Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Perhaps the dictator Pope will be replaced by a black Pope.  The Pontefract Maximus.   :)

Apparently Pontefract is a town in Yorkshire. Hence the name Pontefract cakes.
Has anyone here read - and/or would recommend purchasing - the book the conservative Cardinals put out in defense of the indissolubulity of marriage? The reviews seem to be good. Particularly I'm interested in the historical aspect. The Byzantines have this practice of upto 3 marriages and so presumably 2 divorces being acceptable; and I was wondering if there is any good material explaining when that practice first arose and why precisely it was an aberration. I've heard that some emperors wanted divorces so they got their way. Based on the reviews, the book examines and answers that. Anyone knows more?
The Coffee Pot / Re: It's 4:00 AM And All Is Well
« Last post by dymphna17 on Today at 05:45:31 AM »
I know, I know... it is again 4 o'clockish and everything is... OK, I guess.  Just sitting here eating my Fruity Pebbles and toast.  Then I look down and by golly, it was after 4:05.   :-[

It is a dogma of the faith that outside of brain disease (which can produce compulsion) or coercion from the outside, it is always possible to resist temptations to sin. 

Hi Miriam.  I am interested if you could provide an authoritative quote for this assertion.

If it is "always possible to resist sin", then it is possible to resist every venial sin through one's whole life.  Is that a claim you would like to make, as a logical consequence of your stated assertion?

Thanks for your valuable input Miriam.

Father Peter Carota, referenced as a source at the top of that list ^ died a year or two ago.  He was an FSSP priest.  My own trad priest has mentioned also that grace is always available against every temptation. The fact is also implied in the various dogmas about the Sacraments, because if grace is only sometimes available, then the sacraments have no lasting power.  Sacraments such as Baptism, which provides the indelible mark, and Confirmation, which confers the Holy Spirit upon the recipients.  If the Holy Spirit is only sometimes available and sometimes not, then God is not infinite and eternal, which is a heresy.

Some of this is confirmed in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ott.

Also, I thought I had posted this reference before.  I think this is Part VI.

God the Sanctifier
There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will.
There is a supernatural influence of God in the faculties of the soul which coincides in time with man's free act of will.
For every salutary act, internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary.
Internal supernatural grace is absolutely necessary for the beginning of faith and salvation.
Without the special help of God, the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification.
The justified person is not able for his whole life long to avoid sins, even venial sins, without the special privilege of the grace of God.
Even in the fallen state, man can, by his natural intellectual power, know religious and moral truths.
For the performance of a morally good action, sanctifying grace is not required.
In the state of fallen nature, it is morally impossible for man without supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty, and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order.
Grace cannot be merited by natural works either de condigno or de congruo.
God gives all the just sufficient grace for the observation of the divine commandments.
God, by His eternal resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness.
God, by an eternal resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.
The human will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible.
There is grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious.
The causes of Justification. (Defined by the Council of Trent) :
The final cause is the honour of God and of Christ and the eternal life of men.
The efficient cause is the mercy of God.
The meritorious cause is Jesus Christ, who as mediator between God and men, has made atonement for us and merited the grace by which we are justified.
The instrumental cause of the first justification is the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus it defines that Faith is a necessary precondition for justification (of adults).
The formal cause is God's Justice, not by which He Himself is just, but which He makes us just, that is, Sanctifying Grace.
The sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of actual grace for the reception of the grace by which he is justified.
The justification of an adult is not possible without faith.
Besides faith, further acts of disposition must be present.
Sanctifying grace sanctifies the soul.
Sanctifying grace makes the just man a friend of God.
Sanctifying grace makes the just man a child of God and gives him a claim to the inheritance of heaven.
The three Divine or theological virtues of faith, hope and charity are infused with sanctifying grace.
Without special Divine Revelation no one can know with the certainty of faith, if he be in the state of grace.
The degree of justifying grace is not identical in all the just.
Grace can be increased by good works.
The grace by which we are justified may be lost, and is lost by every grievous sin.
By his good works, the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.
A just man merits for himself through each good work an increase of sanctifying grace, eternal life (if death finds him in the state of grace) and an increase in heavenly glory.

St.Columba, notice this:  St. Thomas says that acting from concupiscence is in NO way involuntary (unlike acting from fear).  I think this should be obvious.

Yes, Thomas' second volume includes a section on the necessity of grace, in which he also says that, while it is impossible to avoid venial sin throughout an entire lifetime (because of concupiscence), it is not impossible to refrain from mortal sin -- because that is what grace is all about -- the strength/assistance to avoid mortal sin.  He also distinguishes between temptation and sin -- maybe in that same section, maybe elsewhere.

And in that section he speaks quite a bit about the function of the will with regard to sin.
And, suppose the will is not completely free (condition of anxiety, grave fear, force of habit, all present).

What does that even mean, “will is not completely free”? An act is either deliberate or it is not - there is no “in between”. Has grave fear made one lose ones mind? Has habit made the act reflexive without intervening judgment? If the idea of act X comes to my mind and I judge that I am going to perform it, then I am morally responsible for it - if it is a grave offence against the natural law then it is automatically mortal.

For the last time, unless I am actually deprived of my reason and volition in performing such an act, I am sinning mortally. Overwhelming temptation caused by factors like fear and habit is not a deprivation of that which makes me morally responsible in the first place, namely free agency. It may lessen the severity of my punishment on the side of my motives, but it doesn’t change the nature of the act.

You seem to be confusing objective (the nature of the act) and subjective (will is not completely free or some other mitigating circumstance.)

I’m not confusing anything. An act is either deliberate on the part of the actor or it is not. This notion of there existing some kind of in-between state, which is repeatedly being implied here but left undefined, is a nonsense. It’s as much a nonsense as the notion that the will, in itself, can be less than free. Your ability to insert a word in to a sentence in a manner that appears to obey the rules of language doesn’t of itself make the result meaningful. “Will” is in its essence something that is free; speaking of a less-than-free will is like speaking of a less-than cognizant consciousness; I put forward that it is YOU who are confusing the pure act of willing with factors, like drives, which are external to the will itself but make it harder to choose “rightly” - nevertheless, if I choose, that act is, in itself, free in principle, an act of my spirit which is not ontologically mixed with material things or the lower processes of the soul. In the case of, e.g., an habitual reflex, intoxication by certain mind-altering substances, or madness, there generally isn’t any act of the will involved when the body “sins”.

Furthermore, there are some things in which it is impossible to separate the objective nature of the act from the subjective state of the one performing it: all sins of the mind, for one, but also a public sin like apostasy. At the risk of offending the dogmatic Aristotelians here I’d go further than that in saying that “acts” as being real self-identical “things” unto which one can impute a moral status, rather than abstractions of phenomenological processes, are only such by virtue of a real -self-identical subject consciously performing them - animals perform actions but do not act - and whenever a man acts he is morally responsible for that act, as it indeed ”belongs” to him in the deepest ontological sense.
The Sacred Sciences / Re: Romans 6:1
« Last post by Non Nobis on Today at 02:09:53 AM »
Vetus Ordo, are you a Calvinist now? I ask because some of what you say sounds like it.

I remember he was saying similar things on the fisheaters form.

Non Nobis, depending on how you define permit, not all that God permits comes to pass. I recommend anyone interested in predestination to read Marin Sola. Basically, it’s not enough for God not to cause sin.

He also cannot be the necessary and sufficient condition for sin. He cannot put man in a situation before consideration of merit or demerit in which man cannot act other than to sin.

Is God's eternal foreknowledge a necessary and sufficient condition for sin?  In some way it seems it is, but it certainly isn't "putting man in a situation" where he is not free.  I think the same is true for eternal permission of sin, although it is harder to understand.  It is true THAT a man will sin, but he sins FREELY in either case.  In the first case we give the explanation that God is outside of time and can see what comes before and what comes after all at once. In the second case, God plans the permission as a sort of outline outside of time (in His magnificent eternal design) foreknowing that man will fill in with sin freely over time. Perhaps permission and foreknowledge happen simultaneously.  Certainly I don't understand, and my analogies are probably off.

I'm not going to say that Marin-Sola is wrong; I don't know. I'd like to read him, in theory, but various things get in the way (besides lack of intellect and discipline).  For one thing, expense, where can you get his writing for less than $70-$80?.  If you want to explain his views in more detail, I will at least read your posts!

In some cases God moves man to a good but does so in such a way that man can resist or not resist. In a certain way He “permits” sin “before” it happens and whether or not it happens.

If God permitted some evil and it did not happen, then some good must have happened instead.  Who was the primary cause of the good?  If it is God, didn't He know from eternity that He would cause the good; what sense does it make to say He permitted the evil? (Man is still the complete SECONDARY cause of the good. )
Jesus being raised form the dead does not prove He was divine.  Lazarus was not divine, nor was Jonah.  Jesus being raised from the dead by his own power is almost infallible proof that He was God.  However, even this does not provide epistemic certainty, since it is conceivable that God could create a creature with the ability to self-regenerate (especially for a creature like man that has an immortal soul that cannot die, whose consciousness endures beyond the grave). 

But anyway, I still don't see how any of this provides certitude beyond any shade of doubt.  And all of it is still contingent on the historicity of the resurrection event.  How do we prove that?

Correct! Jesus' resurrection does not of itself prove His divinity. As you note, Jonah (if the exegetical understanding of his death/resurrection) and Lazarus were not divine.

But what the (potential) resurrection of Jonah, and the resurrection of Lazarus do prove is divine power over them and that the reason for their resurrection is God, since only God has the power to do such a thing.

Further, in Jonah's case, it proves his status as a prophet to Nineveh to listen to his message from God.

As such, the implication is to listen to Jesus' message. But not "from" God, as in the case of Jonah who was a mere man. Rather, that Jesus' message includes and is built upon the fact that He IS God -- specifically the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity.

This goes back to 1 Cor 15:17...

Jesus proclaims Himself divine in all 4 Gospels, and all 4 Gospels, aside from Jesus' own words and actions, proclaim Him divine.

But let's move back a little to 1 Cor 15:4:
[1] Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand; [2] By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. [3] For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures: [4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures: [5] And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven.

Wait... what Scriptures? Note he uses a plural Greek word for scriptures. I checked an Arabic translation of the Bible ( and it's rendered "الْكُتُبِ" (kutub), which is the plural of books. In Arabic, plural means 3 or more. So St. Paul is referencing 3 or more scriptures if we go by the Arabic. Unsure if Greek makes a singular/dual/plural distinction like Arabic. Making this assumption, we need 3 Scriptures at a minimum.

Some might argue the synoptic Gospels, but that would require all of them be written before AD 53, which is an accepted date for 1 Corinthians. I personally hold to an early dating for the synoptics, so I won't build an argument off of discounting an earlier writing for the synoptics, despite its convenience for the argument.

St. Thomas mentions Hosea ch 6 for his commentary.

St. Thomas' commentary:
(specifically 897; it says 6:2, but it's 6:3 in DRB)
897. – I also delivered to you the resurrection, that he rose on the third day: “After two days he will revive us” (Hos 6:2). He says, on the third day, not because they were three full days, but two nights and one day, by synechdoche. And the reason for this, as Augustine says, was that God by His simple, which is signified by one day, i.e., by the evil of punishment, destroyed our double, i.e., punishment and guilt, which is signified by the two nights.

Haydock commentary Hosea 6:2
Ver. 1.  Early,  or in haste.  All the people will repent.  C.

Ver. 2.  Cure us.  God is always ready to receive penitents.  W.

Ver. 3.  Third.  In a short time the Lord will easily set us free.  But the prophet refers more directly to the resurrection of the faithful, and of Christ.  Eph. ii. 5. and 1 Cor. xv. 4.  C. --- S. Paul mentions the third day according to the Scriptures, which nowhere else so clearly specify it.  W.  See S. Jer.  S. Cyp. Sanct. 9. --- Know.  Hitherto we have been reproached with voluntary ignorance in adoring idols.  C. iv. 6.  We will amend. --- His, Christ's. --- Rain.  It falls only in autumn and in spring.  Deut. xi. 14.  C.

Note that Haydock references this as well, as a place in the scriptures which prophesies a 3rd day resurrection. But that's still only one reference in the OT.

What about a specific reference which an esteemed Father points out? St. John Chrysostom notes it specifically!

St. John Chrysostom:

This however has been sufficiently proved by what we have said. But where have the Scriptures said that He was buried, and on the third day shall rise again? By the type of Jonah which also Himself alleges, saying, "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall also the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Matthew 12:40 By the bush in the desert. For even as that burned, yet was not consumed, Exodus 3:2 so also that body died indeed, but was not holden of death continually. And the dragon also in Daniel shadows out this. For as the dragon having taken the food which the prophet gave, burst asunder in the midst; even so Hades having swallowed down that Body, was rent asunder, the Body of itself cutting asunder its womb and rising again.

Now if you desire to hear also in words those things which you have seen in types, listen to Isaiah, saying, "His life is taken from the earth," Isaiah 53:8-11 and, it pleases the Lord to cleanse Him from His show unto Him light: and David before him, "You will not leave My soul to Hades, nor will You suffer Your Holy One to see corruption." Psalm 16:10

Therefore Paul also sends you on to the Scriptures, that you may learn that not without cause nor at random were these things done. For how could they, when so many prophets are describing and proclaiming them beforehand? And no where does the Scripture mean the death of sin, when it makes mention of our Lord's death, but that of the body, and a burial and resurrection of the same kind.

So that's 2 OT scriptures, including the one in question.

Genesis 22, the account of Abraham's intention to follow God's command to sacrifice Isaac would seem to be a 3rd potential one. Isaac is almost sacrificed on the 3rd day when God provides the ram. I find that one a bit weak, since the ram is the sacrifice, though one could argue that Isaac was sacrificed in potential for those 3 days, from the time of the call until the ram appeared. Dunno about this one.

Haydock makes no connection on this 3rd day aspect specifically: (alternate:

I'll continue to research it as I can.
Catholic Liturgical Life / Re: Butler's lives of the Saints
« Last post by Xavier on Today at 01:19:47 AM »
4/22: St. Soter; St. Leonides

April 22.--ST. SOTER, Pope, Martyr.

ST. SOTER was raised to the papacy upon the death of St. Anicetus, in 173. By the sweetness of his discourses he comforted all persons with the tenderness of a father, and assisted the indigent with liberal alms, especially those who suffered for the faith. He liberally extended his charities, according to the custom of his predecessors, to remote churches, particularly to that of Corinth, to which he addressed an excellent letter, as St. Dionysius of Corinth testifies in his letter of thanks, who adds that his letter was found worthy to be read for their edification on Sundays at their assemblies to celebrate the divine mysteries, together with the letter of St. Clement, pope. St. Soter vigorously opposed the heresy of Montanus, and governed the Church to the year 177.

April 22.--ST. LEONIDES, Martyr.

THE Emperor Severus, in the year 202, which was the tenth of his reign, raised a bloody persecution, which filled the whole empire with martyrs, but especially Egypt. The most illustrious of those who by their triumphs ennobled and edified the city of Alexandria was Leonides, father of the great Origen. He was a Christian philosopher, and excellently versed both in the profane and sacred sciences. He had seven sons, the eldest of whom was Origen, whom he brought up with abundance of care, returning God thanks for having blessed him with a son of such an excellent disposition for learning, and a very great zeal for piety. These qualifications endeared him greatly to his father, who, after his son was baptized, would come to his bedside while he was asleep, and, opening his bosom, kiss it respectfully, as being the temple of the Holy Ghost. When the persecution raged at Alexandria, under Laetus, governor of Egypt, in the tenth year of Severus, Leonides was cast into prison. Origen, who was then only seventeen years of age, burned with an incredible desire of martyrdom, and sought every opportunity of meeting with it. But his mother conjured him not to forsake her, and his ardor being redoubled at the sight of his father's chains, she was forced to lock up all his clothes to oblige him to stay at home. So, not being able to do any more, he wrote a letter to his father in very moving terms, strongly exhorting him to look on the crown that was offered him with courage and joy, adding this clause, "Take heed, sir. that for our sakes you do not change your mind." Leonides was accordingly beheaded for the faith in 202. His estates and goods being all confiscated, and seized for the emperor's use, his widow was left with seven children to maintain in the poorest condition imaginable; but Divine Providence was both her comfort and support.
Catholic Liturgical Life / Re: Butler's lives of the Saints
« Last post by Xavier on Today at 01:19:22 AM »
4/21: St. Anselm, Archbishop

April 21.--ST. ANSELM, Archbishop.

ANSELM was a native of Piedmont. When a boy of fifteen, being forbidden to enter religion, he for a while lost his fervor, left his home, and went to various schools in France. At length his vocation revived, and he became a monk at Bec in Normandy. The fame of his sanctity in this cloister led William Rufus, when dangerously ill, to take him for his confessor, and to name him to the vacant see of Canterbury. Now began the strife of Anselm's life. With new health the king relapsed into his former sins, plundered the Church lands, scorned the archbishop's rebukes, and forbade him to go to Rome for the pallium. Anselm went, and returned only to enter into a more bitter strife with William's successor, Henry I. This sovereign claimed the right of investing prelates with the ring and crozier, symbols of the spiritual jurisdiction which belongs to the Church alone. The worldly prelates did not scruple to call St. Anselm a traitor for his defence of the Pope's supremacy; on which the Saint rose, and with calm dignity exclaimed, "If any man pretends that I violate my faith to my king because I will not reject the authority of the Holy See of Rome, let him stand forth, and in the name of God I will answer him as I ought" No one took up the challenge; and to the disappointment of the king, the barons sided with the Saint, for they respected his courage, and saw that his cause was their own. Sooner than yield, the archbishop went again into exile, till at last the king was obliged to submit to the feeble but inflexible old man. In the midst of his harassing cares, St. Anselm found time for writings which have made him celebrated as the father of scholastic theology; while in metaphysics and in science he had few equals. He is yet more famous for his devotion to our blessed Lady, whose Feast of the Immaculate Conception he was the first to establish in the West. He died in 1109.

Reflection.--Whoever, like St. Anselm, contends for the Church's rights, is fighting on the side of God against the tyranny of Satan.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10