How does one go to Heaven, Purgatory or Hell DIRECTLY IMMEDIATELY upon death? (Afterlife discussion)

[PLAT]

At this rate this discussion is going nowhere. Let’s revise some definitions:

I can see how this discussion has gone into almost solely on the issue of infants. While it seems fruitful, please bear in mind there are non-infants that has do not know Jesus’ love.

Do we refer hell as the place of eternal damnation? I thought hell means so until someone came up with the idea of limbo.

A note to Gregory: I fail to see your point. Please state your thesis concisely and use concise evidence to back up. I don’t see how the argument works if you just spam half a page with quotes without explaining how they back the argument up.

 

[Gregory_I]

I have done that PLAT!. It’s not spamming, it’s called too lazy to rtead.

Here:

Limbo is THeory. It is speculation.

THe dogma which it is built on (All those who die in original sin alone go to hell, but are punished differently than those who die in mortal sin)

i.e. unbaptized infants do not have the beatific vision. THis is not Limbo. THis is the last dogma you can say before you start getting into the Limbo speculation.

Not only that dogma though:

Trent:
4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, **even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ** (Context is Children, hence children who are unbaptized do not have the vision of God, infallible)

1. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be [Page 23] saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

I find nobody wants to admit this doctrine, because nobody believes in original sin as defined by the church.

Limbo is speculation: It’s foundation, is not.

 

[rinnie]

At this rate this discussion is going nowhere. Let’s revise some definitions:

I can see how this discussion has gone into almost solely on the issue of infants. While it seems fruitful, please bear in mind there are non-infants that has do not know Jesus’ love.

Do we refer hell as the place of eternal damnation? I thought hell means so until someone came up with the idea of limbo.

A note to Gregory: I fail to see your point. Please state your thesis concisely and use concise evidence to back up. I don’t see how the argument works if you just spam half a page with quotes without explaining how they back the argument up.

From what I have learned from the teaching’s of the Church, Yes hell is total separation from God. Total rejection of God.

Now as we have showed you there is a big difference between knowing the teaching’s of Jesus and rejecting them.

But the definition is total separation from God, its kind of like you understand him, you know or knew his commandments by chose sin over him and knew exactly where you were puttipng you soul. We call this mortal sin, putting yourself in mortal danger, and are well aware of the consequences.

So to make this short if you die and are not deemed worthy of heaven or purgatory, you will go to hell, and it is the point of no return. But remember you made your choice, and it was clearly to reject God.

 

[rinnie]

I have done that PLAT!. It’s not spamming, it’s called too lazy to rtead.

Here:

Limbo is THeory. It is speculation.

THe dogma which it is built on (All those who die in original sin alone go to hell, but are punished differently than those who die in mortal sin)

i.e. unbaptized infants do not have the beatific vision. THis is not Limbo. THis is the last dogma you can say before you start getting into the Limbo speculation.

Not only that dogma though:

Trent:
4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, **even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ** (Context is Children, hence children who are unbaptized do not have the vision of God, infallible)

1. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be [Page 23] saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

I find nobody wants to admit this doctrine, because nobody believes in original sin as defined by the church.

Limbo is speculation: It’s foundation, is not.

See Gregory, Please forgive my ignorance, but I am having a hard time seeing what you are saying.

I was taught that if you die in any kind of sin you are not going to heaven. Now I agree that venial sin can be confessed w/o a priest, but if we are in mortal sin we must get going as soon as possible.

But I was taught that even if you had venial sin, and remember being in sin is refusing to repent that sin, even if venial and you refuse to repent and ask for Gods forgiveness you cannot enter heaven. That is where even venial sin can become mortal sin.

So I am a little confused here also with what you are saying.

Venial sin is sin that we still do ourself. Gregory could you possibly be getting venial sin confused with original sin?

 

[angelic06]

“even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

This affirms what the Church teaches regarding the need for the Church to baptize infants, and that we must adhere to the Lord’s demand, but it does not say that God Himself cannot find a way for those whom the Church neglected to obey this command. Do you see the difference between God in His ineffable Majesty and the Church, who carries out His decrees and who, by necessity, must teach the necessity of baptism without denying God’s mercy?

It is like a person who commits a crime—the law states that they must be punished and a jury must sentence the person to said punishment, but the sovereign can grant pardon to an individual.

It is the inherent nature of God that He is not bound by Himself, otherwise He would not be God (this is stated plainly in the paragraph of the CCC, as authorized by the Magisterium of the Holy Church, I referenced above, so that no one, Catholic or non-Catholic can deny the Church’s position on God’s sovereignty), just as it is the inherent nature of science to look for natural causes, while scientists of faith do not deny the possibility of miracles. In like fashion, God has bound us to the sacraments, without denying Himself the power to release from the rules in individual cases. The Church does it too, it’s called an indult. And if the Church can release from its own rules, shall we deny God that power to release from laws regarding the salvation of one’s soul?

And yes, I do believe in original sin. I entrust the interpretation of its teaching, however, to the Magisterium of the Holy Church, which previously was under the headship of HH Pope John Paul II of blessed memory (and under whose authorization the CCC was promulgated) and is now under the headship of HH Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[angelic06]

From the CCC:

“This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which must take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to Catholic doctrine.”

But we should note that the catechisms must agree with each other on the essentials of faith, otherwise, the Holy Spirit is a liar, and we shall know assuredly that our faith has been in vain.

This conversation is fruitless. I am checking out of it. Have a blessed day.

 

[angelic06]

…

This is not to deny it’s exitence; but rather acknowledges that now that Jesus has **Redeemed Humaity **[a term that means made available access under certain prescribed cinditions to heaven, which had been LOCKED from the Sins of Adam and Eve, that Limbo has FAR less use. ***Some hold none as they beleive that the unbaptized
children are THROUGH God’s Mercy **

and the desire of others for there salvation, that a Baptism of Desire, perhaps even a Baptism of Bloood exist.

Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, Pat!

It is not that we know assuredly that God will save through His infinite mercy; it is just that we do not know that He most assuredly will not. It is in this lacuna that we have reason for hope, not absolute assurance.

 

[angelic06]

You are both completely ignoring the point. I acknowledge the Catechism of the Catholic church, I am not a cafeteria Catholic. But the teaching I choose to believe on this issue has more than 1500 years of theological thought and backup.

THese new opinions we can hold (not teachings) are only 40 years old!

Limbo is part of the constant teaching of the church, and it is based on dogmas that some people who call themselves Catholics, but apparently are not, refuse to acknowledge, thus endangering their salvation.

I have read the encyclical put out on unbaptized infants, and it’s pretty conclusive: It starts out saying we don’t know, you can believe in limbo, and it ends that way. It doesn’t clarify anything, it begins in agnosia and ends in it!

I would rather base my opinions on the dogmas of the faith than on sentimentalism, because our feelings change, but the word of the Lord (That which has been revealed to be true) remains forever.

DO you acknowledge the dogmas of trent and Lyons II ? You must confess them to be Catholic. “He who sins against one part of the law shall be guilty of all.”

---

ANd I acknowledge the Catechism of 1993, but I interpret it in the light of past decrees and in as traditional manner as possible. WHy would anyone do less? THis not the church of a revolution that chucked everything out the window***:

As Tevya says:

TRADITION! (in accordance wit the past and current magisterium)

The teaching Church, not the faithful, interprets its own magisterial documents. The modern church has not “chucked everything out the window”. Consequently, the teachings of the 1993 or so years before the modern catechism are not thrown out; instead, the Magisterium has clarified what it has stated previously by its own authority of divine right.

 

[angelic06]

God can do whatever he wants. I do not claim to have any knowledge of those outside the church beyond what the church herself claims.

Then we are in agreement.

And the Church, under Pope John Paul of blessed memory, has made such a claim. It is, at least with regard to young unbaptized children: we do not know. Period.

 

[Gregory_I]

All new interpretations of doctrine, or expressions, must be understoof through the eyes of the past. It’s what being Catholic is all about.

Now, this is dogma: ALl those who die in original sin alone descend to hell and are punished , but differently than those who die in mortal sin.

Babies who die unbaptized die in original sin alone.

Therefore…

This is not my take on dogma, this is the actual dogmatic language, which is not subject to reinterpretation. Dogma is IRREFORMABLE.

Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge this?

 

[PLAT]

All new interpretations of doctrine, or expressions, must be understoof through the eyes of the past. It’s what being Catholic is all about.

Now, this is dogma: ALl those who die in original sin alone descend to hell and are punished , but differently than those who die in mortal sin.

Babies who die unbaptized die in original sin alone.

Therefore…

This is not my take on dogma, this is the actual dogmatic language, which is not subject to reinterpretation. Dogma is IRREFORMABLE.

Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge this?

Now this is easier to read.

Since people going to hell will suffer from eternal damnation … whether in one form or the other, it still means they cannot reach God (and heaven), doesn’t it? My question, therefore, is What do you mean by being punished differently?
Is your definition of hell eternal seperation from God?

Side note: Yeah I may be a little bit lazy at reading posts, but I have encounter virtually no problems in understanding points made by others. We all have different backgrounds, jobs, physical/psychological/spiritual maturity levels, languages (still of course this forum uses English), etc. so it would be good if we are able to read some comprehensible passages instead of (over?)scholarly language. My main intention is to understand what all of us are talking about.

 

[rinnie]

"An apostolic constitution (Latin constitutio apostolica) is the highest level of decree issued by the Pope. The use of the term constitution comes from Latin constitutio, which referred to any important law issued by the Roman emperor, and is retained in church documents because of the inheritance that the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church received from Roman law.

By their nature, apostolic constitutions are addressed to the public. Generic constitutions use the title Apostolic Constitution, and treat on solemn matters of the church, such as the promulgation of statutes or definitive teachings. The forms Dogmatic Constitution and Pastoral Constitution are titles sometimes used to be more descriptive as to the document’s purpose.

Apostolic Constitutions are issued as Papal bulls due to their solemn, public form. The next highest category, after an Apostolic Constitution, is an Encyclical Letter."

Here is how this Apostolic Constitution “Effraenatam”, opens:

"Against those that procure abortions, or give sterility potions, or take them, or help these people, or give them counsel and consent.

SIXTUS V BISHOP

Servant of the Servants of God

For the perpetual memory of the matter.

Noticing that frequently by various Apostolic Constitutions the audacity and daring of most profligate men, who know no restraint, of sinning with license against the commandment “do not kill” was repressed; We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. ***Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? Who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety of him who will exclude a soul created in the image of God and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ has shed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and is destined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God, and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions, and has taken away the service to God by His creature? ***who has deprived children of life before they could naturally see light or could be protected by maternal body from ferocious cruelty? Who will not abhor the cruelty and unrestrained debauchery of impious men who have arrived into such a state of mind that they procure poisons in order to extinguish the conceived fetuses within the viscera, and pour them out, trying to provoke by a nefarious crime a violent and untimely death and killing of their progeny."

Please do not say that I teach untruth when the Pope here solemnly teaches with the highest level of decree besides ex cathedra, that the opposite is True. That unbaptized infants do not have the beatific vision.

Pope Sixtus V Clearly teaches that unbaptized children do not have the vision of God: And if it is taught by the pope, it is part of the authentic and ordinary magisterium, meaning it is taught by the church.

Gregory, I can see that you are getting very upset here. Why don’t you do this. Talk to your Priest and let him explain this to you.

We have tried to explain to you many times, many ways that there are many ways to be baptised. The Pope did not condemn these Children to hell now did he. He just said that babys that are not baptised cannot enter heaven, anyone who is not baptised cannot enter heaven. That is what Jesus said that all that we all must be Baptised in order to enter heaven.

But as I told you earlier as time goes on our understanding of the faith increases also. Now where did the Pope ever say that an unbaptised baby or anyone for that sake could enter heaven? He didn’t. We are not saying he did, or arguing that point.

We Keep trying to show you and tell you in many many different ways. while Baptism is necessary for eternal life in Christ, which we all agree on here, We BELEIVE and are told from the CHURCH that there are many ways of Baptism.

And while we would never say DON"T Baptise anyone or a baby as soon as possible there are many ways of Baptism, And Baptism of desire is a possibllity and according to the CCC is acceptable. And we CAN rely on God’s Mercy.

But you continue to ignore that teaching, and are set on One Popes teaching against another. Do you not agree with me here,

The Pope of today said that while we know that Baptism is necessary for eternal life, he believes that we can rely on Gods mercy if we did not have an ordinary Baptism in this world. So what he is saying what is impossible for us is not impossible for God and we can rely on his mercy to Baptise this Child which is called extra-ordinary circumstances.

But he also said while he cannot guarantee it, it is possible, now with this possiblilty he is saying a it is not wrong to believe that a Child in this world that we personally did not baptise ordianary means, can still be in heaven with God. That is what the teaching is. We go by the ordinary teachings of the POPE today.

You must show us dogma of the faith that says if a Child is not baptised in ordinary means they are condemned to hell forever and under no circumstances will not enter heaven. You can’t because it does not exist. Do you see what I am saying now, and why everything you are posting is quite meaningless to todays teaching?

The postings you keep finding have never stated that there is only ONE form of Baptism now does it. If so please show us.

 

[Gregory_I]

“THose who die in mortal sin, or original sin alone, descend to hell where they ste punished but with different punishements.”

Pope Eugene iv. De Fide.

Give me a real world scenario where this dogma plays out exactly as it is stated:

i.e. Who dies in original sin alone?

 

[rinnie]

“THose who die in mortal sin, or original sin alone, descend to hell where they ste punished but with different punishements.”

Pope Eugene iv. De Fide.

Give me a real world scenario where this dogma plays out exactly as it is stated:

i.e. Who dies in original sin alone?

A baby who would die before it was baptised would die in original sin alone. Simply because original sin is a sin that was passed onto us by the sins of Adam and Eve.

A person who dies in Mortal sin goes to hell and that is that. There is no level of punishment when you are damned to hell. Hell is total separation from our Lord. That is one punishment period. There are no level to it, You are either separated from him or you are not.

Mortal sin is actually hell on earth because with Mortal sin until you confess your sins and are given absolution you are in your own hell. but of this world. That is why we have the sacraments to save us through the Church. Mortal sin means you have fell from God’s Grace.

Venial sin means that while you are totally from the Grace of God, you are not perfectly united to him like you need to be,

There is a big difference between original sin, mortal sin, and venial sin.

If you die in Mortal Sin that means by your own fault you reject Christ and refuse to repent. It is by your own choice that you reject him, so you chose evil over Christ it is pretty simple. You means you are deprived of any kind of grace and total exclusion from Gods kingdom and eternal death of hell.

Original sin as I stated is the stain that we have on us because of Adam and Eve, it was by no fault of our own that it was given.

Venial sin is probally what we are mostly all in at this moment, it weakens our charity. When we are in venial sin it is harder to progress in Gods grace. But it does not break our covenant with God, it does not deprive us from sanctifying grace.

Hope that helps.

 

[Robert_Burns]

I did not say that purgatory did not exist or was not Catholic teaching, I said that I think purgatory of today was kind of like a replacement of Limbo in the O.T. A holding place for souls who were ready to enter heaven.

Purgatory is a place that we go to when we are deemed for heaven but have to be purged from certain things.

Limbo was a place where souls were held until they could be released for heaven. I see quite a common demonator there.

My point is there are 3 places that exist heaven hell and purgatory. Limbo was always taught as being a middle place and I believe the purgatory replaced it.

Thats not corrrect. Purgatory and Limbo are two separate things.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Limbo is a part of hell, it is the outskirts.

Limus= Edge, the edge of hell.

That is not correct. Even though many Saints have opined on the proximity , No one has stated that the Souls in Limbo are suffering like the Souls in Purgatory and in Hell - thats the distinction. Can you likewise provide a quote from a Saint that says the Souls in Limbo are suffering? Or are they merely deprived of the Beatific Vision?

 

[Gregory_I]

A baby who would die before it was baptised would die in original sin alone. Simply because original sin is a sin that was passed onto us by the sins of Adam and Eve.

Correct. But I can’t help but notice your silence on the fact that the infant would descend to hell to be punished with one of these “different punishments.” THis is also part of the dogma.

A person who dies in Mortal sin goes to hell and that is that. There is no level of punishment when you are damned to hell. Hell is total separation from our Lord. That is one punishment period. There are no level to it, You are either separated from him or you are not.

That is not the only punishment, there is the pain of separation, also known as the pain of loss, and there is the pain of the actual torment of hellfire. 2 different things.

Mortal sin is actually hell on earth because with Mortal sin until you confess your sins and are given absolution you are in your own hell. but of this world. That is why we have the sacraments to save us through the Church. Mortal sin means you have fell from God’s Grace.

I know you know this, but there is a big difference between the guilt of having sinned, and the pain of hell. Like huge.

Venial sin means that while you are totally from the Grace of God, you are not perfectly united to him like you need to be,

Where did venial sin come from? That wasn’t relevant.

There is a big difference between original sin, mortal sin, and venial sin.

Yes, but Mortal sin and original sin share a common fate: Alienation from the vision of God.

If you die in Mortal Sin that means by your own fault you reject Christ and refuse to repent. It is by your own choice that you reject him, so you chose evil over Christ it is pretty simple. You means you are deprived of any kind of grace and total exclusion from Gods kingdom and eternal death of hell.

That’s not all, you can commit mortal sin in ignorance, if you sin against your conscience. The invincibley ignorant are just as prone to mortal sin as any of us.

Original sin as I stated is the stain that we have on us because of Adam and Eve, it was by no fault of our own that it was given.

**The dogmas on original sin teach that we contract not only the effects of Adam’s sin, but the actual GUILT of the sin, and the sin itself is in us as though it were our own fault.

Session 5 canon 3 council of Trent.**3.
If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema:

Venial sin is probally what we are mostly all in at this moment, it weakens our charity. When we are in venial sin it is harder to progress in Gods grace. But it does not break our covenant with God, it does not deprive us from sanctifying grace.

Hope that helps.

But, what is the fate of those who die in original sin alone according to the dogma? What happens to them> What does the dogma say? And who are these people that die in original sin alone? A Dogma is not given as hypothetical, but ACTUAL and REAL. So, what is the actual and real fate of those who die in original sin alone?

 

[PLAT]

So, Gregory, what you are saying is that there are different levels of punishment outside of heaven and purgatory.

Explain to me why it matters when hell is total seperation from God. How does it even matter if the person cannot get to heaven in any way?

 

[Gregory_I]

THere is more than one type of Punishment for sin According to Pope Innocent III.

Original SIn deprives of the beatific Vision.

Actual MOrtal SIn deprives of the beatific vision and also renders one subject to to hellfire. Blame the Pope, not me.

The Reason it matters is because HHell is not simply arbitrary punishment, but the JUST Punishment due to our sins.

We do not all sin in the same way, so we do not all suffer the same way.

Those Who die in original sin alone need not suffer any pain but the pain of loss: Which pain is certainly the most mild of torments, sparing them hellfire. See the Goodness and Mercy of the Just and Sovereign God. SO, WHile Limbo is speculation on the one hand, their being denied the beatific vision is dogma on the other.

Also, salvation consists of just more than reliance on OGd mercifully remitting sins for Christ’s sake:

Trent Session 6:
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

Confidence in God’s Mercy is not enough for a person to be justified. You need Faith, Charity, The Sacraments, and Good works: None of Which an infant can offer. Arguments from silence are straw houses.

 

[Gregory_I]

Here are moe quotes from Popes and Augustine…

“If you want to be a Catholic do no believe, do no say, **and do not teach **that infants carried off by death before they are baptized can attain the remission of original sin.”
-Saint Augustine, Father, Doctor, and Bishop of the Church, On the Soul and its Origin Book II

“The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life without even the grace of baptism is utterly foolish.”
-Pope Saint Innocent I, Letter to the Bishops of the Church, 417 AD

“[Those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer] no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, **except the pain **of being deprived forever of the vision of God.”
-Pope Innocent III (1160-1216),

“If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism;** for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open…”**-Pope Pius XII, October 29 1951, Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives

In the 5th Century, Pope St.Zosimus accepted the council of Carthage as his own and proclaimed it to the whole Church, with canonical punishment if his teaching (not discipline) was not followed, thus making it infallible. The Council of Ephesus continues by quoting the document:

" ’ We[Zosimus], however, by the inspiration of God…have referred all things to that of our brothers and co-bishops.’ " This is the beginning of his “Tractoria” and it tells us ALL things are referred to African bishops and which was the Council of Carthage received this great praise:

"Furthermore that which was determined in the decrees of the synod of Cathage, [418 AD] we have embraced as the Apostolic See’s own…" (Ephesus; Denzinger 136)

and The council of Ephesus says that :
“But although we do not dare to esteem lightly the deeper and more difficult parts of the questions which they [Augustine and Zosimus] have treated in more detail who have restrained the heretics, we do not consider it necessary to add what their writings, according to the aforementioned regulation of the Apostolic See, have taught us…”(Ephesus; Denzinger 142)

So What is so important that was written in the 16th Council of Carthage? Here it is:

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my father’s house there are many mansions”(JN14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left” (Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)

This quote was always understood to be Zosimus’ own, although it is from the 16th local council of Cathage, but as seen above how Ephesus confirms he called Carthage the Holy See’s own: “Furthermore that which was determined in the decrees of the synod of Cathage, [418 AD] we have embraced as the Apostolic See’s own…” (Ephesus; Denzinger 136).

Pope St. Zosimus Published and condemned those opposed to Carthage, clearly an infallible decree.

Is that enough yet?