Florence And Hell For Infants

[dairygirl4u2c]

so isn't it incontrovertable that infants go to hell?

 

the council of florence said, "the souls of those dying in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone go down at once (mox) into Hell, to be punished, however, with widely different penalties."

 

one person said that it's undefined who can die in 'orginial sin alone'

 

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=282249

 

while a decent point somewhat, who else could die in original sin alone? and wouldnt infants be included, thus the traditional teaching that they have original sin, and must be baptized as soon as possible?

 

one other person tried to define who that person might be, but i can't say it makes much sense.

 

"Dying in a state of original sin alone necessarily implies that the person committed a certain type of actual mortal sin and remained unrepentant through the last moment of life. The Magisterium distinguishes this actual mortal sin from all others (by the phrase ‘original sin alone’) because this mortal sin of omission is the least offense that one can commit and be sentenced to eternal punishment in Hell."

 

http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/heresy-on-the-limbo-of-hell/

doesn't a person who has any mortal sin die from more than just mortal sin? he seems to admit it as do most people, then goes on to contradict himself.

 

that's coming from ron conte who's known to be a d***. perhaps it is he who is being the heretic and such.

most people i find, even many people who are striving to be the best catholics possible, insist that the teaching is that they go to hell.

Edited May 17, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c

[Perigrina]

so isn't it uncontrovertable that infants go to hell?

 

the council of florence said, "the souls of those dying in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone go down at once (mox) into Hell, to be punished, however, with widely different penalties."

 

one person said that it's undefined who can die in 'orginial sin alone'

 

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=282249

 

while a decent point somewhat, who else could die in original sin alone? and wouldnt infants be included, thus the traditional teaching that they have original sin, and must be baptized as soon as possible?

 

The second post in the thread you are citing gave a very good answer to the question.  What is your difficulty?

[dairygirl4u2c]

like i said in my last post, that guy seems to contradict himself. he says that those who die of original sin alone, are those who die in mortal sin of ommission. but any sin other than original sin, is more than original sin alone. anyone who is capable of reason, has sinned and doesn't meet the original sin alone requirements.

[Perigrina]

I meant the post that starts 

 

It depends on how that text is interpreted as well as what was intended by the Council in the definition. As the Catholic Encyclopedia points out, the question of limbo was not a matter that was up for consideration in the Council of Florence and the Fathers only came up with that definition in order to define a related point (on the timing of the judgement). The definition as it stands alone doesn't provide enough information to develop an entire doctrine from on related matters (e.g. Limbo). There was no intention by the Council Fathers to settle the issue since very few details were provided.

 

So, no, it is not incontrovertable that infants go to hell.  I have not read the Conte article but from what you have said it does not seem relevant.

[dairygirl4u2c]

that may be the best arguement actually. it's 'dicta' not central to the real teaching. i heard before that they used the word 'define', but reading the actual text, the word is used but it isn't necessarily tied directly to that statement. it could be argued as such, though. it is unarguable admittedly that it's a secondary teaching to the point of the other teachings, sure.

one point that could be said is that right after defining that they go to hell, they go on to say 'we also define... xyz'

 

""But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define...."

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, reading it closer, it looks like the word 'define' is tied pretty closely to that statement. it could only be admitted that the teaching was not prominent or the point of florence etc.

 

"We define also that the explanation of....

Also....
 

Also ..... But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

-----

 

"We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.

 

Also, the body of Christ is truly confected in both unleavened and leavened wheat bread, and priests should confect the body of Christ in either, that is, each priest according to the custom of his western or eastern church. Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church's ordinances.
 

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."

here is the full text http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#3

[Perigrina]

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."

here is the full text http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#3

 

This paragraph, as well as the others you quoted, were written in the context of attempting to unite Western and Eastern Christians.  They were statements concerning the main controversial matters that were sources of division.  The purpose was not to define doctrine but to establish what the groups held in common. 

 

It is very unlikely that this paragraph addresses the question of what happens to unbaptized infants.  The controversial issue at the time was the question of Purgatory.  If we look at the paragraph in isolation, it seems to deny the doctrine of Purgatory.  Note that it says that souls are received into heaven "straightaway".  Yet the Council of Florence is often cited (in the CCC, for example) for defining the doctrine.  Clearly we are not able to understand the sense of this paragraph when we read it out of context.

 

The answer to your first question  "Isn't it incontrovertable that infants go to hell?" is clear.  Countless Catholics in good standing since the Council of Florence have believed that unbaptized infants go to Limbo.  We can see that the Council neither intended nor was understood as a doctrine concerning the fate of unbaptized infants.
 

[Credo in Deum]

:paperbag:

Edited May 17, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[Credo in Deum]

[dairygirl4u2c]

uniting the eastern and western as admitted may have been the primary purpose, but i dont see how it draws away from what all was defined. and reading the context, it used 'defined' and clear enough language.

 

how do you say its purpose was not to define doctrine?

(i do actually use that statement about vatican ii, not intending to define new doctrine, but i think they said it right out that they werent defining anything. and incidentally i use that point to downplay how they say noncatholics 'may' be hoped to be saved. it's more about appeasing the masses than actual doctrine. a political statement. growing out of the hippie movement or some such)

 

i do not understand your point about purgatory and 'straighaway'. it is believed by catholics that some people can go straight to heaven without purgatory, which is all that quote says. if you are as good as it gets, u go straight to heaven. it doesn't deny purgatory.

 

 

Edited May 17, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c

[Perigrina]

i do not understand your point about purgatory and 'straighaway'. it is believed by catholics that some people can go straight to heaven without purgatory, which is all that quote says. if you are as good as it gets, u go straight to heaven. it doesn't deny purgatory.

 

If you take the paragraph at face value it is saying that everyone goes "straightaway" either to heaven or hell.  It does not allow for the existence of Purgatory.  Obviously it is not really saying that.  We can't read this document the way that you are reading it because we end up with strange things like no Purgatory or unbaptized infants go to hell.
 

[Anomaly]

Oops. I thought this was about Florence and the Machine.

[dairygirl4u2c]

can you show me where it says 'everyone' goes 'either' to heaven or hell? i just dont see what you are referring to.

 

all i see is references to 'if you are good enough to you straightaway to heaven' and then some people 'go straightaway to hell'. which is what is already believed.

 

i also am still curious about how you get that their purpose wasn't to define doctrine.

[John Ryan]

I thought unbaptized infants go to limbo.

[dairygirl4u2c]

im pretty sure limbo is, at least traditionally, a part of hell. i know some try to argue there's been three teachings, hell, a nonheaven nonhell limbo, and heaven. but i dont know that ive seen authoritative teachings that say as much.