the catholic church officially teaches nonbaptized infants go to hell

I will refute both of Pro"s arguments, and show that it is possible for infants to go to Heaven, without being baptized. By doing so, my evidence will contradict and invalidate her overall declaration that unbaptized infants are going to hell. Session 11"4 February 1442 Pro asserts that the text from Council of Florence Session 11, (Bull Cantate Domino): "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time. .. " means that children that haven"t been baptized are going to hell. However, her assertion is not true, and taken out of context, when looking at the entire paragraph, and prior paragraph. The prior paragraph begins teaching that one view being practiced in the Church, was to include the Old Testament sacrifices and Mosaic Law (the Law of Moses) [1]. People were still holding onto the beliefs that you had to adhere to the Jewish dietary laws, laws of circumcision, and many other rituals [1]. The Pope was addressing the Church"s, that did not have a "Jewish" Christian, and showed that under the new dispensation of Grace that the Mosaic practices had become empty rituals, which would not get anyone into heaven [1]. The Jewish Christians, the first Christians, would mix their Judaic traditions with the Catholic Sacraments in vein. Some examples of Jewish dates, which were applied to Catholic practices, are: male children were to be circumcised on the 8th day; a woman wasn"t clean until 33 days after childbirth, and couldn"t enter into the temple. By the 40th day the child was to be redeemed at the temple. This was also the time that that the child was presented to the public [2]. Notice how the Pope in his teachings specifically mentions 40 days? That was done specifically to teach the gentile Christians to refrain from keeping the Jewish traditions, which they were not bound to in the first place. By reading Pro"s argument, in its entirety and context, shows that her argument is false, when compared to the following statement from the Session 11, which occurs 2 paragraphs before Pro"s content [1]. "It (the Church) firmly believes, professes and preaches that never was anyone, conceived by a man and a woman, liberated from the devil's dominion except by faith in our lord Jesus Christ. " This simply states that there has NEVER been a child conceived, that was saved from Hell, except by FAITH. That means NOT even by baptism, but by FAITH. This proves that it is possible for an infant not to go to hell. [1] [1] . https://www.ewtn.com... [2] . http://www.jewfaq.org... Session 6"6 July 1439 "Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church's ordinances. " [1] "Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another. " [1] These two small paragraphs come back to back. This makes it easy to see that the second paragraph is referring to the prior paragraph, when it states, "as was stated above,"". If you put the two paragraphs into one it states, "the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, {(content from above), their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church's ordinances. }, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another. " This is one of the many reasons Catholics prayers such as, the prayers for the dead [3] and St Gertrude"s Prayer [2], when they pass by a cemetery. DairyGirl"s claim bears the burden of proof. She has failed to do so, while I proved that it is possible that infants go to heaven. [1] . https://www.ewtn.com... [2] . http://www.catholic.org... [3] . http://www.catholic.org... Session 8"22 November 143 [Bull of union with the Armenians] This is the point where I present an extra argument from Eighth Session of the Council of Florence, which shows that it is possible for an infant to escape hell, WITHOUT being baptized. "The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God. " [1] The key word in this text is "incur". The following is tthe etymology of the word "incur": Word Origin and History for incur v. early 15c. , from Anglo-French encurir, Middle French encourir, from Latin incurrere "run into or against, rush at, make an attack;" figuratively, "to befall, happen, occur to," [2] It is impossible for an infant to have the knowledge, understanding, thought process to decide to commit sin. Since the infant lacks the ability to conscientiously move towards sinning fall into the category of those who "go straight to the kingdom of heaven and vision of God. " [1] If they, the unbaptized infant, are able to go straight to Heaven, then it is 100% possible for them to escape Hell. [1] . https://www.ewtn.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... Session 11"4 February 1442 [Bull of union with the Copts] The following statement shows that Canonical teachings may supersede papal teachings, and may be used in future arguments and rebuttals, ""a wife on her husband's death is free from his law and free in the Lord to marry whom she wishes, and since no distinction is made between the deaths of the first, second and third husbands, we declare that not only second and third marriages but also fourth and further ones may lawfully be contracted, provided there is no canonical impediment. [1] [1] . https://www.ewtn.com... I would also like to assert that Pro"s argument from Session 6 does NOT prove that unbaptized infants go to hell. The idea of Limbo, is not, and has never been, an official teaching of the Catholic Church. At that time, the unofficial Church teaching was that Limbo was where unborn and unbaptized infants went, because they had not been cleansed of original sin they could not be damned to Hell nor admitted to Heaven. The Church has no official position on infant death. There is no support they would be damned to hell. Pro still needs to prove damnation to hell. I would like to thank DairyGirl, for opening up the debate for me. I look forward to round 2.