D
devoutchristian
Guest
Absolutely false. We are judged based on what we do, not what we would do.
Salvation is not directly dependent on one’s parentage.
Pelagianism is heretical.
- Status
D
Debora123
Guest
Give me a break. A lot of faithful, practicing Catholics hold the belief that unbaptized children go to heaven! Believing in Limbo is no longer any sort of requirement.
It’s not heresy to believe that they go to heaven, and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t insinuate that I’m a heretic for believing it.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
But it is heresy to believe that God owes them salvation.
O
OxygenMan
Guest
They never said it was owed. They said it was possible and likely.
C
chimo
Guest
The question we need to ask are the same as St. John Chrysostom. It is curious that the Church of the West had adopted a stricter view on original sin than the East. The Eastern Church Fathers took a lighter view on the judgment on sin than the Latin Fathers. The Eastern Church takes the view from Chrysostom that God has no such feelings towards all those born into the world and have inherited the same nature as Adam. The East sees the sin of Adam and Eve differently than the West because her saints see their sin not in the same judgment as the Western Church Fathers see it. The East believes the West as too hard on this judgmemt and corrects it by their own understanding. The East sees that yes Adam and Eve did sin but they see this sin in light for what it is and they say Adam and Eve did not sinned from a great height but from their lowest state. The Eastern Fathers say God created man and woman in order for them to become Saints. To give man and woman all that Grace all at once and to lose it from their first sin is what the Eastern Church Fathers object to. They said it would be foolish of God to give so much and then for them to lose it all when they commit a sin. The Eastern Fathers say God did not give to all of them this higher grace. When they sin like we all do when we commit our first sin it is at this lowest state of our sanctity. From this perspective you will see that God is not angry with us but has given to us the means to understand that He still wants us to grow but to do it through and by His cooperating Grace.
The Eastern Church differs on this judgment than the West for good reason. The Eastern Church is now only been understood by the West. This difference on opinion on Original Sin and the judgment on sin may be the best reasons to help us come together to finally iron out what we need to be corrected on. It seems to me that God allowed these differences in our Churches so that at a time He chooses one Church can correct the other or in this instance the more better understanding of one Church can help with some of the teachings of another. This coohiveness can work both ways. The West can help the East to correct some of her teachings when the Orthodox will learn for instance about Redemptive Suffering, a great teaching from the Church of Rome, and adopt it as one of her own. Redemptive Suffering is not taught in the East.
The Eastern Church differs on this judgment than the West for good reason. The Eastern Church is now only been understood by the West. This difference on opinion on Original Sin and the judgment on sin may be the best reasons to help us come together to finally iron out what we need to be corrected on. It seems to me that God allowed these differences in our Churches so that at a time He chooses one Church can correct the other or in this instance the more better understanding of one Church can help with some of the teachings of another. This coohiveness can work both ways. The West can help the East to correct some of her teachings when the Orthodox will learn for instance about Redemptive Suffering, a great teaching from the Church of Rome, and adopt it as one of her own. Redemptive Suffering is not taught in the East.
S
shocktrooper
Guest
No, they say “they go to heaven”. They did not only say it was possible or likely.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
Please read the entire conversation before responding.
B
bzkoss236
Guest
Just because someone says that they go to heaven, doesn’t mean that it is owed to them. They believe that God, in His infinite mercy, would accept them into His Heavenly Kingdom. This does not mean that it is owed to them, but that God is Merciful.
S
shocktrooper
Guest
You don’t have to believe in “limbo” but you are not allowed to believe whatever you want. Your belief, if a faithful Catholic, needs to fall within the walls the Church erects. The Church has said and made doctrine that because of Original Sin, no unbaptized person, including unborn babies, can go to heaven. This is a wall that cannot be toppled by mere personal opinion.
You act as if my own opinion has been argued here when speaking on what the Church has defined for us as doctrine.
I did not say it was a mistake to think children go to heaven. I said it was a mistake to think that God owes anyone anything.
Does baptism effect a change in our relationship with God or is it merely symbolic?
S
shocktrooper
Guest
If God’s mercy is presumed, then it must be owed. This applies also to an individual who presumes on his own salvation, as if it is automatically given because of God’s “love” or “mercy”.
We are acting as if God was the reason for the fall and because of such, owes us something for it.
B
bzkoss236
Guest
Mercy isn’t owed, it is freely given, that’s why it’s mercy. If it were owed, that would fall under justice, giving someone what they deserve. Mercy is giving someone better than what they deserve, a gift. And as someone said before, what about a purgatory experience which cleanses these children from their original sin?
Also, I’m surprised that no one made a comment about my assertion before of whether children may go to the Bosom of Abraham, which technically resides in hell, but they would be protected from the sufferings of hell, like those who died in God’s favor before Christ.
C
chimo
Guest
It can’t be done for instance like a switch to fix things like you said. You have to be sensitive to what people were taught within their church for centuries past. The East even though has the more corrected balance teachng on Original Sin cannot for instance be accepted all at once by Rome or by Roman Catholics. It cannot be done this way for it will only bring disharmony and hostilities by some. The corrected Eastern teaching must be developed slowly so as not to interfere too much to what people already know or believed. So it must come in gradually. And to be revealed gradually.
So you can still baptised infants with this corrected knowledge. Why? Because God’s Graces can enter a baby and remain in there. In fact it is better to baptise when you are a baby so that you can have a great head start with Grace. The Holy Spirit is not only given at infancy in the Eastern Churches but also immediately after they are baptised when they are a baby they will also confer Confirmation on them. These double dosage deposits of the Holy Spirit gives every Eastern Christian a great head start. Not only they can receive these Deposits early on but the new Christian baby can also receive Holy Communion every time they do come. These Holy Communions also gives this very young person more deposits of the Holy Spirit so that the presence of the Holy Spirit also increases in them.
S
shocktrooper
Guest
The Church teaches, as Christ, that one MUST be baptized in order to go to heaven. The Church teaches there are 3 forms of baptism, sacramental, desire and blood. An unborn child cannot receive the sacramental form of baptism.
This leaves 2 options known to us. I am more than open to the idea that an unborn child can be baptized by desire via the desire of the parents, but this position has not been officially accepted by the Church not does She teach against it. This, however, leaves a big problem for those aborted children or unborn babies who’s parents had no intention of baptizing them.
Baptism of blood is the preferred solution by those that grant all babies eternal bliss because it encompasses all babies since death usually involves the loss of blood. However, this position is not even close to being biblical or in harmony with the Catholic faith.
God may not be bound by His sacraments but He is bound by His word since Truth cannot lie nor deceive. So unless God has withheld a form of baptism from His Bride, which He very well could have, then unborn children going to heaven is not something we should presume. And if God has hidden this mystery from us, then we should still not teach it as a sure thing. Teaching something totally unknown that undermines other Church teachings is not something we should do in an open forum not should we be in the habit of doing on a personal level.
This leaves 2 options known to us. I am more than open to the idea that an unborn child can be baptized by desire via the desire of the parents, but this position has not been officially accepted by the Church not does She teach against it. This, however, leaves a big problem for those aborted children or unborn babies who’s parents had no intention of baptizing them.
Baptism of blood is the preferred solution by those that grant all babies eternal bliss because it encompasses all babies since death usually involves the loss of blood. However, this position is not even close to being biblical or in harmony with the Catholic faith.
God may not be bound by His sacraments but He is bound by His word since Truth cannot lie nor deceive. So unless God has withheld a form of baptism from His Bride, which He very well could have, then unborn children going to heaven is not something we should presume. And if God has hidden this mystery from us, then we should still not teach it as a sure thing. Teaching something totally unknown that undermines other Church teachings is not something we should do in an open forum not should we be in the habit of doing on a personal level.
S
shocktrooper
Guest
bzkoss, I do not wish to argue this point with you simply because I totally agree with you. My point is that it seems like those that presume on God’s mercy seem to be doing so because it is somehow owed to mankind when this is simply not true. If I am wrong, then I am wrong.
As far as the Bosom of Abraham, I have no problem with your assertion. I think it is a very possible solution and falls squarely in line with limbo, just called by a different name.
C
chimo
Guest
I believe St. Paul had written that the one who believes sanctifies the one who does not believe. In an illustration to this effect Paul writes that a wife who is a believer can sanctify her husband who is not a believer. This illustration and principal can also be for the Church. The Church members who believe can therefore sanctify all those who do not. So God gives sanctity to those who do not believe from those who do! So no matter what happens there is always sanctity available because we have a Church which can believe and God can apply those sanctities wherever else He needs to including those who have died when they were young and were not baptised. God has all this incredible sanctity that is the Holy Spirit all stored up for all these people and persons.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
This possibility just came to mind.I know that those have never come to know the Lord,through no fault of their own(ie third world countries)and die w/othe benefit of baptism,receives God’s mercy.Their fate as far an no possibility of reaching heaven is not a given.Wouldn’t this thinking not also apply to innocent should lost to abortion?
B
bzkoss236
Guest
Then maybe it’s safer/better to say that they HOPE in God’s infinite mercy, He accepts them into Heaven.
O
OxygenMan
Guest
The catechism itself states that it is possible for such people to enter God’s grace and heaven. Therefore, it can be both hoped and assumed that a child can receive such mercy.This possibility just came to mind.I know that those have never come to know the Lord,through no fault of their own(ie third world countries)and die w/othe benefit of baptism,receives God’s mercy.Their fate as far an no possibility of reaching heaven is not a given.Wouldn’t this thinking not also apply to innocent should lost to abortion?
S
shocktrooper
Guest
The theological virtue of hope is for one hoping in his own salvation, a gift from God that one cannot merit. One cannot “hope” for another to be saved in a theological way. This form of hope you speak of is more human, as if we wish for the best to happen. Our hope is in Christ for our own salvation.
But yes, I understand your point. Maybe the better way is to say, “we pray” for the salvation of the unborn, asking for God’s mercy to be given to them in a super abundant way.
F
fred_conty
Guest
Before the fact we should take the safer thinking and course for the child’s sake.
After the fact we should probably look at it as “God is Love”.
Just a thought.
After the fact we should probably look at it as “God is Love”.
Just a thought.
- Status