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

[rinnie]

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)

Limbo was never a Church doctrine.

 

[rinnie]

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.

This here is where I see that you said that unbaptised infants go to hell:shrug: Simply because they would indeed be those who die in original sin if they are not baptised:shrug:

I do not know of a teaching that says that they will never get to be in the presence of God. By the way the definition of hell is to be separated from God. So I am confused in your post also.

 

[rinnie]

Limbo was never a Church doctrine.

My mistake I meant Church dogma as was implied.

If I can make a quick statement if Limbo was a Church Dogma it would be an infallible teaching of the CC and could never be changed. Because being infallible it came from God.

Church doctrines which Limbo was stated is an infallible teaching that can be altered abandoned etc.

Limbo was believed to be a place I believe in the O.T where Abraham was before Christ came a released the souls. It was a place that people were happy but not in complete happiness because they have not gone to heaven yet.

So I guess in a way you could say that they would all be in a state of original sin right? Because original sin was not taken away until Jesus came and died on the cross and died for our sins. That is why Jesus went to paradise I believe it was called to release the souls to heaven.

 

[Gregory_I]

First, let me say this, The details of what makes the doctrine of Limbo, Limbo are SPECULATION. I have said this more than once.

But what is NOT speculation are the dogmas of the church! THESE ARE NOT THEORY. Do we understand that? The speculation on Limbo only begins when we try to say what infants DO experience after death.

But it is no speculation to say what unbaptized infants do NOT experience after death: THey do not experience the beatific vision.

Here is another dogma **not **related directly to limbo as such, but that indicates that unbaptized infants do not have the beatific vision:

Council of Trent, Session five:

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

Remember, he is applying the words of our Lord to INFANTS. Therefore unbaptized infants do not have the beatific vision. This whole canon is about INFANTS. And it is a dogma of the faith.

AS is the much repeated canon of the ecumenical council of florence: “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.”

That unabptized infants do not have the batific vision is not the doctrine of limbo.

Limbo is the speculation on what they DO experience, not what they do not.

What they do not has been dogmatically defined.

But even the speculation of what they DO experience is built on solid catholic dogmas. It’s not just glitter and fairy dust, it’s substantial meat and potatoes.

Just for giggles, Here is also the Catechism of the council of Trent, The Roman Catechism that was binding on every Catholic and is part of the authentic and ordinary Magisterium: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."

The church clearly teaches in its official catechism that infants do not have any means of being brought into eternal life apart from baptism. THis Catechism is part of the Ordinary Magisterium, and was in effect from the time of Trent in the 16th Century until 1992. I do not admit the truths it contains to have altered, or that the church could change its mind.

***THe Catechism clearly interprets the intent of the council ***And if they say here that infants have no means of salvation other than baptism, then we must believe that in the Above quoted canon from trent that that is what they intended to teach, and it is apparent that they actually taught.

THat is not limbo: therefore this is not theory.
Like I said, the THEORY begins when we try to talk about what they DO experience.

lastly, let me say, I do not believe that God is subject to his creation. I believe he is greater than the sacraments.

BUT, I do not believe that he does not bind himself to the sacraments, he certainly could, if he is all-powerful.

But my point is not that God cannot reach beyond them: My point is that it is NOT HIS WILL to circumvent the means HE ESTABLISHED for salvation. If infants are saved (WHich the Dogma of the church indicates they are not), Then it would have to be in such a way where they were saved as CATHOLICS.

Without Faith it is IMPOSSIBLE, can we say it again? IMPOSSIBLE to please God.

Unbaptized children are born justly condemned and under the wrath of GOd, and are enemies of GOd. Why? Because Original sin is in each of us as a PERSONAL fault. THis is also a dofma I have posted again and again, do you want me to show you?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

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!

[SIGN]Limbo is part of the constant teaching of the church, and it is based on dogmas [/SIGN]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)

This is where you said it!

 

[rinnie]

Gregory please read 847 of the CCC. It says that those who at no fault of their own know Christ they too may achieve eternal salvation.

That would be an baby. If at the moment of its death if an infant wants to be with Christ he will accept that child. Christ knows a heart, even a heart of an infant.

Please continue to read the CCC.

 

[Gregory_I]

When I said limbo is par tof the constant teaching of the church, I basically meant what the church calls it, “The common doctrine of the church.”

But no, limbo is theological speculation, but I reiterate my entire previous Post. Can you please address some of the issues I raise in THAT? Because I feel you are just ignoring my response, and any meaningful dialogue must have adequate response.

Look, I do not doubt that God may save those in invincible ignorance. BUT if they ARE saved it will be in the way HE has established: THey will somehow have divine and catholic faith and manifest a solemn desire to receive the sacraments. THere is no other means of salvation.

ALso, if it is certain GOd MAY do something, it is equally certain he may not, because “may” is indefinite. It can swing either way. BUt the more CONSISTENT teaching of the church and the theologians of the church and of numerous popes is that ignorance, even invincible ignorance has the form of SIn, and mortal sin at that.

“For since the creation of the world, GOd’s invisible attributes and his divine powere have been CLEARLY seen from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Romans
1:20 I believe. Does the BIble support the idea of a TRULY invincible ignorance?

All invincible ignorance means is that they do not sin by not believeing, because they have not heard: IT ONLY means they are not guilty of unbelief. It has nothing to do with sanctifying grace: Again this is the more consistent teaching of the CHurch’s popes and theologians.

Besides, it’s not like those in invincible ignorance live some form of noble life: THey are more prone to sin than any of us, they are without grace

Please respond to my issues, and I will gladly respond to yours!

I sincerely pray that Christ illumines us all, especially me…

 

[PJM]

=PLAT;7447387]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.

Dear friends in Christ,

There are TWO Judgments:

1. Immediate upon death we are sent to the Eternal resting place OF OUR PERSONAL CHOICE: IT IS OUR CHOICE NOT GOD’S.

So we are at once either in Hell, or in-route to heaven [few of us will by pass Purgatory; because we must be PERFECTED in order to attain heaven and Purgatory is ASSURENCE OF HEAVEN, and th manner chosen by God for the necessarry purificaton.]

That is why the LAST RITES are sooooo important. Like Baptism; the Last Rites properly administered and received perfects us in the same manner as Baptism. IT PAY"S TO BE CATHOLIC! This is a pass for immediate access to heaven.

1. The FINAL Judgment is more “public” in that everyone WILL KNOW OUR FATE, BUT only affirms the first judgement. No second chance after death.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[rinnie]

When I said limbo is par tof the constant teaching of the church, I basically meant what the church calls it, “The common doctrine of the church.”

But no, limbo is theological speculation, but I reiterate my entire previous Post. Can you please address some of the issues I raise in THAT? Because I feel you are just ignoring my response, and any meaningful dialogue must have adequate response.

Look, I do not doubt that God may save those in invincible ignorance. BUT if they ARE saved it will be in the way HE has established: THey will somehow have divine and catholic faith and manifest a solemn desire to receive the sacraments. THere is no other means of salvation.

ALso, if it is certain GOd MAY do something, it is equally certain he may not, because “may” is indefinite. It can swing either way. BUt the more CONSISTENT teaching of the church and the theologians of the church and of numerous popes is that ignorance, even invincible ignorance has the form of SIn, and mortal sin at that.

“For since the creation of the world, GOd’s invisible attributes and his divine powere have been CLEARLY seen from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Romans
1:20 I believe. Does the BIble support the idea of a TRULY invincible ignorance?

All invincible ignorance means is that they do not sin by not believeing, because they have not heard: IT ONLY means they are not guilty of unbelief. It has nothing to do with sanctifying grace: Again this is the more consistent teaching of the CHurch’s popes and theologians.

Besides, it’s not like those in invincible ignorance live some form of noble life: THey are more prone to sin than any of us, they are without grace

Please respond to my issues, and I will gladly respond to yours!

I sincerely pray that Christ illumines us all, especially me…

Here is something we have to remember. Now we as Catholic’s know that everything we need to know about our faith comes from the CC. We are in total agreement here, And by the way I admire your love for the Church and the teaching’s of the Church and can relate 100% to them.

But here is a point we have to remember. Lets say the Pope tells us something right now to do. Now he has that right from God to make the calls for our moral souls. Now at this moment we as RC have to obey what he says. I agree with you.

But remember that could be a teaching for our time and moment in time, or it can be a discipline. Now that is not a dogma. Dogma never changes. Doctrines remember are not infallible teachings like dogma, see what I mean. But yes as Catholic’s for us they are just as important at the moment.

I know its confusing it took me years to really understand the difference.

But the easiest thing to remember is the next Pope can do what he thinks is right when he is Pope for our souls and that does not make what the last Pope wrong.

Remember the Pope has the keys to the kingdom. And we do have great faith in him to lead us on the right morals.

Now back to the teaching’s of infants. This is what the Pope said kind of in a easier way. The Pope cannot say for sure that infants can enter heaven w/o baptism. But he also cannot say they can’t. All he can teach as dogma is what he knows and that is we must be Baptised to enter heaven.

Now with that said, you must remember as time goes on more and more is revealed to each Pope from God and more and more understanding is given, but as God says when he chooses to reveal it to us.

So with that said the Pope in the Past only said he knows one teaching that we must be Baptised to have eternal life. But Jesus never said if a person was not baptised they are going to hell. See what I mean? Thats the point.

So the teaching of the CHurch is simply this, we know that Baptism is required for eternal life in Christ, but as scripture tells us God said do not hinder the CHildren let them come to me. So we can rely on his mercy to accept them. That is not saying that we do not have to be Baptised to enter heaven. But it does mean that Christ can under extra ordinary circumstance do that himself. See what I mean?

As time goes on we gain more and more understanding of the teaching’s of Christ. But if it was a dogma of the faith that Children could not enter heaven w/o baptism then it would have been Infallible teaching and would have never changed.

 

[poker10]

Don’t know if it matters or not, but the Limbo thing has been explored by the CAF apologists.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=88713

 

[Gregory_I]

Rinnie, I really appreciate what you said. Let me just answer in bold to each of your points if I may:

“Remember the Pope has the keys to the kingdom. And we do have great faith in him to lead us on the right morals.”
No doubt.

Now back to the teaching’s of infants. This is what the Pope said kind of in a easier way. The Pope cannot say for sure that infants can enter heaven w/o baptism. But he also cannot say they can’t. All he can teach as dogma is what he knows and that is we must be Baptised to enter heaven.

That is true. But, there is more dogma to it than that. And there is also the teaching of the ordinary magisterium. Plenty of popes before this one said infants cannot enter heaven without baptism. I don’t want to rehash EVERYTHING, so let me just point out That it is Taught in the Catechism of the council of trent (Ordinary magisterium), it is taught within the context of dogma in the 4th canon of the 5th session of trent, and is explicitly taught by the Council of florence. Let’s also remember that DOGMA teaches us that all of us are born with the PERSONAL guilt of adam’s sin. Trent dogmatically declared the sin of adam and its guilt to have a personal character in all of us who are born in original sin. Trent also teaches Dogmatically that adam’s sin incurred God’s wrath and indignation; and not only for himself, but for all humanity, i.e. all those born in original sin. THat part is in session 6 in the decree on justification. Therefore, before baptism, we are all justly condemned children of wrath and subject to GOd’s indignation and slaves to the devil and spiritually dead. We do not merit or deserve heaven in any way. And this is true from our infancy. THerefore Infants don’t deserve heaven unless they be baptized. THat is NOT speculation my friend, this is explicit catholic DOGMA, not doctrine. Hence, it is biding on all for all time.

“Now with that said, you must remember as time goes on more and more is revealed to each Pope from God and more and more understanding is given, but as God says when he chooses to reveal it to us.”

I know what you MEAN, but i just want to clarify that a pope doesn’t necessarilly receive more wisdom from God just by being pope, nor does God grant more understanding automatically; several popes, like Alexander VI were completely …Expletive.

“So with that said the Pope in the Past only said he knows one teaching that we must be Baptised to have eternal life. But Jesus never said if a person was not baptised they are going to hell. See what I mean? Thats the point.”

I can’t say that I do, because Jesus did say that: “Unless a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus put some pretty clear limits on salvation, like having divine Faith and Receiving the Sacraments. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Because he would then not choose to be baptized). Also, the Catholic faith was delivered whole and entire to the apostles. The only difference is in language and nuance of understanding as time goes on.

“So the teaching of the Church is simply this, we know that Baptism is required for eternal life in Christ, but as scripture tells us God said do not hinder the CHildren let them come to me. So we can rely on his mercy to accept them. That is not saying that we do not have to be Baptised to enter heaven. But it does mean that Christ can under extra ordinary circumstance do that himself. See what I mean?”

I don’t mean to be contumacious, but I don’t. When Jesus told his disciples not to hinder the little children, it was because he knew they needed salvation and he wants to give it to them. But Salvation only comes through baptism. If it were not possible for their salvation to be hindered, how can Jesus tell his disciples to NOT hinder them? In other words: Present your children for baptism. Plus remember, unbaptized children are stained with original sin: they are already justly condemned, as dogmatically taught by the Ecumenical council of Trent, and are under the wrath of God. He doesn’t mean nothing can hinder children, what he means is no PERSON should hinder their salvation. But how could a person hinder the salvation of unbaptized infants? By not presenting them for baptism, because they are under the just condemnation for their sin.

“As time goes on we gain more and more understanding of the teaching’s of Christ. But if it was a dogma of the faith that Children could not enter heaven w/o baptism then it would have been Infallible teaching and would have never changed.”

**The Teaching of Lyons II and Florence
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.”**

continued

 

[Gregory_I]

Continued, my respone.

**The teaching of XVI Council of Carthage in 418 ad.

“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].”

Before you tell me this is not infallible, it was a North African Council only, it was both Ratified by an ecumenical council, and circulated by Pope Zosimus and embraced as the teaching of the Apostolic See.

“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)**

 

[rinnie]

Okay Gregory lets take this another way, so I can show you my point!

The Church teaches as Jesus Christ did YES you must be baptised to enter heaven. That is dogma of the faith and will never change.

But the Church did NOT teach that there is only one form of BAPTISM. Do you see what I mean.

The Church has never stated that a infant can or cannot enter heaven w/o baptism they said they do not know. ALL they know is baptsim is needed for eternal life in Christ.

Now with that said, the Church has always believed for centuries of Baptism of desire.

There are different forms of baptism. Bap, of desire is one of them.

Baptism of desire is not a Sacrament but CAN fulfil the requiements when the sacrament cannot be received due to extra-ordinary circumstances.

Our Lord spoke of different Baptisms Luke 12:50 Our Lord said there is A baptism which would imply a form of baptism.

John baptised with Water, our Lord baptised with blood, see what I mean.

The church has never denied that Baptism is required. But the Church has never stated that there is only one FORM of Baptism. It is even in the CCC.

Now with this said go back and read 1260 of the CCC I believe it will make sense to you now.

Read 1258 of the CCC. I am never denying Baptism needed for eternal life in Christ because it was never taught. And the Church has never denied it, but I am saying there is more then one form that in EXTRA-ORDINARY circumstances that you can gain eternal life in Christ.

Here is a great example. I have 3 kids Gregory. My third baby I lost at about 3 months into my pregnancy. There was nothing to baptise. Now was that a person? Just because it did not fully develope was it a soul. Our faith tells us yes, but not what about its soul.

But see it haunted me for years, but Father said that GOD knew that if that Child was to be born it would have been baptised right away just like my other Children. But extra-ordinary circumstances made that impossible for me. But my desire made it possible for God to baptise it for me. Do you understand what I am saying?

But please understand I would NEVER said to anyone do not give that Child to God right away or for anyone to hold out on Baptism. But just sometimes its just not possible. It was my desire for that Child to accept God that gained it eternal life, just like it was my desire in this world for my 2 that made it. But circumstances held me from doing it with one child but not with the other.

Because think about it, if we are to be honest it is Baptism of desire we are giving in a Christian Baptism until that Child can reach the way of Reason. It is our desire to give that Child to God, and then when that Child is older they must desire God. See what I mean?

 

[rinnie]

So to sum it up the Church has never said that there is only one kind of Baptism. And we rely on Gods mercy to accept these Children who if they would have lived would have desire Christ and been baptised. God knows this.

Remember what he said the kingdom of God is made up of these Children.

We believe as Catholic’s if it were not possible God could baptise them and let them enter heaven. That is extra-ordinary circumstances. Now that is not saying he will, but he can. That is all I am saying. No one can speak for God.

 

[rinnie]

Gregory here is something else to think about.

Remember the good thief and the bad thief. Were they not both carrying the same guilt. Did they both not commit the same evil in this life.

But the good thief as we call him would be a good example of Baptism of desire. Jesus did not say sorry bud you were not baptised, too late your are out. He said from this day on you will be with me in paradise.

Now yes Jesus himself did indeed baptise him, don’t get me wrong. but think about it, not an ordinary Baptism. You could say extra-ordinary Baptism and extra-ordinary circumstances.

But we do not know about the soul of a baby, can it have reason at the second of its death, understand, etc? I say when it comes to God Yes!!

Remember the moment we are conceived God knows who are his, and who are not.

 

[Gregory_I]

Desire by itself is not sufficient, it must be preceded by faith, without which it is impossible to please God. THe Only time desire can work, according to the church, is when a person, moved by God’s grace, embraces the Catholic Faith. Faith is mecessary to be pleasing to God. Then, in accordance with Catholic faith, they must have the solemn intention to receive the sacraments:

" In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition of perfect love
( that is charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith ), and the simultaneous desire or baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains."

Taken from " The Catholic Concise Encyclopedia", by Robert Broderick, M.A. page 126 copyright
1957, Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, August 31, 1956.

So lets not pretend that the whole world has this Baptism of Desire. Water Baptism is needed for salvation because this and only this incorporates one into Holy Mother the Church. Lets not mock our Lord’s own words. It could put one in the state of Justification, assuming one has the true faith. However, Justification and Salvation are two different things as the Council of Trent defined.

CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: ***lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, ***[Page 34] to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.

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

CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

As regards the good thief, remember, he lived under the old covenant, and his FAITH justified him. He was under no obligation to receive the sacraments, because Christ had not established them as necessary yet: THat would be on Pentecost, when the church was born. Christ led the good thief out of the Limbo of the Fathers and into heaven.

But the Just shall live by Faith and the sacraments and the commandments.

 

[rinnie]

Desire by itself is not sufficient, it must be preceded by faith, without which it is impossible to please God. THe Only time desire can work, according to the church, is when a person, moved by God’s grace, embraces the Catholic Faith. Faith is mecessary to be pleasing to God. Then, in accordance with Catholic faith, they must have the solemn intention to receive the sacraments:

" In its proper meaning, this consists of an act of perfect contrition of perfect love
( that is charity, which necessarily implies that one has the True Faith ), and the simultaneous desire or baptism. It does not imprint an indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive Baptism by water remains."

Taken from " The Catholic Concise Encyclopedia", by Robert Broderick, M.A. page 126 copyright
1957, Imprimatur by Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, August 31, 1956.

So lets not pretend that the whole world has this Baptism of Desire. Water Baptism is needed for salvation because this and only this incorporates one into Holy Mother the Church. Lets not mock our Lord’s own words. It could put one in the state of Justification, assuming one has the true faith. However, Justification and Salvation are two different things as the Council of Trent defined.

CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: ***lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, ***[Page 34] to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.

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

CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

As regards the good thief, remember, he lived under the old covenant, and his FAITH justified him. He was under no obligation to receive the sacraments, because Christ had not established them as necessary yet: THat would be on Pentecost, when the church was born. Christ led the good thief out of the Limbo of the Fathers and into heaven.

But the Just shall live by Faith and the sacraments and the commandments.

Okay then think what you just said, If desire is not enough how can a infant of two weeks that is baptised have faith?

Where did that infant have time to grow and embrace the Catholic faith? Do you not agree that the Child was indeed baptised in faith and entrance to heaven should be granted?

What if the Child died at 3 weeks? Does it have the faith you feel to qualify it for heaven??

 

[rinnie]

And think what you also said!! the Good thief was not justified by faith, Then we get into the faith alone concept again.

The good thief was justified by GRACE, the grace that can only come for God himself. It is by Grace that we can gain faith.

Faith can never be justified, Nothing can justify us but Gods love for us and redemption on the cross.

We can never have enough faith to justify us for heaven. It is by the perfection of Christ and Christ alone that we gain eternal life. It was his death on the cross, not our faith that saves us.

Because we can have all the faith in the world, but our faith cannot save us from sin. If it could we would not need a Savior to take away our sin.

Because I believe that I have more faith then anyone could possibly imagine, but somehow with the Grace that God has given me in my faith, I still fall into sin. And without the cross my sin would have me to hell.

 

[PJM]

=bmccpy78;7456968]What about limbo? Isn’t that an option too?

One eldom hears about 'Limbo" a intermediate place of No suffering BUT also INCOMPLETE Joy] anymore.

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

NOTE: This is NOT an expression of OFFICAL CC Teaching; but is found to be an acceptable belief that one at there own Option My Hold.

Adults die W/O Baptism because it was never made availble to them may attain salvation:

**CCC 1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

**1281 **Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).

Even today in Countries of Persecution are people who never are given the opportunity to Know and Accept Christ. Because his is not a condition of there own freewill choice; they too MIGHT be saved.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

Okay then think what you just said, If desire is not enough how can a infant of two weeks that is baptised have faith?

Where did that infant have time to grow and embrace the Catholic faith? Do you not agree that the Child was indeed baptised in faith and entrance to heaven should be granted?

What if the Child died at 3 weeks? Does it have the faith you feel to qualify it for heaven??

If a person below the age of reason is baptized, the habit of faith is infused into the soul along with sanctifying grace. When the soul reaches the age of reason, the child is then required to make an act of faith. For the child receiving baptism (for whom it is not possible to make an act of faith) the Godparents make the act of faith in the child’s place. For an adult, however, who has the use of reason (and is therefore capable of making an act of faith),* the act of faith* is necessar before receiving baptism.

According to St. Thomas, if an adult receives baptism, yet does not have the correct faith, the baptism itself does not communicate grace to the soul.