Church Contradiction on Baptism of Desire

[james03]

 

However, only rational creatures are capable of salvation, so it is not true that He could have created creatures capable of salvation without free will, as though free will only exists in rational creatures via His "decree".

Fair enough, however man qua man is not capable of salvation.  He lacks the faculties to view the Beatific Vision.  He must partake of the Divine.

Also, what EXACTLY is meant by God's "desire" for all men to be saved?  In human terms, a "desire" is something we would will if we could.  Therefore, God's desire would mean that He would will the salvation of all if He could.  Since He is omnipotent, it cannot be lack of power on His part but something which somehow makes the salvation of the damned logically impossible, as God cannot will the logically impossible.

I desire millions of dollars.  However I will not murder someone to get it.  God desires all men to be saved.  However He will not violate man's Free Will to attain it.

On Hitler, if he died before the age of reason, he would have gone straight to heaven.

If they make such prayer, they will infallibly obtain it and be saved.

edit: No, they will not infallibly obtain it.  Trent: "So also as regards the gift of perseverance, of which it is written, He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved:-which gift cannot be derived from any other but Him, who is able to establish him who standeth that he stand perseveringly, and to restore him who falleth:-let no one herein promise himself any thing as certain with an absolute certainty;"  The opposite belief is the P in the Calvinist TULIP.

PROPOSES to whom?  To Himself?  Of course what the Church means by the phrase is that Christ died for the purpose of the salvation of all, as a means to an end, and a cause to an effect.

Proposes to man.  He can't "propose" to Himself as this introduces contingency.   So we see contingency in Christ's Passion with regards to man.

[Cantarella]

If the Father does not efficaciously draw us to Him, it is because we put an obstacle in the way.  Nothing is ever lacking to God.

No, the obstacle is already there by default. We are all born with it. It is the damnation brought by Adam and Eve caused by Original Sin.

This is nonsense.  It is saying, if the Father does not efficaciously draw us to Him, it is because of the "obstacle" of not already being with Him.

So what do you think Christ is saying here?. It seems pretty explicit that if they do no come to Him is simply because God does not draw them. The mystery is why God does not?

41The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 42And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? 43Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. 44No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. 45It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me. 46Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 

This is the commentary of such verse from the Original Rheims Anno Domini 1582: "The Father draweth us and reachedth us to come to His Son, and to believe these high and hard mysteries of his Incarnation and of feeding us with his own substance of the Sacrament.: not compelling or violently forcing any against their will or without any respect of their consent, as heretics pretend: but by the sweet internal motions and persuasions of his grace and spirit he wholly maketh us of our own will and liking to consent to the same".

[Non Nobis]

Now, all the justified are bound under pain of mortal sin to pray for the grace of final perseverance.  If they make such prayer, they will infallibly obtain it and be saved.  If they refuse, they are already in mortal sin prior to any consideration of what happens at the moment of their death.

If a man justified (for the first time) for the duration of (say) 1 minute doesn't pray for final perseverance during that time he doesn't commit mortal sin.  I think God can give the grace of final perseverance even if it had never been prayed for explicitly, but just wouldn't if a man failed to pray for it over a long period of time. I can pray to go to heaven but I won't infallibly obtain that; and the prayer for final perseverance does not prevent a following sin.

But if you can back up your description,  please do.

[Quaremerepulisti]

I should have said prevented rather than overcome (fixed in my quote above). (In any case, once grace succeeds in overcoming resistance, there is no resistance)

Which do you mean?  "Prevented" or "overcome"?  Either way, you have the same problem.  Either resistance is present or it is not at the time of the presence of the grace.  If resistance is not present, the grace is efficacious by definition - there is no need to "prevent" anything in the future.  If resistance is present, the grace is inefficacious by definition.

But we don't agree on the meaning of efficacious.  For you it is "the grace is working because man places no obstacle", for me it is "the grace works by its own power and overcomes obstacles".  I think there is grace that is not efficacious (sufficient grace), but of course we just disagree.

No, for me the grace also works by its own power.  The absence of an obstacle is indeed a necessary condition, but not a cause, of its efficacy.  But for you saying a grace works by its own power to overcome obstacles which prevent its efficacy is a logical contradiction.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Fair enough, however man qua man is not capable of salvation. 

Well not by his own powers.  But for a creature to be saved it is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition, that it be a rational creature with free will.

Also, what EXACTLY is meant by God's "desire" for all men to be saved?  In human terms, a "desire" is something we would will if we could.  Therefore, God's desire would mean that He would will the salvation of all if He could.  Since He is omnipotent, it cannot be lack of power on His part but something which somehow makes the salvation of the damned logically impossible, as God cannot will the logically impossible.

I desire millions of dollars.  However I will not murder someone to get it. 

But you would get it some other way not involving sin if you could.

God desires all men to be saved.  However He will not violate man's Free Will to attain it.

Of course not.  But under the Thomist system, this is no answer.  God can infallibly cause all men to freely choose Him and be saved without violating their free will.  Since He does not, He does not really desire their salvation.

On Hitler, if he died before the age of reason, he would have gone straight to heaven.

Sure.

If they make such prayer, they will infallibly obtain it and be saved.

edit: No, they will not infallibly obtain it. 

What, we're denying the efficacy of prayer now, in opposition to Our Lord's express words: Amen, amen, I say to you, if you ask the Father anything in My name, He will give it to you, and in opposition to every theologian who has written about the issue.

Trent: "So also as regards the gift of perseverance, of which it is written, He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved:-which gift cannot be derived from any other but Him...

Well of course not.  Prayer never even suggests otherwise.

, who is able to establish him who standeth that he stand perseveringly, and to restore him who falleth:-let no one herein promise himself any thing as certain with an absolute certainty;"  The opposite belief is the P in the Calvinist TULIP.

No one has an absolute certainty deriving from faith alone, as Protestants teach.  This is what Trent is aiming to condemn here. 

He can't "propose" to Himself as this introduces contingency.   So we see contingency in Christ's Passion with regards to man.

All right, now how does contingency exist with regards to man, if God wills everything about man, including his free choices?

[Quaremerepulisti]

So what do you think Christ is saying here?. It seems pretty explicit that if they do no come to Him is simply because God does not draw them.

No, it doesn't.  This is an elementary denying the antecedent logical fallacy.

People coming to God -> God drawing them  does not imply
People not coming to God -> God not drawing them.

[Quaremerepulisti]

BTW, this thread is way long and has veered way off the original topic of Baptism of Desire, so I'll be starting a new thread on grace and predestination in Sacred Sciences.