Does being Catholic guarantee salvation?

[ISABUS]

Sherlock:

Isabus,

You wrote: “Sherlock, oh…it breaks my heart to think that you must have had a childhood filled with pain from having an alcoholic Mom. I’m so sorry. Really I am. Here is a big cyberhug for you and it’s filled with tons of LOVE.”

Oh, Isabus—you are a sweetheart! However, my childhood was not filled with pain. I have had a very blessed life, and I am thankful for those blessings. The world is crammed with others who have far greater need of a cyberhug than I—but thank you for the sentiments.

God bless!

I wish I had seen your post sooner! I didn’t realize you had written it yesterday. How charming of you to be so gentle and kind Sherlock. This is one of the nicest things anyone has said to me since I joined this group. Thank you. It’s a real pleasure to meet you. And, I’m relieved by knowing that your childhood brought you joy. Your sharing this has made me happy.

You keep the cyberhug. You deserve it along with a lifetime of happiness! :yup:

One of the most beautiful and touching proofs of the love that God gives us is His personal care of each one of us. Since the moment of our creation, he has never taken His eyes off us. Nothing happens to us, not the least thing, without His divine consent. The Holy Ghost, Our Greatest Friend, He Who Loves Us Best by Fr. Paul O’Sullivan, O.P, Tan Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1991

May you always find comfort and consolation within the sacred heart of Jesus ~
with Love, Peace, and great JOY,
Mary

 

[hecd2]

Dear Sherlock, let’s try again,

Sherlock:

Hecd2,

Perhaps one of the problems we have understanding one another is that our concept of God is obviously very different. This reminds me of Socrates’ dialogue with Euthyphro, in which he asks, “Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy?” Substitute here the God of Abraham for the gods of Greece, and use “good” instead of holiness for the purposes of our discussion. Now, some (not all) Jews, Christians, and Muslims would embrace a version of “it is good because God approves it”. (This is why extremist Muslims can commit murder and mayhem, for example—in their eyes, God approves this and therefore it is good).

Hmm, I certainly would not agree that Christians have always been free of the error of committing murder and mayhem and justifying it by appeal to their conception of what God approves - but that is off-topic.

However, the classic Catholic understanding is that God IS good (or holy, if you want). God’s will IS holiness. Holiness is God’s eternal nature, and thus God always wills in accordance with his nature. Catholics do not see God as a tyrant, acting arbitrarily. I’m not sure you understand that.

I understand the idea perfectly. It does, of course lead inexorably into the theodicy problem, which is also off-topic, but I don’t think we need to go there to come to an understanding of one another’s position.

We can have trust in God’s goodness. So when, in response to my question, “Are you saying, then, that God’s judgement of unbaptized infants constitutes a calamity”, you answer, “Of course, if that judgement banishes the infant to hell or limbo or some other state outside heaven”, you can see that our concepts of God are far apart. I can trust that God will not banish unbaptized infants to hell. But no, I cannot make a “calamity”, as you do, of limbo or some other state. I trust in God as good.

Saying this does not remove the necessity of baptism as the normative “doorway” to salvation, for reasons that I’ve stated earlier.

This is absolutely the crux of the matter and one that you really haven’t addressed. Let me set it out very plainly.

Either there is a substantive difference in the eternal fate between baptised and unbaptised infants or there isn’t. If there isn’t then there is no urgency to baptise infants. If there is then that urgency exists.

You say that you are certain that baptised infants go to heaven, but you don’t know what the fate of unbaptised infants is, they might go to heaven, they might go to limbo, or they might go to hell or some other eternal fate might await them. Your explanation for the urgency for baptism is therefore not that heaven is definitely barred to the unbaptised but that through baptism we turn an uncertain fate into a certain happy fate. Have I said anything so far that you disagree with?

Now, my problem is with the notion that the eternal fate of the immortal souls of the hundreds of millions of babies who die in infancy, which eternal fate is infinitely more momentous than anything that might befall us in life, can be determined by the accidents of the circumstances surrounding their short lives, and by the performance of a short ceremony that relies on the fortuitous presence of a person able and willing to do this. I cannot begin to accede to such a, in my mind, perverse notion.

At some age less than ten, it might even been as early as five, I was taught how to baptise if I ever encountered an infant in extremis (I even remember being made to practise on a doll, which performance had no more lasting significance than if I had ever had to do it in reality, which thankfully, I have not. )

Alec
evolutionpages.com%between%

 

[hecd2]

Sherlock:

You wrote: “Turning uncertainty into certainty is the function of an insurance policy.”

Nonsense. Having an insurance policy does not give me the certainty that a calamity will not befall me (it may). It merely attempts to give me some kind of aid when it happens. Baptism is not some sort of insurance policy, but a vehicle of grace and a doorway to salvation—sorry, but the analogy just doesn’t work within the Catholic understanding of God.

Dear Sherlock,

Well, it doesn’t matter whether we call it an insurance policy or not. My car and home policy don’t offer just aid, but certainty that my long term state with regard to car and home ownership is assured come what may, and it is in that sense that I use the term. But I apologise if it scandalises you to think of it this way.

It is however a fact that you explained the urgency for infant baptism, not on the grounds that there is a different fate for the baptised and unbaptised, but that it turns an uncertain state into certain happy state.

Alec

homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[hecd2]

Sherlock:

Hecd2,

To continue with our discussion: you wrote: “The Catholic doctrine of Original Sin does not describe a tendency but a universal state - the idea that we are born with a stain that no acts of good will can remove but only, as in the case of an infant, an unwilled and entirely fortuitous ceremony, which moreover might be instrumental in determining the eternal fate of the infant’s soul, well this strikes me as meretricious mumbo-jumbo - this is what I call a grotesque concept.”

Catholic doctrine does describe a tendency AND a universal state: a universal tendency, you might say. I haven’t found that this contradicts anything I’ve seen in the world around me. Here is a passage from “Gaudium et Spes” which I think puts it quite well:

“What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn toward what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end; and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as between himself and other men and all creatures.”

No, no act of good will can remove this—you’re right. One person, Christ, removed it, and baptism imparts Christ’s grace. I would recommend reading the Catechism’s section on original sin and its effects, and the effects of baptism. Baptism confers grace—since we can’t “will” grace (it is a gift), then whether or not the recipient is an unaware infant or a very aware convert matters not.

Dear Sherlock,

Let me say first of all that the way you describe what you believe is extremely articulate and obviously carefully thought through and deeply felt. I have immense respect for that even though we do not agree about many things.

And having said that, I have to say that there are several things that you say here that I disagree with, viz:

• The extent to which people are drawn towards good or evil has, in my experience, very poor correlation with whether or not they profess faith in general or the Roman Catholic faith in particular
• Some people have broken the right order between themselves and other people and organisms (and I could say the inanimate universe as well), but that has nothing to do with the lack of acknowledgement of the Catholic conception of God or any god at all
• the concept that God’s grace is a gift to be bestowed to some and not to others, for some unfathomable reason unconnected with merit is impossible for me to accept - this idea I think is based on a wise and ancient explanation for the observation that our moral, intellectual, physical and material endowments are based not on merit but on the fortune of our birth; and we now know by random meiotic recombination in our parents and the environment of our youth
• the idea that there is a *state *of original Sin that can be removed by a simple ceremony seems to me to represent pure superstitition: I am convinced that in every respect the baptised and unbaptised infant are, all other things being equal, indistinguishable in grace, moral virtue and ultimate fate.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[ISABUS]

Does being Catholic guarantee salvation? The answer is “”“NO”"" based on what I have observed in less than 24 hours as a 40 + year old Catholic:

On message board “uncaused cause”, thread 99 Sherlock wrote …

Don’t ask Christians to give you “evidence” of their generosity to charitable causes—it’s just unseemly. We’re not to trumpet our giving.

and

Here’s a hint for the future, though: Christians are instructed not to boast of their giving.

and

Catholics believe that man is more than a clever animal. A charity that can give spiritual help as well as material help treats the whole person, not just their material needs.

and

Can you give me one good reason why I should send money to an unknown individual who is hostile to religion, instead of to these [Christian] charities?

Sherlock, you obviously haven’t been a Christian nor a volunteer for as long as I have. Who gives you the right to tell me what I can or cannot do? I’ve been an active fundraiser and volunteer for more than 25 years. If I want to do a jig on the ocean by the light of the moon or scream to the high heavens “GIVE GIVE GIVE to help the homeless because I GAVE TOO!” what business of yours?

I’ll be at a large fundraiser later today that will help the homeless people of Grenada. I’ve never been there but have plans to travel there in early Decemeber with a group of ladies who put together a non-profit charity because they care about people, especially homeless children. Tonight, I sure won’t be preaching the gospel or quoting from my Catholic bible when I pull on the coat tails of the mayor, pretty pleading with him to cut loose with a big check. I’ll be telling him I’ve been giving my time, energy, and money to worthy causes and hope he will too.

Those people who attend charity fundraisers are all spiritual beings. They come from every walk of life and don’t really care if it is a Christian based organization and neither do I. The organization I belong to isn’t “”“Christian”"" but it is made up of a few Christians.

Have you ever seen children starving? Have you ever seen the aftermaths of a hurricane where people have no home to protect them in the winter time? Well, I have. I lived on an island when a monster Hurricane ravished homes and riped apart hearts. The last thing children or adults need is someone preaching to them. All they want is food and shelter. Your “”“loving”"" help is the spiritual food, your labor their shelter.

Give because you care. Want to buy a calendar?

Mary putting a fork in this thread!

 

[Sherlock]

Isabus,

I am short on time this morning, and so although I wanted to respond to Hecd2, after reading your post I may have to wait until later as yours requires a prompt response.

You seem to be under the impression that this discussion is all about YOU. Sorry, but it’s not.

You wrote: “Sherlock, you obviously haven’t been a Christian nor a volunteer for as long as I have.”

Why is this obvious? You know nothing about me. This is a ludicrous and uncharitable assumption on your part, but hey, whatever…

You wrote: “Who gives you the right to tell me what I can or cannot do?”

I haven’t told you to do or not do anything. What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with you.

You wrote: “If I want to do a jig on the ocean by the light of the moon or scream to the high heavens “GIVE GIVE GIVE to help the homeless because I GAVE TOO!” what business of yours?”

If you want to do that, that is your business. I never said anything about you—I don’t know you from Adam. Why have you made this all about you? However, my statement, “Here’s a hint for the future, though: Christians are instructed not to boast of their giving”, was accurate. Read Matthew 6:1-15. Here’s part of what it says: “But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you”. You have a problem with Jesus, not with me. I was responding to Hecd2’s provocation that I was just bluster—all talk, no walk. This has nothing to do with you.

As I mentioned in my post in response to Hecd2, I tithe. I give to many charities. But no, I won’t send money to an individual on the Internet who I don’t know, and who is hostile to religion. I have given to hurricane victims, yes, but through accountable charities such as Catholic Relief Services and missionary groups. If you want to send money to individuals on the Internet, that’s fine with me: as I mentioned, this has nothing to do with you. And, for what it’s worth, I think that Hecd2 is probably legit.

You wrote: “The last thing children or adults need is someone preaching to them. All they want is food and shelter. Your “”“loving””" help is the spiritual food, your labor their shelter."

Why is it either/or? Can’t a person put a new roof up for a displaced family, AND join them in prayer if they wish? How do you know that “all they want is food and shelter”? Speak for yourself! I know that if I lost my home to some calamity, I would appreciate my priest’s prayers for my family as well as his material support. I know my family would appreciate being able to join with parish members in saying prayers together, as well as their help in restoring our home. But maybe man is just a clever animal to you—give him ONLY food and shelter, that’s all he needs. And for heaven’s sake, I’m not talking about “preaching” or proselytizing—these people are probably already Catholic or other Christian.

If I refused to aid people because the only providers of that aid were hostile to religion, then you might have a point. But that’s seldom the case, and isn’t the case here: there ARE Catholic charities doing this same work.

 

[Sherlock]

Isabus,

Oh, and one more thing: you wrote, “Does being Catholic guarantee salvation? The answer is “”“NO””" based on what I have observed in less than 24 hours as a 40 + year old Catholic".

The answer is, indeed, “no”, but not because of the reasons (your judging the actions of others, which don’t come up to your standards) you give. The answer is “no”, bacause the Church has never taught that salvation is guaranteed. Catholics do not subscribe to a “once saved, always saved” theology, and do not presume salvation.

 

[ISABUS]

Hello Sherlock,

Very considerate of you to think I was in need of a prompt response. Thanks for the acknowledgement. Yes, you are correct that I am “under the impression this discussion is all about” me and YOU (us) . I think it’s about “our” salvation through means of reconciliation. Right?

Since I’m flat as a pancake after last night’s fundraiser, I’ll comment on a thought of yours then follow-up with the rest tomorrow, hoping our discussion will bare a few good fruits that may shed additional light to the topic at hand, “Does being Catholic guarantee salvation” as well as “caused cause”. There appears to me an electron spin going back and forth between the two! Praying for a healthy exchange of ideas by opening a few new windows that might draw in fresh air ~

You wrote the following:

I don’t know you from Adam.

I won’t send money to an individual on the Internet who I don’t know

There is evidence** I **exist but you can’t prove it can you? You don’t know me. Do you know God? You give to charities that claim God exists? Yes, of course you do and so do I. Where is the proof that God exists? Is it based on evidence? Isn’t it based on our faith? This would mean to me that salvation is existant based on faith, not on proof. Our salvation depends on how we treat each other. What do you think?

Peace ~
Mary

Ecclesiastes: CHAP. 8, Vers. 16-17 under “Man cannot understand God”

16 And I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to understand the distraction that is upon earth: for there are some that day and night take no sleep with their eyes. 17 And I understood that man can find no reason of all those works of God that are done under the sun: and the more he shall labor to seek, so much the less shall he find: yea, though the wise man shall say that he knoweth it, he shall not be able to find it.

 

[Sherlock]

Isabus,

Say what? To be honest, your post didn’t make much sense to me, nor did it appear to address the points I raised. Let me try to go through this bit by bit:

You wrote: “Yes, you are correct that I am “under the impression this discussion is all about” me and YOU (us) .”

I don’t know why you are ascribing opinions to me that I haven’t expressed. I did not say anything about this discussion being about “us”—me and you—where are you getting this from? What I did say, if you read carefully, is that you seemed to be under the impression that the discussion that I was having with Hecd2 was all about you, and it was not. Nor have I told you to do or not do anything, which is what you claimed.

You wrote: " I think it’s about “our” salvation through means of reconciliation. Right?

The discussion I was having with Hecd2 had specifically to do with baptism, with some digressions into Original Sin. You jumped in to say that, based partly on your observations, you concluded that being Catholic does not guarantee salvation. Ummm…neither I or Hecd2 were claiming that it did (in fact I don’t know if anyone on this thread did). What’s odd about your conclusion is that, according to your own words, it appears to be based on YOUR judgement of who and who does not measure up. I think I’ll stick with the Church’s position, as she has authority that I can respect.

You wrote: “There is evidence I exist but you can’t prove it can you?”

Sure I can. That we are having this exchange gives me good reason to think that you exist. Given that, if the question was important enough for me to spend the time and money, then it would be hypothetically possible for me to track you down and prove your existence. This is a no-brainer.

You wrote: “Do you know God? You give to charities that claim God exists? Yes, of course you do and so do I. Where is the proof that God exists? Is it based on evidence? Isn’t it based on our faith? This would mean to me that salvation is existant based on faith, not on proof. Our salvation depends on how we treat each other. What do you think?”

Perhaps you should start another thread with these items. I have no idea what they have to do with your initial claims (for example, “Sherlock, you obviously haven’t been a Christian nor a volunteer for as long as I have”) that I spent my last post addressing. Nor have you addressed the Scripture that I brought up about keeping our alms-giving private. In fact, you haven’t addressed much of anything that I wrote, and in this post you are merely going off into an entirely new direction. I’m not interested in playing this game until you can answer my post.

 

[Sherlock]

Hecd2,

I apologize for not getting back to your posts sooner—I’ve gotten sidetracked a bit. I’ll try to respond to all of your posts, but it might take more than one post.

You wrote: “Hmm, I certainly would not agree that Christians have always been free of the error of committing murder and mayhem and justifying it by appeal to their conception of what God approves - but that is off-topic.”

Well, I wouldn’t agree either: I never claimed that Christians have “always been free” of the errors mentioned.

You wrote: “It does, of course lead inexorably into the theodicy problem, which is also off-topic, but I don’t think we need to go there to come to an understanding of one another’s position.”

There are Catholic answers to the theodicy problem, but you are right—that’s the subject for another thread.

You wrote: “Either there is a substantive difference in the eternal fate between baptised and unbaptised infants or there isn’t.”

I’m not a theologian, and won’t pretend to have extensive familiarity with this particular topic, but I believe I am correct in saying that we simply don’t know. As I’ve said before, you are asking for certainty where none exists, at least on this side of life.

You wrote: “You say that you are certain that baptised infants go to heaven, but you don’t know what the fate of unbaptised infants is, they might go to heaven, they might go to limbo, or they might go to hell or some other eternal fate might await them.”

I never said that they might go to hell. But it is true that there might (might!) be some other place, limbo perhaps, call it what you will. As the Catechism says, “Jesus’ tenderness toward children…allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.” Perhaps the problem is that you are assuming that equality is a necessary element of a “good” heaven, and different states meaning inequality are therefore bad. But there is no indication of that from Scripture whatsoever. If you fill a thimble full of water, and a pitcher full of water, which is more full? They are equally filled to their capacity, but are not equal in their capacity.

You wrote: “The extent to which people are drawn towards good or evil has, in my experience, very poor correlation with whether or not they profess faith in general or the Roman Catholic faith in particular.”

Baptism has no effect on concupiscence, and I never claimed that it did. I have found wide variations in this as you have: I have friends who are simply gentle by nature, and others who have had an inclination to, shall we say, push limits. I’m sure there are many factors that go into the varying concupiscence of individuals. However, I would dispute the idea that a devout life and committed attempt at practicing virtue does not have an effect on one’s ability to contend with concupiscence, my own life being the one that comes to mind: I have done some very awful things before committing myself to my faith. Continuing on this path and making good use of the sacraments has made it easier to stay sane and resist my concupiscent nature. It reminds me of an anecdote told of the writer Evelyn Waugh, who was known to be a rather prickly individual. His response to this was, "I always think to myself: “I know I am awful. But how much more awful I should be without the Faith.”

I’ll try to post more later. Enjoy the week.

 

[excatholic]

John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Friend Nicodemas was all that a Jew could be, Pharisee, member of the San Hedron, The most educated teacher in Jerusalem, Yet with all of these accolades he fell short of the glory of God (Rom.3:23) Jesus said we have to be born again to see the Kingdom of God. John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Friend just being baptized is not enough. We have to allow Jesus to live in us and be our Lord. It doesn’t matter Catholic, Protestant, Jew, or Gentile If we are not born again Jesus said we would not see heaven. Remember God loves us all and being born again will get you there, these are not my words but the Word of the Messiah.

 

[sweetchuck]

excatholic:

John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Friend Nicodemas was all that a Jew could be, Pharisee, member of the San Hedron, The most educated teacher in Jerusalem, Yet with all of these accolades he fell short of the glory of God (Rom.3:23) Jesus said we have to be born again to see the Kingdom of God. John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Friend just being baptized is not enough. We have to allow Jesus to live in us and be our Lord. It doesn’t matter Catholic, Protestant, Jew, or Gentile If we are not born again Jesus said we would not see heaven. Remember God loves us all and bbeing born again will get you there, these are not my words but the Word of the Messiah.

Your message is in the right direction, but you’re misquoting John 3 due to a translation error. You cannot harness the true meaning of Jesus’ words without the actual intent of the meaning he was trying to convey here. “Born again” is overly simplistic and doesn’t get at what Jesus is saying. Nicodemus had the same misinterpretation. The actual wording is:
“Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.”

 

[hecd2]

Sherlock:

Hecd2,

I apologize for not getting back to your posts sooner—I’ve gotten sidetracked a bit. I’ll try to respond to all of your posts, but it might take more than one post.

Ditto - I’ve learned at least one thing on this forum - being an agnostic on a catholic board, and seeking to discuss conscientiously takes an inordinate amount of time - more time than I really should be spending.

We agree on the proposition that Catholics can, like all other groups of people, do evil things, and that Catholics have a suggested solution to the theodicy problem - so we can put those to one side.

You wrote: “Either there is a substantive difference in the eternal fate between baptised and unbaptised infants or there isn’t.”

I’m not a theologian, and won’t pretend to have extensive familiarity with this particular topic, but I believe I am correct in saying that we simply don’t know. As I’ve said before, you are asking for certainty where none exists, at least on this side of life.

I am not asking for certainty - I am stating a logical choice. We might not know how God chooses and so we can be uncertain, but the logical choice remains. Either there is or there isn’t a difference in the fate of the baptised and unbaptised infant - you will agree that it can’t be that there is both a difference and there is not a difference.

You wrote: “You say that you are certain that baptised infants go to heaven, but you don’t know what the fate of unbaptised infants is, they might go to heaven, they might go to limbo, or they might go to hell or some other eternal fate might await them.”

I never said that they might go to hell. But it is true that there might (might!) be some other place, limbo perhaps, call it what you will. As the Catechism says, “Jesus’ tenderness toward children…allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.”

You didn’t say unbaptised infants might go to hell, but you did say you don’t know what their fate might be. How can you be sure they won’t go to hell, if you don’t know they will go to heaven? Are you limiting their fate to different degrees of ‘good’ outcome - the lesser good of limbo or the greater good of heaven? Doe this not conflict with the statement that you can’t know what their fate will be?

You wrote: “The extent to which people are drawn towards good or evil has, in my experience, very poor correlation with whether or not they profess faith in general or the Roman Catholic faith in particular.”

Baptism has no effect on concupiscence, and I never claimed that it did. I have found wide variations in this as you have: I have friends who are simply gentle by nature, and others who have had an inclination to, shall we say, push limits. I’m sure there are many factors that go into the varying concupiscence of individuals. However, I would dispute the idea that a devout life and committed attempt at practicing virtue does not have an effect on one’s ability to contend with concupiscence, my own life being the one that comes to mind: I have done some very awful things before committing myself to my faith. Continuing on this path and making good use of the sacraments has made it easier to stay sane and resist my concupiscent nature.

I don’t dispute that adherence to an ethical religion like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism or Buddhism can be the underlying motivation for a person to live a good life, but so can sincere humanism.

I’ll try to post more later. Enjoy the week.

We are now almost through the week, so my wish is that you’ve enjoyed it.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[hecd2]

Sherlock:

There are Catholic answers to the theodicy problem, but you are right—that’s the subject for another thread.

You wrote: “Either there is a substantive difference in the eternal fate between baptised and unbaptised infants or there isn’t.”

I’m not a theologian, and won’t pretend to have extensive familiarity with this particular topic, but I believe I am correct in saying that we simply don’t know. As I’ve said before, you are asking for certainty where none exists, at least on this side of life.

.

Dear Sherlock, we have been through such thickets of argument that I think we have come to a respectful understanding.

I think it is worthwhile restating my position in the hope that we can reach, if not a common view, at least an understanding for our respective views.

My position is this - I have an honest difficulty with the concept that the eternal fate of an infant can, even in principle, be determined by whether or not she has been baptised. (I also have an honest difficulty with the concept of original sin as a state that must be cleansed by baptism if an individual is to realise the best of his potential, and the idea that baptism per se makes a substantive difference to morals, ethics or ultimate fate). I, in all conscience, think that both of these ideas (the value of infant baptism and the existence of a state of Original Sin that can be cleansed by the sacrament of baptism) are worse than neutral - I think that they are wrong and they interfere with the best that humans can aspire to and attain. So, there it is, in summary.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[Sherlock]

Hecd2,

You wrote: “I am not asking for certainty - I am stating a logical choice. We might not know how God chooses and so we can be uncertain, but the logical choice remains. Either there is or there isn’t a difference in the fate of the baptised and unbaptised infant - you will agree that it can’t be that there is both a difference and there is not a difference.”

I agree entirely that there cannot both be a difference and not a difference—that would be illogical. However, I am still left telling you that we don’t know if there is a difference. There may be (and hence the theological speculation of limbo, etc.), or there may not be. We don’t know which one it is, though you are correct in saying it cannot be both.

You wrote: “You didn’t say unbaptised infants might go to hell, but you did say you don’t know what their fate might be. How can you be sure they won’t go to hell, if you don’t know they will go to heaven?”

I can be sure because of the Catholic understanding of God as good. I have complete trust in God as good, therefore I can trust that whatever fate might await unbaptized infants, it will not be arbitrary or unjust.

You wrote: “Are you limiting their fate to different degrees of ‘good’ outcome - the lesser good of limbo or the greater good of heaven? Doe this not conflict with the statement that you can’t know what their fate will be?”

I may not be able to know their ultimate destination, but I do know some attributes of their Creator that can rule out some options, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. This does not conflict with not knowing their ultimate destination. And again, I’m no theologian: the excerpt from one theologian that I printed some posts ago indeed seems to posit a “lesser good” concept of limbo, but I haven’t read extensively on the topic. And do remember the analogy of the thimble and pitcher I gave a few posts ago: if one fills them up with water, they are equally full even if their capacity is not equal.

You wrote: “I don’t dispute that adherence to an ethical religion like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism or Buddhism can be the underlying motivation for a person to live a good life, but so can sincere humanism.”

The goal in Christianity is not “to live a good life”—that is the means, not the end. The end, the goal, is union with God. Christianity is not a magic wand that—poof!—makes one a better person automatically, but instead is God showing us the way, the truth, and the light, to borrow a phrase. “The good life” is merely the path to somewhere else. And yes, grace is given to us to reach that end, but we have to cooperate with it. So, it is true that a humanist can live a good life (I don’t dispute that), but the goal is entirely different, to put it mildly.

But, even if we just look at that “good life” for its own sake, there are differences. For instance, if you look at stats regarding charitable giving you will see that religious people tend to more generous on that front than those who are not. This is a natural result of seeing the God-given (not human-given) dignity in all, as well as the Gospel directives regarding caring for the poor, sick, etc. If one is an atheist, what sense does it make to keep alive the disabled or the mentally ill? Atheist Ayn Rand’s views, though irrational in other areas, are at least logically consistent here–the weak and silly don’t deserve to live as they are parasites upon the strong and able. Peter Singer’s views, as abhorrent as I think they are, are logically consistent.

 

[ISABUS]

hecd2:

I have an honest difficulty with the concept that the eternal fate of an infant can, even in principle, be determined by whether or not she has been baptised. (I also have an honest difficulty with the concept of original sin as a state that must be cleansed by baptism if an individual is to realise the best of his potential, and the idea that baptism per se makes a substantive difference to morals, ethics or ultimate fate). I, in all conscience, think that both of these ideas (the value of infant baptism and the existence of a state of Original Sin that can be cleansed by the sacrament of baptism) are worse than neutral - Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

Your thoughts Alec reminded me of what Thomas M. King, S.J., Associate Professor of Theology at Georgetown University remarked wherein he quotes Father Teilhard de Chardin,

"Life itself is imprecise and reaches beyond all bounds, while “the officical truth is generally dead.” (J,212) People have imposed human bounds on the universe so that it conforms with what they are familiar with and what is ordinary. But by these confines a wide and “fantastic” universe is being concealed. Teilhard would even ask, “Must not truth be extraordinary in order to be true?”

Teilhard would speak of two types of knowledge (savior): one is an abstract and timeless knowledge of “the world of Ideas and Principles.” This he claims to instinctively mistrust. The second is a “real” knowledge that is in constant develpment; it is "the conscious actuation (that is to say, the prolonged creation) of the universe about us . . . The Truth has come down from heaven, but it is a final goal to be reached and as such it is not grasped. But as people grope their way ahead with the advancing truth of scientific research, they sense the heavenly Truth as the ideal to which they proceed .

"There is a tendency “to make sacred, or taboo, that which is established.” But in order that truth advance there first must be a break with the truth that is established. Thus the innovator appears guilty of sacriledge, his or her teaching is suspected or condemned; he or she seems the cause of inquietude and often walks alone. Perhaps sucha a person hesitates to present what he or she has to say and may even be crushed. yet unless one breaks with established truth the orthodoxy of tomorrow cannot arise. Put more strongly Teilhard asks, “How can one advance in truth ( . . . ) wihtout altering that which was provisionally fixed, that is to say, without some sin” (J.212). There even seems to be an “essential liaison between progress and evil” (J, 239); for evil is that which threatens the existing order. The innovator must accept at least the risk of evil to come to the truth that will be new. The difficulty seems to reside in the very “mechanism for the acquisition of Truth.” Teilhard reflects on the cases of Galileo, Darwin, and even the new biblical criticism. In each case the material evidence presented was seen as a threat to the established orthodoxy and so it was resisted — but it was only in this way that the new orthodoxy could arise.

“Only by returning repeatedly to the threatening evidence — the risk of evil — can the veils of convention be removed and the narrowness of vision be opened to the dimensions of God.”
Teilhard’s Mysticism of Knowing by Thomas M. King, The Seabury Press, New York, 1981, p.g 40-41.

You may seem to some people within the forum as Mr. Evil (yee gads!) but there are those present here that know better ~ God bless you ~

with Love, Peace, and Joy ~

Mary

 

[The_Dead_Bishop]

In the “perfect” sense of the term “being Catholic” … yes it does guarantee salvation. Consider Him, who gave us this promise.