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

  • Thread starter Thread starter PLAT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hell can have many abodes. Hell is just the german word Hol, and it means the place of the dead.

And actually many respected church fathers (like augustine) taught infant damnation. Not because they wanted to, but because they thought it was true. I’d rather believe it if it was true than deny it.

Look at the xvi Council of Carthage that Augustine attended:

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions”: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [cf. Matt. 25:41,46].”

Fortunately Carthage was not ecumenical. But I do not think that infants are tormented sensibly. Read thomas aquinas, and pretty much every serious theologian from 500ad-1962 ad.

The infant never sinned, so they are not punished in the flesh. Their punishment is not to see God. But they do not suffer, they enjoy refreshment and general bliss, better than this earth. LIke the elysian fields in greek mythology.

It is the most logical answer and the most consistent with the CONSTANT (not simply recent) teaching of the church.

I see it as an act of God’s mercy that a child, born without sanctifying grace, which is by definition being born as an enemy of God, is Given peace and light away from this world of suffering, even if they never enter fully into the life God intended for them. It is Just, therefore it is Good. God should set the standards of what is acceptable, we do not hold him to those standards.

We bow our heads and nod our assent, when the Church speaks, and it has spoken, and many theologians continue to teach this, especially the DOminicans.

Plus think of the unplanned pregnancy issue. A pregnant girl under the current suggestion (you can’t call it a teaching) of basically sentimental agnosia can say to herself “well, even if the fetus IS a human, the church says it’s possible for babies to go to heaven. This abortion won’t be that bad, GOd will forgive me and I will see them again.”

Limbo says however: “I have sinned in becoming pregnant. But I cannot get an abortion, I might keep the child from ever seeing God. I may never see my baby again if it dies before being baptized!”

One mind encourages carelessness, the other, responsibility.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, under Pope Saint Pius V states:

" If then through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This however, cannot be effected otherwise than through baptism. Pastors therefore should inculate the absolute necessity of administering baptism to infants, and of gradually forming their minds to piety by education in the Christian religion… The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the Church , as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."

Therefore, I reiterate the church’s infallible dogma, which is necessary to hold for our salvation:

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate [disparibus] punishments.”

Also what the Council of Trent said on infants and baptism:

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.

This much at least is certain. All who die in original sin alone suffer some kind of eternal punishment. Infants are born sinful and stained with original sin, and have need of baptismal regeneration to avoid an uncertain fate. It’s not just a welsome to the family party baptism. It’s “Praise God you escaped the snares of satan and the Jaws od death!”

No Catholic here should have any qualms about making these last two canons their own. Are we Pelagians or Catholics?
 
Gregory_I said:
Hell can have many abodes. Hell is just the german word Hol, and it means the place of the dead.

And actually many respected church fathers (like augustine) taught infant damnation. Not because they wanted to, but because they thought it was true. I’d rather believe it if it was true than deny it.

Look at the xvi Council of Carthage that Augustine attended:

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions”: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [cf. Matt. 25:41,46].”

Fortunately Carthage was not ecumenical. But I do not think that infants are tormented sensibly. Read thomas aquinas, and pretty much every serious theologian from 500ad-1962 ad.

The infant never sinned, so they are not punished in the flesh. Their punishment is not to see God. But they do not suffer, they enjoy refreshment and general bliss, better than this earth. LIke the elysian fields in greek mythology.

It is the most logical answer and the most consistent with the CONSTANT (not simply recent) teaching of the church.

I see it as an act of God’s mercy that a child, born without sanctifying grace, which is by definition being born as an enemy of God, is Given peace and light away from this world of suffering, even if they never enter fully into the life God intended for them. It is Just, therefore it is Good. God should set the standards of what is acceptable, we do not hold him to those standards.

We bow our heads and nod our assent, when the Church speaks, and it has spoken, and many theologians continue to teach this, especially the DOminicans.

Plus think of the unplanned pregnancy issue. A pregnant girl under the current suggestion (you can’t call it a teaching) of basically sentimental agnosia can say to herself “well, even if the fetus IS a human, the church says it’s possible for babies to go to heaven. This abortion won’t be that bad, GOd will forgive me and I will see them again.”

Limbo says however: “I have sinned in becoming pregnant. But I cannot get an abortion, I might keep the child from ever seeing God. I may never see my baby again if it dies before being baptized!”

One mind encourages carelessness, the other, responsibility.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, under Pope Saint Pius V states:

" If then through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This however, cannot be effected otherwise than through baptism. Pastors therefore should inculate the absolute necessity of administering baptism to infants, and of gradually forming their minds to piety by education in the Christian religion… The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the Church , as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."

Therefore, I reiterate the church’s infallible dogma, which is necessary to hold for our salvation:

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate [disparibus] punishments.”

Also what the Council of Trent said on infants and baptism:

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.

This much at least is certain. All who die in original sin alone suffer some kind of eternal punishment. Infants are born sinful and stained with original sin, and have need of baptismal regeneration to avoid an uncertain fate. It’s not just a welsome to the family party baptism. It’s “Praise God you escaped the snares of satan and the Jaws od death!”

No Catholic here should have any qualms about making these last two canons their own. Are we Pelagians or Catholics?
Click to expand...
The simple fact is that we do not know the fate of unbaptized infants. It has not been revealed. What has been revealed is that God will not abandon them to Hell. Jesus actually seemed partial to children. For you to claim that you know with absolute certainty that they are in Hell is contrary to Church teaching. Furthermore, we MUST go with the the most recent Church teaching because the Magisterium is LIVING and develops, it is not closed and unchanging.
 
StTommyMore said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are right. Its like banging my head against a brick wall.

He doesn’t seem to understand that the Council of Florence (and subsequent writings) is emphasing the importance of baptism. In essence they are saying that there is no way except baptism for us (the Church) to communicate supernatural life to a child. However, God can communicate that life to a child in other ways (we cannot limit God) and the Catechism presents possibilities for this, namely the great mercy of God and Jesus’ tenderness towards children.
 
Uh, we CAN say God will not contradict what he has revealed, Whether in scripture, the constant witness of tradition or the constant teaching of the magisterium. Because God cannot contradict himself, we hold him bound to obey his own word.

Just because God is all-powerful doesn’t mean he can do ANYthing. He can’t lie, he cannot change, he cannot create evil, he cannot shift his opinions.

Take the time to read my post slowly. The canons that I posted you have to assent to in order to be Catholic.

Here it is again:The Catechism of the Council of Trent, under Pope Saint Pius V states:

" If then through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This however, cannot be effected otherwise than through baptism. Pastors therefore should inculate the absolute necessity of administering baptism to infants, and of gradually forming their minds to piety by education in the Christian religion… The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the Church , as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."

Let’s look at the language: It’s not a normative necessity to which there may be an occasional exception, it is an absolute necessity to which there are NO exceptions, which means there is only one thing that can happen to an unbaptized CHild who is born sinful and under the wrath of the God: Deprivation of the Beatific vision.

THe magisterium cannot change to contradict itself: If it did, then I would reject the Catholic Church and join the Orthodox. The ONLY change in church teaching is cosmetic: Language updates and maybe a bit mroe reflection. but it NEVER contradicts itself. THerefore, all the authoritative documents of the church are relevant at all times. TO deny this is to deny tradition which is to cease to be Catholic.
 
Gregory_I said:
Uh, we CAN say God will not contradict what he has revealed, Whether in scripture, the constant witness of tradition or the constant teaching of the magisterium. Because God cannot contradict himself, we hold him bound to obey his own word.

Just because God is all-powerful doesn’t mean he can do ANYthing. He can’t lie, he cannot change, he cannot create evil, he cannot shift his opinions.

Take the time to read my post slowly. The canons that I posted you have to assent to in order to be Catholic.

Here it is again:The Catechism of the Council of Trent, under Pope Saint Pius V states:

" If then through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This however, cannot be effected otherwise than through baptism. Pastors therefore should inculate the absolute necessity of administering baptism to infants, and of gradually forming their minds to piety by education in the Christian religion… The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the Church , as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."

Let’s look at the language: It’s not a normative necessity to which there may be an occasional exception, it is an absolute necessity to which there are NO exceptions, which means there is only one thing that can happen to an unbaptized CHild who is born sinful and under the wrath of the God: Deprivation of the Beatific vision.

THe magisterium cannot change to contradict itself: If it did, then I would reject the Catholic Church and join the Orthodox. The ONLY change in church teaching is cosmetic: Language updates and maybe a bit mroe reflection. but it NEVER contradicts itself. THerefore, all the authoritative documents of the church are relevant at all times. TO deny this is to deny tradition which is to cease to be Catholic.
Click to expand...
God is not bound by the Sacraments
 
Gregory_I said:
Uh, we CAN say God will not contradict what he has revealed, Whether in scripture, the constant witness of tradition or the constant teaching of the magisterium. Because God cannot contradict himself, we hold him bound to obey his own word.

Just because God is all-powerful doesn’t mean he can do ANYthing. He can’t lie, he cannot change, he cannot create evil, he cannot shift his opinions.

Take the time to read my post slowly. The canons that I posted you have to assent to in order to be Catholic.

Here it is again:The Catechism of the Council of Trent, under Pope Saint Pius V states:

" If then through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This however, cannot be effected otherwise than through baptism. Pastors therefore should inculate the absolute necessity of administering baptism to infants, and of gradually forming their minds to piety by education in the Christian religion… The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the Church , as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."

Let’s look at the language: It’s not a normative necessity to which there may be an occasional exception, it is an absolute necessity to which there are NO exceptions, which means there is only one thing that can happen to an unbaptized CHild who is born sinful and under the wrath of the God: Deprivation of the Beatific vision.

THe magisterium cannot change to contradict itself: If it did, then I would reject the Catholic Church and join the Orthodox. The ONLY change in church teaching is cosmetic: Language updates and maybe a bit mroe reflection. but it NEVER contradicts itself. THerefore, all the authoritative documents of the church are relevant at all times. TO deny this is to deny tradition which is to cease to be Catholic.
Click to expand...
Official Church teaching which binds you:

CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Anyone who rejects a teaching of the Church commits heresy.
 
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)
 
Gregory_I said:
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)
Click to expand...
Except that limbo was never taught as a doctrine. It was theological speculation. And what you are saying is in direct conflict with the Catechism. Admit that you are mistaken in your views.
 
Gregory_I said:
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.**
Click to expand...
Sanctifying GRACE is necessary for salvation.

That is absolutely NOT what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that both Baptism of Desire & Baptism of Blood are viable means of Salvation. The Churches teaches that if a good man, knows God & does all he can to follow His way, is careful to observe the “Laws that are written on the heart of man”, & desires to know the all of the Truths passed down to us through Christ, the Apostles & the Evangelists, but does not know that these can only be found within the Catholic Church,** he can be saved**. Good Lord, man…their have been & are people who have never heard of Baptism or Christ etc. A good example is the American Indian before the Missionaries came. does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, (Invincible Ignorance) he can achieve 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.
Click to expand...
Sanctifying Grace can enter our beings through any one of the three
forms of Baptism. One does not have to be a “card-carrying member” of the Church to go to heaven, though it is much easier for us as we have the benefits of the Sacraments.
Click to expand...
Good Lord, Father Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for teaching the doctrine of ** Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ** in the same way that you are trying to promote:
Click to expand...
 
NO, Feeney said only water baptism is the means of salvation. I say that water baptism is the normatively necessary means of salvation, but baptism of desire (which is an explicit desire for baptism) can take its place.

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.

You have to realize something, people are born with ORIGINAL SIN. That means their intellects are darkened, they do NOT seek after God, in fact we are all born children of wrath and subject to damnation by justice unless God’s grace comes to us; this is the teaching of the church; And if they WERE to ever respond to his grace (But how can the grace of God come without a preacher of the Catholic faith?! As paul says "Faith comes by hearing) then God would make that faith EXPLICIT in accordance with St. Thomas Aquinas.

Listen to Father michael muller, writing recently enough and yet far enough to be uninvolved here:

The Background: Father Michael Müller is well known for his magnificent books The Blessed Sacrament, Prayer: the Key to Salvation, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and The Sinner’s Return to God. He also authored many works that are now out of print. In 1875, he wrote a small booklet entitled A Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine3 in which he emphasized the doctrine that “outside the Church there is no salvation.” His book was attacked by liberal-leaning American clergymen at the time. The main attack came from a “prominent Catholic priest” whom Father Müller only referred to as “Sir Oracle” (S.O.). Father Müller responded to these assaults with his superb 292 page book, The Catholic Dogma, which bears the Permisu Superiorum from his Redemptorist Order. What follows is taken verbatum from pages 211 to 218 of that book. The reader will immediately notice that in clarifying the teaching on invincible ignorance, Father Müller is also combatting the same errors so prominent in our own day.

“But, suppose”, some one will say, "a person, in his inculpable ignorance, believes that he is on the right road to Heaven, though he is not a Catholic; he tries his best to live up to the dictates of his conscience. Now, should he die in that state of belief, he would, it seems, be condemned without his fault. We can understand that God is not bound to give Heaven to anybody, but, as He is just, He certainly cannot condemn anybody without his fault."

Whatever question may be made still in regard to the great truth, in question is sufficiently answered in the explanation already given of this great truth. For the sake of greater clearness, however, we will answer a few more questions. In the answers to these questions we shall be obliged to repeat what has already been said.

Now, as to the question just proposed, we answer with St. Thomas and St. Augustine: “There are many things which a man is obliged to do, but which he cannot do without the help of divine grace: as, for instance, to love God and his neighbor, and to believe the articles of faith; but he can do all this with the help of grace; and 'to whomsoever God gives His grace He gives it out of Divine Mercy: and to whomsoever He does not give it, He refuses it out of divine justice, in punishment of sin committed, or at least in punishment of original sin,” as St. Augustine says. (Lib. de correptione et gratia, c. 5 et 6; Sum. 22. q. ii art. v.) “And the ignorance of these things of salvation, the knowledge of which men did not care to have, is, without doubt, a sin for them; but for those who were not able to acquire such knowledge, the want of it is a punishment for their sins”, says St. Augustine; hence both are justly condemned, and neither the one nor the other has a just excuse for being lost." (Epist. ad Sixtum, Edit. Maur. 194, cap. vi., n. 27.)

Moreover, a person who wants to go east, but, by an innocent mistake, gets on a train going west, will, as soon as he finds out his mistake, get off at the next station, and take a train that goes east. In like manner, a person who walked on a road that he, in his inculpable ignorance, believed was the true road to Heaven, must leave that road, as soon as he finds out his mistake, and inquire for the true road to Heaven. God, in His infinite mercy, will not fail to make him find out, in due time, the true road to Heaven, if he corresponds to His grace. Hence we asked the following question in our Familiar Explanation:

"What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity to know better?"
To this question we give the following answer:

“Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.” (St. Thomas Aquinas)

Invincible ignorance is simply being not guilty for not knowing the true faith. IT in no way entails that the person deserves sanctifying grace: None do. THAT’s why it’s grace.
 
Gregory_I said:
Hell can have many abodes. Hell is just the german word Hol, and it means the place of the dead.

And actually many respected church fathers (like augustine) taught infant damnation. Not because they wanted to, but because they thought it was true. I’d rather believe it if it was true than deny it.

Look at the xvi Council of Carthage that Augustine attended:

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions”: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [cf. Matt. 25:41,46].”

Fortunately Carthage was not ecumenical. But I do not think that infants are tormented sensibly. Read thomas aquinas, and pretty much every serious theologian from 500ad-1962 ad.

The infant never sinned, so they are not punished in the flesh. Their punishment is not to see God. But they do not suffer, they enjoy refreshment and general bliss, better than this earth. LIke the elysian fields in greek mythology.

It is the most logical answer and the most consistent with the CONSTANT (not simply recent) teaching of the church.

I see it as an act of God’s mercy that a child, born without sanctifying grace, which is by definition being born as an enemy of God, is Given peace and light away from this world of suffering, even if they never enter fully into the life God intended for them. It is Just, therefore it is Good. God should set the standards of what is acceptable, we do not hold him to those standards.

We bow our heads and nod our assent, when the Church speaks, and it has spoken, and many theologians continue to teach this, especially the DOminicans.

Plus think of the unplanned pregnancy issue. A pregnant girl under the current suggestion (you can’t call it a teaching) of basically sentimental agnosia can say to herself “well, even if the fetus IS a human, the church says it’s possible for babies to go to heaven. This abortion won’t be that bad, GOd will forgive me and I will see them again.”

Limbo says however: “I have sinned in becoming pregnant. But I cannot get an abortion, I might keep the child from ever seeing God. I may never see my baby again if it dies before being baptized!”

One mind encourages carelessness, the other, responsibility.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, under Pope Saint Pius V states:

" If then through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This however, cannot be effected otherwise than through baptism. Pastors therefore should inculate the absolute necessity of administering baptism to infants, and of gradually forming their minds to piety by education in the Christian religion… The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the Church , as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."

Therefore, I reiterate the church’s infallible dogma, which is necessary to hold for our salvation:

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate [disparibus] punishments.”

Also what the Council of Trent said on infants and baptism:

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.

This much at least is certain. All who die in original sin alone suffer some kind of eternal punishment. Infants are born sinful and stained with original sin, and have need of baptismal regeneration to avoid an uncertain fate. It’s not just a welsome to the family party baptism. It’s “Praise God you escaped the snares of satan and the Jaws od death!”

No Catholic here should have any qualms about making these last two canons their own. Are we Pelagians or Catholics?
Click to expand...
So, Gregory, how do you feel about those who are in Communion with the Most Holy Family Monastery, a Catholic fringe group of monks started by the ex-communicated “priest” Leonard Feeney? They are rather like the “Catholicism” that Hutton Gibson professes.
 
I see you got a blog spot on blogspot .com .I have one too . www.defendingthefaith-frankie.blogspot.com. It covers the subjects of purgatory/prayers for the dead ,saint intercession,Deuterocanonical books of the bible,Pope peter/apostolic succession ,Mary mother of God , and more . Hope you enjoy
 
Any group started by schismatics is to be condemned. And the same is to be said about the diamond brothers and the said monastery. I am not talking about schism, I am talking about classical soteriology. It is a fact that the church has espoused the view I have presented for over 1500 years.

I see no reason to change it now.

We should all submit to legitimate authority and yet we should interpret these things in the light of tradition. TO do less is to cease to be Catholic.
 
Look here people:

From the time of the Fathers, Gregory the Theologian down through the Reformation there were two basic views on the fate of unbaptized infants: They positively suffered in hell, but only the mildest of punishments (Augustine and the 5th century African Church at the XVI Council of Carthage in 418 ad), and the Later view of Aquinas, that the Infants who die without baptism only suffer the loss of the beatific vision of God; yet they exist in a state of natural happiness and do not sorrow for they have no knowledge of what they would have missed. I espouse the View of Aquinas, who has more than once been called by popes the doctor of the whole church.

Catholic encyclopedia says under Limbo:

“The teaching of St. Thomas was received in the schools, almost without opposition, down to the Reformation period. The very few theologians who, with Gregory of Rimini, stood out for the severe Augustinian view, were commonly designated by the opprobrious name of tortores infantium. Some writers, like Savonarola (De triumpho crucis, III, 9) and Catharinus (De statu parvulorum sine bapt. decedentium), added certain details to the current teaching — for example that the souls of unbaptized children will be united to glorious bodies at the Resurrection, and that the renovated earth of which St. Peter speaks (2 Peter 3:13) will be their happy dwelling place for eternity.”

What is so terrible about that? It’s not only merciful, it is just.

Also, here is what St. Gregory the THeologian says, he fairly accurately expresses the pre augustinian view which is what Aquinas built on:

“It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished.” [Oration 40, no. 23]
 
Gregory_I said:
Look here people:

From the time of the Fathers, Gregory the Theologian down through the Reformation there were two basic views on the fate of unbaptized infants: They positively suffered in hell, but only the mildest of punishments (Augustine and the 5th century African Church at the XVI Council of Carthage in 418 ad), and the Later view of Aquinas, that the Infants who die without baptism only suffer the loss of the beatific vision of God; yet they exist in a state of natural happiness and do not sorrow for they have no knowledge of what they would have missed. I espouse the View of Aquinas, who has more than once been called by popes the doctor of the whole church.

Catholic encyclopedia says under Limbo:

“The teaching of St. Thomas was received in the schools, almost without opposition, down to the Reformation period. The very few theologians who, with Gregory of Rimini, stood out for the severe Augustinian view, were commonly designated by the opprobrious name of tortores infantium. Some writers, like Savonarola (De triumpho crucis, III, 9) and Catharinus (De statu parvulorum sine bapt. decedentium), added certain details to the current teaching — for example that the souls of unbaptized children will be united to glorious bodies at the Resurrection, and that the renovated earth of which St. Peter speaks (2 Peter 3:13) will be their happy dwelling place for eternity.”

What is so terrible about that? It’s not only merciful, it is just.

Also, here is what St. Gregory the THeologian says, he fairly accurately expresses the pre augustinian view which is what Aquinas built on:

“It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished.” [Oration 40, no. 23]
Click to expand...
I repeat that the Church has NEVER taught there is a Limbo for Infants. It was only ever a theological hypothesis. Catholics are free to believe in Limbo or not.

The Church has NEVER taught that unbaptised infants go to Hell. The Church highlighted the great importance of getting them baptised as soon as possible because baptism is the only way the Church can communicate supernatural life to the infants.We are bound by the sacraments but God is not (and this is a Church teaching which you are bound to accept). The Church does not teach such unbaptised infants are lost but entrusts them to God’s mercy.
 
Is a king bound to follow the Laws he establishes?

Yes, limbo is a theological speculation, but it is definitely NOT a stretch and it is built upon the dogmas of the faith.

PLus the NOrth African COuncil of Carthage clearly intended to teach the unbaptized children do not enter into heaven, and the Catechism of St. Pius V (The Roman Catechism which you were bound to assent to before the Catechism of the Catholic Church) says that Salvation for infants is obtainable ONLY through baptism, that those that die in original sin only do not see God, etc…

To say Limbo as explicated by THomas aquinas was not formally a “Doctrine” may be true, but it seems to me the church has clearly taught that the unbaptized infant does not enjoy the vision of GOd, whether you put them in hell, experiencing slight pain, or in limbo, a virtual paradise of natural happiness.

We have two Councils, Lyons and Florence that point dogmatically to Limbo of infants: Council of Lyons II

“…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished with different punishments…– (Denzinger 464)

Council of Florence:

“…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.— (Denzinger 693)

THe debate was never if they go to heaven, but what kind of pain they suffer, if any.

I hold to Thomas Aquinas.

MOreover, Pope Zosimus accepted the council of Carthage as his own and proclaimed it to the whole Church, thus making it infallible:
” ‘ We[Zozimus], 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:
“But although we do not dare to esteem lightly the deeper and more difficult parts of the questions which they [Augustine and Zozimus] 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)
 
And, has anyone READ the new document issued recently on limbo?

Here are some interesting excerpts:

Regarding The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized by the International Theological Commission, source: vatican.va
:

#3….Moreover, the notion that infants who die without Baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as*** the common doctrine of the Church***,….The necessary reconsideration of the theological issues cannot ignore the tragic consequences of original sin. Original sin implies a state of separation from Christ, and that excludes the possibility of the vision of God for those who die in that state.

#35. a) The Pelagian understanding of the access of unbaptised infants to “eternal life” must be considered as contrary to Catholic faith.

#40. In summary: the affirmation that infants who die without Baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the ***common doctrine ***of the Church

Here’s the intro to the document:

“This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if **that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up **until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.”

So limbo in time became part of the ordinary magisterium.

"The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also ***to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection ***between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.

And then basically it goes on to say limbo is still a viable and logical option.

See, the debate is not on whether they go to heaven so much as it is, what happens to them where they DO go?
 
IN addition, read this part of the new document on Limbo:

1.5. The Modern/Post-Tridentine Era
  1. Augustine’s thought enjoyed a revival in the 16th century, and with it his theory regarding the fate of unbaptised infants, as Robert Bellarmine, for example, bears witness.[51] One consequence of this revival of Augustinianism was Jansenism. Together with Catholic theologians of the Augustinian school, the Jansenists vigorously opposed the theory of Limbo. During this period the popes (Paul III, Benedict XIV, Clement XIII)[52] defended the right of Catholics to teach Augustine’s stern view that infants dying with original sin alone are damned and punished with the perpetual torment of the fire of hell, though with the “mildest pain” (Augustine) compared with what was suffered by adults who were punished for their mortal sins. On the other hand, when the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786) denounced the medieval theory of “Limbo”, Pius VI defended the right of the Catholic Schools to teach that those who died with the guilt of original sin alone are punished with the lack of the Beatific Vision (“punishment of loss”), but not sensible pains (the punishment of “fire”). In the bull “Auctorem Fidei” (1794), the Pope condemned as “false, rash, injurious to the Catholic schools” the Jansenist teaching “which rejects as a Pelagian fable [fabula pelagiana] that place in the lower regions (which the faithful call the ‘Limbo of Children’) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, without the punishment of fire, just as if whoever removes the punishment of fire thereby introduces that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation of which the Pelagians idly talk”.[53] Papal interventions during this period, then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century.
1.6. From the Time of Vatican I to Vatican II
  1. Prior to the First Vatican Council, and again prior to the Second Vatican Council, there was a strong interest in some quarters in defining Catholic doctrine on this matter. This interest was evident in the revised schema of the dogmatic constitution, De doctrina catholica, prepared for the First Vatican Council (but not voted upon by the Council), which presented the destiny of children who died without Baptism as between that of the damned, on the one hand, and that of the souls in purgatory and the blessed, on the other: “Etiam qui cum solo originali peccato mortem obeunt, beata Dei visione in perpetuum carebunt”.[54] In the 20th century, however, theologians sought the right to imagine new solutions, including the possibility that Christ’s full salvation reaches these infants.[55]
"Pope Pius XII, recalling the importance of sacramental Baptism, explained in the “Allocution to Italian Midwives” in 1951: “The state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, cannot be attained. In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of Baptism; to the child still unborn, or newly born, this way is not open”

Which shows that up to 1962 the common doctrine was that in one way or another, unbaptized children do not possess the beatific vision.

A theological reading of the history of Catholic teaching up to Vatican II shows in particular that three main affirmations which belong to the faith of the Church appear at the core of the problem of the fate of unbaptised infants. (i) God wants all human beings to be saved. (ii) This salvation is given only through participation in Christ’s paschal mystery, that is, through Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, either sacramental or in some other way. Human beings, including infants, cannot be saved apart from the grace of Christ poured out by the Holy Spirit. (iii) Infants will not enter the Kingdom of God without being freed from original sin by redemptive grace.
 
Gregory_I said:
IN addition, read this part of the new document on Limbo:

1.5. The Modern/Post-Tridentine Era
  1. Augustine’s thought enjoyed a revival in the 16th century, and with it his theory regarding the fate of unbaptised infants, as Robert Bellarmine, for example, bears witness.[51] One consequence of this revival of Augustinianism was Jansenism. Together with Catholic theologians of the Augustinian school, the Jansenists vigorously opposed the theory of Limbo. During this period the popes (Paul III, Benedict XIV, Clement XIII)[52] defended the right of Catholics to teach Augustine’s stern view that infants dying with original sin alone are damned and punished with the perpetual torment of the fire of hell, though with the “mildest pain” (Augustine) compared with what was suffered by adults who were punished for their mortal sins. On the other hand, when the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786) denounced the medieval theory of “Limbo”, Pius VI defended the right of the Catholic Schools to teach that those who died with the guilt of original sin alone are punished with the lack of the Beatific Vision (“punishment of loss”), but not sensible pains (the punishment of “fire”). In the bull “Auctorem Fidei” (1794), the Pope condemned as “false, rash, injurious to the Catholic schools” the Jansenist teaching “which rejects as a Pelagian fable [fabula pelagiana] that place in the lower regions (which the faithful call the ‘Limbo of Children’) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, without the punishment of fire, just as if whoever removes the punishment of fire thereby introduces that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation of which the Pelagians idly talk”.[53] Papal interventions during this period, then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century.
1.6. From the Time of Vatican I to Vatican II
  1. Prior to the First Vatican Council, and again prior to the Second Vatican Council, there was a strong interest in some quarters in defining Catholic doctrine on this matter. This interest was evident in the revised schema of the dogmatic constitution, De doctrina catholica, prepared for the First Vatican Council (but not voted upon by the Council), which presented the destiny of children who died without Baptism as between that of the damned, on the one hand, and that of the souls in purgatory and the blessed, on the other: “Etiam qui cum solo originali peccato mortem obeunt, beata Dei visione in perpetuum carebunt”.[54] In the 20th century, however, theologians sought the right to imagine new solutions, including the possibility that Christ’s full salvation reaches these infants.[55]
"Pope Pius XII, recalling the importance of sacramental Baptism, explained in the “Allocution to Italian Midwives” in 1951: “The state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, cannot be attained. In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of Baptism; to the child still unborn, or newly born, this way is not open”

Which shows that up to 1962 the common doctrine was that in one way or another, unbaptized children do not possess the beatific vision.

A theological reading of the history of Catholic teaching up to Vatican II shows in particular that three main affirmations which belong to the faith of the Church appear at the core of the problem of the fate of unbaptised infants. (i) God wants all human beings to be saved. (ii) This salvation is given only through participation in Christ’s paschal mystery, that is, through Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, either sacramental or in some other way. Human beings, including infants, cannot be saved apart from the grace of Christ poured out by the Holy Spirit. (iii) Infants will not enter the Kingdom of God without being freed from original sin by redemptive grace.
Click to expand...
What you summarised in your last paragrapgh is simply saying that Baptism is the means by which the Church can communicate supernatural life to the unbaptised infants. However, it is the Church teaching that while we are bound by the sacraments God gave us, God is not bound by his sacraments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top