Is it possible that God can relent on the eternal punishment in Hell?

[Amandil]

Amandil

You wrote, “Thirdly, Jesus’s humanity in the Incarnation is necessarily traced back through Abraham and Noah to Adam. To reject Adam and Noah is in a way a rejection of Jesus’s humanity itself.”

Actually, Jesus’s humanity in the Incarnation is NOT “traced back” at all, at least not in the bible.

Both genealogies in the bible that refer to Jesus actually go to or from Joseph.

Joseph was NOT Jesus’s biological parent therefore both “genealogies” concern the person that God picked to be the “foster father” of Jesus and to help raise and protect Jesus when Jesus was absolutely helpless like every other human baby.

If there is a “genealogy” somewhere concerning Mary this must be what you are referring too, is there?

FYI:
"How can Jesus Christ be called “son of David”, if the Blessed Virgin is not a daughter of David?

(b) Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David. According to Numbers 36:6-12, an only daughter had to marry within her own family so as to secure the right of inheritance. After St. Justin (Adv. Tryph. 100) and St. Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 18), the Fathers generally agree in maintaining Mary’s Davidic descent, whether they knew this from an oral tradition or inferred it from Scripture, **(e.g. Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8). **St. John Damascene (De fid. Orth., IV, 14) states that Mary’s great-grandfather, Panther, was a brother of Mathat; her grandfather, Barpanther, was Heli’s cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli’s levirate son. Here Mathat has been substituted for Melchi, since the text used by St. John Damascene, Julius Africanus, St. Irenæus, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus omitted the two generations separating Heli from Melchi. At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan.

New Advent

 

[Amandil]

I was asked by Glendab: “Can you tell us what other of our Catholic beliefs you really don’t believe?” As a Christian, I cannot lie so I gave Glendab the list knowing full well that I would get some flak from other forum members. However replies like: “He apparently believes that truth is told not by the Church but by the clock or calendar” does not help anyone in their walk in faith **and are at best disrespectful. **

You seem to be confusing what is objectively “disrespectful” to what is a frank and honest criticism of your views.

I could argue that it is just as “disrespectful” to God for you to insist that, and I quote:

arte:

“You descended from an ape like creature – get over it”

I think it quite disrespectful to equate the human person, so valuable and precious in God’s sight that He chose to suffer and die for, with other lower forms of animals.

This would be akin to calling Leonardo’s “Mona Lisa” something out of a coloring book.

arte:

I obviously cannot be objective in evaluating my list of disbeliefs…

But that’s the very problem, you ought to be objective. The truth is not subjective. You don’t have the right to decide for yourself what is true and what is not, what to believe and what to reject.

And if your list of disbeliefs depart from what the Church professes, you have a duty to submit yourself to the wisdom of Church anyway.

The Church has 2000 years of deep insight and wisdom contained within Sacred Tradition, it is safe to assume that therefore the Church may(and does) in fact know and understand some things that you do not.

“For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” -St. Augustine

arte:

… but for me my list shows that I believe in a God who has infinite love, mercy, grace and forgiveness.

Not as defined by the Church. Only as defined by you. Your definitions are the problem.

arte:

To help me and maybe others on this forum in their walk in faith, **please reply with an objective criticism of Number 7 in my list which is: ** I do not believe in: “Any passage in the Old Testament where God supposedly helps or condones the murder of men, women and children, rape, forced marriages, and pillage”.

It’s simply too vague to even address.

First and foremost, God is the sole authority on life and death. He gives life and He takes life, period. All life. Life belongs to Him alone by rights.

You did not create yourself, nor do you own your body or your life. You have your body and your life on loan, as a Steward is granted authority over an estate until the King returns from being away.

That said, when God either sends His angels to take lives(e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah or the first Passover), or when God sends the Israelites to act as the ministers of His will by executing a ban, God has every right to do so.

Clearly when the Israelites disobeyed God and did their own thing(e.g. such as raping women) they were punished. Again, since your charge is too vague to address I can only provide a vague and general answer.

 

[simpleas]

I had a protestant girlfriend who very repectfully did not let me leave my Church. It was a year, and I really discovered, with her Church and on a retreat, what it meant for a young person to make Christ the center of one’s life. I was just a kid. Later, I became a bit anti-protestant, but I was young and foolish. (I was really caught up in the divisiveness aspect)

I think we have been to the “disappointment” place before. Maybe if you projected that God was really, really disappointed in you, you might sense that there is a separation? Like, “I really let God down.”? So, some people sense this disappointment much more strongly. My parents could be very disappointed at me, and they would take a long time to forget my errors. This may be a reason why I projected God the same way, and how I can understand some of the more conditionally loving projections people have.

The parents are, after all, the first catechists. They show us what God is like.

So the Protestant faith helped make Christ the centre of your life. Very good, I think different faiths can be of help in showing us more of God, than just one. It’s more of how people are with you, than what the rituals are about.

Yep I get the “letting God down” thought, but separating myself from him? Nope, I fail big time. If others think of it in this way and it brings them to repentance that’s fine, but I couldn’t tell anyone that they had separated themself from God.

I can understand the parent scenario, but it’s not something I relate to.

Why would God create us, knowing we would be like we are, and then after all the suffering people can experience, toss us into hell. Makes no sense to me.

 

[rinnie]

None of these questions have anything to do with original sin.

The real question: Are you guilty for crimes you did not commit?

If you say no, then you do not believe in original sin. Although we can distinguish between what is the “guilt” of “the” original sin and the “curse” of “the” original sin. One can suffer the curse of a father leaving his son a mound of debt, yet that son is not guilty of accumulating that debt.

This is one real problem I see in catholic theology. There is constantly an emphasis on the judicial lens of the Christian faith, but it is often more useful to look at it through the medical lens.

On this thread there is a tendency of viewing hell as a punitive punishment rather than a consequential one. If I steal $100 and am caught and the judge orders me to pay back the $100 and $100 more for trying to steal it, that is a fair and equitable punishment, but it is punitive.

However, if I have E-Coli, and the doctor tells me to take this medication and I refuse, I’m going to be punished by the unfiltered symptoms of the disease, but it is a consequential punishment, not a punitive one.

Hell, specifically, is the terminal state of untreated sin. It is not a judicial punishment because no temporal sin warrants eternal punishment as that would violate “an eye for an eye” (punishment should fit the crime). So in that case, the punishment is perfect, because the warning of allowing unrepentant sin to persist until death would engender eternal torment was given in the Gospel. But it can also be relented without compromising the perfection of punishment as God has no obligation to punish the wicked. He made a covenant with the righteous not the wicked.

Being guilty of crimes that a person committed has nothing to do with Original Sin. Do you know what Original Sin is?? I guess not or you would not have answered the way you did.

Original Sin means that the world has fallen from Grace or the Divine presence into Original Sin. Do you believe that has happened?

As a result of this falling away the world had to be redeemed by God in Christ.

Do you agree that because of the sin of Adam and Eve the world fell from Grace?

If so, you agree that Original Sin entered the world, If not the world has never fell from Grace and there is no sin. Your Call!:doh2:

 

[rinnie]

As for your question, “And why does the word of God say death entered through Sin of ONE man Adam, and One Man, Christ took it away?”

Doesn’t the “word of God” say that death came to all thru one and life came to ALL THRU ONE?

Uh Yeah isn’t that what I said. Is Sin not death, and did not death enter the world. And did it not enter the world through Adam, And did God not take away death of the world through Christ?

 

[rinnie]

Protestantism proper has a very specific theology behind it whereas it seems that arte is simply picking and choosing which doctrines he prefers and disposing of the ones he rejects. It makes one wonder if there is some cognitive dissonance when he professes the Nicene Creed or receives the Eucharist at Mass considering that he is clearly in open rebellion against the Church’s teaching.

The second consequence of his rejections to the Church’s teaching and their Biblical source implies that he essentially believes God to be a fraud and a liar.

Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, explicitly wrote, “all Scripture is inspired and profitable…” All of Scripture would necessarily include Genesis 1-11 and the stories of creation, Adam & Eve, the Fall, and the story of Noah. This is not simply a matter of taking a black marker and redacting certain verses but instead he’s ripping out entire chunks of Scripture.

Thirdly, Jesus’s humanity in the Incarnation is necessarily traced back through Abraham and Noah to Adam. To reject Adam and Noah is in a way a rejection of Jesus’s humanity itself.

Fourthly, to reject Original Sin is to reject Jesus and His mission. Jesus no longer came to save us from the dominion of sin, He’s instead simply a nice moral teacher.

The implications of his rejection of the Church’s teaching on contraception are another matter. I wonder if he has even bothered to read Humane Vitae, JP II’s “Theology of the Body”, or anything from Dr. Janet Smith regarding the issue.

I would never say he thinks God is a liar or fraud, he just needs to understand the teachings of the Church better. We all have to do that, don’t you agree?

But remember what the Pope said you don’t have to always agree just Obey!

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Amandil

You wrote, “Thirdly, Jesus’s humanity in the Incarnation is necessarily traced back through Abraham and Noah to Adam. To reject Adam and Noah is in a way a rejection of Jesus’s humanity itself.”

Actually, [SIGN]Jesus’s humanity in the Incarnation is NOT “traced back” at all, at least not in the bible.[/SIGN]
Both genealogies in the bible that refer to Jesus actually go to or from Joseph.

Joseph was NOT Jesus’s biological parent therefore both “genealogies” concern the person that God picked to be the “foster father” of Jesus and to help raise and protect Jesus when Jesus was absolutely helpless like every other human baby.

If there is a “genealogy” somewhere concerning Mary this must be what you are referring too, is there?

WHAT?? Are you kidding. It is told in Gen12:3

And all through the bible.

How about how ST. Paul says the Incarnation was PROMISED by the Holy Scripture in the O.T. pertaining to the seed of David according to the flesh.

Get it the WORD became FLESH? You missed that? You pretty much missed the whole O.T. actually. Even the Jews knew God was coming they just missed it being Christ.

Please tell me I misunderstood the question.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Uh Yeah isn’t that what I said. Is Sin not death, and did not death enter the world. And did it not enter the world through Adam, And did God not take away death of the world through Christ?

You asked, “And did God not take away death of the world through Christ?”

My answer is YES and for ALL and all of creation.

Is you answer, “YES and for ALL and all of creation” or is it “Yes, except for”?

Seem to be quite a few on here whose answer to that question is “Yes, except for”, which is your answer?

 

[Tom_Baum]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

WHAT?? Are you kidding. It is told in Gen12:3

And all through the bible.

How about how ST. Paul says the Incarnation was PROMISED by the Holy Scripture in the O.T. pertaining to the seed of David according to the flesh.

Get it the WORD became FLESH? You missed that? You pretty much missed the whole O.T. actually. Even the Jews knew God was coming they just missed it being Christ.

Please tell me I misunderstood the question.

I was speaking of the two genealogies that are supposedly speaking of Jesus but in fact go to Joseph in one and from Joseph in the other.

So as far as me writing, “Jesus’s humanity in the Incarnation is NOT “traced back” at all, at least not in the bible.”, neither of these “genealogies” trace back Jesus’s humanity since Joseph was NOT the biological child of Joseph.

As far as “Even the Jews knew God was coming they just missed it being Christ.”, I do NOT think that the Jews believed that God was going to become One of us in the Incarnation but that there was to be a “Messiah” (Hebrew), Christ (Greek) of some sort but neither Messiah in Hebrew nor Christ in Greek mean God.

Most, if not all, that believed that some sort of Messiah was coming were looking for a secular or worldly saviour not what did happen.

This “most” very much includes the Apostles who were hand-picked by Jesus.

By the way the “WORD became FLESH” was written after the “fact”, the “know-it-alls” back then didn’t know-it-all, they just thought they did and what they “knew” didn’t necessarily come to fruition.

 

[rinnie]

You asked, “And did God not take away death of the world through Christ?”

My answer is YES and for ALL and all of creation.

Is you answer, “YES and for ALL and all of creation” or is it “Yes, except for”?

Seem to be quite a few on here whose answer to that question is “Yes, except for”, which is your answer?

Again YES! Original Sin!!:yup::yup: But Original Sin is not the same as Actual Sin or Mortal Sin or even Venial Sin. WE are ALL saved from Original Sin, Paid in FULL its over.

But and this is a BIG BUT""""""""""""""""
Actual sin is what WE commit, and what can send us to hell. Christ gave us the Church as a means of Salvation, we must CONFESS our sin to a Priest if our sin is Mortal as taught to us through the Church.

Although Jesus paid for Original Sin in full, which means its over. We are all forgiven once and for all of Original Sin by our Baptism, by the way is why Catholic baptize babies right off the bat…

Actual sin is what WE commit and which can send us to hell. Although Christ paid for ALL sin, Original Sin (all we had to do was be baptized) and its over.

But not actual sin, for that we must confess, repent, etc. Although it was indeed because of Jesus and the Cross that we CAN confess and repent and be forgiven, we still must do it.

BY the Cross he wiped OUT Original Sin, and by his cross he made it POSSIBLE for us to be FORGIVEN for all other actual sin. But Actual sin, the sin we commit, we have our part to do for that.

 

[simpleas]

Adam was the first created, first to sin and so all of his decendants were born fallen. Christ came to sacrifice his life for us, all of us, because we all came from adam.

Why if we can easily believe we all came from adam and are fallen, do we find it hard to say Christ died for all, and all are saved?

Its like saying you must believe in the first half of the story, and if you don’t live up to the second half, your doomed.

Definiately not saying we are not responsible for our own sins, but God did what he did because he loved us greatly, as sinners, not as the graceful Adam was before he sinned, but as the fallen children.

Regarding the genealogy of Jesus I started a thread a while back, because I wondered why Joseph’s line was so important if he was not the biological father, and wondered why Mary’s line was not more important to be recited.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=848075&page=2

Post #17 was helpful.

 

[rinnie]

I was speaking of the two genealogies that are supposedly speaking of Jesus but in fact go to Joseph in one and from Joseph in the other.

So as far as me writing, “Jesus’s humanity in the Incarnation is NOT “traced back” at all, at least not in the bible.”, neither of these “genealogies” trace back Jesus’s humanity since Joseph was NOT the biological child of Joseph.

As far as “Even the Jews knew God was coming they just missed it being Christ.”, I do NOT think that the Jews believed that God was going to become One of us in the Incarnation but that there was to be a “Messiah” (Hebrew), Christ (Greek) of some sort but neither Messiah in Hebrew nor Christ in Greek mean God.

Most, if not all, that believed that some sort of Messiah was coming were looking for a secular or worldly saviour not what did happen.

This “most” very much includes the Apostles who were hand-picked by Jesus.

By the way the “WORD became FLESH” was written after the “fact”, the “know-it-alls” back then didn’t know-it-all, they just thought they did and what they “knew” didn’t necessarily come to fruition.

Ok, swoosh! So you did not mean by the seed of David, you meant Joseph. Okay I can give you that.

But I do disagree with you about the Jews not knowing the Messiah was coming, but I do agree they thought him to come as a King, and Ruler, a kind of Super Man of our time, instead of being poor, and a child.

But okay we are good here!

 

[rinnie]

You asked, “And did God not take away death of the world through Christ?”

My answer is YES and for ALL and all of creation.

Is you answer, “YES and for ALL and all of creation” or is it “Yes, except for”?

Seem to be quite a few on here whose answer to that question is “Yes, except for”, which is your answer?

One exception if you call angels a creation of God. Not angels, once a angel falls from Grace he is out.

Like the devil, he is out. its over. Angels cannot fall from grace and then get back into the grace of God.

 

[Tom_Baum]

One exception if you call angels a creation of God. Not angels, once a angel falls from Grace he is out.

Like the devil, he is out. its over. Angels cannot fall from grace and then get back into the grace of God.

Personally, I am going to leave that up to God.

I can and will still pray for and hope for God’s Plan to be catholic.

When God became One of us, one of the things that He tried to teach us was to “Love our enemies”, wasn’t it?

As far as “One exception if you call angels a creation of God”.

If they are NOT a creation of God, then they either don’t exist or they are also god/God, correct, one or the other?

Also, concerning “Like the devil”, wasn’t the “devil” supposed to be the highest of all Angels?

This is one of the reasons why I believe that it had to be God, Himself, to do what had to be done and that what had to be done was a complete and Total Victory, not a tie.

All part of God’s Plan which God has had since before creation.

 

[Vico]

You asked, “And did God not take away death of the world through Christ?”

My answer is YES and for ALL and all of creation.

Is you answer, “YES and for ALL and all of creation” or is it “Yes, except for”?

Seem to be quite a few on here whose answer to that question is “Yes, except for”, which is your answer?

There is a dogma of faith from the Synod of Constantinople (543 A.D.) Ratified by Pope Vigilius - Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.)
Can. 9. If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema.
(Denzinger 211)

 

[Tom_Baum]

There is a dogma of faith from the Synod of Constantinople (543 A.D.) Ratified by Pope Vigilius - Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.)
Can. 9. If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema.
(Denzinger 211)

As I said, “Personally, I am going to leave that up to God.” and “I can and will still pray for and hope for God’s Plan to be catholic.”

a-nath-e-ma

noun, plural anathemas.

1. a person or thing detested or loathed: “That subject is anathema to him.”
2. a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
3. a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
4. any imprecation of divine punishment.
5. a curse; execration.

I will wish a “curse” on no one and if anyone wishes to wish a “curse” on me that is up to them.

As God has said, “My Ways are not your ways and My Thoughts are not your thoughts”.

By the way, does this mean that the whole Church is “anathema” since among many things, one of the things that the Church does, in at least some of the Masses, is to pray for God to HAVE MERCY ON US ALL?

I do NOT think that it does.

Since the Church does pray for ALL and encourages us to pray for ALL, does what you have written apply to the Church or just to the “him” that you have mentioned?

The “Church” may not explicitly say that ALL ARE SAVED but it sures does seem to hope for it and also seems to pray for it and not just in the one place I mentioned.

Have you heard and/or prayed the “O My Jesus” prayer?

“O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have most need of your mercy.”

Sounds catholic to me, doesn’t it to you?

Doesn’t seem to be any kind of asterick or an “except for” after “lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have most need of your mercy.”, does it?

We, humanity, sure do seem to be quick to curse and condemn, not all but some.

Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to us to guide and…, not just to the new and improved sanhedrin.

 

[rinnie]

Personally, I am going to leave that up to God.

I can and will still pray for and hope for God’s Plan to be catholic.

When God became One of us, one of the things that He tried to teach us was to “Love our enemies”, wasn’t it?

As far as “One exception if you call angels a creation of God”.

If they are NOT a creation of God, then they either don’t exist or they are also god/God, correct, one or the other?

Also, concerning “Like the devil”, wasn’t the “devil” supposed to be the highest of all Angels?

This is one of the reasons why I believe that it had to be God, Himself, to do what had to be done and that what had to be done was a complete and Total Victory, not a tie.

All part of God’s Plan which God has had since before creation.

l Tim 5:31 God has spoken

 

[rinnie]

As I said, “Personally, I am going to leave that up to God.” and “I can and will still pray for and hope for God’s Plan to be catholic.”

a-nath-e-ma

noun, plural anathemas.

1. a person or thing detested or loathed: “That subject is anathema to him.”
2. a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
3. a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
4. any imprecation of divine punishment.
5. a curse; execration.

I will wish a “curse” on no one and if anyone wishes to wish a “curse” on me that is up to them.

As God has said, “My Ways are not your ways and My Thoughts are not your thoughts”.

By the way, does this mean that the whole Church is “anathema” since among many things, one of the things that the Church does, in at least some of the Masses, is to pray for God to HAVE MERCY ON US ALL?

I do NOT think that it does.

Since the Church does pray for ALL and encourages us to pray for ALL, does what you have written apply to the Church or just to the “him” that you have mentioned?

The “Church” may not explicitly say that ALL ARE SAVED but it sures does seem to hope for it and also seems to pray for it and not just in the one place I mentioned.

Have you heard and/or prayed the “O My Jesus” prayer?

“O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have most need of your mercy.”

Sounds catholic to me, doesn’t it to you?

Doesn’t seem to be any kind of asterick or an “except for” after “lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have most need of your mercy.”, does it?

We, humanity, sure do seem to be quick to curse and condemn, not all but some.

Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to us to guide and…, not just to the new and improved sanhedrin.

I don’t think saying that unless we repent and listen and do the will of God we will end up in hell and separated from him forever is doing anyone a dis-service. I believe it is our job to help one another have as much knowledge of God we can and help them to get things right with God, the same way we want them to help us. Help each other is how we should do it.

But while we are told by Christ to point out a brother who’s souls is in great danger, its our hope and wish to help them.

By telling someone this is not allowed by the Church and the commandment of God is by no means saying someone is going to hell. No Catholic would ever do that.

But we must teach especially our Children right from wrong. Its our job, and the will of God that all repent sin, and come to him.

But unfortunately with free will, the will of God is not always chosen.

 

[chefmomster2]

As I said, “Personally, I am going to leave that up to God.” and “I can and will still pray for and hope for God’s Plan to be catholic.”

a-nath-e-ma
noun, plural anathemas.

1. a person or thing detested or loathed: “That subject is anathema to him.”
2. a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
3. a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
4. any imprecation of divine punishment.
5. a curse; execration.

The quote from Vico was one in which the Church anathematized or excommunicated those who taught that the judgment of hell is not eternal. He is quoting a teaching from the Council which is very much on point for this topic. He is not cursing you personally.

The Church and most especially her Bishops are the guardians of the faith. She must safeguard the correct teachings revealed by God.

By the way, does this mean that the whole Church is “anathema” since among many things, one of the things that the Church does, in at least some of the Masses, is to pray for God to HAVE MERCY ON US ALL?

Not at all! But mercy can be attained up until the moment of death and not after that point. See this doctrine of the RCC taken from the Catechism:

1021 **Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.**590 The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. the parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul -a destiny which can be different for some and for others.591 [Emphasis added]

As indicated in this teaching, our individual moment of judgment comes in the very moment of death. There is no mercy available between death and this moment of divine judgment. We received all of the graces, mercies, and gifts of God necessary to attain heaven, if that was our desire, during our lives. The moment of death is the literal deadline for reconciling ourselves fully to the Lord.

Since the Church does pray for ALL and encourages us to pray for ALL, does what you have written apply to the Church or just to the “him” that you have mentioned?

Certainly we pray for all who have died! We cannot know where they are. But, those in heaven have no need for our prayers and those in hell are beyond our prayers. We pray most particularly for those in purgatory. We hope that they will soon enter into heaven.

The “Church” may not explicitly say that ALL ARE SAVED but it sures does seem to hope for it and also seems to pray for it…

Certainly it does! God desires all of mankind to be joined to Him, but even God won’t make that happen either by reneging on free will or in throwing out His justice. He wants us and He wants us to want Him. If our lives have been marked by love of God and love of neighbor and we have consistently sought his mercy through reconciliation during life, we will have made our choice. Our lives will be a huge “Yes!” to God.

Doesn’t seem to be any kind of asterick or an “except for” after “lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have most need of your mercy.”, does it?

Neither does the prayer say force or coerce, or pressure souls into heaven. I believe that there may be very few actually in Hell. (I certainly hope so!) But the time to affirm our faith must be before our death. The prayer asks God to lead those who are not yet on the right path to be converted so that when they die, they can be with Him in heaven.

Remember the bridegroom? When he arrived he took the wise virgins with him, but those who neglected their oil lamps were left behind. We must be ready at an instant! That is expressed clearly and consistently throughout the New Testament.

The Church definitively teaches that Judgment occurs immediately on death and that in that instantaneous judgment we immediately receive our choice: Heaven, Hell or Purgatory.

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification592 or immediately,593-or immediate and everlasting damnation.594(Emphasis added)We must take care to hold faithful to the doctrines of the Church and to interpret our prayers and the Scriptures in that light. We must also not forget that God is a God of Mercy AND Justice. If we err too far on one side and neglect the teachings that instruct us on the other we find ourselves either with a wrathful and persecuting God, or one who forgets all of His promises, desires, and commands like an overindulgent and negligent parent.

 

[arte]

You are behind the times. Limbo was NEVER dogma of the Church. It is not mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it was clearly declared to be a teaching which Catholics need not accept on January 19, 2007 when Pope Benedict approved a document peblished by a Vatican Commission which studied the matter. The document is, “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized”. You can read it here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.

The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.[/INDENT]

There is no mention of “Limbo” in the Bible, but the Catholic Church never claimed there was.

108 Still, the **Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living.”**73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”74

The insistence on actual, specific mention in the Bible for every teaching is ridiculous. The lack of mention does not imply that a teaching is somehow flawed. All Church teaching is seriously considered in the light of scripture and tradition and arises out of this consideration. There are a multitude of teachings not specified in the Bible in many Christian denominations. There are many direct teachings of the Bible which are not accepted by the Christian Churches which hold a literal interpretation of scripture.

The question on Limbo does nothing to dispute the idea that the Bible is inerrant.

I am not “behind the times”. I already knew about the International Theological Commission’s Report issued on 19 January 2007 and quoted from it extensively in my Post # 795 on Page 53. Whilst Limbo was never defined as “Church dogma”, it most certainly was a long standing “Church Teaching”. I can remember as a young child in Catholic Primary School being taught how to baptise a baby to prevent it going to Limbo. Don’t you wonder how the parents of a baby who has died must feel (or have felt) believing that even if they go to Heaven, they will never see their baby again? This must have been one of the reasons why this Report was written and is borne out by the following in the Report: “People find it increasingly difficult to accept that GOD IS JUST AND MERCIFUL if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian.” “The study was made in part because of** the pressing pastoral needs**caused by the increase in the numbers of abortions and the growing number of children who die before being baptized”. Words such as “practical and pastoral perspective” and “pastoral priority in the modern era” are also included in the Report. This indicates that Catholic lay people are pushing their Parish Priests for reform in this area because they can no longer accept that unbaptised babies go to Limbo. I did not read all 41 pages of the Report but the Catholic News Website quoted from some of the main points. The following supports that Catholic lay people were concerned: “**Parents in particular can experience grief and feelings of guilt when they doubt their unbaptised children are with God”, **

Cont’d