My Soliloquies on the kinds of torments of unbaptized infants.
#21
(03-16-2017, 11:49 AM)mpk1987 Wrote: 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.

Ok.  But for every other apostate with an axe to grind, or maybe just a few questions to grind, who may be reading and watching this thread, you just confirmed to them that what they dislike about the Church seems to be true: that rational thought is unwelcome here.
Reply
#22
duplicate
Reply
#23
(03-16-2017, 11:47 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(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.

I would say that you must demonstrate that infants are born innocent and not guilty. "For behold I was conceived in iniquities and in sins did my mother bear me."

And the wages of sin is death. Now it is manifest that infants die, and in some cases are positively punished by God with bodily death for their implication in the sins of their fathers. Therefore if infants die, then death is due to them as a wage for sin. Therefore infants are born guilty of the sin of Adam and his sin is in them as their own.

It makes me love God. And here is why- all of humanity is born into a state of condemnation justly deserved. Our default destiny is hell. But God loved us with such a love as to descend among us and grant mercy to some. And all of this to manifest his justice and his mercy, his great glory! And he is worthy of all love and adoration simply for being God, not because of our idolatrous notions of what God ought to be. That is a God of our imaginations.
Reply
#24
(03-16-2017, 12:05 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-16-2017, 11:49 AM)mpk1987 Wrote: 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.

Ok.  But for every other apostate with an axe to grind, or maybe just a few questions to grind, who may be reading and watching this thread, you just confirmed to them that what they dislike about the Church seems to be true: that rational thought is unwelcome here.

And you've confirmed what most people dislike in apostates et al., that they refuse to consider that deference to authority or those holier than you is a product of rational thought. 
Reply
#25
(03-16-2017, 01:08 AM)Gregory I Wrote: 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!

Do you believe in Limbo at all?  If you do, who would go there besides unbaptized babies?

Those upbaptized babies are not able to see the beatific vision, I agree.  That is just dogma.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif  - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” -Condemned


Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra:  “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.”


But positive torment in the same part of Hell of those who have committed actual sin?

Sure it was proposed by St. Augustine and allowed as an opinion, but never formally adopted by the Church. 

A person above the age of reason has graces sent to him and if he cooperates with those lights, follows the Natural Law and maintains good will, he is on the way to salvation and God will in due time send him what he needs to believe and Holy Baptism.  A miscarried baby or infant has no such chance of this and therefore a positive punishment would seem to vitiate against God's perfect justice.

"The Limbo of Children – It is of faith that all, children and adults, who leave this world without the Baptism of water, blood or desire and therefore in original sin are excluded from the Vision of God in Heaven. The great majority of theologians teach that such children and unbaptized adults free from grievous actual sin, enjoy eternally a state of perfect natural happiness, knowing and loving God by use of their natural powers. This place and state is commonly called Limbo." (Definition from A Catholic Dictionary, 1951)

*For the record I disagree with the above as it pertains to adults

“Suarez, for example, ignoring Bellarmine’s protest, continued to teach what Catharinus had taught — that unbaptized children will not only enjoy perfect natural happiness, but that they will rise with immortal bodies at the last day and have the renovated earth for their happy abode (De vit. et penat., ix, sect. vi, n. 4); and, without insisting on such details, the great majority of Catholic theologians have continued to maintain the general doctrine that the children’s limbo is a state of perfect natural happiness, just the same as it would have been if God had not established the present supernatural order” 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Limbo Summary

This is just a private revelation to St. Bridget and not the Magisterium but it seems in keeping with God's Justice:

First question. Again he appeared on his ladder as before, saying: "O Judge, I ask you: Why does one infant emerge alive from the mother's womb and obtain baptism, while another, having received a soul, dies in the mother's belly?"

Answer to the first question. The Judge answered: "You ask why one infant dies in the mother's belly while another emerges alive. There is a reason. All the strength of the child's body comes, of course, from the seed of its father and mother; however, if it is conceived without due strength, because of some weakness of its father or mother, it dies quickly. As a result of the negligence or carelessness of the parents as well as of my divine justice, many times it happens that what was joined together comes apart quickly.

Yet a soul is not brought to the harshest punishment for this reason, however little time it had for giving life to the body, but, rather, it comes to the mercy that is known to me. Just as the sun shining into a house is not seen as it is in its beauty - only those who look into the sky see its rays - so too the souls of such children, though they do not see my face for lack of baptism, are nevertheless closer to my mercy than to punishment, but not in the same way as my elect." - The Revelations of St. Bridget, Book 5, Interrogation 6, Question 1

“But consider my goodness and mercy! For, as the teacher says, I give virtue to those who do not have any virtue. By reason of my great love I give the kingdom of heaven to all of the baptized who die before reaching the age of discretion. As it is written: It has pleased my Father to give the kingdom of heaven to such as these. By reason of my tender love, I even show mercy to the infants of pagans. If any of them die before reaching the age of discretion, given that they cannot come to know me face to face, they go instead to a place that it is not permitted for you to know but where they will live without suffering.”
- The Revelations of St. Bridget, Book 2, Chapter 1

St Anselm, St Peter Damien, St Bernard of Clairvaux, Peter Lombard, St Albert the Great, St Thomas Aquinas, St Bonaventure, Bl John Duns Scotus, St Anthony Padua, Francisco Suarez
, Pope St Pius V,  St Lawrence of Brindisi, St Francis de Sales, St John of the Cross, St Peter Canisius, St Robert Bellarmine, St Alphonsus Liguori, Pope St Pius X, among others, all held to this notion of Limbo for unbaptized babies, and not a positive torment in Hell.
Reply
#26
(03-16-2017, 12:31 PM)BC Wrote:
(03-16-2017, 01:08 AM)Gregory I Wrote: 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!

Those upbaptized babies are not able to see the beatific vision, I agree.  That is just dogma.

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 - Condemning the articles of John Wyclif  - Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” -Condemned

Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.”

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra:  “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.”


But positive torment in the same part of Hell of those who have committed actual sin?

Sure it was proposed by St. Augustine and allowed as an opinion, but never formally adopted by the Church. 

"The Limbo of Children – It is of faith that all, children and adults, who leave this world without the Baptism of water, blood or desire and therefore in original sin are excluded from the Vision of God in Heaven. The great majority of theologians teach that such children and unbaptized adults free from grievous actual sin, enjoy eternally a state of perfect natural happiness, knowing and loving God by use of their natural powers. This place and state is commonly called Limbo." (Definition from A Catholic Dictionary, 1951)

*For the record I disagree with the above as it pertains to adults

“Suarez, for example, ignoring Bellarmine’s protest, continued to teach what Catharinus had taught — that unbaptized children will not only enjoy perfect natural happiness, but that they will rise with immortal bodies at the last day and have the renovated earth for their happy abode (De vit. et penat., ix, sect. vi, n. 4); and, without insisting on such details, the great majority of Catholic theologians have continued to maintain the general doctrine that the children’s limbo is a state of perfect natural happiness, just the same as it would have been if God had not established the present supernatural order” 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Limbo Summary

This is just a private revelation to St. Bridget and not the Magisterium but it seems in keeping with God's Justice:

First question. Again he appeared on his ladder as before, saying: "O Judge, I ask you: Why does one infant emerge alive from the mother's womb and obtain baptism, while another, having received a soul, dies in the mother's belly?"

Answer to the first question. The Judge answered: "You ask why one infant dies in the mother's belly while another emerges alive. There is a reason. All the strength of the child's body comes, of course, from the seed of its father and mother; however, if it is conceived without due strength, because of some weakness of its father or mother, it dies quickly. As a result of the negligence or carelessness of the parents as well as of my divine justice, many times it happens that what was joined together comes apart quickly.

Yet a soul is not brought to the harshest punishment for this reason, however little time it had for giving life to the body, but, rather, it comes to the mercy that is known to me. Just as the sun shining into a house is not seen as it is in its beauty - only those who look into the sky see its rays - so too the souls of such children, though they do not see my face for lack of baptism, are nevertheless closer to my mercy than to punishment, but not in the same way as my elect." - The Revelations of St. Bridget, Book 5, Interrogation 6, Question 1

“But consider my goodness and mercy! For, as the teacher says, I give virtue to those who do not have any virtue. By reason of my great love I give the kingdom of heaven to all of the baptized who die before reaching the age of discretion. As it is written: It has pleased my Father to give the kingdom of heaven to such as these. By reason of my tender love, I even show mercy to the infants of pagans. If any of them die before reaching the age of discretion, given that they cannot come to know me face to face, they go instead to a place that it is not permitted for you to know but where they will live without suffering.”
- The Revelations of St. Bridget, Book 2, Chapter 1

Allow me to emphasize I do not disagree.

What I will say is that eve in the private revelation there is no mention of perfect natural happiness. It could be a dismal cloud of grey for all we know.

But this is my point: we cannot reverse God's judgment, and the penalty for original sin was expulsion from a state of purely natural happiness. How then can the soul of the unbaptized infant regain what has been justly taken away without any change in the soul?
Reply
#27
(03-16-2017, 12:49 PM)Gregory I Wrote: But this is my point: we cannot reverse God's judgment, and the penalty for original sin was expulsion from a state of purely natural happiness. How then can the soul of the unbaptized infant regain what has been justly taken away without any change in the soul?

The primary penalty for original sin was the loss of sanctifying grace. Expulsion from Eden was secondary. But it's possible for people to be happy in this life - and plenty of unbaptized people would say they are - even if it's nothing compared to the supernatural happiness of the Beatific Vision.

The quote about "different kinds of punishments" doesn't rule out natural happiness in Limbo, since being deprived of the Beatific Vision can be considered a punishment
Reply
#28
(03-16-2017, 02:29 PM)Paul Wrote:
(03-16-2017, 12:49 PM)Gregory I Wrote: But this is my point: we cannot reverse God's judgment, and the penalty for original sin was expulsion from a state of purely natural happiness. How then can the soul of the unbaptized infant regain what has been justly taken away without any change in the soul?

The primary penalty for original sin was the loss of sanctifying grace. Expulsion from Eden was secondary. But it's possible for people to be happy in this life - and plenty of unbaptized people would say they are - even if it's nothing compared to the supernatural happiness of the Beatific Vision.

The quote about "different kinds of punishments" doesn't rule out natural happiness in Limbo, since being deprived of the Beatific Vision can be considered a punishment

But the happiness of Adam before the fall??? That's really a possibility? How is that possible for those who have been expelled from PERFECT natural happiness? And shouldn't eternal punishment have some correspondence to earthly punishment? For example when God wills to display his justice by commanding the slaughter of infants and adults together, that doesn't typify anything to you?
Reply
#29
Oh, goodie, we got a live one -- one of those people who seems to love the idea of little babies roasting in the flames of Hell. Yeah, that's just the sort of plan the God I know and love would come up with.

So, Gregory, do you smile when thinking of babies in the flames? If so, what else is wrong with you? And how did you get to be that way?

Reply
#30
(03-16-2017, 03:21 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Oh, goodie, we got a live one -- one of those people who seems to love the idea of little babies roasting in the flames of Hell. Yeah, that's just the sort of plan the God I know and love would come up with.

So, Gregory, do you smile when thinking of babies in the flames? If so, what else is wrong with you? And how did you get to be that way?

I am satisfied by God's justice. For example, was it good or bad for him to punish the wicked, including their children, in a flood? Can't God distinguish guilty people from innocent? Or the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah with fire? Or the death of the firstborn of Egypt? Or Davids Son?  Or the Destruction of the Canaanites?

In short, when God commanded the destruction of unbaptized infants, was he good and just in doing so or mean and wicked?

Faith will tell you good and just. But then there is something in the unbaptized infant that WARRANTS that kind of treatment. For God is just.

And if it is so here, I only say it would be proportionate there. As did St. Augustine, and Pope St. Gregory and St. Prosper, Fulgentius, Caesarius, Anselm etc. I simply wish to be in the company of the saints who had a good reason for their teaching.

If you don't run with God, you run with the devil. There is no middle option.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)