Why does everyone blame God when bad things happen?
#71
(06-18-2011, 04:25 PM)Joshua Wrote:
(06-18-2011, 10:46 AM)Gregory I Wrote: Suarez was no friend to Augustinians.

... which a Catholic is free to be.

Regardless, I adhere to the Thomistic understanding of the Limbo of the Infants which states:

(A) The only punishment unbaptized infants endure is the deprivation of the Beatific Vision
(B) Punishment is proportionate to fault. Sensible pain is due to actual sins and, having died before having committed any actual sin, these infants do not deserve that suffering.
© The privation of the Beatific Vision is not a source of pain for unbaptized infants. These souls have no knowledge of the supernatural destiny they have missed, this knowledge being itself supernatural, and as such not included in what is naturally due to the separated soul. ("no wise man grieves for being unable to fly like a bird.")
(D) Unbaptized infants enjoy natural happiness.

Read post #58 for citations.

I agree with A in the sense that the unbaptized do not suffer Fire.
B. Punishment is proportionate to fault. The problem is, that the Guilt of original sin is in each as his own sin. THis is explicitly taught in at least 3 places in session 5 and 6 of the council of trent.
C. THen in what sense are they punished?
D. THen in what sense are they punished?

THe church clearly teaches they endure punishment. So, if they don't feel it, it isn't real.
Reply
#72
(06-18-2011, 05:13 AM)Joshua Wrote:
(06-18-2011, 04:10 AM)Gregory I Wrote: That cannot be said FOR SURE, because we do not know how hell is actually organized. We know that those who go to hell with the stain of original sin alone are:

A. Really in Hell.
i. Hell is both the pain of sense, and the pain of loss.
ii. It is not unreasonable to believe infants only experience the pain of loss but...
B. Punished.
i. For a punishment to be real, it must be felt.
ii. Infants who are not baptized must undergo some form of at least passive punishment.

I see no reason to hope for rainbows and unicorns. Just not fire.

Aquinas teaches that:

(A) The only punishment unbaptized infants endure is the deprivation of the Beatific Vision
(B) Punishment is proportionate to fault. Sensible pain is due to actual sins and, having died before having committed any actual sin, these infants do not deserve that suffering.

Supplement to the Summa - Q70: Wrote:I answer that, Punishment should be proportionate to Fault, according to the saying of Isaias xxvii.8, In measure against measure, when it shall be cast off, thou shalt judge it.  Now, the defect transmitted to us through our origin and, having the character of a sin, does not result from the withdrawal or corruption of a good consequent upon human nature by virtue of its principles but from the withdrawal or corruption of something that had been super-added to nature.  Nor does this sin belong to this particular man, except insofar as he has such a nature, that is deprived of this good which, in the ordinary course of things, he would have had and would have been able to keep.  Wherefore, no further punishment is due to him besides the privation of that end to which the gift withdrawn destined him, which gift human nature is unable of itself to obtain.  Now, this is the divine vision and consequently the loss of this vision is the proper and only punishment of original sin after death: because, if any other sensible punishment were inflicted after death for original sin, a man would be punished out of proportion to his guilt, for sensible punishment is inflicted for that which is proper to the person, since a man undergoes sensible punishment insofar as he suffers in his person.  Hence, as his guilt did not result from an action of his own, even so, neither should he be punished by suffering himself but only by losing that which his nature was unable to obtain.  On the other hand, those who are under sentence for original sin will suffer no loss whatever in other kinds of perfection and goodness which are consequent upon human nature by virtue of its principles.

© The privation of the Beatific Vision is not a source of pain for unbaptized infants. These souls have no knowledge of the supernatural destiny they have missed, this knowledge being itself supernatural, and as such not included in what is naturally due to the separated soul. ("no wise man grieves for being unable to fly like a bird.")
(D)Unbaptized infants enjoy natural happiness.

Supplement to the Summa - Q71: Wrote:On the contrary,if baptised children have interior sorrow after death, they will grieve either for their sin or for their punishment.  If for their sin, since they cannot be further cleansed from that sin, their sorrow will lead them to despair.  Now sorrow of this kind in the damned is the worm of conscience.  Therefore these children will have the worm of conscience and consequently, theirs would not be the mildest punishment, as Augustine says it is.  If, on the other hand, they grieve for their punishment, it follows, since their punishment is justly inflicted by God, that their will opposes itself to divine justice and thus would be actually inordinate, which is not to be granted.  Therefore they will feel no sorrow.

Further, right reason does not allow one to be disturbed on account of what one was unable to avoid; hence Seneca proves (Ep. 1xxxv., and De Ira ii. 6) that a wise man is not disturbed.  Now in these children, there is right reason deflected by no actual sin.  Therefore they will not be disturbed for that they undergo this punishment which they could nowise avoid.

...

Accordingly, it must be observed that if one is guided by right reason, one does not grieve through being deprived of what is beyond one’s power to obtain but only through lack of that which, in some way, one is capable of obtaining.  Thus, no wise man grieves for being unable to fly like a bird or for that he is not a king or an emperor, since these things are not due to him; whereas he would grieve if he lacked that to which he had some kind of claim.  I say, then, that every man who has the use of free-will is adapted to obtain eternal life, because he can prepare himself for grace whereby to merit eternal life; so that if he fail in this, his grief will be very great, since he has lost what he was able to possess.  But children were never adapted to possess eternal life, since neither was this due to them by virtue of their natural principles, for it surpasses the entire faculty of nature, nor could they perform acts of their own whereby to obtain so great a good.  Hence they will nowise grieve for being deprived of the divine vision; nay, rather will they rejoice for that they will have a large share of God’s goodness and their own natural perfections.  Nor can it be said that they were adapted to obtain eternal life, not indeed by their own action but by the actions of others around them, since they could be baptised by others, like other children of the same condition who have been baptised and obtained eternal life: for this is of superabundant grace that one should be rewarded without any act of one’s own.  Wherefore the lack of such a grace will not cause sorrow in children who die without Baptism, any more than the lack of many graces accorded to others of the same condition makes a wise man to grieve.


This.
Reply
#73
(06-18-2011, 06:58 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-18-2011, 04:41 AM)wulfrano Wrote: I think you are very cruel.  You forget the Resurrection.  Those babies will have their bodies and, like I say, will walk in a new Garden Of Eden at the evening zephir with the Lord at their side.

After the final resurrection, unbaptised babies "will not walk in a new Garden Of Eden at the evening zephir with the Lord at their side" but will abide in Hell.

"Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Period.

I think that you are very cruel.
Reply
#74
(06-18-2011, 06:58 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-18-2011, 04:41 AM)wulfrano Wrote: I think you are very cruel.  You forget the Resurrection.  Those babies will have their bodies and, like I say, will walk in a new Garden Of Eden at the evening zephir with the Lord at their side.

After the final resurrection, unbaptised babies "will not walk in a new Garden Of Eden at the evening zephir with the Lord at their side" but will abide in Hell.

"Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Period.


I think that you are very cruel.
Reply
#75
(06-18-2011, 07:17 AM)Joshua Wrote:
(06-18-2011, 06:58 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-18-2011, 04:41 AM)wulfrano Wrote: I think you are very cruel.  You forget the Resurrection.  Those babies will have their bodies and, like I say, will walk in a new Garden Of Eden at the evening zephir with the Lord at their side.

After the final resurrection, unbaptised babies "will not walk in a new Garden Of Eden at the evening zephir with the Lord at their side" but will abide in Hell.

"Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Period.

As far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong, Wulfrano), Wulfrano is perhaps saying that unbaptized infants will have the renovated Earth (to occur on the Day of Judgment) as their happy abode. This is a concept that was advocated by the eminent 16th century scholastic theologian, Francisco Suarez.


This.
Reply
#76
(06-18-2011, 08:21 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-18-2011, 07:17 AM)Joshua Wrote:
(06-18-2011, 06:58 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-18-2011, 04:41 AM)wulfrano Wrote: I think you are very cruel.  You forget the Resurrection.  Those babies will have their bodies and, like I say, will walk in a new Garden Of Eden at the evening zephir with the Lord at their side.

After the final resurrection, unbaptised babies "will not walk in a new Garden Of Eden at the evening zephir with the Lord at their side" but will abide in Hell.

"Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Period.

As far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong, Wulfrano), Wulfrano is perhaps saying that unbaptized infants will have the renovated Earth (to occur on the Day of Judgment) as their happy abode. This is a concept that was advocated by the eminent 16th century scholastic theologian, Francisco Suarez.

It seems to me that's just theological speculation, at best.

It's theological thinking that takes into account, above all, the Infinite Justice and Mercy of Almighty God.
Reply
#77
(06-18-2011, 10:46 AM)Gregory I Wrote: Suarez was no friend to Augustinians.

Wulfrano, there is nothing cruel about it. THey do not DESERVE heaven. GOd is not obliged to give it to them. And they have no known means of overcoming their state, which is a permanent one: Hell. I am not about to soothe the fates of unbaptized infants in the interest of feeling good if it results in compromising the revealed word of God:

Which is:

"All those who die...in original sin ALONE descend to hell, where they are punished, but differently than those who die in mortal sin. It was the heretical Pelagians and Semi Pelagians that maintained that unbaptized infants have some kind of "eternal life" and that they are simply baptiZed to be made members of the church, but not to take away sin.

THe Council of Trent is FIRMLY anti-Pelagian, as was st. Augustine. Here is what the council said:

Session 5, Paragraph 4

4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

This is a canon about infants, for infants, and concerning infants. And in this context, the council fathers quote the words of Christ. They therefore apply the words of Christ to infants: None are saved who are not baptized.

DO not judge with human justice, but with the justice of God.

cruel...lol. It's not like I put them there. Yes, I have three kids, I just had a baby. He is not yet baptized, and I acknowledge his need for it. If he should die before receiving baptism, then God's will be done. I accept as his fate whatever God wils, because he only wills what is best.

Please read St.Thomas' Supplement Qs. 71-72. ¨Please read Francisco Suarez.  (Thank you, Joshua! :salute:)

Reply
#78
(06-18-2011, 11:55 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: It's not right, but blaming God is easy because He has power over all life and death. That's actually a more pious sentiment than just being an atheist.

A related question: why does everyone thank God when something good happens? And by "good", I mean like your favorite team winning the Super Bowl, winning a bet on a horse race, or scoring a second date.

The only things God gives us are good.
Reply
#79
(06-18-2011, 12:33 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(06-18-2011, 12:21 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Vetus: I'll buy that. Thanks.

The point is to give thanks to God in all things, whether good or bad, because that way we conform to His will, fully recognising His absolute sovereignty over creation.

Even in trivial things that do not pertain to the spirit or to our salvation, like passing an exam, our favourite team winning a game, eating a good meal, etc., we should always give thanks to God because none of it would happen if He didn't will it to happen. God oversees everything. "Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? Yea, the very hairs of your head are all numbered." (Luke 12:6-7)

Contrariwise, when things go bad, give thanks to Him as well because nothing escapes His will.


This.
Reply
#80
(06-18-2011, 04:25 PM)Joshua Wrote:
(06-18-2011, 10:46 AM)Gregory I Wrote: Suarez was no friend to Augustinians.

... which a Catholic is free to be.

Regardless, I adhere to the Thomistic understanding of the Limbo of the Infants which states:

(A) The only punishment unbaptized infants endure is the deprivation of the Beatific Vision
(B) Punishment is proportionate to fault. Sensible pain is due to actual sins and, having died before having committed any actual sin, these infants do not deserve that suffering.
© The privation of the Beatific Vision is not a source of pain for unbaptized infants. These souls have no knowledge of the supernatural destiny they have missed, this knowledge being itself supernatural, and as such not included in what is naturally due to the separated soul. ("no wise man grieves for being unable to fly like a bird.")
(D) Unbaptized infants enjoy natural happiness.

Read post #58 for citations.


This.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)