E
edwinG
Guest
- Status
E
edwinG
Guest
HI Ron from Ohio,
John 3:8 " The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. "So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.
I understand this as meaning you can earn salvation, there isnt anything you must do, it is a free gift from God. Only He chooses. As Jesus said , you didnt choose Me, I chose you and one of you is a devil.
No , salvation is a gift from God.
Christ be with you
walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
H
hecd2
Guest
I remind you that the only reason I stated this fact is because of your attempt to explain away my distaste for the accidental consequences of the Catholic theology of infant baptism and the fortunate and single act of contrition as being due to a lack of understanding of Catholic theology. It isn’t.
Your statement is logically and factually flawed. ‘The pronouncement of sophistication is invariably the action of an amateur, no matter what the subject.’ BAH! This is patently false. Here we go with something that is undeniable. I have quite a sophisticated understanding of science. If you are correct in your overreaching and ridiculous pronouncement, then I would necessarily be an amateur scientist, but since I am a professional, with all the trappings to prove it if need be, it is clear that your argument is a simple fallacy.
So, it is possible to claim sophistication AND to be sophisticated. Where does this leave your argument?
Well, your argument in this (and in one or two other threads) goes like this (to paraphase); ‘You are wrong. I know you are wrong because I understand the complexities of the argument and you don’t. If and when you understand things as I do, you will agree with me. [Sotto voce]: I know I haven’t actually presented any supporting argument; I certainly haven’t referenced any authority in support of my view. My argument is entirely based on an assumption of superior knowledge and the adoption of a compelling intellectual position, which in point of fact I don’t possess. I will bristle if anyone else claims any knowldge in these matters whatsoever, because my ability to appear to carry the day is based, almost exclusively, on my ability to persuade everyone that I have a subtler and deeper understanding than they have. Logical arguments and references - I don’t need those; all I need to do is claim that anyone who disagrees with me fails to have an adequate understanding’.
Well, you are mistaken.
Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm
S
Sherlock
Guest
Hecd,
You wrote: “I remind you that the only reason I stated this fact is because of your attempt to explain away my distaste for the accidental consequences of the Catholic theology of infant baptism and the fortunate and single act of contrition as being due to a lack of understanding of Catholic theology.”
Not true. You stated that you had a “quite sophisticated understanding of Catholic theology”, not in response to anything I wrote, but to puzzleannie’s post.
You wrote: “Your statement is logically and factually flawed.”
You’re right, and please forgive my exaggeration. I will now correct my previous statement to read: “The pronouncement of sophistication has been, in my experience, largely the action of an amateur, no matter what the subject.”
You wrote: “I know I haven’t actually presented any supporting argument; I certainly haven’t referenced any authority in support of my view.”
I have given my understanding, but that understanding is in keeping with the understanding of Catholic theologians over the centuries. If you are interested in quotes, I can provide them for you, or perhaps suggest some reading for you that would perhaps be helpful. I would suggest starting with the Catechism, which has some excellent exposition on Baptism.
You wrote: “I remind you that the only reason I stated this fact is because of your attempt to explain away my distaste for the accidental consequences of the Catholic theology of infant baptism and the fortunate and single act of contrition as being due to a lack of understanding of Catholic theology.”
Not true. You stated that you had a “quite sophisticated understanding of Catholic theology”, not in response to anything I wrote, but to puzzleannie’s post.
You wrote: “Your statement is logically and factually flawed.”
You’re right, and please forgive my exaggeration. I will now correct my previous statement to read: “The pronouncement of sophistication has been, in my experience, largely the action of an amateur, no matter what the subject.”
You wrote: “I know I haven’t actually presented any supporting argument; I certainly haven’t referenced any authority in support of my view.”
I have given my understanding, but that understanding is in keeping with the understanding of Catholic theologians over the centuries. If you are interested in quotes, I can provide them for you, or perhaps suggest some reading for you that would perhaps be helpful. I would suggest starting with the Catechism, which has some excellent exposition on Baptism.
O
Origen
Guest
<< Um, pray for protestants to be freed from their hatred?? Who says they are full of hatred? >>
Read Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism.
If your point is simply that not all protestants are filled with hatred, then to you I say, mea culpa.
But keep in mind:
If I say Uncle Joe is a raging alcoholic, you can be sure that Uncle Joe’s kids would say: “oh, he’s just under a lot of stress, he’s not always that way.” Yes, thank you for correcting the historical record! Uncle Joe is most certainly not out of control 100% of every waking moment. Mea culpa! But he’s still a raging alcoholic.
Read Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism.
If your point is simply that not all protestants are filled with hatred, then to you I say, mea culpa.
But keep in mind:
If I say Uncle Joe is a raging alcoholic, you can be sure that Uncle Joe’s kids would say: “oh, he’s just under a lot of stress, he’s not always that way.” Yes, thank you for correcting the historical record! Uncle Joe is most certainly not out of control 100% of every waking moment. Mea culpa! But he’s still a raging alcoholic.
H
hecd2
Guest
Sherlock, you are correct that my response was to Puzzleannie and not to you. I failed to follow the post back. Sorry. However, my point is that my claim was not made in the normal course of discussion, but in response to the argument that my views are necessarily flawed **because **of my lack of knowledge of the subject, an argument that you use as well. I was merely refuting that assumption as a reason for my holding the position that I do hold.
Fine. It wasn’t in this case.
There you go again, assuming my views are founded in ignorance! I am perfectly familiar with the CCC. That familiarity in no way prevents me from holding the views that I have expressed on the matter nor indeed from thinking for myself. Now, my view is that the concept of determining the eternal fate of an infant by whether or not he has been baptised is perverse and disturbing.
You can choose to ignore me, or can argue for your position on the matter or you can agree with me, but please do not insult me by claiming that I hold this view only because I do not understand the theology. This last argument is fallacious in that it conflates understanding with acceptance. You will realise, I trust, that they are not the same thing. It is entirely possible to understand a doctrine, an argument, a policy or an opinion thoroughly and not accede to it.The ‘if only you understood, you would agree’ argument carries no weight.
Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm
S
Sherlock
Guest
Hecd,
You wrote: " Now, my view is that the concept of determining the eternal fate of an infant by whether or not he has been baptised is perverse and disturbing."
But the Catholic Church does not teach that unbaptized infants go to hell. Is that the premise that you are laboring under? If so, it’s not accurate. It is true that Baptism is the “normative” means by which the door to salvation is opened, but there are other forms of this (baptism of desire, baptism by blood), and needless to say God has his own ways which may not be known to us. So, I don’t see the Church’s position as being either perverse or disturbing—quite the opposite. And since this position is shared by many non-Catholic Christians, you are condemning them as well.
You wrote: “This last argument is fallacious in that it conflates understanding with acceptance. You will realise, I trust, that they are not the same thing.”
Yes, I do realize this, and agree with you that it is important to distinguish between the two. But what made me wonder about your understanding is the error that you make above, namely that the eternal fate of an infant is determined by whether or not he has been baptized. The Church does not teach this.
You wrote: " Now, my view is that the concept of determining the eternal fate of an infant by whether or not he has been baptised is perverse and disturbing."
But the Catholic Church does not teach that unbaptized infants go to hell. Is that the premise that you are laboring under? If so, it’s not accurate. It is true that Baptism is the “normative” means by which the door to salvation is opened, but there are other forms of this (baptism of desire, baptism by blood), and needless to say God has his own ways which may not be known to us. So, I don’t see the Church’s position as being either perverse or disturbing—quite the opposite. And since this position is shared by many non-Catholic Christians, you are condemning them as well.
You wrote: “This last argument is fallacious in that it conflates understanding with acceptance. You will realise, I trust, that they are not the same thing.”
Yes, I do realize this, and agree with you that it is important to distinguish between the two. But what made me wonder about your understanding is the error that you make above, namely that the eternal fate of an infant is determined by whether or not he has been baptized. The Church does not teach this.
H
hecd2
Guest
I am not ‘laboring’ under any misapprehension. The CCC states:
'**1257 **The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. 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. 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.” ’
and
‘**1213 **Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”’
and
‘**1277 **Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord’s will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.’
With regard to infant baptism it states:
‘**1250 **Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth’
Now either infant baptism does not make a difference to the fate of the infant’s soul, in which case I fail to see what all the fuss is about; or it does make a difference in which case I stand by my assessment of the doctrine as being perverse and disturbing.
What is your understanding of the fate of an infant who dies unbaptised (or an adult who dies unbaptised beyond reach of the church and the gospel?). These souls die with the taint of original sin - is that of no consequence? You have not mentioned the limbus infantium, so I will.
‘**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’
is of little or no comfort since it still distinguishes between the state of having received the sacrament of baptism and having not.
I have made no error. The catechism does not claim that there is no difference in eternal fate (quite the contrary), you have not dealt with the urgency to baptise infants, the consequence of original sin, or the state of limbo. Either there is no urgnecyand good reason to baptise infants or there is not. Which is it?
Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm
S
Sherlock
Guest
Hecd,
You wrote: “Either there is no urgnecyand good reason to baptise infants or there is not. Which is it?”
Of course there is urgency and good reason to baptise infants, for all of the reasons that the Catechism lists (thank you, by the way, for providing the relevant texts, thus saving me the typing). But it does not follow that unbaptized infants are condemned to hell. The Church does not say that. The Church only says, " 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."
So, just what is perverse and disturbing about that?
As for your question regarding “an adult who dies unbaptised beyond reach of the church and the gospel”, the answer obviously lies in this statement from the text you quoted: “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.” Note the phrase, “for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament”. A person cannot be damned for what he does not know, the Church referring to this as “invincible ignorance”. In this case, as in the case of unbaptized infants, the Church entrusts them to the mercy of God. I don’t find this perverse or disturbing, but merciful.
You wrote: “Either there is no urgnecyand good reason to baptise infants or there is not. Which is it?”
Of course there is urgency and good reason to baptise infants, for all of the reasons that the Catechism lists (thank you, by the way, for providing the relevant texts, thus saving me the typing). But it does not follow that unbaptized infants are condemned to hell. The Church does not say that. The Church only says, " 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."
So, just what is perverse and disturbing about that?
As for your question regarding “an adult who dies unbaptised beyond reach of the church and the gospel”, the answer obviously lies in this statement from the text you quoted: “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.” Note the phrase, “for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament”. A person cannot be damned for what he does not know, the Church referring to this as “invincible ignorance”. In this case, as in the case of unbaptized infants, the Church entrusts them to the mercy of God. I don’t find this perverse or disturbing, but merciful.
I
ISABUS
Guest
A fast comment since I have my running shoes on today! 
My best Catholic friend is my worn out, tattered Holy Catholic Bible. It contains an encyclopedia at the back of it that has saved me many a time from error when attempting to provide facts to people, whether they be Catholic or not.
I hope the following may prove to be of interest and provide some futher insights into this thread ‘Does being Catholic guarantee salvation’ and the issue about infants who are not baptised. This knowledge may already be known by some people, but it never hurts to place all the cards on the table so to speak.
“Baptism of Desire. One of the two possible substitues for Baptism of water. When it is not possible thus to be baptized, an act of perfect contrition or pure love of God will supply the omission. Such acts are a perfect and ultimate dispositon calling for the infusion of sanctifying grace, and at least implicitly include a desire and intention ot receive Baptism of water should occasion offer. Infants are not capable of Baptism of desire. A heathen, believing, even though in a confused way, in a God whose will should be done and desiring to do that will whatever it may be, probably has Baptism of desire. It may reasonably be assumed that vast numbers of persons unbaptized by water have thus been capable of enjoying the Beatific Vision.” The Holy Bible, The Catholic Press, Inc., 1952, p. 25 (Catholic Encyclopedia)
My comment is two fold. I feel honored to have sat at many a deathbed througout my life. I recall several people, one was a priest, who were very religious and holy and believed in God all their life, yet when dying they all of a sudden weren’t sure if God really did exist. I have also been with a dying person who had never believed in God then on his deathbed felt the presence of God and believed he was loved by God so therefore loved God. It was absolutely beautiful to see this friend of mine in such grace. What I am trying to share with you are my experiences of life and that we really don’t know until we are on our own deathbed what will happen. All we can do is pray that we are not alone and that someone will be there who loves us. And that God will be merciful and understand our situation whatever it may be.
As far as an infant that hasn’t been baptized who is near death, from what I understand, they have not developed a “full” soul so to speak. The definition of soul means ‘the thinking principle; that by which we feel, know, will, and by which the body is animated’. I’ve already printed the Catholic definition of soul within another thread under another topic. In essence what I am attempting to present to you is that a dying infant doesn’t have a developed conscience in the ‘knowing and will’ part of their soul so would not be ‘capable of enjoying the Beatific Vision’ unless they were baptised but that is not a requirement of heaven bound souls! Yippee! :clapping:
Peace ~
Isabus
My best Catholic friend is my worn out, tattered Holy Catholic Bible. It contains an encyclopedia at the back of it that has saved me many a time from error when attempting to provide facts to people, whether they be Catholic or not.
I hope the following may prove to be of interest and provide some futher insights into this thread ‘Does being Catholic guarantee salvation’ and the issue about infants who are not baptised. This knowledge may already be known by some people, but it never hurts to place all the cards on the table so to speak.
“Baptism of Desire. One of the two possible substitues for Baptism of water. When it is not possible thus to be baptized, an act of perfect contrition or pure love of God will supply the omission. Such acts are a perfect and ultimate dispositon calling for the infusion of sanctifying grace, and at least implicitly include a desire and intention ot receive Baptism of water should occasion offer. Infants are not capable of Baptism of desire. A heathen, believing, even though in a confused way, in a God whose will should be done and desiring to do that will whatever it may be, probably has Baptism of desire. It may reasonably be assumed that vast numbers of persons unbaptized by water have thus been capable of enjoying the Beatific Vision.” The Holy Bible, The Catholic Press, Inc., 1952, p. 25 (Catholic Encyclopedia)
My comment is two fold. I feel honored to have sat at many a deathbed througout my life. I recall several people, one was a priest, who were very religious and holy and believed in God all their life, yet when dying they all of a sudden weren’t sure if God really did exist. I have also been with a dying person who had never believed in God then on his deathbed felt the presence of God and believed he was loved by God so therefore loved God. It was absolutely beautiful to see this friend of mine in such grace. What I am trying to share with you are my experiences of life and that we really don’t know until we are on our own deathbed what will happen. All we can do is pray that we are not alone and that someone will be there who loves us. And that God will be merciful and understand our situation whatever it may be.
As far as an infant that hasn’t been baptized who is near death, from what I understand, they have not developed a “full” soul so to speak. The definition of soul means ‘the thinking principle; that by which we feel, know, will, and by which the body is animated’. I’ve already printed the Catholic definition of soul within another thread under another topic. In essence what I am attempting to present to you is that a dying infant doesn’t have a developed conscience in the ‘knowing and will’ part of their soul so would not be ‘capable of enjoying the Beatific Vision’ unless they were baptised but that is not a requirement of heaven bound souls! Yippee! :clapping:
Peace ~
Isabus
M
maisua
Guest
R
RBushlow
Guest
So, you think you have to accept Christ and repent a long time before you die to get into heaven? Don’t you understand what is implied by being baptized? Are you familiar with the baptismal promises?buffalo:
Not unless you have been baptized Catholic just before you died
Why does a lucky circumstance determine your fate for eternity. That makes no sense at all.
D
dessy
Guest
dgdfgfdg
To my understanding with what u said, ‘he goes to Mass,he is Baptised,Confirmed,A good person, he is free 4rm Mortal sin and he Believes in God’.
With all this, the person in question already has faith Heaven is sure 4 him.
*he has FAITH thats why he goes to mass,baptised,confirm and free 4rm mortal sin,with this his Faith in God is strong in fact he loves GOD.
*Being a Good person to means he is kind,open Hearted,renders help when necessary,with this he LOVES his neibours
PLS lets note something here,He has fulfil the COMMANDMENT which christ sumaried(Love of God and Love of Neibour).
*** Being a Catholic cannot guarranty HEAVEN though we have EASY STEPS,if we don’t life a Good life and obey the Sacrament and Commandment
To my understanding with what u said, ‘he goes to Mass,he is Baptised,Confirmed,A good person, he is free 4rm Mortal sin and he Believes in God’.
With all this, the person in question already has faith Heaven is sure 4 him.
*he has FAITH thats why he goes to mass,baptised,confirm and free 4rm mortal sin,with this his Faith in God is strong in fact he loves GOD.
*Being a Good person to means he is kind,open Hearted,renders help when necessary,with this he LOVES his neibours
PLS lets note something here,He has fulfil the COMMANDMENT which christ sumaried(Love of God and Love of Neibour).
*** Being a Catholic cannot guarranty HEAVEN though we have EASY STEPS,if we don’t life a Good life and obey the Sacrament and Commandment
H
hecd2
Guest
Well that’s all fine, but it simply fudges the issue. (I never mentioned hell, but I did mention the limbus infantium.)
Look, either baptised infants enjoy a different and better eternal fate than do unbaptised infants or they don’t and each option has consequences relevant to this discussion.
If baptised infants who die in infancy enjoy a better eternal fate than unbaptised infants, then there is urgency and good reason to baptise them. In that case, I find the idea perverse and disturbing, in that the doctrine holds that the eternal fate of sentient beings is determined by the accident of place and time of birth and the will of nearby adults, and not at all by the will or virtue of the infant soul.
If on the other hand, the fate of the souls of infants who die young does not depend on whether they are baptiised or not, then there absolutely no urgency to baptise them. That sits comfortably with me, but makes a mockery of the doctrine of Original Sin (itself a grotesque concept).
You can’t have your cake and eat it - the set of beliefs consisting of Original Sin, urgency to baptise infants before death and salvation of unbaptised infants is inconsistent.
Well, that’s fine as long as we are precise about what the consequences of ‘entrusting to the mercy of God’ actually means. If it means salvation of the soul, that’s fine, but that runs counter to the whole notion of Original Sin, and the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, declared, for example, by Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council, Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam and Eugene IV in Cantate Domino. You might say this traditional and Feeneyite interpretation is no longer part of the Church’s teaching, but the meaning of the dogma declared in the bulls and at the Council seem absolutely unambiguous to me.
Of course, if one accepts the idea of salvation for the unbaptised infant and for the adult in a state of invincible ignorance, that would entirely negate the argument for the urgency to baptise infants, and argue AGAINST missions, since educating the ignorant in the faith can only REDUCE their chance of paradise.
The modern Church’s ideas about these matters is a logical dog’s breakfast, whilst the traditional view seems to me to be logically robust but morally perverse.
Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm
H
hecd2
Guest
I am familiar with the promises and make no claim about how long one must accept Christ to be destined for heaven.
However, I can’t believe that infant baptism can have an influence on the eternal fate of a soul that dies to the world in infancy and I also reject the notion that an unbeliever, rich in good works and true care and love for other people can find himself damned for his agnosticism, while another, cruel and evil in life, can be in paradise forever as a consequence of his deathbed confession which arises not from a considered conviction but from mortal confusion and an irrational fear of the afterlife.
Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm
D
davidv
Guest
But, isn’t this exactly the message Jesus gives us in the parable of the workers in the vinyard? The ones hired in the last hour receive the same pay and those who were hired in the first hour. The ones hired in the first hour grumbled because they thought they deserved more, eventhough they received what they contracted for. Our ways are not the Lord’s way.
H
hecd2
Guest
Apparently not.
I am quite content with the heresy of universalism which is supported by this parable (all toilers on erth get the same pay) but somehow, I don’t think that’s what you mean.
Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm
S
Sherlock
Guest
Hecd,
Perhaps the problem is that you are asking for certainty where none exists. The Church does not know, with certainty, that unbaptized infants are guaranteed heaven. The Church DOES know, and thus teach, that baptized infants would be granted the Beatific Vision. Hence the urgency of infant baptism.
Regarding limbo: it is an interesting (and legitimate) theological theory, though it has never been a defined doctrine of the Church. I read an interesting article by Fr. Hugh Barbour that discussed the book, “The Salvific Will of God Towards Infants and Small Children”, by a great modern theologian, Charles Cardinal Journet. Here’s an excerpt from the article that you might find interesting, though I may have to split it into two posts:
"According to Journet, children in limbo share in salvation because of the resurrection of Christ, in which it is absolutely certain they will share. Thus along with the natural happiness which is theirs because of their innocence, they will have gifts of immortality and a happy social life with the rest of the human race, in particular with their parents. The fact that they do not share in the Beatific Vision does not deprive them of other real and necessary elements of human happiness, or the happy association with those that do possess the Beatific Vision. Cardinal Journet says they will know and love Christ as the cause of their resurrection. ----continued—
Perhaps the problem is that you are asking for certainty where none exists. The Church does not know, with certainty, that unbaptized infants are guaranteed heaven. The Church DOES know, and thus teach, that baptized infants would be granted the Beatific Vision. Hence the urgency of infant baptism.
Regarding limbo: it is an interesting (and legitimate) theological theory, though it has never been a defined doctrine of the Church. I read an interesting article by Fr. Hugh Barbour that discussed the book, “The Salvific Will of God Towards Infants and Small Children”, by a great modern theologian, Charles Cardinal Journet. Here’s an excerpt from the article that you might find interesting, though I may have to split it into two posts:
"According to Journet, children in limbo share in salvation because of the resurrection of Christ, in which it is absolutely certain they will share. Thus along with the natural happiness which is theirs because of their innocence, they will have gifts of immortality and a happy social life with the rest of the human race, in particular with their parents. The fact that they do not share in the Beatific Vision does not deprive them of other real and necessary elements of human happiness, or the happy association with those that do possess the Beatific Vision. Cardinal Journet says they will know and love Christ as the cause of their resurrection. ----continued—
S
Sherlock
Guest
—continued—
“Their resurrection will be their share in the salvation won by Christ for the human race of which they are a part. This view has the happy characteristics of being based only on dogmatic certainties: the resurrection of the dead, the necessity of baptism for supernatural life, and of emphasizing that our salvation consists not only in the supernatural Beatific Vision, even though this is its essential aspect, but also in the miraculous restoration of natural life, the survival of our person because of Christ’s triumph over death.”
Again, the Church has not defined this as a doctrine, but it remains an interesting theory.
“Their resurrection will be their share in the salvation won by Christ for the human race of which they are a part. This view has the happy characteristics of being based only on dogmatic certainties: the resurrection of the dead, the necessity of baptism for supernatural life, and of emphasizing that our salvation consists not only in the supernatural Beatific Vision, even though this is its essential aspect, but also in the miraculous restoration of natural life, the survival of our person because of Christ’s triumph over death.”
Again, the Church has not defined this as a doctrine, but it remains an interesting theory.
I
ISABUS
Guest
:tiphat: Where am I supposed to go to? :ehh: Heaven or Paradise? 
newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm
or
newadvent.org/cathen/14519a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm
or
newadvent.org/cathen/14519a.htm
- Status