Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos?

[Convert_in_99]

I always wonder about the methodology here.

If 60% of conceived embryos are flushed out unnoticed, how does he know about them? Has some researcher followed a large number of women for a period of time, analyzing menstrual flows every single month for flushed embryos? I have never seen this kind of evidence.

It’s true! An embryo can sometimes not implant and so the remains come out with normal menstrual flow. Implantation is what causes the hcg hormone to elevate and produce a positive pregnancy test. Without implantation the test would be negative a. This doesn’t mean the baby didn’t exist beforehand.

 

[petra22]

Between very early miscarriage (often goes completely unnoticed), known miscarriages, artificial reproduction, and abortion I’d say that number is a good guess if not possibly higher still.

Does this include the ones who are chemically aborted by birth control methods??? The mothers and fathers don’t even KNOW!

 

[Convert_in_99]

Does this include the ones who are chemically aborted by birth control methods??? The mothers and fathers don’t even KNOW!

Just because the mothers and fathers don’t know doesn’t mean God doesn’t so of course they are included!

 

[Rico_S]

Just a side note—The Church does not speak on when ensoulment occurs. Perhaps that has some bearing on this conversation?

 

[Convert_in_99]

Just a side note—The Church does not speak on when ensoulment occurs. Perhaps that has some bearing on this conversation?

Ensoulment occurs at the exact moment of conception. Otherwise abortion wouldn’t be so sinful!

 

[Rico_S]

Ensoulment occurs at the exact moment of conception. Otherwise abortion wouldn’t be so sinful!

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=305

" People are sometimes surprised to hear that the wrongness of destroying a human embryo does not ultimately depend on when that embryo might become a person, or when he or she might receive a soul from God. They often suppose that the Catholic Church teaches that destroying human embryos is unacceptable because such embryos are persons (or are “ensouled”). While it is true that the Church teaches that the intentional and direct destruction of human embryos is always immoral, it would be incorrect to conclude that the Church teaches that zygotes(a single-cell embryo) or other early-stage embryos are persons, or that they already have immortal, rational souls. The magisterium of the Church has never definitively stated when the ensoulment of the human embryo takes place. It remains an open question. "

 

[clusterym]

Does this include the ones who are chemically aborted by birth control methods??? The mothers and fathers don’t even KNOW!

That’s true, I’m wondering if the numbers in the research was a bit skewed due to abortifacient pills taken by the mother.

Also… the article speaks of abnormal embryos, would these be ensouled? I know the Church doesn’t speak on it, but I’m just curious on your thoughts.

 

[Convert_in_99]

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=305

" People are sometimes surprised to hear that the wrongness of destroying a human embryo does not ultimately depend on when that embryo might become a person, or when he or she might receive a soul from God. They often suppose that the Catholic Church teaches that destroying human embryos is unacceptable because such embryos are persons (or are “ensouled”). While it is true that the Church teaches that the intentional and direct destruction of human embryos is always immoral, it would be incorrect to conclude that the Church teaches that zygotes(a single-cell embryo) or other early-stage embryos are persons, or that they already have immortal, rational souls. The magisterium of the Church has never definitively stated when the ensoulment of the human embryo takes place. It remains an open question. "

That’s a load of ****! Just because a single priest says it doesn’t make it catholic dogma. I’m not surprised to see that priest studied at both Harvard and Yale nor am I surprised he hails from the diocese of Massachusetts, but I guess that would be a subject for another thread.

 

[Rico_S]

That’s a load of ****! Just because a single priest says it doesn’t make it catholic dogma. I’m not surprised to see that priest studied at both Harvard and Yale nor am I surprised he hails from the diocese of Massachusetts, but I guess that would be a subject for another thread.

From the “Declaration on Procured Abortion” from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1974:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent …”

Read more: ncregister.com/site/article/embryonic_ensoulment/#ixzz3TcOIgntb

 

[Convert_in_99]

From the “Declaration on Procured Abortion” from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1974:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent …”

Read more: ncregister.com/site/article/embryonic_ensoulment/#ixzz3TcOIgntb

Great thanks! You do realize this is the logic places like planned parenthood use against us. Yes let’s give satan more fuel for his fire!

Regardless that would at least justify my point on miscarried babies and other innocents who die without the choice of baptism.

 

[Sophie_Lawrence]

Where is that in Church teaching? I have never heard of baptism of desire being referred to as the parents desiring it…
From the CCC

Baptism of desire is being addressed as a catechumen desiring it. Not another person.

We may hope that God saves these babies through means that we do not know.

Lex orandi Lex credendi, means the law of praying is the law of believing.

We don’t pray for the impossible. We know God has infinite mercy. We do pray for unborn babies, in my house we pray everyday, “Jesus protect and save the unborn”

ewtn.com/Devotionals/prayers/miscarriage.htm

My Lord, the baby is dead!

Why, my Lord—dare I ask why? It will not hear the whisper of the wind or see the beauty of its parents’ face—it will not see the beauty of Your creation or the flame of a sunrise. Why, my Lord?

“Why, My child—do you ask ‘why’? Well, I will tell you why.

You see, the child lives. Instead of the wind he hears the sound of angels singing before My throne. Instead of the beauty that passes he sees everlasting Beauty—he sees My face. He was created and lived a short time so the image of his parents imprinted on his face may stand before Me as their personal intercessor. He knows secrets of heaven unknown to men on earth. He laughs with a special joy that only the innocent possess. My ways are not the ways of man. I create for My Kingdom and each creature fills a place in that Kingdom that could not be filled by another. He was created for My joy and his parents’ merits. He has never seen pain or sin. He has never felt hunger or pain. I breathed a soul into a seed, made it grow and called it forth.”

I am humbled before you, my Lord, for questioning Your wisdom, goodness, and love. I speak as a fool—forgive me. I acknowledge Your sovereign rights over life and death. I thank You for the life that began for so short a time to enjoy so long an Eternity. – Mother M. Angelica

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

We may hope that God saves these babies through means that we do not know.

Lex orandi Lex credendi, means the law of praying is the law of believing.

We don’t pray for the impossible. We know God has infinite mercy. We do pray for unborn babies, in my house we pray everyday, “Jesus protect and save the unborn”

ewtn.com/Devotionals/prayers/miscarriage.htm

yes this is what I have been saying.

 

[Convert_in_99]

We may hope that God saves these babies through means that we do not know.

Lex orandi Lex credendi, means the law of praying is the law of believing.

We don’t pray for the impossible. We know God has infinite mercy. We do pray for unborn babies, in my house we pray everyday, “Jesus protect and save the unborn”

ewtn.com/Devotionals/prayers/miscarriage.htm

Bless you!

 

[Convert_in_99]

yes this is what I have been saying.

Your posts read more in favor of the thinking that many of these holy innocents won’t be saved. I’m glad we are on the same page here. .

To everyone: I side with Mother Angelica on this issue. Her prayer (and many of her writings and teachings) are super orthodox but also gentle and merciful. She has a well balanced prospective on life. I sure miss her shows! God bless her!

 

[on_the_hill]

From the “Declaration on Procured Abortion” from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1974:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent …”

Read more: ncregister.com/site/article/embryonic_ensoulment/#ixzz3TcOIgntb

Great thanks! You do realize this is the logic places like planned parenthood use against us. Yes let’s give satan more fuel for his fire!

Regardless that would at least justify my point on miscarried babies and other innocents who die without the choice of baptism.

Wait–you’re implying that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is providing support to Planned Parenthood? :ehh:

 

[on_the_hill]

"John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the President’s Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women’s normal menstrual flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we’re talking about.

Why is it not miscarriage?

 

[Convert_in_99]

Wait–you’re implying that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is providing support to Planned Parenthood? :ehh:

No, but discussing or debating these unknowns publicly can give pro choicers ammunition to fuel thier debates in favor of abortion. Example: a catholic theologian discuses what this post said in public, pro choicers may use that ammo to persuade persons to be on their side. The Catholic Church isn’t even sure themselves when life begins…therfore since it is in debate then you are not bound by it and can therefore in good conscience have this abortion of a glob of tissue (since we are arguing it might not fully be a baby yet.)

I worked with this for years. That is what happens. They look for any loophole and run with it.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Why is it not miscarriage?

They are saying it’s not a baby yet

It is miscarriage.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Your posts read more in favor of the thinking that many of these holy innocents won’t be saved. I’m glad we are on the same page here. .

To everyone: I side with Mother Angelica on this issue. Her prayer (and many of her writings and teachings) are super orthodox but also gentle and merciful. She has a well balanced prospective on life. I sure miss her shows! God bless her!

No. My posts have cited what the Church says. Nothing more nothing less. What I personally think really has no bearing on who is in heaven and who is not. I can tell you that baptism saves and that you misunderstood what baptism of desire meant, and that as out of line as it would be for me to say that all unbaptized babies go to hell it is equally foolish and presumptuous to declare them in heaven. And for the record I have been the only poster who has advocated PRAYING for these souls at all.

Prayer for the souls of the unborn should be a staple in any Catholic’s prayer litany. And why would we pray for them? Our prayers would be hollow if they were damned, and it would be meaningless if they were granted sainthood by the sheer fact of being born. God does not “owe” heaven. And a good understanding of the fall, and of Original Sin And Free Will. Your arguments have merit from an emotional standpoint. But theologically they were off base.

I am 100 percent certain that if God felt it necessary to reveal what becomes of these souls, he would. And He would do it through the Church. And the Church I am also as certain would LOVE to deliver this news to the millions of grieving families who have lost children thought the entirety of Her existence. But She cannot. Because He has not.

I have absolutely no problem with the idea that God could come to each single soul that is a baby and speak to that soul in such a way that that child can choose the Gospel and the desire to be baptized. That applies to those inside and outside the womb. The Church Herself has not seen fit to declare an unborn unbaptized saint. Nor is it really a good idea to devalue the necessity of baptism for the comfort of some. Jesus has revealed that Baptism now saves us, and baptism is defined. The Church Herself Teaches without error that baptism is necessary for salvation and that this is the way for Human kind to be cleansed of Original Sin. Which all except Adam, Eve, and Mary were created with. God cannot create a problem that He cannot solve. So while Enoch, Moses, and Elijah Were taken into heaven, something must have cleansed them. But all of fallen mankind lives with the consequences of Original Sin. And the Free Will of Each person to CHOOSE Heaven or Hell must not be interfered with. And that would apply as well to a fully human embryo.

Jesus, as Merciful as He is, told us to Baptize. He himself, sacrificed His life and we are asked to do the same. And though God wills the salvation of all, the fallen nature of the World is in opposition to that Will.

I hope and pray that any child be saved. And that hope is not in vain. But I also realize that as much as I would love to tell someone that so and so is in heaven, I do not have that authority. As much as I also do not have the authority to damn others.

The problem of abortion is also part of this discussion. If aborting a child guaranteed heaven then indeed abortion would be the replacement sacrament for baptism…

Though indeed to some, it sadly already is a sacrament…

I understand this is probably one of the most emotional loaded things in the world! But did you understand what the CCC says that was quoted? Do you also understand why the Holy innocents are not bound by baptism as it did not exist yet?

A question for some other Catholic folk. Does the Church teach of the Baptism of Mary? That would indeed be an interesting idea…

 

[Convert_in_99]

No. My posts have cited what the Church says. Nothing more nothing less. What I personally think really has no bearing on who is in heaven and who is not. I can tell you that baptism saves and that you misunderstood what baptism of desire meant, and that as out of line as it would be for me to say that all unbaptized babies go to hell it is equally foolish and presumptuous to declare them in heaven. And for the record I have been the only poster who has advocated PRAYING for these souls at all.

Prayer for the souls of the unborn should be a staple in any Catholic’s prayer litany. And why would we pray for them? Our prayers would be hollow if they were damned, and it would be meaningless if they were granted sainthood by the sheer fact of being born. God does not “owe” heaven. And a good understanding of the fall, and of Original Sin And Free Will. Your arguments have merit from an emotional standpoint. But theologically they were off base.

I am 100 percent certain that if God felt it necessary to reveal what becomes of these souls, he would. And He would do it through the Church. And the Church I am also as certain would LOVE to deliver this news to the millions of grieving families who have lost children thought the entirety of Her existence. But She cannot. Because He has not.

I have absolutely no problem with the idea that God could come to each single soul that is a baby and speak to that soul in such a way that that child can choose the Gospel and the desire to be baptized. That applies to those inside and outside the womb. The Church Herself has not seen fit to declare an unborn unbaptized saint. Nor is it really a good idea to devalue the necessity of baptism for the comfort of some. Jesus has revealed that Baptism now saves us, and baptism is defined. The Church Herself Teaches without error that baptism is necessary for salvation and that this is the way for Human kind to be cleansed of Original Sin. Which all except Adam, Eve, and Mary were created with. God cannot create a problem that He cannot solve. So while Enoch, Moses, and Elijah Were taken into heaven, something must have cleansed them. But all of fallen mankind lives with the consequences of Original Sin. And the Free Will of Each person to CHOOSE Heaven or Hell must not be interfered with. And that would apply as well to a fully human embryo.

Jesus, as Merciful as He is, told us to Baptize. He himself, sacrificed His life and we are asked to do the same. And though God wills the salvation of all, the fallen nature of the World is in opposition to that Will.

I hope and pray that any child be saved. And that hope is not in vain. But I also realize that as much as I would love to tell someone that so and so is in heaven, I do not have that authority. As much as I also do not have the authority to damn others.

The problem of abortion is also part of this discussion. If aborting a child guaranteed heaven then indeed abortion would be the replacement sacrament for baptism…

Though indeed to some, it sadly already is a sacrament…

I understand this is probably one of the most emotional loaded things in the world! But did you understand what the CCC says that was quoted? Do you also understand why the Holy innocents are not bound by baptism as it did not exist yet?

A question for some other Catholic folk. Does the Church teach of the Baptism of Mary? That would indeed be an interesting idea…

We will have to just disagree then. I know and believe church teachings, but I do seem to err more on mercy than despair of these little ones of God. They are far more worthy to enter heaven than a baptized poor sinner. They have no personal sin whatsoever, we on the other hand, though forgiven when we repent, will have a lot more to be accountable for.