Help, I'm thinking about leaving the Church

[WesleyF]

So it’s obvious that by the “hell” where unbaptized infants go, the Council did not mean Purgatory.

Hmmm. After reading what you have quoted, I believe this is true. I was under the mistaken impression that they go to Purgatory, so thanks for correcting me.

It clearly defines it as the place of the damned, and of punishment.

From what I read, it only mentions that those in mortal sin and in original sin alone will go to hell. However, by “hell of the damned”, I meant a place of eternal torment. After doing some reading on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that those in original sin alone do not suffer this eternal torment although they are in “hell”.

Since the Catholic Church has declared St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching to be “her own” (see this link), I looked up this wonderful article written by St. Thomas Aquinas on this subject.
newadvent.org/summa/6001.htm

I shall quote some important sections from it.

Objection 1. It would seem that souls which depart with none but original sin, suffer from a bodily fire and are punished by fire. For Augustine [Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum, xxvii] says: “Hold firmly and doubt not that children who depart this life without the sacrament of Baptism will be punished everlastingly.” Now punishment denotes sensible pain. Therefore souls which depart this life with original sin alone, suffer from a bodily fire and are tormented with the pain of fire.

St. Thomas Aquinas answers - On the contrary, Augustine says (Enchiridion xxiii) that the mildest punishment of all will be for those who are burdened with original sin only. But this would not be so, if they were tormented with sensible punishment, because the pain of hell fire is most grievous. Therefore* they will not suffer sensible punishmen**t.* (i.e., the punishment of the senses).

…Further, Gregory Nazianzen in his fortieth sermon, which is entitled On Holy Baptism, distinguishes three classes of unbaptized persons: those namely who refuse to be baptized, those who through neglect have put off being baptized until the end of life and have been surprised by sudden death, and those* who, like infants, have failed to receive it through no fault of theirs**. …
…of the last he says that “a just and eternal Judge will consign them neither to heavenly glory nor to the eternal pains of hell, for although they have not been signed with Baptism, they are without wickedness and malice, and have suffered rather than caused their loss of Baptism.” He also gives the reason why, although they do not reach the glory of heaven, they do not therefore suffer the eternal punishment suffered by the damned: "Because there is a mean between the two, since he who deserves not honor and glory is not for that reason worthy of punishment, and on the other hand he who is not deserving of punishment is not for that reason worthy of glory and honor.*

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the only “punishment” for those in original sin is the loss of the beatific vision. Yet, he explains why this loss does not cause them torment. He also explains that they will retain the goodness that they had in their human nature.

Now this is the divine vision; and consequently the loss of this vision is the proper and only punishment of original sin after death: because, if any other sensible punishment were inflicted after death for original sin, a man would be punished out of proportion to his guilt, for sensible punishment is inflicted for that which is proper to the person, since a man undergoes sensible punishment in so far as he suffers in his person.

On the other hand, those who are under sentence for original sin will suffer no loss whatever in other kinds of perfection and goodness which are consequent upon human nature by virtue of its principles.

So St. Thomas Aquinas goes on to explain what “punishment” means for those who die in original sin only -

Reply to Objection 1. In the authority quoted punishment denotes, not pain of sense, but only pain of loss, which is the privation of the divine vision, even as in Scripture the word “fire” is often wont to signify any kind of punishment.

 

[WesleyF]

The next question that St. Thomas Aquinas deals with is how does the loss of the beatific vision not cause pain to the unbaptized children who go to “hell”.

Objection 1. It would seem that the souls in question suffer spiritual affliction on account of the state wherein they are, because as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxiii in Matth.),* the punishment of God in that they will be deprived of seeing God will be more painful than their being burned in hell fire.** Now these souls will be deprived of seeing God. Therefore they will suffer spiritual affliction thereby.*

St. Thomas Aquinas answers -

On the contrary, If unbaptized children have interior sorrow after death, they will grieve either for their sin or for their punishment. If for their sin, since they cannot be further cleansed from that sin, their sorrow will lead them to despair. Now* sorrow of this kind in the damned is the worm of conscience**. Therefore these children will have the worm of conscience, and consequently theirs would not be the mildest punishment, as Augustine says it is [See 1, “On the contrary”]. If, on the other hand, they grieve for their punishment, it follows, since their punishment is justly inflicted by God, that their will opposes itself to divine justice, and thus would be actually inordinate, which is not to be granted. Therefore they will feel no sorrow.

Further,** right reason does not allow one to be disturbed on account of what one was unable to avoid**; hence Seneca proves (Ep. lxxxv, and De ira ii, 6) that “a wise man is not disturbed.” Now in these children there is right reason deflected by no actual sin. Therefore they will not be disturbed for that they undergo this punishment which they could nowise avoid.*

Accordingly, it must be observed that if one is guided by right reason one does not grieve through being deprived of what is beyond one’s power to obtain, but only through lack of that which, in some way, one is capable of obtaining. Thus no wise man grieves for being unable to fly like a bird, or for that he is not a king or an emperor, since these things are not due to him; whereas he would grieve if he lacked that to which he had some kind of claim. I say, then, that every man who has the use of free-will is adapted to obtain eternal life, because he can prepare himself for grace whereby to merit eternal life [Cf. I-II, 109, 5 and 6]; so that if he fail in this, his grief will be very great, since he has lost what he was able to possess. But children were never adapted to possess eternal life, since neither was this due to them by virtue of their natural principles, for it surpasses the entire faculty of nature, nor could they perform acts of their own whereby to obtain so great a good. Hence they will nowise grieve for being deprived of the divine vision; nay, rather will they rejoice for that they will have a large share of God’s goodness and their own natural perfections. Nor can it be said that they were adapted to obtain eternal life, not indeed by their own action, but by the actions of others around them, since they could be baptized by others, like other children of the same condition who have been baptized and obtained eternal life: for this is of superabundant grace that one should be rewarded without any act of one’s own. Wherefore the lack of such a grace will not cause sorrow in children who die without Baptism, any more than the lack of many graces accorded to others of the same condition makes a wise man to grieve.

I hope this helps you understand the teaching of the Council of Florence on this subject. It surely helped me!

 

[timeandeternity]

Because Cantate Domino has me convinced that the Church is not infailible.

Erethorn, did you read either of the documents that I posted? It appears that all you have read are the insufficiently informed explanations that people have tried to make here. I would greatly appreciate it if you could let me know whether or not you have actually looked at these documents.

Since it appears you have a great affinity for logic processes, I would recommend that you read John Henry Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.” It is well-written and immensely intelligent, though somewhat dense, book.

I will be praying for you as you search!

 

[jmcrae]

On the very contrary. I want to embrace God, but the God I want to embrace does not allow any human being to be tortured for all eternity.

And what if it turns out that such a god does not exist? Certainly, Jesus never taught about such a god. He mentioned Hell many, many times (in Matthew 25 alone, or so I am told, the word “hell” actually appears more frequently than it does in the entire Old Testament - and all of them are the words of Jesus), and warned His hearers often about Hell.

But if you also reject Matthew 25, then in order to believe in a god without Hell, you would have to exit Christianity altogether - and indeed all of the known religions, since although they don’t call their divine punishments “Hell,” all of them have much worse torments in store for their unbelievers and wrong-doers than anything there is in Hell.

(If you think going to Hell for missing Mass is bad, imagine turning into a cockroach for mispronouncing the name of the god that you pray to at 3:00 in the morning, or omitting to pray to that god at 3:00 in the morning, as in some forms of Hinduism.)

 

[fred_conty]

No ?! Read again:

“Also, 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, but with unequal pains.”

I kbow you’re going to pick on the “unequal pains” bit, but remember that pain is still pain and punishment is still punishment.

So yeah, at the Council of Florence, the teaching of the Catholic Church was that unbaptized infants go to hell and be punished. Are you ok with that ?

As for the whole Jewish thing, I am surprised that you would defend the Council basically creating a ghetto, but I guess it’s your right to do so.

Erethorn quoted the council below:
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, but with unequal pains."​

Hi,
The nub of the question is dying in original sin only…hell, ergo pain.

“I will send you the Holy Sprit who will teach you all things.”
Jesus meant that the revelations the apostles were given, the Holy Spirit
would help them to develope and understand.

A lot of baptismal water has spilled over the spiritual dam since the council of Trent 1495.
What the council said is true, but we have His inspiration for a growing understanding of
how to apply that teaching. It is much similar to going from basic math to algebra to geometry
to whatever. It is a growth and developement in knowledge of the same subject. And when
a person is in simple math, they are not aware of the complications of algebra until they
get there or until they need to apply algebra.

Original sin…hell, yes if understood without a fuller understanding of what that means.
If taken literally with no other conditions considered, in the absolute hardened concrete form, YES…HELL.

But even that being said, did the council say what type of pain or the depth
of hell would be suffered? NO. Because there are all kinds of pain. I’m in pain right now
because I miss my heavenly home. My yearning is a pain. I’m in pain on a hot day
playing golf. Maybe the pain they expierence will be the pain of never seeing
Jesus. They didn’t determine what sort of pain or the level of hell would be theirs. It might
be a natural place of great happiness, but still pain to never know God as He is.
If the council spelled all that out and I missed something, then I owe you one.

The council at the time was stressing the importance of Baptism since some were denying original sin. And so they did “original sin…hell” thing. They put it bluntly so that noone could get it wrong about the importance of baptism. Did they spell out all the dtails?..no. Books could have been written but weren’t. They were making a point, not writing a manual.

One might pick apart any council for not spelling out all that could have been
said and wasn’t. They were correcting errors.

In Catholic doctrine I have always read that one basic belief is held without doubt.
God offers everyone salvation who does not place an OBSTICLE to that grace.
This would certainly be applicable to infants and little children who were not baptised.
Pope John Paul II said that God works thru the sacraments but “as well as in other ways
that are known to him alone.” (Crossing the Threshold of Hope p.134).
CCC #1257 “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments”.

By the way, Heaven is not owed to us. It is a gift beyound our nature.
Adam and Eve were not owed this, but were given this.
We are owed only natural happiness. It is the pleasure of Jesus that offers us heaven.​

“Eat this bread, drink this cup, come to me and never be hungry” Hymn

 

[Erethorn]

Erethorn, did you read either of the documents that I posted? It appears that all you have read are the insufficiently informed explanations that people have tried to make here. I would greatly appreciate it if you could let me know whether or not you have actually looked at these documents.
I will be praying for you as you search!

I have. They are not convincing.

 

[Erethorn]

Original sin…hell, yes if understood without a fuller understanding of what that means.
If taken literally with no other conditions considered, in the absolute hardened concrete form, YES…HELL.

But even that being said, did the council say what type of pain or the depth
of hell would be suffered? NO. Because there are all kinds of pain. I’m in pain right now
because I miss my heavenly home. My yearning is a pain. I’m in pain on a hot day
playing golf. Maybe the pain they expierence will be the pain of never seeing
Jesus. They didn’t determine what sort of pain or the level of hell would be theirs. It might
be a natural place of great happiness, but still pain to never know God as He is.
If the council spelled all that out and I missed something, then I owe you one.

The council said PUNISHMENT. Do you understand that ? PUNISHMENT. Unbaptized babies will be PUNISHED.

More pain or less pain, great pain or small pain, unbearable pain or slightly bearable pain, we are still talking about ETERNAL PAIN to be endured as PUNISHMENT by unbaptized babies.

 

[Erethorn]

But if you also reject Matthew 25, then in order to believe in a god without Hell, you would have to exit Christianity altogether - and indeed all of the known religions, since although they don’t call their divine punishments “Hell,” all of them have much worse torments in store for their unbelievers and wrong-doers than anything there is in Hell.

You have got to be kidding me.

You clearly have either: no knowledge of other religions or; a very distorted view of your own in relation to them.

You mentioned the cockroach “punishment”.

Ok, let’s be logical about it. What would you prefer to receive as punishment for one offense:

1. Being turned into a cockroach, with the clear possibility of one day making it back to fully human (reincarnation), and the attaining of Nirvana (Heaven, in their view), or
2. Going to neverending, everlasting, eternal torment in fire, with no chance of salvation ever ?

I have done some research on the subject and, FYI, the Christian religion prescribes one of the most severe penalties in the afterlife. There is very little in non abrahamic religions that can be compared to the Christian hell.

But you have made an excellent point in showing that, if one finds the concept of hell unpalatable, one should probably look somewhere outside on abrahamic religions.

 

[tlimon]

[T]he Christian religion prescribes one of the most severe penalties in the afterlife. There is very little in non abrahamic religions that can be compared to the Christian hell.

Estrangement from infinate love is infinately saddening. Afterall, God appears to abhor a vacuum. When we lose a penny out of our pocket, we are not much taken aback. When we lose the grace and love of God, we have lost out on much more. The Christian stakes are high.

I think fred conty is on to something. Grace and salvation is not earned, it is a mysterious gift of God. God is love. God cannot do that which is contrary to His nature. The Eastern Orthodox, Balthazar, C.S. Lewis, and others essentially view the fires of hell as lighted by the love of God. Thus, the reality of God’s love is experienced in different ways. Some will suffer less in hell, some will have greater capacity to perceive the love of God in heaven.

Be careful not to dampen the fires of hell by deadening the love of God. Or, as Pink Floyd would say, do not “exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage.” If venture down this path, we may well get what we wish for. After all, leaving the Church will not alter a spiritual reality.

quangduc.com/BoTatQuangDuc/25photo.html

On a side note, atheism is a difficult disposition. I, too, am afflicted with its vestiges. Each time you are beseiged with unbelief, know that you will eventually emerge from that unbelief stronger than before. Do not dispair.

From what I have read, it seems like you have reduced Catholicism to an abstraction of words and ideas. The center of the Church are our sacraments and mysteries. Faith is mysterious. While the Church harkens to the curiosities of those who need to be fed intellectually as well as spiritually, our philosophy is a reasonable articulation of a mystery but leaves the mystery no less mysterious at its heart. My advice, overall, is to feed yourself spiritually with a “living spirituality.”

Try Canticle of the Soul, this is weapons grade spirituality. I’ll provide you with an excerpt and a link. Enjoy!

“Where have You hidden Yourself,
And abandoned me to my sorrow, O my Beloved!
You have fled like the hart,
Having wounded me.
I ran after You, crying; but You were gone.”

-St. John of the Cross.

basilica.org/pages/ebooks/St.%20John%20of%20the%20Cross-A%20Spiritual%20Canticle%20of%20the%20Soul.pdf

Yours in Christ,

Thomas Augustine

p.s. If I can be of any help, any at all, please feel free to PM me.

 

[Erethorn]

Estrangement from infinate love is infinately saddening. Afterall, God appears to abhor a vacuum. When we lose a penny out of our pocket, we are not much taken aback. When we lose the grace and love of God, we have lost out on much more. The Christian stakes are high.

But we are not talking about loss or sadness here. We are talking about eternal torture as punishment.

I think fred conty is on to something. Grace and salvation is not earned, it is a mysterious gift of God.

I would absolutely agree if you say that we do not merit eternal happines, since we are imperfect beings.

On the other hand, I strongly disagree that, without God’s gift (see the teaching of the Church on unbaptized children again) we deserve eternal torture as punishment.

God is love. God cannot do that which is contrary to His nature.

Agreed. And therefore, God cannot allow that a creature of His should burn forever.

The Eastern Orthodox, Balthazar, C.S. Lewis, and others essentially view the fires of hell as lighted by the love of God.

And, I must say it again, the Church has decreed, in Council, that hell is PAIN AS PUNISHMENT. Therefore, the above mentioned interpretations must be wrong (if we agree that the Church is infailible).

After all, leaving the Church will not alter a spiritual reality.

Leaving the Church (or rather, choosing to believe that the Church is esentially wrong on the subject of hell) has already brought me peace. Peace with God. I can see Him as all loving now.

On a side note, atheism is a difficult disposition. I, too, am afflicted with its vestiges. Each time you are beseiged with unbelief, know that you will eventually emerge from that unbelief stronger than before. Do not dispair.

These are not vestiges of atheism. I firmly believe in God. And yes, I feel that my faith is stronger now, and my love of God too, since I have been granted, by Him, the strenght to see Him for what He really is.

From what I have read, it seems like you have reduced Catholicism to an abstraction of words and ideas. The center of the Church are our sacraments and mysteries. Faith is mysterious.

If I were to only look for beautiful ritual and mystery, without troubling myself with potentially conflicting and nightmare inducing dogma, why should I choose to remain Catholic, instead of becoming wiccan, for example ?

While the Church harkens to the curiosities of those who need to be fed intellectually as well as spiritually, our philosophy is a reasonable articulation of a mystery but leaves the mystery no less mysterious at its heart.

But we are not talking about philosophy here, we are not talking about attempts to explain a mystery.

We are talking about dogma, about Truth. And the Truth was articulated clear enough, no room for mystery left, no room for further questions. Unbaptized children go to hell to be eternally punished. Period.

I am very sorry if that is unsettling, but that is what was taught in Council.

My advice, overall, is to feed yourself spiritually with a “living spirituality.”

But I do. I have meditated and prayed long and hard about this. I have asked God whether infants who have commited no sin are to be punished. And He answered. And by that answer, I came to know that the Church was dead wrong.

Why then, should I choose to listen to a hierarchy of men whom I firmly believe were wrong in the past and who, to this day, insist that they are the voice of the living God ?

 

[WesleyF]

The council said PUNISHMENT. Do you understand that ? PUNISHMENT. Unbaptized babies will be PUNISHED.

More pain or less pain, great pain or small pain, unbearable pain or slightly bearable pain, we are still talking about ETERNAL PAIN to be endured as PUNISHMENT by unbaptized babies.

This is where I honestly think you are mistaken. St. Thomas Aquinas explained what that so called “punishment” refers to. Note that you are not the only one here who is discerning the truth. We also are. So do not make it sound like you are the only one who is enlightened here and we are simply dumbing down the church’s teaching. I also asked myself this question and I found the answer in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas that I quoted here. Here are my posts again -
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8154559&postcount=180
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8154564&postcount=181

I urge you to go through these again and see if they make sense. They surely made sense to me.

 

[Erethorn]

This is where I honestly think you are mistaken. St. Thomas Aquinas explained what that so called “punishment” refers to. Note that you are not the only one here who is discerning the truth. We also are. So do not make it sound like you are the only one who is enlightened here and we are simply dumbing down the church’s teaching. I also asked myself this question and I found the answer in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas that I quoted here. Here are my posts again -
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8154559&postcount=180
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8154564&postcount=181

I urge you to go through these again and see if they make sense. They surely made sense to me.

I quote from St. Thomas:

“In the authority quoted punishment denotes, not pain of sense, but only pain of loss, which is the privation of the divine vision, even as in Scripture the word “fire” is often wont to signify any kind of punishment”

So we are still talking about pain. Note that Florence also taught about “unequal pains”, unequal, but pains nonetheless.

Why should an infant be in any kind of pain ?

“Therefore they will not be disturbed for that they undergo this punishment which they could nowise avoid.”

In other words, they are punished, but because reason tells them that they had no way to avoid it, they will not be disturbed by it ?!!

“Hence they will nowise grieve for being deprived of the divine vision”

So, once again, they are punished, they are deprived, but this punishment does not grieve them ? Why call it punishment then ? Don’t you see we are playing with words here ?

Also, please note that in the first quote, the saint still speaks of “pain of loss”. There is great inconsistency here.

To answer your question, no, it doesn’t make sense, not from a moral or logical point of view.

From a philosophical point of view, yes, it makes some sense (although no philosophy or philosopher is perfect). It’s a great attempt to explain the unexplainable.

All in all, what Thomas is saying can be easily traslated thus, for the less philosophical inclined:

The unbaptized child goes to hell. He suffers the loss of the beatific vision, but he doesn’t actually suffer, because he realizes that he had no chance at it to begin with.

The child is in hell, but he doesn’t mind it. Because he’s got reason, he’s able to rationalize thus: “Well, Hitler might have made a last moment perfect act of contrition and is now enjoying eternal bliss, but I had no chance at it because, even though God Himself loves me infinitely and has even died on the Cross for me, He will also deny me His presence on account that my parents neglected to baptize me; and I’m ok with that”.

Now tell me that makes sense to you.

Oh, and, by ht eway, tell me how do you reconcile that with the widely held and circulated ideea that “people send themselves to hell, it is not God who sends them there”.

How exactly does the unbaptized infant “send himself to hell” ?

 

[Erethorn]

Oh, and something else:

The Church teaches that the just who died in the Old Covenant were rescued from Hell by Jesus, right ?

Therefore, a child who happened to die one day old, in the year, say, 10 BC, is now in Heaven.

But what do we say to the child who happened to die, one day old, in the year 40 AD ? “Well, tough luck…” !!!

Does that seem like a doctrine about a just God to you ?

 

[tlimon]

@Erethorn.

I’ve decided against going point by point with you. Instead, I opted for a collection of thoughts.

(1) I think you focus too much on heaven and hell as being static binaries. What is hell? Is hell a monolith?

(2) You need to provide some background on the word “punishment.” Simply capitalizing the word doesn’t make your argument more persuasive. What does the word punishment mean?

(3) Are dogma and mystery either/or or both/and?

(4) You are obviously demanding a review of doctrine. What is the standard of your review? Are we dealing with presumptions or burdens? Are we reviewing in light most favorable to any one party? Will the Church be paid any deference? Are there inferences to be drawn in the Church’s favor? Does prior Church precedent bind later Church councils? Do we favor prior precedent? Do we review in light of prior precedent?

(5) What is dogma? Does dogma favor substantive knowledge or policy? Are there policy considerations behind dogma? Does policy and substantive Church teachings work in tandem? Are they mutually exclusive? Does both substantive Church teachings and policy both work to move the faithful toward truth (orthodoxy and orthopraxis)?

You are too impercise to be persuading. I suggest you back off your position, if only a little bit. You have become pretty cavalier and your thinking is not as clear as you pretend. Let your passions settle a little bit. My offer still stands, please feel free to PM me if you want to have some honest to goodness discourse. This is the last you will hear from me on this thread.

Take care and God bless.

Yours in Christ,

Thomas Augustine

 

[Erethorn]

@Erethorn.

I’ve decided against going point by point with you. Instead, I opted for a collection of thoughts.

(1) I think you focus too much on heaven and hell as being static binaries. What is hell? Is hell a monolith?

I don’t know, and I don’t think that it matters, whether hell is a monolitic place or a colection of places, a state of the soul or a physical lake of fire.

All I know is that the Church teaches that hell is the worst thing imaginable, the one thing we should fear the most in the universe.

All I know is that the Church has deemed the visions of hell, as presented by the Fatima seers, as “worthy of belief”, and the description of hell in that vision is enough to send chills down one’s spine.

(2) You need to provide some background on the word “punishment.” Simply capitalizing the word doesn’t make your argument more persuasive. What does the word punishment mean?

punishment (plural punishments)

1.The act or process of punishing, imposing and/or applying a sanction.
2.A penalty to punish wrongdoing, especially for crime.
3.A suffering by** pain or loss** imposed as retribution
4.(figuratively) Any treatment or experience so harsh it feels like being punished
(source - Wictionary; note - I fully agree to these definitions)

(3) Are dogma and mystery either/or or both/and?

Both/and; however, that doesn’t mean that every dogma lends itself to the “mystery” interpretation. What if I were to say: “I believe God exists, but…”

(4) You are obviously demanding a review of doctrine. What is the standard of your review? Are we dealing with presumptions or burdens? Are we reviewing in light most favorable to any one party? Will the Church be paid any deference? Are there inferences to be drawn in the Church’s favor? Does prior Church precedent bind later Church councils? Do we favor prior precedent? Do we review in light of prior precedent?

I am not demanding anything. I am simply stating that the doctrine of infailibility does not hold water.

(5) What is dogma? Does dogma favor substantive knowledge or policy? Are there policy considerations behind dogma? Does policy and substantive Church teachings work in tandem? Are they mutually exclusive? Does both substantive Church teachings and policy both work to move the faithful toward truth (orthodoxy and orthopraxis)?

What exactly are you trying to suggest ? That certain dogma might not be objectively true, but it is asserted so as to promote a certain behaviour on the part of the flock ?

For example, “we know that God is to good to send anyone to eternal torture in hell, but, on the other hand, He knows that unless people are scared by the prospect they will not do the right thing ?”

 

[fred_conty]

The council said PUNISHMENT. Do you understand that ? PUNISHMENT. Unbaptized babies will be PUNISHED.

More pain or less pain, great pain or small pain, unbearable pain or slightly bearable pain, we are still talking about ETERNAL PAIN to be endured as PUNISHMENT by unbaptized babies.

Hi,
You still didn’t answer my question. Did the council say exactly what sort of pain, punishment they were to receive? Pain, even small inconviencies, can be a punishment.
It sounds as tho you expect and want punishment to be really horrible. How does a parent punish a little child when he did something wrong. With something that matches
a little child’s innocense, and it is called punishment.

Again were they explicit in this? Are should we put words into their mouths?

 

[Cara_Serrano]

You have been getting very sound answers from the posters, but it doesn’t seem to be helping you. I see how the seemingly conflicting doctrines have unsettled you and how papal infallibility seems impossible in an imperfect world, but we have Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church He founded upon Peter.

 

[fred_conty]

Hi Erethorn,
I know you must be tired of explaining. But if you’ll be patient with me a little longer please.

Faith is something that almost all christians say is a gift from God.
And when a person receives the gift of faith, he receives justification, from which
he will receive power to see the glory. Therefore if he has not received this
gift for one reason or another, it stands that he is not justified and that he then
does not and will not have the power to see the glory. And where does that
leave the person? In hell, because at the end of the world there is going to be
only to desitinations, heaven and hell. Purgatory will cease, and limbo has ceased
after Christ took the jjustified to heaven after his resurrection.

However, is it just for innocent babies to suffer because the faith, justification, and
power were not given? Then what happens? They are not in heaven because they
don’t have the power of glory which the faith gives. There is only one other
place. So that means that if justice is to be served by a good and kind God, the
hell they experience will be a naturally good experience with maybe the pain of knowing
one time that will not see the glory. But all else will be wonderfully good as it
can possibly be. What this would be like we must leave in the hands of our
loving Father in heaven. It is not for us to say what those details will be, but
to rest our thoughts and trust in a fair God who we know is fair.

On the other hand, the catechism and the pope, which I cited earlier, said
that tho the sacraments, baptism in particular which gives the glory power,
are what Jesus works thru, administered by His founded church, is not limited
to them, but may work outside of them in his own way (without our knowing any
of the details which he need not share with us). Therefore, He may do something
at the moment of their death that enables them to have this power of glory unbe
knowns to us. We don’t know! But he very well may. And if He did, then
they would not have original sin on their soul when they died. Would they refuse
this? Some? All? None? We don’t know. And we don’t need to know everything.
God need not tell us everything. He has already told us enough that we need to
know. And if He did tell us, it may well just well start another intellectual fist fight over
that. So maybe we are being spared in our ignorance of all this.

“Unless a man be born again he cannot enter the kingfom of God.” (necessity)
“Go, baptise all nations…” (command for all to receive power)

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Erethorn, I am not as well-versed in theology as the others who are advising you here, but I agrree with what they have said. Yet I think maybe there is more to this than a dispute over dogma. As an atheist, nothing was expected of you, but now as a Catholic, there is a spiritual accountability that you may find uncomfortably foreign. Faith and not just knowledge of the faith is being demanded of you as a new Catholic. Not every theological question will have a satisfactory fact-based answer. It seems that you are demanding factual answers to your questions so that your faith will be restored again. Try praying for faith to be restored first and it will lead you to the answers you want.

Of course, if you are really disssatisfied with the theology of the Catholic Church, you are free to leave. However, if you decide to join another church, make sure you are trading up. God bless you and good luck finding a church that is more doctrinally sound than the Catholic Church. (If you find one, come back to this forum and let me know!)

 

[WesleyF]

I quote from St. Thomas:

So we are still talking about pain. Note that Florence also taught about “unequal pains”, unequal, but pains nonetheless.

Why should an infant be in any kind of pain ?

Because, even an infant has sinned, in a mysterious way, “in Adam” (Romans 5:12).

“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men,** in whom** all have sinned.” (Romans 5:12)
(Note that this is the most accurate translation of the Latin of Romans 5:12. Even the Council of Trent, in Session V, on the Decree Concerning Original Sin states it this way. Click here)

It is because of original sin, that we are “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3), infants included.

This transmission of original sin, is a mystery and we cannot fully understand it. So although original sin doesn’t have the character of a personal fault in any of us, we are still implicated in it in a mysterious way, because scripture indicates that.

The Catechism says the following -

*All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” *(i.e. “in Adam”) *(Rom 5:12,19). The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.” (Rom 5:18)

Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.(Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1512) Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin. (Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1514)

How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man” (St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1). By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still,** the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand**. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. (Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512) It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

Although it is proper to each individual, (Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1513.) original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.*

—CCC 402-405

Because we have all sinned in a mysterious way in Adam, we are all born in this state of “punishment” for original sin. This punishment is the deprivation of original holiness and justice. It makes us children of wrath by nature and if we die in this state of original sin then we suffer its consequences.