What is so objectionable about Limbo?

[Oneofthewomen]

Hang on a second, you just said that you accept all the dogmas of the church. What I Just posted is dogma.

It is necessary for our salvation to hold all the dogmas of the church to be current, relevant, and true.

You are not free to espouse indifferentism, I acknowledge the CCC as valid.

There is no such thing as an out of date dogma, because truth is one.

Now, do you accept this doctrine as true, as given at the ecumenical council of florence:

“All those who die in mortal sin, or in original sin alone, descend to hell where they are punished but with different punishments.”

and

“There is no other way to come to the aid [of little children] than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God”

These are two statements of faith given at an ecumenical council, making them infallible, and thus dogmatic.

I have two questions
1.Do you accept these as true?
2. What kind of people can die in original sin alone?

Whether or not I accept these teachings is not really the issue here,
that is an issue for me and my Spiritual Director.

The issue I have with this thread and others like it is that people are trying too hard to make God fit into what ***we think ***He should be, instead of what He is, God, and He can do whatever He pleases.

The Church, however, is not God.

The Church is a mystical body, made up of human beings, who think as human beings, and act as human beings and want every little thing laid out in perfect little boxes, so that everything is black & white, because we are human beings and like order and rules and such.

So while yes, I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and that Popes & saints have spoken (ad nauseam, from both sides of the fence on this issue), none of us, not the Pope, not the Saints, not you and certainly not me,
can ever know or presume to know the will of God, and say unequivocally He will do this or that because you did/didn’t do this or that.

 

[Gregory_I]

IS that what Arius told Athanasius?

No, the church is the mystical body of Christ, but it is also the authoritative voice of God on earth that binds our consciences and lays out for us the truths of salvation.

One of these Truths is that we need to be subject to the truths of the faith.

Here they are; that is all I am saying.

If I followed your line of thinking, ultimately, we wouldn’t be able to know anything.
The idea that there are no spiritual absolutes is where this line of thinking is headed. I can say that God will punish sinners. I can say that there is a heaven and hell. I can say that a certain TYPE of person will be in hell if he follows a certain set of actions or omits a certain set of beliefs or if he denies a certain set of beliefs: Because it has been revealed by the Church, which can neither deceive nor be deceived.
The Church is the pillar of truth, it is the foundation of our faith, and it has Christ as its corner stone built on the teaching of the apostles.
The truth can unequivically be known.

 

[Hadrianus]

First a theological note on theological notes: These are the means by which Catholic doctrine is classified in a hierarchy from merely tolerated opinion all the way up to defined dogma.

The teaching on the limbus puerorum, or borderland of the (unbaptized) children is given by theologians the note of “common teaching” in English, “doctrina communis” or sententia communis in Latin this means it is accepted by theologians generally, but it is still within the realm of free opinion. Thus Cajetan the important Dominican theologian taught that infants could be saved by the vicarious desire of their parents. I believe Suarez had an opinion on this too.

Pius VI condemned the proposition of the Jansenist synod of Pistoia which declared that limbo was a pretended doctrine of late development; but he did so because the Jansenists denied any possibility apart from damnation and rejected the legitimacy of the doctrine.

The existence of a state for the unbaptized who die with only the stain of original sin is highly probable and accords with Revelation, but Catholics are not bound to believe it as a doctrine pertaining to the Catholic Faith. Catholics are bound nonetheless to baptize infants because the Church has no proof at all that they can obtain sanctifying grace in any other way.

If anyone doubts what has been written here just look at the article on limbo in any solid Catholic manual of theology.

 

[Gregory_I]

Thanks hadrianus, I totally agree. Appreciate it

But is it not dogma that unbaptized infants do not have the beatific vision? THat’s not limbo.

 

[Shiranui117]

Shiranui, what you are missing is that all those in original sin do NOT DESERVE HEAVEN. Original sin is in them as a personal fault, the guilt of which THEY bear as if they commited the sin themselves. THis is dogmatically taught by the church, that we are all born as Children of wrath who do not deserve salvation. Original sin does not simply consist of being spiritually dead, but spiritually dead and us bearing the punishment and the guilt for being spiritually dead. THis is the dogma of the Church.

Well, hey, got news for you: None of us “deserves” Heaven. Baptism doesn’t make us “worthy” of Heaven; it cleanses us of sin, but it certainly doesn’t make us “worthy” of Heaven, as we are still fallen.

I am sorry to say this, but the theologians and popes of the Church has taught that ignorance is a SIN. The Bible indicates as much, when it says that those who we owuld call “invincibly ignorant” are without excuse for knowing God, since his attributes can be seen in creation, and, since they do not seek to know the truth, they take what little truth they see and distort it into the worship of idols and nature. THIs is what scripture teaches in Both ROmans and the book of Wisdom:

Romans 1:18-23: 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ***20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. ***

SO we see here nature is sufficient to come to a knowledge of God that is significant enough to want to know more of him

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Because of their ingratitude towards what they did know, they had the light of God withdrawn from their minds.

And Wisdom 13:1-10

For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from **the good things seen **did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan; 2 But either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods. 3 Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods, let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them. 4 Or if they were struck by their might and energy, let them from these things realize how much more powerful is he who made them. 5 For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen. 6 But yet, for these the blame is less; For they indeed have gone astray perhaps, though they seek God and wish to find him.

“This is what everyone I have talked to says: THey were looking for GOd, God knows their hearts, don’t judge them!” It is a symptom of the infection of liberalism.

But what does scripture go on to say?

7 For they search busily among his works, but are distracted by what they see, because the things seen are fair. 8 But again, not even these are pardonable. 9 For if they so far succeeded in knowledge that they could speculate about the world, how did they not more quickly find its LORD? 10 But doomed are they, and in dead things are their hopes, who termed gods things made by human hands: Gold and silver, the product of art, and likenesses of beasts, or useless stone, the work of an ancient hand.

THe ignorant refuse the grace of GOd which would give them the light to know him rightly. On this account, they cannot be saved unless they make an Act of Faith and receive the sacraments. If they are saved, it is as Catholics.

But, we do not despair of those not reached; if one pagan REALLY desires to know the truth above the distortions of his own mind, we believe God will find a way to make this implicit and darkened desire Explicit in the Catholic faith, if even an angel himself had to descend and teach the faith to them. But they will ot be saved apart from the Catholic Faith.

Check your CCC again:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

^We see here that those who are indeed ignorant of God may truly receive salvation. I disagree with your notion that anyone can possibly actively refuse something they don’t even know exists, and this part of the CCC backs me up. They ARE searching, they ARE following God’s law as is inscribed on their hearts, they ARE making do with what has been given them by God, whether they know it or not. We are dealing with honest people running around with blindfolds here, with no one knowing that they even have the blindfolds on.

 

[Gregory_I]

Do you honestly think all those in invincible ignorance are “HOnest” people?

What’s the point of mission work if God is just gonna do it all for us then?

Consider: What does satan have to gain by promulgating abortion if all those souls go straight to heaven? He’d be increasing the kingdom of God, not decreasing! Satan only does what is in his best interest; so why is it in his best interest to keep up an unborn holocaust if they all go to heaven?

 

[Gregory_I]

Ok, let’s take this point by point shiranui:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregory I
Shiranui, what you are missing is that all those in original sin do NOT DESERVE HEAVEN. Original sin is in them as a personal fault, the guilt of which THEY bear as if they commited the sin themselves. THis is dogmatically taught by the church, that we are all born as Children of wrath who do not deserve salvation. Original sin does not simply consist of being spiritually dead, but spiritually dead and us bearing the punishment and the guilt for being spiritually dead. THis is the dogma of the Church.

Well, hey, got news for you: None of us “deserves” Heaven. Baptism doesn’t make us “worthy” of Heaven; it cleanses us of sin, but it certainly doesn’t make us “worthy” of Heaven, as we are still fallen.

**OK, I guess you don’t know what the grace of justification does:
“A new creature”

1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"69 member of Christ and co-heir with him,70 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.71

1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:

• enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
• giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
• allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
  Thus the whole organism of the Christian’s supernatural life has its roots in Baptism. **

The baptized is thus pleasing to GOd and no more to be considered “fallen” even though the effects of original sin remain, for if we are baptized to heal our fallen nature, in what manner is it healed if it is still considered fallen?

Quote:
I am sorry to say this, but the theologians and popes of the Church has taught that ignorance is a SIN. The Bible indicates as much, when it says that those who we owuld call “invincibly ignorant” are without excuse for knowing God, since his attributes can be seen in creation, and, since they do not seek to know the truth, they take what little truth they see and distort it into the worship of idols and nature. THIs is what scripture teaches in Both ROmans and the book of Wisdom:

Romans 1:18-23: 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

SO we see here nature is sufficient to come to a knowledge of God that is significant enough to want to know more of him

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Because of their ingratitude towards what they did know, they had the light of God withdrawn from their minds.

And Wisdom 13:1-10

For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan; 2 But either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven, the governors of the world, they considered gods. 3 Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought them gods, let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them. 4 Or if they were struck by their might and energy, let them from these things realize how much more powerful is he who made them. 5 For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen. 6 But yet, for these the blame is less; For they indeed have gone astray perhaps, though they seek God and wish to find him.

“This is what everyone I have talked to says: THey were looking for GOd, God knows their hearts, don’t judge them!” It is a symptom of the infection of liberalism.

 

[Gregory_I]

But what does scripture go on to say?

7 For they search busily among his works, but are distracted by what they see, because the things seen are fair. 8 But again, not even these are pardonable. 9 For if they so far succeeded in knowledge that they could speculate about the world, how did they not more quickly find its LORD? 10 But doomed are they, and in dead things are their hopes, who termed gods things made by human hands: Gold and silver, the product of art, and likenesses of beasts, or useless stone, the work of an ancient hand.

THe ignorant refuse the grace of GOd which would give them the light to know him rightly. On this account, they cannot be saved unless they make an Act of Faith and receive the sacraments. If they are saved, it is as Catholics.

But, we do not despair of those not reached; if one pagan REALLY desires to know the truth above the distortions of his own mind, we believe God will find a way to make this implicit and darkened desire Explicit in the Catholic faith, if even an angel himself had to descend and teach the faith to them. But they will ot be saved apart from the Catholic Faith.

Check your CCC again:

Quote:
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

^We see here that those who are indeed ignorant of God may truly receive salvation. I disagree with your notion that anyone can possibly actively refuse something they don’t even know exists, and this part of the CCC backs me up. They ARE searching, they ARE following God’s law as is inscribed on their hearts, they ARE making do with what has been given them by God, whether they know it or not. We are dealing with honest people running around with blindfolds here, with no one knowing that they even have the blindfolds on.

**You forgot :

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338**

**So God can in ways unknown to us, lead an ignorant person to the truth of the Divine and Catholic Faith Without which it is impossible to please him… Like sending an angel to reveal the truth to those who sincerely seek him, or maybe getting a priest out there miraculously to make their dark and confused desires explicit:

THat’s what I have been saying! If any who are ignorant are saved, they will be saved as CATHOLICS, they will not be saved in their ignorance. THat’s my whole point: And thus there is no salvation outside the church. God will make the dark and hidden desires of man’s faith explicit, which is necessary for salvation if they truly do respond to his grace.

THere is a necessary WAY in which a man is justified: First by responding to God’s grace with an assent of faith that is a gift of God. Second by Making an act of Divine and Catholic faith, which is the intent to believe and profess all the church believes and professes. Third, to at least implicitly desire to receive the sacraments and live a moral life. But all this does not simply HAPPEN to the ignorant without cause, GOd’s grace precedes and would enact this in the heart of man in some way. He would not leave them in ignorance; he wills all to be saved HIS WAY**

If man was left in his ignorance, undoubtedly he would fall into some mortal sin and lose that grace, and then where would he be? There would be no priest, and though he be sorry, he can never be sure he has made an act of perfect contrition, so he can never be sure if he is truly forgiven. ANd it may be on account of his sin that he would lose any faith he had and simply die in sin. Like you said, God has inscribed his law on the hearts of men; they know what sin is.

"847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. "

**Yes, they MAY. If it is certain that they MAY it is equally certain they may not, and God would be just because the ignorant are already justly condemned on account of original sin; So why should they go to heaven if they die in their ignorance?

one final thing: INvincible ignorance is not sanctifying grace. Invincible ignorance ONLY means that they are not culpable for not knowing the faith of Christ.

But they are culpable for original sin and every other sin they know from the law inscribed in their hearts which they break daily;

“If the just man is barely saved, what of the unjust?”**

 

[TomD123]

Personally, I believe the infants who die w/o baptism go to heaven because: Countless infants die without baptism of water and for God to decide (knowing that this was the case) to only allow those who have been baptised with water to go to heaven would be illogical. That being said, my opinion is not dogma and the CCC is open to my opinion or yours.

Now, do you accept this doctrine as true, as given at the ecumenical council of florence:

“All those who die in mortal sin, or in original sin alone, descend to hell where they are punished but with different punishments.”

and

“There is no other way to come to the aid [of little children] than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God”

These are two statements of faith given at an ecumenical council, making them infallible, and thus dogmatic.

This is dogma of the Church that those who die with original sin only go to hell however the CCC does not deny this, it basically states that there MAY be another way other than the known way of baptism of water that God frees unbaptised infants from original sin, but the CCC does reaffirm the position to baptise children because we cannot be sure.

Do you honestly think all those in invincible ignorance are “HOnest” people? Some could be

What’s the point of mission work if God is just gonna do it all for us then?

Consider: What does satan have to gain by promulgating abortion if all those souls go straight to heaven? He’d be increasing the kingdom of God, not decreasing! Satan only does what is in his best interest; so why is it in his best interest to keep up an unborn holocaust if they all go to heaven?

Satan would still be increasing his kingdom by causing doctors, mothers, politicians, voters for those pro-choice politicians, etc. to sin. If the reason abortion is wrong is because it deprives people of heaven, then it would only be logical that murdering those who have just been baptised would not be wrong, in fact, it would be charitable

 

[Gregory_I]

This is dogma of the Church that those who die with original sin only go to hell however the CCC does not deny this, it basically states that there MAY be another way other than the known way of baptism of water that God frees unbaptised infants from original sin, but the CCC does reaffirm the position to baptise children because we cannot be sure.

BUt see Tom, this is where I can’t fathom what peoplee are thinking: THe dogma is clear; why are people expressing a hope that seems to contradict Catholic faith? And the revealed teaching of the church is constant, consistent, and clear. Here, I do not mean Limbo, but that the unbaptized child that dies is justly refused heaven.

You acknowledge the dogma of florence.:extrahappy:

So now I axe yah:

What kind of people die in original sin alone?

Are they subject to the just penalties revealed by the council of florence?

1+1=2. THen I get told it could be three if by the second “1” I really mean “2”.

 

[TomD123]

BUt see Tom, this is where I can’t fathom what peoplee are thinking: THe dogma is clear; why are people expressing a hope that seems to contradict Catholic faith? And the revealed teaching of the church is constant, consistent, and clear. Here, I do not mean Limbo, but that the unbaptized child that dies is justly refused heaven. I agree that it would be just for one who is unbaptized to be refused heaven, but the reason I personally believe that the unbaptized child could still be in heaven is this: God foresaw all of the children who would die without baptism, therefore, when he instituted baptism, it would have been illogical if he did not make any exceptions to the general rule, meaning, he could if he wanted to free the unbaptized babys from original sin in some other way. But as I said before, this is just my opinion

What kind of people die in original sin alone?- Those who die without baptism BUT this is as far as we know, the CCC is basically saying we do not know for sure that God did not free those children from original sin in some other way, one that is not known by us because it has not been revealed too us, and so we are still called to baptize all people, especially children in danger of death.

Are they subject to the just penalties revealed by the council of florence? If God does not free them from original sin, then yes they are subject to those penalties, which are just. But God is not simply just he is merciful, if God was ONLY just, we would also be subject to eternal punishment too. So this is why the Church takes the current stance that we do not know where they are- God is just (ie they deserve punishment but God is merciful (and desires to save all)

 

[LilyM]

But the Patriarchs were not baptized because there was no baptism before Christ became man. Its different today where there is baptism and the path to heaven has been opened by Christ. So it doesn’t make such sense for the righteous unbaptized to be in an in-between state when Christ has already made it possible for all souls to get to heaven.

It’s a bit of an overgeneralisation to simply say ‘there is baptism, therefore all the unbaptised must go to Limbo’. What of those people who live in countries where the Gospel has not been preached, and so do NOT have the opportunity to even hear about the requirement, let alone go through the act, of baptism?

What about children who die in utero, or who through no fault of their own are born to parents who don’t believe in baptism, and so who again, through no fault of their own, never have the opportunity to be baptised?

 

[Shin]

First question: Again he appeared on his ladder as before, saying: ”O Judge, I ask you: Why does one infant emerge alive from the mother’s womb and obtain baptism, while another, having received a soul, dies in the mother’s belly?”

. . . Answer to the first question. The Judge answered: ”Friend, your inquiries are not made out of love but are made through my permission. So I answer you through the likeness of words.

You ask why one infant dies in the mother’s belly while another emerges alive. There is a reason. All the strength of the child’s body comes, of course, from the seed of its father and mother; however, if it is conceived without due strength, because of some weakness of its father or mother, it dies quickly. As a result of the negligence or carelessness of the parents as well as of my divine justice, many times it happens that what was joined together comes apart quickly.

Yet a soul is not brought to the harshest punishment for this reason, however little time it had for giving life to the body, but, rather, it comes to the mercy that is known to me. Just as the sun shining into a house is not seen as it is in its beauty - only those who look into the sky see its rays - so too the souls of such children, though they do not see my face for lack of baptism, are nevertheless closer to my mercy than to punishment, but not in the same way as my elect.”

• the Revelations of St. Bridget

 

[Oneofthewomen]

First question: Again he appeared on his ladder as before, saying: ”O Judge, I ask you: Why does one infant emerge alive from the mother’s womb and obtain baptism, while another, having received a soul, dies in the mother’s belly?”

. . . Answer to the first question. The Judge answered: ”Friend, your inquiries are not made out of love but are made through my permission. So I answer you through the likeness of words.

You ask why one infant dies in the mother’s belly while another emerges alive. There is a reason. All the strength of the child’s body comes, of course, from the seed of its father and mother; however, if it is conceived without due strength, because of some weakness of its father or mother, it dies quickly. As a result of the negligence or carelessness of the parents as well as of my divine justice, many times it happens that what was joined together comes apart quickly.

Yet a soul is not brought to the harshest punishment for this reason, however little time it had for giving life to the body, but, rather, it comes to the mercy that is known to me. Just as the sun shining into a house is not seen as it is in its beauty - only those who look into the sky see its rays - so too the souls of such children, though they do not see my face for lack of baptism, are nevertheless closer to my mercy than to punishment, but not in the same way as my elect.”

• the Revelations of St. Bridget

And on the opposite side of the spectrum-
from St. Bernard of Clairvaux, a Father of the Church

“Your faith spoke for this child. Baptism for this child was only delayed by time. Your faith suffices. The waters of your womb — were they not the waters of life for this child?
Look at your tears. Are they not like the waters of baptism?
Do not fear this. God’s ability to love is greater than our fears. Surrender everything to God."

This was a quote from a letter written by St. Bernard to a couple who lost a child. I heard it in a class lecture on the Spirituality of the Doctors of the Church, and wrote it down, how I wish I would have gotten the exact reference!

 

[Shin]

Yes, that would be good to find.

That there could at times occur miraculous baptisms before death are not incompatible with Limbo.

And I might add, that respects the dogma related to dying in original sin.

 

[Shin]

No on should tend to rely on first on miracles to substitute for areas where one can do something and be responsible.

Here’s an example of something of that kind:

[Instructions for Baptism in the Case of Miscarriage](http://www.saintsworks.net/pamphlets/Alana M. Rosshirt - How to Baptize in Case of Miscarriage.pdf). These instructions are for adults.

 

[Hadrianus]

Thanks hadrianus, I totally agree. Appreciate it

But is it not dogma that unbaptized infants do not have the beatific vision? THat’s not limbo.

In answer to your question it’s not a dogma, but a theological conclusion. Thus speculation can propose theories, but they are only theories.

 

[Snugglebugmom]

This thread has been on my mind ever since I last replied to it, in tears I might add, and then unsubscribed. I have done a lot of praying and a lot of soul searching, mainly about why I got so upset over the views of an anonymous poster on the internet.
Ultimately, this is what I believe:

I have infinite faith in God’s infinite mercy. And I do not believe in Limbo.

I have realized that the main reason I got upset, is because posts like Gregory I’s make me doubt my beliefs. I am a simple person, I am not very educated when it comes to the early Church Fathers, I am not an expert on Salvation History and its technicalities. I am insecure, and as such, it is easy for me to start doubting myself.
The thing is though… I know what I know. ‘Faith’ is what my heart knows to be true. And that is enough.

Thank you to all those who have contributed in defense of the unlikeliness of Limbo for unbaptized infants, and especially to Oneofthewomen, who posted that beautiful quote by St Bernard of Clairvaux. I have saved this quote and will treasure it. You have no idea how comforting it was to read.

 

[Gregory_I]

Look at it this way snugglebugmom; if a miscarried baby is in limbo, he or she is happy, with a natural happiness, and you won’t be hurt in heaven, you will thank God for his mercy in not condemning a child to torment who was stained with original sin, and you will praise him for his justice.

If a miscarried baby is in heaven, you will be just as happy, and praise God for his mercy.

Either way, there is no cause for distresas.

I never meant to distress you, and I think you were wise to bow out. Sorry about that.

 

[Gregory_I]

Hadrianus, Can a single ineveitable conclusion be called a theory? lol.

Here’s a good article by THE RIGHT REVEREND ARCHBISHOP GEORGE HAY *
(1729-1811)

He lived and died as a well respected theologian in communion with the Church and fught for the church in Scotland:

Q. 4. But, if a man act according to the dictates of his conscience, and follow exactly the light of reason
which God has implanted in him for his guide, is not that sufficient to bring him to salvation?

A. “This is, indeed, a specious proposition; but a great mistake lurks under it. When man was first created, his reason was then an enlightened reason.** Illuminated by the grace of original righteousness, with which his soul was adorned, reason and conscience were then sure guides to conduct him in the way of salvation.** But by sin this light was miserably darkened, and** his reason became a prey to ignorance and error**. It was not, indeed, entirely extinguished; it still clearly teaches him many great truths with regard to his conduct, but is at present so apt to be led astray by pride, passion, prejudice, and other such corrupt motives, that in numberless instances, it serves only to confirm him in his error, by giving an appearance of reason to the suggestions of self-love and passion. And this is too commonly the case, even in natural things; but, in regard to supernatural things, concerning God and eternity, if left to itself, our reason is perfectly blind. To remedy this misery, God has given us the light of Faith, as a sure and certain guide to conduct us to salvation, and has appointed His Holy Church as the guardian and depository of his heavenly light; consequently, though a man pretend to act according to reason and conscience, and even flatter himself that he does so, in things that regard his soul; yet, if this reason and conscience can not be enlightened and guided by the light of the True Faith, it can never be sufficient of itself to bring him to salvation.”

Q. 25. Do we not see, even among false religions, many serious, well disposed people, who live good lives, and are even devout and pious in their own way; and is it not hard to think, that if such should die in their own way; they will not be saved?

A.*** But is it not much more reasonable in itself, as well as conformable to the whole tenor of what God has revealed, to say, that if they be truly such before God, as they appear in the eyes of men, and such as He knows will continue to correspond with the graces he gives them, He will not allow them to die in their false religion; but will undoubtedly bring them to the True Faith before they die?*** The door of salvation is by no means shut against such people by any thing here advanced; the only difficulty is about the way they can get at it. By supposing they can reach it, though they die in their false religion, is supposing God to act contrary to Himself, and in opposition to everything He has revealed to men upon this matter; but by adhering to His Holy Word, and firmly believing that God “adds daily to the Church, such as shall be saved,” and will most undoubtedly add these here spoken of to her, if they be of that happy number, we do not make their salvation more difficult either to themselves or to God; and we avoid the dreadful consequence of supposing God to act contrary to Himself and to His own revealed Will. If these people be really such in the eyes of God as they appear to the eyes of men; and if Jesus Christ, foreseeing their perseverance in improving the graces He bestows upon them, acknowledges them among the number of His sheep, “to whom He gives eternal life,” then it is evident they are in the state with those of whom He says in the Gospel, “other sheep I have who are not of this fold” (Jn. x. 16); both the one and the other are considered as belonging to Him, according to His foreknowledge of their salvation; but neither of them are joined in the visible communion of His Church. **Now, of these last he immediately adds, “them also I MUST bring, and they SHALL hear My Voice, and there shall be ONE fold and ONE shepherd.” **It was not enough for their salvation to be acknowledged to be His sheep; and because they were so, it was necessary that they should be united to the fold to which they did not belong. The same thing must then be the case of those we hear speak of; They are sheep of Jesus Christ, because He foresees they will at last be saved; but, as they are not at present within the fold of His Church, in order to secure their salvation, “them also He must bring,” before they die, that there may be "one flock, and one shepherd."

I never heard it put quite that way before, and it makes ALOT of sense coming from an Archbishop of the Church. I mean, basically, all he is saying is that those are saved, are saved as Catholics. If there really is an ignorant person who would implicitly desire Christ, Christ WILL bring him to his church to be saved in baptism. Therefore those in invincible ignorance may be saved; but they will be saved in accordance with the requirements laid down by God who does not change. They may be saved: But only through Faith and the sacraments and Charity. There is no other way. And it seems totally in conformity with scripture, tradition and the magisterium.

I mean, think about it, is it NOT more reasonable that those who implicitly desire the truth will have it revealed to them by God? That he will not allow them to die in a false religion that leads to death? That he will bring the sheep “Not of this fold” and make them of “the one fold.”