But don’t you see your quandary? I too believe that the soul is immortal. But your argument pretty much means that every soul would desire God (due to its nature) and thus every unbaptized infant or preborn person would go to heaven.
what I meant by not wanting to condemn them, is that it still pains my heart to say that people who never got the choice to choose baptism would be punished for that, however, it seems like the argument could be made that those children could go to limbo. Thats why the Church has been so adament about baptizing early.
Perhaps you are just viewing divine revelation that way and perhaps you could try to look at it from another perspective. Does this earth have the characteristics of the work of God? All the murder, rapes, genocides, violence, adultery, divorce, molestations, etc. Is this a world that shows for God’s goodness through the evil that happens? Why does God permit it to happen? God’s will is two fold: Antecedent and Consequent. God wills all men to be saved according to his antecedent will, which is dependent upon man’s cooperation. When man disobeys, God’s consequent will is done when man is justly punished for his sins. In the case of unbaptized infants, their forefather, Adam, the spokesperson for their race, chose disobedience for not only himself but for everyone. As a result, man’s default state of being is lacking a supernatural gift of God needed to get into heaven: sanctifying grace. God made only one means by which man can initially receive this grace: the sacrament of baptism, which can be received either by water or the desire thereof (Trent). If a child dies without baptism, God’s will is still done in that the soul will not be punished since it has not committed any sins, but God’s justice does not permit that soul to enter into that special state because it had not been born again. God’s mercy will permit the soul to have perfect natural happiness in limbo, but his justice on account of giving Adam the choice for all humanity determines his consequent will being done. When we really understand how serious God takes sin and the consequence of disobedience, limbo begins to make more and more sense.
Can you please explain the part I bolded above? Please keep in mind the following infallible declaration, which I posted earlier:
The issue that is raised is that these infants never had a chance to choose. Thats why I think there could be a distinction between those that parents had intended to baptize, and those whose parents had not intended to baptize and additionally a difference between those who die at childbirth and those why die at age 6 just before the age of reason.
If I can speak for him, I think what he means, and what I would agree with is that we can come up with more in depth understandings of Dogmas, without changing the meaning of the Dogma. For example, the Triune God. People have been coming up with new ways for centuries to explain how God is Three Persons in One God. In a sense these have helped to further our understandings of that mystery, without actually changing the truth proclaimed by the Dogma
Actually God did say. He said that unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot be born again. If God wanted us to be able to believe that unbaptized infants were saved, he would have given us some other revelation on the matter. He would have revealed some way that they receive this grace. But from what we know, one can only receive it through water or through the desire thereof. If God wanted us to know their fate, he would have revealed it, and the only thing he has revealed indicates that they cannot attain the beatific vision in heaven.
But by allowing for Desire to count, we have already widened it passed just actual baptism. And in the case of infants, does not the desire of the parents count? After all it is the parents who will speak for the child at baptism.
God knew of the dangers of child birth and death of children without baptism when he instituted the sacrament. I believe he is just and what he has in store for them will fit with his goodness, mercy, and justice. That said, he has told us that they cannot be saved without baptism. The Church has defined baptism of desire has to be on the part of the person making the act of will. He must have perfect charity with an explicit desire for the sacrament. As Pope Pius XII clarified because this is how the Church has always understood baptism of desire this means is not available for infants since they are not able to make such an act of perfect charity. I think limbo is a great place, and I don’t know why people are so against it.
You are describing a development of one’s understanding. He used the word “evolve” which means to mutate and take a different form. To become a different species if you will. The Church has clarified that understandings cannot change. They can deepen, but they cannot evolve. How can an understanding both evolve and remain in the same sense as before? It’s not possible as the two are clearly contrary ideas. Evolution is to change. Development is to deepen. The wording here is essential as one is modernist heresy and the other is orthodox Catholic theology. “Evolve” is the wrong word to use.
Sorry to jump in on you two, but this approach really doesn’t work, Una. To interpret this Gospel verse in the manner that you are doing is to shove aside the authority of the Church.
Do you have that Pius XII quote handy? I would be interested to see that. Logically speaking, it makes sense that the act of charity must be by the person receiving the grace, but at the same time my previous point of parents desiring it for them (speaking in their child’s name, as opposed to just hoping they will be baptized), still seems like it could work.
It is divinely revealed that Our Blessed Mother remained a Virgin. She was known as the Blessed Virgin Mother. As the Father’s fought various heresies a more developed Christology led to the title Mother of God. This is an example of what I mean. This is how it applies to dogma. I’m wondering what part of the theology I’ve proposed is bothering you. Apply the guidelines you posted to the theological concepts and ideas I presented and explain how they violate those guidelines.
I’ve presented various theological concepts that you could question. That would be more constructive than pointing out guidelines that I’m not violating. It would be better if you would point out errors in the theology and if you can’t then assume the guidelines are understood and you aren’t grasping what’s being posted.Una fide. Evolve doesn’t exclusively apply to species. Words evolve, the colors of the sky evolve, Chevy Camaro’s have evolved. look:
You’re arguments are tainted with bias brother. Evolve isn’t necessarily a dirty word if attached to theology.
The Roman Catholic liturgy has evolved considerably since Vatican II. Before Vatican II, it was the Latin Tridentine Mass for the Roman Catholic Church. Now it has evolved into something quite different:
Hi stillwondering,