The most important question

[Trurl]

I had a conversation with a catholic person and asked him, what is the official teaching of the church about the most important question of all - namely: who will get to heaven, what should one do to get to heaven and what should one avoid if one does not want to get to hell. He said that there is no official teaching about the subject. He said that not even the fate of those babies who undergo a spontaneous abortion can be ascertained. He said that there is a “hope”, that maybe they will end up in heaven, maybe after one unspecified “time” in purgatory (is there “time” in the heareafter? I thought it is not a physical existence where no space or time exists).

Now that sounds very strange. No official declaration at all? Is this person right? Or was he mistaken? Please enlighten me.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Your friend basically correct on unbaptized infants - is that the gist of your question?*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. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.*CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[snarflemike]

The Church is very clear about what is required to get to heaven. What it cannot say (except in rare instances) is whether a particular person has met those requirements.

This is not at all problematic. A person’s goal should be unification with God (getting to heaven), not knowing if specific others are in heaven (unless God chooses to reveal this).

 

[chaunceygardner]

I agree that the Church teaches what one must do to get to heaven, not about who will or will not get there. For any human person or organization to try to do so is like telling God to do OUR will; no one on earth has the authority or wisdom to make that call.

I would tend to disbelieve and not trust any religion that claimed to have the knowledge or the power to determine which individuals get to heaven.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I had a conversation with a catholic person and asked him, what is the official teaching of the church about the most important question of all - namely: who will get to heaven, what should one do to get to heaven and what should one avoid if one does not want to get to hell. He said that there is no official teaching about the subject. He said that not even the fate of those babies who undergo a spontaneous abortion can be ascertained. He said that there is a “hope”, that maybe they will end up in heaven, maybe after one unspecified “time” in purgatory (is there “time” in the heareafter? I thought it is not a physical existence where no space or time exists).

Now that sounds very strange. No official declaration at all? Is this person right? Or was he mistaken? Please enlighten me.

No- the most important question is Why am I here? (or why are we here?). The answer is to know, love and serve God who made me [us], that I [we] may be reasonably happy in this life, and perfectly happy forever with Him in the next. This ‘knowing, loving and serving God’ is the vocation of each person and all humanity, and would seem to be the ultimate criteria for entry into heaven. Naturally other questions soon follow, e.g., *how *do I [we] know, love and serve God?

**EDIT: ADDED: **It would seem to me that focusing the question rather only on final entrance into Heaven would betray a desire to have eternal beatitude or rest or happiness without the ‘knowing, loving or serving God’ “part.” This may be what Our Lord meant when He spoke of men trying to enter the Kingdom of God/Heaven by violence or force: it tries to take (for oneself) - in the strongest sense of the word - the Kingdom of Heaven, as anyone might seek to take desired goods; whereas, said Kingdom is -ultimately- a gift of God. Just my 2 cents.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I would tend to disbelieve and not trust any religion that claimed to have the knowledge or the power to determine which individuals get to heaven.

The Bible teaches Abraham, Elijah, and Mary (if you identify Rev. 12 as such) as in heaven.

 

[chaunceygardner]

The Bible teaches Abraham, Elijah, and Mary (if you identify Rev. 12 as such) as in heaven.

That’s fine. The Bible is not a religion.

 

[JRKH]

I had a conversation with a catholic person and asked him, what is the official teaching of the church about the most important question of all - namely: who will get to heaven, what should one do to get to heaven and what should one avoid if one does not want to get to hell. He said that there is no official teaching about the subject.

Your friend is wrong…There is an official teaching on the subject…In fact ALL of the teaching is really on this subject. You can find that teaching HERE

He said that not even the fate of those babies who undergo a spontaneous abortion can be ascertained.

this is true. Evidently God has not positively revealed their fate.

He said that there is a “hope”, that maybe they will end up in heaven, maybe after one unspecified “time” in purgatory (is there “time” in the heareafter? I thought it is not a physical existence where no space or time exists).

“Purgatory” would be an entirely different thread…and there are plenty already…
But yes there is “hope” and a surety that our merciful God deals with them justly.

Now that sounds very strange. No official declaration at all? Is this person right? Or was he mistaken? Please enlighten me.

Hope the answers you are receiving are helpful…

Peace
James

 

[MarcoPolo]

That’s fine. The Bible is not a religion.

Yes, but what about those who wrote these truths about persons in heaven in the inspired pages? Are they not the voice of the infant Church in the first century? Why not distrust them for making such claims?

 

[Trurl]

MarcoPolo:

Your friend basically correct on unbaptized infants - is that the gist of your question?

Not really. It was an important part, but my question is much broader than that. But let’s stick with it for the time being. We all know that the majority of the fertilized eggs simply do not get implanted into the uterus wall, rather they get “flushed out” from the system of the woman. That is called spontaneous abortion (which could happen later in the pregnancy, too. But that is not relevant at this point). No intent is involved, it is simply a biological action. Yet, according to your quote (thank you!) the fate of these “human beings” is unknowable to us, all we can have is some “hope” for them. That seems awfully “weak”. A little, unsupported “hope” for those who were conceived, and who never did anything (good or bad)? It sure looks contrarian to the alleged “justice” of God.

But, my question was much broader. It used to be the teaching that only catholics can hope to get to heaven, non-catholics (protestants, Muslims and especially them “ebil” atheists) should not apply. As far as I know, this teaching is still in affect (I might be mistaken, of course), but the term “catholic” has been watered down. How can an atheist (for example) get to heaven? If they are doomed, that is fine, but let’s be open about it.

snarflemike:

The Church is very clear about what is required to get to heaven.

Please let me see the details. What are the criteria for an atheist (who heard about God, but does not believe that there is a God) to get to heaven. Your specific quotations will be appreciated.
chaunceygardener:

I agree that the Church teaches what one must do to get to heaven, not about who will or will not get there.

I am not asking about “specific persons”. I am asking about the “rules”. (BTW, congrats on your screen name… I just love “Being There”. One of the best movies ever made.)

JRKH:

Your friend is wrong…There is an official teaching on the subject…In fact ALL of the teaching is really on this subject. You can find that teaching HERE

Surely you jest. I asked very specific questions and you direct me to hundreds of pages of material? That is not helpful at all. A few decades ago it was so simple: catholics might go to heaven (under certain conditions) but everyone else was hell-bound. Infidels, heretics, atheists, Muslims, non-catholic christians… Then came some politically correct change, and now the wind does not blow in the same direction any more.

JRKH:

this is true. Evidently God has not positively revealed their fate.

What has God revealed “positively”, I wonder? And what would count as a “positive revelation”? Let me rephrase the question: “Is there an official teaching about the fate of those people, who live their whole life without ever committing any sin at all, neither venial nor mortal?” If there is no official endorsement that those people WILL get to heaven, then we are all in deep trouble. If leading a totally, completely and fully sinless life does STILL not “ensure” a certain place in heaven, then what does?

JRKH:

Hope the answers you are receiving are helpful…

Not yet, but that may change.

 

[Church_Militant]

** How Does A Catholic Go To Heaven? **

Repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38 & 22:16 and John 3:1-21) and then following Christ, (John 14:15, Matthew 10:38, 16:24, & 25:31-46, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23 and Revelation 3:5) which is a lifelong journey and not the oversimplified “plan of salvation” as presented by some non-Catholic communities.

 

[JRKH]

Surely you jest. I asked very specific questions and you direct me to hundreds of pages of material? That is not helpful at all.

I’m sorry that you did not find my answer helpful…but given the question asked…what you called, “the most important question of all”, I felt that I owed it to you to provide the very best answer possible.
So I directed you to the place that contains that answer…Not buried somewhere in the pages, but on each and every page.
Now - If you want to distill all of this down… I suggest you look at Mt 22:36-40…That should give a good place to start from…

A few decades ago it was so simple: catholics might go to heaven (under certain conditions) but everyone else was hell-bound. Infidels, heretics, atheists, Muslims, non-catholic christians… Then came some politically correct change, and now the wind does not blow in the same direction any more.

Well…I’m not sure what it is you are trying to say here…“A few decades ago” most used the “Baltimore Catechism” based on the Catechism of Trent…I don’t know that these were particularly more “simple” than the most recent edition of the Catechism.

What has God revealed “positively”, I wonder? And what would count as a “positive revelation”?

Dogmatic declarations of the Church would count…

Let me rephrase the question: “Is there an official teaching about the fate of those people, who live their whole life without ever committing any sin at all, neither venial nor mortal?”

Those who live there lives as you outline would surely go to heaven. Of that there can be no doubt. the Church teaches that those who die in a state of grace will go to heaven.

If there is no official endorsement that those people WILL get to heaven, then we are all in deep trouble. If leading a totally, completely and fully sinless life does STILL not “ensure” a certain place in heaven, then what does?

I think the problem may be that in conversation we sometimes confuse hypothetical situations with realistic ones.
We Can say that “if a certain set of conditions is met” then one will go to heaven…A positive statement…What we cannot say is whether a given individual has met those conditions because we cannot know the other person’s heart.
So - If I say, “if a person lives a truly holy life they will go to heaven”. That is a perfectly and legitimately true statement…
But - I cannot say (with absolute certainty) “Joe led a good life and I know he is in heaven”…Because I do not know Joe’s heart…Did he really live a good life? Did he despair at the end? I just cannot definitively know the fate of any specific individual.
Do you see the difference here? One is establishing a framework for living one’s life, the other is trying to predict the fate of a specific person…

Peace
James

 

[chaunceygardner]

I am not asking about “specific persons”. I am asking about the “rules”. (BTW, congrats on your screen name… I just love “Being There”. One of the best movies ever made.)

A great story, and a very Christian character, wouldn’t you say?

Regarding the rules, I would assume that the “rules” of the Church about who gets into heaven would be the same as, or at least follow, what God has revealed, including through Jesus. At one time, the Church taught that salvation was limited to just Catholics, but that is no longer the case. I think what the Church teaches now is quite in line with what we find in the Bible, especially in the words of Jesus.

These are some of the paragraphs of the Catechism that seem to discuss salvation and the Church’s role in it: 774-776; 846-847. They cover some of the ideas already mentioned. There are probably other parts of the Catechism that would apply; hopefully others can direct you to them. You can easily find these in the Catechism on the Vatican or USCCB websites.

 

[Sirach2]

This is purely a thesis to ponder. If the being God creates is both spirit and body, what age is the spirit when the body dies and its spirit (soul) appears before God?

Is it the age of its body as a fetus without any cognitive mental ability to know or reason? If the body dies at 99 years old with advanced alzheimers disease without any cognitive power whatsoever, how does that person’s soul appear before God? Certainly, not in the same deformed mental development as its body.

I believe God has an unknown way of appearing before the soul He created, no matter how or when it separates from its bodily function, and that soul is given at the moment of its death an opportunity to accept or reject its Creator, thus being made ready for eternity based on its free-will choice. It may be God’s way of bringing it a baptism of desire, or in the case of an abortion, a baptism of blood.

We just do not know, but nothing is beyond the powers of God to redeem that soul and apply the merits of His Son’s passion and death to it. Let’s do as the CCC suggests, and entrust the unknown fate of these souls to God’s Infinite Mercy and Love.

Someday, as scripture teaches, everything hidden will be made known to us.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Not really. It was an important part, but my question is much broader than that. But let’s stick with it for the time being. We all know that the majority of the fertilized eggs simply do not get implanted into the uterus wall, rather they get “flushed out” from the system of the woman. That is called spontaneous abortion (which could happen later in the pregnancy, too. But that is not relevant at this point). No intent is involved, it is simply a biological action. Yet, according to your quote (thank you!) the fate of these “human beings” is unknowable to us, all we can have is some “hope” for them. That seems awfully “weak”. A little, unsupported “hope” for those who were conceived, and who never did anything (good or bad)? It sure looks contrarian to the alleged “justice” of God.

Well, the Church has always had difficulty with the idea also. So don’t feel bad about perceiving the notion as “weak” - although I would hardly use that terminology. The reason behind it is because divine revelation is so clear that one must be baptized to enter the body of Christ - the body apart from which no one will enter heaven. The Church cannot ignore that teaching of the Spirit. And the Church knows of no other means than baptism to make this happen. That’s why the Church has “hope” that God can supply the adequate justice beyond our knowledge. The Church has “hope” because the Church doesn’t “know” what other means God may provide because He has not revealed it.

 

[Trurl]

JRKH:

Well…I’m not sure what it is you are trying to say here…“A few decades ago” most used the “Baltimore Catechism” based on the Catechism of Trent…I don’t know that these were particularly more “simple” than the most recent edition of the Catechism.

Not everything is included in the catechism which is officially taught. The non-catholics, protestants, Mustims, Hindus, and especially atheists were all considered “hell-bound”. Yes, the phrase “a few decades ago” was rather imprecise. Let’s say a few hundred years ago, when the crusades happened and the Jews were openly declared the murderers of Jesus and persecuted. The Muslims were called infidels, were they not? In other words, the teaching has changed very singnificantly.

JRKH:

Dogmatic declarations of the Church would count…

As revelations? You lost me here. What you say can be understood two different ways. 1) whatever the church declares dogma - becomes a revelation from God, or 2) the church would not delcare something as a dogma, unless it was revealed by God. If the first one is correct, then the church “creates” its own the revelations - which would be preposterous. If the second one is right, then my question still holds: “how does God communicate the revelations to the church?”. The handing down of the stone tablets with the ten commandments would be a revelation - a direct communication from God. But that does not happen these days. And Jesus does not mingle with us any more either. Furthermore, I think I read that the church officially declared that the time of public revelations is over, and the so-called private revelatons are not acceptable.

JRKH:

I think the problem may be that in conversation we sometimes confuse hypothetical situations with realistic ones.
We Can say that “if a certain set of conditions is met” then one will go to heaven…A positive statement…What we cannot say is whether a given individual has met those conditions because we cannot know the other person’s heart.
So - If I say, “if a person lives a truly holy life they will go to heaven”. That is a perfectly and legitimately true statement…
But - I cannot say (with absolute certainty) “Joe led a good life and I know he is in heaven”…Because I do not know Joe’s heart…Did he really live a good life? Did he despair at the end? I just cannot definitively know the fate of any specific individual.
Do you see the difference here? One is establishing a framework for living one’s life, the other is trying to predict the fate of a specific person…

Yes, I understand it and also agree that it is logical and reasonable. And my original question was exactly about this: “what are the minimally necessary actions to ensure one’s salvation?”. In other words, I am looking for an algorithm, defined and declared precisely, not just some loose “read this and weep” .

JRKH:

Those who live there lives as you outline would surely go to heaven. Of that there can be no doubt. the Church teaches that those who die in a state of grace will go to heaven.

And those zygotes who get flushed out from the woman’s system fulfill that requirement. Their life may have been short, but I am not aware that the length of the life is a significant factor. So now we have the problem reduced to the bare bones: “on one hand those who never commit a sin will definitely go to heaven (as you said the church teaches), while on the other hand the fate of the aborted zygotes is uncertain”. Maybe they do not die “in the state of grace” (whatever that means) but then it is God who does not grant them the “state of grace” for no reason at all, since those zygotes never committed any act that needs to be punished by withholding the “grace”. Also I read many times that God always gives the necessary amount of grace and one needs to actively reject that grace in order to lose salvation. Naturally the zygotes are not in the position to reject anything. Something does not compute here, don’t you think?

 

[Trurl]

MarcoPolo:

The reason behind it is because divine revelation is so clear that one must be baptized to enter the body of Christ - the body apart from which no one will enter heaven.

Again, where did this revelation - direct communication from God - take place? As for the rest, please read the part directly above, where I delineated the problem.

chaunceygardner:

A great story, and a very Christian character, wouldn’t you say?

No, I don’t think so, but it is not really relevant here.

chaunceygardner:

Regarding the rules, I would assume that the “rules” of the Church about who gets into heaven would be the same as, or at least follow, what God has revealed, including through Jesus.

Fine. Let’s see a precise diagram. Does it include formal repentance and forgiveness given by a member of the catholic clergy? Is leading a good life enough? You will not see a concensus about it, I bet.

chaunceygardner:

At one time, the Church taught that salvation was limited to just Catholics, but that is no longer the case. I think what the Church teaches now is quite in line with what we find in the Bible, especially in the words of Jesus.

Now, allow me to be a tad skeptical here. The church maintains that it is infallible in the case of faith and morals, which means that it cannot change its teaching when it comes to the issues of faith and morals. And when it comes to question of “who gets saved”, that is obviously a question of faith. And yet the church changed its teaching… so what gives? When the issue of women’s ordination comes up, the usual answer is: “it is cast in stone, it is a question of faith and morals, and so it cannot be modified”. Looks like we have something similar to Animal Farm’s “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”. Let’s paraphrase it: “all questions of faith and morals are unchangable, except when it is politically expedient to change them”. No one wants to antagonize the Muslims, so they are not “infidels” any more, just our “errant brothers”… What did the Church lady say (Dana Carvey in Saturday Night Live): “How conveeeeenient!”. Face it my friend, the opinion of the church is subject to change when the “price” of digging in its heels is too high. Of course I understand it, it is a natural human behavior.

 

[chaunceygardner]

No, I don’t think so, but it [the movie “Being There”]is not really relevant here.

Excuse me, you brought it up; I was just responding. And it may be relevant, since at the end of the movie it appears that Chauncey is on his way to heaven.

Let’s see a precise diagram. Does it include formal repentance and forgiveness given by a member of the catholic clergy? Is leading a good life enough? You will not see a concensus about it, I bet.

If you sin, the Church says you must confess your sins to a priest and receive absolution. But that isn’t a free pass to paradise. I think there is a “concensus” as far as what the Church teaches officially about salvation, but there is likely not concensus among individual Catholics, or even among Catholic theologians…simply because there isn’t a list or a “precise diagram” to use to determine who gets into heaven. Jesus left it fairly simple (in concept, if not in practice) yet also somewhat vague, meaning that it appears to be determined by our faith and behavior, our individual repsonse to God, not on how well we follow laws and rules (that is my understanding of what Jesus tells us in the Gospels).

I did reference several portions of the Catechism where your question is addressed, and there may be others that would help answer your question.

Now, allow me to be a tad skeptical here. The church maintains that it is infallible in the case of faith and morals, which means that it cannot change its teaching when it comes to the issues of faith and morals. And when it comes to question of “who gets saved”, that is obviously a question of faith. And yet the church changed its teaching… so what gives? When the issue of women’s ordination comes up, the usual answer is: “it is cast in stone, it is a question of faith and morals, and so it cannot be modified”. Looks like we have something similar to Animal Farm’s “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”. Let’s paraphrase it: “all questions of faith and morals are unchangable, except when it is politically expedient to change them”. No one wants to antagonize the Muslims, so they are not “infidels” any more, just our “errant brothers”… What did the Church lady say (Dana Carvey in Saturday Night Live): “How conveeeeenient!”. Face it my friend, the opinion of the church is subject to change when the “price” of digging in its heels is too high. Of course I understand it, it is a natural
human behavior.

Ahh, now we see the underlying purpose of your question. It is to find fault with the Church, either for what it believes or for seemingly changing doctrine. I am not an expert on Church doctrine nor can I speak for the Church, but to me it is clear that the teachings of the Church have undergone change over the centuries. Not necessarily to teach the exact opposite of what was taught before, but to address new questions and new understandings of our world, about ourselves and about God. So the teaching about who can be saved has evolved, and in reality has likely moved in one direction for awhile and then back toward the original view, which is that the Church really doesn’t know for certain, but has come up with doctrinal statements and some “hopes”, based on our current understanding.

I also don’t think teachings change due to political expediency. For one, Church teachings change slowly (and usually so slightly) while political situations can change quickly and frequently (relatively). Views on specific subsets of doctrine and their language may change, such as about other non-Christian faiths (Judaism, Islam) but they appear driven by fairness and a more enlightened Gospel-oriented view, not by politics. Second, I doubt that the official Church is much concerned about what others think or want. A good example is the Church teaching on artificial contraception, which has remained the same even though it would be “more convenient” to change it to reflect majority public opinion.

Any “official declaration” about who gets to heaven and exactly how would be very presumptuous and dishonest. We cannot fathom the mind of God. When we look at those in the Gospels who Jesus said were “close to the Kingdom” they were often not people that one would normally expect to be “close to the Kingdom”. We do not know what is in peoples’ hearts, and neither does the Church. The Church provides guidance and hope, but cannot guarantee salvation for anyone. It is up to each of us to use that guidance and what Jesus taught us to achieve salvation. You can’t do it by just completing a set of tasks, like checking off your weekend “to do” list. The final test is what is in our hearts, not in our words.

NOTE: All the preceding is my personal view.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Again, where did this revelation - direct communication from God - take place? As for the rest, please read the part directly above, where I delineated the problem.

I read your delineation. Catholics believe with the eyes of faith in the Holy Spirit to have inspired Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and it is this deposit of faith that reveals baptism to be necessary for eternal life. We believe the Spirit to be able to reveal to mankind beyond just via stone tablets. We believe this because of the witness of those who walked with Christ, the historical record of His person, etc… and a whole apologetic for why we believe that would take much longer than a single post.

 

[Trurl]

Any “official declaration” about who gets to heaven and exactly how would be very presumptuous and dishonest.

Do you really think so? I would presume that a matter of this incredible imortance would be something that would be “revealed” by the Holy Spirit, in order to be helpful to those who struggle with such questions. What is wrong to give the definitive directives and guidelines to everyone who need some help in their journey?

We cannot fathom the mind of God.

But it is an official teaching that God gives everyone the necessary grace to overcome their problems and guide them to God. You cannot have both ways.