P
PRmerger
Guest
Love it! Pithy response to what original sin is.
That one is going on my Apologetics “pearls” document.
- Status
That one is going on my Apologetics “pearls” document.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Huh? Is this a comment sw85 has made on another thread? Otherwise, why would you conclude that he believes this?
T
teachccd
Guest
Hey, if you are so incredibly curious about things that you don’t believe then have at it!! I’m not so sure that you don’t believe any of it unless you are a very bored person. I would not pursue such a quest on unicorns…It did sound like you were taking offense at my question, which is why I said that. And I admit that I don’t really have a method to my madness; I just ask questions as they pop into my head, because I’m an intellectually curious person. And it seems that there are a lot of people on this site who are happy to answer them, so as far as I can tell it’s a win-win situation. Seems like a pretty good arrangement to me.
S
sw85
Guest
“Some bizarre reason”? It is the consensus of Church teachings across a number of Popes, saints, and doctors of the Church, as explained here (audiosancto.org/sermon/20070422-Contra-Sedevacantism-and-the-Recent-Document-on-Limbo.html). If that’s not a good enough reason to believe it, I dunno what is. And if the Church has historically been wrong on this, I don’t see any reason to believe it hasn’t been wrong on anything else.
The only other thing to believe is that we are born into a state of grace – which makes baptism kind of useless!
Well, in her defense, I really do believe this.
Unbaptized infants go to Hell (i.e., are separated eternally from God) but do not suffer (i.e., they enjoy every natural happiness, without the supernatural joy which comes from communion with God). This is a truth revealed by reason and probably protected by the infallible consensus of popes, bishops, and theologians across the centuries. A single document by a powerless advisory board of probably-heretical theologians can’t change this.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Julia must have edited her post, because the one I responded to said that God didn’t give heaven to** baptized** infants. I think she amended it later to say unbaptized.
And, of course, that is Church teaching.
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
It makes reasonable sense when one considers that Limbo, Perdition, and Heaven are not essentially *places *but states of being. The infant has personally done nothing wrong and so cannot justly be punished, though without the grace of Baptism the infant does not know the communion of God (whereas an adult with the desire for Baptism at least knows of God and by desire may merit that grace to achieve that communion.)
S
snarflemike
Guest
But knowing as we do that (a) God desires all to be saved, and (b) Christ said let the little children come to him, it is eminently reasonable to hope that God offers those who are innocent of all personal sin AT LEAST the same chance of salvation as he offers the worst of sinners.
BTW, this whole concept of “perfect natural happiness” makes no sense to me. How can we have perfect natural happiness when we are all supernatural beings, body AND soul, made for God. It’s like saying you’ll be perfectly happy except that we won’t give you any food. As Augustine says,
Almighty God,
you have made us for yourself,
and our hearts are restless
till they find their rest in you;
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
The Church does not teach that unbaptized babies go to “LIMBO” The Church doesn’t teach this. What you are saying is in contradiction to the Magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
We don’t believe that. So, you have no good reasons to be posting against Church teaching. Please desist in future.
S
sw85
Guest
Ahh, OK. Perhaps a typo on her part, corrected by the time I responded.
The Church teaches (and Christ Himself said) that baptism is necessary for salvation; not even the heresiarch Luther presumed to deny this. It also teaches that Hell is a place wherein mortal sinners are punished. So it follows that people who are unbaptized but sinless are not saved (i.e., do not see God) but do not suffer (being sinless). What we euphemistically call “Limbo” is simply a rational, straightforward extrapolation from these two premises.
Again, see the homily to which I had earlier directed you (audiosancto.org/sermon/20070422-Contra-Sedevacantism-and-the-Recent-Document-on-Limbo.html). This isn’t a thing that people made up for no good reason. It is an unavoidable conclusion from necessary and indisputable premises. And I say they are indisputable precisely because one can dispute them only by embracing heresy – i.e., that baptism is not necessary, that man is not born into sin, etc.
This is precisely what makes abortion so horrifying. Not just bodies are being killed, but souls are being denied the opportunity to see God forever.
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
- God may desire all to be saved, but that does not mean all are saved, or that anyone in particular must be saved.
Even unbaptized militant atheists experience some form of natural happiness.
S
snarflemike
Guest
Of course. I never suggested universal salvation.
So I abort my baby who goes to hell being unbaptized due to my actions, then I repent and end up in heaven. And this makes sense to anybody???
But not PERFECT natural happiness. Let’s put the question another way. Given that we are made for God and are restless until we find him, is “perfect natural happiness” really happiness at all, if one is separated from God?Even unbaptized militant atheists experience some form of natural happiness.
By way of analogy, humans are social beings. Could we have “perfect natural happiness” if we were alone for all eternity?
S
sw85
Guest
Sure it does. Again, every single one of us deserves to go to Hell (i.e., to be separated from God). None of us deserve Heaven. We get it because God gives it to us, on certain conditions.
The thing to bear in mind is that our great ancestors (Adam and Eve) declared war on God. We are their descendents. Therefore we are, by nature, at war with God, too. Baptism is the white flag of surrender, or more appropriately, an act of defection. Those who do not surrender or defect die God’s enemies. It doesn’t matter that they didn’t choose to be, any more than that the babies and children incinerated in Hiroshima or Dresden didn’t choose to be Japanese or Germans at war with the Allies. They just were at war with the Allies, and the unbaptized just are at war with God.
Does it make sense? Yes. Is it optimal, desirable, etc.? No. It isn’t. It is extremely suboptimal. It is the product of sin and evil. Sin and evil is real and it destroys lives and souls.
It’s worth remembering that Augustine was speaking as a man baptized. Baptism elevates us – restores us to the grace which man originally possessed but foolishly squandered. Baptism changes a man, changes, even, his nature as it were. That’s why it’s a “sacrament of character,” leaving an indelible (and nonrepeatable) mark on the soul. It changes you, forever.
For the unbaptized, nature is a lower thing: the satisfaction of all physical (emotional and psychological) goods. We shouldn’t imagine then that “Limbo” is a bad place, even though it is Hell. The people in Limbo are living far, far better than any of us here on Earth. They are free from sin, perfect, happy. They just aren’t with God.
S
snarflemike
Guest
So God is willing to forgive Hitler and Stalin should they desire it, but is unwilling to provide a path to salvation for an aborted baby?
I realize that this is an allowed belief, since the Deposit of Faith says nothing definitive one way or the other, but I reject it with my whole being.
S
sw85
Guest
Your position is born of an entitlement mentality. It’s not an injustice for anyone to go to Hell because everyone deserves Hell and justice = everyone getting what they deserve. Since mercy is by definition an undeserved gift, the giving of mercy can never be unjust.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So here’s the thing, Poseidon, she wouldn’t have been a bad person if she were Hindu, but she also wouldn’t have been able to give that profound self-giving love to the poorest of the poor.
It takes a Christian to do that.
Now, of course there are good Hindus–and lots of righteous folks who aren’t Christians who help people out.
But no one of the caliber of Mother Teresa or Maximilian Kolbe.
It is only because of *Christianity *that they were able to give their lives in love for others.
I’ve asked this question of atheists a multitude of times: where is the atheistic equivalent of Maximilian Kolbe? And no one–not a single one–has been able respond with anything more than, “Well, I’m sure there’s an atheist soldier somewhere who has jumped on a grenade or something to save someone’s life.”
No. There’s lots of righteous folks of other religions.
But none who can touch the holiness and greatness of Christian folks ala Maximilian Kolbe, Mother Teresa, etc etc etc
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
That people made up and is, again, NOT WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES
No, of course I’m not looking at some homily. The teaching of the Church is in the Catechism. Guess what? No limbo, nada - never - not once ever mentioned. Here is Church teaching, because you actually do not seem familiar with it:
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,"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.
The Roman Catholic Church does not, absolutely does not, teach there is any such place, state or destination for the unbaptized as “limbo.”
S
snarflemike
Guest
Are you licensed to practice long-distance psychotherapy?
Let me just ask, do you accept or reject the Catechism in this matter? Do you also hope that these babies may be saved, or do you not so hope?
S
sw85
Guest
Listen – it doesn’t matter!
The Catechism IS NOT an exhaustive summary of all theological knowledge. It is not intended to be. No one has anywhere ever thought that it was. The one narrow guarantee we have is that nothing related to faith or morality in it is technically erroneous (and even that may be lacking, as I believe the Catechism is an exercise of the ordinary magisterium and is thus at least potentially fallible). It doesn’t follow that everything that is true is expressed in it, and it doesn’t follow that every true thing expressed in it is expressed in the best or clearest way possible.
Saying “God will be merciful” doesn’t contradict the fact that baptism is necessary for salvation, that the Church has always taught as much and that Christ Himself has said as much. One pretty much can’t jam any more weasley qualifiers into the above-quoted passage. God’s mercy is perfectly consistent with the idea of limbo: the souls there enjoy every natural happiness and live better lives on Earth than any of us now living could ever hope to. “God’s mercy” doesn’t demand that they see Him forever, because the choice is not “Heaven with God” or else lots of misery forever. It’s more complicated than that. His mercy only demands that they not suffer the torments of Hell – and indeed, no one thinks they do.
On the other hand, something like limbo has been taught by a number of popes and sainted theologians including Augustine and Aquinas. It takes a pretty monstrous hubris to think you absolutely know better than them. Are they in error, hmm? If so, you’re going to need to point to something more substantive than a single ambiguous passage from the CCC.
See my response above. Again, the idea that all unbaptized babies absolutely have to go Heaven because, hey, it’s not fair that a murderer can repent at the last second and be saved!!! is not just entitled, it’s borderline heresy. It functionally denies the necessity of baptism (and also the efficacy of repentance). If we’re all able to go to Heaven from birth, why did Christ bother to command the apostles to baptize? If we’re all born in a state of grace what the heck was His mission on Earth about, hmm?
I know we all want to tell ourselves comforting things about the ugliness of reality and the absolute horrors man has done and is doing. But a comforting lie is far more damaging to the soul than a painful truth. If it is true that baptism is necessary – not SUFFICIENT but NECESSARY – for salvation – and if it is true that the Church (which has always taught this) is protected from error in matters of faith and morals – than it follows that the unbaptized cannot be saved, period, full stop.
That means this degenerate sinkhole of a civilization has denied 50 million-plus souls the opportunity to see God forever. That’s what makes the sin of abortion so especially heinous, and that’s why the Church declares those who are party to abortion excommunicated merely by virtue of their extraordinarily evil act. Abortion is the devil’s work in more ways than one.
Perhaps I’m wrong about this. I dunno. I don’t see any compelling reason to believe that I am, though, on the basis of what we presently know. The consensus of the entire Church is behind this one, simple fact: baptism is necessary for salvation. If they are wrong about this, they can be wrong about anything, because God is not with the Church.
S
snarflemike
Guest
This is simply a strawman. Nobody here has made the claim you debunk, certainly not me.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
No, it isn’t. But what it does say is actual solid teaching through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
No limbo. Sorry. An outdated idea who’s final burial is long overdue. The Church, not some guy who lived hundreds of years ago or some other guy giving a homily at your local parish, but the Magisterium, the teaching office of the RCC, does not recognize, affirm or otherwise acknowledge the existence or even the possible existence of "limbo" or that unbaptized children who pass, or anyone else, will be denied Heaven.
We don’t believe that. The Church teaches the possibility of Heaven for all. That’s the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
- Status