Answer me this limbo question, please

[Teflon93]

Are now Ecumenical Councils not protected from error by the Holy Spirit?

So even RC bishops in Council cannot be trusted to teach the truth?

Is this what you are saying?

What I am saying is that you apparently are unaware of what “infallibly” means in the Catholic context, and seem to think it applies to every concilar utterance.

What they defined did not just address those from the East. I surely hope that is not your claim here.

You may want to read the 60 pages of Florence rather than simply extract one phrase you find damning. That is what cherrypicking means; that is what you have done.

The distinction?

They go to Hell forever.

The only distinction the Council makes is the extent of their punishements, not their eternal destiny. That is a distinction without a difference here.

I have quoted extensively the Catholic teaching on Hell and salvation. Not a phrase here and there, but large swaths of it. You persist in error because you choose to persist in error.

Not for those who are sent to Hell immediately after death. This is basic Catholicism.

One who dies with the stain of Original Sin on their soul is, by definition, not in a state of grace. Only those who die in a state of grace can go to Purgatory for cleansing.

…

You don’t seem to understand Catholic teaching on the subject at all. Anyone who wants to truly understand what the Church teaches, not a distorted, perverted, and erroneous view of what the Church teaches convenient for one’s personal viewpoint, can read the Catechism passages I’ve posted.

You have completely failed to address this paragraph:

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**.

I can understand why you would do so, given that it puts paid to your argument entirely.

Now, I also want to call attention for the benefit of all those who have not read the whole thread that you have fundamentally changed your argument here in light of the Catechism excerpts I have posted. You should have acknowledged doing so, but have not.

Here is your 1st post:

I think the problem here, Mike, is your use of the term “innocents.”

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that infants are guilty, not innocent, and thus deserving eternal damnation.

Baptism is primarily for forgiveness. Only a corrupt judge would say they are forgiving an innocent, thus the teaching on infant guilt.

Present-tense.

Here is your most recent one:

I was not addressing these teachings. Again, I must repeat what I said which you denied:

What I said is that the Catholic Church **has historically taught **that those who die with the stain of Original Sin still on their souls are damned to Hell.

As your Christian brother, I am going to refrain from further postings on this as I believe that doing so is likelier to harden your position and make you less open to the teaching of the Church on this point. I am not trying to make you angry nor to score points in this argument; I am simply trying to clearly state what the Catholic teaching is so that others are not led astray by thinking it is something else.

I wish you the best and I will be praying for you. Would you be so kind as to pray for me?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Atemi:

I was not addressing these teachings.

Why not? These teachings are central to this question. To ignore them is to do an injustice to the question.

Atemi:

Again, I must repeat what I said which you denied:

If you are making claims about what I said please quote me. Otherwise I will not remember what you are talking about.

Atemi:

What I said is that the Catholic Church has historically taught that those who die with the stain of Original Sin still on their souls are damned to Hell. This is Catholic doctrine, like it or not.

Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance is Catholic doctrine, like it or not. Yet you ignore these. Why?

Atemi:

It is not my doctrine, but the doctrine of your church.

The doctrine of my Church includes Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. But you don’t.

[QUOTEv]
I wish it were otherwise, but it isn’t.

You say you wish it were otherwise, yet when people demonstrate to you that it is otherwise, you are satisfied with your strawman of Church teaching.

Atemi:

Every soul that dies absent sanctifying grace is damned forever. There are no if, ands, or buts.

What role do you think Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance plays in sanctifying grace?

 

[Atemi]

Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance is Catholic doctrine, like it or not. Yet you ignore these. Why?

I do not ignore them. I didn’t even mention them.

I said:

“the Catholic Church has historically taught that those who die with the stain of Original Sin still on their souls are damned to Hell.”

You replied:

“Nope.”

You are incorrect.

The correct answer according to RC teaching is “Yep.”

The doctrine of my Church includes Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. But you don’t.

Because I was speaking about if babies are born innocent or guilty before God according to RC teaching.

Whether infants desire water baptism (??) or if ignorance is a means to sanctifying grace is another story.

In actuality, if babies needed baptism of desire or invincible ignorance to save them, that only goes to prove they are not innocent to begin with. God does not condemn the innocent.

I wish it were otherwise, but it isn’t.

You say you wish it were otherwise, yet when people demonstrate to you that it is otherwise, you are satisfied with your strawman of Church teaching.

No one has demonstrated in the least that the soul that dies absent of all sanctifying grace can be be saved. They cannot because that is not RC doctrine.

I should not actually be a person to defend RC doctrine on this board, but here I am.

What role do you think Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance plays in sanctifying grace?

According to RC teaching?

For one, baptism of desire as a means of sanctifying grace must be received before death. There is no salvation after death in RC teaching.

Secondly, invincible ignorance as a means to sanctifying grace in RC teaching is alien to me. I know of nowhere in RC teaching where ignorance alone is salvific. If it was, ALL babies who die before baptism would be saved and thus the rush to baptise infants would be moot. The Catholic Church also would not have to “hope” babies have some way to be saved if it taught that ignorance alone was salvific.

…