Is eternal suffering pointless?

[jmcrae]

You did state quiet clearly but your understanding of the concept of guilt by association is incorrect. I gave you clear examples of guilt by association that matched the definition but you have not accepted them. The vital part missing in your statement is: “not because of any evidence”. Where is the evidence to prove that we have actually sinned as babies/infants or prior to being born?

What Adam did was he broke the mechanism by which we can naturally enter into a relationship with God. Since the mechanism is broken (the bridge is out - my earlier analogy in this thread) it is not possible to be in a relationship with God other than by means of prayer and the Sacraments - that is, supernaturally, through Christ’s atoning Sacrifice on the Cross, which inaugurated a New Covenant, which we enter by means of Baptism.

There is a typo in my statement: It should read: The Church should come out and simply say: “Church doctrine professes that these babies/infants do not go to hell to be punished for eternity". To clarify it more it would be even better to also state: “These babies/infants go straight to heaven because their souls are unblemished”.

Not if we don’t know this for a fact. We can sentimentally think so, and we can have the opinion that it would be totally unfair if it were not the case, but there is nothing in Revelation, either oral or Scriptural, to signify this.

Indeed, quite the opposite, since “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” - John 14:6.

If you don’t believe the Bible itself, then there is nothing to discuss - you are building your house on the sands of your personal opinions, rather than on the Word of God.

It seems to me that instead of trying to discern what the Word of God actually says, you are instead trying to see how you can make the Word of God say what you think it *ought *to say.

 

[tonyrey]

What Adam did was he broke the mechanism by which we can naturally enter into a relationship with God. Since the mechanism is broken (the bridge is out - my earlier analogy in this thread) it is not possible to be in a relationship with God other than by means of prayer and the Sacraments - that is, supernaturally, through Christ’s atoning Sacrifice on the Cross, which inaugurated a New Covenant, which we enter by means of Baptism.

Not if we don’t know this for a fact. We can sentimentally think so, and we can have the opinion that it would be totally unfair if it were not the case, but there is nothing in Revelation, either oral or Scriptural, to signify this.

Indeed, quite the opposite, since “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” - John 14:6.

If you don’t believe the Bible itself, then there is nothing to discuss - you are building your house on the sands of your personal opinions, rather than on the Word of God.

It seems to me that instead of trying to discern what the Word of God actually says, you are instead trying to see how you can make the Word of God say what you think it *ought *to say.

I get the same impression.

 

[tonyrey]

:twocents:

God is Love as the Trinity.
He has created us with the capacity to enter into that transcendent Holy Union.
In order to do so we must become Love.
We must grow in Christ, returning to the Father, in filial obedience, the love whereby we come into existence.
Heaven may be understood as an act of love that through the grace of the Holy Spirit and Christ within us, brings us into communion with the Father.
This process takes a life-time however long or short it is.
If all the Saints in heaven are jubilant over each sinner who repents, I am sure they will pray for every aborted fetus who is deprived of its life, that they will know God.
When the universe that is and will be one’s relationship with the world is unfolding in the womb, if brought to a sudden end, who can say how one will respond within the wholeness that is one’s soul, never to have lived out its earthly potential.
Aborting a child does not guarantee their entry into heaven and most assuredly threatens one’s own.

:thumbsup:No one deserves to be in heaven. All of us could be in state of natural happiness if we hadn’t been redeemed by Jesus but He has liberated all of us - including babies, born and unborn - from our imperfection. He clearly told us we need to be baptised to be fully united to Him. Obviously He doesn’t expect the impossible. He condemned the legalism of the Pharisees that if we never have the opportunity to be baptised because . God doesn’t expect - which is a very good reason for believing **we all go to Heaven **regardless of whether we have been baptised, provided we don’t reject His love. On the other hand, not to baptise adults or children is wrong because it implies we don’t believe it’s necessary. It amounts to rejecting the value of Our Lord’s suffering and death on the Cross. The victims of such negligence are certainly not doomed to go to Hell. Nor are they to be pitied because no innocent person is punished. The only ones who are punished are those who punish themselves - and we know how they do that!

 

[tonyrey]

It is not proposed to be part of heaven, but is it not strictly hell… the children’s limbo implies exemption, not only from the pain of sense, but from any positive spiritual anguish for the loss of the beatific vision; and not a few have been willing to admit a certain degree of natural happiness in limbo. What has been chiefly in dispute is whether this happiness is as perfect and complete as it would have been in the hypothetical state of pure nature, and this is what the majority of Catholic theologians have affirmed.

Toner, P. (1910). Limbo. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
The Church has stated that *limubus parvulorum *has no clear foundation in revelation and is not dogmatic, but has been taught for a long time by the Church, and so there must be room for opinion on the matter. This shows that a binary model is also not the only acceptable opinion. *Not everything is revealed.
*

A very good reason for rejecting belief in limbo is the eternal separation of children from their parents in heaven through no fault of their own. Of course if the parents were in hell they wouldn’t deserve to be with their children (who wouldn’t miss them because they would know their parents don’t love them!). When the parents and children are united by love there is no doubt where they will be…

 

[tonyrey]

I gave you clear examples of guilt by association that matched the definition but you have not accepted them. The vital part missing in your statement is: “not because of any evidence”. Where is the evidence to prove that we have actually sinned as babies/infants or prior to being born?

There is no evidence because no one has sinned in those circumstances.

The person(s) whose family members have committed terrorist acts will be questioned by the police but if there is no evidence against him or other family members, they will not be charged. If God allows the following: ”And suffer accordingly because we are not isolated individuals” then God obviously doesn’t understand the concept of guilt by association either. This would mean that mere humans have a better understanding of justice than God.

We suffer because we are victims not criminals. No guilt is attached to the effects of original sin.

Where does the “if you think you are born a saint” come into all this?

We are surrounded by evidence that we are not born in a saintly environment but in one that is dominated by selfishness and competition to which we are not immune.

There is a typo in my statement: It should read: The Church should come out and simply say: “Church doctrine professes that these babies/infants do not go to hell to be punished for eternity". To clarify it more it would be even better to also state: “These babies/infants go straight to heaven because their souls are unblemished”.

The Church doesn’t need to state the obvious. Jesus told us that those who **deliberately **fail to help others go to Hell.

Your statement: “Church doctrine does not state that babies/infants go to hell to be punished for eternity.” Whilst I believe your statement is correct, we have been here several times in this debate and the result has never been definite. The Council of Trent infallibly decreed that an unbaptised baby/infant who dies cannot go to Heaven.

You are overlooking baptism of desire. There is no reason why infants should reject God when they die. On the contrary** they are blessed **because through no fault of their own they have been deprived of the opportunity to live in this world. My wife had a still-born baby girl we called Maria because she had such an angelic expression on her little face. I’m quite sure she is in heaven.

If they cannot go to Heaven where do they go? As Limbo has never been accepted doctrine, there is only one other place they can go to and that is hell. Everything else that the Church states on this subject is just “hope”. I believe that God will definitely send them straight to Heaven. I have also read the following but I cannot verify it: “The Council of Trent infallibly decreed that the babies which are not baptised whether they be the children of Catholics or pagans are born to everlasting torment and everlasting perdition” (page 146, The Crisis of Moral Authority, Don Cupitt). I have also read that there are different levels of punishment in hell and unbaptised babies/infants are the least punished but they must be punished because they have original sin on their souls.

1. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism? Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.* - Baltimore Catechism*

As soon as I typed my reply, I was waiting for you or someone else to come back and say something to the effect: If they understood what was right and wrong, they must have descended from Adam and Eve because before original sin, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of what was right and wrong as in Genesis 2.5: “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”.
You are using the same flawed logic that some Christians use to counter the theory of the evolution. “It is in the Bible so it is a fact”. In your case, it is a historical fact. I have never read a secular history book that states: “Original sin is a historical fact and it happened about……years ago". Please also provide secular historical evidence to prove that Adam and Eve actually lived, were completely perfect and the approximate date of the original sin which made them and us imperfect. Every history scholar in the World is holding their breath waiting for your answer.

Sarcasm is inappropriate on a Catholic forum where courtesy is expected…

To be precise we are not discussing history but prehistory. No one has ever recorded the first sin but we know there must have been one because our remote ancestors could not distinguish good from evil. Prior to that sin they were obviously sinless. Is it likely they all committed the first sin at the same moment? Evil entered the world at a definite point in the history of life on this planet - and that was the original sin.

If you deny that you are being totally unrealistic. And if you deny it had any effect on others you are implying that they all lived in separate worlds of their own as isolated individuals who had nothing to do with one another even within their own family. And then suddenly there was an explosion of immorality? Not a very plausible hypothesis…

Are we born immune to our moral environment now? If not why not? And when did it all begin? Or has it lasted for all eternity? No one regards apes as having a conscience. If you believe they do you need to explain why they or other animals are not considered innocent or guilty. Why are human beings singled out as morally responsible?

Once again you are using the same flawed logic.

On the contrary. No one has ever recorded the first sin but we know there must have been one because our remote ancestors could not distinguish good from evil.

 

[arte]

The Magisterium has never given a definitive answer other than the necessity of baptism. This is clear by the fact that there is a funeral liturgy for the souls of unbaptised children. Until now the Church has only placed its hope in the Divine mercy.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

‘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,” [63] 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.’ [n, 1261]

I did say: “I could be wrong” but many thanks for correcting me. You are completely correct about the magisterium and the CCC with regards to original sin and unbaptised babies/infants. However, the Second Council of Lyons** infallibly** teaches:
“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.” (Denzinger 464)

The Council of Florence** infallibly** reiterated the same teaching as the Second Council of Lyons concerning the destination of those who die with original sin only. I have read that unbaptised pre natal, babies and infants may be baptised under “baptism of blood”. I always thought “baptism of blood” only applied to unbaptised Christians who die for their faith. Your quotes from the CCC and my reading of the “baptism of blood” are only **“hope” **and not definite whereas the above Councils have infallibility on their side. Every time I see this issue discussed there seems to be complete confusion over the ultimate destination of unbaptised pre natal, babies and infants. The Church needs to make an infallible statement to clear the situation up so there is no confusion.

We are no different than they were - as our arch-types - once we are conceived. By nature we are inclined to sin and do in fact sin, and so we “all fall short of the glory of God”. Aquinas teaches that perfection in this world amounts to someone or something achieving its purpose. Human perfection lies in us achieving our proper end, viz. our intellectual capacities of understanding God and directing our will towards God by conforming it to His will. As I see it, Adam and Eve were created perfect in this way, but they were not created absolutely perfect. It’s a dogma of the Catholic Church that only God is absolutely perfect: He is absolutely good and righteous. God is absolutely perfect because He is entirely actual with no potential. All beings and things are perfect in proportion to their actuality.

Adam and Eve were created perfect, but not absolutely; since they had the potential to freely fall short of achieving their purpose, which was to be good by following the will of God. We have inherited this potential to fall from grace and achieving that purpose for which God has created us, notwithstanding whether we die before being culpable for our personal sins. The truth is that mankind does sin given the opportunity and falls short of the Divine perfection. There is an equality of justice that exists between God and mankind (Adam) because of our offenses which result from our inbred selfishness. Before God, no human being is absolutely innocent. Christ died for us to restore the original equality of justice that Adam had forfeited when he fell from grace. He died to make up for our sinful nature. In his divinity, he merited the initial grace of justification and forgiveness for the human race, and in his humanity he absolves us of our personal sins with the divine authority invested in him to act as our eternal High Priest. We receive the application of his absolution when we confess our sins in a humble and contrite spirit.

We can never be as perfect as God and that is why I have the disbeliefs I have of certain Christian dogma. If mankind can be more just and merciful in its systems of punishment than God, it shows that whatever is written on that subject in the Bible is incorrect. I put hell and eternal punishment in this category.

Death entered this World as soon as God created the universe; it’s as simple as that. Jesus is my moral compass and I do pray to him regularly concerning hell and eternal damnation. I am a Christian Universalist as far as hell goes. I have met other practising Catholics with the same views. It is not heretical. We are attributing the values of love, justice and mercy that befit a divine being.

CONTINUED IN THE NEXT POST

 

[arte]

That’s because WWll ended about 70 years ago. At least 200,000 German citizens lost their lives over night when the Allies bombed Dresden as a consequence of the aggressive acts of Hitler and the Nazis.

If original sin entered the World at the beginning of modern humans then God has had about 200,000 years to remove the stain of original sin on our souls. If mere humans do not treat Germans today as Nazis after only 70 years then God’s level of forgiveness is well below ours. I’ll bring in Dresden below.

Were the Allies justified in bombing German cities and wiping out hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, including infants who were sucked out of their mothers’ arms and into the flames? The Allies felt this was all part of a just war.

The allies were justified in bombing German cities. It was a just action to take because without the bombing of cities, Adolf Hitler may have ruled the World. Adolf Hitler and many of his followers were completely evil so “justice” was on the side of the allies. You only have to visit a German concentration camp to “feel” the evil. Bombing cities is tactically not as powerful as bombing military installations and infrastructure. Had the Germans not switched from bombing military installations, factories and infrastructure to British cities, the outcome of the Battle of Britain could have been different. I believe the bombing of Dresden with fire bombs was very close to being a war crime. The bombing was highly controversial and “Bomber Harris” did feel some pressure over it but it was not his decision alone. By the way, the official death toll was vastly reduced from about 200,000 to 25,000 not that it matters to the families affected.

Where does this fit in with comparing humans to God as far as justice is concerned? Well, many millions have died in wars throughout our history. If as Holy Scripture suggests, only a few find the path to heaven and the vast majority of mankind end up in hell then God’s justice is below that of humans because at least as many if not more than those that died in human war will end up in hell. Hell is torture 24/7 for an eternity. Torture is not acceptable in society today. Just look at the furore over water boarding of confirmed Islamic terrorists. We rightly associate God with levels of love, forgiveness, mercy and justice far in excess of what we will ever possess. Therefore, torture 24/7 for eternity is not acceptable. And, you only need one unconfessed mortal sin to receive it.

If they didn’t historically, they do symbolically. So the dogma of original sin still stands, though it may be interpreted in different terms by theologians who believe in theistic evolution.

You are using a “get out clause” to justify original sin. I had never heard of unbaptised babies being deprived Christian burials in consecrated ground until I read some of Pumpkin Cookie’s posts. I checked and was appalled at how the Catholic Church treated these babies and their parents. It was absolutely disgraceful.
Sorry, original sin and Adam and Eve are myths, complete myths. The sooner the Church removes itself from the doctrine of original sin the better.
Good Fella;13291291:

I’m curious. How can you be Catholic and not believe in original sin which is a dogma of the Church?

PAX
:heaven:

I use commonsense to decide on the validity of original sin and other Church dogma. Among other things I love about the Catholic Church are going to mass and receiving Holy Communion. I am reliably informed that there are a large number of married Catholic women out there who have had a “Vatican bypass” on contraception. I have had one on original sin and hell. There are other areas but I’ll leave it there for now. I believe that I am not a heretic. I hold God to a higher level than some other Christians. I see in the theology of the Church and individual priests a willingness to be flexible regarding Church dogma. I see this in the beginning of your post here where you mention the CCC and Church teaching on the salvation of unbaptised babies. It is this flexibility that keeps me in the Church.

 

[arte]

Purgatory is obviously the most likely outcome for most of us…

I couldn’t agree more but for all of us.

 

[Good_Fella]

If by “intervention” you mean he had a discussion with Cain …

Allegorically I mean that Cain was in dire need of the help of God’s grace. His interior life was in very poor condition and had to be transformed through God’s supernatural influence. Without that Divine push and added strength Cain had no hope to remove the interior turmoil he was in simply by reasoning with God. The state of original sin includes the soul’s loss of control over how we should feel, think, and act by our own free will. Pelagius was wrong in believing that all Adam provided us with was a bad example and that we don’t need God’s help to be good and lead a good life.

God did not accept Cain’s sacrifice because the sacrifice wasn’t good enough.

Cain’s sacrifice wasn’t good enough because of his interior state. God wanted him to understand that his sacrifices were unacceptable because of the anger, jealousy, and hatred he harboured towards his brother Abel. And God also wanted Cain to realize that his sacrifices were displeasing in the first place because he thought he could put Him in his debt. Cain was ignorant of how he needed to humble himself before God and acknowledge his guilt as a sinner when offering his sacrifices. In his pride, he failed to acknowledge his limits in his relationship with God. This was the sin of Adam which stained Cain’s soul. And not unlike fallen Adam, he was afraid of God, which explains why he attempted to turn the table of justice by putting God in his debt.

Cain hated his brother because he was a sinner like most of us. That doesn’t mean he necessarily was born spiritually dead, unable to do any good works…

Adam’s sin is the death of the soul. We all are born spiritually dead. The hatred we might feel towards God and our neighbour is something that naturally and impulsively arises from within ourselves beyond our control. It is part of the fabric of our fallen nature. We don’t choose to feel hatred at the instant it arises. It is something that immediately makes itself felt and defiles us from within. All we can do is acknowledge its presence and its affect on us and deal with it. Thus God has to intervene and help us byHis divine influence and persuasion. Our human nature is deprived of the original holiness and justice by the very fact that we are inclined to spontaneously feel hatred towards others unintentionally… We are not culpable for being in this state, but we are culpable for our evil acts which result from it because of our decision to justify it in our pride and inordinate self-love. Pride is imbrued in our nature. Humility is a supernatural gift of grace.

Cain had the ability to avoid sin, but he chose not to because he had free will.

In his pride, Cain chose to justify his disordered feelings towards his brother and had already murdered him in his heart before he actually committed the act itself. Cain didn’t simply act in rational poor judgement for practical reasons.

There are many examples of “righteous” individuals in the Torah. None of them were baptized. How could they have been considered righteous?

By the baptism of desire. An act of perfect contrition and pure love of God grants the omission of being formally baptised. Anyone who believes in a God whose will should be done and desires that it be done is baptised by desire. Such acts of obedience out of love for God are acts of faith (a steadfast love for God) which call for the infusion of sanctifying grace into the soul rendering it capable of enjoying the Beatific Vision.

One of the great messages of the Torah is that moral uprightness is possible …

It is possible provided we collaborate with the Holy Spirit. Our souls are oppressed by dark passions because of our tarnished human nature. Individual moral uprightness is not an absolute certainty, since ontologically we are morally imperfect. None of us, save Mary, will have lived our lives without ever having sinned against God. We read in the CCC that God’s command to Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil symbolically shows that man has to acknowledge his limits as a creature and submit his acts to God’s laws. What this entails is that the entire human race is under the curse of the law. By just breaking one Divine commandment, we violate the entire law.

Thus we can never be absolutely morally upright at any given point in our lives. In our natural state, we are deprived of the original justice. Only Christ could remove the inequality of justice between God and man and vindicate us in his humanity, because, he alone was absolutely morally upright, having no potential whatsoever to sin in his divinity. It is in view of his preceding merits alone that the righteous in the OT could receive the initial grace of justification and forgiveness. We cannot justify and reconcile ourselves to God for our offenses by any merit originating from within ourselves, since we have all sinned at some point in our natural state of moral imperfection. Jesus said that he came to save the unrighteous, meaning nobody is absolutely righteous and in no need to be saved by Divine intervention.

Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous,* no one who does what is right and never sins***.
**Ecclesiastics 7, 20 **

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

The despair of the gospel is that moral uprightness is impossible, but required! One must literally be saved by miraculous intervention to be a Christian.

The Gospel does not deny the possibility of moral uprightness, but presents it in its proper perspective. Sin originates from within us, not at the point of its physical manifestation. The stain of original sin includes “concupiscence of the eyes, concupiscence of the flesh, and pride of life.”

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca, is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell…You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Matthew 5, 21-22, 27-29

It isn’t enough only to observe the written word of the Torah.

Wasn’t it by God’s intervention that Israel was saved from its enemies? There is an anagogical connection here as there is with the story of Cain and Abel.

If this narrative supports 1) babies born spiritually dead, 2) the impossibility of good works without supernatural intervention, and 3) everlasting punishment for everyone by default, then why did Moses totally forget to mention that? Why have precisely no rabbis posited such a theory, ever (unless you count Paul)? Don’t you think it is kind of an important idea? Why would God have left it out?

God has revealed Himself to us by gradually communicating His own mystery in deeds and words as He has willed to see fit at appointed times in history.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[tonyrey]

Purgatory is obviously the most likely outcome for most of us…

I believe only God is entitled to say that…

 

[tonyrey]

You are using a “get out clause” to justify original sin. I had never heard of unbaptised babies being deprived Christian burials in consecrated ground until I read some of Pumpkin Cookie’s posts. I checked and was appalled at how the Catholic Church treated these babies and their parents.

Please cite documentary evidence with the places, dates and names of the clergy who deprived babies of Christian burials in consecrated ground.

 

[tonyrey]

I believe only God is entitled to say that…

Except, of course, where children are concerned:

People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you,** anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.**” And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them.

Mark 10:13 -16

That is true Christianity!

 

[Good_Fella]

I did say: “I could be wrong” but many thanks for correcting me. You are completely correct about the magisterium and the CCC with regards to original sin and unbaptised babies/infants. However, the Second Council of Lyons** infallibly** teaches:
“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.”

Both formal and informal baptisms remove original sin. I’m sure there are countless baptized Christians who have died in the state of mortal sin and gone to Hell.

The Council of Florence infallibly reiterated the same teaching as the Second Council of Lyons concerning the destination of those who die with original sin only.

The Magisterium has only taught that Hell is for those who die with unrepentant mortal sins on their souls. Impenitence is the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that the Holy Spirit operates beyond the physical administration of the sacraments.

I have read that unbaptised pre natal, babies and infants may be baptised under “baptism of blood”. I always thought “baptism of blood” only applied to unbaptised Christians who die for their faith.

Originally it did during the great persecutions in the early centuries. Also, the infants and children of Christian parents who died before they could be baptized were considered baptized by the desire of their parents to have them baptized. Infant baptism belongs to the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. The idea of baptism of blood being applied to infants and children was an alternative to Limbo which was the predominant theory among the Doctors of the Church in mediaeval time and the middle ages. What it means is that these souls are washed and sanctified by the blood of Christ which flowed from his side along with water after it was pierced by the soldier’s lance on Golgotha. It was by his blood that Christ obtained the initial grace of justification and forgiveness for the whole world. Mary was redeemed in this particular way when God fashioned her soul at the first instant of her conception. True, she was chosen to be the Mother of God, but this was no less an extenuating circumstance. God can sanctify any soul in the womb if He so pleases, especially if they have no personal sins that need to be forgiven.

Your quotes from the CCC and my reading of the “baptism of blood” are only **“hope” **and not definite whereas the above Councils have infallibility on their side.

These councils which you refer to made no such infallible statements that you think they had. And so the Church continues to hope and put its trust in God’s mercy and justice.

Every time I see this issue discussed there seems to be complete confusion over the ultimate destination of unbaptised pre natal, babies and infants. The Church needs to make an infallible statement to clear the situation up so there is no confusion.

Indecision is more like it. But it isn’t easy seeing that the Scriptures are unclear and the Patristic Fathers don’t provide sufficient food for thought. I share your hope that the Magisterium will soon resolve the issue definitively. It took centuries for the Church to resolve the question of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. It didn’t take an ecumenical council to put an end to it, but the establishment of the feast day by Pope Sixtus IV in 1476 and finally the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius lX in 1854 to ratify it as a divinely revealed truth. I believe the question of the fate of unbaptised infants and children will take an ex cathedra statement made by a pope because it is just too shrouded in mystery.

We can never be as perfect as God and that is why I have the disbeliefs I have of certain Christian dogma. If mankind can be more just and merciful in its systems of punishment than God, it shows that whatever is written on that subject in the Bible is incorrect. I put hell and eternal punishment in this category.

The offense has to be measured in proportion to the person who is being offended. Human beings are equal to each other. God is superior to all human beings. The punishments in Hell are insufficient as compared to what they should be. But God is merciful in His justice.

Death entered this World as soon as God created the universe; it’s as simple as that.

If so, then sin or disorder entered the world as soon as God created the universe. Augustine believed that God created Adam and Eve mortal, but He kept them alive as long as they obeyed Him. In other words, death is the result of disorder, which sin is. Both sin and death can be viewed as concomitant with each other.

I have met other practising Catholics with the same views. It is not heretical.

What is heretical for Catholics is to deny original sin and Hell which are dogmas of the Church. A dogma is an explicit revelation from God. Eternal punishment exists because God is eternal. If we murder someone, God is the one who is ultimately offended.

“CONTINUED IN THE NEXT POST”

I’ll respond to this another day.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[arte]

What Adam did was he broke the mechanism by which we can naturally enter into a relationship with God. Since the mechanism is broken (the bridge is out - my earlier analogy in this thread) it is not possible to be in a relationship with God other than by means of prayer and the Sacraments - that is, supernaturally, through Christ’s atoning Sacrifice on the Cross, which inaugurated a New Covenant, which we enter by means of Baptism.

So after one sin, God “pulls the rug from under” the whole human race for ever. What kind of God does something like that? Even after Jesus’ sacrifice, we still have to be baptised and even then we can only have a supernatural relationship with God. Again, I ask the question, what kind of God does that?

Not if we don’t know this for a fact. We can sentimentally think so, and we can have the opinion that it would be totally unfair if it were not the case, but there is nothing in Revelation, either oral or Scriptural, to signify this.
Indeed, quite the opposite, since “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” - John 14:6.

If you don’t believe the Bible itself, then there is nothing to discuss - you are building your house on the sands of your personal opinions, rather than on the Word of God.

It seems to me that instead of trying to discern what the Word of God actually says, you are instead trying to see how you can make the Word of God say what you think it *ought *to say.

Well the Church has known for a fact (infallibility) for a long time where the unbaptised babies/infants do not go. They do not go to heaven. Please see the infallible teachings on the subject from the Second Council of Lyons and Council of Florence. Where can they go if not to heaven? I believe that Limbo is out (or on hold?) but purgatory may be available – not sure if original sin is as bad as mortal sin? There is also baptism by desire and blood which looks very credible. There is also the hope and God’s mercy from the CCC and the ITC which I also believe is very credible. If the Church can state infallibly that they do not go to heaven then surely it can state, they do not go to hell or they go to heaven. The whole situation is totally confusing from the posts here and from what I have read on the internet some of which are Catholic authors/theologians. The Church should make a clear infallible statement that matches God’s mercy as soon as possible. Personally, I do not believe in original sin and hell so for me they go direct to heaven. I don’t even have to think about it. You call it “sentimental” but I call it “love and mercy” – “love and mercy” from an omnipotent divine being. Anyway, isn’t God sentimental towards His Creation? Any “normal” human being would put babies and infants straight in heaven. You would have to be “abnormal” not to and I don’t put God in the “abnormal” basket. I’m not being sarcastic but it would be an excellent idea to do a poll on the general public and see where they fall on the question of unbaptised babies and infants.

There are many parts of the Bible that I do not believe in but I believe in the majority of it. My own opinions hold God to a far higher standard than people who believe every word of the Bible and especially those who interpret it literally. Therefore, for me, I am building my house on solid rock and not myths. Like all religious books, the Bible is not inerrant. The “Word of God” is used by Jews for the Torah, Christians for the Bible and Muslims for the Quran. Yep, it’s the same God but He is sending different messages to all 3 recipients.

 

[Good_Fella]

If original sin entered the World at the beginning of modern humans then God has had about 200,000 years to remove the stain of original sin on our souls. If mere humans do not treat Germans today as Nazis after only 70 years then God’s level of forgiveness is well below ours.

Our war with the dragon (Rev. 12:17) hasn’t ended yet.

The allies were justified in bombing German cities. It was a just action to take because without the bombing of cities, Adolf Hitler may have ruled the World. Adolf Hitler and many of his followers were completely evil so “justice” was on the side of the allies.

God was justified in expelling Adam and Eve from paradise, since what they did was evil. And since our war with Satan is ongoing, we their fallen descendants must collectively suffer the consequences of their actions - “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”.

Hell is torture 24/7 for an eternity. Torture is not acceptable in society today. Therefore, torture 24/7 for eternity is not acceptable.

Hell is not a torture chamber in the worldly sense. Nor does God either act as a torturer or authorize demons to torture human souls by sadistically and deliberately inflicting pain on them. Pain does still exist, but not in a sadistic way. The causes of torment these souls suffer may be the very things which caused them to act or indulge in while they were still alive. Cain, for example, murdered his brother Abel out of jealousy, anger, and hatred. So he may be suffering the intense torment of jealousy, anger, and hatred with no object to vent these feelings on for gratification. And he may also be isolated, separated from all the other souls in Hell with only himself to focus on, which he regarded as more important than others when he was alive. In this case, the flames of Hell can be seen in a metaphorical way: the flames of jealousy, anger, and hatred which consume him in an unbearably intense way. Cain murdered his brother because he justified his own feelings. He chose to be in this state, even after God tried to help him get out of it before he actually murdered his brother. So he may be suffering from what his mortal sin is a consequence of. This is the pain of sense.

The primary pain the poor souls in Hell experience is the pain of loss. This is the eternal loss of the Beatific Vision. As a result, the poor souls can no longer sense love and goodness, but only intense sorrow for having offended God, who is all love and goodness, and despair: an intense sense of guilt and separation.

The souls in Hell chose to be there with full knowledge of the consequences of their actions. They chose to reject God by either knowingly disobeying His commandments or ignoring the voice of their conscience which God uses to communicate His word to us. It will not be God who sentences souls to Hell, but their own conscience.

And, you only need one unconfessed mortal sin to receive it.

Provided you obstinately refuse to repent by having justified yourself.

You are using a “get out clause” to justify original sin. I had never heard of unbaptised babies being deprived Christian burials in consecrated ground until I read some of Pumpkin Cookie’s posts. I checked and was appalled at how the Catholic Church treated these babies and their parents. It was absolutely disgraceful.

First of all, one doesn’t have to be buried on consecrated ground to enter Heaven. What matters is the state of the soul. Second, it has never been the official teaching or practice of the universal Church to prohibit the burial of non-baptized people in consecrated cemeteries. However, some individual bishops and pastors may have refused parents their request.

Sorry, original sin and Adam and Eve are myths, complete myths. The sooner the Church removes itself from the doctrine of original sin the better.

Original sin is a dogma which belongs to the deposit of faith: Scripture and Tradition. So the Church is in position to remove it. You do realize that it is because of original sin Christ came into the world to undo the sin of Adam (guilt) and our personal sins (forgiveness), don’t you?

I use commonsense to decide on the validity of original sin and other Church dogma.

I have the impression that your emotions are clouding your judgment. I suggest you do much reading on the Catholic faith and become better acquainted with Catholic theology.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Just had a thought relevant to the controversy regarding infants.

The theology of Limbo tells us that man can be perfectly happy without God.

Think about it: if the infants are deprived of the vision of God, or experience no remorse or knowledge of the lack of God, and yet are perfectly happy, what does that say about the relationship of God and man? It says we don’t need God to be happy.

How is this substantially different from the similar tenant of secular humanism, that man’s fulfillment is reachable without any divine transcendence or interference as they might put it?

However, if the infants are eternally miserable without the knowledge of or vision of God, well what does that say? He is punishing the innocent. If the 1993 Catechism tells us that the chief punishment of hell is the absence of God’s presence (which doesn’t make sense intrinsically but I digress) then infants are subject to this chief punishment as well? Punishment for what? Just being a human being of course.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Allegorically I mean that Cain was in dire need of the help of God’s grace. His interior life was in very poor condition and had to be transformed through God’s supernatural influence…[SNIP]… Jesus said that he came to save the unrighteous, meaning nobody is absolutely righteous and in no need to be saved by Divine intervention.

Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous,* no one who does what is right and never sins***.
**Ecclesiastics 7, 20 **

PAX
:heaven:

Goodness, you read so much into something that can be explained quite simply. Cain neglected to give God his best. Abel gave God his best. God favored Abel and censured Cain. Cain envied and hated his brother, then killed him. God punished Cain, because Cain had the power to do otherwise.

We don’t need to be absolutely perfectly righteous like God in order to be “morally upright.” No one can be righteous like God, of course, because we are imperfect and limited creatures!

However, that does not mean that people who are mostly good deserve endless punishment, are born spiritually dead, and incapable of doing any good without miraculous divine intervention. Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Enoch (Cain’s son!), and Job (among many more) are specifically considered to be “morally upright” by God himself according to the Tanakh. Similarly, David was a “man after God’s own heart” though he committed many grievous sins. Moses too sinned grievously, and yet was considered righteous by God. Sin must be avoided and shunned, but it is also important to make amends and repent. We cannot sin and say “the devil made me do it” or “original sin made it impossible for me to avoid.”

For a righteous man can fall seven times and rise, but the wicked shall stumble upon evil.

• Proverbs 24

Notice it doesn’t say “it is impossible to be a righteous man so this proverb makes no sense.”

There are many morally upright people who sin in small ways. The difference between them and the “wicked” is that they repent, make amends, and try again. It is ridiculous and arrogant to suppose God expects us to be a mirror of his perfection. We must remain humble and continuously repent of our sinfulness while always striving to do better.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

So after one sin, God “pulls the rug from under” the whole human race for ever. What kind of God does something like that? Even after Jesus’ sacrifice, we still have to be baptised and even then we can only have a supernatural relationship with God. Again, I ask the question, what kind of God does that?

Well the Church has known for a fact (infallibility) for a long time where the unbaptised babies/infants do not go. They do not go to heaven. Please see the infallible teachings on the subject from the Second Council of Lyons and Council of Florence. Where can they go if not to heaven? I believe that Limbo is out (or on hold?) but purgatory may be available – not sure if original sin is as bad as mortal sin? There is also baptism by desire and blood which looks very credible. There is also the hope and God’s mercy from the CCC and the ITC which I also believe is very credible. If the Church can state infallibly that they do not go to heaven then surely it can state, they do not go to hell or they go to heaven. The whole situation is totally confusing from the posts here and from what I have read on the internet some of which are Catholic authors/theologians. The Church should make a clear infallible statement that matches God’s mercy as soon as possible. Personally, I do not believe in original sin and hell so for me they go direct to heaven. I don’t even have to think about it. You call it “sentimental” but I call it “love and mercy” – “love and mercy” from an omnipotent divine being. Anyway, isn’t God sentimental towards His Creation? Any “normal” human being would put babies and infants straight in heaven. You would have to be “abnormal” not to and I don’t put God in the “abnormal” basket. I’m not being sarcastic but it would be an excellent idea to do a poll on the general public and see where they fall on the question of unbaptised babies and infants.

There are many parts of the Bible that I do not believe in but I believe in the majority of it. My own opinions hold God to a far higher standard than people who believe every word of the Bible and especially those who interpret it literally. Therefore, for me, I am building my house on solid rock and not myths. Like all religious books, the Bible is not inerrant. The “Word of God” is used by Jews for the Torah, Christians for the Bible and Muslims for the Quran. Yep, it’s the same God but He is sending different messages to all 3 recipients.

Strictly speaking, God has no emotions because he is immutable and non-corporeal. However, your observation is irrefutable. If we, puny little humans, would refuse to endlessly punish babies for something they have no control over and didn’t choose, then we are more morally upright and just than God. But, it is impossible for us to be more just than God, so we must conclude that God by no means punishes babies forever and forever for doing nothing other than existing!! This is obvious to anyone with a shred of decency and commonsense. That there is even a debate about this shows the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of certain theologians of this tradition.

I have a theory: what if “infant hatred” were endemic in northern Africa? What if blood-thirsty hatred of infants and human bodies crept into Christianity via Carthaginian traditional beliefs and Gnostic mysticism? The ancient worshipers of Baal in Carthage would burn their children in gigantic fires…sound familiar? A powerful devil, hatred of sex and babies, and hatred of the flesh and physical world were features of Manicheaism. Augustine was immersed in this environment, and was a practicing Manichean for a long time. Is it possible the ancient hatred of babies in his native Carthage and the hatred of sex and babies of the Manicheans tainted his thoughts on this subject? I’m sure there are many scholarly works about this subject.

 

[tonyrey]

People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you,** anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.**” And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them. Mark 10:13 -16

That is true Christianity!

Those who believe the Catholic Church teaches that unbaptised children don’t go to Heaven(!) ignore this clear statement by Jesus. Not only that. How could any rational person misinterpret His actions? Taking children in His arms, placing His hands on them and blessing them? It doesn’t make sense but they persist in their false unChristian accusations.