Posted on 01/28/2004 12:46:44 PM PST by heyheyhey
In my opinion, the NCR (different from the National Catholic Register and from the Catholic World Report) appears to be classic type of a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is the most anti-Catholic weekly publication that I know, and yet it continues pretending to be "Catholic." The evidence of NCR's anti-Catholic and anti-Christian agenda is somewhat camouflaged, so let it be dug up and brought to daylight in this thread.
- Why, and who cares? Under normal circumstances I couldn't care less, but very many American priests and religious read the NCR, and it has poisonously influenced a generation or two of priests. When we see the sorry state of affairs in our Church we should know, for our own protection, where the devil dwells. Many screwy things (most of all the disdain for the Teaching Magisterium) originated and/or have been, or continue to be, sponsored by the NCR.
There is only one FReeper, as far as I know, vigorously defending the NCR, so he is rare and dear - let's be respectful to him.
Saint Paul never heard of Saint Athanasius, either... but Saint Paul was an Athanasian Trinitarian.
How do I know this? Because "Athanasianism" is just a theological catch-phrase which describes "Believing what the Bible teaches on the subject of the Trinity". And Saint Paul believed what the Bible teaches.
Likewise, "Calvinism" is just a theological catch-phrase which describes "Believing what the Bible teaches on the subject of Predestination".
The Church has given us no teaching on the eternal fate of these babies.
1) On the one hand, there is no positive suffering for the babies, or they have no personal guilt. This is confirmed by Pope Pius IX, in "Quanto conficiamur moerore," August 10, 1863 (DS 2866) "God in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault."
2) On the other hand, their souls seem to lack the transformation by grace needed for the Beatific Vision.So they cannot have it.But they have a natural happiness, and do not miss what they do not have.
Toward a Solution:
1) God has the power to remedy this lack of grace even without a Sacrament. St. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa II. 68.2.c. wrote that God "is not bound to the visible sacraments."
Therefore God could supply that grace outside of Baptism. He did it in the case of the Holy Innocents.
2) Does He actually provide the remedy?
(1) Theologians commonly hold that God provided for the salvation of those who died before Christ in some way. As to the Hebrews, circumcision seems to have been the means for boys, but not of course for girls. (Cf. St. Thomas ST III.62. ad 3). But the theological opinion just mentioned extended also to those outside the Hebrew people.
(2) St. Paul in Romans 3.28-30 says that if God hd not provided for those who did not know the Mosaic Law, He would not be their God. So, Paul concludes, He must have done so, and did it through the regime of faith. Would Paul argue similarly for unbaptized infants? Likely.
(3) St. Paul, in 1 Cor 7.14 says that the pagan partner married to a Christian is made holy through union with the Christian, "Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is,they are holy." "Holy" reflects Hebrew "qadosh," set aside for God by the covenant. So the pagan partner and the children did come under the covenant.
(4) God shows great concern for the objective moral order (cf. "Our Father's Plan," chapter 4. For example, in the Gospel description of the Last Judgment, Jesus does not accept the excuse of those who say they did not know it was Jesus in the poor, etc. He pays attention only to the objective fact. Cf. also Leviticus 4, 1 Cor. 4.4, and all instances of involuntary sin.
Does He also will to rectify the objective physical order?
In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham explains (Lk 16.25): "Remember that you in your lifetime received good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish." Of course the rich man had violated charity--but that is not mentioned. Only the reversal and physical rectification is mentioned. The woes in Luke 6:24-26 seem similar.
Conclusion: In view of all the above, God may well speak thus of the aborted babies: "These infants have been deprived of everything in the normal objective order they should have had, even of a chance for birth. Instead, without deserving it, they have been torn apart or cut up alive. So it is right to make up for that. They suffered evil, like Lazarus. Now they should be comforted. I showed concern for the rebalancing the objective physical order in the case of Lazarus. I made provision for the eternal salvation of people before Christ. St. Paul argues in Romans 3.28- 30 that if I did not, I would not be their God. I revealed through St. Paul, in 1 Cor 7.14, that a pagan partner in marriage is brought under the covenant merely from being united to the Christian, and similarly the children. So it is right for me to provide grace to these children even outside of the Sacrament. My hands are not bound by the Sacraments."
What if Limbo? If our deductions are not correct, then the babies would be in Limbo, which,as St.Thomas Aquinas said, involves no pain, and is such that the babies do not even know what they have missed (St. Thomas, "De Malo" q. 5, a. 3 ad 4). We might compare two persons: one whose tastes are not highly refined, who is completely happy with a ballgame and popcorn; the other whose ability to enjoy things has been refined: he will be satisfied only with the most artistic things. Similarly the babies, lacking the refinement of the power to know given by grace, will be fully satisfied,and not know what they have missed.
If Limbo be the answer,will they be separated from parents who have reached Heaven and the Vision of God? No, for two reasons: 1) Heaven is not essentially a place, but a state. You could have two persons side by side, even in a place, such that one is enjoying interiorly the divine vision, the other is not. They can be together, yet in different states. 2) God does satisfy every legitimate desire of those who reach heaven. (Cf. Apoc. 21.4: "He [God] shall wipe away every tear from their eyes.") Parents who deeply want their children of Limbo will not be separated from them. Limbo and heaven are most basically states more than places. And even as to place, after resurrection, bodies will be like the the Risen Body of Jesus, who came to see the Apostles locked in an upper room. He simply ignored the door, did not bother to open it by a miracle. Risen bodies are not bound by place.
Objection: The Council of Florence in 1439 taught (DS 1306): "The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or only original sin descend into the realm of the dead (infernum), to be punished however with unequal punishments."
Reply: 1) The word "poena" in Latin need not always be the same as English "pain" - it can mean merely deprivation of something. As we saw above, Pius IX taught that God does not allow anyone to be punished with eternal punishments without the guilt of personal fault.
Vatican II, "On ecumenism" #6, taught that if any language in older teachings is in need of improvement, it should be improved. Such is the case here, at least if we do not think of the difference of Latin "poena" and English pain. Paul VI in "Mysterium fidei" did not contradict the Council, but said that the older texts are not untrue in themselves, if properly understood.
2) The word "infernum" in Latin means merely the realm of the dead, not hell in the English sense. Cf. the Creed in which we read that after His death, Jesus "descended into hell"- the archaic English use of the word.
3) Our reasoning above tends to show that the aborted babies, and probably other unbaptized babies also, are given grace by God outside the Sacrament of Baptism, and so do not depart this world in original sin, which is merely the lack of grace that should be there.
From the EWTN library.
So, you can all see that there is no definitive teaching, but that the consensus of the Church is that God acts outside of the Sacrament of Baptism to give His Grace to these children.
OP, the Vicar General who bestowed a nihil obstat on the the theological opinion that "the souls of unbaptized infants are surely in hell" was reflecting Augustinian teaching.
As you read above, Pius IX stated that no soul will be punished for sins it did not commit. So, the Vicar General incorrectly bestowed the nihil obstat.
Blame m4629 for dragging the "fate of unbaptized infants" argument on to this thread, as a way to beat me over the head.
Fortunately, it allowed me to demonstrate that he was wrong.
Since most of us are Catholic here, perhaps someone should sprinkle, no pour (gently of course), several gallons of holy water over it.
Will this lead you to lovingly accept the "mind of the Church"?
...I can only pray for that particular Grace to be received by you.
Where have I deviated from the "mind of the Church"?
Please be specific.
I will take your prayers, any time, however.
I gave you those specific sources of Councils and Catechisms which you may find the correct and appropriate pronouncements. Get back to your homework.
You have to pay attention to the actual point of discussion, which was a quote provided by OP, originated from the Vicar General Fr. Murphy of Westminster, stating EXACTLY ..... "We MUST Conclude that Unbaptized Infants DO NOT ENJOY the Beatific Vision in Heaven"
This is NOT the same as what you have misrepresented as such .....
OP, the Vicar General who bestowed a nihil obstat on the the theological opinion that "the souls of unbaptized infants are surely in hell" was reflecting Augustinian teaching.As you read above, Pius IX stated that no soul will be punished for sins it did not commit. So, the Vicar General incorrectly bestowed the nihil obstat.
That's simply NOT what the V.G. stated. You have misrepresented an exact Quote by him.
You just don't get it do you? Fr. Murphy did not conflate "Unbaptised Infants do not enjoy Beatific Vision in Heaven" with "the souls of unbaptized infants are surely in hell". YOU did.
It is your inability to understand Fr. Murphy's teaching which is the same as what the Church always taught, and where the sources of this teaching came from.
You will do well by reading ninenot's well written post #272 for starters. But that's not enough. You need to find those Church pronouncements that corraborates Fr. Murphy's statement before you can realize where you have made your mistake.
I'll repeat here for you: 2nd Florence, Trent, Trent Catechism, Douay Catechism, St Pius X Catechism, Baltimore Catechism, Catholic Encyclopedia 1913.
Yeah, that's the Sainted Pope Pius X's Catechism. You heard of him? He is our pope.
You have posted nothing.
It is time for you to back up your contention that the Church has spoken definitively.
It has not.
You are wrong, and the fact that you will not post anything backing your contention is an admission of defeat.
Thank you.
The fact is, nobody can say what happens to the souls of unbaptized infants. They may go to heaven directly, they may be given a fundamental option.
They could be in limbo, but that idea is also subject to much debate, that a soul that committed no sins could be kept out of heaven for something it did not do.
I'm done with this subject, unless you post something that backs up your contention.
I am more sure of my position now than ever. It is up to you to prove me wrong.
You can't.
sinky, documentation? Hardly.
You have posted one piece of "statement of hope" and another piece of dicussion/speculation. You think centuries of authentic teaching would disappear just like that? Where are the pronouncements on "Unbaptised Infants do not enjoy Beatific Vision in Heaven"?
Once again, you have missed the mark because you refused to go with the path shown to you by the Church. I am not surprised, you being a student of that trashy NaCR.
"Unbaptised Infants do not enjoy Beatific Vision in Heaven" is the issue. Do not twist words, do not misquote others, do not jump ahead to speculations. Just go find where the Church has always taught this.
Dear OP, at this time, I'm sure you probably feel the same disappointment about sinky's stubborn avoidance to go to the sources provided to him, which will be evident when I post them in a few days.
This is yet another demonstration of what dishonest modernists do when confronted with the Truth. They will argue and side-step the Actual Point of Discussion rather than face the music. Just wanted you to know that, OP.
The Church has never taught this definitively. If you think it has, you find it, you post it.
No. The issue is whether the Church has spoken definitively on the issue.
It never has.
Every poster on this site who has been here much longer than you have knows that a poster who posits a theory has to back up that theory.
So YOU get busy, m.
YOU prove that the Church has spoken on this issue definitively.
LOL!! I found my documentation in a matter of minutes.
We have to wait days for you to scrounge up your "evidence"?
What you are doing, m, is hoping we forget about this so you can get away with saying that the Church has taught definitively about the fate of unbaptized infants.
It has not. And you will not be able to produce such evidence.
You can't do it in the next fifteen minutes, or in the next fifteen days.
Just admit you can't defend your position, because, obviously, you can't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.