The anti-Catholicism of the "National Catholic Reporter"

[m4629]

Good post. I am in general agreement with it. Some clarification is called for though.

The goal of my post #371 is very specific; to demonstrate what the Church pronouncements are on "Unbaptised Infants do not enjoy Beatific Vision in Heaven", that it is a solemn teaching, and a subset of the doctrine on Original Sin. I had no intention of injecting any argument as to where these infant souls might end up, hence I even left Aquinas out of it. Yes, I am quite aware Limbo is only theological speculation.

Ninenot was correct to point out my first quote on Trent's pronouncement on the Necessity of Baptism is a foundation, not an argument, for subsequent quotes, which is relevant.

Aquinas contemplated possibly there are varying degrees of Heaven which these infant souls may belong while other theologians suggested various degrees of Hell which infants do not suffer pain of sense. All the while, Aquinas never ever went against Church Teachings that these infant souls will not enjoy Beatific Vision. How does this reconcile with the second coming and final judgment, no one knows, yet.

Your statement that "We might hope that the unbaptized will be granted eternal life, but the only certainty of this is baptism in water" should be carefully weighted in light of revealed truth and the tone of how the Church says when it comes to "hope".

The statement in CCC #1261 is a statement of "hope", along the same line of your statement above.

The Church has always spoken about "hope", but we must carefully consider the proper context.

For instance, the Church "hopes" that no one goes to Hell and yet, she has revealed the reality of Hell, in addition to the fact that many will end up there, unfortunately. In light of this, we must realize where the Church places the emphasis when she makes a statement.

God, in His Infinite Wisdom will not mislead us by having the Church making solid pronouncement in regards to the groups that are excluded from Heaven. St. Paul told us murder, adulterers, etc won't make it. So be it. The Church told us Unbaptised Infants won't make it (but they won't suffer either). Should one doubt that too? Perhaps it boils down to whether one believes Heaven is an automatic entitlement for the Unbaptised Infants, while ignoring the fact that God does allow evil in his ordaining will. Did they cross over the line on this? Mind you, no one here would even suggest God has no compassion or that he is unjust towards these infants. But his way is not always our way.

Many people base their arguments in favor of Unbaptised Infants somehow do enjoy Beatific Vision, against what the Church has solemnly pronounced otherwise, by suggesting God can act outside of sacraments (true in itself) or God can do anything (also true in itself). Unfortunately for them, only God Himself could write these Blank Checks, not them.

In closing, one does not know where these infant souls are, but he can count on what the Church has taught. As to hope, anyone can hope, without rejecting a teaching of the Church.

[sinkspur]

Hope is a virtue. I suggest you adopt it in the case of unbaptized infants, since you cannot pretend to know the actions of God in their regard.

[sinkspur]

For instance, the Church "hopes" that no one goes to Hell and yet, she has revealed the reality of Hell, in addition to the fact that many will end up there, unfortunately.

Please point out, with specific citation, where the Church has revealed that many will end up in hell.

The Church has never defined dogmatically that there are people in hell.

[sinkspur]

Many people base their arguments in favor of Unbaptised Infants somehow do enjoy Beatific Vision, against what the Church has solemnly pronounced otherwise, by suggesting God can act outside of sacraments (true in itself) or God can do anything (also true in itself). Unfortunately for them, only God Himself could write these Blank Checks, not them.

If God can act outside his sacraments, which you admit, and God can do anything, which you admit, how do you reconcile that to a "teaching" that infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision?

You don't know that, and the Church doesn't either since, as ninenot has pointed out, dogma stops at death.

[m4629]

Please point out, with specific citation, where the Church has revealed that many will end up in hell.

The Church has never defined dogmatically that there are people in hell.

You are not trying to be funny are you, sinky? Do not twist my exact words and misquote me.

Stern Warning: The Church has indeed "revealed that many will end up in hell", dogmatically, thru the Scriptures.

If you do NOT consider Sacred Scpritures dogmatic, well, then let me ask you, how many doctrines do you intend to deny within a week's time?

Oh, btw, many homos these days don't believe Scriptures condemn what they do either. Perhaps you two will get along just fine.

You are one sad case.

[m4629]

Hope is a virtue.

Hope is a virtue yes, but denying a revealed doctrine makes you a Heretic.

[sinkspur]

Stern Warning: The Church has indeed "revealed that many will end up in hell", dogmatically, thru the Scriptures.

The only fates we know about are those of the saints: we know, for certain, that they are in heaven.

As to anyone else, we can, with Hans Urs Von Balthasar (one of JPII's favorite theologians) pray that there is no one in hell.

[sinkspur]

Cite the Scriptures that prove there are souls in hell.

[m4629]

If God can act outside his sacraments, which you admit, and God can do anything, which you admit, how do you reconcile that to a "teaching" that infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision?

You just don't get it do you, sinky?

The Church taught where these infant souls cannot be, not where they might be.

Aquinas contemplated Limbo and precisely while doing so, he adhered to the teaching that "Unbaptised Infants do not enjoy Beatific Vision in Heaven", thereby considering "another alternative".

[sinkspur]

Neither Jesus nor the Church ever stated that persons actually go to hell or are there now. He-as does the Church- restricts himself to the possibility.

If someone really and deliberately rejected God, THIS is what he or she would be choosing instead of God; a totally isolated existence.

[m4629]

Cite the Scriptures that prove there are souls in hell.

You are in no position to twist my words, which I stated ..... Stern Warning: The Church has indeed "revealed that many will end up in hell", dogmatically, thru the Scriptures.

You old tricks have not work, and will not work.

How many doctrines do you intend to deny within a week's time?

[sinkspur]

The Church taught where these infant souls cannot be, not where they might be.

If God is not bound by his sacraments, as Aquinas taught, one cannot know for certain that unbaptized infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision.

[sinkspur]

Stern Warning: The Church has indeed "revealed that many will end up in hell", dogmatically, thru the Scriptures.

Possibility of hell, not a definition that there are, certainly, souls in hell.

[m4629]

If God is not bound by his sacraments, as Aquinas taught, one cannot know for certain that unbaptized infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision.

For a heretic, The Church, the same Church that promises salvation to him cannot define doctrines that's not to his liking.

Not only that, the same heretic dares to write Blank Checks that's reserved to God alone.

Those who embrace the NaCR tend to fall into this group.

[m4629]

Possibility of hell, not a definition that there are, certainly, souls in hell.

No doubt you subscribe to such a comforting infallible teaching from NaCR. Suit yourself.

But just in case you have doubts about this, I strongly suggest you consult your the Scriptures yourself.

[Aquinasfan]

The Church has never defined dogmatically that there are people in hell.

The Church affirms the existence of Hell de fide (Ott p. 479), and Jesus warns us of it. Jesus would not warn us of something that is not a real possibility.

[RobbyS]

I have always been aware how much the Confederance acts as a political body rather than a relgious ones, and always apeing the DNC in its politics.

[Aquinasfan]

Cite the Scriptures that prove there are souls in hell.

Matthew 26:24

"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

This passage is illogical if no one goes to hell. The following passage is also impossible to reconcile with this doctrine:

Matthew 7:13-14

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Finally, as a converging example, we have the vision of hell experienced by the children at Fatima.

[Tuco Ramirez]

There has to be a Hell, because God is just.

[GirlShortstop]

Possibility of hell, not a definition that there are, certainly, souls in hell.

Could it be that our Merciful God in all His wisdom chose not to impart the particulars because it'd make men mad (looney type of mad)?

I don't think about Hell in any way more than in a defiant way of "I'll be damned if I'm goin' to hell!"  teeheehee