The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TrasguTravieso
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

either the catholic church has contradicted itself, or unbaptized dead infants cannot enter heaven

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
TrasguTravieso
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,461 times Debate No: 30599
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

Faithful Catholics maintain that, as stated by the current catechism, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments". meaning infant salvation is or may be possible.

However, medieval Church statements indicate that no person including infants could possibly be saved unless baptized, and that this was the meaning intended by the Popes of the time, whom made no "lenient statements" on the matter.

if the Church were now to teach that the salvation of infants outside baptism is possible, it would contradict its earlier teaching, and would violate the doctrine of the Church's infallibility.

popes have taught the following concerning infants, hell, and limbo (limbo is usually considered part of hell, but sometimes considered a nonheaven alternative to hell):

=============================
Decree for the Jacobites at the Council of Florence in 1442: "There is no other way to come to the aid [of little children] than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God".

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: 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. (Denz. 464)

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. (Denz. 693)

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. - Condemned

Pope St. Innocent I, in 417, Synod of Milevis : "The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life even without the grace of baptism is utterly foolish" (DS 219).

Pope Innocent III asserted that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer "no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God" (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii -- Majores). (Denzinger 410)

The provincial Council of Cologne: "Faith teaches us that infants, since they are not capable of this desire (Baptism of Desire), are excluded from the kingdom of heaven if they die [unbaptized]." (Collectio Lacensis, V. 320)

Pope Gregory the Great (-604) taught the eternal torment of infants in his Moralia on the Book of Job. "For there be some that are withdrawn from the present light, before they attain to shew forth the good or evil deserts of an active life. And whereas the Sacraments of salvation do not free them from the sin of their birth, at the same time that here they never did aright by their own act; there they are brought to torment. And these have one wound, viz. to be born in corruption, and another, to die in the flesh. ....... As if reviewing the woes of mankind he said in plain words; With what sort of visitation does the strict Judge mercilessly slay those, whom the guilt of their own deeds condemns, if He smites for all eternity even those, whom the guilt of deliberate choice does not impeach?" (Moralia 9)

Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic. But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism. (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

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 Fathers 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. For when the lord says :"Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God"(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left" (Denz. 102, authentic addition to canon 2.)

St. Augustine, A.D. 415: Anyone who would say that infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ. (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

St Aquinis, Summa Theologica Question 68, Article 3 "I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism. On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442: "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 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."

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: 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. (Denz. 1526)

Pius XII-Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951. "An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open."

"Babies dead without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having original sin alone, they do not deserve paradise, but neither do they merit hell or purgatory." ~1905 Catechism of Pope Pius X,
TrasguTravieso

Con

In order to win this debate I do not need to prove the position held by the Church is true. All I have to do is show that the statements cited by Paul do not necessarily contradict infallible teaching. The Catechism states:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. (...) The Church does not
know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.


Decree for the Jacobites at the Council of Florence in 1442: "There is no other way to come to the aid [of little children] than the sacrament of Baptism (...)".
There is no other way (for us) to come to the aid of the Children than the sacrament of Baptism. We are bound to the sacrament, this is exactly what the Catechism teaches.


Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: 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. (Denz. 464)
Those who die in original or mortal sin go to hell. This is indeed the general rule, however the Church has always recognized the Holy Infants (those killed by Herod) as Saints (with their own feast day no less) and so says nothing about there being exceptions to this rule.

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. - Condemned
The Church gives no assurance as to the eternal fate of the infants, we merely pray God will have mercy on them and save them apart from his sacramental framework.

Pope St. Innocent I, in 417, Synod of Milevis : "The idea that infants can be granted (...) eternal life even without the grace of baptism is utterly foolish" (DS 219).
The grace of baptism (sanctifying Grace) is necessary, whether it is given through baptism or some other way we are not aware of.

Pope Innocent III (...) those dying with only original sin on their souls will (...) [be] deprived forever of the vision of God" (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii -- Majores). (Denzinger 410)
We've covered this

The provincial Council of Cologne: "Faith teaches us that infants, since they are not capable of this desire (Baptism of Desire), are excluded from the kingdom of heaven if they die [unbaptized]." (Collectio Lacensis, V. 320)
Provincial Councils do not constitute infallible teaching, and are therefore cannot be included in the premise of this debate.

Pope Gregory the Great (-604) taught the eternal torment of infants in his Moralia on the Book of Job. "(...) With what sort of visitation does the strict Judge mercilessly slay those, whom the guilt of their own deeds condemns, if He smites for all eternity even those, whom the guilt of deliberate choice does not impeach?" (Moralia 9)
Not everything popes teach constitute infallible teaching, however this is also consistent with what the Catechism currently states. We know of no other way than baptism to ensure salvation, and so it is a perfectly orthodox position to take as it does not say that God cannot save outside of baptism.

Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, (...) is quite idiotic. (...) when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism. (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)
Once again, we affirm Baptism is necessary for salvation, and infants do not already have saving grace. We merely acknowledge God can work outside of His Sacraments and pray he does so in His Mercy.

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 (...) there will be (...) 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. (...) (Denz. 102, authentic addition to canon 2.)
Completely coherent with current understanding. We know of no salvation outside of baptism and no one can point to any source (scriptural or otherwise) which would indicate there is a place reserved for unbaptized infants. This Canon does not, however, limit God's freedom in any way.

St. Augustine, A.D. 415: Anyone who would say that infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle (...). (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)
Saint Augustine is not infallible teaching, but in any case this is consistent with what the Catechism currently teaches. We have no assurances of the salvation of unbaptized infants.

St Aquinas, Summa Theologica Question 68, Article 3 "I answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism. On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above
We've covered this.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442: "Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, (...)holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time (...)."
Once again, we know of no other way and so it would indeed be inadvisable to defer baptism for infants.

Pius XII-Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951. "An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open."
This is neither here nor there. Babies are incapable of certain actions which adults are capable which would supply the lack of baptism. This does not mean that there are not other ways, unknown to us, which can likewise supply the lack of baptism.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place (...) 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. (Denz. 1526)

"Babies dead without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having original sin alone, they do not deserve paradise, but neither do they merit hell or purgatory." ~1905 Catechism of Pope Pius X,

I put these two together as both refer to limbo, which was never in any sense infallible dogmatic teaching. It is theological speculation which has been given more or less credence at different times. It is not as popular amongst theologians today as it has been in the past, but in any case it does not constitute a contradiction of infallible teaching.

In conclusion, we have seen no contradiction in the quotes presented thus far. All we have seen is an unnuanced presentation of Catholic quotes (many of which do not constitute infallible dogmatic teaching) set forth in the hopes that an uncritical examination will lead someone to come to the conclusion that there is a contradiction where there is none.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
TrasguTravieso

Con

Extend arguments
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

youve basically said all statements that appear to be strictly read are really just general rules.
how is this not allowing for contradiction? if as example a rule says all users of a road must pay a toll, then this is the rule. you are basically saying since God can do anything, he can break his own rules, even if it's been expressed that the opposite is true, that infants go to hell. why wouldnt the cop out of God can do anything not be applied to anything as an exception, that basically negates the expressed intentioned rule. "all unrepentant unbelievers go to hell".... evn this that is assumed as a truth by catholics etc could be said to be up for grabs.

also the noninfallible statements give context to hisoical thoght etc. popes say they go to hell, cant be saved, and Auas, augustin, pope gregory's moralia etc say it too even more explicitly

the best uve argued is the point about herrod. i dont know how historical this is. plus u go on to say in even the next quote to say we have no way of knowing the fate of infants.
really though the church has spoken clearly, they go to hell, or cant be saved
TrasguTravieso

Con

Exceptions do not break the general rule. Particularly considering that the rules are given by God for men, not for Himself, this can't even be considered a breaking of the rules. If a father says that 8:30 is bedtime, he is not infringing his own rules if he stays up past that hour. Bedtime is for children, Sacraments are for us.

In any case, it is not unheard of for this particular general rule to be "broken". The Good Thief, which tradition calls St. Dimas was not baptized, and could hardly be said to be condemned, as Jesus says to him he will enter Paradise with Him. On the insistence of His August Mother, Jesus turns water into wine "before his time". Miracles too, are exceptions to general rules. Just because God decides to resurrect Lazarus does not mean that dead people leave off dying.

Technically speaking you are right about one thing. The idea that God is unrestrained by the Sacraments He instituted for our salvation can be applied to anything, including the idea that unrepentant unbelievers cannot be saved. Even, in fact, to the idea that unrepentant sinners in general, including war criminals or persecutors can in principle be saved. There is a difference, however, between those cases which makes it less probable that an exception will be made. In the case of the infants, the age of reason (generally thought to be at seven years) has not been reached, and therefore considering the leniency shown by Paul in Romans 2: 14-15 to those who do not know enough to be expected to even consider baptism (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.) we can see that along with God's Justice goes His Mercy.

So, we have a general rule, the fact that apart from the Saving Grace none can be saved, and that the Sacrament Instituted by God in order to give this Grace is Baptism. This leads to the obvious conclusion that, as a general rule, the unbaptized cannot enter heaven. This, however, must take into account that the Sacraments are gifts from God to his people, and not restraints to His Divine Freedom; that He freely given His Grace on occasion apart from these Sacraments (St. Dimas, the Holy Innocents, Cornelius...). This leads us to the position taken in the Catechism: that we know of no other means that assures salvation than Baptism, but we cannot discount these existing.

This means that quotes of Church Fathers or Popes saying the unbaptized cannot be saved are true, as they underscore the general rule; and quotes by Church Fathers and Popes saying we must pray for them and trust God's mercy anyways are also true. What is not true, and is not the position of the Church, is that there is any assurance that they will be saved, and this is not what the Catechism is implying.

Conclusion

We have seen that the supposed contradiction my opponent posited does not exist. The Catechism does not say unbaptized infants go to heaven as a general rule, but rather affirms the same rule that has been affirmed throughout Church history and reminds us that Sacraments bind us and not God, thereby also affirming the tradition of praying for them anyways and placing our hopes on Divine Mercy.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
The DDO text editor thinks my arguments are going nowhere? That's depressing.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Apparently the DDO text editor thinks your argument is text for a link, but a link to nowhere.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
Yea... OK

Anyways, I have no idea why my argument is all in blue. Rather distracting.
Posted by MrSurefee 4 years ago
MrSurefee
the catholic church has lost its way, making a whole other book which some statements in it contradict the original bible, like how Mother Mary is holy or how you could be Christs. Don't even bother of what they say, read the bible and do what God says.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
If no one accepts this (or the popes having a leftist economic bias) by the end of the week, I certainly will take one or the other (I have something of a full plate till Thursday)
Posted by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
dairygirls first debate that is without spelling mistakes in each sentence
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
dairygirl4u2cTrasguTraviesoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: con argued Exceptions do not break the general rule. Which is a perfectly valid argument. (Every rule has exeptions.) conduct for R2 F.F.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
dairygirl4u2cTrasguTraviesoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeit, arguments because Con demolished Pro, and I can't bring myself to go through it point-by-point because of how bad I feel for Pro.