Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're mischaracterizing "the doctor's" position. The proposition you're referring to is that unbaptized babies who die in innocence will not suffer at all in the afterlife, but will experience a place of natural bliss.
No, I didn’t mischaracterize Augustines position . He taught that babies go to hell . Later on the RCC revised it to a state of limbo . Now it appears they are changing again to declare that babies can indeed go to heaven , much to the consternation of conservative Catholics . From catholic.com
“ An April 21 Associated Press article by Nicole Winfield quotes Fr. Richard McBrien (professor of theology at Notre Dame and noted dissenter) as saying, “If there’s no limbo and we’re not going to revert to St. Augustine’s teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we’re left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace . . . Baptism does not exist to wipe away the ‘stain’ of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church.”
Yeah, they’ve got this all figured out . Maybe . After 3 tries . Then , in their infinite wisdom they arrive where the normal people already were , too sensible to believe that babies would suffer from a loving God .
Last edited by NatesDude; 11-02-2021 at 10:23 PM..
No, I didn’t mischaracterize Augustines position . He taught that babies go to hell . Later on the RCC revised it to a state of limbo . Now it appears they are changing again to declare that babies can indeed go to heaven , much to the consternation of conservative Catholics . From catholic.com
“ An April 21 Associated Press article by Nicole Winfield quotes Fr. Richard McBrien (professor of theology at Notre Dame and noted dissenter) as saying, “If there’s no limbo and we’re not going to revert to St. Augustine’s teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we’re left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace . . . Baptism does not exist to wipe away the ‘stain’ of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church.”
Yeah, they’ve got this all figured out . Maybe . After 3 tries . Then , in their infinite wisdom they arrive where the normal people already were , too sensible to believe that babies would suffer from a loving God .
There is no dogma on this, it's all speculation. But according to the most sensible propositions, limbo is a part of hell. It's the outer part of hell where there is no suffering. Unbaptized babies who die will experience an eternity of natural bliss.
There is no dogma on this, it's all speculation. But according to the most sensible propositions, limbo is a part of hell. It's the outer part of hell where there is no suffering. Unbaptized babies who die will experience an eternity of natural bliss.
Thats fine, I'm just pointing out that if one chooses to bring in the doctors of the church as support for things that make no sense , ie here eternal torment for a finite amount of sin, then what the doctors had to say is fair game. The RCC , based on the teaching of the doctors, used to accept that unbaptized babies went to a hell of actual torment, although Augustine allowed that it was milder torment than the really bad people. No natural bliss in his teachings, torment , just on a milder scale. Then the Church decided that didn't make sense, so now unbaptized babies go to limbo;no torment, but no communion with God. Today there is movement to change this to understanding that unbaptized babies will indeed go to Heaven and not remain in some limbo.
Similarly, the RCC used to hold that all those outside the RCC went to hell. Everyone else but the RCC in hell , only the RCC in Heaven. Then it changed to non RCC Christians could get there. Today this has changed to where non Christians can get there based solely on the way they live their lives, without needing any knowledge of Christ.
Early Christians also believed that part of the joy of Heaven was getting to see the damned suffer in hell. Today this is regarded as sadistic.
The more the RCC thinks about its beliefs, the more it moves back to the Jewish teachings it got them from in the first place . The Jews had matured spiritually out of these things, the RCC is still playing catchup .
You greatly misunderstand the difference between theological opinions, doctrine, and dogma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
Thats fine, I'm just pointing out that if one chooses to bring in the doctors of the church as support for things that make no sense , ie here eternal torment for a finite amount of sin, then what the doctors had to say is fair game.
But I just explained to you that we don't believe in "eternal torment for finite sin". Eternal torment is reserved for those the gravity of whose sin is infinite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
The RCC , based on the teaching of the doctors, used to accept that unbaptized babies went to a hell of actual torment, although Augustine allowed that it was milder torment than the really bad people. No natural bliss in his teachings, torment , just on a milder scale. Then the Church decided that didn't make sense, so now unbaptized babies go to limbo;no torment, but no communion with God. Today there is movement to change this to understanding that unbaptized babies will indeed go to Heaven and not remain in some limbo.
"Used to accept"? Who says they wouldn't still accept that position?
You say: "the Church decided that didn't make sense". When, and in what document?
There are always movements to propose different doctrinal positions. So what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
Similarly, the RCC used to hold that all those outside the RCC went to hell. Everyone else but the RCC in hell , only the RCC in Heaven. Then it changed to non RCC Christians could get there. Today this has changed to where non Christians can get there based solely on the way they live their lives, without needing any knowledge of Christ.
Please provide sources for these claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
Early Christians also believed that part of the joy of Heaven was getting to see the damned suffer in hell. Today this is regarded as sadistic.
Early Christians may have believed any number of things. So what?
"Regarded as sadistic" by whom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
The more the RCC thinks about its beliefs, the more it moves back to the Jewish teachings it got them from in the first place . The Jews had matured spiritually out of these things, the RCC is still playing catchup .
Absurd. All of the founders of the RCC were Jews. I'm quite sure Jesus and Paul were quite familiar with Jewish theological speculations.
You greatly misunderstand the difference between theological opinions, doctrine, and dogma.
No, I understand. But we are just discussing beliefs in general here. I respond to what you say.
Quote:
But I just explained to you that we don't believe in "eternal torment for finite sin". Eternal torment is reserved for those the gravity of whose sin is infinite.
All sin is finite, since the lifespan of each sinner is finite and he cannot sin after death. You quoted a church theologian trying to justify eternal punishment for a finite amount of sin because the gravity of the sin makes it worthy of eternal torment , hence my post on what other things theologians have said that the RCC now believes otherwise. At the last, even the worst of sinners only commit so much sin, no matter how large that amount is. Thats why the Jewish version sees an end to the torment. Eventually the price is paid, except in conservative Christianity, where one must suffer eternally for 70-80 years of life on Earth.
Quote:
"Used to accept"? Who says they wouldn't still accept that position?
You say: "the Church decided that didn't make sense". When, and in what document?
I'm not sure I get your question. Are you saying you believe the RCC still teaches that unbaptized babies go to a hell of torment? Because that is what I am saying the Church has given up. Do I need to Google it for you, or have you misunderstood my point?
Quote:
There are always movements to propose different doctrinal positions. So what?
When those different positions get accepted, it means that the position they taught before was wrong, and therefore their previous teaching as a church was wrong.
Quote:
Please provide sources for these claims.
If you see this sentence, it means I am in the process of doing so. Weirdly this tablet is easier to type on because of the full touchscreen, but harder to copy and paste with.
Quote:
Early Christians may have believed any number of things. So what?
"Regarded as sadistic" by whom?
So teachings change as Christians mature. Which again indicates the previous teaching was in error. As to regarded as sadistic by whom, are you suggesting that the amount of Christians that regard this teaching to be sadistic is small, and that most Christians accept the teaching that they will get pleasure in Heaven from watching those in hell suffer is correct?
Quote:
Absurd. All of the founders of the RCC were Jews. I'm quite sure Jesus and Paul were quite familiar with Jewish theological speculations.
Since the different views are on record, not absurd at all. The RCC has steadily moved away from the views of early Christianity ones similar to what the Jewish faith already taught and currently teaches. In addition, much of the teachings of the early church came from Gentile converts. None of the 4 great fathers of the RCC were Jews, for example . Neither were early leaders like Irenaeus or Polycarp.
...hence my post on what other things theologians have said that the RCC now believes otherwise.
The Catholic Church is not obligated to believe any particular thing just because a theologian said it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
I'm not sure I get your question. Are you saying you believe the RCC still teaches that unbaptized babies go to a hell of torment? Because that is what I am saying the Church has given up. Do I need to Google it for you, or have you misunderstood my point?
I'm saying that the Church has not declared anything dogmatically on this topic. I see no reason why a Catholic could not believe that unbaptized babies go to a hell of torment, unless you can show me where the Church has declared that view to be heretical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
When those different positions get accepted, it means that the position they taught before was wrong, and therefore their previous teaching as a church was wrong.
There can be beliefs that are deemed "acceptable" for a Catholic to hold that are mutually exclusive to each other if the Church has not declared dogmatically on that particular topic. The topic of what happens to unbaptized infants when they die has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, so there are any number of mutually exclusive opinions that Catholics would be permitted to hold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
So teachings change as Christians mature. Which again indicates the previous teaching was in error. As to regarded as sadistic by whom, are you suggesting that the amount of Christians that regard this teaching to be sadistic is small, and that most Christians accept the teaching that they will get pleasure in Heaven from watching those in hell suffer is correct?
If you do understand the difference between theological opinions, doctrine, and dogma as understood by the Catholic Church as you claim to, I sure can't tell.
What I'm saying is that I see no reason why a Catholic could not accept the view that the saved will get pleasure in heaven from watching those in hell suffer. Has that view been condemned by the Church as heretical? You tell me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
Since the different views are on record, not absurd at all. The RCC has steadily moved away from the views of early Christianity ones similar to what the Jewish faith already taught and currently teaches.
Please demonstrate with something specific how the "RCC has steadily moved away from the views of early Christianity".
The Catholic Church is not obligated to believe any particular thing just because a theologian said it.
I'm saying that the Church has not declared anything dogmatically on this topic. I see no reason why a Catholic could not believe that unbaptized babies go to a hell of torment, unless you can show me where the Church has declared that view to be heretical.
There can be beliefs that are deemed "acceptable" for a Catholic to hold that are mutually exclusive to each other if the Church has not declared dogmatically on that particular topic. The topic of what happens to unbaptized infants when they die has never been dogmatically defined by the Church, so there are any number of mutually exclusive opinions that Catholics would be permitted to hold.
If you do understand the difference between theological opinions, doctrine, and dogma as understood by the Catholic Church as you claim to, I sure can't tell.
What I'm saying is that I see no reason why a Catholic could not accept the view that the saved will get pleasure in heaven from watching those in hell suffer. Has that view been condemned by the Church? You tell me!
Please demonstrate with something specific how the "RCC has steadily moved away from the views of early Christianity".
We are getting too many different items to keep quoting. Basically what you are saying is that anything the Church may have taught might not be actual doctrine and dogma, and this is so. But it still doesn't alter the fact that it was taught, even if it never reached the point if official doctrine. So when the Church alters what it teaches, even if it isn't established as canonical doctrine, it changes what it teaches as the supposed purveyor of Christian teachings and morality. If you wish me to clarify any specific item let me know.
Regarding something specific, I just did. Unbaptized babies going to hell. It was taught by the early church, formulated by one of the 4 Great Fathers. The Church has struggled since then to come to grips with it, and has redefined what it believes along the way. Same with the idea that only Catholics go to Heaven. That was affirmed even by past popes. Now it is no longer the teaching of the church as a whole.
Do you really need me to link these , to teach a Catholic what the Catholic Church teaches? I can, but it does seem weird that I need to inform you of what your church has taught and now teaches.
We are getting too many different items to keep quoting. Basically what you are saying is that anything the Church may have taught might not be actual doctrine and dogma, and this is so. But it still doesn't alter the fact that it was taught, even if it never reached the point if official doctrine.
Okay, but so what? Individual Catholics have taught all kinds of things. Some of those things later became official dogma, some of those things were denounced as heretical, and some of those things are still floating out there with the Church not having taken an official position one way or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
So when the Church alters what it teaches, even if it isn't established as canonical doctrine, it changes what it teaches as the supposed purveyor of Christian teachings and morality. If you wish me to clarify any specific item let me know.
Just when I thought you were getting it...
Individual Catholics do not speak for the Magisterium of the Church. If something is not established as dogma, then "the Church" as a body doesn't teach it, period.
So, I'm still waiting for you to show me where the Church has actually altered what it teaches. It's never happened. It can't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
Regarding something specific, I just did. Unbaptized babies going to hell. It was taught by the early church, formulated by one of the 4 Great Fathers. The Church has struggled since then to come to grips with it, and has redefined what it believes along the way.
Was the claim that unbaptized babies go to hell ever taught dogmatically? I don't know that it has. But, even if it has, there is ample room for speculation regarding the nature of the "hell" that they would experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
Same with the idea that only Catholics go to Heaven. That was affirmed even by past popes. Now it is no longer the teaching of the church as a whole.
Please provide the source of your claim that Popes affirmed "only Catholics go to heaven". If you are referring to the dogma that "there is no salvation outside the Church"; that is dogma and has not been changed, nor can it be - but it doesn't necessarily mean that "only Catholics go to heaven".
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
Do you really need me to link these , to teach a Catholic what the Catholic Church teaches? I can, but it does seem weird that I need to inform you of what your church has taught and now teaches.
To me, you seem to be greatly confused about and very unfamiliar with what the Church teaches. You are making claims that are absurd and are built on faulty premises and false assumptions. Yes, you do need to provide your sources.
You can't enjoy sex, if you aren't desiring to have a child - it would be a sin or a transgression of Roman Catholic doctrine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
False.
There is not a question in my mind that one can enjoy the pleasures of sexual intimacy without the desire or necessity to conceive or have a child. But didn't you say in another thread that the intent to procreate is essential, whether one can or cannot conceive? And, what about birth-control, or should it merely be an act of random chance?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. The Jews had matured spiritually out of these things, the RCC is still playing catchup .
