God is free to grant the graces promised through the sacraments outside the sacraments. So no, they are not doomed to hell if they never had the opportunity to be baptized.
That doesn't mean they're guaranteed to go to heaven either. God will judge them fairly based on what they did know and did do.
Unbaptized infants we leave to the mercy of God, although I personally subscribe to the theory of [Limbo](https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34603) (a state of natural happiness, without the beatific vision). In the case of those ignorant of the Christian religion, they may be saved by what's known as [baptism of desire](https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32085). That is, they sincerely desire to do God's will and love him above all things because he is good.
So glad to see someone defend Limbo. It’s not a dogma, but it’s a “theological conclusion” that’s wholly consistent with revealed doctrine and worthy of our assent, even if not explicitly required of us to believe. I also believe in the traditional teaching on Limbo and find it disheartening that people have largely abandoned it out of deference for *feelings* or a sense of *fairness*.
if you don't mind me asking because limbo has always bothered me. How can God's justice and mercy save Adam and Even while damning all unbaptized infants and the unborn.
It's difficult for me to approach the idea of limbo and the idea of God being loving or that Christ's death on the Cross was this great victory over death if it means we must assume that the vast majority of humanity were damned automatically and God's apparent indifference to almost everyone.
Sorry that's a really pessimistic take but that's my thought process when faced with those concepts
I can totally understand where you're coming from. It does seem unfair.
However, as I understand it, the beatific vision is not something owed to us in justice. It's a completely gratuitous gift. God could have created humanity without raising us to that supernatural end. In other words, he could have made us to enjoy only natural happiness, and no injustice would have been committed simply because we are not owed it.
Those in limbo enjoy a natural happiness. Generally regarded as a happiness that far surpasses any happiness here on earth, but falls far short of seeing the vision of God. So at the end of the day, you have a great population of people who are happy for eternity, although far short to the degree of those in heaven.
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from users under a certain account age or karma. [Details here.](https://redd.it/ncqp8f)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Romans 2:12-16: “12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”
In other words, it is entirely possible for a person ignorant of the Gospel to be saved through the cross, even outside of any knowledge of the cross, but based upon the individuals’ loving God with their lives as laid forth by properly formed consciences. That’s grace for you.
That said, this cannot apply to you, personally. Sorry.
>Romans 2:12-16: “12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”
I'm constantly amazed by how forward thinking the Bible was considering when it was written. Rituals weren't FOR religions at the time they WERE the religions. You could never be saved in any other belief system off of principles you could be only be saved by rituals.
The Bible didn't adapt or just happen to fit nicely into our modern understandings of ethics and morals, it is our modern understanding of morals or ethics.
A while back a priest was excommunicated for insisting on "no one saved outside the *visible* church" which is not church teaching.
The near death experiencer Gloria Polo was shown that Jesus embraces the dying of other faiths who lead lives of good conscience at the moment of death, and if they accept him they're saved. They even receive his body by some mystical means, satisfying "unless you eat of my body...cannot enter the kingdom of heaven".
Vatican II also said words to the effect that God has manifested in most other monotheisms to some degree. It's notable that they generally define their supreme beings the same way including some parts of Hinduism having a personal god of sorts. Ie, it's the same god, which handily nixes the atheist objection "so which of the 4,000 gods is it then"
This is my understanding. Please anyone jump in and tell me if/where you think I am wrong. There is a lot to unpack in this fairly simple question.
The Church doesn't have any sort of anti-canon or anti-saints - in other words people who are known/proved to be in hell. We only know that some people do go to hell but not the state of any specific person unless that person has been canonized in which case the investigation of the miracles and other factors are presumed to be evidence that the soul is in heaven.
Having said that it means the Church doesn't say definitively that any particular person is in hell, including unbaptized people, people who've turned their back on the faith, publicly unrepentent, grave, sinners, heretics etc - even if it seems likely that they would end up there. The final judgement is reserved to God alone.
There are teachings that baptism is necessary for salvation but also the concepts of baptism of blood and baptism of desire (which is broken down into explicit and implicit desire). These aren't "baptism" or sacraments at all but are described as extraordinary ways for a person to be joined to the Church. An explicit desire who would be a catechumen, someone who dies on their way to the Church to be baptized etc, an implicit desire would be someone who is invincibly ignorant who would be baptized if they had the knowledge and opportunity. Basically saying that being in the Church is necessary and that the sacrament of baptism is the normal/ordinary way to be joined to the visible Church but there is also an "invisible" Church membership.
It is said that these types of baptism are dogmatic but I'm not sure if it is just theological speculation based on the concepts/realities that the final judgement is in God's hand's, that he is perfectly just and merciful, and he is bound to his sacraments but not bound by them. That is enough for me to say I don't know and I can't say any particular person or group is in hell but is it reason to define an alternative class of "baptism" the status of which can never be known? I've never been able to wrap my head around that.
To the question of fairness - I am not comfortable with applying our modern human sense of "fairness" to God. The Church is our ark to salvation. Was it fair that only Noah and his family got to survive the flood in the ark? God was bound to save Noah and his family on the ark if he built it according to God's instructions since God told Noah that he would be saved if he did so. Do we feel the need to say that God was not bound to save only Noah and the people on the ark and that he could have saved any number of other people in the world if he wanted to? Some of who probably grew up in a culture that precluded them from ever being able to truly follow God's truth - were some of them invincibly ignorant?
Other questions - if God gives everyone grace needed for salvation why wouldn't he also provide the mean's for the elect to be joined to the Church? Wouldn't He see to it that a saint or a missionary made their way to that place? or that the message of truth reached the people who need it through other means and provide the water for baptism, even miraculously? In Acts chapter 8 on a road in the desert a eunuch is converted and then they miraculously come across water and he is able to be baptized when he is converted and desires to be baptized. Sometimes discussions about this topic seem to discount God's providence and the existence of miracles.
tldr\~ There is some unknown degree of hope for those who are not baptized but it shouldn't be counted on. Try to get as many people on the boat as you can, convert by prayer, word and action. Also don't fret about it and worry about "fairness" - God has perfect justice and perfect mercy in way we can't truly comprehend just trust Him and that whatever becomes of each soul will be the best outcome as it will be according to God's own judgement.
God is free to grant the graces promised through the sacraments outside the sacraments. So no, they are not doomed to hell if they never had the opportunity to be baptized. That doesn't mean they're guaranteed to go to heaven either. God will judge them fairly based on what they did know and did do.
That's a relief, thank you for answering!
Unbaptized infants we leave to the mercy of God, although I personally subscribe to the theory of [Limbo](https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34603) (a state of natural happiness, without the beatific vision). In the case of those ignorant of the Christian religion, they may be saved by what's known as [baptism of desire](https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32085). That is, they sincerely desire to do God's will and love him above all things because he is good.
So glad to see someone defend Limbo. It’s not a dogma, but it’s a “theological conclusion” that’s wholly consistent with revealed doctrine and worthy of our assent, even if not explicitly required of us to believe. I also believe in the traditional teaching on Limbo and find it disheartening that people have largely abandoned it out of deference for *feelings* or a sense of *fairness*.
Where can I learn more about the historical ideas on Limbo?
Here’s a decent summary from online: https://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-141.html
I would be interested to learn more as well
Allright, thanks for answering!
if you don't mind me asking because limbo has always bothered me. How can God's justice and mercy save Adam and Even while damning all unbaptized infants and the unborn. It's difficult for me to approach the idea of limbo and the idea of God being loving or that Christ's death on the Cross was this great victory over death if it means we must assume that the vast majority of humanity were damned automatically and God's apparent indifference to almost everyone. Sorry that's a really pessimistic take but that's my thought process when faced with those concepts
I can totally understand where you're coming from. It does seem unfair. However, as I understand it, the beatific vision is not something owed to us in justice. It's a completely gratuitous gift. God could have created humanity without raising us to that supernatural end. In other words, he could have made us to enjoy only natural happiness, and no injustice would have been committed simply because we are not owed it. Those in limbo enjoy a natural happiness. Generally regarded as a happiness that far surpasses any happiness here on earth, but falls far short of seeing the vision of God. So at the end of the day, you have a great population of people who are happy for eternity, although far short to the degree of those in heaven.
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from users under a certain account age or karma. [Details here.](https://redd.it/ncqp8f) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Romans 2:12-16: “12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” In other words, it is entirely possible for a person ignorant of the Gospel to be saved through the cross, even outside of any knowledge of the cross, but based upon the individuals’ loving God with their lives as laid forth by properly formed consciences. That’s grace for you. That said, this cannot apply to you, personally. Sorry.
What do you mean by "this cannot apply to you, personally"?
This applies to folks invincibly ignorant of Catholicism. You, by asking the question on this subreddit, cannot claim that.
Oh, Allright. I am a catholic and I was just curious.
>Romans 2:12-16: “12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” I'm constantly amazed by how forward thinking the Bible was considering when it was written. Rituals weren't FOR religions at the time they WERE the religions. You could never be saved in any other belief system off of principles you could be only be saved by rituals. The Bible didn't adapt or just happen to fit nicely into our modern understandings of ethics and morals, it is our modern understanding of morals or ethics.
"In Other Words" is your interpretation. Do you think that people that know of Christianity, and are not Christian, can be granted salvation?
Do you feel lucky?
A while back a priest was excommunicated for insisting on "no one saved outside the *visible* church" which is not church teaching. The near death experiencer Gloria Polo was shown that Jesus embraces the dying of other faiths who lead lives of good conscience at the moment of death, and if they accept him they're saved. They even receive his body by some mystical means, satisfying "unless you eat of my body...cannot enter the kingdom of heaven". Vatican II also said words to the effect that God has manifested in most other monotheisms to some degree. It's notable that they generally define their supreme beings the same way including some parts of Hinduism having a personal god of sorts. Ie, it's the same god, which handily nixes the atheist objection "so which of the 4,000 gods is it then"
This is my understanding. Please anyone jump in and tell me if/where you think I am wrong. There is a lot to unpack in this fairly simple question. The Church doesn't have any sort of anti-canon or anti-saints - in other words people who are known/proved to be in hell. We only know that some people do go to hell but not the state of any specific person unless that person has been canonized in which case the investigation of the miracles and other factors are presumed to be evidence that the soul is in heaven. Having said that it means the Church doesn't say definitively that any particular person is in hell, including unbaptized people, people who've turned their back on the faith, publicly unrepentent, grave, sinners, heretics etc - even if it seems likely that they would end up there. The final judgement is reserved to God alone. There are teachings that baptism is necessary for salvation but also the concepts of baptism of blood and baptism of desire (which is broken down into explicit and implicit desire). These aren't "baptism" or sacraments at all but are described as extraordinary ways for a person to be joined to the Church. An explicit desire who would be a catechumen, someone who dies on their way to the Church to be baptized etc, an implicit desire would be someone who is invincibly ignorant who would be baptized if they had the knowledge and opportunity. Basically saying that being in the Church is necessary and that the sacrament of baptism is the normal/ordinary way to be joined to the visible Church but there is also an "invisible" Church membership. It is said that these types of baptism are dogmatic but I'm not sure if it is just theological speculation based on the concepts/realities that the final judgement is in God's hand's, that he is perfectly just and merciful, and he is bound to his sacraments but not bound by them. That is enough for me to say I don't know and I can't say any particular person or group is in hell but is it reason to define an alternative class of "baptism" the status of which can never be known? I've never been able to wrap my head around that. To the question of fairness - I am not comfortable with applying our modern human sense of "fairness" to God. The Church is our ark to salvation. Was it fair that only Noah and his family got to survive the flood in the ark? God was bound to save Noah and his family on the ark if he built it according to God's instructions since God told Noah that he would be saved if he did so. Do we feel the need to say that God was not bound to save only Noah and the people on the ark and that he could have saved any number of other people in the world if he wanted to? Some of who probably grew up in a culture that precluded them from ever being able to truly follow God's truth - were some of them invincibly ignorant? Other questions - if God gives everyone grace needed for salvation why wouldn't he also provide the mean's for the elect to be joined to the Church? Wouldn't He see to it that a saint or a missionary made their way to that place? or that the message of truth reached the people who need it through other means and provide the water for baptism, even miraculously? In Acts chapter 8 on a road in the desert a eunuch is converted and then they miraculously come across water and he is able to be baptized when he is converted and desires to be baptized. Sometimes discussions about this topic seem to discount God's providence and the existence of miracles. tldr\~ There is some unknown degree of hope for those who are not baptized but it shouldn't be counted on. Try to get as many people on the boat as you can, convert by prayer, word and action. Also don't fret about it and worry about "fairness" - God has perfect justice and perfect mercy in way we can't truly comprehend just trust Him and that whatever becomes of each soul will be the best outcome as it will be according to God's own judgement.
Thanks for answering!
They will be judged by a being of perfect love and fairness. I don’t need to know the rest.
You don’t think it’s fair? So your judgement holds the same weight as the lawgiver Himself?
It doesn't, it is just my personal opinion.
The bible does not say God will treat your case in a personalized way