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

[Gregory_I]

God is not bound to the sacraments in the sense that they are not absolutely necessary for him to grtant salvation.

But he IS bound to them in the sense that a king is bound to follow the laws he enacts. God cannot contradict himself, he does not regularly violate the laws of nature, he NEVER violates our free will, and therefore how can he violate the sacraments? I think to say he is not bound is a cop out, because God does not change, and what he establishes, he upholds and he is not fickle.

And, no, that’s not all I said in the previous posts. THe recent document on Limbo, has called Limbo the “Common doctrine of the church” and has stated that it has at times “been taught by the magisterium.”

THree popes defended those who believed in infant damnation, a la Augustine, and other Popes have defende other theologians belief in Limbo.

THis makes it more than a simple Pipe dream.

But really, what do you object to in the doctrine? THe unbaptized children do not see God, but they do not suffer, indeed they enjoy natural happiness. How is this not an act of Justice and a work of God’s mercy? Are you worried about never seeing your children again? You won’t worry about it in heaven, so calm down.

Anyway, I was SPECULATING last night, and it hit me:

THere are some theologians who taught that in the ressurection, the infants of limbo will inhabit the reconstituted earth.

But when Christ comes again to reconstitute the earth, he will also establish the heavenly kingdom (remember, death is not the end, it is only the intermediate period until the ressurection).

It seems feasible that IF These infants were to inhabit the paradise of earth, and, being free creatures who are NOT glorified nor are they enlightened, then they would be able to make an act of Faith!

And if they can make an act of Faith, perhaps salvation in THIS way is open to them: In the ressurection!

Perhaps Limbo is all we speculate about, but it is not the final word, it is just the holding place until those who are capable can manifest faith in God.

As such, they could attain to salvation at the end of all things.

What do you think of THAT? THat is inline with past teaching, it builds on the teaching that the infants will inhabit the reconstituted earth, and says they can be saved if they were to make an act of faith at this time. Indeed, satan would be bound, so they would be free from temptation, and in the irresistible light of GOd’s glory, how could they refrain from confessing the faith?

Tell me what you think.

 

[thistle]

God is not bound to the sacraments in the sense that they are not absolutely necessary for him to grtant salvation.

But he IS bound to them in the sense that a king is bound to follow the laws he enacts. God cannot contradict himself, he does not regularly violate the laws of nature, he NEVER violates our free will, and therefore how can he violate the sacraments? I think to say he is not bound is a cop out, because God does not change, and what he establishes, he upholds and he is not fickle.

And, no, that’s not all I said in the previous posts. THe recent document on Limbo, has called Limbo the “Common doctrine of the church” and has stated that it has at times “been taught by the magisterium.”

THree popes defended those who believed in infant damnation, a la Augustine, and other Popes have defende other theologians belief in Limbo.

THis makes it more than a simple Pipe dream.

But really, what do you object to in the doctrine? THe unbaptized children do not see God, but they do not suffer, indeed they enjoy natural happiness. How is this not an act of Justice and a work of God’s mercy? Are you worried about never seeing your children again? You won’t worry about it in heaven, so calm down.

Anyway, I was SPECULATING last night, and it hit me:

THere are some theologians who taught that in the ressurection, the infants of limbo will inhabit the reconstituted earth.

But when Christ comes again to reconstitute the earth, he will also establish the heavenly kingdom (remember, death is not the end, it is only the intermediate period until the ressurection).

It seems feasible that IF These infants were to inhabit the paradise of earth, and, being free creatures who are NOT glorified nor are they enlightened, then they would be able to make an act of Faith!

And if they can make an act of Faith, perhaps salvation in THIS way is open to them: In the ressurection!

Perhaps Limbo is all we speculate about, but it is not the final word, it is just the holding place until those who are capable can manifest faith in God.

As such, they could attain to salvation at the end of all things.

What do you think of THAT? THat is inline with past teaching, it builds on the teaching that the infants will inhabit the reconstituted earth, and says they can be saved if they were to make an act of faith at this time. Indeed, satan would be bound, so they would be free from temptation, and in the irresistible light of GOd’s glory, how could they refrain from confessing the faith?

Tell me what you think.

In summary I’m saying the following:

• Limbo for Infants has NEVER been Church doctrine. If it were it still would be and we would be bound to believe it but that is not the case.
• Catholics are free to believe in limbo or not and whatever view is taken it cannot be said to be wrong. The fact that some Church Fathers believed in it does not make it a Church teaching or indeed the fact that some Church Fathers did not believe it is not condemned by the Church as wrong.
• The Church has never taught that unbaptised children go to Hell.
• The Church taught the importance of baptising children as early as possible because that is the only way the Church can communicate supernatural life to the child. However God is not bound by his sacraments and because an infant has not been baptised does not mean they will not be saved. The Church teaches that we entrust them to God’s mercy.

 

[Gregory_I]

In past centuries, the Roman Catholic Church approved, with the highest authority that it claims to possess, the teaching of St. Augustine on original sin. Augustine drew upon the Bible to maintain against the British monk Pelagius and his camp in the fifth century the following points of doctrine.

o The guilt of Adam’s sin is transmitted to all of his posterity – each of us is conceived with the guilt of Adam as one’s own;

o Each of us is justly punished in body and soul for Adam’s sin, the guilt of which we have as our own – thus we are subject to bodily and mental suffering, temporal death and damnation; our intellect is darkened, particularly with regard to spiritual and ethical matters and our will is weakened and debased in its operations;

o Each of us is due eternal punishment for that sin in the fires of hell – we bear the guilt of Adam’s actual sin which, given the state of Adam, merits such sufferings;

o Only through the merits of Christ’s passion, applied to us through baptism or its desire can this guilt be erased – and only through baptism, and perhaps through its desire, can we be spared eternal torment.

 

[Gregory_I]

Since that time, it has been considered a part of the “Pelagian” heresy to deny that doctrine.

Council of Trent: “If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam – which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, **is in each one as his own **– is taken away by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.” (Session Five)

Council of Trent: “If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death and the punishments of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema.”

Catechism of Trent (The catechism binding on all Catholics until 1992): “Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all posterity. To remedy the evil and repair the loss it became necessary that the Son of God should remove the infinite weight of sin and reconcile us to God in His blood.” (1, 2, 2)

The XVI Council of Carthage

1. All the bishops established in the sacred synod of the Carthaginian Church have decided that whoever says that Adam, the first man, was made mortal, so that, whether he sinned or whether he did not sin, he would die in body, that is he would go out of the body not because of the merit of sin but by reason of the necessity of nature, let him be anathema.
2. “Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin from Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration, whence it follows that in regard to them the form of baptism “unto the remission of sins” is understood as not true, but as false, let him be anathema. Since what the Apostle says: “Through one man sin entered into the world (and through sin death), and so passed into all men, in whom all have sinned” [cf. Rom. 5:12], must not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration.”

" 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].

Please note I am not a fan of infant damnation, but I will not censor the Church.

Now, I am about to be told this was a regional council that did not enjoy infallibility. wrong. This council was ratified by Pope St. Zosimus using his apostolic authority, which he clearly states.

“Having received the Acts of the Council of Carthage, Zosimus sent to all the bishops of the world his famous “Epistola tractoria” (418) of which unfortunately only fragments have come down to us. This papal encyclical, a lengthy document, gives a minute account of the entire “causa Caelestii et Pelagii”, from whose works it quotes abundantly, and categorically demands the condemnation of Pelagianism as a heresy. The assertion that every bishop of the world was obliged to confirm this circular by his own signature, cannot be proved, it is more probable that the bishops were required to transmit to Rome a written agreement; if a bishop refused to sign, he was deposed from his office and banished.” newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

Traditionally it is held Zozimus published Carthage’s canons as his own. It is referred to in the Council of Ephesus:
The Tractoria was sent to the whole world:
” …Pope ZOZIMUS of blessed memory directs us, when writing to the bishops of the whole world…” (Ephesus;Denzinger 134) Not just to the eastern churches.
again:
“The same teacher ZOZIMUS trained us , who, when spoke to the whole world….” (Ephesus; Denzinger 135)

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)

If I am wrong I will retract.

 

[Gregory_I]

Please realize I do not intend to be contumacious, I simply need to avail myself of well put arguments to people wiser than myself here, that I might be at peace on some of these issues.

Yet, I would not begin a line of argument with: “God would never…”

God himself says: For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.

 

[StTommyMore]

Please realize I do not intend to be contumacious, I simply need to avail myself of well put arguments to people wiser than myself here, that I might be at peace on some of these issues.

Yet, I would not begin a line of argument with: “God would never…”

God himself says: For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.

This is exactly why we cannot say that God will absolutely not save the unbaptized. We are not denying the doctrine of original sin. We are saying that baptism is not the only remedy for it, though it is the normative remedy. It is not within your ability to say that God cannot save the unbaptized, particularly unbaptized infants, by some means not revealed to us. I do not mean to rain on your parade by taking away your ability to decree people as absolutely damned, but that is the way it is, and your copious posts do nothing to prove your point. In fact all you are doing is setting up a straw man by reufinting arguments we are not making.

 

[Gregory_I]

THat may be, I will back for a day, and do some research…get perspective.

 

[CradleCath]

This is exactly why we cannot say that God will absolutely not save the unbaptized. We are not denying the doctrine of original sin. We are saying that baptism is not the only remedy for it, though it is the normative remedy. It is not within your ability to say that God cannot save the unbaptized, particularly unbaptized infants, by some means not revealed to us. I do not mean to rain on your parade by taking away your ability to decree people as absolutely damned, but that is the way it is, and your copious posts do nothing to prove your point. In fact all you are doing is setting up a straw man by reufinting arguments we are not making.

 

[Gregory_I]

:tsktsk:Neither Christ nor the Church has revealed any other means to repeal original sin than baptism.

IF it is Certain that he MAY save those without baptism, it is equally certain he MAY NOT. In fact, is it more in line with what he has revealed to the church that he may, or that he may not?

Remember, without Faith it impossible to please God. THose who die in original sin alone are not pleasing to God because they do not have faith, hence they are condemned to suffer the loss of the vision of God.

:banghead:The councils of Lyons II and Florence both indicated that those who die with original sin only, such as unbaptised infants, are punished for the guilt of original sin. The councils wrote as follows.

“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.”

:ehh:This is basic Catholic doctrine. And it makes clear that God WILL NOT save at least some of those who are not baptized.

Now, let’s be frank. You must admit this to be a dogma because, it is. I want to see cradlecath affirm this dogma, otherwise he is no Catholic. He need not add any conclusions other than those implied, but he should admit it to be dogma.

Now, let’s be clear, there are only three classes of people who die in original sin alone:

1. Infants and small children.
2. Those who are mentally handicapped.
3. Those who might be virtuous pagans and have only sinned lightly and have lived a life of charity.

Now, one, if not all of these classes of people MUST be the subject of this clearly defined dogma. Otherwise, it’s definition is superfluous, which is impossible, because THE CHURCH DOES NOT ERR.

Now, no matter which class you choose, these are each what may be called “invincibley” ignorant.

Yet, one of them, if not all of them, WILL be the subject of the dogmas of Lyons and Florence.

How can I be so judgemental? Ask the church that. I am only the echo.

So no matter which class you choose, God will not appear “Fair.”:crying: But that is not hard to understand if you REALLY understand original sin. Plus, it is the height of stupidity to judge the origin of all morality with our ideas of what he should be. He is sovereign, and he is just, and he is merciful. And thus all His actions are just and merciful, even if not understood.

REMEMBER THIS DOGMA MEANS SOMETHING.
It is not given without reason. and it MEANS what it says.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

Gregory I,

That’s a very good point…God is not unjust though,so we should just say amen I guess. I found this quote you would probably think interesting:

“Before their Baptism, certain Japanese were greatly troubled by a hateful scruple: that God did not appear merciful, because He had never made Himself known to the Japanese people before, especially that those who had not worshipped God were doomed to everlasting Hell. They grieve over the fate of their departed children, parents, and relatives; so they ask if there is any way to free them by prayer from the eternal misery. And I am obligated to answer: there is absolutely none.”

Saint Francis Xavier

 

[roselily]

Brothers sisters?

Our Lord , our Redeemer, kind and merciful. And see I remembered I read this when I think about it,

Luke 23

The Crucifixion of Jesus

39 One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding* him and saying, ‘Are you not the Messiah?* Save yourself and us!’40But the other rebuked him, saying, ‘Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?41And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.’42Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into* your kingdom.’43He replied, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.’

 

[thistle]

:tsktsk:Neither Christ nor the Church has revealed any other means to repeal original sin than baptism.

IF it is Certain that he MAY save those without baptism, it is equally certain he MAY NOT. In fact, is it more in line with what he has revealed to the church that he may, or that he may not?

Remember, without Faith it impossible to please God. THose who die in original sin alone are not pleasing to God because they do not have faith, hence they are condemned to suffer the loss of the vision of God.

:banghead:The councils of Lyons II and Florence both indicated that those who die with original sin only, such as unbaptised infants, are punished for the guilt of original sin. The councils wrote as follows.

“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.”

:ehh:This is basic Catholic doctrine. And it makes clear that God WILL NOT save at least some of those who are not baptized.

Now, let’s be frank. You must admit this to be a dogma because, it is. I want to see cradlecath affirm this dogma, otherwise he is no Catholic. He need not add any conclusions other than those implied, but he should admit it to be dogma.

Now, let’s be clear, there are only three classes of people who die in original sin alone:

1. Infants and small children.
2. Those who are mentally handicapped.
3. Those who might be virtuous pagans and have only sinned lightly and have lived a life of charity.

Now, one, if not all of these classes of people MUST be the subject of this clearly defined dogma. Otherwise, it’s definition is superfluous, which is impossible, because THE CHURCH DOES NOT ERR.

Now, no matter which class you choose, these are each what may be called “invincibley” ignorant.

Yet, one of them, if not all of them, WILL be the subject of the dogmas of Lyons and Florence.

How can I be so judgemental? Ask the church that. I am only the echo.

So no matter which class you choose, God will not appear “Fair.”:crying: But that is not hard to understand if you REALLY understand original sin. Plus, it is the height of stupidity to judge the origin of all morality with our ideas of what he should be. He is sovereign, and he is just, and he is merciful. And thus all His actions are just and merciful, even if not understood.

REMEMBER THIS DOGMA MEANS SOMETHING.
It is not given without reason. and it MEANS what it says.

Your opinions are CONTRARY to the teachings of the Church.
The Church does not and never has taught that unbapisted infants go to Hell.

 

[Gregory_I]

Thistle, do you affirm the dogma of Lyons/FLorence?

As a Catholic you must.

The conclusions are inescapable.

The Church plainly teaches that those who die in original sin only descend to hell to be punished with different punishments.

Only 3 types of people can die in original sin alone:

1. Infants
   2.Mentally Handicapped
2. Virtuous Pagans.

All of these are invincibley ignorant, but one, or all will be punished with the pain of loss of the beatific vision.

Which one?

This is not my opinion, I am also not saying infants suffer positive damnation, I am saying that, according to the dogma of the Catholic Church One, if not all of these three groups of people will not behold God. THIS MUST NOT BE DENIED. Are we cafeteria Catholics?

The common doctrine of the Church is that it is all three. NOW, please answer the question:

Which? I would hope you would be faithful to the magisterium and accept the inescapable.

Please do not avoid the issue. I DO admit to limbo being a thoery, but I also admit it to be the best theory built on the solid foundation of the dogmas and teachings of the Catholic Church.

But the question I am asking you now is NOT THEORY. This is a fact.

" Reflect on the ruin of souls wrought by this single cause: ignorance of truths which must be known by all men alike in order that they may attain eternal salvation. This we solemnly affirm: the majority of those condemned to eternal punishment fall into everlasting misfortune through ignorance of the Mysteries of the faith, which must necessarily be known and believed by all who belong to the Elect."

Pope Saint Pius X

 

[NeelyAnn]

I just wanted to point out something that was said earlier in this threat, I think by Ultima Ratio. He said those who deny Limbo will almost always end by rejecting the dogmas of the Church, such as the one from the Council of Florence. In reading through these posts, that is exactly what I have seen. Everyone who rejects Limbo also rejects the teaching that the people who die in original sin only go not be saved.

 

[StTommyMore]

I just wanted to point out something that was said earlier in this threat, I think by Ultima Ratio. He said those who deny Limbo will almost always end by rejecting the dogmas of the Church, such as the one from the Council of Florence. In reading through these posts, that is exactly what I have seen. Everyone who rejects Limbo also rejects the teaching that the people who die in original sin only go not be saved.

Nobody has denied anything…except for the traditionalists, who deny that God is not bound by the sacraments.

 

[rinnie]

Things to consider include:

Acceptance / Ignorance / Rejection of the Catholic Teachings
Unconfessed Mortal / Venial Sins
State of mind (Scared of Hell / Fear God / etc.)
Amount of Faith and Works (according to own ability)
Sacrements recieved
Religious Belief (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim, Buddist, Taoist, Agnostic, Atheist, etc.)
Prayers from People on Earth and Saints
(please consider other unmentioned factors if there are, ty)

Interesting question: Does entering Purgatory guarantee salvation?

Thanks.

Yes when you go to purgatory you are then headed for heaven. If you made it to purgatory you did not die in mortal sin, your sins are forgiven. But you still have not been cleansed completely of that sin.

A good example is when you did sin, you were indeed sorry but you can still look back on that sin and still find some kind of fun or enjoyment that you had when you took part in the sin.

Gambeling would be a good one or drinking, if they were sins for you that you could not control you must see the hurt you caused others in your fun etc. For some this is done very quick for some it takes awhile to be completely free from the want of the sin.

 

[rinnie]

Thistle, do you affirm the dogma of Lyons/FLorence?

As a Catholic you must.

The conclusions are inescapable.

The Church plainly teaches that those who die in original sin only descend to hell to be punished with different punishments.

Only 3 types of people can die in original sin alone:

1. Infants
   2.Mentally Handicapped
2. Virtuous Pagans.

All of these are invincibley ignorant, but one, or all will be punished with the pain of loss of the beatific vision.

Which one?

This is not my opinion, I am also not saying infants suffer positive damnation, I am saying that, according to the dogma of the Catholic Church One, if not all of these three groups of people will not behold God. THIS MUST NOT BE DENIED. Are we cafeteria Catholics?

The common doctrine of the Church is that it is all three. NOW, please answer the question:

Which? I would hope you would be faithful to the magisterium and accept the inescapable.

Please do not avoid the issue. I DO admit to limbo being a thoery, but I also admit it to be the best theory built on the solid foundation of the dogmas and teachings of the Catholic Church.

But the question I am asking you now is NOT THEORY. This is a fact.

" Reflect on the ruin of souls wrought by this single cause: ignorance of truths which must be known by all men alike in order that they may attain eternal salvation. This we solemnly affirm: the majority of those condemned to eternal punishment fall into everlasting misfortune through ignorance of the Mysteries of the faith, which must necessarily be known and believed by all who belong to the Elect."

Pope Saint Pius X

I do and I also do not agree with you. The Church has never damned unbaptised infants to hell. THe RCC said that they cannot say that you can enter into heaven w/o being baptised because that is not the teaching of Christ.

But the RCC also says that they rely on the mercy of Christ. So now the question is can Christ baptise an infant? I think you know all thing’s are possible for Christ.

But the RCC also teaches do not leave this up to chance, and obey God and have the Child baptised.

But as I stated the RCC teaches that Christ is a merceful and loving Father who wants us all to enter heaven. So as Catholic’s we can rely on his infinite Love and Mercy. There is also Baptism of desire. It is recognized in the Church.

 

[Shin]

I just wanted to point out something that was said earlier in this threat, I think by Ultima Ratio. He said those who deny Limbo will almost always end by rejecting the dogmas of the Church, such as the one from the Council of Florence. In reading through these posts, that is exactly what I have seen. Everyone who rejects Limbo also rejects the teaching that the people who die in original sin only go not be saved.

Yes, I think that this is where the problem lies, so you have to get at ‘why are they rejecting dogmas’.

You ask questions like ‘do they not understand how to tell what dogma is’, or ‘do they simply not care’? You try to figure out the fundamental reason. Are they getting their Catholicism from popular newspapers and publications? What is going on? But generally I think these are people coming from a worldly perspective who have taken statements that can only be read in the light of tradition, in the light of the contemporary worldview morality instead. They fall for the ever so easy trap of making God fit their views coming out of the world rather than vice versa.

The concept of limbo is unpopular with people trying to please other people’s ears for obvious reasons. So obviously if it can be ignored, neglected, etc. it will be by those with any excuse however slim to do so.

To a degree so people become victims of their own lack of historical knowledge and ambiguous statements meant to please the ears a little too much perhaps, when used outside of the context of history.

You can see that people have been plainly taught the necessity of baptism, with instructions on emergency baptism for miscarriages and danger of death – but now that we are in a time of profound ignorance and lack of Faith, people feel like whatever they come up with is what it is, rather than something more educated and sometimes yes, tougher to accept at first.

I think people who have a problem with dogmas of original sin, etc. probably had poor catechesis often enough and stuck with that, and make their judgements about morality based on emotion a good deal rather than approaching moral law with the implicit acceptance of a good deal of things that at first will be hard.

People who try to educate others about these dogmas are doing an unpopular task, who wants to speak about the terrible consequences of original sin? Who wants to defend that the unbaptized babies who die are deprived of the beatific vision? Only those who realize that in fact, there is dogma proclaimed here. And so there is grave harm done by denying the dogma.

Limbo’s existence is not decided by our emotions. Original sin’s existence is not decided by our emotions. In this world, young babies suffer and die, emotionally we find this hard to accept, but this is the Creation God has given us. It does not go away because we have trouble reconciling it emotionally at first. On the contrary, only by embracing dogmas do we find the route to truly accepting and placing the harder things in life within our limited understanding.

‘Whoever says that infants are alive in Christ even when they depart this life without being baptized is really both opposing the Apostolic preaching and condemning the whole Church which runs hastily with infants to the baptismal font because it is beleived without any doubt that otherwise these infants cannot possibly be alive in Christ.’

'If you want to be a Catholic do not believe, do not say, do not teach that infants carried off by death before being baptized can obtain the remission of original sin."

St. Augustine, Father, Bishop, Doctor of the Church ‘Doctor of Grace’

A good sermon on Limbo – starts a few minutes in.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Nobody has denied anything…except for the traditionalists, who deny that God is not bound by the sacraments.

I didn’t see where anyone denied that its possible for God to give someone grace without the Sacraments. And I may have misread some of your other post. Are you saying that you do believe those who die in original sin only, such as babies, are lost? It sounded like you did not accept that teaching of the Church?

 

[StTommyMore]

I didn’t see where anyone denied that its possible for God to give someone grace without the Sacraments. And I may have misread some of your other post. Are you saying that you do believe those who die in original sin only, such as babies, are lost? It sounded like you did not accept that teaching of the Church?

It is not for you or I to say, but God alone. I will say that those who die in original sin are damned, but I stop short of saying who is or is not definitively in original sin.