C
Chuck1
Guest
So what if you die in a state of mortal sin and is struggling with that sin and then goes and gets hit by a bus or somthing would you then go to hell ?
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
Baltimore Catechism No. 3
Q. 650. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Q. 651. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ.
Q. 652. What is the baptism of blood most commonly called?
A. The baptism of blood is most commonly called martyrdom, and those who receive it are called martyrs. It is the death one patiently suffers from the enemies of our religion, rather than give up Catholic faith or virtue. We must not seek martyrdom, though we must endure it when it comes.
Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?
A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.
T
tradcatjen
Guest
I think this sums up the Catholic church’s view of salvation outside the Church:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=596931
traditioninaction.org/religious/n059rp_NoSalvation.htm
And…
It is a mortal sin to miss mass through your own fault…like staying home from mass to watch a football game is a huge NO-NO. Missing mass because you are sick, or your car ran out of gas or you are abducting by aliens…not so much. You had every intention of going to mass but you were prevented.
It’s not hard to commit a mortal sin at all. People do it everyday. Abortion, adultery,homicide, avarice and stealing from the very poor and most forms of impurity are ALL mortal sins.
What matters here is intention and desire. You must have the intention and desire without regard to God’s laws in order for a sin to be mortal. It must be with complete free will and full knowledge.
Is it a big sin? Do you know it’s a big sin? Do you REALLY want to commit the sin? Those are criteria for mortal sin and anyone who answers “Yes” to any one of those questions (or all three) is guilty of committing a mortal sin.
The idea of going to hell for one mortal sin seems extreme but remember that sin is disobedience to God’s laws. Even the smallest of sins displeases God. People who purposely commit sin do it out of selfishness, jealousy, lust, unkindness, malice and hate.
These are all things that are contrary to the cardinal virtues. So many people think you have to a really, really bad person to commit a mortal sin but you don’t. We’ve all done it at one time, in one form or another. You don’t have to be Hitler to commit a mortal sin.
Hope this helps.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=596931
traditioninaction.org/religious/n059rp_NoSalvation.htm
And…
It is a mortal sin to miss mass through your own fault…like staying home from mass to watch a football game is a huge NO-NO. Missing mass because you are sick, or your car ran out of gas or you are abducting by aliens…not so much. You had every intention of going to mass but you were prevented.
It’s not hard to commit a mortal sin at all. People do it everyday. Abortion, adultery,homicide, avarice and stealing from the very poor and most forms of impurity are ALL mortal sins.
What matters here is intention and desire. You must have the intention and desire without regard to God’s laws in order for a sin to be mortal. It must be with complete free will and full knowledge.
Is it a big sin? Do you know it’s a big sin? Do you REALLY want to commit the sin? Those are criteria for mortal sin and anyone who answers “Yes” to any one of those questions (or all three) is guilty of committing a mortal sin.
The idea of going to hell for one mortal sin seems extreme but remember that sin is disobedience to God’s laws. Even the smallest of sins displeases God. People who purposely commit sin do it out of selfishness, jealousy, lust, unkindness, malice and hate.
These are all things that are contrary to the cardinal virtues. So many people think you have to a really, really bad person to commit a mortal sin but you don’t. We’ve all done it at one time, in one form or another. You don’t have to be Hitler to commit a mortal sin.
Hope this helps.
T
tradcatjen
Guest
It IS disappointing. If that were REALLY true then why are there so many martyrs who have died for the Faith? And what is the point of even BEING Catholic IF that were true?
M
mrbrionesn
Guest
Maybe we have to review what CCC has to say about mortal sin which is the main reason of not attaining salvation. CCC states that it is a mortal sin when all of these circumstances exist, it is a grave matter, full knowledge that it is mortal sin and full consent. If either one of these is not true then it is not a mortal sin. Obviously, non-catholics who do not go to church will not commit a mortal sin because he has no full knowledge. Besides, if he heard that it is a mortal sin, he will not be able to digest its implication due to lack of full knowledge on the matter.
W
w_s_s
Guest
This is not true. One does not have to know what a mortal sin is in order to commit a mortal sin. Even non-Catholics know the difference between right and wrong to some degree, especially before the conscience is dulled by repeated sin. Everyone who is capable of reason can commit mortal sin by willfully choosing to do what they know is wrong.
It is much easier to get to Heaven for Catholics than for non Catholics. That’s why the Christ founded the Church in the first place after all – to help us get to Heaven. Outside the Church there is no salvation.
V
Vico
Guest
Have you read about how a venial sin may become a mortal sin?
From: Royo, Antonio, O.P. & Aumann, Jordan, O.P., The Theology of Christian Perfection, p. 62. Dubuque, IA: The Priory Press, 1962. The mere multiplication of venial sins does not of itself change the species of the sin. A thousand venial sins do not equal a single mortal sin. Nevertheless, a venial sin could become a mortal sin for any one of the following reasons:
a) Because of an erroneous conscience or a seriously doubtful conscience concerning the grave malice of a deliberate act. Thus he who erroneously believes that an action which is objectively only venially sinful is a mortal sin would commit a mortal sin if he performed that action. One would also commit a mortal sin in performing an action if he has serious doubts as to whether or not it is a mortal sin or only a venial sin, for one is obliged to solve such a doubt before performing the action.
b) By reason of an end which is gravely evil, as would occur if one performs an act which is a light sin for the purpose of causing another to commit a serious sin.
c) By reason of the proximate danger of falling into mortal sin if one commits a particular venial sin, as would be the case if one were to let himself become angry when he knows that he will very likely end by inflicting grave damage or injury on his neighbor.
d) By reason of the grave scandal which would be occasioned by the commission of a light sin, e.g., if a venial sin committed by a priest were to become the occasion of a serious sin on the part of a layman.
e) By formal contempt of a law which binds under light obligation. Contempt is called *formal *if it is directed against authority as such; it is called *material *if is directed to some other element, such as a disdain for the thing forbidden because one thinks it is of little importance.
f) By the accumulation of material which may increase until it is grave matter.
catholicapologetics.info/morality/general/venial.htm#_ftn1
J
james_metcalfe
Guest
I have a big question: whither unborn babies?
I watched a video produced by vaticancatholic.com called “Why most pro-lifers aren’t really pro-life” and they claim that they aren’t because they follow the Pelagian heresy that “all unbaptized infants go to Heaven.”
The video then “quotes” — I do not know if they are accurate or in context or what — St. Augustine, I believe it’s Pius V and the Council of Trent that, more or less, these children are condemned to hell, of course, it’s not hell-fire but it is hell. Of course, it’s might be because— I’m paraphrasing but it’s accurate — “God sees that this person would have committed even graver sins that would have led him/her to the hell-fire.”
This video disturbed me deeply. What IS the Church’s constant teaching on this matter?
Thank you.
Jim
I watched a video produced by vaticancatholic.com called “Why most pro-lifers aren’t really pro-life” and they claim that they aren’t because they follow the Pelagian heresy that “all unbaptized infants go to Heaven.”
The video then “quotes” — I do not know if they are accurate or in context or what — St. Augustine, I believe it’s Pius V and the Council of Trent that, more or less, these children are condemned to hell, of course, it’s not hell-fire but it is hell. Of course, it’s might be because— I’m paraphrasing but it’s accurate — “God sees that this person would have committed even graver sins that would have led him/her to the hell-fire.”
This video disturbed me deeply. What IS the Church’s constant teaching on this matter?
Thank you.
Jim
V
Vico
Guest
Here is the logic for infants an all. In order to have the Beatific Vision, it is required to die in a state of grace, for which reason we are baptized and receive the other Holy Mysteries. God has promised we will be in that state if we die in grace. The degree of glory in heaven varies with the kind of life we lived. For infants that are not baptized we can say that they are not guaranteed to have the Beatific Vision, we can only hope for them.I have a big question: whither unborn babies?
I watched a video produced by vaticancatholic.com called “Why most pro-lifers aren’t really pro-life” and they claim that they aren’t because they follow the Pelagian heresy that “all unbaptized infants go to Heaven.”
The video then “quotes” — I do not know if they are accurate or in context or what — St. Augustine, I believe it’s Pius V and the Council of Trent that, more or less, these children are condemned to hell, of course, it’s not hell-fire but it is hell. Of course, it’s might be because— I’m paraphrasing but it’s accurate — “God sees that this person would have committed even graver sins that would have led him/her to the hell-fire.”
This video disturbed me deeply. What IS the Church’s constant teaching on this matter?
Thank you.
Jim
Council of Trent, Canon 2 on Baptism, 7th Session, Sacrament of Baptism:If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” let him be anathema.
**Baltimore Catechism No. 3
**Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
J
james_metcalfe
Guest
So there are three eternal states: Heaven, hell and limbo? I always thought there were four last things we should preach about: death, Judgement, Heaven and hell?
So, in a sense, the baby’s mother has the power to condemn them to a life without God — as the video’s narrator remarked, it’s not hell-fire but it’s still hell? The idea of being without God but it’s painless for all eternity seems, well, … nonsense.
I am not disagreeing that baptism is necessary for salvation but this seems almost ridiculous. Through utterly and completely no fault of their own, these infants are condemned — yes, I chose that word; a “hell lite” or “hell without pain” or whatever seems utterly, well, hellish; it’s still hell, no matter what a Trent or Pius V or St. Augustine might proclaim — to eternal life without God. It’s almost as if we have put God in a box and it’s “too bad, baby, so sad” for these infants.
I am not trying to be a wise-acre but I find this incomprehensible. This is justice, let alone mercy?
I rather prefer the hope that you spoke about in the first paragraph.
Jim
So, in a sense, the baby’s mother has the power to condemn them to a life without God — as the video’s narrator remarked, it’s not hell-fire but it’s still hell? The idea of being without God but it’s painless for all eternity seems, well, … nonsense.
I am not disagreeing that baptism is necessary for salvation but this seems almost ridiculous. Through utterly and completely no fault of their own, these infants are condemned — yes, I chose that word; a “hell lite” or “hell without pain” or whatever seems utterly, well, hellish; it’s still hell, no matter what a Trent or Pius V or St. Augustine might proclaim — to eternal life without God. It’s almost as if we have put God in a box and it’s “too bad, baby, so sad” for these infants.
I am not trying to be a wise-acre but I find this incomprehensible. This is justice, let alone mercy?
I rather prefer the hope that you spoke about in the first paragraph.
Jim
V
Vico
Guest
The Catechism CCC1033 states that "This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.” CCC1035: “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.” CCC1037: “God predestines no one to go to hell;”
Limbo is not a teaching of the Church. The souls of those from the time of Adam to Christ were in hades (the underworld) and when Christ decended there he taught the Word and the just were freed. Limbo is mentioned here by the Magisterium:
It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the * Catechism of the Catholic Church* (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
It is not self-exclusion when infants, born without actual sin, die without baptism, is it?
The Mystery revealed is incomprehensible, therefore without the acceptance of faith, it does is considered to be unreasonable nonsense.
W
w_s_s
Guest
Limbo of the infants would properly be considered a part of hell, in that it is not heaven, but without any suffering or punishment.
Why nonsense?
The Church teaches that absolutely no person is conceived or born with the right to heaven. In fact, just the opposite, every person is conceived and born with no right to heaven. We receive the adoption as children of God and the right to heaven through baptism.
It is therefore justice that no unbaptized person is admitted to heaven, or, said in another way, that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.
The only way that anyone could see injustice in the limbo of the infants is if they believe, contrary to the teaching of the Church, that people are conceived and born with the right to heaven, and lose that right only through personal sin. That belief, however, is not the Catholic Faith.
F
fred_conty
Guest
That was a good explaination.
In addition I would add this which is found in CCC 227.
“God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.”
It is possible that He may offer those unbaptised infants a choice of heaven in some way.
And there is also the point that we do not know when death actually happens. Because there are so many organs and tissue still alive after apparent death, that the moment the soul leaves the body can only be guessed. And it is important to baptise any infant after apparent death for the soul may still be in the body. And if there is a misscarriage, for the fetus as well.
Just a point to be considered.
J
james_metcalfe
Guest
WSS:
Why isn’t in nonsense? Are these infants, in this limbo, without God but without pain? I thought that WAS hell? The absence of God; is that NOT what hell is all about? If so, this teaching IS nonsense — there is a hell-lite?
As well, God is utterly powerless in this situation? Again, it’s too bad, baby…?
Is it justice to exclude someone who has had no chance to either accept or reject baptism? That it’s justice to allow someone else to condemn that baby to hell, to be without God for all eternity? And God can do nothing about it? In other words, satan is more powerful than God in this instance?
I find that nonsense.
Fred has a great point that I have been thinking about: in the same way Christ “descended into hell” in regard to the patriarchs, etc., in some way He has done this for the unborn. Plus, we do not know when “death” fully and actually occurs.
It just seems to me that it’s not an either/or proposition: justice OR mercy: but a both/and. We can have the normal course of what God intends for baptism and the other sacraments but, as Fred wrote: “God HImself is not bound by the sacraments.”
Again, I am “trying to understand …”
Jim Metcalfe
Why isn’t in nonsense? Are these infants, in this limbo, without God but without pain? I thought that WAS hell? The absence of God; is that NOT what hell is all about? If so, this teaching IS nonsense — there is a hell-lite?
As well, God is utterly powerless in this situation? Again, it’s too bad, baby…?
Is it justice to exclude someone who has had no chance to either accept or reject baptism? That it’s justice to allow someone else to condemn that baby to hell, to be without God for all eternity? And God can do nothing about it? In other words, satan is more powerful than God in this instance?
I find that nonsense.
Fred has a great point that I have been thinking about: in the same way Christ “descended into hell” in regard to the patriarchs, etc., in some way He has done this for the unborn. Plus, we do not know when “death” fully and actually occurs.
It just seems to me that it’s not an either/or proposition: justice OR mercy: but a both/and. We can have the normal course of what God intends for baptism and the other sacraments but, as Fred wrote: “God HImself is not bound by the sacraments.”
Again, I am “trying to understand …”
Jim Metcalfe
L
Luvtosew
Guest
I’ ve been following this thread, and well had to chime in so excuse me, I don’t believe unbaptised babies go to limbo anymore than I believe that all Saints go to heaven (although they probably do),
as there is no one alive on this earth who can tell us one way or another. So I believe all babies go to heaven. If God don’t take little innocent babies , were all in terrible trouble in my opinion.
as there is no one alive on this earth who can tell us one way or another. So I believe all babies go to heaven. If God don’t take little innocent babies , were all in terrible trouble in my opinion.
T
Tridentinum
Guest
Or, ‘invincible ignorance’ being extended to everyone who isn’t Catholic.
M
MikeDunphy
Guest
The absence of a supernatural vision of God is not the same as the absence of God.
An unbaptised baby can personally merit neither punishment nor glory. The most common conception of Limbo is that the baby receives neither there, but is blessed with the fulfillment of its nature.
That even those free of any mortal sin need baptism to receive the beatific vision was taught by the Catholic Ecumenical Councils of Florence and Lyons
You may be interested in what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on this matter.
V
Vico
Guest
To all, It does seem that some people have completely missed this teaching in their catechesis, that the glory in heaven is in degrees. From the Catholic Encyclopedia we read:There are various degrees of beatitude in heaven corresponding to the various degrees of merit. This is a dogma of faith, defined by the Council of Florence (Denz., n. 693 — old, n. 588). The Bible teaches this truth in very many passages (e.g., wherever it speaks of eternal happiness as a reward), and the Fathers defend it against the heretical attacks of Jovinian. It is true that, according to Matthew 20:1-16, each labourer receives a penny; but by this comparison Christ merely teaches that, although the Gospel was preached to the Jews first, yet in the Kingdom of Heaven there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, and that no one will receive a greater reward merely because of being a son of Judah. The various degrees of beatitude are not limited to the accidental blessings, but they are found first and foremost in the beatific vision itself. For, as we have already pointed out, the vision, too, admits of degrees. These essential degrees of beatitude are, as Francisco Suárez rightly observes (“De beat.”, d. xi, s. 3, n. 5), that threefold fruit Christ distinguishes when He says that the word of God bears fruit in some thirty, in some sixty, in some a hundredfold (Matthew 13:23). And it is by a mere accommodation of the text that St. Thomas (Supp:96, aa. 2 sqq.) and other theologians apply this text to the different degrees in the accidental beatitude merited by married persons, widows, and virgins.
The happiness of heaven is essentially unchangeable; still it admits of some accidental changes. Thus we may suppose that the blessed experience special joy when they receive greater veneration from men on earth. In particular, a certain growth in knowledge by experience is not excluded; for instance, as time goes on, new free actions of men may become known to the blessed, or personal observation and experience may throw a new light on things already known. And after the last judgment accidental beatitude will receive some increase from the union of soul and body, and from the sight of the new heaven and the earth.
*Hontheim, J. (1910). Heaven. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. *
newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm
The happiness of heaven is essentially unchangeable; still it admits of some accidental changes. Thus we may suppose that the blessed experience special joy when they receive greater veneration from men on earth. In particular, a certain growth in knowledge by experience is not excluded; for instance, as time goes on, new free actions of men may become known to the blessed, or personal observation and experience may throw a new light on things already known. And after the last judgment accidental beatitude will receive some increase from the union of soul and body, and from the sight of the new heaven and the earth.
*Hontheim, J. (1910). Heaven. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. *
newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm
J
james_metcalfe
Guest
MIKE and VICO:
Thanks for the posts on the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Summa. I understand that because of Original Sin, we have no natural “right” to Heaven, in justice. At the same time, it seems to me that since Christ DID open Heaven, there is a “supernatural right” — maybe not the best words — in mercy, since it is a free gift, to at least have the “chance”, a la the Limbo of the Fathers.
I can more readily accept that these babies are, at least in some form, with Him. I just have a hard time with the seemingly “unjust” condemnation of someone who just happened to be conceived/born at the wrong place at the wrong time, while also acknowledging there are consequences of our First Parents.
As well, the 1992 CCC gives me at least hope for these unfortunates.
I guess I had forgotten about the degrees of merit.
As I wrote before, I am “trying to understand …”
James Metcalfe
Thanks for the posts on the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Summa. I understand that because of Original Sin, we have no natural “right” to Heaven, in justice. At the same time, it seems to me that since Christ DID open Heaven, there is a “supernatural right” — maybe not the best words — in mercy, since it is a free gift, to at least have the “chance”, a la the Limbo of the Fathers.
I can more readily accept that these babies are, at least in some form, with Him. I just have a hard time with the seemingly “unjust” condemnation of someone who just happened to be conceived/born at the wrong place at the wrong time, while also acknowledging there are consequences of our First Parents.
As well, the 1992 CCC gives me at least hope for these unfortunates.
I guess I had forgotten about the degrees of merit.
As I wrote before, I am “trying to understand …”
James Metcalfe
- Status