My Soliloquies on the kinds of torments of unbaptized infants.
#31
(03-16-2017, 03:33 PM)Gregory I Wrote: 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?

You don't see the difference between bodily death and roasting in Hell? Wow.

God most definitely can and does distinguish between the guilty and the innocent, and along with His Justice is perfect Love and Mercy. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was perfectly just, as were the other things you mention. Nothing in them has anything to do with those who are innocent of actual sin eternally roasting in Hell. God spared the just of Sodom and Gomorrah, and as to the rest, God may well have spared any innocent from lives that would've turned toward evil had they lived. Only He knows. But He is the God Who said to Jonas,  "Thou art grieved for the ivy, for which thou hast not laboured, nor made it to grow, which in one night came up, and in one night perished. And shall not I spare Ninive, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons that know not how to distinguish between their right hand and their left, and many beasts?" He is the God about Whom it is written, "Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they?"

(03-16-2017, 03:33 PM)Gregory I Wrote: 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.

You lack imagination and don't give God enough credit at all. He knows what their futures would've been like if they'd lived. As far as you know, He spared them lives of sordidness, pain, disease, or whatever.

(03-16-2017, 03:33 PM)Gregory I Wrote: 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.

No shit, Sherlock. So stop running with the devil. I prefer the opinions of Saints who didn't posit that those innocent of actual sin are suffering torments, which is what the Church teaches and why She proposes the existence of Limbo.

I don't want posting here people who delight in the idea of people innocent of actual sin roasting in Hell. It is EVIL. Nor do I want people posting here who write "soliloquies" and pose as theologians, especially ones who belittle God's Justice and Mercy and Love. You'd be happier at a different forum. Get thee behind me.
Reply
#32
(03-16-2017, 04:26 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-16-2017, 03:33 PM)Gregory I Wrote: 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?

You don't see the difference between bodily death and roasting in Hell? Wow.

God most definitely can and does distinguish between the guilty and the innocent, and along with His Justice is perfect Love and Mercy. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was perfectly just, as were the other things you mention. Nothing in them has anything to do with those who are innocent of actual sin eternally roasting in Hell. God spared the just of Sodom and Gomorrah, and as to the rest, God may well have spared any innocent from lives that would've turned toward evil had they lived. Only He knows. But He is the God Who said to Jonas,  "Thou art grieved for the ivy, for which thou hast not laboured, nor made it to grow, which in one night came up, and in one night perished. And shall not I spare Ninive, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons that know not how to distinguish between their right hand and their left, and many beasts?" He is the God about Whom it is written, "Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they?"

(03-16-2017, 03:33 PM)Gregory I Wrote: 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.

You lack imagination and don't give God enough credit at all. He knows what their futures would've been like if they'd lived. As far as you know, He spared them lives of sordidness, pain, disease, or whatever.

(03-16-2017, 03:33 PM)Gregory I Wrote: 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.

No sh**, Sherlock. So stop running with the devil. I prefer the opinions of Saints who didn't posit that those innocent of actual sin are suffering torments, which is what the Church teaches and why She proposes the existence of Limbo.

I don't want posting here people who delight in the idea of people innocent of actual sin roasting in Hell. It is EVIL. Nor do I want people posting here who write "soliloquies" and pose as theologians, especially ones who belittle God's Justice and Mercy and Love. You'd be happier at a different forum. Get thee behind me.

I don't think it would be proper to privately censure a theological opinion that Popes have said is allowable. And even theologians after Trent have gotten behind it like Petavius and St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal Enrico Norris, Berti, Belleli and many of the 18th century Augustinians. Theology is not supposed to be an imaginative exercise, but seeking understanding of God according to the truth.

And the simple truth is that the notion of infants living a life of blessedness in any place at all is a pelagian teaching, condemned by the Council of Carthage in 418 and Promulgated by Pope St. Zosimus in his Tractoria. Pope Pius VI acknowledged this and said the notion of a middle place devoid of guilt and punishment is Pelagian.

It's simply a matter of consistency.
Reply
#33
(03-16-2017, 05:11 PM)Gregory I Wrote: I don't think it would be proper to privately censure a theological opinion that Popes have said is allowable. And even theologians after Trent have gotten behind it like Petavius and St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal Enrico Norris, Berti, Belleli and many of the 18th century Augustinians. Theology is not supposed to be an imaginative exercise, but seeking understanding of God according to the truth.

And the simple truth is that the notion of infants living a life of blessedness in any place at all is a pelagian teaching, condemned by the Council of Carthage in 418 and Promulgated by Pope St. Zosimus in his Tractoria. Pope Pius VI acknowledged this and said the notion of a middle place devoid of guilt and punishment is Pelagian.

It's simply a matter of consistency.

No, it isn't simply a matter of consistency; it's a matter of abiding by the teaching of the Church. That infants who are not guilty of actual sin aren't roasting in Hell is in no ways Pelagianism; there is no denial of the reality of original sin.

The oldest teachings of the Fathers is reflected in this, from St. Gregory Nanzianzen's 40th Oration " And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift, some are altogether animal or bestial, according as they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift, but look upon it as a mere gift— to be acquiesced in if given them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know and honour the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish. As then in the former case we found much difference, so too in this. They who altogether despise it are worse than they who neglect it through greed or carelessness. These are worse than they who have lost the Gift through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error. And I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, as for all their sins, so for their contempt of baptism; and that the second will also have to suffer, but less, because it was not so much through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure; and that the third will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished. "

And that is what the Church has determined is the case, which has adoped Scholasticism, not Augustinianism, as Her official philosophy. What the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about this:
  • we must not confound St. Augustine's private authority with the infallible authority of the Catholic Church; and

  • if allowance be made for the confusion introduced into the Pelagian controversy by the want of a clear and explicit conception of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural order one can easily understand why St. Augustine and the Council of Carthage were practically bound to condemn the locus medius of the Pelagians. St. Augustine himself was inclined to deny this distinction altogether, although the Greek Fathers had already developed it pretty fully, and although some of the Pelagians had a glimmering of it (see Coelestius in August., De Peccat. Orig., v), they based their claim to natural happiness for unbaptized children on a denial of the Fall and original sin, and identified this state of happiness with the "life eternal" of the New Testament.

  • Moreover, even if one were to admit for the sake of argument that this canon of the Council of Carthage (the authenticity of which cannot be reasonably doubted) acquired the force of an ecumenical definition, one ought to interpret it in the light of what was understood to be at issue by both sides in the controversy, and therefore add to the simple locus medius the qualification which is added by Pius VI when, in the Constitution "Auctoreum Fidei", he speaks of "locum illium et statum medium expertem culpae et poenae."

  • Finally, in regard to the teaching of the Council of Florence, it is incredible that the Fathers there assembled had any intention of defining a question so remote from the issue on which reunion with the Greeks depended, and one which was recognized at the time as being open to free discussion and continued to be so regarded by theologians for several centuries afterwards. What the council evidently intended to deny in the passage alleged was the postponement of final awards until the day of judgement. Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty. Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo, while from the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God's justice and other attributes.
Reply
#34
(03-16-2017, 05:37 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-16-2017, 05:11 PM)Gregory I Wrote: I don't think it would be proper to privately censure a theological opinion that Popes have said is allowable. And even theologians after Trent have gotten behind it like Petavius and St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal Enrico Norris, Berti, Belleli and many of the 18th century Augustinians. Theology is not supposed to be an imaginative exercise, but seeking understanding of God according to the truth.

And the simple truth is that the notion of infants living a life of blessedness in any place at all is a pelagian teaching, condemned by the Council of Carthage in 418 and Promulgated by Pope St. Zosimus in his Tractoria. Pope Pius VI acknowledged this and said the notion of a middle place devoid of guilt and punishment is Pelagian.

It's simply a matter of consistency.

No, it isn't simply a matter of consistency; it's a matter of abiding by the teaching of the Church. That infants who are not guilty of actual sin aren't roasting in Hell is in no ways Pelagianism; there is no denial of the reality of original sin.

The oldest teachings of the Fathers is reflected in this, from St. Gregory Nanzianzen's 40th Oration " And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift, some are altogether animal or bestial, according as they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift, but look upon it as a mere gift— to be acquiesced in if given them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know and honour the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish. As then in the former case we found much difference, so too in this. They who altogether despise it are worse than they who neglect it through greed or carelessness. These are worse than they who have lost the Gift through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error. And I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, as for all their sins, so for their contempt of baptism; and that the second will also have to suffer, but less, because it was not so much through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure; and that the third will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished. "

And that is what the Church has determined is the case, which has adoped Scholasticism, not Augustinianism, as Her official philosophy. What the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about this:
  • we must not confound St. Augustine's private authority with the infallible authority of the Catholic Church; and

  • if allowance be made for the confusion introduced into the Pelagian controversy by the want of a clear and explicit conception of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural order one can easily understand why St. Augustine and the Council of Carthage were practically bound to condemn the locus medius of the Pelagians. St. Augustine himself was inclined to deny this distinction altogether, although the Greek Fathers had already developed it pretty fully, and although some of the Pelagians had a glimmering of it (see Coelestius in August., De Peccat. Orig., v), they based their claim to natural happiness for unbaptized children on a denial of the Fall and original sin, and identified this state of happiness with the "life eternal" of the New Testament.

  • Moreover, even if one were to admit for the sake of argument that this canon of the Council of Carthage (the authenticity of which cannot be reasonably doubted) acquired the force of an ecumenical definition, one ought to interpret it in the light of what was understood to be at issue by both sides in the controversy, and therefore add to the simple locus medius the qualification which is added by Pius VI when, in the Constitution "Auctoreum Fidei", he speaks of "locum illium et statum medium expertem culpae et poenae."

  • Finally, in regard to the teaching of the Council of Florence, it is incredible that the Fathers there assembled had any intention of defining a question so remote from the issue on which reunion with the Greeks depended, and one which was recognized at the time as being open to free discussion and continued to be so regarded by theologians for several centuries afterwards. What the council evidently intended to deny in the passage alleged was the postponement of final awards until the day of judgement. Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty. Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo, while from the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God's justice and other attributes.

That's all a nice allowable opinion within limits, but not my main point. My MAIN point is that it most certainly is pelagian to posit unbaptized infants in a state of PERFECT natural happiness, the very happiness of Adam in Eden before he fell. This is precisely what he LOST for all of us, not the beatific vision which he did not have. They cannot therefore exist in such a state without reversing the penalties of original sin. My second point was that their punishment in this life typifies their punishment in the next, for in the end all that is left is the New Jerusalem and a lake of fire. And unbaptized infants simply are not written in the book of life therefore they must share in the common end of the reprobate, just as it is typified in the Old Testament where they shared in the destruction of Noah's flood, which was sent to destroy WICKEDNESS.

Perhaps they can exist in some grey painlessness, but not perfect natural happiness. Such a view actually destroys original sin. For if the just reward of their soul is perfect natural happiness apart from the body, then they certainly were entitled to it IN the body. But that means at conception each person would be in the state of Adam before the fall, therefore there is no original sin and infants are not baptized for its remission.
Reply
#35
I think that if there is a limbo then it is a state of natural happiness, they would still suffer the loss of the beatific vision which is the principle punishment of Hell. The physical punishment is more accoutrement so while their original sin prevents them from the beatific vision I don't see why they would have any other punishment.

For once I can sympathize with Melkite. I find this apparent joy in the eternal suffering of infants disturbing, at least when killing children he prevents them from committing actual sin. If He is going to punish them anyway then what's the point? The children already suffer the consequences of original sin which is bodily death so why must they suffer in eternity as well?

Besides, there have been people who had visions of Our Lord personally baptising them on their death beds when they  were unable to be baptised by another, why can't He apply this same mercy to children?
Reply
#36
(03-16-2017, 07:16 PM)Gregory I Wrote: That's all a nice allowable opinion within limits, but not my main point. My MAIN point is that it most certainly is pelagian to posit unbaptized infants in a state of PERFECT natural happiness, the very happiness of Adam in Eden before he fell. This is precisely what he LOST for all of us, not the beatific vision which he did not have. They cannot therefore exist in such a state without reversing the penalties of original sin. My second point was that their punishment in this life typifies their punishment in the next, for in the end all that is left is the New Jerusalem and a lake of fire. And unbaptized infants simply are not written in the book of life therefore they must share in the common end of the reprobate, just as it is typified in the Old Testament where they shared in the destruction of Noah's flood, which was sent to destroy WICKEDNESS.

Perhaps they can exist in some grey painlessness, but not perfect natural happiness. Such a view actually destroys original sin. For if the just reward of their soul is perfect natural happiness apart from the body, then they certainly were entitled to it IN the body. But that means at conception each person would be in the state of Adam before the fall, therefore there is no original sin and infants are not baptized for its remission.

What was lost after Eden was more than just "natural" happiness; it was supernatural happiness, infused grace. Unbaptized babies, normatively anyway, don't have infused grace. Hence they won't experience any Eden-like scenario in Limbo as Adam and Eve experienced Eden. But natural happiness is a different thing, having nothing to do with infused grace.
Reply
#37
(03-16-2017, 07:39 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-16-2017, 07:16 PM)Gregory I Wrote: That's all a nice allowable opinion within limits, but not my main point. My MAIN point is that it most certainly is pelagian to posit unbaptized infants in a state of PERFECT natural happiness, the very happiness of Adam in Eden before he fell. This is precisely what he LOST for all of us, not the beatific vision which he did not have. They cannot therefore exist in such a state without reversing the penalties of original sin. My second point was that their punishment in this life typifies their punishment in the next, for in the end all that is left is the New Jerusalem and a lake of fire. And unbaptized infants simply are not written in the book of life therefore they must share in the common end of the reprobate, just as it is typified in the Old Testament where they shared in the destruction of Noah's flood, which was sent to destroy WICKEDNESS.

Perhaps they can exist in some grey painlessness, but not perfect natural happiness. Such a view actually destroys original sin. For if the just reward of their soul is perfect natural happiness apart from the body, then they certainly were entitled to it IN the body. But that means at conception each person would be in the state of Adam before the fall, therefore there is no original sin and infants are not baptized for its remission.

What was lost after Eden was more than just "natural" happiness; it was supernatural happiness, infused grace. Unbaptized babies, normatively anyway, don't have infused grace. Hence they won't experience any Eden-like scenario in Limbo as Adam and Eve experienced Eden. But natural happiness is a different thing, having nothing to do with infused grace.

Well I can agree, but that's not the entire point. Really, are they sheep or goats? Goats. Are they elect or reprobate? Reprobate. Are they in the book of life, or not? Not. So their eternal destiny must be bound up with the destiny of all those others who will be cast into the lake of fire.  Just as the destiny of all those other infants of the Old Testament were bound up with those other actual sinners.

Moreover, in the Law of Moses, those things that are mortal sins are punished with physical death. For example those caught in adultery were stoned. Those children who were rebellious were put to death outside the camp.

God was teaching Israel about the eternal penalty of sin through earthly penalties. Similarly in his OWN just decrees he called for the entire extermination of entire peoples to show forth all of our implication in the sin of Adam. And he punished all with the same punishment.  He therefore images the last judgment where the great and small stand before the just judge. And all the goats, great and small are punished together, and all the just, great and small, are rewarded together. It's typology really.
Reply
#38
I'd like to repeat for emphasis that the Angelic Doctor himself believed Limbo to be a state of perfect natural happiness.

What did the Holy Fathers in the past say about St. Thomas Aquinas?

Pope Benedict XIII said his works were "written without the shadow of error".

Pope Leo XIII said, "Theology proceeding correctly and well according to the plan and method of Aquinas is in accordance with our command."

Pope St. Pius X said, "As we have said, one may not desert Aquinas, especially in philosophy and theology, without great harm; following him is the safest way to the knowledge of divine things..."

So, Gregory, out of curiosity, why do you dislike St. Thomas' teaching on Limbo when his teachings have historically been so highly esteemed?

More praise for St. Thomas can be found here:

https://thomasaquinas.edu/a-liberating-e...-st-thomas
Reply
#39
(03-16-2017, 09:49 PM)In His Love Wrote: I'd like to repeat for emphasis that the Angelic Doctor himself believed Limbo to be a state of perfect natural happiness.

What did the Holy Fathers in the past say about St. Thomas Aquinas?

Pope Benedict XIII said his works were "written without the shadow of error".

Pope Leo XIII said, "Theology proceeding correctly and well according to the plan and method of Aquinas is in accordance with our command."

Pope St. Pius X said, "As we have said, one may not desert Aquinas, especially in philosophy and theology, without great harm; following him is the safest way to the knowledge of divine things..."

So, Gregory, out of curiosity, why do you dislike St. Thomas' teaching on Limbo when his teachings have historically been so highly esteemed?

More praise for St. Thomas can be found here:

https://thomasaquinas.edu/a-liberating-e...-st-thomas

Because I don't understand how positive enjoyment meets the definition of punishment, and one could have asked Aquinas the same of Augustine: why did he find St. Augustines explanations unsatisfactory?

I can countenance even a painless limbo. Perfect happiness though? It just flies in the face of the destiny of those at the left of the just judge- they go into the lake of fire. There's nowhere left for them to go st this point but there. They aren't sheep.
Reply
#40
Loss of the Beatific Vision, which applies to those in Limbo, is a very profound punishment.

We aren't talking about people who never saw a priest for Baptism because they railed against Our Lord or were too lukewarm to see its necessity. We're talking about tiny babies who were dismembered or experienced one of the other gruesome forms of abortion. We're talking about the miscarried, the stillborn, those for whom Baptism would have been difficult or impossible to provide outside of divine intervention.

"There are more things in Heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)