Very good. Before Christ's death, children deserved to not go to heaven. Christ's death cannot affect their dessert, so even after his death they still do not deserve to go to heaven.
If a soul does not go to heaven, isn't it eternally condemned? Isn't that what the Catechism says condemnation consists of - eternal separation from God?
If children deserve to not go to heaven, don't they deserve to be eternally condemned?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Very good. Before Christ's death, children deserved to not go to heaven. Christ's death cannot affect their dessert, so even after his death they still do not deserve to go to heaven.
Come on, Doctor. I expected you to see the resolution about 10 posts ago.
Clue: Excluded Middle
If a soul does not go to heaven, isn't it eternally condemned?
Not necessarily.
Isn't that what the Catechism says condemnation consists of - eternal separation from God?
Yes.
If children deserve to not go to heaven, don't they deserve to be eternally condemned?
I tend to see infant baptism as a communal ritual about the responsibility of the parents and the church in participating in the child's spiritual growth and well-being. That's all.
Does the Catholic church have a position on baptizing infants who are already dead? I think there is a tradition in Catholic hospitals for nuns/nurses to do this.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles How? Either you attain eventual communion with God, which is heaven, or you remain eternally separated. There is no middle.
It is not logically possible to never attain communion and to not remain eternally separated.
Yes it is. What do you think 'limbo' is?
The defining feature of heaven is the beatific vision - the complete union and intimacy with God.
The defining feature of hell, as you pointed out, is eternal separation from God.
However, just because you cannot attain the beatific vision does not imply you are separated from God.
Just because two people cannot be lovers does not mean they have to be enemies.
Originally posted by kirksey957 I tend to see infant baptism as a communal ritual about the responsibility of the parents and the church in participating in the child's spiritual growth and well-being. That's all.
I take it your particular church does not practise infant baptism; or does not believe it is sacramental?
Originally posted by kirksey957 Does the Catholic church have a position on baptizing infants who are already dead? I think there is a tradition in Catholic hospitals for nuns/nurses to do this.
I've never heard of anyone baptising infants who are already dead. Some people might do it just to comfort themselves and the parents, but it has no sacramental effect.
Originally posted by lucifershammer What do you think 'limbo' is?
Something funny that Catholics just made up.
It is certainly no middle ground between eternal separation and eventual communion, regardless of whether it exits. Such a fate is logically impossible. Some people in limbo eventually achieve communion; those that don't forever remain separated. These two cases account for all people. There is no middle ground remaining.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Something funny that Catholics just made up.
It is certainly no middle ground between eternal separation and eventual communion, regardless of whether it exits. Such a fate is logically impossible. Some people in limbo eventually achieve communion; those that don't rest forever remain separated. These two cases account for all people. There is no middle ground remaining.
You know better than to throw terms like "logically impossible" around without thinking about it.
It is certainly no middle ground between eternal separation and eventual communion
What's "eventual communion"? Where does the Church teach "eventual communion"*? I certainly didn't use that term in this thread. I said "beatific vision" and "complete union" (or communion).
If you're going to make up your own soteriology, Scribbles, don't attribute it to the Church.
These two cases account for all people.
Really? Where does the Church teach that? Once again, are you making your own soteriology up?
---
* I suppose one could use the term 'eventual communion' with reference to Purgatory, but that's irrelevant to our discussion because we are talking about eternal fates.
Originally posted by lucifershammer You know better than to throw terms like "logically impossible" around without thinking about it.
[b]It is certainly no middle ground between eternal separation and eventual communion
What's "eventual communion"? Where does the Church teach "eventual communion"*? I certainly didn't use that term in this thread. I said "beatific visio ...[text shortened]... that's irrelevant to our discussion because we are talking about eternal fates.[/b]
He's just claiming that either one is eternally damned, or eventually one will be saved. Doesn't that exhaust logical space?
Originally posted by bbarr He's just claiming that either one is eternally damned, or eventually one will be saved. Doesn't that exhaust logical space?
The term 'saved' is ambiguous here. Saved - from what? If it refers to being saved from eternal damnation, then yes, the logical space is exhausted. But being saved from eternal damnation does not automatically mean heaven.
It is true that 'salvation' is also used to refer to heaven itself, as a positive state. But then the complement of the set of people who are saved (in the second sense) is not people who are damned (which is unambiguously used for Hell).
EDIT: The whole reason 'limbo' was posited was because of the middle space between these two senses of 'saved'.
EDIT2: The use of 'eventual' is also confusing because of purgatory (where, yes, it is eventual heaven).
Child baptism - Is it right?
22 Feb '06 23:57
Back to Top