What did ‘it’ do to deserve to exist and be eternally happy?
Why*** shouldn’t*** it be happy? Why shouldn’t ANYONE be happy?
No merit of mine could claim existence as a deserved reward. Why should we all be happy? We don’t have a right to be made happy, we dont have a right to even exist at all, but through the goodness and mercy of God, He brings us into existence to share in His divine nature.
I do want to apologize for implying that you used the word “damned”. I was mixing that up with the OP…sorry.
We absolutely should be happy. If we are not it is because of our own failings.
We are created in His image and we exist for His glory.
That’s where you’re getting mixed up. God doesn’t “make” us happy. God has genuine love for us and genuine love requires free will. We are free to lead our lives pretty much any way we want up to and including inflicting pain and suffering upon ourselves or other people. That is where the unhappiness comes from, we inflict it on ourselves. The good news is no matter how much suffering may come upon us in this life we have undying hope in the love and mercy of God. It is all temporary. He loves us each and every one of us unconditionally. He knows our trials and suffers along with us. In the end if we lay these things upon God they are for our ultimate good because in our trials and suffering we have the greatest opportunity to grow closer to and deeper in love with God.
He has the right to do anything He wishes. What He has chosen to do is reveal His glory to us in the flesh in the Person of His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ. The Word of God became flesh to show us face to face what we had forgotten about God and just as importantly what we had forgotten about ourselves. We have seen that glory and we can participate in that glory by being everything Christ is, by demonstrating the same perfect unselfish love that He demonstrated. That my friend is what we humans had lost. All of the law and the prophets and all of creation points to one thing and that thing is love.
As to the abortionist argument: I don’t think I’ve ever heard an abortionist use avoidance of a life of sin to justify abortion. An unrepentant abortionist is himself steeped in mortal sin; and it’s hard to make the case that he has a problem with sin as that is understood by Christians.
Hmmm. Now, this starts my tiny little wheels turning. Setting aside sinners who are damned: is not experiencing the Beatific Vision necessarily a punishment? If a soul is incapable of experiencing the Beatific Vision, can’t it still experience supreme natural happiness? In such a case, the soul is as happy as it is capable of being. It may know that it is not experience supernatural happiness, but does it necessarily follow that this privation causes suffering?
No, He doesn’t want us to be unhappy. He created us to know, love and serve Him in this life and be eternally happy with him in the next. But He also gave us free will: you can’t have true love without free will. And if we choose not to love Him, He will respect our decision.
Do not underestimate the power of God.
I think you misunderstand what the Beatific Vision is. It does not refer to "seeing’ with the eye. The “Vision” is defined as a direct experience of God that is not obscured by anything created. It is “Beatific” because it is supernatural, not natural (i.e., of this world or created) in essence.
The beatific vision is a supernatural gift from God. It is not a part of man’s natural end to be ordered towards the beatific vision. That’s his supernatural end. His natural end is to be happy through natural means (contemplation of God through the physical creation). This is the “perfect natural happiness” that the infants in limbo enjoy. They cannot enjoy the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision because this is a free gift of God that must, on his word, be preceded by Baptism.
Actually, there is only one type of Baptism - water Baptism.
Ok, so what you are saying is that you feel that infants should NOT be damned? Yes?
I don’t think anyone “wants” to believe in infants being damned.
Yes. The lesson here is that God is not bound to bestow sactifying grace soley by means of Baptism. That is one reason why we may legitimately hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants, even though right now, we can’t know one way or the other.
The question legitimately arises out of (a) the necessity of Baptism, and (b) our uncertainty regarding the fate of those who die without Baptism and who lack the use of reason. This would include not only infants but also the mentally handicapped or mentally ill who have never had the use of reason and therefore lack the full use of free will.
The truth is the truth, whether we want to believe it or not. We ought never to believe something that’s not true, no matter how painful it is, because we are bound to seek the truth and live the truth. We don’t get to construct our own truths. It happens that, when it comes to this issue, we don’t know what the truth is. We can only trust in the mercy of God, Who loves the unbaptized babies infinitely more than we do.
Correct, I do not believe unbaptized infants are damned. It flies in the face of practically everything God has revealed to us through Christ.
It all stems from the Latin emphasis on legalism and justice and a skewed understanding of original sin. The Latin Fathers tended to see original sin as an actual inherited guilt. That’s why you hear posters on this thread speaking of “punishment” for unbaptized infants. You only punish people who are actually guilty of something.
I’ve never heard the term “inherited guilt” before today. I don’t recall ever seeing this term used in the Catechism or any other Church document. I’ve never been taught anything remotely resembling that we are “guilty” of Adams sin.
The beatific vision is a supernatural gift from God. It is not a part of man’s natural end to be ordered towards the beatific vision. That’s his supernatural end. His natural end is to be happy through natural means (contemplation of God through the physical creation). This is the “perfect natural happiness” that the infants in limbo enjoy. They cannot enjoy the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision because this is a free gift of God that must, on his word, be preceded by Baptism.
From the 5th session of the Council of Trent
Not too much though we wouldn’t normally use the term “Original Sin” to apply to our state but rather to the act itself. In fact you normally won’t hear the term original sin at all but rather the term “ancestral sin”. It sounds to me like you are describing essentially the same thing Orthodoxy teaches. I just question whether or not what you say has always been the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The documents from the Council of Trent seem to say otherwise. Also at least several of your fellow Catholics on this thread seem to have the impression that unbaptized infants receive “punishment” from God. What would God have to punish them for if they are not guilty of something?