My Soliloquies on the kinds of torments of unbaptized infants.
#51
(03-17-2017, 03:04 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Yawn. Find any Haitian orphans yet?

My only point is you cannot deny those things that are written and proposed by the magisterium for our belief.
Reply
#52
Gregory, I think the point of contention here is that you are not merely disagreeing with the majority view by drawing attention to the view held by most between Augustine and Aquinas, but you are making the further and stronger claim that those who side with Aquinas and the theologians following him are implicitly committing themselves to Pelagianism by saying the infants of limbo enjoy perfect natural happiness. Those are two separate claims: 1) offering the countering view for legitimate debate; and 2) saying those who take the opposing side are materially proximate to heresy.

But you're offering an argument only for point 1) and claiming it extends to point 2) when it's not clear to me that your argument actually does. You can claim that the magisterium has implied from the dogmas that point 2) approaches heresy, but then we're faced with a further dilemma, namely, how could the magisterium never had issued any warning to St. Thomas and the following theologians about this danger and even more so, how could these generations of deeply learned theologians have missed such an apparently obvious problem, namely, they're approaching heresy. In the debates over predestination and sufficient/efficacious grace, the Pope did have to intervene because the accusations towards the opposing groups of theological thought became increasingly ad hominem, especially saying that each side approached a heretical view, either Pelagianism for the Molinists or Calvinism for the Thomists. Here we have a historical example of the Church stepping into the debate to at least clarify that it was not proper for the opposing camps to accuse each other of implicit heresy. But you don't have the same thing occurring in the debates over Limbo (unless I'm ignorant about this, in which case you can bring it up for us).

So I think it comes down to you explaining more clearly why you think point 2) in addition to point 1). It seems to me unnecessary to hold point 2); you can say that it is only logical, but again I would bring up what I said above: how could so many generations of theologians, far more studied and profound than yourself, you must admit out of humility at least, have missed such a logical gap? Perhaps, then, you are going a little too far in making that claim of implicit Pelagianism.
Reply
#53
(03-17-2017, 08:06 PM)richgr Wrote: Gregory, I think the point of contention here is that you are not merely disagreeing with the majority view by drawing attention to the view held by most between Augustine and Aquinas, but you are making the further and stronger claim that those who side with Aquinas and the theologians following him are implicitly committing themselves to Pelagianism by saying the infants of limbo enjoy perfect natural happiness. Those are two separate claims: 1) offering the countering view for legitimate debate; and 2) saying those who take the opposing side are materially proximate to heresy.

But you're offering an argument only for point 1) and claiming it extends to point 2) when it's not clear to me that your argument actually does. You can claim that the magisterium has implied from the dogmas that point 2) approaches heresy, but then we're faced with a further dilemma, namely, how could the magisterium never had issued any warning to St. Thomas and the following theologians about this danger and even more so, how could these generations of deeply learned theologians have missed such an apparently obvious problem, namely, they're approaching heresy. In the debates over predestination and sufficient/efficacious grace, the Pope did have to intervene because the accusations towards the opposing groups of theological thought became increasingly ad hominem, especially saying that each side approached a heretical view, either Pelagianism for the Molinists or Calvinism for the Thomists. Here we have a historical example of the Church stepping into the debate to at least clarify that it was not proper for the opposing camps to accuse each other of implicit heresy. But you don't have the same thing occurring in the debates over Limbo (unless I'm ignorant about this, in which case you can bring it up for us).

So I think it comes down to you explaining more clearly why you think point 2) in addition to point 1). It seems to me unnecessary to hold point 2); you can say that it is only logical, but again I would bring up what I said above: how could so many generations of theologians, far more studied and profound than yourself, you must admit out of humility at least, have missed such a logical gap? Perhaps, then, you are going a little too far in making that claim of implicit Pelagianism.

Thank you for such a clear response.

Maybe I am wrong. But something just strikes me as wrong about perfect natural happiness, unless I am misunderstanding it. Would we contend it is the state of nature Adam possessed if he was not gifted with grace but not guilty of sin? Nevertheless, the dogma teaches the whole man was changed for the worse, body and soul, in Adam. Is the only "worse" being posited for unbaptized infants that they are not justified? But then are all people born into a state of pure nature? Thoughts?
Reply
#54
(03-17-2017, 09:24 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Thank you for such a clear response.

Maybe I am wrong. But something just strikes me as wrong about perfect natural happiness, unless I am misunderstanding it. Would we contend it is the state of nature Adam possessed if he was not gifted with grace but not guilty of sin?

Pretty much.

(03-17-2017, 09:24 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Nevertheless, the dogma teaches the whole man was changed for the worse, body and soul, in Adam. Is the only "worse" being posited for unbaptized infants that they are not justified? But then are all people born into a state of pure nature? Thoughts?

Of course we're all "born into a state of pure nature." But some of us -- most of us -- go on to commit actual sin. Tiny babies don't, and their suffering "torments," as you've titled this thread, simply for having been born would be unjust, vicious, and cruel. God is none of those things, and I consider it blasphemous to write things that indicate otherwise.
 
Reply
#55
(03-17-2017, 10:36 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-17-2017, 09:24 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Thank you for such a clear response.

Maybe I am wrong. But something just strikes me as wrong about perfect natural happiness, unless I am misunderstanding it. Would we contend it is the state of nature Adam possessed if he was not gifted with grace but not guilty of sin?

Pretty much.

(03-17-2017, 09:24 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Nevertheless, the dogma teaches the whole man was changed for the worse, body and soul, in Adam. Is the only "worse" being posited for unbaptized infants that they are not justified? But then are all people born into a state of pure nature? Thoughts?

Of course we're all "born into a state of pure nature." But some of us -- most of us -- go on to commit actual sin. Tiny babies don't, and their suffering "torments," as you've titled this thread, simply for having been born would be unjust, vicious, and cruel. God is none of those things, and I consider it blasphemous to write things that indicate otherwise.

I understand your emotions, but you have to realize I am basing my opinion on how God himself has chosen to treat unjustified infants in the Old Testament. Like I said, 800 years of saints affirmed the same, is it really so horrific?
Reply
#56
(03-17-2017, 10:50 PM)Gregory I Wrote: I understand your emotions, but you have to realize I am basing my opinion on how God himself has chosen to treat unjustified infants in the Old Testament. Like I said, 800 years of saints affirmed the same, is it really so horrific?

Not all Saints during that 800 years you refer to believe what you believe, nor did Saints who lived before St. Augustine expressed his error. And I guarantee that none of them delighted in the thought, which is horrific.

Reply
#57

In the Gospel Christ descended into HELL to give them the news that Heaven was open again. Yes the word Hell was used, but it is unbelievable to think that Moses etc., were in the flames of Hell created for the devils and those who rejected God.

Mary of Agreda in her City of God wrote 'God created the earth  conjointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre, for, at the instance of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe spacious and wide cavities, suitable for Hell, Purgatory and Limbo.' St Thomas said hell had to be the furthest place from heaven, again confirming hell at the centre of a geocentric earth.

As Vox says to think that unbaptised souls would end up in the fires of hell is terrifying. I agree. Now I have often pondered on certain things that would horrify me and thought that if something horrified us humans, how greater that horror in the eyes of our all merciful God. If something appals us Catholics, how much greater would the Lord Christ view it?

Moreover, here is something I never saw debated. Will the souls and bodies of the unbaptised children be given full development of mind, body and soul at the end of our world? Will they be conscious of the loss of the Beatific Vision?
I have pondered on all of this all of my Catholic life and more so since abortion became a factor in my Catholic life, especially when the last two popes at least suggested such unbaptised babies MIGHT get into heaven. If that is so, I asked at a pro-life meeting, why would anyone object to babies going straight to heaven? Or will they remain in the state of babies, never having developed their bodies or more importantly their minds that would have given them the free will of choice. Here is another great mystery.

Limbo is a theological conclusion. It is like saying 2+2 has 4 as its conclusion. You cannot have one without the other. The Gospels say baptism is necessary for heaven, end of story. Mortal sin is necessary for hell.  Purgatory is the place baptised without mortal sin go to cleans the effects of sin before one can get into heaven. A dead child who has never sinned does not qualify for any of these three places. But God is infinitely just, so I believe what St Thomas believed, that God has found a place for them in which they will not suffer but have a peaceful eternity. It seems to me to be the only Catholic conclusion.

Reply
#58
(03-18-2017, 07:15 PM)cassini Wrote: Limbo is a theological conclusion. It is like saying 2+2 has 4 as its conclusion. You cannot have one without the other. The Gospels say baptism is necessary for heaven, end of story. Mortal sin is necessary for hell.  Purgatory is the place baptised without mortal sin go to cleans the effects of sin before one can get into heaven. A dead child who has never sinned does not qualify for any of these three places. But God is infinitely just, so I believe what St Thomas believed, that God has found a place for them in which they will not suffer but have a peaceful eternity. It seems to me to be the only Catholic conclusion.

If baptism is an absolute requirement for heaven, then it means that it is impossible for anyone, including any of God's prophets prior to Christ, to ever enter heaven.  If God had different requirements for entry into heaven prior to Christ, then, just as 2+2 has 4 as it's conclusion, one must conclude that the necessity for baptism to enter heaven is a conditional requirement.  If the situation with unbaptized infants does not fit the scenario where the conditional requirements apply, then it is necessary that God can, and at least possible that God will make a way for unbaptized infants to enter Heaven.
Reply
#59
(03-18-2017, 07:51 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 07:15 PM)cassini Wrote: Limbo is a theological conclusion. It is like saying 2+2 has 4 as its conclusion. You cannot have one without the other. The Gospels say baptism is necessary for heaven, end of story. Mortal sin is necessary for hell.  Purgatory is the place baptised without mortal sin go to cleans the effects of sin before one can get into heaven. A dead child who has never sinned does not qualify for any of these three places. But God is infinitely just, so I believe what St Thomas believed, that God has found a place for them in which they will not suffer but have a peaceful eternity. It seems to me to be the only Catholic conclusion.

If baptism is an absolute requirement for heaven, then it means that it is impossible for anyone, including any of God's prophets prior to Christ, to ever enter heaven.  If God had different requirements for entry into heaven prior to Christ, then, just as 2+2 has 4 as it's conclusion, one must conclude that the necessity for baptism to enter heaven is a conditional requirement.  If the situation with unbaptized infants does not fit the scenario where the conditional requirements apply, then it is necessary that God can, and at least possible that God will make a way for unbaptized infants to enter Heaven.

That's why the apostolic fathers taught that the apostles after death actually baptized the souls in the limbo of the fathers. Shepherd of Herman I believe.
Reply
#60
(03-18-2017, 09:36 PM)Gregory I Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 07:51 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-18-2017, 07:15 PM)cassini Wrote: Limbo is a theological conclusion. It is like saying 2+2 has 4 as its conclusion. You cannot have one without the other. The Gospels say baptism is necessary for heaven, end of story. Mortal sin is necessary for hell.  Purgatory is the place baptised without mortal sin go to cleans the effects of sin before one can get into heaven. A dead child who has never sinned does not qualify for any of these three places. But God is infinitely just, so I believe what St Thomas believed, that God has found a place for them in which they will not suffer but have a peaceful eternity. It seems to me to be the only Catholic conclusion.

If baptism is an absolute requirement for heaven, then it means that it is impossible for anyone, including any of God's prophets prior to Christ, to ever enter heaven.  If God had different requirements for entry into heaven prior to Christ, then, just as 2+2 has 4 as it's conclusion, one must conclude that the necessity for baptism to enter heaven is a conditional requirement.  If the situation with unbaptized infants does not fit the scenario where the conditional requirements apply, then it is necessary that God can, and at least possible that God will make a way for unbaptized infants to enter Heaven.

That's why the apostolic fathers taught that the apostles after death actually baptized the souls in the limbo of the fathers. Shepherd of Herman I believe.

Baptism is a requirement of the NEW TESTAMENT. After Christ a new order came into being. It was He who instigated the new law on baptism as a requirement for heaven. All in the Hell that Christ DESCENDED into were of the order of the OLD TESTAMENT.. Baptism was not a requirement for them..
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)