OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 07:38:24 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Purgatory vs Toll Houses  (Read 7982 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« on: May 24, 2011, 10:08:11 AM »

I'm making this separate from the Toll Houses topic to discuss the actual or perceived differences between the belief in Toll Houses and Purgatory.

Ground Rules, if they can be followed:
-This does not include the doctrine of indulgences when discussing Purgatory.
-Support your claims with references to ECF or Liturgical elements.
-Compare and contrast to show similarity in belief or departures in understanding
-No patronizing or Psycho-analyzing self-help ad homines, please/place/bitte.
-Rhode Island, it's neither a Road, nor an Island.... Discuss.

TOPIC:
The similarities in both belief and perhaps origin of the doctrine/theologoumena of Purgatory and Toll Houses.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2011, 10:37:41 AM »

I see that you wrote this before I posted my latest post in the Toll House thread. However, I believe that the topic I want to discuss is different enough in scope to merit its own thread. I just don't want you to think I am ignoring yours Smiley
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2011, 10:41:28 AM »

I see that you wrote this before I posted my latest post in the Toll House thread. However, I believe that the topic I want to discuss is different enough in scope to merit its own thread. I just don't want you to think I am ignoring yours Smiley

I understand, Father.  Smiley 
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2011, 10:52:26 AM »

I'm making this separate from the Toll Houses topic to discuss the actual or perceived differences between the belief in Toll Houses and Purgatory.

Ground Rules, if they can be followed:
-This does not include the doctrine of indulgences when discussing Purgatory.
-Support your claims with references to ECF or Liturgical elements.
-Compare and contrast to show similarity in belief or departures in understanding
-No patronizing or Psycho-analyzing self-help ad homines, please/place/bitte.
-Rhode Island, it's neither a Road, nor an Island.... Discuss.

TOPIC:
The similarities in both belief and perhaps origin of the doctrine/theologoumena of Purgatory and Toll Houses.

It seems to me that the very first item that must be considered in any comparison of the underlying truths of purgation, purgatory and toll houses is the teaching concerning the particular judgment, and whether or not that can be claimed as part of Tradition, east and west.

What do you think?
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2011, 11:03:43 AM »

The question of the nature of sin. By the same token, doesn't the
toll-house belief teach us to see sin not as "missing the mark" (the
literal translation of the Greek hamartia)--that is, as a misdirection
of energies against Love, as the Fathers taught--but as a series of
legal infractions for which we will be legally accountable? (See
Christos Yannaras's brilliant work The Freedom of Morality for an
exposition of the Orthodoxy of the former understanding and the
heterodoxy of the latter.) And is it not just such juridical legalism
for which Orthodox take Roman Catholics so heavily to task? Yet the
whole problematic realm of Catholic teaching on this subject--merits,
indulgences, expiatory suffering in Purgatory, and so forth--at least
expounds a logic of salvation, however imperfectly conceived; the toll
houses, by contrast, expound a logic of damnation.




So I ask: how can a belief with such all-important
consequences not be regarded as dogma? Why has there not been more of
an effort to have this belief recognized as such? (By contrast, one
must at least do the Roman Church the justice to acknowledge that once
Catholics came to believe in Purgatory, they were right to recognize its
momentous importance and enshrine it as dogma.
)

From
PART 1  ~~  message 84
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2145.msg300562.html#msg300562
PART 2  ~~  message 86
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2145.msg300616.html#msg300616
PART 3  ~~  message 91
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2145.msg300770.html#msg300770
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2011, 11:03:53 AM »

It seems to me that the very first item that must be considered in any comparison of the underlying truths of purgation, purgatory and toll houses is the teaching concerning the particular judgment, and whether or not that can be claimed as part of Tradition, east and west.

What do you think?

Sounds like a good start.

Certainly, from an objective point of view, there must be a common origin.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2011, 11:07:44 AM »


It seems to me that the very first item that must be considered in any comparison of the underlying truths of purgation, purgatory and toll houses is the teaching concerning the particular judgment, and whether or not that can be claimed as part of Tradition, east and west.

What do you think?


Agreed.  There is significant difference between the Catholic understanding of the Particular Judgement and the Orthodox understanding of the Partial Judgement.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2011, 11:10:28 AM »


It seems to me that the very first item that must be considered in any comparison of the underlying truths of purgation, purgatory and toll houses is the teaching concerning the particular judgment, and whether or not that can be claimed as part of Tradition, east and west.

What do you think?


Agreed.  There is significant difference between the Catholic understanding of the Particular Judgement and the Orthodox understanding of the Partial Judgement.

You are one of the few Orthodox believers I know who asserts this so by that alone it fails the V-Canon test  Smiley

What are the significant differences?  Where are they itemized in terms of some indicator that they are universal to Orthodoxy for all time?

M.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 11:10:57 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2011, 11:14:21 AM »

The question of the nature of sin. By the same token, doesn't the toll-house belief teach us to see sin not as "missing the mark" (the literal translation of the Greek hamartia)--that is, as a misdirection of energies against Love, as the Fathers taught--but as a series of legal infractions for which we will be legally accountable? (See Christos Yannaras's brilliant work The Freedom of Morality for an exposition of the Orthodoxy of the former understanding and the heterodoxy of the latter.) And is it not just such juridical legalism for which Orthodox take Roman Catholics so heavily to task? Yet the whole problematic realm of Catholic teaching on this subject--merits, indulgences, expiatory suffering in Purgatory, and so forth--at least expounds a logic of salvation, however imperfectly conceived; the toll houses, by contrast, expound a logic of damnation.

Can there be a concept of Divine Law without degrading into the trap of legalism? That is, a concept that is primarily our relationship with God, but including an acknowledgement that 'missing the mark' is also denying the Divine Truths.

If this is the case, then perhaps 'missing the mark' is something to also be accountable, not just a term for our placement/alignment of our will with God.

So I ask: how can a belief with such all-important consequences not be regarded as dogma? Why has there not been more of an effort to have this belief recognized as such?

You have a point.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,030


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2011, 11:16:17 AM »


It seems to me that the very first item that must be considered in any comparison of the underlying truths of purgation, purgatory and toll houses is the teaching concerning the particular judgment, and whether or not that can be claimed as part of Tradition, east and west.

What do you think?


Agreed.  There is significant difference between the Catholic understanding of the Particular Judgement and the Orthodox understanding of the Partial Judgement.

You are one of the few Orthodox believers I know who asserts this so by that alone it fails the V-Canon test  Smiley

What are the significant differences?  Where are they itemized in terms of some indicator that they are universal to Orthodoxy for all time?

M.

? What do you mean 'v canon test.' Sorry.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2011, 11:20:00 AM »


It seems to me that the very first item that must be considered in any comparison of the underlying truths of purgation, purgatory and toll houses is the teaching concerning the particular judgment, and whether or not that can be claimed as part of Tradition, east and west.

What do you think?


Agreed.  There is significant difference between the Catholic understanding of the Particular Judgement and the Orthodox understanding of the Partial Judgement.

You are one of the few Orthodox believers I know who asserts this so by that alone it fails the V-Canon test  Smiley

What are the significant differences?  Where are they itemized in terms of some indicator that they are universal to Orthodoxy for all time?

M.

? What do you mean 'v canon test.' Sorry.

Oh...I was just teasing Father about his liberal use of the Vincentian canon...The Commonitory of Vincent of Lerins.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2011, 11:32:40 AM »


It seems to me that the very first item that must be considered in any comparison of the underlying truths of purgation, purgatory and toll houses is the teaching concerning the particular judgment, and whether or not that can be claimed as part of Tradition, east and west.

What do you think?


Agreed.  There is significant difference between the Catholic understanding of the Particular Judgement and the Orthodox understanding of the Partial Judgement.

Ok.  I found a good example of Orthodox teaching on the partial judgment: I see the disavowal of purgatory but I think that is necessitated by the schism for the time being and I notice there's no substantive refutation beyond simply sweeping it off the table:  I am struck but the fact that the entire teaching is very familiar to me as western Catholic in its meaning.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=575533;topic=36486.0;sesc=9d61bd108797679b47474a4e9c7b64c1

a) Partial judgment - the hour of our death

Our physical death, a consequence of the first man's sin that we still suffer, can be seen in two ways:

   1. negatively, as a kind of catastrophe, especially for those who do not believe in Christ and life everlasting in Him; and
   2. positively, as the end of a maturation process, which leads us to the encounter with our Maker. Christ has destroyed the power of the "last enemy," death (1 Cor. 18:26).

A Christian worthy of the name is not afraid of this physical death insofar as it is not accompanied by a spiritual or eternal (eschatological) death.

A partial judgment is instituted immediately after our physical death, which places us in an intermediate condition of partial blessedness (for the righteous), or partial suffering (for the unrighteous).

Disavowing a belief in the Western "Purgatory," our Church believes that a change is possible during this intermediate state and stage. The Church, militant and triumphant, is still one, which means that we can still influence one another with our prayers and our saintly (or ungodly) life. This is the reason why we pray for our dead. Also, almsgiving on behalf of the dead may be of some help to them, without implying, of course, that those who provide the alms are in some fashion "buying" anybody's salvation.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2011, 11:32:59 AM »


It seems to me that the very first item that must be considered in any comparison of the underlying truths of purgation, purgatory and toll houses is the teaching concerning the particular judgment, and whether or not that can be claimed as part of Tradition, east and west.

What do you think?


Agreed.  There is significant difference between the Catholic understanding of the Particular Judgement and the Orthodox understanding of the Partial Judgement.

You are one of the few Orthodox believers I know who asserts this so by that alone it fails the V-Canon test  Smiley

What are the significant differences?  Where are they itemized in terms of some indicator that they are universal to Orthodoxy for all time?

M.

It is 3am here and I am on the way to rest... so just quickly...

The Catholic Particular Judgement occurs at death and is final, deciding the state of the soul for eternity.   It differs from the Last Judgment in that it is private whereas the Last Judgement will be totally public so that the justice of God may be seen by all.

The Orthodox Partial Judgement also occurs at death and by it a soul comes to know where it will spend the interim period before the Second Coming of Christ as Judge.  Through the Partial Judgement a soul knows its position in a temporary place of either weal or woe.

But the Partial Judgement is NOT the Final Judgement which will occur when Christ comes to judge mankind.  It is "partial" in the sense that it is not fully definitive and between it and the Final Judgment a soul's fate may be altered, even to the extent of being rescued from hell.

As we know salvation from hell was once a part of Western Catholic belief also but it has been discarded.  An echo of the old orthodox belief survives still in the Requiem Mass "Libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis inferni et de profundo lacu."

For a little more on that see message 50
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32546.msg514593.html#msg514593
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #13 on: May 24, 2011, 11:42:27 AM »

Ok.  I found a good example of Orthodox teaching on the partial judgment: I see the disavowal of purgatory but I think that is necessitated by the schism for the time being and I notice there's no substantive refutation beyond simply sweeping it off the table:  I am struck but the fact that the entire teaching is very familiar to me as western Catholic in its meaning.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=575533;topic=36486.0;sesc=9d61bd108797679b47474a4e9c7b64c1
 

This link will not work for me.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2011, 11:45:39 AM »

Grace and Peace,

I can't help but say that I look with hopefulness any theory that gives man one more opportunity for salvation. I'm doing a bang up job throwing mine into ruin here and now.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2011, 12:06:16 PM »

Ok.  I found a good example of Orthodox teaching on the partial judgment: I see the disavowal of purgatory but I think that is necessitated by the schism for the time being and I notice there's no substantive refutation beyond simply sweeping it off the table:  I am struck but the fact that the entire teaching is very familiar to me as western Catholic in its meaning.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=575533;topic=36486.0;sesc=9d61bd108797679b47474a4e9c7b64c1
 

This link will not work for me.

This will!!  Sorry:

http://www.stdemetrios.ca.goarch.org/eschatology.asp
Logged

podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,030


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 24, 2011, 12:29:15 PM »


It seems to me that the very first item that must be considered in any comparison of the underlying truths of purgation, purgatory and toll houses is the teaching concerning the particular judgment, and whether or not that can be claimed as part of Tradition, east and west.

What do you think?


Agreed.  There is significant difference between the Catholic understanding of the Particular Judgement and the Orthodox understanding of the Partial Judgement.

You are one of the few Orthodox believers I know who asserts this so by that alone it fails the V-Canon test  Smiley

What are the significant differences?  Where are they itemized in terms of some indicator that they are universal to Orthodoxy for all time?

M.


The Catholic Particular Judgement occurs at death and is final, deciding the state of the soul for eternity.   It differs from the Last Judgment in that it is private whereas the Last Judgement will be totally public so that the justice of God may be seen by all.




If this is so, why do Catholics have masses for the intention of the dead? Where does purgatory fit into this and somehow, all of this seems - i.e. toll houses, purgatory etc... -  like a whole lot of speculation on all of our parts?

In the back of my mind, I seem to recall a statement made by the Roman Church a few years back regarding their teaching of 'limbo' (a teaching which caused much torment to many faithful Roman Catholics who lost a child at birth). While the gist of that statement is not germane to this discussion, there was a line which stuck in my head and it stated:  "We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge (note: regarding the 'limbo' teaching). There is much that simply has not been revealed to us. We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy." (from a 2007 paper of the Roman Church's International Theological Commission entitled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized.)

I think that is good theology, regardless of source, and good advice regarding the entirety of the toll house 'debate' and is consistent with Father Hopko's statements and can be reconciled with the position of Father Ambrose.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #17 on: May 24, 2011, 12:33:33 PM »

I don't know much about the doctrine of Purgatory, but from my understanding of Toll Houses is that it isn't meant to be taken literally. Orthodox that have taken Toll Houses literally are taking it a bit too far.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 24, 2011, 12:41:45 PM »

One of the things that generally goes missing in this kind of discussion is the fact that to render one's self reprobate is to refuse any and all thoughts of repentance and compunction.  There is no sorrowing in the soul in hell.  There is full and final rejection of God's mercy and love.

So that even for those who have chosen the state apart from heaven fully and with firm will, there is always the hope that God's mercy might strike a chord.  On the other hand the story of Lazarus and Dives says that for those like Dives, not even one come back from the dead will deter them from their path.

There's a dual message:  Not just a singular message of damnation.  We still have to deal with the lessons of Scripture as they have been given to us: comfortable or not, they cannot simply be shoved off.


It seems to me that the very first item that must be considered in any comparison of the underlying truths of purgation, purgatory and toll houses is the teaching concerning the particular judgment, and whether or not that can be claimed as part of Tradition, east and west.

What do you think?


Agreed.  There is significant difference between the Catholic understanding of the Particular Judgement and the Orthodox understanding of the Partial Judgement.

You are one of the few Orthodox believers I know who asserts this so by that alone it fails the V-Canon test  Smiley

What are the significant differences?  Where are they itemized in terms of some indicator that they are universal to Orthodoxy for all time?

M.


The Catholic Particular Judgement occurs at death and is final, deciding the state of the soul for eternity.   It differs from the Last Judgment in that it is private whereas the Last Judgement will be totally public so that the justice of God may be seen by all.




If this is so, why do Catholics have masses for the intention of the dead? Where does purgatory fit into this and somehow, all of this seems - i.e. toll houses, purgatory etc... -  like a whole lot of speculation on all of our parts?

In the back of my mind, I seem to recall a statement made by the Roman Church a few years back regarding their teaching of 'limbo' (a teaching which caused much torment to many faithful Roman Catholics who lost a child at birth). While the gist of that statement is not germane to this discussion, there was a line which stuck in my head and it stated:  "We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge (note: regarding the 'limbo' teaching). There is much that simply has not been revealed to us. We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy." (from a 2007 paper of the Roman Church's International Theological Commission entitled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized.)

I think that is good theology, regardless of source, and good advice regarding the entirety of the toll house 'debate' and is consistent with Father Hopko's statements and can be reconciled with the position of Father Ambrose.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 12:42:09 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 24, 2011, 01:25:41 PM »

If this is so, why do Catholics have masses for the intention of the dead? Where does purgatory fit into this and somehow, all of this seems - i.e. toll houses, purgatory etc... -  like a whole lot of speculation on all of our parts?

The RC doctrine denies anyone destine for Hell to be capable of salvation, even after the particular judgement. The prayers for those in Purgatory are beneficial for their purification and process of Divinization(Theosis). This is desired because Purgatory is a temporary Hell. We don't know who is in Purgatory or Hell, so prayer is for all in hopes they are capable of benefit.

In the back of my mind, I seem to recall a statement made by the Roman Church a few years back regarding their teaching of 'limbo' (a teaching which caused much torment to many faithful Roman Catholics who lost a child at birth). While the gist of that statement is not germane to this discussion, there was a line which stuck in my head and it stated:  "We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge (note: regarding the 'limbo' teaching). There is much that simply has not been revealed to us. We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy." (from a 2007 paper of the Roman Church's International Theological Commission entitled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized.)

Limbo was the case in part because Jesus said 'no one may enter the Kingdom of Heaven who has not been born of water'. Unbaptised children have no personal sins, yet they have not been 'reborn in water', therefore they would not be privy to the beatific vision. However, the late assessment states that this may be the case, but we shouldn't remove the possibility of God's mercy, especially for the innocent without chance.


I see your point about not knowing, and certainly we don't, but our practice of faith revolves around our understanding. For example, if we were Protestant and rejected a partial/particular judgement, then we would never pray for the dead. Those of the dead would never benefit from our prayers. Our faith, shapes our belief.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,030


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 24, 2011, 02:07:04 PM »

If this is so, why do Catholics have masses for the intention of the dead? Where does purgatory fit into this and somehow, all of this seems - i.e. toll houses, purgatory etc... -  like a whole lot of speculation on all of our parts?

The RC doctrine denies anyone destine for Hell to be capable of salvation, even after the particular judgement. The prayers for those in Purgatory are beneficial for their purification and process of Divinization(Theosis). This is desired because Purgatory is a temporary Hell. We don't know who is in Purgatory or Hell, so prayer is for all in hopes they are capable of benefit.

In the back of my mind, I seem to recall a statement made by the Roman Church a few years back regarding their teaching of 'limbo' (a teaching which caused much torment to many faithful Roman Catholics who lost a child at birth). While the gist of that statement is not germane to this discussion, there was a line which stuck in my head and it stated:  "We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge (note: regarding the 'limbo' teaching). There is much that simply has not been revealed to us. We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy." (from a 2007 paper of the Roman Church's International Theological Commission entitled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized.)

Limbo was the case in part because Jesus said 'no one may enter the Kingdom of Heaven who has not been born of water'. Unbaptised children have no personal sins, yet they have not been 'reborn in water', therefore they would not be privy to the beatific vision. However, the late assessment states that this may be the case, but we shouldn't remove the possibility of God's mercy, especially for the innocent without chance.


I see your point about not knowing, and certainly we don't, but our practice of faith revolves around our understanding. For example, if we were Protestant and rejected a partial/particular judgement, then we would never pray for the dead. Those of the dead would never benefit from our prayers. Our faith, shapes our belief.

Indeed it does.

To me, and perhaps it is just me, this entire debate clearly reflects the very different way the West attempts to reach its understanding of the faith than does our way through Orthodoxy. But, if you strip away the forced legalisms from Rome and look to the core of her belief system, I doubt that an unbiased, external observer would find our differences to be as deep or fundamental as we, locked in the 'trenches' so to speak, see them.

Now, to calm down the immediate reaction to what I said, I am NOT minimalizing or 'reasoning' away the very real and fundamental issues that keep us apart. Certainly, without a radical redefining of the role of the Pope on the part of the Western Church there will likely never be true organic unity. Likewise differences in how we perceive and define the role of the sacraments for example have to be reconciled, if that is possible. Lyons and Florence can not be airbrushed away from history, nor can the Crusades.

Frankly many of us born into Orthodoxy, taught the faith by our grandmothers and our beloved priests never felt the need to 'know' the truth in the scholastic sense. We knew to be true what we held to be true and that allowed the faith to endure many crosses over the centuries including, but limited to, the Crusades and sack of Constantinople, the Turkish yoke, the Tatars, the Unia, the Communist repressions and so on. Our faith, the Faith of the Fathers as proclaimed by the Fathers of the seventh great council of the united Church is all that we need.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #21 on: May 24, 2011, 07:24:30 PM »



In the back of my mind, I seem to recall a statement made by the Roman Church a few years back regarding their teaching of 'limbo' (a teaching which caused much torment to many faithful Roman Catholics who lost a child at birth). .


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 24, 2011, 08:10:28 PM »



In the back of my mind, I seem to recall a statement made by the Roman Church a few years back regarding their teaching of 'limbo' (a teaching which caused much torment to many faithful Roman Catholics who lost a child at birth). .


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.

I don't think you are actually drawing from any formal teaching of the Church in your assessments above.  I have heard you say such things in the past but there's no real evidence for it from any formal sources.

VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 08:25:31 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,030


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2011, 08:12:22 PM »

Just to be clear, I wasn't analogizing anything on this thread to 'limbo', although sometimes it seems as if we are out there in it.

I merely thought that the quote was apropos in that we surely agree that there is much that God has chosen NOT to reveal to us and that thinking about such things in too intense a manner may cause more confusion and doubt within us, rather than allowing us to concentrate on the here and now of our theosis. The fact that there are now at least three threads running on toll houses and that there is a lot of passion being expended on the subject from all sides evidences my point.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2011, 08:19:12 PM »

Just to be clear, I wasn't analogizing anything on this thread to 'limbo', although sometimes it seems as if we are out there in it.

I merely thought that the quote was apropos in that we surely agree that there is much that God has chosen NOT to reveal to us and that thinking about such things in too intense a manner may cause more confusion and doubt within us, rather than allowing us to concentrate on the here and now of our theosis. The fact that there are now at least three threads running on toll houses and that there is a lot of passion being expended on the subject from all sides evidences my point.

Truly this is one of the best set of discussions on the topic that I've ever seen on the Internet. 

We all tend to respond differently to pious stimuli...but I do believe we all respond well to Truth, as long as our desire is to become what God desires for us.  I think these things are in evidence in these threads without doubt...but more gently than I have ever seen them.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2011, 08:22:09 PM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.


Wishful thinking Boss, but no cigar!!


1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


And there is the smoking cigar -allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

While Limbo was a guarantee of happiness for unbaptized babies, the new teaching offers only a hope of their salvation.  They could also be in hell. 
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2011, 08:29:53 PM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.


Wishful thinking Boss, but no cigar!!


1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


And there is the smoking cigar -allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

While Limbo was a guarantee of happiness for unbaptized babies, the new teaching offers only a hope of their salvation.  They could also be in hell. 

Hope is not a mere wish in the teaching of the papal Church, Father.

Hope is the firm expectation, by the power of the Holy Spirit,  of the evidence of things unseen...

Hope is what helps to make faith a power or virtue rather than a pious belief or set of beliefs.

Hope is what works hand in glove with Faith to move the mountain.

Hope is what drives Faith to seek divine Caritas with the full expectation of finding that for which we seek to find.

Here you treat it as a wish...
Logged

Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 24, 2011, 08:30:17 PM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.


Wishful thinking Boss, but no cigar!!


1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


And there is the smoking cigar -allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

While Limbo was a guarantee of happiness for unbaptized babies, the new teaching offers only a hope of their salvation.  They could also be in hell. 

If I recall correctly, Limbo is technically in Hell.

Also, I think the teaching is more apt to saying "we should hope for the unbaptized children, but they might be in Limbo".
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 24, 2011, 08:39:41 PM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.


Wishful thinking Boss, but no cigar!!


1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


And there is the smoking cigar -allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

While Limbo was a guarantee of happiness for unbaptized babies, the new teaching offers only a hope of their salvation.  They could also be in hell. 

If I recall correctly, Limbo is technically in Hell.

Also, I think the teaching is more apt to saying "we should hope for the unbaptized children, but they might be in Limbo".

The teachings of earlier times were meant to spur parents to bring their children forward for Baptism.

Remember that the Albigensian heresy was very active in large sections of the Catholic world, influenced by the Bogomils imported from the eastern Catholic world.  It was during the incremental rise of these heresies, among other resistant influences in the heart of western Christendom, that the teachings concerning Limbo and purgation solidified and became an active part of popular piety.  A spur to motivate parents to have their children baptized is not necessarily a bad thing.  We seem to have moved past that difficulty to a great degree and can now focus on different aspects of eschatology...

It is quite possible now to tell a parish congregation that we must pray for all unbaptised children, becoming for them a sort of godparent so that they may not languish outside of the loving vision of the Trinity.  It's a different world with different messages.

Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2011, 08:49:56 PM »

Scripture tells us that God wishes the salvation of every man but the divine desire does not allow us to preach universal salvation.

Hope in the salvation of the unbaptized - likewise.   Catholic parents may hope, but it is not necessarily so.

We too may hope, as I do, that all humans will be saved by God's mercy, but that does not allow me to affirm it as fact.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 08:53:30 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #30 on: May 24, 2011, 09:00:18 PM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.


Wishful thinking Boss, but no cigar!!


1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


And there is the smoking cigar -allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

While Limbo was a guarantee of happiness for unbaptized babies, the new teaching offers only a hope of their salvation.  They could also be in hell. 

If I recall correctly, Limbo is technically in Hell.

Also, I think the teaching is more apt to saying "we should hope for the unbaptized children, but they might be in Limbo".

The teachings of earlier times were meant to spur parents to bring their children forward for Baptism.



The spur behind the teaching is even more pointed today where the choice is no longer either heaven or limbo but heaven or hell.  Please look at the last sentence " All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism"   Why is it urgent?  Because there is the possibility of unbaptized babies going to hell.


1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 24, 2011, 09:03:27 PM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.


Wishful thinking Boss, but no cigar!!


1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


And there is the smoking cigar -allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

While Limbo was a guarantee of happiness for unbaptized babies, the new teaching offers only a hope of their salvation.  They could also be in hell. 

If I recall correctly, Limbo is technically in Hell.

Also, I think the teaching is more apt to saying "we should hope for the unbaptized children, but they might be in Limbo".

The teachings of earlier times were meant to spur parents to bring their children forward for Baptism.



The spur behind the teaching is even more pointed today where the choice is no longer either heaven or limbo but heaven or hell.  Please look at the last sentence " All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism"   Why is it urgent?  Because there is the possibility of unbaptized babies going to hell.


1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


That is your interpretation.  It's not even a pious belief for it has no basis in fact other than what you want to see in the teaching...as an outsider.   That is not how the Church catechizes that teaching.

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #32 on: May 24, 2011, 09:09:53 PM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.


Wishful thinking Boss, but no cigar!!


1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


And there is the smoking cigar -allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

While Limbo was a guarantee of happiness for unbaptized babies, the new teaching offers only a hope of their salvation.  They could also be in hell.  

Hope is not a mere wish in the teaching of the papal Church, Father.

Hope is the firm expectation, by the power of the Holy Spirit,  of the evidence of things unseen...

Hope is what helps to make faith a power or virtue rather than a pious belief or set of beliefs.

Hope is what works hand in glove with Faith to move the mountain.

Hope is what drives Faith to seek divine Caritas with the full expectation of finding that for which we seek to find.

Here you treat it as a wish...

I have a strong and enduring hope that all humans will be saved, both baptized and unbaptized, babies and children and adults.    Does my hope prevail as fact?  Or is my hope only operative in the case of babies in the womb or a few weeks out of the womb?
« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 09:10:29 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 24, 2011, 09:16:14 PM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.


Wishful thinking Boss, but no cigar!!


1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


And there is the smoking cigar -allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

While Limbo was a guarantee of happiness for unbaptized babies, the new teaching offers only a hope of their salvation.  They could also be in hell.  

Hope is not a mere wish in the teaching of the papal Church, Father.

Hope is the firm expectation, by the power of the Holy Spirit,  of the evidence of things unseen...

Hope is what helps to make faith a power or virtue rather than a pious belief or set of beliefs.

Hope is what works hand in glove with Faith to move the mountain.

Hope is what drives Faith to seek divine Caritas with the full expectation of finding that for which we seek to find.

Here you treat it as a wish...

I have a strong and enduring hope that all humans will be saved, both baptized and unbaptized, babies and children and adults.    Does my hope prevail as fact?  Or is my hope only operative in the case of babies in the womb or a few weeks out of the womb?

Unlike babes, infants, toddlers and the very young'ns, adults are perfectly capable of the decision to reject God through all eternity. 

There is no irresistible grace in the presence of a will and intellect that are free and capable.

So you figure the odds: and keep on hoping...

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #34 on: May 24, 2011, 09:22:42 PM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.


Wishful thinking Boss, but no cigar!!


1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


And there is the smoking cigar -allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

While Limbo was a guarantee of happiness for unbaptized babies, the new teaching offers only a hope of their salvation.  They could also be in hell.  

Hope is not a mere wish in the teaching of the papal Church, Father.

Hope is the firm expectation, by the power of the Holy Spirit,  of the evidence of things unseen...

Hope is what helps to make faith a power or virtue rather than a pious belief or set of beliefs.

Hope is what works hand in glove with Faith to move the mountain.

Hope is what drives Faith to seek divine Caritas with the full expectation of finding that for which we seek to find.

Here you treat it as a wish...

I have a strong and enduring hope that all humans will be saved, both baptized and unbaptized, babies and children and adults.    Does my hope prevail as fact?  Or is my hope only operative in the case of babies in the womb or a few weeks out of the womb?

Unlike babes, infants, toddlers and the very young'ns, adults are perfectly capable of the decision to reject God through all eternity.  

There is no irresistible grace in the presence of a will and intellect that are free and capable.

So you figure the odds: and keep on hoping...

M.

At what age does an unbaptized human loose the right (the hope) of guaranteed salvation?   Six or seven years? Older?
« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 09:25:10 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 24, 2011, 09:28:57 PM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.


Wishful thinking Boss, but no cigar!!


1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


And there is the smoking cigar -allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

While Limbo was a guarantee of happiness for unbaptized babies, the new teaching offers only a hope of their salvation.  They could also be in hell.  

Hope is not a mere wish in the teaching of the papal Church, Father.

Hope is the firm expectation, by the power of the Holy Spirit,  of the evidence of things unseen...

Hope is what helps to make faith a power or virtue rather than a pious belief or set of beliefs.

Hope is what works hand in glove with Faith to move the mountain.

Hope is what drives Faith to seek divine Caritas with the full expectation of finding that for which we seek to find.

Here you treat it as a wish...

I have a strong and enduring hope that all humans will be saved, both baptized and unbaptized, babies and children and adults.    Does my hope prevail as fact?  Or is my hope only operative in the case of babies in the womb or a few weeks out of the womb?

Unlike babes, infants, toddlers and the very young'ns, adults are perfectly capable of the decision to reject God through all eternity. 

There is no irresistible grace in the presence of a will and intellect that are free and capable.

So you figure the odds: and keep on hoping...

M.

At what age does an unbaptized human loose the right (the hope) of guaranteed salavtion?   Six or seven years? Older?

Wrong question.

Real question is: At what stage of our development as sons and daughters of God are we finally capable of freely and knowingly choosing whether or not to reject God.

For those who do so freely and knowing reject God are the only ones who will ever be in Hell for eternity...

Who fits that criteria?  Can we ever know for sure or is that God's alone to know?

Well then...as I said:  Keep right on hoping!!

The only ones who will not fulfill your hope are those who freely choose not to do so.  God will never force them.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #36 on: May 24, 2011, 09:39:43 PM »


The now abolished teaching of Limbo was better and kinder than the current teaching.

In Limbo souls were said to be in a state of happiness and unaware that there were other states and other degrees of happiness.

The current teaching (see the CCC) states the people may now *hope* that unbaptized babies are in heaven but there is also the likelihood that they are in hell.


Wishful thinking Boss, but no cigar!!


1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


And there is the smoking cigar -allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

While Limbo was a guarantee of happiness for unbaptized babies, the new teaching offers only a hope of their salvation.  They could also be in hell.  

Hope is not a mere wish in the teaching of the papal Church, Father.

Hope is the firm expectation, by the power of the Holy Spirit,  of the evidence of things unseen...

Hope is what helps to make faith a power or virtue rather than a pious belief or set of beliefs.

Hope is what works hand in glove with Faith to move the mountain.

Hope is what drives Faith to seek divine Caritas with the full expectation of finding that for which we seek to find.

Here you treat it as a wish...

I have a strong and enduring hope that all humans will be saved, both baptized and unbaptized, babies and children and adults.    Does my hope prevail as fact?  Or is my hope only operative in the case of babies in the womb or a few weeks out of the womb?

Unlike babes, infants, toddlers and the very young'ns, adults are perfectly capable of the decision to reject God through all eternity. 

There is no irresistible grace in the presence of a will and intellect that are free and capable.

So you figure the odds: and keep on hoping...

M.

At what age does an unbaptized human loose the right (the hope) of guaranteed salavtion?   Six or seven years? Older?

Wrong question.

Real question is: At what stage of our development as sons and daughters of God are we finally capable of freely and knowingly choosing whether or not to reject God.

For those who do so freely and knowing reject God are the only ones who will ever be in Hell for eternity...

Who fits that criteria?  Can we ever know for sure or is that God's alone to know?

Well then...as I said:  Keep right on hoping!!

The only ones who will not fulfill your hope are those who freely choose not to do so.  God will never force them.

I understand that Catholics posit this at around seven years.

The joyous teaching then is that all children who die under the age of seven no matter their religion or lack of any religion are saved.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 24, 2011, 10:13:34 PM »

If you ever decide to stop answering your own questions, Father:


Wrong question.

Real question is: At what stage of our development as sons and daughters of God are we finally capable of freely and knowingly choosing whether or not to reject God.

For those who do so freely and knowing reject God are the only ones who will ever be in Hell for eternity...

Who fits that criteria?  Can we ever know for sure or is that God's alone to know?

Well then...as I said:  Keep right on hoping!!

The only ones who will not fulfill your hope are those who freely choose not to do so.  God will never force them.

« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 10:17:41 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #38 on: May 24, 2011, 11:05:24 PM »

If you ever decide to stop answering your own questions, Father:


OK, I'll answer yours then.


Wrong question.

Real question is: At what stage of our development as sons and daughters of God are we finally capable of freely and knowingly choosing whether or not to reject God.

In Western underestanding when the age of reason arrives at about the age of seven.  Up until then no child or young person is able to sin and consequently whether baptized or not has heaven for their destination if they should die before the age of reason dawns.

For those who do so freely and knowing reject God are the only ones who will ever be in Hell for eternity...

Who fits that criteria? 

The Catholic Church says that those who are in a state of mortal sin fit that criteria.

Can we ever know for sure or is that God's alone to know?

Well then...as I said:  Keep right on hoping!!

The only ones who will not fulfill your hope are those who freely choose not to do so.  God will never force them.

Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 24, 2011, 11:13:31 PM »

Even with those people, public figures, who persist in behaviors and words that are clearly objectively and gravely evil, even when the Church may excommunicate an individual for egregious behaviors and persistent scandal, she NEVER makes any kind of determination about the soul of that individual.

So for all practical purposes, your argument here is empty of any useful spiritual, catechetical or sacramental content...empty words.

If you ever decide to stop answering your own questions, Father:


OK, I'll answer yours then.


Wrong question.

Real question is: At what stage of our development as sons and daughters of God are we finally capable of freely and knowingly choosing whether or not to reject God.

In Western underestanding when the age of reason arrives at about the age of seven.  Up until then no child or young person is able to sin and consequently whether baptized or not has heaven for their destination if they should die before the age of reason dawns.

For those who do so freely and knowing reject God are the only ones who will ever be in Hell for eternity...

Who fits that criteria? 

The Catholic Church says that those who are in a state of mortal sin fit that criteria.

Can we ever know for sure or is that God's alone to know?

Well then...as I said:  Keep right on hoping!!

The only ones who will not fulfill your hope are those who freely choose not to do so.  God will never force them.

Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #40 on: May 24, 2011, 11:19:29 PM »

Even with those people, public figures, who persist in behaviors and words that are clearly objectively and gravely evil, even when the Church may excommunicate an individual for egregious behaviors and persistent scandal, she NEVER makes any kind of determination about the soul of that individual.

So for all practical purposes, your argument here is empty of any useful spiritual, catechetical or sacramental content...empty words.

Never mind.  I don't mind if you disagree.  The Catholic Catechism agrees with me.

1861 "Mortal sin .. causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell..."

If you ever decide to stop answering your own questions, Father:


OK, I'll answer yours then.


Wrong question.

Real question is: At what stage of our development as sons and daughters of God are we finally capable of freely and knowingly choosing whether or not to reject God.

In Western underestanding when the age of reason arrives at about the age of seven.  Up until then no child or young person is able to sin and consequently whether baptized or not has heaven for their destination if they should die before the age of reason dawns.

For those who do so freely and knowing reject God are the only ones who will ever be in Hell for eternity...

Who fits that criteria? 

The Catholic Church says that those who are in a state of mortal sin fit that criteria.

Can we ever know for sure or is that God's alone to know?

Well then...as I said:  Keep right on hoping!!

The only ones who will not fulfill your hope are those who freely choose not to do so.  God will never force them.

[/quote]
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 25, 2011, 08:39:17 AM »

So, about them thar Toll Houses. Kinda like Purgatory in the Father's description, eh?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #42 on: May 25, 2011, 08:55:41 AM »

So, about them thar Toll Houses. Kinda like Purgatory in the Father's description, eh?

1.   Purgatory is for two things; purification and the expiation of the temporal punishment due to sin.

Toll houses are not for purification or expiation but for judgement.


2.   Purgatory can last for millennia or the equivalent of.

Toll houses are over in 3 earth days or 40 earth days.... tollers are not sure on the time frame.


3.   Purgatory is in some way a happy place since you know if you are there you will get to heaven in the end.

Toll houses are awful places since there's no certainty if you will be saved or damned.


5.  There are no demons in Purgatory.

The toll houses are swamped with demons and black Ethiopians.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #43 on: May 25, 2011, 09:01:50 AM »

Even with those people, public figures, who persist in behaviors and words that are clearly objectively and gravely evil, even when the Church may excommunicate an individual for egregious behaviors and persistent scandal, she NEVER makes any kind of determination about the soul of that individual.

So for all practical purposes, your argument here is empty of any useful spiritual, catechetical or sacramental content...empty words.

Never mind.  I don't mind if you disagree.  The Catholic Catechism agrees with me.

1861 "Mortal sin .. causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell..."


No.  There are criteria for an objectively mortal sin and you can go back to one of my original posts here, and see what those criteria are.  So you have added nothing here but more words.  No meaning.  Just words.  Teaching the faith requires meaning as well as words.

More than that, although one can identify grave matter, it is quite something else to identify full consent of the will, which also requires clear illumination of the intellect so that one knows what one is willing.

The Church does not discern that person to person.  That is why WE approach Confession.  It is not something that the Church asserts about us.

So as I said above...you are not adding anything here that is illuminating concerning the inhabitants of hell, and how they got there.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 25, 2011, 09:04:57 AM »

So, about them thar Toll Houses. Kinda like Purgatory in the Father's description, eh?

1.   Purgatory is for two things; purification and the expiation of the temporal punishment due to sin.


False.  These are not separate "thingies"...They are two different ways of talking about the same thing.
Logged

Tags: purgatory toll houses particular judgment Scott Hahn 
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.203 seconds with 72 queries.