Bishop Banning Latin Mass

[JReducation]

Well I’m a little bit confused about that too, since Muslims explictly reject the Blessed Trinity and don’t believe in a God who would become incarnate.

The problem here is not that they reject anything. The problem is that they do not understand the nature of God. The believe in the one true God. But they do not understand his Trinitarian nature. It’s a lack of understanding. They reject that which they believe is an offense to God. We also do the same. We reject whatever we believe is an offense to God.

We all believe in the same God, but only Christians understand the Trinity and the Incarnation.

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ is the Church. How can Jews and Muslims be part of the Mystical Body of Christ when they are not part of the Church?

Maybe I didn’t explain myself clearly. Let me try it this way. They are not part of the Church, because they are not baptized. However, the Church extends beyond those who are baptized, because her role and desire is to save. She looks for shadows of herself in other faiths. In looking a Islam and Judaism, the Church finds many Catholic truths. She finds pieces of herself there. Those pieces are common to them and us. Therefore, at least in those we are in communion. This is far from a perfect communion, don’t misunderstand. All that the Holy Father is saying is that they are not out there in the dark. There are some Catholic elements there.

Take for example the Commandments. If they’re Catholic in Rome, why aren’t the Commandments Catholic in Jerusalem or in Mecca? That’s where Pope John Paul was going.

Judaism and Islam are systems of belief that happen to incorporate some beliefs that are true. That does not mean that they are part of the Church and that does not mean that they are means of salvation.

The Church does not see them as systems. She sees them as a peoples, the Muslim People and the Jewish People. We have to think with the Church. Therefore we have to see them in the same light.

The Church has already said that Christ uses those little bits as a means to salvation for those who search for God with what they have. Again, we have to think with the Church. We agree that even though they have a skateboard and we have a Cadillac. Both have wheels and Christ can use wheels to save. It’s not perfect, but Christ wants so much to save that he will use whatever he can. He is not bound to the sacraments, which are the surest way to salvation.

This is where the usual question pops up. “Why bother becoming a Catholic?”

The answer is, “I’d rather ride a Cadillac than a skateboard” or to put it more theologically, “I’d rather have the fullness of truth than part of the truth.”

I came into Christianity that way. The Franciscans were my friends and mentors since I was a boy. I saw in them much of what we had in Judaism. I also saw some things that we lacked. I wanted everything that they had.

Fraternally

Br. JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

First of all, neither Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict subscribe to the idea that Jews and Muslims are anti-Christ and anti-Trinity.

You cannot be serious. The Jews and the Muslims are absolutely anti-Trinity. They believe it to be idolatry and for the sake of civility I will not reproduce the proof. Both have historically persecuted and killed Christians for being Christians.

They make an important distinction between being anti-something and not being in possession of the fullness of truth.

Cauistry.

“Not being in possession of the fullness of truth”. Only God is the “fullness of truth”. In that sense, no one can actually possess the fullness of truth because we are creatures and, as the Apostle says, we see but through a glass dimly. Therefore, we must be talking about Revelation or the substance of Revelation. Indeed, the Muslims and the Jews do not have Revelation; the former frequently set up obstacles to it in their homelands and the latter historically rejected it, though there is nothing preventing either today from accepting it; though, admittedly, it can be dangerous for them depending on where they are.

Second, neither is saying that a non-Christian can also be a Christian.

Perhaps not, but you did. You said infront of everyone that Muslims and Jews can be members of Christ’s Mystical Body. As such, they cannot possibly be, because if they were, then non-Christians are members of Christ’s Mystical Body.

Sounds to me like you are teaching that Anonymous Christian idea, which makes even atheists into members of Christ’s Mystical Body.

Third, what they are saying is that a non-Christian can be in communion with the Church to some degree, because the Church extends beyond her physical boundaries as it is her desire to bring all men in.

Alright. Firstly, the Church has no physical boundaries, so that distinction is useless. You are talking about the fact that the Church is by Her very nature visible, which should be rather obvious because Her members and their works are visible to men on earth, which is why someone who is not actually Christian cannot possibly be a member: if they were members, they would be visibly so, because they would possess both sanctifying and actual grace as well as the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

Therefore, the Jews and Muslims are not out there in the dark.

Everyone outside of the Church is in the dark. Christ said, “I am the Light of the World.” He, and He alone, is the Light of the World. Those outside of that Light haven’t the light.

The Council of Trent made plain that outside of Christ there is but the empire of death and the devil. It was from this empire that Christ came to save and liberate us from. Hence by the Cross He Triumphed over death and the devil.

That’s why both popes have said over and over again that Islam and Judaism enjoy a special respect and affection from Catholics, because we do have at least an imperfect communion.

This is blasphemy.

Christ has no concord with Belial and light has none with darkness. We cannot possibly be in corporate communion with unbelievers who deny or reject Christ.

To say someone is in communion with the Church is to say they are in communion with Christ; for they are in and are members of Christ.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

We aren’t having a discussion about whether traditional forms are better or worse.

That was an example. Nice dodge though.

 

[JReducation]

The sons promised to Abraham were two-fold: the sons that should be like the sand on the seashore and the sons that would be like the stars of heaven. The Church Fathers make it plain that the former refer to the sons or nations of his flesh and the latter by those who are his sons in the same spirit (i.e., the faithful and especially the Christians). Hence Our Lord reckons a difference with the Pharisees to their being sons of Abraham according to the flesh and those who are sons of Abraham according to his spirit.

Christians believe in the Most Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ is the Second Person of that Most Holy Trinity. If you deny the Son, you also deny the Father.

That’s an agreement on a fact (God is one). It does not establish a spiritual communion. I believe the Sun rises and sets each day: does not place me in communion with the Satanist in Australia who believes the same thing?

No. This is certainly becoming heretical. Christ’s Body is not some monster stitched together from all sorts of weird, varying and strange parts. Christ is not a mutant. What you describe is a monster.

Of course it doesn’t, because it teaches that you have to believe in Christ to be incorporated into His Body. If you do not believe in Christ then you do not believe in God.

The Church has also never infallibly taught that you have to be human to be a member of His Body or that only humans can be baptised; indeed, the Church has never said you can’t baptise a tree, but does that mean we can imagine that sometime in the future someone might inform us that we are to begin baptising trees?

The Church has also never infallibly taught that Satan can’t be a member of the Mystical Body.

Need we go on?

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. You cannot seperate the two: they are one and the same thing. To divorce the Church in any way from the Mystical Body of Christ would be like seperating Christ’s human and divine natures.

The Apostles made that plain from the beginning. Saint Paul calls the Church Christ’s Body and those who were baptised His members.

No, there is only One Church.

So Christ’s Body has been hacked into multiple pieces, and scattered about the place? Impossible. One also means Unity in the Creed.

The Church cannot exist “in fragments”. Learn from the Eucharist. The Church is whole and complete wherever She exists.

You know what . . . you’re right in arguing with me, because I’m not explaining Bl John Paul’s and Pope Benedict’s thoughts on this subject very well. Part of it is that it’s very heavy into philosophy and I’m not a philosopher and other part is that I understand what they’re saying, but it’s hard for me to put into words. Unfortunately, neither has put it all together into one document. Both of them have made statements here and there or written a paragraph here and a paragraph there and you have to follow them, like a bird following bread crumbs.

The best suggestion that I can make to help you understand what they’re saying is to follow the trail of bread crumbs like the rest of us. Begin with what they say in the CCC, go to the Decree on Ecumenism, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, and follow the footnotes on all of these. It’s a lot of work, but very interesting.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Julia_Mae]

You can’t be anti-Christian or anti-Trinitarian or anti-Incarnation and also be a Christian, who must believe these things by a necessity of means: that’s just outright unbelief, and belief is necessary…

In the mysticism and miracle of the Holy Spirit, anyone, including a professed devout atheist can be a Christian, if we define that as someone who believes in the Logos and tries to follow the teachings of Christ.

What is it to believe in Christ? To believe in love, charity, self-sacrifice, forgiveness, acceptance and reconciliation. This is God in the only way we can know Him, this is what Jesus showed us and taught us. What does an atheist reject? Something he has understood as not loving, as rejecting, judgmental, destructive and exclusive. That isn’t God and she shouldn’t believe in it.

A person in touch with the qualities of Christ, striving to do the actions of love, as Paul tells us are testified to by Creation, itself, is a Christian, whether he knows it or not. Or we know it or not. Only Christ knows His own. In every human being resides a spark of the Holy Spirit. Every human is born part of the Mystical Body.

 

[wasserfall]

The believe in the one true God. But they do not understand his Trinitarian nature. It’s a lack of understanding.

Jews and Muslims are perfectly capable of reading the catechism and understanding the Trinity to the extent which a human being can easily understand it. But, having done that, they reject the Trinity.

I accept that they believe in “the same God” to some extent. Such as: they believe that there is one God, that same God who is the God of Abraham. However that does not mean that the God they believe in is who God really is. Catholics believe in the God who really is, because God has revealed himself to us. Our beliefs about God are true. Theirs are not.

They reject that which they believe is an offense to God. We also do the same. We reject whatever we believe is an offense to God.

There is a difference. They reject what is true, and we Catholics reject what is false.

They are not part of the Church, because they are not baptized.

True.

However, the Church extends beyond those who are baptized, because her role and desire is to save.

This seems to be a direct contradiction of your previous sentence. Only the baptized belong to the Church, but the Church extends beyond the baptized? That doesn’t make any sense to me.

There is only one true religion – that is the Catholic Church. Other religions may contain some elements of truth in their doctrines, and God can use those elements of truth found in false religions as means to move people to the whole truth, but that does not make them true religions or make them somehow part of the Catholic Church.

Therefore, at least in those we are in communion. This is far from a perfect communion, don’t misunderstand. All that the Holy Father is saying is that they are not out there in the dark. There are some Catholic elements there.

I don’t see the justification in saying that there is communion of any kind just because some there are some common areas of belief. Those commonalities are very simplistic and shallow truths for the most part, that don’t touch the depths of Catholic (i.e. Divine) doctrine. The Jewish and Muslim religions have doctrines in common with the Catholic Church, yes. That does not mean that we are in communion.

The Church has already said that Christ uses those little bits as a means to salvation for those who search for God with what they have. Again, we have to think with the Church. We agree that even though they have a skateboard and we have a Cadillac. Both have wheels and Christ can use wheels to save. It’s not perfect, but Christ wants so much to save that he will use whatever he can. He is not bound to the sacraments, which are the surest way to salvation.

Yes it’s very popular these days to say that God is not bound to the sacraments, because modern man wants to believe that everybody is saved despite the contrary witness of countless saints and doctors of the Church. I have heard that St. Thomas Aquinas said that all persons, upon reaching the age of reason either turn to God or commit a mortal sin. Certainly I find it difficult to believe, knowing as I do, the nature of human beings and the concupiscence to which we are all subject, that more than a handful of exceedingly holy persons make it through life without having committed a mortal sin. Since perfect contrition is hard, especially for persons who are ignorant of the true nature of God, it seems to me to be exceedingly unlikely for many people to attain salvation without the help of the sacraments, which are, after all, God’s plan of salvation for all men whatsoever.

This is where the usual question pops up. “Why bother becoming a Catholic?”
The answer is, “I’d rather ride a Cadillac than a skateboard” or to put it more theologically, “I’d rather have the fullness of truth than part of the truth.”

I prefer this answer: Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

 

[wasserfall]

In the mysticism and miracle of the Holy Spirit, anyone, including a professed devout atheist can be a Christian, if we define that as someone who believes in the Logos and tries to follow the teachings of Christ.

That is not the definition of a Christian.

What is it to believe in Christ? To believe in love, charity, self-sacrifice, forgiveness, acceptance and reconciliation. This is God in the only way we can know Him, this is what Jesus showed us and taught us. What does an atheist reject? Something he has understood as not loving, as rejecting, judgmental, destructive and exclusive. That isn’t God and she shouldn’t believe in it.

Atheists reject every God, of whatever type they can imagine. It is not possible for an atheist to believe in Christ.

A person in touch with the qualities of Christ, striving to do the actions of love, as Paul tells us are testified to by Creation, itself, is a Christian, whether he knows it or not. Or we know it or not. Only Christ knows His own. In every human being resides a spark of the Holy Spirit. Every human is born part of the Mystical Body.

This is heresy. The Holy Spirit resides only in those who are in the state of sanctifying grace. People in a state of sin are slaves of the devil. The Mystical Body of Christ is the Church. Those who are not in the Church are not part of the Mystical Body.

 

[1AugustSon7]

In the mysticism and miracle of the Holy Spirit, anyone, including a professed devout atheist can be a Christian

That is absurd. A “professed devout atheist” does not even believe in God, for which unbelief there is no excuse, as the Apostle said.

Regardless, I am far too tired to be debating things of such profound importance and significance.

I will summarise my primary points:

• It is a contradiction that a non-Christian also be a Christian. You cannot actually be both.
• Communion is something more than agreements of fact. It is above all a spiritual and mystical reality.
• No one has ever said, “That Jew (or Muslim), though professedly a Jew (or a Muslim) is a Christian.” You are either a Christian or you are not; insomuch as you are one, you are not the other.
• The theology or eccelesiology being given here makes practically everyone potentially a Christian or member of the Mystical Body; however, the traditional definition of a Christian is “someone who inwardly believes and outwardly professes the Law of Christ.” They must at least believe in the Law of Christ and (also) *profess *it.
• We can go on *ad nauseam *talking about the individual ethical positions of particular people or peoples; nonetheless, without at least actual repentance for sins and the baptism of desire (once called the baptism of tears), no one can be joined to Christ’s Mystical Body; for Christ Himself is the Door.

Admittedly, most people have and accept some part or parts of the natural law, because it is natural; nonetheless, it is constantly in jeopardy owing to man’s fallen state and feeble powers (of reason, for ex.). Without grace, however, it is impossible for anyone to keep the natural and divine law by their own power; however, with God’s Grace, we can. It requires, however, on our part Faith and frequently actual Acts of Faith. The only other alternative is a salvation by works, which is impossible and heretical. Man can’t work his way into Heaven; he needs Grace; otherwise, man could boast before God and assumes to himself all the benefits of creation, which are really gifts.

• It is Christ alone Who saves from the *de facto *condition of fallen man, which is subjection to the empire of death or the devil: “Remember Christ our Saviour was born on Christmas Day / to save us all from Satan’s power when we had gone astray…” As the Christmas carol goes; this is rather basic Christianity; otherwise, Christ died for us for no reason.
• Baptism is necessary for salvation. Those who die in mortal sin and also unrepentant for their sins do not go to Heaven; those who die without mortal sin, but still in the state of original sin, do not obtain the Beatific Vision and go to Limbo, along with the children who die without Baptism. In Limbo there is no positive punishment for sins, because none were actually (wilfully) committed; nonetheless, there is no Hope in Limbo, which is why such things as abortion are still terrible crimes.

 

[pnewton]

We aren’t having a discussion about whether traditional forms are better or worse.

Yes, it is about the bishop’s authority of the liturgy. One is not allowed here to set on form over another. You did well jumping back to the topic.

 

[wasserfall]

In the mysticism and miracle of the Holy Spirit, anyone, including a professed devout atheist can be a Christian, if we define that as someone who believes in the Logos and tries to follow the teachings of Christ.

That is not the definition of a Christian.

In every human being resides a spark of the Holy Spirit.

This is not true.

Every human is born part of the Mystical Body.

This is not true.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I prefer this answer: Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

That’s the Athanasian Creed, isn’t it? Beautiful. I love how it expounds the Trinity also.

 

[Julia_Mae]

That is absurd. A “professed devout atheist” does not even believe in God, for which unbelief there is no excuse, as the Apostle said.

Regardless, I am far too tired to be debating things of such profound importance and significance.

I will summarise my primary points:

• It is a contradiction that a non-Christian also be a Christian. You cannot actually be both.
• Communion is something more than agreements of fact. It is above all a spiritual and mystical reality.
• No one has ever said, “That Jew (or Muslim), though professedly a Jew (or a Muslim) is a Christian.” You are either a Christian or you are not; insomuch as you are one, you are not the other.
• The theology or eccelesiology being given here makes practically everyone potentially a Christian or member of the Mystical Body; however, the traditional definition of a Christian is “someone who inwardly believes and outwardly professes the Law of Christ.” They must at least believe in the Law of Christ and also *profess *it.
• We can go on *ad nauseam *talking about the individual ethical positions of particular people or peoples; nonetheless, without at least actual repentance for sins and the baptism of desire (once called the baptism of tears), no one can be joined to Christ’s Mystical Body; for Christ Himself is the Door.

Admittedly, most people have and accept some part or parts of the natural law, because it is natural; nonetheless, it is constantly in jeopardy owing to man’s fallen state and feeble powers (of reason, for ex.). Without grace, however, it is impossible for anyone to keep the natural and divine law by their own power; however, with God’s Grace, we can. It requires, however, on our part Faith and frequently actual Acts of Faith.

• It is Christ alone Who saves from the *de facto *condition of fallen man, which is subjection to the empire of death or the devil: “Remember Christ our Saviour was born on Christmas Day / to save us all from Satan’s power when we had gone astray…” As the Christmas carol goes; this is rather basic Christianity; otherwise, Christ died for us for no reason.
• Baptism is necessary for salvation. Those who die in mortal sin and also unrepentant for their sins do not go to Heaven; those who die without mortal sin, but still in the state of original sin, do not obtain the Beatific Vision and go to Limbo, along with the children who die without Baptism. In Limbo there is no positive punishment for sins, because none were actually (wilfilly) committed; nonetheless, there is no Hope in Limbo, which is why such things as abortion are still terrible crimes.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church disputes pretty much every single thing you’ve said.

The word “limbo” doesn’t appear in it, even once and the Church does NOT teach anything approaching that babies and children who pass without baptism are denied the hope of Heaven. .

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,” 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.

As for baptism:

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.

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.

And about those atheists:

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.” 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.

Ignorance comes in many forms. I am sure if all I ever heard about the Church included what you just said about limbo, I wouldn’t believe, either.

 

[wasserfall]

The Church does NOT teach anything approaching that babies and children who pass without baptism are denied the hope of Heaven.

The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

– Council of Florence

The Justification of the impious, being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof.

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification, let him be anathema.

If anyone says that infants derive nothing of the original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by baptism for the obtaining of life everlasting, let him be anathema.

If any one saith, that baptism is not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

– Council of Trent

 

[sw85]

This seems to contradict the idea that the Body of Christ has two lungs and is fractured. And that various groups are in “partial Communion,” as if the body of Christ has prosthetics and what not. Just saying, it’s very confusing.

I am with you, and with Leo XIII and Pius XI. The Body of Christ is one. It’s a mark of the Church. The Orthodox are outside. The Protestants are outside. The Orthodox are closer, but they are not in the Church.

That part is clear. How the later teachings fit in with this, I am not mentally flexible enough to figure out, so I stick with what I know. I mean this honestly: the new teachings seem like contradictions, they seem motivated by false ecumenism, but at the same time the Church is indefectible so their must be a way to reconcile it.

There is, in fact, a hermeneutic of continuity there. It’s hard to tell sometimes. I have agonized over it for several months myself. Reading Church documents prior to Vatican II and reading them post-Vatican II is… an experience. I have had to consult lots of experts and much more knowledgeable friends than myself. I often feel like I’m stretching things to make them meet.

The conclusion that I’ve come to is that the problem is not a lapse in orthodoxy but simply of style. I have been told that John XXIII and Paul VI both said, repeatedly, that Vatican II was essentially an experiment in trying to re-express the Church’s traditional teachings in language understandable to the modern world. If so it seems to me that effort has failed, given the tremendous amount of confusion about, well, nearly everything. The Church has tried to translate its teachings into the language of an incompatible philosophy. And that’s, really, what is happening. There is nothing to my knowledge that is discontinuous in Vatican II or the teachings of any of the Popes of the postconciliar age; if there is the appearance of discontinuity it’s just that – an appearance. Translation errors, basically.

The thing that bothers me is not the appearance of discontinuity but the fact that no one in the hierarchy seems to be making a serious effort to dispel that appearance. If, in fact, the postconciliar Church’s teachings on, for instance, religious liberty are a lot less radical than some people make them out to be, why has the Church not forcefully pointed out that, hey, you’re taking liberties with these documents and leading people astray? The closest I’ve heard was (and I’m recalling from memory here so I’m no doubt doing so wrongly) Pope Benedict saying something like “There can be a hermeneutic of continuity.” OK, well, can there be or not? And if there is, why not outline it and spare all the confusion and uncertainty?

(Well, I suspect I know why, and the reasons are a lot less sinister than the SSPX and the sedevacantists and such are making them out to be. Some few folks suspect the Holy Father is of questionable orthodoxy. I never thought that, but I admit to thinking, for a while, that he was simply oblivious to the problem. Now I think he’s just an excellent strategist. If Rome today punctured the delusions of the modernists, forcefully declaring that their interpretations of Vatican II are bunk, there’d be widespread schism. The people who schism would never come back; schismatics basically never do. Given the demographic trends, in a few generations, that threat will not be credible. The Holy Father will get his smaller, purer church [or rather the office of the Holy Father will – Pope Benedict, bless his soul, will surely not live to see it], but he has the wisdom to know there’s no sense provoking an explosion when a slow burn will work better. But brother JR, I’m sure, has a sounder opinion on this than me, so I defer to his judgment.)

But nonetheless, there is a hermeneutic of continuity there. Plenty has been written on the topic already, so it’s not like you need to figure it out for yourself from scratch; Google searching will solve it for you. But the task is not impossible. The Church is not in heresy and it is not teaching error. At worst it is just being maddeningly obscurantist about teaching the same truths – and that, perhaps, for quite-understandable reasons of long-term strategy.

 

[1AugustSon7]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church disputes pretty much every single thing you’ve said.

There are many Catechisms, ma’am; and I could quote more than one that teaches such things as limbo explicity; though, admittedly, it has other names.

Sometimes it is called Hell proper, though Dante, in my opinion, rightly calls that part we now call Limbo the ante-chamber of Hell in his Divine Comedy. Here are such as the virtuous pagan philosophers: e.g., Plato, Aristotle &co.

Therefore, we need not overly despair for those souls who - without any fault on their own part - are prevented from baptism. If they were good and virtuous and committed no mortal sins, then they will be in excellent company and will not be associated with the wicked in positive punishments for their grievous sins against God. What the souls in limbo certainly have not, however, is divine Hope.

As for baptism:

Baptism is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, strictly necessary for salvation, as innumerable quotes could prove.

But let us here now consider the words of Our Lord in answer to Nicodemus’ questions concerning Our Lord’s doctrine on Baptism:

[3] Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Notice that the man who is not born again cannot see the kingdom of God. This means exclusion from the Beatific Vision. But here, we could speculate that some man might enter the Kingdom of God but, somehow, not actually see it.

Then Nicodemus enquires further, and Our Lord responds (and this is quoted by the holy Council of Trent):

[5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot **enter **into the kingdom of God.

Here we find that those not baptised neither see nor enter the Kingdom of God. Being so, then they cannot be said to go to Heaven and, consequently, they must go to some other place that is not Heaven.

So we see that Catholic doctrine is wonderfully in harmony with the Sacred Scriptures.

And about those atheists:

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.” 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.

However, ma’am, an atheist is i) not necessarily ignorant of the Gospel (few these days are) and, ii) he deliberately rejects God’s mercy by rejecting the Sacrament of Baptism.

Further, and finally, iii) the Scriptures clearly say that it is foolish for any man to deny God even in his heart; that is, even in his private thoughts or sentiments.

Finally, an atheist - by very definition - is exactly such a one whom it cannot “be supposed” to have “desired Baptism,” because he (the atheist) would find the need for salvation superfluous and unnecessary.

Further, how can it be supposed that an atheist “seeks… and does the will of God”? An atheist does not even seek to do God’s will, for he does not even believe there is a God Whose Will should be done.

Therefore, even the text you cite does not support your proposition that even atheists will see God and enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[TrueLight]

Let’s please not bring limbo into this thread. It should be its own thread. I have seen many threads here on limbo and they all get very hot very quickly with lots of folks getting upset.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Further, and finally…

Finally…

Further, how can it be supposed that an atheist “seeks… and does the will of God”? An atheist does not even seek to do God’s will, for he does not even believe there is a God Whose Will should be done.

Ha! Apparently not so ‘final’ as I had thought! lol - please forgive me my redundancy!

 

[Melchior_1]

Everyone who isn’t baptized Catholic is going to Hell. This includes unborn children who were aborted. I don’t give a damn if they were unable to even leave the womb, to Hell they go. Infants who die simply go to Hell, even if the intent was there to Baptize them.

Further, anyone who goes to Confession only twice a year is going to Hell. There’s simply no way that someone who goes that little can enter Heaven. Also, the Orthodox Church is not in full Communion with the Catholic faith, every single one of them are going to Hell.

Or, perhaps, the very same people who say “lets not be legalistic” when it pertains to their favored Form of liturgy are now posting incredible amounts of law trying to validate what I said above. All posts when addressing SP and the like and claims that “stop being so bound by the letter of the law” by said people have been waved away. When the cliffnotes can be boiled down to statements like;

Do not presume to question the Divine Mercy of our Lord, especially when it comes to His most precious children, currently being murdered in a genocide the likes of which we have ever seen. It is not for us to declare “such and such person is in Hell”, but rather it is for us to try and get people into Heaven.

 

[TrueLight]

Everyone who isn’t baptized Catholic is going to Hell. This includes unborn children who were aborted. I don’t give a damn if they were unable to even leave the womb, to Hell they go. Infants who die simply go to Hell, even if the intent was there to Baptize them.

Further, anyone who goes to Confession only twice a year is going to Hell. There’s simply no way that someone who goes that little can enter Heaven. Also, the Orthodox Church is not in full Communion with the Catholic faith, every single one of them are going to Hell.

Or, perhaps, the very same people who say “lets not be legalistic” when it pertains to their favored Form of liturgy are now posting incredible amounts of law trying to validate what I said above. All posts when addressing SP and the like and claims that “stop being so bound by the letter of the law” by said people have been waved away. When the cliffnotes can be boiled down to statements like;

Do not presume to question the Divine Mercy of our Lord, especially when it comes to His most precious children, currently being murdered in a genocide the likes of which we have ever seen.

See. That’s what I mean. Things get hot and heavy and not in a good way.

 

[Melchior_1]

See. That’s what I mean. Things get hot and heavy and not in a good way.

I’m not angry or anything, my friend. I just find it ironic that today in my city we had the National March for Life yet in this thread we have folks who think the unborn are going to Hell, simply because they aren’t able to be Baptized from within the womb.