To Be in Heaven, You Must Be Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
eddie_too said:
i thought the Holy Innocents received the “baptism of blood”, i.e. martyrdom?

Jesus is the One who said unless a man be born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter in to the kingdom of heaven.

perhaps you can point me to where the RCC teaches that baptism is not necessary for the removal of original sin?
Click to expand...
To get the 411, try post #411.
 
eddie_too said:
i thought the Holy Innocents received the “baptism of blood”, i.e. martyrdom?
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Then I suppose we’ll never know if an unbaptized person actually received “baptism of blood”.
Jesus is the One who said unless a man be born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter in to the kingdom of heaven.
Click to expand...
Amen!
perhaps you can point me to where the RCC teaches that baptism is not necessary for the removal of original sin?
Click to expand...
Oh, I don’t dispute that, eddie.

I am disputing your comment that baptism is an ABSOLUTE requirement for entry into heaven.
 
whether it be formal baptism, baptism of desire or baptism of blood, it still remains that a person must be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven.

as for speculating about implicit and explicit baptism of desire, i have no problems with it.

however, it does seem a little bizarre to believe that a person who has never heard of the Holy Trinity can after death come to that knowledge.

although, as i stated earlier, Jesus did preach the gospel to the souls of the righteous who died before His Coming.

that teaching however has implications that would weigh against the concept of an implicit baptism of desire. if the righteous who died before Christ needed an after-death encounter before entering the kingdom of heaven, why would they not have experienced an implicit baptism of desire?

perhaps such issues have been resolved to your satisfaction. i find myself not so certain about them.

is the doctrine of an implicit baptism of desire an official teaching of the RCC?

i had never heard of it before reading your post.
 
PR merger,

perhaps you can point me to where the RCC teaches that a person under the stain of original sin can enter in to heaven?
 
eddie_too said:
PR merger,

perhaps you can point me to where the RCC teaches that a person under the stain of original sin can enter in to heaven?
Click to expand...
No person with OS may enter heaven. Nothing unclean can enter heaven, as Revelation says.
 
Rob03 said:
Yes we are brothers in Christ. But this passage “Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him.” (Mark 6:3) specifically talks about his biological brothers and sisters.
Click to expand...
Hi Rob,

Just as the Father would call us all His children, I would expect the Son to call us all Brothers and Sisters.

One of God’s intentions with Creation is to have a relationship with it, not just wave a wand and ignore. Otherwise, why would Jesus have become Human and suffer in a human way? There would be no need if a relationship with Humans was not important.

What helps one to understand a relationship exists, even if they don’t want it? Family

Let’s not forget Jesus is the teacher in the Bible.
 
prmerger,

so far as i know, baptism is the only means of removing the stain of original sin.

since no one with the stain of original sin can enter heaven, it seems to me that baptism is necessary for anyone to enter heaven?
 
eddie_too said:
whether it be formal baptism, baptism of desire or baptism of blood, it still remains that a person must be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven.

as for speculating about implicit and explicit baptism of desire, i have no problems with it.

however, it does seem a little bizarre to believe that a person who has never heard of the Holy Trinity can after death come to that knowledge.

although, as i stated earlier, Jesus did preach the gospel to the souls of the righteous who died before His Coming.

that teaching however has implications that would weigh against the concept of an implicit baptism of desire. if the righteous who died before Christ needed an after-death encounter before entering the kingdom of heaven, why would they not have experienced an implicit baptism of desire?

perhaps such issues have been resolved to your satisfaction. i find myself not so certain about them.

is the doctrine of an implicit baptism of desire an official teaching of the RCC?

i had never heard of it before reading your post.
Click to expand...
A quick Google took me to Taylor Marshall’s site where he talks about Thomas Aquinas’ exploration of this topic.

taylormarshall.com/2009/04/implicit-baptism-of-desire-in-thomas.html
 
eddie_too said:
however, it does seem a little bizarre to believe that a person who has never heard of the Holy Trinity can after death come to that knowledge.
Click to expand...
And I find it a little bizarre to think that God would forbid a person entry into heaven who has never heard of the Holy Trinity.
perhaps such issues have been resolved to your satisfaction. i find myself not so certain about them.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I have. I defer to the authority of Holy Mother Church in this matter. I do not presume to teach that which the CC does not.
is the doctrine of an implicit baptism of desire an official teaching of the RCC?
Click to expand...
i had never heard of it before reading your post.
Click to expand...
The official teaching of the CC is that outside of the Church there is no salvation. Membership in the CC may be imperfect (or implicit), or it may be explicit.

But the qualitative and quantitative degrees of membership in His Body are not for us to know.
 
eddie_too said:
prmerger,

so far as i know, baptism is the only means of removing the stain of original sin.

since no one with the stain of original sin can enter heaven, it seems to me that baptism is necessary for anyone to enter heaven?
Click to expand...
Since a dead person no longer has a body, there is nothing left to physically baptize (and presumably no physical water with which to do it). So, while it is necessary to be baptized into Christ, there may be other options on the other side that simply don’t apply to us below.
 
prmerger,

how do you explain the limbo of the fathers?

God did not deign them worthy of the beatific vision based solely on their love of the truth.
 
So God can’t cleanse a person of the stain (scar) of sin after death?

Remember, the person in the child didn’t sin, they do have the stain (scar) of OS.

Just as we all have stains and scars of our sins we do today. Forgiveness and effect are two very different things.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Answered in post #110.
Click to expand...
Mark Shea wrote a very good article about this…

mark-shea.com/unam.html
So is this partial and imperfect unity enough? Depends on what you mean by “enough”. If you mean “enough to be saved” then I submit this is Minimum Daily Adult Requirement thinking. No lover asks “What’s the absolute bare minimum amount of contact with my Beloved I can get away with?” Similarly, if, as the Church claims, the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic communion, then “How little contact with the fullness of revelation can I get away with?” is the exact wrong question for somebody who is serious about discipleship to Christ.
Click to expand...
 
johnnyc176 said:
Mark Shea wrote a very good article about this…

mark-shea.com/unam.html
So is this partial and imperfect unity enough? Depends on what you mean by “enough”. If you mean “enough to be saved” then I submit this is Minimum Daily Adult Requirement thinking. No lover asks “What’s the absolute bare minimum amount of contact with my Beloved I can get away with?” Similarly, if, as the Church claims, the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic communion, then “How little contact with the fullness of revelation can I get away with?” is the exact wrong question for somebody who is serious about discipleship to Christ.
Click to expand...
One of my favorite Mark Shea quotes! 👍
Click to expand...
 
eddie_too said:
prmerger,

how do you explain the limbo of the fathers?

God did not deign them worthy of the beatific vision based solely on their love of the truth.
Click to expand...
How do I explain that those who died before the Resurrection were not in heaven yet?

By saying that Jesus’ atoning death on the Cross opened the gates of heaven for us.
 
i am not saying implicit baptism of desire is an absolutely erroneous concept.

i am saying that there is little suppor for it in sacred scripture or in sacred tradition.

in fact, because we know Jesus descended in to hell, there seems to be more support in sacred tradition for the concept that the unbaptized righteous do not enter in to the beatific vision but rather experience a state of natural bliss.

i did not say knowledge of the Holy Trinity cannot be provided to souls after their physical deaths. in fact, i am saying that such knowledge was provided to the righteous who died before Christ’s coming. that is what the apostles creed teaches us. that Jesus preached the gospel to them after His death on the cross and before His resurrection.

what we know for sure is that Jesus said and the Church teaches that a human being must be baptized to experience the beatific vision.

could God make exceptions to that teachings. of course, but, to me, it is presumptuous for human beings to decide that He has and will do so; and, it is presumptuous to live our lives based on such a belief.

in another verse from scripture Jesus issues the apostolic command that the apostle go out to all nations making them Jesus disciples and baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

it seems from this that declaring discipleship alone is not enough.
 
i will close with this.

i think it is both presumptuous and dangerous to go around preaching to people that the sacrqament of baptism is not necessary for their salvation.

if a person wants to hang their hat on the concept of implicit baptism of desire, be my guest; but, i fail to see the fruits that derive from teaching that concept and i also hope that people who adopt that concept explain why it was necessary for Jesus to preach His gospel to the righteous who died before His coming. such an explanation should also address why implicit baptism of desire did not apply to moses and abraham and the rest.

an afterlife of natural bliss is a more satisfactory teaching to me than an expansive teaching of the implicit baptism of desire.

i am open to more knowledge on the subject, but at this point in time i have not received enough to embrace the concept of an implicit baptism of desire.

God bless you all. i am pretty sure we are all rowing in the same direction.
 
eddie_too said:
i will close with this.

i think it is both presumptuous and dangerous to go around preaching to people that the sacrqament of baptism is not necessary for their salvation.

if a person wants to hang their hat on the concept of implicit baptism of desire, be my guest; but, i fail to see the fruits that derive from teaching that concept and i also hope that people who adopt that concept explain why it was necessary for Jesus to preach His gospel to the righteous who died before His coming. such an explanation should also address why implicit baptism of desire did not apply to moses and abraham and the rest.

an afterlife of natural bliss is a more satisfactory teaching to me than an expansive teaching of the implicit baptism of desire.

i am open to more knowledge on the subject, but at this point in time i have not received enough to embrace the concept of an implicit baptism of desire.

God bless you all. i am pretty sure we are all rowing in the same direction.
Click to expand...
Water baptism is normatively necessary, but it is not absolutely necessary.

This has been covered in depth in this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top