Couple questions about Christianity

[Double Down]

Hi. Non Christian here wondering if someone could answer a couple questions for me.

1. Before Jesus, were all people sent to Heaven? Or were they all sent to Hell?
If they were all sent to Heaven, then why would God send Jesus down? Why create this opportunity for people to go to Hell? Also, if they were all sent to Heaven, then who if not humans were in Hell before Jesus?

2. I was always told by my Christian friends that those who did not have an opportunity to find out about Christianity and therefore can't accept Jesus (such as indigenous peoples in remote areas) are given the benefit of the doubt and get to go to heaven. If this is the case, then how do missionaries justify doing what they do?

[Double Down]

Anyone?

[Peter666]

To answer:

1. Neither. Those people who died with a good conscience and no sins against the commandments or natural law that were not repented for either went to purgatory or limbo. Heaven was not open until the Ressurection of Christ.

2. They get the benefit of the doubt but do not go to Heaven unless they fit the criteria above and would have wanted to be baptized if possible. Without the missionaries providing grace with the sacraments, it is very difficult to get to Heaven.

[RJT]

DD,

May I hijack this thread for a second? (Especially since I think Peter answered your question).


Peter,

I got the feeling in your post under the abortion thread that you felt that the New Catechism of the Catholic Church had some parts in it that you considered heresy. Yet, this statement here of yours is similar to wording of the CCC regarding non baptized infants and limbo (or rather CCC not talking about limbo and infants): “ They get the benefit of the doubt…”. Perhaps it is the rest of your sentence “… unless they fit the criteria above and would have wanted to be baptized if possible”, that is not included and because it is not included is heretical? Is this what you were saying there? If not, then what was your point back then regarding non-baptized infants and heresy?

I was going to start a new thread, and we can if you want - we might have to - we can also discuss your new debate with Bluff regarding doctrine if need be. Seems you are itching to get into this matter (heresy) anyway.

RJT

[Lestat]

I wish I followed these things more intently, so I knew the exact subject matter you guys are talking about. Because without this knowledge it seems so laughable to declare one piece of heresay as "heresay", and not the rest.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish I followed these things more intently, so I knew the exact subject matter you guys are talking about. Because without this knowledge it seems so laughable to declare one piece of heresay as "heresay", and not the rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stat,

I can imagine. That is why I am hesitant to get into this discussion with a new thread. It is really a matter of details within the Christian community and not quite sure if this forum is the proper place to get into a “family feud”. Although, I might post anyway, if for no other reason than for David’s entertainment. I think he enjoys the show, as some do in watching professional wrestling (or like Kramer on Seinfeld enjoys a “cat fight”.)

RJT

p.s. To whiskeytown, Sorry, I didn’t mean to omit the protestant version when I said that Peter pretty much answered the OP’s question. I am not very familiar with details of Protestants and hadn’t realized this was the case.

[Peter666]

Yes, simply the New Catechism says that we can hope for the salvation of unbaptized children, which is heresy. If they have not reached the age of reason and they have not had water or martyrdom baptism, we cannot hope for them going to heaven. If effectively denies the dogma of Baptism.

Here is the exact passage from the CCC:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

I have asked Novus Ordo priests to clarify this position and they say that the Church teaching has "evolved" which is BS de fide heresy. They lie to penitent mothers who had abortions, saying things like, "don't worry, your baby is in Heaven now." Without the grace of Baptism under one of its three forms, one cannot enter Heaven, period.

[RJT]

Peter,

Here is a link to a discussion of limbo:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Nothing in the linked text leads me to believe that your position is valid. Therefore ( fully aware that exegesis is not my forte, yet relying on David’s theory of those smarter than I - the Pope in this case) I hereby accept your challenge.

Let’s here what you got.

RJT

[Peter666]

I don't understand what you think is invalid.

I agree that there is probably a Limbo. Limbo is not Heaven. The good old Baltimore Catechims taught that this is where the unbaptized children go upon death. The CCC does not. It says we can hope unbaptized children go to heaven, and avoids the discussion of limbo altogether: heresy.

Do Catholics just believe whatever new doctrines the Vatican spits out? I know I'm generalizing by saying "catholics," so I'll narrow it. What do catholics on here believe regarding this?

If I were Catholic I think I'd be critical of any new doctrines, considering the religion is CHRISTianity and Mr. Christ died 2000 years ago. They may be ordained and blessed and learned and all that other good stuff, but is anyone really an authority on this subject.

Which brings me to another, perhaps more valid question. What is the Church's stance on modern doctrines; do they require faith in them, or are catholics only required to believe in the older teachings?