"No Salvation outside the Catholic Church"

[Matt16_18]

USMC:

That is the seat of your error. People are not damned only because they live wicked lives.

I am not making an error. God predestines for glory without regard to our merits, and God reprobates only with regard to our demerits. The CCC teaches that one must die in a state of mortal sin to be damned:CCC 1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end …

You are reasoning as though man comes into this world justified, as though grace is his to lose…

I definitely am NOT asserting that man comes into the world justified – I understand what the Church teaches about original sin.

Man comes into this world damned. If he does not receive grace, even if he doesn’t commit a mortal sin (which is unlikely), he is damned.

Man comes into the world in a state of original sin, a state where the human spirit is deprived of the sanctifying grace of original holiness and justice, and where the human spirit is suffering from the wounds of concupiscence and ignorance:**Catechism of the Catholic Church

405** Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". …Your assert that God condemns to Hell for all eternity humans who are not culpable of personal sin, but who die only in a state of original sin. This is a theological opinion, and it is the reason why some people assert that unbaptized babies, aborted children, and miscarried children are sent to Hell for all eternity. There are indeed a few Catholic theologians that believe this, but they hardly speak with binding authority.

As regards to adults that have never been baptized, your point is moot. It is a Catholic dogma that all men are given sufficient grace by God for their salvation. Whether that grace is efficacious depends on how man responds to God’s sufficient and unmerited grace. If a man is damned, he is damned not because God did not love him and give him sufficient grace for his salvation - he is damned because he lived a wicked life and died in a state of unrepentant mortal sin.

 

[Matt16_18]

itsjustdave1988:

It doesn’t it make any sense that one can have as Pius XII states, a “certain unconscious desire” to be baptized, yet must have explicit faith in merely two articles of faith and not all others. ??

No, it doesn’t make sense. That is why the LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE makes the distinction between the baptism of explicit desire and the baptism of implicit desire.
"… that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."

 

[USMC]

Matt16_18:

Your assert that God condemns to Hell for all eternity humans who are not culpable of personal sin, but who die only in a state of original sin. This is a theological opinion, and it is the reason why some people assert that unbaptized babies, aborted children, and miscarried children are sent to Hell for all eternity. There are indeed a few Catholic theologians that believe this, but they hardly speak with binding authority.

Just a theological opinion of a few theologians? What about Pope Sixtus V, who said that aborted babies do not attain heaven, and are excluded from the beatific vision?

Pope Sixtus V: “the barbarity … of those who do not shrink from the most cruel slaughter of fetuses still coming to maturity in the shelter of their mothers’ wombs *… For who would not detest a crime as execrable as this — a crime whose consequence is that not just bodies, but — still worse! — even souls, are, as it were, cast away? The soul of the unborn infant bears the imprint of God’s image! It is a soul for whose redemption Christ our Lord shed His precious blood, a soul capable of eternal blessedness and destined for the company of angels! Who, therefore, would not condemn and punish with the utmost severity the desecration committed by one who has excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God? Such a one has done all he or she could possibly have done to prevent this soul from reaching the place prepared for it in heaven, and has deprived God of the service of this His own creature” (Constitution Effrænatam of 29 October 1588).

The quote from John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, which spoke of the souls of aborted babies “living with the Lord” was retracted in the final version.

Fr. Brian Harrison: “After Pope John Paul II’s retraction, in the final and definitive version of Evangelium Vitae #99 (cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 87 [1995] p. 515) of the initial version’s statement that aborted babies “now live in the Lord” (i.e., are in Heaven), it appears that the only papal statement expressly mentioning the destiny of aborted infants is that of Pope Sixtus V.”

It is the teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church - to which you are bound to submit - that aborted babies, who die only in original sin, are deprived from the beatific vision.*

 

[Ahimsa]

it appears that the only papal statement expressly mentioning the destiny of aborted infants is that of Pope Sixtus V."

It is the teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church - to which you are bound to submit - that aborted babies, who die only in original sin, are deprived from the beatific vision.

Was Pope Sixtus speaking ex cathedra?

 

[Matt16_18]

USMC:

“Such a one has done all he or she could possibly have done to prevent this soul from reaching the place prepared for it in heaven, and has deprived God of the service of this His own creature …”

This a condemnation of the men and women who ATTEMPT to deprive an infant of the beatific vision, and who ATTEMPT to deprive God of the “service of this His own creature”. This is not a solemn ex cathedra definition of a dogma that states aborted infants are condemned to the lake of fire for all eternity.

It is the teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church - to which you are bound to submit - that aborted babies, who die only in original sin, are deprived from the beatific vision.

To assert that aborted infants suffer in a temporal state where they are deprived of the beatific vision is one thing (which is something that I believe, BTW). After all, abortion isn’t a sacrament of salvation! It is, however, quite another thing to assert that it is a de fide dogma that all aborted infants are condemned to eternal loss of the beatific vision, and that there is no hope at all that an aborted infant may ever dwell in the bliss of Heaven. It is NOT a de fide dogma that aborted infants have no hope of ever seeing the beatific vision.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dave and USMC: I’m not able to fully respond at this time, but I will when I have time. I’m still not certain of the interpretations given to what the CCC says (I don’t see how anyone can read that section on invincible ignorance, for example, in any context other than of people who have never even heard the Name of Jesus and I think it would be downright cruel to assure Protestants that their churches are used by the Christ’s Spirit as “means to salvation,” and then back up and say, “Oh, that only means if you’re invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church,” even though I also know that they are radically defecient). I don’t have any troube accepting EENS, but again, I interpreted it through what the Catechism said. I do commend all my loved ones to the Mercy of Christ. Do please continue to look in on this thread, hopefully it won’t be closed. Thanks for your kindness! John

 

[USMC]

Ahimsa:

Was Pope Sixtus speaking ex cathedra?

I don’t think it was ex-cathedra, but it is part of the ordinary magisterium, and there has been no other statement to the contrary.

Matt16_18:

To assert that aborted infants suffer in a temporal state where they are deprived of the beatific vision is one thing (which is something that I believe, BTW). After all, abortion isn’t a sacrament of salvation! It is, however, quite another thing to assert that it is a de fide dogma that all aborted infants are condemned to eternal loss of the beatific vision, and that there is no hope at all that an aborted infant may ever dwell in the bliss of Heaven. It is NOT a de fide dogma that aborted infants have no hope of ever seeing the beatific vision.

Which is it?

Do you believe that "aborted infants suffer in a temporal state where they are deprived of the beatific vision ", as you said at first.

Or do you disagree with the idea that “all aborted infants are condemned to eternal loss of the beatific vision”?

You can’t have it both ways.

Or, are your using a straw-man argument against me by claiming that I said the matter was defined de fide? I never said that. All I said was that this is what is taught by the magisterium of the Church.

Pope Sixtus said that, with regard to the aborted infant, the mother who commited that crime “has excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God” and " has deprived God of the service of this His own creature".

That is the voice of the magisterium on the subject. That may not fit in with your personal theology, but that is the teaching of the Church. Instead of attacking the messenger, why don’t you revise you theology so that it is in line with what the Church teaches?

 

[Sean_O_L]

USMC quotes Pope Sixtus V in post #123 in evidence for his contentions. Here are a few of my notes from various sources. Be these as they may – the facts are that Denzingers’ contain NO quotations from ANY of Pope Sixtus V in its collection of dogma.

What may be deduced from THAT – and from USMC’s reliance on Pope Sixtus V?

**Sixtus V {225th P.} (24 Apr. 1585 - 27 Aug. 1590)

On Dec. 3, 1586, by the constitution Postquam verus, he fixed the maximum number of cardinals at seventy, a total not exceeded until John XXIII, who raised the number to eighty-five. Paul VI raised it to one hundred and eleven. His appointment of his fifteen year old nephew Alessandro as cardinal caused a shock. (ODP.)

1586: re: Jews: Bull - Christiana pietas. Object: Privileges granted to the Jews. He was more favourable to the Jews and permitted the printing of the Talmud after it was censored (1586.) (TJP p.6 and PAC p.92.)

1588: re: Jews: regularised the popular cult of St Simon of Trent by ratifying it in 1588, as cited by Benedict XIV in Book I, Ch. xiv, No. 4 of his On the Canonisation of Saints.

In Apr. 1588: he set about re-writing the Vulgate. With his Bull Aeternus Ille (May 2, 1590) he issued via the Vatican press a version which was so full of blunders that it had to be withdrawn after his death.

“By the fullness of Apostolic power,…this edition…is to be received and held true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned.” (VOC pp.303/5.)

**

It was left to Gregory XIV {227th P.} to limit the damage - a bible issued with the plenitude of papal power, complete with excommunication on the whole church - and it was riddled with errors! (VOC p.305.)

Execrabilis (of Pius II) was no more “infallible” or untouchably binding on future popes than, for example, the Bull of Sixtus V (Aeternus Ille ), which was promulgated, complete with excommunications on the whole church, “By the fullness of Apostolic power…this edition (of the Bible.)…is to be received and held true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned…” Being riddled with errors, it was certainly NOT infallible, and WAS corrected under Gregory XIV!

Sixtus V (225th P.) ruled that a castrated man - that is one whose testicles had been removed - could not marry, even if he could still erect and penetrate his wife. The fact that he could not produce seminal fluid debarred him absolutely. (On the other hand, a woman who can receive a man is deemed potent even if she had a full hysterectomy and therefore cannot ovulate or conceive - and, therefore, she can marry.) (SITA p.63.)

His Bull Effraenatum : Disagreed entirely with Gregory XIII’s contention re embryo killing. (VOC p.524.)

Gregory XIV {227th P.} Said Sixtus’ censures were to be treated as if he had never issued them. (VOC p.524)

 

[USMC]

USMC quotes Pope Sixtus V in post #123 in evidence for his contentions. Here are a few of my notes from various sources. Be these as they may – the facts are that Denzingers’ contain NO quotations from ANY of Pope Sixtus V in its collection of dogma.

What may be deduced from THAT – and from USMC’s reliance on Pope Sixtus V?

Shame on you Sean OL. What the Pope taught does not correspond to what you would have liked him to say, so you attack him? Shame on you. What would you say if I attacked John Paul II for leading many to believe that hell might be empty (those at the Wanderer, for example); or for allowing the unrevised version of Evengelium Vitae to circulate and thus lead many people to believe that the magisterium has officially taught that aborted babies are “living with the Lord”, without ever making the retraction known publically? Surely you would have been outraged if I would have done so. Yet that is exactly what you did to Pope Sixtus; and he was not teaching anything new, or unheard of, but what virtually all theologians have taught on the subject (differing only in the manner of punishment received by those who die in original sin only - see the Encyclopedia located at newadvent.com, under the subject of “Limbo”).

But to settle this matter once and for all, let’s hear what the Council of Florence declared of those who depart this life only in original sin.

Council of Florence: “But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains”.

There you have it, from an infallible Council. Souls who depart this life in original sin only go strait to hell.

It should be stated, however, that most theologians hold that the location in hell that those in original sin only go to is the outer layer known as Limbo, where there is no physical pain, but rather a state of natural happiness. Some theologians hold (and which seems very likely to me), that after the final resurrection, the souls contained in Limbo will live on the “new earth” that the Apocalypse speaks of.)

 

[MrS]

USMC:

It should be stated, however, that most theologians hold that the location in hell that those in original sin only go to is the outer layer known as Limbo, where there is no physical pain, but rather a state of natural happiness. Some theologians hold (and which seems very likely to me), that after the final resurrection, the souls contained in Limbo will live on the “new earth” that the Apocalypse speaks of.)

Most theologians??? Why is it that this observation seems wrong. Perhaps because there is no link? I would contend that most theologians would agree they don’t know what happens.

Most theologians might agree that the unbaptized individual is at the mercy of God. So why try to understand or force a level of judgement that we know nothing about?

 

[USMC]

MrS:

Most theologians??? Why is it that this observation seems wrong. Perhaps because there is no link? I would contend that most theologians would agree they don’t know what happens.

Most theologians might agree that the unbaptized individual is at the mercy of God. So why try to understand or force a level of judgement that we know nothing about?

Because it has been the constant teaching of the Church, and is being questioned by many today.

But you are correct. I should have provided a link or two. Here’s two:

seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

 

[MrS]

It is principally on the strength of these Scriptural texts, harmonized with the general doctrine of the Fall and Redemption of mankind, that Catholic tradition has defended the existence of the limbus patrum as a temporary state or place of happiness distinct from Purgatory

this is the quote from the newadvent link you provided… does not seem to mesh with what I assumed you were saying.

so I guess we are right back to relying on the mercy of God… I am comfortable with that.

 

[USMC]

MrS:

It is principally on the strength of these Scriptural texts, harmonized with the general doctrine of the Fall and Redemption of mankind, that Catholic tradition has defended the existence of the limbus patrum as a temporary state or place of happiness distinct from Purgatory

But we are talking about Limbus Infantium, not Limbus Patrum. Read the rest of the newadvent encyclopedia. And also read the other link to the recent article by Fr. Harrison. He gives more magisterial statements on the topic.

 

[Thal59]

This is a wonderful thread.

I have not seen a topic go solong, yet stay so well on course with only a few minor digressions. My sincerest congratulations to both sides of the debate.

It may be a bit late for me to chime in, and I am hesitant to break the flow you have established.

One of the first sources offered was a clip from NewAdvent regarding the word church. I found it very interesting on how, basically, many scholars don’t seem to agree on the usage or definitions of the biblical Greek and Hebrew terms. I am no linguistic scholar, though I have been studying some modern Hebrew; so here is my impression from what I just read.

In the OT Hebrew there is qadal (church) and *'edah *(congregation).
The very first thing that came to mind was the difference in a modern-day church. Imagine a mass being offered at, let’s say, St. Paul’s Catholic Church. In the pews are members of the local community who are a part of that specific church, as well as a few visiting Protestants, and a few members of RCIA.

In this case, the normal members, who were Baptised, confirmed, and who receive the Body and Blood of our Lord are a part of the church. The Protestants, as well as those converts who have not yet received the Lord in the Eucharist, while they may at that time be a part of the congregation, (because they have “congregated” there) are not truly a part of the church as they have not yet fully sworn themselves to it and have not received the sacraments. (Remember that Sacraments are, in essence, sacred covenent oaths. One cannot be “married” to the spouse without first swearing the marital oath.)

Church (ecclesia) would then mean someone in full communion with the “covenent” that Christ established. A member of the congregation could mean both someone in full communion, as well as someone in partial communion. Perhaps both can be saved. But I cannot but help believe that someone who is not in full communion may be at risk.

It is a wonderful thing to trust in the mercy of God. But why risk being possibly seperated from God over theological bickering or personal religious opinions. Why not just enter into full communion with the apostolic church, “trust” that God has preserved it over the past 2,000 years, and take it from there?

Thal59

 

[JSmitty2005]

I don’t want to break up this thread, but I thought I’d just throw these two things out there regarding the Church:

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory_print.asp?number=63130

AND

“Only those are really to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and who have not unhappily withdrawn from Body-unity or for grave faults have been excluded by legitimate authority.”

(Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi)

 

[Matt16_18]

USMC:

Do you believe that "aborted infants suffer in a** temporal ** state where they are deprived of the beatific vision ", as you said at first.

Or do you disagree with the idea that “all aborted infants are condemned to eternal loss of the beatific vision”?

You can’t have it both ways.

There is no conflict in what I have written. I am making the distinction between a temporal state and an eternal state. Souls in Purgatory are dwelling in a temporal state where they are being purified of the remains of sin. Souls in Purgatory are also destined to live in the eternal state of the heavenly beatitude.

I have no problem at all in accepting that unloved aborted infants do NOT go straight to Heaven, and that they are dwelling in a temporal state where they are in need the prayers, sacrifices and Masses of the Church Militant, just as the holy souls in Purgatory are dwelling in a temporal state where they are in need of the prayers, sacrifices and Masses of the Church Militant.

Pope Sixtus said that, with regard to the aborted infant, the mother who commited that crime “has excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God” and " has deprived God of the service of this His own creature".

That is the voice of the magisterium on the subject. That may not fit in with your personal theology, but that is the teaching of the Church. Instead of attacking the messenger, why don’t you revise you theology so that it is in line with what the Church teaches?

Again, I have no problem in accepting that a mother that aborts her unloved child is not sending her child straight to Heaven. If that were the case, then abortion would be a sacrament of salvation for unloved children!

The real issue is this: Does the Church Militant have any means at her disposal to help the children murdered by abortion to enter Heaven? It seems to me that you believe aborted children are eternally condemned by God to never see the beatific vision. If your personal belief was Catholic dogma, then Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI would have no use for the International Theological Commission that is studying the issue of the “fate of children who die without Baptism.”On 7 October 2004 John Paul addressed the members of the International Theological Commission (ITC) and set its agenda for the next year. The first problem he asked them to study “is the question of the fate of children who die without Baptism.” …

The 1905 Catechism of St Pius X teaches that children who die without being baptized are destined to limbo. However, the Catechism, which Pius X wrote before his elevation to the papacy, was never directed to the universal Church. It is not an authoritative papal definition.

Is Limbo In Limbo?

---

The Rev. Luis Ladaria, a Jesuit who is secretary-general of the [International Theological Commission (ITC)], told Vatican Radio that “there isn’t any binding Catholic doctrine” on the question of children who die without baptism.

Vatican theologians study issue of limbo

---

CCC 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” **allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. …**See this CA thread for a discussion of the limbo of infants and the Holy See’s International Theological Commission: Vatican theologians study issue of limbo

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JSmitty2005:

“Only those are really to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and who have not unhappily withdrawn from Body-unity or for grave faults have been excluded by legitimate authority.”

(Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi)

(Above emphasis mine)
But that’s just it…Protestants today cannot be said to have “withdrawn.” They were never formally “in.” And the last bit is obviously for those who have been excommunicated.

 

[jimmy]

Asit was mentioned above, I think by USMC, God is not a part of time therefore your prayers may be beneficial for those children who die without baptism. God could easily apply supernatural grace to that person so that they may recieve the beatific vision.

 

[hurst]

(Above emphasis mine)
But that’s just it…Protestants today cannot be said to have “withdrawn.” They were never formally “in.”

The infants and very young children are formally “in” upon being baptized, for those denominations that do it…

hurst

 

[USMC]

Dave,

I must have missed your post #100. It was a good post, but I have some comments regarding it. For one, I want to explain why I don’t think there can be a subjective exception to the necessity of explicit faith, as there can be, for example, a subjective exception to necessity of water baptism, or formal membership in the Church.

As I’ve mentioned, I am not 100% certain that there can be no exceptions to the necessity of explicit faith, but I will explain why I have a hard time believing there can be.

I don’t have time to respond now, but I did want to let you know that I to plan to respond.