Salvation outside the church

[Jehannette]

Not impossible, but not entirely likely that if he does NOT lead them to the CC, they are automatically without salvation.

I agree with this statement, as long as it is understood that when (and if) they make it to Heaven:

954 The three states of the Church. “When the Lord comes in glory, and all his angels with him, death will be no more and all things will be subject to him. But at the present time some of his disciples are pilgrims on earth. Others have died and are being purified, while still others are in glory, contemplating 'in full light, God himself triune and one, exactly as he is”’:

In your example, Mohammedans are excluded, and any such who are like them, as well as those who have the actual grace from God to live a good life, independent of explicit knowledge of God. Some who are in another faith without the clear grace yet to recognize Catholicism, are also excluded in your interpretation of the quote. However, other V-II documents, not necessarily Lumen Gentium from which you quoted, reinforce the belief that God does not limit salvation to card-carrying Catholic, water-baptized individuals.

Not true, and I am never claimed as much. The “plan of salvation” includes all human beings:

Christ Jesus our Lord, as no man who is or has been or ever will be whose nature will not have been assumed in Him, so there is, has been, or will be, no man, for whom He has not suffered; although not all will be saved by the mystery of His passion. But because all are not redeemed by the mystery of His passion, He does not regard the greatness and the fullness of the price, but He regards the part of the unfaithful ones and those not believing in faith those things which He has worked through loves [Gal. 5:6], because the drink of human safety, which has been prepared by our infirmity and by divine strength, has indeed in itself that it may be beneficial to all; but if it is not drunk, it does not heal. (Council of Quiercy, 853 AD)

 

[Sirach2]

Okay, Jehannette. Let’s back up and start over. I understood you to mean that ONLY "“those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel…” may attain eternal life… I further understood that you believe they must have a death bed perfect contrition to become “Catholic” and the likelihood is zero numbers.

Now you say the plan of salvation includes all, but is your belief that they must become Catholic (either in life or on their death bed) in order for this to occur? That may still be our sticking point, and it is not in line with Church teaching as expressed in Lumen Gentium, and other documents that say otherwise.

 

[Jehannette]

Okay, Jehannette. Let’s back up and start over. I understood you to mean that ONLY "“those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel…” may attain eternal life… I further understood that you believe they must have a death bed perfect contrition to become “Catholic” and the likelihood is zero numbers.

Now you say the plan of salvation includes all, but is your belief that they must become Catholic (either in life or on their death bed) in order for this to occur? That may still be our sticking point, and it is not in line with Church teaching as expressed in Lumen Gentium, and other documents that say otherwise.

I am saying that the following:

1. If an individual is “prepared to obey God,” the One and Triune God is certainly capable by “His divine light and grace” to lead that person to the Catholic Church. It may be, however, that God allows individuals to remain in a false religion so as to keep that person in a state of grace.
2. It is possible that individuals may receive “salutary repentance” at “death’s door,” such that, at the instant before their particular judgment, they may be given a final and last offer to fully embrace the Gospel and the Catholic faith.
3. As “anyone whatsoever” (Lateran IV, Canon 1) can sacramentally baptize, it is impossible to prove that a person who has attained the Age of Reason was never sacramentally baptized at some time during that person’s infancy.
4. All individuals who enter Heaven will, without exception, forever experience the Beatific Vision of the One and Triune God with the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints throughout eternity. They will, at that time, know the fullness of Catholic revelation.
5. It is the clear teaching of the Catholic Church, both present and past, that not everyone will be saved and that there are individuals who are in Hell due to mortal and those who are there due to “original sin alone.”
6. I agree that “perfect charity” by itself can reconcile an individual to the One and Triune God.

 

[Sirach2]

Jehannette:

I am saying that the following:

1. It is the clear teaching of the Catholic Church, both present and past, that not everyone will be saved and that there are individuals who are in Hell due to mortal and those who are there due to “original sin alone.”

I pretty much accept your other statements, but this point is still unclear. Do you believe all who have not been baptized and have original sin are all in hell? Do you believe God sends to hell (due to lack of baptism to remove original sin) Mohammedans, et al, who follow their conscience with the “natural law” by living uprightly and loving their Creator?

That’s the rigidness that some profess wrongly to an outsider and scare the bejeebies out of them.

1. If an individual is “prepared to obey God,” the One and Triune God is certainly capable by “His divine light and grace” to lead that person to the Catholic Church.

I believe it is possible, but not a solemn teaching, nor is it essential. If God does not give them the grace to enter the Church, these individuals may still enter heaven. God is just, and will render to every man according to his works. Rom. 2:6.

 

[Jehannette]

I pretty much accept your other statements, but this point is still unclear. Do you believe all who have not been baptized and have original sin are all in hell? Do you believe God sends to hell (due to lack of baptism to remove original sin) Mohammedans, et al, who follow their conscience with the “natural law” by living uprightly and loving their Creator?

If they refuse sacramental Baptism, then they would be guilty of mortal sin:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Forgiveness could, perhaps, be obtained at “death’s door.” As for children who die without sacramental Baptism, at least some are forever excluded from Heaven, although, there may be some exceptions.

IThat’s the rigidness that some profess wrongly to an outsider and scare the bejeebies out of them.

I do not believe that they have assurance of salvation, nor does the Church teach otherwise.

I believe it is possible, but not a solemn teaching, nor is it essential. If God does not give them the grace to enter the Church, these individuals may still enter heaven. God is just, and will render to every man according to his works. Rom. 2:6.

I do not know; I leave such judgments to the Triune God. The Church teaches that we have “the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.” (CCC, #848) In that respect, I believe that what Pope Boniface VIII declared in Unam Sanctam is infallible and true:

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Even if such submission is “unconscious, implicit, etc.” does not change the fact that it is still “absolutely necessary”:

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

 

[Sirach2]

Jehannette, you are cherry-picking sections of documents in the manner of sola scriptura proponents, to make them say what you have been led to believe. There is a vast amount of teaching that goes solidly against your errors, and obviously, you have still not read the links I provided earlier on this page. It must be a predisposition to ignore what others say … IOW, don’t confuse you with the facts. I looked at a few of your other posts in this thread. Hopefully, others will dismiss your ideology as self-taught.

This morning’s reading from the LOTH was from Ephesians 4. It is quite likely God is speaking here.

Never let evil talk pass your lips; say only the good things men need to hear, things that will really help them. Do nothing that will sadden the Holy Spirit with whom you were sealed against the day of redemption.

Just one example from the many other documents in V-II, is from Religious Liberty.

Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith, has always stood firm.

We simply cannot get on our bandstand or internet forum and preach to men that they will go to hell unless, and until … (fill in your presupposed blanks) I only pray that those you are misleading will not rest with your words, but will listen to the Church and those lawfully appointed to shepherd God’s flock.

 

[chypmonk]

I pretty much accept your other statements, but this point is still unclear. Do you believe all who have not been baptized and have original sin are all in hell? Do you believe God sends to hell (due to lack of baptism to remove original sin) Mohammedans, et al, who follow their conscience with the “natural law” by living uprightly and loving their Creator?

That’s the rigidness that some profess wrongly to an outsider and scare the bejeebies out of them.

I believe it is possible, but not a solemn teaching, nor is it essential. If God does not give them the grace to enter the Church, these individuals may still enter heaven. God is just, and will render to every man according to his works. Rom. 2:6.

I think both you and Jehannette are off on your understanding of Vatican II, although I think Jehannette is closer to the truth. I was just going to sit it out because we really need some direct active intervention by the Pope to clarify a lot of it, to be in continuity of all that has been taught before.

But I needed to jump in on this one which is clear.
@Sirach2 —you may not know it but it is “of the Faith,” de fide–infallible, that those dying **only in Original Sin go to hell **but to a different punishment. We have two Councils Lyons and Florence, that infallibly proclaimed,that just having Original Sin is enough to condemn a person to hell. “But to different punishment”= Limbo. Limbo is the highest “part” of hell. Hell being defined as loss of the Beatific Vision:
:

Council of Lyons II “…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished with different punishments…-- (Denzinger 464)

Council of Florence: “…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.— (Denzinger 693)

 

[Sirach2]

Chypmonk,
We’ve been on this roller coaster before, and I do not wish to ride again. Citing documents in antiquity as against Vatican II is not going to fly with me. Notwithstanding the solid teaching of this Council, scripture itself gives a previous firm foundation from St. Paul in Romans 2:14-16. Living the natural law, even if one dies without baptism in the state of original sin, does not send a man to hell. Period. Nor to a separate place devoid of the beatific vision. The theology of limbo is not de fide, but proposed by theologians by way of trying to understand the convergence.

Good day.

 

[Jehannette]

Chypmonk,
We’ve been on this roller coaster before, and I do not wish to ride again. Citing documents in antiquity as against Vatican II is not going to fly with me. Notwithstanding the solid teaching of this Council, scripture itself gives a previous firm foundation from St. Paul in Romans 2:14-16. Living the natural law, even if one dies without baptism in the state of original sin, does not send a man to hell. Period. Nor to a separate place devoid of the beatific vision. The theology of limbo is not de fide, but proposed by theologians by way of trying to understand the convergence.

Good day.

Vatican II reaffirmed the Council of Florence:

This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea,(20) the Council of Florence (21) and the Council of Trent.(22*)** And at the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God. Let them therefore teach the faithful that the authentic cult of the saints consists not so much in the multiplying of external acts, but rather in the greater intensity of our love, whereby, for our own greater good and that of the whole Church, we seek from the saints “example in their way of life, fellowship in their communion, and aid by their intercession.”(23*) On the other hand, let them teach the faithful that our communion with those in heaven, provided that it is understood in the fuller light of faith according to its genuine nature, in no way weakens, but conversely, more thoroughly enriches the latreutic worship we give to God the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit.(24*) (Lumen Gentium, 51

The CCC affirms that original sin will exclude a soul from Heaven:

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

 

[Jehannette]

We simply cannot get on our bandstand or internet forum and preach to men that they will go to hell unless, and until … (fill in your presupposed blanks) I only pray that those you are misleading will not rest with your words, but will listen to the Church and those lawfully appointed to shepherd God’s flock.

I agree:

The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27), which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18). And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ.” This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church.” Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church—like everything that belongs to the Church’s integrity—will never be lacking.

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity—rooted in the apostolic succession—between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ … which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.” With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth,” that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection—divided, yet in some way one—of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach.” In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities.”

“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history.” (Dominus Iesus)

 

[Sirach2]

Jehannette:

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

Very nice point, on which I agree (from V-II). We are making progress. I’m not one to get in to “my truth is more perfect than your truth.” Let’s just part friends and let the Lord guide all of us. I do pray that whoever is following this thread and has become scandalized by certain mistruths will stay the course and let the Spirit guide them into fullness of Truth. It’s out there, but the path may be shadowed at times. Seek and ye shall find!

 

[Gorgias]

The CCC affirms that original sin will exclude a soul from Heaven:

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

Nice try, but not quite. Go up two paragraphs earlier:

"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,“64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” (CCC, 1261)

If lack of baptism (and therefore, the presence of original sin) “excludes a soul from Heaven”, then it wouldn’t be possible for “us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.” That is, if 1263 were saying what you claim it says, then it wouldn’t be possible for 1261 to present this expression of hope.

 

[triumphguy]

Even Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the following as being a de fide definitia statement from the Church’s Magisterium:

Please help me understand the above? What does it mean? Do you believe that this statement from an ecumenical Council of the Church to be in error? Do you believe that it is an infallible, an ex cathedra statement of the Church’s Magisterium? If not, what doctrinal status does it have, if any?

P.S. This thread is now on 16 pages and is still open; so much for “short-lived.”

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Context, context, context!!!

“The key to this passage is the four categories mentioned, pagans being listed first. They have received none of the message of salvation. The Jews have received only part of the message, that of the Old Testament. Third are the heretics who, although having received the complete message of salvation, seem to have lost some of it by way of a conscious separation from the Church. The fourth group is the one to whom the document is primarily directed, the schismatics. They have deliberately cut themselves off from the Church by a complete break from its head, the Pope. The reason for the strength of this statement was that it was hoped that it would bring the separated Eastern Churches back into unity with Rome. Such a strong statement was issued againnst the schismatics because of the relation between unity and charity. St. Thomas holds that unity is made by charity and therefore the schismatics are separating themselves from the unity and therefore the charity of the Church. The concern of the Council of Florence was pastoral; it was trying to bring back lost sheep.” ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=316548&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

 

[Jehannette]

Nice try, but not quite. Go up two paragraphs earlier:

"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,“64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” (CCC, 1261)

If lack of baptism (and therefore, the presence of original sin) “excludes a soul from Heaven”, then it wouldn’t be possible for “us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.” That is, if 1263 were saying what you claim it says, then it wouldn’t be possible for 1261 to present this expression of hope.

The Catechism also states:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

More to the point, Pope Pius VI stated:

“The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name Limbo of the Children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of fire, just as if by this very fact, that those who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state, free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk: [Condemned as] false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.” (Auctorem Fidei)

I do not believe that the Magisterium is teaching the existence of “null sets.” It’s probably not an “either/or” thing.

 

[Jehannette]

Context, context, context!!!

The declaration from the Council of Florence was, of course, a quote.from Saint Fulgentius, a Roman Catholic bishop, who died in 533 AD:

“Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.” (To Peter on the Faith)

Another important citation is from the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517), where Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII:

“Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam.”

 

[triumphguy]

Context being the Schisms and heretics.

If you hear an adult telling off their own kids and the kids of friends, or a strangers’ kids you hear a marked variation in tone and severity of voice.

The way the Church actually talks about Non-Christian religions is quite respectful.

 

[Gorgias]

The Catechism also states:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

Right. Paragraph 1250 is addressing the question of whether children should be baptized. They should. This doesn’t prove your point.

More to the point, Pope Pius VI stated:

“The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name Limbo of the Children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of fire, just as if by this very fact, that those who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state, free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk: [Condemned as]
false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.” (Auctorem Fidei)

To steal a movie line: I don’t think this means what you think it means…

In fact, I don’t think it helps your case at all! Let’s take a look what’s going on, here…

Pelagianism had argued against original sin; in doing so, it had to address the notion of infant baptism (after all, if original sin is a defective doctrine, then why baptize babies?). The claim, then, was that unbaptized children might not belong to the Kingdom of God, but they certainly had eternal life. Augustine, on the other hand, since he was defending original sin, was forced to conclude that Pelagian ‘eternal life’ was invalid; therefore, he was forced to conclude that given the choice between heaven and hell, unbaptized children went to hell.

The Scholastics, however, found middle ground: unbaptized infants had no personal sin, and therefore, although they don’t attain heaven, they know no punishment; they’re blissfully unaware – they’re in limbo.

Jansenists, however, hated that conclusion: they asserted that any teaching of Limbo was a teaching for Pelagianism.

Augustinians defended their patron, and popes agreed – the Augustinian denial of limbo was orthodox (that is to say, there’s only ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ as final states). However, the Jansenist view that limbo implies Pelagianism was likewise invalid. That’s all that Pius VI was saying here: “it’s incorrect to say ‘limbo equals Pelagianism’, so don’t teach that!”.

So, it’s not that Pius VI was either condemning or affirming the existence of Limbo: rather, he was simply correcting the Jansenist teachings, among which was the notion that the denial of the punishment of fire (i.e., the teaching of limbo) was inherently Pelagian.

I do not believe that the Magisterium is teaching the existence of “null sets.” It’s probably not an “either/or” thing.

Jehannette:

However, how do you know that the “through no fault of their own” category of individuals is anything but a “null set” (zero members)

Umm… so, let’s see – when it’s something that you agree with, then there’s no such thing as a ‘null set’; but, when it’s something that you don’t agree with, then you’re willing to posit that it’s a ‘null set’…? Yeah… riiiiiight!

 

[Corso]

Ah, Chypmonk, you have come a long way from your former dogmatism. You now seem to accept and state that the interpretation promoted by rigid EENS Catholics is not the sole interpretation that may be believed by a Catholic or non-Catholic.

What disturbs me is the continuing hard-line fixation that some spread on these fora to the detriment of a person seeking Truth. Many times, these opinions hinder them from entering the Church whatsoever.

I truely agree with this, following this thread and a few others there is a lot of disagreement between people of the same Religion.

These are the things that put those questions in my head from the beginning and pulled me away from the catholic church. 18 pages of disagreements on something that shouldn’t be questioned (at least from what I read in this post) raises a bunch, or strenghtens one’s questions/ doubts. Not in Christ himself, Just in the correct place for me to worship that would bring me closest to God. As to me right now the most important thing in my search is my relationship with Christ.

 

[Sirach2]

Corso,

Thanks for expressing your deep concerns and doubts. It is painful for me to see that these chutzpahs who promulgte their unqualified theological expertise are having this dark influence on the souls of others. How it must grieve the very heart of God, who is loving Mercy Himself. I am at the point of abandoning forums permanently, due to their contention that they, and they alone are right. Every subforum of this website has them. It is simply their place to shine and be pope for a day.

 

[Jehannette]

I truely agree with this, following this thread and a few others there is a lot of disagreement between people of the same Religion.

These are the things that put those questions in my head from the beginning and pulled me away from the catholic church. 18 pages of disagreements on something that shouldn’t be questioned (at least from what I read in this post) raises a bunch, or strenghtens one’s questions/ doubts. Not in Christ himself, Just in the correct place for me to worship that would bring me closest to God. As to me right now the most important thing in my search is my relationship with Christ.

Oh, I agree with Sirach2 100%!! Do not listen to us! Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and judge for yourself:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Also, do not forget the Summa of Saint Thomas Aquinas, which according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 252 §1. Theological instruction is to be imparted in the light of faith and under the leadership of the magisterium in such a way that the students understand the entire Catholic doctrine grounded in divine revelation, gain nourishment for their own spiritual life, and are able properly to announce and safeguard it in the exercise of the ministry.
§2. Students are to be instructed in sacred scripture with special diligence in such a way that they acquire a comprehensive view of the whole of sacred scripture.
§3. There are to be classes in dogmatic theology, always grounded in the written word of God together with sacred tradition; through these, students are to learn to penetrate more intimately the mysteries of salvation, especially with St. Thomas as a teacher. There are also to be classes in moral and pastoral theology, canon law, liturgy, ecclesiastical history, and other auxiliary and special disciplines, according to the norm of the prescripts of the program of priestly formation.

Here’s Thomas’ Summa:

newadvent.org/summa/

You can also download the PDF version:

basilica.org/pages/ebooks/St.%20Thomas%20Aquinas-Summa%20Theologica.pdf

You might also want to consider the Roman Theological Forum:

rtforum.org/

Not run by “chutzpahs”.

Good Luck & Blessings.