Answer me this limbo question, please

[Teflon93]

It seems clear to me that the catechism reads of having hope
that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism

I don’t have any problems with this at all… however, this doesn’t take away the possibility of the existance of limbo of infants as being the case instead.

Yes, I agree.

According to the above, Original sin is a state where one is inclined to sin. An infant has such a state which needs to be destroyed as well, and therefore makes baptism to be a need in order for it to enter Heaven. While they might receive such a new nature at death, we cannot be certain of this, being why the Church teaches that we can only hope for such a teaching to be true.

Agreed; that’s what hoping for “an alternate path of salvation” is referring to.

No one is speaking of anyone being anathemized…we are speaking of doctrinal hypothesis…not dogma.

Andre

Actually, Atemi is. He quoted several times a passage he claims is from the Council of Florence declaring (paraphrasing) that anyone who says other than that prebaptismal infants are damned straightaway is anathema.

This is what I was responding to. Catholics take anathema and its implications seriously; it is vital Catholics reading this understand the Catechism on this point so as not to be misled.

 

[Teflon93]

I fully agree with you…I am only speaking to those who hold as a certainty the immediate salvation of infants. I also, have the same hope which the Holy Father speaks about.
The danger in the full assurance of infants in getting into Heaven lies in the concept that they, according to their nature, are capable of entering into Heaven without going through any changes of some kind, since they are not guilty of any actual sin.This teaching does indeed exist among protestants, but it would be an error to hold such a view as a catholic. This is totally against the Catholic teaching concerning Original Sin.

Andre

I was agreeing with you—the Catholic Church allows for the existence of an alternate path of salvation for these infants unknown to us. We recognize the need to baptize children as soon as possible to wash away original sin.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I was always taught that God created us to know Him, love Him, and serve Him in this world and the next.

As far as His justice–it is unfathomable to me. His justice is perfect; any of my ‘human’ ideas of justice will always fall short. I cannot–on earth anyway–understand perfection in anything; my ‘concepts’ will always be limited.

As far as His mercy–it is likewise unfathomable to me. His mercy will save the most ‘guilty’ of sinners–the ones whom ‘we’ would consider guilty (even if we SAY we ‘cannot judge’, deep inside we think it about 100% likely that people like Hitler and Judas are not 'in heaven). But His Mercy can save even those ‘we’ find unsaveable.

So when it comes to unbaptized babies and others–I trust God, no matter what the teaching may look like to me. I can’t fully understand it, but if God says it, it is perfect justice and perfect mercy. We may be misunderstanding it, we may not ‘think’ it ‘fair’–but since when are we the Creator of the Universe?

I trust Him completely.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Limbo lovers answer this one question: why does Inclination towards sin Damn anyone who does not follow through with that Inclination and Actually sin?

Here’s another question: If one does not Actually sin and if the scriptures tell the truth when they say that God wills that all men be saved why would God Choose not to give a person like that salvific grace?

How can God choose not to give that grace and not contradict Himself in holy Scripture Inspired by the Holy Spirit who Is God when he says that it is His will that All men be saved?

Last question: When Jesus said “Do not hinder the little children to come unto me” was He only speaking of children beyond the age of reason?

Would a Loving Jesus Let anyone who would hinder a little child to come unto him as happens in not Baptizing that child have the Freedom to with their Sin Hinder that child from coming to Jesus at their death?

The Limbo lovers will not honestly with the love of Jesus answer these questions.

If they did they could no longer be proponents of limbo!

I would gladly give up voicing my opinion about what Jesus would or would not do with unbaptized infants if proponents of Limbo would do the same.

That will never happen!

That fruit should tell you something about the people who advocate it and also something about the concept itself!

Does it sound more like Satan or Jesus?

Who would laugh more with joy if an infant ended up in Limbo–Jesus or Satan?

 

[Atemi]

I have posted the Catechism passages. You continue to willfully misconstrue what they say.

How can they be misconstrued? They are clear.

The bigger problem is that you seem hellbent on distorting Catholic teaching for whatever purpose suits you. The Catechism remains the authoritative source for Catholic teaching, not you.

But I choose not to ignore other authoritative sources at the expense of the reality of the matter.

I seek not to distort anything, but only show correct RC doctrine here. The original point I made was that babies are taught to be guilty parties in RC teaching.

This has been clearly shown to be the case and cannot be denied.

You merely changed your tack to “perhaps that’s what you teach NOW” whereas your original point, shown to be wrong, was that the Catholic church teaches that these children are damned.

Well I have to say that. I have no other choice.

Here is the witness of St. Augustine on the matter of what the Catholic Church teaches/has taught:

“St. Augustine (III De Anima) says ‘If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.’”

“Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it (the Catholic Church) unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ”

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

And again it was infallibly defined at the 17th Ecumenical Council:

“the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished”

If I cannot believe the teaching of the most influential Catholic Fathers and Saints, and I cannot believe the teachings of Catholic Ecumenical Councils, then what am I to believe teaches correct Catholic doctrine? Your posts?

And the Catechism plainly teaches:

403 “…he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.”

Original Sin is the death of the soul.

And since you claimed that God’s mercy for these babies has nothing to do with any guilt, can you now explain how God’s forgiveness for these babies also somehow has nothing to do with any guilt?

Given that the Church clearly maintains a difference between original sin (which is a state) and mortal sin (which is a choice), a reasonable person would conclude the above.

But not a single post of mine was discussing the differences between personal sin and original sin. My posts only address original sin and the guilt associated with it according to RC doctrine.

I don’t know. There isn’t a clear teaching in this regard (unborn children not saved). This might fall under “invincible ignorance”, I suppose.

You don’t know?

When the Catechism teaches that Original Sin is the death of the soul…what does that mean?

You may now claim that God forgives and vivifies them anyway, but we all know what the likes of St. Augustine taught about that.

Why do you persist in your erroneous claim that the Catholic Church teaches these children are damned?

My main point here is that the RCC has historically taught that babies are guilty of original sin. This has been proven without a doubt.

As to if God just overlooks that guilt (“defect”) for one but not another is different story for another thread, I guess. It depends at what time you reference RC teaching.

Is it because you wish to attack the Catholic Church, regardless of what she actually teaches?

No.

Actually, I spent this whole thread clarifying and defending Catholic teaching. LOL. And I don’t even believe it myself anymore.

…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Jerry-Jet:

If John the Baptist can leap in Elizabeth’s womb when she came into Mary’s presence then why couldn’t an infant that was already BORN not respond to God’s grace to give that infant a baptism of desire?

I agree with this. I must say that I come to this question with a fair degree of bitterness over the continued slaughter of the unborn. I don’t know why we can’t baptise the unborn. Does anyone out there have an answer to this? Can we baptise the unborn?

 

[Teflon93]

They are clear.

Yes, they are. Here are the parts you leave out and ignore, which are directly on point.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Spare me your cherrypicking.

But I choose not to ignore other authoritative sources at the expense of the reality of the matter.

Oh, please. You cherrypick concilar documents, and then only the phrases which suit you.

Here’s the rest of the relevant passage from Florence (1438-1445):

693 De novissimis] * It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by the worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they may be released from punishments of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful according to the institutions of the Church. And that the souls of those, who after the reception of baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those, who after the contraction of the stain of sin whether in their bodies, or when released from the same bodies, as we have said before, are purged, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another. Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds [see n.464].

And to the referenced portion from the Council of Lyons in 1274:

464 We believe that the true Church is holy, Catholic, apostolic, and one, in which is given one holy baptism and true remission of all sins. We believe also in the true resurrection of this flesh, which now we bear, and in eternal life. We believe also that the one author of the New and the Old Testament, of the Law, and of the Prophets and the Apostles is the omnipotent God and Lord. This is the true Catholic Faith, and this in the above mentioned articles the most holy Roman Church holds and teaches. But because of diverse errors introduced by some through ignorance and by others from evil, it (the Church) says and teaches that those who after baptism slip into sin must not be rebaptized, but by true penance attain forgiveness of their sins. Because if they die truly repentant in charity before they have made satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for (sins) committed and omitted, their souls are cleansed after death by purgatorical or purifying punishments, as Brother John * has explained to us. And to relieve punishments of this kind, the offerings of the living faithful are of advantage to these, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, alms, and other duties of piety, which have customarily been performed by the faithful for the other faithful according to the regulations of the Church. However, the souls of those who after having received holy baptism have incurred no stain of sin whatever, also those souls who, after contracting the stain of sin, either while remaining in their bodies or being divested of them, have been cleansed, as we have said above, are received immediately into heaven. The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments. The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment “all” men will be brought together with their bodies “before the tribunal of Christ” “to render an account” of their own deeds [Rom. 14:10 ].

The original point I made was that babies are taught to be guilty parties in RC teaching.

Where in either passage does it say “guilty”?

This has been clearly shown to be the case and cannot be denied.

By the infallible Atemi, perhaps. I’ll take the Catechism, thanks.

If I cannot believe the teaching of the most influential Catholic Fathers and Saints, and I cannot believe the teachings of Catholic Ecumenical Councils, then what am I to believe teaches correct Catholic doctrine? Your posts?

Nope–the Catechism.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Atemi:

What I said is that the Catholic Church has historically taught that those who die with the stain of Original Sin still on their souls are damned to Hell.

Nope. Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood, and Invincible Ignorance may act to save them from Hell. As for unbaptised infants and unborn, Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance seem plausible.

Atemi:

How can I be “wrong” about what the Church teaches when I post its very teachings?

Because you leave some teachings out.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Imagine saying the Church teaches “Thou shalt kill”. Hey, that’s what it says–IF you leave out that pesky word “not” between ‘shalt’ and ‘kill’.

 

[Teflon93]

My main point here is that the RCC has historically taught that babies are guilty of original sin. This has been proven without a doubt.

No, it hasn’t. The historical references you used did not say “guilty”, and you are continuing to misuse the term. There is a distinction between original and freely-chosen sin; that has been demonstrated quite clearly. You keep referring to “guilt” out of some attempt to cast the Church as claiming that unborn children are sinners in the same sense that an adult who freely chooses to sin is a sinner.

You don’t believe in original sin at all, do you?

As to if God just overlooks that guilt

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I told you the limbo believers wouldn’t answer my questions.

Are they too hard to answer?

 

[Romans12]

If its in the Catechism take that as the teaching of the Church.

After all, it is the most current and up to date volume available. It cross references with all Councils, encyclicals and major writings by Saints and Church leadership.

 

[Atemi]

What I said is that the Catholic Church has historically taught that those who die with the stain of Original Sin still on their souls are damned to Hell.

Nope. Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood, and Invincible Ignorance may act to save them from Hell. As for unbaptised infants and unborn, Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance seem plausible.

It is the undeniable doctrine of the RCC that one’s soul must be in a state of grace when death occurs or they are sent immediately to Hell. This is undeniable. The person that dies with the stain of Original Sin still on their soul is not in a state of grace, by definition.

Original sin is the privation or absence of sanctifying grace…in other words, the stain of Original Sin means that one is not in a state of grace.

What I said it totally correct, and here it is infallibly defined at the Ecumenical Council of Florence:

“…the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished…”

Now compare that to what I claimed above and you will see that what I said is incontrovertable (without rejecting RC teaching altogether).

…

 

[Atemi]

Here are the parts you leave out and ignore, which are directly on point.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Spare me your cherrypicking.

This only confirms my point, unless you have misconstrued it.

Hoping that God will have mercy on an “innocent” that has not received forgiveness through the Sacrament…and hoping that the “innocent” have some way to be saved…only goes to show that the RCC does not view these infants to be innocents at all.

Does Catholicism teach that God punishes the innocent?

Why would God forever damn an innocent person?

If you say He would not, then how come the Catholic Church teaches that we can only “hope” they will be saved?

This still has not been addressed.

Oh, please. You cherrypick concilar documents, and then only the phrases which suit you.

Here’s the rest of the relevant passage from Florence (1438-1445):

693 De novissimis] * It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by the worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they may be released from punishments of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful according to the institutions of the Church. And that the souls of those, who after the reception of baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those, who after the contraction of the stain of sin whether in their bodies, or when released from the same bodies, as we have said before, are purged, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another. Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds [see n.464].

OK.

So you yourself post the infallible declaration of your church that says all those who die with the stain of Original Sin alone go to Hell forever to be punished.

Again, this has not been addressed:

Does God damn and forever punish the innocent in Catholicism?

Yes or no?

The original point I made was that babies are taught to be guilty parties in RC teaching.

Where in either passage does it say “guilty”?

Does God damn and forever punish the innocent in Catholicism?

Yes or no?

A citation from the Catechism would be nice here because that is the only thing that you will believe thus far.

If I cannot believe the teaching of the most influential Catholic Fathers and Saints, and I cannot believe the teachings of Catholic Ecumenical Councils, then what am I to believe teaches correct Catholic doctrine? Your posts?

Nope–the Catechism.

Which Catechism?

They change from what I have seen, but that is a different thread. That is why I even posted from Trent, which was summarily rejected for some strange reason.

…

 

[Atemi]

My main point here is that the RCC has historically taught that babies are guilty of original sin. This has been proven without a doubt.

No, it hasn’t. The historical references you used did not say “guilty”, and you are continuing to misuse the term.

The Council of Trent made it even clearer:

“If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted…let him be anathema”

Guilt.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur) explains further:

“Concupiscence, which remains after the guilt of original sin is remitted in baptism, is not sinful so long as consent is not given to it”

And…

“In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin”

It does not get any more clearer than this.

Guilt of Original Sin.

Merely saying over and over that all these sources are wrong merely because I quoted them is not making your case stronger.

You don’t believe in original sin at all, do you?

As the RCC teaches? Of course not.

But that is another thread…

Yes, it does, because Church teaching is not immutable, and because doctrine isn’t defined until violated. This is why the Trinity wasn’t established until Nicea.

This is why the Catechism is the reference for what the Church teaches. Your original claim was “The Catholic Church teaches…”

Please let me know when Trent was rescinded.

No, you’ve spent the whole thread fighting to claim that the Catholic Church teaches that the unborn are guilty.

I did not speak about the unborn per se, but only that the RCC teaches that those with the stain of Original Sin on their souls are guilty parties in the eyes of God.

This is irrefutable.

So what is your purpose in doing so?

To speak the truth and defend the truth.

Just stick with the topic and not my motives.

…

 

[Mag_Uidhir]

Limbo lovers answer this one question: why does Inclination towards sin Damn anyone who does not follow through with that Inclination and Actually sin?

Don’t know.

Here’s another question: If one does not Actually sin and if the scriptures tell the truth when they say that God wills that all men be saved why would God Choose not to give a person like that salvific grace?

He might, go ask Him.

How can God choose not to give that grace and not contradict Himself in holy Scripture Inspired by the Holy Spirit who Is God when he says that it is His will that All men be saved?

God might give them the grace, we can’t know for certain, Atemi doesn’t know either, a pendulum swings both ways.

Last question: When Jesus said “Do not hinder the little children to come unto me” was He only speaking of children beyond the age of reason?

We don’t know, do you ?

Would a Loving Jesus Let anyone who would hinder a little child to come unto him as happens in not Baptizing that child have the Freedom to with their Sin Hinder that child from coming to Jesus at their death?

I thought the above was your last question, we would hope not, but we simply don’t know, it’s all pure speculation.

The Limbo lovers will not honestly with the love of Jesus answer these questions.

No-one said they were Limbo lovers, I certainly didn’t.

If they did they could no longer be proponents of limbo!

You or I or and Christian can say for certain where they go, if anyone can I’d like to hear it.

I would gladly give up voicing my opinion about what Jesus would or would not do with unbaptized infants if proponents of Limbo would do the same.

That will never happen!

The Church entrusts them to Gods Mercy, no-one in their right mind would want someone so young who unfortunately inherited the Adamic sin to goto Hell.

That is provided we know what hell looks like, if some of the writings of the Saints and alleged seers are anything to go by, there are many levels of hell.
And as for Heaven what does the phrase "there are many rooms in My Fathers house mean ?

Are there many levels of Heaven too, shall we all shine with the same brilliance if were lucky enough to get to Heaven ?

I’m not sure, the whole thing is pure speculation, it can’t be proven one way or the other, but we would HOPE for the Mercy of God.

That fruit should tell you something about the people who advocate it and also something about the concept itself!

Does it sound more like Satan or Jesus?

Ummm very nice, that would include a lot of the Saints too, I don’t mind being tarred with the same brush as a Saint.

Who would laugh more with joy if an infant ended up in Limbo–Jesus or Satan?

Provided you know what Limbo is, some refer to it as a state of being, being with God but deprived of the Beatific vision, can someone with sin look at God and live ? I’m not sure, can an unclean soul come into the presence of God.
Well anyway when Jesus descended into Hell as it says in the Creed, He did free those that weren’t Baptized, Baptism of Blood was it ?

So I wouldn’t give up hope for babies, they may be eternally happy in eternal bliss without seeing the Face of God, we simply don’t know.

I challenged anyone to definately tell me the fate of the unBaptized babies.

 

[mich2]

Limbo lovers answer this one question: why does Inclination towards sin Damn anyone who does not follow through with that Inclination and Actually sin?

Actually, God has no problems forgiving actual sins. He did it all the time during the Old Testament. The problem lies more in the sinful nature which assures us that we will sin eventually, and continuously. We cannot enter Heaven in such a state. A new nature needs to be given us in order to assure us that, a person who wills to follow God will never sin.Infant are therefore in need of some type of baptism before entering Heaven! Do you agree with this part?

Here’s another question: If one does not Actually sin and if the scriptures tell the truth when they say that God wills that all men be saved why would God Choose not to give a person like that salvific grace?

If one never sinned, it can only be because such a person, either has not received the opportunity to sin, such as in the case of the infant, or does not possess the sinful nature as in the case of Mary. However, this also means that the infant never had the opportunity to do good as well…by definition, this is a state of limbo.If such a person enters Heaven still having the sinful nature, we can be assured that such a soul would eventually sin in Heaven…which I think would be desastrous for the individual in question.Therefore, God seems to provide for us some ways in which we can escape sinning in Heaven; baptism being the first case, and the state of Limbo could actually be the other for those who haven’t received baptism.

How can God choose not to give that grace and not contradict Himself in holy Scripture Inspired by the Holy Spirit who Is God when he says that it is His will that All men be saved?

Then, why doesn’t God give such a grace to anyone who lives a righteous life( meaning someone who constantly fights against his sinful tendencies and not one
who lives without sinning for this is impossible for one having a sinful nature) as well, who only happens to follow another religious faith? Notice that such people,in fighting against sin, are actually reaching for God, while the infant doesn’t. Now, if you would bring forward the possibility of the infant as being capable for reaching for God, and pointing to the foetus of John the Baptist as evidence for it, I agree…but this would only prove at the same time that infants are somehow capable of sinning without expressing the sin through the body yet. It cannot be otherwise, unless you show me that we are not born with the original sin but we develop it through time.

Last question: When Jesus said “Do not hinder the little children to come unto me” was He only speaking of children beyond the age of reason?

Would a Loving Jesus Let anyone who would hinder a little child to come unto him as happens in not Baptizing that child have the Freedom to with their Sin Hinder that child from coming to Jesus at their death?

Do not hinder shows a willful response on the part of the children. Some prostestants, who do not believe in infant baptism because they claim the individual as such must ask for baptism, actually baptize their children at about three or four years of age
because of the words of Jesus…" do not hinder…".

The Limbo lovers will not honestly with the love of Jesus answer these questions.

Well, I hope I did.

If they did they could no longer be proponents of limbo!

Try me

I would gladly give up voicing my opinion about what Jesus would or would not do with unbaptized infants if proponents of Limbo would do the same.

I don’t know why you would do this as these forums are exactly for the sharing of opinions in order to increase in knowledge.

That will never happen!

That fruit should tell you something about the people who advocate it and also something about the concept itself!

Does it sound more like Satan or Jesus?

Who would laugh more with joy if an infant ended up in Limbo–Jesus or Satan?

Fisky little one …aren’t you?

Andre

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Atemi:

It is the undeniable doctrine of the RCC that one’s soul must be in a state of grace when death occurs or they are sent immediately to Hell. This is undeniable. The person that dies with the stain of Original Sin still on their soul is not in a state of grace, by definition.

Well then what you are saying is that you are denying that the Church does not teach Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance.

Atemi:

Now compare that to what I claimed above and you will see that what I said is incontrovertable (without rejecting RC teaching altogether).

Your posts on this subject evidence no understanding of Catholic teaching. Moreover, your diction indicates some sort of infallibility in your point of view. An infallibility which does not exist.

The reality is that you have not taken into account Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance. That is one reason you are not Pope.

 

[Teflon93]

It is the undeniable doctrine of the RCC that one’s soul must be in a state of grace when death occurs or they are sent immediately to Hell. This is undeniable. The person that dies with the stain of Original Sin still on their soul is not in a state of grace, by definition.

Original sin is the privation or absence of sanctifying grace…in other words, the stain of Original Sin means that one is not in a state of grace.

What I said it totally correct, and here it is infallibly defined at the Ecumenical Council of Florence:

“…the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished…”

Now compare that to what I claimed above and you will see that what I said is incontrovertable (without rejecting RC teaching altogether).

…

Atemi, you keep making assertions. What is your evidence for the infallibility of Florence?

You also seem to have completely missed that the passage you represent is nothing more than a restatement of Lyons from 1274. The point of Florence was to correct the Greeks and other fallen-away churches to heal up a schism. You also seem to have completely missed or ignored that Florence made a distinction in what happens to those souls with original sin only. This distinction undergirds the Catechism.

You also seem to understand the Catholic, particularly the medieval Catholic, view of Hell not at all.

It should also be noted that the doctrine of Purgatory allows for post-death cleansing of the soul.

 

[Teflon93]

This only confirms my point, unless you have misconstrued it.

Hoping that God will have mercy on an “innocent” that has not received forgiveness through the Sacrament…and hoping that the “innocent” have some way to be saved…only goes to show that the RCC does not view these infants to be innocents at all.

It confirms your point not one whit. Regurgitating your belief in your own infallibility is completely unpersuasive. You either cannot comprehend or will not acknowledge the leap you make from “we do not know” to “they are damned.”

Does Catholicism teach that God punishes the innocent?

Why would God forever damn an innocent person?

The Catholic Church does not claim God damns these children. We claim we do not know, but we offer their souls in the hope that He does not, based on Christ’s urging to bring them to him.

If you say He would not, then how come the Catholic Church teaches that we can only “hope” they will be saved?

This still has not been addressed.

It has been addressed multiple times; you do not listen because it is inconvenient for you.

We hope because we know Christ’s mercy, but we do not claim direct revelation on this score. That is because we are honest, and do not twist God’s word even when doing so would suit us.

So you yourself post the infallible declaration of your church that says all those who die with the stain of Original Sin alone go to Hell forever to be punished.

Where do you get “infallible declaration” from? Is every concilar utterance infallible in your view? It does not say “forever to be punished” either. Your paraphrases are not only fallible, but wrong. You are bordering on dishonesty here by inserting your interpretations.

Does God damn and forever punish the innocent in Catholicism?

Yes or no?

No, but you alternate between claiming prebaptismal infants are guilty or innocent. Which are they? You cannot hold both.

A citation from the Catechism would be nice here because that is the only thing that you will believe thus far.

Why bother when you ignore it?

Which Catechism?

They change from what I have seen, but that is a different thread. That is why I even posted from Trent, which was summarily rejected for some strange reason.

…

The Catechism.

Perhaps your trouble is you somehow believe that Church teachings and doctrines are immutable, a claim the Church refers for dogma alone.

Or perhaps your trouble is you have a simple anti-Catholic motivation here.

Do you seek to establish the Catholic Church teaches the damnation of prebaptismal infants because you want to claim the Church is unjust? Why do you ignore evidence to the contrary? Why do you refuse to state your purpose and your beliefs?