My Soliloquies on the kinds of torments of unbaptized infants.
#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


Messages In This Thread
Re: My Soliloquies on the kinds of torments of unbaptized infants. - by Gregory I - 03-16-2017, 05:11 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)