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

[Batfink]

Or as a martyr, which is the way I hope to end this life.

Are you serious? I mean, I hope and pray that I would have the courage to die for the faith if necessary, but if it comes to what I would prefer, it would definitely be a peaceful, painless death at an advanced age; to actually hope for martyrdom seems, um, bizarre…

Anyway, what I was actually going to ask (probably having unitentionally antagonised you by now, I really don’t mean to offend you I just wonder about actively preferring martyrdom) was what reason do you have for thinking that matyrdom guarantees one wouldn’t go to Purgatory? I agree that it would seem less likely, since you would be unlikely to die unprepared and unrepentant, and one would presume (without wishing to presume on God in his infinite mercy and wisdom) that the form of death in itself would be some of the temporal punishment due for previous sins, but neverthless I don’t see how martyrdom or any other form of witness could guarantee being able to bypass Purgatory.Could you explain a bit further, please?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I am sure that I will get the answer to this question here, it must be a part of basic catechism that I missed from childhood.

When we say in the Creed,

“We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

Who are these dead who will be resurrected? If death means “absent from the body, present with the Lord,” then obviously WE are not waiting for resurrection. Some cults believe that we go to “sleep” after death, in a “holding pattern,” waiting for Jesus’ return. We Catholics don’t believe that, right?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Are you serious? I mean, I hope and pray that I would have the courage to die for the faith if necessary, but if it comes to what I would prefer, it would definitely be a peaceful, painless death at an advanced age; to actually hope for martyrdom seems, um, bizarre…

You ought to read the lives of the Saints. If you do, you see those who actually chose martyrdom rather than being allowed to escape in peace. St. Theresa of Avila actually intended to go, along with her cousin, to a place where she would be martyred by the Muslims. She later reflected that this was presumptuous on here part, but nevertheless, it shows her desire to die for the faith. I’m certainly not placing myself in the same category of these saints. My point is that desiring to die as a martyr is not at all bizarre.

Anyway, what I was actually going to ask (probably having unitentionally antagonised you by now, I really don’t mean to offend you I just wonder about actively preferring martyrdom) was what reason do you have for thinking that matyrdom guarantees one wouldn’t go to Purgatory? I agree that it would seem less likely, since you would be unlikely to die unprepared and unrepentant, and one would presume (without wishing to presume on God in his infinite mercy and wisdom) that the form of death in itself would be some of the temporal punishment due for previous sins, but neverthless I don’t see how martyrdom or any other form of witness could guarantee being able to bypass Purgatory.Could you explain a bit further, please?

The Church has always taught that the one who dies as a martyr goes straight to heaven. A perfect act of love for God can remove, not only the eternal guilt of sin, but also temporal punishment due to the sin. When someone dies for the faith, it has the same effect. When all temporal punishment for sin is satisfied, the person goes straight to heaven.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I am sure that I will get the answer to this question here, it must be a part of basic catechism that I missed from childhood.

When we say in the Creed,

“We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

Who are these dead who will be resurrected? If death means “absent from the body, present with the Lord,” then obviously WE are not waiting for resurrection. Some cults believe that we go to “sleep” after death, in a “holding pattern,” waiting for Jesus’ return. We Catholics don’t believe that, right?

What is resurrected is the body. The soul remains “alive” and alert the whole time. It is either in heaven, hell, or purgatory, but it is aware of what is happening. At the resurrection of the body, the body and soul are reuniated. In fact, the Creed has always been translated as “resurrection of the body”, not resurrection of the dead.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

What is resurrected is the body. The soul remains “alive” and alert the whole time. It is either in heaven, hell, or purgatory, but it is aware of what is happening. At the resurrection of the body, the body and soul are reuniated. In fact, the Creed has always been translated as “resurrection of the body”, not resurrection of the dead.

Okay, so that is why we were not supposed to be cremated at death, right? So we could be resurrected whole and not in pieces or from ashes? I have to admit that I am conflicted about cremation. The economy of it appeals to me but I worry if I am to have a body again after that resurrection, and my body can’t be reconstructed, what will happen?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Okay, so that is why we were not supposed to be cremated at death, right? So we could be resurrected whole and not in pieces or from ashes?

Sort of. Here’s an article from the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia that deals at length with the subject.

 

[StTommyMore]

Not to derail the thread, but Limbo is much more than merely theological speculation. The teaching goes back to the Fathers, is taught explicitly in Catechisms, and is based on infallible dogmas.

One of the infallible dogmas is found in the Council of Lyons, and is repeated at the Council of Florence. The dogma in question teaches that those who die in a state of original sin only go to “hell”, but their punishment differs from those who die having committed actual sins.

Limbo is the location in “hell” where these souls go. The only question that needs clarification with respect to what we call “Limbo” is whether or not the soul who go there experience any pain of sense. There are two opinions on this point. One is that of St. Augustine, and was also taught by St. Robert Ballarmine. The other is the more common opinion and can be found explained in detail in the Summa of St. Thomas.

St. Augustine believed that the souls who die in original sin only do experience some pain of sense. The more common opinion (that which is found in the Catechisms) is that they do not experience any pain of sense, but only the “pain of loss” (the loss of the vision of God).

To say that Limbo is merely is theologial speculation (as many today mistakenly do) is very misleading. It is a doctrine that has been taught since the earliest years and is found xplicitly in Catechisms. The following is an article by Fr. Harrison on this subject which provides some of the magisterial teachings on this subject. Could Limbo Be Abolished

It is merely theological speculation…nothing more, nothing less.

 

[CradleCath]

Everyone who goes to Purgatory eventually goes to Heaven. Purgatory is for the “saved” who are not yet perfect.

Yes, it’s a place/experience used to PURGE us of the “uncleaness” caused by our sins, (even those forgiven sins leave some damage within us) thus the word Purgatory. Nothing imperfect can enter heaven.

 

[Robert_Burns]

When I die, if I find myself in Purgatory I will be happy because it means I am saved, no matter how long the puification process takes.
The cleansing fires of Puragtory are totally unlike the fires of punishment in Hell.

Almost everyone will go through Purgatory. The only sure way to avoid Purgatory is to die immediately after baptism.

Robert: Actually - St Thomas Aquinas likens the fires of Purgatory to the fires of Hell as well as the proximity - the only difference being its length of punishment.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

It is merely theological speculation…nothing more, nothing less.

Limbo is based on infallible teachings of the Church – dogmas that will almost always be rejected when the person does not accept Limbo.

In our day when the faith is weak and sentimentality is strong; when the doctrine of original sin is undermined even from within the Church; when the error of the Modernists, which claims for man a “right” to heaven is spread through the Church like a cancer, the rejection of Limbo will almost always result in the reject of infallible dogmas.

For example, ask a person who rejects Limbo if they believe that an innocent baby, who has never offended God, yet who dies before receiving baptism will go straight to hell (which is a dogma), and I can almost guarantee that they will say no. Their rejection of Limbo will almost always lead their to reject of dogmas that cannot even be* doubted*.

The Council of Florence: “[T]he souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains”. source

When confronted with this Dogma, the one who denies Limbo will be forced to conclude that the innocent baby who dies in original sin only, go straightway to the eternal fires of hell along with the damned; or else they will have will have to reject an infallible dogma of the faith.

If they believe in Limbo, as taught in various Catechisms, they will know that the innocent baby does not go to the fires of hell, but instead to a place of natural happiness, similar to the Garden of Eden prior to the fall. This belief is not hard to accept, even for the overly sentimental, and therefore will not result in their denial of Catholic Dogma.

In addition, they will be holding to a doctrine (Limbo) that has been taught from the very earliest years of Christianity.

 

[StTommyMore]

Limbo is based on infallible teachings of the Church – dogmas that will almost always be rejected when the person does not accept Limbo.

In our day when the faith is weak and sentimentality is strong; when the doctrine of original sin is undermined even from within the Church; when the error of the Modernists, which claims for man a “right” to heaven is spread through the Church like a cancer, the rejection of Limbo will almost always result in the reject of infallible dogmas.

For example, ask a person who rejects Limbo if they believe that an innocent baby, who has never offended God, yet who dies before receiving baptism will go straight to hell (which is a dogma), and I can almost guarantee that they will say no. Their rejection of Limbo will almost always lead their to reject of dogmas that cannot even be* doubted*.

The Council of Florence: “[T]he souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains”. source

When confronted with this Dogma, the one who denies Limbo will be forced to conclude that the innocent baby who dies in original sin only, go straightway to the eternal fires of hell along with the damned; or else they will have will have to reject an infallible dogma of the faith.

If they believe in Limbo, as taught in various Catechisms, they will know that the innocent baby does not go to the fires of hell, but instead to a place of natural happiness, similar to the Garden of Eden prior to the fall. This belief is not hard to accept, even for the overly sentimental, and therefore will not result in their denial of Catholic Dogma.

In addition, they will be holding to a doctrine (Limbo) that has been taught from the very earliest years of Christianity.

Oh there it is the “M word” bandied about by traditionalists when someone disagrees. Limbo has never been taught as an infallible or irreformable doctrine. EVER. Shall we move on, agreeing to disagree?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Oh there it is the “M word” bandied about by traditionalists when someone disagrees. Limbo has never been taught as an infallible or irreformable doctrine. EVER. Shall we move on, agreeing to disagree?

I’ll move on if you would like, but I think my previous post makes some valid points that should be considered. As a test, try asking some Catholics who deny Limbo if they accept the teaching of the Council of Florence. Ask them if they believe that a innocent baby who dies without baptism goes to hell. After their eyes return to from to normal size, listen to their reply and see if it doesn’t confirm what I wrote.

 

[StTommyMore]

I’ll move on if you would like, but I think my previous post makes some valid points that should be considered. As a test, try asking some Catholics who deny Limbo if they accept the teaching of the Council of Florence. Ask them if they believe that a innocent baby who dies without baptism goes to hell. After their eyes return to from to normal size, listen to their reply and see if it doesn’t confirm what I wrote.

You, sir, hold no Magistgerial office. Until you produce a magistgerial document that explicitly defines Limbo, I will hold to my belief that it is merely theological speculation, as I have been taught.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

You, sir, hold no Magistgerial office. Until you produce a magistgerial document that explicitly defines Limbo, I will hold to my belief that it is merely theological speculation, as I have been taught.

Reject it if you wish, but I have to ask: Do you believe that a baby who dies in original sin only goes straight to hell?

 

[StTommyMore]

Reject it if you wish, but I have to ask: Do you believe that a baby who dies in original sin only goes straight to hell?

I believe that this question is far to general. I believe we can trust in a merciful savior to do what is just. As a general rule, I believe that God does not condemn those, who through no fault of their own (this would include babies) have not come to know the truth. If God will save those who are not Catholic because they have only come to know part of the Truth, how much more will He have mercy on the absolutely innocent?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I believe that this question is far to general. I believe we can trust in a merciful savior to do what is just. As a general rule, I believe that God does not condemn those, who through no fault of their own (this would include babies) have not come to know the truth. If God will save those who are not Catholic because they have only come to know part of the Truth, how much more will He have mercy on the absolutely innocent?

Thank you for confirming my point. It is a DOGMA of the faith that any person who dies in original sin only goes straight to hell.

**The Council of Florence: ** *"[T]he souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains". *

Anyone Catholic who has heard that teaching and even doubts it is guilty of heresy.

So as we can see, what I wrote in my previous e-mail about the danger of rejecting Limbo was confirmed by you. In rejecting Limbo, you also reject a dogma of the faith. I rest my case.

 

[StTommyMore]

Thank you for confirming my point. It is a DOGMA of the faith that any person who dies in original sin only goes straight to hell.

**The Council of Florence: ** *"[T]he souls of those who depart this life *in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains".

Anyone Catholic who has heard that teaching and even doubts it is guilty of heresy.

So as we can see, what I wrote in my previous e-mail about the danger of rejecting Limbo was confirmed by you. In rejecting Limbo, you also reject a dogma of the faith. I rest my case.

You have just been reported for accusing me of heresy.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

You have just been reported for accusing me of heresy.

It doesn’t surprise me that you woud “report” me, but I did not directly accuse you of anything. I merely provided the dogma, and said anyone who even doubts a dogma is guilty of heresy (which is what the Church teaches). You realized that you reject a dogma, and applied the teaching of the Church to yourself (that whoever denies a dogma is guilty of heresy), and then reported me for accusing you of what you yourself concluded.

 

[StTommyMore]

Thank you for confirming my point. It is a DOGMA of the faith that any person who dies in original sin only goes straight to hell.

**The Council of Florence: ** *"[T]he souls of those who depart this life *in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains".

Anyone Catholic who has heard that teaching and even doubts it is guilty of heresy.

So as we can see, what I wrote in my previous e-mail about the danger of rejecting Limbo was confirmed by you. In rejecting Limbo, you also reject a dogma of the faith. I rest my case.

I am not guilty of heresy, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1261:

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.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I am not guilty of heresy, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1261:

If you interpret that to mean that the dogma teaching that a person who dies in original sin only goes to hell, then you are obviously misinterpreting that part of the Catechism.

If you want me to explain why an unbaptized child cannot go to heaven, start a new thread and I will explain it all to you.