it with some current of human thought, it has been distorted so as to be scarcely recognizable, so closely mingled with error that it becomes difficult to separate them. When the Church studies the ancient monuments of her faith she casts over the past the reflection of her living and present thought and by some sympathy of the truth of to-day with that of yesterday she succeeds in recognizing through the obscurities and inaccuracies of ancient formulas the portions of traditional truth, even when they are mixed with error. The Church is also (as regards religious and moral doctrines) the best interpreter of truly traditional documents; she recognizes as by instinct what belongs to the current of her living thought and distinguishes it from the foreign elements which may have become mixed with it in the course of centuries. (ibid)

Do you disagree with this article’s view of Tradition and the living Magisterium? If so, what part do you think is “mormonism” and why do you suppose Pope St. Pius X failed to condemn this view as erroneous?


#15

As I wrote above, I do not deny that anything is possible to God, but if we view doctrine through the lens of the subjective, or the possibility, the objective realm become meaningless. That is why so many people today reject the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation”, or else interpret it is such a way that the dogmatic statements becomes “a meaningless formula” (to quote Pius XII). Do you realize that this is the reason so many Catholics are confused today?

I will admit that, on the other hand, as a reaction to the error of placing too much emphasis on the subjetive (and thus denying the obvective), some Traditionalists (Feeneyites) end by rejecting the subjective level altogether. Thus, two errors are brought about by placing the ephasis in the subective “possibilities”.

The Church has never taught this way before. The subjective level was acknowledged rarely, while the objective was focused on primarily, like it should be. By changing the emphasis from the objective to the subjective, the average Catholic becomes either confused, or deceived, or both.

When the subjective is raised to the level of the objective, and the objective is lowered to the level of the subjective, the objective truth becomes obscured. That is the reason that many “reduce to a meaningless formula the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation”, because the objective truth becomes meaningless when the focus is placed in the subjective.

Consider the quote from the John Paul II. He did not say the aborted babies might be in heaven - through a miracle of grace; he said that the aborted babies ARE in heaven. But, objectively, grace comes through the sacraments, which aborted babies do not receive. And if aborted babies go to heaven without the sacraments, why not children who die before reaching the age of reason?

The Council of Trent clearly tells us that babies who die without baptism are lost, which of course is the objective truth.

“[T]he Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism … are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned” (St. Alphonsus ligouri, Explanation of Trent, Duffy Co., 1845, p.56).

The Cateshims of Pope Pius X taught the same objective truth:
[size=2][/size]
**[size=2]"12 Q: Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism: [/size]

"A: There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptized because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism (THE CATECHISM OF ST. PIUS X).
**
Now, the modern Catholic, who has been taught subjectively, would argue with those objective statements by saying “anything is possible with God, so don’t play God by saying who is and who is not saved”. True, anything is possible for God, but the objective truth is that without baptism no one is justified.

So to say that all aborted babies who have not been baptized are “with the lord” is to raise the subjective possibility over the objective truth. That is the problem.

Now, let’s move to the declaration on justification on the other thread. After that I have something else I would like to discuss.


#16

[quote=Br. Rich SFO]Every soul that departs a human body at death IS immediatly “with the Lord” for the particular judgement.

[/quote]

Is that really how you interpret that statement of the Pope? That he meant that for an instant, at their particular judgment, they were with the Lord?

He did not say “they were with the Lord for a moment”, but that are “now living in the Lord” - present tense.


#17

RSiscoe,

So to say that all infants who have not been baptized are “with the lord” is to raise the subjective possibility over the objective truth.

The false dichotomy you have built is uncompelling.

I don’t have to deny the objective truth to agree with Evangelium Vitae. I can equally uphold the truth of Evangelium Vitae and the truth of the necessity of baptism, and nothing either you or TNT have posted convincingly says otherwise. Just because I KNOW FOR CERTAIN that God can and does baptize non-sacramentally does not mean sacaramental baptism is unnecessary. That’s a false dichotomy that I don’t accept. Apart from a direct revelation of God, we don’t know if an infant has been non-sacramentally baptized. Furthermore, non-sacramental baptism does not have all the same effects as sacramental baptism, which is the only “door” to the other Holy Sacraments, all of which are indeed necessary.

Furthermore, whether purposeful or not, you have incorrectly characterized Pope John Paul II’s teaching. Show me where he says that ALL INFANTS who have not been baptized are “with the Lord”???

The passage you quoted from Evangelium Vitae said nothing of all infants, but did assert that aborted infants are with the Lord. This is not incompatible with any dogma of Catholicism, even from pre-Vatican II sources, as I’ve already demonstrated from Dr. Ott’s text. It is in accord with pre-Vatican II understandings of extra-sacramental baptism. Consequently, one does not have to reject Catholic dogma to give their *religiosum obsequium *to Evanelium Vitae.


#18

RSiscoe,

By changing the emphasis from the objective to the subjective, the average Catholic becomes either confused, or deceived, or both.

I don’t accept your conclusion that the emphasis has changed. I’ve never taught such an emphasis as a catechist, and have never been taught such by my Church.


#19

Consider the quote from the John Paul II. He did not say the aborted babies might be in heaven - through a miracle of grace; he said that the aborted babies ARE in heaven.

I agree that the pope is teaching that infants who are aborted ARE with the Lord, that is, glorified eternally.

My point is that this is not a post-Vatican II theology no matter how many traditionalists have come to believe it is. One would not expect much doctrinal and theological sources to expound upon the extra-sacramental baptism of aborted children in the past 2000 years, as abortion-on-demand was not as prevalent in history as it is today. Even secular laws found something immoral about such a thing until very recently. Yet, even as early as Cardinal Cajetan’s day, the theology was speculative. The pope merely brought it from free opinion, dogmatically speaking, into sententia certa.


#20

[quote=mtr01]Another important thing to keep in mind concerns the translation of the word “hell” in the decree from Florence. Specifically, in Latin, the word is infernus/infernum. This is always translated as “hell” into English (hence Inferno). However, in the Latin, it does not necessarily refer to “hell proper”. In fact, it would be more accurate to translate it as “the place of the dead”, since infernum/infernus is also used to refer to Purgatory and the Limbus Patrum.
[/quote]

That is quite interesting mtr01. I did not realize that.

I think that you can believe both the Council of Flourence and the Encyclical of the Pope. The Church has always taught a “Batism of Desire” and a “Baptism of Blood”. When I mention this, I am not saying that is why they can go to heaven. What I am saying is that there are circumstances where we do not need a baptism of water in order to be saved. I think that the Church has always taught that we can be sanctified in the womb. I believe that it is recognized that John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb. This si mentioned in Luke chapter 1

15

For he shall be great before the Lord; and shall drink no wine nor strong drink: and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.

I would also say that God desires to save all his children out of love.

So I would say that it is possible for a baby to be sanctified within the womb.*


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.