Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire  (Read 19857 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline In Principio

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Reputation: +32/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
« Reply #105 on: March 22, 2023, 02:48:30 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dishonest and idiotic strawman.  Theologians can be wrong about something without having been "incompetent dimwits".

    St. Peter Canisius, a theologian who attended and spoke at the Council of Trent, published a Catechism afterwards that received broad approbation interpreted Trent as ruling out salvation for catechumens.
    Thank you for your kind words.

    If by "strawman" you mean incompetency isn't the only explanation, I agree.  I was thinking about those who maintain that Trent's decree on justification clearly teaches something other than BOD.  If that is what someone maintains, then the only explanations I can think of for Bellarmine, Liguori, et al. is incompetency or maliciousness.  Otherwise, a third explanation is that papal and conciliar decrees are not always so clear that they can't be misunderstood, and can even be misunderstood by the most competent and holiest theologians.

    I've read St. Peter Canisius's catechism.  I've checked it again just now.  I don't see where he interprets Trent as ruling out salvation for catechumens.  Can you provide the quote or point out the section where he does?
     "The faithful should obey the apostolic advice not to know more than is necessary, but to know in moderation." - Pope Clement XIII, In Dominico Agro (1761) 


    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10423
    • Reputation: +6308/-1745
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #106 on: March 22, 2023, 03:12:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Though, again, it’s not just teaching BOD that would make Bellarmine, Liguori, Suarez, Cornelius a Lapide, et al., incompetent if they were wrong; it’s that they understood Trent’s decree on justification to be teaching BOD.  If this decree clearly does not teach BOD, as some modern lay people assert, then Bellarmine, Liguori, et al. grossly misunderstood something that should be clearly understood.  That means they were either incompetent or malicious
    Here's where Bellarmine, Ligouri, etc were wrong, and it's not due to incompetence or maliciousness, but inexperience.  Not theological inexperience, nor lack of sanctity, nor lack of IQ...what they were missing is chaos, spiritual warfare, and human degeneracy.  They were missing the "real life" application of this BOD concept.

    The early Church Fathers lived in times similar to ours.  Persecutions, heresies everywhere, antipopes, truth under constant attack.  +Bellarmine, +Aquinas, +Alphonsus lived in calmer times, when the Church was not ravaged by spiritual war, when people did NOT question the most basic of truths.  Sure, there were heresies of those days, but not to the extent of the early Church nor our times.

    So, when +Bellarmine, etc were thinking of BOD, they did not (could not) envision a time when 95% of churchmen believed that Jєωs could be saved, as Jєωs.  Or that "all religions are pleasing to God".  In other words, their error was in not foreseeing/projecting out the conclusions of BOD, which have led to the heresies of universal salvation/implicit faith.  In their day, they were simply thinking of the "poor native indians".  They were not thinking of the horrors of V2, the coming one-world church and the false ecuмenism of our day.

    These are the same people who "piously believed" that God would not allow the pope to fall into heresy.  Well, they were totally wrong.  God has allowed it.  And God has allowed Trent's "justification by desire" to turn into a replacement for baptism, which applies to anyone who "loves God sincerely".  They were naive.  They couldn't foresee the future.  It's not that they were dumb or malicious.  They were just unprepared for the 20th century and V2.  How could anyone predict this?  A crisis unparalleled in all of Church history.

    If they could have foreseen the consequences of opening the BOD "pandora's box" and the heresies to which it would lead, they would've been much, much more cautious, precise and exact in their speculations and theories.


    Offline In Principio

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 48
    • Reputation: +32/-3
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #107 on: March 22, 2023, 03:27:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here's where Bellarmine, Ligouri, etc were wrong, and it's not due to incompetence or maliciousness, but inexperience.  Not theological inexperience, nor lack of sanctity, nor lack of IQ...what they were missing is chaos, spiritual warfare, and human degeneracy.  They were missing the "real life" application of this BOD concept.

    The early Church Fathers lived in times similar to ours.  Persecutions, heresies everywhere, antipopes, truth under constant attack.  +Bellarmine, +Aquinas, +Alphonsus lived in calmer times, when the Church was not ravaged by spiritual war, when people did NOT question the most basic of truths.  Sure, there were heresies of those days, but not to the extent of the early Church nor our times.

    So, when +Bellarmine, etc were thinking of BOD, they did not (could not) envision a time when 95% of churchmen believed that Jєωs could be saved, as Jєωs.  Or that "all religions are pleasing to God".  In other words, their error was in not forseeing/projecting out the conclusions of BOD, which have led to the heresies of universal salvation/implicit faith.  In their day, they were simply thinking of the "poor native indians".  They were not thinking of the horrors of V2, the coming one-world church and the false ecuмenism of our day.

    These are the same people who "piously believed" that God would not allow the pope to fall into heresy.  Well, they were totally wrong.  God has allowed it.  And God has allowed Trent's "justification by desire" to turn into a replacement for baptism, which applies to anyone who "loves God sincerely".  They were naive.  They couldn't foresee the future.  It's not that they were dumb or malicious.  They were just unprepared for the 20th century and V2.  How could anyone predict this?  A crisis unparalleled in all of Church history.
    This seems to fall under the third category of explanations, that papal and conciliar decrees are not always so clear that they can't be misunderstood, and can even be misunderstood by the most competent and holiest theologians.
     "The faithful should obey the apostolic advice not to know more than is necessary, but to know in moderation." - Pope Clement XIII, In Dominico Agro (1761) 

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10423
    • Reputation: +6308/-1745
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #108 on: March 22, 2023, 03:34:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    that papal and conciliar decrees are not always so clear that they can't be misunderstood, and can even be misunderstood by the most competent and holiest theologians.
    The explanations of a council are not infallible.  The explanations of a council are not "decrees" or "doctrine".  Only the Canons/anathemas are infallible.

    So, no, a council's decrees/canons/anathemas are doctrine and cannot be misunderstood but must be read literally and simply.  That's how they are written.

    But, yes, a council's explanations can be misunderstood because these are not necessarily totally correct, or totally explained, or fully proven.  BOD is not a doctrine, or anathematized, or infallible.  It was part of an explanation and it was mentioned in passing.  There was not even 1 single sentence dedicated to the idea.  To say it was "unexplained" is a colossal understatement.  In the grand context of the council it was a blink-and-you'll-miss-it idea.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +830/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #109 on: March 22, 2023, 03:46:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dishonest and idiotic strawman.  Theologians can be wrong about something without having been "incompetent dimwits".

    St. Peter Canisius, a theologian who attended and spoke at the Council of Trent, published a Catechism afterwards that received broad approbation interpreted Trent as ruling out salvation for catechumens.

    Can you cite a text where St. Peter Canisius "ruled out" salvation for catechumens who died before baptism, which is what those who read the Catechism in favor of BOD argue?

    I believe he said baptism is necessary for salvation, without mentioning BOD. So the argument that Canisius rejected BOD is an inference from silence. Why? Because even those who believe in BOD, St. Alphonsus, St. Robert, go down the list - all asserted  baptism as necessary for salvation.

    I'll quote the Rheims annotation of  John 3:5 again:


    Quote
    5. Born again of Water.] As no man can enter into this world nor have his life and being in the same, except he be born of his carnal parents: no more can a man enter into the life and state of grace which is in Christ, or attain to life everlasting, unless he be born and baptized of water and the Holy Ghost. Whereby we see first, this Sacrament to be called our regeneration or second birth, in respect of our natural and carnal which was before. Secondly, that this sacrament consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit: Wherein it excelleth John's baptism, which had the external element, but not the spiritual grace. Thirdly, that no man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the fellowship of Holy Church, without it.


    Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general. Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.

    If God "accepts them as baptized," and they are saved, then baptism retains its necessity.

    I doubt you'd see any discussion by St. Peter Canisius where he discusses the issue of BOD and rejects it. Most likely you'll see a text or texts simply referring to the necessity of baptism, like supporters of BOD, St. Alphonsus, St. Robert, etc., do.

    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.


    Offline In Principio

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 48
    • Reputation: +32/-3
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #110 on: March 22, 2023, 03:52:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The explanations of a council are not infallible.  The explanations of a council are not "decrees" or "doctrine".  Only the Canons/anathemas are infallible.

    So, no, a council's decrees/canons/anathemas are doctrine and cannot be misunderstood but must be read literally and simply.  That's how they are written.

    But, yes, a council's explanations can be misunderstood because these are not necessarily totally correct, or totally explained, or fully proven.  BOD is not a doctrine, or anathematized, or infallible.  It was part of an explanation and it was mentioned in passing.  There was not even 1 single sentence dedicated to the idea.  To say it was "unexplained" is a colossal understatement.  In the grand context of the council it was a blink-and-you'll-miss-it idea.
    That would seem to be a valid fourth explanation.  Can you point to any Catholic sources that explain that some of what a council publishes on doctrine is not infallible, and that the other infallible parts are protected from being misunderstood by anyone? 
     "The faithful should obey the apostolic advice not to know more than is necessary, but to know in moderation." - Pope Clement XIII, In Dominico Agro (1761) 

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10423
    • Reputation: +6308/-1745
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #111 on: March 22, 2023, 03:56:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.


    Quote
    Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.
    Rheims contradicts himself, and Trent's canon.  He says water is necessary, then says it's not.



    Quote
    If God "accepts them as baptized," and they are saved, then baptism retains its necessity.
    Trent does not support this ideal.  In fact, it condemns it, by stating that 1) baptism is necessary and 2) water is essential to baptism.


    Thus, water baptism is necessary for salvation.  BOD just provides grace/justification.  

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10423
    • Reputation: +6308/-1745
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #112 on: March 22, 2023, 03:57:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Can you point to any Catholic sources that explain that some of what a council publishes on doctrine is not infallible, and that the other infallible parts are protected from being misunderstood by anyone? 
    Yes.  Have to dig these up.


    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 42510
    • Reputation: +24285/-4348
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #113 on: March 22, 2023, 04:02:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you for your kind words.

    If by "strawman" you mean incompetency isn't the only explanation, I agree.

    Yeah, that's exactly what I mean, but in your argument you were making the assertion that if one did not agree with St. Alphonsus' interpretation of Trent (but that of St. Peter Canisius, who was actually at the Council and spoke at it), this means that (we hold that) St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus were "incompetent dimwits".  That's a strawman in your attribution of this to us, and idiotic in that you make this absurd false dichotomy where if you're not 100% correct about everything, that must mean you're an "incompetent dimwit".

    That's as dishonest as it is idiotic.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 42510
    • Reputation: +24285/-4348
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #114 on: March 22, 2023, 04:05:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here's where Bellarmine, Ligouri, etc were wrong, and it's not due to incompetence or maliciousness, but inexperience.  Not theological inexperience, nor lack of sanctity, nor lack of IQ...what they were missing is chaos, spiritual warfare, and human degeneracy.  They were missing the "real life" application of this BOD concept.

    That's certainly one aspect of BoD.  During a time when EENS was not under fire (although it was starting under St. Alphonsus), one doesn't see clearly where people would end up going with this speculation ... using it to gut all of Catholic dogma, the culmination of which we see today with Wojtyla at Assisi.  I wonder what St. Alphonsus would have thought about that spectacle.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2232
    • Reputation: +830/-139
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #115 on: March 22, 2023, 04:05:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • I'll quote the Rheims annotation of  John 3:5 again:


    If God "accepts them as baptized," and they are saved, then baptism retains its necessity.



    Here's the same idea from Orestes Brownson:

    Quote
    It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong ; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering,  have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re ; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it. *(footnote: * Summa 3, Q. G8, a. 2. corp. ad 2. et ad 3.)


    Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, &c, in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re ; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for any thing more than this ; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them as belonging in effect to the body, as they certainly do, than it is to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul; for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is possible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proximo, disposition.

    http://orestesbrownson.org/210.html

    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.


    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10423
    • Reputation: +6308/-1745
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #116 on: March 22, 2023, 04:07:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Whereby the *Pelagians, and Calvinists be condemned, that promise life everlasting to young children that die without baptism, and all other that think only their faith to serve, or the external element of water superfluous or not necessary: our Saviour's words being plain and general.
    So here, Rheims correctly upholds Catholic dogma and says that water is absolutely necessary.

    Quote
    Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament,
    Then Rheims contradicts himself and Trent by this statement, which is totally false.  God has, and does, bind his graces to sacraments.  Trent and Scripture infallibly tell us this.

    Quote
    may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have that Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it. Lastly, it is proved that this Sacrament giveth grace ex opere operator, that is, of the work itself (which all Protestants deny) because it so breedeth our spiritual life in God, as our carnal birth giveth the life of the world.
    If one reads the Church Fathers on baptism of blood, they consistently say that those who die for the Faith, are baptized by their own blood (and the angels baptize say the form and the blood takes the place of water as the matter of the sacrament).  "Baptism of blood" is nothing more than being "baptized by blood".  In other words, the Church Fathers understood BoB = baptism.  It was actual baptism.  It was a sacrament. 

    The comments on "desire" being "accepted as baptized" is unsupported by the Church Fathers and Trent.  It's a theory, and arguably heretical because Trent tells us water is necessary.


    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 42510
    • Reputation: +24285/-4348
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #117 on: March 22, 2023, 04:09:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Can you cite a text where St. Peter Canisius "ruled out" salvation for catechumens who died before baptism, which is what those who read the Catechism in favor of BOD argue?

    He wasn't writing about the Catechism.  He was writing IN his catechism about Trent itself.  He cited Trent that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for adults and then made two citations in the footnote, and both the passages were explicit statements from the Church Fathers that even good catechumens who died without the Sacrament of Baptism cannot be saved.

    10:45 - 12:00

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 42510
    • Reputation: +24285/-4348
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #118 on: March 22, 2023, 04:25:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Here's the same idea from Orestes Brownson:

    So?  You can keep citing pro-BoD sources.  No amount of consensus will change the fact that Baptism of Desire is nothing but theological speculation that has been permitted and tolerated (wrongly IMO) by the Church.  BoD has not been revealed by God.

    There are only two ways to discern whether something has been revealed, and BoD is an epic fail on both counts:

    1) unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers -- yet only 2 Fathers (arguably and temporarily) floated the opinion, even while admitting it was speculation, whereas 5-6 Fathers explicitly rejected it.  No Church Father ever taught that BoD is doctrine received from the Apostles and taught it with authority.

    2) when a truth derives logically and necessarily from revealed premises (where it's said to have been implicitly revealed) -- No such demonstration has ever been made.  Nearly every single theologian simply SAYS there's BoD but none of them ever prove it.  We have one alleged Scriptural "proof" offered, that of the good thief ... except the little detail that the Good Thief died in the Old Dispensation before the Sacrament was made obligatory after Our Lord's Resurrection.  St. Robert Bellarmine went with the opinion because the contrary "would seem too harsh" (the same theology held by 99% of all proponents of BoD, emotional wishful thinking).  St. Thomas made the only attempt to demonstrate it by syllogism, but it proved nothing.  He cited that the Sacraments have a visible and an invisible aspect, and then just stated that Baptism's invisible effects can be received by BoD.  CAN be and ARE ... these are two separate things.  No, the character, one of the two essential graces of the Sacrament, CANNOT be received invisibly.  God does not make "priests by desire" and confer Holy Orders that way.  There's an aspect of the Sacrament of Baptism that cannot be had without the visible reception of the Sacrament, so this proves nothing.  That's IT that I've seen by way of theological proof. 

    Remaining theologians all rely on "Augustine and Ambrose" ... in ignorance.  St. Augustine temporarily floated the idea, admitting it was speculation, and that he went back and forth about it, and then retracted it later in life, issuing some of the most anti-BoD statements in existence at the end of his life.  St. Ambrose was speaking about a washing without crowning, but elsewhere he stated that even pious catechumens could not be saved if they died before actually receiving the Sacrament, so I submit that this Valentinian passage has been universally misinterpreted.  And what are the 5-6 Fathers who openly rejected BoD?  Chopped liver?  Most modern theologians just say, "Yup.  BoD".  "BoD".  Zero theological proof anywhere for this nonsense.

    So there's no evidence anywhere proving BoD.  Consequently, it's nothing but sheer speculation (as admitted by Augustine).

    On the contrary, the pernicious fruits of BoD are on display for all to see.  It's been used to absolutely gut EENS dogma, and if a concept of BoD had been condemned and not permitted, we could NOT have had Vatican II and the decay / corruption we see today.  Period.  This is why God allowed it, as a testing of the faith, and as the means by which He would introduce this final test of faith in the end times in which we live.

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 986
    • Reputation: +414/-77
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach Baptism of Desire
    « Reply #119 on: March 22, 2023, 04:35:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Thus, water baptism is necessary for salvation.  BOD just provides grace/justification. 
    Yes, and the key difference is the following:

    Water Baptism = The Sacrament of Baptism = Salvation (when one perseveres in state of justification until death)
    vs.
    BOD = extra-Sacramental repentance/cleansing = Justification (when one perseveres in that state until death)

    The Sacrament of Baptism provides forgiveness of ALL past sins AS WELL AS the remission of ALL TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT for those sins.

    BOD provides forgiveness of all past sins, but DOES NOT provide remission of temporal punishment for those sins. 

    So, a person receiving the Sacrament of Baptism and not committing another sin before his death, goes straight to Heaven. A person "receiving" BOD and not committing another sin before his death, goes, at best, to Purgatory because he still has to pay off his debt for his sins committed prior to "receiving" BOD. Both people, ultimately, make it to Heaven. But one just takes the detour to Purgatory first.

    Therefore, "salvation" means complete avoidance of any kind of Purgatory (salvation from the fires of Hell). It is only possible for a Catholic with the assistance of the Sacraments to have the hope that they can avoid Purgatory.

    Justification means the state of righteousness (potentially just momentary) that, if persevered in until death, will be good enough to get a person at least into Purgatory but never straight to Heaven.

    An unjustified person goes to Hell. 

    Said another way: 

    Saved (Sacramentally-cleansed, state of grace, and no temporal debt) = Heaven-bound
    Merely Justified (state of grace but temporal debt still remaining) = Purgatory-bound
    Unjustified (state of mortal sin) = Hell-bound