FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Hope or Presumption?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
My mother lost two and she hopes. But she hopes because she baptized the children when her body delivered them. She doesn't know if it 'took' or not. I do not want in any want to challange your love of your lost children or hope in God, but I believe it can be a bit presumptious to 'hope' when the Church has said otherwise.
didishroom Wrote:but I believe it can be a bit presumptious to 'hope' when the Church has said otherwise.

The Church as not said otherwise. You CANNOT say what happened to the baby's souls.

Quote:This issue is not important. We know the only thing we can do is baptise and then the rest is up to God. It is futile to spend so much time dwelling on the issue.

The issue is extremely important because it is a modernist attempt to undermine traditional teaching with new theology, which leads to the abusive practice of not baptizing infants as soon as reasonably possible, and partially exonerates crimes like abortion. 

It is de fide teaching that those without sanctifying grace cannot see the Beatific Vision.  The question is whether there is any reason to hope that unbaptized infants can go to heaven through a miraculous intercession rather than go to Limbo, which is a theological certainty.  There is no basis in revelation for the former theory, while the latter idea is logically developed from revelation.  The "hope" idea is a modernist attempt to change our Faith according to feelings.
Quote:
The Church as not said otherwise. You CANNOT say what happened to the baby's souls.
I just showed what the Church has said on the manner. Or are you being intentionally thick? Use your reasons and not your emotions.
didishroom Wrote: I do not want in any want to challange your love of your lost children or hope in God, but I believe it can be a bit presumptious to 'hope' when the Church has said otherwise.

Why? We have two catechisms set before us. How am I being presumptuous if I like what the new catechism says?
 
Look.. I'm not trying to pit the old against the new. I leave it to the theologians to figure these things out. I'm just a practicing Catholic who also seeks the truth, and less ambiguity. My pastor says that there is debate over which councils spoke infallibly and which didn't. The new catechism isn't speaking infallibly, but simply allows for hope. I know what Trent said..and the more people on these forums pit the old against the new, the more I begin to question my faith -- not my faith in Jesus Christ, but my faith in the Catholic Church. I am wondering if I should remain a Catholic because I cannot, in good conscience, accept some of her teachings. They seem contrary to the Gospel.

 
I always thought that presumption was relying too heavily on God's mercy, at the sake of His justice. I don't think anyone here is guilty of that. God is just no matter what He does. We can take that to the bank.

- Lisa
Btw.. the opposite of presumption is despair, not hope.
 
It is never a sin to hope.  
 
- Lisa
StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: I know what Trent said..and the more people on these forums pit the old against the new, the more I begin to question my faith -- not my faith in Jesus Christ, but my faith in the Catholic Church. I am wondering if I should remain a Catholic because I cannot, in good conscience, accept some of her teachings. They seem contrary to the Gospel. 

Lisa,

There can't be two "faiths" or a separation between Christ and the Church. There's absolutely no Jesus Christ without the Catholic Church, the Church he founded, rules and sanctifies to this very day. The Church's teachings cannot be contrary to the Gospel since the Church is the one who has been preaching it since the very beginning.

Please, reconsider what you're saying and don't thread on such a dangerous ground. These are times of great probation for the faithful and a time for the Church herself to suffer her own passion. There's lots of confusion, granted, but if you personally have poignant doubts about some teachings of the Church, you should seek to clarify them instead of doubting your Faith.

You should pray more fervently and I'll be praying for you.
Quote:Why? We have two catechisms set before us. How am I being presumptuous if I like what the new catechism says?
 
Well you admit down below that the Catechism isn't infallible. Why take a fallible document over an infallible one?  




Quote:Look.. I'm not trying to pit the old against the new. I leave it to the theologians to figure these things out. I'm just a practicing Catholic who also seeks the truth, and less ambiguity.
Yes you are very right in your aspirations. That is why I would only accept a catechism as far as it is succint in the un-ambiguous statements of the Councils.


Quote:My pastor says that there is debate over which councils spoke infallibly and which didn't. 
Not to challenge your pastor, but all of the ecumenical councils approved by the popes were infallible(with the exception of Vatcian II which was explicity declared NOT dogmatic). I think any debate over the infallibilty of these councils is reserved to circles of liberal leanings.  


Quote:The new catechism isn't speaking infallibly, but simply allows for hope. I know what Trent said..and the more people on these forums pit the old against the new, the more I begin to question my faith -- not my faith in Jesus Christ, but my faith in the Catholic Church. I am wondering if I should remain a Catholic because I cannot, in good conscience, accept some of her teachings. They seem contrary to the Gospel.
 
So are you admitting that what I quotes is infallible or not? You seemed a bit and confused and troubled. And I totally get that. Often when I bring up the necessity of belonging to God's Church, people react as if I'm happy about the millions who die outside of the Church. In actuality it does bother me sometimes. In fact the whole concept of hell bothers me evey day of my life. But I also have already gone through the doubting the entirety of my Faith before. Without Catholicism there is no Christianity and I see nothing outside of Christianity worth pursuing.

The way to look at is is this. God is all love and all mercy, so if the Church says certain people under certain conditions will not reach heaven, then I must reconcile the two teachings together, not pit them against each other, even if I cannot in my fragile human brain understand why.

If you are having doubts, I will pray for you.



 

didishroom Wrote:The way to look at is is this. God is all love and all mercy, so if the Church says certain people under certain conditions will not reach heaven, then I must reconcile the two teachings together, not pit them against each other, even if I cannot in my fragile human brain understand why.

God is not just loving and merciful, He is also just. Hell exists for those who willingly chose themselves above God. Let's not forget too that He died for us on the Cross so that we may inherit eternal life. If we can't grasp or reconcile His mercy with His justice, we should remember that God is omniscient and knows us better than anyone. If someone goes to Hell, then we can be absolutely confident and sure that it is just that it be so and the person condemned will also know and agree with it.

Any doubts concerning these issues of Faith should be dealt with prudence and the doubter should always seek for clarification before letting his doubts overcome him/her. There's nothing like deepening our knowledge of Faith and we all should strive for it everyday.

Finally, nothing can be accomplished without God's grace, so a life of prayer should be earnestly cultivated.
didishroom Wrote:So are you admitting that what I quotes is infallible or not? You seemed a bit and confused and troubled.

I don't know if it is infallible or not. You and Peter say yes. ONeill says no. I am confused and troubled. And I'm not going on emotions. I accept the reality of hell and I don't like that it exists either. But the Church says it does and it's totally in keeping with God's justice. I believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation, too. But I don't know that I am required to believe that unbaptized and preborn babies go to hell.
 
Peter said:
Quote: The issue is extremely important because it is a modernist attempt to undermine traditional teaching with new theology, which leads to the abusive practice of not baptizing infants as soon as reasonably possible, and partially exonerates crimes like abortion. 

 
St. Augustine was raised by a Christian mother but was not baptized until he was an adult. She allowed her son to make his own decision. Was St. Monica neglecting her son's salvation? I know that it was a common practice in the early Church to postpone baptism. I'm not saying they were right. I'm just saying that while the Church has always taught the necessity of baptism for salvation, there has also been debates re: baptism of desire, blood, and infant baptism. There's debate about Limbo.
 
didishroom Wrote:The way to look at is is this. God is all love and all mercy, so if the Church says certain people under certain conditions will not reach heaven, then I must reconcile the two teachings together, not pit them against each other, even if I cannot in my fragile human brain understand why. 

 
I agree! And I'm not the one pitting! I have always tried to reconcile present teachings with the past. But others refuse to do that. It's always "either/or" .. and I don't know that it has to be that way.
 
- Lisa
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13