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
StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: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.

This is exactly what I was warning against. Those who feel a need to express opinions do so with the only fruit being the pain and suffering of parents. I keep my opinion to myself because I know it is in line with Catholic teachings because the Church has not said either way in this matter.

I'll share my view if it brings you comfort. I think, but do not hold firmly, that the souls of unbaptised babies (and others who had no knowledge of baptism) are held until Judgement day outside of Heaven, must like Abraham's bosom and then share in the Resurrection as the faithful. I also accept that God may grant entry into Heaven before then, but like I said, it is not an important article of faith and only distracts and is a cause of useless argument and grief.



Quote: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.

The latter idea is not logically developed from Revelation.

What we do know is this:

A) As the general rule, souls that die with original sin only but no mortal sin are deprived of the beatific vision, but without positive punishment.

B) Water baptism is the only means revealed to us for remitting original sin.

C) God is not bound by the ordinary means commanded to us.

D) God desires the salvation of all unless they resist.

E) We cannot know with any sort of certainty, that God has not stepped in and given grace in the moment before death, extraordinarily and unrevealed, in any or all given cases of unbaptized innocents.

This last fact allows us hope in spite of the general principle (which would still serve a very important purpose within the idea-system, even if never actually applied in practice).

The uncertainty of it, precludes presumption or lessening the urgency of baptism.

The general truths of Revelation make such hope no more or less likely in the specific cases.
7HolyCats Wrote:The latter idea is not logically developed from Revelation.

What we do know is this:

A) As the general rule, souls that die with original sin only but no mortal sin are deprived of the beatific vision, but without positive punishment.

That is the general rule, but there is no statement on what the souls of the unborn or unbaptised infants. Logically, based on what is revealed, we can say they do not gain admission into heaven immediately, but this is not explicit. No one before Christ would imagine we'd be given the great gift of His Body and Blood, so what great act of mercy is for those unborn? We can only imagine.
Quote:That is the general rule, but there is no statement on what the souls of the unborn or unbaptised infants.

Well, this category would definitely include them IF God doesnt step in extraordinarily and grant them grace before they die.

The hope we may have, is that He does.

Quote:Logically, based on what is revealed, we can say they do not gain admission into heaven immediately, but this is not explicit.

There is no evidence for a theory whereby they are delayed in their entrance to heaven but eventually attain it.

They either are excluded forever, or attain it immediately. The former is/would be the case if God doesnt give them grace extraordinarily before death (and we can't presume He does). The latter would happen if He does step in and give them grace extraordinarily before death (which we can hope He does).

There is no grounds for a belief that consigns them to some sort of purgatory or temporary limbo. Either God allows them to die in their original sin and they go to Limbo forever, the [hypothetical] natural default-state of man without grace, or He does give them grace unrevealed before death (which we can have good hope, but not presume) and in that case they become equivalent to an infant water baptized (without the Character, however) when it comes to their salvation and so there would be no reason to delay their attainment of heaven.
This is a good article.

Limbo
Bonifacio, thanks for the prayers. I could use them.

I was tired last night and feeling punchy. Now it's morning and I'm all rested up. I won't be leaving the Catholic Church. I've been a Catholic all my life, 53 years. Even when I have doubts, I have to echo the words of St. Peter: Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

Honestly, I wouldn't know where else to go.

So I won't be leaving the Catholic Church..I'll just leave the Theological Debate Forum. LOL You really have to scratch your head and wonder why the old and new documents are in such contrast. It does look like we have two different churches sometimes. I have to question why so many of you pit these documents against each other, though. It's nasty to try and make the Church look like a liar. I can definitely see why some trads become Sedes.

- Lisa
StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
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. 
 

This is a very interesting point and I like it very much.  Why can't the Almighty Lord call anyone to Heaven that He wants?  For infants that die before baptism: their soul carries Original Sin, but declaring them Hellbound means that you, as a human, are declaring limits on an unlimited omnipotent God.

Baptism is required for all souls, but why posit a scenario where a God who creates the rules cannot waive His rules?

Consider Mt 20:13-15

Quote:13 But he answering said to one of them: Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? 14 Take what is thine, and go thy way: I will also give to this last even as to thee. 15 Or, is it not lawful for me to do what I will? is thy eye evil, because I am good?

God can welcome to salvation anyone He wants.  I hope for His mercy.  Heck, I hope for His mercy for all people, even baptized practicing Catholics who trip, hit their heads and die falling out of the confessional.

The Lord is just and merciful.  And when you die and stand before God for your judgement, beg for mercy, not justice. 

I'll do the same for a lost child.
The opposite of hope is despair, not presumption.   Despair is desparation -- dashed hope -- forlornness.  Presumption is the taking for granted that because God is merciful He will not condemn.  I.e., presumption of God's mercy is a sin against the Holy Ghost, which is unforgivable. 

I don't know what the problem is about unbaptized infants being deprived of the Beatific Vision.  There is no ambiguity or equivocation about God's commandment that without Baptism, you cannot enter heaven.   If unbaptized infants cannot enter heaven and they have not trasgressed serious sins which will condemn them to hell, where then would they go?  Do we need a solemn definition of Limbo to accept this doctrine with a catholic faith? 
Vincentius Wrote:I don't know what the problem is about unbaptized infants being deprived of the Beatific Vision. 
There is no ambiguity or equivocation about God's commandment that without Baptism, you cannot enter heaven.
He told that to people who could understand. The issue of those below the age of reason was never mentioned. There is no dogma concerning this.

Quote:If unbaptized infants cannot enter heaven and they have not trasgressed serious sins which will condemn them to hell, where then would they go?  Do we need a solemn definition of Limbo to accept this doctrine with a catholic faith? 

Do we need to argue about it? If unbaptised infants cannot enter heaven (and they may be able to) and they have no sins, why can't they eventually or immediately enter heaven or share in the glory of God?

We can all trust in God no matter what happens to them instead of trying to take advantage of those grieving with big words and complex arguments of personal opinions.
Vincentius Wrote:If unbaptized infants cannot enter heaven and they have not trasgressed serious sins which will condemn them to hell, where then would they go?  Do we need a solemn definition of Limbo to accept this doctrine with a catholic faith? 

Why bother? Even if Limbo exists now, it won’t after the final resurrection. Everything is passing away. Even heaven and earth shall pass away, (Matthew 24:32) Also, hell shall pass away.

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away (Rev 21: 1)

"And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.  And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.  And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.  And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. Revelation 21:2-7.

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Rev 21: 8)

So if heaven and earth is passing away (obviously Purgatory, too), and if hell will be thrown into the pool of fire, what then shall become of Limbo? This place of natural happiness but no beatific vision ? this place which is neither heaven nor hell…or is perhaps situated somewhere on the outer limits of hell?

 

Limbo certainly can't be a part of the New Jerusalem, can it? Where every tear shall be wiped away? And certainly there can't be any "natural happiness" in the pool of fire, where the worm dieth not, and the fire is unquenchable,. Can there?

 

Good luck with that..

 

- Lisa

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13