Is eternal suffering pointless?

[PumpkinCookie]

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:

Disagree. If we don’t have the power to do good on our own, then morality is meaningless. The whole concept of “grace” is fraught with difficulties and contradictions too numerous to discuss here. Bottom line: it is much simpler to observe that “ought implies can” as Kant famously observed. Therefore, if there is morality, then we must be free. If God obligates us to obey, then he must have given us the ability in the first place.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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.

I never said the Church taught that there is only one form of baptism (water). I merely observed that if a child/simpleton/prenatal/infant dies without any form of baptism, that person goes to endless hell, although with a less harsh punishment (whatever that means). I acknowledge that the Church teaches there is more than one form of baptism, but I also don’t see where they say “every child, simpleton/prenatal/infant who dies without water baptism is assumed to have attained either baptism of blood or desire.”

Again, I am not arguing that the Church has never taught that there are other kinds of baptism. I am arguing that we have no reason to suppose the majority of innocent human beings who happen to die before receiving water baptism attain either of the other kinds.

The contradiction exists only in the minds of those who believe that the Church now teaches that all babies go to heaven. They actually have no idea, and have verygood reasons for suppose they don’t! The modern Church hedges, and equivocates, and speculates, and squirms, and says “oh…no one really knows but we can hope I guess…erm…maybe…”

Again, these qualifications of magisterial teachings are supplied by modern theologians. There is absolutely no reason to suppose children/simpletons/prenatals/infants who die attain either alternative form of baptism. If there is, what is the reason? Because God isn’t evil and doesn’t arbitrarily punish the innocent. I agree! But, that is a perfect argument against the Catholic formulation of original sin, isn’t it?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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

So, eternal truths are decided by vote and suddenly become clear and certain at that point? That’s a little odd. I never said limbo was a magisterial teaching, it has only ever been theological speculation. What is certain, according to the magisterium, is that they aren’t in heaven. Those who pretend otherwise make the Church look like it is contradicting itself.

 

[tonyrey]

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:

A superb irrefutable post! :clapping:

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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

According to your theological speculation with absolutely no support from any scripture or magisterial teaching.

Only according to your legalistic interpretation!

What? That babies who die without any form of baptism are a subset of “those who die in original sin alone?” If the councils aren’t talking about babies…who or what are they talking about?

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

Babies don’t have desires (except by proxy). Babies can’t be martyrs (except by proxy). This is obvious. If not, please spell out precisely how a baby can desire something as complex as baptism. If not, please spell out precisely how a baby can desire something as complex as martyrdom.

 

[tonyrey]

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”.

Hell doesn’t exist by necessity but by choice. To state dogmatically that Hell** cannot** exist is absurd. If we claim to be Christians we should accept the teaching of Jesus that Hell does exist…

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?

**Babies cannot and do not go to Hell for that very reason. **It contradicts the teaching of Jesus: "If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."Matthew 18:6–9

Children are very precious in the sight of God because they are innocent:

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven

Mat 19:14

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Hell doesn’t exist by necessity but by choice. To state dogmatically that Hell** cannot** exist is absurd. If we claim to be Christians we should accept the teaching of Jesus that Hell does exist…

Right, hell doesn’t exist by necessity, so it must mean it exists by arbitrary choice, unless you have a reason for its existence?

**Babies cannot and do not go to Hell for that very reason. **It contradicts the teaching of Jesus: "If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."Matthew 18:6–9

Children are very precious in the sight of God because they are innocent:

Mat 19:14

The magisterium disagrees with your conclusion based on this scripture. Besides, in the quote, Jesus is acknowledging that the “little ones” can stumble in the first place! Babies cannot stumble since they are incapable of choice. Therefore, the “little ones” Jesus refers to here must not be babies, but simpletons. We must be careful when teaching simpletons about the things of God so they don’t get the wrong idea! Come to think of it, teaching simple, superstitious, and illiterate peasants that their children are doomed from birth is a great example of what Jesus is talking about here, in my view.

 

[fisherman_carl]

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?”

Pelagianism is not about sending infants to hell. That would be a miss application of the issue. No one believes that infants go to the hell of the damned, not even Thomas Aquinas. That doesn’t make them Pelagians. It would be perfectly reasonable for God to give unbabtized infants who die the grace they require to enter heaven out of his good will. (If you watched the video I posted in my last post that is what he did for the saints of the OT who had already died and were awaiting their redemption). Or, like St. Thomas Aquinas one can believe they go to some natural paradise. The point is we can not put God in a box. He is capable of acting outside of the Sacraments.

Pelagianism is about believing you don’t need God’s sanctifying grace to go to heaven, that you can be good enough by your own natural effort. Infants are completely helpless and are at the mercy of a loving God. Thus, I do not believe they suffer in any way and that God is just to them.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Pelagianism is not about sending infants to hell. That would be a miss application of the issue. No one believes that infants go to the hell of the damned, not even Thomas Aquinas. That doesn’t make them Pelagians. It would be perfectly reasonable for God to give unbabtized infants who die the grace they require to enter heaven out of his good will. (If you watched the video I posted in my last post that is what he did for the saints of the OT who had already died and were awaiting their redemption). Or, like St. Thomas Aquinas one can believe they go to some natural paradise. The point is we can not put God in a box. He is capable of acting outside of the Sacraments.

Pelagianism is about believing you don’t need God’s sanctifying grace to go to heaven, that you can be good enough by your own natural effort. Infants are completely helpless and are at the mercy of a loving God. Thus, I do not believe they suffer in any way and that God is just to them.

Again, if the RCC in no way ever insinuated that unbaptized babies go to hell, how could so many council fathers/popes/doctors/saints have explicitly stated it in their writings? Why is Augustine so wrong? And, if he is so wrong, then why is he a doctor, father, and saint of the church?

I’ll post this link again, because it is a clear and concise discussion of this issue, and I agree with it. Of course, I agree that it represents Catholic teaching, not that I agree with Catholic teaching:

romancatholicism.org/jansenism/limbo-pelagianism.html#carthage

Here is another question to consider. Why doesn’t the Church go ahead and infallibly proclaim that those who die without baptism and who have committed no actual sins go to heaven? It would be easy. Pope Francis could do it tomorrow. Pope Benedict XVI could have done it a decade ago. Actually, any pope or council for the last 15 centuries could have done it. Why not? Why didn’t they?

Afterall, if the Church is infallibly and absolutely certain that Mary was a virgin before, during, after after the birth of Jesus (which couldn’t have happened in the normal way and must have been miraculous), surely they could infallibly proclaim something that seems so obvious to everyone in this thread.

Here is my theory: if they were to proclaim such a thing, it would be an obvious contradiction of their teachings about original sin and baptism, and everyone knows it.

 

[tonyrey]

Hell doesn’t exist by necessity but by choice. To state dogmatically that Hell cannot exist is absurd. If we claim to be Christians we should accept the teaching of Jesus that Hell does exist…

The choice is not made by God but by those who have a very good reason (in their view). They want to be totally independent. If you deny that possibility you are underestimating not only free will but also the reality of evil.

Babies cannot and do not go to Hell for that very reason. It contradicts the teaching of Jesus: "If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."Matthew 18:6–9

Children are very precious in the sight of God because they are innocent:

The magisterium disagrees with your conclusion based on this scripture.

Unsupported assertions are worthless.

Besides, in the quote, Jesus is acknowledging that the “little ones” can stumble in the first place! Babies cannot stumble since they are incapable of choice. Therefore, the “little ones” Jesus refers to here must not be babies, but simpletons. We must be careful when teaching simpletons about the things of God so they don’t get the wrong idea! Come to think of it, teaching simple, superstitious, and illiterate peasants that their children are doomed from birth is a great example of what Jesus is talking about here, in my view.

Unlike you Jesus did not discriminate in a futile attempt to incriminate children. He was
referring to all types of children from those who were clustering around him to those still being nursed by their mothers. His teaching encompassed everyone from the cradle to the grave because He knew He was going to suffer and die for every single person who has lived and will live on this planet. You may not be aware that there were and are children who have reached the age of reason and are capable of being misled into sin by pedophiles - although only God knows to what extent they are responsible when they are being deceived by the apparent kindness of a man who gives them presents. These unpalatable facts are not included in your simplistic scheme of things. It is so much easier to claim the Church teaches that the vast majority of people - and all children without exception - are tarred by the Devil’s brush and condemned to Hell by a diabolically sadistic God. “your view” is so absurd it is self-destructive when contrasted with the greatest love the world has ever witnessed…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The choice is not made by God but by those who have a very good reason (in their view). They want to be totally independent. If you deny that possibility you are underestimating not only free will but also the reality of evil.

Unsupported assertions are worthless.

Unlike you Jesus did not discriminate in a futile attempt to incriminate children. He was
referring to all types of children from those who were clustering around him to those still being nursed by their mothers. His teaching encompassed everyone from the cradle to the grave because He knew He was going to suffer and die for every single person who has lived and will live on this planet. You may not be aware that there were and are children who have reached the age of reason and are capable of being misled into sin by pedophiles - although only God knows to what extent they are responsible when they are being deceived by the apparent kindness of a man who gives them presents. These unpalatable facts are not included in your simplistic scheme of things. It is so much easier to claim the Church teaches that the vast majority of people - and all children without exception - are tarred by the Devil’s brush and condemned to Hell by a diabolically sadistic God. “your view” is so absurd it is self-destructive when contrasted with the greatest love the world has ever witnessed…

Your argument isn’t with me my friend, you disagree with the saints/popes/councils/infallible statements/private revelations/miracle-workers/fathers/doctors of the Roman Catholic Church. I’m right there with you, we’re on the same side! It is all ridiculous and cruel nonsense. However…Pope St. Gregory the Great doesn’t agree with us unfortunately:

For there be some that are withdrawn from the present light, before they attain to shew forth the good or evil deserts of an active life. And whereas the Sacraments of salvation do not free them from the sin of their birth, at the same time that here they never did aright by their own act; there they are brought to torment. And these have one wound, viz. to be born in corruption, and another, to die in the flesh. But forasmuch as after death there also follows, death eternal, by a secret and righteous judgment ‘wounds are multiplied to them without cause.’ For they even receive everlasting torments, who never sinned by their own will. And hence it is written, Even the infant of a single day is not pure in His sight upon earth. Hence ‘Truth’ says by His own lips, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Hence Paul says, We were by nature the children of wrath even as others. He then that adding nothing of his own is mined by the guilt of birth alone, how stands it with such an one at the last account, as far as the calculation of human sense goes, but that he is ‘wounded without cause?’ And yet in the strict account of God it is but just that the stock of mortality, like an unfruitful tree, should preserve in the branches that bitterness which it drew from the root. Therefore he says, For He shall break me with a tempest, and multiply my wounds without cause. As if reviewing the woes of mankind he said in plain words; ‘With what sort of visitation does the strict Judge mercilessly slay those, whom the guilt of their own deeds condemns, if He smites for all eternity even those, whom the guilt of deliberate choice does not impeach?’” (Moralia 9: 32)

 

[tonyrey]

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

The entire teaching of Jesus is based on two facts:

1. We alone are responsible for our eternal destiny.
2. Death is not the end of our existence.

Why should infants be the exception to the rule through no fault of their own? He chose to suffer and die for all of us regardless of every other consideration because He loves everyone without exception - even those who reject His love.

Only according to your legalistic interpretation!

What? That babies who die without any form of baptism are a subset of “those who die in original sin alone?” If the councils aren’t talking about babies…who or what are they talking about?

Jesus never referred to babies who died without baptism because He had already made it quite clear we have to be like children in order to go to heaven.

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

Babies don’t have desires (except by proxy). Babies can’t be martyrs (except by proxy). This is obvious. If not, please spell out precisely how a baby can desire something as complex as baptism. If not, please spell out precisely how a baby can desire something as complex as martyrdom. According to your theological speculation with absolutely no support from any scripture or magisterial teaching.

What? That babies who die without any form of baptism are a subset of “those who die in original sin alone?” If the councils aren’t talking about babies…who or what are they talking about?

It is not speculation that when we die we shall no longer be differentiated as adults or children or in any other respect except whether we repent of the sins (if any) we have committed and whether we love God and our neighbour. Remember the sheep and the goats?

Babies don’t have desires (except by proxy). Babies can’t be martyrs (except by proxy). This is obvious. If not, please spell out precisely how a baby can desire something as complex as baptism. If not, please spell out precisely how a baby can desire something as complex as martyrdom.

When babies die they cease to be babies but they don’t cease to exist. Only God knows what occurs in their minds during the transition from this life to the next…

 

[arte]

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:

So we go to the Mexican legal system as an example to show we share in the guilt of original sin. The Mexican legal system is dysfunctional. Please see the NY Times article below. However, there is a valid connection between the Church’s teaching on original sin and the Mexican legal system; the Church’s teaching on original sin is also dysfunctional.

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704322004574475492261338318

 

[Vico]

So, eternal truths are decided by vote and suddenly become clear and certain at that point? That’s a little odd. I never said limbo was a magisterial teaching, it has only ever been theological speculation. What is certain, according to the magisterium, is that they aren’t in heaven. Those who pretend otherwise make the Church look like it is contradicting itself.

What is the implication of not being in heaven? Salvation is mainly liberation from sin and its consequences. From ITC we see that there is hope for unbaptized infants to have salvation:37. c) In the documents of the magisterium in the Middle Ages, the mention of “different punishments” for those who die in actual mortal sin or with original sin only (“As for the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, they go down immediately to hell, to be punished, however, with different punishments")[66] must be interpreted according to the common teaching of the time. Historically, these affirmations have certainly been applied to unbaptised infants, with the conclusion that these infants suffer punishment for original sin. It must be observed however that, in a general way, the focus of these Church pronouncements was not on the lack of salvation for unbaptised infants, but on the immediacy of the particular judgment after death and the assignment of souls to heaven or hell. These magisterial statements do not oblige us to think that these infants necessarily die with original sin, so that there would be no way of salvation for them.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html#_ftn41
According to Dr. Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:“The clear teaching of Holy Writ and Tradition is that after Christ, and the Apostles who proclaimed the message of Christ, no further Revelation will be made.”
Also, the progress in dogmas follows in this way:1) Truths which formerly were only implicitly believed are expressly proposed for belief. …

1. Material Dogmas are raised to the status of Formal Dogmas.
2. To facilitate general understanding, and to avoid misunderstandings and distortions, the ancient truths which were always believed, e.g., the Hypostatic Union (unio hypostatica), Transubstantiation, etc., are formulated in new, sharply defined concepts.
3. Questions formerly disputed are explained and decided, and heretical propositions are condemned. Cf. St. Augustine, De civ. Dei 2, 1 ;* ab adversario mota quaestio discendi existit occasio* (a question moved by an adversary gives an occasion for learning).

 

[Good_Fella]

Again, if the RCC in no way ever insinuated that unbaptized babies go to hell, how could so many council fathers/popes/doctors/saints have explicitly stated it in their writings? Why is Augustine so wrong? And, if he is so wrong, then why is he a doctor, father, and saint of the church?

I’ll post this link again, because it is a clear and concise discussion of this issue, and I agree with it. Of course, I agree that it represents Catholic teaching, not that I agree with Catholic teaching:

romancatholicism.org/jansenism/limbo-pelagianism.html#carthage

The link you provided is an anti-Catholic website designed to misrepresent what the Catholic Church has actually taught.

 

[Good_Fella]

So we go to the Mexican legal system as an example to show we share in the guilt of original sin. The Mexican legal system is dysfunctional. Please see the NY Times article below. However, there is a valid connection between the Church’s teaching on original sin and the Mexican legal system; the Church’s teaching on original sin is also dysfunctional.

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704322004574475492261338318

The Mexican legal system has nothing to do with it. The mother’s child isn’t ordered by the court to be penalized with his mother for her crime. He is implicated circumstantially because of it. I simply illustrated in practical terms what we mean by our being guilty of sin by association. You don’t seem to grasp the meaning of the term or prefer just to dismiss it.

 

[oldcelt]

The link you provided is an anti-Catholic website designed to misrepresent what the Catholic Church has actually taught.

I would gather that you have something that would refute these quotes of the early Church Fathers…if not, you cannot say that the teachings are being misrepresented/

John

 

[fisherman_carl]

Again, if the RCC in no way ever insinuated that unbaptized babies go to hell, how could so many council fathers/popes/doctors/saints have explicitly stated it in their writings? Why is Augustine so wrong? And, if he is so wrong, then why is he a doctor, father, and saint of the church?

I’ll post this link again, because it is a clear and concise discussion of this issue, and I agree with it. Of course, I agree that it represents Catholic teaching, not that I agree with Catholic teaching:

romancatholicism.org/jansenism/limbo-pelagianism.html#carthage

Here is another question to consider. Why doesn’t the Church go ahead and infallibly proclaim that those who die without baptism and who have committed no actual sins go to heaven? It would be easy. Pope Francis could do it tomorrow. Pope Benedict XVI could have done it a decade ago. Actually, any pope or council for the last 15 centuries could have done it. Why not? Why didn’t they?

Afterall, if the Church is infallibly and absolutely certain that Mary was a virgin before, during, after after the birth of Jesus (which couldn’t have happened in the normal way and must have been miraculous), surely they could infallibly proclaim something that seems so obvious to everyone in this thread.

Here is my theory: if they were to proclaim such a thing, it would be an obvious contradiction of their teachings about original sin and baptism, and everyone knows it.

I glanced at the link. It looks like a bunch of garbage to me written by people who have an axe to grind. For instance they call limbo pelagianism, which means the authors do not understand pelagianism or limbo. They are just trying to make Catholicism look bad. They are not interested in truth. I would not believe anything they had to say. My experience with rabid anti-Catholicism is it is full of misunderstandings and falsehoods. And I have neither the time or inclination to chase down every one.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=853882

articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/21/world/fg-limbo21

 

[arte]

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

I have seen the terms"Baptism of Desire" and “Baptism of Blood” being used several times in this debate. The terms have mainly been used to defend the position that unbaptised babies and infants do not go to hell. From what I have read on the terms; they mean the following:

Baptism of Desire
“For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament” (CCC 1259).
The doctrine of baptism of desire seeks to address some of the implications of these teachings. It holds that those who, as adults, come to faith in Christ and become catechumens but who die before receiving baptism nevertheless are admitted to salvation even though the Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation.
Therefore, Baptism of Desire is purely for adults and not babies and infants.

Baptism of Blood
"Those who die as martyrs in a persecution of Christians are also judged to have acquired the benefits of baptism without actually undergoing the ritual; this is the “baptism of blood” (baptismum sanguinis) (CCC 1258).
**Therefore, any unbaptised Christian of any age who is killed during persecution of Christians is treated as being baptised **

Our fellow Christians in the ME and Africa are being persecuted for their faith as I type this. They are the most persecuted group in the Islamic ME and African wars. Our western governments should be rescuing all Christians in these wars as a matter of priority. Yes, we should help the Muslims as well but we should help the most oppressed first. I apologise for bringing this into the debate but I feel very strongly that the bedrock of western nations is Judeo Christianity and we should act accordingly to save our Christian brothers and sisters.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The entire teaching of Jesus is based on two facts:

1. We alone are responsible for our eternal destiny.
2. Death is not the end of our existence.

Why should infants be the exception to the rule through no fault of their own? He chose to suffer and die for all of us regardless of every other consideration because He loves everyone without exception - even those who reject His love.

This isn’t about what Jesus taught, it is about what the magisterium teaches. Remember, they’re the only ones who are competent to understand and interpret the scriptures, according to themselves. Your argument is with the magisterium it seems, not your understanding of what Jesus taught.

Jesus never referred to babies who died without baptism because He had already made it quite clear we have to be like children in order to go to heaven.

It is not speculation that when we die we shall no longer be differentiated as adults or children or in any other respect except whether we repent of the sins (if any) we have committed and whether we love God and our neighbour. Remember the sheep and the goats?

When babies die they cease to be babies but they don’t cease to exist. Only God knows what occurs in their minds during the transition from this life to the next…

Again, it doesn’t matter what you think Jesus taught if you are a Catholic. You must be obedient to the understanding of the magisterium, and you must submit your intellect to their authority and assent to whatever they have defined. They have the supreme authority to define doctrine and dogma, neither you nor I have any ability to interpret it or define it for ourselves, if we are Catholic.