An easy way for me to remember to pray for the Poor Souls & faithful departed is to say a prayer for them each time I pass by a cemetery-which for me is at least twice a day.Also when we say Grace at meals, “May all the faithful departed through the mercy of God, rest in peace.”.
Making things a habit makes them a part of life.

I don’t want to be critical of the Church but I never hear the word “purgatory” used by priests at funerals or even on All Souls’ Day. Nowadays, it’s assumed that if you die, you go to heaven.  I don’t care if it’s old fashioned, I have a devotion to praying for the poor souls. I know I’ll probably be there a long time to get purified.

I live in a part of New Orleans where in practice the Catholic faith has been abandoned by church leaders.  On Good Friday I walk from my house to 9 churches, some closed, rest underpopulated, and back to my house and the total trip is 8 miles. Someone brought up the idea of praying for deceased parishioners, so now I pray for those deceased since the parishes started, asking them to help get someone to bring the faith back.  I’m fairly sure that we have no idea how time intersects with eternity, so I can see that people deceased a century ago can see our prayers as if offered at their deaths.

I read somewhere that the souls in purgatory cannot pray for themselves, but are able to pray for others.  Therefore, as we pray for them, they can pray for all of us. 

Although we believe in purgatory, I think it’s best to aim for heaven, doing our best to achieve holiness while we are here on earth.  If we fall short, we can hope for purgatory.  But if purgatory is our aim, what if we fall short, then?  Just a thought.

Warren,
That’s a very cool thought.
I’m surprised to hear that about NO, though.

Michele - thought you might appreciate this post: http://rcspiritualdirection.com/blog/2011/12/01/a-hellish-backup-plan

Thanks, Dan.  Your post was very eloquent, and I am in total agreement. 

I remember reading in the Diary of St. Faustina about a nun who passed away, and Faustina had a dream or vision of her, pleading desperately for Faustina’s intercession.  She had gone to purgatory, and her suffering there was great.  Later, after Faustina’s fervent prayers on her behalf, the nun visited her again in a dream or vision, thanking her for her help—she had arrived safely to heaven. 

I think purgatory may not be all that we Catholics imagine it to be.  Although it may be temporary, it is not being with God, and as that is our soul’s true home, we would likely be shocked at how uncomfortable of a place it actually is.  A temporary situation is not necessarily a happy one.

The purgatory industry began in the 12th or 13th century, became established in the church at Council of Florence in 1438. Can there be a greater money making scam than praying for the dead.
Fifteen years ago, my dad was living with me at the time of his death.  In respect to him I googled a spiritual bouquet for which I donated $35 for a year of daily prayers…I completed a form of personal data e.g. phone number, email address.  One year later I was contacted to determine whether I wished to renew the bouguet.  I decided to make a phone call to them.  Speaking to a young lady, I assented that indeed I would gladly renew if she would provide me with the following information:  how was my dad doing, has he moved up on the list to get into heaven, has he popped into heaven…if you would kindly provide me with the ‘outcome’ of a years worth of prayers, I would be inclined to continue.  She giggled and stated she would get back to me…of course we know the outcome.

If these souls do pray for us, as mentioned by Michelle above,  perhaps your father is not done praying for you!

@Jesuitical graduat

It doesn’t cost anything to pray for the dead on your own - just time.

Jesuitical graduate.
Some people use sarcasm to cover ignorance.
Prayer for the dead goes so far back into antiquity we don’t have any clear idea of its origin. The same goes for the Doctrine of Indulgences, which has its origins in ancient Judaism. Scripture is replete with citations, both in the Old and New Testaments, which support the doctrine of purgatory.   

A book of interest(with photos): HUNGRY SOULS Supernatural Visits,Messages,and Warnings From Purgatory by Gerard J.M. Van Den Aardweg.    Heaven has its various levels of final reward; Purgatory its various levels/durations of purifications; eternal damnation its various levels of eternal miseries though the greatest is the feeling of regret of never being able to (reach beatitude) see God (the Beatific Vision) and live in the Kingdom of Heaven and it is made a more painful regret because of an awareness of what has been lost forever. Consider the eternal differences between the holy life(from an early age eg.age 7)of a saint and that of a lifetime worldly sinner who repents only on their death bed. They will not have the same eternal destiny though Heaven be that destiny. A prayer particularly beneficial to souls in Purgatory is DE PROFUNDIS. Psalm 130 or 129 depending on how it is listed in your Bible. Also can be printed off the internet for daily prayer recitation.

One way to pray for the souls in purgatory is at the holy water font saying: In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, wash away my sins and refresh the souls in purgatory.

“Proof of Heaven - A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife,” by Eben Alexander, M.D. offers a hopeful insight into the hereafter including a journey through what sounded to me like purgatory, hoovering over what appeared to be the underworld of hell.

Praying is one thing, but if you are afflicted with permanent suffering and offer it for them, I suspect they will help you persevere and be there to greet you when you die.  Recite the Litany for the Souls in Purgatory every day, and you will not die alone.

My sole request is for proof. Where is the evidence. Dante wrote well on the levels of hell.  Others continue it here, and also with heaven. Truth is;  we know nothing of heaven, other than the claim of beatific vision, as if God has a material face. Yet many bloggers continue as if they do, or are ordained to speak of a god, they know not. It is well to believe. It would be great if all were true.  There also has been much written on near death experiences.  All often responded to contrarily by neuroscientists.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven

Roman Catholics would be wise to spend their time reading the New Testament, and especially, in studying the epistles, letters written to the various churches.  There is not one instance where any New Testament writer instructed any early church to pray for a no longer earth-bound person, or to guess where their soul is.

Invest money in a good easy to read Roman Catholic Bible and some pens, and read it, taking notes.  Priests could do that too, so we Catholics in the pews could hear verse-by-verse expository preaching for a change, instead of a topical, feel-good 7 minute homilettes every Sunday, one we forget by the time we are enjoying our after Mass donut holes and coffee.

If Catholics truly believe the Holy Spirit is the Author of the Bible, why is it He is the last Person whose New Testament opinion counts?

Jesuitical graduat
Proof abounds. Either you simply haven’t done any homework on the subject or you ar trying to pull our collective chains.
Assuming you are serious, What are your specific questions? What will you accept as evidence? Sacred Scripture? The writings of Church Fathers? Historical evidence in Jewish belief?

Perhaps, Dan could place this as a subject for discussion on his blog.

Victor, it is easy to say ‘proof abounds’.  It is quite another to state what such proof is. That I have disagreement with you does not suffice to state that I’ve not done the homework…that I have.  Unless you prefer, epistemic closure and preach only to the choir.  In such a case no learning is possible. My intention is not to ‘pull anyones’ chain’, but I am enmeshed in the subject. How does one believe without definitive proof or evidence.  I think the issue is;  that we have been slammed with indoctrination since the cradle and folly of faith makes sense to us.
Your last paragraph; “What will you accept as evidence?...is where the discussion ought to begin. As for ‘Sacred Scripture’, there is nothing sacred about it.  Bible is written by men for men(please read the Rise and Fall of the Bible…among many books on how the Bible was compiled.)
We do not know the authors of the canonical gospels, the names were assigned one hundred years after they were written.  The Bible is a library of books, authors unknown…likelihood Moses wrote nothing. The Bible is the greatest work of literature.
Another example where ‘truth’ is substituted for the correct word ‘belief’; Fatima. Either the sun danced in the sky and changed colors or it did not. If that in fact happened it would have been observed world wide.  It was not and no planets fell from orbit.  To claim that 70 thousand witnessed the event is to claim that God deceived them into believing they saw something that did not happen. What I would accept as evidence is a statement of fact from the American National Academy of Science. I would accept as miracle if someone missing an arm or a leg and grew one back. I would think that a godman would know the germ theory…not casting out devils from the sick, and the treatment go and sin no more.  Illness and disease are not sinning.

So, Jesuitical graduat of Boston College, Dr. Alexander didn’t experience what he claims he did?

Stilbelieve, Dr. Alexander did experience ‘medically’, what he claims. The spiritual ideation is simply that and can be demonstrated in lab experiments. Again, I would turn to the American Academy of Science for its opinion.

Someone should take the time to write a critical thinking paper on the subject of when and why purgatory was invented, and a handbook of purgatory rules.

In an earlier post I stated that purgatory industry was invented in the 12th century, became church established at the Council of Florence 1438. Although it was implied in much earlier writings, it was not established until the church needed funds.  Alas, so was the granting of indulgences, all orchestrated to pay for Peter’s basilica. During those early years greed and avarice ruled. Those such as St. Francis preached against such excesses. Francis was saved from being declared a heretic, unlike the others, because he agreed not to condemn the excesses of the cardinals and papacy. It is unfortunate that our catholic teaching has heralded indoctrination and left truthfulness as a distraction…as the pope repeatedly stated; you must obey, and Tertullian; thinking leads only to questioning.

Barbara ..........Thanks for the idea of praying for the holy souls each time I bless myself with holy water.  What a great idea!  God bless you!

“Dr. Alexander did experience ‘medically’, what he claims,” you say?

On the contrary, Dr. Alexander said it was medically and neurologically impossible for his brain to have created the experience he had.  Did you read his book?

Jesuitical graduat
What you ask is unrealistic and impractical. The American National Academy of Science does not concern itself with theological issues.

It seems that Boston College has been remiss in your Jesuit education as there have been thousands of Scientists and inventors down through the ages who were devout Catholics.

In the 460+ years of the Society of Jesus many Jesuits became renowned for their scholarship in every conceivable field, for their explorations and discoveries, but especially for their schools. Jesuits have always been deeply involved in scholarship, in science and exploration. By 1730, Jesuit astronomers ran 30 of the world’s 130 astronomical observatories and 35 lunar craters have been named to honor Jesuit scientists. The so-called “Gregorian” calendar was the work of the Jesuit Christopher Clavius, the “most influential teacher of the Renaissance”. The list of Jesuit accomplishments is practically endless.

I have a good friend, an Opus Dei member, who, as a nuclear physicist works on the particle accelerator in Switzerland.

How in the world or outside of it can anyone think that souls in purgatory can pray for us.  Where did that come from -someone please explain; we pray for them they pray for us, where is this getting any of us…

Time does not exist in the after world.

@Jesuitical graduat:

Hey, I don’t know what comes after this life.  What I can tell you is that, having come through recovery for a particular brand of mental illness, I can say that I’ve seen the *one* of the closest things to hell that this world offers.

I’ve seen the big, open spaces and endless possibilities of life wilt and curl until it felt like I was peering down a claustrophobic tunnel choked with the stale vomitus of my own despicable weakness and terrible brokenness.  My future, my destiny, my job, my family life, everything was facing destruction as I lost control over even the most basic of voluntary muscle movements.  I knew despair and utter hopelessness - this was my hell.

Through a 12-step program, I found my faith.  I was re-introduced to my Father (Opa, Papa, Abba… not sure what to call Him these days!  But I love to know he’s mine and I’m his!).  By committing myself to a life of spiritual health and renewal (on a *daily* basis), the worst of my afflictions have been lifted.  Most days, I still struggle to find God, to listen for him… (I’m kind of terrible at listening), but on the best days, I think I may be tasting a little bit of heaven.

Personally, I believe that we see shades of the world to come while we still walk the earth in these mortal bodies.  But, honestly, I don’t give a darn what comes next - all I know was that I *was* dead and He gave me new life.  I was blind and now (sometimes) I can see.

Perhaps the most important thing to take away from a discussion on purgatory is not the worry of, “what if it happens to me,” but maybe just an awareness that I am very much a living fiber in this beautiful creation.  My job as a child of God is to serve all of his other children - both living and dead.  On the best of days, I can empty myself physically in service to the living and empty myself spiritual to both the living and dead.  Only when I empty myself out will He fill me afresh.

Don’t worry about proof.  If you need proof for God, then you don’t need God.  And if you don’t need God at this point in your life, then don’t worry about it - all things come with time.  Go out into the world, do your work, and keep an open heart.

@Jesuitical graduat: (Let me try posting this again)...
*
Hey, I don’t know what comes after this life.  What I can tell you is that, having come through recovery for a particular brand of mental illness, I can say that I’ve seen the *one* of the closest things to hell that this world offers.
*
I’ve seen the big, open spaces and endless possibilities of life wilt and curl until it felt like I was peering down a claustrophobic tunnel choked with the stale vomitus of my own despicable weakness and terrible brokenness.  My future, my destiny, my job, my family life, everything was facing destruction as I lost control over even the most basic of voluntary muscle movements.  I knew despair and utter hopelessness - this was my hell.
*
Through a 12-step program, I found my faith.  I was re-introduced to my Father (Opa, Papa, Abba… not sure what to call Him these days!  But I love to know he’s mine and I’m his!).  By committing myself to a life of spiritual health and renewal (on a *daily* basis), the worst of my afflictions have been lifted.  Most days, I still struggle to find God, to listen for him… (I’m kind of terrible at listening), but on the best days, I think I may be tasting a little bit of heaven.
*
Personally, I believe that we see shades of the world to come while we still walk the earth in these mortal bodies.  But, honestly, I don’t give a darn what comes next - all I know was that I *was* dead and He gave me new life.  I was blind and now (sometimes) I can see.
*
Perhaps the most important thing to take away from a discussion on purgatory is not the worry of, “what if it happens to me,” but maybe just an awareness that I am very much a living fiber in this beautiful creation.  My job as a child of God is to serve all of his other children - both living and dead.  On the best of days, I can empty myself physically in service to the living and empty myself spiritual to both the living and dead.  Only when I empty myself out will He fill me afresh.
*
Don’t worry about proof.  If you need proof for God, then you don’t need God.  And if you don’t need God at this point in your life, then don’t worry about it - all things come with time.  Go out into the world, do your work, and keep an open heart.

Jesuit Grad
....why do you scoff at the idea that God might have a material face? Jesus was God; was he not made of matter? Is His now-glorified body immaterial? Is His human nature immaterial?
Goodness, what do the Jesuits teach these days…

Mystical,
That the souls in Purgatory can intercede for other members of the Mystical Body is considered “Sent. Probabilis”, which means it is a theological opinion that is more probable, and well-founded. This is not a doctrine promulgated by the Magisterium, but rather a probably certain theological opinion.  Sent. Probabilis teachings statements have varying degrees of certainty and are widely believed. However, they do not rise to the same level as Sent. Certa (Certain) or De Fide (An article of Faith) and are therefore not infallible.

“As the poor souls are members of the Mystical Body of Christ, the question whether they can intercede for other suffering souls or for the faithful on earth must be answered in the affirmative. 
The Provincial (local) Synods of Vienna (1858 and of Utrecht (1865) teach that the poor souls can help us by their intercession.” (Ott, Ludwig, Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, p. 323)

While I pray for souls in Purgatory, I invite those holy souls to come and visit me at home until they are released. (When you are living alone, and lonely, even a ‘tortured’ soul is company).

lroy,  I live alone; but am not lonely.  If I don’t like being with me, then all other relationships are hopeless! 
“where is this getting us” ... if prayer works, then why not just pray for ourselves?  I see the point of others, who believe, to pray for those that don’t!  Once while traveling in Ireland, I misplaced a camera; mentioning it to the owner in Olive’s shop in Blarney, she said “oh dear, today being Tuesday, it’s St Anthony’s Day.  Pray to him and he will help you find it”  Well, the look of dismay on my face must have said a lot to Olive because she reached out, touched my hand and said with a smile, “I’ll pray for you”!... I had also told her where we had been-at a restaurant nearby; and with the same look of dismay, she advised me to see the cook and ask “him” to look around.  He’s an honest man!  The camera was found in a cupboard.  So was it the prayer or Olive’s familiarity with the honest man to return it to me?  I remain a a believer in people…

lroy,  I live alone; but am not lonely.  If I don’t like being with me, then all other relationships are hopeless! 
“where is this getting us” ... if prayer works, then why not just pray for ourselves?  I see the point of others, who believe, to pray for those that don’t!  Once while traveling in Ireland, I misplaced a camera; mentioning it to the owner in Olive’s shop in Blarney, she said “oh dear, today being Tuesday, it’s St Anthony’s Day.  Pray to him and he will help you find it”  Well, the look of dismay on my face must have said a lot to Olive because she reached out, touched my hand and said with a smile, “I’ll pray for you”!... I had also told her where we had been-at a restaurant nearby; and with the same look of dismay, she advised me to see the cook and ask “him” to look around.  He’s an honest man!  The camera was found in a cupboard.  So was it the prayer or Olive’s familiarity with the honest man to return it to me?  I remain a a believer in people…

NickD,  Which material face would god have…black/white/somewhere inbetween?

Mystical,
That the souls in Purgatory can intercede for other members of the Mystical Body is considered “Sent. Probabilis”, which means it is a theological opinion that is more probable, and well-founded. This is not a doctrine promulgated by the Magisterium, but rather a probably certain theological opinion.  Sent. Probabilis teachings statements have varying degrees of certainty and are widely believed. However, they do not rise to the same level as Sent. Certa (Certain) or De Fide (An article of Faith) and are therefore not infallible.

“As the poor souls are members of the Mystical Body of Christ, the question whether they can intercede for other suffering souls or for the faithful on earth must be answered in the affirmative. 
The Provincial (local) Synods of Vienna (1858 and of Utrecht (1865) teach that the poor souls can help us by their intercession.” (Ott, Ludwig, Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, p. 323)

I generally include the Souls in Purgatory in my thanksgiving prayers after receiving the Eucharist by saying St. Gertrude’s prayer a few times. I know some Souls that may be there if they aren’t in heaven yet.

Classifications such as “the Holy Souls in Purgatory” do tend to depersonalize, so I daily pray for “the Suffering Souls in Purgatory, my brothers and sisters who seek Christ’s redemption”.  Yes, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Mystical - a life-long Catholic friend told me church traditions often come from some person viewed as “saintly” in his/her day, perhaps from the Middle Ages, and after having eaten a pepperoni pizza for dinner, it resulted in a nightmare for them, later that night.

What they dreamed became church tradition, when word got out to lay people. Since much of what we call “tradition” does not square with God’s word, I think her reasoning makes sense.  How about you?

In fact, if Iroy is known as a “holy person”, he could start a trend of Entertaining the Holy Souls, giving brand new meaning to the Jewish ideal of being hospitable.  Iroy, St. Iroy!  If Iroy is ordained, he may be our next pope: Pope Iroy, the Great! Ah, tradition.  Ah, pizza!

Never had a problem with pizza.  Love it and your response.
Unfortunately, my last reply did not get posted.  Apparently I am spam, I would not like on pizza.
... Let us see what posts!

Where is the graduate of Boston College go to my question to him?

Posted by Mystical on Wednesday, Feb 6, 2013 11:00 PM (EDT):

How in the world or outside of it can anyone think that souls in purgatory can pray for us.  Where did that come from -someone please explain; we pray for them they pray for us, where is this getting any of us…
*************************************************************
The Communion of Saints.

Stilbelieve, the Register has flagged my reply as spam.  I would in earnest continue, but obviously have struck a vein, and my posts are not welcome. It never occurred to me to change another’s opinion.  Rather, I sought to determine whether any reply would rebut my own.

Jesuitical grad,
I am appalled by your lack of knowledge concerning the Doctrine of Purgatory and Indulgences. It doesn’t take much to make ridiculous statements attacking the Church. Unfortunately, it can take reams to explain your errors. Let me say that the doctrine of Purgatory did not originate at the Council of Florence, the council formulated and published the Church’s understanding at that time. The doctrine goes far back into Judaism. The same goes for the doctrine of indulgences, and the Communion of Saints. The Catholic Church simply passed on what was revealed by God to the Old Testament Jews.
If you do any research at all in Judaism, you will find that these and many other doctrines have their origin in Jewish belief.
All you are doing is confusing others by your lack of understanding
If you are sincere in your desire to learn and would like further evidence you may contact me at claveau@earthlink.net

Sorry Victor, but never said ‘originated’.  I said ‘established’ in 1438 as official church position, big difference.  I also alluded to numerous luminaries, who postulated that such a place must exist…but that is not ontological argument for existence. The Hebrew Bible is many things, I doubt anyone would take it literally in scholarship…much of it may be directed to whether there is an after life.  More importantly, the Hebrew Bible makes no reference to original sin, where one would expect to find it.  You might also, kindly note, that I never make an ad hominem reply attacking another’s credibility.

Vatican II said this in it’s Constitution Dei Verbum:
“Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.”

Vatican II showed that traditions should be kept with loyalty!

Vatican II said this in it’s Constitution Dei Verbum:
“Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.”

Vatican II showed that traditions should be kept with loyalty! Yay!

...

Jesuitical grad, find another way of saying what you said.  Meanwhile did you read the book? BTW, a post of yours appeared after yours to me so doesn’t look like you’ve been banned, just that reply you drafted for me.  Also, I’ve been notified many times that my comments may be spam and will need to be reviewed.  That happens to me when I’ve drafted a wind-bag reply.  But after review they have always been posted, un-edited.  So, try it again; I like the conversation.

Jesuitical graduat - if you are educated about the Jesuit Order I assume you are familiar with the work of Fr. Robert Spitzer.  And if you were educated at Boston College, I assume you are familiar with the work of Dr. Peter Kreeft. I am curious what you think of them.

Following the death of my (non-Catholic, ostensibly agnostic) brother at the beginning of December, I have been much more aware of the need to pray for the dead in general, and for the holy souls in purgatory in particular, than I have ever been in the past. There are many forgotten souls, either because their families have lost the custom of praying for the dead, were never taught that it was necessary to do so, or because they have no one left on earth to remember them. I know that November is the month especially dedicated to the Holy Souls, but I think increasing our prayers for them during Lent would be an appropriate spiritual work of mercy too.

CJ Williams - With condolences about the death of your brother, how do you know there are forgotten souls in Purgatory?  By whose authority do you make the claim that non-believers go to Purgatory?  Was your brother not interested in Jesus, the Christ, our Messiah, or was your brother openly hostile to belief in Jesus, the Son of God, who died for sin?  There is but one way to the Father in Heaven, and it is through the shed Blood of Jesus, the Christ, His Son and our Brother, the first-born of the dead.  Those of us that died with Him (admit our guilt, and turn to Jesus, in humility) will rise with Him, on the last day.

Terah,
You have to be either a non-Catholic or your theological education has been a bit lacking. I would rather assume you are not Catholic - otherwise you would not be asking such questions.
Catholics believe only Saints enter heaven straight away “Be perfect as my heavenly Father is Perfect. (Mt 5:48) Nothing unclean enters heaven (Rev 21:27
Jesus established one Church only – the Catholic Church. He also established the seven sacraments in order to enable sinners to become perfect.
Jesus’ sacrifice opened the gates to heaven, but did not give everyone a free ticket. We must be worthy to enter.
“And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” (Lk 10:25:27)
Jesus tells us that in order to enter heaven, our Love of God and our fellow man, must be perfect. ).  It would be an affront to God’s justice if He allowed anyone with the stain of sin on his soul to enter heaven.
Purgatory is a state of existence where the saved soul resides until the soul is purified. The self love that caused the sin is purged away.
Jesus said, “For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
“Jesus also said … “For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40).
What an extraordinary promise — Believe in Him and we will have eternal life.
But, what does it mean to truly believe in Him? Does it not mean that we must believe that everything He said is true? Does it not mean that we must be in total submission to His will in our lives?  Does it not mean that we must obey His every command?
Many Christians believe that when Jesus died on the Cross He paid the ultimate price for all of man’s sins and therefore nothing is required of us except making a “personal commitment to a personal savior.”  Let’s take a more in-depth look at what the New Testament Scriptures teach on this subject.
Belief is necessary. Rom. 10:9,
We must do God’s will. Matt 7:21,
We must obey Jesus. John 3:36,
Baptism is necessary for salvation. John 3:5, See also: Mark 16:16; Titus 3:5-8.
We must also love God completely and our neighbor as ourselves. Luke 10: 25-28,
We must keep the Commandments. John 14:15, See also: Matt. 19:16-17,
Good works are necessary for salvation. Romans 2:7, See also: James 2:14,26;  Phil 2:12.
We must hold out to the end. 2 Tim 2:12-13,
We must also eat His body and drink His blood. (John 53-59)
All these requirement must be fulfilled in order to enter heaven. All those who fall short of perfect love will enter purgatory.

To those who see only evil or who believe the Catholic Church should do, believe, and say things like the Protestant Church, please read the Catechism and Church documents, past and present, to know what the Church is and believes and why.  Reading the critics, who will always make a good case based on their own goals, will only make you a critic and a nonbeliever.  Also, humbly, I suggest you meditate on the sin of intellectual Pride, surely, the chief sin of Satan, and ask God to give you His truth, whether it conforms to your aleady held beliefs or not, and to give you the virtue of Faith and the willingness to acceptit.  Before you accuse me, a 66-year old well-educated woman of reading only Catholic thought, I have read and considered Protestant and Jewish writings that are critical of the Catholic Church. Through the grace of God, the Church wins my loving Faith and obedience, hands down.  The Bible, by the way, is great literature.  It also is consistent throughout, even though written over many centuries by basically ignorant people.  Moses didn’t write anything because up to and in his time, history, tradition, and etc. were passed on through word of mouth ora tradition).  Even liberal, secular, non-believing university literature programs teach that, as I, with a master’s degree in literature can attest. God bless you for your search.  May He continue to grow you into His Truth as He did and is doing me.

Terah James,

Thank you for your condolences on the death of my brother. I am a Catholic. I believe in Purgatory because the Catholic Church teaches its existence. It is the same reason I believe that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John are divinely inspired and true: because the Catholic Church teaches it. Jesus founded the Church to teach in His name with His authority. The Church teaches the existence of Purgatory.

As for how I “know” there are forgotten souls in Purgatory, it’s simple. I don’t. I don’t “know” in the way that I know oranges are round, or that water is wet or that a toothache is painful. I haven’t seen them nor have I experienced purgatory. So I don’t know, but I believe there are forgotten souls in purgatory. There are people who have died alone and without family or friends to pray for them. Others died long ago and have passed from the memory of the living. Some of them may still be undergoing purification. If they are, they have no one alive to intercede for them, and we, the living whose Faith is in Christ, are bound by our bond in the Communion of Saints to pray for them.

As for why I believe there are may be non-believers in purgatory, it seems reasonable. As for my brother’s soul, I was not with him when he died. I do not know the final state of his soul, nor of his attitude towards God at the end of his life. I would not presume to say that he is in Heaven, as only the very holiest of souls enter directly into the glory of God’s Presence. Neither would I judge him deserving of Hell, because only Christ, who is the Supreme Judge, can judege a person deserving of Heaven or Hell. And He may deal with each soul as He pleases upon its death. So I ask Christ to have mercy on the soul of my brother. Thank you for your question. God bless.

To: CJ Williams.  What a beautiful, faith-filled and humble response.  God bless you.  Rachel

To Eachel, who wrote: “The Bible, by the way, is great literature.”

I disagree completely.  Someone may disagree with me, but I think the Roman Catholic Church also insists the Bible is the holy word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, thus, ‘God-breathed’, and everything in the Bible is true, consistent, and for the edification of the church.  It is not just great literature.

To C. J. Williams, who wrote about a non-believer, “I would not presume to say that he is in Heaven, as only the very holiest of souls enter directly into the glory of God’s Presence. Neither would I judge him deserving of Hell…”

C. J., you are presuming and trying to “judge” a person’s soul, by your comment.  We can only discern the destination of a person’s soul, based on what we SEE of them, here on earth.  As you correctly pointed out, only God knows the heart, and what a person chooses, at the end of his/her life.  But we do know that “Unless you confess with your lips and believe in your heart that Jesus is the Son of God, you will not have life within you.”—Life = the Holy Spirit.  It is written, “My ways are not YOUR ways, says the Lord.”  Just read Scripture and accept it at face value, for starters.

To Victor Claveau, who wrote: “We must be worthy to enter (Heaven)”

A believer who is IN the shed Blood of Jesus IS worthy to enter Heaven, because they are bought with His Blood, and covered in the Righteousness of Jesus.  When the Father sees us (pitiful sinners, but with faith in Him) He sees Jesus, our loving Brother that Advocates on our behalf.

Victor also wrote: “It would be an affront to God’s justice if He allowed anyone with the stain of sin on his soul to enter heaven.”

It would be an affront to God’s MERCY to deny a man or woman that had faith in the shed Blood of Jesus to NOT enter into Heaven, and live in union with Father, Son, Holy Spirit and the Communion of Saints forever.
It is ALL done by Jesus.  All our “good works” are like dirty rags to a holy triune Godhead.  Our good works just prove we love Jesus.  Our good works PROVE we are in the Body of Christ, and our works are to build up His Church.

All people, to a person, will receive one of two things: either God’s MERCY, through accepting Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross and His Resurrection (His victory over death) on their behalf, OR we will receive God’s JUSTICE, and see the White Throne Judgement, where we will have to answer for our own sins, our own life, and, as Frank Sinatra sang about, “We do it our way.” 

I choose Jesus.  I choose the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  I choose His mercy and His grace, begging His forgiveness, because I know I cannot measure up to the standards of PERFECT.  But my elder brother, Jesus, did.

Terah,
In Matthew’s Gospel (5:48) Jesus says we must be perfect. “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Now, why would Jesus set a goal for us that is unattainable. That would be like saying, “go run the race, but you will never cross the finish line, or there is no light at the end of the tunnel, but just keep going anyway.
There must be a way for us to become perfect. He did not say that it would be easy. Conversely, Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”  And in Matt 10:38, “he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”
But He also said, “I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you.” (John 14:18). He comes to us through the sacraments of the Church.
We cannot perfect our love without the sanctifying grace the Jesus provides through the sacraments. Sanctifying grace is the grace, which heals our human nature wounded by sin by giving us a share in the divine life of the Trinity. It is a habitual, supernatural gift, which continues the work of sanctifying us - of making us “perfect,” holy, and Christ like.
We do not say that those outside the Catholic Church cannot enter heaven. What we do say is that it is much more difficult to know the mind of God concerning salvation when someone rejects the Church established by Christ.
There are more than one billion Catholics in the world. We are capable of rational thought. Scripture tells us to, “test everything; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thess 5:21). Put your prejudice aside and ask God to help you find His truth.  I promise you, if you seek with an open heart and sincere effort, you will find, like hundreds of thousands of others, a home in the Catholic Church. 

Terah, I agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.  The Catholic Church taught me that it was and it taught me and teaches me today how to live the truth of all that is in it.  We Catholics pray the Old and New Testament every day, in addition to studying it and to meditating on it.  The entire rosary is based on the New Testament, not only the prayers themselves, but we meditate on the life of Christ as taught in Scripture from His birth to His Ascension.  Our entire Mass is bibiblical.  One of the beauties of the Bible, among many, is that it is also great literature. That is all I meant. The Bible’s greatest beauty is that is the true, living Word of God.  By the way, the things you say indicate you don’t understand or know the Catholic Church.  May I suggest, as I did in my earlier comment (Eachel), that you read the Catechism, note the Biblical foundations cited throughout, and you will see that the criticisms you have heard and read are not true.  If, in fact, you follow Jesus, as it sounds like you do, you won’t be afraid to read what the Church says about itself, instead of only what its enemies say.  From what you say, you are a sincere person who loves the Lord, and He is leading you to Himself.  Follow Him.

@Victor Claveau:  [“We do not say that those outside the Catholic Church cannot enter heaven. What we do say is that it is much more difficult to know the mind of God concerning salvation when someone rejects the Church established by Christ.
.
Victor, since you are “inside” the Catholic church (rather than outside), please explain how much easier it is for **YOU** to “know the mind of God” concerning salvation than those of Christian faith.

Victor, you wrote, “There must be a way for us to become perfect. He did not say that it would be easy.”

How do you understand the message given us from God, in the Book of Romans?  It is right after the 4 Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then the book of Acts of the Apostles, and then the book of Romans.  Just scan it, and compare it to your comment above, noting that we do not make ourselves perfect.  For us, “perfect” is impossible.

Rachel - thank you for explaining what you meant.  I agree with what you wrote, and appreciate your clarification.  I am a Catholic convert, and I bristle, when fellow Catholics seem to undermine the Bible, calling it “just another book”, disregarding it, in favor of anything else: the Church Fathers (that often disagreed with each other) with encyclicals (many of which I have read) and with other extra-biblical writings, teachings & beliefs, like a private apparition to some saint from the Middle Ages.  For these people, the Bible is nothing special.

By looking down on it, the word of God is diluted and shelved, outside of Sunday, when a FEW VERSES are read during Mass, in bits and pieces, and much of it is out of context, to make for a “Topical” Mass theme, but the priests often refuse to PREACH from the verses read, preferring instead to take an easy route, like finding a Social Justice topic in the readings, or to do “How to be a better person” reflection.  We don’t get FOOD: meat, in our area.  We get pabulum, for the most part.  I leave hungry for more knowledge of God and for His word - so I read the Bible on my own.

Most homilies in my area are geared towards little ones in 2nd grade.  In fact, I don’t know why they take the kids out of Mass for their own Children’s Liturgy every Sunday, because frankly, kids could stay, and get LESS than they do as a separated Children’s group.  Perhaps in your area, priests can PREACH and TEACH God’s word, equipping lay people to go out and share the Gospel.  If so, you’re blessed.  Thanks for clarifying your first point. 

@Victor Claveau who writes to Terrah:  [“Terah,  In Matthew’s Gospel (5:48) Jesus says we must be perfect. “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”  Now, why would Jesus set a goal for us that is unattainable?  That would be like saying, “go run the race, but you will never cross the finish line, or there is no light at the end of the tunnel, but just keep going anyway.  There must be a way for us to become perfect.”]
.
Victor, which translation are you using?  Certainly not the New American Catholic Bible translation.  In fact, there is no translation which says “You MUST be perfect.”  Jesus does not say “You MUST be perfect” but rather he says “Be perfect.”  This is what we strive for but will always fall far short in this flesh.
.
Paul speaks of the Christian life as running a race and fighting the good fight.  To contrary, yes there is indeed a light at the end of the tunnel.  Our race and fight is completed at the end of life.  Believers in Christ know where we are headed which is to reign with Him forever.
.
As to your comment in which there must be a way to become perfect, it is in being born again of the Spirit.  For here is a true passage in which Jesus emphasizes the word “must.”  He told Nicodemus “A man MUST be born again.”  Even someone born again will not ever be perfect this side of glory.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt 5:43-48)

Scripture quotations are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible Catholic Edition, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Published by Thomas Nelson for Scepter, Princeton, N.J.,

Casting Crowns,
You make my point.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3, RSVCE)
Every one of the numerous commentaries written prior to the revolt of Martin Luther, testifies that Jesus was referring to the Sacrament of Baptism. Titus 3:5 states, “he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,…”
As I stated previously, Baptism is necessary for salvation. It is through baptism that we are justified before God.
All the sacraments are avenues of grace instituted by Jesus to enable us to reach the perfection necessary to enter heaven.  A soul does not become perfected in heaven, it must be perfect in order to gain entrance.
Please reread my previous posts. 

@Victor Claveau:  No, I don’t “make your point.”  You stated Mathew 5:48 says:  “You therefore, ‘must’ be perfect”—the gospel doesn’t that,—you did.
.
I agree baptism is necessary for salvation, but of the Holy Spirit.  The exercise of water baptism alone does not accomplish that (especially for infants).  Water baptism is a public declaration to the church Christ has come into your life that you have been born anew.  If the water ceremony alone was sufficient, many Protestants and all Catholics who were baptized by water as infants would never have fallen away from God.  The “must” is to be bapitized by the Holy Spirit.

Casting Crowns,
There is still another post which as of yet not passed the sensors, which deals with your question on the Bible translation I used, which is the RSVCE.

In answer to your last post: Your understanding of baptism is skewed.
It is through the Sacrament of Baptism that the Holy Spirit is operable in our lives.
“On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:5-6) “Everyone moved by the Spirit is a son of God.” (Rm. 8:14)
Since baptism confers the life of grace in the soul, it carries the promise of salvation.
“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,….” (1 Pet 3:21)
The new life conferred in baptism is an objective reality, which St. Augustine called the “soul of the soul,” and which therefore has capacities that are as much beyond the powers of mere nature as the ability to think or choose is above the capacity of irrational beasts. Faith, hope, and charity are said to be infused, i.e., poured into, the one baptized, long before he reaches the age of reason if the sacrament is conferred in infancy. All, whether infants or adults, receive this infusion as a sheer gift of God.
“He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:5-7)
We become children of God and heirs of His Kingdom through baptism.
“Everyone moved by the Spirit is a son of God” God is present in a special manner in the justified, other than in sinners, or unbelievers, or the unbaptized.
When we cry, “Abba! Father!” it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,  and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. (Rom 8:15-17)
The souls of Infants are made perfect through baptism, and will remain in that state until they reach the age of reason, and deliberately commit sin. We fall away from God by our own free will.
Unfortunately, space limits my response.  You really need to expand your theological horizons. I would suggest that you take the time to explore Catholic teaching on this and other topics.
Have courage. Test everything: hold fast to what is good. 1 Thess 5:21)

Victor wrote, “There must be a way for us to become perfect. He did not say that it would be easy.”  So how do you understand the message given us from God, in the Book of Romans?  (Right after the 4 Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then comes Acts of the Apostles, then Romans.)  Please just scan the intent of the teaching & compare it to your comment above, & note we do not make ourselves perfect.  For us, “perfect” is impossible.  Casting Crowns is correct about all that he/she wrote to you.

Rachel - thank you for explaining what you meant.  I agree with what you wrote, and appreciate your clarification.  I am a Catholic convert.  I bristle, when fellow Catholics seem to undermine the Bible, calling it “just another book”, disregarding it, in favor of anything else: the Church Fathers (that often disagreed with each other), encyclicals (many of which I have read) and other extra-biblical writings, teachings & beliefs, like a private apparition to some saint from the Middle Ages.  For these people, the Bible is nothing special.

By appearing to look down on it, the word of God is diluted and shelved, outside of Sunday, when a FEW VERSES are read during Mass, in bits and pieces, much of it is out of context, to make a “Topical” Mass theme.  Priests often refuse to even preach from the verses read, preferring instead to take an easier route, like finding a Social Justice topic in the readings, or to do “How to be a better person” reflection.

We don’t get FOOD: meat (at least in our area).  We get pabulum, for the most part.  I leave hungry for more knowledge of God and for His word; so I read the Bible on my own.  Perhaps in your area, priests can PREACH and TEACH God’s word, equipping lay people to go out and share the Gospel.  If so, you’re blessed.  Thanks for clarifying your first point.

Rachel - thank you for explaining what you meant.  I agree with what you wrote, and appreciate your clarification.  I am a Catholic convert.  I bristle, when fellow Catholics seem to undermine the Bible, calling it “just another book”, disregarding it, in favor of anything else: the Church Fathers (that often disagreed with each other), encyclicals (many of which I have read) and other extra-biblical writings, teachings & beliefs, like a private apparition to some saint from the Middle Ages.  For these people, the Bible is nothing special. By appearing to look down on it, the word of God is diluted and shelved, outside of Sunday, when a few verses are read during Mass, in bits and pieces, much of it is out of context, to make a “Topical” Mass theme.  Priests often refuse to even preach from the verses read, preferring instead to take an easier route, like finding a Social Justice topic in the readings, or to do “How to be a better person” reflection.  We don’t get food: meat (at least in our area).  We get pabulum, for the most part.  I leave hungry for more knowledge of God and for His word; so I read the Bible on my own.  Perhaps in your area, priests can preach and teach God’s word, equipping lay people to go out and share the Gospel.  If so, you’re blessed.  Thanks for clarifying your first point.

For some reason, I sometimes get a Potential Spam message, and there is nothing in my posts that is offensive or out of line.  I don’t know why.  Rachel, I am a convert.  I agreed with your last post.  Thank you!

Terah,
I stand by what I wrote. You are absolutely incorrct in your assumptions. Please show some historical evidence that I am incorrect and you are not.

Victor- my Catholic bible has a footnote for Mt. 5; 48 which says - “Perfect: in the gospels this word occurs only in Mathew, here and in 19,21.  The Lucian parallel (6, 36) demands that the disciples be MERCIFUL (footnote emphasized).  19, 21 concerns Jesus direction for the “The Rich Young Man” who says, All of these things I have observed.  What do I still lack?” (19, 20) “Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’”

That last verse was Mt. 19, 21.

Stilbelieve,
Unfortunately, two of my previous posts, which provided further explanation, have been held up by the spam censor.

Jesus Christ sums up his instructions by ordering us to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect; i.e. to imitate, as far as our exertions assisted by divine grace, ca reach the divine perfection. (Douay Rheims, commentary on Mt 5:48. Published in 1859, © 1991.  Catholic Treasures, Monrovia, CA.)

“By way of conclusion to his programme of the new perfection our Lord refuses to set bounds to the ideal. The children are asked to aim at the completeness of their spiritual capacity. When in their measure, they achieve this they will be like their Father who possesses (though he eternally and of necessity) the fullness of his being.” (A Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953, p. 862)

The commentary in the NAB leaves much to be desired, and has been rightly criticized by biblical scholars. The Greek for “perfect” is “Teleios” in Hebrew “Tamim”; it is translated variously as “blameless” or “without blemish”, not “merciful”.

Again Rev. 21:27 tells us that nothing unclean will enter heaven. The soul must be perfect, blameless, without blemish.

Casting Crowns and others; am I to assume when necessitating the rite of baptism we are addressing original sin. Yet, are we to address ancillary issues of renewal, Holy Spirit, perfection.
All this; parcel to belief, often regarded as truth, what say we of the tens of thousands of years prior to the ‘year of the lord’. What happens to those people.  More so, there is no mention of ‘original sin’ in the Hebrew Bible.  The Jews expected an anointed king, Xt, who would restore Israel to its rightful place, not a redeemer. Original sin is first mentioned by Paul, chapter 5, Romans. As we now know ‘original sin’, is a manufacture of Augustine, who believed man is so tainted by sin that he is unable to do any good without God’s graces.  Aquinas believed that no married person can be as holy as a celibate and chaste man…resulting in that women are too defiled to handle sacred instruments and thusly unworthy to be ordained.

Perhaps, I should provide an explanation of what is meant by “The State of Perfection.” 

The perfection of Christian life consists chiefly in charity. Charity unites a person to God by grace and love and friendship. Thus charity best attains the end of Christian life, which id union with God. Says St. Paul (Col 3:14): “Above all things, have charity, which is the bond of perfection.” Charity bonds together in unity all other perfections.
“’Absolute’ perfection belongs to God alone, for what is absolutely perfect is lacking in nothing whatever, and is therefore infinite. ‘Relative’ perfection is perfection in relation to a certain thing-person, state, condition, etc. Now, in relation to man, there is a perfection that belongs to the person who has finished his course and has attained the goal; this is the perfection of the blessed in heaven. Another perfection is that of man the wayfarer who is still engaged in making the journey of this earthly life; this perfection is possible to attain here on earth. It consists, first, in the removal from life of all mortal sin. Secondly, it consists in getting rid of every attachment or appetite which hinders a person from tending wholly to God. It is possible to have charity without this full perfection, with both its elements, but it is impossible to have charity without freedom from mortal sin. In the ‘proficient’, and even in ‘beginners,’ charity exists; but the perfection of charity is in the ‘perfect.’
(Glenn, Paul J., “A Tour of the Summa,” (B. Herder Book Co., 1960, Question 184, p. 301)

Heaven must be conquered by suffering and struggle, just like the athlete who wins the victor’s crown only at the price of constant training and exercise (1 Cor 9:24). We must work in the Lord’s vineyard, in the sweat of our brow, and when evening comes, we shall each receive our just compensation. (Mt 20)
“In the end, we will be judged by our love.”  (St John of the Cross)

Jesuitical Graduat,
How can you say that Original Sin was “a manufacture of Augustine”, and then quote St. Paul who lived 300 years before Augustine?

“ as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned….” (Rom 5:12)

“Original sin is the result of a sin committed, in actual historical fact, by an individual man named Adam, and it is a quality native to all of us, only because it has been handed down by descent by him.” (Humani Generis, 1950)

The bible begins with the story of creation, the beginnings and meaning of human life, and describes the original unity of man and woman and their vocation. It also reveals the existence of the Tempter, Original Sin and its consequences, the promise of redemption and tells of the descendants of Adam and Eve .
“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty
of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church § 390)

Sometimes we read, few times we read with discernment.  Kindly note the reference to Augustine; original sin as we NOW know it(as Augustine embellished the taint of original sin) is a manufacture of Augustine.  Original sin is FIRST mentioned by Paul in Romans.
More importantly, few, other than fundamentalist who view the Bible literally,believe that Adam existed. Even the church under JPII stated that evolution is recognized by the church. There is no mention of ‘original sin’ in the Genesis account nor anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible. Humani Generis is not an historical document.
Science affirms man evolved, that is fact not theory. Genesis is literature. Question might linger in regards to origin of the appearance of modern mand and his relationship with neandethals. There is no question regarding tens of thousands of years man has been on the planet. What then with original sin, and none of whom were baptized. As stated the Hebrew Bible is not about a ‘redemptor’. None of my Jewish friends are looking for a ‘redeemer’.

@Jesuitical:  [“am I to assume when necessitating the rite of baptism we are addressing original sin. Yet, are we to address ancillary issues of renewal, Holy Spirit, perfection.  All this; parcel to belief, often regarded as truth, what say we of the tens of thousands of years prior to the ‘year of the lord’. What happens to those people?
.
1.  It is Paul who says in Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as through one man (Adam) sin entered into the word.”  We are sons and daughters of Adam—thus the idea of “original sin.”
.
2.  Most scholarship places Abraham walking the earth about 2,000 to 2,500 years ago,—not “tens of thousands of years.  Didn’t they teach you that a Boston College?
.
3.  What happens to “those” people?  We are told in Romans 4:4 “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”  The message is clear that OT saints do not require baptism.
.
4   Moses and the prophets walked in obedience looking forward toward the coming Messiah while we look back.

Casting Crowns;
1. That is what I wrote;  the first mention of original sin is by Paul in the fifth chapter of Romans…no mention in the Hebrew Bible.
2.,3., et al.  Have you not heard of evolution…even the church from JPII has recognized it as true. Tens of thousands of years reflects man’s time walking upon the world…unless you are an avid advocate of the Bishop of Usher who estimated origins as 4004 BC…no scholar endorses that, but then the Bible was taking literally and the age of who begat whom were added up. Abraham and Moses are notables in a great work of literature…whether or not they existed is a continued debate of scholarship.
Where we presently stand on original sin is a mirror image of Augustine…rather than expostulate what was previously said; review the link;
http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs03.htm

Sometimes I wish my fellow Roman Catholics would throw caution to the wind (along with what passes for church tradition- especially that dating from the 2nd century AD) and, for a huge change, focus on God’s New Testament word: the epistles.

Read and believe the episles, as written, & stop nitpicking everything.  Our church and our world would be so much healthier, if we would read and obey the epistles, taking literally, whatever we can, unless it’s obvious to a Person with Common Sense that we take it figuratively. 

Unless and until we honor God, by reading and heeding His word, we will be arguing about silly things that have NO eternal value, forever.  It is a great excuse for postponing our obedience to Him, but it is also a One-Way Ticket away from God, and likely, on the path that’s straight to Hell.
Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

This is THE MOST annoying blog.  I just posted again, with nothing bad in it.  But my comments got targeted as SPAM again, for no good reason.  It’s impossible to hold a dialog on this blog.  NC Register should either look into this, or do everyone a favor and just say they don’t want comments anymore.  I see Victor C also had problems w/ SPAM, and he’s written nothing offensive.

I wish fellow Roman Catholics would throw caution to the wind (along with what passes for church tradition- especially that dating from the 2nd century AD) and, for a huge change, focus on God’s New Testament word: the Epistles. Read & believe the Episles, as written, & stop nitpicking everything.  Our church and our world would be so much healthier, if we would read and obey the Epistles, taking literally, whatever we can, unless it’s obvious to anyone with common sense that we are to take it figuratively.  Unless & until we honor God, by reading & heeding His word, we will be arguing about silly things with no eternal value, forever.  It is a great excuse for postponing our obedience to Him, but it is also a one-way ticket away from God.  Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Well, what do you know.  My last two comments posted immediately.  Wishing everyone in the USA a Happy President’s Day!  Please, let’s all pray for the continuance & protection of all our religious freedoms.

It took four days for one of my comments to be posted and one is still missing. Under the circumstances, it is very difficult to have a dialogue.
If you have any questions about my previous comments, please E-mail me at claveau@earthlink.net and we can continue this conversation.

Don’t abandon the blog.  I think it unfortunate that Mary abandoned it.  Your thoughts are interesting and informative and adding links to other references is great… You never know when you might say just the right thing to win someone over.  Just say it with love and respect.

In regards to your responses not showing,  try replying to the message you get when you’re blocked Mr. Wehner, the editor, will respond to you.

@Victor Claveau:  [“Faith, hope, and charity are said to be infused, i.e., poured into, the one baptized, long before he reaches the age of reason if the sacrament is conferred in infancy.”]
.
That “sounds” nice only because someone may have told you that.  It might be Catholic teaching but were it true then no Catholic would ever fall away from the church.  Hitler and Mussolini were baptized as infants into the Catholic faith.  The Spirit clearly never “stuck” in their cases, right?
.
Your references to passages re Paul and Peter conducting baptisms were to men and women (or children “of age”) who actually understood what was taking placing place.  Best if you apply what is validated by Scripture and not to believe someone’s invented theology.

Casting Crowns,
Are you forgetting that man has been endowed with free will.
Man is born into this world without the grace of God. We call this state Original Sin.
Any person, child or adult, becomes a saint when baptized with water and the proper Trinitarian formula. They remain a Saint until they commit a deliberate sin.
Are you also discounting the passages that tell us that entire households were baptized. Do you expect us to believe there were no children in these many households.
The first historical mention we have of infant baptism was around the year 250. The issue was not “should we baptize children”, it was, “When should we baptize children.” The Fathers of the Church, answered the question by saying that children should “be baptized as soon as possible after birth; the Apostles taught us that.” Infant baptism was the standard practice in the Church; then and now.
I was baptized on the day of my birth. I’ve been a Catholic for a very long time.

Casting Crowns,
I submit the following historical references to support the practice of infant baptism. These are just a few of those available.

“For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:391

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.”
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21(c. A.D. 215), in AT,33

“[T]herefore children are also baptized.”
Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV(A.D. 233),in JER, 65

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.”
Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9(A.D. 244),in JER,65

“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.”
Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244),in JUR,I:208

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons..”
Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2,6(A.D. 251),in ANF,5:353-354

“It shows no crease when infants put it on[ie the baptismal garment], it is not too scanty for young men, it fits women without alteration.”
Optatus of Mileve, Against Parmenium, 5:10 (A.D. 365),in JER, 94

“Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?”
Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17(A.D. 381),in NPNF2,7:365

“Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitaited.”
Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28(A.D. 381),in NPNF2,7:370

“We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins.”
Chrysostom John, Ad Neophytos, (A.D. 388),in LCF,169

” ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is expected: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity.”
Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79(A.D. 387),in JUR,2:169

“And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.”
Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, 4:24:31(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:461

“While the son is a child and thinks as a child and until he comes to years of discretion to choose between the two roads to which the letter of Pythagoras points, his parents are responsible for his actions whether these be good or bad. But perhaps you imagine that, if they are not baptized, the children of Christians are liable for their own sins; and that no guilt attaches to parents who withhold from baptism those who by reason of their tender age can offer no objection to it. The truth is that, as baptism ensures the salvation of the child, this in turn brings advantage to the parents. Whether you would offer your child or not lay within your choice, but now that you have offered her, you neglect her at your peril. “br Jerome, To Laeta, Epistle 107:6(A.D. 403),in NPNF2,VI:191

Can you provide any refuting evidence?

I just provided a number of historical references to prove my point on infant baptism, but got spammed again. Perhaps you will get to see it in three or four days.

@Victor Claveau:  [“children should be baptized as soon as possible after birth”]  How so?  You make this sound like it’s pixie dust.  And if a baby dies in childbirth or at the age 2 without baptism would not a merciful and loving God take this child to glory regardless of baptism?  Your “as soon as possible following birth” sounds good but it is only invented theology without biblical foundation.
.
The free will argument has been used many times.  However, the Lord already knows those who will come and those who will not.  It’s known as election.
.
John 6:37 says “All those that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.”  On the basis of the gospel it’s clear not everyone is given to the Son regardless of infant baptism.

Who would be so blind as to limit this expression of God’s grace and mercy to adolescents and adults and to exclude infants and children?. If John the Baptizer could be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1: 15), and if Jesus could say (Matt. 18: 6), “Whoever offends one of these little ones (Gk.“toddlers”) who believe in Me, it were better that he were drowned in the depth of the sea,” and if the Apostle Peter could say on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 39), “The promise is unto you and to your children,” what mere mortal dare declare so gracious an invitation to be invalid for infants, or forbid the continuance of the Baptism of infants for coming generations?

If the entire families and households of the Philippian jailer, Lydia, Cornelius, Crispus and Stephanas of the New Testament were incorporated into the household of faith through Baptism, surely that testimony is immutable and established for all time.

Yes, we baptize babies. Unmistakably Scriptural proof substantiates that doctrine. Christian history, unbroken and uninterrupted. reflects such practice in each generation. Conscientious Christians do not delay but hasten with their children to Baptism that they may received the gift of salvation and regeneration and gratefully embrace the Apostle’s affirmation extended to those of all age groups: “For as many of you as have been baptized have put on Christ” (Galatians 3: 27).

Dennis Kastens, Pastor of Peace Lutheran Church in St. Louis, Missouri.

Martin Luther on Infant Baptism

That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints.

Casting Crowns,
Let us note that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Baptism is for adults only, and that children should not be baptized.

Both in the East and in the West the practice of baptizing infants is considered a rule of immemorial tradition. Origen, and later St. Augustine, considered it a “tradition received from the Apostles.” When the first direct evidence of infant Baptism appears in the second century, it is never presented as an innovation.

The Church 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. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (CCC,1261)

There are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation.

Casting Crowns,
Your point about free will be used many times does not negate the fact that we have free will, its use supports my contention.

I am not simply trying to prove you wrong, I am trying to provide you with information of which you may not be aware.

Let us note that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Baptism is for adults only, and that children should not be baptized.

Although children do not have faith they also do not have disbelief, they do not reject the first grace that God bestows through baptism. Once they reach the “age of reason” they must believe and keep the faith, for at that point failure to do so is to reject grace. Reason can be used to reject the grace of salvation, it is not normally the means by which it is obtained. Baptism is the visible sign and instrument of that grace (a visible sign and instrument of grace is called a sacrament).

Both in the East and in the West the practice of baptizing infants is considered a rule of immemorial tradition. Origen, and later St. Augustine, considered it a “tradition received from the Apostles.” When the first direct evidence of infant Baptism appears in the second century, it is never presented as an innovation.

The Church 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. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261) There are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation.

Supporters of infant baptism view baptism as the place where a believer receives the Holy Spirit and thus mark it as the beginning of faith, whereas practitioners of believers baptism view baptism as an act of faith.

Believer’s Baptism is given only to adolescents or adults who first proclaim to believe in Jesus Christ as their personal savior who died for their sins and was resurrected by God. Whereas Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestant churches baptize infant children of believers.

@Victor Claveau:  Baptism is an outward expression of a believer’s obedience to Christ by all adults and children coming to new life in Jesus.  The idea to rush and immediately baptize an infant is no doubt steeped in tradition but biblically has no merit. 
.
In times past, unbaptized infants (the unresponsible)—the church taught they were sent to “Limbo” (another invented theology).  You’ll notice the church has recently eliminated Limbo because there is no biblical foundation for such a place.
.
Infants should be “dedicated” before the church assembly whereby the parents proclaim their duty to raise the infant in the church and in the knowledge of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  When the child is “of age” we pray he/she will step forward and desire the Sacrament of Baptism.

Casting Crowns,
You reject history, because infant baptism is not specificly found in Scripture. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not scriptural, but you apparently believe it is so.
As for Limbo of the infants; this theory was never considered as a doctrine of the Church, as it is not found in scripture or Sacred Tradition. It was and is pure speculation.
Where in the Bible does it say that children should be dedicated?
Baptism is necessary for salvation. Why would you withhold the grace of the sacrament from children?

@Victor Claveau:  [“Where in the Bible does it say that children should be dedicated?”]

Victor, my friend,—of course in Luke 2:22-23 “When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to consecrate him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord).
.
Victor, you don’t know your Bible.  This consecration (or presentation) of the infant Jesus was to be done following Mary’s birth purification period of approximately 30 to 40 days after childbirth.  It is there where the infant Jesus was “dedicated.”  This is where Mary had her encounter with Simeon.

Casting Crows,
My translation of Luke 2:22-23 is slightly different: “And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) (RSVCE)
Jesus was circumcised on the eight day of his life. He was presented to the Lord thirty-three days later.
I was always under the impression that the presentation of Jesus in the temple showed him to be the firstborn Son who belongs to the Lord.

It never occurred to me that this is where Protestant fundamentalists found the support for dedication of infants, rather than their baptism.

I always understood these passages a bit differently.
Yahweh had slain every first-born of the Egyptians so that Israel, “His first-born,” might go free. As a reminder to Israel, every first-born of their race had to be dedicated to the service of Yahweh, the Lord (Ex. 13; Num. 3).
At the Presentation of Our Lord, Jesus, the first and only child of Mary, was offered to the Father in His Temple (Luke 2:22). Though Joseph and Mary paid the price to receive Him back (for He was of the tribe of Judah, not of the tribe of Levi), and the child was returned to His Mother, it was only that she might nourish Him as the Lamb of sacrifice.

I guess I don’t know my Bible as well as I should. I have been trying to memorize it for many years, and have only been partially successful. I’ll keep on trying and perhaps, someday, I will become as familiar with it as you. 

You have probably been taught, and most probably believe, “Catholics have little regard for the Bible: Protestants alone know how to value this gift of God and to treat it in a befitting manner.”

No denomination holds the Bible is such high esteem or treats them with such genuine care and consideration as the Catholic Church.  She, and she alone, has constantly and consistently guarded them, so far as it lay in her power, from abuse, ill-usage, and injury, and rescued them from desecration.  Protestants, on the contrary, have exposed the Bible to every kind of indignity and false usage. By allowing everyone, no matter what his state or education, to interpret it for himself, they have confused the sense of simple words that no man when left to himself, amid such a Babel of tongues, can find any security or certainty as to the message the Book really contains.

@Victor Claveau:  Changing or insulting my name does nothing to further advance your position.
.
Which is more vital in God’s eyes,—water baptism or baptism by the Spirit?  If infant baptism is everything you say, then no Catholic would ever fall away from God and the church.  Water baptism is a sign of obedience whereby you acknowledge that God has made you a recipient of new life.  It is a conviction by which you are able to testify boldy of His presence and grace having come upon you.
.
You earlier stated Jesus saying “You must be perfect” when that is false.  Salvation is gift (which Paul says) “not that any man should boast.”  The gift is not based upon merit or performance but by the trustworthiness of the gift giver.  The only *must* is that you be born again (of the Spirit) as Jesus told Nicodemus.  This is where a man is “sealed” in His Spirit.  It does not happen at water baptism.  No infant is capable of such undertanding.  A child of age—yes, but not an infant.  Infants do not personally desire baptism.
.
Victor, believing the gospel is not open to interpretation by anyone.  There should not be a Catholic view nor a Protestant view, just a gospel view.  Believe what Jesus said.  The problem is that you have not been allowed to believe otherwise you would commit a sin of presumption.  Jesus promised you salvation but you cannot be sure.  Why not?  Is Jesus lying?
.
Attempting to disrespect me or poorly taught Protestants has the same treadmill effect of seminarians cycled through the Catholic church down through time who also never believed the gospel.  They keep teaching you can never be “sure” of your salvation even when Jesus says you can.  Their own doubts give rise to your doubts.  And you think such doubts are valid because this is what they teach.  Jesus did not create any doubts.  That’s Satan’s job from the beginning. 
.
[“You have probably been taught, and most probably believe, “Catholics have little regard for the Bible: Protestants alone know how to value this gift of God and to treat it in a befitting manner.”].  Victor, I have never been taught Catholics have little regard for the Bible.  It does seem, however, your hold to such “Sacred Tradition” simply because it might be centuries old does not necessarily mean every tradition is gospel-based in practice.
.
[“No denomination holds the Bible is such high esteem or treats them with such genuine care and consideration as the Catholic Church.  She, and she alone, has constantly and consistently guarded them, so far as it lay in her power, from abuse, ill-usage, and injury, and rescued them from desecration.”]  Victor, I hold all dedicated Catholic monks down through the centuries in high regard for preserving the Scriptures, however the right of God’s people to be denied the opportunity to read His holy word with their own eyes is not the exclusive domain of a select few in the Rome.  It was the hand of God which enabled Gutenberg and his printing press to actually publish the Bible for all men to see and read.  Otherwise, you and I would not be discussing this now.
.
Victor, you seem like a sincere man.  Paul was also sincere and quite boldly convicted as well.  I will leave you with Romans 8:29-30—“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.  And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
.
And John 14:2-3 “In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.” 
.
Victor,  Jesus is speaking to all who believe.  The church teaches you cannot be sure.  It’s a sin of presumption.  But Jesus says:  “If it were not so, I would have told you.”  Thus, you can be absolutely sure.  Somthing to consider. 

I’d be happy if only Paul’s Pastoral Letters to Timothy & Titus were memorized. Okay, I’d be thrilled, if 1 & 2Peter were memorized too, & not just memorized, but taught and preached so our church structure would be impacted for the better by the wisdom.  Alas, I can only dream that Rome & our ordained clergymen will ever pay attention to these teachings, in their fullness, and in context.

Casting Crowns,
I assure you that the use of the word crows was unintentional.
Water Baptism IS by the Holy Spirit.
You seem to think that understanding is necessary for baptism to be efficacious. The anointing of the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism is not in any way limited to our understanding or desire. Baptism is an act of the Holy Spirit, not the person administering the water, nor is it predicated upon the understanding of the person being baptized.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)
Every commentary written prior to the Protestant Revolt, explained this passage as water baptism. It was never interpreted to mean, “accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.” The acceptance of Jesus as Lord was a given. 
I believe you misunderstand the Sin of Presumption. Predestination is not being pre-qualified by God.  It has always been understood as God having knowledge of those who will accept his offer of salvation.
The Catechism states:  There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit). (CCC §2092)
Certainly, Catholics believe that salvation is a gift. However, a gift can be refused or lost. Saint Paul was concerned about losing his salvation. “Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified. (1 Cor 9:24-27)
All the Epistles of Paul entreat the Christians of his day to remain steadfast. He is not writing to pagans, but to those already in the fold.
The churches that require infant baptism are the Roman Catholic Church, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental, Assyrians Church of the East, Reformed Church in America, United Church in America, and the United Church in Canada.
Your fundamentalist approach to baptism and salvation just doesn’t hold water.

@Victor Claveau:  I am quite aware of “who” Paul is writing to.  However, you wrote:  [“The acceptance of Jesus as Lord was a given.”]  This goes to the point of disagreement over infant baptism of water and baptism of the Holy Spirit.
.
Please define your term of “acceptance of Jesus as Lord” and how is that a “given” for you?

Casting Crowns.
Is that all you have to say in reply?
Every Christian, who has reacjed the age of reason, must recognize Jesus as Lord.
As for infants, parents make the profession of faith for the child and promise to raise him/her in the Faith.
As for me, I am in total submission to God, by placing myself under the authority of His Church.
It seems to me that I have provided the information necessary to make my point about infant baptism.
What if the Catholic Church is correct? The baptism of infants can certainly not be harmful. On the contrary, as baptism is necessary for salvation, as Jesus taught, and you fail to baptize, you place the child’s soul in jeopardy.

@Victor Claveau:  I have not abandoned the point.  There is more to say but I was first interested in your reply to your “acceptance” of Jesus being Lord.
.
Your argument has problems so no, you have not made your point regarding infant baptism.  You have provided church teaching regarding baptism, but there are problems—to wit:
.
1.  You said:  “Parents make the profession of faith for the child and promise to raise him/her in the Faith.”  And if they do not raise the child in the faith then what happens to the infant?
.
2.  You also said:  “and you (parents who) fail to baptize, you place the child’s soul in jeopardy.”  In jeopardy of what, Hell, since there is no Limbo anymore?  Is Christ thus going to condemn a 16 month old infant because the parents failed to baptize him or her?
.
It seems your view of God is so small that unless something officially sanctioned and taught in the Catechism by the church is followed and in effect, God is thus made powerless to intervene in the unbaptized infant’s life or in the life of baptized Catholic infant but never raised in the faith.
.
Victor, the Holy Spirit is not restricted by the CCC.  You are trapped in a myriad of legalism rather than freed by His grace.
.
Furthermore, you wrote:  “As for me, I am in total submission to God, by placing myself under the authority of His Church.”  THIS?—is your response to what “acceptance of Jesus as Lord” means to you?  Your comment is more reflective of what it means to be a good Catholic.  Please give me a better response to what making Jesus “Lord” over you really means.

While I do believe that I am wasting my time endeavoring to explain and inform, I will answer your questions, one more time.
Q.1. Baptism places an indelible mark on the soul. It could be likened to a brand of ownership, much like the branding of cattle. Once baptized, the soul belongs to God and is animated by His grace. If the parents neglect their responsibilities to raise the child as a Christian, they will be held accountable by God. This has nothing to do with the child. God will watch over him.
Q.2. God does not condemn any innocent child. While God has not specifically revealed what happens to the unbaptized infant we trust in his mercy.
I mentioned previously, that Limbo was never a doctrine of the Church, it was and is pure speculation.
If God allowed the angels to choose, why would he not allow an innocent child to choose? Who is to say that God does not enlighten the soul of the child at the time of death and provide that opportunity? God is justice personified.
As for being trapped in legalism. I say bunk!
We are responsible before God to be in submission to His rightful authority. Jesus instituted a Church, which is clearly reflected in Scripture. There is no doubt that Jesus left behind a visible authority consisting of the Apostles, and their successors (Read 2 Timothy).
If I reject the Church, I reject Christ, and if I reject Christ, I forfeit my salvation.
Within the Church, there is liberty of thought, unity in essentials, and freedom in accidentals.

As a Catholic I am free, nay encouraged by the Church to explore God’s word, whether in Sacred Scripture of in the Oral teachings of the Apostles and their successors. The Catholic is not required to forfeit his liberty of thought. For aside from the fact that his submission to the dogmas and the discipline of the Church is a free act, an exercise of his liberty, there still remains beyond these limits a vast and beautiful field of truth for the Catholic to explore and to enjoy—a field that attracts and holds under its powerful spell many non-Catholic philosophers, artists, and writers.
Since earliest times sacred tradition has always been recognized as a true font of revelation. Indeed, Scripture alone cannot be the sole source of faith because the Canon of Scripture cannot be determined from the writings themselves, nor can their inspiration be so determined. The oral tradition were safely transmitted by means of the creeds, the writings of the fathers, the constant and unanimous consent of Catholic Schools on matters of faith, the ancient ecclesiastical monuments, the common belief of the faithful, bur most of all by the solemn judgment of the Church which is always an infallible proof of divine tradition.
Without the Catholic Church we would not have a Biblical canon. You accept the Bible, but reject the authority of the Church who promulgated it. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6).
My response concerning my submission to Christ remains the same.

@Victor Claveau:
.
[“Baptism places an indelible mark on the soul. It could be likened to a brand of ownership, much like the branding of cattle. Once baptized, the soul belongs to God and is animated by His grace. If the parents neglect their responsibilities to raise the child as a Christian, they will be held accountable by God. This has nothing to do with the child. God will watch over him.”]  Your position fails to address those infants baptized by the RCC who fall away from the church as well as those who don’t return.  Furthering weakening your position is that both Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini prime examples which disprove your position.  Both were baptized RC as infants.
.
It appears your “indelible mark on the soul” of both Hitler and Mussolini wasn’t so indellible.
.
[“I mentioned previously, that Limbo was never a doctrine of the Church, it was and is pure speculation.]  Then you must ask yourself “what else” in Church tradition can also be considered pure speculation?
.
[“If I reject the Church, I reject Christ, and if I reject Christ, I forfeit my salvation.”]  Then you accept the idea there is no salvation for Christian people, only Catholics —regardless of whether Jesus is Lord of their life.  So long as Catholic baptism has taken place that’s all that matters.

Casting Crowns,
This will be my last post on this thread, as I am obviously wasting my time with you. You have little understanding of Catholic theology and show no desire to learn. The only reason I have continued this fruitless effort is so that others reading this thread might benefit.
Those such as Hitler, Mussolini, or others, who fail in their fidelity to Jesus, do so because they exercised their free will; or do you also deny free will? Jesus does not force anyone to follow in His footsteps. 

As to your question about tradition. Sacred Tradition is divinely inspired revelation, and as such is immutable. Traditions with a small “t” are changeable as are all customs. There is always speculation on issues that have not been divinely revealed.

I never said that only Catholics can go to heaven. I did say that Catholics have a much better opportunity because of the sanctifying grace received in the proper reception of the sacraments. Sanctifying grace strengthens to soul in order to resist Satan’s temptations.

The Church teaches that we will be judged on what we believe is truth. If a person is in invincible ignorance, he will not be held accountable, even though he may be wrong. Invincible ignorance cannot be overcome. However, being in a state of simple ignorance does negate the responsibility to search for the truth.

You, as a Christian, have the responsibility to examine the claims of the Catholic Church. Apparently, you do not desire to do so.

I am a Catholic for two reasons, 1) I was baptized into the Church on the day of my birth, 2) I have spent most of my adult life in theological study. I can say without equivocation that everything the Catholic Church teaches is true.

A number of years ago, I was contacted by a Methodist minister who told me that he wanted to study Catholic doctrine. When I asked for his reason, he said, “My brother is studying to become a Catholic and I want to save him.” I replied that I would be happy to help him. At the same time, I said, “I have to warn you if you study Catholicism with an open heart and open mind, you will become a Catholic.” He said, “I’ll take that chance.” Nine months later, I was beside him as he received his first Eucharist.

The Church does teach that there is no salvation outside the Church. This means that if I, as a knowledgeable, believing Catholic, leave what I know is the true Church established by Jesus, I forfeit my salvation. The other side of the coin is. if someone, such as yourself, knows the Catholic Church to be the true Church, founded by the Master, and fails to become a member, he forfeits salvation.

You seem to want to argue for argument sake, which is a waste of time. I would recommend that you purchase the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” and the “Companion to the Catechism.” The Catechism explains Church teaching, while the Companion, provides the foundational sources for the teachings.

Claveau,  “baptism places an indelible mark on the soul, much like branding cattle.”
Am I to assume that the soul is a spirit, and that a material mark can be placed onto something spiritual like a mark on a bison…and an indelible one at that. How is it that you speak with certitude of things you know not. Your post is contrived from phantasy.

Jesuitical grad,

Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated. (“Catechism of the Catholic Church,  1272)

Thanks Victor, still seems contrived to me.  No one has seen a soul, no one has seen the mark, which continues to defy how a mark (material) can be placed onto a spirit (soul). There is no doubt concerning the ‘catechism’, there is doubt as to verification and validity, other than indoctrination.

Perhaps this indelible mark is a misrepresentation of the seal given by the Holy Spirit, when a person becomes a spiritual child of God & an heir to the Kingdom.  Catholics believe the new position could be lost, if they commit a ‘mortal’ sin.  The indelible mark could also be similar to the belief that once a priest is ordained, he is a priest *forever*, according to the line of Melchezedeck.  Of course, only Jesus is a priest forever and only He is needed.  Who knows where the souls of every priest that was ever ordained is: if Heaven, Jesus is Priest there, our Advocate to the Father; for Catholics, maybe Purgatory - where a priest himself would need help.  If a soul is in Hell, no one needs a priest. Too late for souls there.  Messing with the Bible causes confusion.  It’s why I read it in context and in its “fullness”.

Terah,
The Bible does not explain itself. Are you your own authority?

@Victor Claveau to Terah:  [“The Bible does not explain itself.”] 
.
Apparently you are threatened by God’s word.  Doesn’t God’s word speak to you directly?  What is unclear about the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  What did Jesus not explain which is a mystery to you?

@Victor Claveau to Terah:  [“Are you your own authority?”] 
.
Really, now Victor.  Dragging out this old “authority” line is the standard Catholic hackneyed response.  God’s word is the authority,—not Terah deciding on her own.  She is not claiming any personal authority in what she wrote.  Since you claim the Holy Spirit came to you in infant baptism and lives inside you, why do you deny He can speak directly to you?  Instead, you retreat to your comfort zone of belief that the Holy Spirit cannot reveal Himself to you personally—but that He must work only through a select few members in the Magisterium.  Again, such thinking places a limit on what God can do.  Clearly, you are your own authority over what God can do.  More legalism, Victor.
.
Hebrews 1:1-2 “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in ‘these’ last days spoken to us by His Son.”  Victor, the reference to “Son” is also *by His word.”  You seem to be afraid that God can speak to you (personally) in His holy word.
.
What part of God’s word are you afraid of in core belief that you need someone else to explain?

@Victor Claveau:  [“The Church teaches that we will be judged on what we believe is truth.”]  Victor, fire burns whether or not you believe it is true.  Poison kills whether or not you believe it is true.
.
[“You, as a Christian, have the responsibility to examine the claims of the Catholic Church. Apparently, you do not desire to do so.”]  I have already examined the teaching and know the “fullness” of the teaching so do not tell me want my desire is.  There are areas of teaching which have no foundation in the gospel.  You simply don’t like people who disagree with you and point out invented theology which is extra-biblical.
.
[“I am a Catholic for two reasons, 1) I was baptized into the Church on the day of my birth, 2) I have spent most of my adult life in theological study. I can say without equivocation that everything the Catholic Church teaches is true.”]  Essentially, then, you are Catholic because you were born Catholic.  And what if you were raised from childhood as a Protestant or Evangelical,—would you then say what they teach is true also?  You’re not making a credible defense, Victor.  And regardless of your lifetime of theological study, you are still missing the boat regarding what making Jesus Lord of your life really means.

Casting Crowns made the most salient point in his/her last post.  What does it mean to make Jesus the Christ, the Lord of our life?  Now that has eternal value.  It is of that which all of us will answer to our holy Father in Heaven.  We are “In Christ” or we are not in Christ. 

Thank God, for His mercy, His grace & His word= the Scriptures: inspired, without error, and all we need to know & obey, to be saved from the final judgement. Trust and obey, there is no other way.  It’s all about Jesus, and the power found only in His precious Blood, under which we are saved, and held, secure in His Hands, forever.  If only priests would teach the fullness of the New Testament, on Sunday.

A new documentary film will be released in May about Purgatory.  Check out this Link!  www.purgatoryforgottenchurch.com.

Purgatory - how much does it cost to get out?  Can your relative and friends ever pay enough?  Money making mythical nonsense.

Pray you get to purgatory!  It costs nothing to get out. No amount of money will get you out of HELL.

Well said, Lin!

“Jesuitical graduat of Boston College on Saturday, Feb 16, 2013 1:45 PM (EDT):Sometimes we read, few times we read with discernment.”

Sometimes we post comments, few times we post comments with discernment.
Its sad and bogus that you have kept commenting without ever answering my question:  “if you are educated about the Jesuit Order I assume you are familiar with the work of Fr. Robert Spitzer.  And if you were educated at Boston College, I assume you are familiar with the work of Dr. Peter Kreeft. I am curious what you think of them.”
My guess is that when we peel back all of your sound and fury, you signify nothing.

Jesuitical graduat you really seem to have reasoned through your atheism. So tell me, how do you deal with the problem of induction? And what is your rebuttal to the argument from reason? Or is it possible that you know deep down that atheism is self-defeating and incoherent, as explained here:
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/higher-things/2011/nov/19/atheism-why-it-logically-incoherent
http://www.catholicthinker.net/the-incoherence-of-atheism/
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/4-arguments-transcendence.htm
http://www.reasonsforgod.org/the-best-reasons/the-argument-from-reason/

Tripp, the problem with inductive reasoning is that you become lost in the wilderness of particulars.  An inductive reasoner goes from particular to particular in the same manner as the person who goes from tree to tree never seeing the forest. Reason is only as good as its vessel.  Without science we were forever lost in the reasoned world inwhich the sun traveled around the earth. It is not atheism which is incoherent as much as you would like to believe; or at least no more so than belief in religion, or unsupported and unquestioning faith lacking proof. Agnosticism makes more sense with its position that religion has not made its case. Where is the evidence.

Jesuiticacl graduate, if your not even an atheist its pretty irrational to come in here and bash people for believing in God.

To the extent that you call for evidence, in my experience the atheistic/agnostic mantra of “there is no evidence” is typically premised upon an arbitrary and subjective definition of evidence.  Because evidence is a legal term, and this discipline has written the most about the concept, it would make sense to consider the legal definition of evidence before declaring that there is none.  “[E]vidence is defined as ‘all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved.’”  Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  “[E]vidence includes all the means by which any   alleged matter of fact is established or disproved, and is further defined as any species of proof legally presented at trial through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete objects, etc., for the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury.” People v. Victors, 353 Ill. App. 3d 801, 811-812; 819 N.E.2d 311 (2004).

Notice the use of the terms “any” and “all” in these definitions.  A whole lot of things count as “evidence.”  Testimony is included within the definition of evidence, although it is “not synonymous with evidence” because evidence “is a more comprehensive term.” People v. Victors, supra at 811-812.  In other words, personal religious experiences, COUNT AS EVIDENCE as that term has been legally defined, something atheists find hard to accept. This also means that the Gospels, for example - as “records, documents” - fall within the definition of “evidence” as well. Atheists and skeptics may say that these are not reliable forms evidence, but to say there is NO evidence is simply false. 

Also, the philosophical evidence for God’s existence (First cause, argument from contingency, argument from reason, moral argument, apparent fine tuning) might not strictly meet the definition of evidence, but the philosophical evidence does - coupled with the existence of the universe and consciousness itself - give rise to a “presumption.” A “presumption” comes about when the “finding of a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact, until [the] presumption is rebutted.”  Wilner v. United States, 24 F.3d 1397, 1411 (Fed. Cir. 1994).  “Although not evidence, a presumption can be a substitute for evidence if it is not rebutted.”  Id.  Most atheists will freely admit that they have no evidence disproving God - they usually fall back on the fact that it is not their burden.  However, if there is a presumption of God’s existence (and at least 4 1/2 billion people would say there is), then atheists do in fact carry the burden of rebuttal.

Most atheists/skeptics confuse “evidence” with “conclusive evidence,” sometimes termed “conclusive proof,” which is defined as “evidence so strong as to overbear any other evidence to the contrary.” Black’s Law Dictionary 636 (9th ed. 2009). It is also defined as “[e]vidence that so preponderates as to oblige a fact-finder to come to a certain conclusion.” Id. There may not be, in the atheists/skeptics view, evidence that “obliges” them to accept God’s existence.  But this does not mean there is no evidence at all, only that he has not seen what he considers to be “conclusive evidence.”  Also, note again the first part of Black’s definition - “evidence so strong as to overbear any other evidence to the contrary.” Atheists admittedly have no “evidence to the contrary,” so ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL(i.e., personal religious experience) becomes “conclusive proof” by courtroom standards.

There is a pretty glaring problem with the comments of “Jesuiticacl graduate” which have not yet been addressed.  He has “TWICE” refused to answer the question about his thoughts on Spitzer and Kreeft’s arguments for God’s existence.  By twice refusing to answer this direct question, we can only draw two inferences:  (1) he is unfamiliar with them, which strongly suggests that he DID NOT get a degree from Boston College in any Jesuit-related study, or (2) he is familiar with them, has no rebuttal to their arguments, and remains an atheist/agnostic for reasons unrelated to logic.

Also, he refused to address Tripp’s direct challenge about the argument from reason.  The gist of this argument is that, if our minds are the product of blind processes (Dawkins’ ‘pitiless indifference’), such as random mutation guided by whatever environmental conditions random happen to prevail when and where the mutation occurs, our minds should not be expected to do anything except recognize opportunities to eat, avoid being eaten, or mate.  There would be no reason to expect the human mind to be able to draw any ultimate truths about anything.  The universe should be unintelligible outside the very specific environment in which we evolved, rendering the assertion that “there is no God” or “I see no evidence for God” to be incoherent.  In order for atheism to be true, there must be something transcendent about the human consciousness, which strongly cuts against atheism being true. 

In end, based upon these two glaring oversights, I suspect that “Jesuiticacl graduate” has no real philosophical or theological credentials to speak of.  He has simply learned to write with bluster and pretense, and had hoped that simple theists would he shocked and awed by this seemingly superior intellect.

@Charlie and Tripp:  This guy “Jesuiticacl” is a fraud.  He is known on the NCR blogs for jumping in here & there only engaging in intellectual persuits going nowhere.  You offer serious comments but he is only having fun with you and is unable to seriously respond to your points.
.
This person is definitely not a Jesuit and why would an antheist enroll at Boston College?  Don’t waste your time with him/her/it.

Tripp, I appreciate and commend your detailed legalistic viewpoint that evidence is a legal term. Legal usage is cultural varying from country to country and its usage is soporific sophistry. Whereas science is ontological and varies not from country to country and is not dependent on use. Results are always the same. The laws of science are the same in China, Saudi Arabia, Australia or where ever its conducted. That all perform the tests of science with the same results, that is the evidence.
There is no such thing as ‘philosophical evidence’...personal evidence is hearsay…at the end of the second century, it has been estimated that there were up to fifty gospels.  The four canonical gospels were not assigned their present names until a hundred years after they were written. We do not know who wrote any of them.  We do know the authors never witnessed Xt, or what he said or did.  Their writings were all hearsay and handed down one generation to the next. The Bible of the early Xtian sect was the Hebrew Bible…the four canonical gospels were selected for political purposes.
A good suggestion for you would be Baye’s Theorem, which uses statistics and probability whether something considered fact occurred. Another would be what in sociology would be OTF or outside of the faith. Apply the same objective criteria to ones own religion that would be used to examine others. People are unable to do so to their beliefs.
No matter, how bizzare, everything has a nonzero probability…but that is no evidence, just the likelihood of occurrence.
In order to affirm or postulate an event as fact the burden of proof lies with the making of that affirmation.  An agnostic states;  where is the proof.
The irony of it all is your legalistic reductionistic evidence to the court room would demand material evidence…e.g. immaculate conception, assumption.  Do we have proof of casting out demons or any immaterial spirit impacting the material world.  If a spirit could impact the material world science could measure that impact. That measuring of impact would constitute as evidence, not leaglistic speculation.

So in short, you admit that your original statement, about the lack of evidence,  was specious and meaningless because you had no objective definition of ‘evidence’ in mind when you made it?

Also your response suggest that the sole source of knowledge in the universe is the scientific method, and science is the only valid discipline. That of course is scientism, a philosophical position. The monopoly of the scientific method cannot be established through the scientific method. You cannot empirically test whether there are things beyond what is empirically testable. So in your quest to invalidate all other disciplines apart from the physical sciences, you are practicing one of the disciplines (philosophy) that you seek to destroy. So again, atheism is incoherent.

BTW ‘personal evidence’ is not hearsay. Hearsay is when you repeat what someone told you. When you say, I saw OJ kill a man, that is testimony based on personal knowledge, it is universally admissible and is enough to convict. The same applies when someone says ‘I saw God.’ Clearly you entire world view is based on fuzzy, arbitrary,  and/or subjective definitiins of the critical terms. If you are truly guided by logic and reason as you claim, you now have no choice but too step away from thethe computer, find amy quiet place, and rethinkis your life.