Is eternal suffering pointless?

[PumpkinCookie]

Those you mentioned as “Some infants, prenatals, children, and simpletons die in original sin alone” are not destined for the torments of everlasting hell according to Pope Innocent III.

Pope Innocent III (1206)
“The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell.” (Denzinger 410)
patristica.net/denzinger/#n400

**Catechism of the Catholic Church ****1261 **As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” 64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
64 Mk 10 14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4.

Cardinal Ratzinger speculated in 2000:Now, certainly, the state of original sin, from which we are freed by baptism, consists in a lack of sanctifying grace. Children who die in this way are indeed without any personal sin, so they cannot be sent to hell, but, on the other hand, they lack sanctifying grace and thus the potential for beholding God that this bestows. They will simply enjoy a state of natural blessedness, in which they will be happy. This state people called limbo. In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the Pope [John Paul II] made a decisive turn in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already anticipated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament. (God and the World, 2002, pp. 401-402 - original German Gott und die Welt, 2000)

Trent > Pope Innocent III
Trent > CCC of 1993
Trent > Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Trent > Pope John Paul II

For centuries, the debate has been whether children are damned to hell or whether there might be a less painful hell called “limbo.” Only within the last century has the debate shifted to whether children go to limbo or heaven! Something so obvious should have been clear from the beginning no? Seventeen or so centuries of continuous theological speculation, debate, and hedging are good evidence that there is something terribly wrong with the RCC’s theology of original sin.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Nothing impure will ever enter it [Heaven] nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Revelation 21, 27

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psalm 51, 5

*“He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” *
Titus 3, 5-7

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”
Council of Lyons ll

"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.”
Council of Florence

What the fathers of the councils are affirming is that the unjustified souls which are deprived of sanctification cannot enter Heaven. This is a divine truth which belongs to the deposit of faith which the Magisterium of the Church must abide by as the custodians of the faith. Moreover, they declare that the punishments of Hell are unequal, meaning that they fit the culpability that each person has for unrepentant sins. In other words, these souls are eternally punished as they justly deserve to be by measure of culpability. And they also affirm, in accord with the deposit of faith, that Baptism is salvific; no unclean soul can enter Heaven unless it is washed by the regenerating water of the sacrament. In the words of St. Paul: " And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11)…[CUT]…
Hence, the fathers of the councils did not declare anything unqualifiedly with regard to the souls that die only in original sin. There is hope for these souls who don’t deserve to be punished forever in Hell because of unrepentant mortal sins. And these souls can be saved by baptism of desire. Final Impenitence is the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit. Surely prenatals, infants, and children below the age of reason don’t deserve to go to Hell and probably not even Purgatory. But to enter Heaven, their souls must be sanctified and justified by being baptised in Christ’s redeeming blood, since they too are implicated in the sin of Adam and Eve. God has revealed that no impure soul can enter Heaven. Sin and death have been passed down to all of Adam and Eve’s descendants (Rom. 5:9,12). Thankfully, “God gave Himself as a ransom for all”, since He “desires that everyone be saved” (1 Tim 2:4-6). The fathers of the councils were well-versed in the Scriptures which serve as the objective norm for any magisterial declaration and definition of the faith. We should be careful in how we interpret any magisterial document for ourselves.

Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
Hebrews 12, 14

PAX
:heaven:

The conciliar statements are totally unqualfied actually. You are the one supplying speculative qualifications. A question for you:

Why would Augustine, the one who introduced the doctrine of original sin into Christianity in the first place, teach that infants were damned, if he didn’t believe it to be necessarily and logically implied?

Here is a bleak quote:

“If anyone says that, because the Lord said ‘In My Father’s house are many mansions,’ it might be understood that in the Kingdom of Heaven there will be some middle place, or some place anywhere, where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven which is life eternal: Let him be anathema. For when the Lord says ‘Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God,’ what Catholic will doubt that one who has not deserved to be a co-heir with Christ will be a partner of the Devil?”

(Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45, note 2).

Of course, Trent > Pope Zosimus. But, it demonstrates that this belief in infant damnation went right to the top in the western church by the 5th century.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

It could be because we are guilty by association. In Mexico there are mothers who are confined to prison along with their young children, since there is no one else to look after them. By analogy, we may liken them to Eve. A mother may have committed robbery or engaged in drug trafficking (reatus culpa). Because of her crime, she may be sentenced for up to ten years (reatus poena) under the rule of the warden. Although her five year old son never committed either of these crimes with his mother, he nevertheless must pay the penalty as a consequence of her act by being in prison with her (reatus poena) until she is either released or he is old enough to take care of himself. He is guilty by association, implicated in his mother’s criminal offense. Still he isn’t necessarily more innocent than his mother or entirely removed from guilt ontologically. There is the possibility that when he grows up he too will commit a crime (reatus culpa) and be sent to prison (reatus poena). Not unlike his mother, he too might then be tempted to commit a crime for personal gain and stands under condemnation of the law.

*PAX *
:heaven:

Right, but Trent says that children are born under the dominion of Satan (not Eve) so your analogy doesn’t address this.

Again, why would God allow the innocent to be under the dominion of a hyper-intelligent and supremely evil and powerful demon?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I have been reading through most but not all of the comments on Original Sin. All of the posts that I have read contain quotes from various Catholic sources to support the poster’s side of the debate. Confusion reigns. The only clear point to make is that the information is unclear. Do unbaptised babies and infants go to hell or does God’s mercy rescue them? The rescuing part is a hope and not definite. Is original sin on everyone’s soul or is it the affect of original sin that is transmitted through time to us as in we die and we can sin? Do we need baptism to remove original sin even though baptism does not remove the affect that original sin has on our bodies and souls? We still die and can still commit sins. Unless I missed it, Limbo wasn’t mentioned in any of the posts. Is this because Limbo has never been accepted as official doctrine by the Church in that it is a speculative idea? I read through some of the link that PumpkinCookie provided. It states that Limbo is a heretical Palagian fable. However, as a child in the 1950’s, Limbo was a very important part of Catholic teaching. In primary school, we were all taught how to baptise an unbaptised baby to stop the baby from going to Limbo. I can vividly remember a little girl about 9 years old in our parish baptising a baby just before the baby died. She was quite rightly given celebrity status by the Catholic community.

From my personal viewpoint, original sin does not exist. The reason for my disbelief in original sin is my disbelief in Adam and Eve. I believe that Adam and Eve is a myth. Death entered our World about 13.798 billion years ago when our universe was created by God. Everything dies; galaxies, stars, planets and us. That is the universe that God created. Death has always been with us. Unbaptised babies and infants go directly to Heaven. There is no need for burdensome religious teaching and theology on the matter.

Many thanks PumpkinCookie for providing the link. I read this interesting part which seems (not sure?) to agree with my belief in unbaptised babies and infants going to heaven and my Christian Universalist views on all being saved. “However, medieval Scholastics departed from the doctrine and revived the Limbo heresy of the Pelagians; **“Rome would now admit unbaptised infants to heaven in the universal salvation of all people”. ** The British monk Pelagius seems to have a lot going for him and he lived from AD390-418! I must research him further.

Of interest to me personally was the interaction with Pelagianism of the Patron Saint of my home country, Wales, by Saint David (in Welsh: Dewi Sant). Around AD550, Saint David attended the Synod of Brefi (Wales), where his eloquence in opposing Pelagianism caused his fellow monks to elect him primate of the region.

I believe that Pelagius preached a message of hope and common sense against the despair and mental illness of the “massa damnata.” We have the power to choose to be good. If we fail, we have the power to repent. Otherwise, we are pawns tossed about in a sadistic contest between a capricious and arbitrary God and the powerful enemies of his own creation. :whacky:

 

[Aloysium]

. . . We have the power to choose to be good. If we fail, we have the power to repent. Otherwise, we are pawns tossed about in a sadistic contest between a capricious and arbitrary God and the powerful enemies of his own creation. :whacky:

I would agree.
But, I do not know where you get the whacky ideas.
Please don’t shove them onto me, as one who believes the Catholic Church.
You are the one who thought them up, among others I assume.
Reading the same stuff, I hear something totally different.

 

[tonyrey]

Nothing impure will ever enter it [Heaven] nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Revelation 21, 27

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psalm 51, 5

*“He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” *
Titus 3, 5-7

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”
Council of Lyons ll

"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.”
Council of Florence

What the fathers of the councils are affirming is that the unjustified souls which are deprived of sanctification cannot enter Heaven. This is a divine truth which belongs to the deposit of faith which the Magisterium of the Church must abide by as the custodians of the faith. Moreover, they declare that the punishments of Hell are unequal, meaning that they fit the culpability that each person has for unrepentant sins. In other words, these souls are eternally punished as they justly deserve to be by measure of culpability. And they also affirm, in accord with the deposit of faith, that Baptism is salvific; no unclean soul can enter Heaven unless it is washed by the regenerating water of the sacrament. In the words of St. Paul: " And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11).

Still prenatals, infants, children below the age of reason, and adolescents and adults who die with only venial sins on their souls can be saved at least by having been baptised informally. In mediaeval time and in the middle ages, the Church believed in the informal baptism by desire (the Patriarchs) and by blood (the holy innocents). A person who dies without having received any of these forms of baptism dies in original sin alone and, therefore, cannot enter Heaven. Aquinas attested to the Church’s belief that those who die with only venial sins on their soul but have been baptised by desire, which is evident that their souls aren’t tainted with any unrepentant mortal sins, must pass through Purgatory, where the souls of the saved must be purged and cleansed by having their bad works consumed by fire. But Purgatory is temporal, and the suffering there doesn’t remotely compare with the everlasting suffering of the damned in Hell where there isn’t even any hope of release that would mitigate the suffering of these lost souls - the greatest pain being the sense of having been separated from God: His perfect love and goodness. The Catholic Church has always taught that only the souls which deserve to be in Hell are eternally consigned there. We read in Scripture that God takes no delight in the (spiritual) death of any person. He implores that we choose “life” and not “death” so that we will “live”. Hell is for those who prefer to lead wicked lives rather than righteous lives. (Eke. 18: 23-24; Deut. 30:18-20).

Hence, the fathers of the councils did not declare anything unqualifiedly with regard to the souls that die only in original sin. There is hope for these souls who don’t deserve to be punished forever in Hell because of unrepentant mortal sins. And these souls can be saved by baptism of desire. Final Impenitence is the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit. Surely prenatals, infants, and children below the age of reason don’t deserve to go to Hell and probably not even Purgatory. But to enter Heaven, their souls must be sanctified and justified by being baptised in Christ’s redeeming blood, since they too are implicated in the sin of Adam and Eve. God has revealed that no impure soul can enter Heaven. Sin and death have been passed down to all of Adam and Eve’s descendants (Rom. 5:9,12). Thankfully, “God gave Himself as a ransom for all”, since He “desires that everyone be saved” (1 Tim 2:4-6). The fathers of the councils were well-versed in the Scriptures which serve as the objective norm for any magisterial declaration and definition of the faith. We should be careful in how we interpret any magisterial document for ourselves.

Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
Hebrews 12, 14

PAX
:heaven:

Irrefutable! The “pick and choose” technique to fit a preconceived conclusion is obviously fallacious.

 

[tonyrey]

The conciliar statements are totally unqualfied actually. You are the one supplying speculative qualifications. A question for you:

Why would Augustine, the one who introduced the doctrine of original sin into Christianity in the first place, teach that infants were damned, if he didn’t believe it to be necessarily and logically implied?

Here is a bleak quote:

(Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45, note 2).

Of course, Trent > Pope Zosimus. But, it demonstrates that this belief in infant damnation went right to the top in the western church by the 5th century.

The fatal flaw in your argument is exposed by the words used by Pope Zosimus:
“one who has **not deserved **to be a co-heir with Christ.” How could infants possibly be regarded as having “not deserved”?They are totally innocent because they cannot possibly sin.This legalistic nonsense was condemned by Jesus in no uncertain terms:

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in**…**

Matthew 23:13

23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Matthew 23:37-39

 

[Michael19682]

Pragmatic questions aside, the principal issue remains:

Is the “doctrine of original sin” true or not? If true, seemingly innocent people go to hell where they are punished endlessly (although with less harsh punishments than those who commit actual sins).

Most acknowledge this must be wrong, so they come up with elaborate theological speculations and qualifications, and push casuistry to the breaking point in a desperate attempt to avoid this hideous conclusion. The principle of economy tells us that the other possibility is more likely: there is no such thing as original sin (as defined by the RCC) so this is a non-issue.

Practically speaking, there is no evidence to suggest that infanticide or abortion are more common in non-Christian cultures (the majority of humanity throughout history) than in Christian cultures.

If the principle of economy derives from a philosophy or theology that is antithetical to that other which espouses original sin, then an argumentative solipsism is reached with regard to the principle of economy as applied against original sin. Since the solipsism affects only the principle of economy’s application, there is no contradiction as to the pragmatics of original sin. Original sin therefore can stand on its pragmatism alone in this case and needs not justification from a philosophy which specializes in or whose fruit is the principle of economy.
Unless these two share a common root, the principle of economy and the doctrine of original sin, they are competitors and not collaborators. That one chokes the root of the other does not prove the victim wrong. Mt 13:24-43 (The Parable of the Weeds) gives insight into this philosophical dilemma. God waits until the proper time to gather his harvest. This has already been mentioned in this thread. The final judgment. It was glossed over somehow by us all.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The fatal flaw in your argument is exposed by the words used by Pope Zosimus:
“one who has **not deserved **to be a co-heir with Christ.” How could infants possibly be regarded as having “not deserved”?They are totally innocent because they cannot possibly sin.This legalistic nonsense was condemned by Jesus in no uncertain terms:Matthew 23:13

Matthew 23:37-39

The infants do not deserve to be co-heirs with Christ because they are deprived of sanctifying grace which is the sine qua non of salvation and the essence of what it means to be a co-heir of Christ.

I agree with you Tonyrey, this is all legalistic nonsense. However, it is the de fide teaching of the RCC and must be accepted totally and without reservation by all Catholics.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there really is a new Roman Catholic Church that has reversed its prior teachings and now embraces Pelagianism. But, I don’t see how one can also believe the magisterium is infallible if it contradicts itself. If it isn’t infallible, what else are they wrong about, and how can we know? Maybe they’re also wrong about hell. Maybe they’re wrong about the trinity, or saints, or the “real presence?”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

OK so back to the topic at hand:

Has anyone been able to show that eternal suffering has a “point” in that is has some end other than itself? If it is its own end, then that means God wills endless suffering for its own sake.

However, I do not believe that God is sadistic/cruel/insane/evil so it must mean either that

1. Eternal suffering does have a purpose OR
2. There is no such thing as eternal suffering.

The problem is that every potential answer to number 1 above fails in some obvious way. It has been shown that moral freedom, sin, and justice can coexist without hell, so it doesn’t exist by necessity. It has been shown that there is no reason to suppose human souls are intrinsically indestructible and live forever, so hell doesn’t exist by necessity for that reason either.

How can we show that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and yet presides over an endless hell brimming with most of his sentient creatures including babies?

 

[Good_Fella]

I believe that Pelagius preached a message of hope and common sense against the despair and mental illness of the “massa damnata.” We have the power to choose to be good. If we fail, we have the power to repent. Otherwise, we are pawns tossed about in a sadistic contest between a capricious and arbitrary God and the powerful enemies of his own creation. :whacky:

The ability to direct our wills to what is good, including repentance, is a Divine gift of grace, which Pelagius ignored. What he proposed was that we aren’t dependent on God for our capacity to aspire to goodness. He substituted God for Mother Nature, so to speak.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

Right, but Trent says that children are born under the dominion of Satan (not Eve) so your analogy doesn’t address this.

Sure it does. It’s in consequence of our mother’s offense that we are born under the dominion of Satan: guilt by association.

Again, why would God allow the innocent to be under the dominion of a hyper-intelligent and supremely evil and powerful demon?

Adam and Eve were created innocent, but because of their pride, they freely subjected themselves under Satan’s rule by giving in to temptation. This natural inclination of ours to prefer ourselves to God is the sin which we have contracted as descendants of our primeval parents. God has permitted this state of affairs in order to test our love for Him.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Vico]

Trent > Pope Innocent III
Trent > CCC of 1993
Trent > Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Trent > Pope John Paul II

For centuries, the debate has been whether children are damned to hell or whether there might be a less painful hell called “limbo.” Only within the last century has the debate shifted to whether children go to limbo or heaven! Something so obvious should have been clear from the beginning no? Seventeen or so centuries of continuous theological speculation, debate, and hedging are good evidence that there is something terribly wrong with the RCC’s theology of original sin.

Standard operating procedure for dogma. If it is not obviously Revealed, then it may take some time to understand. Dogmas of faith on original sin were declared at different times, for example at Trent, original sin which excluded the Blessed Virgin Mary, and then hundreds of years later later, the Immaculate Conception

Limbo was never defined as a dogma of faith. The ITC states that:

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[tonyrey]

The fatal flaw in your argument is exposed by the words used by Pope Zosimus:
"one who has **not deserved **

They are not deprived of sanctifying grace because when infants die they have the opportunity to choose whether they wish to love God.

I agree with you Tonyrey, this is all legalistic nonsense. However, it is the de fide teaching of the RCC and must be accepted totally and without reservation by all Catholics.

Only according to your legalistic interpretation!

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there really is a new Roman Catholic Church that has reversed its prior teachings and now embraces Pelagianism. But, I don’t see how one can also believe the magisterium is infallible if it contradicts itself. If it isn’t infallible, what else are they wrong about, and how can we know? Maybe they’re also wrong about hell. Maybe they’re wrong about the trinity, or saints, or the “real presence?”

You are wrong with regard to your interpretation of the Church’s teaching because you have overlooked baptism of desire…

 

[tonyrey]

OK so back to the topic at hand:

Has anyone been able to show that eternal suffering has a “point” in that is has some end other than itself? If it is its own end, then that means God wills endless suffering for its own sake.

However, I do not believe that God is sadistic/cruel/insane/evil so it must mean either that

1. Eternal suffering does have a purpose OR
2. There is no such thing as eternal suffering.

The problem is that every potential answer to number 1 above fails in some obvious way. It has been shown that moral freedom, sin, and justice can coexist without hell, so it doesn’t exist by necessity. It has been shown that there is no reason to suppose human souls are intrinsically indestructible and live forever, so hell doesn’t exist by necessity for that reason either.

How can we show that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and yet presides over an endless hell brimming with most of his sentient creatures including babies?

We can all choose whether or not to be in Heaven or Hell regardless of your fantasies… That is all that matters and if you disagree you are rejecting the fact of free will.

 

[arte]

I have a theory about original sin and death. First of all although Evolution suggests that death was always a part of life I would go further and say that anything that is made up of matter or material has the potential to die because it is made up of parts. And, anything that is composed of parts has the potential for those parts to come apart which means either suffering or death. Given the law of entropy it would suggest that all material beings would eventually suffer degradation or death.

I was not thinking of human evolution in my post but cosmological evolution as in the start of the universe by God. I have been informed in the past that human evolution is a taboo subject on CAF but I’m happy to include it if that is OK. The laws of entropy apply to matter and energy. The breaking down of matter and energy also has good outcomes. The sun is loosing energy all the time but that energy heats up the Earth so this is a good outcome of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. I’m not sure on this but because the universe is expanding faster than entropy can act; our universe will not suffer heat death and may go on for ever. Galaxies etc will still die but the universe continues expanding and thereby escapes total death.

Now, how do I reconcile that with Adam and Eve. First off the Church states that it is permissible to believe that the bodies of Adam and Eve were made through some evolutionary process directed by God. But, that at some point God put a human soul in his chosen Adam and Eve. Can we reconcile this with Genesis? If we look at the creation story we see that God created man from the earth. Thus, he was not created out of nothing, but from existing material. This is compatible with the view that his body was evolved in some way. Second, the creation story says that after he created man then he placed him in the garden. Thus, this could mean that in the garden man was protected from death by grace. However, during the evolutionary stage outside the garden this may not have been the case. But, in the garden God protected man from entropy and material degradation by grace. When man was expelled from the garden and lost that grace he was no longer under that protection from death.

I like your imaginative take on the Adam and Eve situation but sadly disagree with it. I completely agree with Catholic teaching on the soul in that it was instantaneously created and not evolved. Catholic teaching also states that Adam and Eve were real people and were the parents of all mankind. This is held up so that original sin can still be valid. I believe that having Adam and Eve along with evolution is like “having your cake and eating it”. Original sin and its consequences being that babies and infants that die without baptism go to any form of punishment or cannot enter heaven is completely “wacko”. Once again reading through the posts here you will find differences of opinion on the fate of these unbaptised babies and infants; all with their varying Church “evidences”.

“The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends.” - CCC 25

I like this quote and believe it to be the most important quote made so far. It is “the love that never ends” that does not allow bodies/souls to be punished in excruciating agony or any other form of punishment for an eternity. If God is not pure love, it is not God.

 

[arte]

We can all choose whether or not to be in Heaven or Hell regardless of your fantasies… That is all that matters and if you disagree you are rejecting the fact of free will.

PumpkinCookie has included free will in: “It has been shown that moral freedom, sin, and justice can coexist without hell, so it doesn’t exist by necessity”.

I find the following very compelling and on point: “How can we show that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and yet presides over an endless hell brimming with most of his sentient creatures including babies?”

Why should babies go to hell; they have not had a chance to even exercise their free will?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Sure it does. It’s in consequence of our mother’s offense that we are born under the dominion of Satan: guilt by association.

No, you gave the example of Mexican prisons, where they lock up a mother along with her children because there is no one else to take care of them. I understand that this analogy applies to Eve and her descendants, with the difference that no one would say the child deserves to be imprisoned due to the actions of his or her mother. The child is not even being punished, strictly speaking. The children are imprisoned along with the mother for a very practical reason. However, Satan is not like the mother in your analogy. We are not under the dominion of Satan because there is no one else to care for us. How utterly preposterous! Satan is a totally unnecessary third party. If God wants us to sin, he needn’t support a hyper-intelligent and powerfully evil demon to push us in the direction of rebellion, since concupiscence is quite sufficient. In the analogy, Satan is more like a corrupt jail warden who teaches the children how to commit various crimes and instills in them a hatred for the Mexican government and legitimate authorities. Again, God is totally aware of this situation and has many other options. So, why are the children born under the dominion of Satan if they aren’t guilty and aren’t objects of God’s wrath?

Adam and Eve were created innocent, but because of their pride, they freely subjected themselves under Satan’s rule by giving in to temptation. This natural inclination of ours to prefer ourselves to God is the sin which we have contracted as descendants of our primeval parents. God has permitted this state of affairs in order to test our love for Him.

PAX
:heaven:

So, children are born with an inborn tendency to sin and under the dominion of Satan because God wants to see if they can overcome all odds and prove their love for him.

Imagine a father hired a seductive and cunning child psychologist to try to convince his children that he either didn’t exist, didn’t love them, or wanted to hurt them. In addition he brought over older children from broken homes with many bad habits in hopes of exposing his own children to bad habits for the purpose of making it more difficult for the younger children to develop good natures and be obedient. Later, the father sent his most favorite son to visit the youngest ones, and ordered the child psychologist to whip up the children from bad homes into a frenzy and viciously murder the favorite son.

Imagine the father did all this just to test the children’s obedience and love. That father would be on his way to prison for this outrageous and cruel behavior, and yet you suppose this is analogous to how God behaves!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Why would Augustine, the one who introduced the doctrine of original sin into Christianity in the first place, teach that infants were damned, if he didn’t believe it to be necessarily and logically implied?

No answer.

But, I don’t see how one can also believe the magisterium is infallible if it contradicts itself. If it isn’t infallible, what else are they wrong about, and how can we know? Maybe they’re also wrong about hell. Maybe they’re wrong about the trinity, or saints, or the “real presence?”

No answer.

I normally don’t do this kind of thing but the unanswered questions are beginning to multiply. I usually let them go, as a tacit admission that my point can’t be opposed, but I think confusion is proliferating in this thread. My aim is to get at the truth via dialogue. So far, not so much truth has been produced here, in my opinion.

 

[Good_Fella]

The conciliar statements are totally unqualfied actually. You are the one supplying speculative qualifications.

That’s a rather presumptuous thing to say considering you understand very little of the Catholic faith.

In accord with the deposit of faith the Councils of Lyons and Florence affirmed:

1. No unsanctified soul can enter Heaven.
2. All human beings are conceived in sin and in guilt (by association) born.
3. Souls stained with only original sin (deprived of the original justice and sanctity) must be baptized in order to be saved.

Hidden premise:This baptism can be either formal (water) through the physical sacrament or informal (of desire or of blood). The decrees of these councils do not imply that baptism has to be only formal in order to be salvific. Such a decree would contravene sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition.

**Proof from sacred Scripture

Baptism of Desire**

*Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’
John 3, 6-7

“He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.”
John 14, 21

Who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another…The circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but God.
Romans 2, 15, 29*

Baptism of Blood

*“Everyone that shall confess me before men, I will also confess before my Father in Heaven.”
Matthew 10, 32

“Amen, I say to you: this day you shall be with me in paradise!”
Lk. 23:43*

In the Beatitudes (Mt. 5:1-12), Jesus alludes to those who are baptized by desire and of blood.

**Proof from Tradition

The Fathers and Doctors of the Church:**

Pope St. Clement 1, Epistle to the Corinthians 7:5-7 [A.D. 95]
St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 1.46 [A.D. 150]
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.28.2 [A.D. 189]
St. Hippolytus, Canons of Hypolytus, Can. XIX: Concerning Catechumens 3rd century]
St. Cyprian, Epistle XXL11 3rd century]
Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter XVI 3rd century]
St. John Chrystostom, Panegyric on St. Lucianus 4th century]
St. Basil, Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter XV [4th century]
St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration XXXIX, Oration on the Holy Lights [4th century]
Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Himerius, 385 4th century]
St. Ambrose, From his writing “De obitu Valentiniani consolatio” 4th century]
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures lll; Xlll 4th century]
St. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book IV: Chs. 22-24; City of God, XIII.7) 4th - 5th century]
St. Fulgentius, Enchiridion Patristicum 2269 6th century]
St. John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 7th - 8th century]
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Letter No.77, Letter to Hugh of St. Victor, On Baptism 12th century]
St. Bonaventure, In Sent. IV, d.4,P.2,a.I,q.I 13th century]
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: (1, ad 2; 68) (IIIa. qu.66 a.11) (IIIa. qu.66 a12) (IIIa. qu.8) 13th century]
St. Catherine of Sienna, Dialogue of St. Catherine: Baptisms 14th century]
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Sacramento Baptismi, cap. 6 16th century]

The Magisterium

Pope Innocent III : From the letter “Debitum pastoralis officii” to Berthold, the Bishop of Metz, Aug. 28, 1206
Council of Trent: Decree on Justification, Session VI, Chapter 4; Session VII, Concerning the Sacraments in General, Canon 4; The Sacraments, Baptism 16th century]
Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam; Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, [19th century]
Pope St. Pius X: Catechism of Christian Doctrine 20th century]
Vatican Council ll: Lumen Gentium 16 20th century]

baptismofdesire.com/
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bpdsir.htm#ordinary

Sorry, but the Magisterium of the Church does not contradict itself. Infallible declarations made by the Universal Magisterium not only define the faith as it has been passed down, but are also irrevocable. The Councils of Lyons and Florence made no such declarations as you presume. Otherwise, they were contradicted by Popes and the subsequent Councils of Trent and Vatican ll which is absolutely impossible. You’re the one who is speculating and wishing to redefine the teachings of the Catholic Church.

PAX
:heaven: