FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: My Soliloquies on the kinds of torments of unbaptized infants.
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
I just finished writing a 14 page paper in the vein of a soliloquy on the torments of unbaptized infants. It cites the dogmatic decrees of the Church, her condemned propositions, and the scriptures and synthesizes a view which is already allowable in the Church (Vindicated as a legitimate opinion by Cardinal Enrico Norris in the 18th century and confirmed as such by Pope Benedict XIV).

The theme is that any positing of Limbo as a place of PERFECT NATURAL HAPPINESS OF THE KIND ENJOYED BY ADAM BEFORE THE FALL is Pelagian and erroneous. Note, I am not a Jansenist and roundly condemn them as heretics. I subscribe to everything written by all the Popes, including Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei. I label no man a heretic, and do not consider a man who holds to such a view of Limbo as a formal heretic, though I consider this view erroneous and materially proximate to heresy.

Please read and give me your thoughts.

Let us end with a psalm of Moses:

“A fire is kindled in my wrath, and shall burn even to the lowest hell: and shall devour the earth with her increase, and shall burn the foundations of the mountains. [23] I will heap evils upon them, and will spend my arrows among them. [24] They shall be consumed with famine, and birds shall devour them with a most bitter bite: I will send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the fury of creatures that trail upon the ground, and of serpents. [25] Without, the sword shall lay them waste, and terror within, both the young man and the virgin, the sucking child with the man in years.”

Happy reading!
Baptism has a concrete effect on the soul, even on the soul of a little baby.  Not being baptized means that they do not have that effect on their souls.  That's important, because a sacrament's validity is not determined by whether or not one "feels" like it is valid.  A group of lay actors could carefully research, rehearse, and perform an incredibly beautiful Catholic liturgy, and viewing it as a work of art may be very edifying to those who believe in the Catholic Faith, but there would be no valid sacrament no matter how pious the intent may be.  Even so, it seems unjust that God would be prevented from saving the soul of a dead baby simply because that baby's parents had not chosen to have them baptized.  Personally, I am inclined to believe that God would provide an extraordinary grace (baptism of desire) for the soul of the dead baby.  The culpability for being unbaptized would fall completely on the souls of the parents.  In cases of miscarriage or stillbirth, I don't think there would be any parental culpability.  It is a sin, however, and quite possibly a mortal sin, to delay an infant's baptism for an inordinate amount of time.
(03-16-2017, 02:27 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: [ -> ]Baptism has a concrete effect on the soul, even on the soul of a little baby.  Not being baptized means that they do not have that effect on their souls.  That's important, because a sacrament's validity is not determined by whether or not one "feels" like it is valid.  A group of lay actors could carefully research, rehearse, and perform an incredibly beautiful Catholic liturgy, and viewing it as a work of art may be very edifying to those who believe in the Catholic Faith, but there would be no valid sacrament no matter how pious the intent may be.  Even so, it seems unjust that God would be prevented from saving the soul of a dead baby simply because that baby's parents had not chosen to have them baptized.  Personally, I am inclined to believe that God would provide an extraordinary grace (baptism of desire) for the soul of the dead baby.  The culpability for being unbaptized would fall completely on the souls of the parents.  In cases of miscarriage or stillbirth, I don't think there would be any parental culpability.  It is a sin, however, and quite possibly a mortal sin, to delay an infant's baptism for an inordinate amount of time.

It's a nice thought, but dogmatically defined that the souls of those who die in original sin alone descend to hell where they are punished but unequally from those who are in mortal sin.
(03-16-2017, 02:31 AM)Gregory I Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-16-2017, 02:27 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: [ -> ]Baptism has a concrete effect on the soul, even on the soul of a little baby.  Not being baptized means that they do not have that effect on their souls.  That's important, because a sacrament's validity is not determined by whether or not one "feels" like it is valid.  A group of lay actors could carefully research, rehearse, and perform an incredibly beautiful Catholic liturgy, and viewing it as a work of art may be very edifying to those who believe in the Catholic Faith, but there would be no valid sacrament no matter how pious the intent may be.  Even so, it seems unjust that God would be prevented from saving the soul of a dead baby simply because that baby's parents had not chosen to have them baptized.  Personally, I am inclined to believe that God would provide an extraordinary grace (baptism of desire) for the soul of the dead baby.  The culpability for being unbaptized would fall completely on the souls of the parents.  In cases of miscarriage or stillbirth, I don't think there would be any parental culpability.  It is a sin, however, and quite possibly a mortal sin, to delay an infant's baptism for an inordinate amount of time.

It's a nice thought, but dogmatically defined that the souls of those who die in original sin alone descend to hell where they are punished but unequally from those who are in mortal sin.

Where?
Gregory is referring to this, I believe:

"Pope Gregory X:
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only… immediately descend into Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments” (a declaration at the Second Council of Lyon, Profession of Faith for Michael Paleologus, 1274) (Denzinger 464).

Pope Eugene IV:
“Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds” (his decree from the Ecumenical Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli [Decree for the Greeks], July 6, 1439) (Denzinger 693)."

http://prolife365.com/what-happens-to-un...-they-die/

Also from that website:

"Pope Pius VI:
The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire… is false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools” (Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794) (Denzinger 1526).
(In other words, Pope Pius VI condemned the belief that the teaching of the limbo of the children was mere myth.)" - emphasis mine

(03-16-2017, 02:55 AM)In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]Gregory is referring to this, I believe:

"Pope Gregory X:
“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only… immediately descend into Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments” (a declaration at the Second Council of Lyon, Profession of Faith for Michael Paleologus, 1274) (Denzinger 464).

Pope Eugene IV:
“Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds” (his decree from the Ecumenical Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli [Decree for the Greeks], July 6, 1439) (Denzinger 693)."

http://prolife365.com/what-happens-to-un...-they-die/

Also from that website:

"Pope Pius VI:
The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire… is false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools” (Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794) (Denzinger 1526).
(In other words, Pope Pius VI condemned the belief that the teaching of the limbo of the children was mere myth.)" - emphasis mine

Correct. But Pope Pius VI was more specific, he condemned the Jansenists for thinking that, since some theologians postulated limbo of the infants was without fire, that this meant it was automatically in a third state of blessed happiness. That is not true. It is not pelagian and it is not a heresy to say unbaptized infants do not suffer in fire.

My contention however is, that to say unbaptized infants exist in a state of pure natural bliss that is identical to Adam's happiness before the fall, THAT is erroneous and Pelagian.
What about this?

"Saint Augustine taught the concept of Limbo, but with a harder edge. He held that unbaptized infants suffer some pain of sense. The Augustinian view held sway for centuries, but was eventually overcome by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who argued along the lines of Saint Gregory Nanzianzus, that “the souls in Limbo do not suffer pain, and have, in fact, full natural happiness,” but without the Beatific Vision." - emphasis mine

http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/limbo.asp
Read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this matter: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Assuming you're not making some confusions yourself in this subtle matter, you're holding a vastly minority viewpoint on an issue that is open to legitimate debate. Would you really hold to the idea that the majority of theologians held a view materially proximate to heresy on this issue, theologians who were thoroughly trained and knowledgeable about these matters? I feel there should be a little more caution treading here...

Also, it's fairly well established that we ought to accept the general consensus of the theologians, so if anything, to deny the traditional and majority teaching seems more evidently proximate to heresy.
I don't see any other way around this.  To believe that God punishes infants for original sin alone is to profess belief in an unjust God.

- Humans are given no choice in whether they will come into existence.
- We are not capable of sinning at an age where our own consciousness is not yet fully developed, much less an ability to reason.
- Despite the caveat from the Church, it is not logically possible that people who did not yet exist somehow mystically participated in Adam's sin.  His sin was his alone and, regardless of whether his sin had the effect of altering physical reality for everyone else, it was a choice that he alone made.  For someone to be born in this state and to be condemned solely for being born in this state is a travesty of the word "justice."
- If it is just for God to punish people for being in a state that they had no control over, had no say over, in fact are merely a victim of, it makes the word 'justice' completely devoid of meaning.

This becomes even more horrifying if it is true that the majority of Christian faithful, throughout the history of the Church, believed God to judge unbaptized infants in such a way.  It means the majority of the Church believed in a God that was logically incapable of true justice on this issue.  I think it would behoove Catholics to really look into their hearts and see what it means about their God and themselves if they really believe such an objectively irrational teaching.
(03-16-2017, 09:31 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see any other way around this.  To believe that God punishes infants for original sin alone is to profess belief in an unjust God.

- Humans are given no choice in whether they will come into existence.
- We are not capable of sinning at an age where our own consciousness is not yet fully developed, much less an ability to reason.
- Despite the caveat from the Church, it is not logically possible that people who did not yet exist somehow mystically participated in Adam's sin.  His sin was his alone and, regardless of whether his sin had the effect of altering physical reality for everyone else, it was a choice that he alone made.  For someone to be born in this state and to be condemned solely for being born in this state is a travesty of the word "justice."
- If it is just for God to punish people for being in a state that they had no control over, had no say over, in fact are merely a victim of, it makes the word 'justice' completely devoid of meaning.

This becomes even more horrifying if it is true that the majority of Christian faithful, throughout the history of the Church, believed God to judge unbaptized infants in such a way.  It means the majority of the Church believed in a God that was logically incapable of true justice on this issue.  I think it would behoove Catholics to really look into their hearts and see what it means about their God and themselves if they really believe such an objectively irrational teaching.

I'm going to go with "what did the greatest saints and doctors of the Church believe" rather than some concern-trolling non-Catholic on an internet forum.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7