Church Contradiction on Baptism of Desire

[james03]

I wasn't asking why were people saying a Jew could be saved as a Jew, I was asking why is it actually the case that a Jew can't be saved as a Jew.  There's nothing intrinsically deficient about their religion; after all, it was salvific for those under the Old Testament.

It was intrinsically deficient and it did not lead to salvation.  It led to limbo.  There they confessed Jesus Christ after He came and preached to them.

[james03]

To live a naturally good life takes actual grace; so it is not like God has nothing to do with a man who lives in this way.  Natural goodness is from God.

There is no savage that leads a life of natural goodness, never has been, and never will.  Heck there's no Catholic that leads a life of natural goodness, with the possible exception of a few mystics, though even they sinned before reaching the mystic levels of contemplation.

[Michael Wilson]

Michael Wilson, next question:

Did the missionaries make a difference in the percentage of people saved?  So take Mexico a few years before the missionaries arrived.  That is scenario 1.  Now take Mexico after the arrival of the Church and baptism.  That is scenario 2.

Was there a difference in the percentage of the population saved between scenario 1 and scenario 2?

James,
let me take some time off from arguing with you, until I can do it patiently and charitably.

[Cantarella]

Re. The Angelic Doctor. The faithful followers of St. Thomas, post the discovery of America and the millions of souls that were discovered to be living without any knowledge of the Church  and its teachings have agreed that if St. Thomas had lived to see these discoveries, would have adapted his teaching to such a situation.
I already posted this on another thread that you were on. However there is a legitimate difference in opinions as to the necessity of the explicit confession of the Blessed Trinity in the Church. Either opinion is legitimate.

Do you believe then that the Church could adapt Her teachings to a situation according to the times as you implied here that St. Thomas would have if he had lived in a different historical period? (and you object Vatican II Council "Aggiornamento", why?  ). That would allow for the evolvement of a dogma, a proposition that is condemned. The Church cannot contradict Herself and it is de fide that explicit Faith and canonical submission to the Roman Pontiff are necessary for salvation. Vatican I teaches that understanding of sacred dogmas must be "perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding".

Pope Pius XII talks about this modernist dilution of dogmas in Humani Generis also:

14. In theology, some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

15. Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism[4] or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that his can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It has nothing to do with evolution of dogma; St. Thomas believed that the faith had been preached throughout the world. Therefore nobody was exempt from believing in the Incarnation and the Bl. Trinity. The discovery of America demonstrated that St. Thomas's premise was wrong. Therefore his conclusion could also be incorrect, or at least modified; which some Thomists did.

Before the death of the last Apostle, St. John, the Faith has been preached to every part of the known world. Granted, the discovery of America happened after St. Thomas died but St. Thomas did not believe that the Faith had been preached throughout the world. Otherwise there had been absolutely no need for him to even ponder on the topic about "Invincible Ignorance".

If this has nothing to do with the evolution of a dogma, then please tell me what Pope Eugene IV means when he declares this dogmatic formula ex cathedra: 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra said:

"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity."

[james03]

You'll have to explain his position then on justification being exclusive from sanctification and where these souls go because it's either heaven or hell, advocating a possible third is heresy.

Hell.  But you can have a Dante-esque concept of hell with levels.  For we must maintain that God is all Just, therefore all those in hell will receive perfect Justice.  Therefore Pongo the naked savage who commits a few minor sins before being captured and thrown into the neighboring tribe's cook pot isn't going to suffer infinite torments burning in lava for all eternity.

Now at the same time we call it an infinite loss, because he does not obtain the beatific vision.  However he doesn't know this.

[Michael Wilson]

Re. The Angelic Doctor. The faithful followers of St. Thomas, post the discovery of America and the millions of souls that were discovered to be living without any knowledge of the Church  and its teachings have agreed that if St. Thomas had lived to see these discoveries, would have adapted his teaching to such a situation.
I already posted this on another thread that you were on. However there is a legitimate difference in opinions as to the necessity of the explicit confession of the Blessed Trinity in the Church. Either opinion is legitimate.

Do you believe then that the Church could adapt Her teachings to a situation according to the times as you implied here that St. Thomas would have if he had lived in a different historical period? (and you object Vatican II Council "Aggiornamento", why?  ). That would allow for the evolvement of a dogma, a proposition that is condemned. The Church cannot contradict Herself and it is de fide that explicit Faith and canonical submission to the Roman Pontiff are necessary for salvation. Vatican I teaches that understanding of sacred dogmas must be "perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding".

Pope Pius XII talks about this modernist dilution of dogmas in Humani Generis also:

14. In theology, some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

15. Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism[4] or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that his can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It has nothing to do with evolution of dogma; St. Thomas believed that the faith had been preached throughout the world. Therefore nobody was exempt from believing in the Incarnation and the Bl. Trinity. The discovery of America demonstrated that St. Thomas's premise was wrong. Therefore his conclusion could also be incorrect, or at least modified; which some Thomists did.

Before the death of the last Apostle, St. John, the Faith has been preached to every part of the known world. Granted, the discovery of America happened after St. Thomas died but St. Thomas did not believe that the Faith had been preached throughout the world. Otherwise there had been absolutely no need for him to even ponder on the topic about "Invincible Ignorance".

If this has nothing to do with the evolution of a dogma, then please tell me what Pope Eugene IV means when he declares this dogmatic formula ex cathedra: 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra said:

"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity."

Cantarela,
of course, if a person knowingly rejects the Catholic faith, he will lose his soul.
As to the rest, well we will just have to say that our opinions diverge somewhat on this issue.

[ts aquinas]

You'll have to explain his position then on justification being exclusive from sanctification and where these souls go because it's either heaven or hell, advocating a possible third is heresy.

Hell.  But you can have a Dante-esque concept of hell with levels.  For we must maintain that God is all Just, therefore all those in hell will receive perfect Justice.  Therefore Pongo the naked savage who commits a few minor sins before being captured and thrown into the neighboring tribe's cook pot isn't going to suffer infinite torments burning in lava for all eternity.

Now at the same time we call it an infinite loss, because he does not obtain the beatific vision.  However he doesn't know this.

Talking about Fr. Feeney's position, he espoused that those that desired baptism, such as catechumens, but died before water baptism received justification but not sanctification. This justification to him was enough to avoid hell but not having been sanctified the soul did not merit heaven... A really odd theory.

[Non Nobis]

To live a naturally good life takes actual grace; so it is not like God has nothing to do with a man who lives in this way.  Natural goodness is from God.

There is no savage that leads a life of natural goodness, never has been, and never will.  Heck there's no Catholic that leads a life of natural goodness, with the possible exception of a few mystics, though even they sinned before reaching the mystic levels of contemplation.

It is (as far as we can tell) exceedingly rare, but only God can say "never", because natural goodness comes from Him. You are making estimations in your own mind, but you are not God.

I am speaking of those Pope Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore says are "Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives". These individuals only "attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace" - wherein they are given the necessary explicit knowledge (and must accept it)

I am speaking of those who "do what they can", as St. Thomas Aquinas says

Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.".

Do "what they can" has nothing to do with what modernists think: "do what is nice, as best they can".  It means do what is in their power as GOD knows it and is asking them to.

I am also speaking of those who "set up no hindrance",  as St. Thomas says

Questiones Disputatae de Veritate Q14 a11 For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)..

[Non Nobis]

... To live a naturally good life takes actual grace; so it is not like God has nothing to do with a man who lives in this way.  Natural goodness is from God.  It most likely is very rare, especially without the help of the Church. But God can preserve it as He wills, and reward it by grace and knowledge that are needed for the final reward, even if a man is not in the Church through (what anyone would call) his whole life.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says "natural man is capable of performing some naturally good works without actual grace" so my statement in bold may not be correct (but possibly it is correct as far as having a good life, as opposed to just some good works).  But GOD is the cause of all goodness, including natural goodness.

[Michael Wilson]

Re. Natural goodness: There is no such thing as a person living in a neutral state; one either lives in the state of grace or in the state of Mortal Sin. There were some who claimed that all the works done by men in the state of Mortal sin were also sinful; but this is false. Even a man living in the state of Mortal sin can perform naturally good works i.e. The Mafia don who gives money to an orphanage; or the adulterer that saves a family from a burning home; but these works have no supernatural merit. God by His goodness may grant the performer of these works a natural reward, if He foresees that the one that performed them, will never convert; or He may grant graces to encourage such a person towards the repentance of their sins and the amendment of their lives.
Pius IX and Quanto: Pius IX is referring to those who by the help of God's grace observe the natural law and go from the state of sin to the state of Grace. The same for the "Sent" quote.
St. Thomas holds that a pagan upon reaching the age of reason will make his first act either towards God and Sanctifying Grace or away from God and towards himself and go into the state of Mortal sin:

I-II Q-89
Article 6. Whether venial sin can be in anyone with original sin alone?

Objection 1. It would seem that venial sin can be in a man with original sin alone. For disposition precedes habit. Now venial sin is a disposition to mortal sin, as stated above (Question 88, Article 3). Therefore in an unbeliever, in whom original sin is not remitted, venial sin exists before mortal sin: and so sometimes unbelievers have venial together with original sin, and without mortal sins.

Objection 2. Further, venial sin has less in common, and less connection with mortal sin, than one mortal sin has with another. But an unbeliever in the state of original sin, can commit one mortal sin without committing another. Therefore he can also commit a venial sin without committing a mortal sin.

Objection 3. Further, it is possible to fix the time at which a child is first able to commit an actual sin: and when the child comes to that time, it can stay a short time at least, without committing a mortal sin, because this happens in the worst criminals. Now it is possible for the child to sin venially during that space of time, however short it may be. Therefore venial sin can be in anyone with original sin alone and without mortal sin.

On the contrary, Man is punished for original sin in the children's limbo, where there is no pain of sense as we shall state further on (II-II, 69, 6): whereas men are punished in hell for no other than mortal sin. Therefore there will be no place where a man can be punished for venial sin with no other than original sin.

I answer that, It is impossible for venial sin to be in anyone with original sin alone, and without mortal sin. The reason for this is because before a man comes to the age of discretion, the lack of years hinders the use of reason and excuses him from mortal sin, wherefore, much more does it excuse him from venial sin, if he does anything which is such generically. But when he begins to have the use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or mortal sin. Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, for through not doing that which is in his power to do. Accordingly thenceforward there cannot be venial sin in him without mortal, until afterwards all sin shall have been remitted to him through grace.

Reply to Objection 1. Venial sin always precedes mortal sin not as a necessary, but as a contingent disposition, just as work sometimes disposes to fever, but not as heat disposes to the form of fire.

Reply to Objection 2. Venial sin is prevented from being with original sin alone, not on account of its want of connection or likeness, but on account of the lack of use of reason, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 3. The child that is beginning to have the use of reason can refrain from other mortal sins for a time, but it is not free from the aforesaid sin of omission, unless it turns to God as soon as possible. For the first thing that occurs to a man who has discretion, is to think of himself, and to direct other things to himself as to their end, since the end is the first thing in the intention. Therefore this is the time when man is bound by God's affirmative precept, which the Lord expressed by saying (Zechariah 1:3): "Turn ye to Me . . . and I will turn to you."

[Cantarella]

You'll have to explain his position then on justification being exclusive from sanctification and where these souls go because it's either heaven or hell, advocating a possible third is heresy.

Hell.  But you can have a Dante-esque concept of hell with levels.  For we must maintain that God is all Just, therefore all those in hell will receive perfect Justice.  Therefore Pongo the naked savage who commits a few minor sins before being captured and thrown into the neighboring tribe's cook pot isn't going to suffer infinite torments burning in lava for all eternity.

Now at the same time we call it an infinite loss, because he does not obtain the beatific vision.  However he doesn't know this.

Talking about Fr. Feeney's position, he espoused that those that desired baptism, such as catechumens, but died before water baptism received justification but not sanctification. This justification to him was enough to avoid hell but not having been sanctified the soul did not merit heaven... A really odd theory.

No, that is not quite correct. Fr. Feeney's position is that there are no justified souls (in reality) who die without receiving the water Baptism. That means that there is no one about to die in the state of justification that God does not provide water Baptism for. That premise is completely different from saying that a justified soul who actually dies (in the extremely short, if ever existing) period between entering the state of Justification and receiving sacramental Baptism is damned, which would be heresy.

[Cantarella]

To live a naturally good life takes actual grace; so it is not like God has nothing to do with a man who lives in this way.  Natural goodness is from God.

There is no savage that leads a life of natural goodness, never has been, and never will.  Heck there's no Catholic that leads a life of natural goodness, with the possible exception of a few mystics, though even they sinned before reaching the mystic levels of contemplation.

It is (as far as we can tell) exceedingly rare, but only God can say "never", because natural goodness comes from Him. You are making estimations in your own mind, but you are not God.

I am speaking of those Pope Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore says are "Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives". These individuals only "attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace" - wherein they are given the necessary explicit knowledge (and must accept it)

I am speaking of those who "do what they can", as St. Thomas Aquinas says

Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.".

Do "what they can" has nothing to do with what modernists think: "do what is nice, as best they can".  It means do what is in their power as GOD knows it and is asking them to.

I am also speaking of those who "set up no hindrance",  as St. Thomas says

Questiones Disputatae de Veritate Q14 a11 For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)..

Regarding Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, there is a general misunderstanding in those who prefer sentiment to truth. We know that in Hell there are different levels with different torments according to the sins of each particular soul. The invincible ignorant is not blamed for his ignorance and if he has no actual sins (extremely rare case if ever existing) can go to a place similar to the Limbo of the Children, and not suffer torments, as do the unbaptized children. Speaking about sentiment, if we were to follow this line of thinking, would it seem unfair, that a perfect innocent unbaptized baby is not saved, but the hypothetical adult native is?. We know that both die in original sin only, which suffices for damnation.

The Church cannot ever change an ex-cathedra doctrine but impression is given to the world that it can. That happened to the EENS dogma. Right after the Letter of 1949, this is what it was said to the world in the headlines for the Worcester Telegram. The masses, always preferring emotion over truth, gave in easily with this:

VATICAN RULES
AGAINST HUB
DISSIDENTS

Holds No Salvation
Outside Church
Doctrine to be false


As far as the quote in Quanto C.M attributed to Pope Pius IX (always cited in isolation) that is generally used by the advocates of salvific invincible ignorance:

"There is an issue with  the commonly accepted English translation of one crucial word. "Punishments," in the next to last sentence, in this context is not the best translation of the Latin word, suppliciis. which the pope used. "Torments" would be the better, and more theologically correct, English translation. Poena is the more common Latin word for "punishment." If there were such a person who died in original sin only without personal sin (unbaptized children and mentally handicapped for sure) the pope was simply teaching that they would not suffer torments in the next life.  He did not say that they would enter into the beatific vision. The loss of the beatific vision is a punishment due to original sin. This loss, moreover, is not a torment for the souls in limbo who enjoy perfect natural happiness".

http://catholicism.org/has-the-church-changed-its-teaching-on-no-salvation-outside-the-church.html

[Gardener]

How can an adult go their whole life unto the moment of death and never engage in moral reasoning wherein, upon the first moment of reason, they are faced with a choice of good or evil, and then have it claimed they die invincibly ignorant with no actual sin? This claim derogates the natural law, reason, and even reality.

For sure they might be ignorant of the Church, but all moral acts? Impossible.

And having then had at least a moment of rational choice, which cannot be indifferent, they either choose the good or the evil: if good, by grace; if evil by will contra grace.

That the situation you describe results in loss of beatific vision is merely theoretical. There can be no moral indifference in reason with voluntary acts, as this implies lack of reason to see this or that end as a good qua the vary onus of rationality. In short, they could not be morally considered an adult because an adult has reason, considered in an interior manner. They might be an adult in the exterior sense, i.e., age, but not as considered with the interior.

Thus, St. Thomas has taught that such a person, if they have observed the precepts of natural law, will be guided to truth.

Your explanation is revolutionary and, in some sense, a liberal attempt to whitewash the horror of hell, all the while claiming to uphold a traditional understanding. But in doing so it takes away actual culpability on matters of a moral nature wherein to do so it also takes away ability on moral matters. In short, it infantilizes whole populations contra reality.

[james03]

That the situation you describe results in loss of beatific vision is merely theoretical.

There is no "situation" that results in the loss of the beatific vision.  The beatific vision was lost by Adam and Eve.  We are born damned, and those whom God predestines for His secret purpose are saved.

[james03]

Michael,
You are back posting again.  Will you please answer my question?