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
Quote:
Except for the resurrection of the dead when souls are reuinited to bodies.


 

This seems absurd as even Eskimos realize fire burns. The missionaries were apparently not good communicators

Weird, but I agree competely with you here.

While demons have no bodies and thus any representations of them in visions are made that way to represent their evilness, after the Resurrection we will all have our bodies, so I believe, at least then, hell will have real fire.
Quote:No other remedy is "available" to them. All we have been given is water baptism.

That doesnt mean that God doesnt have other remedies available to Him.

Them is referring to remedies available to infants, and God does not need to be remedied of anything.  You can't distort what is said and meant which the Catholic Encyclopedia and Catechism of the Council of Trent corroborate.  Baptism of desire cannot apply to infants who lack free will.  Modernist theologians are telling us that we are permitted to "hope" in an innovative idea that does not exist except in their emotional imaginations.
 
Quote:No. Just our recognition of God as merciful, desiring the salvation of all, and not a legalist. If Revelation doesnt exclude it, we can hope it happens.

But not at the expense of a theological certainty which Children's Limbo is.

Quote:Them is referring to remedies available to infants, and God does not need to be remedied of anything.

But God has remedies for infants that are not be available to the infants themselves. ie, given as revealed like water baptism. That is now within our power, our ordinary reach. Baptism is available to us. Other means...are available only to God. You are twisting the meaning of the word "available"...

Quote:But not at the expense of a theological certainty which Children's Limbo is.

Though not to confuse it with Abraham's Bosom ("limbo of the fathers")...I call it just Limbo. As I believe it is also the hypothetical destination of adults who die with original sin on their soul too.

The question is whether any adults, or children, are allowed to die with original sin on their soul.

The existence of the place or state as the natural default without grace...is certain. The question of whether anyone in practice goes there...cannot be known. So we may hope.

People need to stop re-framing the question just to win the debate. That is sophistry. The question is not about the "existence of Limbo"...it is about whether we may hope God remits original sin through some private extraordinary dispensation, before death, for all (or some) otherwise innocent non-resistant people, including possibly infants.
Quote:The existence of the place or state as the natural default without grace...is certain. The question of whether anyone in practice goes there...cannot be known. So we may hope.

People need to stop re-framing the question just to win the debate. That is sophistry. The question is not about the "existence of Limbo"...it is about whether we may hope God remits original sin through some private extraordinary dispensation, before death, for all (or some) otherwise innocent non-resistant people, including possibly infants.

Of course the question is about the existence of Limbo.  The theological commission continually refers to it as merely an idea, theory, or hypothesis without foundation in Revelation.  They say the "theory of limbo" is "
understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin."  You say the state is an absolute certainty but hope no one goes there. The theological commission doesn't consider the state as certain. 

Quote:The idea of Limbo, which the Church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without Baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation, even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching...

Quote:It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory...

Quote:However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned.

It's a new Pelagianism. 

Well, okay, "Limbo" itself was never totally defined, but Hell was, as the destination for those who die in original sin only. Such as at Florence, etc.

And since I doubt we want to posit the Hell of the Damned...Limbo is naturally implied as the better interpretation of "hell".

So suppose it wouldnt be heresy to deny Limbo hypothetically if you believed that their destination was the Hell of the Damned instead, I suppose that is not excluded as an interpretation of the word "hell" in the relevant dogmatic statements...but who would want to believe that and why (even if that person also hoped that God stepped in before death for all innocents)?

Quote:It's a new Pelagianism.

Even people who take too certain a view of the salvation of the unbaptized are not Pelagianist, but in some ways an opposite. As you say, infants cant DO anything for their own salvation, so it would necessarily come entirely from God's grace and mercy.

StevusMagnus Wrote:No matter how you spin it then, Hell is Hell. Eternal separation from God and punisment. How one can be "naturally happy" in Hell is anyone's guess and speculation. So therefore saved parents can never again see their unbaptized babies because they are frolicking in a "nice" part of Hell separated from them forever?

This is insanity to me.

Exactly! Thank you, Stevus. Finally something we agree upon! The issue that is always neglected in these discussions is the FINAL RESURRECTION. Everyone who has ever lived.. and even those infants who die in the womb, will be resurrected with a BODY on the Last Day. And the Last Day gives us only TWO destinations.. 1. The New Heaven and Earth (Paradise), or 2. The Lake of Fire, prepared for the devil and his angels where there is ETERNAL TORMENT.
 
There is no "natural happiness" or lack of misery in the Lake of Fire, called the "second death." How can there be any happiness where one is separated eternally from God? This is insanity to me, too.
 
- Lisa
StevusMagnus Wrote:Except for the resurrection of the dead when souls are reuinited to bodies.
Yes, but still, all descriptions of hell describe a place of extreme cold, not heat.

Quote:This seems absurd as even Eskimos realize fire burns. The missionaries were apparently not good communicators.

Well, consider the phrase "eternal fires of hell". To a Christian, this makes sense, but to someone who lived in the extreme cold, this sounds quite cozy. Now, if they envisioned being in the fire for all eternity, it would not have been so bad, but the descriptions of hell are not so explicit. Imagine if you lived in isolation and suddenly people tell you there is a way to go to a place where there is eternal fire. (It was sorted out after, but you can see my point)
Quote:
Yes, but still, all descriptions of hell describe a place of extreme cold, not heat.
Sources?
The "lake of fire" allusion again:

StevusMagnus Wrote:
ONeill Wrote:The lack of physical bodies would make "hot" and "cold" meaningless and in effect, they are the same thing.

Except for the resurrection of the dead when souls are reuinited to bodies.

Quote:The fact that hell's fires are unquenchable and eternal speaks more of cold from a physics standpoint. Also consider the areas were this is, the missionaries to the Inuit had trouble with hell because when they were told about it, the Inuit found hell to be an attractive place because they really didn't have experience with extreme heat.


This seems absurd as even Eskimos realize fire burns. The missionaries were apparently not good communicators.

Quote: The fires of Hell are not literal usually.

The phrase used by Jesus refers mostly to Gehenna, a place near Jerusalem used for burning garbage and figuratively a gateway to the underworld. The fires are also paired with burning weeds and such.

Fire is very real indeed. Not the earthly fire that consumes and finally dies out. This fire of the next world does not consume but burns, singes, sears, etc.

Matthew 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from among the just. 50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Sister Lucia's account of the Vision of Hell:


Quote:"She opened Her hands once more, as She had done the two previous months. The rays [of light] appeared to penetrate the earth, and we saw, as it were, a vast sea of fire. Plunged in this fire, we saw the demons and the souls [of the damned]. The latter were like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, having human forms. They were floating about in that conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames which issued from within themselves, together with great clouds of smoke. Now they fell back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fright (it must have been this sight which caused me to cry out, as people say they heard me). The demons were distinguished [from the souls of the damned] by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals. That vision only lasted for a moment, thanks to our good Heavenly Mother, Who at the first apparition had promised to take us to Heaven. Without that, I think that we would have died of terror and fear."
 

didishroom Wrote:
Quote:
Yes, but still, all descriptions of hell describe a place of extreme cold, not heat.
Sources?

I said "describe", not "state". The descriptin of its properties describes cold.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13