T
thistle
Guest
Salvation assurance is heresy so the promises referred to cannot be true.
- Status
U
Usagi
Guest
Getting back to FutureCatholic’s question…
There are two states any human soul can be in. You can be in God’s friendship (also referred to as the state of grace) or out of God’s friendship (also referred to as a state of (mortal) sin).
It is impossible to earn your way into God’s friendship. God has to take action first to even give you the capabilities that are required to accept and return His love.
God initially gave those capabilities to Adam and Eve (as the first humans are traditionally called), but they lost that automatic state of friendship for themselves and all their descendants by sinning.
Now humans are born outside God’s friendship, in the state called “original sin.” Because of this, it was long believed that infants who died before baptism would necessarily go to Hell, or at least to Limbo (a theological construct to explain how a soul might not actually go to Heaven, but still receive a happy sort of afterlife without the punishment that someone with no personal sin did not seem to deserve). More recently the belief has grown that God in His mercy will likely grant such souls His grace and admit them to Heaven outside the normal procedure, though we are unable to say that for sure since it has not been revealed to us.
Jesus came and died as the ultimate Passover sacrifice in order to “open Heaven,” offering humanity the gift of God’s friendship once again. As the ordinary means by which that grace and friendship would be communicated in the future, He gave the Apostles (and through them, their successors) the sacraments.
Thus, we believe that Christian baptism (alone, in the case of infants who can offer no willful obstacle to grace, or along with a faith commitment, in the case of older people who could) places us into a state of friendship with God. As demonstrated by the act of infant baptism, this is entirely a gift of God’s grace and not anything that we contribute, even though there are physical actions involved in baptism that cause some Protestants to consider it a “work.”
It has long been recognized (even when Limbo was still the popular theory for the fate of unbaptized infants) that there are cases in which grace can be conveyed without physical water Baptism. We are expected to employ the sacraments God has given us when possible, but God is not required to limit His grace to those channels. The first exception to be considered was that of martyrs who die for Christ before being physically baptized. It is generally held that they receive a sort of baptism in their own blood. The second exception is that of other catechumens who die before baptism, but not by martyrdom. They are generally considered to have received a “baptism of desire,” because they would have gotten baptized had the opportunity been presented, and were prevented only by circumstances beyond their control.
What you may be complaining about is the fairly recent expansion of the concept of baptism of desire to cover a whole heck of a lot of people other than catechumens. This position actually has a fairly long history. St. Justin Martyr considered Socrates a Christian because the philosopher sought out the Logos of the universe, even though he did not know the Logos as God the Son who would later incarnate as Jesus. St. Augustine, who was really big on the “unbaptized babies totally go to Hell” position, nevertheless taught that there were some who were outside the Church in body but inside in spirit, just as there were Catholics inside the Church in body but outside in spirit. In more recent times, Popes have explored the concept of “invincible ignorance,” that some people who do not know the truth about Jesus are ignorant through no fault of their own and might still be able to be saved. As with the salvation of unbaptized infants, this is an area where we can’t know anything for sure, but the Church leaves open the possibility because of its trust in God’s mercy. Such people would, of course, still be saved by God’s grace offered because of Jesus’ sacrifice, and would still have to get their wills out of the way of God’s grace and have contrition for any mortal sins they committed.
A very broad concept of invincible ignorance and baptism of desire sometimes leads Catholics dangerously close to universalism, and that is still a position condemned by the Church. It must always be understood that it is possible for humans to be damned through their own choices, and that it may well happen – perhaps even to a majority of all humans, given some of Our Lord’s words in Scripture. Still, in each individual case, it is no sin to hope and pray for a last-minute infusion of grace for that specific person. We will only learn the final disposition of every soul in the Last Judgment, and at that point we will realize that all who were damned were justly damned by their own actions. Until that time, I’d actually rather the Church teach us to pray for mercy for all sinners rather than, as some Christians unfortunately seem to do, take pleasure in the fate of those who do not appear to have accepted God’s grace in their lives.
Usagi
There are two states any human soul can be in. You can be in God’s friendship (also referred to as the state of grace) or out of God’s friendship (also referred to as a state of (mortal) sin).
It is impossible to earn your way into God’s friendship. God has to take action first to even give you the capabilities that are required to accept and return His love.
God initially gave those capabilities to Adam and Eve (as the first humans are traditionally called), but they lost that automatic state of friendship for themselves and all their descendants by sinning.
Now humans are born outside God’s friendship, in the state called “original sin.” Because of this, it was long believed that infants who died before baptism would necessarily go to Hell, or at least to Limbo (a theological construct to explain how a soul might not actually go to Heaven, but still receive a happy sort of afterlife without the punishment that someone with no personal sin did not seem to deserve). More recently the belief has grown that God in His mercy will likely grant such souls His grace and admit them to Heaven outside the normal procedure, though we are unable to say that for sure since it has not been revealed to us.
Jesus came and died as the ultimate Passover sacrifice in order to “open Heaven,” offering humanity the gift of God’s friendship once again. As the ordinary means by which that grace and friendship would be communicated in the future, He gave the Apostles (and through them, their successors) the sacraments.
Thus, we believe that Christian baptism (alone, in the case of infants who can offer no willful obstacle to grace, or along with a faith commitment, in the case of older people who could) places us into a state of friendship with God. As demonstrated by the act of infant baptism, this is entirely a gift of God’s grace and not anything that we contribute, even though there are physical actions involved in baptism that cause some Protestants to consider it a “work.”
It has long been recognized (even when Limbo was still the popular theory for the fate of unbaptized infants) that there are cases in which grace can be conveyed without physical water Baptism. We are expected to employ the sacraments God has given us when possible, but God is not required to limit His grace to those channels. The first exception to be considered was that of martyrs who die for Christ before being physically baptized. It is generally held that they receive a sort of baptism in their own blood. The second exception is that of other catechumens who die before baptism, but not by martyrdom. They are generally considered to have received a “baptism of desire,” because they would have gotten baptized had the opportunity been presented, and were prevented only by circumstances beyond their control.
What you may be complaining about is the fairly recent expansion of the concept of baptism of desire to cover a whole heck of a lot of people other than catechumens. This position actually has a fairly long history. St. Justin Martyr considered Socrates a Christian because the philosopher sought out the Logos of the universe, even though he did not know the Logos as God the Son who would later incarnate as Jesus. St. Augustine, who was really big on the “unbaptized babies totally go to Hell” position, nevertheless taught that there were some who were outside the Church in body but inside in spirit, just as there were Catholics inside the Church in body but outside in spirit. In more recent times, Popes have explored the concept of “invincible ignorance,” that some people who do not know the truth about Jesus are ignorant through no fault of their own and might still be able to be saved. As with the salvation of unbaptized infants, this is an area where we can’t know anything for sure, but the Church leaves open the possibility because of its trust in God’s mercy. Such people would, of course, still be saved by God’s grace offered because of Jesus’ sacrifice, and would still have to get their wills out of the way of God’s grace and have contrition for any mortal sins they committed.
A very broad concept of invincible ignorance and baptism of desire sometimes leads Catholics dangerously close to universalism, and that is still a position condemned by the Church. It must always be understood that it is possible for humans to be damned through their own choices, and that it may well happen – perhaps even to a majority of all humans, given some of Our Lord’s words in Scripture. Still, in each individual case, it is no sin to hope and pray for a last-minute infusion of grace for that specific person. We will only learn the final disposition of every soul in the Last Judgment, and at that point we will realize that all who were damned were justly damned by their own actions. Until that time, I’d actually rather the Church teach us to pray for mercy for all sinners rather than, as some Christians unfortunately seem to do, take pleasure in the fate of those who do not appear to have accepted God’s grace in their lives.
Usagi
F
FutureCatholic1
Guest
poem of man God?
T
thistle
Guest
I know I was the one who mentioned this but that was only to advise caution about the website. If we discuss that here it is off topic and this thread will get closed. Do a forum search for The Poem Of The Man God and you can read about this forbidden to read book there.
F
FutureCatholic1
Guest
sorry dont want the thread to be closed wont mention … again
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
I should also have mentioned that the “scapular” in question refers to the Brown Scapular of the Carmelite Order. This is a “real” scapular - not the token bits of felt joined by two strings that are sold in Catholic bookstores. These are often called “scapulars” (and, technically, it is correct, as the term simply means something “worn over the shoulder”). However, these bear little resemblance to the “real” scapulars which are a part of many Religious habits, including Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, and Franciscans.
These “real” scapulars are readily visible, as the are the outermost part of the habit (apart from the belt or cincture), not worn inside the clothing (as are the token scapulars), as they originally served as a aprons, protecting the rest of the habit from the dirt and grime of daily activity and thus minimizing laundry requirements. However, in most habits, the scapular is the same color as the rest of the habit and thus “blends in,” making it sometimes difficult to distinguish as a distinct piece of clothing.
A notable exception is the Cistercian habit, with its contrasting colors:
The “black part” is the scapular. Note that it is body-width piece of cloth 10 or 12 feet long with a hole in the middle for the head. This is a “real” scapular in the context of a habit of a religious order. Had Our Lady actually delivered the “promise” of the Brown Scapular to St. Simon Stock, she would have been referring to the “real” scapulars of the Carmelite Order (which only a Carmelite can legitimately wear), not to the little token “scapulars” sold as pious sacramentals in Catholic bookstores, which anyone may buy and wear, but had not yet been invented in St. Simon Stock’s time.
Thus, this “promise” - even if valid - would apply only to professed Carmelites, as only they could legitimately wear the Brown Scapular of Mt. Carmel.
B
Biblepoe
Guest
According to Catholic theology…
Anyone who has a mortal sin on his/her soul. Some examples of mortal sin include any sexual activity outside of a marriage (including m***********), blaspheme (according to many, atheists and non-Christians will go to Hell), and taking God’s name in vein (such as saying, “God d*** it”).
EDIT: I’ve also noticed that others have mentioned that the brown scapular can keep the person wearing it out of Hell, however, one of the conditions for this is that the person does not commit a sexual sin, which is probably a leading reason why people burn with agony in Hell forever.
- Status