Salvation of Unbaptized

[rescath]

Laszlo,

That understanding of Protestants who act in good faith goes against all the pre-Vatican II catechisms I was taught from.

Those theologians you cited have no knowledge about the notion of a “formal motive of belief”, without which there is no faith, that formal motive being the authority of the Church. St. Pius X dealt with it in a document he wrote.

Those pre-Vatican II catechisms are what led up to the ecclesiology from which all the other modern errors flow.

We can see in the example of Father Feeney the theological climate that prevailed before and led directly to Vatican II. While some on this thread have been hostile to Father Feeny, let’s look at what he was fighting against.

I read a biography of Cardinal Cushing, Father Feeney’s arch-nemesis, which was meant to be a positive portrayal of the Cardinal. In it, he’s quoted as having said: “No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense. No one is going to tell me that Christ came to die for any select group.”

Before this century, you don’t see that interpretation of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” that you see now. Read up on theological discussions regarding the formal motive of faith. Protestants lack true faith since they do not have the formal motive of faith.

When you start saying that people have the correct motive of faith simply because they sincerely believe their errors, that’s Pelagianism, saying that some natural goodwill and conviction on your part effectively saves. That’s unacceptable.

You establish subjective goodwill as salvific, as the criterion for salvation – from that flows the right to religious liberty (since if one saves his soul by following his (even) erroneous convictions, one has an objective right to save his soul and ergo to follow his errors); from that flows the false modern ecclesiology in which we have this invisible soul Church to which people can belong in varying degrees (for heretics are really part of the Church if they’re sincere, but they’re not fully united to the Church), and of course from that flows the all the false ecumenical activities of modern times.

I’ll try to dig up some discussions regarding the formal motive of belief.

 

[rescath]

No, she is saying that God can make judgements that lazslo doesn’t agree with.

Oh, come on now, it’s not about what I agree with – it’s about understanding what the Church teaches on the subject. Making statements like if that’s what the popes have taught dogmatically then they can buzz off are a problem, don’t you think?

We’re trying to get at what the Church teaches on the subject – that’s our guide for truth on the matter.

 

[marybee]

Oh, come on now, it’s not about what I agree with – it’s about understanding what the Church teaches on the subject. Making statements like if that’s what the popes have taught dogmatically then they can buzz off are a problem, don’t you think?

We’re trying to get at what the Church teaches on the subject – that’s our guide for truth on the matter.

Limbo is a doctrine??? Since when!

No one has ever answered my question. Does God Expect what is impossible???

 

[LilyM]

Before this century, you don’t see that interpretation of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” that you see now.

So? Before the mid 1800s you had plenty of argument pro and con the Blessed Virgin’s ‘Immaculate Conception’.

And all sorts of ideas about Papal Infallibility - and we do still! Varying from ‘only the doctrines of Immaculate Conception and Assumption have been infallibly defined’ to ‘virtually every word that proceeds from the mouth of a Pope is inspired infallible teaching’. Of course I am far from adhering to either extreme.

The simple fact is our understanding of these things IS refined over time, and often there is quite wide latitude or openness in regard to their interpretation.

When you start saying that people have the correct motive of faith simply because they sincerely believe their errors, that’s Pelagianism, saying that some natural goodwill and conviction on your part effectively saves. That’s unacceptable.

I’m not talking merely ‘some natural goodwill and conviction’ - or ‘sincere belief’, even the worst sinner usually has as much. I’m specifically thinking of cases where, as marybee puts it, to expect even informal baptism (of desire or blood) or assent to Catholic or Christian beliefs of a person would be to demand the literally impossible.

And where a person in such a situation, where any knowledge of Christianity is literally unobtainable for them, exerts every reasonable and even unreasonable effort to discover and follow God’s will and live a naturally and supernaturally moral life.

 

[MTD]

Those theologians you cited have no knowledge about the notion of a “formal motive of belief”, without which there is no faith, that formal motive being the authority of the Church. St. Pius X dealt with it in a document he wrote.

Those pre-Vatican II catechisms are what led up to the ecclesiology from which all the other modern errors flow.

Well, they’re good enough for me.

Before this century, you don’t see that interpretation of “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” that you see now.

I can tell you partly why. All the other major heresies in the Church died out; Protestantism did not. This obviously created a new problem/situation because formerly the adherents of a heresy knew they were going against the true Church because they were not born into the heresy or were very close to its beginnings. Now, centuries after the split with Protestantism, the vast majority of Protestants are born into it and thus have no idea that theirs is not the true Church. Thus there was no reason to explain EENS that way until the last couple centuries.

When you start saying that people have the correct motive of faith simply because they sincerely believe their errors, that’s Pelagianism, saying that some natural goodwill and conviction on your part effectively saves. That’s unacceptable.

No, Laszlo. I said there are certain truths of the Faith that must be believed explicitly in all cases; these truths are believed by Protestants. Thus as long as they are in invincible ignorance and the state of grace they received at Baptism, they are saved because they explicitly believe those most fundamental truths of our Faith.

Maria

 

[MTD]

No one has ever answered my question. Does God Expect what is impossible???

The supernatural life and the vision of God in heaven are pure gifts, Mary. God does not owe them to anyone. On the other hand, He will not punish anyone who is not guilty of actual sin. This is where Limbo comes in.

If God had not offered us the supernatural life and eternity with Him, we would never have known heaven existed. We would have loved and served Him with purely natural, human knowledge, and we would have been naturally happy. We wouldn’t have been sad because we wouldn’t know what we missed out on.

This is all Limbo is. It is a place for those who have committed no actual sin and so do not deserve punishment but who have had no opportunity to take advantage of God’s free gift of supernatural life. God does not owe them that supernatural life, and they have not earned it (no one can earn it, of course). So they go to a place where they can be naturally happy (as we all would have had God not revealed to us a heavenly destiny), and they never lose that happiness because they do not know what they missed out on.

It is sad for us because we know what they missed out on, and we wish them to share the supernatural happiness we have been privileged to accept. But God is neither punishing them for sins they have not committed, nor is He rewarding them for actions they did not accomplish. He is giving them, in fact, more than they deserve because He created them but they have not returned that favor.

Remember that God’s justice and mercy are infinite. His ways are perfect and true. We may not understand, but we can be confident that He has made the best decision possible.

Maria

 

[marybee]

The supernatural life and the vision of God in heaven are pure gifts, Mary. God does not owe them to anyone. On the other hand, He will not punish anyone who is not guilty of actual sin. This is where Limbo comes in.

If God had not offered us the supernatural life and eternity with Him, we would never have known heaven existed. We would have loved and served Him with purely natural, human knowledge, and we would have been naturally happy. We wouldn’t have been sad because we wouldn’t know what we missed out on.

This is all Limbo is. It is a place for those who have committed no actual sin and so do not deserve punishment but who have had no opportunity to take advantage of God’s free gift of supernatural life. God does not owe them that supernatural life, and they have not earned it (no one can earn it, of course). So they go to a place where they can be naturally happy (as we all would have had God not revealed to us a heavenly destiny), and they never lose that happiness because they do not know what they missed out on.

It is sad for us because we know what they missed out on, and we wish them to share the supernatural happiness we have been privileged to accept. But God is neither punishing them for sins they have not committed, nor is He rewarding them for actions they did not accomplish. He is giving them, in fact, more than they deserve because He created them but they have not returned that favor.

Remember that God’s justice and mercy are infinite. His ways are perfect and true. We may not understand, but we can be confident that He has made the best decision possible.

Maria

Why does everyone put so much weight into “Limbo”. It is never mentioned in the Bible. Jesus said, let the children come to me, the kingdom of heaven is theirs. Notice he did not say, “let the children come to me, the kindom of limbo is theirs”

There is plenty of evidence that suggests that chidren can go to Heaven as POPE Benedict said. Limbo is not a doctrine. plain and simple.

So why does this “infinite” God put babies in hell?

There is no limbo, only heaven, hell and purgatory. All that reach purgator will reach heaven eventually, all that are heaven stay in heaven. Those that are in hell stay in hell. There is no suspended state of the soul or a place on the outerskirts of either place. This was the thoughts of some theologions who did not recognize any other way of getting to heaven.

God MUST give everyone an opportunity for salvation because that is why we are here on earth, to know, love, and serve God so that we might be with him for all eternity. So either God created us for that purpose or he didn’t. And those who reject the last popes are heretics, not those who think that non “baptised” people go to Heaven.

 

[LilyM]

The supernatural life and the vision of God in heaven are pure gifts, Mary. God does not owe them to anyone. On the other hand, He will not punish anyone who is not guilty of actual sin. This is where Limbo comes in.

If God had not offered us the supernatural life and eternity with Him, we would never have known heaven existed. We would have loved and served Him with purely natural, human knowledge, and we would have been naturally happy. We wouldn’t have been sad because we wouldn’t know what we missed out on.

This is all Limbo is. It is a place for those who have committed no actual sin and so do not deserve punishment but who have had no opportunity to take advantage of God’s free gift of supernatural life. God does not owe them that supernatural life, and they have not earned it (no one can earn it, of course). So they go to a place where they can be naturally happy (as we all would have had God not revealed to us a heavenly destiny), and they never lose that happiness because they do not know what they missed out on.

It is sad for us because we know what they missed out on, and we wish them to share the supernatural happiness we have been privileged to accept. But God is neither punishing them for sins they have not committed, nor is He rewarding them for actions they did not accomplish. He is giving them, in fact, more than they deserve because He created them but they have not returned that favor.

Remember that God’s justice and mercy are infinite. His ways are perfect and true. We may not understand, but we can be confident that He has made the best decision possible.

Maria

Our intended natural state is that of Adam and Eve - who walked and talked face-to-face with God, and who were intended to eat of the Tree of Life, and hence live forever. Sounds awfully like heaven to me - eternity in God’s presence

So it would seem that heaven was in fact always part of God’s plan, not some lesser state of ‘natural happiness’.

All people, even those in ignorance on earth, feel the lack of our true destiny, heaven and the Beatific Vision, and suffer from what has been called a ‘God-shaped hole’. Why would any of those who have died be any different? Wouldn’t they all feel and suffer from this lack too?

The lack of heaven is in itself a punishment, and one of the worst factors for everyone who is in Hell. I’ve never heard of any indication that anyone in Hell is unaware of what they’re lacking, otherwise most all of its inhabitants could conceivably be ‘naturally happy’ in the same way, and we know for a fact they’re not!

And no, God doesn’t owe any soul anything, but we know his attribute of fathomless mercy - and we know that he desires the salvation of all. Otherwise what use Christ asking that the Apostles spread his Gospel to all peoples?

It doesn’t make much sense given these two factors that he would give some souls literally no chance or possibility of being saved, by making their salvation dependent on factors that they have no chance or possibility of becoming aware of.

 

[MTD]

Why does everyone put so much weight into “Limbo”. It is never mentioned in the Bible.

Mary, I’m not so sure that’s a very Catholic thing to say. Why declare the Assumption of the Blessed Mother dogma? It is never mentioned in the Bible.

So why does this “infinite” God put babies in hell?

I think it is best for us, who are not infinitely perfect as God is, to trust in His infinite perfection. If we do not understand, it is because we only see the knots and thread ends behind the embroidered piece. Once we get to heaven, God willing, we will see the masterpiece from the right perspective.

There is no limbo, only heaven, hell and purgatory.

In the end, there will be only heaven and hell.

There is no suspended state of the soul or a place on the outerskirts of either place.

There are two aspects to hell: pain of loss and pain of sense. Everyone in hell experiences pain of loss, but the pain of sense is experienced in different degrees. Those who have committed no actual sin will not experience pain of sense at all, but they will experience pain of loss in the sense that they will be deprived of the vision of God. This is all Limbo is.

God MUST give everyone an opportunity for salvation because that is why we are here on earth, to know, love, and serve God so that we might be with him for all eternity. So either God created us for that purpose or he didn’t.

It is well to remember that Adam and Eve forfeited that opportunity for heaven for all of us through Original Sin. It is only through the utter mercy and love of God that the Incarnation gives us a “second chance” of eternal life with Him face to face. But the fact of the matter remains, Original Sin did it, not God. God did not originally create us with Original Sin; thus it is not correct to say that God must give everyone the opportunity to take advantage of the “second chance” since by rights He did not even have to give us that “second chance.” He already gave us all, babies and adults, the opportunity to heaven, but Adam and Eve ruined it.

And those who reject the last popes are heretics, not those who think that non “baptised” people go to Heaven.

If I’m not mistaken, those popes did not say non-baptized babies go to heaven. At least that’s not what the CCC says.

Maria

 

[litllulu]

Mary, I’m not so sure that’s a very Catholic thing to say. Why declare the Assumption of the Blessed Mother dogma? It is never mentioned in the Bible.

I think it is best for us, who are not infinitely perfect as God is, to trust in His infinite perfection. If we do not understand, it is because we only see the knots and thread ends behind the embroidered piece. Once we get to heaven, God willing, we will see the masterpiece from the right perspective.

In the end, there will be only heaven and hell.

There are two aspects to hell: pain of loss and pain of sense. Everyone in hell experiences pain of loss, but the pain of sense is experienced in different degrees. Those who have committed no actual sin will not experience pain of sense at all, but they will experience pain of loss in the sense that they will be deprived of the vision of God. This is all Limbo is.

It is well to remember that Adam and Eve forfeited that opportunity for heaven for all of us through Original Sin. It is only through the utter mercy and love of God that the Incarnation gives us a “second chance” of eternal life with Him face to face. But the fact of the matter remains, Original Sin did it, not God. God did not originally create us with Original Sin; thus it is not correct to say that God must give everyone the opportunity to take advantage of the “second chance” since by rights He did not even have to give us that “second chance.” He already gave us all, babies and adults, the opportunity to heaven, but Adam and Eve ruined it.

If I’m not mistaken, those popes did not say non-baptized babies go to heaven. At least that’s not what the CCC says.

Maria

Maria your intentions might be well, but you are VERY misguided. You can not compare limbo to the Assumption! One is doctrine one is not. She is merely stating that it has never been declared by the church AND it is not in the bible. Also there is some evidence that is contrary to what you are saying. You also said that Hell is good. Nothing you said is backed up by The Church.

 

[MTD]

Our intended natural state is that of Adam and Eve - who walked and talked face-to-face with God, and who were intended to eat of the Tree of Life, and hence live forever. Sounds awfully like heaven to me - eternity in God’s presence

You’re right; it is a lot like heaven, for sanctifying grace is a share in God’s own life. It is the seed of eternal life, the mustard seed of grace that transforms into the tree of eternal life with Him.

So it would seem that heaven was in fact always part of God’s plan, not some lesser state of ‘natural happiness’.

That is correct. As the Baltimore Catechism states, “God make me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.” This is the purpose for which God created man; it is the original condition in which man was placed. Every person born to Adam and Eve would have had sanctifying grace and the right to heaven. But Adam and Eve ruined it through Original Sin. They destroyed this plan of God and forfeited for us the right to eternal life, which was the purpose for which God created us. God, in His infinite love and mercy, had compassion on this terrible situation and became man for us so that reparation might be made for this awful sin and we might again have an opportunity to eternal life. But God does not owe this to us; we already broke our end of the deal through Adam and Eve. He would have given eternal life to each and every person born to Adam and Eve had they remained in grace; in this way He would have fulfilled the purpose for which He created us. Now, after Original Sin, it is a pure act of love that He has given us a “second chance,” to which we have no right even though we were created for eternal life, for we already forfeited that right through Adam and Eve.

Maria

 

[MTD]

Maria your intentions might be well, but you are VERY misguided. You can not compare limbo to the Assumption! One is doctrine one is not.

I was not comparing Limbo to the Assumption so much as I was saying that the fact that it is not in the Bible is not a good enough reason to discard it. There are a lot of things we believe as Catholics that are not in the Bible.

Also there is some evidence that is contrary to what you are saying.

Like what? Please enlighten me. Perhaps I’m missing something.

You also said that Hell is good.

How, pray tell? I’m stumped.

Nothing you said is backed up by The Church.

Are you sure? I thought I was only presenting the traditional teaching of the Church.

Maria

 

[marybee]

Just so everyone knows, God did not make Hell, it is not some fall back place for us. Satan and the demons created it. So to say that God wants people to be happy in this perfect state of happiness (in limbo Hell) is total bunk. God never created Hell, nor did he want people to go there.

 

[marybee]

I was not comparing Limbo to the Assumption so much as I was saying that the fact that it is not in the Bible is not a good enough reason to discard it. There are a lot of things we believe as Catholics that are not in the Bible.

Like what? Please enlighten me. Perhaps I’m missing something.

How, pray tell? I’m stumped.

Are you sure? I thought I was only presenting the traditional teaching of the Church.

Maria

No read the Catechism. It DOES say that we trust infants who die to God’s Mercy. It does not state that limbo exists. In fact if you go to the section that says limbo it will redirect you to the section on infants who have died without baptism, that we trust God to take them into his MERCY! It does not saying ANYTHING about the existance of limbo. What you are saying maybe the thoughts of some early theologians but has no place in the Catechism now.

And FYI-, no doctrine EVER contradicted scripture. There is always some scriptural basis for everything the Church teaches on Faith and morals. It teaches that she Assumed into heaven as a natural result of being sinless, which is biblical. I dare you to find one doctrine that has no scriptural basis.

 

[gorman64]

marybee:

Why does everyone put so much weight into “Limbo”. It is never mentioned in the Bible. Jesus said, let the children come to me, the kingdom of heaven is theirs. Notice he did not say, “let the children come to me, the kindom of limbo is theirs”

There is plenty of evidence that suggests that chidren can go to Heaven as POPE Benedict said. Limbo is not a doctrine. plain and simple.

marybee:

Limbo is not a de fide doctrine. It is certainly a doctrine though. Do you deny that there are doctrines classified as something less than de fide that must be given our assent under pain of mortal sin? Not believed with a divine-catholic faith…but with ecclesiastical faith?

You must accept them not by divine-Catholic faith, for God has not revealed them, but by ecclesiastical faith, by an assent which is based upon the infallible authority of the divinely appointed Church. Theologians, however, point out that even ecclesiastical faith is at least mediately divine, since it is God who has revealed that His Church is to be believed: “He that heareth you heareth me.”

What about those doctrines of divine faith…proximate to the faith…theologically certain…these doctrines require our assent. Pius IX very clearly teaches this in Tuas Libenter.

So why does this “infinite” God put babies in hell?

He doesn’t.

There is no limbo, only heaven, hell and purgatory. All that reach purgator will reach heaven eventually, all that are heaven stay in heaven. Those that are in hell stay in hell. There is no suspended state of the soul or a place on the outerskirts of either place. This was the thoughts of some theologions who did not recognize any other way of getting to heaven.

But this is contrary to the common teaching of the theologians and of the Popes. This place of natural happiness is not a suspended state as you have indicated. This is the common teaching of the theologians for the past 800 years.

God MUST give everyone an opportunity for salvation because that is why we are here on earth, to know, love, and serve God so that we might be with him for all eternity. So either God created us for that purpose or he didn’t.

Who teaches this? Can you provide some sources for it?

And those who reject the last popes are heretics, not those who think that non “baptised” people go to Heaven.

From the Baltimore Catechism #4:

154 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven–neither will they go to Hell. After the Last Judgment there will be no Purgatory. Where, then, will they go? God in His goodness will provide a place of rest for them, where they will not suffer and will be in a state of natural peace; but they will never see God or Heaven. God might have created us for a purely natural and material end, so that we would live forever upon the earth and be naturally happy with the good things God would give us. But
then we would never have known of Heaven or God as we do now. Such happiness on earth would be nothing compared to the delights of Heaven and the presence of God; so that, now, since God has given us, through His holy revelations, a knowledge of Himself and Heaven, we would be miserable if left always upon the earth. Those, then, who die without Baptism do not know what they have lost, and are naturally happy; but we who know all they have lost for want of Baptism know how very unfortunate they are.
Think, then, what a terrible crime it is to willfully allow anyone to
die without Baptism, or to deprive a little child of life before it can
be baptized! Suppose all the members of a family but one little infant have been baptized; when the Day of Judgment comes, while all the other members of a family–father, mother, and children–may go into Heaven, that little one will have to remain out; that little brother or sister will be separated from its family forever, and never, never see God or Heaven. How heartless and cruel, then, must a person be who would deprive that little infant of happiness for all eternity–just that its mother or someone else might have a little less trouble or suffering here upon earth.

Gorman

 

[marybee]

marybee:

Limbo is not a de fide doctrine. It is certainly a doctrine though. Do you deny that there are doctrines classified as something less than de fide that must be given our assent under pain of mortal sin? Not believed with a divine-catholic faith…but with ecclesiastical faith?

You must accept them not by divine-Catholic faith, for God has not revealed them, but by ecclesiastical faith, by an assent which is based upon the infallible authority of the divinely appointed Church. Theologians, however, point out that even ecclesiastical faith is at least mediately divine, since it is God who has revealed that His Church is to be believed: “He that heareth you heareth me.”

What about those doctrines of divine faith…proximate to the faith…theologically certain…these doctrines require our assent. Pius IX very clearly teaches this in Tuas Libenter.

He doesn’t.

But this is contrary to the common teaching of the theologians and of the Popes. This place of natural happiness is not a suspended state as you have indicated. This is the common teaching of the theologians for the past 800 years.

Who teaches this? Can you provide some sources for it?

From the Baltimore Catechism #4:

Gorman

Every man has sufficient grace for salvation! In the bible. I am not going put all my faith in this place called limbo! It is not even in Catechism of the Catholic Church as I mentioned above.

You say that anyone who says that limbo does not exist is a heretic, including JP2, Benedict etc. How do you know the popes that you are citing aren’t heretics?

 

[marybee]

Every man has sufficient grace for salvation! In the bible. I am not going put all my faith in this place called limbo! It is not even in Catechism of the Catholic Church as I mentioned above.

You say that anyone who says that limbo does not exist is a heretic, including JP2, Benedict etc. How do you know the popes that you are citing aren’t heretics?

This is starting to sound like the Protestant “By faith alone” argument. Instead it is “By baptism alone”

 

[MTD]

Just so everyone knows, God did not make Hell, it is not some fall back place for us. Satan and the demons created it.

Creation is proper to God only; it is impossible by nature for a created being to create, for creation presupposes fullness of being.

Maria

 

[jmcrae]

So far in my reading, I have never found the term “limbo” in any official document of the Church or in any writing of the Early Fathers, or even in any Church magazine or daily devotional book, other than in the context of explaining that it is a pious belief; not a doctrine of the Church.

Can anyone cite an official Church document that states that limbo is required for belief? Preferably something that comes out of the Vatican.

 

[marybee]

Creation is proper to God only; it is impossible by nature for a created being to create, for creation presupposes fullness of being.

Maria

This is getting incredibly absurd. You say God created Hell? Why would he need to? That is insane. So God created Hell for the punishment of the damned. Is there a devil with a pitchfork,and horns stoking the fires of Hell too??? If you say “yes” you can not on the other side of your mouth say that there is a realm of this idea of hell with perfect happiness. That is a CRAZY argument. I can see it now, “Here Satan, take all these babies into your lake of fire, but make sure they are in total happiness”