In the last 25 years, several notable Orthodox jurisdictions have introduced a tangible change in praxis with how unbaptized children are treated at death. The Greek Orthodox introduced prayers for children with Orthodox parents who have sadly perished without baptism after a 2001 synodal decision. The Romanians in 2010s, OCA also in the 2010s, and Moscow Patriarchate in 2018 added their own. The Serbians, Bulgarians, Polish, and Moldovans have no such prayers presently. (Petroaia, “The Issue of Burying Unbaptized Babies, in the Orthodox Church,” 122-125 in Revista Teological 2022:1)

Historically, unbaptized children were not given Orthodox funerals–something of a quasi–“eighth” sacrament, though in some quarters (the Greeks) they were buried in Orthodox cemeteries. In other quarters (the Romanians, Russians) they were not. This surely conveys a sense of doom to loved ones and the community at large, emphasizing the need for baptism in the Orthodox Church to be fully part of the community and the salvific promises made to the Orthodox faithful. One Romanian priest and scholar notes the pastoral application to the preceding:

The lack of a funeral arrangement for such infants was part of the Church’s harsh and straightforward pedagogy in the early centuries, when, in order to urge parents not to postpone the baptism of their children, in cases of infant death the body was simply taken to the grave, without any ritual or prayer. (Petroaia, “The Issue of Burying Unbaptized Babies, in the Orthodox Church,” 115 in Revista Teological 2022:1)

No Salvation For the Unbaptized? The overwhelming consensus of patristic and conciliar authorities consistent with the preceding taught that normatively (perhaps not categorically), the unbaptized do not attain to salvation. One Pan-Orthodox synod even taught that they are “subject to eternal punishment.” (Jerusalem 1672, Decree 16) As opposed to a torturous punishment, this may be understood as a sort of “limbo” where the unbaptized do not experience heaven/theosis due to original sin. This was succinctly taught as follows by Constantinople 1815:

They do not experience suffering due to lacking personal sin infants who die unbaptized are not tormented, being cleansed from voluntary sins. However, they do not deserve the Kingdom of God, because they were not cleansed of the stain of ancestral sin through the divine Bath and did not obtain spiritual rebirth… (Petroaia, 116)

Saint Augustine went as far as to say that their “punishment,” whatever this is according to Jerusalem 1672, was preferable to non-existence. (Against Julian, Book V, Par 44) From the preceding one may rightly infer that “punishment” is simply a euphemism for the unbaptized being “neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge” as Saint Gregory Nazianzen describes their lamentable, but not awful fate. (Oration 40, Par 23)

Is the Change in Praxis Coupled With a Change in Doctrine? Addressing the pastoral need of assuaging a postmodern people shocked by death and experiencing understandable grief, 21st century prayer services for the unbaptized in general strike a more hopeful tone as to the fate of the unbaptized. They pray for mercy. Such prayers presume upon both the possibility that they can be answered–but also the possibility that they are not. Only one OCA prayer service explicitly presumes upon the salvation of the infant. Hence, for the vast preponderance of Orthodox (as the OCA represents less than 0.5 percent of global Orthodox) no point of doctrine actually changes. Anyone of any age can be prayed for privately after death by the faithful. Neither is the Church liturgically commemorating the unbaptized or anyone not properly Orthodox. However, the pastoral approach is clearly a change in praxis and has created no small amount of confusion in recent years. For the sake of addressing this confusion, the content of the services and synodical decisions is covered here.

The Greek Synod on the Unbaptized. The Greek Synod was the first to institute prescribed prayers for the unbaptized provided they had at least one Orthodox parent. The synod declared:

[F]or reasons of charity towards those parents affected by the untimely and sudden death of their child, to ecclesiastical burial of unbaptized infants…Especially regarding the fate of unbaptized infants after death, many teachings were formulated by the holy fathers. The dominant view in Orthodox Theology is that these, as bearers of original sin, cannot enter the kingdom of God. However, as they are free from all other sin, they are exempt from eternal condemnation, their salvation ultimately being entrusted to the justice and mercy of God. This soteriological importance of Holy Baptism in combination with the widespread infant mortality in antiquity is one of the most important reasons that contributed to the establishment of infant baptism…the unbaptized children of Christian parents occupy the position of catechumens. The opinion of Saint Symeon of Thessaloniki is explicit on this. This becomes more evident from the 14th century onwards through the progressive establishment of the so-called pre-baptismal Services, through which, among other things, a kind of preliminary “ecclesiasticization” of infants takes place…The prayers for the catechumens of the Divine Liturgy are well known, the first part of which is today characterized as the “Liturgy of the Catechumens”. Consequently, in principle and for reasons of charity, the Funeral Service can be performed without hindrance over them, which, as is well known, constitutes a non-sacramental Service, having as its primary character the intercession of the mourners…Regarding the generally debated circumstances, such as the salvation of unbaptized infants, the predominance of the Church’s charity, in contrast to the scandal among the faithful arising from the refusal of ecclesiastical burial for unbaptized infants, especially when combined with the wide public attention these cases receive at the extremes.

Several important points can be drawn from the synod’s decision. The idea that it is normative that unbaptized children are not saved is called “the dominant view in Orthodox Theology.” Yet, the synod notes that there is an “exempt[ion] from eternal condemnation.” Does this contradict Jerusalem 1672, something that the Greek synod by accepting Crete 2016 likewise accepts? A possible harmonization, without presuming upon a contradiction between both synods, is that the unbaptized do not experience punishment eternally–as they are “subject” to said punishment but not specifically liable–their fate ultimately being in God’s hands. Further, if one accepts that “punishment” does not pertain to suffering, as Augustine himself believed and as the Constantinopoitan council in 1815 taught, this also reconciles the otherwise disparate views.

Further, the prayers for the reposed unbaptized are clearly seen as a condescension to the sort of postmodern sensibilities discussed beforehand. Hence, it is an economic deviation in praxis to address upset people. It is also explicitly “non-sacramental,” which implies a hard numbering of seven specific Church sacraments as the funeral service is essentially the most popular of the “additional sacraments” beyond the traditional seven. The service itself is not portrayed as particularly more profound than liturgical prayers for catechumens, hence justifying the capacity of the Church to pray for unbaptized children after their demise. By this reasoning this would make all heterodox prayed for at the liturgy, such as the governing authorities, eligible for Orthodox funerals.

Russian Orthodox Prayers For Unbaptized Children. For reasons similar to the Greeks, the Moscow Patriarchate instituted a prayer service for deceased unbaptized children. Therein are petitions imploring God to save these infants as well as petitions to comfort those mourning:

Let us pray to the Lord that He may accept the departed infant without condemnation and mercifully and grant him (her) the life of the future age.

To You we pray and beseech You, look upon Your servants and Your inheritance, and calm their sorrowful [parents] weeping over the untimely departure of their newborn child, <their name>, and grant them consolation.

Possessing the living and the dead, Christ, our true God, risen from the dead, through the prayers of His most pure Mother, the holy, glorious, and all-praised apostles, our reverend and godly fathers, and all the saints, may He, in His mercy, receive the infant who has not received Holy Baptism into the bosom of Abraham, and have mercy on us, as He is good and loves mankind.

As discussed beforehand, the prayers are non-committal over the fate of the unbaptized other than perhaps the default idea that these children need mercy and to be prayed for. Nevertheless, as also discussed beforehand, the addition of these innovative prayers has caused confusion. In response, the synod published a statement that acknowledged this, stating in clear terms that the prayers are for the consolation of parents and don’t positively decide the fate of the children nor replace baptism:

No, it’s incorrect to say that the Church has “permitted the burial service” for unbaptized infants. A funeral service is a special rite that contains texts that speak of a deceased member of the Church. The texts of the funeral service, in particular, include a prayer to God asking Him to accept the deceased into His Kingdom, in part because they were members of the Church. After all, we know the words of the Savior: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”…the cited passages from the service indicate that we are asking for some kind of good fate for the deceased infant, without prejudging what that fate might be…Unlike the funeral service, this service does not include bringing the coffin into the church or any other similar actions.

The Romanian Practice. Prayers for the unbaptized in Romania have been occurring for many years. During the Proskemedia, the priest prays “for children, timeless infants, male part and female part” and these particles of bread are later consecrated as part of the Eucharist. (Petroaia, 118) Also before postmodernity, the Romanian synod in 1908 allowed for kourbania to be offered for reposed unbaptized children. (Ibid., 126) This practice is essentially a dedicated offering of meat, similar to the offering of kolyva (a sort of dessert). Such offerings are akin to “birthday cakes” in commemoration of the dead instead of the living. Kourbania, due to its barbaric similarity to pagan animal sacrificial rites, has fallen into disuse.

That said, burials and a prayer service at a funeral are much newer than the preceding practices. The prayers are non-specific and are described as follows for those who sadly died before being named by the priest on the eighth day:

…the “Trisagion” is sung and the prayers “Holy Trinity” and “Our Father” are said. Then the priest reads the “Gospel” from “The Burial Service of the Babies” (Luke 8, 15-17; 26-27) and “The Prayer of Comfort for the Sorrowful”. After a word of instruction about “The purpose of baptism in due time”41, when the coffin with the baby’s body is placed in the grave… (Ibid., 128)

Those named have a more complete service:

…the priest gives the small blessing, followed by the “Little Prayers” and Psalm 90, then reads the irmoses of Songs 3, 6 and 9 of the canon “The service of the burial of infants”, the Apostle (I Corinthians 15, 39-45), the Gospel (Luke 18, 15-17; 26-27) and “The Prayer of Comfort for the Sorrowful”… (Ibid., 129)

The synod in declaring the allowance for such prayers asserted that the priest must still give a “short pastoral word in which he will remind about the need to perform the Sacrament of Holy Baptism for infants.” (Ibid.) This is clearly to counter similar confusion to that of the Russians, that being the idea these prayers are an equally efficacious substitute to baptism. The prayers themselves are non-committal noting the infant has not “tasted sweetness” (i.e. the pleasures of sin) and is commended to Christ God Himself, requesting mercy on her/his behalf.

Petroaia observes that the decision of the synod to institute these prayers “gives hope and increases faith into the souls of parents and other Christians who have gone through this experience.” (Ibid., 131) That said, they like the prayers used in other jurisdictions, do not intend to alter or develop the Church’s teaching on the subject.

OCA’s Positive Declaration of the Salvation of Stillborn Children. Something of an outlier among the world’s Orthodox bodies is the OCA’s prescribed prayers for reposed stillborn and miscarried children. While the prayers strike a hopeful tone, they end on an unambiguous note: “His/her soul shall dwell with the blessed!” While not committing to the instant salvation of reposed stillborn children, this certainly appears to be a reversal of what the OCA’s Book of Needs warns of in 2014:

If the newborn infant is very weak and appears likely to die, it is not fitting to wait (as some wickedly say) six or eight days before baptizing him. Instead, at the very hour of his birth, it is fitting to wash him only, and immediately to baptize him, so that he might not die without holy Illumination (see A Brief Order for Baptizing an Infant When Death is Imminent). If someone five months pregnant is, according to the laws and canons, responsible for the death of another if it happen that by any shock the infant is aborted, how much more is it necessary to avoid the condemnation of those who are brought forth, that they not die without Illumination. (PDF version, 8)

One may assert the OCA contradicted itself in a few years time or that the Book of Needs, though employed by all its priests and approved by the synod, is somehow less authoritative than a new prayer approved by the synod. However, several possible interpretations and harmonizations are possible:

  • Stillborns are not held to the same “rules” as born children. (This harmonization is obviously not compelling.)
  • Stillborns are subject to the aforementioned euphemistic “punishment,” but not eternally.
  • The prayer that “his/her soul shall dwell with the blessed” is simply hopeful and not intended as a normative expectation.

The OCA has other similar resources on the question. In a canon to the Theotokos by Theocteristus the Monk, the statement is made in its introduction that, “We must affirm that since God is merciful and these ‘Innocents’ would have a place before the face of God.” This seems to be a dramatic reversal of what the more authoritative Lenten Triodon prays: “It must also be known that baptized dead infants enjoy the delight of the heavenly goodness; and the unbaptized dead infants or those of the heathen will go neither to the delight of heaven nor to hell.” (Petroaia, 118) The prayers themselves in the actual canon are not assertive one way or the other.

The OCA’s prayers for the victims of abortion are likewise non-committal and simply are hopeful: “That He will receive the infants killed by abortion.” A wide spectrum of beliefs are communicated by the OCA in the last decade or so and without a clear statement from the synod, it is difficult to extrapolate what their synod’s approved teaching on the question is presently.

How Did People Historically Grapple With No Salvation For the Unbaptized Versus Today? Historically, doctrine informed praxis and vice versa on the question of the unbaptized. One may dismiss the pessimistic mindset of the patristics on this question as a hanger-on of medieval misanthropic tendencies. Yet, one may more accurately surmise it fits a society without modern medical advances and improvements in standard of living.

This may seem an odd detour to take when addressing a theological question, but because it most definitely affects the mindset it must be addressed. In the past, loved ones regularly died at home with their extended families, not in the sterilized and removed setting of a hospital. Infant mortality was extremely common as well as death in childbirth. Until recent years this was true also in the third world, because even with technological advances financial resources simply did not exist among most people to afford anything other than the preceding. Death was common and more a part of life, and so people were better equipped by experience to emotionally grapple with it.

Furthermore, everything from the real threat of famine, the ubiquity of disease, to even everyday occurrences of a more trivial but nagging nature such as incessant pain from untreatable ailments (i.e. bad dental hygiene) were an expected part of life. The majority of people’s material standards were below that of third world poverty today. Even the “wealthy” were materially poorer than today’s first world poor. They did not have electricity and running water let alone television, air conditioning (or even fans), smart phones, wide-ranging cuisine, and various other means to procure enjoyment. Such people were not scandalized by a harsh, pleasureless life (relative to life today); let alone death and its consequences. Until modernity, people simply found joy and contentment through other means. Anyone who has really “roughed it” by camping without power sources knows that it is possible to enjoy such living–but it is definitely different.

Doom and gloom does not fit modern sensibilities, where sickness is more easily cured and pleasure is even easier to procure. Death is removed from sight, and though equally tragic, seen as foreign and strange. It shocks people’s sensibilities and rocks their faith even more than loss would in the past. More unseemly, it leads to bad press–something the aforementioned Greek synod on the question cites as cause for changing their praxis.

Conclusion. From the preceding, a few conclusions can be drawn. While the majority of Orthodox jurisdictions have not introduced ecclesiastical prayers for those reposed children unfortunate enough not to be baptized, those who have are in fact by population the slim majority of Orthodox Christians. The preponderance of these prayers were introduced explicitly to address the pastoral need of dealing with both the grief and scandal the death of these children (and the traditional doctrine) poses to postmodern society. These same prayers, other than one prayer with the approval of the OCA’s synod, simply petition God for mercy on behalf of these children. They do not pose a positive doctrinal teaching. That said, these prayers by the explicit admission of the Moscow Patriarchate have created confusion leading some to believe the Church’s teaching on the question has changed.

This problem is not caused by the content of these prayers, but by the occasion of their employment. The Church by praying with a service that is in some (or all) respects a funeral implies that these children died at complete “peace with the Church” and thereby God, despite their ancestral (original) sin. Whether additional jurisdictions will adopt these prayers and that they will prevail past the 21st century is obviously unknown.

Is the only way to fix this “problem” to eliminate these prayers? One could be hopeful that though they are innovative, they will prevail in appropriate contexts* inasmuch as it is always appropriate to pray for mercy in these situations. For the Church not to pray for the reposed unbaptized’s salvation would imply that Orthodox Christians cannot–which is simply untrue. It is recorded even as early as the first or second century in the Acts of Paul and Thecla (v. 28-39) that Saint Thecla prayed for an unbaptized child and attained salvation for him. If she can, we can. That said, these prayers can only be rightly said when coupled with a correct mindset which is in tune with the normative teaching of the Orthodox Church. And so, what is needed is both more prayer and a greater appreciation for Orthodox, as opposed to innovative, doctrine.

*Archbishop Peter of Chicago of Blessed Memory (ROCOR) two weeks before he died when asked about what family members can be prayed for during a house blessing noted that he wanted priests only praying for the Orthodox. He explicitly made the exception “for children” because “they are innocent.” This leads me to believe that the prayers of a priest or bishop can be appropriate in certain contexts removed from the actual church building itself may be appropriate, as this communicates the condescension of God to our condition but also the distinction between the baptized and unbaptized–both things that need to be addressed in a pastoral manner.