Could one conclude that they're among the Reprobate?

Started by Jean Carrier, June 13, 2023, 10:14:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Maximilian

Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 16, 2023, 01:33:58 PMOn St. Alphonus,
he was not a "laxist", but is considered as the great restorer of Catholic Moral Theology, and his opinions were considered so correct, that Pope Pius IV stated that his opinions on moral matters could be followed safely by all. He was granted the title of "Doctor of the Church", because of his "Moral Theology".

Yes, I already said I was not criticizing St. Alphonsus. Nothing one might say about him being "right" is arguing against what I said. But it's just a fact that his moral theology was not on the severe end of the spectrum. Compare him to a contemporary like St. Leonard of Port Maurice, for example.

Michael Wilson

James,
QuoteAssuming Hitler is in hell, if God had killed Hitler right after Baptism, he'd be in heaven.  So God withheld that help according to Divine Providence.
How do we know that God did not have plans for Hitler to become a priest, bishop and even a great Pope; a man with his oratorical skills working for the greater glory of God, could have possibly converted Germany to the Catholic faith. God did not kill Hitler, and many of those Baptized who latter lost their souls, because He intended them for a higher degree of glory than if they would have died right after Baptism. We have to believe in God's universal salvific will; that He died for all men; therefore any hypothesis that leads one to deny these truths, has to be rejected out of hand.
Quote've never understood the objection to God hardening Pharoah's heart.
Because that would lead to the unacceptable conclusion that God does directly will the damnation of some souls, a la Calvinism.
Quote2 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction,  23 That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory?
God is patient with sinners, and gives them the time and graces they need to save their souls.
But much of Romans 9, doesn't have to do with individual salvation and reprobation, as the the Calvinist have it, but rather on the predestination of some nations to honor and glory i.e. Those that descended from Jacob, that is the Jews, from which the Messiah would come; and those to reprobation, i.e. The descendants of Esau, from which the Edomites came, who were deadly enemies of the Jews. 
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

james03

QuoteHow do we know that God did not have plans for Hitler to become a priest, bishop and even a great Pope; a man with his oratorical skills working for the greater glory of God, could have possibly converted Germany to the Catholic faith.

Because Hitler would have become a priest.

QuoteGod did not kill Hitler, and many of those Baptized who latter lost their souls, because He intended them for a higher degree of glory than if they would have died right after Baptism.
This makes no sense.  God KNOWS they will be damned, and yet He chooses to allow it to happen and withholds the helps necessary for them to be saved.  In Hitler's case, God KNEW Hitler was going to hell.  But right after baptism, and some period longer, he was guaranteed heaven.  But God, according to his secret purpose, allowed Hitler to go on and end up damned.

QuoteWe have to believe in God's universal salvific will; that He died for all men; therefore any hypothesis that leads one to deny these truths, has to be rejected out of hand.
Free Will.  God permits you to damn yourself and He owes you nothing.  For some, He'll work great miracles and pull off the save.  For others, He leaves them to die in their sin.  He definitely gave them Grace, and all grace is the same, it carries out its purpose.  But the reprobate freely chose to reject the Grace, and God left them in their sin.

QuoteBecause that would lead to the unacceptable conclusion that God does directly will the damnation of some souls, a la Calvinism.
Pharoah damned himself by worshipping demons and committing a host of mortal sins.  God COULD have struck him down at any moment with lightning, and you would not raise an objection.  Instead God hardened his heart in punishment for his sins.

QuoteGod is patient with sinners, and gives them the time and graces they need to save their souls.
That is not the meaning of the scripture.  God endured the sins of Pharoah with great patience, and instead of striking him down with lightning, he hardened his heart instead and used him to manifest His power.

"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Michael Wilson

J03:
QuoteBecause Hitler would have become a priest.
God could have given him the graces to become a priest, and he rejected them.
QuoteThis makes no sense.  God KNOWS they will be damned, and yet He chooses to allow it to happen and withholds the helps necessary for them to be saved.  In Hitler's case, God KNEW Hitler was going to hell.  But right after baptism, and some period longer, he was guaranteed heaven; But God, according to his secret purpose, allowed Hitler to go on and end up damned.  .

In the same way as God knows everyone that will be saved or not, yet He creates them, and gives them the graces that they need to save their souls. God doesn't even need us to be Baptized; He can infuse grace into our souls without it. God could save all men by just infusing grace into their souls and taking them then to Heaven; but for the majority of men, we must earn our way to Heaven by responding to God's grace, and therefore saving our souls; the same with the Angels good and bad; the same for all men who have been born and will be born. 
God allows all men to go to Heaven or Hell, but He wills all men to go to Heaven.
QuotePharoah damned himself by worshipping demons and committing a host of mortal sins.  God COULD have struck him down at any moment with lightning, and you would not raise an objection.  Instead God hardened his heart in punishment for his sins.
Mary Magdalen had "seven devils"; Pharao was given the grace to repent and he did seven times; and seven times he rejected the grace. Most people commit Mortal Sins, but those who respond to God's grace, repent and save their souls. You claim to believe in free will, yet in practice you post as if you really don't.
QuoteThat is not the meaning of the scripture.  God endured the sins of Pharoah with great patience, and instead of striking him down with lightning, he hardened his heart instead and used him to manifest His power.
If God wanted to send Pharao to Hell, why would he endure his sins with great patience? Get this charade over with and send him to Hell when he was conceived in his mother's womb, and stop with all the nonsense.
No, God willed Pharao's repentance and salvation; but He used his obstinacy and sins to show forth His mercy, first to Pharao himself, then to the Jews in freeing them from their servitude. 
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

james03

Both sides of this debate, whether the Banezian or the hard core Molinist have a problem with Free Will.
The Banezian says you have Free Will (wink-wink) but have to invent a convoluted system of two graces because you don't REALLY have Free Will, you are just a dung pile covered with snow, all the while losing sight of Sanctifying Grace.  From my limited knowlege, I give credit to Calvin for at least believing in regeneration.  The Banezians are more extreme and embrace Luther.

The hard core Molinist also reject Free Will.  "Pharoah couldn't be saved no matter what he did because of Divine Providence.  Hitler couldn't be saved because of Divine Providence.".  Rubbish.  Both had Free Will, and Hitler even had Sanctifying Grace.  Pharoah knew that the monsters he worshipped were demons.  Weird statues of men with a birds face.  Hideous.  And he was responsible for his people.  Did he stand up and say, "These are monsters, and Egyptions won't worship them."  No, because he risked losing power.  We saw the same with Julian the Apostate.  When he went to the demon temple the first time, he was so frightened he accidently made the sign of the cross and chased the demons away.  He knew it was evil.  The Aztecs were probably second in pure evil, only topped by the Phoenicians and their Moloch worship.  They all knew it was evil.

Fr. Hesse sums it up well: "If you want to go to heaven, you'll go to heaven.".  Let me contrast "wanting to go to heaven" vs "avoiding hell".  The damned got grace.  They freely choose to reject it.  God owes them nothing.  Divine Providence and Free Will work together, inside of time and outside of time.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

james03

QuoteIf God wanted to send Pharao to Hell, why would he endure his sins with great patience?

I reject that God "wanted" to send Pharoah to hell.  As far as "why" God endured Pharoah's sins:

Quote22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction,  23 That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory?

QuotePharao was given the grace to repent and he did seven times; and seven times he rejected the grace.
And after Pharoah rejected grace the first time, suppose God had struck him down with lightning, and his innards burst assunder and maggots spilled out, would you object?  If not, you have no basis to object to God hardening Pharoah's heart instead.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Michael Wilson

Quote from: james03 on June 18, 2023, 04:36:52 PMBoth sides of this debate, whether the Banezian or the hard core Molinist have a problem with Free Will.
The Banezian says you have Free Will (wink-wink) but have to invent a convoluted system of two graces because you don't REALLY have Free Will, you are just a dung pile covered with snow, all the while losing sight of Sanctifying Grace.  From my limited knowlege, I give credit to Calvin for at least believing in regeneration.  The Banezians are more extreme and embrace Luther.
I don't agree; Banezians believe in inner-sanctification; Luther only on "legal imputation";
Banezians, do have a problem with God's universal salvafic will, as it doesn't really fit into their system.
QuoteThe hard core Molinist also reject Free Will.
No, they really reject God's universal salvific will; not man's free will.
Quote"Pharoah couldn't be saved no matter what he did because of Divine Providence.
This isn't Molinism. Molinism would say: God foresaw that Pharoh would be damned with the graces that God was going to send him in this particular "contingent future"; and God decided that that was what was going to happen.
QuoteHitler couldn't be saved because of Divine Providence.".
Hitler had the necessary graces to save his soul and rejected them.
QuoteRubbish.  Both had Free Will, and Hitler even had Sanctifying Grace.  Pharoah knew that the monsters he worshipped were demons....
I agree, but I don't know what you are arguing about here.
They committed Mortal Sins and were sent to Hell.
My argument is that they did not have to commit those sins, God sent them the graces to not commit them, and they did anyway. If they had turned away from their sins at any time with the help of God's grace, he would have forgiven them.
God really wanted to save Hitler, Pharao, the Egyptians, Aztecs, etc. He sent them the graces that they needed to save their souls, and they rejected them.   
QuoteFr. Hesse sums it up well: "If you want to go to heaven, you'll go to heaven.".  Let me contrast "wanting to go to heaven" vs "avoiding hell".  The damned got grace.  They freely choose to reject it.  God owes them nothing.  Divine Providence and Free Will work together, inside of time and outside of time.
I agree with this. But you were arguing above, that if God "really' wanted to save Hitler, He would have killed him right after he was baptized; and here you are arguing that those who go to Hell got grace and rejected it, therefore they were lost because of their own fault, not God's; I agree.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

james03

QuoteBut you were arguing above, that if God "really' wanted to save Hitler, He would have killed him right after he was baptized;

No, I'm not.  I'm arguing that this is not a binary decision, to save or not to save.  There's also God's decree that we have Free Will, plus organizing an almost infinitely complex system.  And the limit on God that He can not lie, because He is Truth itself.

What I'm responding to is the statement that God gives all necessary help for salvation.  That's obviously false for every baptized Catholic that goes to hell.

Here I'll use the term sufficient, but, contra Banez, show how it works with Free Will.  God gives sufficient grace to all men to be saved.  And it is truly sufficient and saves some.  There is no additional "enabling" grace.  The deciding factor is Free Will.  Man cooperates or he doesn't.   That's it.

So here's an example.  A man is going to drink and drive.  God puts in front of his intellect the idea that this is dangerous and wrong.  The man, based on his free will, ignores it.  He picks the pleasure from drinking over what is right.  And he ends up crashing his car and dying in mortal sin.

Here God gave his sufficient grace and he freely rejected it.  However God did not send him all necessary helps for salvation, as God could have killed him after he was baptized.

And for some God goes beyond sufficient grace and works miracles to save some.  Likely a lot of kids who die before the age of reason would have gone to hell if they lived, but end up saved.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Michael Wilson

James,
of course in the manner that you interpret the statement: "God gives all necessary help for salvation." as meaning: "God does all He can to save souls"; makes first statement false. But the statement in itself is true, if understood in the manner that Catholic theologians have such as St. Alphonsus i.e. God gives men all those graces that they need in order to attain to eternal salvation.
Obviously in an absolute sense, God could save everyone, even the fallen angels; He could abolish Hell and reform the demons, by overcoming their obstinate wills by His omnipotence; He could do the same with all men. But He has decreed that Angels and Men should obtain the beatific vision, by their freely choosing to love Him and obey Him.
So we have really been making the same argument, but just miss-understanding each other.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

james03

QuoteSo we have really been making the same argument, but just miss-understanding each other.

Agreed.  It boils down to "all necessary helps."  If "all" references all the helps needed that a man with free will, who loves God more than mammon would make the correct choice, this is correct.  If "all" is synonymous with "exhaustive", then it would be incorrect.

We both agree that the former is theologically correct.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Miriam_M

People often misunderstand what St. Alphonsus meant by a limit to God's forgiveness (or a limit to His tolerance).  What is meant by that is a limit on insincere Confessions for repeated or so-called "intractable" sin.  Specifically, it refers to insufficient (or completely absent) Purpose of Amendment, rather than to the nature of the sin itself.

Think about it:  The very fact that we might be committing the same sin over and over again demands of us radical cooperation with God's grace, which means effort, not just recital of sins.  It matters less the nature of the sin than the fact that whatever it is has become ingrained enough that we would have to confess it, yet without change, we give evidence of how little we are trying, because God's Grace is always sufficient, never lacking.  It's only our own will that can possibly be lacking.

Thus, a sinner who does not demonstrate any deviation from a sinful pattern can, by that very fact, confirm his own tepidity, which Christ despises.  Also when you think about it, it's a form of mocking God to receive the sacraments casually (ineffectually).  Sacramental graces are not magical; they effect what they signify but only with cooperation/disposition from the recipient.