Hope or Presumption?
#81
Except for the fact that it's always associated with fire.
Reply
#82
Vincentius Wrote: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.
Yes, as noted, this is using an analogy one can understand, as a furnace would be very easily understood (how many people in that area would be able to visualise extreme cold?)

The effects of cold are very real indeed. As I said, the properties described are of extreme cold.

Quote: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."

Reply
#83
didishroom Wrote:Except for the fact that it's always associated with fire.
It is not always associated, just commonly.

Also, the description of hell above indicated there was light of a sort (if taken to mean fire, but as I have shown, it is not what it actually is), but Jesus Himself said:

Matthew 8:12 Wrote:But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Reply
#84
Quote: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)?

It's simply a matter of justice, and acknowledging that the Beatific Vision is not a right inherent in our nature, and that by not giving it, God is still perfectly just.  Our irrational emotions are not going to change that. 

The true debate regarding limbo where one was free to have a theological opinion was about the nature of the suffering or lack thereof in this state.  The minority view being that the souls in children's limbo are happier existing than not existing, and the majority view being that the souls in children's limbo are positively and naturally perfectly happy.   

Quote: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.

I think many modernists have the idea that Original Sin was eliminated from humanity by Christ, and that practically it does not taint our spiritual progress like Pelagians believed. 

That infants can't do anything for their own salvation neither by themselves or by proxy creates the huge problem of predestination. 

When a baby is baptized by water, it has obligations it must fulfill.  The sponsors take the vows for it. Free will is involved by proxy.  The grace works ex opere operato.

However, in hoping that unbaptized infants attain salvation, you are talking about grace working ex opere operantis.  BUT, infants don't have the will to make the good disposition necessary for the grace to work.  If we can hope unbaptized infants attain Heaven, than we are saying that there is hope that everyone is practically immaculately conceived. We're hoping Original Sin does not have an impact on us, which is hoping for heresy.       


Reply
#85
Quote:It's simply a matter of justice, and acknowledging that the Beatific Vision is not a right inherent in our nature, and that by not giving it, God is still perfectly just.

On this we can agree. God would still be perfectly just not to give it. Limbo, as it were, is the natural default for man without grace.

Recognizing that, however, doesnt require one to deny hope that God, nevertheless, may step in and give grace, out of mercy not justice, to the unbaptized before their death.

I would also point out that God would still be perfectly Just to not give salvation to an unbaptized martyr or catechumen. They have no claim to it in Justice. Desire and Blood give no Title in justice like water baptism.

And yet, I think God does give them salvation almost certainly. But out of mercy, not justice.

Quote:When a baby is baptized by water, it has obligations it must fulfill.  The sponsors take the vows for it. Free will is involved by proxy.  The grace works ex opere operato.

Well, I dont know about "free will involved by proxy" but I know what you mean. The Church certainly provides a forum whereby the child's consent is phrased positively by someone else (though, really, this is simply a manifestation of the assumption that the child is, personally, non-resistant to the grace).

Quote:However, in hoping that unbaptized infants attain salvation, you are talking about grace working ex opere operantis.

No, I'm not. You are. You are the one proposing that some ex opere operantis "means" like desire or blood is needed for the gaining of grace outside the sacrament. I am proposing that sometimes God may give grace, essentially ex opere operato, even without the visible sacrament itself. If God can simply infuse it in the sacrament as long as there was non-resistance, He could just infuse it outside.

Quote:BUT, infants don't have the will to make the good disposition necessary for the grace to work.

Neither do baptized infants. But they can (and are assumed) to non-resist, and the Church supplies the rest, as you say, and we know they recieve grace, ex opere operato. If the Church can supply visibly, God can supply invisibly.

Quote:If we can hope unbaptized infants attain Heaven, than we are saying that there is hope that everyone is practically immaculately conceived. We're hoping Original Sin does not have an impact on us, which is hoping for heresy.

First of all, the only hope discussed here so far is that such grace would be recieved at the moment of death, so that's hardly making everyone into John the Baptist (and certainly not "practically Immaculately Concieved").

But even taking the extreme view where God (perhaps in order to maximize merit?) does invisibly give everyone grace as early as possible...we know that Original Sin still very much does have an effect on us! After all, there is still suffering, death, concupiscence, and personal sin in the world! Even infants (even baptized infants) suffer and die.

We are utterly dependent on God's grace, and any hope of unrevealed salvation...must remember this. Even if God were really giving grace to everyone in the womb invisibly, this was obviously deliberately not revealed and only Baptism was. The exclusive nature of our knowledge of which serves to remind us of the utterly gratuitous nature of grace, which people might come to presume if God publically revealed that He does other things. Which is why I do insist on the hypothetical recognition of Limbo even while hoping that no one is actually allowed to go there.

Not that they are entirely parallel, but for example...would it really matter if the government really didnt send anyone to prison? Would it really matter if the president secretly pardoned them and, out of his own funds, sent them all to some island vacation instead? As long as no one found out, I dont think so. It's the threat of punishment that keeps society orderly. Justice is still achieved as long as no one finds out that the government is sending people to the island instead. At least, in a true understanding of justice. Justice is not about punishing the criminal, that is merely a (deterrent) means to Justice, which is assuring a safe society and, by that, repaying the victim with an effort at "never again". People may hope they'll get pardoned if they commit a crime. I mean...they know it is theoretically possible. But if people found out that they're being pardoned as a matter of course...then crime would become common. Sometimes deliberately withholding information can have a very clear purpose, as "hope" is a LONG way from certainty when it comes to the practical effects on our behavior, especially when we are hoping for what is officially an exception.

Of course, in a Western "substitutional atonement" legal analogy of salvation (not an invalid analogy, but not the whole picture either)...a certain mindset is bound to arise, that interaction with the Christian East could help to balance...
Reply
#86
Quote:No, I'm not. You are. You are the one proposing that some ex opere operantis "means" like desire or blood is needed for the gaining of grace outside the sacrament. I am proposing that sometimes God may give grace, essentially ex opere operato, even without the visible sacrament itself. If God can simply infuse it in the sacrament as long as there was non-resistance, He could just infuse it outside.

Does it make sense that God's providence would create natural impediments, and then overcome these same natural impediments without necessity, desire on the part of the baptized, or the Church's intercession? Even the angels had a choice.  And with no precedence in Scripture or Tradition, we can call this notion a modernist fable, unlike children's limbo, which has backing from the ordinary magisterium.      
Reply
#87
Quote:Does it make sense that God's providence would create natural impediments, and then overcome these same natural impediments without necessity, desire on the part of the baptized, or the Church's intercession?

It makes at least as much sense as the alternative.

Quote:And with no precedence in Scripture or Tradition, we can call this notion a modernist fable, unlike children's limbo, which has backing from the ordinary magisterium

Again, you are re-framing this as a debate about the existence of Limbo, when I have repeatedly emphasized that Limbo is indeed the natural destination for man without grace. I am fully behind the magisterium and theologians on limbo and exclusion from the beatific vision for those who die in original sin.

The debate is not over limbo, which I'm not questioning, at least hypothetically, but over whether anyone is allowed to die in such a way as to have to go there, or if God steps in and gives grace before death privately and unrevealed.

And for the latter, exactly because it is private and unrevealed, hope is certainly possible.
Reply
#88
Quote:It makes at least as much sense as the alternative.

Which is what exactly?

Quote:Again, you are re-framing this as a debate about the existence of Limbo, when I have repeatedly emphasized that Limbo is indeed the natural destination for man without grace. I am fully behind the magisterium and theologians on limbo and exclusion from the beatific vision for those who die in original sin.

The debate is not over limbo, which I'm not questioning, at least hypothetically, but over whether anyone is allowed to die in such a way as to have to go there, or if God steps in and gives grace before death privately and unrevealed.

And for the latter, exactly because it is private and unrevealed, hope is certainly possible.

The problem is that the two ideas are mutually exclusive.  Either these souls go to Limbo, or they go to Heaven, unless you want to argue that God's mercy is arbitrary and sends souls to both. 

Children's limbo does not exist if there are no children in it, and their souls have to be somewhere. I don't see what authority the Church has to tell people that they may hope in something that has no basis in Scripture or Tradition.  We can come up with all sorts of strange hypothesis that we may have "hope" for in that case. 





Reply
#89
Quote:Which is what exactly?

That God could do something, something that helps achieve His stated goals, yet doesnt out of some sort of arbitrary legalism. And then specifically revealed that.

Quote:The problem is that the two ideas are mutually exclusive.  Either these souls go to Limbo, or they go to Heaven, unless you want to argue that God's mercy is arbitrary and sends souls to both.

We dont know what He does, that's up for Him to decide in each individual case. It certainly wouldnt be unjust to save some randomly and not others, as no one has any right to it in the first place.

And yet, I think you are seeing, in this statement, that "wouldnt be unjust" is not the be-all and end-all of our analysis of things. 

Quote:Children's limbo does not exist if there are no children in it,

There's where we disagree. Or, well, it depends on your definition of "exists". The state not being actualized in anyone (at least not anymore, before Christ it could be argued that the Old Testament fathers were in essentially the same state, just not permanently)...doesnt change the truth of the statement, "If someone died in a state of original sin, they would be deprived of the beatific vision". Whether that actually happens was never the point of discussion, it was the hypothetical rule. Which I totally support and think needs to be taught more.

Quote:I don't see what authority the Church has to tell people that they may hope in something that has no basis in Scripture or Tradition.  We can come up with all sorts of strange hypothesis that we may have "hope" for in that case.


If it doesnt contradict Revelation, yes, we may cautiously hope. Revelation is not exhaustive.
Reply
#90
Quote:That God could do something, something that helps achieve His stated goals, yet doesnt out of some sort of arbitrary legalism. And then specifically revealed that.

Since nature already achieves its goals as is, a natural impediment is not an arbitrary legalism. 

Quote:If it doesnt contradict Revelation, yes, we may cautiously hope. Revelation is not exhaustive.

Then you can support my assertion that Catholics may equally hope unbaptized infants don't have a way of salvation.  After all, God's mercy is commensurate with his justice, and we have no indication of a meritorious act taking place.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)