Florence And Hell For Infants

[Perigrina]

 I know what Baptism is and I stand by my point. Those are the actions ( maybe pouring and immersion could be debated as well), sorry if it offends you.  What I find lacks credibility is choosing to argue with my point on water baptism as a way of pulling down the gravity of what is being discussed. My credibility stands in my view as I'm not proposing God would send a baby to limbo or hell (or might so we better get the font out just in case). I believe God would take a baby directly to himself if it died, baptised or not. I don't see that as a questionable position and I'd be concerned for anyone I knew who did. That doesn't mean I'm dismissing Baptism at all. But my thinking is that some people give power to legalism and outward forms rather than substance. The Baptism that is needed above all is the one of the spirit, not the water.

Sacraments, by definition, have outward forms.  You apparently dismiss concern with outward forms as legalism.  This shows a poor grasp of Sacramental theology.  I am not offended by your lack of understanding.  For all I know you are not responsible for it.

 

[Benedictus]

Don't try to obfuscate the issue, it's not a matter of debate but one of denial. You've mocked and criticized several dogmas of the Catholic religion. It is one thing to believe yet struggle to understand, and another to reject and ridicule. So don't try to hid behind some sincerity in trying to understand, you do no such thing when you belittle Catholic doctrine. As I said before, be honest with yourself and others as to what you really are.

 

Apart from attacking me you've had little points to add to much of anything said.

[Benedictus]

Sacraments, by definition, have outward forms.  You apparently dismiss concern with outward forms as legalism.  This shows a poor grasp of Sacramental theology.  I am not offended by your lack of understanding.  For all I know you are not responsible for it.

 

Yes they have outward forms. But it is legalism to say an outward form comes before the destiny of the soul of a baby. You can sum it up with attacks as much as you like towards me. I'm sure it makes you feel better.  But you obviously can't address the fallout and contradictions in the position you apparently hold. The fact you'd rather distort and attack rather than face up to the reality of theological history, and changes, says more about you than me.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Benedictus

[Perigrina]

Yes they have outward forms. But it is legalism to say an outward form comes before the destiny of the soul of a baby. You can sum it up with attacks as much as you like towards me. I'm sure it makes you feel better.  But you obviously can't address the fallout and contradictions in the position you apparently hold. The fact you'd rather distort and attack rather than face up to the reality of theological history, and changes, says more about you than me.

 

The position I hold, as far as I am able, is the teaching of the Catholic Church.  As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it "It is the teaching of the Catholic Church and of Christians in general that, whilst God was nowise bound to make use of external ceremonies as symbols of things spiritual and sacred, it has pleased Him to do so, and this is the ordinary and most suitable manner of dealing with men."

 

A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.  We do not separate the sign from the grace, pit them against each other and label as legalism concern for the outward sign instituted by Christ.

 

I am sure that whatever God does with the souls of unbaptized babies is perfectly just and perfectly loving.  I do not consider myself qualified to make pronouncements on exactly what that is.
 

[Guest]

Don't let Mortify "2" get to you he's already been banned from the forum once by Dust the owner of this site...Hopefully his second banning is coming soon and it will be for good this time...

Edited May 19, 2014 by Guest

[Benedictus]

The position I hold, as far as I am able, is the teaching of the Catholic Church.  As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it "It is the teaching of the Catholic Church and of Christians in general that, whilst God was nowise bound to make use of external ceremonies as symbols of things spiritual and sacred, it has pleased Him to do so, and this is the ordinary and most suitable manner of dealing with men."

 

A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.  We do not separate the sign from the grace, pit them against each other and label as legalism concern for the outward sign instituted by Christ.

 

I am sure that whatever God does with the souls of unbaptized babies is perfectly just and perfectly loving.  I do not consider myself qualified to make pronouncements on exactly what that is.
 

 

Sure, there will always be an element of assertion as we don't know for sure. I understand why people hold the view you outline, and the reasons why the church taught it. What I'm saying is that to anyone thinking over these issues, be they Catholic or not, the position (past or present) on limbo or hell for babies seems distasteful, unjust and farsical. Attacking them or quoting church documents won't cut the mustard.The fact that some people can't say their faith in a loving God leads them to believe he will save the soul of a dead baby isn't exactly a positive evangelistic message. My faith in God leads me to think that he would and I don't think I'm holding him in unjust regard. If anyone thinks so, then I leave them to sort it out with him. I'd rather not get the flack, just the prayers.

What I find frustrating is a lack of debate about why the church come to these positions and held them (and why they are moving away from them in my view). Some people seem to think everybody should just blindly affirm things, I don't. If that were the case we'd not need theological colleges, just loads of rote schools. If noone is willing to talk about how the idea of orginal sin held both sin and guilt as part of the human condition (in a contrary view to the Orthodox church and Judaism) then we can't address how the church then began to react to the question of newborn babies and baptism. In the early church the focus was on delaying baptism, not doing it as soon as possible. The reasons for doing things changed over time and the church has informed, and reformed, its practices. Some churches don't even think Baptism should be performed on babies in the first place. I won't go into that debate for the flames I imagine that would be lit, but these are things that we shouldn't aviod discussing in general. It helps understand why we believe and do the things we do, and whether there is scope to inform, reform, or do them better.
 

[Perigrina]

Sure, there will always be an element of assertion as we don't know for sure. I understand why people hold the view you outline, and the reasons why the church taught it. What I'm saying is that to anyone thinking over these issues, be they Catholic or not, the position (past or present) on limbo or hell for babies seems distasteful, unjust and farsical. Attacking them or quoting church documents won't cut the mustard.The fact that some people can't say their faith in a loving God leads them to believe he will save the soul of a dead baby isn't exactly a positive evangelistic message. My faith in God leads me to think that he would and I don't think I'm holding him in unjust regard. If anyone thinks so, then I leave them to sort it out with him. I'd rather not get the flack, just the prayers.

What I find frustrating is a lack of debate about why the church come to these positions and held them (and why they are moving away from them in my view). Some people seem to think everybody should just blindly affirm things, I don't. If that were the case we'd not need theological colleges, just loads of rote schools. If noone is willing to talk about how the idea of orginal sin held both sin and guilt as part of the human condition (in a contrary view to the Orthodox church and Judaism) then we can't address how the church then began to react to the question of newborn babies and baptism. In the early church the focus was on delaying baptism, not doing it as soon as possible. The reasons for doing things changed over time and the church has informed, and reformed, its practices. Some churches don't even think Baptism should be performed on babies in the first place. I won't go into that debate for the flames I imagine that would be lit, but these are things that we shouldn't aviod discussing in general. It helps understand why we believe and do the things we do, and whether there is scope to inform, reform, or do them better.
 

 

God is not limited to acting in the Sacraments, but we are limited in making assertions about how God acts to what has been revealed.  We do not get to decide what God does based on what we wish to be true, what we find distasteful, or what we imagine a loving God would do.  I remember when I was much younger and even more foolish than I am now an occasion when I convinced myself that a loving God would want me to be happy and therefore was fine with me getting involved in an immoral relationship. Having once seriously sinned through projecting my desires onto the love of God, I tend to be distrustful of such arguments.  I prefer to rely on Church teaching.

 

What the Church teaches is that we are permitted to believe that God takes the souls of unbaptized infants to Heaven.  It does not follow from this that we should rant about how horrible people are who take the traditional view.  That view is also permitted. 

 

People rightly expect Church doctrines on faith and morals to be consistent with each other.  It is distressing and troubling when teachings appear to contradict each other.  Sometimes apparent contradictions occur when there is a change in practice rather than in doctrine.  However, more than this is happening in regard to this issue.  Those who are troubled deserve patient explanations, not being berated for how vile and hateful they are.  I encourage you to strive for a more gentle tone.  (And yes I know that mine also leaves something to be desired.  You get a penalty free throw.)

 

[Benedictus]

God is not limited to acting in the Sacraments, but we are limited in making assertions about how God acts to what has been revealed.  We do not get to decide what God does based on what we wish to be true, what we find distasteful, or what we imagine a loving God would do.  I remember when I was much younger and even more foolish than I am now an occasion when I convinced myself that a loving God would want me to be happy and therefore was fine with me getting involved in an immoral relationship. Having once seriously sinned through projecting my desires onto the love of God, I tend to be distrustful of such arguments.  I prefer to rely on Church teaching.

 

What the Church teaches is that we are permitted to believe that God takes the souls of unbaptized infants to Heaven.  It does not follow from this that we should rant about how horrible people are who take the traditional view.  That view is also permitted. 

 

People rightly expect Church doctrines on faith and morals to be consistent with each other.  It is distressing and troubling when teachings appear to contradict each other.  Sometimes apparent contradictions occur when there is a change in practice rather than in doctrine.  However, more than this is happening in regard to this issue.  Those who are troubled deserve patient explanations, not being berated for how vile and hateful they are.  I encourage you to strive for a more gentle tone.  (And yes I know that mine also leaves something to be desired.  You get a penalty free throw.)

 

 

I agree with your first point. What has been revealed? To me it's a God who is with us always, loving, healing, just and patient. A God who revealed his love for us through his own sacrifice. I agree that we can stumble and downplay the role of justice or correct being as conscious adults. But I hold our position, as persons able to make choices and mistakes (as well as reparation), in a different regard to a baby who cannot corrupt in the same way. Just to point out though that I view the limbo/hell position as vile and horrid, not any individual personally. My view is that a key theology dominated western Christianity and the limbo issue grew as a negative impact of that wholesale application, contrary to other opinions. It could have went a different way, but it didn't. If anyone wants to defend that theological trend I'd be glad to hear their points.

[Guest]

Don't let Mortify "2" get to you he's already been banned from the forum once by Dust the owner of this site...Hopefully his second banning is coming soon and it will be for good this time...

This was harsh and I apologize....I don't wish for anyone to be rebanned...Although I can't help but wonder what Mortify 3 or even 4 would be like ? I try to contiplate it but I'm not fully able to wrap my mind around it...

[Benedictus]

This was harsh and I apologize....I don't wish for anyone to be rebanned...Although I can't help but wonder what Mortify 3 or even 4 would be like ? I try to contiplate it but I'm not fully able to wrap my mind around it...

 

Maybe they'd have a set number of new regenerations, something like Dr Who :smile4:

[Guest]

lol

[Perigrina]

Maybe they'd have a set number of new regenerations, something like Dr Who :smile4:

 

Be careful what you say about the Doctor.  There are Whovians present.. :alien:

[Perigrina]

I agree with your first point. What has been revealed? To me it's a God who is with us always, loving, healing, just and patient. A God who revealed his love for us through his own sacrifice. I agree that we can stumble and downplay the role of justice or correct being as conscious adults. But I hold our position, as persons able to make choices and mistakes (as well as reparation), in a different regard to a baby who cannot corrupt in the same way. Just to point out though that I view the limbo/hell position as vile and horrid, not any individual personally. My view is that a key theology dominated western Christianity and the limbo issue grew as a negative impact of that wholesale application, contrary to other opinions. It could have went a different way, but it didn't. If anyone wants to defend that theological trend I'd be glad to hear their points.

 

The idea of limbo is not horrid and vile.  Nor is it a denial of the love and mercy of God.  We need to be able to overcome our chronological myopia and see past the assumptions of our own time and place.

 

Our ancestors in the Faith have earned our respect and our best efforts to understand where they were coming from.  They preserved the Faith and handed it on so that it eventually reached us.  They amassed a treasure of theology, philosophy, music, art, architecture, and literature for us, their heirs.  They have left us the richest legacy imaginable although we are too often unappreciative of it.

 

It takes some work to go beyond the attitudes which the so-called "Enlightenment" has imposed on us, in order to be able to value the contributions our ancestors.  Nevertheless, they deserve that we should do so.
 

[Benedictus]

The idea of limbo is not horrid and vile.  Nor is it a denial of the love and mercy of God.  We need to be able to overcome our chronological myopia and see past the assumptions of our own time and place.

 

Our ancestors in the Faith have earned our respect and our best efforts to understand where they were coming from.  They preserved the Faith and handed it on so that it eventually reached us.  They amassed a treasure of theology, philosophy, music, art, architecture, and literature for us, their heirs.  They have left us the richest legacy imaginable although we are too often unappreciative of it.

 

It takes some work to go beyond the attitudes which the so-called "Enlightenment" has imposed on us, in order to be able to value the contributions our ancestors.  Nevertheless, they deserve that we should do so.
 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on your first paragraph. Disagreeing with one aspect of theology, or any specific negative actions of the Catholic church in history, doesn't negate everything else. Sure, of course there are good things to celebrate and affirm. But most Catholics of the past were not educated in theology (if academically at all) and they didn't read the bible until fairly late in the big scheme of things. The sway of thinking was directed by leading theologians, scholars and priests. The people, by and large, accepted what they were taught as a given  -  but things have changed, at least in the developed world. Most people are far more educated, or at least more able to find out information that wasn't easily available to them in the past. They will therefore ask questions and expect reasonable answers. That's one of the major tasks, and challenges, of the church for this century.  You don't seem to want to comment on why this limbo idea become popular in church history so we probably won't make much progress. I don't think my objections to the theology have anything to do with the enlightenment personally. I'd say I'm more inclined to see the historical reasons why things gained ground and to be informed by the views of those predating St. Augustine. His views are at odds with Orthodox Christianity and Judaism on original sin. This was only taken up wholesale with Augustine. The Catholic church should be able to explain why they accepted a theology that ultimately took a different view to those held by Jews and other early Christians. Those Catholics, and others, who do explore this, from what I've read, are the ones who reject this theological idea. Maybe someone has read something good on this to post here.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Benedictus

[Perigrina]

We'll have to agree to disagree on your first paragraph. Disagreeing with one aspect of theology, or any specific negative actions of the Catholic church in history, doesn't negate everything else. Sure, of course there are good things to celebrate and affirm. But most Catholics of the past were not educated in theology (if academically at all) and they didn't read the bible until fairly late in the big scheme of things. The sway of thinking was directed by leading theologians, scholars and priests. The people, by and large, accepted what they were taught as a given  -  but things have changed, at least in the developed world. Most people are far more educated, or at least more able to find out information that wasn't easily available to them in the past. They will therefore ask questions and expect reasonable answers. That's one of the major tasks, and challenges, of the church for this century.  You don't seem to want to comment on why this limbo idea become popular in church history so we probably won't make much progress. I don't think my objections to the theology have anything to do with the enlightenment personally. I'd say I'm more inclined to see the historical reasons why things gained ground and to be informed by the views of those predating St. Augustine. His views are at odds with Orthodox Christianity and Judaism on original sin. This was only taken up wholesale with Augustine. The Catholic church should be able to explain why they accepted a theology that ultimately took a different view to those held by Jews and other early Christians. Apart from saying it's the more correct view the church doesn't seem to outline the case bit by bit in a compartive fashion. Those that do, from what I've read, are the ones who reject this theological idea. Maybe someone has read something good on this to post here.

 

The sort of negative view that you express about the Middle Ages is exactly the view promoted by the "Enlightenment".  They were all about how superior and better educated they were and put down the people of this period to justify themselves, especially their characteristic questioning of authority. While there may not have been a high literacy rate during the Middle Ages, the people were not stupid or ignorant.  And their faith was something we could all learn from.  I have an above average amount of theological education and I would trade it for the faith of a medieval peasant.

 

It was a time when virtually everyone had a hierarchical view of the world.  People did not feel oppressed by this.  There is a certain stability and security in knowing your place in the world and what is expected of you.  Everyone had the rights and responsibilities of his station.

 

It was foreign to their way of thinking to question St. Augustine.  He was an authority on doctrine and questioning his views on original sin just was not an option.  In order to reconcile this view with our belief in a loving God, the idea of limbo was developed.

 

Our modern propensity for questioning authority does not make us superior to these people.  The majority of modern people have a superficial understanding of most subjects and yet have no qualms about setting their opinions and feelings above any other authority.  As a culture we are remarkably foolish in this regard and try to convince ourselves otherwise by making up stories about the stupidity of the people of the past for accepting authority.  As far as I can tell, we are the stupid ones.