Does Perfect Charity save the non-Believer?

[DustinsDad]

Beaming back in (cause I just can’t help myself!)

mgrfin;3166854:

All of a sudden, people are adding conditions to perfect charity. Oh, he wasn’t baptised, he didn’t belong to the Catholic Church, etc., etc. Jesus didn’t add conditions to it, neither did St. John.

…Who are these people? The writers of the NT? The Church Fathers? Popes? Church councils?

John 3:5
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 18:17
“If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican”

John 3:18
“He that believeth not is already judged”

Luke 11:23
“He that is not with Me is against Me and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth”

Didn’t you say that he was an atheist? I think you’re contradicting yourself in your definitions. How can an atheist have a perfect love of God?

Good points all. And let’s not forget the infallibly defined dogmas of Holy Mother Church:
Pope Eugenius IV, A.D. 1431-1447, at Council of Florence “It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Cantate Domino, A.D. 1442)
Notice it doesn’t matter what one “does” - if one is outside the bonds of Holy Mother Church (which an athiest is), no action, no matter how good, merits any reward in the world to come - least of all Eternal Life itself.

But it is all moot, because an athiest, as you, I, and most everyone here sees, does not have the gift of perfect charity.

It’s kind of like asking, “if my car was a horse could I put hay in the gas tank to make it run?”

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

Beaming back in (cause I just can’t help myself!)

Good points all. And let’s not forget the infallibly defined dogmas of Holy Mother Church:

[/INDENT]Notice it doesn’t matter what one “does” - if one is outside the bonds of Holy Mother Church (which an athiest is), no action, no matter how good, merits any reward in the world to come - least of all Eternal Life itself.

But it is all moot, because an athiest, as you, I, and most everyone here sees, does not have the gift of perfect charity.

It’s kind of like asking, “if my car was a horse could I put hay in the gas tank to make it run?”

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Okay, then take the Protestant view. All good deeds done before Justification are sinful? Do you accept that?

So, it is the Protestants who are right, that our good samaritan went to hell?

Oh, then you say that all good deeds by unbaptised individuals are ‘natural’ acts?. No! Study Thomas about natural virtues. There is no natural charity. It is a supernatural virtue. It has God as its object.

All good deeds are inspired by actual grace, which our Good God uses to motivate sinners and unbelivers. So God moved him to run into the building to save someone by an Actual Grace. And the process moved on. Or did God fail? God gave him the Actual Grace, and stopped there, and he perished - not only his life, but eternally as well.

You can’t see it? You quote the Council of Orange to say he was outside of the Church. We gave up on Limbo, which existed during the time of the Council of Orange. So what happened to all these unbaptised souls, the children of Catholic parents? They are not in Limbo; so, what, you put them in heaven by saying that their parents substituted Baptism of Desire for them?

Where are you going on this? All the scriptual quotes about charity, (and this is not just a act of kindness), this man sacrificed his life for another. You think the words of Jesus were in vain: No greater love than this a man hath than to lay down his life for a friend?

Find a way to get him into heaven. He did more than the unbaptised dead child. God gave him Actual Grace, (He did not give that to our dead unbaptised child of Catholic parents) and I am sure God gave our good man eternal life as a result of his heroic act.

peace

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Grand,
I believe in Matthew 25, the “Sheep” are those who perform acts of charity and Christ makes no mention of their status of being believers or not.

True it doesn’t say that, but I don’t see any reason to assume that there are unbelievers there. The Bible and the Church clearly teach how to get saved and it is not through doing good works. It goes against many of the dogmas of the Church such as Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, the complete necessity of baptism and the necessity of faith.

Further if you keep making these points then protestant will have a good reason to believe that Catholics preach works salvation.

We are saved by both faith and works. If we have faith but do not act accordingly then our faith is worthless. If we work but are without faith then our works are worthless.

reluctant_saint;3171870:

My Latin is just fine. I know what ‘noxius’ means, and innoxius means. I also know that in this case "numen’, means “will” and does not mean “grace”.

His act of charity saved him through the merits of Jesus Christ.

BTW faith is a gift. Nothing of your own doing.

peace

Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Such person is not baptized so how can he be saved. Further what if he has a state mortal sin? How can this person be saved if he doesn’t do an act of perfect contrition or doesn’t go to Confession? How can he do an act of perfect contrition is he rejects God in the first place?

Sorry, but what you’re saying is a heresy. You need to stop saying that.

mgrfin:

Okay, then take the Protestant view. All good deeds done before Justification are sinful? Do you accept that?

No

So, it is the Protestants who are right, that our good samaritan went to hell?

How can we say?

You can’t see it? You quote the Council of Orange to say he was outside of the Church. We gave up on Limbo, which existed during the time of the Council of Orange. So what happened to all these unbaptised souls, the children of Catholic parents? They are not in Limbo; so, what, you put them in heaven by saying that their parents substituted Baptism of Desire for them?

We never gave up on Limbo and it is still perfectly acceptable to believe in it. All the Church said that it is not dogma and we aren’t bound to accept it. I accept it.
Second, it is a dogma that there is no salvation outside of the Church. It is a dogma that you need to get baptized to go to heaven. It is a dogma that works alone don’t save.

You need to get baptized with water and join that Church to get saved (of course, not only that). Only those truly ignorant can in theory get away with that.

I’ve proved this to you many times and the Councils and Holy Scripture is my witness. If you are rejecting this in favour of your theories then you are rejecting the Church.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

mgrfin, here is my challenge for you. You say that you’re Catholic and believe that what you say is a teaching of the Catholic church. I say that it’s not and that it’s a heresy. I think it’s however fair to give you chance to defence yourself.

Thus here is your space to show us that the Holy Mother Church indeed teaches that:

1. 
   *]a person does not need to be baptized to be saved
   *]that one doesn’t have to join the Church to be saved (excluding the case of Invincible Ignorance)
   *]that faith is not necessary if one has works
   
   I think you have been shown many passages of the Bible, Ecumenical Councils and the Popes to see that you are wrong and that what you say goes against the true faith. If you disagree back up your arguments with an authoritative teachings and not your personal interpretation of few Bible passages.
   
   I’m sorry if I sound blunt but I’m just in hurry and this is very important.
   
   God bless!

 

[DustinsDad]

Okay, then take the Protestant view. All good deeds done before Justification are sinful? Do you accept that?

Never said that - what posts are you reading?

So, it is the Protestants who are right, that our good samaritan went to hell?

Huh?

Oh, then you say that all good deeds by unbaptised individuals are ‘natural’ acts?. No! Study Thomas about natural virtues. There is no natural charity. It is a supernatural virtue. It has God as its object.

Methinks you might need to reexamine your catechism.

All good deeds are inspired by actual grace,

Perhaps. I’d have to think about that.

which our Good God uses to motivate sinners and unbelivers

Yep. Actual grace is from the outside - pushing and nudgeing us. Correct. And primarily, as it relates to salvation, in pushes and nudges us to receive Sanctifying Grace - without which we cannot enter heaven. We ain’t saved without Sanctifying Grace, which is the Divine Life in us.

So God moved him to run into the building to save someone by an Actual Grace. And the process moved on. Or did God fail? God gave him the Actual Grace, and stopped there, and he perished - not only his life, but eternally as well.

Whether God used actual grace to get the athiest to try to save someone is irrelevant as to whether the man was saved or not, what is crucial is did the athiest receive and accept Sanctifying Grace in the process.

You can’t see it? You quote the Council of Orange to say he was outside of the Church.

If he died an athiest, if he died denying and rejecting God, you betcha.

We gave up on Limbo, which existed during the time of the Council of Orange.

Limbo is not defined dogma - it’s just the logical and reasonable conclusion to defined dogma. We are allowed to theologically speculate that God provides some “mysterious” way to save the unbaptized who have not obtained the use of reason, but we are by no means required to do so. I, and many faithful, still hold to limbo.

So what happened to all these unbaptised souls, the children of Catholic parents? They are not in Limbo; so, what, you put them in heaven by saying that their parents substituted Baptism of Desire for them?

I presume they are in limbo.

Where are you going on this? All the scriptual quotes about charity, (and this is not just a act of kindness), this man sacrificed his life for another. You think the words of Jesus were in vain: No greater love than this a man hath than to lay down his life for a friend?

I think Our Lord’s words need to be taken in context with everything else He said. And I don’t think it means that everyone who happens to die trying to rescue someone is instantly saved.

Find a way to get him into heaven.

The Good Lord already told us how to “get to heaven”.

He did more than the unbaptised dead child.

Yes, he would appear to reject all the actual graces God gave Him throughout His life that called him to faith in Christ Our Lord, that faith that without which it is impossible to please God.

The unbaptized infant neither rejects nor accepts God because they have not the use of reason.

God gave him Actual Grace, (He did not give that to our dead unbaptised child of Catholic parents) and I am sure God gave our good man eternal life as a result of his heroic act.

We are not saved on the basis of heroic acts.

Nor are we saved on the basis of actual graces alone, such actual graces must put us in the sitaution where we recieve
and accept the totally unmerited gift of Sanctifying Grace - His Divine Life in us. Oh yeah, and we must die with that Divine Life in us as well.

By grace, through faith, working in love.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin;3172012:

Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Such person is not baptized so how can he be saved. Further what if he has a state mortal sin? How can this person be saved if he doesn’t do an act of perfect contrition or doesn’t go to Confession? How can he do an act of perfect contrition is he rejects God in the first place?

Sorry, but what you’re saying is a heresy. You need to stop saying that.

.

I’d be careful before accusing someone of heresy.

You do believe in baptism of Desire and baptism of Blood. So baptism by water is not the only way. According to you, someone needs a few hours of preparation to get into heaven.

Look at the Good Thief: Jesus said to him: “This day you will be with me in Paradise”. How long did that take to win the reward of heaven.

We are not saved by good works. We merit after justification, (after we receive sanctifying grace).

If you wish to contest my knowledge of Catholic theology regarding Justification, I refer you to my posts on "Catholics are not saved by works, posts #237, 241, 243, 244, 245, and 247.

Works save nobody!!! Read there the process of justification.
The call from God is through actual grace, which this good man received. We know that, cause he wished to perform this good deed. God pulled him in, and then forgot about him??? Please.

And please don’t insult my intellilgence and my knowledge of the Catholic faith.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]

Who said our good man was in the state of mortal sin?

Apparently, you take a juridical understanding of the Gospels.

You’ve missed the point of Jesus’ coming. You didn’t hear his message, or you have ignored it:

“A new commandment I give to you that you love one another. As I have loved you, you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples if you have love for one another.”

Herein is the whole law and the prophets.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

We never gave up on Limbo and it is still perfectly acceptable to believe in it. All the Church said that it is not dogma and we aren’t bound to accept it. I accept it.

Limbo is a creation of an 18th century theologian. He created the concept because he was looking for a solution to the enigma of what happens to unbaptized children and others.

You can believe in this new fangled concept if you want to, but it has basically been discarded by the Church.

"God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He himself is not bound by his sacraments". CCC 1257

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Thus here is your space to show us that the Holy Mother Church indeed teaches that:

1. 
   *]a person does not need to be baptized to be saved
   *]that one doesn’t have to join the Church to be saved (excluding the case of Invincible Ignorance)
   *]that faith is not necessary if one has works
   
   QUOTE]
   
   God is not bound by his sacraments (CCC 1257)
   There is baptism of desire and baptism of blood
   
   Joining the Church takes a few hours. I don’t think the man rushing into a burning building has time for that. Deus supplicet.
   
   Good works does not save anyone. (Council of Trent 6th Sess Canon 1).
   
   peace

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:

The question asked is whether the non-believer, committing an act of perfect love (perfect charity) for his neighbor, can merit heaven.

Not without grace & not without Christ. Of ourselves we cannot merit the least good, & deserve only damnation. As the Church prays​

Merits without Christ are a lie & a blasphemy - one might as well be, & can as soon be, saved without Christ, as merit or be saved without Him. This issue is of the greatest importance.

That amounts to asking is for grace not to be gracious. It’s intolerable from a Lutheran & a Tridentine POV alike.

If one holds that one must specifically know some cognate of the word “Jesus” and “profess a firm belief” (whatever that means in practicality) in Jesus to be “saved” (not ultimately go to hell) then no good deed is worth a whit, and all “non-Jesus-knowing” barbarians are perfectly justified in being as evil and nasty as they can possibly be, as “good deeds” which don’t get them their lustful greedy murderous desires are utterly wasted.

The Church knows that to do a good deed, qua “good deed”, is an intrinsic submission TO Jesus which is the practical equivalent of accepting Jesus as savior.

What is the “sticktoitiveness” of this “profession of faith” such that it will “save” one?

Very little indeed, unless this is the habitual behavior of this “unbeliever”, in which case it is much more likely that such a person will choose God as he knows God (which is as the “principle” behind the motivation to “do good”) at his death.

The problem with the literalistic “formulaic” interpretation of this situation is that it creates precisely what the “non-Catholic” says they hate most, which is that a specific “work” must be performed, and one’s “interior conscience” is of no consideration at all.

In this way they “out evil-Catholic” Catholics by leaps and bounds!

 

[Genesis315]

Per the OP:

No, it would have to be a perfect act of love towards God–which includes contrition for sin and a desire to do all God commands, like loving one’s neighbor.

 

[mgrfin]

DustinsDad:
God’s gift of actual grace to the man is not irrelevant. We all receive actual graces all through our lives. It is how God gives us the opportunity to accept or reject him. How to merit if we are already in the state of grace, how to pull us towards accepting God if we are not.

The whole point of the exercise is that perfect charity of his neighbor, by necessity (per St. Thomas) had to include perfect love of God.

Limbo again. “Deus ex machina”. Please give up on it, the Church has.

The Good Lord told us how to get to heaven: two commandments. This good man fulfilled both of them.

We are saved by having perfect charity in our souls which exists with sanctifying grace.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Per the OP:

No, it would have to be a perfect act of love towards God–which includes contrition for sin and a desire to do all God commands, like loving one’s neighbor.

We can love God without loving our neighbor. We cannot love our neighbor without that including loving God (St. Thomas Aquinas).

Perfect love of our neighbor includes perfect love of God.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

If one holds that one must specifically know some cognate of the word “Jesus” and “profess a firm belief” (whatever that means in practicality) in Jesus to be “saved” (not ultimately go to hell) then no good deed is worth a whit, and all “non-Jesus-knowing” barbarians are perfectly justified in being as evil and nasty as they can possibly be, as “good deeds” which don’t get them their lustful greedy murderous desires are utterly wasted.

The Church knows that to do a good deed, qua “good deed”, is an intrinsic submission TO Jesus which is the practical equivalent of accepting Jesus as savior.

What is the “sticktoitiveness” of this “profession of faith” such that it will “save” one?

Very little indeed, unless this is the habitual behavior of this “unbeliever”, in which case it is much more likely that such a person will choose God as he knows God (which is as the “principle” behind the motivation to “do good”) at his death.

The problem with the literalistic “formulaic” interpretation of this situation is that it creates precisely what the “non-Catholic” says they hate most, which is that a specific “work” must be performed, and one’s “interior conscience” is of no consideration at all.

In this way they “out evil-Catholic” Catholics by leaps and bounds!

I wrote the question to this thread, so I know what I intended.

I clearly know that good works do not bring salvation. We are not saved by good works. We need faith first. We need to be moved by God’s actual grace to move us to faith, to contrition, then to love.

I keep open before me Session 6 of the Council of Trent, and the 33 canons contained therein.

I am fully knowledgeable of Protestant theology on Justification, and fully knowledgeable and accepting of Catholic Theology of Justification.

If anyone is thinking that this man’s good work is saving him, you misunderstand. Actual grace, to faith, to charity to salvation. That is the route.
peace

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I wrote the question to this thread, so I know what I intended.

I clearly know that good works do not bring salvation. We are not saved by good works. We need faith first. We need to be moved by God’s actual grace to move us to faith, to contrition, then to love.

I keep open before me Session 6 of the Council of Trent, and the 33 canons contained therein.

I am fully knowledgeable of Protestant theology on Justification, and fully knowledgeable and accepting of Catholic Theology of Justification.

If anyone is thinking that this man’s good work is saving him, you misunderstand. Actual grace, to faith, to charity to salvation. That is the route.
peace

Not seeing that doing actual good deeds is “faith in Jesus” which is pleasing to God is the “error” that I see in the situation posited.

One CAN be “saved” (finally, at death, which is ONLY where being “SAVED” has any meaning!) without ANY knowledge of Jesus qua Jesus, because doing actual good deeds “evokes” Jesus wherein the doing of the good deed IS an act of worship OF Jesus.

This worship of Jesus does in fact help to establish in this person the habit of worshipping Jesus, which habit will assist one greatly at their end to choose God over themselves.

 

[DustinsDad]

We can love God without loving our neighbor.

Actually, no we can’t…not the One True God anyway. This kind of love you speak of wouldn’t be true supernatural love - it wouldn’t be the true theological virtue of love infused into our being by God in baptism. See the parable of the sheep and the goats.

We cannot love our neighbor without that including loving God (St. Thomas Aquinas).

Of course we can. Athiests normally love their children, their family, etc. On a purly natural level though.
Matthew 7:10-11
Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
Quote please from the Angelic Doctor…

Perfect love of our neighbor includes perfect love of God.

And there is love which is not perfect.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

Not seeing that doing actual good deeds is “faith in Jesus” which is pleasing to God is the “error” that I see in the situation posited.

One CAN be “saved” (finally, at death, which is ONLY where being “SAVED” has any meaning!) without ANY knowledge of Jesus qua Jesus, because doing actual good deeds “evokes” Jesus wherein the doing of the good deed IS an act of worship OF Jesus.

This worship of Jesus does in fact help to establish in this person the habit of worshipping Jesus, which habit will assist one greatly at their end to choose God over themselves.

I don’t compute your response.

“Habit”? The Good Thief on the Cross was not in the habit of anything but thievery. Who knows what the Good Samaritan in the Gospel was in the habit of.

The purpose of the exercise is to thinki outside the box. Think of actual grace, and perfect love of neighbor, and perfect love of God.

Don’t pull out some 18lth century theory of Limbo, which has been thrown out by the Church. Limbo is not part of Tradition. This man goes to heaven or hell. You say, “Go in peace to hell”?

I am ashamed that Catholic Christians would condemn him to hell, after God called him, moved him to Perfection by actual grace. The man discovered the “Pearl of Great Price” and gave everything he had - his dear life - to possess it.

peace

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

You do believe in baptism of Desire and baptism of Blood. So water baptism is not the only way. According to you, someone needs a few hours of preparation to get into heaven.

Yes, I believe in the necessity of baptism. The normal way to administer baptism is water baptism. Baptism of blood and desire are rare cases. Non of them apply to our case.

Look at the Good Thief: Jesus said to him: “This day you will be with me in Paradise”. How long did that take to win the reward of heaven.

This happened before the resurrection. At that time baptism was not a sacrament.

We are not saved by good works. We merit after justification, (after we receive sanctifying grace).

If you wish to contest my knowledge of Catholic theology regarding Justification, I refer you to my posts on "Catholics are not saved by works, posts #237, 241, 243, 244, 245, and 247.

Yet here you say that an atheist is saved by doing good works. He rejects God by rejecting Jesus, His Church, the Sacraments and even the very idea of the existence of God, yet, by the fact that he saves someone’s life, he is saved. I can’t help myself but understand it in any other way than justification by works.

And please don’t insult my intellilgence and my knowledge of the Catholic faith.

I’m not trying insult you but I apologize if I did. I’m only telling you that you are wrong and I hope that this is not an insult. I however give you change to prove how your theory doesn’t contradict Catholic dogma.

Who said our good man was in the state of mortal sin?

Who said he wasn’t? But frankly, I would say he was. The very rejection of God is a mortal sin. And even if we forget that for a second, can a person live his whole life without sinning mortally? Theoretically yes, but this is nearly impossible in practice. Even the greatest Christians happen to step in that direction once in a while. Now, if he is in a mortal sin then he can either go to confession or make an act of perfect contrition, otherwise he can’t be saved. Both possibilities are impossible for him. The first one is obvious and the second one can’t be done by an atheist.

I however said this because your question is whether this person would be saved by doing what he did. This is a yes or no question and you seem to imply the even if he was in a state of mortal sin, his work would somehow cover that.

Apparently, you take a juridical understanding of the Gospels.

There are certain truths that must be accepted by every Catholic and if by “juridical understanding of the Gospels” you mean acceptance of these teachings, then I can see a big problem here.

You’ve missed the point of Jesus’ coming. You didn’t hear his message, or you have ignored it:

I don’t think I did. His message certainly wasn’t: All can be saved.

“A new commandment I give to you that you love one another. As I have loved you, you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples if you have love for one another.”

Does it say that that’s all you need to be saved? No! It says that we must live each other and that way others will know that we follow him. And this goes on the top of other things he said, and that were taught by the Apostles - such as:

John 3:5
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 18:17
“If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican”

John 3:18
“He that believeth not is already judged”

Luke 11:23
“He that is not with Me is against Me and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth”

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

mgrfin:

Limbo is a creation of an 18th century theologian. He created the concept because he was looking for a solution to the enigma of what happens to unbaptized children and others.

This is not true. Even St. Augustine spoke about it as early as in the 5th century. He said that due to Original Sin “infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all.” Of course his idea was very simple and it became more developed in middle ages.

You can believe in this new fangled concept if you want to, but it has basically been discarded by the Church.

“God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He himself is not bound by his sacraments”. CCC 1257

No, it wasn’t discarded. There was no ruling by the Magisterium on Limbo.

And the quote is completely correct, there is however nothing in the slightest that suggests that infants get judged by a different system then the rest of us. All we know that baptism is necessary for salvation. If I jump from a bridge then God could just call for an angel to stop me before falling. But there is nothing to suggest that so I don’t see a reason to hold that. Sure it could happen, but that’s far as I can logically get. But lets leave Limbo to another discussion.

God is not bound by his sacraments (CCC 1257)
There is baptism of desire and baptism of blood

I don’t deny that.

Joining the Church takes a few hours. I don’t think the man rushing into a burning building has time for that. Deus supplicet.

This man can be saved during his LAST SECOND through the baptism of desire.
“The baptism of desire is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire of baptism.” (source)

This man you described above is an atheist and as such he will not get saved because the above can’t be applied to him.

Good works does not save anyone. (Council of Trent 6th Sess Canon 1).

And jumping into a fire to save a child does?

The whole point of the exercise is that perfect charity of his neighbor, by necessity (per St. Thomas) had to include perfect love of God.

Which however doesn’t apply to an atheist!

God bless!

By the way, I completely agree with DustinsDad!

 

[mgrfin]

No, it wasn’t discarded. There was no ruling by the Magisterium on Limbo.

Yes, there was a ruling of the Magisterium on this matter:

Here is the link:

ww.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Included in that statement is that God desires the salvation of all men.

Included in that statement is that we don’t have all the answers yet. The Church will not teach that these unbaptised infants go to hell. And Limbo is not the solution.

Same with my firemen. He is not saved by good works. He merited it after accepting the Actual Grace to run in to save another. To say that God held back additional graces is not proven. He merited heaven by virtue of his perfect love. Charity infused into his soul - in other words that premiere virtue which comes with sanctifying grace. He loved his neigbor perfectly, and so loved God perfectly. This was not a good work, like some kindness. When I say a perfect act of contrition it is that because of the motivation - perfect love of God. It removes my sins before absolution. Perfect charity then flows into my soul with sanctifying grace, with alivened faith and hope, and all the virtues.

Accept the fact that I understand and value completely Catholic Justification.

You have not stated to me that this man goes to hell, when we know God desires the salvation of all. Accorfding to you, he cannot be saved.

As for Scripture: the New Testament and the Epistles speak overwhelmingly of the need for love of neighbor. There is not enough room for me to quote to you verses on charity. Some of your verses are non-revelant. You lump perfect charity into a kindness I might do to my neighbor. The man paid a price, the perfect price: his own life to save the life of another.’

BTW, that link will not say that the Church teaches that those unbaptized infants go to hell. Theologians are free to work on a solution, but Limbo is not it, neither is saying they go to hell the solution. Limbo is gone; give us something else.

An athesist can’t have perfect love? Pure nonsense. Talk about your heresies…A sinner can have perfect contrition; so can an atheist. That I am saying this perfect contrition, are you saying I am saying I am saved by good works? That there is no process of grace going on here. Of course there is.

We don’t have a democracy here. I disagree with DD - so what?
peace