My Soliloquies on the kinds of torments of unbaptized infants.
#11
(03-16-2017, 03:57 AM)richgr Wrote: 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 want to make it clear the only positive denial I advocate is this: that limbo is a state of perfect natural happiness.

Why? Because this is a reversal of the judgment of God. He exiled Adam and eve from the place and state of perfect natural happiness, and this exile is inherited in original sin. None of us are entitled to it, it has been taken from us as a just punishment.

Therefore, how can we admit it for infants who die without baptism without reversing the judgment of God?
Reply
#12
(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.

The dogmatic teaching of Trent is clear, as is the catechism of Trent. Unless they are baptized they are born to eternal misery and destruction, it says so.

But please download and read what I wrote. I am interested in a review of that.
Reply
#13
(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 completely agree. Supposedly, some popes, saints, and councils do not agree. I understand the theology of baptism and of original sin, but I also understand that God is not limited by the Sacraments. This is how there can be baptism of desire, baptism of blood, and perfect contrition through which mortal sin is forgiven without confession.
Reply
#14
(03-16-2017, 10:41 AM)mpk1987 Wrote: 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.

Just so we're clear, you're going with abdication of rational thought and deflection to someone else.  You're certainly free, or ought to be free, to do so, but please don't paint it as if you're doing anything else.
Reply
#15
(03-16-2017, 11:09 AM)Gregory I Wrote: The dogmatic teaching of Trent is clear, as is the catechism of Trent. Unless they are baptized they are born to eternal misery and destruction, it says so.

But please download and read what I wrote. I am interested in a review of that.

I'll have to decline.  I'm not interested in being infuriated for the rest of the day.
Reply
#16
(03-16-2017, 11:15 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote:
(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 completely agree. Supposedly, some popes, saints, and councils do not agree. I understand the theology of baptism and of original sin, but I also understand that God is not limited by the Sacraments. This is how there can be baptism of desire, baptism of blood, and perfect contrition through which mortal sin is forgiven without confession.

But nobody ever taught this for infants.

For example, St Augustine- up to the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, theologians taught unbaptized infants go to Hell and are in fire.

For a short time some taught infants are spiritually tormented by the loss of the beatific vision. Then there was taught that they are in a painless state, and finally until modern times that they enjoy natural happiness in Limbo.

But what's the common thread? They all taught they were in hell. Limbo is part of hell. So the binding tradition is really one of infant damnation, that's not the issue. The issue is this question l: "What is the nature of their damnation?"

Here is my answer- the nature of their eternal damnation corresponds to God's just punishment of them on this life, because the justice of God is consistent. He destroyed the whole of Sodom and Gomorrah in fire from heaven, infants included. He destroyed the earth in a flood, infants included. He sent his angel to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. He ordered the entire destruction Canaanite people's, infants included.

If these are all acts of Gids justice, and acts of divine punishment, then that which is in them is worthy of such punishment precisely because he is NOT unjust.

And Limbo supporters, ask yourself:

Are the souls of unbaptized infants sheep or goats? Are their names written in the book of life? Do they undergo the second death? In their particular judgment, does Christ say "Well done" or "depart from me?"

It's really stacked against positive natural happiness, this is why it was unchallenged 800 years.
Reply
#17
(03-16-2017, 11:19 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-16-2017, 11:09 AM)Gregory I Wrote: The dogmatic teaching of Trent is clear, as is the catechism of Trent. Unless they are baptized they are born to eternal misery and destruction, it says so.

But please download and read what I wrote. I am interested in a review of that.

I'll have to decline.  I'm not interested in being infuriated for the rest of the day.

So you're also abdicating? ;-)
Reply
#18
(03-16-2017, 11:26 AM)Gregory I Wrote: So you're also abdicating? ;-)

Haha, at least for the time being :)  I can't devote the time right now to reading a 12 page document, maybe later this weekend.

But when I do read it, will it present any conclusion different from what you have mentioned here?  If it is just a more theological explanation of what you have already stated, I doubt that I am educated enough (certainly not theologically trained) to offer any response other than the one I have already given.  So why infuriate myself needlessly?
Reply
#19
(03-16-2017, 11:25 AM)Gregory I Wrote: But nobody ever taught this for infants.

For example, St Augustine- up to the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, theologians taught unbaptized infants go to Hell and are in fire.

For a short time some taught infants are spiritually tormented by the loss of the beatific vision. Then there was taught that they are in a painless state, and finally until modern times that they enjoy natural happiness in Limbo.

But what's the common thread? They all taught they were in hell. Limbo is part of hell. So the binding tradition is really one of infant damnation, that's not the issue. The issue is this question l: "What is the nature of their damnation?"

Here is my answer- the nature of their eternal damnation corresponds to God's just punishment of them on this life, because the justice of God is consistent. He destroyed the whole of Sodom and Gomorrah in fire from heaven, infants included. He destroyed the earth in a flood, infants included. He sent his angel to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. He ordered the entire destruction Canaanite people's, infants included.

If these are all acts of Gids justice, and acts of divine punishment, then that which is in them is worthy of such punishment precisely because he is NOT unjust.

And Limbo supporters, ask yourself:

Are the souls of unbaptized infants sheep or goats? Are their names written in the book of life? Do they undergo the second death? In their particular judgment, does Christ say "Well done" or "depart from me?"

It's really stacked against positive natural happiness, this is why it was unchallenged 800 years.

If all of this is true - let's just say for the sake of argument that we could objectively prove that what you are saying is in fact true, and the early Church has been right all along.  You're saying God's justice is not the same as man's justice - which is certainly not an idea alien to Jewish and Christian scriptures.  But you are also saying that our system of justice, where we do not hold innocent parties guilty of crimes they did not commit and unjustly punish them for something someone else did wrong, is actually unjust itself, and that true justice is to punish them for things they did not do.  When you arrive at that position, how do you still find yourself able to love God?  I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't say it would be a good or just idea if, in our courts, if a man robbed a bank, we then took his children out to the public square and burned them at the stake, right?  And yet, this is what the Bible records God doing, as you've mentioned with Sodom and Gomorrah, the first-born of Egypt, etc.

So, at this point, anyone considering the situation rationally is faced with a dilemma.  Do they choose to believe that God does not actually do this?  Or do they accept that he does?  If you choose to accept that he does, is there no inkling in your conscience, even if it's just your fleshly conscience, that makes you think, even if just for a second, "Hmm, this is kind of cruel.  God is supposed to be loving, especially to children.  Something doesn't feel right here."  If you feel that, do you quash it?  If you don't feel that, why?  I really want to understand how people are confronted with a God like this, and choose to believe that it is accurate, rather than believe that either this God is just a myth like every other pagan god, or is real, but a sadistic monster that you cannot bring yourself to love, because you find his actions abhorrent.
Reply
#20
(03-16-2017, 11:17 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-16-2017, 10:41 AM)mpk1987 Wrote: 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.

Just so we're clear, you're going with abdication of rational thought and deflection to someone else.  You're certainly free, or ought to be free, to do so, but please don't paint it as if you're doing anything else.

Of course I defer to people who are now in Heaven and whose ideas have enriched the church over an apostate with an axe to grind. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)