Do you believe with utmost certainty that unbaptized babies go to Heaven?

[Isaiah45_9]

This forum. But I want to be clear on what I’m saying.

What I have heard from EO in this forum is that we are NOT born with original sin but we must live with the consequences of Adam’s sin in the world around us.

This was explained in a thread wherein the Immaculate Conception was being disputed by an Orthodox, Nekarios Lady.

Now, Catholics say that Mary was conceived immaculately by a special privilege. But EO reject this. And if NONE of us are born with that stain, then we are all “clean” or immaculate from the time of our conception.

That is what I have pieced together from assorted posts, and that is why I wrote:

**If I have misunderstood, please explain where my error lies.
**
Thanks.

So let me see if I understand your reply:

An anonymous internet poster that claims to be Orthodox posts something on a Catholic forum. And you take that post as the authority to make a post in regards to what Orthodox believe as a whole?

And you don’t see this as a grave error in making such an assertion?

Let’s turn the tables and pretend an anonymous internet poster that claims to be Catholic posts something on an Orthodox forum. And an Orthodox poster regards that post to be the Catholic position.

Without first verifying that such a thing is the actual Catholic position?

You see the error now?

 

[PRmerger]

The **context **of that post is not specific to the unborn and infants. But a general “we” as the post clearly shows.

The **context **of your 2nd post is specific to infants and the unborn.

Let’s be clear on something, please:

What exactly do you mean by deserve and what do the quotation marks on that word exclude from the definition?

Let’s just be clear, first, about your post. Did I use quotation marks originally in this discussion around “deserve(s)” or did I not?

Because you, clearly, asserted that my quotation marks were a recent addition.

I would like to see you rescind that before I continue with you. It’s just a matter of justice for me.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Let’s just be clear, first, about your post. Did I use quotation marks originally in this discussion around “deserve(s)” or did I not?

Because you, clearly, asserted that my quotation marks were a recent addition.

I would like to see you rescind that before I continue with you. It’s just a matter of justice for me.

It is about winning

I will admit that you used quotation marks in the general sense of “we” and not exclusively and particularly to the unborn and infants. As my post already did but that you still need to be justified.

 

[rogergosselin]

Pope Eugene’s statement isn’t to be interpreted as “therefore, the unbaptized go to Limbo.” Limbo isn’t even mentioned in the text.

True, Pope Eugene IV did not refer to Limbo by name. He did define that Hell is not monolithic, that there are regions of Hell with fundamentally different kinds and degrees of suffering. When considering unbaptized infants, that logically indicates Limbo, and Pope Pius VI subsequently further defines that doctrine.

It is also true that the unbaptized do not necessarily go to Limbo.I did not see a post that made this claim. If those unbaptized carry actual sin within their souls, they also have to suffer some punishment, in a different region of Hell.

Additionally, Pope Eugene IV infallibly proclaims, as many other Pope’s before and after him, as well as the dogmatic Council of Trent, that there is absolutely no hope of Heaven for the unbaptized. That also has to be reconciled, as dronald justifiably demands in post #261, with statements previously linked to “The International Theological Commission” (not infallible), www.catholicnews.com (not infallible) and non-ex cathedra statements from Benedict XVI (not infallible).

And Pope Pius’s statement simply judged a statement as not being heretical. That’s NOT the same thing as endorsing it. Nor is even close to proclaiming it as a DOGMA. .

Please read the quote from Auctorem Fidei again. Pope Piux VI did not judge a statement as not being heretical; quite the opposite. He condemned the notion that Limbo (or whatever you want to call this outer region of Hell) is merely theological speculation. A condemnation by a Pope is DOGMA!

The Pope was responding to theologians at the time who were promoting the opinion that unbaptized infants, when they die, suffered punishment. Pope Pius VI was actually revealing how God’s justice is reconciled with His mercy; that infants who die in original sin, only, do not suffer the fires of Hell, even though they are deprived of the beatific vision. This is still Hell.

You have been duped, roger, into believing a lie.
Limbo is NOT dogma, doctrine, discipline…it is theological speculation only.

Kind of reminds me of the old song lyrics: “Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?”. The Popes have infallibly revealed the doctrine of Limbo, but you deny it based on theological speculation from fallible sources.

 

[PRmerger]

It is about winning

Perhaps for you.

But not for me. Never about winning. Always about proclaiming the truth.

And NEVER about creating a god that conforms to my own wishes.

I will admit that you used quotation marks in the general sense of “we” and not exclusively and particularly to the unborn and infants. As my post already did but that you still need to be justified.

Nope. Not what I requested.

sigh!

 

[SteveVH]

The Popes have infallibly revealed the doctrine of Limbo, but you deny it based on theological speculation from fallible sources.

Please produce the document. If you are correct this should not be difficult in the least.

Thanks.

Steve

 

[PRmerger]

True, Pope Eugene IV did not refer to Limbo by name. He did define that Hell is not monolithic, that there are regions of Hell with fundamentally different kinds and degrees of suffering.

Yes. You are very Catholic when you profess this.

When considering unbaptized infants, that logically indicates Limbo, and Pope Pius VI subsequently further defines that doctrine.

No. He only says that it is permissible.

But it is never defined as doctrine and absolutely NOT defined as dogma.

And our Church, in her wisdom, has professed that the statements of these prior popes do NOT refer to limbo. At all.

 

[PRmerger]

Additionally, Pope Eugene IV infallibly proclaims, as many other Pope’s before and after him, as well as the dogmatic Council of Trent, that there is absolutely no hope of Heaven for the unbaptized.

I wonder, roger, if you do not attend Mass during the Feast of the Holy Innocents?

Or do you attend Mass on this day and decide, contrary to the Church, that these Holy Innocents, being absolutely UNBAPTIZED, are actually in hell and the Church is in error in giving them honor…a title of HOLY?

 

[PRmerger]

Please produce the document. If you are correct this should not be difficult in the least.

Thanks.

Steve

Roger’s position has been refuted by the great itsjustdave1988 (where has he been?? Come back, dave!)
here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1574153

 

[rogergosselin]

I wonder, roger, if you do not attend Mass during the Feast of the Holy Innocents?

Or do you attend Mass on this day and decide, contrary to the Church, that these Holy Innocents, being absolutely UNBAPTIZED, are actually in hell and the Church is in error in giving them honor…a title of HOLY?

Whoa! Excellent point! That is a very challenging question for me. Thank You.

Please give me a little time for some honest research on the Feast of the Holy Innocents.I will get back to you. My immediate question is how this celebration can be reconciled with the ex cathedra proclamations that the unbaptized descend immediately to Hell. I do not will to decide contrary to the Church in any matter. This is going to require some careful consideration on my part.

 

[PRmerger]

Whoa! Excellent point! That is a very challenging question for me. Thank You.

Please give me a little time for some honest research on the Feast of the Holy Innocents.I will get back to you. My immediate question is how this celebration can be reconciled with the ex cathedra proclamations that the unbaptized descend immediately to Hell. I do not will to decide contrary to the Church in any matter. This is going to require some careful consideration on my part.

Go right ahead. Research.

I can tell you right now the right conclusion you are going to get: you are wrong about the idea of Limbo being proclaimed infallibly.

 

[Robyn_p]

So essentially I’m curious as to why, if the Jews is where Christianity originated from, that the Jews have no concept of original sin; unless they do. I’m curious what the Catholic posters think of this, because as Christians we must have a wide open mind to Jewish history.

Assuming again that Catholicism and their belief on original sin is true, then it must have always been true (with the Jews of course from a Catholic perspective.) So i’m curious why the Jews never reached the same or a similar conclusion about the destiny of infants.

Dronald, you know, the exact same argument could be used against Christian belief in the Trinity.

“Assuming again that Catholicism and their belief on [the Trinity] is true, then it must have always been true (with the Jews of course from a Catholic perspective.) So i’m curious why the Jews never reached the same or a similar conclusion about the **[nature of God]
**”
I’m sure you would answer the same as I that while there are hints of and clues of the Trinity in the Old Testament, it wouldn’t be until the coming of Christ that the full revelation of God’s nature would be made known. Even then, it would still be several centuries before all the implications were worked out. The fact that the Jews never came to an explicit belief in the Trinity themselves doesn’t mean Christians have no justification in believing it.

Same thing with Original Sin. The fact that the Jews never came to an explicit belief in it (though again, there are hints of it in the Old Testament) doesn’t affect the Catholic belief. It was only after the coming of Christ that Christians were able to see the full extent and damage sin did to our nature.

Does that make sense?

 

[rogergosselin]

Roger’s position has been refuted by the great itsjustdave1988 (where has he been?? Come back, dave!)
here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1574153

Please quote specifically what the refutation is. I am interested.

The first post in the link provided, by Ron Conte, confirms exactly the doctrine as I have thus far understood it. Maybe you have another “Feast of the Holy Innocents” bombshell to throw at me.

(I just couldn’t resist an emoticon this time.)

 

[dronald]

Dronald, you know, the exact same argument could be used against Christian belief in the Trinity.

“Assuming again that Catholicism and their belief on [the Trinity] is true, then it must have always been true (with the Jews of course from a Catholic perspective.) So i’m curious why the Jews never reached the same or a similar conclusion about the **[nature of God]
**”
I’m sure you would answer the same as I that while there are hints of and clues of the Trinity in the Old Testament, it wouldn’t be until the coming of Christ that the full revelation of God’s nature would be made known. Even then, it would still be several centuries before all the implications were worked out. The fact that the Jews never came to an explicit belief in the Trinity themselves doesn’t mean Christians have no justification in believing it.

Same thing with Original Sin. The fact that the Jews never came to an explicit belief in it (though again, there are hints of it in the Old Testament) doesn’t affect the Catholic belief. It was only after the coming of Christ that Christians were able to see the full extent and damage sin did to our nature.

Does that make sense?

The Trinity wasn’t revealed during the time of the Jews. I can honestly say that Jewish people never believed in a “Trinity” before Christ and continue to not accept such because they don’t believe Jesus was anything special.

What I’m saying is; the teaching of original sin must have been deep in Jewish Theology because that’s where our beliefs stem from. Are you saying original sin was created after Jesus died and not before?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yep.

It’s creating a god after one’s own image.

And NEVER about creating a god that conforms to my own wishes.

I’ve seen this Timothy Keller partial quote (“If your god never disagrees with you, you might just be worshiping an idealized version of yourself.”)

And I wholeheartedly agree with it. Because I find our Lord often disagreeing with me .

However. its extensive use makes me wonder if it is being used in order to question the sincerity of the poster’s belief…

On the flip side of that, if I “think” that my personal beliefs are often in line with our Lord, would I not be making the same mistake?

Thinking out loud here, like Randy likes to say

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Nope. Not what I requested.

sigh!

:sad_bye:

 

[rogergosselin]

Please produce the document. If you are correct this should not be difficult in the least.

Thanks.

Steve

Sources for two papal proclamations were given in posts 244 and 262. Are you asking for links to the original documents? I suppose anyone could find it on the web, but the original language would be in Latin.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Nope. Not what I requested.

sigh!

You know what?

I rescind my post saying that you didn’t have quotation marks on the word “deserve”.

Would you please rescind in telling people they have been duped and that they are making God in their own image?

 

[Kurisu35712]

My immediate question is how this celebration can be reconciled with the ex cathedra proclamations that the unbaptized descend immediately to Hell. I do not will to decide contrary to the Church in any matter. This is going to require some careful consideration on my part.

I don’t see what you have to reconcile since no pope has declared, ex cathedra, that unbaptized infants descend immediately to hell. If so, we’ll need a link to that declaration.

 

[Robyn_p]

The Trinity wasn’t revealed during the time of the Jews. I can honestly say that Jewish people never believed in a “Trinity” before Christ and continue to not accept such because they don’t believe Jesus was anything special.

What I’m saying is; the teaching of original sin must have been deep in Jewish Theology because that’s where our beliefs stem from. Are you saying original sin was created after Jesus died and not before?

No. I’m saying the full implication of what Adam’s sin did to us wasn’t understood until then.

Maybe a better example than the Trinity would be the Jewish understanding of the messiah. (since that one isn’t technically a new revelation, unlike the Trinity.) The Jewish people didn’t believe that the messiah was going to suffer and die and be resurrected, or even that he was going to come to redeem us from our sins. They still don’t believe that, as far as I know. (Please correct me if I’m wrong meltzerboy) That’s why the disciples were so shocked when it happened, and why Paul calls the cross a stumbling block.

Yet we don’t say that because they don’t have the same theology of the messiah as we do, that our understanding of the messiah is mistaken. I guess I just don’t see why the same principle can’t apply to the doctrine of original sin. If we’re not bound by their understanding of the messiah, why are we bound by their understanding of original sin?

Yes it’s true, our beliefs do stem from the Old Testament. (and I would say the doctrine of original sin is rooted in the Old Testament.) But that’s different than saying we need to have the exact same understanding of every point of theology as the Jewish people do, no? I feel like we should be more concerned with what the apostles taught.