New Heresies from the otherwise Orthodox Catholics


Many otherwise good and Orthodox Catholics have been caught up in the sweet words of unapproved mystics in the last century.  Balthesar tied in with a fake mystic and fell for the heresy "that all men might be saved through the mercy of Christ even Satan, himself".  Malachi Martin fell for Garabandal and believed in Sede Vicanti or a Church without a Pope.   Medjugorje promoters and the Charismatic movement fall into the heresy of "Pluralism", that all religions are God's religions and a way to salvation.  All of these contradict the teaching of the Bible and the Church but also contradict the words of true apparitions. 

There are so many false apparitions appearing everyday over the last three years that I cannot keep up with them and no longer try.  I have said enough regarding how to know the true from the false on my web site, and anyone who falls for these things after reading all this has only himself to blame.  But when otherwise very good and orthodox priests write about things that I know came from false apparitions but they, themselves, do not have the honesty to admit to the source of their thinking, I must at least address the heresy.    

The latest heresy is that "could Christ give to aborted children the right to the Kingdom of Heaven, or the Beatific Vision of God for all Eternity?".   Even made as a question is a heresy since this question has been addressed by the Church in two Ecumenical Councils and many Saints and Popes.  Before stating the teaching of the Church, on the subject of the right to the Beatific Vision of God for all Eternity (or the Kingdom of God) we must address what is meant by the Kingdom of God, Heaven, Paradise, Hell, Purgatory etc. 

The Kingdom of Heaven

The Church is very clear as to what the Kingdom of Heaven or the Kingdom of God is.  It is wherever God is present and is honored as King.  It is the Church Militant, the Catholic Church, where God is present and worshiped as King in all the Tabernacles around the world, it is the Physical presence of God in Our Churches as King and therefore His Kingdom, although not perfect as it is in the Heaven in the sky. 

The Kingdom of Heaven is the Church suffering, or those in Purgatory because they are saved but need washing of their sins.  Some call this the outer gate of heaven where one must be washed before entering, but since it is Heaven it is still the Kingdom of Heaven in as much as those there worship the King, knowing that someday they will see the King face to face.

The final Kingdom of Heaven is where all three kingdoms will merge in the last days and that is the Beatific Vision of God where we will see and love God for all Eternity, enjoying all that He is. 

Entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven

"Unless a man be born again he shall not see the Kingdom of Heaven."  And again "Unless a man be born again of Water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven."  John 3:3-7  It is very clear that Christ is saying that no one has a right to see (the Beatific Vision) or enter (the Kingdom) unless justified by Baptism of water and the Holy Spirit.  In fact no one entered into the Kingdom of God from Adam to Christ because of Original Sin.  Those who had died including Adam and Eve and who God chose for salvation still could not enter the Beatific Vision until Justified by the death of Christ on the Cross.  We, who enter into His death by Baptism of Water and the Holy Spirit enter into His Death.  But those who died before His Death could not enter into His Death until He Died on the Cross and therefore had to wait until He Died.                                                                                                        

Are there other Heavens?

Heaven can mean the sky in some languages and in fact most languages we say that we look up to the heavens, meaning the stars, the sky, the moon and the sun.  But in the theological world we speak of the Kingdom of Heaven or the Kingdom of God which is what?  In Matt. 13,  Christ gives many parables about the Kingdom of Heaven and we see that He came to establish His Kingdom on Earth, as His Church and that entrance into the Kingdom in the sky requires entrance into the Kingdom on Earth first.  It is called a Kingdom because Christ is present in His Kingdom as King, body, soul and divinity and in every Church throughout the world.  No one  can enter into God's Kingdom without faith and baptism, but then he must also act on this faith by obeying the commandments of this faith.  If he has faith, acts on this faith with obedience to its laws, and is baptized in water and the Holy Spirit he earns the right to enter into the Kingdom of God in the sky for all Eternity.  This must be earned and is not just given.  Christ says that there are many mansions in Heaven but this is not clearly defined in Scripture.  The Church teaches that the greater the saint the closer to the presence of God that person will be in the Kingdom of Heaven.  Those who make it into the Kingdom but without great merit will still see God but from a far distance. 

On the other hand it is clear in Scripture that no one sees God, not even the angels unless their love is tested because love is an action of free will and only in the free will do we prove our love of God.  All who entered into the Kingdom, even the angels were tested by their free will.  By the same logic of God and his justice, no one enters into Hell unless tested of his free will and found to be without the love of God and neighbor but only of self.  But what of those who had no test, no free will to chose between love and not love, can in God's justice they attain the same reward as those tested?  Or are there other Heavens that are not part of God's Kingdom?

Is Paradise Heaven?

On the Cross Christ said to the good thief, "This day you will be with me in Paradise".  And yet, Christ told Mary Magdalena two days later, "Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father."  Then in the afternoon of that same Sunday, he told the Apostles, "Touch Me!"  What happened between the morning of that Sunday and the afternoon that changed?  After Christ told the good thief from the cross that he would be with Christ in Paradise on that same day, Friday, He dissented into Hell, or the place of waiting for the good people of the old testament to baptize them into the Church, teach them the meanings of their old law, and then went on to the depths of Hell to chain Satan up.  We know this from Thessalonians One and Two and from the writings of Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich.  He then came back to re-unite with His Body but had not yet taken opened the gates of Heaven to bring into His Kingdom those peoples from the old Testament.  Sometime between meeting with Mary Magdalena and meeting with the Apostles in the afternoon, Christ went to the Father, Body and Soul and opened up the gates of Heaven for those of the Old Law. This was Sunday.  How then was the good thief with Christ in Paradise on Friday, since the gates of Heaven were not opened until Sunday.  We do not find this answer in the Bible or in the teachings of the Church and the Church is quit on this subject, but it is not quiet on the subject of Enoch and Elijah, who have not yet died but will return to this earth to fight with the Antichrist in the last days.  Since they have not yet died, they cannot be in Shoal or Heaven, so where are they?   Again we do not find that answer in the Bible or in the teachings of the Church, and therefore we are free to believe or not what is revealed in the writings of Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, which are approved by the Church, but no private revelation has to be believed.  In her revelations she saw Paradise as a place on Earth given to Adam and Eve, called Eden.  This was Paradise. When they sinned they were cast out of Paradise, and Paradise was removed from the Earth to someplace in the First Heavens, the sky.  When Enoch and Elijah were "taken up" it was not to the Heavenly Kingdom but to Paradise, where they wait for their return. On the Friday of Christ's death he went first to Paradise to speak with Enoch and Elijah and there brought with Him the good thief, but this is not the Kingdom of Heaven.  The good thief then went to Heaven on Sunday because he died in perfect repentance and in faith.     You are free to believe or not what I have written but if you do not, what is your explanation of the passages mentioned? 

What is the Third Heaven?

Paul said that he ascended to the third Heaven  where eye has not seen or ear heard, etc.  What does he mean by the Third heaven.  He may be talking about the physical atmosphere, the stars and then the Kingdom.  But the difference between atmosphere and stars was not known in those days.  He may have been talking about the three Kingdoms of God, the Church militant, the Church suffering and the Church triumphant.  All are part of the Church and the Body of Christ, but then he speaks of ascending in such a way as to believe he ascended through three realms.  I am more inclined to believe that he is talking about the first, the stars, the second, the outer Heaven, and the third, The Kingdom.  Again I take this from the writings of Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich.  But what ever you believe it is clear that we must be tried by fire before we can enter into the third Heaven. 

How do we go to Hell?

Like the Kingdom of God, no one earns the eternal fires of Hell without choosing Hell by our lack of love. This is the justice of God and justice does not put someone in Hell simply because he is born but has not done anything to deserve Hell.  In this case I am not only speaking of children who die without Baptism but also of those who had no chance of knowing Christ, His laws or His Church but did nothing wrong in life to earn Hell. 

What happens if we do not earn Heaven or Hell?

However, there are countless billions of people from Adam to now who neither earned a right to the Kingdom of the Beatific Vision or sinned great enough for eternal punishment in the fires of Hell.  The greatest example of this is children but this must not be limited to them alone.  The answer is extrapolation but there is no other answer that does not corrupt the teachings of Christ on earth.   That answer can best be summer up in a word we can call "Limbo" for no other better word.  I, for one, would prefer to use the words, "Outer Heaven".  I will show that this is the teaching of the Church although not in the word itself. 


(Late Lat. limbus) a word of Teutonic derivation, meaning literally "hem" or "border," as of a garment, or anything joined on (cf. Italian lembo or English limb).

In theological usage the name is applied to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the "limbus infantium" or "puerorum").  Limbus patrum is another mater in that it was the waiting place of the just of the old testament but we need not

We will deal only with Limbus Infantium.  The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see "Baptism," subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul's teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Rom. 5:12 sqq). On the other hand, it is clear from Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq, II Cor. 5:10; see also "Apocatastasis").

   The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."

St. Gregory of Nazianzus :

It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished. [Orat., xl, 23]

From the letter of Innocent III to the Archbishop of Arles, which soon found its way into the "Corpus Juris." Pope Innocent's teaching is to the effect that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer "no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God" (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii -- Majores).

St. Thomas maintained, at least virtually, that the limbus infantium is a place or state of perfect natural happiness. No reason can be given -- so argued the Angelic Doctor -- for exempting unbaptized children from the material torments of Hell (poena sensus) that does not hold good, even a fortiori, for exempting them also from internal spiritual suffering (poena damni in the subjective sense), since the latter in reality is the more grievous penalty, and is more opposed to the mitissima poena which St. Augustine was willing to admit (De Malo, V, art. iii). Hence he expressly denies that they suffer from any "interior affliction", in other words that they experience any pain of loss (nihil omnino dolebunt de carentia visionis divinae -- "In Sent.", II, 33, q. ii, a.2). At first ("In Sent.", loc. cit.), St. Thomas held this absence of subjective suffering to be compatible with a consciousness of objective loss or privation, the resignation of such souls to the ways of God's providence being so perfect that a knowledge of what they had lost through no fault of their own does not interfere with the full enjoyment of the natural goods they possess. Afterwards, however, he adopted the much simpler psychological explanation which denies that these souls have any knowledge of the supernatural destiny they have missed, this knowledge being itself supernatural, and as such not included in what is naturally due to the separated soul (De Malo loc. cit.). It should be added that in St. Thomas' view the limbus infantium is not a mere negative state of immunity from suffering and sorrow, but a state of positive happiness in which the soul is united to God by a knowledge and love of him proportionate to nature's capacity.

Pius VI  in the Constitution "Auctoreum Fidei," speaks of "locum illium et statum medium expertem culpae et poenae."

The Council of Florence denied the postponement of final awards until the day of judgment. Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty. Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo,       while form the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God's justice and other attributes.



The reason for this dialogue on Limbo is the otherwise orthodox writer, Msgr. John F. McCarthy. Caught up in the false mystic of England, whose name I will not mention, he asserts in a long essay that aborted children not only can attain the Beatific Vision but already have because the have died in the blood of Christ just like the Holy Innocents.  The Holy Innocents were justified in the blood of Christ because they died in the place of Christ.  Justification can be by Christ or by the parents of the Children, or even by the Godparents of Children but justification must be by Baptism, or faith (desire) or faith and blood, Death for the faith. 

The stupidity of this argument by Father McCarthy is that it is not just and God is justice.  By Catholic teaching, which I have shown, a child born but not baptized will not see God.  A child conceived but dies in the womb through no fault of the mother will not see God.  But by his thinking a child killed by the mother, who simply does not want a child in her life at this time, the ultimate expression of no-love, will be rewarded for all eternity with the vision of God.  Such stupidity must not go unchallenged.   By his thinking it is better to abort a child than to let it be born, because we fathers and mothers have only one obligation, to get our children to heaven, and if we can do this be aborting them, then we should have 30 or 40 abortions and no children because to have a child is to risk that they will end up in hell for ever and ever and we never will know one way or the other.  Therefore, according to Father McCarthy, abortion is the better way. 

This is asinine.  An aborted child will not go to Hell, but the child will never see God.