Hope or Presumption?
#51
StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:I'm back with one more question. But first, this bit from Wikipedia: 
Quote: In 1984, when Joseph Ratzinger, then Cardinal Prefect of that Congregation, stated that, as a private theologian, he rejected the claim that children who die unbaptised cannot attain salvation, he was speaking for many academic theologians of his background and training.
 My question: If Cardinal Ratzinger, as a private theologian, can reject the claim that unbaptized babies go to hell, can I, as a private layman, do the same?

- Lisa

If you take what the Cardinal said above strictly, then it is heresy.  But I think what he meant is that Original Sin is somehow erased from the soul by Sanctifying grace in unbaptized babies.

The question is though, on what basis does he draw that conclusion?  There is no reason for believing that except to say that some people can't emotionally handle the theological certainty that unbaptized babies attain the natural happiness of Limbo rather than supernatural happiness in Heaven.  Emotions are the basis of the new theology.   
Reply
#52
Quote:The Council of Florence denies it:  "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God."

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.

Quote:If you take what the Cardinal said above strictly, then it is heresy.  But I think what he meant is that Original Sin is somehow erased from the soul by Sanctifying grace in unbaptized babies.

At some point BEFORE they die. Yes, I assume that is what he meant.

Quote:The question is though, on what basis does he draw that conclusion?  There is no reason for believing that except to say that some people can't emotionally handle the theological certainty that unbaptized babies attain the natural happiness of Limbo rather than supernatural happiness in Heaven.  Emotions are the basis of the new theology.

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.

Quote:Where is it defined?

The Council of Florence defined the necessity of Baptism and that infants should be baptised, but it did not say what happened to those who aren't.

"The souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments".
[The Second Oecumenical Council of Lyons, 1274 AD:

".... we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence ..... the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. [Pope Eugenious IV at the Oecumenical Council of Florence, 1439 AD]

For the hell of the damned, it is positive punishment too. For the limbo of hell, it would only be deprivation of the beatific vision.

So we do know what would happen IF someone actually died with original sin on their souls. The question is if God lets that happen to any otherwise innocent person, or if He infuses grace extraordinarily before death. We may hope.
Reply
#53
didishroom Wrote:Yes it is a dogma of the Church that unbaptized babies cannot enter heaven. The term "Limbo" was just never defined.

Yes, all unbaptized infant babies are going to burn in the eternal lake of hellfire prepared for the devil and his angels.

...but it's not important to dress up for Mass.

Therefore wear your cut offs, flip-flops, and band t-shirt to the Holy Sacrifice at Calvary all the while believing babies burn in Hell forever as a matter of dogma. Makes sense....
Reply
#54
Quote:Yes, all unbaptized infant babies are going to burn in the eternal lake of hellfire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Who ever said that? Do you even know what Limbo is? Obviously not.
Quote:...but it's not important to dress up for Mass
When did I say that?

Quote:Therefore wear your cut offs, flip-flops, and band t-shirt to the Holy Sacrifice at Calvary all the while believing babies burn in Hell forever as a matter of dogma. Makes sense....
Never have I nor anyone on thos board stated that unbaptized babies burn in hell.
Never
Reply
#55
I never accused you of wearing the stuff.

I do know what limbo is. A theory that was apparently done away with recently by theologians.

If water Baptism is the ONLY way to be saved and God is bound by it then unbaptized infants go to HELL. Speculation about creating some third eternal place never mentioned in the scripture nor definitively taught by the Church nonwithstanding.

So are you on record saying that that attire is not acceptable for Mass?
Reply
#56
Since it was the practice in early times, ala St. Augustine to hold off Baptism till, in many cases, near death, did they hold to this rigorist Feeneyite view of Baptism?

In the end these discussions are so silly since Baptism is simply the normative means of salvation and not the absolute means.

None other than Cardinal Ottaviani condemned Feeneyism as error.
Reply
#57
Quote:I never accused you of wearing the stuff.
Then why bring it up, while responding to one of my posts?

Quote:I do know what limbo is. A theory that was apparently done away with recently by theologians.
Yes, magic word. THEO-LO-GIANS. I am suprised that you of all people do not suscribe to this, when I'm pretty sure the SSPX has criticised the Vatican's recent document on Limbo. I know the FSSP did.

Quote:If water Baptism is the ONLY way to be saved and God is bound by it then unbaptized infants go to HELL. Speculation about creating some third eternal place never mentioned in the scripture nor definitively taught by the Church nonwithstanding.
Limbo is hell. Hell, be definition, is the eternal seperation from God. The Church has infallibly defined that people who die in mortal sin and original sin only go to 'different places' in hell.

Only the Jansenists believed they burned in the lake of fire which was condemned by the Church.


How many times must I keep reposting these quotes from the Magisterium? Stop bringing up your own personal reservations. Look at what the Church has said.


[Jansenist] teaching was condemned by Pope Pius VI in 1794:
The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name 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 fire, just as if by this very fact, that those who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state, free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk: [Condemned as] false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools (Denz. 1526).
 
The Ecumenical Council of Vienne defined that: “All the faithful must confess only one Baptism which regenerates all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is necessary for children and grown-up people alike for salvation” (Denzinger 482).
 
The Ecumenical Council of Florence declared: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell” (Denz. 693)


In his decree against the Synod of Pistoia in 1794, Pius VI alludes to “that place of the lower regions which the faithful generally designate as the limbo of the children” in which the souls of those dying “with the sole guilt of original sin” go.

 
Most Theologians believed there was no pain or fire or anything like that. They most likely have natural happiness. Just not the supernatural happiness of heaven. They exist like the souls of the Just did in hell before the Redemption, except these children will never be free.


Quote:So are you on record saying that that attire is not acceptable for Mass?
Normally of course not. But if for whatever reason at a particular time that's all you had to wear, you shouldn't skip Mass. Read the Gospels and see our Lord was more concerned with intentions and not externals.

Reply
#58
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.
Reply
#59
Quote: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.
Well stop thinking of guys with pitchforks dancing in bonfires. This is one of the problems is because people always think, "OMG babies in hell! Agghh how cruel!" That's only because they are not properly understanding how the Church defines hell.


Quote:
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.
I find this very strange, StevusMagnus. You and I don't get along, but you at least seemed to be one who took Truth and Principles over feelings and emotions. Everything is always black and white. The line is always very clear with you.

The Church has been very clear on this matter. Why would you disregard it because you can't fathom it?

Many saints supported this. The Pope condemned those who denied it. Why will you not accept?

Reply
#60
didishroom Wrote:The Church has been very clear on this matter. Why would you disregard it because you can't fathom it?

Many saints supported this. The Pope condemned those who denied it. Why will you not accept?

The Church has not been clear on this matter at all.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)