Author Topic: All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians... (Read 18658 times)

Santo Subito · « **Reply #15 on:** January 06, 2012, 05:11:46 PM »

So you hold that God sends a miscarried child to the Hell of the damned with the Devil and his angels to receive everlasting punishment?

All because He is an absolutist in that every single person must have water baptism or go straight to Hell? Is God incapable of remitting original sin except by water baptism?

Or maybe, just maybe, was He laying down the willed and normative means by which original sin is removed?

This is like saying unless one physically confesses a mortal sin to a priest before death he goes to Hell. Nevermind if the person in question has perfect contrition is about to die and is 100 miles from a priest

I'm also curious if you believe infants went straight to Hell in the Old Testament? What happened to them since they weren't bound by baptism?

If unbaptized infants do not go to Hell, this in no way lessens the sin of abortion. That's like saying if you kill someone in a state of grace it's less wrong than killing someone who is in mortal sin. Doesn't matter. Murder is murder.

Gregory I · « **Reply #16 on:** January 06, 2012, 05:22:45 PM »

Children who died without circuмcision in the old testament went to hell. FYI, circuмcision remitted original sin.

Children are born guilty, justly condemned, and are not innocent. Cute and innocent are two different things. Don't confuse them.

Every person who is born has the guilt of Adam's sin in him as his own. Therefore, all are justly condemned.

There is no other way for Children to be justified than baptism.

BOD cannot apply to an infant.

All those who die in original sin alone go to hell. That's De Fide.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #17 on:** January 06, 2012, 05:33:51 PM »

Quote

Once again, you fail to make distinctions. Aquinas's understanding of Limbo is not semi-pelagian so long as he maintains it as a part of hell, WHICH HE DOES.

You were not clearly making that distinction. On the contrary you were practically saying Aquinas came up with the idea of limbo.

Gregory I · « **Reply #18 on:** January 06, 2012, 06:28:26 PM »

Aquinas DID come up with the idea of limbo. He was the first to give it that name, as far as I know, and he was also the first to indicate that unbaptized children enjoy positive natural happiness and even a natural knowledge of God.

Nobody ever taught that before him. That is why I do not personally accept it. But, I do not think it is heretical, so long as he maintains that limbo is a part of hell, and he does. I think there is some inconsistency in his thought here.

Gregory I · « **Reply #19 on:** January 06, 2012, 06:38:06 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

So you hold that God sends a miscarried child to the Hell of the damned with the Devil and his angels to receive everlasting punishment?

All because He is an absolutist in that every single person must have water baptism or go straight to Hell? Is God incapable of remitting original sin except by water baptism?

Or maybe, just maybe, was He laying down the willed and normative means by which original sin is removed?

This is like saying unless one physically confesses a mortal sin to a priest before death he goes to Hell. Nevermind if the person in question has perfect contrition is about to die and is 100 miles from a priest

I'm also curious if you believe infants went straight to Hell in the Old Testament? What happened to them since they weren't bound by baptism?

If unbaptized infants do not go to Hell, this in no way lessens the sin of abortion. That's like saying if you kill someone in a state of grace it's less wrong than killing someone who is in mortal sin. Doesn't matter. Murder is murder.

Read the 5th session of the council of Trent, on original sin.

4. "If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

So infants need baptism to go to heaven, and there is no other way for them to get there.

5. "If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made inno-[Page 24]cent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven."

In other words, those who are NOT born again are enemies of God, and indeed, he hates what is in them: they are guilty, impure, harmful, and enemies of God and heirs of the Devil and his rewards, and all these things retard their entrance to heaven.

Session 6 makes it quite clear:

Chapter 3

"But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His [Page 32] death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just."

Read it yourself:

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

Darcy · « **Reply #20 on:** January 06, 2012, 07:23:52 PM »

Wow. Even wikipedia says that Limbo is on the edge of Hell. Again, I learn something.
I guess that since there is no defined dogma on it, some felt that if its on the edge, describing it as the edge of Heaven is little different since it doesn't change the level or type of suffering.
I am talking about the fact that limbo being part of Heaven is what I remember being taught. I understand that there is no dogma on it. Now I know that it is in Hell by definition.

But for curiosity, take a look at the entry for Limbo in wikipedia. Scroll to the bottom to the third reference in the "External Links" section. Sound familiar?

please don't :heretic: just because I wiki :reading:.

Trento1551 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 06, 2012, 10:49:34 PM »

It is not at all suprising that Vatican II "Catholics" would believe this, considering the fact that Antipope Benedict XVI believes in salvation outside the Church and that infant Baptism is pointless.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #22 on:** January 06, 2012, 11:09:41 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Aquinas DID come up with the idea of limbo. He was the first to give it that name, as far as I know, and he was also the first to indicate that unbaptized children enjoy positive natural happiness and even a natural knowledge of God.

Nobody ever taught that before him. That is why I do not personally accept it. But, I do not think it is heretical, so long as he maintains that limbo is a part of hell, and he does. I think there is some inconsistency in his thought here.

The term Transubstantiation was also coined after St Thomas's time. It was not a new belief.

As far as the claim that there was inconsitency in the thought of St Thomas; could It posibly be that you don't understand what the Angelic Doctor understood? He had arguably the most brilliant intellect as a gift from God which he used for His glory and our benefit.

Could it possibly be that you don't know how to reconcile something that was reconcilable (and possibly with great ease) for the great intellect of St Thomas?

Santo Subito · « **Reply #23 on:** January 06, 2012, 11:29:54 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Children who died without circuмcision in the old testament went to hell. FYI, circuмcision remitted original sin.

So you are saying all female children went to Hell in the Old Testament?

Gregory I · « **Reply #24 on:** January 06, 2012, 11:38:25 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Quote from: Gregory I
Children who died without circuмcision in the old testament went to hell. FYI, circuмcision remitted original sin.

So you are saying all female children went to Hell in the Old Testament?

Maybe. It is called the limbo of the FATHERS after all...

I am not sure how female children were made participants in the covenant of Abraham. good point. Does anyone know how this worked for girls?

Santo Subito · « **Reply #25 on:** January 06, 2012, 11:43:07 PM »

This sums up fairly well why there is, at least, some hope for salvation of unbaptized infants.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Quote

82. b) God does not demand the impossible of us.[108] Furthermore, God's power is not restricted to the sacraments: ‘Deus virtutem suam non alligavit sacramentis quin possit sine sacramentis effectum sacramentorum conferre’ (God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament).[109] God can therefore give the grace of Baptism without the sacrament being conferred, and this fact should particularly be recalled when the conferring of Baptism would be impossible. The need for the sacrament is not absolute. What is absolute is humanity’s need for the Ursakrament which is Christ himself. All salvation comes from him and therefore, in some way, through the Church.[110]

83. c) At all times and in all circuмstances, God provides a remedy of salvation for humanity.[111] This was the teaching of Aquinas,[112] and already before him of Augustine[113] and Leo the Great.[114] It is also found in Cajetan.[115] Pope Innocent III specifically focused on the situation of children: “Far from us the thought that all the small children, of whom such a great multitude dies every day, should perish without the merciful God, who wishes no one to perish, having provided for them also some means of salvation....We say that two kinds of sin must be distinguished, original and actual: original which is contracted without consent and actual which is committed with consent. Thus original sin, which is contracted without consent is remitted without consent by the power of the sacrament [of Baptism]; ...”.[116] Innocent was defending infant Baptism as the means provided by God for the salvation of the many infants who die each day. We may ask, however, on the basis of a more searching application of the same principle, whether God also provides some remedy for those infants who die without Baptism. There is no question of denying Innocent’s teaching that those who die in original sin are deprived of the beatific vision.[117] What we may ask and are asking is whether infants who die without Baptism necessarily die in original sin, without a divine remedy.

84. With confidence that in all circuмstances God provides, how might we imagine such a remedy? The following are ways by which unbaptised infants who die may perhaps be united to Christ.

85. a) Broadly, we may discern in those infants who themselves suffer and die a saving conformity to Christ in his own death, and a companionship with him. Christ himself on the Cross bore the weight of all of humanity's sin and death, and all suffering and death thereafter is an engagement with his own enemy (cf. 1 Cor 15:26), a participation in his own battle, in the midst of which we can find him alongside us (cf. Dan 3:24-25 [91-92]; Rom 8:31-39; 2 Tim 4:17). His Resurrection is the source of humanity’s hope (cf.1 Cor 15:20); in him alone is there life in abundance (cf. Jn 10:10); and the Holy Spirit offers to all a participation in his paschal mystery (cf. GS 22).

86. b) Some of the infants who suffer and die do so as victims of violence. In their case, we may readily refer to the example of the Holy Innocents and discern an analogy in the case of these infants to the baptism of blood which brings salvation. Albeit unknowingly, the Holy Innocents suffered and died on account of Christ; their murderers were seeking to kill the infant Jesus. Just as those who took the lives of the Holy Innocents were motivated by fear and selfishness, so the lives particularly of unborn babies today are often endangered by the fear or selfishness of others. In that sense, they are in solidarity with the Holy Innocents. Moreover, they are in solidarity with the Christ who said: “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). How vital it is for the Church to proclaim the hope and generosity that are intrinsic to the Gospel and essential for the protection of life.

87. c) It is also possible that God simply acts to give the gift of salvation to unbaptised infants by analogy with the gift of salvation given sacramentally to baptized infants.[118]We may perhaps compare this to God's unmerited gift to Mary at her Immaculate Conception, by which he simply acted to give her in advance the grace of salvation in Christ.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #26 on:** January 06, 2012, 11:46:34 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: Santo Subito
Quote from: Gregory I
Children who died without circuмcision in the old testament went to hell. FYI, circuмcision remitted original sin.

So you are saying all female children went to Hell in the Old Testament?

Maybe. It is called the limbo of the FATHERS after all...

I am not sure how female children were made participants in the covenant of Abraham. good point. Does anyone know how this worked for girls?

Do you believe that Limbo of the Fathers is the same as Limbo of infants?

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #27 on:** January 06, 2012, 11:53:25 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Children who died without circuмcision in the old testament went to hell. FYI, circuмcision remitted original sin.

You are not making correct distinctions.

Please show us approved texts to support that claim.

Gregory I · « **Reply #28 on:** January 06, 2012, 11:55:43 PM »

Quote from: Darcy

Wow. Even wikipedia says that Limbo is on the edge of Hell. Again, I learn something.
I guess that since there is no defined dogma on it, some felt that if its on the edge, describing it as the edge of Heaven is little different since it doesn't change the level or type of suffering.
I am talking about the fact that limbo being part of Heaven is what I remember being taught. I understand that there is no dogma on it. Now I know that it is in Hell by definition.

But for curiosity, take a look at the entry for Limbo in wikipedia. Scroll to the bottom to the third reference in the "External Links" section. Sound familiar?

please don't :heretic: just because I wiki :reading:.

I would like to emphasize something. When people say Limbo is not defined, most don't know what they mean.

The church has definitively and dogmatically taught that unbaptized children do NOT have the vision of God. More specifically, that ANYONE who dies with ONLY the stain of original sin on their soul (which alienates them from God and places them under his wrath) actually is punished in Hell. But this punishment is different from those who die in mortal sin.

THAT is the ONLY loophole that Justifies the theory of The Limbo of the infants. The question is not whether they are in hell: They are.

The question which all the theologians have differed on and argued about is WHAT is the nature of the punishment of Infants? Augustine said hellfire, but not as hot as other sinners. This view was virtually uncontested until the 13th century.

This By itself should speak volumes.

In the 13th century, Peter Abelard said that infants do not suffer HELLFIRE, but they are deprived of the vision of God and have a real spiritual torment from the absence of God. He distinguished between the Punishment for Original Sin alone (Privation of the vision of God) and the punishment for actual sin (The pain of sense, i.e. hellfire).

Now, AQUINAS took Abelard's view and went through two phases with it: He first said that Infants have knowledge of their loss, but they still enjoy a purely natural goodness and even a certain amount of blessedness, due to their natural knowledge of God. He then said that Infants have no knowledge of their loss of heaven and do not suffer anything at all. They enjoy natural happiness.

This view is the most speculative however, and is the most APPARENTLY contradictory to the constant tradition of the Church since Augustine.

Like I said before, I reject it because it seems to contradict the dogma of the Church. We must FIRST profess dogma in its most obvious meaning before we embrace the individual view of theologians; and when we DO embrace permissible theological views, we must choose those which are in the greatest conformity to what we understand to be Catholic dogma.

What bothers me is what looks like a progressive watering down of Doctrine and a substantial shift from its original meaning by some in the church. The church cannot teach error, but parties wax and wane.

In my opinion, nobody will take abortion seriously until this view is held in its Augustinian entirety.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #29 on:** January 06, 2012, 11:56:53 PM »

These are quotes from Aquinas demonstrating that God can remit original sin outside of baptism:

Summa Theologiae III, 64, 7

Quote

But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament...

cf. III, 64, 3

Quote

And since cause does not depend on effect, but rather conversely, it belongs to the excellence of Christ's power, that He could bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior sacrament.

cf. III, 66, 6

Quote

As stated above (Question 64, Article 3), the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ's institution. Consequently, if any of those things be omitted which Christ instituted in regard to a sacrament, it is invalid; save by special dispensation of Him Who did not bind His power to the sacraments.

cf. III, 68, 2

Quote

And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."