S
StTommyMore
Guest
I do not need you to explain it to me. Welcome to my ignore list.
How does one go to Heaven, Purgatory or Hell DIRECTLY IMMEDIATELY upon death? (Afterlife discussion)
- Status
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
Have it your way, but you need someone to explain it to you because at this time, according to your own words, you do not accept the Dogma defined by the Council of Florence and the Council of Lyons.
R
Robert_Burns
Guest
Well I also believe in Limbo theologically however there are two schools of thought as well. Remember - Hell is not only eternal but permanent. Theoretically an Unbaptised Baby has committed no Actual Sin and there are those who also know that Scripture states that Jesus will at the general judgement judge the living and the dead the Unbaptised Babies as well. So it is possible that Jesus will not send them to Hell at the particular Judgement but instead postpone their judgement until the General judgment so include the circumstances of their untimely demise while judging their parents in perspective. In Mark 16:16 it says : He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. Notice how interesting it is that OUR LORD condemned people for their non belief but did not say “He that is not baptised and believeth not” and in addition he teaches in John 3 : 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Notice how he states they cannot enter the kingdom of GOD and yet he does not say when. There is Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire as well as by Sacrament. So the theology is not settled. And although I personally believe in Limbo - the possibility exists that Jesus himself will decide these cases on Judgement day as well. At the the Particular Judgment we are judged on how we conducted ourselves in life. So we dont know conclusively.
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
But as the quote I provided from the Council of Florence teaches, those who die in original sin only go straight to hell, which, as you said, is permanent.
What determines if a person is saved or not is not what good or what evil they did in this life, but whether or not they died in the state of grace. A person could lead a completely evil life to the hour of death, repent, get baptized, and be saved. Our final fate is based, not on how we lived our life, but on the state of our soul at death. Grace, which is the supernatural life of God that is infused into the soul at baptism, is what makes us an adopted child of God and heir of heaven. If we die in the state of grace we are saved; if not we are damned. The souls who are in a state of original sin do not possess the life of grace, and therefore cannot enter heaven - even if they have no actual sins to answer for.
The Church teaches that it knows of no way for a child, during the time of the New Testament, to obtain the state of grace without baptism. An adult can obtain the state of grace without baptism, in certain circumstances, through baptism or desire or blood; but in order for this to be possible, the person must have the use of reason. Without the use of reason, a person is not capable of desiring baptism, nor offering their life for Christ. If you read the Catechism of Trent on this point, it states that adult baptism is delayed while the catechumen is instructed since they can obtain the state of grace through baptism if desire; but it then says that the baptism of children should not be delayed, because for them “there is no other remedy” to supply for baptism.
The only other way would be for a child who died without baptism to obtain the state of grace in the next life. The Church has never taught of this possibility, and in fact, if I am not mistaken, this is actually a condemned proposition (I’ll look into it and let you know what I can find).
Where does this leave us? It leaves us with exactly what the Council of Florence and the Council of Lyons taught - namely, that a person who dies in original sin only will go straight to hell.
The only two schools of thought I am aware that related to this subject is whether the souls who die in original sin suffer the pain of sense. As I mentioned in a previous post, St. Augustine and others believed they would, but the more common opinion (that of St. Thomas) is that they will enjoy a state of natural happiness.
As an aside, while reading on this subject earlier I learned that a number of theologians over the centuries have taught something that I also suspected. For a number of years I have wondered if the souls who die in original sin only will live on the earth after it is restored, as spoken of in the Apocalypse. I found out that I was not the first to suspect this. A number of theologians, including the great Suarez, believed this.
R
Robert_Burns
Guest
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
Yes, I realize that. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, Limbo is based on dogmatic teachings; and when someone rejects Limbo, they will almost always end by rejecting teachings that are dogmatic (see my earlier exchange in this thread).
R
Robert_Burns
Guest
I agree with you for the most part.
T
thistle
Guest
Limbo for Infants has NEVER been a Church doctrine. It was only ever a theological hypothesis. Catholics are free to believe in Limbo for Infants or not.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 fromto normal size, listen to their reply and see if it doesn’t confirm what I wrote.
CCC 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.
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
We’ve already been through this. The problem with rejecting Limbo is that it is based on infallible Dogmas; and when someone rejects Limbo they almost always end by rejecting an infallible dogma that they are not even permitted to doubt. One of the infallible dogmas they will almost always reject is the one stating that those who die in original sin only (such as unbaptized babies) will go straight to hell:
The Council of Florence: “The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains”.
Regarding the quote from the Catechism, all this is saying is that we are not forbidden to hope that they obtained the grace before death through extra-sacramental means. *This is an area of pure speculation. *Unlike Limbo for infants, which has been taught from the beginning and can be found in Catechisms, the idea that an un-baptized person, who dies before obtaining the use of reason, can obtain the state of grace is pure speculation with no foundation in the writings of the Saints and Doctors. It is merely and “hope” that we are allowed to have.
But this hope is not based on any Catholic teaching. What I mean is, the Church explicitly teaches that it knows of no way for a child to obtain the state of grace other than baptism. That doesn’t mean it cannot happen; it just means that if there is some other way, the Church doesn’t know about it. And if the Church doesn’t know about it, it is almost certainly because no other way exists.
So we can hope all we want; but if this “hope” causes us to even* doubt *a dogma of the faith (such as the one quoted above), we will regret it for all eternity.
We are on very safe grounds if we hold to what the Church has always taught - even those points that are not de fide. And the Church has always taught Limbo of the children in one form or another (either with pain of sense or without it).
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Don’t bother arguing with him. He is his own Magisterium. He forgets that the Magisterium is responsible for interpreting the Scriptures and the documents of the Church, and at this point in time his interpretation runs counter with the Catechism.
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
Now let’s be honest, you are just upset because I posted a Dogma of the faith that you reject. Rather than accepting what the Church teaches, you are shooting the messenger and justifying your rejecting of the dogma based on your misinterpretation of a teaching from Catechism - a teaching that in no way contradicts the dogma I have quoted.
K
kentuckyliz
Guest
Answering the OQ: remain in a state of grace through frequent confession and sincere desire to avoid all sin and seeking the plenary indulgences that are offered to all of us (meeting the conditions thereof). This promotes prayer, Scripture reading, charitable efforts towards your fellow man, and mortifying your appetites. How could a person not be utterly transformed by practicing this wide-openness to God? :getholy:
K
kentuckyliz
Guest
Just curious, what does Vatican II say about the matter?
K
kentuckyliz
Guest
The soul is separated from the body, but is not asleep.
At the Last Day, souls and bodies will be reunited.
The just will be glorified and go to Heaven.
The damned will remain in the body for the eternal fire of (Hell).
The punishment of Hell does not end, nor are the damned annihilated. They wish!!!
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
It doesn’t address the question, but if it did it would not contradict the Dogma.Just curious, what does Vatican II say about the matter?
S
StTommyMore
Guest
I accept what the Church teaches, as quoted in the Catechism. You have simply claimed for yourself the authority which belongs to the Church alone: to interpret the Scriptures and councils. According to the CCC we can hope in the mercy of God for the souls of unbaptized infants–which as I see it the Council of Florence is ambiguous at best. My interpretation is guided by the Magisterium in the form of the current Catechism. Yours is guided by your own reason alone. I will stand by the Church.
G
Gregory_I
Guest
Excuse me, but to dismiss this man as his own magisteriumk is to completely ignore the magisterial office itself, THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
THe ability to read does not entail pride for ctying out loud. He is reporting what the Church has RULED on a matter. THose who die without mortal sin, but in original sin only, go to hell. THey are punished, but with unequal pains.
Sanctifying GRACE is necessary for salvation.
INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE IS NOT SANTIFYING GRACE.
Invincible ignorance is freedom from the guil of having sinned ina particular way. it is NOT the life of God in the soul.
THose who fail to acknowledge the dogmas should not be Deemed Catholic. THere are TWO schools of thought, but one is speculation (Limbo does not exist, God will be merciful) which is merely sentimental agnosia, the other is speculation based on the foundation of DOGMA: i.e. the council of Florence.
Which one do YOU think has legs to stand on?
You are not free to deny the canons of an ecumenical council, ANY , including vatican II
THe ability to read does not entail pride for ctying out loud. He is reporting what the Church has RULED on a matter. THose who die without mortal sin, but in original sin only, go to hell. THey are punished, but with unequal pains.
Sanctifying GRACE is necessary for salvation.
INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE IS NOT SANTIFYING GRACE.
Invincible ignorance is freedom from the guil of having sinned ina particular way. it is NOT the life of God in the soul.
THose who fail to acknowledge the dogmas should not be Deemed Catholic. THere are TWO schools of thought, but one is speculation (Limbo does not exist, God will be merciful) which is merely sentimental agnosia, the other is speculation based on the foundation of DOGMA: i.e. the council of Florence.
Which one do YOU think has legs to stand on?
You are not free to deny the canons of an ecumenical council, ANY , including vatican II
S
StTommyMore
Guest
I have never denied Dogma, so stop your screaming and pontificating. Plucking a line out of its context to proof-text something that goes against the Catechism is not acceptable,
G
Gregory_I
Guest
you think limbo is not an act of God’s mercy?
What is vague about the council of florence’s definition?
THose who die with original sin only go to hell, but there are different punishments.
Infants do not suffer the pain of sense, for they have never sinned with their senses, they suffer only the pain of loss of the vision of God, which is not necessarily a real pain; it is simply not being in the presence of God, and yet it is not torment. THerefore it is limbo.
How does this seem vague and unreasonable?
Btw, the same goes for virtuous pagans.
What is vague about the council of florence’s definition?
THose who die with original sin only go to hell, but there are different punishments.
Infants do not suffer the pain of sense, for they have never sinned with their senses, they suffer only the pain of loss of the vision of God, which is not necessarily a real pain; it is simply not being in the presence of God, and yet it is not torment. THerefore it is limbo.
How does this seem vague and unreasonable?
Btw, the same goes for virtuous pagans.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
So you claim that babies who die without baptism go to Hell. I am sorry but that is nit the teaching of the Church.
- Status