Nota Praevia: Feenyism is the belief that baptism of desire, that is, the actual desire for water baptism, can not save you if you die before receiving actual water baptism. It is a minor dispute, as Baptism of Desire might have saved 1000 people at most. That being said:
1. I believe in B.O.D.
2. Advocating Feenyism is not allowed on this forum, therefore I ask those who support the Feeneyite position not to hijack this thread as it will only get it locked.
3. I'll stress this again: I accept B.O.D. This thread will proceed from a given: B.O.D. is salvific, therefore this does not advocate Feeneyism.
Thanks for your patience, now on to the discussion.
Baltimore Catechism, 1891:
QuoteBaptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Baltimore Catechism, revised:
QuoteAn unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation.
Definition 1 excludes moslems, jews, hindus, and pagans.
Definition 2 includes them. Exact opposite.
Once Definition 2 becomes accepted by the Church, Vatican II MUST FOLLOW BY NECESSITY.
The jews teach elements of the natural law, belief in God, and salvation. Therefore it is salvific. How should the Church respond? It should move from a stance advocating conversion, to one advocating ecumenism and dialogue, and building up the City of Man.
The anonymous Catholic heresy is the root cause of the problems, and those problems won't be solved until the anonymous Catholic heresy is expunged from the Church.
I think you point out an interesting change of terminology! The difference is indeed subtle. Tanqueray confirms what you wrote, before things went haywire in the 60s. (I typed all that out that last time, I wanted to use it again. :lol:)
From A Manual of Dogmatic Theology (volume 2) written by AD TANQUERAY, translated by Rt. Rev. Msgr. John J. Byrnes, 1959. All formatting as in text.
B The Means by Which Baptism of Water is Supplied
1* Baptism of Blood or Martyrdom
1018 a. Concept. Martyrdom, proper called, is the suffering of death or of torture which of itself brings death, by reason of one's Catholic faith or of another Christian virtue; in the case of adults, this suffering must be borne patiently. In order that martyrdom be able to justify adults, certain internal dispositions are required: supernatural attrition and at least an implicit desire for Baptism. Martyrdom remits fault and punishment, but it does not confer character; in consequence, should the lethally wounded victim survive, he should be baptized.
1019 b. Thesis: Martyrdom supplies the powers of Baptism as to the remission of sin and of punishment both for adults and for children.
Proof from Scripture: Christ unconditionally promised salvation to all who would confess him before men or who would lose their life for the sake of the Gospel: "He that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.1"
1 St. Matthew, X, 39.
Proof from Tradition: The practice of the Church has always been to clothe with the honors of sainthood those who suffered martyrdom, the Innocents who were killed in the place of Christ, and other children who were slain for the faith; also those adults who, not yet baptized, accepted martyrdom (for example, St. Emerentiana): this fact cannot be explained unless martyrdom of itself sanctifies even children.
Proof from Reason: Baptism of water has the power to wipe away sins because it fashions us in the likeness of Christ's death. But through martyrdom both adults and children are more perfectly fashioned after the death of Christ.
1020 The Manner in Which Martyrdom Works
Martyrdom produces its own effects, namely the remission of sin and of punishment, even of temporal punishment, quasi ex opere operato. This is certain for children because they are incapable of every disposition, and cannot be justified ex opere operantis. This is commonly admitted for adults: the Church does not pray for martyrs; but if martyrdom operated only ex opere operantis, prayers would have to be offered for them.
2* Baptism of Desire or of Perfect Charity
1021 Thesis: Contrition or perfect charity, along with at least an implicit desire for Baptism, supplies for the forces of Baptism of water as to remission of sins. This is certain.
Explanation of terms of thesis: An implicit desire for Baptism is included in a general resolution to fulfill all the precepts of God. It is certainly sufficient in one who is invincibly ignorant of the law of Baptism; likewise, it very probably is sufficient in one who knows the need of Baptism.
Perfect charity, together with the desire for Baptism, indeed remits original sin and actual sins, and in like manner infuses sanctifying grace; but it does not imprint the baptism character, nor of itself does it remit the entire temporal punishment due to sin. Wherefore the obligation remains to receive Baptism of water when the opportunity is given.
Proof of Thesis from Scripture. Even after the need of Baptism of water has been decreed, Christ unconditionally promised to grant sanctifying grace and therefore the remission of sins to all who would possess perfect charity: "He that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him... If anyone love me... we will come to him, and will make our abode with him1": now love of God, dwelling and abode of God, in this case, suppose sanctifying grace.
1 St. Matthew, X, 39.
Proof of Thesis from Tradition. The Council of Trent2 has summarized this in these words: "Since the promulgation of the Gospel (the translation to the state of grace) cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration or a desire for this."
2 Session VI, can. 4, D.B., 796
Proof of Thesis from Reason. From what has been said, Baptism of water is really necessary by necessity of means, but extrinsically only, according to the positive will of God. But what is necessary only extrinsically can be supplied through something else; it was altogether fitting that this would be supplied through charity or perfect contrition, which are the best dispositions.
Does anyone truly know (not you specifically james) what Fr. Feeney was advocating and censored for or is a title of an argument simply seen and automatically understood?
His error was not arguing against baptism of desire but speculating justification (or pre-justification) is not sanctifying grace and thus created a distinction. He actually stated that souls that receive justification and die before water baptism do not go to heaven but also stated that they do not go to hell either. Well, that excludes limbo theory then since limbus is just the outer edges of hell. I guess he didn't get the memo either that I think it was one of the council's in constantinople condemned the idea of any place existing between heaven and hell.
Anyways, good find on those catechisms. But if you want to stir the pot even more check this out and try and reconcile this with BOD (I'm no advocate for or against it, just speculating:
Tome of Leo,
QuoteLet him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that "sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ's blood"; and let him not skip over the same apostle's words, "knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot." Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: "and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin"; and again, "This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is he, Jesus Christ who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony--Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one." In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others. The reason is that it is by this faith that the Catholic Church lives and grows, by believing that neither the humanity is without true divinity nor the divinity without true humanity.
He, the Pope and through council his tome was universally accepted and thus the entire church, taught the sanctification of baptism is indivisible from the water of baptism. Over a thousand years later the church starts universally teaching the opposite.
It appears we can narrow down the date for the genesis of Vat. II. It was after 1891 and before the revision, which I believe was 1941. During that period you had de Chardin, and also the communist infiltration into the Church via recruitment for the seminaries. So it does not surprise me that the date of your cite is 1959.
Now the particulars:
Statement: "An implicit desire for Baptism is included in a general resolution to fulfill all the precepts of God."
Supposed proof: " "He that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him... If anyone love me... we will come to him, and will make our abode with him [/QUOTE]
Note that Christ is using Trinitarian language, and not talking about love for monotheistic God, but for the second person of the Holy Trinity. Therefore the supposed proof actually proves the opposite.
QuoteDoes anyone truly know (not you specifically james) what Fr. Feeney was advocating and censored for or is a title of an argument simply seen and automatically understood?
Good question. Start a new thread.
The 2nd definition gives provision, taking definition 1 into account, that such persons do not finish their earthly course in such a state via the inspiration of God via grace as to things.
If, however, a moslem, etc. were to be given such grace and rejected it, he would be lost. But simply put, we have no idea the things God does for those who otherwise had no chance to hear the true Gospel or whatever else.
There's no metric for one to say BoD has saved 1000 people at most. Such a statement is just conjecture.
It might be far less, and it might be far more. Rather, the key to this concept is that God does not abandon souls and all men have the things necessary to be saved available to them in fact. Abstract availability, merely relegating it to theory, is useless for a real, live person.
Problematically, such availability presupposes adherence to natural law, which no man escapes, and which is necessarily violated by taking the practice of Islamic jurisprudence to its end, etc. But, I don't think anyone should have a problem with such souls being lost in some sense, as it's not like they were ignorant -- no man escapes natural law and thus, as St. Francis Xavier told the Japanese: if their relatives were lost it is on them.
tsa - one in essence and substantial effect: remission of sins. Think of it in terms of the Trinity: the persons are indeed themselves, but all are God and yet the Father is not the Son, etc.
QuoteThe 2nd definition gives provision, taking definition 1 into account, that such persons do not finish their earthly course in such a state via the inspiration of God via grace as to things.
No, it does not. The 2nd definition says your receive the BOD when you desire to follow precepts of (a monotheistic) God. The 1st says it is when you have an ARDENT DESIRE for baptism.
Now such a person who cooperates with Grace may receive miraculous internal inspiration and develop an ardent desire FOR baptism, and thus receive salvation. But that is not what the second definition says. It is in fact pelagian heresy.
I think there is a more fundamental problem with all of this.
Basically, it is this: your desire to fulfil precepts, or your actual good actions BEFORE sanctifying grace are meaningless vis a vis justification. All they are good for is determining which level of hell you will abide in, either the limbo like top levels or the deep inferno. That is all.
If you ever try to enter into a legalistic/law relationship with God, you go to hell. Faith in Jesus Christ saves you.
And that is why a filthy sodomite like Oscar Wilde could be saved.
I dunno why you constantly throw around words like pelagian and semi-pelagian contra their historical and continued meaning. If all good is from God, via grace, and loving God is objectively a good, then that love of God and desire to do all necessary for salvation must be from God, i.e., grace.
Pelagianism teaches a man can do good and achieve salvation apart from God.
Semi-pelagianism teaches that a man can do good and then be given grace.
Using the terms outside of their definition is unhelpful and in fact wrong. And since the definitions don't actually say what you have interpreted them as, I find it hard to concur that what was not said was said. That gets into explicit vs implicit, right? Yes.
So, if what is implied is not explicitly denied, then the implication is what stands: that an unbaptized person does something only possible by grace, and thus by grace and consequently faith they are saved. Further, since the will engages in actions, viz. thought, word and deed: thinking, speaking, or otherwise doing something to give consent is an act of will, and thus faith is shown by a work, lest we get all Lutheran in our language.
The 2nd definition is by no means pelagian considered in the definition of pelagianism, nor is it semi-pelagian. The first iteration which you quoted is more addressing explicit BOD, whereas the 2nd is expressing implicit. Since what can be implicit can be explicit, and the restrictive permissions of the one follow to the other, implicit desire can still affect the grace's operation so long as it is not obstructed by an explicit rejection; one would assume that if God were to give such grace to accept, it would also address the potential for explicit rejection and to overcome that potential.
Both definitions align just fine with Abp. Lefebvre's brief treatment of the subject in Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Chapter 10 "Ecumenism":
QuoteDoes that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian's formula, "Outside the Church there is no salvation," also reject the Creed, "I confess one baptism for the remission of sins," and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, "Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell." I told him "No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you."
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-10.htm
The point still stands. The Church changed its definition. The first definition is what the Church always meant by the desire for baptism. The second definition is heresy.
You do not receive Sanctifying Grace by loving God above all things, because that is impossible. Nor do you get it by desiring your salvation. Using this definition, the musloids who crashed the planes on 911 got the baptism of desire. They laid down their life for God, the greatest act of love, and they did it because they desired salvation. It is pure heresy.
You are saved by Faith in Jesus Christ. Without Faith in Christ, you can not be saved.
QuoteThe first iteration which you quoted is more addressing explicit BOD,
It makes no such distinction. It is defining Baptism of Desire, which is in accordance with what the Church always held prior to 1890.
Quote from: james03 on August 27, 2015, 06:56:50 PM
The Church changed its definition.
Although I agree with your personal stance, this needs to be demonstrated. Baltimore catechism does not = the church.
I have had many discussions with James on this forum, and on this very subject; he denies that there is such a thing as "implicit" faith in the Blessed Trinity; so it follows that he believes that anyone who states that there is such a thing, is at least materially heretical. It does no good to quote Pius IX's "Quanto Conficiamur Moreore" on this subject, as I have done so in the past with no result. Also, pre 20th C. Manuals the same.
QuoteIt does no good to quote Pius IX's "Quanto Conficiamur Moreore" on this subject,
I don't know. Give it a whirl.
QuoteAlthough I agree with your personal stance, this needs to be demonstrated. Baltimore catechism does not = the church.
Agreed, however my point is this: That there were HUGE problems well before Vat. II, chiefly the denial of EENS and the anonymous Catholic heresy. When the catechism of a major country contains this heresy, then you have a big problem. And that is my point. Vat. II is a symptom.
Quotehe denies that there is such a thing as "implicit" faith in the Blessed Trinity
Give me an example of how you could imply Faith in the Trinity from someone who does not believe in a Trinitarian God. This is not a rhetorical question.
Implicit Faith saves only one class of people: Catholics. That is what the term has traditionally meant. It is used by theologians to describe how Catholics can be saved if they don't know the precise Faith. It is IMPLIED that they have Faith if they believe that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ and will believe all that it teaches. That implies they will assent to things they are ignorant about. THAT is what the term "implicit Faith" is used for.
Quote from: james03 on August 27, 2015, 12:58:26 PM
Once Definition 2 becomes accepted by the Church, Vatican II MUST FOLLOW BY NECESSITY.
The jews teach elements of the natural law, belief in God, and salvation. Therefore it is salvific. How should the Church respond? It should move from a stance advocating conversion, to one advocating ecumenism and dialogue, and building up the City of Man.
The anonymous Catholic heresy is the root cause of the problems, and those problems won't be solved until the anonymous Catholic heresy is expunged from the Church.
And the anonymous Catholic ironically stems from the excesses of anti-Modernist polemics during this time period. As they had it, Faith was obtained through a careful analysis of the motives of credibility; and grace, oh yeah, that's necessary too (how or why was never explained). However did the Apostles and missionaries convert anyone, one wonders, when they did not have access to such a long list of the motives of credibility? Well but what about those who lack either access, or the mental capacity to evaluate these motives, or what if other evidence seeps in (as it has) that make for them the motives of credibility not so credible anymore? Obviously if they're doing their best on this they should still be saved. Hence the anonymous Christian.
Quote
Does anyone truly know (not you specifically james) what Fr. Feeney was advocating and censored for or is a title of an argument simply seen and automatically understood?
Contrary to popular belief, the censorship of Fr. Feeney had nothing to do with the teaching on "Baptism of Desire" which came out later. The Holy Office in 1949 was completely unaware of Fr. Feeney's views concerning justified catechumens. For his theology regarding this was first expressed in the book
Bread of Life, which was published until 1952. Fr. Feeney was censored because of the "rigorist" view of on
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and his anti-Judaism rethoric; coming from Saint Benedict Center combined with the liberal and political maneuvers of Jew-friendly Cardinal Cushing and other progressivists at Rome. This Catholic dogma which basically means that only Catholics go to Heaven really clashes with the world, specially in times of reigning
Judaism. By the way, did you know that Cushing played a vital role in drafting Vatican II documents Nostra Aetate and Ad Gentes?. He is highly responsible for the error found in V2 Council, helped by the liberal Jesuits who condemned Fr. Feeney. The error is that non Catholics in invincible ignorance can be saved. This Cushing error is shared by most traditionalists and obviously most post- Vatican II Curia.
Fr. Feeney was not censored over a doctrinal matter, but a disciplinary one. In times where rampant liberalism already had taken over the Church, the Vatican did not want to bend to the pressure Fr. Feeney was exerting with his defense of "
Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, whatsoever" (same dogma, by the way, which every martyr died for, every saint believed in, and that has been thrice infallibly defined, so every Catholic is bound to profess).
Fr. Feeney was reconciled with the Church without ever recanting his "rigorist" view on EENS.
Quote from: ts aquinas on August 27, 2015, 07:08:50 PM
Quote from: james03 on August 27, 2015, 06:56:50 PM
The Church changed its definition.
Although I agree with your personal stance, this needs to be demonstrated. Baltimore catechism does not = the church.
From Bread of Life:
The Catholic Faith in the United States of America is always academically ascribed to the Baltimore Catechism.
The Baltimore Catechism was confected at the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, by a group of American Bishops under the control and influence of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. James Cardinal Gibbons was a Catholic prelate who did not hesitate to get up before a Methodist congregation, in a Methodist Church, and give a supposedly Catholic sermon while reading from a Protestant Bible!
Cardinal Gibbons was not a great theologian. He was a controller of theological thought. I hesitate to call him an opportunist, because there may be times when a priest might brilliantly take advantage of a situation, for Our Lord's sake. But when a Catholic prelate becomes all opportunist, and is interested in teaching what doctrines of the Church would be most to the liking of his hearers or what general summary of the Church's history — as in the Baltimore Cardinal's book, The Faith of Our Fathers — will be least offensive to his new-found neighbors, then I think opportunism, is serious defect.
Cardinal Gibbons' main ambition was to show that Catholicism was good Americanism. It is for that reason he went out of his way to take such metaphorical expressions in theology as "Baptism of Desire" and "Baptism of Blood" and put them side by side with Baptism of Water. As a consequence, every little Catholic child in a Catholic school, from the time of Cardinal Gibbons on, has been required to say, in answer to the question, "How many kinds of Baptism are there?": "There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of Water, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood."
QuoteAnd the anonymous Catholic ironically stems from the excesses of anti-Modernist polemics during this time period.
Sentimentalism in Rahner's case:
Quote from: Rahnerthe theory [of 'anonymous Christianity'] arose from two facts: first, the possibility of supernatural salvation and of a corresponding faith which must be granted to non-Christians, even if they never become Christian; and secondly, that salvation cannot be gained without reference to God and Christ, since it must in its origin, history and fulfilment be a theistic and Christian salvation. One can only escape this conclusion if one adopts the pessimistic outlook common in the past and disputes the possibility of supernatural salvation for such people, thereby consigning them to hell or limbo, or if one grants salvation merely on the basis of human respectability without reference to God and Christ, or if, finally, one refuses to think about the Christian character in these cases, thus endangering the universality of Christ's redeeming action, which should on the contrary be firmly maintained
Give him credit for honesty:
Quoteit is quite impossible to doubt that what is meant by the 'anonymous Christian' (the name itself is unimportant) is compatible with the Council's teaching, indeed is explicitly stated by it ...such a theory in no way cripples the missionary impulse of the Church but rather puts before it the person to whom it addresses itself in his true hopeful condition so that it can approach him with confidence.
Michael Wilson,
Do you agree that a jew who dies a jew, and is not converted to the Catholic Faith goes to hell?
Quote from: james03 on August 27, 2015, 10:45:54 PM
Michael Wilson,
Do you agree that a jew who dies a jew, and is not converted to the Catholic Faith goes to hell?
What I am trying to say is that it is not enough to understand
that this is the case, it is also necessary to understand
why this is the case in order for the pre-Vatican II problems to be understood.
Quote from: james03 on August 27, 2015, 09:39:29 PM
Quotehe denies that there is such a thing as "implicit" faith in the Blessed Trinity
Give me an example of how you could imply Faith in the Trinity from someone who does not believe in a Trinitarian God. This is not a rhetorical question.
Implicit Faith saves only one class of people: Catholics. That is what the term has traditionally meant. It is used by theologians to describe how Catholics can be saved if they don't know the precise Faith. It is IMPLIED that they have Faith if they believe that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ and will believe all that it teaches. That implies they will assent to things they are ignorant about. THAT is what the term "implicit Faith" is used for.
James,
I've posted long sections by Fr. Garigou Lagrange on this very question; he cites as theologians who do hold that one can have implicit faith in the Blessed Trinity, such as Suarez and the Salmanticenses. You have already read these, and are not impressed. I also posted sections from several Catholic religion manuals, some of them from before the turn of the 20th Century; again with no effect. You kept quoting from the "Quicumque". I really don't see any point in continuing a fruitless discussion.
Re. "Quanto Conficiamur Meroeroe" form Pius IX again posted on more than one occassion, but here it is again:
Quote7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
James,
re. The unconverted Jew:
Depends what you mean; If you ask if I hold that a Jew can make a supernatural act of faith and perfect contrition, while not explicitly believing in the Blessed Trinity? Yes, I do.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 28, 2015, 06:12:05 PM
James,
re. The unconverted Jew:
Depends what you mean; If you ask if I hold that a Jew can make a supernatural act of faith and perfect contrition, while not explicitly believing in the Blessed Trinity? Yes, I do.
This answer reminds me of far better times when in 1907, the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, responded to the question as to whether Confucius could have been saved:
Answer: "It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved.
Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned".
Of course, the liberal of today would argue that the non-Catholic does not die AS an infidel really, but as a *last minute - hidden Catholic*. It is
all about semantic games nowadays.
It all depends on....
To say that one who walks through the door as red enters the room as red is not the same as saying one who, prior to walking through the door is red, but before actually walking through the door is made blue, enters the room blue, is not to say that one is a hidden blue. It is not necessary that any person be a witness to what takes place between a man and God, nor is it necessary that God command blueness when one has no recourse to such a thing.
FWIW, it doesn't matter what stipulation of explicit belief one wishes to tack on to God's salvific will, as the argument of St. Thomas Aquinas and BOD is such that if such a thing is truly necessary, God will affect it via internal inspiration or sending a preacher. I have no problem if James wants to believe, along with St. Thomas, that explicit belief in the Trinity and Christ is necessary... God can reveal in an instant such things and in an instant a person can make an act of will in Faith, perfect contrition, etc.
It makes no sense for such a thing to occur when the situation is not congruent to it, i.e., Babu is 10 but God knows he will die at 80, so God gives internal inspiration to be a Catholic. Rather, if Babu will have no way of doing that, God could simply wait until Babu is about to die to give such a grace and Babu's free response is on him. Why? Because the missionaries are still 1000 years out from ever reaching Babu's people in BFE South Pacific, etc.
Quote from: Cantarella on August 28, 2015, 09:23:14 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 28, 2015, 06:12:05 PM
James,
re. The unconverted Jew:
Depends what you mean; If you ask if I hold that a Jew can make a supernatural act of faith and perfect contrition, while not explicitly believing in the Blessed Trinity? Yes, I do.
This answer reminds me of far better times when in 1907, the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, responded to the question as to whether Confucius could have been saved:
Answer: "It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned".
Of course, the liberal of today would argue that the non-Catholic does not die AS an infidel really, but as a *last minute - hidden Catholic*. It is all about semantic games nowadays. It all depends on....
Agreed: "all those who die as infidels are damned".
However, not all those who outwardly die as infidels are damned, or else the Catholic Church would teach that: "Only those who actually receive Baptism of water in the Catholic Church are saved"; But the Church also accepts that a person can move from the state of sin to the state of Sanctifying Grace through an act of perfect Charity, without actually receiving Baptism. Which of course brings us into a forbidden subject on this forum. :)
I was having a discussion with a (forbidden subject adept) on I.A. A few moons ago, and he brought up some quotes from a book written at the begining of the 19th C. By Bishop George Hay, who can hardly be described as a Liberal, or as a "Rhanerian"(eh James?); he has some really tough things to say about EENS, which my adversary quoted; but thanks to his kindness he provided the link to Msgr. Hays' book; of which the following excepts are here quoted:
Excerpts From THE SINCERE CHRISTIAN
Bishop George Hay of Scotland [1729-1811],
http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/salvation-8.htm
Quote
An Inquiry, Whether Salvation Can Be Had Without True Faith,and out of the Communion of the Church of Christ
Q. 23. But suppose a person in the wilds of Tartary or America, where the name of Christ has never been heard: suppose also, that this person should attend to the dictates of conscience, enlightened by such graces as God is pleased to give him, and constantly comply with them;-----yet, how is it possible that he could be brought to the knowledge and Faith of Jesus Christ?
A. This case is certainly possible; and if it should happen it is not to be doubted but God Almighty would, from the treasures of His infinite wisdom, provide some means to bring such a person to the knowledge of the truth, even though he should send an Angel from Heaven to instruct him. "The hand of the Lord is not shortened, that He cannot save," in whatever difficulties a poor soul may be; He has, in former times, done wonderful things in cases of this kind, and He is no less able to do the same again: and since He has so clearly ordained, that out of the True Church, and without True Faith in Christ, there is no salvation, there can be no doubt but that, in the case proposed, He would take care effectually to bring such a person to that happiness.
Pg. 7
Q. 27. But suppose a person live in a false religion, and die without being reunited to the Communion of the Church of Christ, can it be said of such a one that he is certainly lost?
A. I must here put another question. Suppose a great sinner continues to live in his sins, and dies without any appearance of repentance, could you say of such a one that he is certainly lost? Certainly not; because no man knows, or can know, what may have passed between God and his soul in his last moments; all that can be said is, that if he has actually died without repentance, he certainly is lost; but if God, of His infinite goodness, has given him the grace of a perfect repentance, and he has corresponded on his part with so great a favor, he will be saved. In like manner, suppose a person living in false religion dies without giving any sign of embracing the True Faith, or without being reconciled to the Church of Christ, we can never say of such a one with certainty that he is lost; all that we can say must be under the same condition as in the other case: if he has actually died as he lived, separated from the True Church of Christ, and without the True Faith of Christ, he cannot be saved. But if God, of His great mercy, has given him in his last moments light and grace to see and embrace the True Faith, and he has corresponded with so great a favor as God requires, he will be saved. Now, as no man knows, or can know, what may have
passed in the soul of either the one or the other at their last moments, so no man can pronounce of either that he is lost with certainty.
Pg. 8
Q. 28. But, in the case proposed, if a person, in his last moments shall receive the light of Faith from God, and embrace it with all his heart, would this suffice to make him a member of the True Church in the sight of God?
A. Most and undoubtedly; the case is the same in this as in that of Baptism. Though Jesus Christ expressly says, "Except a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," [John 3: 5] which establishes the absolute necessity of Baptism for salvation, yet, suppose a heathen should be instructed in the Faith of Christ, and embrace it with all his heart, but die suddenly without Baptism, or be taken away by infidel friends, or put in absolute impossibility of receiving Baptism, and die in the above dispositions with sincere repentance and a desire of Baptism, this person will undoubtedly receive all the fruits of Baptism from God, and therefore is said to be Baptized in desire. In like manner, suppose a person brought up in a false religion embraces with all his heart the light of True Faith, which God gives him in his last moments-----as it is absolutely impossible for him in that state "to join the external Communion of the Church in the eyes of men, "yet he certainly will be considered united to her in the sight of God, by means of the True Faith which he embraces, and his desire of being united to the Church, were it in his power.
Q. 33. What are those sophistical arguments by which they are so much deceived?
A. We have seen them above, and fully confuted them one by one. But their great mistake arises from their erroneous ideas of invincible ignorance and the conditions required to be a member of the Church of Christ. For as they must either deny their own Faith, or allow this general proposition, that "without Faith it is impossible to please God," whilst they admit the truth of this, they pretend that, as invincible ignorance will excuse a man before God in all other cases; so it must excuse him in this also and therefore, that though a man have not the True Faith, "invincible ignorance will save him"-----not adverting to the two senses which these words contain, one of which is certainly true, and the other no less certainly false. Invincible ignorance will indeed save him from the guilt of having a false faith, and of not having the True Faith: this is certainly true. But to say that invincible ignorance will save him-----that is, will bring him to salvation-----is certainly false, as all we have seen above fully proves.
Again, whilst they admit this other general proposition, that "out of the True Church of Christ there is no salvation," which they must acknowledge, or give up their own religion, they suppose that a man may be a member of the True Church in the sight of God though not joined with her in Communion, as all Baptized children are, though born in heresy, at least till they come to the age of judging for themselves. Their mistake lies in not reflecting that all adults in a false religion can be members of the Church in the sight of God in no other sense than those were of whom our Savior says, "Other sheep I have who are not of this fold." But as He expressly declared that it was necessary to bring even those to the Communion of His Church, this evidently shows that they and all such are not members of the Church in such a way that they can be saved in their present state without being joined in her Communion.
QuoteSincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.
Pope Pius is referring to St. Thomas, who says God can provide Faith to the savage by internal inspiration. This would have to include knowledge of baptism so that the savage could ardently desire baptism.
QuoteBecause God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
No one is denying limbo, or claiming that a savage that goes to hell will be treated with injustice.
QuoteA few moons ago, and he brought up some quotes from a book written at the begining of the 19th C. By Bishop George Hay, who can hardly be described as a Liberal
Care to quote the most relevant part? This quote proves nothing.
edit: Here's a section FROM YOUR CITE:
Quoteyet, suppose a heathen should be instructed in the Faith of Christ, and embrace it with all his heart, but die suddenly without Baptism, or be taken away by infidel friends, or put in absolute impossibility of receiving Baptism, and die in the above dispositions with sincere repentance and a desire of Baptism, this person will undoubtedly receive all the fruits of Baptism from God, and therefore is said to be Baptized in desire.
Why did you even post this?
QuoteJames,
re. The unconverted Jew:
Depends what you mean; If you ask if I hold that a Jew can make a supernatural act of faith and perfect contrition, while not explicitly believing in the Blessed Trinity?
This is heresy. If he doesn't believe in the Trinity, then he doesn't have Faith. He's just a jew that really believes in his false religion. For that matter since he denies the Trinity, he can't make a perfect act of contrition.
St. Thomas:
Quote from: IIIª q. 68 a. 2 coI answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
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?
QuoteWhat I am trying to say is that it is not enough to understand that this is the case, it is also necessary to understand why this is the case in order for the pre-Vatican II problems to be understood.
Don't want to derail, however the reason WHY was due to evolution. If man is just a development of gradual changes in apes, then there is no Original Sin.
Once you do away with Original Sin, you don't need Christ, and you don't need the Church, as required in the past.
So then you invent other needs for Christ and His Church. This is called Vatican II.
Quote from: james03 on August 29, 2015, 12:11:39 PM
QuoteSincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace.
Pope Pius is referring to St. Thomas, who says God can provide Faith to the savage by internal inspiration. This would have to include knowledge of baptism so that the savage could ardently desire baptism.
QuoteBecause God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
No one is denying limbo, or claiming that a savage that goes to hell will be treated with injustice.
How can "eternal life" refer to limbo (or any part of hell)? He is not talking about "eternal life" (heaven) in the first paragraph and then switching abruptly to limbo.
But, believe it or not, I think I agree with you (more importantly St. Thomas) that God's light/inspiration WILL include explicit knowledge of baptism, if indeed you are right that this explicit faith is needed. (Indeed you may be right, at least about knowledge of Christ and the Trinity; I see the arguments). I think this inspiration MAY be practically instantaneous, so there is no time to explicitly confess the faith and desire externally.
Quote from: james03 on August 29, 2015, 12:39:33 PM
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?
God became man, and founded the Church as the ordinary means to help a man (through his entire life, not just at the last moment) to salvation. Of course God's ordinary means are going to make a huge difference. But you can't arbitrarily guess a limit of 1000. God can do what He wills to do - even if it is ALWAYS bringing explicit faith at the very last instant to one who has spent his whole life (what ANYONE but God would refer to as his whole life) in the manner that Pope Pius IX explains. 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.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 29, 2015, 11:33:35 AM
Quote from: Cantarella on August 28, 2015, 09:23:14 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 28, 2015, 06:12:05 PM
James,
re. The unconverted Jew:
Depends what you mean; If you ask if I hold that a Jew can make a supernatural act of faith and perfect contrition, while not explicitly believing in the Blessed Trinity? Yes, I do.
This answer reminds me of far better times when in 1907, the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, under Blessed Pius X, responded to the question as to whether Confucius could have been saved:
Answer: "It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned".
Of course, the liberal of today would argue that the non-Catholic does not die AS an infidel really, but as a *last minute - hidden Catholic*. It is all about semantic games nowadays. It all depends on....
Agreed: "all those who die as infidels are damned".
However, not all those who outwardly die as infidels are damned, or else the Catholic Church would teach that: "Only those who actually receive Baptism of water in the Catholic Church are saved"; But the Church also accepts that a person can move from the state of sin to the state of Sanctifying Grace through an act of perfect Charity, without actually receiving Baptism. Which of course brings us into a forbidden subject on this forum. :)
This hypothetical
unconverted Jew, not only dies unbaptized (with original sin), but dies
explicitly rejecting Christ and His Church. Given that the subject of Baptism, as Christ instituted, is forbidden in this forum, then let me just say that this is a firm denial of other two essential components of the Exclusive Catholic dogma of salvation: Explicit Faith (at the very least, in the Incarnation and the Trinity), and personal submission to the Roman Pontiff, the Bishop of Rome.
Do you disagree with the Angelic Doctor here?
Quote from: St. Thomas
After the Incarnation, all men, if they wish to be saved, are "bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles that refer to the Incarnation." 4 And, after the Incarnation, all men, in order to be saved, "are bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity."
The Jewish religion explicitly rejects Our Lord and the Catholic Church, but not every Jew. That is they do not culpably and knowingly do so.
re. Explicit denial of the B.T. & Refusal of Submission; again, it has to be knowing and culpable; as you realize that in order for a sin to be Mortal it must include "sufficient knowledge" and "full consent".
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.
Quote from: james03 on August 29, 2015, 12:33:11 PM
QuoteA few moons ago, and he brought up some quotes from a book written at the begining of the 19th C. By Bishop George Hay, who can hardly be described as a Liberal
Care to quote the most relevant part? This quote proves nothing.
edit: Here's a section FROM YOUR CITE:
Quoteyet, suppose a heathen should be instructed in the Faith of Christ, and embrace it with all his heart, but die suddenly without Baptism, or be taken away by infidel friends, or put in absolute impossibility of receiving Baptism, and die in the above dispositions with sincere repentance and a desire of Baptism, this person will undoubtedly receive all the fruits of Baptism from God, and therefore is said to be Baptized in desire.
Why did you even post this?
The part I posted was relevant to the discussion I have with Cantarella. If you would read his post to me previous to the Bishop Hayes one, and then the one of Bishop Hayes .
Quote from: james03 on August 29, 2015, 12:37:21 PM
QuoteJames,
re. The unconverted Jew:
Depends what you mean; If you ask if I hold that a Jew can make a supernatural act of faith and perfect contrition, while not explicitly believing in the Blessed Trinity?
This is heresy. If he doesn't believe in the Trinity, then he doesn't have Faith. He's just a jew that really believes in his false religion. For that matter since he denies the Trinity, he can't make a perfect act of contrition.
St. Thomas:
Quote from: IIIª q. 68 a. 2 coI answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.
Yes James, I seem to fall into "heresy" every time I have a discussion with you; This is one of the reasons I will allow others to carry on in my place.
Quote from: Cantarella on August 27, 2015, 10:13:47 PM
Quote
Does anyone truly know (not you specifically james) what Fr. Feeney was advocating and censored for or is a title of an argument simply seen and automatically understood?
Contrary to popular belief, the censorship of Fr. Feeney had nothing to do with the teaching on "Baptism of Desire" which came out later. The Holy Office in 1949 was completely unaware of Fr. Feeney's views concerning justified catechumens. For his theology regarding this was first expressed in the book Bread of Life, which was published until 1952. Fr. Feeney was censored because of the "rigorist" view of on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and his anti-Judaism rethoric; coming from Saint Benedict Center combined with the liberal and political maneuvers of Jew-friendly Cardinal Cushing and other progressivists at Rome. This Catholic dogma which basically means that only Catholics go to Heaven really clashes with the world, specially in times of reigning Judaism. By the way, did you know that Cushing played a vital role in drafting Vatican II documents Nostra Aetate and Ad Gentes?. He is highly responsible for the error found in V2 Council, helped by the liberal Jesuits who condemned Fr. Feeney. The error is that non Catholics in invincible ignorance can be saved. This Cushing error is shared by most traditionalists and obviously most post- Vatican II Curia.
Fr. Feeney was not censored over a doctrinal matter, but a disciplinary one. In times where rampant liberalism already had taken over the Church, the Vatican did not want to bend to the pressure Fr. Feeney was exerting with his defense of "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, whatsoever" (same dogma, by the way, which every martyr died for, every saint believed in, and that has been thrice infallibly defined, so every Catholic is bound to profess).
Fr. Feeney was reconciled with the Church without ever recanting his "rigorist" view on EENS.
I know he was. Didn't know he was a fellow anti-Zionist, good man. 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.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 29, 2015, 03:41:30 PM
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? :coffee:). 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:
Quote
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.
Quote from: james03 on August 29, 2015, 01:51:13 PM
QuoteWhat I am trying to say is that it is not enough to understand that this is the case, it is also necessary to understand why this is the case in order for the pre-Vatican II problems to be understood.
Don't want to derail, however the reason WHY was due to evolution. If man is just a development of gradual changes in apes, then there is no Original Sin.
Once you do away with Original Sin, you don't need Christ, and you don't need the Church, as required in the past.
So then you invent other needs for Christ and His Church. This is called Vatican II.
Whether or not this is correct (and I don't believe it is), this is not what I was asking. 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 is because the interior light and grace of the Holy Ghost (necessary for supernatural Faith) no longer leads toward Judaism, but towards Christianity. Without this last premise (which was very much obscured pre-Vatican II) the statement that a Jew can't be saved as a Jew simply can't be rationally defended.
Quote from: Cantarella on August 29, 2015, 07:22:56 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 29, 2015, 03:41:30 PM
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? :coffee:). 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:
Quote
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.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on August 29, 2015, 07:43:10 PM
Quote from: james03 on August 29, 2015, 01:51:13 PM
QuoteWhat I am trying to say is that it is not enough to understand that this is the case, it is also necessary to understand why this is the case in order for the pre-Vatican II problems to be understood.
Don't want to derail, however the reason WHY was due to evolution. If man is just a development of gradual changes in apes, then there is no Original Sin.
Once you do away with Original Sin, you don't need Christ, and you don't need the Church, as required in the past.
So then you invent other needs for Christ and His Church. This is called Vatican II.
Whether or not this is correct (and I don't believe it is), this is not what I was asking. 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 is because the interior light and grace of the Holy Ghost (necessary for supernatural Faith) no longer leads toward Judaism, but towards Christianity. Without this last premise (which was very much obscured pre-Vatican II) the statement that a Jew can't be saved as a Jew simply can't be rationally defended.
QMR,
I think that the reason that a Jew cannot be saved as a Jew, is that the modern Jewish religion is not identical to the pre-Christ religion. That is, Our Lord told the Pharisees that Abraham, Moses etc. All believed in Him;indeed, nobody can be saved except through faith in Christ, either explicit, or implicit; thus GLG, explains that those who believe in a God rewarder of the good and evil, implicitly believe in Christ. But the post Christ religion specifically rejects Our Lord as the Messiah.
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?
QuoteI 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.
QuoteTo 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.
Quote from: james03 on August 29, 2015, 08:35:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 29, 2015, 07:52:39 PM
Quote from: Cantarella on August 29, 2015, 07:22:56 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 29, 2015, 03:41:30 PM
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? :coffee:). 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:
Quote
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."
QuoteYou'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.
Quote from: Cantarella on August 29, 2015, 09:39:32 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 29, 2015, 07:52:39 PM
Quote from: Cantarella on August 29, 2015, 07:22:56 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 29, 2015, 03:41:30 PM
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? :coffee:). 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:
Quote
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.
Quote from: james03 on August 29, 2015, 09:54:01 PM
QuoteYou'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.
Quote from: james03 on August 29, 2015, 08:39:46 PM
QuoteTo 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
QuoteSent. 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
QuoteQuestiones 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)..
Quote from: Non Nobis on August 29, 2015, 02:36:36 PM
... 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.
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:
QuoteI-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."
Quote from: ts aquinas on August 29, 2015, 11:11:09 PM
Quote from: james03 on August 29, 2015, 09:54:01 PM
QuoteYou'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.
Quote from: Non Nobis on August 30, 2015, 12:03:51 AM
Quote from: james03 on August 29, 2015, 08:39:46 PM
QuoteTo 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 saysQuoteSent. 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 QuoteQuestiones 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
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.
QuoteThat 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.
Michael,
You are back posting again. Will you please answer my question?
QuoteThe 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).
Imprecision is a big problem with this subject. If the Great Thumb religion were able to allow man to live a life of natural goodness, it would be capable of Immaculate Reconceptions. We'd send missionaries to them to learn.
You know what's weird? Wasn't JPII going to these voodoo places and learning from them? Like I said, denial of EENS NECESSARILY leads to Vat. II.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 30, 2015, 08:31:51 AM
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:
QuoteI-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."
Yes. I was amazed when I first read what St. Thomas says here - that what is in effect Baptism of Desire can come to one at the first moment of willing good or evil. Baptism of Desire, unlike the Sacrament can be lost on the first mortal sin (except that original sin does not return); and then perfect contrition is needed to return to that state of grace (there is no sacrament of Penance available to those with Baptism of Desire). I am somewhat speculating, but this is how I understand this - comments, Michael?
Feeneyites (and those who deny implicit baptism of desire) wiggle and squirm to get out of this quote. St. Thomas is very clear that explicit faith is needed for salvation; but he does not subscribe to the horrible belief that even a child who has scarcely been exposed to his pagan religion must be always in the state of mortal sin.
Like you, Michael, I am finding it tiring to continue these arguments.
Quotebut he does not subscribe to the horrible belief that even a child who has scarcely been exposed to his pagan religion must be always in the state of mortal sin.
Read again, that is exactly what he is saying:
Quotewhereas 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.
Therefore if the little pagan at the age of reason still goes to hear the shaman talk about the wind spirits, he sins mortally. What is more, it is the most grievous sin you can commit: irreligion.
We have zero evidence of any pagan accomplishing what St. Thomas holds as a theological possibility. What he is saying is that all pagans, upon reaching the age of reason, commit the worst possible mortal sin because they don't become Christians. And since this is the case, it is not possible to have venial sin alone, because they will at least have this mortal sin.
On this point, I disagree with St. Thomas. I believe you can have venial sin alone.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 29, 2015, 10:23:02 PM
Quote from: Cantarella on August 29, 2015, 09:39:32 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 29, 2015, 07:52:39 PM
Quote from: Cantarella on August 29, 2015, 07:22:56 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 29, 2015, 03:41:30 PM
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? :coffee:). 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:
Quote
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.
Mr. Wilson,
Unfortunately that single highlighted word dilutes the entire dogma by adding a relative element to it. One single word is all it takes to obliterate the real meaning of a
de fide doctrine. Where does this "
knowingly" really come from? That is a clear departure from the understanding of the dogma which the Church has once declared. The dogma was meant to be true for
every human creature, not only for "
those who know". In reality, how many souls would not convert if they
knew for a fact that Christ and His Church are the only way of human salvation? Not very many at all...according to this theory Hell must practically be an empty place, exactly as proposed in Vatican II bad liberal theology.
Inculpable ignorance of the true religion excuses a person from the sin of infidelity or heresy. But such ignorance has never been the means of salvation. From the fact that a person could potentially live a righteous life according to his conscience and not sin against the true Faith because of ignorance, many have drawn the false and heretical conclusion that such a soul is saved, or be granted sanctifying grace, thus making ignorance a means of salvation. That is the liberal interpretation and part of the
Masonic agenda.
QuoteUnfortunately that single highlighted word dilutes the entire dogma by adding a relative element to it. One single word is all it takes to obliterate the real meaning of a de fide doctrine. Where does this "knowingly" really come from? That is a clear departure from the understanding of the dogma which the Church has once declared. The dogma was meant to be true for every human creature, not only for "those who know". In reality, how many souls would not convert if they knew for a fact that Christ and His Church are the only way of human salvation?
Here's how I restate it: The Catholic dogma about the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church in order to be saved has been reduced to a meaningless formula: Satanists go to hell.
Cantarella: On "knowingly" rejecting the faith;
QuoteMr. Wilson,
Unfortunately that single highlighted word dilutes the entire dogma by adding a relative element to it. One single word is all it takes to obliterate the real meaning of a de fide doctrine. Where does this "knowingly" really come from? That is a clear departure from the understanding of the dogma which the Church has once declared. The dogma was meant to be true for every human creature, not only for "those who know". In reality, how many souls would not convert if they knew for a fact that Christ and His Church are the only way of human salvation? Not very many at all...according to this theory Hell must practically be an empty place, exactly as proposed in Vatican II bad liberal theology.
Inculpable ignorance of the true religion excuses a person from the sin of infidelity or heresy. But such ignorance has never been the means of salvation. From the fact that a person could potentially live a righteous life according to his conscience and not sin against the true Faith because of ignorance, many have drawn the false and heretical conclusion that such a soul is saved, or be granted sanctifying grace, thus making ignorance a means of salvation. That is the liberal interpretation and part of the Masonic
Cantarela,
the bolded part is what I meant; excuse me if what I said was not clear.
The Liberals and Freemasons draw many false conclusions and hold many false doctrines; but we are speaking of what the Church teaches. You attempted to charge me with believing in evolution of dogma; which was a total misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what I said; e.i. Many Thomists believe that St. Thomas would have modified his opinion if he had lived to see the discovery of American and the presence of millions of souls that had never heard about the Catholic faith; the Blessed Trinity or the Incarnation. Your response was to quote from Pope Pius XII condemning the aforementioned error. But implicitly your charge also affected Fr. Garigou Lagrange, the Salmanticenses; Suarez and other Catholic commentators of St. Thomas. Which amounts to a libel of these men.
Next, you quoted "Cantate Domino" in the sense that if one did not hold to the whole Catholic teaching, one would not be saved. Which is not true; there have been many Catholics that do not hold to the whole Catholic faith "whole and inviolate" yet "inculpably", and yet have saved their souls.
Much less would God hold a pagan living in America before the preaching of the Gospel there culpable if they did not hold to the doctrine of transubtantiation; the Infallibility of the Pope; the Immaculate Conception; that there are Seven Sacraments; and a whole list of etc. etc. So the question comes down to: "What is the minimum necessary for a person to hold in order to save their souls?" The response of Catholic theologians is divided; and the Church (contrary to what you want to affirm) has never ruled definitely on this question.
Re. "Ignorance as a means of salvation": Ok, now show me where I have stated that I believe or hold this.
Quote from: james03 on August 30, 2015, 03:26:09 PM
QuoteThat 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.
One can lose a potential, insofar as a finalized state, so I'll restate: "...results in the loss [of the potential] of the beatific vision...". For example, I have a potential to win the lottery that will finalize Monday (or whenever the heck it closes), but after Monday I will have lost that potential regardless of my actual playing or not. And in the case of the hypothetical adult, he will have either played or decided to positively not play, but he will not have been indifferent to the lottery.
But nonetheless, a man cannot die when at the age of reason and be totally without actual sin but still have original sin; if such a man dies with only original sin, then he has not reached the age of reason according to Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Quotethere have been many Catholics that do not hold to the whole Catholic faith "whole and inviolate" yet "inculpably", and yet have saved their souls.
Actually they do, and this is the correct use of the theological term "implicit Faith". If a person believes that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ, and is willing to believe anything proposed by it, then he implicitly believes in all of the Catholic Faith. He is saved by implicit Faith. Implicit Faith only saves Catholics.
It is shocking to me that Michael can not answer a simple question. Did a higher percentage of heathens get saved after the arrival of missionaries?
The Catholic answer is of course YES. A huge, humongous increase in those saved occurred.
Non Nobis stated:
Quote
Yes. I was amazed when I first read what St. Thomas says here - that what is in effect Baptism of Desire can come to one at the first moment of willing good or evil. Baptism of Desire, unlike the Sacrament can be lost on the first mortal sin (except that original sin does not return); and then perfect contrition is needed to return to that state of grace (there is no sacrament of Penance available to those with Baptism of Desire). I am somewhat speculating, but this is how I understand this - comments, Michael?
Feeneyites (and those who deny implicit baptism of desire) wiggle and squirm to get out of this quote. St. Thomas is very clear that explicit faith is needed for salvation; but he does not subscribe to the horrible belief that even a child who has scarcely been exposed to his pagan religion must be always in the state of mortal sin.
Like you, Michael, I am finding it tiring to continue these arguments.
re. "Tiring"; yes, because our adversaries don't seem to take into account the Universal Salvific Will of God i.e. God truly wills that all men arrive at eternal salvation; and that He is able to offer this to every soul, no matter where, when or in what circumstances they are born and live.
"every child"; That is correct; St. Thomas held that it was possible for every pagan child to enter into the state of grace. Implicitly this means that God gives every person the means to attain eternal salvation; since Sanctifying Grace is what every man needs in order to save their soul; and man cannot make a supernatural act without God's grace; therefore God provides this means even to those who are far away from any missionary or will never have a chance to meet one, because they will die soon after having reached the age of reason.
"On how does a person who is not a Catholic return to the state of grace, or attain to it, if they do not have it?" The means available to all men, is the act of perfect contrition. I published an article on this somewhere on the forum, I will P.M. it to you when I get a chance.
Quote from: james03 on August 30, 2015, 07:44:45 PM
It is shocking to me that Michael can not answer a simple question. Did a higher percentage of heathens get saved after the arrival of missionaries?
The Catholic answer is of course YES. A huge, humongous increase in those saved occurred.
Comment: "Silence"
Here is an excerpt from the aforementioned article:
QuoteIV. IS IT EASY TO HAVE PERFECT CONTRITION?
We have already cleared the ground for the answer by insisting on two points: (1) Perfect Contrition must proceed from the pure love of God, but does not exclude other motives. (2) No special degree of intensity or duration, no sensible sorrow, no tears and sighs are required for Perfect Contrition.
Evidently it is more difficult to make an act of Perfect than of imperfect Contrition. It is also clear that fervent Christians more easily make acts of Perfect Contrition than the lukewarm. But is Perfect Contrition difficult to obtain for one who has begun to be sorry for his sins? Is it beyond the power of the ordinary man of good will who tries to live up to his moral standards, but is too weak always to avoid mortal sin?
The answer is a decided NO. Any one who sincerely wishes it can with the grace of God make acts of Perfect Contrition. This can be clearly proved from the revelation God has given us about His dealings with men.
Contrition derives its perfection from the love of God. Hence to prove that acts of pure love of God are easy is equivalently to prove that Perfect Contrition is easy. From both the Old and the New Testaments it appears that God has imposed on all men a strict command to make acts of the love of God. Jesus, when asked, Which is the great commandment of the Law? answered:
Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment.
Now, God is a Father. There is no Father like Him. His feelings are apparent from the fact that while we were yet sinners,He sent His only begotten Son into the world and delivered Him up for us. His proper quality, says the Church, is ever to have mercy and to spare.-His mercy is from generation unto generation, sings the Blessed Virgin in her Magnificat and who knew the Heavenly Father better than Mary, herself the perfect created mirror of God's mercy?
Does a Father burden his children with hard precepts? Still less does God command impossibilities. When commanding, as the. . Council of Trent says, God admonishes thee to do what thou art able and to pray for what thou art not able, and in proof of this assertion, the Council quotes St John, who says His commandments are not heavy, and Christ's own words, My yoke is sweet and my burden light. When God commands, at the same time He enlightens. When He asks something, He gives the strength to do it. Hence, the very fact that our loving Heavenly Father, who knows the ignorance and weakness of the masses of men of all times and places, requires us to make acts of the love of God is sufficient proof that it must be easy to make such acts.
In order that, the commandment of love may be fulfilled, St. Francis of Sales writes, God leaves no living man without furnishing him abundantly with all the means required. He gives us not a bare sufficiency of means to love Him and in loving Him to save ourselves, but also a rich, ample and magnificent sufficiency-such as ought to be expected from so great a bounty as His.
We come to the same conclusion by another argument. God wants to have all men. Hence His Providence furnishes all without exception with the means whereby they can be reconciled with Him. Before Christ the only means for adults was Perfect Contrition, so it is even now for all those who, for want of knowledge or opportunity, cannot avail themselves of the Christian Sacraments that is to say, for the vast majority of men. Who then can tolerate the thought that this solitary plank, Perfect Contrition, thus made necessary by God, would be so slippery that only a few can seize and hold it, or that this ark of salvation would be so hard to enter into that the vast majority of those for whom it is intended must remain out of it and perish in the deluge? No, God does not impose on us a sorrow for sins that is beyond the power of even the weakest person of good will.
This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the Church constantly urges us to make acts of Perfect Contrition. What she officially teaches in her catechisms to all her children, in the world or in religion, illiterate and learned, the tepid and the fervent, sinner and saint, is an Act of Perfect Contrition. Now, the Church, a tender Mother- pia mater Ecclesia-.does not require from her children anything that is beyond their power. Hence, beyond a doubt, in her mind Perfect Contrition is easy to all. Only one thing can make it difficult, to us-our want of confidence in God's mercy and in the infinite merits of Christ-O my God, I believe, help Thou my unbelief. Transform it, I beseech Thee, into that boundless confidence which animated Thy dear child, the little St. Therese. She writes:
It is not because I have been preserved from mortal sin that I lift myself up to God by confidence and love. Ah! I feel that even if I had on my conscience all the crimes that can be committed, I would not lose anything of my confidence; I would go, my heart broken with repentance and throw myself into the heart of my Saviour. I know that He cherished the prodigal child, I have listened to His words addressed to St. Magdalen, to the adulterous woman, to the Samaritan . . . I know that all this multitude of offenses would be swallowed up in the abyss in the twinkling of an eye, as a drop of water thrown into a burning furnace.
Well, the other readers know I gave you many opportunities for input.
Michael has a big problem on his hand with this question. If he answers yes (which is the correct answer), it is revealed that his novel theology solves nothing. He is still left with the dilemma. The savage 10 years before missionary activity is not saved because God created him in a place where there was no Church.
If Michael answers "no", he now is professing an absurd belief that missionary activity has zero benefit to salvation. And he proves my point, that this denial of EENS leads to Vat. II. Because if missionary activity doesn't lead to salvation, or the Church (same thing), then what do you do with the Church? Well you spread social "justice" and world peace, that's what.
Here is more:
Quote
V. HOW TO OBTAIN PERFECT CONTRITION
Perfect Contrition is a gift of God, a great GRACE. Only by God in Christ Our Saviour can we have our sins forgiven. Now, the universal means of obtaining graces is PRAYER: Ask and ye shall receive.
To obtain Perfect Contrition we must, therefore, pray for is-as fervently as a mother beside the cot of her dying child prays for its recovery. Here there is question of our own immortal soul to be restored to the life divine. When we beg God for some temporal favour, we may be refused what we ask for. But the prayer for Perfect Contrition will always be heard. Suppose one of you asks his father for a loaf of bread-will he hand him a stone? . . . If then you, who are sinful, know how to bestow kind gifts on your children, how much more will your heavenly Father impart the Holy Ghost to those who ask Him? Jesus here promises to prayer the highest grace, the Holy Ghost Himself. In it the lesser grace Perfect Contrition is certainly included.
Let us then have recourse to God, beg Him to pardon us and count upon divine mercy. Let us imitate the Publican of the Gospel, whom Jesus Himself has proposed to us as a model: The Publican, standing far off (in the Temple) would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven,but smote his breast, saying, O God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' This man, I tell you, Jesus concludes, went back to his house justified.
As we have said already, to arouse ourselves to Perfect Contrition we need not set aside all consideration of the punishment of hell and the loss of heaven, or of God's goodness repaid by us with such ingratitude. On the contrary, these considerations will often be very useful to arouse a beginning of sorrow for our sins. However, we should not stop at them, but think of Christ crucified for us and ask God to grant us though Christ's merits the grace of immediate re- storation into His friendship through Perfect Contrition.
But, I can pray no more, some will object. In fact, one who has long indulged in mortal or deliberate venial sin and neglected all prayer will not easily set himself to pray. A sick person finds even the most delicious food tasteless. The fault is not with the food, but with that person's appetite. Similarly, the sinner, estranged from God and clinging to creatures, may have lost all taste for spiritual things. He finds it hard to fix his mind on God's supreme goodness and countless benefits, because his will is hardened in its attachment to creatures-How to soften and redirect that will?.
(a) With God nothing is impossible. Following the advice of St. Charles Borromeo:
Pay a visit to Christ, crucified and. dying for you on Calvary amidst pains and insults of every description. The knowledge that the Crucified One is Infinite Goodness itself, your greatest Benefactor, whom, instead of loving, you have insulted and nailed to the Cross, will awaken in your heart sentiments of love and sorrow that will wipe away your sins even before you enter the confessional.
(b) A second means is recourse to the Immaculate Mother of Jesus, our Mother, the Mediatrix of all graces. She has brought forth for us our Redeemer and nourished Him and offered Him a Victim for our sins and on the Cross. Imagine her on Mount Calvary with the dead and mangled body of Jesus on her knees: O Mary, here I am to contemplate the evil which MY SINS have wrought on your Jesus. What havoc they have played with His innocent body-His head crowned with thorns, His hands and feet pierced with cruel nails, not a spot on His body left unhurt, unsullied. Neither have they spared you, but pierced your motherly heart with swords of sorrow. .
O Blessed Virgin, pray for me . . . obtain for me the grace never to sin again
Often a few words will suffice. Just look at her and at Jesus crucified, and say with her: My Jesus, mercy.'My God have mercy on me, a sinner.-My God, I love Thee above all things.
(c) A third powerful and attractive means is recourse to the Sacred Wounds of Jesus. Recite, for example, the favourite prayer of St. Ignatius:
Soul of Christ, sanctify me-Body of Christ, save me-Blood of Christ, inebriate me-Water from the side of Christ, wash me-Passion of Christ, strengthen me-O good Jesus, hear me-Within Thy Wounds hide me-Permit me not to be separated from Thee-From the malignant foe defend me-In the hour of my death call me-And bid me come to Thee- That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee-For ever and ever. Amen.
VI-WHEN OUGHT WE TO MAKE AN ACT OF PERFECT CONTRITION
All Catholics know that in a sudden danger of death, the first thing to do is to make an act of Perfect Contrition: think of Our Lord crucified, repent for having offended so great and good a God and then put all one's trust in His mercy.
But, one may ask, will one have sufficient leisure for his act? With the grace of God, yes, since it requires but a moment, provided, however, that during our life we have made it a practice. In the hour of death we reap the reward of good habits acquired during life. We must, therefore, try and acquire the habit of making acts of Perfect Contrition. Hence:
1. If at any time we have the misfortune of sinning grievously instead of remaining in that wretched state till our next Confession, let us rise immediately from it by making an act of Perfect Contrition. By it we are restored in the friendship of God and all our good works become again meritorious for heaven.
2. A man in mortal sin goes to bed at night an enemy of God. What is his fate should death surprise him in his sleep? If, however, he rises in the morning, he starts his day again as an enemy of God. For days and weeks, perhaps months and years, he continues in this fearful state. Miserable man-in constant danger of being lost eternally. Poor, wasted life!- without any merits for heaven. Yet it is so easy to avoid this: just make a brief examination of conscience, and an Act of Perfect Contrition.
3. But let us aim higher still and try to acquire the habit of studding our whole day with little acts of Contrition. With God's grace we can multiply these acts throughout the day. Our daily prayers, works and sufferings can easily be transformed into acts of Contrition.
(a) If we pray in the humble disposition of the publican, Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner, we shall very often, without even thinking of it have Perfect Contrition, for example when you hear Mass, or make the Stations of the Cross; when you reflect before your crucifix or an image of the Sacred Heart.
(b) The three first petitions of the Our Father: Hallowed be Thy name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven are acts of perfect love of God, and consequently of Perfect Contrition if at the same time we remember our sins.
(c) Similarly, the Rosary, said with the mind quietly reflecting on the Mysteries of Our Lord, especially the Sorrowful Mysteries, easily becomes a prayer of Perfect Contrition.
(d) Our trials and sufferings, too, can be made into so many acts of Contrition. This is beautifully shown by a scene in the life of King David. In his youth David had fallen into the awful sins of adultery and murder. He repented and God let him know that his sins were forgiven. Yet, never in later years did the holy king allow his offenses to fade from his memory. In his old age, when his son, Absalom, rose in revolt, David was forced to flee and was met by a man named Semei, who began to throw stones at the old king and to curse him, saying, Come out, come out, thou man of blood. . . One of David's servants, indignant at this insult, said to the king, Why should this dead dog curse my lord and king? I will go and cut off his head. But the king answered, Let him alone that he may curse as the Lord hath bidden him. Perhaps the Lord may look upon my affliction, and render me good for the cursing of this day. Remembering his sins, the holy king willingly accepted the worst insults in expiation.
(e) The fervent Christian goes further still. Not content with accepting the trials and sufferings God's Providence sends him he freely, of his own accord, daily adds some mortifications and sacrifices so as to make up for the past by a generous reparation for himself and for others also.
Compunction of Heart.-By the practice of frequent acts of contrition one's whole spiritual life becomes penetrated with that sweet scentof abiding sorrow for one's sins which spiritual authors call compunction of heart.
Compunction consists in HABITUAL CONTRITION, the abiding state of hatred of sin out of love for God's supreme Goodness. It is a continual participation in the sorrow ofOur Lord for our sins, the Sacred Heart leaving faint stigmata of His one lifelong sorrow upon our hearts.
The Saints never weary in recommending this compunction of heart. We should, says St. Benedict, daily confess to God, in prayer, with tears and sighs, our, past sins.- The great St. Teresa, formed to perfection by Our Lord Himself, had placed under her eyes in her oratory, in order to make it the refrain of her prayer, this text of the Psalmist: Enter not, O Lord, into judgment with Thy servant. This is no exclamation of love, as we would have expected from this seraphic soul, but a cry of compunction. The souls most forestalled with divine favours, she said, are also the most filled with the sense of compunction.
The English spiritual writer, Fr. Faber, narrates how for a long time he was puzzled by the fact that so many persons have lofty and sincere aspirations after high perfection, and so few reach it. . . . This must have a common cause. What is it?
After long years of inquiries, reflection, and hesitations he came to the persuasion that the common cause of all failure in perfection is the Want of Abiding Sorrow for Sin. He adds, All holiness has lost its principle of growth if it is separated from abiding sorrow for sin, while on the contrary, No vocation will he frustrated by a soul in which there is this abiding sorrow for sin.
The Saints are characteristic for their firmness and stability in the spiritual life. Then why that want of firmness in many of those who strive after perfection? The reason is most often to be found in the lack of compunction. . . . There is no surer means of rendering the spiritual life firm and steadfast than to impregnate it with the spirit of compunction.
The importance of acquiring this abiding sense of sorrow is strongly impressed on us by the Church. With her uninterrupted offering of the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary, the administration of Sacraments and Sacramentals, the practices of devotion, her Liturgy and all her prayers and exhortations, the Church has but one aim in view: to realize the full ideal to which God calls her, namely, that she might become a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, but that she should be holy . . . and unspotted in His sight in charity.
Now it is striking how her most solemn prayer, holy Mass, nay her whole Liturgy, are pervaded with the abiding sense of sorrow for innumerable sins, offences and negligences.
The De Profundis and the Miserere these perfect and inspired expressions of the spirit of compunction, are constantly on the lips of her priests and religious. And she never tires of exhorting us, in season and out of season, to repentance and contrition. Undoubtedly in her mind-and in this matter she is infallible-the realization of her ideal of sanctity is closely connected with the spirit of compunction or habitual Perfect Contrition. She even allows Masses with special orations to be said for the Gift of Tears of compunction. We may aptly close this little exposition of her teaching by quoting the first of these orations:
Almighty and most loving God, who, to quench the thirst of Thy people, madest a fountain of living water spring out of a rock, draw from our stony hearts tears of compunction, that we may be able to mourn for our sins, and win pardon for them from Thy mercy. Through Jesus Christ, Our Lord. Amen.
Nihil Obstat:
F.MOYNIHAN,
Censor Theol. Deputatus.
Imprimatur:
@ D. MANNIX,
The savage 10 years out from missionaries reaching can be saved. Whether or not he will is another question entirely, but a no answer is on him, lest we impugn the salvific will of God.
You yourself said a "higher percentage" in posing the question, not some vs none, so whether or not a person would be saved in such a situation is a yes / no question which itself solves nothing.
The spreading of the Gospel has a positive effect and a negative effect. In a positive sense it opens the eyes of the blind but in the negative it affirms the wicked in their impending damnation.
So, this doesn't excuse missionary activity since it is necessary and the arrival the the Sacraments aids men to the end of salvation. But neither does the lack of missionaries having been to the savage's homeland ensure the damnation of those living there.
It's a simple question Gardener. Was a higher percentage of a population saved after the arrival of the Church? It is indeed a yes/no question.
Nowhere have I said that NONE were saved. I'm asking about percentages.
It is insane that I even have to ask it, and even more insane you all are throwing up sticks and twigs and Michael is refusing to answer it.
To the other readers, I have proposed that denial of EENS and belief in the anonymous Catholic NECESSARILY leads to Vat. II and even the "spirit of Vatican II".
I believe this is no longer just a proposition, but has been demonstrated. (Trad!) Catholics can not give a simple answer as to whether missionary activity increases the percentage of people saved.
To be frank, we have no idea who was saved before the arrival of missionaries and who was saved after, whether in number or name. We can have a moral idea that it is less likely a person would be saved, but neither can we say for sure the status of those who lived and died before missionaries arrived in any land, or even now.
The Church is necessary; the Sacraments are necessary. But God does not command the impossible and so all I personally am saying is that we cannot discount the possibility of salvation for persons who were not water-baptized, via BOD, and that includes whatever litany of "musts" for things in which they held belief to be saved. If one wants to propose that to be saved a person must be able to do advanced calculus without a calculator, I would simply reply that through inspiration God could infuse such knowledge and if 1 second before they were obviously mathematically illiterate, and appeared so to everyone else 1 second after such infused knowledge, one has no idea what manner of matht hey were thinking, willing, and doing in their head -- between them and God . So I'm not denying any particular dogma or the necessity of the Church, etc. Ordinarily, one must enter the Church as we all understand that process, granted. That one who does not outwardly do this, due to no fault of their own, and it is claimed this ipso facto results in damnation, denied.
And, since you are saying you deny the understanding of EENS that some have proposed, and anonymous Catholic heresy, then you MUST by default say NONE were saved prior to then. If not, your argument is puerile.
Otherwise, I simply don't know what you're on about since you seem to not deny BOD in theory (though seemingly in practice), and grant that one could be saved prior to a missionary's arrival.
So, do you accept that some could be saved prior to the arrival of missionaries? And, if so, are they not in some sense "anonymous"?
Ok James,
I've taken several deep breaths and counted to 10.
I'm sorry for my impatience, but we have been over this very question so many times and I have attempted to clarify it with you, that I have become somewhat exasperated.
Your "how many before and after" comes back to the same argument as the "true chance" question; I say: "God gives every man a true chance to save his soul"; and you come back: "You mean to say that John Clancy Irish Catholic in the 1940's and Yu Pin Lin, pagan and Tyrone gansta, have the Same Chance to save their souls. I then respond: "No James, obviously blah blah blah"
Since this has already been covered, and since you are not mentally deficient; on the contrary you are quite intelligent. I don't know what else to attribute this amnesia to. So that is why I couldn't respond without pounding my keyboard to smithereens.
Capis?
Ps. What Gardener said (per usual).
Quote from: james03 on August 30, 2015, 07:06:44 PM
QuoteUnfortunately that single highlighted word dilutes the entire dogma by adding a relative element to it. One single word is all it takes to obliterate the real meaning of a de fide doctrine. Where does this "knowingly" really come from? That is a clear departure from the understanding of the dogma which the Church has once declared. The dogma was meant to be true for every human creature, not only for "those who know". In reality, how many souls would not convert if they knew for a fact that Christ and His Church are the only way of human salvation?
Here's how I restate it: The Catholic dogma about the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church in order to be saved has been reduced to a meaningless formula: Satanists go to hell.
But the optimist liberal engulfed by the Masonic agenda would continue arguing that the hypothetical Satanist could also be saved because "
no one knows what may happen in the soul in the last minute" so this impenitent Satanist after a full life of sin, could do an Act of perfect contrition, receive the Baptism of Desire, enter the state of justification and sanctifying grace, obtain the gift of final perseverance, and in the last very second ultimately make it to Heaven. At the end, there is no one really in Hell except for lonely Judas.
One may wonder what merit is there for a validly baptized Catholic who perseveres in the state of Grace by actively engaging in the life of Christian warfare, prayer, and penance; and who is helped by the sacraments, solely dispensed by the Church (necessary for salvation) , when the liberals are telling the whole world they do not really need to be a Catholic to be saved
giving the impression that the Church has changed her dogma of salvation when we know that is impossible.
QuoteSo, do you accept that some could be saved prior to the arrival of missionaries? And, if so, are they not in some sense "anonymous"?
Basically the anonymous Catholic heresy states that the people themselves don't know they are Catholic, and don't even have to believe/acknowledge Jesus Christ. It is basically the semi Pelagian theory reintroduced.
So a "good" jews who dies a jew, never renounces his error, and never accepts Jesus Christ, nor desires baptism, is saved because he is an anonymous Catholic. I'm assuming you didn't know this.
So to your question, I think it is possible some were saved before the arrival of the Church. However if this happened, then they died Catholic believing in Jesus and ardently desiring baptism.
That being said, the number is small. We have no proof of it ever happening, and if it was routine, then there would be no need for the Church or the sacraments. To answer my own question, there was a colossal increase in the number/percentage saved after the arrival of the Church in the savage lands.
QuoteI then respond: "No James, obviously blah blah blah"
So you answer that there was a huge difference in the percentage saved. So why the need for this novel teaching? What exactly are you trying to solve?
Quote from: james03 on August 30, 2015, 10:29:24 PM
QuoteSo, do you accept that some could be saved prior to the arrival of missionaries? And, if so, are they not in some sense "anonymous"?
Basically the anonymous Catholic heresy states that the people themselves don't know they are Catholic, and don't even have to believe/acknowledge Jesus Christ. It is basically the semi Pelagian theory reintroduced.
So a "good" jews who dies a jew, never renounces his error, and never accepts Jesus Christ, nor desires baptism, is saved because he is an anonymous Catholic. I'm assuming you didn't know this.
So to your question, I think it is possible some were saved before the arrival of the Church. However if this happened, then they died Catholic believing in Jesus and ardently desiring baptism.
That being said, the number is small. We have no proof of it ever happening, and if it was routine, then there would be no need for the Church or the sacraments. To answer my own question, there was a colossal increase in the number/percentage saved after the arrival of the Church in the savage lands.
The Pelagian heresy is indeed the root of the obliteration of EENS and consequent Vatican II ecclesiology. Denying the full effects of Original Sin in the human race is part of the Pelagian Heresy. Classical neo-pelagian question is that if all men had indeed inherited Original Sin, and therefore would suffer the loss of the Beatific Vision unless they embraced the One True Faith and were baptized,
what of the vast numbers of men at the ends of the earth who had never heard of Christ? Would it not be unjust of God to send such men to hell?
Here is a wise response by great St. Jerome, main adversary of Pelagius:
Quote from: St. Jerome"But you, who do you think you, a human being, are to answer back to God? Something that was made, can it say to its maker, why did you make me this shape? A potter surely has the right over his clay to make out of the same lump either a pot for special use or one for ordinary use (Romans 9:20-21). Accuse God of greater calumny by asking Him why He said, when Esau and Jacob were still in their mother's womb: 'I loved Jacob but I hated Esau. (Malachi 1:2,3)....'
"It is true that neither fertile Britain, nor the people of Scotland, nor any of the barbarian nations as far as the ocean knew anything about Moses and His prophets. Why was it necessary that He come at the end of those times when numerous multitudes of people had already perished? Writing to the Romans, the blessed Apostle cautiously airs this question but he cannot answer it and leaves it to God's knowledge. So, you should also deign to accept that there may be no answer to what you ask. To God be the power and He does not need you as His advocate."[2]
But see, you're conflating a particular point on Original Sin(which no one is denying), the error of Pelagius, which your same article answers with St. Thomas insofar as the providence of God to furnish what is necessary:
QuoteAs regards Pelagius' problem of people of good will who lived at the ends of the earth and who had never heard of Christ, St. Thomas taught that it pertained to Divine Providence to furnish all such with the means of salvation, provided there was no hindrance on their part:
"Is It Necessary to Believe Explicitly?
"Difficulties: It seems that it is not, for 1. We should not posit any proposition from which an untenable conclusion follows. But, if we claim that explicit Faith is necessary for salvation, an untenable conclusion follows. For it is possible for someone to be brought up in the forest or among wolves, and such a one cannot have explicit knowledge of any matter of Faith. Thus, there will be a man who will inevitably be damned. But this is untenable. Hence, explicit belief in something does not seem necessary...
"Answer to Difficulty No.1:
"Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. 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).[5]
http://catholicism.org/pelagius-lives.html#_ftnref4
You're actually arguing against the whole of the article by taking a portion out of context.
Again, it is not pelagianism to merely reiterate what St. Thomas said, nor is it semi-pelagianism.
St. Jerome's reply has to do with the seeming necessity of a revealed law which was revealed only to the Jews. But Job was not a Jew, and had a belief in a redeemer. And, pagan cultures have a definite belief in sin, and need of expiation -- even if skewed.
In fact, Jerome was defending against the notion that such men were arguably lost and thus cutting Pelagius at the knees of his necessity for argument. That becomes a bit lost when one merely takes a portion of the letter for their own out-of-context use. He's also defending against the idea that one man can't be responsible for the destruction of many.
Take either one of those on their own and the thing Jerome was saying becomes skewed and not what he was saying.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of such a method of analysis is that what is being done is simply the other extreme of which Jerome warns about: declaring something that even the Apostle Paul did not.
As Jerome obliquely referenced, the Apostle leaves up to God the fate of men, and in some sense, those men themselves -- for Jerome also defends free will, which must have two potentials: good and evil.
And the Apostle writes of such men in Britain, Scotland, and to the ocean who had not heard the Law and the Prophets:
Quote[11] For there is no respect of persons with God. [12] For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law. [13] For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [14] For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,[16] In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
-Romans 2
And with St. Thomas, if the law of Christ indeed be necessary (affirmed), then it is up to God to provide such things provided there is no hindrance. And God does this either by internal inspiration or sending a preacher.
But in the end, the problem of such vociferous argument against the idea of a pagan or Jew or Muslim or whatever having the potential to be saved isn't that a solid argument for their salvation results in a retroactive salvation of many. As if Gardener or Michael Wilson can change history.. haha! But that the argument as phrased by our rhetorical sparring partners is, ultimately, a hindrance to evangelizing people in the here and now. If God is so callous as to create people with no chance to be saved, when that chance is not something they can affect on their own (which would be pelagian or semi-pelagian), then why on earth could anyone trust He will save anyone now? The saints do not matter to the non-believer. Because hey, they're just the lucky vase with grace flowers in it, eh? And one can look at themselves and see they are just a lump made for wrath... cus Calvinism is strong in flavor, even if not an ingredient properly.
But let them know the reference to that verse from Romans 9, and the exegetical quality of it becomes vastly different:
Quote[1] The word that came to Jeremias from the Lord, saying: [2] Arise, and go down into the potter' s house, and there thou shalt hear my words. [3] And I went down into the potter' s house, and behold he was doing a work on the wheel. [4] And the vessel was broken which he was making of clay with his hands: and turning he made another vessel, as it seemed good in his eyes to make it. [5] Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying:
[6] Cannot I do with you, as this potter, O house of Israel, saith the Lord? behold as clay is in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. [7] I will suddenly speak against a nation, and against a kingdom, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy it. [8] If that nation against which I have spoken, shall repent of their evil, I also will repent of the evil that I have thought to do to them. [9] And I will suddenly speak of a nation and of a kingdom, to build up and plant it. [10] If it shall do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice: I will repent of the good that I have spoken to do unto it.
The verse is actually one of HOPE! That, "you're evil!!!!", but do not worry, turn to God (which requires grace definitively given, lest we besmirch the salvific will of God or impugn the necessity thereof) and He will indeed make them into that vase with flowers of grace. Moreover, God truly, truly desires this turning. He does not take pleasure in the death of a sinner. He did not Incarnate for the purpose of condemnation. He loves all men, for He created them to know, love and serve Him in this life and the next, and to be happy with Him. That even includes those wretched Scottish barbarians in 150AD and the natives in America in 1000AD and frankly, the tattooed, pierced, modern-heathen in LA, NY, and everywhere else in 2015AD. But argue for the sure damnation of the Scot or Native and lose the punk rocker for sure.
Or, keep arguing the same line and watch how people just turn their nose up at the stink of the argument. Cus in the end, it's Calvinistic and so people won't be rejecting the truth, but a lie.
Quote from: james03 on August 30, 2015, 10:29:24 PM
QuoteSo, do you accept that some could be saved prior to the arrival of missionaries? And, if so, are they not in some sense "anonymous"?
Basically the anonymous Catholic heresy states that the people themselves don't know they are Catholic, and don't even have to believe/acknowledge Jesus Christ. It is basically the semi Pelagian theory reintroduced.
So a "good" jews who dies a jew, never renounces his error, and never accepts Jesus Christ, nor desires baptism, is saved because he is an anonymous Catholic. I'm assuming you didn't know this.
So to your question, I think it is possible some were saved before the arrival of the Church. However if this happened, then they died Catholic believing in Jesus and ardently desiring baptism.
That being said, the number is small. We have no proof of it ever happening, and if it was routine, then there would be no need for the Church or the sacraments. To answer my own question, there was a colossal increase in the number/percentage saved after the arrival of the Church in the savage lands.
I've never really looked into the anonymous teachings of Rahner, since I had no reason to fill my mind with shit. So thanks for correcting me on that point.
However, in that context I view your argument certainly contra Cantarella's appearance of claims.
There would still be a need for the Church and the Sacraments, as God has revealed their necessity, but also has deemed that such things occur in time and in accordance with the reality of man being a part of that plan. Ordinarily, man did not fly across oceans in hours in that time period, so to not allow this natural progression would have itself undercut the need for the Church and missionary activity to follow the commands of Christ. Men would have just been like, "well, God has this without us.. so, no need for me". So I see a balance in this that perhaps I am not expressing, or perhaps cannot express easily.
In short, I see a balance of pre-Church arrival being something that was likely internal inspiration for those who provided no hindrance, until the ordinary mode of things caught up.
And I feel confident in saying that, since it is in line with St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis de Sales, and St. Francis Xavier.
Quote from: Gardener
And with St. Thomas, if the law of Christ indeed be necessary (affirmed), then it is up to God to provide such things provided there is no hindrance. And God does this either by internal inspiration or sending a preacher.
We do not deny this and we agree up to this point but for us (in conformity to what the Church as infallibly declared) those *things* required for salvation necessarily include Explicit Faith and Christ and His Church (and sacraments). God will surely provide the way according to His New Law of Salvation to whoever is justified.
Quote
But in the end, the problem of such vociferous argument against the idea of a pagan or Jew or Muslim or whatever having the potential to be saved isn't that a solid argument for their salvation results in a retroactive salvation of many. As if Gardener or Michael Wilson can change history.. haha! But that the argument as phrased by our rhetorical sparring partners is, ultimately, a hindrance to evangelizing people in the here and now. If God is so callous as to create people with no chance to be saved, when that chance is not something they can affect on their own (which would be pelagian or semi-pelagian), then why on earth could anyone trust He will save anyone now? The saints do not matter to the non-believer. Because hey, they're just the lucky vase with grace flowers in it, eh? And one can look at themselves and see they are just a lump made for wrath... cus Calvinism is strong in flavor, even if not an ingredient properly.
All of this argument falls apart because of a basic misunderstanding on our initial position. Of course the Jew, Moslem, or Pagan have the potential to be saved as God wills everyone to attain salvation. Everyone is born with sufficient grace to that purpose, but God knows that this grace will becomes efficacious only for some. To those God will send what is required for salvation as St. Thomas teaches. Our disagreement is on what is it that is required for salvation. Our position is that no one can be saved while being ignorant of Christ and His Church. St. Thomas is clear about the necessity of
Explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity for salvation.
Quote from: Gardener
I've never really looked into the anonymous teachings of Rahner, since I had no reason to fill my mind with shit. So thanks for correcting me on that point.
Please tell us how your thinking really differs from Rahner's:
Quote from: Rahner
"Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity... Let us say, a Buddhist monk... who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity."
Quote from: james03 on August 30, 2015, 10:31:25 PM
QuoteI then respond: "No James, obviously blah blah blah"
So you answer that there was a huge difference in the percentage saved. So why the need for this novel teaching? What exactly are you trying to solve?
James,
The "difference" exactly is known only by God; but we can be assured: 1. That Catholic receive much greater helps than those who are not actual members; 2. And these much greater than those who have never heard of the Catholic faith. But in view of the fact that God truly wills the salvation of all men; we also have to hold that He somehow makes the opportunity available to every man, no matter where or in what circumstances they were born or lived.
Re. Rhaner:
the difference is that Rhaner believed in universal salvation; not because man man a free act of faith inspired by God's grace, but because God would never create an intelligent creature, and not predestine them to the Beatific vision. Rhaner's theology on the surface appears similar, but in its roots and consequences, destroys the supernatural order and leads to Pantheism.
See Fr. Bourmaud's book "100 years of Modernism".
Quote from: Cantarella on August 31, 2015, 03:15:11 PM
Quote from: Gardener
I've never really looked into the anonymous teachings of Rahner, since I had no reason to fill my mind with shit. So thanks for correcting me on that point.
Please tell us how your thinking really differs from Rahner's:
Quote from: Rahner
"Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity... Let us say, a Buddhist monk... who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity."
Because I'm not saying anything different from Aquinas, de Sales, and Xavier...
Because Rahner's explanation is shallow, and doesn't account for the necessity of grace and subsequent potential for giving one's consent to that grace.
Because I never said that a Buddhist monk can attain salvation merely by following his conscience apart from God.
Because you don't seem to understand or believe something unless you can find it in Feeney's writings, and I have very little for Feeney, when I can read known saints and see that he is not in line with them and the whole of Tradition on very necessary points of doctrine.
Because (insert here).
etc.
Quote from: Cantarella on August 31, 2015, 03:06:03 PM
Quote from: Gardener
And with St. Thomas, if the law of Christ indeed be necessary (affirmed), then it is up to God to provide such things provided there is no hindrance. And God does this either by internal inspiration or sending a preacher.
We do not deny this and we agree up to this point but for us (in conformity to what the Church as infallibly declared) those *things* required for salvation necessarily include Explicit Faith and Christ and His Church (and sacraments). God will surely provide the way according to His New Law of Salvation to whoever is justified.
Quote
But in the end, the problem of such vociferous argument against the idea of a pagan or Jew or Muslim or whatever having the potential to be saved isn't that a solid argument for their salvation results in a retroactive salvation of many. As if Gardener or Michael Wilson can change history.. haha! But that the argument as phrased by our rhetorical sparring partners is, ultimately, a hindrance to evangelizing people in the here and now. If God is so callous as to create people with no chance to be saved, when that chance is not something they can affect on their own (which would be pelagian or semi-pelagian), then why on earth could anyone trust He will save anyone now? The saints do not matter to the non-believer. Because hey, they're just the lucky vase with grace flowers in it, eh? And one can look at themselves and see they are just a lump made for wrath... cus Calvinism is strong in flavor, even if not an ingredient properly.
All of this argument falls apart because of a basic misunderstanding on our initial position. Of course the Jew, Moslem, or Pagan have the potential to be saved as God wills everyone to attain salvation. Everyone is born with sufficient grace to that purpose, but God knows that this grace will becomes efficacious only for some. To those God will send what is required for salvation as St. Thomas teaches. Our disagreement is on what is it that is required for salvation. Our position is that no one can be saved while being ignorant of Christ and His Church. St. Thomas is clear about the necessity of Explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity for salvation.
And yet you disagree with St. Thomas on how he explains it, its effects, and the reality of the fact that a man can be saved even if he is not water-baptized, so I don't really care what you think you agree on -- because you don't; you sift St. Thomas to fit your preconceived notions of things and conveniently ignore him otherwise.
I've read enough Feenyite arguments to know that you do not believe with the mind of St. Thomas and the whole of the Fathers and the Church's constant teach on BOD, so in a sense, I don't care what you believe since you are wrong.
Appealing to what the Church has "infallibly" declared is also incorrect since you don't actually believe what the Church has constantly declared, whether in an extraordinary manner or simply from the universal, ordinary magisterium.
All myself and michael are saying is that those who came before the natural arrival of missionaries could still be saved. You say you believe this and then argue against it. So, whatever.
And further, you don't seem to understand how the tone and phrasing of your argument is ultimately destructive to the ends of evangelization.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 31, 2015, 04:09:33 PM
Re. Rhaner:
the difference is that Rhaner believed in universal salvation; not because man man a free act of faith inspired by God's grace, but because God would never create an intelligent creature, and not predestine them to the Beatific vision. Rhaner's theology on the surface appears similar, but in its roots and consequences, destroys the supernatural order and leads to Pantheism.
See Fr. Bourmaud's book "100 years of Modernism".
But it is the
Salvific Implicit Faith theory (a degradation of the original Baptism of Desire theory proper, this is, strictly for catechumens) which precisely gives way to the Rahnerian's theory of Universal Salvation and ends up in the Prayer at Assisi. One thing leads to the other because to compromise even in one point of doctrine is to fall into a hellish slippery slope which the enemies of the Church are more than ready to take advantage of. From the dilution of the necessity of being inside the visible boundaries of the Church so that there may also be invisible members in Her (who are unbaptized and even ignorant of Christ and His Church) it follows what is described below in these quotes taken from the mentioned book by Fr. Bourmaud's "
100 years of Modernism":
Quote from: Yves Congar
Today nobody can claim that any need to save souls from Hell is what accounts for the missions. God saves them without knowing the Gospel. Otherwise we should all leave for China!
....
"The missionary effort becomes the demissionary effort, the dismissal of the missions. And if every man is an implicit Christian, vocations will become revocations, the revoking of apostolic zeal!"
Quote
Even an atheist can perfectly be saved as an anonymous Christian. However, "salvation for the atheist" is problematic, particularly for the existentialist in Rahner who would believe ultimately that there is no such a thing as the subconscious: how can Rahner hold that the pagan who utters blasphemy against the name of Jesus Christ still has faith in the same Jesus Christ? how can a pagan subconsciously accepts God when he consciously denies him?
Rahner's solution, faithful to Kant's transcendentalism, was to divide in two the internal forum of the conscience. There is in one hand, a clear known object of the consciousness which is automatically open to grace, for it is the open theater of God's Self revelation. The depths of the being in which God communicates Himself will never be sounded, and therefore a man is capable of opening denying God and at the same time radically loving him. This division of the consciousness is the basis for the distinction between venial sin, grave sin, and mortal sin, a tripe distinction unknown to pre-Vatican II catechisms.
Quote from: Cantarella on August 30, 2015, 09:08:53 PMBut the optimist liberal engulfed by the Masonic agenda would continue arguing that the hypothetical Satanist could also be saved because "no one knows what may happen in the soul in the last minute" so this impenitent Satanist after a full life of sin, could do an Act of perfect contrition, receive the Baptism of Desire, enter the state of justification and sanctifying grace, obtain the gift of final perseverance, and in the last very second ultimately make it to Heaven. At the end, there is no one really in Hell except for lonely Judas.
One may wonder what merit is there for a validly baptized Catholic who perseveres in the state of Grace by actively engaging in the life of Christian warfare, prayer, and penance; and who is helped by the sacraments, solely dispensed by the Church (necessary for salvation) , when the liberals are telling the whole world they do not really need to be a Catholic to be saved giving the impression that the Church has changed her dogma of salvation when we know that is impossible.
[1] The kingdom of heaven is like to an householder, who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. [2] And having agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. [3] And going out about the third hour, he saw others standing in the market place idle. [4] And he said to them: Go you also into my vineyard, and I will give you what shall be just. [5] And they went their way. And again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did in like manner.
[6] But about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing, and he saith to them: Why stand you here all the day idle? [7] They say to him: Because no man hath hired us. He saith to them: Go you also into my vineyard. [8] And when evening was come, the lord of the vineyard saith to his steward: Call the labourers and pay them their hire, beginning from the last even to the first. [9] When therefore they were come, that came about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. [10] But when the first also came, they thought that they should receive more: and they also received every man a penny.
[11] And receiving it they murmured against the master of the house, [12] Saying: These last have worked but one hour, and thou hast made them equal to us, that have borne the burden of the day and the heats. [13] But he answering said to one of them: Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? [14] Take what is thine, and go thy way: I will also give to this last even as to thee. [15] Or, is it not lawful for me to do what I will? is thy eye evil, because I am good?
[16] So shall the last be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen. (St. Matthew 20:1-16)
Cantarella,
QuoteBut it is the Salvific Implicit Faith theory (a degradation of the original Baptism of Desire theory proper, this is, strictly for catechumens) which precisely gives way to the Rahnerian's theory of Universal Salvation and ends up in the Prayer at Assisi. One thing leads to the other because to compromise even in one point of doctrine is to fall into a hellish slippery slope which the enemies of the Church are more than ready to take advantage of. From the dilution of the necessity of being inside the visible boundaries of the Church so that there may also be invisible members in Her (who are unbaptized and even ignorant of Christ and His Church) it follows what is described below in these quotes taken from the mentioned book by Fr. Bourmaud's "100 years of Modernism":
As far as compromising on a point of doctrine goes; you are right; to deny one article of faith, is to deny them all. However, Baptism of desire comes from a supernatural act of faith; and perfect contrition. What Catholic theologians argue about, and note well, I said "Catholic Theologians"; not heretics disguised as Catholic theologians, is: what does this act of faith need to be explicitly about? I do not know of any such theologian that holds that a person who is un-aquainted with the Catholic religion, has to believe more than explicitly in the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation and redemption. This is a far cry from what you were trying to imply by posting the quote from "Cantate Domino"; that one has to believe in the Catholic faith "whole and entirely"; since even S.T.D.s Can hardly say that of their own knowledge, much less could one have said it of the millions of illiterate Catholics that lived and died with only an elementary knowledge of the basics of the Catholic faith.
Re. Rhaner: he takes the argument too far; but this is what heretics do; they take a Catholic truth, and either exaggerate or minimize it; but that is not reason to deny the aforesaid truth.
Also since you read Fr. Bourmaud's book, you are aware that none of the innovators that were the theological "fathers' of Vatican II, began their errant journey with B.O.D.; but rather with an unhealthy curiosity of modern philosophy ("itching ears") coupled with an intellectual laziness in the neglect of acquiring the necessary foundation in Thomistic philosophy and Theology. The result was their loss sound Catholic principles that led to a loss of faith in the Church's doctrine, the rest was a search for those elements in the Catholic faith that would provide a cover for their erroneous ideas; but even much of the Catholic terminology that they retained no longer held the same meaning for them as for a Catholic. Not even the concept of God as the Catholic Church holds and believes it.
re.The quote from Congar is not B.O.D. But reflects Congar's own error of Universal Salvation.
Quote from: Michael WilsonAs far as compromising on a point of doctrine goes; you are right; to deny one article of faith, is to deny them all. However, Baptism of desire comes from a supernatural act of faith; and perfect contrition. What Catholic theologians argue about, and note well, I said "Catholic Theologians"; not heretics disguised as Catholic theologians, is: what does this act of faith need to be explicitly about? I do not know of any such theologian that holds that a person who is un-aquainted with the Catholic religion, has to believe more than explicitly in the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation and redemption. This is a far cry from what you were trying to imply by posting the quote from "Cantate Domino"; that one has to believe in the Catholic faith "whole and entirely"; since even S.T.D.s Can hardly say that of their own knowledge, much less could one have said it of the millions of illiterate Catholics that lived and died with only an elementary knowledge of the basics of the Catholic faith.
I understand what you mean but the necessity of Explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity
at the very least is an indisputable fact. That dogmatic formula was not taken from Cantate Domino by the way, but from
Exultate Deo. In that bull, Pope Eugene IV infallibly defined
ex-cathedra the necessity of believing and professing the Catholic Faith for salvation. If you read the whole quote, the Pope defines right there what is it that must be believed in order to be saved. Namely, the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation....and then he concludes "
This is the Catholic Faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly he cannot be saved". That excludes the hypothetical native and also those in false religions. These truths are to be believed for salvation as a
necessity of means for any person who has reached the age of reason.
Quote from: Council of Florence"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.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
"But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."
Please take a look at the following official statements taken from the
Enchiridion:
Denzinger 1349a Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him.
Resp.A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
And....
[Response of the Sacred Office, May 10, 1703]
Denzinger 1349b Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and in punishing, according to this remark of the Apostle "He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder'; [Heb . 11:23], from which it is inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.
Resp. A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.
Florence:
Quote "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.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
Cantarella,
thanks for the quote; but you are actually cutting back on the Infallible decree it actually states: "Whoever wishes to be saved, needs to hold to the Catholic faith...
.whole and inviolate..."
The Catholic faith 'whole and inviolate" does not consists just in the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity; the council was just summarizing the articles of faith in the very first and fundamental one, without excluding the rest; or else you would have me believe that the Council would say its ok to believe that Christ wasn't truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, or that Our Lady wasn't the Mother of God, as long as one held to the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity? As to the rest of the quotes, they are instructions from the Holy Office, which do not trump an Infallible decree from a Church Council. Rather they provide evidence that Liberalism and universal salvation have been creeping into the Church since sometime after Florence and have even infected yourself.
Please go Confess your heresy to the nearest non-heretical priest (If you can find one).
By the way as is obvious, I am just taking the Council declaration literally as you want me to and that is what the inescapable conclusion that I have to arrive at.
Pope Innocent XI condemns the following heretical proposition on ignorance:
QuoteA man is capable of absolution, however much he may labor in ignorance of the mysteries of the faith, and even though through negligence, be it even culpable, he does not know the Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity is necessary for salvation as a necessity of means, sorry. That is irrefutable. This eliminates the theory of invincible ignorance / salvation via implicit desire of non-Catholics. The discussion is never about Baptism of Desire proper (this is,
strictly for justified catechumens who die), far from, but salvific invincible ignorance. The Catholic Faith is the foundation of all justification and
no one can be justified without it as it was defined infallibly in the Council of Trent and Vatican I. There can be no exceptions to that which is absolutely necessary.
Pope Pius IX urged the Catholic bishops to see to it that "the faithful have firmly fixed in their minds the dogma of our most holy religion, namely:
the absolute necessity of the Catholic Faith for attaining salvation".
Those who persist in the denial of such necessity, are radically opposed to all the popes, saints, missionaries, and martyrs who died for the Faith. No saint, no martyr, no pope have ever thought that the Catholic Faith and the Church are optional for salvation.
St. Thomas never posits that one would be saved if ignorant of those things -- he affirms necessity of belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation/Jesus Christ. He does posit that God would instruct them either by an internal inspiration or sending a preacher. Since we can rest assured that the sending a preacher part was unlikely, we are left with the reasonable assumption of the potential for internal inspiration -- assuming the person provided no hindrance.
However, ontologically speaking, a person who appears to be something (pagan, etc.) and in some moment before death gives assent to the Faith, and thus is integrated into the Church, is not that thing which they appear to be.
And since we cannot know such things in this lifetime, unless privately revealed, we simply trust in the mercy of God for those who came before the Gospel was preached in those places. But what we don't do is slam the door to heaven in their face, particularly in view of non-Catholics, lest we make it appear as if God actually has no desire to save the person.
Then again, I suppose that progressive modernist, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, is just flat wrong? ;)
I'm now thinking of getting some popcorn in, since the discussion on this thread, and on others, is beginning to turn into a re-run of the Cathinfo affair.
On second thoughts, make that whisky, since I've heard it all before. Unfortunately.
QuoteHowever, Baptism of desire comes from a supernatural act of faith; and perfect contrition.
1. It does not come from supernatural Faith. It comes from regular Faith taught to a person, with the minimum of the Incarnation, Trinity, Jesus establishing His Church, and Baptism. Once that is taught, a person can ardently desire baptism. If by supernatural Faith you mean the above minimums, but revealed miraculously by internal illumination, then I agree with you. I think "miraculous Faith" is a better description than "supernatural Faith".
2. Perfect act of contrition is impossible for the unbaptized. They do not have the Theological Virtue of Charity. Therefore if we go by your statement, none receive the BOD. I disagree. I believe proper instruction (by preacher or miracle) coupled with an ardent desire for baptism suffices.
Quote from: james03 on September 03, 2015, 08:34:20 AM
QuoteHowever, Baptism of desire comes from a supernatural act of faith; and perfect contrition.
1. It does not come from supernatural Faith. It comes from regular Faith taught to a person, with the minimum of the Incarnation, Trinity, Jesus establishing His Church, and Baptism. Once that is taught, a person can ardently desire baptism. If by supernatural Faith you mean the above minimums, but revealed miraculously by internal illumination, then I agree with you. I think "miraculous Faith" is a better description than "supernatural Faith".
2. Perfect act of contrition is impossible for the unbaptized. They do not have the Theological Virtue of Charity. Therefore if we go by your statement, none receive the BOD. I disagree. I believe proper instruction (by preacher or miracle) coupled with an ardent desire for baptism suffices.
True. There is no Perfect Act of Contrition for the unbaptized. In his famous article "
Reply to a Liberal", Mr. Raymond Karam, describes what it may be considered hypothetical Baptism of Desire proper (this is, for pious
catechumens in the moment of death, as it was originally speculated) if the following five conditions are fulfilled:
Quote
1) That person must have the Catholic Faith. (We have already proved that no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith, and that not even the Sacrament of Baptism can be profitable for salvation if the subject who receives it does not confess the Catholic Faith.)
2) He must have an explicit will or desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. For example, St. Bernard says that he must have an "entire yearning for the sacrament of Jesus." 86
3) He must have perfect charity. For St. Robert Bellarmine says that only "perfect conversion can be called baptism of the Spirit, and this includes true contrition and charity. " 87 St. Augustine says that he must have "faith and conversion of the heart. " 88 St. Thomas says that, as in the case of the Sacrament of Penance, so also in the Sacrament of Baptism, if sanctifying grace is to be received previous to the Sacrament, a perfect act of charity is necessary, for "if an adult is not perfectly disposed before baptism to obtain remission of his sins, he obtains this remission by the power of baptism, in the very act of being baptized. " 89 St. Bernard says that "right faith, God-fearing hope, and sincere charity" must be present. 90
4) He must have an explicit will to join the Catholic Church , — for, as we have shown, not even actual Baptism is profitable for salvation if it is received outside the Catholic Church (except for babies) and without an explicit will to join the Church. Much less, therefore, does baptism in voto profit for salvation if it does not include an explicit will to join the Catholic Church.
5) He must be dying and, although yearning for the Baptism of Water, is unable to receive it because of an absolute impossibility, not because of a contempt for it. Thus, St. Augustine says that baptism of the Spirit, or perfect conversion to God, "may indeed be found when Baptism has not yet been received, but never when it has been despised. For it should never in any way be called a conversion of the heart to God when the sacrament of God has been despised. " 91 In the same way St. Bernard says that, since the time of the promulgation of the Gospel, "whoever refuses now to be baptized, after the remedy of baptism has been made accessible to all everywhere, adds of his own accord a sin of pride to the general original stain, carrying within himself a double cause of the most just damnation, if he happens to leave the body in the same state." 92 Also, St. Thomas says, "It is necessary, in order that a man might enter into the kingdom of God, that he approach the baptism of water actually (in re), as it is in all those who are baptized; or in voto, as it is in the martyrs and the catechumens who were hindered by death before they could fulfill their intent (votum); or in figure, as in the ancient Fathers," — that is, in those before Christ. 93
Quote from: james03 on September 03, 2015, 08:34:20 AM
QuoteHowever, Baptism of desire comes from a supernatural act of faith; and perfect contrition.
1. It does not come from supernatural Faith. It comes from regular Faith taught to a person, with the minimum of the Incarnation, Trinity, Jesus establishing His Church, and Baptism. Once that is taught, a person can ardently desire baptism. If by supernatural Faith you mean the above minimums, but revealed miraculously by internal illumination, then I agree with you. I think "miraculous Faith" is a better description than "supernatural Faith".
2. Perfect act of contrition is impossible for the unbaptized. They do not have the Theological Virtue of Charity. Therefore if we go by your statement, none receive the BOD. I disagree. I believe proper instruction (by preacher or miracle) coupled with an ardent desire for baptism suffices.
James,
I would like to see where you get both #1 and #2 from.
1. Baptism of Desire comes to those people who have explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity, and desire to be baptized. Refer to the 1890 catechism in the OP. What exactly is a "supernatural act of Faith" except some sort of Deus ex machina for those embarrassed by the Church's teaching on Original Sin.
2. Those without the Catholic Faith (or at least the Christian Faith), do not know God, and can not have perfect contrition since they are strangers to Him.
QuoteJesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.
QuoteThat all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who hath sent him.
James stated:
Quote
1. Baptism of Desire comes to those people who have explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity, and desire to be baptized. Refer to the 1890 catechism in the OP. What exactly is a "supernatural act of Faith" except some sort of Deus ex machina for those embarrassed by the Church's teaching on Original Sin.
vs
Quote2. Perfect act of contrition is impossible for the unbaptized. They do not have the Theological Virtue of Charity. Therefore if we go by your statement, none receive the BOD. I disagree. I believe proper instruction (by preacher or miracle) coupled with an ardent desire for baptism suffices.
These two propositions of yours appear to be contradictory.
In the first you state that B.O.D. comes to those who...desire to be baptized...
In the second, you state "perfect contrition is impossible for the unbaptized...
But B.O.D. is precisely a perfect act of Charity and Contrition, coupled with a supernatural act of faith. If you deny that the unbaptized can elicit this act, you are denying B.O.D.
To repeat, you need explicit Faith in Jesus Christ and know the rudiments of the Faith, especially about the Church and the need for baptism. Once you have Faith in Jesus Christ, then you can love Him and I guess have perfect contrition. At that point you can desire the sacrament, and if you die before having it, you will receive it by desire.
Quote from: Trent Session 6And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.
Quote from: james03 on September 03, 2015, 07:06:12 PM
Quote from: Trent Session 6And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.
This quote states that without God's grace, it is impossible to be justified; to state otherwise is Pelagianism.
True. But it also says that Faith is the beginning of justification, not Charity.
Quote from: james03 on September 03, 2015, 08:44:16 PM
True. But it also says that Faith is the beginning of justification, not Charity.
Yes, and who is denying this?
QuoteBut B.O.D. is precisely a perfect act of Charity and Contrition, coupled with a supernatural act of faith. If you deny that the unbaptized can elicit this act, you are denying B.O.D.
I deny the unbaptized can elicit this act. But I believe in BOD through explicit Faith in Christ and His Church, and an ardent desire to be baptized.
Trent states that it is Faith that brings justification.
Michael and James,
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 03, 2015, 04:46:03 PM
Quote from: james03 on September 03, 2015, 08:34:20 AM
QuoteHowever, Baptism of desire comes from a supernatural act of faith; and perfect contrition.
1. It does not come from supernatural Faith. It comes from regular Faith taught to a person, with the minimum of the Incarnation, Trinity, Jesus establishing His Church, and Baptism. Once that is taught, a person can ardently desire baptism. If by supernatural Faith you mean the above minimums, but revealed miraculously by internal illumination, then I agree with you. I think "miraculous Faith" is a better description than "supernatural Faith".
2. Perfect act of contrition is impossible for the unbaptized. They do not have the Theological Virtue of Charity. Therefore if we go by your statement, none receive the BOD. I disagree. I believe proper instruction (by preacher or miracle) coupled with an ardent desire for baptism suffices.
James,
I would like to see where you get both #1 and #2 from.
I think that baptism of desire
starts in the perfect contrition that comes by God's gift of grace to the man who has the (not yet supernatural) faith and desire that God demands. Because of this perfect contrition, his mortal sins (and venial) sins are forgiven, so he receives the supernatural virtues, and if he dies then he is saved. Original sin is also remitted (if needed) or otherwise this wouldn't be BAPTISM of desire.
(This is my understanding, although I'm not sure I've seen it expressed quite this way)
Quote from: james03 on September 03, 2015, 08:34:20 AM
2. Perfect act of contrition is impossible for the unbaptized. They do not have the Theological Virtue of Charity.
If perfect contrition requires the Theological Virtue of Charity, how can someone in the state of mortal sin have perfect contrition? The Charity comes with or after the contrition, it is not a prerequisite.
If St. Thomas' teaching is right, the flow of the process should go something like:
ignorant < prevenient grace for instruction < instruction < decision point < assent < actualization
To put it in mathematical terms, which is probably stunted because I'm no math whiz:
f(g(x)) or (f o g) (x).
In some sense, the process must be concurrent, but also the end must presuppose the middle.
and since grace must precede faith, lest we be semi-pelagian, it would probably be better expressed g(f(x)) so we let g represent grace and f represent faith.
I'm convinced there must be mathematical/technological analogues for the Faith's teachings because otherwise we run into contradiction. I'd be interested in QMR's take on how to express that, or INPEFESS' if he is up to the math.
Baptism is called the "Sacrament of Faith" for two reasons: first, the Catholic Faith must be professed by the one who is to receive it, and second, because the baptized is infused with the theological virtue of Faith, along with Hope and Charity.
Trent teaches:
Quote from: Chapter 7 on Justification
The instrumental cause is the sacrament of Baptism, which is the sacrament of faith,[35] without which no man was ever justified
Quote
Hence man through Jesus Christ, into whom he is ingrafted, receives in the said justification together with the remission of sins all these [gifts] infused at the same time: faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites one perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of his body. For this reason it is most truly said that "faith without works is dead" [Jas.2:17],and is of no profit [can. 19], and "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith, which worketh by charity" [Gal. 5:6; 6:15]. This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for "faith which bestows life eternal,''* which without hope and charity faith cannot bestow.
And in the Decree concerning Original Sin:
Quote
That our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God,[1] may, after the destruction of errors, remain integral and spotless in its purity, and that the Christian people may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine,[2] since that old serpent,[3] the everlasting enemy of the human race, has, among the many evils with which the Church of God is in our times disturbed, stirred up also not only new but also old dissensions concerning original sin and its remedy
Quote from: james03 on September 03, 2015, 08:55:05 PM
QuoteBut B.O.D. is precisely a perfect act of Charity and Contrition, coupled with a supernatural act of faith. If you deny that the unbaptized can elicit this act, you are denying B.O.D.
I deny the unbaptized can elicit this act. But I believe in BOD through explicit Faith in Christ and His Church, and an ardent desire to be baptized.
Trent states that it is Faith that brings justification.
James,
are you sure you phrased this correctly? In the first part you deny what in the second part you affirm.
A more complete posting of Trent's decree of Justification is probably very helpful to all right at this point:
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
Quote
CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
CHAPTER V.
On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.
The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient [Page 33] grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.
CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, [Page 34] to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.
CHAPTER VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instru-[Page 35]mental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen's beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which [Page 36] Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting.
CHAPTER VIII.
In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.
And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.
CHAPTER IX.
Against the vain confidence of Heretics.
But, although it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted, nor ever were remitted save gratuitously by the mercy of God for Christ's sake; yet is it not to be said, that sins are forgiven, or have been forgiven, to any one who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins, and rests on that alone; seeing that it may exist, yea does in our day exist, amongst heretics and schismatics; and with great vehemence is this vain confidence, and one alien from all godliness, preached up in opposition to the Catholic Church. But neither [Page 37] is this to be asserted,-that they who are truly justified must needs, without any doubting whatever, settle within themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and justified, but he that believes for certain that he is absolved and justified; and that absolution and justification are effected by this faith alone: as though whoso has not this belief, doubts of the promises of God, and of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.
CHAPTER X.
On the increase of Justification received.
Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, "Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity."
Quote from: CantarellaBaptism is called the "Sacrament of Faith" for two reasons: first, the Catholic Faith must be professed by the one who is to receive it, and second, because the baptized is infused with the theological virtue of Faith, along with Hope and Charity.
This is a contradiction. Unless, that is, you expect catechumens to (lyingly) profess a Faith they do not believe. For if they believe, they already have the virtue of Faith.
Quote from: CouncilofTrent
The instrumental cause is the sacrament of Baptism, which is the sacrament of faith,[35] without which no man was ever justified
And this shows the danger of "proof-texting". This would show that Adam, as well as the alleged "just" under the Old Law, were never justified in reality because they weren't baptized. Oh wait, you will say, the Council Fathers didn't really mean that; by "no man" they really meant "no man under the New Law". Well, right, but that's not what it says, now is it?
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 04, 2015, 11:26:51 PM
Quote from: CantarellaBaptism is called the "Sacrament of Faith" for two reasons: first, the Catholic Faith must be professed by the one who is to receive it, and second, because the baptized is infused with the theological virtue of Faith, along with Hope and Charity.
This is a contradiction. Unless, that is, you expect catechumens to (lyingly) profess a Faith they do not believe. For if they believe, they already have the virtue of Faith.
Catechumens do not have Supernatural Faith (unless they had perfect contrition), but for baptism (or baptism of desire) they must have a kind of limited (natural) faith, as shown in the following extracts from the Council of Trent (taken from Michael's post):
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 04, 2015, 05:33:30 PM
A more complete posting of Trent's decree of Justification is probably very helpful to all right at this point:
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
...
CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;
...
Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.
I think you can summarize this by saying that the catechumen must believe those basic truths that he is taught, even though he doesn't have Supernatural Faith until after baptism or baptism of desire. The Sacrament of Baptism gives Supernatural Faith even to babies who have no explicit faith; so Supernatural Faith is not itself explicit faith. Baptism of Desire likewise gives Supernatural Faith, but only to adults, because only adults have the ability to desire, and to first explicitly believe what God requires them to believe, by the light of reason and obedience.
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 05, 2015, 12:35:44 AM
Catechumens do not have Supernatural Faith (unless they had perfect contrition), but for baptism (or baptism of desire) they must have a kind of limited (natural) faith, as shown in the following extracts from the Council of Trent (taken from Michael's post):
The extracts show exactly the opposite.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 04, 2015, 05:33:30 PM
CHAPTER VI.
The manner of Preparation.
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;
...
Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.
QuoteI think you can summarize this by saying that the catechumen must believe those basic truths that he is taught, even though he doesn't have Supernatural Faith until after baptism or baptism of desire.
If he believes these basic truths because he is excited and assisted by Divine grace, then his faith is supernatural. It doesn't through reason alone.
QuoteThe Sacrament of Baptism gives Supernatural Faith even to babies who have no explicit faith; so Supernatural Faith is not itself explicit faith. Baptism of Desire likewise gives Supernatural Faith, but only to adults, because only adults have the ability to desire, and to first explicitly believe what God requires them to believe, by the light of reason and obedience.
But it isn't by the light of reason and obedience. And can't be. "No one says the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost". It's by grace.
Quote from: SecondCouncilofOrange
Canon 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).
Canon 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.
Canon 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).
Canon 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).
QuoteI think that baptism of desire starts in the perfect contrition that comes by God's gift of grace to the man who has the (not yet supernatural) faith and desire that God demands.
No, it starts with Faith:
QuoteThe manner of Preparation.
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;
Quote from: Non NobisIf perfect contrition requires the Theological Virtue of Charity, how can someone in the state of mortal sin have perfect contrition? The Charity comes with or after the contrition, it is not a prerequisite.
Great point, I salute you.
So let us concentrate on the case of the Catholic in mortal sin, since the same will apply to the heathen, and this case has no contention with it.
We, all Catholics, have been taught that one of the effects of mortal sin is to kill Charity in your soul. So how can you have perfect contrition with a love for God if you don't have any Charity?
My only answer is that there must be multiple meanings. I'll have to read some Summa on this.
QuoteJames,
are you sure you phrased this correctly? In the first part you deny what in the second part you affirm.
Probably not.
Baptism of Desire starts with Faith in Jesus Christ. You can not have perfect contrition (which is unnecessary, and possibly* impossible for the unbaptized), that is, sorrow for offending God, when you don't believe in Jesus Christ. A jew who is sorry for offending his demon Talmud god, or a moslem who is sorry for offending his demon allah, does not have any contrition, and certainly not perfect contrition.
Second, you can not love God if you don't even know Him. And the only way to know God is through Faith in Jesus Christ.
Quote from: TrentThat our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God,
* -- Possibly: Looks like terms are used loosely, and someone has to either set us straight, or we need to do some research, vis a vis my discussion with N.N. on mortal sin and Charity.
Definition of Terms: Can anyone provide a cite from a doctor of the Church, pope, or council on the definition/discussion of the term "Supernatural Faith"?
It seems it could mean the Virtue of Faith infused into us during baptism, or it could be the internal illumination St. Thomas (and others) discuss, more like a Miraculous Faith.
If this term is not defined, then it is dangerous to use it, as using ambiguity is the old trick of modernism. It become a Deus ex Machina. Similar to the prots using the term "saving Faith" to get them out of trouble with scripture.
James,
St. Thomas in the Summa states that when we commit a Mortal Sin, we lose Sanctifying Grace and the virtue of Charity; but we don't lose faith. However it is no longer "supernatural faith" i.e. Faith informed by Charity:
St. Paul to the I Corinthians 13.13.
Quote
[1] If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. [2] And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. [3] And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
I believe that Non Nobis is right when she stated that:
QuoteCatechumens do not have Supernatural Faith (unless they had perfect contrition), but for baptism (or baptism of desire) they must have a kind of limited (natural) faith, as shown in the following extracts from the Council of Trent
If I read her and other manuals correctly, not all Catechumens achieve B.O.D. But many approach the Sacrament with imperfect contrition; which is sufficient to validly receive it. A Catechumen that embraced the truths of the Catholic faith, but only had imperfect contrition for their sins would not have supernatural faith i.e. Faith illuminated by Charity, in the same manner as a Catholic that fell into Mortal sin. Of course as Trent and Orange stated, it would be impossible without God's actual Grace to even believe in the Supernatural truths that our faith proposes, such as the Blessed Trinity or the real presence.
Also, an insincere Catechumen, that would only receive the Sacrament for worldly motives, would receive the Sacramental Character, but not the "effect" or grace of the Sacrament, until they made an act of perfect Contrition or went to Confession.
Another thought: If Non is stating that for B.O.D. "unformed" faith is sufficient; It has to be explained very carefully: Let us take an example; Joe Blow, average modern American that doesn't know too much about anything, comes across an old copy of a Baltimore Catechism in a garage sale; he purchases the book out of curiosity; begins reading it, and through God's grace, is convinced that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and believes explicitly in the teachings of the Church contained in the aforementioned Catechism. He has made an act of faith. He wants to receive Baptism right away, and he goes to the nearest Catholic parish and asks the priest for Baptism. Where is he now? It cannot be affirmed unconditionally, that he has received B.O.D. Joe would have had to have had perfect Contrition for his sins at the same time as he made his act of faith or he has an unformed faith. So "unformed" faith is not sufficient for B.O.D. Unless one were to move from unformed faith, to Perfect Contrition. But is for the Sacrament of Baptism unformed faith is sufficient.
Rather long, but here goes:
Quote from: I of II, Q62, A3, answerI answer that, As stated above (Article 1), the theological virtues direct man to supernatural happiness in the same way as by the natural inclination man is directed to his connatural end. Now the latter happens in respect of two things. First, in respect of the reason or intellect, in so far as it contains the first universal principles which are known to us by the natural light of the intellect, and which are reason's starting-point, both in speculative and in practical matters. Secondly, through the rectitude of the will which tends naturally to good as defined by reason.
But these two fall short of the order of supernatural happiness, according to 1 Corinthians 2:9: "The eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him." Consequently in respect of both the above things man needed to receive in addition something supernatural to direct him to a supernatural end. First, as regards the intellect, man receives certain supernatural principles, which are held by means of a Divine light: these are the articles of faith, about which is faith. Secondly, the will is directed to this end, both as to that end as something attainable--and this pertains to hope--and as to a certain spiritual union, whereby the will is, so to speak, transformed into that end--and this belongs to charity. For the appetite of a thing is moved and tends towards its connatural end naturally; and this movement is due to a certain conformity of the thing with its end.
So the articles of Faith are received by Grace. Note once you have these articles, it is proper to say you have an intellectual Faith, because mortal sin doesn't make you FORGET what you learned about God.
But there is something stronger, the Theological Virtue of Faith, which I believe is meant by the term Supernatural Faith, whereby we have the indwelling of the Trinity. In a sense we have a Faith in the Beatitude of God, whereby the will is directed to this end because God obviously knows Himself. Therefore we are aligned and hunger for God, even though we have not seen Him face to Face.
Bottom line, "Faith" can have a few meanings, and I believe Supernatural Faith is a proper term. Also, it is impossible for a heathen, or one in mortal sin, to have Supernatural Faith.
St. Thomas also discusses Charity vs. Love. If I'm not too lazy, I'll post it.
QuoteI believe that Non Nobis is right when she stated that:
Quote
Catechumens do not have Supernatural Faith (unless they had perfect contrition),
Perfect contrition does not give Supernatural Faith, as discussed above. They can know the articles of Faith, and believe them on an intellectual level, but that is all. They can not have Faith in the Beatitude of God since there is no way of knowing what that is. Only the indwelling of the Trinity gives us that.
Contrition/penance, etc.... are only prerequisites to baptism, whereby we are born again and receive the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 04, 2015, 11:26:51 PM
Quote from: CantarellaBaptism is called the "Sacrament of Faith" for two reasons: first, the Catholic Faith must be professed by the one who is to receive it, and second, because the baptized is infused with the theological virtue of Faith, along with Hope and Charity.
This is a contradiction. Unless, that is, you expect catechumens to (lyingly) profess a Faith they do not believe. For if they believe, they already have the virtue of Faith.
In the second premise, it is the Theological Virtue of Faith, which comes ALONG with the virtues of Hope and Charity
at the same time, through sacramental Baptism. All three virtues are necessary for salvation. This is the "
faith which bestows eternal life" and it is different from the catechumen's Faith.
Quote from: Trent
Hence man through Jesus Christ, into whom he is ingrafted, receives in the said justification together with the remission of sins all these [gifts] infused at the same time: faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites one perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of his body. For this reason it is most truly said that "faith without works is dead" [Jas.2:17],and is of no profit [can. 19], and "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith, which worketh by charity" [Gal. 5:6; 6:15]. This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for "faith which bestows life eternal,''* which without hope and charity faith cannot bestow.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 04, 2015, 11:26:51 PM
Quote from: CouncilofTrent
The instrumental cause is the sacrament of Baptism, which is the sacrament of faith,[35] without which no man was ever justified
And this shows the danger of "proof-texting". This would show that Adam, as well as the alleged "just" under the Old Law, were never justified in reality because they weren't baptized. Oh wait, you will say, the Council Fathers didn't really mean that; by "no man" they really meant "no man under the New Law". Well, right, but that's not what it says, now is it?
It is more the danger of quotes in isolation for it is clear from the Decree (see Decree on Justification, Chapter IV) that Baptism was made necessary for salvation under the New Law
since the promulgation of the Gospel. The irrefutable Tradition of the Church is that the promulgation of the Gospel began at
Pentecost, NOT when the Gospel is preached
to a particular soul or a particular place.
Quote from: Trent, Decree on Justification IV
After the promulgation of the Gospel this translation (to Justification) cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or the vow to receive it, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
Quote from: james03 on September 05, 2015, 10:16:35 AM
QuoteI believe that Non Nobis is right when she stated that:
Quote
Catechumens do not have Supernatural Faith (unless they had perfect contrition),
Perfect contrition does not give Supernatural Faith, as discussed above. They can know the articles of Faith, and believe them on an intellectual level, but that is all. They can not have Faith in the Beatitude of God since there is no way of knowing what that is. Only the indwelling of the Trinity gives us that.
Contrition/penance, etc.... are only prerequisites to baptism, whereby we are born again and receive the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity.
Perfect Contrition gives us Sanctifying Grace, along with Charity and the other theological virtues; if a non-Baptized person can make an act of perfect Contrition, which is B.O.D. Then they receive Sanctifying Grace and the supernatural virtues all at the same time. As to how much of the articles of faith must one believe in order to elicit an act of Contrition and faith, that is a matter of dispute among Catholic theologians.
Quote from: Cantarella on September 05, 2015, 11:35:32 AM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 04, 2015, 11:26:51 PM
Quote from: CouncilofTrent
The instrumental cause is the sacrament of Baptism, which is the sacrament of faith,[35] without which no man was ever justified
And this shows the danger of "proof-texting". This would show that Adam, as well as the alleged "just" under the Old Law, were never justified in reality because they weren't baptized. Oh wait, you will say, the Council Fathers didn't really mean that; by "no man" they really meant "no man under the New Law". Well, right, but that's not what it says, now is it?
It is more the danger of quotes in isolation for it is clear from the Decree (see Decree on Justification, Chapter IV) that Baptism was made necessary for salvation under the New Law since the promulgation of the Gospel. The Tradition of the Church is that the promulgation of the Gospel began at Pentecost, NOT when the Gospel is preached to a particular soul.
Quote from: Trent, Decree on Justification IV
After the promulgation of the Gospel this translation (to Justification) cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or the vow to receive it, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
This is where we are in dispute; what does "promulgation of the Gospel" mean objectively? Was it at Pentecost when only a few thousand "devout Jews and Proselytes" heard St. Peter's speech outside the Cenacle? Was it when the preaching of the Apostles reached outside of Judea, Galileee, and Samaria? Was it when the Apostles died? For the Gospel wasn't promulgated or preached everywhere at the same time. But how could God hold people who never heard the Gospel guilty of rejecting something they never heard of?
If God truly wills the salvation of all men; and Christ truly died to save all men; then God would have to make known to all men somehow the truths and graces they need to be saved. But we know that the Gospel did not reach all men that were alive at Pentecost immediately or ever; nor those that were born many generations latter, until the Catholic missionaries arrived. So what is impossible for men, is quite withing God's power; therefore men that had never heard of the Catholic Church or its truth, can still arrive at supernatural faith and salvation through God's grace.
QuotePerfect Contrition gives us Sanctifying Grace, along with Charity and the other theological virtues; if a non-Baptized person can make an act of perfect Contrition, which is B.O.D.
No it is not. Contrition due to fear of hell, or disgust at sin suffice. The B.O.D. is an ardent desire for the sacrament. Catholic Faith, then contrition, precede it, but are separate from it.
Quote from: CantarellaThis faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for "faith which bestows life eternal,''* which without hope and charity faith cannot bestow.
This pretty much settles it.
The core errors:
QuoteBut how could God hold people who never heard the Gospel guilty of rejecting something they never heard of?
He doesn't hold them guilty for ignorance, no punish them for their ignorance. But they can't be saved since they are in Original Sin. They are in Original Sin because that is how they are born. You don't go to hell because you are "guilty", you go to hell because you
can't go to heaven in your natural state. In hell, you will receive perfect Justice.
QuoteIf God truly wills the salvation of all men; and Christ truly died to save all men; then God would have to make known to all men somehow the truths and graces they need to be saved.
No, there is no requirement on God. He predestines who He will save for His secret purpose. I believe we can confidently say that "Free Will" factors in to His decree. There is also the matter of Truth. God follows logic, except for rare miracles.
A heathen savage is stuck in ignorance due to God's plan just as a Trad Catholic instructed in the Faith is in that situation due to God's plan. He can (and does) give Graces to all, however the life of the savage is not congruent with him responding to grace.
There's no contradiction at all, it's a development in Church doctrine. The second definition just implies that the ardent desire can be implicit.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 05, 2015, 11:58:04 AM
Quote from: Cantarella on September 05, 2015, 11:35:32 AM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 04, 2015, 11:26:51 PM
Quote from: CouncilofTrent
The instrumental cause is the sacrament of Baptism, which is the sacrament of faith,[35] without which no man was ever justified
And this shows the danger of "proof-texting". This would show that Adam, as well as the alleged "just" under the Old Law, were never justified in reality because they weren't baptized. Oh wait, you will say, the Council Fathers didn't really mean that; by "no man" they really meant "no man under the New Law". Well, right, but that's not what it says, now is it?
It is more the danger of quotes in isolation for it is clear from the Decree (see Decree on Justification, Chapter IV) that Baptism was made necessary for salvation under the New Law since the promulgation of the Gospel. The Tradition of the Church is that the promulgation of the Gospel began at Pentecost, NOT when the Gospel is preached to a particular soul.
Quote from: Trent, Decree on Justification IV
After the promulgation of the Gospel this translation (to Justification) cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or the vow to receive it, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
This is where we are in dispute; what does "promulgation of the Gospel" mean objectively? Was it at Pentecost when only a few thousand "devout Jews and Proselytes" heard St. Peter's speech outside the Cenacle? Was it when the preaching of the Apostles reached outside of Judea, Galileee, and Samaria? Was it when the Apostles died? For the Gospel wasn't promulgated or preached everywhere at the same time. But how could God hold people who never heard the Gospel guilty of rejecting something they never heard of?
If God truly wills the salvation of all men; and Christ truly died to save all men; then God would have to make known to all men somehow the truths and graces they need to be saved. But we know that the Gospel did not reach all men that were alive at Pentecost immediately or ever; nor those that were born many generations latter, until the Catholic missionaries arrived. So what is impossible for men, is quite withing God's power; therefore men that had never heard of the Catholic Church or its truth, can still arrive at supernatural faith and salvation through God's grace.
It is the irrefutable Tradition of the Church that the promulgation of the Gospel began at
Pentecost, NOT when the Gospel is preached
to a particular soul or a particular place. Pentecost is the day when the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles. Since then, Baptism is necessary for salvation. That is settled and needs no further re-interpretation.
At this point, Mr. Wilson, this is simply neo-Modernist reasoning:
Quote
The post-conciliar theological principle is neo-modernism, and the theology that is based on it is known as the nouvelle theologie. It is the idea that old dogmas or beliefs must be retained, yet not the traditional 'formulas': dogmas must be expressed and interpreted in a new way in every age so as to meet the 'needs of modern man'. This is still a denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth as adaequatio intellectus et rei (insofar as it is still an attempt to make the terminology that expresses the faith correspond with our modern lifestyle) and consequently of the immutability of Catholic dogma, yet it is not as radical as modernism. It is more subtle and much more deceptive than modernism because it claims that the faith must be retained; it is only the 'formulas' of faith that must be abandoned--they use the term 'formula' to distinguish the supposedly mutable words of our creeds, dogmas, etc. from their admittedly immutable meanings. Therefore, neo-modernism can effectively slip under the radar of most pre-conciliar condemnations (except Humani generis, which condemns it directly) insofar as its practitioners claim that their new and unintelligible theological terminology really expresses the same faith of all times. In other words, neo-modernism is supposed to be 'dynamic orthodoxy': supposedly orthodox in meaning, yet always changing in expression to adapt to modern life (cf. Franciscan University of Steubenville's mission statement).
Take extra ecclesiam nulla salus as a clear example of a dogma that has received a brutal neo-modernist re-interpretation: they claim that the old 'formula' that "there is no salvation outside the Church" must be abandoned; rather it is more meaningful to modern man to say that salvation is not in, but through, the Church; people who are not in the Church may still be saved through the Church; thus, to them the dogma that "there is no salvation outside the Church" means that there is salvation outside the Church. Hence see Ven. Pope Pius XII condemning those "reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation." (Humani generis 27).
http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/modernism-vs-neo-modernism-what-is.html
Quote from: james03 on September 05, 2015, 12:47:59 PM
QuotePerfect Contrition gives us Sanctifying Grace, along with Charity and the other theological virtues; if a non-Baptized person can make an act of perfect Contrition, which is B.O.D.
No it is not. Contrition due to fear of hell, or disgust at sin suffice. The B.O.D. is an ardent desire for the sacrament. Catholic Faith, then contrition, precede it, but are separate from it.
Source?
Quote from: james03 on September 05, 2015, 12:56:25 PM
The core errors:
QuoteBut how could God hold people who never heard the Gospel guilty of rejecting something they never heard of?
He doesn't hold them guilty for ignorance, no punish them for their ignorance. But they can't be saved since they are in Original Sin. They are in Original Sin because that is how they are born. You don't go to hell because you are "guilty", you go to hell because you can't go to heaven in your natural state. In hell, you will receive perfect Justice.
QuoteIf God truly wills the salvation of all men; and Christ truly died to save all men; then God would have to make known to all men somehow the truths and graces they need to be saved.
No, there is no requirement on God. He predestines who He will save for His secret purpose. I believe we can confidently say that "Free Will" factors in to His decree. There is also the matter of Truth. God follows logic, except for rare miracles.
A heathen savage is stuck in ignorance due to God's plan just as a Trad Catholic instructed in the Faith is in that situation due to God's plan. He can (and does) give Graces to all, however the life of the savage is not congruent with him responding to grace.
Yes, there is a requirement of God. Christ by His Passion and death, paid the price of redemption for all men; was this a useless or empty death? God will provide the necessary grace and means of salvation to every man that He creates; Christ indeed gave the Blessed Trinity, a "requirement" (The Infinite price of redemption) to succor every single sinner from Hell; it doesn't mean that all men are saved; or that every man will respond to the call, but God does indeed call:
Quote
Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 18:23
Is it my will that a sinner should die, saith the Lord God, and not that he should be converted from his ways, and live?
re. Original sin: all men that reach the age of reason, no longer just have original sin on their souls; they either go into the State of Mortal sin or into the state of Grace.
The Savage and Congruism: You misunderstand "Congruism" it isn't that God places the savage in a situation that He can't save him; God will send him the "Congruent" graces that will be effective in whatever situation he or anybody else is in; if the savage (or anyone else) cooperates with his free will.
Cantarella stated:
QuoteIt is the irrefutable Tradition of the Church that the promulgation of the Gospel began at Pentecost, NOT when the Gospel is preached to a particular soul or a particular place. Pentecost is the day when the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles. Since then, Baptism is necessary for salvation. That is settled and needs no further re-interpretation.
At this point, Mr. Wilson, this is simply neo-Modernist reasoning:
Yes, the Gospel was promulgated, but it was not promulgated everywhere and to all men at once. The Jews that heard St. Peter's sermon were not in the same situation as the Jews living in Asia Minor or the Pagans living an hour away from Jerusalem on the coast.
Re. Neo. Modernism: Again, we are not speaking of "neo modernist" theologians; we are speaking of Catholic Theologians, that the Church has approved of for Centuries.
QuoteSource?
Trent.
1. Faith
2. Repentance. Note Trent is describing an imperfect contrition.
QuoteNow they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, [Page 34] to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God.
QuoteYes, there is a requirement of God. Christ by His Passion and death, paid the price of redemption for all men; was this a useless or empty death?
The Passion of Christ is His Mercy. It places no requirement on God. However, those who enter the New Covenant will receive the propitiation of Christ applied to their sins. So yes, the Lord will keep His word to those in the New Covenant. His Passion is not applied to those who are not justified by baptism, or the ardent desire for baptism.
QuoteGod will provide the necessary grace and means of salvation to every man that He creates; Christ indeed gave the Blessed Trinity, a "requirement" (The Infinite price of redemption) to succor every single sinner from Hell; it doesn't mean that all men are saved; or that every man will respond to the call, but God does indeed call:
Not according to scripture:
Quote from: John 6All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. [38] Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. [39] Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day...... [44] No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day.
Those who are lost were not predestined, and were not given to the Son by the Father.
Quote from: james03 on September 05, 2015, 08:42:53 PM
QuoteSource?
Trent.
1. Faith
2. Repentance. Note Trent is describing an imperfect contrition.
QuoteNow they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, [Page 34] to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God.
James,
Trent is describing perfect Contrition. For how else can an unbaptized person "Begin to love God as the fountain of all justice etc." A person in the state of sin does not love God.
* Everyone is drawn to Christ is drawn by the Father (and also to the Father by the Son).
* Man cannot draw himself.
* If it does not rise up to conversion, it is not due to the failure of the Father to draw them -- the Father fails noone. Rather the fault is in the person, who presents an obstacle willfully.
* Before the fall, there was no obstacle to being drawn up.
* After the fall, all are equally held back by the obstacle of sin: all need to be drawn.
* God extends all that depends on Him to everyone, to draw everyone.
* He even draws those who are turned away from Him.
* God is ready to give grace to all, and if one does not accept it is on the person.
* God can certainly overcome such obstacles with an extraordinary grace, but is not bound to do so. He can even not do this in order to manifest His Justice, but we know also from Scripture that God wills not the death of a sinner: that death is consequent to the sinner themselves and God not doing anything beyond that.
St. Augustine said on this passage, "... if you are not drawn, pray that you may be."
Corrected some potentially problematic phrasing.*
This should end the debate - "man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ" (Pope Paul III, Sublimus Dei)
In response to a query, the Holy Office in 1703 decreed, "the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation." Something is said to be necessary as a means if the end cannot be attained without it, because the Trinity and Incarnation are mysteries of faith necessary as a means, divine Providence will never fail to supply the knowledge of them to the pagan who sincerely seeks Him, as St. Thomas says he did for Cornelius.
Baptism of desire is Catholic dogma. Someone who stubbornly denies it denies all of Tradition and the infallible authority of the Church's Magisterium. No sensible Catholic will ever go there.
And the doctrine that no one is saved without the Catholic faith (the primary mysteries of which are the Trinity and Incarnationas the Athanasian Creed puts it, "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.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity ... let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." ) is equal in venerable antiquity.
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, "You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation"
As St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus and unanimously all the Fathers and Doctors teach, God gives to Jews and pagans who love truth above all things and seek it with all their heart all the graces they need to arrive at salvation through knowledge and love of Jesus Christ, the only means by which, after the promulgation of the Gospel, they may arrive at perfect contrition necessary for the forgiveness of their sins and entrance into heaven. God, says Fr. Mueller with the full approval of Rome, will if necessary send an Angel to instruct a man in the Catholic faith and the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord and God than allow him to perish in ignorance.
QuoteQ. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?
A. Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.
Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.
Q. What do you mean by this?
A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/familiar.htm
"some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life. " Pope Gregory XVI
Here is a response from two Catholic theologians of impecable orthodoxy:
There is a controversy in Catholic theology as to how which doctrines have to be believed with an explicit faith; here is an extract from a post Vatican I theological manual: "Outlines of Dogmatic Theology" Sylvester Joseph Hunter S.J. Vol. III pages 121-122: Longmans, Green And Co. London, 1909; with an Imprimatur from Herbert Card. Vaughan. Archbishop of Westminster; 1894
QuoteRegarding the points on which explicit knowledge is required as the indispensable means of justification, this certainly extends to the belief that God exists and that He shows Himself the Rewarder of them that seek Him. This amount of belief is declared by St. Paul to be essential, if any one will please God. (Hebrews xi. 6) The Greek word translated "rewarder" means literally the payer of wages: the "seeking" God is therefore the application to enter His service; and the absolute necessity of the knowledge specified will be readily understood, if any one is to earn a reward.
So far there is universal agreement, and in fact the necessity that we have stated is not open to doubt, for Pope Innocent XI condemned the assertion that explicit belief that God rewards is not necessary (prop. 22; Denz. 1039). There is a controversy whether St. Paul, in the passage quoted, intended to mention all that is necessary, or whether explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is required. At one time, a few writers were found to maintain that this explicit belief not only is necessary, but always has been so; this is now held by no one, but many followers of the Thomist school hold that it has been necessary since the revelation was brought by Christ, although under the Old Law it was not requisite. These found their opinion upon the language of Scripture, which frequently speaks of faith in Christ as the essential condition of salvation; and to believe in Christ means to believe that He is God and Man. But the passages in question may be understood of the necessity of precept, which binds those to whom truth is proposed; or they may indicate that faith in God the Rewarder avails only because of the merits of Christ. It therefore seems to Suarez and the large majority of recent theologians that the necessity of this explicit belief is not established; and they find great dificulty in supposing that the coming of Christ made the conditions of salvation harder for the great bulk of mankind who never hear the preaching of the Gospel.
As is clear from the quote above, the following:
1. At one time there were a few Catholic writers that maintained that explicit faith in Christ was always necessary for salvation; now none do.
2. There is unanimity amongst theologians as to the necessity of explicit faith that God exists and that He shows Himself the Rewarder of them that seek Him.
3. There is no unanimity as to the whether an explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation is necessary; but some theologians, notably of the Thomists School hold that this is necessary after the revelation of Christ.
4. The large majority of recent (pre. 20th c.) theologians; following Suarez, hold that this explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation is not established.
5. It seems difficult to many Catholic theologians, that the coming of Christ made the conditions of salvation harder for the great bulk of mankind who never hear the preaching of the Gospel; i.e. It makes no sense at all.
Fr. Lagrange in his book: "The Theological Virtues-On Faith" pages 221-241 covers the whole controversy as well as on page 236 the fact of a child coming to the age of reason;as well as the possibility of an infidel may be justified without explicit knowledge of Christ; and explains [pg. 237-8] why this does not contradict St. Thomas' opinion that an explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.
[236]
Quote St. Thomas confirms this view [an infidel who never heard of Christ, but leading an upright life], where he pauses to consider an infidel child arriving at the use of reason. The first awakening is in the domain of thought, by deliberating about oneself. If, on this occasion, he determines to make for the right end of life, "he obtains the remission of original sin through grace." 26. Summa theol. Ia IIa q.89, a. 6. Such an effect would mark a special form of baptism through desire. It could not take place in an adult without an act of faith and charity. Furthermore, there is no connotationin the example of any explicit knowledge about Christ.
We may join the Salmantisenses (De Fide, n. 79) and Suarez in maintaining that "it is possible for a catechumen to have had nothing proposed to him for belief in God, the supernatural author and end of man. No explicit knowledge of Christ the Lord has reached his ears. Nevertheless, the catechumen conceives a definitive faith in God as his supernatural author and supernatural end, not believing explicitly in Christ of whom he never heard. From the fact that his new faith is frim in God as supernatural begining and end, he is capable of loving God through charity, and therefore may be justified. Therefore, under the New Law, it is only "per accidens", that is, a pure contingency, that an individual adult may attain to justification without having an explicit faith in Christ." [End]
[238] Recapitulation:...3) A medial necessity "per se", though not always demanded owing to the need of possible knowledge in the premises. Such is baptism of water for adults. "Per accidens", exceptions occur, in which cases baptism of desire suffices. After the advent of Christ, explicit faith in him as Savior is a necessity of this third type. Whatever exceptions there may be are "per accidens". Faith in Christ is then implicit. [End]
So Fr. G.L.G. States that Suarez and the Salmanticences (and many other Catholic theologians) hold that explicit faith in Christ is a necessary means for salvation "per se", the same as water Baptism; but "as per accidens" water Baptism may be supplied by B.O.D. So also explicit faith in Christ, may be supplied by implicit faith in Him.
Quote"some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life. " Pope Gregory XVI
Of course, no one on this thread has advocated salvation except through the Catholic Church; the only true Church.
If anybody is saved, it is because they were incorporated into the Church before their death.
Quote from: Michael Wilson
Of course, no one on this thread has advocated salvation except through the Catholic Church; the only true Church.
If anybody is saved, it is because they were incorporated into the Church before their death
"Take extra ecclesiam nulla salus as a clear example of a dogma that has received a brutal neo-modernist re-interpretation: they claim that the old 'formula' that "there is no salvation outside the Church" must be abandoned; rather it is more meaningful to modern man to say that salvation is not in, but through, the Church; people who are not in the Church may still be saved through the Church; thus, to them the dogma that "there is no salvation outside the Church" means that there is salvation outside the Church. Hence see Ven. Pope Pius XII condemning those "reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation." (Humani generis 27)."
There has been a progressive diminishing of what is required to be believed for salvation since the XVI century with Jesuit theologians such as De Vega and De Soto. This has been a step by step - gradual dilution of the Truth until we arrive to XX century Rahner' Anonymous Christianity.
Sorry, Explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity for salvation has been settled long ago. These are the words of Our Lord's in John 17:3:
"Now this is eternal life:
That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Liberal theologians of course, continue giving the impression that the dogmatic necessity of Explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity for salvation, is still a question under debate.
Quote
1. At one time there were a few Catholic writers that maintained that explicit faith in Christ was always necessary for salvation; now none do.
Because belief in Jesus Christ and the Trinity for salvation was so undisputed and elementary knowledge during 1500 years, that it went without saying. Even deceased catechumens whose
Explicit Faith was irrefutable were not prayed for in the Ancient Liturgy because they were not considered members of the Church. If salvation for these explicit believers in Christ were considered at best, uncertain, naturally those ignorant of the Gospel were considered lost to eternal perdition.
You will not find a single source supporting salvific Implicit Faith before the XVI century, around the year 1542. Guaranteed.
Cantarella,
Who is the source of your first quote?
QuoteThere has been a progressive diminishing of what is required to be believed for salvation since the XVI century. This has been a step by step - gradual dilution of
the Truth until we arrive to XX century Rahner' Anonymous Christianity.
A "progressive diminishing" that nobody noticed until Fr. Feeney.
As to Rhaner; funny you should mention him, because Fr. Lagrange was his orthodox adversary; and now you are attempting to identify Fr. Lagrange with him. It doesn't fit and worse it is false.
Quote
Sorry, Explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity for salvation has been settled long ago. These are the words of Our Lord's in John 17:3:
"Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Explicit belief in the Incarnation is as Fr. G.L.G. Explained a necessary means that can accidentally be supplied by the explicit faith in God as the supernatural rewarder of our deeds. If the Church had settled the issue definitely, then no Catholic theologian would venture forth opinions that would even question the issue; they would simply state the teaching of the Church.
The quote above refers to the Beatific Vision:
St. Thomas's commentary on the Gospel of St. John:
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/John17.htm
QuoteAccordingly our Lord says that eternal life lies in vision, in seeing, that is, it consists in this basically and in its whole substance. But it is love which moves one to this vision, and is in a certain way its fulfillment: for the completion and crown of beatitude (happiness) is the delight experienced in the enjoyment of God, and this is caused by charity. Still, the substance of beatitude consists in vision, seeing: "We shall see him as he is" (1 Jn 3:2).
QuoteLiberal theologians of course, continue giving the impression that the dogmatic necessity of Explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity for salvation, is still a question under debate.
Suarez, the Salmanticenses, and Garigou Lagrange "Liberal Theologians"? Really?
QuoteBecause belief in Jesus Christ and the Trinity for salvation was so undisputed and elementary knowledge during 1500 years, that it went without saying. Even deceased catechumens whose Explicit Faith was irrefutable were not prayed for in the Ancient Liturgy because they were not considered members of the Church. If salvation for these explicit believers in Christ were considered at best, uncertain, naturally those ignorant of the Gospel were considered lost to eternal perdition.
Of course the Church has never taught that those who died without actually receiving water Baptism were certainly lost.
All the Church fathers believed in Baptism of Blood and Desire.
No, the Church celebrated in her liturgy the feast-days of Saints that were martyred while still only catechumens; and exposed their relics for veneration. For Example one of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste and the Holy Innocents.
Those who were ignorant inculpably, were never considered certainly lost. That is what we are speaking of here.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 06, 2015, 09:28:04 AM
Cantarella,
Who is the source of your first quote?
QuoteThere has been a progressive diminishing of what is required to be believed for salvation since the XVI century. This has been a step by step - gradual dilution of
the Truth until we arrive to XX century Rahner' Anonymous Christianity.
A "progressive diminishing" that nobody noticed until Fr. Feeney.
As to Rhaner; funny you should mention him, because Fr. Lagrange was his orthodox adversary; and now you are attempting to identify Fr. Lagrange with him. It doesn't fit and worse it is false.
Quote
Sorry, Explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity for salvation has been settled long ago. These are the words of Our Lord's in John 17:3:
"Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Explicit belief in the Incarnation is as Fr. G.L.G. Explained a necessary means that can accidentally be supplied by the explicit faith in God as the supernatural rewarder of our deeds. If the Church had settled the issue definitely, then no Catholic theologian would venture forth opinions that would even question the issue; they would simply state the teaching of the Church.
The quote above refers to the Beatific Vision:
St. Thomas's commentary on the Gospel of St. John:
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/John17.htm
QuoteAccordingly our Lord says that eternal life lies in vision, in seeing, that is, it consists in this basically and in its whole substance. But it is love which moves one to this vision, and is in a certain way its fulfillment: for the completion and crown of beatitude (happiness) is the delight experienced in the enjoyment of God, and this is caused by charity. Still, the substance of beatitude consists in vision, seeing: "We shall see him as he is" (1 Jn 3:2).
Beatific Vision which is impossible without a
true knowledge of God. These are the annotations for that verse John 17:3 from the original Douay-Rheims:
Quote
Life Everlasting: Both the life and the glory in Heaven, and of grace here in the Church, consisted of the knowledge of God, that, in perfect vision: this, in Faith worked by Charity; for knowledge of God without keeping his commandments, is not true knowledge, that is to say, it is an unprofitable knowledge.
Faith worked by Charity (along with Hope) are all INFUSED in the soul at the same time through
Baptism.
Quote from: Michael Wilson
Those who were ignorant inculpably, were never considered certainly lost. That is what we are speaking of here.
Well... Popes Pelagius I, Benedict XIV and Saint Pius X disagree with you, and those are simply the ones that first come to mind:
Quote from: Pelagius II confess that the Lord will give over by a very just judgment to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire the wicked who either did not know by way of the Lord or, knowing it, left it when seized by various transgressions, in order that they may burn without end.
Quote from: Benedict XIV'We DECLARE that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.'
Quote from: Pius XThe ruin of souls is wrought by this single cause: Ignorance of those most sublime truths, so far beyond the natural understanding of the multitude, which nonetheless must be known by all men in order that they may attain eternal salvation.. [...] This We solemnly affirm: the majority of those who are condemned to eternal punishment fall into this everlasting misfortune through ignorance of the mysteries of the Faith which must necessarily be known and believed by all who belong to the Elect.
Again, none teach that inculpably ignorant people go to Hell. That would mean that God condemns people to Hell who have not committed a Mortal sin.
Cantarella:
QuoteBeatific Vision which is impossible without a true knowledge of God. These are the annotations for that verse John 17:3 from the original Douay-Rheims:
Quote
Life Everlasting: Both the life and the glory in Heaven, and of grace here in the Church, consisted of the knowledge of God, that, in perfect vision: this, in Faith worked by Charity; for knowledge of God without keeping his commandments, is not true knowledge, that is to say, it is an unprofitable knowledge.
Faith worked by Charity (along with Hope) are all INFUSED in the soul at the same time through Baptism.
Yes, but the quote from St. John and the note from the Duay, don't address the issue at hand: "What is the minimun matter of faith that one must believed in order to be justified and saved?"
gtg soon... but the Pelagius 1 quote actually supports the view opposite the one you are arguing, when the entire quote is given (your quote as given is a rephrasing and not the original according to Denziger):
Quote443 Dz 228a For I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of the man (cf. Gn 2,7), Will then rise again and stand before the Judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he has done, whether it be good or bad (Rm 14,10 2Co 5,10); and indeed by the very bountiful grace of God he will present the just, as vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory (Rm 9,23), with the rewards of eternal life; namely, they will live without end in the society of the angels without any fear now of their own fall; the wicked, however, remaining by choice of their own with vessels of wrath fit for destruction (Rm 9,22), who either did not know the way of the Lord, or knowing it left it when seized by various transgressions, He will give over by a very just judgment to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire, that they may burn without end. This, then, is my faith and hope, which is in me by the gift of the mercy of God, in defense of which blessed PETER taught (cf. 1P 3,15) that we ought to be especially ready to answer everyone who asks us for an accounting.
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dp2.htm
If they remained by choice in the lot of the wicked, then they had a choice. But as St. Thomas teaches one cannot be held accountable for what depends on another (SCG, Book III, Q 159). So God had to have given them some sort of grace, and they rejected it willingly.
This grace could be as simple as to take away the obstacle to further learning and disposition to being internally inspired to receive the truths of the faith.
It could be to go meet a bunch of strange men who speak of God and the final Sacrifice... but they'd rather go steal another wife from a neighboring tribe or are convicted and know they should change and so they don't meet the missionaries.
It has been said a thousand times that the invincible ignorant is not damned on account of infidelity or heresy given that he is not at fault of his ignorance. This is what St. Thomas (and the Pope Pius IX's quote) teaches. However, we know that Original Sin (and other Actual sins) suffice for damnation. These sins can only be remitted through sacramental Baptism, which infuses in the soul at the same time, the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity, all necessary for Salvation.
Pope St. Pius X, the arch-anti-modernist Pope, in his encyclical
Acerbo Nimis, emphasizes the importance of Christian instruction so that souls can be taught "
those truths necessary for salvation":
Quote from: St. Pius X
It is a common complaint, unfortunately too well founded, that there are large numbers of Christians in our own time who are entirely ignorant of those truths necessary for salvation. ... And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: "We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect."
"On every Sunday and holy day, with no exception, throughout the year, all parish priests and in general all those having the care of souls, shall instruct the boys and girls, for the space of an hour from the text of the Catechism on those things they must believe and do in order to attain salvation".
Cantarella,
QuoteIt has been said a thousand times that the invincible ignorant is not damned on account of infidelity or heresy given that he is not at fault of his ignorance. This is what St. Thomas (and the Pope Pius IX's quote) teaches. However, we know that Original Sin (and other Actual sins) suffice for damnation. These sins can only be remitted through sacramental Baptism, which infuses in the soul at the same time, the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity, all necessary for Salvation.
Pope St. Pius X, the arch-anti-modernist Pope, in his encyclical Acerbo Nimis, emphasizes the importance of Christian instruction so that souls can be taught "those truths necessary for salvation":
Ok, on "not being damned on account of (inculpable) infidelity or heresy";
But sins can "only be remitted through Sacramental Baptism"; no, the Church teaches that sins can also be remitted through perfect Contritition even before receiving Baptism as the contrary opinion of Baius was condemned:
Quote1033- 33. A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.
Also, St. Pius X in his Catechism teaches B.O.D. Which is perfect Contrition in those who have not yet received the Sacrament.
Quote
16 Q: Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A: Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
QuoteJames,
Trent is describing perfect Contrition.
You don't know the definition of perfect contrition, evidently. Fear of Divine Justice and detesting sin are not perfect contrition. If you are interested, look up the definition.
My point stands:
Quote2. Repentance. Note Trent is describing an imperfect contrition.
Quote
Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, [Page 34] to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God.
Quote* If it does not rise up to conversion, it is not due to the failure of the Father to draw them -- the Father fails noone. Rather the fault is in the person, who presents an obstacle willfully.
Wrong. If you believe that, you end up in a downward spiral where you will have to say it makes no difference whether you are moslem or jew, or prot, or attend the novus ordo or the TLM. That is the necessary outcome. You then must embrace either semi-pelagianism, or universalism.
So, a child is born to an atheist couple. They approach the Church and ask for baptism for sentimental reasons, but admit they are atheist and will not raise the kid Catholic. The Church refuses baptism. Kid dies a few years later. Are you claiming this doesn't matter? If you claim it does matter, why was the kid born to atheist parents? Did he have a say in the matter?
QuoteAlso, St. Pius X in his Catechism teaches B.O.D. Which is perfect Contrition in those who have not yet received the Sacrament.
No it is not. Note the roman catechism mentions that they must have a desire for baptism, at least implicit. An implied desire for baptism would apply to Prots that have Faith in Christ.
Also, where does he mention anything about "implicit Faith", the current subject of this debate?
QuoteThis should end the debate - "man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ" (Pope Paul III, Sublimus Dei)
In response to a query, the Holy Office in 1703 decreed, "the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation."
It does.
Quotethe Church teaches that sins of a Catechumen with Explicit Faith in Christ can also be remitted through perfect Contritition even before receiving Baptism as the contrary opinion of Baius was condemned:
Fixed it.
Quote from: james03 on September 06, 2015, 03:01:56 PM
Quote* If it does not rise up to conversion, it is not due to the failure of the Father to draw them -- the Father fails noone. Rather the fault is in the person, who presents an obstacle willfully.
Wrong. If you believe that, you end up in a downward spiral where you will have to say it makes no difference whether you are moslem or jew, or prot, or attend the novus ordo or the TLM. That is the necessary outcome. You then must embrace either semi-pelagianism, or universalism.
So, a child is born to an atheist couple. They approach the Church and ask for baptism for sentimental reasons, but admit they are atheist and will not raise the kid Catholic. The Church refuses baptism. Kid dies a few years later. Are you claiming this doesn't matter? If you claim it does matter, why was the kid born to atheist parents? Did he have a say in the matter?
does not rise up: this is not due to the failure of the one lifting it, who, so far as lies in him, fails no one; rather, it is due to an obstacle in the one who is not drawn or lifted up.
God, in so far as it depends on him, extends his hand to every one, to draw every one.
Question for either Gardener or Michael:
An atheist asked Pope Francis if was going to hell since he didn't believe in God. Pope Francis told him if he was a good person, he could go to heaven as an atheist.
Do you all disagree?
QuoteGod, in so far as it depends on him, extends his hand to every one, to draw every one.
Only the elect. Which is why moslems are moslems, and jews are jews. They are in darkness because that is God's plan.
Again, if you continue to believe otherwise, you will end up claiming the Catholic Faith doesn't matter, Jesus Christ doesn't matter, and the sacraments matter not. Which raises the question: why cause trouble and promote the TLM? Smells and bells?
All I did was post the exact words of St. Thomas commentary on John 6:44 without saying so.
Previously, my bullet-point summary was just covering the points in his larger teaching on that verse.
So, St. Thomas teaches necessary universalistic semi-pelagianism? Interesting.
An Act of Perfect Contrition or Love is not what you think it is. It is not a seudo - theory to get non - Catholics, (who are even ignorant of the Gospel) to Heaven at last minute. An Act of Perfect Contrition requires the theological virtue of Charity, which necessarily implies that one already has the True Faith, and the simultaneous desire for Baptism, in this case. How a person who is ignorant of Christ and His Church can truly desire Baptism?
Furthermore, it does not imprint the indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive sacramental Baptism remains.
QuoteSo, St. Thomas teaches necessary universalistic semi-pelagianism? Interesting.
No, you leave out an important element of his system: efficacious grace. Note I am a congruist, and disagree, but admit he might be correct. So if you want to follow St. Thomas, you should present the complete argument: God calls all, but only gives the Grace to respond, i.e. efficacious grace, to the elect.
Here's something germaine from de Vertitate 6, Q1:
QuoteAnother prerequisite of predestination is the choice by which he who is directed to the end infallibly is separated from others who are not ordained to it in the same manner. This separation, however, is not on account of any difference, found in the predestined, which could arouse God's love; for, as we read in the Epistle to the Romans (9:11-13): "When the children were not yet born nor had done any good or evil... it was said... 'Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.'" Consequently, predestination presupposes election and love, and election presupposes love. Again, two things follow upon predestination: the attainment of the end, which is glory, and the granting of help to attain this end, namely, the bestowal of the grace that pertains to the call to be among the predestined.
Quote from: james03 on September 06, 2015, 04:01:04 PM
QuoteSo, St. Thomas teaches necessary universalistic semi-pelagianism? Interesting.
No, you leave out an important element of his system: efficacious grace. Note I am a congruist, and disagree, but admit he might be correct. So if you want to follow St. Thomas, you should present the complete argument: God calls all, but only gives the Grace to respond, i.e. efficacious grace, to the elect.
Here's something germaine from de Vertitate 6, Q1:
QuoteAnother prerequisite of predestination is the choice by which he who is directed to the end infallibly is separated from others who are not ordained to it in the same manner. This separation, however, is not on account of any difference, found in the predestined, which could arouse God's love; for, as we read in the Epistle to the Romans (9:11-13): "When the children were not yet born nor had done any good or evil... it was said... 'Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.'" Consequently, predestination presupposes election and love, and election presupposes love. Again, two things follow upon predestination: the attainment of the end, which is glory, and the granting of help to attain this end, namely, the bestowal of the grace that pertains to the call to be among the predestined.
Fr Most, in his book on the subject, demonstrates that St. Thomas had no coherent system. He had two systems which could not be drawn together into a complete one. Banez and G-L, et al. attempt it, but that's not sufficient for me to believe it was the mind of St. Thomas.
And you haven't answered the reality that St. Thomas also said one cannot be held accountable for what depends on another (SCG, Book 3, Q159). I'm not into Jewish lawyer games, which is what the description of the efficacious grace argument amounts to: God condemning someone who essentially had no choice in doing something.
And, anyway, St. Thomas didn't qualify his words in the commentary with efficacious grace (a term found nowhere in his writings). He simply stated what he did. Hence, Fr. Most's contention that St. Thomas didn't teach what is actually Domingo Banez' doctrine and later defended by Fr. G-L amongst others.
Further, you also seemingly reject the sufficiency of "sufficient" grace by your reply, so I dunno why you bring up a system you don't believe in with the distinction of sufficient/efficacious. And besides, if you want to talk the Thomism of which you speak, PM INPEFESS and let him enter the discussion. I'm not a Thomist qua G-L on this issue (for I do not see his own writings as coherent on it)-- though I do appreciate St. Thomas' commentaries on scripture.
As Haydock's commentary states:
QuoteVer. 44. Draw him. Not by compulsion, nor by laying the free-will under any necessity, but by the strong and sweet motions of his heavenly grace. (Challoner) --- We are drawn to the Father by some secret pleasure, delight, or love, which brings us to the Father. "Believe and you come to the Father," says St. Augustine, "Love, and you are drawn. The Jews could not believe, because they would not." God, by his power, could have overcome their hardness of heart; but he was not bound to do it; neither had they any right to expect this favour, after the many miracles which they had seen. (Calmet)
Your argument doesn't have man going to hell because of his own willed choice to sin, but because God didn't give him the necessary helps. I must reject that without equivocation until the Church would rule otherwise -- at which point I'd despair because God is untrustworthy. This also contradicts Trent:
QuoteCHAPTER XIII
THE GIFT OF PERSEVERANCE
Similarly with regard to the gift of perseverance, of which it is written:
He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved,[75] which cannot be obtained from anyone except from Him who is able to make him stand who stands,[76] that he may stand perseveringly, and to raise him who falls, let no one promise himself herein something as certain with an absolute certainty, though all ought to place and repose the firmest hope in God's help.
For God, unless men themselves fail in His grace, as he has begun a good work, so will he perfect it, working to will and to accomplish.[77]
Nevertheless, let those who think themselves to stand, take heed lest they fall,[78] and with fear and trembling work out their salvation,[79] in labors, in watchings, in almsdeeds, in prayer, in fastings and chastity.
For knowing that they are born again unto the hope of glory,[80] and not as yet unto glory, they ought to fear for the combat that yet remains with the flesh, with the world and with the devil, in which they cannot be victorious unless they be with the grace of God obedient to the Apostle who says:
We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh; for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die, but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live.[81]
Quote from: Cantarella on September 06, 2015, 03:21:48 PM
An Act of Perfect Contrition requires the theological virtue of Charity,...
<etc>
The very first part of your statement implies that an act of perfect contrition ALWAYS requires the theological virtue of Charity. This is incorrect, because a baptized Catholic can start in the state of mortal sin, and so without Charity,and then make an act of perfect contrition, of which the result (not the prerequisite) is God restoring him to Charity. This is how a mortal sin can be forgiven when it is humanly impossible to get to confession.
Right here I do not speak of the need for Faith.
Quote from: Cantarella on September 06, 2015, 03:21:48 PM
Furthermore, it does not imprint the indelible character on the soul and the obligation to receive sacramental Baptism remains.
These are straw man arguments, because all who believe in (an accepted version of) Baptism of Desire already agree that (1) it does not imprint the indelible character on the soul and (2) it does not remove the obligation to receive the Sacrament at some future time in life (as soon as possible). I wish people denying Baptism of Desire would discontinue using these arguments; it is a waste of time in trying to get to the truth.
The only difference is that those who believe in Baptism of Desire think that when there is no future time (a man dies), God lifts the obligation, as He does with any command that is impossible. God allows human impossibility for some of His commands, and then lifts the obligation. E.g. with the command to attend Mass on Sunday He allows impossibility and lifts the obligation when a man has an accident before Church and it is (humanly) impossible for him to attend. God does not jump in and carry the man to Church, even if he is a good man.
A perfect act of contrition restores a man (a baptized Catholic) to Charity when confession is impossible, but the Sacramental Graces of confession are not received and the obligation to actually go to confession when possible remains. I believe that the man is also not allowed to receive communion, which requires the Sacrament; yet he is no longer in the state of mortal sin. God does not miraculously provide a priest he can confess to. The case with a martyred catechumen who has faith is very similar. God allows the sacrament to be humanly impossible, lifts the obligation, and by the perfect contrition that is in Baptism of Desire (Blood) the man is restored to Sanctifying Grace and is saved.
The Council of Trent says that confession is necessary for salvation (when there is mortal sin). Yet it also says this, regarding the contrition that is needed for the confession of mortal sins:
Quoteit sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.
The same can be said of Baptism of Desire "it reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received (or it is impossible), but this reconciliation is not to be ascribed to that contrition (baptism of desire), independently of the desire of the sacrament (of baptism) which is included therein". The Sacrament of Baptism is "included in" Baptism of Desire, because it is precisely Baptism (the Sacrament) that is desired.
Quote from: Gardener on September 06, 2015, 03:21:02 PM
All I did was post the exact words of St. Thomas commentary on John 6:44 without saying so.
Let me say so:
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on John
...in the state of fallen nature, all are equally held back from this drawing by the obstacle of sin; and so, all need to be drawn. God, in so far as it depends on him, extends his hand to every one, to draw every one...
Quote from: james03 on September 05, 2015, 12:47:59 PM
QuotePerfect Contrition gives us Sanctifying Grace, along with Charity and the other theological virtues; if a non-Baptized person can make an act of perfect Contrition, which is B.O.D.
No it is not. Contrition due to fear of hell, or disgust at sin suffice. The B.O.D. is an ardent desire for the sacrament. Catholic Faith, then contrition, precede it, but are separate from it.
What do you think a man desires, in the context of "Baptism of Desire"? Is it just the physical matter and form of the sacrament? Mustn't it be also the EFFECTS of the Sacrament, including forgiveness of sins? If a man desires the Sacrament of Baptism just because he will get special honors from his friends for becoming a Catholic, then even if this desire is ardent it is not "Baptism of Desire". Desiring forgiveness of sin is CONTRITION. An ardent desire for the forgiveness of sins is PERFECT CONTRITION. (It is God, not man, who judges how ardent the desire must be for perfect contrition). This is how I understand Baptism of Desire's relationship to Perfect Contrition.
James,
on Trent and the definition; I reread it, and I think you are correct, and I was mistaken.
QuoteFurther, you also seemingly reject the sufficiency of "sufficient" grace by your reply, so I dunno why you bring up a system you don't believe in with the distinction of sufficient/efficacious.
I didn't bring up St. Thomas, you did. And you are correct, on the mechanics of salvation, I am a Molinist, not a Thomist.
As far as Fr. Most, I quoted St. Thomas where he says the Grace which pertains to the call of predestination. He doesn't use the term "efficacious", granted, but that is what it is.
Bottom line, I can not be accused of calling St. Thomas a semi pelagian, as he states the predestination includes grace that pertains to the call, therefore the response to the call depends on God's grace, which only the elect receive.
QuoteJames,
on Trent and the definition; I reread it, and I think you are correct, and I was mistaken.
It was a minor point.
QuoteDesiring forgiveness of sin is CONTRITION. An ardent desire for the forgiveness of sins is PERFECT CONTRITION. (It is God, not man, who judges how ardent the desire must be for perfect contrition). This is how I understand Baptism of Desire's relationship to Perfect Contrition.
Baptism of Desire DOES NOT require Perfect Contrition.
Furthermore, Perfect Contrition is this: Repenting for only one reason, because a sin has offended God, Whom the penitent loves.
Quote from: james03 on September 07, 2015, 09:12:39 AM
QuoteDesiring forgiveness of sin is CONTRITION. An ardent desire for the forgiveness of sins is PERFECT CONTRITION. (It is God, not man, who judges how ardent the desire must be for perfect contrition). This is how I understand Baptism of Desire's relationship to Perfect Contrition.
Baptism of Desire DOES NOT require Perfect Contrition.
Furthermore, Perfect Contrition is this: Repenting for only one reason, because a sin has offended God, Whom the penitent loves.
James,
B.O.D. Does indeed require perfect contrition:
St Alphonsus Liguori http://www.cmri.org/02-baptism_blood-desire_stalph.html
QuoteAn Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori's Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.".....
"Contrition of Love of God above all things" is Perfect Contrition
Here is another reference (Definitions from A Catholic Dictionary, 1951):
QuoteBaptism of Desire is one of the two possible substitutes for Baptism of water. When it is not possible thus to be baptized, an act of perfect contrition or pure love of God will supply the omission. Such acts are a perfect and ultimate diposition calling for the infusion of sanctifying grace, and at least implicitly include a desire and intention to receive Baptism of water should occasion offer. Infants are not capable of Baptism of desire. An heathen, believing, even though in a confused way, in a God whose will should be done and desiring to do that will whatever it may be, probably has Baptism of desire. It may reasonably be assumed that vast numbers of persons unbaptized by water have thus been rendered capable of enjoying the Beatific Vision.
Baptism of Blood is one of the two possible substitutes for Baptism of water and consists of suffering martyrdom for the Faith or for some Christian virtue, which infuses sanctifying grace into the soul and forgives sin. Martyrdom produces this effect by a special privilege, as being a supreme act of love in imitation of the passion of Our Lord, but the martyr must have had attrition for his sins. Baptism of Blood extends to infants.
And from "Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology" Emmanuel Doronzo et. al. pg. 30:
Quote"...This second effect (the grace of regeneration) may be obtained by way of exception, so to speak (quasi per baptismi supplementa, i.e., through quasi-substitutes for baptism), either by an act of Charity (baptismus flaminis, of flame), or by martydom (baptismus sanguinis, of blood. "
Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized
Quote"A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church."
"17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire."
Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
QuoteThe baptism of desire
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 07, 2015, 01:09:43 AM
Quote from: Cantarella on September 06, 2015, 03:21:48 PM
An Act of Perfect Contrition requires the theological virtue of Charity,...
<etc>
The very first part of your statement implies that an act of perfect contrition ALWAYS requires the theological virtue of Charity. This is incorrect, because a baptized Catholic can start in the state of mortal sin, and so without Charity,and then make an act of perfect contrition, of which the result (not the prerequisite) is God restoring him to Charity. This is how a mortal sin can be forgiven when it is humanly impossible to get to confession.
No, because through the Sacrament, the Baptized Catholic has been granted a seal or mark upon the soul that cannot be erased,
even if the person falls from grace by committing mortal sin. What the Sacrament of Baptism provides which the desire for Baptism does not, is that
indelible mark which actually gives us a share in the Divine Nature of Christ and as Trent teaches "
can neither be blotted out nor taken away". Again,
this mark upon the soul cannot be erased even if one commits the mortal sin of Apostasy and therefore loses the Sanctifying Grace first granted at Baptism.
To obtain forgiveness of sins committed after Baptism, one is not allowed to be baptized again, but receiving the Sacrament of Penance. Penance in this sense is an ongoing conversion. The Sacrament of Penance is different from the Sacrament of Baptism. One could potentially enter Heaven without Penance if not guilty of mortal sin, but one is unable to enter Heaven without receiving Baptism. The possibility of being washed from original sin through Baptism and not being guilty of mortal sin during a life time is there.
Council of Trent (Canons on the Sacraments) Canon 9:
QuoteIf anyone says that in Baptism ...there is not imprinted on the soul a sign, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible mark, on account of which it cannot be repeated let it be anathema.
Council of Florence,
Exultate Deo:
QuoteAmong these sacraments there are three, Baptism...which imprint an indelible sign on the soul, that is, a certain character distinctive from the others
Michael,
Not dismissing you out of hand, however the cites don't mention perfect contrition. I'm ignoring 1951 for obvious reasons.
QuoteBut baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition (simple)
Quoteby an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition(simple), along with the desire,
1917 Encyclopedia supports your contention. By then, the denial of EENS was widespread according to Mueller.
If perfect contrition and perfect charity are required for BOD, then I'll become a Feeneyite. Catholics are incapable of this, except in rare occasions, let alone a moslem, jew, or Great Thumb worshipper.
Quote from: Non Nobis
Right here I do not speak of the need for Faith.
Yet you think that a non-Christian can actually possess the Theological Virtue of Faith, this is, Supernatural Faith, which this whole thread is about.
Is that correct?
Let's put this in perspective:
A catechumen has explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity. He has a reasonable love of God, but not perfect. He has repentance, but it is due to his fear of hell coupled with a love of God, so imperfect contrition. He has a desire for baptism, and has it scheduled.
Drives to church and is killed in an accident. According to 2 of your cites, he goes to hell.
Cantarella stated:
QuoteNo, because through the Sacrament, the Baptized Catholic has been granted a seal or mark upon the soul that cannot be erased, even if the person falls from grace by committing mortal sin. What the Sacrament of Baptism provides which the desire for Baptism does not, is that indelible mark which actually gives us a share in the Divine Nature of Christ and as Trent teaches "can neither be blotted out nor taken away". Again, this mark upon the soul cannot be erased even if one commits the mortal sin of Apostasy and therefore loses the Sanctifying Grace first granted at Baptism.
To obtain forgiveness of sins committed after Baptism, one is not allowed to be baptized again, but receiving the Sacrament of Penance. Penance in this sense is an ongoing conversion. The Sacrament of Penance is different from the Sacrament of Baptism. One could potentially enter Heaven without Penance if not guilty of mortal sin, but one is unable to enter Heaven without receiving Baptism. The possibility of being washed from original sin through Baptism and not being guilty of mortal sin during a life time is there.
The bolded part was Fr. Feeney's error.
As for the rest, I don't understand your response to N.N. She is speaking of the process by which a sinner arrives at justification; which begins obviously with the person in Mortal Sin then God's Grace, then unformed faith in God; admission of one's own sinfulness, and through God's grace a true sorrow of having offended God, because of His infinite goodness; which is an act of perfect Contrition; which leads to an infusion of the supernatural virtues. I don't see what the Sacramental Character has to do with all of this. Fr. Feeney admitted that an unbaptized person could make a perfect act of contrition, and therefore move from the state of sin to the state of Sanctifying Grace, without actually receiving the Sacrament of Water; you appear to be denying this.
Quote from: james03 on September 07, 2015, 10:37:39 AM
Let's put this in perspective:
A catechumen has explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity. He has a reasonable love of God, but not perfect. He has repentance, but it is due to his fear of hell coupled with a love of God, so imperfect contrition. He has a desire for baptism, and has it scheduled.
Drives to church and is killed in an accident. According to 2 of your cites, he goes to hell.
Ok, I see what you are affirming; B.O.D. Doesn't require Perfect Contrition all the time. But basically B.O.D. = Perfect Contrition.
Would the person you describe above save his soul? Since he would have been in Mortal Sin since he didn't have perfect contrition? Most moral theologians would respond in the affirmative. God would not hold us to do the impossible, once we had done all that was in our power.
Quote from: james03 on September 07, 2015, 09:06:34 AM
QuoteFurther, you also seemingly reject the sufficiency of "sufficient" grace by your reply, so I dunno why you bring up a system you don't believe in with the distinction of sufficient/efficacious.
I didn't bring up St. Thomas, you did. And you are correct, on the mechanics of salvation, I am a Molinist, not a Thomist.
As far as Fr. Most, I quoted St. Thomas where he says the Grace which pertains to the call of predestination. He doesn't use the term "efficacious", granted, but that is what it is.
Bottom line, I can not be accused of calling St. Thomas a semi pelagian, as he states the predestination includes grace that pertains to the call, therefore the response to the call depends on God's grace, which only the elect receive.
The efficacious distinction (he calls it infallible) is one aspect of what St. Thomas taught. But there are other statements elsewhere which stand on their own and place the fault on man, indicating God gave what was necessary -- I think we can agree, to the raising of Thomistic hackles, that so-called sufficient grace is not necessary to salvation because it never does and never can and never will actually allow one to achieve the end. Hence, I brought up one of those statements from a body of statements which do not jive with the other aspects found elsewhere in his body of work.
You called those statements, prior to knowing it was St. Thomas, semi-pelagian and necessarily leading to universalism.
But again, that's a misuse of semi-pelagian which posits a goodness in man apart from God and then is finished by God in recognition of this goodness. This is not what St. Thomas was saying with those statements, nor what myself, Michael, or Fr. Most posit.
But surely if you are a Molinist (which I am not), you could see how the scientia media actually does violence to the concept of free will AND the efficacious will of God? Where God must run through multiple models, or rather foreknow, a response in order to achieve a result (thus God's will is contingent upon man) -- and then, the violence is done by a man's response being dictated by the model God chose, such that in another model the man chose another -- rather than the Thomistic concept of God moving the will in reality by efficacious grace. It makes God's simplicity utterly complex. The Molinist concept is no less semi-pelagian to the Thomist than a PPM model, since it IS effectively PPM acting as a function of APM. So, why do you think you can skate away with no semi-pelagian charge by the Thomist?
And how can I be correct, since I am not the Church nor God? I'm just a person, a creature.
Quote from: james03 on September 07, 2015, 10:30:42 AM
Michael,
Not dismissing you out of hand, however the cites don't mention perfect contrition. I'm ignoring 1951 for obvious reasons.
QuoteBut baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition (simple)
Quoteby an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition(simple), along with the desire,
1917 Encyclopedia supports your contention. By then, the denial of EENS was widespread according to Mueller.
If perfect contrition and perfect charity are required for BOD, then I'll become a Feeneyite. Catholics are incapable of this, except in rare occasions, let alone a moslem, jew, or Great Thumb worshipper.
James,
"Don't mention perfect contrition": James I have to disagree, every single one of the quotes mentions P.C.
Quote
St. Alphonsus: "baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things"
Catholic Dictionary: "an act of perfect contrition or pure love of God will supply the omission. "
D.C.T. "either by an act of Charity " (and act of Charity in a sinner, is a perfect act of Contrition as they are often used interchangeably, as the next quote shows:)
Catechism of St. Pius X: "by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition"
C.E. "The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God "
QuoteBut basically B.O.D. = Perfect Contrition
I disagree, and my example proves my point. I doubt any on the opposing side would say the catechumen went to hell. You can't have it both ways.
B.O.D. is explicit Faith in Christ, contrition for sin, and an ardent desire for Baptism. It would appear from Liguori, a Doctor of the Church, that an act of perfect Charity can substitute for contrition. A theological possibility, but in the real world, rarely, if ever, encountered.
Maybe the catechumen is lying there bleeding out, and at that time he contemplates the Beatitude of God.
QuoteThe Molinist concept is no less semi-pelagian to the Thomist than a PPM model, since it IS effectively PPM acting as a function of APM. So, why do you think you can skate away with no semi-pelagian charge by the Thomist?
Skate away? I supplied the quote of St. Thomas stating that the predestined receive grace pertaining to the call. That is directly opposite to the semi-pelagian system.
QuoteWhere God must run through multiple models, or rather foreknow, a response in order to achieve a result (thus God's will is contingent upon man)
This is your major error in understanding the system. FIRST, God declares free will. So God is not contingent upon man, His will is contingent on His Own decree. God then works within the system of Free Will (which He decreed) to obtain what He wills.
God, however, is Truth, so He can not deny Himself. Therefore if man chooses evil, he chooses evil, and God can not deny this.
For a particular man, God can save him. However in the system as a whole He can not save everyone and maintain Free Will.
edit: to sum it up, the existence of the damned proves that Free Will is a reality.
Quote from: james03 on September 07, 2015, 11:04:02 AM
QuoteWhere God must run through multiple models, or rather foreknow, a response in order to achieve a result (thus God's will is contingent upon man)
This is your major error in understanding the system. FIRST, God declares free will. So God is not contingent upon man, His will is contingent on His Own decree. God then works within the system of Free Will (which He decreed) to obtain what He wills.
God, however, is Truth, so He can not deny Himself. Therefore if man chooses evil, he chooses evil, and God can not deny this.
For a particular man, God can save him. However in the system as a whole He can not save everyone and maintain Free Will.
James, the Thomist asserts God CAN save everyone AND maintain free will, because you define free will contra the Thomists and thus retain a "Semi-Pelagian savor" as G-L puts it. They simply posit He chooses not to save everyone for a purpose of manifesting His Justice.
Why must God first declare free will? And again, that free will makes God's plan contingent on free will, as defined.
But see, I could flip your argument into my own and say God FIRST declares grace with a salvific intent, and then pursuant to free will saves only those who respond, and thus the salvation of those who do is only contingent on his decree. Thus, God works within the system He decreed to save those who He wills, by allowing free will in operation with grace.
And, in fact that IS what I believe. Which is why we are both of a semi-pelagian character to the Thomist.
QuoteJames, the Thomist asserts God CAN save everyone AND maintain free will,
Do you have a cite for this?
QuoteBut see, I could flip your argument into my own and say God FIRST declares grace with a salvific intent, and then pursuant to free will saves only those who respond,
I agree with that, only pointing out that their response is contingent upon how/where they are born. Therefore a moslem or jew is not going to respond.
This then raises the question of why akmed was made a moslem. Because he was not predestined to election.
Actually, on second thought, I agree, God can save everyone by, for example, allowing those in mortal sin to experience hell for a millisecond, then explaining that they need to repent. So theologically possible.
I disagree that He allows the reprobate to be damned because He wants to manifest His Justice. I agree He DOES manifest His Justice in that case. The reason I hold to is Greater Good.
Quote from: james03 on September 07, 2015, 10:54:42 AM
QuoteBut basically B.O.D. = Perfect Contrition
I disagree, and my example proves my point. I doubt any on the opposing side would say the catechumen went to hell. You can't have it both ways.
B.O.D. is explicit Faith in Christ, contrition for sin, and an ardent desire for Baptism. It would appear from Liguori, a Doctor of the Church, that an act of perfect Charity can substitute for contrition. A theological possibility, but in the real world, rarely, if ever, encountered.
Maybe the catechumen is lying there bleeding out, and at that time he contemplates the Beatitude of God.
Your example doesn't prove the point; your example brings out the mercy of God that even though a person is in Mortal sin, if he does all in his power to obtain the means of grace, God wont send him to Hell; but the desire for Baptism (or Confession) alone, do not effect the remission of sins.
If you want to affirm that "B.O.D. = Explicit faith in Christ" then lets see your source.
As for "Perfect Charity substituting for contrition": Its not a "substitute", its the integral part of the act which consists in supreme love of God and hatred and repentance for having offended Him, because of His infinite goodness.
Quote from: Michael Wilson
Fr. Feeney admitted that an unbaptized person could make a perfect act of contrition, and therefore move from the state of sin to the state of Sanctifying Grace, without actually receiving the Sacrament of Water; you appear to be denying this.
But the hypothetical justified soul who has not have the sacramental Baptism does not die in such state in reality because God will provide the sacramental Baptism before death. Furthermore, there is no justification for such soul without having the Catholic Faith, necessary for entering the state of Justification.
Sedevacantist CMRI is
notorious for promoting salvation of non - Catholics with no Faith or Sacraments at all. They even published an article on their publication "Reign of Mary" on that matter. I see you provide their source which is very disappointing. The first thing to notice here is that no saint, no St. Alphonsus, or St Thomas or all the rest which BOD advocates cite
isolated quotes to defend their position ever believed that a soul could be saved without Faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity nor without being subject to the Roman Pontiff so your position is, in reality,
radically opposed to theirs.
QuoteIf you want to affirm that "B.O.D. = Explicit faith in Christ" then lets see your source.
Already posted, Trent. To be precise, baptism of desire is an ardent desire for baptism. In order to have a desire, explicit Faith is required.
Basically you go through the steps outlined by Trent, Catholic Faith, repentance, then desire for baptism. If you die before you can be baptized, your desire counts as baptism with regards to salvation.
You never answered my example, however. The catechumen in the example had an imperfect contrition, in that part of his contrition was due to fear of hell. Do you hold that in such an example the catechumen is damned because he lacked perfect contrition?
Quote from: Cantarella on September 07, 2015, 11:27:20 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson
Fr. Feeney admitted that an unbaptized person could make a perfect act of contrition, and therefore move from the state of sin to the state of Sanctifying Grace, without actually receiving the Sacrament of Water; you appear to be denying this.
But the justified soul does not die in such state in reality because God will provide the sacramental Baptism before death. Furthermore, there is no justification for such soul without having the Catholic Faith, necessary for entering the state of Justification.
Sedevacantist CMRI is notorious for promoting salvation of non - Catholics with no Faith or Sacraments at all. They even published an article on their publication "Reign of Mary" on that matter. I see you provide their source which is very disappointing. The first thing to notice here is that no saint, no St. Alphonsus, or St Thomas or all the rest which BOD advocates cite isolated quotes to defend their position ever believed that a soul could be saved without Faith in Jesus Christ and the Trinity nor being subject to the Roman Pontiff so your position is radically opposed to that.
As to your affirmation that those who are justified before actually receiving the Sacrament will not die in that state unless they receive it. Is a purely gratuitous affirmation. Which I deny.
As to "no justification without having the Catholic faith"; But how much of the Catholic faith? All the article? The Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation? That is what we are supposed to be arguing about.
As to what you affirm; I would say that you are mistaken if you affirm that the faith in those truths have to be explicit; At least Pius IX speaks of "those who are ignorant of our Catholic religion."
QuoteAt least Pius IX speaks of "those who are ignorant of our Catholic religion
Because that is the subject he is discussing, those who are invincibly ignorant. He then goes on to say they are saved by Divine Light, which always means knowledge.
QuoteBut how much of the Catholic faith? All the article? The Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation? That is what we are supposed to be arguing about.
In addition to the Trinity and Incarnation, they must also believe that Christ established a Church and desire to follow what the Church teaches. In this way, you have Implied Faith in whatever is lacking.
Quote from: james03 on September 07, 2015, 11:27:59 AM
QuoteIf you want to affirm that "B.O.D. = Explicit faith in Christ" then lets see your source.
Already posted, Trent. To be precise, baptism of desire is an ardent desire for baptism. In order to have a desire, explicit Faith is required.
Basically you go through the steps outlined by Trent, Catholic Faith, repentance, then desire for baptism. If you die before you can be baptized, your desire counts as baptism with regards to salvation.
You never answered my example, however. The catechumen in the example had an imperfect contrition, in that part of his contrition was due to fear of hell. Do you hold that in such an example the catechumen is damned because he lacked perfect contrition?
I certainly did. I understand your example; the aforementioned Catechumen was not justified by B.O.D. But was saved by God's mercy who saw this intention to receive Baptism was cut short by his death.
Again, there is no justification by desire of either Baptism or Confession alone.
Quote from: james03 on September 07, 2015, 12:14:17 PM
QuoteAt least Pius IX speaks of "those who are ignorant of our Catholic religion
Because that is the subject he is discussing, those who are invincibly ignorant. He then goes on to say they are saved by Divine Light, which always means knowledge.
QuoteBut how much of the Catholic faith? All the article? The Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation? That is what we are supposed to be arguing about.
In addition to the Trinity and Incarnation, they must also believe that Christ established a Church and desire to follow what the Church teaches. In this way, you have Implied Faith in whatever is lacking.
I don't think Divine Light = Explicit knowledge of the articles, at least not in the context of what Pius IX was speaking; for he is specifically referring to the "invincibly ignorant". If God can only save them through the previous infusion of the articles of faith that you speak of, then they would no longer be 'invincibly ignorant' of our Catholic religion. But the Pope is referring to the possibility of the salvation of even those aforementioned ignorant.
Quotethe aforementioned Catechumen was not justified by B.O.D.
It is dogma of the Church that none can be saved unless baptized or if they have the desire. You must have the BOD, BOB, or water baptism. Which one did the Catechumen have?
You are now playing semantic games or inventing a yet heretofore unheard of avenue for salvation.
QuoteAgain, there is no justification by desire of either Baptism or Confession alone.
Non sequitur. I have stated that baptism of desire comes after explicit Faith and repentance (simple), along with a desire for baptism. A desire for baptism for social reasons, with no Faith, accomplishes nothing.
QuoteIf God can only save them through the previous infusion of the articles of faith that you speak of, then they would no longer be 'invincibly ignorant' of our Catholic religion.
Good, go with that. What else? They would have explicit Faith in Christ and His Church. They would be Catholic. Therefore EENS is maintained. That's the whole point.
QuoteBut the Pope is referring to the possibility of the salvation of even those aforementioned ignorant.
Correct. That is the subject of his discussion. Divine Light does refer to knowledge. I'll cite an example when I am less lazy to look it up.
Quote from: Michael Wilson
As to "no justification without having the Catholic faith"; But how much of the Catholic faith? All the article? The Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation? That is what we are supposed to be arguing about.
As to what you affirm; I would say that you are mistaken if you affirm that the faith in those truths have to be explicit; At least Pius IX speaks of "those who are ignorant of our Catholic religion."
It is this type of reasoning that ends up in the inter-faith Prayers at Assisi and only demonstrates that Fr. Feeney was indeed correct in identifying the
loophole, the liberals use in order to deny even the necessity of the Christian Faith for salvation, let alone the necessity of the Roman Catholic Church and Her sacraments. The loophole is BOD. You see, the Baptism of Desire proper was never an issue until the Americanists made it one in the XX century. It is the
loophole to get non-Catholics (even non-Christians) to Heaven. Catholics are so far off engulfed in the Kantian - Rahnerian trap (you are a supporter of CMRI, I no longer wonder why...), most cannot even affirm the traditional Thomist position of
Explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity for salvation,
at the very least.
St. Thomas teaches that:
"
After the Incarnation, all men, if they wish to be saved, are "bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles that refer to the Incarnation." 4 And, after the Incarnation, all men, in order to be saved, "are bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity."
The very fact that is perfectly permissible to debate whether the Catholic faith is necessary for salvation or not in a Traditional Catholic forum says a lot on where we stand.
Unheard of!
Thought better of post (time for bed!)
Quote from: james03 on September 07, 2015, 01:01:59 PM
Quotethe aforementioned Catechumen was not justified by B.O.D.
It is dogma of the Church that none can be saved unless baptized or if they have the desire. You must have the BOD, BOB, or water baptism. Which one did the Catechumen have?
You are now playing semantic games or inventing a yet heretofore unheard of avenue for salvation.
QuoteAgain, there is no justification by desire of either Baptism or Confession alone.
Non sequitur. I have stated that baptism of desire comes after explicit Faith and repentance (simple), along with a desire for baptism. A desire for baptism for social reasons, with no Faith, accomplishes nothing.
Ok, you are correct, I was too hasty in my reply; the person who was in Mortal sin and had a desire to receive Baptism and only had imperfect Contrition, would in the example you gave, die in the state of Mortal sin.
The same would happen if a Catholic who intended to go to Confession with only imperfect Contrition and Mortal sin on their soul died before being able to.
Baptism of Desire is an act of perfect contrition, Charity and faith.
Cantarella,
I've already replied to your baseless charges several times; so why bother repeating myself?
Quote from: james03 on September 07, 2015, 01:04:15 PM
QuoteIf God can only save them through the previous infusion of the articles of faith that you speak of, then they would no longer be 'invincibly ignorant' of our Catholic religion.
Good, go with that. What else? They would have explicit Faith in Christ and His Church. They would be Catholic. Therefore EENS is maintained. That's the whole point.
QuoteBut the Pope is referring to the possibility of the salvation of even those aforementioned ignorant.
Correct. That is the subject of his discussion. Divine Light does refer to knowledge. I'll cite an example when I am less lazy to look it up.
James,
they would have faith in God as the supernatural rewarder of the deeds of men. The faith in the Blessed Trinity and the Church is implicit in their willingness to submit to everything that God would reveal whatever that would be. Per (again) Fr. Lagrange et. al.
Quote from: Michael Wilson
they would have faith in God as the supernatural rewarder of the deeds of men. The faith in the Blessed Trinity and the Church is implicit in their willingness to submit to everything that God would reveal whatever that would be. Per (again) Fr. Lagrange et. al.
If that is all it takes, then what is your objection to the principle of Religious Liberty? What right does one have to force into these people the Catholic religion?
After all, if a person ignorant of Christ and His Church or in a false religion can have a chance of salvation already without converting, what need is there for proselytizing?
Could you imagine what had become of the Catholic religion if the great missionaries (such Francis Xavier) had held the heresy of salvific invincible ignorance? If they held the false belief that non-Catholics could still be saved, there was absolutely not point at all in the conversion efforts of the native peoples nor in the martyrs actually shedding their blood in the name of Christ and the ONLY salvific Faith.
Michael and James,
(Michael, thank you for your PM)
Quote from: james03 on September 07, 2015, 10:37:39 AM
A catechumen has explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity. He has a reasonable love of God, but not perfect. He has repentance, but it is due to his fear of hell coupled with a love of God, so imperfect contrition. He has a desire for baptism, and has it scheduled.
Drives to church and is killed in an accident. According to 2 of your cites, he goes to hell.
Quote from: james03 on September 07, 2015, 01:01:59 PM
Quotethe aforementioned Catechumen was not justified by B.O.D.
It is dogma of the Church that none can be saved unless baptized or if they have the desire. You must have the BOD, BOB, or water baptism. Which one did the Catechumen have?
I am speculating (and may be wrong) but I think it is possible that the catechumen will not be saved.
I think that if the catechumen were NOT in the state of mortal sin, then faith, desire, and imperfect contrition would be true baptism of desire, and as such substitute for the command to be baptized with water, and the man would be saved.
But if the catechumen were in the state of mortal sin, I can see how the desire would compensate for the command to be baptized with water (the man would not be damned because he couldn't do the impossible).
But I don't see how desire without perfect contrition can remove mortal sin. It seems the man might be damned because of the mortal sin he committed in the first place (which was not impossible to avoid).
So, I think that perhaps Baptism of Desire requires PERFECT contrition if and only if a man is in the state of mortal sin.
Perhaps God's way of showing mercy to such a catechumen (with imperfect contrition but on his way to baptism) would be to give him more grace (God can catch him at any point before death) so he could more easily make an act of perfect contrition.
I think that "ardent desire" means ardent with the desire not only for the physical sacrament of baptism, but for the
primary direct effect of the Sacrament: to be forgiven by the God who he has offended and loves -- perfect contrition. (James, perfect contrition can include the fear of hell, but that cannot be the primary motivation)
That is an immense power that the Sacrament of Baptism has that Baptism of Desire does not have: the ability to forgive mortal sins where there is only imperfect contrition. The Sacrament of Baptism is easier for us to accomplish. Imperfect contrition by itself (on the way to baptism or at any time) is easier than the Sacrament, but does not forgive mortal sin.
Quote from: Cantarella on September 08, 2015, 04:54:52 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson
they would have faith in God as the supernatural rewarder of the deeds of men. The faith in the Blessed Trinity and the Church is implicit in their willingness to submit to everything that God would reveal whatever that would be. Per (again) Fr. Lagrange et. al.
If that is all it takes, then what is your objection to the principle of Religious Liberty? What right does one have to force into these people the Catholic religion?
After all, if a person ignorant of Christ and His Church or in a false religion can have a chance of salvation already without converting, what need is there for proselytizing?
Could you imagine what had become of the Catholic religion if the great missionaries (such Francis Xavier) had held the heresy of salvific invincible ignorance? If they held the false belief that non-Catholics could still be saved, there was absolutely not point at all in the conversion efforts of the native peoples nor in the martyrs actually shedding their blood in the name of Christ and the ONLY salvific Faith.
The chance non-Catholics have for salvation is so minute (God knows how minute) and so incredibly difficult without the teaching and Sacraments of the Church that it would be positively cruel to neglect proselytizing. And the goal is not just salvation but holiness all through life, knowing and loving Christ and His Church and the Truth it teaches, and adoring God present before us and receiving Him in Holy Communion. Pagans are in a rotten state, and we owe it to them and above all to the glory of God to convert them.
The idea of "the heresy of salvific invincible ignorance" is another straw man argument those arguing against baptism of desire annoyingly continue to put forth. Ignorance that is invincible through any period of time excuses a man from obeying a command (or believing a truth) he does not know about, but it does not excuse any other sin, and is not salvific. It is my own belief that God will conquer the ignorance of the truths of faith at the end of a life by divine inspiration even giving explicit knowledge, if and (usually) only if the pagan has lived a life "Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives" (Pope Pius IX) - i.e. those same people who Baptism of Desire supporters claim are saved. One does not receive Baptism of Desire if he rejects the Faith once it has finally been made known to him; but UNTIL he receives that knowledge, he is excused from doing or believing what is impossible.
Quote from: Non Nobis
The idea of "the heresy of salvific invincible ignorance" is another straw man argument those arguing against baptism of desire annoyingly continue to put forth.
Non Nobis, forget about Baptism of Desire. The discussion is really never about it. The Baptism of Desire proper was never an issue to EENS until recently, when instead of a theological hypothesis for the salvation of catechumens, became an "known" exception to the dogma. The Jewish Left, the Vatican Liberal Curia and even most "traditionalist organizations" assume that BOD and being saved in invincible ignorance is a de fide teaching, a known fact (as if they could see the dead), an
explicit exception to the EENS dogma, but this is not so. The novel and heretical error has been, since the Holy Letter of 1949, carried over into Vatican Council II by Cardinal Cushing and the American Jesuits, placed in the Denzinger by ultra-Modernist Fr.Karl Rahner, supported by the pro-Mason Catholics, and sadly misinterpreted and spread across the whole globe by the Enemies of the Church, as part of the Judeo-Masonic agenda.
Quote
One does not receive Baptism of Desire if he rejects the Faith once it has been made known to him; but UNTIL he receives that knowledge, he is excused from doing what is impossible.
Until he receives that knowledge, he is still under the dominion of the devil because of the Original Sin, as we are all born with it. Without having the theological virtue of Faith (infused along with Hope and Charity at time of Baptism), there can be no forgiveness of sin so there is no Perfect Act of Contrition for the unbaptized. Nobody wants to think about these truths in modern times, that is why the reality of Hell is never mentioned anymore.
Quote from: Cantarella on September 08, 2015, 06:30:53 PM
...The Baptism of Desire proper was never an issue to EENS until recently, when instead of a theological hypothesis for the salvation of catechumens, became an "known" exception to the dogma.
....Without having the theological virtue of Faith (infused along with Hope and Charity at time of Baptism), there can be no forgiveness of sin so there is no Perfect Act of Contrition for the unbaptized.
Let's just talk about Baptism of Desire for catechumens. You say it was a "theological hypothesis". But it seems to me that you believe that it is a hypothesis of the totally impossible. Catechumens (you are saying) can not have the Theological Virtue of Faith, period, because they don't yet have the Sacrament of Baptism. Therefore they can't have perfect contrition. Therefore if they are in the state of mortal sin they can't have their sins forgiven except by the Sacrament. Therefore if they die first (even as a martyr) they go to hell.
St. Thomas Aquinas and so many others way before Vatican II were arguing about whether a total impossibility was possible. You must think they were not only liberals but fools.
Nobody claims to KNOW how many catechumens are saved by Baptism of Desire. You are right, we can't see the dead. The argument is that it occurs under certain conditions, but we don't know for certain about any particular people. But we do know it is a true POSSIBILITY.
Quote from: Cantarella on September 08, 2015, 06:30:53 PM
Quote from: Non Nobis
The idea of "the heresy of salvific invincible ignorance" is another straw man argument those arguing against baptism of desire annoyingly continue to put forth.
Non Nobis, forget about Baptism of Desire. The discussion is really never about it. The Baptism of Desire proper was never an issue to EENS until recently, when instead of a theological hypothesis for the salvation of catechumens, became an "known" exception to the dogma. The Jewish Left, the Vatican Liberal Curia and even most "traditionalist organizations" assume that BOD and being saved in invincible ignorance is a de fide teaching, a known fact (as if they could see the dead), an explicit exception to the EENS dogma, but this is not so. The novel and heretical error has been, since the Holy Letter of 1949, carried over into Vatican Council II by Cardinal Cushing and the American Jesuits, placed in the Denzinger by ultra-Modernist Fr.Karl Rahner, supported by the pro-Mason Catholics, and sadly misinterpreted and spread across the whole globe by the Enemies of the Church, as part of the Judeo-Masonic agenda.
Quote
One does not receive Baptism of Desire if he rejects the Faith once it has been made known to him; but UNTIL he receives that knowledge, he is excused from doing what is impossible.
Until he receives that knowledge, he is still under the dominion of the devil because of the Original Sin, as we are all born with it. Without having the theological virtue of Faith (infused along with Hope and Charity at time of Baptism), there can be no forgiveness of sin so there is no Perfect Act of Contrition for the unbaptized. Nobody wants to think about these truths in modern times, that is why the reality of Hell is never mentioned anymore.
This is one giant strawman, since those of us basing our understanding do so on the teaching of Aquinas and others. It's not a denial of EENS, as the person
is Catholic upon the BOD, which is simply the giving of sanctifying grace after an internal inspiration or teaching, and the person assenting (by grace), so as to affect the end of that intent -- when baptism qua the Sacrament is impossible.
The entire point of the argument is to deny those fears of the world, the rightful repugnance they would feel, if God did not provide what is necessary to be saved. The point is not to take away the mission of the Church, of missionaries, or otherwise excuse
willful denial of the Church.
Do you deny that God gives sufficient grace to
every man to be saved?
Quote from: Michael WilsonB.O.D. Does indeed require perfect contrition:
St Alphonsus Liguori http://www.cmri.org/02-baptism_blood-desire_stalph.html
QuoteAn Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori's Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7
Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.".....
"Contrition of Love of God above all things" is Perfect Contrition
No, Mr. Wilson, St. Alphonsus does not agree with you or Fr. Garrigou Lagrange. It is not the faith that God exists and rewards, but the Catholic Faith, which we affirm that without it, it is
impossible to please God. St. Alphonsus (just as St. Thomas and as practically every single Father, Doctor, Saint, or Pope) undoubtedly teaches that it is the unanimous consent of the Fathers that
no one is saved without explicit Faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, since these are necessary as a means. All the Elect will, at some point in their life, come to the knowledge of the primary mysteries of the Catholic Faith, this is, the Trinity and Incarnation,
at the very least. God will provide whoever He wills what is necessary for salvation (which necessarily incudes explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity) by means of an angel if necessary. St. Alphonsus actually rejects the idea of salvation for the invincible ignorant.
From Theologia Moralis Book 3, Chapter 1, Question 2:
Quote from: St. Alphonsus
"Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul."
Quote from: Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine, Imprimatur, Nihil Obstat, with the approbation of the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, 1876
Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?
A. Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an Angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.
Quote from: Cantarella on September 08, 2015, 10:08:09 PM
From Theologia Moralis Book 3, Chapter 1, Question 2:
Quote from: St. Alphonsus
"Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul."
God will reveal to him "what he should believe", and give him grace consisting of "a certain instruction of the mind". This is God revealing what GOD requires him to believe at that point in his life - St. Alphonsus does not say it is "an explicit knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation". It is my belief that God WILL reveal to him this explicit knowledge BEFORE HE DIES. But St. Alphonsus speaks of someone receiving some revelation and grace during life AND THEN GOING ON TO OBSERVE THE NATURAL LAW. He does not say this man will hurry to find a missionary, as he would if it were explicit knowledge he was given.
He speaks of God's help to an infidel who during his life "cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins", and then as the reward at least at the end of his life "he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul." (I believe that finally embracing the Faith itself (at the end of life) does require more explicit knowledge, which God will give by divine light, if He does not send a missionary or an angel.)
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 08, 2015, 11:32:19 PM
Quote from: Cantarella on September 08, 2015, 10:08:09 PM
From Theologia Moralis Book 3, Chapter 1, Question 2:
Quote from: St. Alphonsus
"Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul."
God will reveal to him "what he should believe", and give him grace consisting of "a certain instruction of the mind". This is God revealing what GOD requires him to believe - St. Alphonsus does not say it is "an explicit knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation". It is my belief that God WILL reveal to him this explicit knowledge BEFORE HE DIES. But St. Alphonsus speaks of someone receiving some revelation and grace during life AND THEN GOING ON TO OBSERVE THE NATURAL LAW. He does not say this man will hurry to find a missionary, as he would if it were explicit knowledge he was given.
He speaks of God's help to an infidel who during his life "cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins", and then as the reward at least at the end of his life "he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul."
Non Nobis, why is this subject of Baptism of Desire of any importance to you whatsoever? See, most Catholics who believe in BOD
proper (strictly for catechumens) are not even interested in this topic at all. They do not ever think of it nor comment on it. They understand hypothetical BOD the way the Church understood it, this is for the hypothetical justified catechumen,
and that is all there is to it.
For those who take the time to participate in these discussions about BOD, are you in the 1% of those Catholics who believe in BOD proper: this means, strictly for
catechumens who already have the Catholic Faith (explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity) but die before receiving the water baptism?. Please just answer
yes or no. Relative and banal responses are typical of Modernists who are really linguistic deconstructionists that dilute the dogmas of our Faith, which by the way, is
incarnational per excellence. It is an external, flesh and blood religion.
Or are you in the 99% of BOD advocates who roam through these forums, and end up believing, as Mr. Wilson does, that there is not even a necessity of explicit belief in Christ, in order to be saved?, but that a belief in a rewarder God can produce the necessary grace for justification in a pagan? See, the liberals want to see the hypothetical native in the nice pagan, protestant, mohamedan, or Jew next door and that is the reason for the whole controversy.
What is a man instructed by internal inspiration, an angel, or a preacher bi-located in spirit, who agrees and assents with and to the Faith, but a catechumen?
What is a catechumen? a person instructed in the Faith yet unbaptized.
What is the thing they desire, but is wanting? baptism.
What is the effect? According to Aquinas, the movements of grace operate such that the effect is the same.
Emphases mine:
QuoteSecondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized[note: Sacrament unable to be, but effect occurs], on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2
Now, before you claim with the Feeneyite line that Valentian was already baptized but otherwise still a catechumen, note that Ambrose said "regenerate". What, then, are we to assume? That Valentinian was already baptized yet
unregenerated? Or that Ambrose knew him in mortal sin and had yet to go to confession -- but knew he'd made an act of perfect contrition?
And what difference is there between a phenomenological pagan qua ontological Catholic instructed in the faith and Valentinian, but nothing?
Therefore, your objection, when the argument is broken down into distinctions, fails.
The entire argument of myself, Michael, etc., is that contingent to God instructing a man, and the man accepts said instruction, the man will be saved. It doesn't excuse missionary activity, actual baptism (sacrament) if able, or any other charge.
It simply is what it is. And again, it is what it is, lest God be accused falsely of not providing the necessary grace for a man to have sufficient opportunity to be saved.
Quote from: Cantarella on September 08, 2015, 11:59:00 PM
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 08, 2015, 11:32:19 PM
Quote from: Cantarella on September 08, 2015, 10:08:09 PM
From Theologia Moralis Book 3, Chapter 1, Question 2:
Quote from: St. Alphonsus
"Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate grace, still they are not deprived of remote grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if anyone was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send someone to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas], God, at least remotely, gives to infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient grace to obtain salvation, and this grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul."
God will reveal to him "what he should believe", and give him grace consisting of "a certain instruction of the mind". This is God revealing what GOD requires him to believe - St. Alphonsus does not say it is "an explicit knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation". It is my belief that God WILL reveal to him this explicit knowledge BEFORE HE DIES. But St. Alphonsus speaks of someone receiving some revelation and grace during life AND THEN GOING ON TO OBSERVE THE NATURAL LAW. He does not say this man will hurry to find a missionary, as he would if it were explicit knowledge he was given.
He speaks of God's help to an infidel who during his life "cooperates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins", and then as the reward at least at the end of his life "he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul."
Non Nobis, why is this subject of Baptism of Desire of any importance to you whatsoever? See, most Catholics who believe in BOD proper (strictly for catechumens) are not even interested in this topic at all. They do not ever think of it nor comment on it. They understand hypothetical BOD the way the Church understood it, this is for the hypothetical justified catechumen, and that is all there is to it.
For those who take the time to participate in these discussions about BOD, are you in the 1% of those Catholics who believe in BOD proper: this means, strictly for catechumens who already have the Catholic Faith (explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity) but die before receiving the water baptism?. Please just answer yes or no. Relative and banal responses are typical of Modernists who are really linguistic deconstructionists that dilute the dogmas of our Faith, which by the way, is incarnational per excellence. It is an external, flesh and blood religion.
Or are you in the 99% of BOD advocates who roam through these forums, and end up believing, as Mr. Wilson does, that there is not even a necessity of explicit belief in Christ, in order to be saved?, but that a belief in a rewarder God can produce the necessary grace for justification in a pagan? See, the liberals want to see the hypothetical native in the nice pagan, protestant, mohamedan, or Jew next door and that is the reason for the whole controversy.
You say " most Catholics who believe in BOD proper (strictly for catechumens) are not even interested in this topic at all. They do not ever think of it nor comment on it." . You prove this wrong, because YOU think about it and comment on it: to help others to what you think is the truth. I am trying to do this myself (to teach; but also to learn). I think others in this thread are doing the same.
Your groupings of the "1%" and the "99% are too simplistic, because neither one describes what i think.
I don't think Baptism of Desire is for catechumens only (so I'm not in the supposed "1%").
I'm not in the 99% grouping either, because I currently believe that explicit faith at the end of life is needed for salvation.
I think BOTH that Baptism of Desire can be given to non-Catholics but ALSO that they must receive (and WILL receive) explicit knowledge by Divine inspiration (if not angels or missionaries) before they die. I think Baptism of Desire can be given at any point in life, not just before death. I believe in Perfect Contrition for heathens, and that it gives the Theological Virtues (as a baby receives them at Baptism, so an ignorant heathen might receive them at Baptism of Desire; both lack explicit knowledge through no fault of their own). However I think that (at least for adults) an explicit act of Faith must be made at least by the end of life for Salvation. I think that when God provides Divine light to give explicit knowledge, if the heathen does not make an act of faith he loses whatever Faith he has (as a boy when he learns explicit truths of faith loses the Supernatural Virtue of Faith if he denies them).
Stop worrying about pinning me down and deciding what category I fit in or why I "care" about baptism of desire, and answer my specific points. I don't expect that to always happen (I don't answer all your posts either), but at least try.
QuoteJames,
they would have faith in God as the supernatural rewarder of the deeds of men. The faith in the Blessed Trinity and the Church is implicit in their willingness to submit to everything that God would reveal whatever that would be. Per (again) Fr. Lagrange et. al.
Trent identified that that Faith is the Catholic Faith.
Believing that some Great Thumb will reward you if you do a rain dance does not in any way imply you have Faith in Jesus and the Trinity. Implicit Faith only saves Catholics. You must believe He established His Church and be willing to follow it. If this is your belief, then it is implied you have Faith in all of the mysteries of the Church. THAT is what is meant by implicit Faith, not that some pagan has Faith in Christ because he dances around an idol.
QuoteSo, I think that perhaps Baptism of Desire requires PERFECT contrition if and only if a man is in the state of mortal sin.
ALL are in mortal sin before baptism. If this is the requirement, then BOD saves such a tiny percentage (perfect contrition), that it is not worth even speculating on.
The only non Catholics who could possibly have perfect contrition are prots and catechumens. Certainly none who don't know God since they don't know His Son.
Quote from: TrentThat our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God,
Trent identifies the "faith" in scripture as the Catholic Faith. Was Trent in error for doing this? This is not a rhetorical question.
QuoteThe entire argument of myself, Michael, etc., is that contingent to God instructing a man, and the man accepts said instruction, the man will be saved.
That is your belief. It is not the belief of Michael. He denies the need for Faith in Jesus and the Trinity.
Definition of Terms:
Implicit Faith: Faith that is implied. So for a Catholic who believes that the Church was established by Jesus would have implicit Faith in all of the mysteries of the Faith. It is implied because he believes in the Church.
Implicit Desire for Baptism: A desire that can be implied. So suppose a missionary was preaching to a dying pagan. He preaches the Incarnation and Trinity, and the Church. The pagan is joyful at the good news, and even exclaims, "What must I do to be saved?". Before the preacher can finish, the pagan dies. We can imply a desire for baptism.
Another example, a pagan sends his kids to a missionary school. He loves the Church, and his kids teach him about Jesus and the Trinity. He wants to join the Church and has faith. He gets killed. We can imply a desire for baptism in this case.
Implicit Desire for baptism does not mean that a pagan dances around his Great Thumb idol believing that the demon will reward him with rain.
QuoteOne does not receive Baptism of Desire if he rejects the Faith once it has finally been made known to him; but UNTIL he receives that knowledge, he is excused from doing or believing what is impossible.
However, he can not be saved unless he arrives at explicit Faith in Jesus, the Trinity, and the Church.
Quote from: james03 on September 09, 2015, 07:08:12 AM
QuoteThe entire argument of myself, Michael, etc., is that contingent to God instructing a man, and the man accepts said instruction, the man will be saved.
That is your belief. It is not the belief of Michael. He denies the need for Faith in Jesus and the Trinity.
It's michael's implicit belief? :D
I think he still struggles with the distinctions.
Quote from: james03 on September 09, 2015, 06:17:12 AM
QuoteJames,
they would have faith in God as the supernatural rewarder of the deeds of men. The faith in the Blessed Trinity and the Church is implicit in their willingness to submit to everything that God would reveal whatever that would be. Per (again) Fr. Lagrange et. al.
Trent identified that that Faith is the Catholic Faith.
Believing that some Great Thumb will reward you if you do a rain dance does not in any way imply you have Faith in Jesus and the Trinity. Implicit Faith only saves Catholics. You must believe He established His Church and be willing to follow it. If this is your belief, then it is implied you have Faith in all of the mysteries of the Church. THAT is what is meant by implicit Faith, not that some pagan has Faith in Christ because he dances around an idol.
Well, Garigou Lagrange, Suarez and the Salmanticences would disagree with that; at least in the sense that it would be impossible for a person that only had faith in God could not be saved.
I have posted other Catholic manuals on this subject before, I will do so again when I have the time.
Quote from: james03 on September 09, 2015, 06:20:44 AM
QuoteSo, I think that perhaps Baptism of Desire requires PERFECT contrition if and only if a man is in the state of mortal sin.
ALL are in mortal sin before baptism. If this is the requirement, then BOD saves such a tiny percentage (perfect contrition), that it is not worth even speculating on.
The only non Catholics who could possibly have perfect contrition are prots and catechumens. Certainly none who don't know God since they don't know His Son.
We really don't know the percentage. As for the "the only non-Catholics who could have....: That is your opinion; I really don't know where you come up with that.
Quote from: james03 on September 09, 2015, 07:15:16 AM
Definition of Terms:
Implicit Faith: Faith that is implied. So for a Catholic who believes that the Church was established by Jesus would have implicit Faith in all of the mysteries of the Faith. It is implied because he believes in the Church.
Implicit Desire for Baptism: A desire that can be implied. So suppose a missionary was preaching to a dying pagan. He preaches the Incarnation and Trinity, and the Church. The pagan is joyful at the good news, and even exclaims, "What must I do to be saved?". Before the preacher can finish, the pagan dies. We can imply a desire for baptism.
Another example, a pagan sends his kids to a missionary school. He loves the Church, and his kids teach him about Jesus and the Trinity. He wants to join the Church and has faith. He gets killed. We can imply a desire for baptism in this case.
Implicit Desire for baptism does not mean that a pagan dances around his Great Thumb idol believing that the demon will reward him with rain.
Ok,
I have not problem with your pagan that dies after hearing and believing in the Blessed Trinity etc.
But what about those who never heard about the Church or the Blessed Trinity? For example all those died that lived in the New World before it was discovered and the Missionaries reached them? There were millions of them. What then? All in Hell? Does the Church teach this?
Quote from: james03 on September 09, 2015, 07:24:14 AM
QuoteOne does not receive Baptism of Desire if he rejects the Faith once it has finally been made known to him; but UNTIL he receives that knowledge, he is excused from doing or believing what is impossible.
However, he can not be saved unless he arrives at explicit Faith in Jesus, the Trinity, and the Church.
But Catholic theologians also affirm that it is possible to be saved without explicit knowledge in the Blessed Trinity or the Church.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 09, 2015, 04:27:07 PM
Quote from: james03 on September 09, 2015, 07:15:16 AM
Definition of Terms:
Implicit Faith: Faith that is implied. So for a Catholic who believes that the Church was established by Jesus would have implicit Faith in all of the mysteries of the Faith. It is implied because he believes in the Church.
Implicit Desire for Baptism: A desire that can be implied. So suppose a missionary was preaching to a dying pagan. He preaches the Incarnation and Trinity, and the Church. The pagan is joyful at the good news, and even exclaims, "What must I do to be saved?". Before the preacher can finish, the pagan dies. We can imply a desire for baptism.
Another example, a pagan sends his kids to a missionary school. He loves the Church, and his kids teach him about Jesus and the Trinity. He wants to join the Church and has faith. He gets killed. We can imply a desire for baptism in this case.
Implicit Desire for baptism does not mean that a pagan dances around his Great Thumb idol believing that the demon will reward him with rain.
Ok,
I have not problem with your pagan that dies after hearing and believing in the Blessed Trinity etc.
But what about those who never heard about the Church or the Blessed Trinity? For example all those died that lived in the New World before it was discovered and the Missionaries reached them? There were millions of them. What then? All in Hell? Does the Church teach this?
St. Thomas teaches that if the person does not provide a willful obstacle the person will be taught by internal inspiration or a messenger (angel or preacher).
Again, anyone can throw any qualification and St. Thomas' teaching on this deflects it. "A person must know advanced calculus and do it in their head, so long as they don't violate basic math which is natural to man." OK, bam, 2 fish + 2 fish = 4 fish says the pagan, and through grace they're doing crazy math.
"A man must believe in the Athanasian creed and recite it in Latin!!!" OK... "Quicumque vult salvus esse...", says the phenomenological pagan.
etc.
QuoteWell, Garigou Lagrange, Suarez and the Salmanticences would disagree with that; at least in the sense that it would be impossible for a person that only had faith in God could not be saved.
I'll repeat the question. Did Trent err when it stated that without the CATHOLIC Faith, it was impossible to please God?
Quote"the only non-Catholics who could have....: That is your opinion; I really don't know where you come up with that.
In order to have perfect contrition, you must repent of your sins because they offend God. Non-Christians do not know God, so it is metaphysically impossible for them to have perfect contrition.
QuoteBut Catholic theologians also affirm that it is possible to be saved without explicit knowledge in the Blessed Trinity or the Church.
The Athanasian Creed states that you must have the Catholic Faith to be saved. Trent reaffirmed this by stating it was impossible to please God without the Catholic Faith.
As for the Church, if you don't believe in the Catholic Church, you can not have implicit Faith. If God is doing the illuminating through a miracle, with explicit teaching on Christ and the Trinity, I guess you could imply Faith for the rest, as you would be willing to believe all that Christ would reveal, like His establishment of a Church.
QuoteAgain, anyone can throw any qualification and St. Thomas' teaching on this deflects it.
When St. Thomas deals directly with the question of explicit Faith, he states that faith in the Trinity and Incarnation are required.
Quote from: Michael Wilson
But Catholic theologians also affirm that it is possible to be saved without explicit knowledge in the Blessed Trinity or the Church.
Surely there have been a few Catholic theologians who have gone that far. Jesuit John De Lugo is an example of one who believed in salvation by implicit faith:
Quote from: John De Lugo, De virtute fidei divinae
The same must be said about the Jews, if there are any who are invincibly mistaken about the Christian religion; for they can still have a true supernatural faith in God, and about other articles, based on Sacred Scripture, which they accept, and so, with this faith, they can have contrition, by which they can be justified and saved, provided that explicit faith in Christ is not required with a necessity of means, as will be explained later on.
Finally, if any Turks and Moslems were invincibly in error about Christ and his divinity, there is no reason why they could not have a true supernatural faith about God as the supernatural rewarder, since their belief about God is not based on arguments drawn from natural creation, but they have this belief from tradition, and this tradition derives from the church of the faithful, and has come down to them, even though it is mixed up with errors in their sect. Since they have relatively sufficient motives for belief with regard to the true doctrines, one does not see why they could not have a supernatural faith about them, provided that in other respects they are not guilty of sinning against the faith. Consequently, with the faith that they have, they can arrive at an act of perfect contrition."
Is this what you believe? Most Catholics with good sense would reject this.
Thank God theologians are not the Church, though. Otherwise we would all be bound to the teachings of ultra Modernist Karl Rahner, chief theologian of Vatican II Council.
QuoteFinally, if any Turks and Moslems were invincibly in error about Christ and his divinity, there is no reason why they could not have a true supernatural faith about God as the supernatural rewarder, since their belief about God is not based on arguments drawn from natural creation, but they have this belief from tradition, and this tradition derives from the church of the faithful, and has come down to them, even though it is mixed up with errors in their sect.
This heretic must believe that the moslems who crashed the planes in the towers went to heaven. Think about it. They believed that their demon god allah was a rewarder of those who have faith in him, especially if they wage jihad. They even document the rewards. And they laid down their lives for the demon, so an act of perfect charity. Right to heaven they went. Sick.
edit:
Quotethere is no reason why they could not have a true supernatural faith about God
You can not have supernatural Faith without water baptism. Besides, moslems explicity reject the trinity and screech "God is One" in blasphemy to deny the Trinity. Of course jews who worship their talmud demon explicitly reject the Trinity since their demon told them Christ is boiling in excrement.
Michael and James (et al) :
I think that HERE St. Thomas teaches BOTH the need for explicit faith AND the fact that heathens CAN (with God's help) live a good natural life, which DOES (always) result in God giving the explicit knowledge they need by the end of life:
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas de Veritate Q. 14: Faith ARTICLE XI
1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. 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)..
(St. Alphonsus taught similarly, as I showed in a previous post http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=12170.msg265918#msg265918)
Michael, I know some theologians teach that explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is not always needed, but here St. Thomas is talking about some explicit knowledge that is NOT available to heathens and that God WILL provide at the end if a heathen does good and avoids evil naturally (but only possible with God's help). (If only an explicit belief in the God of nature were needed, nothing would need to be revealed internally or taught by a preacher).
Here too St. Thomas teaches the need for explicit faith for salvation (as James has said):
QuoteHowever, in the time of grace, everybody, the leaders and the ordinary people, have to have explicit faith in the Trinity and in the Redeemer.
An aside:
I think (I am speculating) that the explicit knowledge God provides at the end is of a different order than anything one would know through for a preacher. It comes in a flash of inspiration, not plodding through all the facts of faith one by one, as would happen with a preacher. It is explicit (the same truths are directly and individually known) but not laid out word by word as what we usually call explicit. (I am speculating).
Quote from: james03 on September 09, 2015, 06:20:44 AM
QuoteSo, I think that perhaps Baptism of Desire requires PERFECT contrition if and only if a man is in the state of mortal sin.
ALL are in mortal sin before baptism.
You think a native is aways in mortal sin after he first exerts his will when reaching the age of reason?
This is really, really sad.
St. Thomas teaches that a boy can have (what is in effect) Baptism of Desire (including remission of original sin) on account of his very first act on reaching the age of reason:
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I IIae Q89 A6before 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.
James we have discussed this before, and your answer has been to disagree with St. Thomas or to say (vaguely) that this has something to do with God's workings of grace, and then to wave it off on account of other things St. Thomas says.
But I think it is not inconsistent. I think St. Thomas believes that this boy can go on to live a good life, and (if he is not blessed to be a member of the Church) can receive needed explicit knowledge at the end.
OH, you say, if this happens (which you say is impossible), it would be SO rare that it doesn't matter at all!
I think that if just 1 man is saved this way it teaches us that God TRULY does not ask anything that is impossible, and that He reads the hearts of man to see what no man can see or even guess at: that someone WOULD MOST CERTAINLY become a Catholic if all obstacles (including lack of knowledge) were removed. This someone "doing what he is able" would not be damned. He WOULD (I think) be given explicit knowledge at the end.
But saying that such a situation is IMPOSSIBLE is belittling God's knowledge and mercy - and justice, for it is unjust to damn someone because he doesn't do the impossible.
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 09, 2015, 06:52:33 PM
Quote from: james03 on September 09, 2015, 06:20:44 AM
QuoteSo, I think that perhaps Baptism of Desire requires PERFECT contrition if and only if a man is in the state of mortal sin.
ALL are in mortal sin before baptism.
You think a native is aways in mortal sin after he first exerts his will when reaching the age of reason?
This is really, really sad.
St. Thomas teaches that a boy can have (what is in effect) Baptism of Desire (including remission of original sin) on account of his very first act on reaching the age of reason:
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I IIae Q89 A6before 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.
James we have discussed this before, and your answer has been to disagree with St. Thomas or to say (vaguely) that this has something to do with God's workings of grace, and then to wave it off on account of other things St. Thomas says.
But I think it is not inconsistent. I think St. Thomas believes that this boy can go on to live a good life, and (if he is not blessed to be a member of the Church) can receive needed explicit knowledge at the end.
OH, you say, if this happens (which you say is impossible), it would be SO rare that it doesn't matter at all!
I think that if just 1 man is saved this way it teaches us that God TRULY does not ask anything that is impossible, and that He reads the hearts of man to see what no man can see or even guess at: that someone WOULD MOST CERTAINLY become a Catholic if all obstacles (including lack of knowledge) were removed. This someone "doing what he is able" would not be damned. He WOULD (I think) be given explicit knowledge at the end.
But saying that such a situation is IMPOSSIBLE is belittling God's knowledge and mercy - and justice, for it is unjust to damn someone because he doesn't do the impossible.
James and Cantarella,
I think that the problem with liberals/modernists is that they think that God would find "niceness" deep down in everybody's heart and they would all (or practically all) be saved. I think this is nonsense, but it shouldn't prevent us from realizing that God CAN read hearts and find true goodness ("would become a Catholic"), and then give explicit knowledge, even in someone we would least expect (even if it is only 1 man). God PUT the goodness into the man's heart. Liberals know nothing about it.
I think that children who have had little exposure to their parent's evil teaching are a good example of where God may find such goodness... But how dare we judge ABSOLUTELY ALL adults? We can't judge anyone.
Non Nobis,
This is the part that modernists hate:
Quotewhereas 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.
So every jew, heathen, hindu, moslem, etc...., who has worshipped in the slightest their allah demon, talmud demon, kjasdflks demon, or great thumb demon, is in mortal sin.
We have NEVER come across a people and found individuals worshipping God. That means they are guilty of the absolute worse (according to Thomas) mortal sins of irreligion or superstition. Even an occult Christian "moslem" would sin mortally by going to mosque and taking part in demon worship, since he would be required to confess Christ and be martyred. A pinch of incense sent Christians to hell.
IF St. Thomas is correct, then yes it is theologically possible that a savage would come to the age of reason, then refuse to attend the Big Thumb pow wow, and search for God in his heart. At that point God would give him an internal illumination of Faith and make him Catholic.
Of course we would then have to assume an immaculate reconception keeping him from mortal sin, or he'd have to have perfect contrition before he died for all of his mortal sins, something few Catholics can accomplish.
Now actually I disagree with Thomas and think if someone was raised to believe the Big Thumb were a god, and he went and worshipped it (assuming nothing revolting, like killing people), he'd be in venial sin. When he died, he'd go to limbo.
In either case, St. Thomas, or my opinion, the result is basically the same.
Thomas's reasoning for the passage you cite is that there is no "place" for someone with venial sin only. I disagree, it's called limbo. I think this may reflect back on the belief at that time that hell was at the center of earth and filled with lava. Though Dante puts pagans in a Paradise limbo. And he was around the same time as St. Thomas.
Also we have to disabuse ourselves of the noble savage bs. ALL are convicted under Original Sin. ALL sin. You know, that's another scripture that St. Thomas would have to violate, come to think of it.
QuoteI think this is nonsense, but it shouldn't prevent us from realizing that God CAN read hearts and find true goodness ("would become a Catholic"), and then give explicit knowledge, even in someone we would least expect (even if it is only 1 man). God PUT the goodness into the man's heart. Liberals know nothing about it.
You have to be precise in the wording. IF you make it depend on "goodness", then all are damned, since under the Law (natural, abrahamic, mosaic), all are convicted of sin. We can say God predestines some of the savages to salvation and sends them Grace which includes knowledge and a desire for God. God then works with man's response to justify him by means of additional graces. This is grace, and freely given.
Basically ANY savage can be predestined to election and given graces to have "goodness".
Quote from: james03 on September 09, 2015, 05:49:14 PM
QuoteAgain, anyone can throw any qualification and St. Thomas' teaching on this deflects it.
When St. Thomas deals directly with the question of explicit Faith, he states that faith in the Trinity and Incarnation are required.
Right, but my point is that St. Thomas' essential understanding is that God will provide the necessary knowledge, so it doesn't matter whatever else someone wants to tack on to the necessity.
Got it. To look at it another way, God is working a miracle, so why put limits on what knowledge He can provide. It's a miracle.
Quote from: james03 on September 09, 2015, 08:16:46 PM
Non Nobis,
This is the part that modernists hate:
Quotewhereas 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.
So every jew, heathen, hindu, moslem, etc...., who has worshipped in the slightest their allah demon, talmud demon, kjasdflks demon, or great thumb demon, is in mortal sin.
We have NEVER come across a people and found individuals worshipping God. That means they are guilty of the absolute worse (according to Thomas) mortal sins of irreligion or superstition. Even an occult Christian "moslem" would sin mortally by going to mosque and taking part in demon worship, since he would be required to confess Christ and be martyred. A pinch of incense sent Christians to hell.
IF St. Thomas is correct, then yes it is theologically possible that a savage would come to the age of reason, then refuse to attend the Big Thumb pow wow, and search for God in his heart. At that point God would give him an internal illumination of Faith and make him Catholic.
Of course we would then have to assume an immaculate reconception keeping him from mortal sin, or he'd have to have perfect contrition before he died for all of his mortal sins, something few Catholics can accomplish.
Now actually I disagree with Thomas and think if someone was raised to believe the Big Thumb were a god, and he went and worshipped it (assuming nothing revolting, like killing people), he'd be in venial sin. When he died, he'd go to limbo.
In either case, St. Thomas, or my opinion, the result is basically the same.
Thomas's reasoning for the passage you cite is that there is no "place" for someone with venial sin only. I disagree, it's called limbo. I think this may reflect back on the belief at that time that hell was at the center of earth and filled with lava. Though Dante puts pagans in a Paradise limbo. And he was around the same time as St. Thomas.
Also we have to disabuse ourselves of the noble savage bs. ALL are convicted under Original Sin. ALL sin. You know, that's another scripture that St. Thomas would have to violate, come to think of it.
I can see this argument for Hindus, as they are into many gods. But I can't see that as easily for a muslim or jew simply because natural law dictates One God -- the teaching of the Trinity is a revealed doctrine which they might not have exposure to.
All their received religious knowledge (i.e., the things they are taught) does not contravene natural law per se.
They are intending to do what they have until that point be understanding as right. If, however, they were to be presented with a missionary and rejected that, then yes your point would stand.
But I think the larger thing Non Nobis is driving at is the context in which a person exists might prohibit them from engaging in mortal sin per Natural Law and God sees their good intent, even if in their confusion they don't do the objectively right thing. The basic premise being God understands things at a level we just simply don't.
As for your earlier point about the supposed 9/11 hijackers, I don't think the example works simply because charity disallows murder as a perceived good. But even Abraham was prepared to murder Isaac, precisely because the culture in which he lived had no problem with such a thing. I would dare say that Abraham was not in mortal sin. So it's a bit of a conundrum. Further, it would seem from Islamic teaching the driving factor for being a shahid is to gain carnal pleasures more than to please God. Pleasing God, for such people, is a means to their own selfish end, rather than the end. I think that's a very important difference.
And also, it is possible (though I'm not saying it happened), that God gave those men the grace to convert a few seconds before impact. I recall the story of the man who jumped off a bridge and some saint (John Vianney?) told the grieving wife that before he hit the water he made an act of perfect contrition and was in purgatory. Now we all know that suicide is a mortal sin, yet this man ended up being saved. That potential is available to everyone, though we don't know who it is actualized for and not.
QuoteAll their received religious knowledge (i.e., the things they are taught) does not contravene natural law per se.
The demon who calls himself allah instructs the moslems in all sorts of filth that violates natural law in the quran.
The talmud demon instructs the jews in all sorts of filth in their talmud book which violates natural law. Their place of worship Jesus called the synagogue of satan.
Quote from: St. John C.But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says so? The Son of God says so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?
(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry.
Quote from: james03 on September 09, 2015, 08:16:46 PM
Non Nobis,
This is the part that modernists hate:
Quotewhereas 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.
So every jew, heathen, hindu, moslem, etc...., who has worshipped in the slightest their allah demon, talmud demon, kjasdflks demon, or great thumb demon, is in mortal sin.
We have NEVER come across a people and found individuals worshipping God. That means they are guilty of the absolute worse (according to Thomas) mortal sins of irreligion or superstition. Even an occult Christian "moslem" would sin mortally by going to mosque and taking part in demon worship, since he would be required to confess Christ and be martyred. A pinch of incense sent Christians to hell.
IF St. Thomas is correct, then yes it is theologically possible that a savage would come to the age of reason, then refuse to attend the Big Thumb pow wow, and search for God in his heart. At that point God would give him an internal illumination of Faith and make him Catholic.
Of course we would then have to assume an immaculate reconception keeping him from mortal sin, or he'd have to have perfect contrition before he died for all of his mortal sins, something few Catholics can accomplish.
Now actually I disagree with Thomas and think if someone was raised to believe the Big Thumb were a god, and he went and worshipped it (assuming nothing revolting, like killing people), he'd be in venial sin. When he died, he'd go to limbo.
In either case, St. Thomas, or my opinion, the result is basically the same.
Thomas's reasoning for the passage you cite is that there is no "place" for someone with venial sin only. I disagree, it's called limbo. I think this may reflect back on the belief at that time that hell was at the center of earth and filled with lava. Though Dante puts pagans in a Paradise limbo. And he was around the same time as St. Thomas.
Also we have to disabuse ourselves of the noble savage bs. ALL are convicted under Original Sin. ALL sin. You know, that's another scripture that St. Thomas would have to violate, come to think of it.
Please notice that St. Thomas died before the Church settled this matter infallibly and for all ages. St. Thomas died in the year of Our Lord 1274 and the following dogmatic definitions on
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus are dated in 1302, and 1441, respectively:
Quote
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
Quote"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
It follows that at the time of St. Thomas's speculations, the Church had only recently defined Her first infallible pronouncement on EENS:
Quote
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."
(Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
Who knows how St. Thomas had developed his doctrine if he had known in life how the Church settled the matter later.
We can dare to hope that, given the effects the theological speculation of Baptism of Desire has produced in our day, the Church one day, in happier times, may define with further clarity on the issue. At this time, nothing short of an infallible pronouncement would do.
Quote from: james03 on September 09, 2015, 08:16:46 PM
Thomas's reasoning for the passage you cite is that there is no "place" for someone with venial sin only. I disagree, it's called limbo. I think this may reflect back on the belief at that time that hell was at the center of earth and filled with lava. Though Dante puts pagans in a Paradise limbo. And he was around the same time as St. Thomas.
If someone has venial sin only he is in the state of Sanctifying grace. (If he were not in the state of grace, this would mean he was in the state of mortal sin (if he was a reasoning adult)). Being in the state of grace, he is an heir of heaven, an adopted child of God, participates in the Divine Life, and has Faith, Hope, and Charity. God welcomes His child to heaven, He does not send him to hell (even to some higher level of limbo).
This is basic catechism knowledge.
But we also know that with Original Sin one cannot have Sanctifying Grace.
Putting the two together:
If you have venial sin only you are in the state of Sanctifying grace.
If you are in the state of Sanctifying Grace, you must not have original sin
Therefore someone with venial sin only is in the state of grace and does not have original sin. As God's child he will go to heaven (or purgatory for a while) if he dies.
Unbaptized babies cannot be in the state of grace, and so cannot go to heaven. But without reason they also can't be in the state of mortal sin, since it requires knowledge and intention. This is why there is a "middle" place for babies, limbo. Adults because they have reason must be (to put it roughly) either for God (heaven) or against Him (hell).
Dante does not have anywhere near the authority in the Catholic Church that St. Thomas Aquinas has.
QuoteIf someone has venial sin only he is in the state of Sanctifying grace.
If someone has Original Sin, then commits a venial sin, this is the case I propose. He therefore does not have Sanctifying Grace.
St. Thomas does not believe this is possible, since he believes at the point of the age of reason, you are required to think about God and avoid superstition and irreligion.
I disagree, and consider it possible that such superstition could be a venial sin.
His reason is that there is no place for someone with venial sin only. I don't find that reason convincing.
Cantarella,
You say the concept of Baptism of Desire for catechumens was a "theological hypothesis". Are you saying that it is an hypothesis that we now know is impossible (since EENS was defined)? So catechumens on the way to baptism (even if martyred) go to hell unless God steps in and gives invisible water? (At least not visible to most)?
James,
Don't you believe that Baptism of Desire for catechumens is possible?
I believe that catechumens are not members of the Church (they don't have the indelible mark), but are not strictly OUTSIDE the Church either (they are in some way IN the Church; the are in the doorway of the Church). Therefore Baptism of Desire for catechumens is not contrary to EENS. (I believe the same for some who are not yet catechumens, but that is the the central topic of this thread and I'm not arguing it here).
Just want to be clear what we all think about catechumens...
Quote from: james03 on September 09, 2015, 08:54:00 PM
QuoteAll their received religious knowledge (i.e., the things they are taught) does not contravene natural law per se.
The demon who calls himself allah instructs the moslems in all sorts of filth that violates natural law in the quran.
The talmud demon instructs the jews in all sorts of filth in their talmud book which violates natural law. Their place of worship Jesus called the synagogue of satan.
Such as, regarding the quran? And, who is to say if a particular person has heard such a thing, anyway?
Unless I'm mistaken, Jews aren't even permitted to read the Talmud until a certain age, so...
St. Thomas qualified his statement with "as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age".
QuoteUnless I'm mistaken, Jews aren't even permitted to read the Talmud until a certain age, so...
So......
Quote from: St Basil, Doctor of the ChurchAnd such are the prayers of the Jews, for when they stretch forth their hands in prayer, they only remind God-the-Father of their sin against His Son. And at every stretching-forth of their hands, they only make it obvious that they are stained with the blood of Christ. For they who persevere in their blindness inherit the blood-guilt of their fathers; for they cried out: "His blood be upon us, and upon our children"
QuoteJames,
Don't you believe that Baptism of Desire for catechumens is possible?
First post (O.P.):
Quote3. I'll stress this again: I accept B.O.D. This thread will proceed from a given: B.O.D. is salvific, therefore this does not advocate Feeneyism.
QuoteDante does not have anywhere near the authority in the Catholic Church that St. Thomas Aquinas has.
I was not using him as an authority, just a witness that at the time he lived, it was acceptable in the Church to believe that hell was multi "leveled", and had a limbo as the first level.
In fact, sorcerers, which is a pretty bad mortal sin, were condemned to walking around with their heads backward, not knowing where they are going. Not that bad of a punishment. He wrote this around 1200 a.d. and was acclaimed one of the greatest poets.
In summary, he is a witness that the belief that hell was pretty tame for some people was well known and not condemned in 1200 a.d., thus my confusion of why St. Thomas would say there is no place for someone who dies in Original Sin with venial sin only.
Quote from: james03 on September 10, 2015, 11:54:27 AM
QuoteDante does not have anywhere near the authority in the Catholic Church that St. Thomas Aquinas has.
I was not using him as an authority, just a witness that at the time he lived, it was acceptable in the Church to believe that hell was multi "leveled", and had a limbo as the first level.
In fact, sorcerers, which is a pretty bad mortal sin, were condemned to walking around with their heads backward, not knowing where they are going. Not that bad of a punishment. He wrote this around 1200 a.d. and was acclaimed one of the greatest poets.
In summary, he is a witness that the belief that hell was pretty tame for some people was well known and not condemned in 1200 a.d., thus my confusion of why St. Thomas would say there is no place for someone who dies in Original Sin with venial sin only.
The MULTI-LEVEL Dante's hell is not entirely fictional. It is a well supported speculation coming from infallible dogmatic formulas. That is where the notion of Limbo comes from. People who die with original sin only do not suffer eternal fire and torment in Hell (only those beyond the age of reason, guilty of actual sins do). Their suffering consists only in the loss of the Beatific Vision. The following statements come from the Infallible Magisterium:
Pope St. Zosimus:
"No one of our children is held not guilty until he is freed through Baptism".
Council of Lyons:
"The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to Hell,
yet to be punished with different punishments"
Council of Florence:
"
It is likewise defined that the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into Hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds".
Pope Innocent III:
" The punishment of original sin is the loss of the vision of God; the punishment for actual sin is the torments of everlasting Hell".
Quote from: james03 on September 10, 2015, 11:50:10 AM
QuoteJames,
Don't you believe that Baptism of Desire for catechumens is possible?
First post (O.P.):
Quote3. I'll stress this again: I accept B.O.D. This thread will proceed from a given: B.O.D. is salvific, therefore this does not advocate Feeneyism.
Yes, I knew that, I was just asking for you to "check the box" to make clear our differences and similarities. So catechumens on the way to Baptism (with faith and ardent desire and impossibility of the Sacrament) are NOT outside the Church, for you. In other words it is possible to be INSIDE the Church in more than one way.
But Cantarella says BOD (for catechumens) was a "theological hypothesis". Does she (do you, C) really think it is a 100% impossible hypothesis because of EENS, so that St. Thomas and others who taught it were fools, talking about the impossible. Or she thinks St. Thomas was ignorant of EENS (which I do not believe. EENS was true and knowable and required for faith even before it was defined: unlike the Immaculate Conception which is a mystery)
This post is really for her, James, because she has not yet answered my question.
I just want to know, for future reference.
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 10, 2015, 03:00:44 PM
Quote from: james03 on September 10, 2015, 11:50:10 AM
QuoteJames,
Don't you believe that Baptism of Desire for catechumens is possible?
First post (O.P.):
Quote3. I'll stress this again: I accept B.O.D. This thread will proceed from a given: B.O.D. is salvific, therefore this does not advocate Feeneyism.
Yes, I knew that, I was just asking for you to "check the box" to make clear our differences and similarities. So catechumens on the way to Baptism (with faith and ardent desire and impossibility of the Sacrament) are NOT outside the Church, for you. In other words it is possible to be INSIDE the Church in more than one way.
But Cantarella says BOD (for catechumens) was a "theological hypothesis". Does she (do you, C) really think it is a 100% impossible hypothesis because of EENS, so that St. Thomas and others who taught it were fools, talking about the impossible. Or she thinks St. Thomas was ignorant of EENS (which I do not believe. EENS was true and knowable and required for faith even before it was defined: unlike the Immaculate Conception which is a mystery)
This post is really for her, James, because she has not yet answered my question.
I just want to know, for future reference.
If it is a theological hypothesis for the justified catechumen the Church has allowed, then it is not 100% impossible, but it is not a known facto and therefore not a visible exception to EENS as the Modernists pretend. Traditionally catechumens were not considered members of the Church, though. In the Ancient liturgies souls of deceased catechumens are not prayed for because they are thought not to be part of the Body of Christ. Salvation for those
explicit believers in Christ is at best,
uncertain.
This is an acceptable opinion on BOD for those who are fond of the hypothesis, taken from the article "Reply to a Liberal" by Mr. Raymond Karam:
"Baptism of the Holy Spirit, without the actual reception of Baptism of water, can be sufficient for salvation if the following five conditions are fulfilled":
Quote
First, that person must have the Catholic Faith. (We have already proved that no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith, and that not even the Sacrament of Baptism can be profitable for salvation if the subject who receives it does not confess the Catholic Faith.)
Second, he must have an explicit will or desire to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. For example, St. Bernard says that he must have an "entire yearning for the sacrament of Jesus." 86
Third, he must have perfect charity. For St. Robert Bellarmine says that only "perfect conversion can be called baptism of the Spirit, and this includes true contrition and charity. " 87 St. Augustine says that he must have "faith and conversion of the heart. " 88 St. Thomas says that, as in the case of the Sacrament of Penance, so also in the Sacrament of Baptism, if sanctifying grace is to be received previous to the Sacrament, a perfect act of charity is necessary, for "if an adult is not perfectly disposed before baptism to obtain remission of his sins, he obtains this remission by the power of baptism, in the very act of being baptized. " 89 St. Bernard says that "right faith, God-fearing hope, and sincere charity" must be present. 90
Fourth, he must have an explicit will to join the Catholic Church , — for, as we have shown, not even actual Baptism is profitable for salvation if it is received outside the Catholic Church (except for babies) and without an explicit will to join the Church. Much less, therefore, does baptism in voto profit for salvation if it does not include an explicit will to join the Catholic Church.
Fifth, he must be dying and, although yearning for the Baptism of Water, is unable to receive it because of an absolute impossibility, not because of a contempt for it. Thus, St. Augustine says that baptism of the Spirit, or perfect conversion to God, "may indeed be found when Baptism has not yet been received, but never when it has been despised. For it should never in any way be called a conversion of the heart to God when the sacrament of God has been despised. " 91 In the same way St. Bernard says that, since the time of the promulgation of the Gospel, "whoever refuses now to be baptized, after the remedy of baptism has been made accessible to all everywhere, adds of his own accord a sin of pride to the general original stain, carrying within himself a double cause of the most just damnation, if he happens to leave the body in the same state." 92 Also, St. Thomas says, "It is necessary, in order that a man might enter into the kingdom of God, that he approach the baptism of water actually (in re), as it is in all those who are baptized; or in voto, as it is in the martyrs and the catechumens who were hindered by death before they could fulfill their intent (votum); or in figure, as in the ancient Fathers," — that is, in those before Christ. 93
Personally, I hold exactly the same opinion as St. Bellarmine of who is inside or outside the Church:
Quote from: St. Bellarmine
From this definition it can be easily gathered what men belong to the Church and what men do not. For there are three parts of this definition: the profession of the true Faith, the communion of the Sacraments, and the subjection to the legitimate Pastor, the Roman Pontiff.
By reason of the first part are excluded all infidels, as much those who have never been in the Church, like the Jews, Turks and Pagans; as those who have been and have fallen away, like heretics and apostates.
By reason of the second, are excluded catechumens and excommunicates, because the former are not to be admitted to the communion of the sacraments, the latter have been cut off from it.
By reason of the third, are excluded schismatics, who have faith and the sacraments, but are not subject to the lawful pastor, and therefore they profess the Faith outside, and receive the Sacraments outside. However, all others are included, even if they be reprobate, sinful and wicked.
QuoteSo catechumens on the way to Baptism (with faith and ardent desire and impossibility of the Sacrament) are NOT outside the Church, for you.
They are outside of the Church until they are infused with Sanctifying Grace. St. Thomas writes that this infusion is instantaneous, so I reckon this occurs right before death. At that point they are Catholic.
Quote from: james03 on September 10, 2015, 04:16:10 PM
QuoteSo catechumens on the way to Baptism (with faith and ardent desire and impossibility of the Sacrament) are NOT outside the Church, for you.
They are outside of the Church until they are infused with Sanctifying Grace. St. Thomas writes that this infusion is instantaneous, so I reckon this occurs right before death. At that point they are Catholic.
I think that God would infuse a catechumen with Sanctifying Grace earlier (still instantaneous), when He knew of his faith, his ardent desire, and (you would say) the fact that the Sacrament would be impossible before his death later. Death-the-next-second is not a condition for sanctity (Sanctifying Grace). If a catechumen is being tortured for hours with the right intentions, I think God would give him Sanctifying Grace earlier than at the very end. If the catechumen later denies his faith, the Sanctifying Grace would be lost.
Quote from: james03 on September 09, 2015, 11:23:41 PM
QuoteIf someone has venial sin only he is in the state of Sanctifying grace.
If someone has Original Sin, then commits a venial sin, this is the case I propose. He therefore does not have Sanctifying Grace.
St. Thomas does not believe this is possible, since he believes at the point of the age of reason, you are required to think about God and avoid superstition and irreligion.
I disagree, and consider it possible that such superstition could be a venial sin.
His reason is that there is no place for someone with venial sin only. I don't find that reason convincing.
You seem (here and in other posts) to be saying that if St. Thomas had known about different levels of hell, he wouldn't have had a problem with Original Sin going with Venial Sin - if only he had read Dante. I think rather that St. Thomas did know about different levels of hell (by reason, not all should be punished equally, and some may be punished very little), and he certainly did know about limbo I think his main
reason for his belief about original and venial sin is his understanding of what happens at the age of reason. You disagree with that understanding; fine, but I feel safer with St. Thomas, even if I don't completely understand him.
==
Scattered thoughts if I consider venial sin and original sin together, just a bit, some questions:
The children's limbo (part of hell) is for those with Original Sin only - no actual sin, mortal or venial. There is no pain of sense, no "torments". If you think children with Original sin and venial sin go there, do they go to purgatory first? If they go to a little higher level of hell, isn't God punishing venial sin with eternal torments, no matter how little? A venial sin is not a little mortal sin that gets less eternal torments. It gets only temporary torments, in purgatory; and everyone in purgatory goes to heaven (at least by the Catholic teaching that I know).
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 11, 2015, 12:10:05 AM
Quote from: james03 on September 09, 2015, 11:23:41 PM
QuoteIf someone has venial sin only he is in the state of Sanctifying grace.
If someone has Original Sin, then commits a venial sin, this is the case I propose. He therefore does not have Sanctifying Grace.
St. Thomas does not believe this is possible, since he believes at the point of the age of reason, you are required to think about God and avoid superstition and irreligion.
I disagree, and consider it possible that such superstition could be a venial sin.
His reason is that there is no place for someone with venial sin only. I don't find that reason convincing.
You seem (here and in other posts) to be saying that if St. Thomas had known about different levels of hell, he wouldn't have had a problem with Original Sin going with Venial Sin - if only he had read Dante. I think rather that St. Thomas did know about different levels of hell (by reason, not all should be punished equally, and some may be punished very little), and he certainly did know about limbo I think his main reason for his belief about original and venial sin is his understanding of what happens at the age of reason. You disagree with that understanding; fine, but I feel safer with St. Thomas, even if I don't completely understand him.
==
Scattered thoughts if I consider venial sin and original sin together, just a bit, some questions:
The children's limbo (part of hell) is for those with Original Sin only - no actual sin, mortal or venial. There is no pain of sense, no "torments". If you think children with Original sin and venial sin go there, do they go to purgatory first? If they go to a little higher level of hell, isn't God punishing venial sin with eternal torments, no matter how little? A venial sin is not a little mortal sin that gets less eternal torments. It gets only temporary torments, in purgatory; and everyone in purgatory goes to heaven (at least by the Catholic teaching that I know).
Catholic doctrine teaches that the souls who are purgatory are saved souls who WILL reach Heaven. Purgatory will cease to exist at the General Judgment. Therefore, Heaven and Hell will be the only destinations where each soul will spend eternity according to its merit. Now, because the souls in purgatory are destined for Heaven, we know that the Original Sin has been removed from all of them via Baptism and they only get temporary punishment due to venial sins. In 2015 there is only one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins we know of and it is the Baptism of Water given to infants / children before the age of reason and adults with the Catholic Faith. We can only administer the Baptism of water and cannot give anyone the Baptism of Desire (which it ever happens, it is always an invisible hypothesis to us).
Cantarella and James,
James, I do agree that one reason St. Thomas said Original Sin and Venial sin couldn't go together (at least at death) was that he couldn't think of a "place to put such people". But I don't think it was because he didn't know about different levels in hell. Below I explain why I have St. Thomas' problem too.
Cantarella,
Quote from: Non Nobis
Scattered thoughts if I consider venial sin and original sin together, just a bit, some questions:
The children's limbo (part of hell) is for those with Original Sin only - no actual sin, mortal or venial. There is no pain of sense, no "torments". If you think children with Original sin and venial sin go there, do they go to purgatory first? If they go to a little higher level of hell, isn't God punishing venial sin with eternal torments, no matter how little? A venial sin is not a little mortal sin that gets less eternal torments. It gets only temporary torments, in purgatory; and everyone in purgatory goes to heaven (at least by the Catholic teaching that I know).
Quote from: Cantarella on September 11, 2015, 09:43:07 AM
Catholic doctrine teaches that the souls who are purgatory are saved souls who WILL reach Heaven. Purgatory will cease to exist at the General Judgment. Therefore, Heaven and Hell will be the only destinations where each soul will spend eternity according to its merit. Now, because the souls in purgatory are destined for Heaven, we know that the Original Sin has been removed from all of them via Baptism and they only get temporary punishment due to venial sins.
C and J:
I agree with everything you (C) said above, and knew it before I wrote my post. You put it much better then I did. However, my post (which was not very clear) was not to lay out this doctrine but to show that James' claim than someone can die with both Original Sin and Venial Sin leads to absurd consequences, because they are contrary to this doctrine. Doctrine: Venial sin must receive only
temporary punishment, including sensible pain, in purgatory. Doctrine: Original sin without Mortal Sin receives eternal punishment, including deprivation of the vision of God, but no sensible pain. Doctrine: those in Purgatory will go to heaven. You can't put both Venial and Original Sin together. If you did, Venial sin with Original Sin would mean (to handle the venial sin) either that there would be purgatory
prior to Limbo, not heaven (contrary to doctrine), or that venial sin could have
eternal punishment with
any degree of sensible pain (also contrary to doctrine). (That this sensible pain is very small in some levels of Hell is not relevant.) A statement with absurd consequences is false.
I would guess that you (C) think that having Original Sin at death means either that one has Original Sin alone (and goes to Limbo) or Original Sin with Mortal Sin (and goes to hell with eternal torments). I don't see how you can believe one can have Original Sin and Venial Sin (without Mortal Sin) for the reasons given above.
I think this is not the central issue of this thread.
Sorry I have not replied to you James, I just don't have a lot of time. Instead of a knee-jerk response, I will try to work something up with a little more thought. It may take a while.
Cantarella: I agree with De Lugo, add that name to the list of Catholic theologians who state it is possible to save one's soul, despite not having explicit faith in The Blessed Trinity etc.
These posts are really for general information to show what normal Catholic Theologians thought before Vatican II:
"The Catholic Church and Salvation In the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See"; Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton. Pgs 109-114 (This constitutes a commentary by Msgr. Fenton on the document "Suprema haec sacra". Issued by the Holy Office July 27, 1949, and approved the following Thursday, July 28, 1949 by the Supreme Pontiff (Pius XII). The Letter was not published in full until the fall of 1952.
Quote
This paragraph brings out two truths about the Church as a necessary means to attainment of eternal salvation. First, there is the fact that the Church is a means necessary for salvation only by divine institution and not by intrinsic necessity. Second is the fact that means necessary for salvation by divine institution can produce their effects, as the document says, "in certain cases" when there is only a will or desire to possess these things;
When the document classifies the Catholic Church as a means of salvation which is necessary only by divine institution and not by intrinsic necessity, it likewise mentions two other realities which are also requisite for the attainment of salvation in this particular way. These are the sacraments of baptism and of penance. Both of these are necessary for salvation, and are necessary as means established by God for our attainment of this end.
In other words, is no reason apart from the positive will of God why a washing with water performed while the person administering the sacrament is uttering a definite formula should be necessary for the attainment of the Beatific Vision. There is not reason apart from the positive will of God why a man who is guilty of mortal sin committed after baptism cannot have this sin forgiven except by means of a judicial absolution pronounced by the authorized priest. Neither the baptism nor the sacrament of penance is by its nature part of the supernatural life itself in the way that sanctifying grace and charity are.
Similarly, it is by the positive will of God that men must be within the organized society if they are to attain the forgiveness of their sins or final blessedness. Faith, hope and charity are actually parts of the supernatural life. It is impossible to have the life of grace in this world, and thus, of course, impossible to pass form this world with the life of grace, apart from the faith, hope and charity. The life of the Beatific Vision in heaven necessarily involves charity.
This must be distinctly understood: in any event the men and women who accept the supernatural teaching of God with the act of divine faith, and who love God with the supernatural love of friendship which we call charity, would belong to the kingdom of God on earth. These people would be, in any event, the individuals who subjected themselves to Gods supernatural law, and thus would belong to His supernatural kingdom in this world. But, as a matter of fact, God has willed that His supernatural kingdom should be a fully organized society. In His mercy He has decreed that there is no other social unit which can in any way properly be called His kingdom, or His "ecclesia". If a man is going to belong to God's supernatural kingdom on earth at all, he is thus going to belong in some way to the visible Catholic Church, the religious society which the Bishop of Rome presides as the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
(8b) The "Suprema haec sacra" then brings out the fact that, in the merciful designs of God's providence, such realities as the Church itself and the sacraments of baptism and penance can under certain circumstances, bring about the effects which they are meant to produce as means necessary for the attainment of eternal salvation when a man possesses them only in the sense that he desires or intends or wills to have or to use them. Obviously the text cannot be understood unless we realize what the "certain circumstances" mentioned in the text really are.
Basic among these circumstances is the genuine impossibility of receiving the sacraments of baptism or of penance or of entering the Church as a member. It is quite clear that if it is possible for a man to be baptized, to go to confession and to receive sacramental absolution, or really to become a member of the Church, the man for whom this is possible will not attain to eternal salvation unless he actually avails himself of these means. But, on the other hand, should the actual employment of these means be genuinely impossible, then the man can attain to eternal life by a will or desire to employ them.
Here, of course, we must distinguish sedulously between the order of intention and the order of mere velleity. What is required here is an effective desire, an effective act of the will, as distinct from a mere complacency or approval. A non-member of the Church can be saved if he genuinely wants or desires to enter the Church. With that genuine and active desire or intention, he will really become a member of the Church if this is at all possible. If it is not possible, then the force of his intention or desire will bring him "within" the Church in such a way that he can attain eternal salvation in this company. An inherently ineffective act of the will, a mere velleity, will definitely not suffice for the attainment of eternal salvation.
As the text of the Suprema haec reminds us toward the end of its doctrinal section, the desire or intention of using the means established by God can be effective for the attainment of eternal salvation only when this act of the will is enlightened by true supernatural divine faith and animated by genuine charity. This, of course holds true, not only for the intention of entering the Church, but also for the desire of the sacraments or baptism and penance- which desire many suffice for the forgiveness of sin when the sacraments themselves are not available.
(9)The expression "a general help to salvation (generale...auxilium salutis)" applied to the Catholic Church in the text of the Holy Office letter describes the Church as something which, by Gods own merciful decree, is a means of salvation meant for the necessary for all men without exception. It is definitely not necessary merely for those who seek to live a higher levels of the spiritual life. It is a means and a help meant for the requisite for all men with out exception.
Thus, in the words of the Holy Office document, "in order that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually (reapse) as a member, but it is required that he be united to it at least by intention and desire (voto et desiderio)
(10)Previous paragraphs of the Holy Office letter had brought out the validity of two distinctions, long contained in the traditional works of Catholic theology, but never before stated so explicitly in an authoritative document of the Holy See. The first was the distinction between the necessity of means and the necessity of precept. The second was the distinction of belonging to the Church in re and in voto. This second distinction is used, in theology and in the text of the "Suprema haec sacra", in explaining how the Church is a means genuinely necessary for all men for the attainment of eternal salvation.
The present paragraph explains the distinction between the explicit and the implicit votum of entering the true Church, and teaches that even the implicit votum can be effective for the attainment of eternal life. It teaches that "this desire (of entering the true Church as a member) need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but, when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit intention, which is so called because it is included in that good disposition of the soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."
It is to be noted there that, according to the language of the "Suprema haec sacra" and of all the other authoritative documents which have dealt with this matter, the desire of entering the Church does not give a man anything like "a real though complete membership in the Church."Those who, like Father St. John[Cf. Henry St. John, O.P., "Essays in Christian Unity": 1928-1954, pg. 139] speak in this way, simply fail to take the meaning of the expressions in the Church's documents into consideration. A man. A man who intends or will to enter the Church is really not a member of it in any sort of way whatsoever. If he were already a member, his desire would be absurd.
The "Suprema haec sacra" describes an explicit desire of entering the Church as something found in catechumens. The catechumen is the adult preparing to enter the true Church of Jesus Christ through the reception of the sacrament baptism. His desire is said to be explicit because he has a clear and distinct (though not necessarily in any way adequate) knowledge of the society he seeks to enter. In other words, he is a man who knows that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ and who wants to become a member of that Church through the reception of baptism.
On the contrary, a man has only an implicit desire when he wants a thing but does not realize definitely what it is that he desires. The word "implicit" has the sense of something "folded in." When a man desires an objective which cannot be obtained without the attainment of something else, and does not have any clear and distinct awareness of this other thing, he is said to have an implicit desire of this latter.
The "Suprema haec sacra" states explicitly that it is possible for a man to be saved if he has only an implicit desire of entering the Catholic Church. Thus it teaches that a man can attain to the Beatific Vision without having had any definite and explicit knowledge of the Catholic Church during the course of his lifetime in this world.
11). In this paragraph the Holy Office document cites the passage in the Encyclical "Mystici Corporis" dealing with membership in the Church, the genuine supernatural kingdom of God of the New Testament. In this context it is interesting to note that the text of the "Mystici Corporis" does not imply that there is some other sort of real though incomplete membership possessed by persons who do not have the qualifications mentioned here. The encyclical is teaching about those who "actually" (reapse) are to be counted as members of the Church. It insists that only these people who have the qualifications mentioned are to be enumerated "reapse" as members. All others, are simply not members.
Furthermore, this does not by any means imply that the word "reapse" in the text of the "Mystici Corporis" is a mere redundancy. If this were so, words like "genuinely" and "truly" would not be part of any real vocabulary. Moreover the word "reapse" as it is used here connects this teaching of Pope Pius XII with the traditional doctrine of the Catholic theologians who distinguished between belonging to the Church in "re," that is, as a member, and belonging to it "in voto," that is, by a desire or intention to enter it as a member. (pg. 114)
12. The following paragraph shows that the "Mistici Corporis" had taught very clearly that there is a possibility of salvation for those non-members of the Catholic Church
Mistici Corporis #22. "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
Mistici Corporis #103. As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly.[194] Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ"[195] and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation.[196]
For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they
have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love.[197] Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home.
Quote(This constitutes a commentary by Msgr. Fenton on the document "Suprema haec sacra". Issued by the Holy Office July 27, 1949, and approved the following Thursday, July 28, 1949 by the Supreme Pontiff (Pius XII)
So as not to scandalize pious Catholics: There was no document "issued" by the Holy Office called "Supreme haec sacra". There was a private letter written by an undersecretary to the bishop of Boston, which letter was entitled a Protocol and given a protocol number: 122/49. Such protocols carry no doctrinal weight, and are used to set an agenda for discussion topics.
A document issued by the Holy Office is called a "Decree".
Furthermore the protocol was never published in the AAS, which proves it carries no weight since it was never promulgated. This is odd, as a Decree addressing such a controversial subject would surely be promulgated.
I admit, the protocol
reads like a Decree, so the fact that it is entitled a Protocol is again, very odd. It is evidence of a deceit.
At the end of the day, however, what you have is a document officially entitled by the Church as an agenda for upcoming discussions.
edit:
QuoteFor even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer
Note: protocol 122/49 has errors in it, such as this misquote. Which is not surprising since it is just an agenda for upcoming discussions, according to the Church.
QuoteDoctrine: Venial sin must receive only temporary punishment, including sensible pain, in purgatory.
This is because the person who commits venial sin keeps sanctifying Grace, while Mortal Sin kills grace in the soul.
For someone in Original Sin, I don't think there is much of a distinction between mortal sin and venial sin, since if a heathen commits a mortal sin, he does not kill sanctifying grace, nor drive out the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity since he doesn't have them.
To be clear, someone who died with Original Sin, and venial sin(s), without what we consider mortal sin, he would indeed be punished for it eternally. He would not be on the same level as Limbo, which could be called Paradise. His condition might still be better than when he was running around savage.
By Rev. W. Wilmers, S.J. from the German; trans. Rev. James Conway, S.J. Canisius College, Buffalo, July 21, 1891, pg.425-427
Quote233. Faith is necessary for salvation, not merely in virtue of a divine precept, but also of its nature- as a necessary means of salvation.
1. Faith is necessary in virtue of a divine precept . (a) That man is bound to accept a given revelation recognized as such has already been shown- [8]. But a revelation is accepted through faith, since faith is nothing else than the assent of the understanding on the authority of God (232). ...
2. Faith is, moreover, necessary of its very nature, as a means of salvation-in other words, every adult, whether he has already received the grace of justification in baptism or not, must actually and explicitly believe certain truths in order to attain to salvation. ...But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him" (Heb. XI. 5,6). ...As may be seen from the words of the Apostle above cited, that faith which is absolutely necessary as a means of salvation must extend to these two truths: that there is a God, and that He is our supernatural rewarder. By that faith which is necessary for salvation is understood faith in the strict sense of the word-the assent of the understanding on the authority of God. Therefore a conviction resting upon natural revelation, or the light of reason, that there is a God, is not sufficient for salvation. For the Apostle, where he speaks of the necessity of faith, evidently refers to faith in the strict sense, as is manifest from the context. The arguments advanced prove this same truth. Since God desires the salvation of all men, we must suppose that He in some way gives also to the heathens means sufficient to enable them to come to faith, and that it is only by their own fault that they are excluded from the light of faith (145).
APOLOGETICS AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE; A Two Years' Course of Religious Instruction for Schools and Colleges.
By: The Most Rev. M. Sheehan, D.D. Coadjutor Archbishop of Sydney; Formely of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth. Part II page 15:
Quote"THE ACTS OF EXPLICIT FAITH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION"-
The act of Faith which is absolutely necessary for Salvation.-No one who has come to the use of reason can be saved, unless he make a definite or explicit act of faith in the existence of one God who will reward the good and punish the wicked: "without faith," as we are told in the Epistle to the Hebrews, (He. Xi. 6) "it is impossible to pleas God, for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him,," and, therefore, also a punisher of the them that avoid Him. Foot-note 23: [This act of Faith alone, accompanied by an act of charity or perfect contrition, suffices for the salvation of those who may never even have heard the name of Christ; hence it is easy to understand how very many outside the visible membership of the Church may be saved; but it must be stated that some authorities hold, and their opinion is probable, that an explicit act of faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation is also required. Hence, it is not lawful, outside a case of extreme necessity, to administer Baptism to an adult without having previously instructed him in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. See Part I., pg. 136: "The obligation of membership," and page 157, "Outside the Church there is no salvation." End of foot-note] this explicit act of faith is as necessary for salvation as eyes are for sight; without it, salvation is absolutely unattainable.
"Is There Salvation Outside The Catholic Church?" Rev. J. Bainvel, S,J. trans. By Rev. J.L. Weidenhan S.T.L. 1917 Herder, St. Louis. Tan.
Pg. 4:
Quote
We belong to the Church by desire (voto), when, though not members in the proper meaning of the term, we nevertheless desire to be such. This desire may be explicit, as was the case with the Catechumens of the early centuries. Likewise it may be implicit, as in the case of those who are unaware that there is a divinely founded Church, yet desire to do all that God requires of them for salvation. As we go along, we shall see how this desire to do all that God demands, really embodies the implicit wish to belong to the Church.
Pgs. 4-5 Membership in the Church is it a necessity of Precept or necessity of Means?
Necessity of Means: ...in the second case, either ignorance of the means or the impossibility of employing these means certainly would relieve one of all fault, and hence, from liability to punishment. Nevertheless such ignorance or impossibility would prevent the realization of the end of man's creation, unless God in His mercy substituted some extraordinary means, just as whether by his own fault or not, no one can subsist without nourishment, save by a miracle.
Pg. 19: No Catholic denies, nor can he deny without running counter to the Church's teaching, that among Protestants, schismatics and pagans there are souls which are really on the road to eternal life.
Quote from: james03 on September 12, 2015, 10:59:18 AM
Quote(This constitutes a commentary by Msgr. Fenton on the document "Suprema haec sacra". Issued by the Holy Office July 27, 1949, and approved the following Thursday, July 28, 1949 by the Supreme Pontiff (Pius XII)
So as not to scandalize pious Catholics: There was no document "issued" by the Holy Office called "Supreme haec sacra". There was a private letter written by an undersecretary to the bishop of Boston, which letter was entitled a Protocol and given a protocol number: 122/49. Such protocols carry no doctrinal weight, and are used to set an agenda for discussion topics.
A document issued by the Holy Office is called a "Decree".
Furthermore the protocol was never published in the AAS, which proves it carries no weight since it was never promulgated. This is odd, as a Decree addressing such a controversial subject would surely be promulgated.
I admit, the protocol reads like a Decree, so the fact that it is entitled a Protocol is again, very odd. It is evidence of a deceit.
At the end of the day, however, what you have is a document officially entitled by the Church as an agenda for upcoming discussions.
edit:
QuoteFor even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer
Note: protocol 122/49 has errors in it, such as this misquote. Which is not surprising since it is just an agenda for upcoming discussions, according to the Church.
Not to scandalize pius Catholics who would see a Catholic profess to prefer his own opinion over that of the Pope and advising others to do so especially on such weighty matters:
Quote "Suprema haec sacra". Issued by the Holy Office July 27, 1949, and approved the following Thursday, July 28, 1949 by the Supreme Pontiff (Pius XII).
Please disregard James' post.
QuoteBut without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him......As may be seen from the words of the Apostle above cited, that faith which is absolutely necessary as a means of salvation must extend to these two truths: that there is a God, and that He is our supernatural rewarder.
The author contradicts Trent, which identifies the "faith" in the scripture quote with the Catholic Faith. And this is witnessed to by Christ Himself who states that you must believe in Him to believe in God. St. John C. Doctor of the Church, notes this in his discussion of the jews and how in reality they are worshipping demons.
QuotePlease disregard Jame's post.
Yes, don't consider the facts:
1. What evidence is there that he "approved" it?
2. It was never promulgated.
3. Even if he did "approve" it, whatever that means, he was under the impression he was "approving" an agenda for an upcoming discussion.
And again, consider the curious official title of the private letter: Protocol 122/49.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 12, 2015, 11:50:07 AM
"Is There Salvation Outside The Catholic Church?" Rev. J. Bainvel, S,J. trans. By Rev. J.L. Weidenhan S.T.L. 1917 Herder, St. Louis. Tan.
Pg. 4: Quote
We belong to the Church by desire (voto), when, though not members in the proper meaning of the term, we nevertheless desire to be such. This desire may be explicit, as was the case with the Catechumens of the early centuries. Likewise it may be implicit, as in the case of those who are unaware that there is a divinely founded Church, yet desire to do all that God requires of them for salvation. As we go along, we shall see how this desire to do all that God demands, really embodies the implicit wish to belong to the Church.
Pgs. 4-5 Membership in the Church is it a necessity of Precept or necessity of Means?
Necessity of Means: ...in the second case, either ignorance of the means or the impossibility of employing these means certainly would relieve one of all fault, and hence, from liability to punishment. Nevertheless such ignorance or impossibility would prevent the realization of the end of man's creation, unless God in His mercy substituted some extraordinary means, just as whether by his own fault or not, no one can subsist without nourishment, save by a miracle.
Pg. 19: No Catholic denies, nor can he deny without running counter to the Church's teaching, that among Protestants, schismatics and pagans there are souls which are really on the road to eternal life.
You can cite as many theologians you want who may support your opinion, but the Church has already settled the matter long time ago. An example of this is the Athanasian Creed, solemnly reaffirmed by many pontiffs: "
WHOEVER wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever... The Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity ... He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity".
Theologians do not constitute the infallible Magisterial teaching of the Church and when one puts theologian's works over the Church herself one is inverting their proper authority. Quoting the words of Pope Pius XII:
Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Allocution at the Gregorian, Oct, 17, 1953The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but, by divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures and depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation, she alone by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost is the source of truth.
Your conclusions are further proof of how
Invincible Ignorance becomes a destructive heresy, obliterating the necessity of the Catholic Faith all over the world, and yet, ironically you fail to recognize how the
Salvation by Implicit Desire novelty you are fond of, is indeed the very foundation of all Vatican II ecclesiology you resist. To say that a soul can be saved ignorant of the Gospel, without explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity is no less than a betrayal to Our Lord's words himself, and a vile mockery of the heroic efforts of the Apostles to spread the Faith across the world, and the blood shed by the martyrs in the name of Jesus Christ.
Here are a few words by Pope Gregory XVI on the necessity of the Catholic Faith and unity for attaining salvation:
Quote from: Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio" Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life ... You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic Faith and of unity for salvation ... Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that this is indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church ... Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin Churches use, but also that which... other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies."
Quote from: james03 on September 12, 2015, 11:11:41 AM
QuoteDoctrine: Venial sin must receive only temporary punishment, including sensible pain, in purgatory.
This is because the person who commits venial sin keeps sanctifying Grace, while Mortal Sin kills grace in the soul.
For someone in Original Sin, I don't think there is much of a distinction between mortal sin and venial sin, since if a heathen commits a mortal sin, he does not kill sanctifying grace, nor drive out the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity since he doesn't have them.
To be clear, someone who died with Original Sin, and venial sin(s), without what we consider mortal sin, he would indeed be punished for it eternally. He would not be on the same level as Limbo, which could be called Paradise. His condition might still be better than when he was running around savage.
I think:
The eternity of No Beatific Vision is due to the lack of Sanctifying Grace in one who has Original Sin.
If there is in addition an ACT of Mortal sin, the ADDITIONAL punishment for Mortal Sin, the Eternity of Sensible Pain, is due to the reasoned and deliberate Mortal Sin, not just to the lack of Sanctifying Grace. The Mortal sin has an unfathomable objective evil in itself, even if committed by one who already lacks Sanctifying Grace.
If there is only Venial Sin with the Original Sin, it seems most fitting that God would give only temporary punishment for the Venial Sin, along with the eternity of No Beatific Vision for the lack of Sanctifying grace. But there is no such combination of punishments in Catholic teaching.
Anyway, I'll probably stop talking about this issue because I don't think is it going to get anywhere now. You can put me straight as you like; I probably won't respond. (I refer to the particular question, whether there can be Original sin with Venial sin alone, not to the general thread topic)
Michael,
I am very interested in your response to this post.
I know you have mentioned (maybe lately) that theologians differ as to whether the Incarnation and the Trinity must both be explicitly believed by death for salvation, or can believed only implicitly.
Here is a quote by Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton that seems to indicate that he thinks (at this point) that explicit belief in these is necessary:
Quote from: The Meaning of the Church's Necessity for Salvation
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/meaning.htm
By Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton
Likewise, and by force of the very content of Catholic theology, it is standard scholastic teaching that the votum or desire of entering the Catholic Church may be merely implicit and still sufficient to bring a man "within" the Church so as to make his salvation possible. Salvific faith must be explicit on four points. No man can believe in God as he must believe in order to possess the life of sanctifying grace without distinctly acknowledging the existence of God as the Head of the supernatural order, the fact that God thus rewards the good and punishes evil, the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and the mystery of the Incarnation. The mystery of the Catholic Church is not one of these facts which must be believed explicitly in salvific faith.
Also see my earlier post on this thread (I modified it here):
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 09, 2015, 06:15:41 PM
Michael and James (et al) :
I think that in the quotes below St. Thomas teaches BOTH the need for explicit faith AND the fact that heathens CAN (with God's help) live a good natural life, which DOES (always) result in God giving the explicit knowledge they need by the end of life:
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas de Veritate Q. 14: Faith ARTICLE XI
1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. 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)..
(St. Alphonsus taught similarly, as I showed in a previous post http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=12170.msg265918#msg265918)
Michael, I know some theologians teach that explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is not always needed for Salvation, but here St. Thomas is talking about some explicit knowledge that is NOT available to heathens and that God WILL provide at the end if a heathen does good and avoids evil naturally (only possible with God's help). (If only an explicit belief in the God of nature were needed, nothing would need to be revealed internally or taught by a preacher).
Here St. Thomas teaches the need for explicit faith of Christ and the Trinity for salvation (namely, "what had to be believed"):
QuoteHowever, in the time of grace, everybody, the leaders and the ordinary people, have to have explicit faith in the Trinity and in the Redeemer.
Speculation Only:
I think that the explicit knowledge God provides at the end is of a different order than anything one would know through a preacher. It comes in a flash of inspiration, not plodding through all the facts of faith one by one, as would happen with a preacher. It is explicit (the same truths are directly and individually known) but not laid out word by word like what we usually call explicit.
Also this Divine inspiration would be a "special part of dying" provided by God for every naturally good man who "has done what he can". It would be a special part of Providence over our lives, not exactly a miracle in the normal course of events. Even in the case of a sudden death, God would pause the dying (in a mysterious way that takes no visible time) to give what is needed, but if the man rejected the faith, he would not die in the state of grace, having failed the final test.
End Speculation!
I see that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange thinks my
opinion speculation is "singular":
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 25, 2014, 09:05:49 PM
Op. Cit., pg.225
QuoteBanez and Cano hold that explicit faith in Christ to be always necessary for glorification in heaven, but not for justification on earth.[i.e. One can be "justified" in the state of grace, but this isn't sufficient for salvation] In this they stand alone. Many reject this singular opinion; for every just man, from the moment of his establishment in grace, is an heir to glory, with a title so valid that, were he to die in the state of grace, his salvation would be secure. The condition would not prevent his having to pass through Purgatory-even though that would not happen "per se", nor all the time, nor often-but in Purgatory he would be equipped with explicit faith in Christ, ahead of his retarded admission into glory.
This, to be sure, makes me less confident in my opinion (or rather, speculation).
But to me it still seems the safest opinion is that explicit knowledge of Christ and the Trinity are needed. I don't condemn you or anyone who thinks implicit faith is enough - the most important thing to me is that God WILL provide whatever HE knows is needed to one who has done what he can.
Importantly, I do not think that explicit Faith is needed for Justification (here we agree, Michael). But that is a further topic.
Non,
Here is another quote from Msgr. Fenton pg. 69:
QuoteThe Divine public revelation is composed of a certain number of truths or statements. It is quite manifest that genuine and supernatural divine faith can exist and does exist in individuals who have no clear and distinct awareness of some of these truths, but who simply accept them as they are contained and implied in other doctrines. But, in order that faith may exist, there certainly must be some minimum of teachings which are grasped distinctly by the believer and withing which the rest of the revealed message is implied or implicit. Catholic theology holds that it is possible to have genuine divine faith when two, or, according to some writers, four, of these revealed truths are believed distinctly or explicitly. There can be real divine faith when a man believes explicitly, on the authority of God revealing, the existence of God as the head supernatural order, the fact that God rewards good and punishes evil, and the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.
I have no problem with those who hold that all 4 truths need to be held in order to be saved; it is with those who insist contrary to Catholic theology, that those who hold that only two of the truths are necessary for salvation are heretics. This whole question has not been settled by the Church; not by the Quicumque creed or Trent (James) and not by the Council of Florence (Cantarella).
Quote from: james03 on September 12, 2015, 11:59:18 AM
QuotePlease disregard Jame's post.
Yes, don't consider the facts:
1. What evidence is there that he "approved" it?
2. It was never promulgated.
3. Even if he did "approve" it, whatever that means, he was under the impression he was "approving" an agenda for an upcoming discussion.
And again, consider the curious official title of the private letter: Protocol 122/49.
James,
you should consult Catholic sources for your information instead of other less reliable ones. Just to give you one instance; the Letter was made public in 1952, in other words 6 years before the death of Pius XII; so you would believe that Pius XII allowed a forged document claiming to have been issued with his approval, from the Holy Office to circulate freely for 6 years, and the Pope or the Holy Office, including Cardinal Ottavianni (who lived many years after this) never denounced this forgery? Do you really and truly believe this?
Here is Fr. Fenton op.cit pg. 103
Quote
This letter, known as the "Suprema haec sacra", from the first three words of the Latin text, is of unique importance for the study of this section of sacred theology. It is and instruction from the Holy Office, sent out with the approval and at the bidding of the Sovereign Pontiff himself. As such, it is an authoritative, though obviously not an infallible, document. That is to say, the teachings contained in the "Suprema haec sacra" are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document. Nevertheless, the fact remains that much of its teaching-indeed, what we may call the substance of its teaching-is material which has appeared in previous documents emanating from the Sovereign Pontiff himself and from Oecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church.
The great importance of the Suprema haec sacra is based on the fact that this letter sets forth in full explicitness some distinctions and explanations that had been clearly implied and forcefully taught in previous authoritative documents of the teaching Church, but which had never before been set forth in these authoritative pronouncements as explicitly as in the writings of the traditional Catholic theologians. Among these teachings are: (enumerates 5 basic teachings related to EENS); ..Each one of the paragraphs cited above contains invaluable information about what the Church itself really understands and teaches about the dogma of its own necessity for the attainment of eternal salvation.
Cantarella,
Neither the Athanasian Creed, Trent or Florence deals specifically with the question of what happens to those who have never heard of the Catholic Church and the possibility of their salvation; the documents that you cite from these sources are addressed to Catholics to remind them of the teachings of the Church and to condemn the errors that were seducing Catholics during the time that they were issued. The necessity of holding to the one true faith etc.
QuoteJames,
you should consult Catholic sources for your information instead of other less reliable ones. Just to give you one instance; the Letter was made public in 1952,
We are making progress. At least now you correctly refer to it as a letter.
It was "made public". So what? It was never promulgated.
QuoteDo you really and truly believe this?
I never said the Protocol was a forgery. I called it a deceit. I admit it reads like a decree, but it is labeled a protocol.
Pope Pius XII addressed it when he commented on those who turn the requirement for salvation of being Catholic into a meaningless formula.
I suspect once he discovered what was done, he hushed it up to keep from dishonoring the Church. Besides that, it has no doctrinal weight being a Protocol only.
QuoteCantarella,
Neither the Athanasian Creed, Trent or Florence deals specifically with the question of what happens to those who have never heard of the Catholic Church
Trent: States that the sacraments are necessary for Salvation, and identifies the Faith that is necessary to please God as the CATHOLIC Faith.
Athanasian Creed: (I'll just quote part) 1.
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except
every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
Florence: Pagans and jews go to hell unless they convert to the Catholic Faith.
Quote from: james03 on September 13, 2015, 12:26:48 PM
QuoteDo you really and truly believe this?
I never said the Protocol was a forgery. I called it a deceit. I admit it reads like a decree, but it is labeled a protocol.
Pope Pius XII addressed it when he commented on those who turn the requirement for salvation of being Catholic into a meaningless formula.
I suspect once he discovered what was done, he hushed it up to keep from dishonoring the Church. Besides that, it has no doctrinal weight being a Protocol only.
James,
are you serious? "not a forgery but a deceit"?? "a deceit" by who? When? How? And Never denounced by anyone? Pius XII lets a public deceit issued in his name remain public without condemning it by name?
"It reads like a decree, but is labeled a protocol"; but the label does not change the weight of its doctrinal teaching; much like Pius XII "discourse to Italian midwives"; it was not labeled "Bull" or "Encyclical" but a "discourse", it is considered infallible by most orthodox Catholic theologians.
" Pius XII was referring to the letter from the Holy Office in Humani Generis"? "You suspect"? This is your argument?
"It has no doctrinal weight"?
Of course you have a solid reason for stating the above; I would like to hear it; meanwhile, I already posted Msgr. Fenton's view on the doctrinal weight of the letter, but I will also post his view as to its binding nature:
op. cit. pg. 104:
Quote (1) The first paragraph we have cited tell of the authoritative character of the letter itself. The Cardinals of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office decreed that these explanations be given, and the Holy Father approved their decision. We are dealing, then, with an authoritative document. It would be wrong for any teacher of Catholic doctrine to ignore or to contradict the teachings contained in the Holy Office letter.
I guess you could evade this by stating that you are not "a teacher of Catholic doctrine", just an anonymous poster on an internet forum.
Quote from: james03 on September 13, 2015, 12:30:45 PM
QuoteCantarella,
Neither the Athanasian Creed, Trent or Florence deals specifically with the question of what happens to those who have never heard of the Catholic Church
Trent: States that the sacraments are necessary for Salvation, and identifies the Faith that is necessary to please God as the CATHOLIC Faith.
Athanasian Creed: (I'll just quote part) 1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
Florence: Pagans and jews go to hell unless they convert to the Catholic Faith.
Yes sir, we all agree that we have to keep our Catholic faith or else we will perish forever. But does the Athanasian Creed address the question of what is the minimum necessary to believe in order to be saved?
All I have read in authoritative Catholic manuals, is that there are two opinions among Catholic theologians summarized very well by Msgr. Fenton:
QuoteThe Divine public revelation is composed of a certain number of truths or statements. It is quite manifest that genuine and supernatural divine faith can exist and does exist in individuals who have no clear and distinct awareness of some of these truths, but who simply accept them as they are contained and implied in other doctrines. But, in order that faith may exist, there certainly must be some minimum of teachings which are grasped distinctly by the believer and withing which the rest of the revealed message is implied or implicit. Catholic theology holds that it is possible to have genuine divine faith when two, or, according to some writers, four, of these revealed truths are believed distinctly or explicitly. There can be real divine faith when a man believes explicitly, on the authority of God revealing, the existence of God as the head supernatural order, the fact that God rewards good and punishes evil, and the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.
That is for those who are not Catholic and who have never heard of the Catholic faith.
James, you have stated before on this thread that you hold that one must at least believe in the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation; and that the Catholic Church is the true Church. Have you changed your mind?
Quote from: james03 on September 13, 2015, 12:23:10 PM
QuoteJames,
you should consult Catholic sources for your information instead of other less reliable ones. Just to give you one instance; the Letter was made public in 1952,
We are making progress. At least now you correctly refer to it as a letter.
It was "made public". So what? It was never promulgated.
Interesting, do you have any reference to back this up? I mean, if a letter from the Holy Office is issued, but is not made known to the general public immediately (such as in the case of Fr. Feeney and Fr. Felicite de Lamennaise), it has not doctrinal weight; are you certain?
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 13, 2015, 11:07:28 AM
Cantarella,
Neither the Athanasian Creed, Trent or Florence deals specifically with the question of what happens to those who have never heard of the Catholic Church and the possibility of their salvation; the documents that you cite from these sources are addressed to Catholics to remind them of the teachings of the Church and to condemn the errors that were seducing Catholics during the time that they were issued. The necessity of holding to the one true faith etc.
To argue that a soul can be saved by
Implicit Faith and that there is no need of
Explicit Faith in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity for salvation is to fall into the following ecclesiastical condemned propositions:
Quote from: Decree of the Holy Office, March 1679
22. Only faith in one God seems necessary by a necessity of means, not, however, the explicit (faith) in a Rewarder.--CONDEMNED
23. Faith widely so called according to the testimony of creature or by a similar reason suffices for justification.--CONDEMNED
64. A person is fit for absolution, however much he labors under an ignorance of the mysteries of the faith, and even if through negligence, even culpable, he does not know the mystery of the most blessed Trinity, and of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.--CONDEMNED
Quote from: Cantarella on September 13, 2015, 09:38:28 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 13, 2015, 11:07:28 AM
Cantarella,
Neither the Athanasian Creed, Trent or Florence deals specifically with the question of what happens to those who have never heard of the Catholic Church and the possibility of their salvation; the documents that you cite from these sources are addressed to Catholics to remind them of the teachings of the Church and to condemn the errors that were seducing Catholics during the time that they were issued. The necessity of holding to the one true faith etc.
To argue that a soul can be saved by Implicit Faith and that there is no need of Explicit Faith for salvation is to fall into the following ecclesiastic condemnations:
Quote from: Holy Office, March 1679
1172 22. Only faith in one God seems necessary by a necessity of means, not, however, the explicit (faith) in a Rewarder.--CONDEMNED
1173 23. Faith widely so called according to the testimony of creature or by a similar reason suffices for justification.--CONDEMNED
Thank you for posting the Holy office decree confirming what I have been saying for so many pages! One has to have
explicit faith in at least God the rewarder of the the good and punisher of evil. So the Holy office decree confirms what I have been saying. End of argument. Adios!
Another question: Do you even bother to read and understand what I am trying to say? Up to now, you have not demonstrated it by any of your responses.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 13, 2015, 09:48:22 PM
Quote from: Cantarella on September 13, 2015, 09:38:28 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 13, 2015, 11:07:28 AM
Cantarella,
Neither the Athanasian Creed, Trent or Florence deals specifically with the question of what happens to those who have never heard of the Catholic Church and the possibility of their salvation; the documents that you cite from these sources are addressed to Catholics to remind them of the teachings of the Church and to condemn the errors that were seducing Catholics during the time that they were issued. The necessity of holding to the one true faith etc.
To argue that a soul can be saved by Implicit Faith and that there is no need of Explicit Faith for salvation is to fall into the following ecclesiastic condemnations:
Quote from: Holy Office, March 1679
1172 22. Only faith in one God seems necessary by a necessity of means, not, however, the explicit (faith) in a Rewarder.--CONDEMNED
1173 23. Faith widely so called according to the testimony of creature or by a similar reason suffices for justification.--CONDEMNED
Thank you for posting the Holy office decree confirming what I have been saying for so many pages! One has to have explicit faith in at least God the rewarder of the the good and punisher of evil. So the Holy office decree confirms what I have been saying. End of argument. Adios!
Another question: Do you even bother to read and understand what I am trying to say? Up to now, you have not demonstrated it by any of your responses.
Your reply is surprisingly fast! I was not even finished with my post. This is another condemned proposition:
Quote from: Holy Office, March 1679
64. A person is fit for absolution, however much he labors under an ignorance of the mysteries of the faith, and even if through negligence, even culpable, he does not know the mystery of the most blessed Trinity, and of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.--CONDEMNED
The key phrase that you miss, because you have no reading comprehension is A person is fit for absolution. Speaking of the Sacrament of Penance. I.e. People who approach the sacrament of penance totally uninstructed in the Catholic faith.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 13, 2015, 09:52:32 PM
The key phrase that you miss, because you have no reading comprehension is A person is fit for absolution. Speaking of the Sacrament of Penance. I.e. People who approach the sacrament of penance totally uninstructed in the Catholic faith.
Yes... go on and on until the very end ignoring dogmatic formulas, manipulating language, further interpreting what it needs no further interpretation, and giving just the
right ammunition to the Enemies of the Church to reduce the Holy Roman Catholic Church to the same level of any other Christian or pagan sect and yet, you think you resist the liberal abuses of Vatican II, which are precisely founded upon this very matter. Why persist in doing this precisely in these times of crisis, serving as an aid to the diabolical masonic agenda whose main goal is promoting the hyper-egalitarian idea that Jews, Moslems, Hindus and Pagans are all the same and in their path to Heaven? Why not resist the loophole, from the very root, which allows for this betrayal to Our Faith?
Salvation by implicit faith without the Catholic Faith is a grave attack upon Our Faith and the very foundation of Vatican II ecclesiology that traditionalists think resist. There is absolutely nothing in Vatican II Council which cannot be logically traced to the salvific implicit faith novelty. False religions and pseudo Christian sects abound these days precisely because professing Catholics no longer believe salvation is impossible without Jesus Christ and His Church. Ask yourself why do you feel the need to be defending in a Catholic forum the non- necessity of the Catholic Faith (conscious, explicit knowledge of the Gospel) for salvation.
Even Msgr. Fenton agrees that the vast majority of Catholic theologians still held and have always held that the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, (Incarnation and Trinity, at the very least), are necessary for salvation as a means so
why choosing to favor precisely the opinion which is more contrary to Christendom's restoration?
QuoteDoctrine: Venial sin must receive only temporary punishment, including sensible pain, in purgatory.
So if a man has 1 mortal sin and 20 venial sins, and goes to hell, he is not punished at all for the venial sins?
Quote"It reads like a decree, but is labeled a protocol"; but the label does not change the weight of its doctrinal teaching; much like Pius XII "discourse to Italian midwives"; it was not labeled "Bull" or "Encyclical" but a "discourse", it is considered infallible by most orthodox Catholic theologians.
Thanks for proving my point. The Discourse to Italian Midwives was published in the AAS and promulgated.
QuoteI mean, if a letter from the Holy Office is issued, but is not made known to the general public immediately (such as in the case of Fr. Feeney and Fr. Felicite de Lamennaise), it has not doctrinal weight; are you certain?
Absolutely certain. It was not published in the AAS. Don't you find it very odd that a huge controversy in the Church, raging since around 1890 when heretics started denying EENS was settled by a letter labeled a protocol, and such protocol is not promulgated? Even though supposedly it settles such a huge controversy?
QuoteYes sir, we all agree that we have to keep our Catholic faith or else we will perish forever. But does the Athanasian Creed address the question of what is the minimum necessary to believe in order to be saved?
Yes. Here's the final statement of the Creed:
Quote44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
Errors in Protocol 122/49:
1. Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth. Translation: Satanists go to hell, thus making EENS a meaningless formula, which is condemned by Pope Pius XII.
2. For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. -- an outright lie. Nowhere does the Pope discuss fictional people who are "united" to the Church by desire. Pure deceit.
3. With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, -- a lie. Nowhere does the Pope discuss those who are "united" to the Church, in any way, nor does he discuss any "implicit desire" to belong to the Church. Furthermore, I do not know of any authoritative text that says people can have an implicit desire to be part of the Church. This is completely novel.
4. "Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," " Related is poor translation, but better than "united". The actual translation is "ordered", and is a reference to the Final Cause of man, that we are all ordered to uniting with God and enjoying the Divine Beatitude.
5. But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: -- more deceit. No where does the pope mention that "implicit desire" to enter the Church produces any effect, let alone is salvific.
6. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect (salvation), unless a person has supernatural faith -- theological error and circular reasoning:
A person receives supernatural faith by being justified by implicit desire to enter the Church
A person is only justified by implicit desire if he has supernatural faith.
Quote from: james03 on September 15, 2015, 08:37:44 AM
Errors in Protocol 122/49:
1. Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth. Translation: Satanists go to hell, thus making EENS a meaningless formula, which is condemned by Pope Pius XII.
2. For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. -- an outright lie. Nowhere does the Pope discuss fictional people who are "united" to the Church by desire. Pure deceit.
3. With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, -- a lie. Nowhere does the Pope discuss those who are "united" to the Church, in any way, nor does he discuss any "implicit desire" to belong to the Church. Furthermore, I do not know of any authoritative text that says people can have an implicit desire to be part of the Church. This is completely novel.
4. "Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," " Related is poor translation, but better than "united". The actual translation is "ordered", and is a reference to the Final Cause of man, that we are all ordered to uniting with God and enjoying the Divine Beatitude.
5. But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: -- more deceit. No where does the pope mention that "implicit desire" to enter the Church produces any effect, let alone is salvific.
6. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect (salvation), unless a person has supernatural faith -- theological error and circular reasoning:
A person receives supernatural faith by being justified by implicit desire to enter the Church
A person is only justified by implicit desire if he has supernatural faith.
7.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. - The truth of the matter is that the dogmatic formulation *is* the "sense in which the Church herself understands" divinely revealed truth. It is the Church giving "explanation (to) those things that are contained in the deposit of faith". It is the dogma itself that is infallible, and dogma is not subject to theological refinement but itself is the formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith.
To say, "dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it," is to claim for the theologian an authority that belongs to the dogma itself. When this modernist proposition is accepted, there is no dogmatic declaration that can be taken as a definitive expression of our faith for it will always be open to theological refinement.
Your #3 revisited.
3.
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, - The really insane part of the whole letter is something I have to believe +Cushing and co had to have laughed their ever loving butts off at this whole letter, particularly the whole belonging to the Church by desire.
Anyone who will simply stop for just a moment to think about what the letter is saying, will be forced to conclude that every prot, jew and member of every heretical sect out there, INCLUDING Fr. Feeney, are all united to the Church by desire according to the dictates never before taught by the Church but are newly set forth in this letter.
QuoteTo say, "dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it," is to claim for the theologian an authority that belongs to the dogma itself. When this modernist proposition is accepted, there is no dogmatic declaration that can be taken as a definitive expression of our faith for it will always be open to theological refinement.
Missed that. Pure modernism, it is disgusting. No wonder the Pope refused to promulgate this.
Quote
Errors in Protocol 122/49:
1. Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth. Translation: Satanists go to hell, thus making EENS a meaningless formula, which is condemned by Pope Pius XII.
This first error gives the impression that the dogma of the
necessity of the Catholic Faith, the reception of the Sacraments, and the submission to the Roman Pontiff for salvation goes from the application to
every human creature (as it was undoubtedly postulated in the dogmatic formulas) to only those "
who know" ( "those knowing the Church to have been divinely established..."), meaning there may be a visible exception to the EENS dogma (the exception being the invincible ignorant who has neither: No Faith, no sacraments, and not submission to the Pope of Rome).
Quote from: james03 on September 15, 2015, 12:07:38 PM
QuoteTo say, "dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it," is to claim for the theologian an authority that belongs to the dogma itself. When this modernist proposition is accepted, there is no dogmatic declaration that can be taken as a definitive expression of our faith for it will always be open to theological refinement.
Missed that. Pure modernism, it is disgusting. No wonder the Pope refused to promulgate this.
Vatican I says that over time " the sacred doctrines of the faith have been defined more closely, and set forth more fully, errors have been condemned and restrained...". http://www.catholicplanet.org/councils/20-Dei-Filius.htm . Do you think Vatican I is teaching disgusting modernism here?
With more context from the Holy Office letter: "However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church."
Private judgments are just what you are making.
You may know that the Pope didn't sign the letter, but how can you know that he refused? If he thought it was disgusting modernism it seems he was committing extremely grave sin by not stopping it or protesting it (a root of modernist infiltration into the Church, as you would have it); or else he was forced to be still for the rest of his life; or else he was a fool. Any of these seem far less likely than that there was an human error in finishing the processing of the letter, and that he did not think anyone would dare question a letter from the Holy Office, unless it was explicitly denied later. The AAS is a part of protocol that is helpful to us; but there is no teaching that says that if a Holy Office statement is not in the AAS it may be destructive of the faith.
Pope Pius XII mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire",
"Yearning and unconscious desire" implies implicit desire.
Quote from: James
" Related is poor translation, but better than "united". The actual translation is "ordered", and is a reference to the Final Cause of man, that we are ALL ordered to uniting with God and enjoying the Divine Beatitude.
The Pope is not saying that ALL people are related to the Church by yearning and unconscious desire.
"Yearning and unconscious desire" is not "no desire", it is a real desire that GOD can read; He is conscious of it. The fact that all men are ordered to God as to their final end does not at all mean that all men have any kind of desire, even unconscious. (If your translation to "ordered" rather than "related" is correct, a man with real yearning is indeed better ordered to the Church, and being "ordered" is a kind of relationship)
I say that IF God reads a man's heart and knows that if a missionary would tell him about baptism the next day he would most certainly desire baptism explicitly and receive it and not sin, BUT God chooses that this man should die first, THEN God knows that this man has implicit desire. James haven't you said that a man can have implicit faith in the sense that he (a baptized Catholic, perhaps a child) implicitly believes all that the Church teaches, even if he does not yet know it explicitly because he has not yet been taught? The man who would have learned about baptism tomorrow is in a very similar state; he wishes to believe and act on what God commands with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength, but is not yet able.
God does not damn a man for not doing what he cannot do, or not yet knowing what he cannot know - this is A MATTER OF FAITH every bit as basic as EENS.
Do you make man's heart so small and God's ability to read it so shallow that a man cannot be of good will (in the sense that God desires it, not liberals) or God cannot read it, unless a man believes everything explicitly? You seem to worry that GOD will let the same people get into heaven that the liberals would choose, that GOD would violate EENS, if He looked at any belief that wasn't explicit.
My opinion is that such a man WHO DOES HAVE IMPLICIT DESIRE (as God desires it, not stupid liberals) IN THE FIRST PLACE (and perseveres in it) will ALWAYS be blessed by God by Divine light before he dies (even in the last instant) so that he has
EXPLICIT knowledge of Christ and the Trinity that he needs (he then makes an act of explicit faith, or if he rejects it, he is damned, losing any Sanctifying Grace he had). This is not contrary to EENS. God will give what is needed to a man who does what he can to follow God's will. ("What he can" means what GOD knows he can, not some liberal's guess).
Isn't this what was St. Thomas is saying here:
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas de Veritate Q. 14: Faith ARTICLE XI
1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. 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)..
Note my view does support the need for explicit faith, but it also supports the reality of IMPLICIT DESIRE.
For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. "Pertains to" means it is just what an All Merciful and All Just God does for man. "No hindrance" doesn't mean sits back and waits, but cooperates with God's graces, and truths and commands as they are known.
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 16, 2015, 12:52:19 AM
Quote from: james03 on September 15, 2015, 12:07:38 PM
QuoteTo say, "dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it," is to claim for the theologian an authority that belongs to the dogma itself. When this modernist proposition is accepted, there is no dogmatic declaration that can be taken as a definitive expression of our faith for it will always be open to theological refinement.
Missed that. Pure modernism, it is disgusting. No wonder the Pope refused to promulgate this.
Vatican I says that over time " the sacred doctrines of the faith have been defined more closely, and set forth more fully, errors have been condemned and restrained...". http://www.catholicplanet.org/councils/20-Dei-Filius.htm . Do you think Vatican I is teaching disgusting modernism here?
With more context from the Holy Office letter: "However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church."
Private judgments are just what you are making.
No, Vatican 1 decrees:
Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.It is the sacred dogma that is infallible, not the explanations which reduce it to a meaningless formula. They are speaking about the Thrice Defined Dogma of EENS in the sentence you picked out, as they described it perfectly. They are not talking about the mountain of diluting explanations that completely abandon the meaning of the dogma "under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."
Just read The Letter. Is it not completely obvious that The Letter starts out by affirming the truth of the dogma, then ends by denying it? It starts out by saying:
Now, amongst those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to teach, there is also this infallible declaration which says that there is no salvation outside the Church.Then a few paragraphs later it outright denies it, saying:
...those who "by a certain desire and unconscious longing have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer". He does not in any way exclude them from eternal salvation, but he goes on to affirm that they are in a state "in which they cannot be sure of their eternal salvation" and that "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church". The dogma decrees that they have no hope of salvation whatsoever if they die outside the Church - that is infallible. Otherwise, if what The Letter says is actual Church teaching, then per The Letter itself, we MUST conclude and can be certain the Fr. Feeney belongs to the Church by a certain desire and unconscious longing, he is just in a state in which he cannot be sure of his eternal salvation - which makes The Letter a colossal farce, which is exactly what it is.
The Letter speaks as if the many "heavenly gifts and helps which can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church" are luxuries and nonessential accessories of the spiritual life, when, in point of fact, only the Church provides the soul with the means, i.e., the Sacraments, sanctifying grace, and union with Christ, without which salvation is totally impossible.
We have a definition of Feeneyism and the Forum's stance toward it posted now in the "Forum Rules" section. It is linked below and copied below, as well.QuoteA Definition of Feeneyism and the Forum's Stance Toward It:
"Feeneyism" is characterized by three errors (http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm): a misrepresentation of the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation", that the doctrine of baptism of desire (and of blood) is optional, and that the Council of Trent teaches that baptism of desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation." These three errors run contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Feeneyism is forbidden on this forum and promoting one, two, or all three errors of Feeneyism is subject to moderation. While Feeneyites are welcome to post here in all sub-fora, they are not permitted to promote, spread, or disseminate information promoting any of the errors of Feeneyism. Any posts or posters who do so will be subject to moderation.
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=3891.msg268122#msg268122
Any further posts or discussions violating that rule in this thread (or other threads) will be subject to bans and moderation.
QuoteGod does not damn a man for not doing what he cannot do, or not yet knowing what he cannot know - this is A MATTER OF FAITH every bit as basic as EENS.
Classic error. God damns no one. We are born damned (you believe in Original Sin, right?). God saves those whom He has predestined to election.
QuoteThe Pope is not saying that ALL people are related to the Church by yearning and unconscious desire.
According to the deceitful protocol, correct, but he doesn't use "related", he is talking about ALL who are ordered to the Church. Best to read the original, and not the deceitful protocol:
Quote"As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, ... We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they are ordered/disposed towards the Mystical Body of the Redeemer....
As you can see, the protocol letter completely (intentionally) blows it.
Non Nobis:
1. Do you now agree that the context is "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church", thus all non-Catholics?
2. On venial sin, if venial sin is not punished in hell, then what happens to someone who goes to hell with venial sins and mortal sin? Is he given a pass on the venial sins?
From the other thread, Pope Ubarn on the headhunting moslems. Puts things in perspective:
Quote"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ!.........Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. ....... Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. ..... Behold! on this side will be the sorrowful and poor, on that, the rich; on this side, the enemies of the Lord, on that, his friends.
Quote from: James03
Classic error. God damns no one. We are born damned (you believe in Original Sin, right?). God saves those whom He has predestined to election.
From the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul teaches:
Quote from: Romans 8:29
For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. [30] And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Commentary on that verse from the Douay-Rheims:
Quote
[29] He also predestinated: That is, God hath preordained that all his elect should be conformable to the image of his Son. We must not here offer to pry into the secrets of God's eternal election; only firmly believe that all our good, in time and eternity, flows originally from God's free goodness; and all our evil from man's free will.
From all eternity Almighty God has known who were His own. To those, the Gospel will be preached to. Central to God's plan of salvation is the Church Herself, which is the implement that God instituted for the rescuing of His Elect from those born of the
flesh and the world who will not take partake in Christ's divinity. This is the only Ark of Salvation.
Quote from: james03 on September 17, 2015, 06:27:43 AM
QuoteGod does not damn a man for not doing what he cannot do, or not yet knowing what he cannot know - this is A MATTER OF FAITH every bit as basic as EENS.
Classic error. God damns no one. We are born damned (you believe in Original Sin, right?). God saves those whom He has predestined to election.
"God damns" means to most Catholics "God punishes with the eternal torments (sensible pain) of hell". Original sin does not leave us damned in this USUAL sense of damn; it does not of itself send anyone to eternal torments. It is extremely misleading to say "we are born damned" because most people will think this means by default we go to eternal torments. (I seriously wish you would stop saying "we are born damned" - it is extremely ugly, to say the very least.)
Even if "God damns" isn't used much because it could be taken in the Calvinist sense, or in a blasphemous sense (when wished against someone), still God deliberately punishes those who die in mortal sin in the eternal torments of hell. Going to hell (with sensible pain!) requires a deliberate act of mortal sin; it is not a default.
St. Augustine says God damns some:
Quote
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160366.htm
St. Augustine: If haply there be any heretics who still in their hearts maintain that Christ exhibited Himself to sight, but that Christ's was not very flesh; let them now lay aside that error, and let the Gospel persuade them. We do but blame them for entertaining this conceit: He will damn them if they shall persevere in it.
St.Thomas says in what sense God wills the damnation of a man:
Quote
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2019.htm#article8
God does not will the damnation of a man, considered precisely as damnation, nor a man's death, considered precisely as death, because, "He wills all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4); but He wills such things under the aspect of justice.
It is true that God saves only those whom He has predestined. It is also true that God wills the damnation (just punishment in the fires of hell) only of those who deliberately commit mortal sin and die in that state (the reprobate). And, yes I think it is true that those who die with original sin alone are among the reprobate, but they are not damned in the USUAL sense (the sense that St. Augustine and St. Thomas use). There is mystery here; it is not answered by saying "We are born damned".
The "we are born damned" idea comes from the massa damnata theory of Augustine.
Fr. Most compares and contrasts his various teachings on this subject here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm
As one can see, Augustine had no consistent thought on the subject, and often argued against himself.
QuoteDoctrine: Venial sin must receive only temporary punishment, including sensible pain, in purgatory
I meant Venial sin without Mortal sin.
Quote from: james03 on September 17, 2015, 07:10:14 AM
On venial sin, if venial sin is not punished in hell, then what happens to someone who goes to hell with venial sins and mortal sin? Is he given a pass on the venial sins?
No, but the
eternity of sensible pain COMES from the mortal sin in the mix, not the venial sin. The venial sin is not responsible for the eternity of the punishment.
No
eternity of sensible pain can COME from venial sin without mortal sin. And yet the venial sin must be punished. Where? Limbo brings no sensible punishment at all. A new purgatory that ends in Limbo is new doctrine.
The eternity makes an infinite difference that is appropriate for mortal sin alone.
I realize I am speculating, but feel justified by St. Thomas' opinion that there is no Original Sin with Venial Sin alone.
Just FYI to others: This issue is relevant to St. Thomas view on a little boy's first deliberate action being either mortal sin or a good act resulting (essentially) in baptism of desire - not venial sin. This view may be disputed by others than James. However I think it is risky disagreeing with St. Thomas.
I still think it is questionable that this argument will be helpful. However I admit it is hard not to answer...
Quote from: Gardener on September 17, 2015, 01:27:32 PM
The "we are born damned" idea comes from the massa damnata theory of Augustine.
Fr. Most compares and contrasts his various teachings on this subject here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm
As one can see, Augustine had no consistent thought on the subject, and often argued against himself.
St. Augustine says "
If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for Baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined."
And for someone who dies ignorant of our Faith, St Augustine believes that "...
God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief."
St. Paul teaches that those are "inexcusable":
Quote from: Romans 1:16-20
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.
17 For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:
19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
The "We are all born damned" comes from the dogmatic revelation that
original sin suffices from damnation infallibly defined at the Council of Florence and Lyons, and
ex-cathedra statements by Pope Zosimus and Innocent III.
QuotePope St. Zosimus:
"No one of our children is held not guilty until he is freed through Baptism".
Council of Lyons:
"The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to Hell, yet to be punished with different punishments"
Council of Florence:
" It is likewise defined that the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into Hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds".
Pope Innocent III:
" The punishment of original sin is the loss of the vision of God; the punishment for actual sin is the torments of everlasting Hell".
We are all born guilty and God owes us nothing. His Grace is completely undeserved and it is first bestowed upon us regardless our merits. That is precisely where the mystery of Predestination / Predilection comes from.
QuoteNo, but the eternity of sensible pain COMES from the mortal sin in the mix, not the venial sin. The venial sin is not responsible for the eternity of the punishment.
So again, how does the venial sin get punished? Because I'll say the same thing happens to the person who has Original Sin and venial sin only. The venial sin is treated the same way.
I'll restate it:
QuoteQuoteGod does not damn a man for not doing what he cannot do, or not yet knowing what he cannot know - this is A MATTER OF FAITH every bit as basic as EENS.
Classic error. God damns no one. We are born lost (you believe in Original Sin, right?). God saves those whom He has predestined to election.
Quote from: Gardener on September 17, 2015, 01:27:32 PM
The "we are born damned" idea comes from the massa damnata theory of Augustine.
Fr. Most compares and contrasts his various teachings on this subject here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm
As one can see, Augustine had no consistent thought on the subject, and often argued against himself.
On Massa Damnata:
Quote
(1) Ad Simplicianum 1, 2, 16: "Therefore all men are . . . one condemned mass [massa damnata] of sin, that owes a debt of punishment to the divine and supreme justice. Whether it [the debt] be exacted, or whether it be condoned, there is no injustice."
(2) Enchiridion 27: ". . . the whole condemned mass of the human race lay in evils, or even rolled about in them, and was precipitated from evils into evils. . . ."
(3) City of God 21, 12: "Hence there is a condemned mass of the whole human race . . . so that no one would be freed from this just and due punishment except by mercy and undue grace; and so the human race is divided [into two parts] so that in some it may be shown what merciful grace can do, in others, what just vengeance can do. . . . In it [punishment] there are many more than in [mercy] so that in this way there may be shown what is due to all."
(4) Epistle 190. 3. 12: He said that reprobates are so much more numerous than the saved that "by an incomparable number they are more numerous than those whom He deigned to predestine as sons of the promise to the glory of His kingdom; so that by the very number of those rejected, it might he shown that the number, howsoever large, of the justly damned is of no importance with a just God. . . ." Which implies that God does not will all to be saved: hence Augustine's explicit denial, several times, of the words of 1 Tim 2:4. Hence too, as we said above, God does not really love anyone: He merely uses a few to show mercy.
Yet Fr. William Most is of the opinion that great St. Augustine was in error!. Of course, the explicit teachings of St. Augustine really clashes with these Modern times of disordered emotionalism, which demand a sentimentalized version of just about everything.
For the record, both St. Augustine and St. Thomas taught that God does not love everybody equally but He loves some more than others
Quote from: james03 on September 17, 2015, 02:52:58 PM
I'll restate it:
QuoteQuoteGod does not damn a man for not doing what he cannot do, or not yet knowing what he cannot know - this is A MATTER OF FAITH every bit as basic as EENS.
Classic error. God damns no one. We are born lost (you believe in Original Sin, right?). God saves those whom He has predestined to election.
My previous reply actually answers your restated version as well, if I just remove the references to "born damned":
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 17, 2015, 12:41:31 PM
"God damns" means to most Catholics "God punishes with the eternal torments (sensible pain) of hell".
Even if "God damns" isn't used much because it could be taken in the Calvinist sense, or in a blasphemous sense (when wished against someone), still God deliberately punishes those who die in mortal sin in the eternal torments of hell.
St. Augustine says God damns some:
Quote
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160366.htm
St. Augustine: If haply there be any heretics who still in their hearts maintain that Christ exhibited Himself to sight, but that Christ's was not very flesh; let them now lay aside that error, and let the Gospel persuade them. We do but blame them for entertaining this conceit: He will damn them if they shall persevere in it.
St.Thomas says in what sense God wills the damnation of a man:
Quote
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2019.htm#article8
God does not will the damnation of a man, considered precisely as damnation, nor a man's death, considered precisely as death, because, "He wills all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4); but He wills such things under the aspect of justice.
Quote from: Cantarella on September 17, 2015, 02:12:41 PM
Quote from: Gardener on September 17, 2015, 01:27:32 PM
The "we are born damned" idea comes from the massa damnata theory of Augustine.
Fr. Most compares and contrasts his various teachings on this subject here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm
As one can see, Augustine had no consistent thought on the subject, and often argued against himself.
St. Augustine says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for Baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined."
And for someone who dies ignorant of our Faith, St Augustine believes that "... God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief."
St. Paul teaches that those are "inexcusable":
Quote from: Romans 1:16-20
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.
17 For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:
19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
So St. Augustine teaches that once baptized always saved and that God can be conditioned by man?
I think St. Thomas disagrees ;)
edit: egregious unintentional swapping of terms which... ugh. corrected!
Quote from: james03 on September 17, 2015, 02:50:19 PM
QuoteNo, but the eternity of sensible pain COMES from the mortal sin in the mix, not the venial sin. The venial sin is not responsible for the eternity of the punishment.
So again, how does the venial sin get punished? Because I'll say the same thing happens to the person who has Original Sin and venial sin only. The venial sin is treated the same way.
Your question ASSUMES the answer to the question "Can Original Sin exist with venial sin alone" is Yes.
With mortal sin with venial sin the eternity-of-sensible-pain can be ATTRIBUTED to the mortal sin alone. The venial sin is covered by the punishment, but the punishment can not be ATTRIBUTED to it.
But God is just and would not ATTRIBUTE an ETERNITY of PAIN (however light) to venial sin alone. The ETERNITY of the pain makes an immense (eternity of!) difference.
It is in accord with God's justice that venial sin be punished - but not by an eternity of even light pain. It is also contrary to Catholic faith to say there is some kind of "purgatory" that ends in limbo and not heaven. Therefore St. Thomas' teaching that there is no Original Sin with venial sin alone is most reasonable. His "I answer that" to the question "Can Original Sin exist with Venial Sin alone" gives a positive argument for his conclusion (not just a "reduction to the absurd", which I agree is not the most satisfying form of argument). But the argument is, I agree, hard to understand.
However you just disagree with St. Thomas, and THAT is THAT. Once again, I am tired of arguing. I am giving into temptation to continue arguing on this particular issue. I feel like I am arguing with a brick wall. I am sorry if I am being uncharitable.
Quote from: james03 on September 17, 2015, 06:27:43 AM
According to the deceitful protocol, correct, but he doesn't use "related", he is talking about ALL who are ordered to the Church. Best to read the original, and not the deceitful protocol:
Quote"As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, ... We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they are ordered/disposed towards the Mystical Body of the Redeemer....
As you can see, the protocol letter completely (intentionally) blows it.
Quote from: james03 on September 17, 2015, 07:10:14 AM
Non Nobis:
1. Do you now agree that the context is "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church", thus all non-Catholics?
No, I do not agree.
I am no Latin scholar, but I found these Latin words for the part I underlined above:
"etiamsi inscio quodam desiderio ac voto ad mysticum Redemptoris Corpus
ordinentur"
The word "etiamsi" has been translated "even though", but the
first meaning in the
Lexicon of Saint Thomas Aquinas for "etiamsi" is not "even though", but "even if".
So I think that those ordered by "an unconscious desire and longing .. towards the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" are only a subset of "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church ... each and every one of them".
I think that for the Pope to have said that ALL non-Catholics have "desire" and "longing" (conscious or not) towards the Mystical Body would have been extremely liberal.
If he had wanted to say that all were ordered to the Mystical Body as to their last end, I think he would have found a better way to say it. I believe I have read St. Thomas speak of "tendency", but I don't think he meant or said "desire" or "yearning" or "longing" ("desiderio ac voto").
Furthermore, I do not share your contempt for the Holy Office letter.
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 16, 2015, 12:52:19 AM
You may know that the Pope didn't sign the letter, but how can you know that he refused? If he thought it was disgusting modernism it seems he was committing extremely grave sin by not stopping it or protesting it (a root of modernist infiltration into the Church, as you would have it); or else he was forced to be still for the rest of his life; or else he was a fool. Any of these seem far less likely than that there was an human error in finishing the processing of the letter, and that he did not think anyone would dare question a letter from the Holy Office, unless it was explicitly denied later. The AAS is a part of protocol that is helpful to us; but there is no teaching that says that if a Holy Office statement is not in the AAS it may be destructive of the faith.
Quote from: Gardener on September 18, 2015, 12:50:12 AM
Quote from: Cantarella on September 17, 2015, 02:12:41 PM
Quote from: Gardener on September 17, 2015, 01:27:32 PM
The "we are born damned" idea comes from the massa damnata theory of Augustine.
Fr. Most compares and contrasts his various teachings on this subject here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm
As one can see, Augustine had no consistent thought on the subject, and often argued against himself.
St. Augustine says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for Baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined."
And for someone who dies ignorant of our Faith, St Augustine believes that "... God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief."
St. Paul teaches that those are "inexcusable":
Quote from: Romans 1:16-20
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.
17 For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:
19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
So St. Augustine teaches that once baptized always saved and that God can be conditioned by man?
I think St. Thomas disagrees ;)
edit: egregious unintentional swapping of terms which... ugh. corrected!
No, that is not quite what St. Augustine teaches, but his thinking evolved and later on he concluded that since the time of Christ there has not been one predestined person who has not received Baptism before his death. The Pelagian controversy, and his strong defense against such heresy, drove St. Augustine toward a
sacramentalism (especially in what concerns Baptism and Holy Eucharist), which was different from his reasoning in early youth.
Quote from: Cantarella on September 19, 2015, 01:32:50 AM
Quote from: Gardener on September 18, 2015, 12:50:12 AM
Quote from: Cantarella on September 17, 2015, 02:12:41 PM
Quote from: Gardener on September 17, 2015, 01:27:32 PM
The "we are born damned" idea comes from the massa damnata theory of Augustine.
Fr. Most compares and contrasts his various teachings on this subject here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm
As one can see, Augustine had no consistent thought on the subject, and often argued against himself.
St. Augustine says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for Baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined."
And for someone who dies ignorant of our Faith, St Augustine believes that "... God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief."
St. Paul teaches that those are "inexcusable":
Quote from: Romans 1:16-20
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.
17 For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:
19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
So St. Augustine teaches that once baptized always saved and that God can be conditioned by man?
I think St. Thomas disagrees ;)
edit: egregious unintentional swapping of terms which... ugh. corrected!
No, that is not quite what St. Augustine teaches, but his thinking evolved and later on he concluded that since the time of Christ there has not been one predestined person who has not received Baptism before his death. The Pelagian controversy, and his strong defense against such heresy, drove St. Augustine toward a sacramentalism (especially in what concerns Baptism and Holy Eucharist), which was different from his reasoning in early youth.
Baptism = Sacrament or Baptism = Grace?
And, further, St. Thomas teaches on the grace.
I point you to chapter 22: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14084.htm
QuoteMy previous reply actually answers your restated version as well, if I just remove the references to "born damned":
No it doesn't. We are born lost. That is from Trent. God damns no one. He saves whom He has predestined according to His purpose.
QuoteYour question ASSUMES the answer to the question "Can Original Sin exist with venial sin alone" is Yes.
No, and you are entering circular reasoning.
Premise: There is no place/way to punish someone with venial sin alone.
Question: How is venial sin punished in hell? Is it punished at all?
Quote from: james03 on September 19, 2015, 09:04:42 AM
QuoteYour question ASSUMES the answer to the question "Can Original Sin exist with venial sin alone" is Yes.
No, and you are entering circular reasoning.
Premise: There is no place/way to punish someone with venial sin alone.
Question: How is venial sin punished in hell? Is it punished at all?
St. Thomas covers why it's impossible for someone to have OS/venial only:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2089.htm#article6
If you disagree with him, you need to explain why before you can expect any of us to simply agree with you.
QuoteSt. Thomas covers why it's impossible for someone to have OS/venial only:
I'm not discussing that conclusion yet. I'm discussing the premise: There is no place to punish venial sin except purgatory.
Quote from: Gardener on September 19, 2015, 01:42:18 AM
Quote from: Cantarella on September 19, 2015, 01:32:50 AM
Quote from: Gardener on September 18, 2015, 12:50:12 AM
Quote from: Cantarella on September 17, 2015, 02:12:41 PM
Quote from: Gardener on September 17, 2015, 01:27:32 PM
The "we are born damned" idea comes from the massa damnata theory of Augustine.
Fr. Most compares and contrasts his various teachings on this subject here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm
As one can see, Augustine had no consistent thought on the subject, and often argued against himself.
St. Augustine says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for Baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined."
And for someone who dies ignorant of our Faith, St Augustine believes that "... God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief."
St. Paul teaches that those are "inexcusable":
Quote from: Romans 1:16-20
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.
17 For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:
19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
So St. Augustine teaches that once baptized always saved and that God can be conditioned by man?
I think St. Thomas disagrees ;)
edit: egregious unintentional swapping of terms which... ugh. corrected!
No, that is not quite what St. Augustine teaches, but his thinking evolved and later on he concluded that since the time of Christ there has not been one predestined person who has not received Baptism before his death. The Pelagian controversy, and his strong defense against such heresy, drove St. Augustine toward a sacramentalism (especially in what concerns Baptism and Holy Eucharist), which was different from his reasoning in early youth.
Baptism = Sacrament or Baptism = Grace?
And, further, St. Thomas teaches on the grace.
I point you to chapter 22: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14084.htm
St. Augustine is referring to the Sacrament of Baptism, and no, he is not teaching that "once baptized always saved" (see italics in quote) which would be equivalent to the Protestant "
once justified always saved" or "
salvation by justification alone".
Quote from: St. Augustine against the Pelagians, Book 3, Chapter 5
For if any one should ask of me whether we have been saved by baptism, I shall not be able to deny it, since the apostle says, "He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Titus 3:5 But if he should ask whether by the same washing He has already absolutely in every way saved us, I shall answer: It is not so. Because the same apostle also says, "For we are saved by hope; but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, we with patience wait for it." Romans 8:24-25 Therefore the salvation of man is effected in baptism, because whatever sin he has derived from his parents is remitted, or whatever, moreover, he himself has sinned on his own account before baptism; but his salvation will hereafter be such that he cannot sin at all.
He plainly says:
Quote30. That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "Today shall you be with me in Paradise." Luke 23:43 On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power, even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:10 But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment.
reference: Chapter 22 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14084.htm
Clearly, St. Augustine is not teaching on the Sacrament but the grace inherent to the Sacrament, though the latter is wanting wherein the former has its effect due to lack of recourse.
Taking the two references together, St. Augustine is not an adherent of proto-Feeneyism.
Quote from: Gardener on September 19, 2015, 11:57:30 PM
He plainly says:
Quote30. That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "Today shall you be with me in Paradise." Luke 23:43 On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power, even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, "With the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:10 But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment.
reference: Chapter 22 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14084.htm
Clearly, St. Augustine is not teaching on the Sacrament but the grace inherent to the Sacrament, though the latter is wanting wherein the former has its effect due to lack of recourse.
Taking the two references together, St. Augustine is not an adherent of proto-Feeneyism.
That quote is from his earlier writings against the Donatists when he was first speculating on that question. As said before, later on in life, he drove to a form of sacramentalism (focusing on Baptism and Holy Eucharist), which is clear from his future writings against the Pelagians. At the time of these first speculations as a Catholic theologian, he had not even been ordained a bishop. It is not that he had "not consistent thought in the subject" but it seems that he simply changed his mind from his speculations of early youth when he emphasized the power of actual, natural graces, yet unaided by sanctifying grace. But it is clear that later on, during the Pelagian controversy, he lain emphasis on pre-destined sanctifying grace, given to a soul regardless merit. God simply calls whom He will and it is a
great mystery why he chooses some souls and not others. At the end of his life, St. Augustine concluded that even the most pious of unbaptized believers,
could not merit the gift of grace that comes with the sacrament.
By the way, for the record, St. Augustine was the only Father of the Church, who speculated
specifically about the saving efficacy of a Baptism of Desire.
He was only speaking of the Sacrament in your provided link.
He was also only addressing the pelagian error, not offering a whole treatment.
Further, the example provided was one never recanted of (BoB), and I'm not by any means convinced that his anti-pelagian writings were anything but contextual to pelagian error which BoD is most certainly not.
Quote from: james03 on September 19, 2015, 08:21:51 PM
QuoteSt. Thomas covers why it's impossible for someone to have OS/venial only:
I'm not discussing that conclusion yet. I'm discussing the premise: There is no place to punish venial sin except purgatory.
You are objecting to the premise by saying "yes there is - and this is what it is: an eternity of lighter pain suitable for punishing venial sin", or maybe "yes there is another possibility: a temporal place before limbo". I am objecting to your answers by saying that they lead to absurd results: "reduction ad absurdum". A statement that leads to absurd conclusions can not be true.
The absurd (or at least repulsive) conclusion to "God sometimes punishes venial sin by an eternity of light pain" is that:
=> God would be giving a punishment that is not befitting the sin. An ETERNITY of any sensible pain does not match the evil of venial sin. The evil of Mortal sin
IN ITSELF is infinitely greater than the evil of Venial sin. This is why the immediate
result of Mortal result is to banish Sanctifying Grace (in effect killing the soul),
in one who has it to start with; but Venial sin merely wounds the soul. Now, if someone does NOT have Sanctifying to start with, Mortal sin is STILL
IN ITSELF infinitely greater than venial sin, even if the immediate
result of the Mortal sin cannot be to banish what is not there to start with (*). An ETERNITY of sensible pain befits the infinite evil of Mortal sin (killing the soul, if the soul is alive), but not the limited evil of Venial sin (wounding the soul). A wound can be healed in time, but not death (as the final state of a human soul).
(*) If a man in the state of grace commits a mortal sin, as a
result he loses Sanctifying Grace (his soul dies). Now if he commits a second mortal sin, he cannot lose what he does not have to start with. And yet is the second mortal sin therefore less evil
in itself than the first?
OR you answer rather that a a temporal place before limbo could punish venial sin (for a man with original sin and venial sin) But the Church teaches that the place for the temporal punishment for venial sin is purgatory, which ends in heaven not limbo. A "purgatory that ends in limbo" would be a novel doctrine.
Possible conclusions to your answer "there can be an eternity of lighter pain suitable for punishing venial sin", or the alternate answer "there can be a temporal place to punish venial sin that ends in limbo", are both repulsive or absurd. Therefore the answers are false (or repulsive). You have not shown that there can be a place to punish venial sin other than purgatory. St. Thomas answers (in effect) - then perhaps venial sin never exists by itself with one in original sin.. and goes on to explain why.
Circular argument. St. Thomas argues that Original Sin and venial sin can not exist alone together because there is no place to punish venial sin except purgatory. You argue that there is no place to punish venial sins because venial sins and Original sins can not exist together.
Getting back to my question regarding the premise: Are venial sins punished in hell?
Quotewhich the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "Today shall you be with me in Paradise."
An error. Christ was in limbo for three days, then resurrected. So the good thief went to limbo. Later he went to heaven.
QuoteJesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father.
So if Cyprian is right, the thief opened the gates of heaven, not Christ.
Quote from: james03 on September 20, 2015, 07:52:51 AM
Circular argument. St. Thomas argues that Original Sin and venial sin can not exist alone together because there is no place to punish venial sin except purgatory. You argue that there is no place to punish venial sins because venial sins and Original sins can not exist together.
Getting back to my question regarding the premise: Are venial sins punished in hell?
No, he argues they cannot exist together because of the rationality required. This automatically results in a good or evil first act, which results in either the remission of original sin and sanctifying grace, or mortal sin.
Quote from: james03 on September 20, 2015, 07:56:15 AM
Quotewhich the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "Today shall you be with me in Paradise."
An error. Christ was in limbo for three days, then resurrected. So the good thief went to limbo. Later he went to heaven.
QuoteJesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father.
So if Cyprian is right, the thief opened the gates of heaven, not Christ.
Um... Christ made an error? There is error in Scripture?
Quote[42] And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. [43] And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
Luke 23
Quote from: Cantarella on September 13, 2015, 10:20:43 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on September 13, 2015, 09:52:32 PM
The key phrase that you miss, because you have no reading comprehension is A person is fit for absolution. Speaking of the Sacrament of Penance. I.e. People who approach the sacrament of penance totally uninstructed in the Catholic faith.
Yes... go on and on until the very end ignoring dogmatic formulas, manipulating language, further interpreting what it needs no further interpretation, and giving just the right ammunition to the Enemies of the Church to reduce the Holy Roman Catholic Church to the same level of any other Christian or pagan sect and yet, you think you resist the liberal abuses of Vatican II, which are precisely founded upon this very matter. Why persist in doing this precisely in these times of crisis, serving as an aid to the diabolical masonic agenda whose main goal is promoting the hyper-egalitarian idea that Jews, Moslems, Hindus and Pagans are all the same and in their path to Heaven? Why not resist the loophole, from the very root, which allows for this betrayal to Our Faith?
Salvation by implicit faith without the Catholic Faith is a grave attack upon Our Faith and the very foundation of Vatican II ecclesiology that traditionalists think resist. There is absolutely nothing in Vatican II Council which cannot be logically traced to the salvific implicit faith novelty. False religions and pseudo Christian sects abound these days precisely because professing Catholics no longer believe salvation is impossible without Jesus Christ and His Church. Ask yourself why do you feel the need to be defending in a Catholic forum the non- necessity of the Catholic Faith (conscious, explicit knowledge of the Gospel) for salvation.
Even Msgr. Fenton agrees that the vast majority of Catholic theologians still held and have always held that the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, (Incarnation and Trinity, at the very least), are necessary for salvation as a means so why choosing to favor precisely the opinion which is more contrary to Christendom's restoration?
Cantarella,
first, an apology for my last two replies to you; they were spoken in the heat of battle and should have been phrased more politely.
In response to what you said about Msgr. Fenton; his book "The Catholic Church and Salvation" states as I have posted before,
that both opinions are tenable by Catholic theologians and neither has been censured.
QuoteMsgr. Fenton pg. 69:
Quote
The Divine public revelation is composed of a certain number of truths or statements. It is quite manifest that genuine and supernatural divine faith can exist and does exist in individuals who have no clear and distinct awareness of some of these truths, but who simply accept them as they are contained and implied in other doctrines. But, in order that faith may exist, there certainly must be some minimum of teachings which are grasped distinctly by the believer and withing which the rest of the revealed message is implied or implicit. Catholic theology holds that it is possible to have genuine divine faith when two, or, according to some writers, four, of these revealed truths are believed distinctly or explicitly. There can be real divine faith when a man believes explicitly, on the authority of God revealing, the existence of God as the head supernatural order, the fact that God rewards good and punishes evil, and the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.
As far as Msgr. Fenton stating that "the vast majority of theologians favor..." the four truths; I read the article posted by Non Nobis, and Msgr's book, and I don't see where he stated this.
As to why I would feel compelled to defend: ".. in a Catholic forum the non- necessity of the Catholic Faith (conscious, explicit knowledge of the Gospel) for salvation. "
But this is what we are precisely arguing about and what Catholic theologians dispute among themselves. A Catholic should state the Church's position on the subject matter and what is permitted and what is not. I have taken the trouble to post approved texts from Catholic authors which state that both positions are tenable. I don't see why I should apologize for this or have to excuse myself.
QuoteSalvation by implicit faith without the Catholic Faith is a grave attack upon Our Faith and the very foundation of Vatican II ecclesiology that traditionalists think resist. There is absolutely nothing in Vatican II Council which cannot be logically traced to the salvific implicit faith novelty. False religions and pseudo Christian sects abound these days precisely because professing Catholics no longer believe salvation is impossible without Jesus Christ and His Church..........
I think it was Chesterton that stated something to the effect that a heresy is a Catholic truth taken out of context and distorted.
Heresies always have an great deal of truth in them and where they depart from Catholic teaching, is that they do not hold to the Catholic interpretation which sets these truths within their correct context and limits.
I would say this, if you read Msgr. Fenton's book "The Catholic Church and Salvation", you can see where the apparently contradictory statements of "No salvation outside the Church" and those that hold out hope for the salvation for men who die without actually being members of the Church can be reconciled inside of Catholic doctrine.
QuoteUm... Christ made an error? There is error in Scripture?
No, paradise is limbo. Abraham was also in paradise in the parable.
As I said, if Christ meant heaven by paradise, then the thief beat Christ to heaven.
QuoteNo, he argues they cannot exist together because of the rationality required.
Alright, then explain the rationality involved. Why can't someone with Original sin commit a venial sin before a mortal sin?
St. Thomas's argument is that all the heathens (except some small number which we have no evidence of), commit the worst mortal sins possible upon reaching the age of reason. His argument is that from the point of reason, the heathen must renounce his false religions and become Catholic. If they don't they commit grievious mortal sins worse than murder and abortion.
So you either have 2 cases:
1. The heathen rejects his false religion. God responds with the light of Faith, and they receive baptism of desire and become Catholic. So no more Original sin.
2. They don't reject their false religion, so they are in mortal sin, worse than a planned parenthood organ harvestor. (irreligion and superstition are considered the worst mortal sins).
That is his argument. I disagree. I think the heathen that goes to the pow wow and worships the Great Thumb at age 12 is being obedient to his parents. This for the case where there is nothing horrible like human sacrifice. So Pongo goes to the pow wow. They say some prayers to the Thumb, party, eat good food, and socialize with friends. I consider that venial sin. If Pongo is later captured by the neighboring tribe and thrown into their cook pot, he'd go to hell to some higher level with minimal suffering. Most likely he'd be better off than during his life.
Quote from: james03 on September 20, 2015, 04:26:28 PM
QuoteUm... Christ made an error? There is error in Scripture?
No, paradise is limbo. Abraham was also in paradise in the parable.
As I said, if Christ meant heaven by paradise, then the thief beat Christ to heaven.
All in the Limbo of the Fathers (Abraham's Bosom) were saved.
Cyprian never says heaven.
He was, however, using the argument that the man's faith saved him.
Just like every other jew that made it to limbo.
Quote from: Gardener on September 20, 2015, 12:41:03 AM
He was only speaking of the Sacrament in your provided link.
He was also only addressing the pelagian error, not offering a whole treatment.
Further, the example provided was one never recanted of (BoB), and I'm not by any means convinced that his anti-pelagian writings were anything but contextual to pelagian error which BoD is most certainly not.
The Baptism of Blood is
Martyrdom and it is another topic.
Mr. Gardener, what is St. Augustine saying here?:
Quote from: St. Augustine in "Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed"
In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God does not remit sins but to the baptized The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? When they are baptized. The sins which are after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized that He remits. For how can they say, "Our Father," who are not yet born sons? The Catechumens, so long as they be such, have upon them all their sins. If Catechumens, how much more Pagans? How much more heretics? But to heretics we do not change their baptism. Why? Because they have baptism in the same way as a deserter has the soldier's mark: just so these also have Baptism; they have it, but to be condemned thereby, not crowned. And yet if the deserter himself, being amended, begin to do duty as a soldier, does any man dare to change his mark?
Quote from: james03 on September 20, 2015, 04:43:30 PM
Just like every other jew that made it to limbo.
And were saved... and went to heaven.
What exactly are you even arguing? You're not addressing the actual text. Nowhere did Augustine say Cyprian relayed the thief went to heaven before Christ.
I'm not sure what your point even is.
First, let me state I believe in baptism by blood. That being said:
Quote30. That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "Today shall you be with me in Paradise."
1. The good thief was not martyred.
2. The good thief was probably circumcized.
3. The good thief was under the old law. So him making it to limbo really doesn't prove anything. Many of the jews that died that same week went to limbo without baptism.
This post in reference to Ven. Maria of Agreda, is interesting, in the light of our current discussion:
http://www.womanthouartgod.com/mariaagredabluenun.php
Quote
THE BLUE NUN
SOURCE: The Mysterious Valley
JUST A NUN FROM AGREDA
Another notable character on our journey is Sister Marie de Jesus Agreda, born April 2, 1602, in Agreda, Spain. Christened Maria Fernandez Coronel, she donned the blue habit and took her vows as a nun in the Franciscan order, and in 1627 she became abbess of the Agreda Franciscan monastery until her death in 1665. The Encyclopedia Britannica states:
"Her virtues and holy life were universally acknowledged, but controversy arose over her mystical writings, her political influence, and her missionary activities (my italics). Her best known work is The Mystical City of God (1670), a life of the Virgin Mary ostensibly based on divine revelations granted to Maria. It was placed on the Index Libroum Prohibitorum in 1681, but the ban was lifted in 1747." 10
THE 502 RAPTURES
In 1620, teenaged Sister Maria of Agreda, began having unnerving visions, or raptures. Cloistered in the convent, she would meditate for hours, sometimes all day, and return and tell her fellow sisters wondrous stories of her "over 500" spiritual travels to a faraway land, meeting savages and telling them of the Word of Christ. She experienced many of these episodes of rapturous meditation and bi-location, and word began to spread of the young nun in the convent. Finally, convinced of the reality of her experiences, she wrote a book in which she described, in great detail, her missionary work bringing the Word of Christ to the savages of The New World. In early Fifteenth-Century Spain, this was not a prudent claim to make during the height of the Holy Inquisition, which quickly put to death untold thousands found "guilty" of witchcraft and dealings with demonic forces.* (sic). Before long the Inquisition took a pointed interest in the good Sister of Agreda, and she found herself at the center of a dangerous, whirling controversy. She insisted to the Father Inquisitor that she was indeed bi-locating and doing God's work, but to no avail. A very public trial ensued with the full brunt of the powerful Church bearing down on the poor nun from Agreda. During the height of her trial, a newly returned expedition of conquistadors and friars arrived in Spain with a wondrous tale.
A PUZZLING SCENARIO
It seems that the Spanish explorers, while in the unexplored region north of Mexico, had encountered numerous Native American tribes in New Mexico, Arizona and Texas who had already been converted to Christianity, and somehow knew of "Jesus Christ" the Savior. Even more fantastic were the Indian's claims of being visited by a white-skinned "Blue Lady" who appeared to many, drifting in a blue haze while she preached the word of the Lord in their native languages. She helped them to build crosses and places of worship, and even handed out rosaries and religious objects.
"From 1620 to approximately 1631 the Spanish nun flew from Spain to the North American State of New Mexico on more than 500 occasions. Thus it was established in the open case of the Holy Inquisition against the nun in 1635, in which it was affirmed further that no one in the convent noticed her absence during those flights. On occasion they would happen twice during the same day. . . How then can we explain a woman of scarcely eighteen years of age that could bi-locate to New Mexico, and while there, she would dedicate herself to distribute among the natives rosaries and other liturgical objects as she instructed them about the truth of the Christian faith. . . Her trips occurred shortly before the diocese of Mexico decided to send evangelizers [north] towards those unexplored territories. Her visits made their efforts considerably easier. 11"
POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE CONQUEST OF NEW MEXICO
These first Spanish explorers to the Southwest were amazed by the Natives knowledge of Christianity and were baffled by the rosaries they were shown and by their earnest descriptions of the "Blue Lady" that had come from afar and preached to them.
"Finally, when the first Franciscans, led by Friar Benvenedes, arrived [at the Isleta Pueblo] they discovered a singular spectacle. Thousands of Indians approached the Franciscans and asked earnestly for baptism. 12"
Benvenedes wrote later of the Spaniard's efforts to ascertain how the Indians had foreknowledge of Christianity:
"'When those Indians were asked to tell us what was the reason for which, with so much affection, they asked for baptism and religious indoctrination, they answered that a woman had come and preached to each one of them in their own tongue. 13'"
The rapid Spanish conquest and control of New Mexico in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries may have partially been due to Sister Agreda's solo missionary efforts on behalf of a bewildered Catholic Church.
"Only in New Mexico did the Franciscans baptize more than 50,000 people in record time and rapidly install twenty-five missions and minister to more than ninety towns. The Indians remembered with special veneration the Blue Lady, the one whom they gave this name due to her blue mantle of celestial tones she wore on her back. 14" During the mid-Sixteen-hundreds, the celebrated bi-locating nun from Agreda garnered national notoriety. King Philip of Spain may have enlisted her help in foreign affairs, and it is firmly documented that the king carried on a life-long correspondence with her. It is surmised by some that Sister Agreda may have even bi-located to foreign courts on covert foreign-policy missions on behalf of Spain. Now one would think that this story, alone, is compelling, but the unbelievable saga of our talented nun and her doppleganger-twin does not end there.
*Note, The Inquisition and witchcraft: The Inquisition never put anybody to death for witchcraft; and never put anybody "quickly to death" without first a very thorough investigative process, trial and opportunity for those that were found guilty of heresy or other crimes to repent from their errors; and thus avoid Capital punishment.
I want to tie this in with St. Thomas and his theory about God sending an angel to catechize a lone savage in the forest theory.
This is a documented case where God actually sent a missionary to the "savages in the forest"; and it is indeed extraordinary. But as Fr. Most explains in his book "Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God": "The extraordinary can never become ordinary." In other words, the Spanish missionaries encountered pagans that explicitly believed in the truths of the Catholic faith, and requested to be Baptized; but this is the only case of the millions of Indians that were converted and Baptized by the missionaries. We do not have any other proof that God did send an Angel to instruct the ignorant natives of the true faith. But does that mean that the other millions that were not evangelized by an Angel were lost? But God plants into the hearts of all men the belief in God and the natural law, so that all men with the co-operation of His grace have at least the possibility of obtaining eternal salvation. Here is the article on Perfect Contrition, which argues quite persuasively for God's universal salvific will;
By REV. F. QUIRIJNEN, S.J.
http://www.ecatholic2000.com/cts/untitled-343.shtml
QuoteIV. IS IT EASY TO HAVE PERFECT CONTRITION?
We have already cleared the ground for the answer by insisting on two points: (1) Perfect Contrition must proceed from the pure love of God, but does not exclude other motives. (2) No special degree of intensity or duration, no sensible sorrow, no tears and sighs are required for Perfect Contrition.
Evidently it is more difficult to make an act of Perfect than of imperfect Contrition. It is also clear that fervent Christians more easily make acts of Perfect Contrition than the lukewarm. But is Perfect Contrition difficult to obtain for one who has begun to be sorry for his sins? Is it beyond the power of the ordinary man of good will who tries to live up to his moral standards, but is too weak always to avoid mortal sin?
The answer is a decided NO. Any one who sincerely wishes it can with the grace of God make acts of Perfect Contrition. This can be clearly proved from the revelation God has given us about His dealings with men.
Contrition derives its perfection from the love of God. Hence to prove that acts of pure love of God are easy is equivalently to prove that Perfect Contrition is easy. From both the Old and the New Testaments it appears that God has imposed on all men a strict command to make acts of the love of God. Jesus, when asked, Which is the great commandment of the Law? answered:
Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment.
Now, God is a Father. There is no Father like Him. His feelings are apparent from the fact that while we were yet sinners,He sent His only begotten Son into the world and delivered Him up for us. His proper quality, says the Church, is ever to have mercy and to spare.-His mercy is from generation unto generation, sings the Blessed Virgin in her Magnificat and who knew the Heavenly Father better than Mary, herself the perfect created mirror of God's mercy?
Does a Father burden his children with hard precepts? Still less does God command impossibilities. When commanding, as the. . Council of Trent says, God admonishes thee to do what thou art able and to pray for what thou art not able, and in proof of this assertion, the Council quotes St John, who says His commandments are not heavy, and Christ's own words, My yoke is sweet and my burden light. When God commands, at the same time He enlightens. When He asks something, He gives the strength to do it. Hence, the very fact that our loving Heavenly Father, who knows the ignorance and weakness of the masses of men of all times and places, requires us to make acts of the love of God is sufficient proof that it must be easy to make such acts.
In order that, the commandment of love may be fulfilled, St. Francis of Sales writes, God leaves no living man without furnishing him abundantly with all the means required. He gives us not a bare sufficiency of means to love Him and in loving Him to save ourselves, but also a rich, ample and magnificent sufficiency-such as ought to be expected from so great a bounty as His.
We come to the same conclusion by another argument. God wants to have all men. Hence His Providence furnishes all without exception with the means whereby they can be reconciled with Him. Before Christ the only means for adults was Perfect Contrition, so it is even now for all those who, for want of knowledge or opportunity, cannot avail themselves of the Christian Sacraments that is to say, for the vast majority of men. Who then can tolerate the thought that this solitary plank, Perfect Contrition, thus made necessary by God, would be so slippery that only a few can seize and hold it, or that this ark of salvation would be so hard to enter into that the vast majority of those for whom it is intended must remain out of it and perish in the deluge? No, God does not impose on us a sorrow for sins that is beyond the power of even the weakest person of good will.
This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the Church constantly urges us to make acts of Perfect Contrition. What she officially teaches in her catechisms to all her children, in the world or in religion, illiterate and learned, the tepid and the fervent, sinner and saint, is an Act of Perfect Contrition. Now, the Church, a tender Mother- pia mater Ecclesia-.does not require from her children anything that is beyond their power. Hence, beyond a doubt, in her mind Perfect Contrition is easy to all. Only one thing can make it difficult, to us-our want of confidence in God's mercy....
Footnote on a footnote: When I say that "the Inquisition never put anyone to death for witchcraft, I mean the Spanish Inquisition, which is what the author of the article was referring to.
Quote from: Michael Wilson
As far as Msgr. Fenton stating that "the vast majority of theologians favor..." the four truths; I read the article posted by Non Nobis, and Msgr's book, and I don't see where he stated this.
He stated this in his article "explaining" the teaching of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office, taken from the American Ecclesiastical Review, December, 1952, pages 450-461, published by the Catholic University of America Press:
Quote from: Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton on "The Holy Office Letter On The Necessity Of The Catholic Church"
Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God's existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.
http://www.romancatholicism.org/fenton/letter.html
Quote from: james03 on September 20, 2015, 08:54:00 PM
First, let me state I believe in baptism by blood. That being said:
Quote30. That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, "Today shall you be with me in Paradise."
1. The good thief was not martyred.
2. The good thief was probably circumcized.
3. The good thief was under the old law. So him making it to limbo really doesn't prove anything. Many of the jews that died that same week went to limbo without baptism.
Christ seemed to think it proved something. The good thief was not forgiven unto salvation because of circumcision and implicit faith in the Redeemer to come, but directly by Christ the Redeemer himself. Christ can forgive sin directly without the Sacrament of Baptism at any time He chooses, when the Sacrament is impossible to a man who repents as the good thief did. If Christ meant that He was with the thief first in the limbo of the fathers, that does not change the fact that Christ directly forgave a repentant sinner unto salvation with no power other than His own.
Just as He forgave every jew under the Old Law.
It is interesting, to have to argue with Catholics by using apologetics taught for arguing against prots. You know, prots that say you don't need to be baptized.
I had the same debate with a prot as I now am having with Non Nobis. I guess I need to track him down and apologize. "Yeah, you were right. Catholics got it wrong. It could be that it is just Faith is all you need, though another one is telling me a jew can die a jew and go to heaven, so maybe it is just being nice that gets you saved."
Quote from: Cantarella on September 20, 2015, 06:57:26 PM
Quote from: Gardener on September 20, 2015, 12:41:03 AM
He was only speaking of the Sacrament in your provided link.
He was also only addressing the pelagian error, not offering a whole treatment.
Further, the example provided was one never recanted of (BoB), and I'm not by any means convinced that his anti-pelagian writings were anything but contextual to pelagian error which BoD is most certainly not.
The Baptism of Blood is Martyrdom and it is another topic.
Mr. Gardener, what is St. Augustine saying here?:
Quote from: St. Augustine in "Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed"
In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God does not remit sins but to the baptized The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? When they are baptized. The sins which are after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized that He remits. For how can they say, "Our Father," who are not yet born sons? The Catechumens, so long as they be such, have upon them all their sins. If Catechumens, how much more Pagans? How much more heretics? But to heretics we do not change their baptism. Why? Because they have baptism in the same way as a deserter has the soldier's mark: just so these also have Baptism; they have it, but to be condemned thereby, not crowned. And yet if the deserter himself, being amended, begin to do duty as a soldier, does any man dare to change his mark?
Three day ban for arguing for Feeneyite errors.
Quote from: james03 on September 21, 2015, 06:11:43 AM
It is interesting, to have to argue with Catholics by using apologetics taught for arguing against prots. You know, prots that say you don't need to be baptized.
I had the same debate with a prot as I now am having with Non Nobis. I guess I need to track him down and apologize. "Yeah, you were right. Catholics got it wrong. It could be that it is just Faith is all you need, though another one is telling me a jew can die a jew and go to heaven, so maybe it is just being nice that gets you saved."
St. Dismas confessed Christ. He was therefore made a member of the Church. Even if the law of baptism was not in effect at that point, the point remains: God can directly forgive sins without binding Himself to the appropriate Sacraments. He only binds us on what is possible to us. If He were to bind us on what is impossible, it would be unjust.
Quote from: Cantarella on September 20, 2015, 11:37:15 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson
As far as Msgr. Fenton stating that "the vast majority of theologians favor..." the four truths; I read the article posted by Non Nobis, and Msgr's book, and I don't see where he stated this.
He stated this in his article "explaining" the teaching of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office, taken from the American Ecclesiastical Review, December, 1952, pages 450-461, published by the Catholic University of America Press:
Quote from: Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton on "The Holy Office Letter On The Necessity Of The Catholic Church"
Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God's existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.
http://www.romancatholicism.org/fenton/letter.html
thank you; I completely missed this; however "most" and "vast majority" are not the same thing; but even conceding that they were; the fact is that the Church allows both opinions; which is what I have been arguing, against James and yourself, who claim that the second opinion has been condemned by the Church.
Quote from: james03 on September 21, 2015, 06:11:43 AM
It is interesting, to have to argue with Catholics by using apologetics taught for arguing against prots. You know, prots that say you don't need to be baptized.
I had the same debate with a prot as I now am having with Non Nobis. I guess I need to track him down and apologize. "Yeah, you were right. Catholics got it wrong. It could be that it is just Faith is all you need, though another one is telling me a jew can die a jew and go to heaven, so maybe it is just being nice that gets you saved."
That was completely unjustified.
I have in fact agreed that explicit faith is necessary for salvation. My speculation has been that God will give explicit knowledge at the end (just before death) to those who He wills - those whose repentance HE accepts, NOT someone a liberal accepts, NOT those who are "nice", and NOT a "jew who dies a jew". This is to give them a
chance to accept what they needed to be taught, as a catechumen does; or reject it and go to hell. A jew who accepts this truth will no longer be a jew.
You
yourself believe that a catechumen, by explicit desire or by blood, can receive Baptism of Desire and be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism when it is impossible.
If you are going to insult me, you should also insult someone else you should say argues like a protestant: St. Thomas Aquinas, when he says:
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas de Veritate Q. 14: Faith ARTICLE XI
1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. 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)..
Quote from: james03 on September 21, 2015, 06:08:39 AM
Just as He forgave every jew under the Old Law.
Christ actually forgave the thief in a way different than He forgave
anyone else (unto salvation) - speaking to him as Christ in person:Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and with all His accidents. The thief saw Him and heard Him.
IF the thief did not have circumcision, do you think Christ couldn't have forgiven Him? Christ doesn't depend on circumcision; and whether He forgives with His human appearance present or without it, He doesn't depend on the Sacrament of Baptism. He does COMMAND it, but He can forgive without it, when the command is impossible.
QuoteThis post in reference to Ven. Maria of Agreda, is interesting, in the light of our current discussion:
Very relevant. Note she preached Christ, the Trinity, the Church, and baptism. These people had an ardent desire to be baptized when the missionaries arrived.
QuoteEven if the law of baptism was not in effect at that point, the point remains: God can directly forgive sins without binding Himself to the appropriate Sacraments.
No, the point (St. Cyprian) is refuted. The good thief was not martyred. And he was under the old law.
There were other sinners under the old law whom Jesus said, "Your faith has saved you." They all went to Limbo also.
QuoteHe only binds us on what is possible to us. If He were to bind us on what is impossible, it would be unjust.
And again, if God set the requirements for salvation such that only a handful were (and could be) saved (He doesn't), it would not be unjust, because we are born lost, and salvation is a Grace.
When you get this premise wrong, you will be complete wrong on Catholic soteriology.
QuoteChrist actually forgave the thief in a way different than He forgave anyone else (unto salvation) - speaking to him as Christ in person:Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and with all His accidents. The thief saw Him and heard Him.
Quote from: Luke 5And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in, because of the multitude, they went up upon the roof, and let him down through the tiles with his bed into the midst before Jesus. [20] Whose faith when he saw, he said: Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
He went to Limbo like the good thief.
QuoteThat was completely unjustified.
No, it was sincere. It was bothering me on the back of my brain, then I remembered I had this same conversation with a prot. However when I pointed out to the prot that the good thief was under the old law, he condeded the point.
And it is a minor point. I admit baptism of blood. However the good thief was under the old law, most likely circumcised, and was most definitely not a martyr. So the account of his conversion and forgiveness proves nothing with regards to baptism. None of this is in question.
Quote from: james03 on September 22, 2015, 12:06:31 PM
QuoteChrist actually forgave the thief in a way different than He forgave anyone else (unto salvation) - speaking to him as Christ in person:Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and with all His accidents. The thief saw Him and heard Him.
Quote from: Luke 5And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in, because of the multitude, they went up upon the roof, and let him down through the tiles with his bed into the midst before Jesus. [20] Whose faith when he saw, he said: Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
He went to Limbo like the good thief.
The man in that passage: he merely had his sins forgiven him is all it's saying. We don't know whether or not he sinned after that from the text.
St. Dismas was told specifically he was going to be saved and in Paradise, which means Abraham's Bosom, which means he was definitely going to heaven after Christ opened the doors to heaven.
That's far different from telling someone they are forgiven at that moment.
------
re: unjust/soteriology.
It would be unjust because it would make God a tyrant who commands the impossible:
QuoteNevertheless God does not command the impossible, and grants even to those who do not actually observe His commandments the power of observing them.
But those who observe His commandments are better than others and would not keep them in fact, had not God from eternity efficaciously decreed that they should observe these precepts. Thus, these good servants of God are more beloved and assisted by Him than others, although God does not command the impossible of the others.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace5.htm
QuoteSt. Augustine had clearly affirmed that "God does not command what is impossible, but in commanding admonishes thee to do what thou canst and to ask for what thou canst not do."(31) God never commands what is impossible, otherwise no one could avoid committing actual sin, which in this case would no longer be a sin, and the divine chastisements inflicted for such would be a manifest injustice. To say that God never commands the impossible means that He wills to make it really possible for all to comply with the precepts imposed upon them and to do so when they are imposed. Thus He wills to make their salvation really possible, though He does not lead them all efficaciously to eternal life. Moreover, St. Augustine again and again, without adding any restrictions, explained St. Paul's text that "Christ dies for all."(32)
http://www.thesumma.info/predestination/predestination8.php
Were anything of God's commands impossible, it would be an injustice because:
QuoteChapter 159
THAT IT IS REASONABLE TO HOLD A MAN RESPONSIBLE IF HE DOES NOT TURN TOWARD GOD, EVEN THOUGH HE CANNOT DO THIS WITHOUT GRACE
[1]I As we gather from the foregoing,since one cannot be directed to the ultimate end except by means of divine grace, without which no one can possess the things needed to work toward the ultimate end, such as faith, hope, love, and perseverance, it might seem to some person that man should not be held responsible for the lack of such aids. Especially so, since he cannot merit the help of divine grace, nor turn toward God unless God convert him, for no one is held responsible for what depends on another. Now, if this is granted, many inappropriate conclusions appear. In fact, it follows that he who has neither faith, hope, nor love of God, nor perseverance in the good, is not deserving of punishment; whereas, it is clearly stated in John (3:36): "He who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." And since no one reaches final happiness without the aids that we have mentioned, it follows that there are certain men who neither attain happiness nor suffer punishment from God. The contrary of this is shown from the statement in Matthew (25:34, 41) that to all who are present at the divine judgment, it will be said: "Come... possess you the kingdom prepared for you" or "Depart ... into everlasting fire."
[2] To settle this difficulty, we ought to consider that, although one may neither merit in advance nor call forth divine grace by a movement of his free choice, he is able to prevent himself from receiving this grace: Indeed, it is said in Job(21:34): "Who have said to God: Depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of Your ways"; and in Job (24:13): "They have been rebellious to the light." And since this ability to impede or not to impede the reception of divine grace is within the scope of free choice, not undeservedly is responsibility for the fault imputed to him who offers an impediment to the reception of grace. In fact, as far as He is concerned, God is ready to give grace to all; "indeed He wills all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth," as is said in 1 Timothy (2:4).But those alone are deprived of grace who offer an obstacle within themselves to grace; just as, while the sun is shining on the world, the man who keeps his eyes closed is held responsible for his fault, if as a result some evil follows, even though he could not see unless he were provided in advance with light from the sun.
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/ContraGentiles3b.htm#159
QuoteSt. Dismas was told specifically he was going to be saved and in Paradise, which means Abraham's Bosom, which means he was definitely going to heaven after Christ opened the doors to heaven.
Non sequitur. The passage has nothing to do with Baptism of Blood.
QuoteAnd again, if God set the requirements for salvation such that only a handful were (and could be) saved (He doesn't), it would not be unjust, because we are born lost, and salvation is a Grace.
When you get this premise wrong, you will be complete wrong on Catholic soteriology.
Your quotes do not refute the above. Also, it is hard to tell what St. Augustine acutally said.
Actually, this supports my point:
QuoteBut those who observe His commandments are better than others and would not keep them in fact, had not God from eternity efficaciously decreed that they should observe these precepts. Thus, these good servants of God are more beloved and assisted by Him than others, although God does not command the impossible of the others.
Same with the Contra Gentiles quote.
Quote from: james03 on September 22, 2015, 11:53:30 AM
QuoteThis post in reference to Ven. Maria of Agreda, is interesting, in the light of our current discussion:
Very relevant. Note she preached Christ, the Trinity, the Church, and baptism. These people had an ardent desire to be baptized when the missionaries arrived.
Yes,
but the point is that Ven. Agreda is a unique case. If God demanded that in order for someone to be saved they had to explicitly know the contents to the "quicumque" as you appear to hold; then how did God communicate this to those who lived and died in areas that never saw a missionary? We are speaking of millions upon millions of souls? One could claim with St. Thomas that God would send an Angel to each and every one of them; which would require an extraordinary act outside of God's normal providence; or that God in His ordinary providence had not provided for such an eventuality. Or one could, according to many Catholic theologians advance the theory that those who had never heard of the Catholic religion could be saved by believing in the two essential truths; or one could simply affirm that those who never heard of the Catholic religion lost their souls. To me it appears that the "believing in two essential truths" is a more reasonable solution is more in accord with God's ordinary providence, that does not make use of miracles except in extraordinary circumstances; and is in accord with Catholic teaching.
ps. Please do not answer with the "Quicumque" argument again, as it has no direct bearing on this subject, as I and others have already explained several times. However, if you do, then I will simply stop arguing with you.
Quote from: james03 on September 22, 2015, 11:59:58 AM
Quote from: GardenerHe only binds us on what is possible to us. If He were to bind us on what is impossible, it would be unjust.
And again, if God set the requirements for salvation such that only a handful were (and could be) saved (He doesn't), it would not be unjust, because we are born lost, and salvation is a Grace.
When you get this premise wrong, you will be complete wrong on Catholic soteriology.
You think that because salvation is a Grace God could have justly commanded the impossible? That doesn't follow.
It is impossible for us to do ANYTHING without God, but God is always there so it IS always possible for us to obey His commands (*). If we don't it is because we resist the sufficient grace He gives us. God gives more grace to some than to others (He love us unequally), but He gives all sufficient grace. It WOULD be unjust for Him to send someone to the everlasting fires of hell for not doing something that is impossible to them (even with God's help). This is true no matter how many or few are saved.
God does not command us to do good WITHOUT Him; that is impossible, but He does not command it. It would certainly be unjust if He commanded us to do good without His help (an absurdity; He would be cruel, making us a plaything - not an all-good and all-benevolent God). God could not do such a thing, no matter how He "set up the requirements" for salvation.
Salvation is a Grace, but God offers it and makes it possible to all, including the reprobate. Christ redeemed all men. God's help is sufficient.
Your personal conclusions about predestination and sufficient and efficacious grace are doubtful if they cause you to deny the Catholic common sense truth that God does not command the impossible.
(*) Externally following God's commands in some specific instance may be impossible to an individual, e.g. it may be impossible to make it to Church on one Sunday, but God does not hold you to the external observance of the command in that case, but just to its internal observance.
Dup
Quote from: non nobisYou think that because salvation is a Grace God could have justly commanded the impossible? That doesn't follow.
God has commanded that baptism, or an ardent desire for it, are needed for salvation. Unbaptized babies and children before the age of reason are not saved. And it is impossible for them to be saved, as they have no say in the matter.
Let me repost my point, so we can keep things precise:
QuoteAnd again, if God set the requirements for salvation such that only a handful were (and could be) saved (He doesn't), it would not be unjust, because we are born lost, and salvation is a Grace.
The HUGE problem in the Catholic Church and the world at large (e.g. social "justice") is the incapability to understand what is meant by the term "justice". On salvation, it can not get any simpler. Salvation is mercy and a Grace from God. It is free and unearned, as in God is not under any obligation. Therefore He can set the requirements wherever He determines He wants them for His own purpose. If in the end only a handful of people were saved, there would be nothing unjust about it. If God only wanted red heads in heaven, and that was the requirement, there would be nothing unjust about that. If you can't accept this, you will err on Catholic soteriology.
As far as God "commanding the impossible", that is such an imprecise phrase, I can not even comment on it. I'll say this: God does not PUNISH those who fail to do what is impossible for them to do.
QuoteYes,
but the point is that Ven. Agreda is a unique case. If God demanded that in order for someone to be saved they had to explicitly know the contents to the "quicumque" as you appear to hold; then how did God communicate this to those who lived and died in areas that never saw a missionary? We are speaking of millions upon millions of souls?
1. We do not know the uniqueness of the case, but it is probably very rare.
2. God can set the requirements for salvation wherever He wants. He is under no obligation to save us, and can leave us in our natural state anytime He wants.
3. It is beyond millions and millions. Billions are lost. Our Lord Himself compared the numbers as a wide path and a narrow path, and that few were saved.
Quote from: james03 on September 24, 2015, 06:32:27 AM
... On salvation, it can not get any simpler. Salvation is mercy and a Grace from God. It is free and unearned, as in God is not under any obligation. Therefore He can set the requirements wherever He determines He wants them for His own purpose. If in the end only a handful of people were saved, there would be nothing unjust about it. If God only wanted red heads in heaven, and that was the requirement, there would be nothing unjust about that...
Yet Pius IX said, "
Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." That seems to suggest He
wouldn't make arbitrary requirements.
QuoteYet Pius IX said, "Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." That seems to suggest He wouldn't make arbitrary requirements.
Non sequitur. We are discussing the requirements for salvation and whether God owes us. I've already stated that God does not PUNISH people unjustly, so there is nothing to debate with regards to that point.
And nowhere have I said His secret purpose is arbitrary. In my example, I stated that God could prefer red heads and want only red heads in heaven. That would not be arbitrary, but would reflect His preference for red headed people in heaven.
Quote from: james03 on September 24, 2015, 06:35:39 AM
QuoteYes,
but the point is that Ven. Agreda is a unique case. If God demanded that in order for someone to be saved they had to explicitly know the contents to the "quicumque" as you appear to hold; then how did God communicate this to those who lived and died in areas that never saw a missionary? We are speaking of millions upon millions of souls?
1. We do not know the uniqueness of the case, but it is probably very rare.
2. God can set the requirements for salvation wherever He wants. He is under no obligation to save us, and can leave us in our natural state anytime He wants.
3. It is beyond millions and millions. Billions are lost. Our Lord Himself compared the numbers as a wide path and a narrow path, and that few were saved.
#1. As I said, it is the only known case. There have been many other cases of bi-location in the History of the Church; but none that we know of that went over to the Americas (or anywhere else) and preached to the Heathens. It is entirely unique.
#2. God could have left the human race in the same position after the fall of Adam; however, He decreed that His Son would offer Himself as the redeemer of the human race. Christ by His passion and death, paid an infinite price for the salvation of all men. God is therefore under an obligation to His Son to offer every human being an opportunity to obtain eternal salvation.
#3. Yes agreed; but God does not will "antecedently" that any man should lose his soul; He therefore offers to each and every one sufficient grace to obtain eternal salvation. Men by their free will, either accept or reject this grace; therefore "consequently" they will either be saved or lost.
The question that we have been discussing therefore, is what does a man that has never heard of the Catholic Church; and never will, have to do to attain to eternal salvation?
QuoteGod is therefore under an obligation to His Son to offer every human being an opportunity to obtain eternal salvation.
You have it backward. The Father gives to the Son whom He has predestined to salvation.
Quote#3. Yes agreed; but God does not will "antecedently" that any man should lose his soul;
He doesn't have to will a man to be lost. We are born lost. He wills the elect to be saved.
QuoteHe therefore offers to each and every one sufficient grace to obtain eternal salvation.
I imagine that on judgment day it will be revealed that I, a Catholic with the help of the sacraments, rejected over 1000 graces per year. This "one grace" fallacy is a big problem.
QuoteMen by their free will, either accept or reject this grace; therefore "consequently" they will either be saved or lost.
And if they are not predestined to election, they will infallibly fall, since their life is not congruent to accepting the graces.
QuoteThe question that we have been discussing therefore, is what does a man that has never heard of the Catholic Church; and never will, have to do to attain to eternal salvation?
Barring a miracle from God, there is nothing he can do. God created him in a situation that is not congruent with his being saved. He is lost, just as there is nothing an unbaptized child can do before the age of reason.
Quote from: james03 on September 24, 2015, 06:32:27 AM
Quote from: non nobisYou think that because salvation is a Grace God could have justly commanded the impossible? That doesn't follow.
God has commanded that baptism, or an ardent desire for it, are needed for salvation. Unbaptized babies and children before the age of reason are not saved. And it is impossible for them to be saved, as they have no say in the matter.
God does not PUNISH those who fail to do what is impossible for them to do.
There is a general command to receive baptism, but God does not bind a unbaptized baby to that general command. His parents are commanded to have the baby baptized, and should obey, but the baby cannot obey because he has no reason. A baby can't obey or disobey.
The reason an unbaptized baby goes only to limbo and not heaven is not because he disobeyed a command that was impossible to him, but because he does not have Sanctifying Grace that is necessary for heaven. Sanctifying Grace is an effect of both the Sacrament of Baptism and Baptism of Desire.
"God does not command the impossible" I agree is not precise, but it is often used and is not meaningless. I am using the words in this way: God's command (to a reasoning individual) is binding under the pain of actual sin (disobedience to God is always an actual sin). But it can't be an actual sin for man to not do something that is truly impossible to him (and not made possible by God). In this sense, God does not command the impossible.
Quote from: james03 on September 24, 2015, 04:48:27 PM
QuoteThe question that we have been discussing therefore, is what does a man that has never heard of the Catholic Church; and never will, have to do to attain to eternal salvation?
Barring a miracle from God, there is nothing he can do. God created him in a situation that is not congruent with his being saved. He is lost, just as there is nothing an unbaptized child can do before the age of reason.
It is true that if a man is not elect he is reprobate. It is ALSO true that he is reprobate because HE freely rejects God's graces, NOT because God put him in a situation that is not congruent with salvation. ANY external situation can co-exist with a path to salvation; otherwise it would not be true that God's grace is sufficient for all. It IS true that some situations make it HARDER to learn and do good and be saved, but NONE make it impossible, for a reasoning adult.
In quotes that we have seen, St. Thomas explains that over
all the ages all men have had some way to have faith and be saved - whether by implicit or explicit faith of some kind or in later ages by baptism or baptism of desire. Even heathens have this available to them (how often have I quoted this):
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas de Veritate Q. 14: Faith ARTICLE XI
1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. 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)..
It seems to me that you are denying THIS:
For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance.
Above it is clear that St. Thomas is talking about ADULTS who do not know yet what is to believed. Unreasoning babies are a separate case.
It is not GOD who places the hindrance, as I think YOU are saying.
Quote from: james03 on September 24, 2015, 04:48:27 PM
QuoteMen by their free will, either accept or reject this grace; therefore "consequently" they will either be saved or lost.
And if they are not predestined to election, they will infallibly fall, since their life is not congruent to accepting the graces.
What is the point of doing anything? If you're elect, you're saved; if you're not, you're not. Why get baptised, even? Why try to convert people? One is either elect or one isn't. Nothing we can do can change that. God's will cannot be thwarted. So, what is the point? What was the crucifixion for??
(Not what I think, btw; just the consequence of what james03 seems to be saying.)
Quote from: james03 on September 24, 2015, 04:48:27 PM
QuoteGod is therefore under an obligation to His Son to offer every human being an opportunity to obtain eternal salvation.
You have it backward. The Father gives to the Son whom He has predestined to salvation.
Quote#3. Yes agreed; but God does not will "antecedently" that any man should lose his soul;
He doesn't have to will a man to be lost. We are born lost. He wills the elect to be saved.
QuoteHe therefore offers to each and every one sufficient grace to obtain eternal salvation.
I imagine that on judgment day it will be revealed that I, a Catholic with the help of the sacraments, rejected over 1000 graces per year. This "one grace" fallacy is a big problem.
QuoteMen by their free will, either accept or reject this grace; therefore "consequently" they will either be saved or lost.
And if they are not predestined to election, they will infallibly fall, since their life is not congruent to accepting the graces.
QuoteThe question that we have been discussing therefore, is what does a man that has never heard of the Catholic Church; and never will, have to do to attain to eternal salvation?
Barring a miracle from God, there is nothing he can do. God created him in a situation that is not congruent with his being saved. He is lost, just as there is nothing an unbaptized child can do before the age of reason.
James,
Clare and Non have responded for me on the subject of "not predestined...(therefore) will fall".
However on the "backward": I think that you have it wrong: The Father would not be able to give anybody to the Son, if the Son had not first offered an infinite reparation to His Father for the sin of Adam and for all the sins of mankind. The human race after the sin of Adam was in the state of damnation, but the Father was pleased to send His Son into the world for the salvation of men.
ref. Born lost: Yes, but in God's providence; in virtue of the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross; offers to every man the opportunity to obtain eternal salvation; otherwise Christ would only have died on the Cross for the elect; which is what the Jansenists taught.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 27, 2015, 07:47:30 PM
I have had many discussions with James on this forum, and on this very subject; he denies that there is such a thing as "implicit" faith in the Blessed Trinity; so it follows that he believes that anyone who states that there is such a thing, is at least materially heretical. It does no good to quote Pius IX's "Quanto Conficiamur Moreore" on this subject, as I have done so in the past with no result. Also, pre 20th C. Manuals the same.
Never lose Hope Michael. Take a deep breath and have a beer.
Quote from: St.Justin on September 25, 2015, 07:57:25 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 27, 2015, 07:47:30 PM
I have had many discussions with James on this forum, and on this very subject; he denies that there is such a thing as "implicit" faith in the Blessed Trinity; so it follows that he believes that anyone who states that there is such a thing, is at least materially heretical. It does no good to quote Pius IX's "Quanto Conficiamur Moreore" on this subject, as I have done so in the past with no result. Also, pre 20th C. Manuals the same.
Never lose Hope Michael. Take a deep breath and have a beer.
bro. that's sig-worthy... would you mind?
i went ahead and sigged it; any issues pm me or something and i'll take it back off.
QuoteIt is ALSO true that he is reprobate because HE freely rejects God's graces, NOT because God put him in a situation that is not congruent with salvation.
Children without access to baptism who die before the age of reason are reprobates by definition. God put them in a situation where they would not be baptized.
QuoteWhat is the point of doing anything? If you're elect, you're saved; if you're not, you're not. Why get baptised, even?
Every Catholic who commits a mortal sin has this attitude. And most of the time, they are right, God gets them to confession.
There is also the satanist who rejected God, but he is probably a member of the elect (still living). He accidently touched a miraculous medal and had an experience similar to what Paul discusses. He immediately was converted.
There are 2 ways to offend hope, despair and presumption. We can hope we are a member of the elect. And we can have moral certainty we are in sanctifying grace. Therefore we must persist in Charity and gain congruent merit.
Second, God incorporates our free will response into His Sovereign Plan. You are free to reject His Grace all you want. 99% of the time, you'll go to hell, with the rare conversion as discussed above.
QuoteThe Father would not be able to give anybody to the Son, if the Son had not first offered an infinite reparation to His Father for the sin of Adam and for all the sins of mankind.
Necessary, but not sufficient. God has to predestine the elect to be saved by Jesus Christ.
QuoteYes, but in God's providence; in virtue of the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross; offers to every man the opportunity to obtain eternal salvation;
see above on children before the age of reason.
Quoteotherwise Christ would only have died on the Cross for the elect;
The propitiation of Christ's sacrifice is only applied for the elect, though it is sufficient for all. Thus the controversy in the Church of "for many" or "for all" at the words of consecration. Did you oppose them changing that back?
Quote from: james03 on September 26, 2015, 09:03:44 AM
QuoteWhat is the point of doing anything? If you're elect, you're saved; if you're not, you're not. Why get baptised, even?
Every Catholic who commits a mortal sin has this attitude. And most of the time, they are right, God gets them to confession.
There is also the satanist who rejected God, but he is probably a member of the elect (still living). He accidently touched a miraculous medal and had an experience similar to what Paul discusses. He immediately was converted.
There are 2 ways to offend hope, despair and presumption. We can hope we are a member of the elect. And we can have moral certainty we are in sanctifying grace. Therefore we must persist in Charity and gain congruent merit.
Second, God incorporates our free will response into His Sovereign Plan. You are free to reject His Grace all you want. 99% of the time, you'll go to hell, with the rare conversion as discussed above.
But if you're elect or reprobate, there's nothing you can do about it. You can just improve your lot or make it worse. (It seems.)
ETA: There's nothing you can do about anyone else either. They're either elect or not too, so what does your influence matter?
(Again, not what I think!)
You have free will. You can cooperate with God's Grace of reject it. However, God puts you in a situation where you will cooperate or not. A trad Catholic will likely cooperate, and moslem will not, except in very rare occasions.
Otherwise, as I've discussed, and everyone agreed, you get into the ridiculous situation of saying it doesn't matter whether you have the Novus Ordo or the TLM, whether you are born moslem or Catholic. Then you end up with Vatican II and the shutdown of missions.
Quote from: james03 on September 26, 2015, 09:19:37 AM
You have free will. You can cooperate with God's Grace of reject it. However, God puts you in a situation where you will cooperate or not. A trad Catholic will likely cooperate, and moslem will not, except in very rare occasions.
God puts people in situations where it is more or less likely they will co-operate.
Correct, and that is called predestination (according to the congruentist theory, which I subscribe to). So Son Ting Wong in China, living with atheists is not saved. Patrick O'Malley born to Trad parents is saved. How is it determined that Son is born in China and Patrick in St. Mary's? God's sovereign plan.
Quote from: St.Justin on September 25, 2015, 07:57:25 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on August 27, 2015, 07:47:30 PM
I have had many discussions with James on this forum, and on this very subject; he denies that there is such a thing as "implicit" faith in the Blessed Trinity; so it follows that he believes that anyone who states that there is such a thing, is at least materially heretical. It does no good to quote Pius IX's "Quanto Conficiamur Moreore" on this subject, as I have done so in the past with no result. Also, pre 20th C. Manuals the same.
Never lose Hope Michael. Take a deep breath and have a beer.
Hey St. Justin! Another old friend and ex-Ignis-ite! How are you doing? Yes, as Kahn said in "Star Treck #4 (?) "The Wrath of Kahn": "Kirk tasks me".
Quote from: james03 on September 26, 2015, 10:25:18 AM
Correct, and that is called predestination (according to the congruentist theory, which I subscribe to). So Son Ting Wong in China, living with atheists is not saved. Patrick O'Malley born to Trad parents is saved. How is it determined that Son is born in China and Patrick in St. Mary's? God's sovereign plan.
So, it's "once saved, always saved" for Patrick O'Malley.
No point in evangelising Son Tin Wong either.
Quote from: james03 on September 26, 2015, 09:09:36 AM
QuoteThe Father would not be able to give anybody to the Son, if the Son had not first offered an infinite reparation to His Father for the sin of Adam and for all the sins of mankind.
1. Necessary, but not sufficient. God has to predestine the elect to be saved by Jesus Christ.
QuoteYes, but in God's providence; in virtue of the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross; offers to every man the opportunity to obtain eternal salvation;
2. see above on children before the age of reason.
Quoteotherwise Christ would only have died on the Cross for the elect;
3. The propitiation of Christ's sacrifice is only applied for the elect, though it is sufficient for all. Thus the controversy in the Church of "for many" or "for all" at the words of consecration. Did you oppose them changing that back?
James,
You have stated that if a man has never heard of the Church then: "Barring a miracle from God, there is nothing he can do. God created him in a situation that is not congruent with his being saved. He is lost, just as there is nothing an unbaptized child can do before the age of reason."
But this is wrong. A man that reaches the age of reason can cooperate with the sufficient graces that God offers him and save his soul; an infant cannot.
The "sufficiency vs. Efficacy" distinction only enter in, when a person either accepts God's grace and is saved, or rejects it, and is lost. If you are claiming that God does not offer some men sufficient grace to save their souls, then this is identical to the Jansenist position.
re. 1. But your position is that God has positively predestined some men to be damned by placing them in a situation where salvation is impossible.
2. The children before the age of reason are a case apart from those who do reach the age of reason; which is what we are discussing.
3. No, the propitiation is offered "for all", but is only efficacious "for many", because not all men will cooperate with the graces that God sends them, and are lost.
You appear to be stating that God does not send all men sufficient graces to save their souls. Is this your position; or have I misunderstood?
QuoteA man that reaches the age of reason can cooperate with the sufficient graces that God offers him and save his soul;
Due to his free will he CAN. Due to his circumstances, he WON'T.
QuoteThe "sufficiency vs. Efficacy" distinction only enter in, when a person either accepts God's grace and is saved, or rejects it, and is lost.
Cite? Never heard that one. Also, you fall into the single "grace" fallacy. God sends grace"s". The elect may receive 100,000 graces during his life, and may even reject 75,000 graces. The reprobate may only receive a single grace, reject it, and that's that. Might even be an act of mercy.
Quote1. But your position is that God has positively predestined some men to be damned by placing them in a situation where salvation is impossible.
That is not the definition of positive predestination. I most definitely hold that only those whom God predestines will go to heaven. The rest will infallibly go to hell (and yes, non nobis, limbo is part of hell).
Quote2. The children before the age of reason are a case apart from those who do reach the age of reason; which is what we are discussing.
I reject your fait accompli. Children who die before the age of reason are not saved; through no fault of their own. If your soteriology can not deal with these cases, then it suffers from a false premise, and it is incumbent upon you to identify your false premise.
QuoteYou appear to be stating that God does not send all men sufficient graces to save their souls. Is this your position; or have I misunderstood?
I am not a thomist when it comes to predestination, but a molinist, and so don't differentiate between sufficient and efficacious. But if you want to use Thomistic terms, I'll state this: God sends sufficient graces to all, but only efficacious graces to the elect.
Quote from: james03 on September 26, 2015, 08:56:35 AM
QuoteIt is ALSO true that he is reprobate because HE freely rejects God's graces, NOT because God put him in a situation that is not congruent with salvation.
Children without access to baptism who die before the age of reason are reprobates by definition. God put them in a situation where they would not be baptized.
I will gladly modify my quote to make it more clear to you:
QuoteIt is ALSO true that he is reprobate (if he is a reasoning adult, able to use his free will) because HE freely rejects God's graces, NOT because God put him in a situation that is not congruent with salvation.
Unbaptized babies are not sent to eternal torments, because they cannot reason and so are
unable to reject God's grace. For reasoning adults God always provides sufficient grace for salvation and does not put them into situations where they cannot possibly attain salvation.
Your answer to my post was far from satisfactory. You did not even attempt to answer St. Thomas. As I said, St.Thomas was not talking about babies (and neither was I).
Quote from: james03 on September 26, 2015, 12:59:25 PM
...you fall into the single "grace" fallacy. God sends grace"s". The elect may receive 100,000 graces during his life, and may even reject 75,000 graces. The reprobate may only receive a single grace, reject it, and that's that. Might even be an act of mercy.
All God's graces are an act of mercy. "One grace" is sufficient for salvation. Just because in your estimation the man will reject it doesn't mean he must. That the elect receive more graces and typically reject many of them does not mean that receiving only "one grace" is a guarantee of damnation.
People often speak of "God's grace" and not just "God's graces". Sufficient grace means sufficient over a lifetime, whether there is only "one grace" or more. (It seems more reverent to speculate that God gives each man an abundance of grace, not just "one grace", even if some receive much more)
And it is not just about accepting or rejecting individual actual graces. It is about Sanctifying Grace, a state, not in itself temporary. If a man dies with Sanctifying Grace, he is saved. If a man is given and accepts
just one great actual grace - the grace to repent - he is restored to the state of Sanctifying Grace and is saved if he dies (by my speculation, as needed God will give him explicit knowledge to make an act of faith as he is dying).
So I think speaking of "the single grace fallacy" is a red herring.
Quote from: james03 on September 26, 2015, 12:59:25 PM
QuoteA man that reaches the age of reason can cooperate with the sufficient graces that God offers him and save his soul;
Due to his free will he CAN. Due to his circumstances, he WON'T.
Perhaps his circumstances make it more difficult for him, but the CAUSE for his not cooperating is NOT his circumstances but his free will ("due to his free will he DOESN'T").
God is the eternal CAUSE of the goodness in the elect. But He is not the CAUSE of the evil in the reprobate, He only eternally permits it. He does not arrange that the reprobate sin and are damned "by means of" arranging their circumstances. God's predestination of some and reprobation of (all) others is a extremely difficult theological topic, and ultimately a mystery, but you are turning it into something un-Catholic.
"Making something more likely to happen" is not a cause of making it happen. Circumstances do not cause sin. Man is free to choose good or evil regardless of external circumstances. God is free to work His graces in any man regardless of his external circumstances.
QuoteUnbaptized babies are not sent to eternal torments, because they cannot reason and so are unable to reject God's grace. For reasoning adults God always provides sufficient grace for salvation and does not put them into situations where they cannot possibly attain salvation.
The lack of punishment for children in hell is a non-sequitur. My point remains: They are not saved because of God's Sovereign Plan. Do you concede that children who die unbaptized before the age of reason are not saved due to God's Sovereign Plan?
QuoteYour answer to my post was far from satisfactory. You did not even attempt to answer St. Thomas. As I said, St.Thomas was not talking about babies (and neither was I).
Please rephrase with questions like Michael did above. I apologize for missing your question, I generally try to answer all questions.
QuoteAll God's graces are an act of mercy. "One grace" is sufficient for salvation. Just because in your estimation the man will reject it doesn't mean he must. That the elect receive more graces and typically reject many of them does not mean that receiving only "one grace" is a guarantee of damnation.
It shows that our rejection/acceptance of Grace is not a criteria for predestination. Every sin is a rejection of grace. Add it up, we reject a lot of Grace. This is the single grace fallacy. "Accepting Grace" gets reduced to a Protestant altar call. It ignores the Church, sacraments, charity, repentance, and the whole of Catholicism.
QuotePerhaps his circumstances make it more difficult for him, but the CAUSE for his not cooperating is NOT his circumstances but his free will ("due to his free will he DOESN'T").
So you are saying that perhaps Pope Francis, JPII (we love you !!!), Vatican II, Rahner, and Schillebeekx might be correct? That perhaps a jew worshipping his talmud demon, a moslem worshipping his demon allah and blaspheming the Blessed Trinity 6 times a day, that buddhists who worship a demon statue that is grinning because of all the souls he drags to hell, and the insane hindus who worship a plethora of demons, these people have the same level of difficulty at accepting grace as a Catholic who receives the sacraments?
You position is perhaps this is right?
If this is not your position, then do you admit that they were born in their circumstances due to God's Sovereign plan?
Quote from: james03 on September 26, 2015, 12:59:25 PM
QuoteA man that reaches the age of reason can cooperate with the sufficient graces that God offers him and save his soul;
Due to his free will he CAN. Due to his circumstances, he WON'T.
QuoteThe "sufficiency vs. Efficacy" distinction only enter in, when a person either accepts God's grace and is saved, or rejects it, and is lost.
Cite? Never heard that one. Also, you fall into the single "grace" fallacy. God sends grace"s". The elect may receive 100,000 graces during his life, and may even reject 75,000 graces. The reprobate may only receive a single grace, reject it, and that's that. Might even be an act of mercy.
Quote1. But your position is that God has positively predestined some men to be damned by placing them in a situation where salvation is impossible.
That is not the definition of positive predestination. I most definitely hold that only those whom God predestines will go to heaven. The rest will infallibly go to hell (and yes, non nobis, limbo is part of hell).
Quote2. The children before the age of reason are a case apart from those who do reach the age of reason; which is what we are discussing.
I reject your fait accompli. Children who die before the age of reason are not saved; through no fault of their own. If your soteriology can not deal with these cases, then it suffers from a false premise, and it is incumbent upon you to identify your false premise.
QuoteYou appear to be stating that God does not send all men sufficient graces to save their souls. Is this your position; or have I misunderstood?
I am not a thomist when it comes to predestination, but a molinist, and so don't differentiate between sufficient and efficacious. But if you want to use Thomistic terms, I'll state this: God sends sufficient graces to all, but only efficacious graces to the elect.
Re. "He can but due to circumstances he wont"; But the Church does not teach that all those who are not actual members are lost. As Non stated, God can reach anyone anywhere with His graces. If what you are saying is true, then God does not send graces to some men. This is wrong; because Christ died for all men and God wills the salvation of all men, and offers all men the opportunity to save their souls. Of course, Catholics enjoy a vast advantage over those who are not members of the Church.
re. Children in Limbo; the Council of Trent deals with this in their decree on Baptism, where it states that adults are not to be Baptized right away unlike infants, because they (adults) can attain eternal salvation through Baptism of desire; but infants cannot.
re. Sufficient vs. Efficacious graces: The Molinists also use these two terms; however the Molinist hold that there is no "intrinsic" difference between the two; a grace that is accepted, is "efficacious" one that is rejected is only "sufficient". For the Thomists, there is an essential difference between the two.
Quote from: james03 on September 27, 2015, 08:38:02 AM
QuotePerhaps his circumstances make it more difficult for him, but the CAUSE for his not cooperating is NOT his circumstances but his free will ("due to his free will he DOESN'T").
So you are saying that perhaps Pope Francis, JPII (we love you !!!), Vatican II, Rahner, and Schillebeekx might be correct? That perhaps a jew worshipping his talmud demon, a moslem worshipping his demon allah and blaspheming the Blessed Trinity 6 times a day, that buddhists who worship a demon statue that is grinning because of all the souls he drags to hell, and the insane hindus who worship a plethora of demons, these people have the same level of difficulty at accepting grace as a Catholic who receives the sacraments?
You position is perhaps this is right?
If this is not your position, then do you admit that they were born in their circumstances due to God's Sovereign plan?
In God's sovereign plan, Adam and Eve and the bad Angels were supposed to co-operate with His graces and in the case of the wicked Angels, to enter immediately into the beatific vision with the good angels. They were placed in exactly the same circumstances as their fellow Angels; and yet through their free will, they rejected God's grace and were lost. God did not antecedently will their loss; not did He deal with them differently than their fellow Angels before they fell.
The same goes for Adam and Eve: God placed them in circumstances that would be most favorable to their salvation and yet they fell through their wickedness. Cain and Abel were in the same circumstances and yet Cain did wickedly and Abel virtuously.
What was the difference? Adam, Eve and Cain rejected God's graces and sinned; Abel co-operated with God's graces and was saved. God sent Adam, Eve and Cain, graces to repent and return to His friendship; Adam and Eve co-operated and were saved; Cain again rejected God's graces and was lost.
As far as J.P. II, Rhaner et. al. Are concerned; they are wrong, in that they posit that all men are infallibly saved. But Catholic theologians do not. But they do hold that God does grant all men sufficient graces to save their souls; even those in the most abject of circumstances and most distant from the Church. That is why Pius IX in "Quanto Conficiamur" speaks of these souls.
"One grace vs. Many"; Non is correct; God sends some men only one grace, others he sends many; He does this through His own hidden counsel. Some men are saved with just one grace; others are lost despite thousands of graces; and vice-versa.
Re. Circumstances and salvation: Yes, they play a part, and yet one cannot infallibly declare that just because one is born in a Catholic family and even enters Religion etc. He will be saved; the same goes for another who is born in the wilds of America or Borneo, before the missionaries arrived; that they will be infallibly lost.
Quote from: james03 on September 27, 2015, 08:31:54 AM
QuoteAll God's graces are an act of mercy. "One grace" is sufficient for salvation. Just because in your estimation the man will reject it doesn't mean he must. That the elect receive more graces and typically reject many of them does not mean that receiving only "one grace" is a guarantee of damnation.
It shows that our rejection/acceptance of Grace is not a criteria for predestination. Every sin is a rejection of grace. Add it up, we reject a lot of Grace. This is the single grace fallacy. "Accepting Grace" gets reduced to a Protestant altar call. It ignores the Church, sacraments, charity, repentance, and the whole of Catholicism.
"One grace = Protestant altar call"; No, the Protestants (some at least); hold that all men that are saved are saved through the "one grace"; but the Catholic Church teaches that some men are saved through one grace and some through many; and some are lost, despite receiving many graces or even after only receiving and rejecting one grace. God is free in His distribution of Graces to souls.
James stated:
QuoteI most definitely hold that only those whom God predestines will go to heaven. The rest will infallibly go to hell (and yes, non nobis, limbo is part of hell).
This would be correct if you would add that God sends those who are not predestined to Heaven sufficient graces to save their souls. This is the Thomistic position. You appear to be stating that God does not do this.
QuoteIf what you are saying is true, then God does not send graces to some men.
I stated that God sends sufficient grace to all, only efficacious grace to the elect, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
Quotere. Sufficient vs. Efficacious graces: The Molinists also use these two terms; however the Molinist hold that there is no "intrinsic" difference between the two; a grace that is accepted, is "efficacious" one that is rejected is only "sufficient". For the Thomists, there is an essential difference between the two.
Correct, and I'm a Molinist. There is no difference between graces, acceptance depends on the situation of the person.
So let's look at the Thomistic teaching: Barrack and Akmed, moslem savages. We'll start with Barrack. It's Wednesday night, and Barrack has left his nighttime blasphemy session whereby he explicitly denied the Trinity. As is his custom for Wednesday night, Barrack hunts up a little boy to savagely sodomize. So Barrack captures a boy, who wails and screams. God sends Barrack sufficient Graces for Barrack to have prudence and follow natural law. He complies and let's the boy go.
The next day he tells his fellow headhunters about it, and they tell him he is not a good moslem since he is doubting what allah has told them. They say he needs to go sodomize a boy right away. Barrack, out of human respect, ignores his conscience and goes sodomize another boy.
Barrack received sufficient graces to repent, but he did not. He had enflamed passions and a weak will. Why? Because he is human, and that is his natural state.
Akmed, same deal. Next day he is conversing with his fellow head hunters. God sends him efficacious grace to strenghten in fortitude and the stirrings of Faith in Jesus Christ. When he is berated for not trusting allah, he says, "that is not right. It is unmanly and it is wrong." "WHAT!? How dare you argue against allah." So they drag him to the iman. More graces are sent, as akmed is close to wavering, but God floods him with grace, strengthening his will and enlightening his intellect, and damping his passions (fear). So he won't recant and is dragged off to be stoned.
During the stoning, he has a rapture and sees Christ, and a representation of the Trinity. He has Faith in Christ, and repents for his sins. He also has an ardent desire to be baptized and become Catholic. The Lord gives him Sanctifying Grace and dwells within him. Akmed dies serenly with a grin upon his face.
Akmed received efficacious grace.
Now, realistically, how many Akmeds are there? If we liberally assume EVERY moslem killed for some heresy was in fact a Christian who was miraculously given the Divine Light of faith, it is a small number.
Why? Because humans by their nature are fallen. And because their circumstances are not congruent with an acceptance of grace nor fleeing to the sacraments. Just as an unbaptized child before the age of reason is not saved due to his circumstances.
Ok,
Quote from: james03 on September 27, 2015, 12:15:00 PM
QuoteIf what you are saying is true, then God does not send graces to some men.
I stated that God sends sufficient grace to all, only efficacious grace to the elect, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
Quotere. Sufficient vs. Efficacious graces: The Molinists also use these two terms; however the Molinist hold that there is no "intrinsic" difference between the two; a grace that is accepted, is "efficacious" one that is rejected is only "sufficient". For the Thomists, there is an essential difference between the two.
Correct, and I'm a Molinist. There is no difference between graces, acceptance depends on the situation of the person.
But if you are a Molinist (as I am myself);and we agree sufficient grace and efficacious grace are the same, then what differentiates them is the acceptance or rejection of this grace or graces by the person that receives them. Therefore, I don't know why you so strongly oppose the idea that all men receive sufficient grace to save their souls.
Re. In your two examples; I have no problem with either one; I also accept that both are possible. But while I don't exclude that God can make a miraculous intervention to anyone at any time; I also believe that He can also lead those who are far from the truth, by His graces to the Catholic faith without a miraculous intervention.
Quote from: james03 on September 27, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Now, realistically, how many Akmeds are there? If we liberally assume EVERY moslem killed for some heresy was in fact a Christian who was miraculously given the Divine Light of faith, it is a small number.
Why? Because humans by their nature are fallen. And because their circumstances are not congruent with an acceptance of grace nor fleeing to the sacraments. Just as an unbaptized child before the age of reason is not saved due to his circumstances.
But as a Congruist, you would hold that God can so tailor the grace that He sends a soul to the circumstances that the soul finds itself, that if it so wills and cooperates, it will arrive at eternal salvation; no?
Quotewe agree sufficient grace and efficacious grace are the same.....Therefore, I don't know why you so strongly oppose the idea that all men receive sufficient grace to save their souls.
LOL. Go back and read what you wrote. I don't accept the distinction (for the most part, I concede the Thomists might be right).
To restate, I don't believe most men receive enough Graces congruent with salvation. In our example, why did God drop Barrack, but follow up with more graces for Akmed? For His secret Purpose which He has not revealed.
QuoteI also believe that He can also lead those who are far from the truth, by His graces to the Catholic faith without a miraculous intervention.
That is a denial of the Athanasian Creed, Council of Florence, and the Council of Trent: a denial of the need for the sacraments, or at least a desire for the sacraments. Further, Christ told us it is a narrow path to salvation, and few are saved. The narrow path is the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith. Indeed few are saved and billions upon billions are lost, and the known cases of miraculous intervention are few if not non-existent. I think the SouthWest Indians had an ardent desire for baptism, so if any died in that state, he'd have been saved.
edit: If you mean by "lead to the Catholic Faith" sending a missionary to preach to them, or letting them see it on the internet, then I agree, no miracle is needed to come to the Catholic Faith. But once they have the Faith, if they are moslem, they must denounce allah and by martyred, otherwise the Roman martyrs were fools.
QuoteBut as a Congruist, you would hold that God can so tailor the grace that He sends a soul to the circumstances that the soul finds itself, that if it so wills and cooperates, it will arrive at eternal salvation; no?
Backwards, for the most part. God tailors the circumstances to match His decree of predestination (hence, the Molinist aspect). For the elect, He will tailor the graces such that they are congruent to the state in life, yes.
So the bulk of the elect are born Catholic, or at least die formally Catholic. The remainder of the elect are saved by miraculous intervention.
Quote from: james03 on September 27, 2015, 04:47:49 PM
Quotewe agree sufficient grace and efficacious grace are the same.....Therefore, I don't know why you so strongly oppose the idea that all men receive sufficient grace to save their souls.
LOL. Go back and read what you wrote. I don't accept the distinction (for the most part, I concede the Thomists might be right).
To restate, I don't believe most men receive enough Graces congruent with salvation. In our example, why did God drop Barrack, but follow up with more graces for Akmed? For His secret Purpose which He has not revealed.
James,
but you said previously that you were a Molinist and therefore you believe that there is no intrinsic difference between sufficient and efficacious graces. If such were the case, then Barack would have received sufficient graces to save his soul, but did not co-operate.
Here is the quote:
Quote re. Sufficient vs. Efficacious graces: The Molinists also use these two terms; however the Molinist hold that there is no "intrinsic" difference between the two; a grace that is accepted, is "efficacious" one that is rejected is only "sufficient". For the Thomists, there is an essential difference between the two.
Correct, and I'm a Molinist. There is no difference between graces, acceptance depends on the situation of the person.
So if you accept there is no intrinsic difference then you accept that God sends all men sufficient graces to save their souls.
You are confusing me.
Quote from: james03 on September 27, 2015, 04:52:26 PM
QuoteI also believe that He can also lead those who are far from the truth, by His graces to the Catholic faith without a miraculous intervention.
That is a denial of the Athanasian Creed, Council of Florence, and the Council of Trent: a denial of the need for the sacraments, or at least a desire for the sacraments. Further, Christ told us it is a narrow path to salvation, and few are saved. The narrow path is the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith. Indeed few are saved and billions upon billions are lost, and the known cases of miraculous intervention are few if not non-existent. I think the SouthWest Indians had an ardent desire for baptism, so if any died in that state, he'd have been saved.
edit: If you mean by "lead to the Catholic Faith" sending a missionary to preach to them, or letting them see it on the internet, then I agree, no miracle is needed to come to the Catholic Faith. But once they have the Faith, if they are moslem, they must denounce allah and by martyred, otherwise the Roman martyrs were fools.
James,
why do you keep repeating an argument that has nothing to do with this topic i.e. The 'Athanasian Creed etc'? The question is: What of those who never have heard of the Catholic Church? There are two opinions given by Catholic theologians neither of which includes knowing the Athanasian Creed or the Creed of the Council of Trent by heart. I have already posted a quote from Msgr. Fenton which holds to the "more common" opinion i.e "the Four truths". What is the problem?
re. "Few are saved"; ok, but Catholic theologians still hold that those who die while not actual members of the Church are not infallibly lost; that is what we are discussing here. For a while you were holding to this and all of a sudden you revert back to another topic.
James:
Quoteedit: If you mean by "lead to the Catholic Faith" sending a missionary to preach to them, or letting them see it on the internet, then I agree, no miracle is needed to come to the Catholic Faith. But once they have the Faith, if they are moslem, they must denounce allah and by martyred, otherwise the Roman martyrs were fools.
Ok, but what if they arrive at the conclusion privately that Mohamedanism is a bunch of malarkey; but they are stuck in the middle of Saudi Arabia and are old and feeble; or a married woman and cannot travel; and there are no Catholic missionaries around? They interiorly reject the false religion they are in; they make an act of supernatural faith in the one true God and they are ready to obey and believe in whatever is the true religion; but they cannot do anything about it? The same goes for the Indians in pre-Columbian America. One could say that an Angel was sent to them to teach them at leas the truths of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation/redemption; do you believe that such is possible?
Quote from: james03 on September 27, 2015, 04:57:15 PM
QuoteBut as a Congruist, you would hold that God can so tailor the grace that He sends a soul to the circumstances that the soul finds itself, that if it so wills and cooperates, it will arrive at eternal salvation; no?
Backwards, for the most part. God tailors the circumstances to match His decree of predestination (hence, the Molinist aspect). For the elect, He will tailor the graces such that they are congruent to the state in life, yes.
So the bulk of the elect are born Catholic, or at least die formally Catholic. The remainder of the elect are saved by miraculous intervention.
re. "Backwards"; right, here is "The Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology" pg. 59:
QuoteCongruism...Suarez develops and integrates this teaching (in the Molinist system, no essential difference between sufficient and efficacius grace) of the Master, saying that the efficacy of grace depends on its adaptation to the psychological conditions of the individual, to the circumstances of time and place: this adaptation render the grace congruous, proportioned to the subject in such a way that the effect follows infallibly without violating the freedom of choice of the subject himself....All the Congruists agree with Molina in maintaining that grace, in order to be efficacious, is conditioned by the free consent of man....
From my reading of this passage, it appears that the author is saying that the grace is adapted to the circumstances, and not vice-versa.
QuoteIf such were the case, then Barack would have received sufficient graces to save his soul, but did not co-operate.
He did receive sufficient grace and cooperated. He quit his sodomy. However later he went back to his ways , defying his conscience. The grace was not efficacious unto salvation. For akmed, God sends further graces of fortitude and prudence, and akmed dies professing the Faith. He receives efficacious grace because he is elect.
QuoteSo if you accept there is no intrinsic difference then you accept that God sends all men sufficient graces to save their souls.
You are trying to mix systems, and that doesn't work. If you insist on using the term sufficient Grace, then what I believe is that God does not send efficacious Grace to everyone to save their souls.
QuoteWhat of those who never have heard of the Catholic Church? There are two opinions given by Catholic theologians neither of which includes knowing the Athanasian Creed or the Creed of the Council of Trent by heart. I have already posted a quote from Msgr. Fenton which holds to the "more common" opinion i.e "the Four truths". What is the problem?
If God sends them efficacious Grace, they will respond and He will send a preacher or give them Faith by a miracle. All the others are lost.
Quotebut they cannot do anything about it?
They have to quit their false religion and denounce it, otherwise they go to hell. Or the Roman martyrs were fools. They should have just put the pinch of incense in the pot. There was nothing they could do about it right? Oh yeah, they could refuse to deny Christ.
QuoteOne could say that an Angel was sent to them to teach them at leas the truths of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation/redemption; do you believe that such is possible?
Proven. You gave the example of the nun. But this is extremely rare.
QuoteFrom my reading of this passage, it appears that the author is saying that the grace is adapted to the circumstances, and not vice-versa.
Fair enough. So an efficacious grace is one that is congruous with the circumstances of time and place.
Quote from: james03 on September 26, 2015, 08:56:35 AM
QuoteIt is ALSO true that he is reprobate because HE freely rejects God's graces, NOT because God put him in a situation that is not congruent with salvation.
Children without access to baptism who die before the age of reason are reprobates by definition. God put them in a situation where they would not be baptized.
Ok, so what I said was not true about unreasoning children. So forget the general statement.
But that does not allow you to ignore the specific situation - what is true for reasoning adults:
Does God tell a reprobate who has gone to the eternal torments:
"Blame it on your reprobation, carried out by your circumstances and the fact that I did not will to work a miracle"
Or does He RATHER say:
"Blame it on your freely-willed sins, your free rejection of My grace."
(God might explain reprobation, but not by saying that it is to BLAME for sin)
The punishment of eternal torments is DUE to sin, not circumstances.
Quote from: james03 on September 26, 2015, 08:56:35 AM
QuoteIt is ALSO true that he is reprobate because HE freely rejects God's graces, NOT because God put him in a situation that is not congruent with salvation.
Children without access to baptism who die before the age of reason are reprobates by definition. God put them in a situation where they would not be baptized.
I've never understood how that fact squares with the other fact that God gives sufficient grace to everyone to be saved. But strangely, sufficient isn't enough. (I know, I've asked about this before (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=5146.msg100107#msg100107).)
Quote from: Clare on September 28, 2015, 02:39:25 AM
Quote from: james03 on September 26, 2015, 08:56:35 AM
QuoteIt is ALSO true that he is reprobate because HE freely rejects God's graces, NOT because God put him in a situation that is not congruent with salvation.
Children without access to baptism who die before the age of reason are reprobates by definition. God put them in a situation where they would not be baptized.
I've never understood how that fact squares with the other fact that God gives sufficient grace to everyone to be saved. But strangely, sufficient isn't enough. (I know, I've asked about this before (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=5146.msg100107#msg100107).)
(Please note, I responded to the inner quote from James in an earlier post)
Clare, since James was talking specifically about children before the age of reason, did you have a problem with that in particular?
Sufficient grace (and efficacious grace, if you believe in that) works in someone who can know and love God and obey Him. These things (freely cooperating with God's grace) require reason and free will. A baby does not have these, so these particular graces aren't for him. Sanctifying Grace is the essential spiritual "habit", that does not require reason: babies can receive this but only by the Sacrament of Baptism. God is not unjust for giving unbaptized babies only natural happiness; Christ never promised that every baby would be baptized. God would be just even to give EVERY cooperating man only natural happiness EXCEPT FOR ONE THING: Christ paid an infinite price to win heaven for every cooperating man. Because this price has been paid, God has PROMISED salvation to all who cooperate. Christ is our Redeemer out of mercy and love, not out of justice, since God did not OWE us a Redeemer. But once Christ did Redeem us His justice means that He will keep the promise of the Redemption.
I think this is right this far, even though James may say that no one can cooperate unless he is receives the Sacrament of Baptism.
(By cooperating with grace I imply obeying God, being forgiven after sin, and receiving the gift of final perseverance)
Quote from: This probably belongs in a different thread!
But, Clare, are you really talking about sufficient and efficacious grace in adults; how can grace be sufficient if efficacious grace is also needed?
I think this a digression from this thread, but let me think aloud about it anyway..
Since people (in this forum and others) continue to have problems with this (and because I don't understand it myself too well), my attempt at an answer will probably not satisfy you. But let me try (I don't know if this is theologically correct, but this is how I look at it).
Sufficient grace is sufficient for doing a good deed because if you do not resist it will get you to the door of a good deed, and then Christ WILL lift you up over the threshold. You could call what Christ gives you "God's help" (although I mean efficacious grace). Sufficient grace is sufficient to get as far as is possible, but God's help (which He will give you) is needed to do what is impossible for man - a supernatural good deed. You could say that sufficient grace is sufficient except that God's help is also needed. A statement can be true "except that". A full tank of gas is sufficient for a trip, except that you also need a driver (the gas is sufficient grace, and Christ is the driver).
However, what I said is not complete, because God's help is not just God cheering you on or offering you a drink as you use the golden bundle of grace that He gave you to use by yourself. You need help cooperating with the grace. In fact you can not cooperate with it without God working in you. There is mystery there, but I don't see how can it can be otherwise. God does not make you a little god that can with a little god bundle do things impossible to you; God has to be there in the doing. In a supernatural act "God is more intimate to you than you are to yourself".
Quote from: St. Paul to the Philippians 2..with fear and trembling work out your salvation. [13] For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will
I know there is more confusion when discussing whether you can even "not resist" without God's help. But that is a further discussion; I don't see that it makes what I have just said untrue. Even with INPEFESS' help I also find this further discussion difficult. But I fall back on the truth that God is the cause of all good.
Quote from: Clare on September 28, 2015, 02:39:25 AM
Quote from: james03 on September 26, 2015, 08:56:35 AM
QuoteIt is ALSO true that he is reprobate because HE freely rejects God's graces, NOT because God put him in a situation that is not congruent with salvation.
Children without access to baptism who die before the age of reason are reprobates by definition. God put them in a situation where they would not be baptized.
I've never understood how that fact squares with the other fact that God gives sufficient grace to everyone to be saved. But strangely, sufficient isn't enough. (I know, I've asked about this before (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=5146.msg100107#msg100107).)
St. Thomas never addresses the "reprobation" of those who have yet to reach the age of reason.
His reply to the objection on reprobation only covers those who, by necessity, have reached the age of reason:
QuoteReply to Objection 3. Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility: as was said above (Question 19, Article 3), that the predestined must necessarily be saved; yet a conditional necessity, which does not do away with the liberty of choice. Whence, although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt.
For St. Thomas, the infant who dies without Baptism is by no means a reprobate soul in the sense that he defines in the section on predestination.
For we notice that he says a person reprobated by God falls into sin by use of his free will. Infants simply do not have that.
Are they in some strict sense reprobated by way of not being baptized? yes. But James is footloose and fancy free with his language, and we also don't know what God does and doesn't do in regard to those infants.
St. Bernard answers, for at least the children of Catholic parents:
"He wrote to a couple that had a miscarriage. In response to their question, "What is going to happen to my child? The child didn't get baptized," St. Bernard said, "Your faith spoke for this child. Baptism for this child was only delayed by time. Your faith suffices. The waters of your womb — were they not the waters of life for this child? Look at your tears. Are they not like the waters of baptism? Do not fear this. God's ability to love is greater than our fears. Surrender everything to God."
QuoteOk, so what I said was not true about unreasoning children. So forget the general statement.
So my statement stands, unrefuted:
QuoteAnd again, if God set the requirements for salvation such that only a handful were (and could be) saved (He doesn't), it would not be unjust, because we are born lost, and salvation is a Grace.
When you get this premise wrong, you will be complete wrong on Catholic soteriology.
Your next point is a non sequitur:
QuoteDoes God tell a reprobate who has gone to the eternal torments:
....Or does He RATHER say: "Blame it on your freely-willed sins, your free rejection of My grace."
...... The punishment of eternal torments is DUE to sin, not circumstances.
I have never denied free will, we are not discussing that. But yes, people are punished for freely choosing to sin, whether a denial of grace is involved or not. Barrack will be punished for sodomy because he freely chose to sodomize, not because God forced him to do it.
Your statement conveniently leaves out the other side of the equation: The elect are saved because of predestination. Predestination is the cause of their salvation:
Quote from: Q23,A3, reply 2Reprobation differs in its causality from predestination. This latter is the cause both of what is expected in the future life by the predestined--namely, glory--and of what is received in this life--namely, grace. Reprobation, however, is not the cause of what is in the present--namely, sin; but it is the cause of abandonment by God.
QuoteI've never understood how that fact squares with the other fact that God gives sufficient grace to everyone to be saved. But strangely, sufficient isn't enough.
If the facts don't square away, then you need to locate your false premise.
QuoteAre they in some strict sense reprobated by way of not being baptized? yes. But James is footloose and fancy free with his language, and we also don't know what God does and doesn't do in regard to those infants.
If in the strict sense they are reprobated, then I am being precise.
And the Catholic Church teaches that unbaptized babies go to Limbo. St. Thomas, appendix, Q1 and 2, Council of Florence:
QuoteRegarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, ... but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently.
.
Pope Sixtus V states that aborted babies are not save. Pope John XXII:
Quote"... teach that the souls of those who die in original sin ... go down without delay into Hell' where, however, they suffer 'different punishments' from those who die in actual mortal sin."
St. Thomas defines the punishment of those in Original Sin only as being denied the Beatific Vision.
And St. Gregory of Nazianzus, commented on by St. Thomas in the Summa, "will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked."
St. Thomas specifically says the reprobate sin of their own free will. He defines in other places that a person cannot have original and venial sin together without also having mortal sin
Simply put, infants who die without removal of original sin are neither reprobates or predestined.
You're not being precise unless you want to contradict St. Thomas. In a strict sense they are reprobate if we consider only two categories. But we don't. And Thomas didn't.
Quote from: james03 on September 29, 2015, 09:31:49 AM
So my statement stands, unrefuted:
QuoteAnd again, if God set the requirements for salvation such that only a handful were (and could be) saved (He doesn't), it would not be unjust, because we are born lost, and salvation is a Grace.
When you get this premise wrong, you will be complete wrong on Catholic soteriology.
I didn't get the premise wrong, but I added something crucial:
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 28, 2015, 10:06:46 PM
...
God would be just even to give EVERY cooperating man only natural happiness EXCEPT FOR ONE THING: Christ paid an infinite price to win heaven for every cooperating man. Because this price has been paid, God has PROMISED salvation to all who cooperate. Christ is our Redeemer out of mercy and love, not out of justice, since God did not OWE us a Redeemer. But once Christ did Redeem us His justice means that He will keep the promise of the Redemption.
One thing I strongly dislike about your thoughts is that you rarely mention Christ's Redemption, or reduce it to "setting the requirements for salvation". This is not what any book on Catholic soteriology would do. Indeed consider the very title of this book:
Soteriology A Dogmatic Treatise on the Redemption - Pohle-Preuss.
You are right that we are born lost, in that without Christ's grace in baptism (or baptism of desire) none of us would be saved. But the Redemption (a free gift from Christ) makes it POSSIBLE for any adult individual to be saved. That is the immense thing that you generally leave out. Of course the Redemption is what makes baptism possible even for babies. It also means that God does (not just possibly but certainly) save ALL adults who cooperate with His grace - first by receiving Baptism or Baptism of Desire and ending in final perseverance. (Even in the Old Testament men were saved (after being sent to the limbo of the fathers) by the grace of Christ's future Redemption).
It is the central and most magnificent truth that God saves only those whom He has predestined according to His purposes (I have not mentioned this enough, but I agree it is key). But it is also true that BECAUSE OF THE REDEMPTION He saves all who receive Baptism or Baptism of Desire and do not die in the state of MORTAL SIN(*). These adults (along with baptized babies)
are the predestined, and God calls them and causes the good they do and the salvation they receive. And yet these adults do the good freely too, and God rewards them for what they do.
The REDEMPTION and MORTAL SIN are two key things you leave out in your too pithy summary "All are are born lost... God saves only the predestined". It is true (if understood the right way) but misleading because it is incomplete.
(*)Your theory that Original sin can co-exist with venial sin alone, and so prevent salvation in an adult even when there is no mortal sin, is just that - your theory, which contradicts St. Thomas.
I did not mention Faith, although it is of course essential; but not having Mortal Sin or Original Sin implies that one has Supernatural Faith.
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 28, 2015, 10:06:46 PM
Quote from: Clare on September 28, 2015, 02:39:25 AM
Quote from: james03 on September 26, 2015, 08:56:35 AM
QuoteIt is ALSO true that he is reprobate because HE freely rejects God's graces, NOT because God put him in a situation that is not congruent with salvation.
Children without access to baptism who die before the age of reason are reprobates by definition. God put them in a situation where they would not be baptized.
I've never understood how that fact squares with the other fact that God gives sufficient grace to everyone to be saved. But strangely, sufficient isn't enough. (I know, I've asked about this before (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=5146.msg100107#msg100107).)
...
Clare, since James was talking specifically about children before the age of reason, did you have a problem with that in particular?
...
It's the word "everyone". God gives
everyone sufficient grace. It doesn't say "everyone with the use of reason".
Quote from: Clare on September 30, 2015, 12:38:49 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 28, 2015, 10:06:46 PM
Quote from: Clare on September 28, 2015, 02:39:25 AM
Quote from: james03 on September 26, 2015, 08:56:35 AM
QuoteIt is ALSO true that he is reprobate because HE freely rejects God's graces, NOT because God put him in a situation that is not congruent with salvation.
Children without access to baptism who die before the age of reason are reprobates by definition. God put them in a situation where they would not be baptized.
I've never understood how that fact squares with the other fact that God gives sufficient grace to everyone to be saved. But strangely, sufficient isn't enough. (I know, I've asked about this before (http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=5146.msg100107#msg100107).)
...
Clare, since James was talking specifically about children before the age of reason, did you have a problem with that in particular?
...
It's the word "everyone". God gives everyone sufficient grace. It doesn't say "everyone with the use of reason".
The Church has long taught that infants do not go to heaven if they are not baptized. Therefore the Church has NEVER (in the past) taught that all unbaptized babies get sufficient (Sanctifying) Grace.
There is nothing unjust about this; they get natural happiness which is a magnificent thing in itself.
Sometimes people use the word "everyone" in a way that leaves some exceptions that are understood even if not spoken. A trivial example: "everyone gets one piece of pie" doesn't mean that babies get one.
God's most special love (the Beatific Vision) is given to those who receive Baptism (or baptism of desire) and then love HIM Supernaturally (unto death). Baptized babies have Supernatural love of God (Charity). These requirements are not met by unbaptized babies: they can't receive baptism of desire, and do not have Supernatural love of God. No it is not their fault; that is why they are given natural happiness.
If all unbaptized babies went to heaven, why would mothers be told to get their babies baptized early?
Some people with a soft heart think that God will give EVERY man overwhelming grace that they just can't refuse, because God being infinitely loving will not permit any man to suffer eternal flames. We just know by faith that this is not true. Similarly, some people with a soft heart think that God just waives the requirement for baptism for babies because He is infinitely loving. But we know this is not what the Church (or Scripture) has taught. God's being infinitely Just means He will never give eternal torments to anyone who doesn't deserve it. But in His infinite wisdom He can require baptism (the Sacrament or Baptism of Desire) for anyone to be saved, since
nobody deserves heaven.
Some might do well to read what Trent had to say on the subject since it was a dogmatic council and is binding.
CHAPTER IV
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE
In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]
Here is the link to the whole session: http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm .
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 30, 2015, 05:20:11 PM
Quote from: Clare on September 30, 2015, 12:38:49 AM
It's the word "everyone". God gives everyone sufficient grace. It doesn't say "everyone with the use of reason".
The Church has long taught that infants do not go to heaven if they are not baptized. Therefore the Church has NEVER (in the past) taught that all unbaptized babies get sufficient (Sanctifying) Grace.
There is nothing unjust about this; they get natural happiness which is a magnificent thing in itself.
Sometimes people use the word "everyone" in a way that leaves some exceptions that are understood even if not spoken. A trivial example: "everyone gets one piece of pie" doesn't mean that babies get one.
God's most special love (the Beatific Vision) is given to those who receive Baptism (or baptism of desire) and then love HIM Supernaturally (unto death). Baptized babies have Supernatural love of God (Charity). These requirements are not met by unbaptized babies: they can't receive baptism of desire, and do not have Supernatural love of God. No it is not their fault; that is why they are given natural happiness.
If all unbaptized babies went to heaven, why would mothers be told to get their babies baptized early?
Some people with a soft heart think that God will give EVERY man overwhelming grace that they just can't refuse, because God being infinitely loving will not permit any man to suffer eternal flames. We just know by faith that this is not true. Similarly, some people with a soft heart think that God just waives the requirement for baptism for babies because He is infinitely loving. But we know this is not what the Church (or Scripture) has taught. God's being infinitely Just means He will never give eternal torments to anyone who doesn't deserve it. But in His infinite wisdom He can require baptism (the Sacrament or Baptism of Desire) for anyone to be saved, since nobody deserves heaven.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating the view that all unbaptised infants are inevitably saved. I've defended the doctrine of Limbo many times. I realise that Limbo was originally thought of to resolve the problem of unbaptised infants suffering in Hellfire, and that Heaven was never an option. I can dig all that. And that it's completely just and merciful.
But then I remember the "everyone" bit, and I acknowledge what you say that it doesn't always mean literally "everyone". But may one entertain the idea that maybe unbaptised infants are given the chance to make a choice? Of course, that means that some will reject and end up
really suffering in Hell. So maybe better that they don't have a choice and go to Limbo. But then maybe that could be said of the rest of us too.
QuoteI didn't get the premise wrong, but I added something crucial:
Actually, you did not:
Quote[16] For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. [18] He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
God's sending Jesus was part of His MERCIFUL act to save us. Believing in Jesus was His perfectly Just criteria for salvation.
QuoteOne thing I strongly dislike about your thoughts is that you rarely mention Christ's Redemption, or reduce it to "setting the requirements for salvation".
Because the subject is Justice, not Mercy. I am combatting a warmed over Semi-Pelegianism, not the reemergence of Manicheanism.
QuoteIt also means that God does (not just possibly but certainly) save ALL adults who cooperate with His grace - first by receiving Baptism or Baptism of Desire and ending in final perseverance.
And there's the single grace fallacy again. Keeps popping up. Which out of the 100,000 graces God sends the elect, out of which he rejected 75,000, is the critical grace and which others can be confidently rejected?
QuoteBut in His infinite wisdom He can require baptism (the Sacrament or Baptism of Desire) for anyone to be saved, since nobody deserves heaven.
Since nobody deserves heaven, then God can Justly set the criteria for salvation according to His pleasure, since it is an act of Mercy. Do you agree that everyone who is saved, is saved out of Mercy?
Compare:
Quote from: Non NobisSalvation is a Grace, but God offers it and makes it possible to all, including the reprobate. Christ redeemed all men. God's help is sufficient.
to
QuoteTherefore the Church has NEVER (in the past) taught that all unbaptized babies get sufficient (Sanctifying) Grace.
Non nobis, will you answer the question previously asked:
QuoteDo you concede that children who die unbaptized before the age of reason are not saved due to God's Sovereign Plan?
As a reminder, I am pointing out the error in this statement:
Quote from: GardenerHe only binds us on what is possible to us. If He were to bind us on what is impossible, it would be unjust.
I have shown this is false with the example of unbaptized children who die before the age of reason. From a theological standpoint, it is completely false, as the underlying premise is that God owes us salvation. Therefore if He sets the criteria to a point that it is impossible for someone to accomplish, He is not giving WHAT HE OWES, and hence, it is unjust. However claiming God owes us is heresy.
Quote from: james03 on October 01, 2015, 08:15:28 AM
As a reminder, I am pointing out the error in this statement:
Quote from: GardenerHe only binds us on what is possible to us. If He were to bind us on what is impossible, it would be unjust.
I have shown this is false with the example of unbaptized children who die before the age of reason. From a theological standpoint, it is completely false, as the underlying premise is that God owes us salvation. Therefore if He sets the criteria to a point that it is impossible for someone to accomplish, He is not giving WHAT HE OWES, and hence, it is unjust. However claiming God owes us is heresy.
So St. Augustine and Fr. G-L are theological nincompoops?
QuoteNevertheless God does not command the impossible, and grants even to those who do not actually observe His commandments the power of observing them.
But those who observe His commandments are better than others and would not keep them in fact, had not God from eternity efficaciously decreed that they should observe these precepts. Thus, these good servants of God are more beloved and assisted by Him than others, although God does not command the impossible of the others.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace5.htm
Quote
St. Augustine had clearly affirmed that "God does not command what is impossible, but in commanding admonishes thee to do what thou canst and to ask for what thou canst not do."(31) God never commands what is impossible, otherwise no one could avoid committing actual sin, which in this case would no longer be a sin, and the divine chastisements inflicted for such would be a manifest injustice. To say that God never commands the impossible means that He wills to make it really possible for all to comply with the precepts imposed upon them and to do so when they are imposed. Thus He wills to make their salvation really possible, though He does not lead them all efficaciously to eternal life. Moreover, St. Augustine again and again, without adding any restrictions, explained St. Paul's text that "Christ dies for all."(32)
http://www.thesumma.info/predestination/predestination8.php
QuoteSo St. Augustine and Fr. G-L are theological nincompoops?
No, they both agree with me:
QuoteBut those who observe His commandments are better than others and would not keep them in fact, had not God from eternity efficaciously decreed that they should observe these precepts. ...... Thus He wills to make their salvation really possible, though He does not lead them all efficaciously to eternal life.
Which St. Thomas also commented on:
QuoteReprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility:
So while it is possible for a person to live his life without sin, he will not due to his fallen nature. Since God does not send him efficacious grace, it is conditionally impossible for this person to be saved. Because man is fallen.
But none of this addresses my points:
1. Unbaptized children who die before the age of reason can not be saved.
2. It is impossible for God to owe us, therefore it is theologically in error to say for Him to require impossible conditions to be saved is unjust.
Quote from: james03 on October 01, 2015, 12:56:49 PM
QuoteSo St. Augustine and Fr. G-L are theological nincompoops?
No, they both agree with me:
QuoteBut those who observe His commandments are better than others and would not keep them in fact, had not God from eternity efficaciously decreed that they should observe these precepts. ...... Thus He wills to make their salvation really possible, though He does not lead them all efficaciously to eternal life.
Which St. Thomas also commented on: QuoteReprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility:
So while it is possible for a person to live his life without sin, he will not due to his fallen nature. Since God does not send him efficacious grace, it is conditionally impossible for this person to be saved. Because man is fallen.
But none of this addresses my points:
1. Unbaptized children who die before the age of reason can not be saved.
2. It is impossible for God to owe us, therefore it is theologically in error to say for Him to require impossible conditions to be saved is unjust.
Pasture pucks that they agree with you.
Garrigou-Lagrange in FULL:
QuoteBut those who observe His commandments are better than others and would not keep them in fact, had not God from eternity efficaciously decreed that they should observe these precepts. Thus, these good servants of God are more beloved and assisted by Him than others, although God does not command the impossible of the others.
Furthermore, this very resistance to sufficient grace is an evil which would not occur, here and now, without the divine permission, and nonresistance itself is a good which would not come about here and now except for divine consequent will. Therefore, there is a real difference between sufficient grace, to which is attached the divine permission of sin and by reason of which the fulfillment of the commandments is really possible, and efficacious grace, on the other hand, which is a greater help whence follows not only the real possibility of observing the commandments, but their effective fulfillment.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace5.htm
How on earth can you believe Garrigou-Lagrange is even addressing the issue of infants? How can you say he agrees with you that it's impossible to obey, when it's clear he says it's not impossible?
St. Thomas in full:
QuoteReply to Objection 3. Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility: as was said above (Question 19, Article 3), that the predestined must necessarily be saved; yet a conditional necessity, which does not do away with the liberty of choice. Whence, although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article3
Does an infant have a particular sin from free will? Impossible, because they have no use of reason.
St. Thomas explains:
QuoteReply to Objection 1. The spiritual regeneration effected by Baptism is somewhat like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the child while in the mother's womb receives nourishment not independently, but through the nourishment of its mother, so also children before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church. Hence Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i): "The Church, our mother, offers her maternal mouth for her children, that they may imbibe the sacred mysteries: for they cannot as yet with their own hearts believe unto justice, nor with their own mouths confess unto salvation . . . And if they are rightly said to believe, because in a certain fashion they make profession of faith by the words of their sponsors, why should they not also be said to repent, since by the words of those same sponsors they evidence their renunciation of the devil and this world?" For the same reason they can be said to intend, not by their own act of intention, since at times they struggle and cry; but by the act of those who bring them to be baptized.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article9
Again:
QuoteSt. Augustine had clearly affirmed that "God does not command what is impossible, but in commanding admonishes thee to do what thou canst and to ask for what thou canst not do."
Quote from: james03 on October 01, 2015, 06:23:57 AM
Quote from: Non NobisI didn't get the premise wrong, but I added something crucial:
Actually, you did not:
Quote[16] For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. [18] He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
God's sending Jesus was part of His MERCIFUL act to save us. Believing in Jesus was His perfectly Just criteria for salvation.
But I too said Jesus was part of His Merciful act here:
Quote from: Non Nobis
Christ is our Redeemer out of mercy and love, not out of justice, since God did not OWE us a Redeemer.
However I went on to note that when God promises Mercy (to those who have Faith, I agree!) it is a part of His Justice to give it:
Quote from: Non Nobis
But once Christ did Redeem us His justice means that He will keep the promise of the Redemption.
Quote from: james03 on October 01, 2015, 06:23:57 AM
Quote from: Non NobisOne thing I strongly dislike about your thoughts is that you rarely mention Christ's Redemption, or reduce it to "setting the requirements for salvation".
Because the subject is Justice, not Mercy. I am combatting a warmed over Semi-Pelegianism, not the reemergence of Manicheanism.
Quote from: james03 on October 01, 2015, 06:23:57 AM
QuoteBut in His infinite wisdom He can require baptism (the Sacrament or Baptism of Desire) for anyone to be saved, since nobody deserves heaven.
Since nobody deserves heaven, then God can Justly set the criteria for salvation according to His pleasure, since it is an act of Mercy. Do you agree that everyone who is saved, is saved out of Mercy?
Of course I agree with this James. But the Redemption was also a promise of Mercy to those who meet Christ's conditions. Keeping a promise is a part of justice. This does not make it any less mercy, for making the promise in the first place
and for fulfilling it.
Justice and Mercy are not divorced. You can't discuss one and totally leave out the other - or you can for a bit, but not for long.
Totally apropos:
QuotePsalms 35:11
Extend thy mercy to them that know thee, and thy justice to them that are right in heart.
...
I do think that thinking about predestination in the context of the whole soteriology of the Church has to eventually get to the Redemption.
Quote from: james03 on October 01, 2015, 06:23:57 AM
QuoteIt also means that God does (not just possibly but certainly) save ALL adults who cooperate with His grace - first by receiving Baptism or Baptism of Desire and ending in final perseverance.
And there's the single grace fallacy again. Keeps popping up. Which out of the 100,000 graces God sends the elect, out of which he rejected 75,000, is the critical grace and which others can be confidently rejected?
Cooperating with grace does not mean cooperating with one critical grace. It means cooperating enough with whatever graces God gives us (including graces to repent), enough so that in the end we are in the state of Sanctifying Grace. Throughout a lifetime God sends us sufficient grace so that this is possible, even for one who gets MUCH less grace than others.
If I believed the same way you and/or Cantarella do, I would still say that God gives any pagan sufficient grace to get to heaven. God might give him a grace to consider that his pagan god cannot be the True God; then another to ask more about it; then another... and so on to pray for light... and finally pray for a missionary ... or to by God's blessing move to another country... then another to read the Bible... then another to consider the Church... etc. At any point he can reject a grace or many graces and thus possibly waste the sufficient grace that is given; or God can forgive him and give him more grace. If he is damned he cannot say that it was because God did not give him sufficient grace, because God DOES give every man sufficient grace. He is damned because he did not cooperate.
You will ask but how is salvation possible to one whose circumstances are so drastically uncongenial to becoming and dying as a good Catholic? I say that you are talking about numbers, about likelihood, about probability, but I am talking about what is possible with God. If it just happens with 1 or 10 or 100 people or a million people it is because THEY corresponded with the sufficient graces that God gave them (which of course they do by His mercy).
As Catholics we receive not just sufficient grace but a far greater abundance of grace. We should thank God for what we have received, remember that more is expected of us, concern ourselves with our own salvation, pray for non-Catholics and try to teach them and convert them; rather than getting too wrapped up in probabilities. Only God knows the numbers.
But none of this addresses my points:
1. Unbaptized children who die before the age of reason can not be saved.
2. It is impossible for God to owe us, therefore it is theologically in error to say for Him to require impossible conditions to be saved is unjust.
Your quotes are a non sequitur, however they show that it is conditionally impossible for the reprobate to fulfill the commandments of God, though not absolutely impossible. Here's G-L with my highlights:
QuoteBut those who observe His commandments are better than others and would not keep them in fact, had not God from eternity efficaciously decreed that they should observe these precepts. Thus, these good servants of God are more beloved and assisted by Him than others, although God does not command the impossible of the others.
Furthermore, this very resistance to sufficient grace is an evil which would not occur, here and now, without the divine permission, and nonresistance itself is a good which would not come about here and now except for divine consequent will. Therefore, there is a real difference between sufficient grace, to which is attached the divine permission of sin and by reason of which the fulfillment of the commandments is really possible, and efficacious grace, on the other hand, which is a greater help whence follows not only the real possibility of observing the commandments, but their effective fulfillment.
G-L is a Thomist. You know his position on Grace. Without efficacious Grace, you can not be saved, and God only gives efficacious Grace to the elect.
On St. Thomas:
Quote
St. Thomas in full:
QuoteReply to Objection 3. Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility: as was said above (Question 19, Article 3), that the predestined must necessarily be saved; yet a conditional necessity, which does not do away with the liberty of choice. Whence, although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article3
Does an infant have a particular sin from free will? Impossible, because they have no use of reason.
St. Thomas explains:
QuoteReply to Objection 1. The spiritual regeneration effected by Baptism is somewhat like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the child while in the mother's womb receives nourishment not independently, but through the nourishment of its mother, so also children before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church. Hence Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i): "The Church, our mother, offers her maternal mouth for her children, that they may imbibe the sacred mysteries: for they cannot as yet with their own hearts believe unto justice, nor with their own mouths confess unto salvation . . . And if they are rightly said to believe, because in a certain fashion they make profession of faith by the words of their sponsors, why should they not also be said to repent, since by the words of those same sponsors they evidence their renunciation of the devil and this world?" For the same reason they can be said to intend, not by their own act of intention, since at times they struggle and cry; but by the act of those who bring them to be baptized.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article9
Again:
QuoteSt. Augustine had clearly affirmed that "God does not command what is impossible, but in commanding admonishes thee to do what thou canst and to ask for what thou canst not do."
First quote says it is conditionally impossible for the reprobate to follow the Lord's commandments. It does not say the reprobate will sin (hence children before the age of reason), only that their sin is from free will.
The second quote is a complete non sequitur; it is an explanation of how the faith of the sponsors is sufficient for Baptism.
Third quote is referencing absolute impossibility.
But to avoid a boring debate on semantics, I'll concede that St. Thomas doesn't use the word "reprobate" to refer to the unbaptized children who die before the age of reason and go to Limbo.
Non Nobis,
your post above is what I believe:
QuoteCooperating with grace does not mean cooperating with one critical grace. It means cooperating enough with whatever graces God gives us (including graces to repent), enough so that in the end we are in the state of Sanctifying Grace. Throughout a lifetime God sends us sufficient grace so that this is possible, even for one who gets MUCH less grace than others.
If I believed the same way you and/or Cantarella do, I would still say that God gives any pagan sufficient grace to get to heaven. God might give him a grace to consider that his pagan god cannot be the True God; then another to ask more about it; then another... and so on to pray for light... and finally pray for a missionary ... or to by God's blessing move to another country... then another to read the Bible... then another to consider the Church... etc. At any point he can reject a grace or many graces and thus possibly waste the sufficient grace that is given; or God can forgive him and give him more grace. If he is damned he cannot say that it was because God did not give him sufficient grace, because God DOES give every man sufficient grace. He is damned because he did not cooperate.
You will ask but how is salvation possible to one whose circumstances are so drastically uncongenial to becoming and dying as a good Catholic? I say that you are talking about numbers, about likelihood, about probability, but I am talking about what is possible with God. If it just happens with 1 or 10 or 100 people or a million people it is because THEY corresponded with the sufficient graces that God gave them (which of course they do by His mercy).
As Catholics we receive not just sufficient grace but a far greater abundance of grace. We should thank God for what we have received, remember that more is expected of us, concern ourselves with our own salvation, pray for non-Catholics and try to teach them and convert them; rather than getting too wrapped up in probabilities.
Hell of the damned, is place of eternal punishment for those who have committed Mortal sin; but the conditions for committing Mortal sin are: 1. Grievous Matter 2. Sufficient knowledge 3. Full consent of the will; otherwise there is no Mortal sin. On the other hand, we cannot do anything to either avoid Mortal sin or attain our eternal salvation without God's grace. Therefore every human being that is damned must have both elements present i.e. Those which constitute a Mortal sin; and those that would help them to attain eternal salvation; otherwise God would be unjust in damning anyone to Hell.
The very fact that the Father sent His Son to die on the Cross for the salvation of all men; tells us that He does not will that anyone should be eternally lost, unless they so freely choose.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 02, 2015, 11:51:22 AM
The very fact that the Father sent His Son to die on the Cross for the salvation of all men; tells us that He does not will that anyone should be eternally lost, unless they so freely choose.
But that brings us back to unbaptised infants. They may not be eternally punished, but they
are lost, without freely choosing to be.
Quote from: james03 on October 01, 2015, 11:53:17 PM
...it is theologically in error to say for Him to require impossible conditions to be saved is unjust.
QuoteBut those who observe His commandments are better than others and would not keep them in fact, had not God from eternity efficaciously decreed that they should observe these precepts. Thus, these good servants of God are more beloved and assisted by Him than others, although God does not command the impossible of the others.
Furthermore, this very resistance to sufficient grace is an evil which would not occur, here and now, without the divine permission, and nonresistance itself is a good which would not come about here and now except for divine consequent will. Therefore, there is a real difference between sufficient grace, to which is attached the divine permission of sin and by reason of which the fulfillment of the commandments is really possible, and efficacious grace, on the other hand, which is a greater help whence follows not only the real possibility of observing the commandments, but their effective fulfillment.
Each time G-L uses the word possible or impossible
here he is talking about absolute real possibility.
Whenever St. Augustine or WE, say God does not command the impossible WE, like G-L, are talking about absolute possibility.
But YOU switch MID-STREAM to conditional impossibility. That is not good argumentation.
We and G-L and St. Augustine and St. Thomas all agree in saying (with you) that without God's grace a command cannot be actually carried out (even if we disagree how sufficient and efficacious grace work). But it is (really) possible to obey.
We and G-L and St. Augustine and St. Thomas are all talking about adults. But you insist on including unbaptized babies. Unbaptized babies cannot be saved. But God does not COMMAND them to do good.
It would be unjust (and absurd) for Him to command them to do what is impossible to them.We should argue starting with common principles and subjects. Otherwise how can we ever get on the same page?
Quote from: Clare on October 02, 2015, 12:33:20 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 02, 2015, 11:51:22 AM
The very fact that the Father sent His Son to die on the Cross for the salvation of all men; tells us that He does not will that anyone should be eternally lost, unless they so freely choose.
But that brings us back to unbaptised infants. They may not be eternally punished, but they are lost, without freely choosing to be.
I keep thinking about the Blessed mother, conceived without Original Sin and St. John the Baptist, born without Original sin..
We can only make judgements based on what we objectively know but we also know that There is no limit to what god can do in the extraordinary sense.
Quote from: St.Justin on October 02, 2015, 05:51:15 PM
Quote from: Clare on October 02, 2015, 12:33:20 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 02, 2015, 11:51:22 AM
The very fact that the Father sent His Son to die on the Cross for the salvation of all men; tells us that He does not will that anyone should be eternally lost, unless they so freely choose.
But that brings us back to unbaptised infants. They may not be eternally punished, but they are lost, without freely choosing to be.
I keep thinking about the Blessed mother, conceived without Original Sin and St. John the Baptist, born without Original sin..
We can only make judgements based on what we objectively know but we also know that There is no limit to what god can do in the extraordinary sense.
Clare, sorry I'm probably preaching to the choir with you again here. I know this is also somewhat repetitive...
St. John and Our Lady did obey Christ's command to love Him in their good works, which no babies can do. They did not die as babies. But what makes the difference between limbo and heaven - what brings salvation - is Sanctifying Grace. And the ordinary means to Sanctifying Grace for babies is the Sacrament of Baptism. The Church has pointed out that the Sacrament of Baptism should be given soon to babes because adults have other remedies - namely baptism of desire - but babies do not.
I agree God does extraordinary things - perhaps a better example is the Holy Innocents. I agree that God can miraculously give babies reason, or baptize unreasoning babies Himself without the Sacrament (we cannot limit Him). What I don't don't agree with is the idea that God's might save
all unbaptized babies after all. Why not? Because He DID institute the Sacrament of Baptism, because Original Sin is real, and because the Church has always taught that baptism of babies is crucial. In other words, HE said salvation of babies (or adults) is not universal. Saying that "maybe He'll save all babies after all" is like saying "maybe He'll save everybody after all". A theoretical possibility, maybe, but God has told us otherwise. We may know of one exception - the Holy Innocents - and some may say babies are baptized by their parents' faith, but these are exceptions, which God allows for special reasons, and not His usual way.
With at least with some people there seems to be a lingering hope that "maybe God will save all of them". It does remind me of Hans Urs von Balthasar's book
Dare We Hope "That All Men Be Saved"?. (I don't know much about him except that he is said to be a modernist). I think that we should accept what God tells us through Scripture and the Church, and not question His wisdom, or expect to fully understand it in this life.
Quote from: Clare on October 02, 2015, 12:33:20 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 02, 2015, 11:51:22 AM
The very fact that the Father sent His Son to die on the Cross for the salvation of all men; tells us that He does not will that anyone should be eternally lost, unless they so freely choose.
But that brings us back to unbaptised infants. They may not be eternally punished, but they are lost, without freely choosing to be.
I know when I first think of "lost" (before making precise theological distinctions) I think of "the hell of eternal torments" not including limbo. I bet many Catholics think the same thing. Maybe that is what Michael had in mind. And of course "all men" can be said with the unstated assumption that we are talking about adults, because babies cannot choose.
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 02, 2015, 11:42:41 PM
Quote from: Clare on October 02, 2015, 12:33:20 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 02, 2015, 11:51:22 AM
The very fact that the Father sent His Son to die on the Cross for the salvation of all men; tells us that He does not will that anyone should be eternally lost, unless they so freely choose.
But that brings us back to unbaptised infants. They may not be eternally punished, but they are lost, without freely choosing to be.
I know when I first think of "lost" (before making precise theological distinctions) I think of "the hell of eternal torments" not including limbo. I bet many Catholics think the same thing...
Somewhere in
The Teaching of the Catholic Church (I'll look it up later) it says something about how miscarried children go to Limbo, but they are still lost.
Clare,
Msgr. Pohle stated that how to reconcile God's universal salvific will with the fate of unbaptized infants is a difficulty that does not appear to have any solution outside of Divine revelation; but God has not furnished us with this information. He only states that (pg. 163 ffdd) "The lot of unbaptized infants, though difficult to reconcile with the universality of God's saving will, furnishes no argument against it."
From what have read, and the only solution that I can think of, is that God allows babies to die without Baptism, that if allowed to reach the age of reason, would have lost their souls. His divine providence therefore saves many souls from the Hell of the damned, and gives them a state of eternal natural happiness that they would never have enjoyed otherwise; somewhat similar to our first parents in the garden of Eden.
Its not entirely satisfactory; but its the best I can come up with except for saying "its a mystery".
Quote from: Clare on October 03, 2015, 03:30:40 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 02, 2015, 11:42:41 PM
Quote from: Clare on October 02, 2015, 12:33:20 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 02, 2015, 11:51:22 AM
The very fact that the Father sent His Son to die on the Cross for the salvation of all men; tells us that He does not will that anyone should be eternally lost, unless they so freely choose.
But that brings us back to unbaptised infants. They may not be eternally punished, but they are lost, without freely choosing to be.
I know when I first think of "lost" (before making precise theological distinctions) I think of "the hell of eternal torments" not including limbo. I bet many Catholics think the same thing...
Somewhere in The Teaching of the Catholic Church (I'll look it up later) it says something about how miscarried children go to Limbo, but they are still lost.
Yes, children that die without Baptism are numbered amongst the damned, but they do not suffer either the pain of loss or the pain of senses; since these are punishments due to actual sin. Many theologians believe that they are placed in a state of natural happiness; but God has not revealed to us their fate of condition.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 03, 2015, 08:37:57 AM
...
From what have read, and the only solution that I can think of, is that God allows babies to die without Baptism, that if allowed to reach the age of reason, would have lost their souls. His divine providence therefore saves many souls from the Hell of the damned, and gives them a state of eternal natural happiness that they would never have enjoyed otherwise; somewhat similar to our first parents in the garden of Eden.
...
I bet all the actual, suffering damned, wish that God hadn't given them the chance either.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 03, 2015, 08:40:15 AM
... Many theologians believe that they are placed in a state of natural happiness; but God has not revealed to us their fate of condition.
Fr Arminjon suggests:
QuoteBut children who die unbaptized do not possess the kernel of glory; they have never been able to apprehend its price; their minds, unenlightened by baptism, do not possess any disposition or aptitude preparing them for the vision of supernatural things, any more than animals have the capacity to be taught by the light of reason and to grasp mathematical and speculative truths. Thus it is inconsistent to grant that they will suffer the loss of a good to which by nature, they were not destined. These children who have died unbaptized will not be separated from God completely: they will be united to Him in the sense that they will attain their natural end, and will see God, as far as it is possible to see Him, through the medium of eternal beings, to the extent that He manifests Himself in the marvels and harmonies of creation. A precious doctrine, which reconciles both divine justice and divine goodness, a sweet consolation for Christian mothers who mourn their children killed in a natural accident without having been reborn by the sacrament of the Redemption!
The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life (http://archive.org/stream/TheEndOfThisPresentWorldAndTheMysteriesOfTheLifeToCome/EndOfThisPresentWorldAndMysteriesOfTheLifeToCome-FatherCharlesArminjon_djvu.txt)
Quote from: Clare on October 03, 2015, 09:24:50 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 03, 2015, 08:37:57 AM
...
From what have read, and the only solution that I can think of, is that God allows babies to die without Baptism, that if allowed to reach the age of reason, would have lost their souls. His divine providence therefore saves many souls from the Hell of the damned, and gives them a state of eternal natural happiness that they would never have enjoyed otherwise; somewhat similar to our first parents in the garden of Eden.
...
I bet all the actual, suffering damned, wish that God hadn't given them the chance either.
Our Lord spoke of Judas as saying that it would have been better if he had never been born. Hell is not the place you want to go to.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 03, 2015, 10:17:35 AM
Quote from: Clare on October 03, 2015, 09:24:50 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 03, 2015, 08:37:57 AM
...
From what have read, and the only solution that I can think of, is that God allows babies to die without Baptism, that if allowed to reach the age of reason, would have lost their souls. His divine providence therefore saves many souls from the Hell of the damned, and gives them a state of eternal natural happiness that they would never have enjoyed otherwise; somewhat similar to our first parents in the garden of Eden.
...
I bet all the actual, suffering damned, wish that God hadn't given them the chance either.
Our Lord spoke of Judas as saying that it would have been better if he had never been born. Hell is not the place you want to go to.
So, there's a kind of three-tier predestination:
The elect are saved
The reprobate are damned
The rest aren't born
So why does God not decide that it would be better for the damned not to be born, and therefore not give them the chance of being born or dying in infancy? Why are those who go to Limbo preferred to those who go to Hell proper?
In fact, if God knows that someone will go to Hell if he lives (and of course He does know), why does he not have him die after baptism but before serious sin?
I know. It's a mystery!
QuoteSo, there's a kind of three-tier predestination:
The elect are saved
The reprobate are damned
The rest aren't born
So why does God not decide that it would be better for the damned not to be born, and therefore not give them the chance of being born or dying in infancy? Why are those who go to Limbo preferred to those who go to Hell proper?
In fact, if God knows that someone will go to Hell if he lives (and of course He does know), why does he not have him die after baptism but before serious sin?
I know. It's a mystery!
Yes, beyond my competence.
QuoteEach time G-L uses the word possible or impossible here he is talking about absolute real possibility.
Whenever St. Augustine or WE, say God does not command the impossible WE, like G-L, are talking about absolute possibility.
But YOU switch MID-STREAM to conditional impossibility. That is not good argumentation.
I switch?
Quote from: St. ThomasReply to Objection 3. Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility:
Someone posted this supposedly to...well, I have no idea why the opposing side would post this. Anyhow, I am arguing the Thomist argument. The reprobate cannot obtain grace because of conditional impossibility. They don't have Sanctifying Grace, and they don't have efficacious grace.
I showed this in my example. Barrack received sufficient grace to quit sinning and to pay attention to natural law. It had an effect. However, DUE TO HIS FALLEN NATURE, and the fact that he was born in the head hunting moslem culture, he went back to his savage ways, and God permitted it, because Barrack was reprobated. It was conditionally impossible for Barrack to avoid sin, even though it was not absolutely impossible. He knew it was wrong. Is it an impossible condition for a Catholic to avoid mortal sin? Do we sin? Is it an impossible condition to even avoid a venial sin? Do we sin? Even the baptized struggle mightily against our enflamed passions, weakened wills, and clouded intellects.
Achmed, however, God chose to save, so He sends him efficacious GraceS to keep from the grievious sin, and to profess Christ and be martyred. Therefore God removed the impossible condition from Achmed and saved him.
And yes, Non Nobis, I do not mention Mercy and Love because I am not arguing against Manechianists.
QuoteMsgr. Pohle stated that how to reconcile God's universal salvific will with the fate of unbaptized infants is a difficulty that does not appear to have any solution outside of Divine revelation;
Well, at least Pohle admits his system can't deal with the real world. I suggest he should have read St. Thomas.
QuoteGod wills all men to be saved by His antecedent will, which is to will not simply but relatively; and not by His consequent will, which is to will simply.
It is quite clear that St. Thomas is correct about the context of 1 Timothy. The same Bible is not going to say few are saved, and then say that God's consequent will is that all men are saved. It is true, God desires all men to be saved. But He also has decreed Free Will and He is Truth. There are other factors He considers, which He has not revealed.
Quote from: MichaelYes, children that die without Baptism are numbered amongst the damned, but they do not suffer either the pain of loss or the pain of senses; since these are punishments due to actual sin.
Yes, and they are in this situation because of God's Sovereign Plan. Now God is Prudence, He does not "have" Prudence. Therefore His plan is Truth.
Now,
per impossibile, if man was less fallen more people would be saved. God works with reality, a circle is not a triangle. However, man is a fallen race and has Original Sin.
QuoteIf I believed the same way you and/or Cantarella do, I would still say that God gives any pagan sufficient grace to get to heaven. God might give him a grace to consider that his pagan god cannot be the True God; then another to ask more about it; then another... and so on to pray for light... and finally pray for a missionary ... or to by God's blessing move to another country... then another to read the Bible... then another to consider the Church... etc. At any point he can reject a grace or many graces and thus possibly waste the sufficient grace that is given; or God can forgive him and give him more grace. If he is damned he cannot say that it was because God did not give him sufficient grace, because God DOES give every man sufficient grace. He is damned because he did not cooperate.
First, I have to check an assumption. Do you understand the precise theological meaning of the term sufficient grace?
Because God does NOT give every man efficacious grace. The cause of salvation is predestination.
QuoteI bet all the actual, suffering damned, wish that God hadn't given them the chance either.
Yes and no:
QuoteHow I wish that I had never been born! I wish I could annihilate myself at this moment and escape these torments! There could be no pleasure greater than to be able to end my existence, to do away with myself like a piece of cloth reduced to ashes, leaving no remnant behind.(3) But I must exist. I must be as I have made myself, bearing the total blame for how I have ended........All of these memories only show us the horrible sight of the graces we rejected........Catholics who are damned suffer more than those of other beliefs because, in general, they received more lights and graces without taking advantage of them. The ones who knew more suffer more than those who had less knowledge. Those who sinned out of malice suffer more than those who fell from weakness. No one, however, suffers more than he deserves.
http://www.tldm.org/News6/hell2.htm (http://www.tldm.org/News6/hell2.htm)
edit: If you want to contemplate the mystical side of Catholicism, consider this from the letter:
But I must exist.
Quote from: james03 on October 03, 2015, 12:14:41 PM
Quote from: MichaelYes, children that die without Baptism are numbered amongst the damned, but they do not suffer either the pain of loss or the pain of senses; since these are punishments due to actual sin.
Yes, and they are in this situation because of God's Sovereign Plan. Now God is Prudence, He does not "have" Prudence. Therefore His plan is Truth.
Now, per impossibile, if man was less fallen more people would be saved. God works with reality, a circle is not a triangle. However, man is a fallen race and has Original Sin.
I don't know if what you stated above is true about "no fall = less damned"; The Church teaches that Christ by His death on the Cross gained for men greater graces than if there would never had been a fall; the prayer in the Offertory in the Mass reflects this truth:
"O God, who, in creating human nature, didst wonderfully dignify it,
and still more wonderfully restored it,...." More graces should therefore = more saved; no?
Is there anything you have read that states this?
QuoteThe Church teaches that Christ by His death on the Cross gained for men greater graces than if there would never had been a fall;
True, but if there were no fall, no grace would be needed. The more sinful we are, the more graces Christ needed to merit.
Quote"O God, who, in creating human nature, didst wonderfully dignify it, and still more wonderfully restored it,...."
By sanctifying Grace. Not for everyone.
QuoteIs there anything you have read that states this?
First off, please note the "per impossibile". That being said, less fallen man would reject fewer Graces. For example, if Barrack were "less fallen", then he would have cooperated with the sufficient Grace. So let's say in a "less fallen" world, he would have stood up to his friends, but would have folded in front of the Iman. In that situation, God could have strengthened that habit of fortitude with an efficacious Grace and saved him, that is, after Barrack stood up to his friends, God would have sent him efficacious grace.
But this is "per impossibile". Reality is reality. My
personal belief is that God optimizes the situation of fallen man. So in this mix the combination of saved, in Limbo, in upper levels of hell, and with reduced suffering in the torments of hell is maximized.
Quote from: james03 on October 03, 2015, 12:00:15 PM
QuoteMsgr. Pohle stated that how to reconcile God's universal salvific will with the fate of unbaptized infants is a difficulty that does not appear to have any solution outside of Divine revelation;
Well, at least Pohle admits his system can't deal with the real world. I suggest he should have read St. Thomas. QuoteGod wills all men to be saved by His antecedent will, which is to will not simply but relatively; and not by His consequent will, which is to will simply.
It is quite clear that St. Thomas is correct about the context of 1 Timothy. The same Bible is not going to say few are saved, and then say that God's consequent will is that all men are saved. It is true, God desires all men to be saved. But He also has decreed Free Will and He is Truth. There are other factors He considers, which He has not revealed.
James,
Msgr. Pohl unlike yourself, admits that not all of God's ways are clearly understood my men, even those who have reached the highest levels of Catholic academia as he did. Now your reply while true, does not solve anything; to whit: The Catholic Church teaches that God wills all men to be saved; yet at the same time teaches that some such as babies and adults that never reach the age of reason and die without Baptism are lost. Now how does one reconcile these two truths without denying one or the other?
Antecedent and Consequent will? But if God is omnipotent and nothing happens without His will or permission, how is it that some die without baptism and are lost that could easily be saved? He could easily make an exception for such cases in view of the infinite merits of Christ; yet the Church teaches that He doesn't.
"There are other factors..." Which is identical to saying at the bottom it is a mystery.
James,
I'm going to start a new thread on the topic of never fallen = more saved.
QuoteJames,
Msgr. Pohl unlike yourself, admits that not all of God's ways are clearly understood my men, even those who have reached the highest levels of Catholic academia as he did.
His problem is not lack of intelligence, but pride. He opposes St. Thomas (keep in mind that the rejection of Scholasticism is the core problem we face today, read some Feser on the atheists if you need convincing) but doesn't even mention that St. Thomas explains 1 Timothy perfectly well.
QuoteBut if God is omnipotent and nothing happens without His will or permission, how is it that some die without baptism and are lost that could easily be saved?
1. God decreed free will. Therefore atheist parents refuse to baptize a baby. The baby is lost. God did not override the free will of the atheists.
2. God is Truth. The unbaptized baby who dies before birth dies according to the physical laws of Creation.
3. God is Merciful. Those with Original Sin only reach the ultimate in natural happiness. Why ignore this? Theologically, we call it an ultimate loss, but the baby doesn't know this. It is experiencing the ultimate in natural happiness.
4. The real question is why does it appear that God is stingy with miracles that override physical laws? On that one, we have a mystery, admitted. I can pray to St. Anthony and miraculously find something, so yes, Catholics do receive many small miracles through prayer. So perhaps that is part of the answer:
a. We must merit a miracle.
b. There must be an overall benefit, or at least no harm: Thus grieving parents praying over a dying child don't realize that if the child lives, he goes to hell, but if he dies, goes to heaven.
I believe part of the problem is an understanding of heaven and God that is best taught to little kids. God is the old guy (who for some reason has a staff, probably a Moses type), and heaven is a big summer block party where you are with family and friends. Well, that describes Limbo, (sans old guy), though Limbo is better. Heaven is the attainment of the Divine Beatitude, which can only metaphysically happen if we partake of the Divine and the Blessed Trinity dwells within us. I personally doubt I'll care who else is in heaven. Perhaps having friends and family viewing the Beatific Vision with me will increase my happiness, but not having people there will certainly not decrease it. The Beatific vision is the form of the Good, it is the ultimate, so it can't be diminished. Existence itself and what that mean. The First Cause, the Prime mover. Why we must exist. All will be before us. Happy is he who possesses what he loves. And there is nothing more we can love Greater than God.
I know absolutely nothing on this topic but currently I am reading Catherine Anne Catherine Emmerich book on the Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary....
In it is a detailed description of the Journey of the Three Kings to worship the Infant Jesus. She also says that Our Lord travelled to see them 30 years later during his public ministry. Two were alive and one was dead and she mentioned that the 3 had received baptism. When the writer asked how could the dead king receive baptism she said immediately that when he died he received Baptism of Desire.
just saying ..,...
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 02, 2015, 11:09:10 PM
Quote from: St.Justin on October 02, 2015, 05:51:15 PM
Quote from: Clare on October 02, 2015, 12:33:20 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 02, 2015, 11:51:22 AM
The very fact that the Father sent His Son to die on the Cross for the salvation of all men; tells us that He does not will that anyone should be eternally lost, unless they so freely choose.
But that brings us back to unbaptised infants. They may not be eternally punished, but they are lost, without freely choosing to be.
I keep thinking about the Blessed mother, conceived without Original Sin and St. John the Baptist, born without Original sin..
We can only make judgements based on what we objectively know but we also know that There is no limit to what god can do in the extraordinary sense.
Clare, sorry I'm probably preaching to the choir with you again here. I know this is also somewhat repetitive...
St. John and Our Lady did obey Christ's command to love Him in their good works, which no babies can do. They did not die as babies. But what makes the difference between limbo and heaven - what brings salvation - is Sanctifying Grace. And the ordinary means to Sanctifying Grace for babies is the Sacrament of Baptism. The Church has pointed out that the Sacrament of Baptism should be given soon to babes because adults have other remedies - namely baptism of desire - but babies do not.
I agree God does extraordinary things - perhaps a better example is the Holy Innocents. I agree that God can miraculously give babies reason, or baptize unreasoning babies Himself without the Sacrament (we cannot limit Him). What I don't don't agree with is the idea that God's might save all unbaptized babies after all. Why not? Because He DID institute the Sacrament of Baptism, because Original Sin is real, and because the Church has always taught that baptism of babies is crucial. In other words, HE said salvation of babies (or adults) is not universal. Saying that "maybe He'll save all babies after all" is like saying "maybe He'll save everybody after all". A theoretical possibility, maybe, but God has told us otherwise. We may know of one exception - the Holy Innocents - and some may say babies are baptized by their parents' faith, but these are exceptions, which God allows for special reasons, and not His usual way.
With at least with some people there seems to be a lingering hope that "maybe God will save all of them". It does remind me of Hans Urs von Balthasar's book Dare We Hope "That All Men Be Saved"?. (I don't know much about him except that he is said to be a modernist). I think that we should accept what God tells us through Scripture and the Church, and not question His wisdom, or expect to fully understand it in this life.
We know full well that the Sacraments are the Ordinary means of Sanctifying Grace and thus Salvation but we also no full well that there are extraordinary means the example that of the Sacrament of Penance is the Ordinary means of the forgiveness of mortal sin but an Perfect Act of Contrition suffices as an extraordinary means. The same applies to Matrimony. This also applies to Baptizm as the Church as always taught.
Quote from: james03 on October 03, 2015, 11:52:26 AM]
Quote from: St. ThomasReply to Objection 3. Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility:
My post was a little confusing, but I was not denying conditional vs. absolute impossibility.
I was mainly trying to say that when we (St. Thomas, G-L, etc) say "God does not command the impossible" (neither conditional nor absolute is expressed) we are referring to absolute impossibility.
Quote from: james03 on October 03, 2015, 11:52:26 AM
I showed this in my example. Barrack received sufficient grace to quit sinning and to pay attention to natural law. It had an effect. However, DUE TO HIS FALLEN NATURE, and the fact that he was born in the head hunting moslem culture, he went back to his savage ways, and God permitted it, because Barrack was reprobated.
Reprobation implies that one will die in mortal sin. But the CAUSE of the sin is man's free will. Eternal permission of a sin (not giving grace to stop it) MEANS that sin will occur. But the CAUSE of the sin is man's free will. (Unlike Predestination where God is the cause of the good)
Barrack went back to his savage ways due to his own free will. Fallen nature and circumstances do not CAUSE sin (sin is not due to them), but only make it easier (because of (as you say) enflamed passions, weakened wills, and clouded intellects, and conditions uncongenial to becoming a Catholic).
Quote from: james03 on October 03, 2015, 11:52:26 AM
Achmed, however, God chose to save, so He sends him efficacious GraceS to keep from the grievious sin, and to profess Christ and be martyred. Therefore God removed the impossible condition from Achmed and saved him.
God caused the efficacious grace He gave to Achmed, but did not cause Barracks rejection of grace. God can choose to give overpowering efficacious grace to some so they do good infallibly (Our Lady), but others He first gives sufficient grace, and if they resist it He does not give efficacious grace. God can choose to give efficacious grace to absolutely cause good, but He can also permit resistance and sin. (I agree that without grace at the end of life it would have been conditionally impossible for Achmed to be saved)
Quote from: James
And yes, Non Nobis, I do not mention Mercy and Love because I am not arguing against Manechianists.
When arguing against one heresy one has to be careful not to fall into another. And Justice and Mercy are not divorced, as I said in a previous post.
(order of quotes changed)
Quote from: James
The reprobate cannot obtain grace because of conditional impossibility. They don't have Sanctifying Grace, and they don't have efficacious grace.
Actual grace comes for each good deed. We could argue about non-Catholics, but I'm sure you'll agree that reprobate Catholics DO receive Sanctifying Grace and actual graces, but then resist at some of them and sin and die in the state of mortal sin. When St. Thomas says that a reprobate does not obtain grace, I'm sure he is referring to the grace(s) that finally results in heaven, not the individual graces along the way.
Reprobation-followed-by-eternal-torments implies that God from eternity permits the freely willed sins that lead to the final mortal sin, rather than eternally willing to give the efficacious grace(s) that absolutely would result in Sanctifying Grace instead. At least that is how I would try to explain it right now. You have to eventually get to the freely-willed sins as one root of this reprobation. It is a matter of God-permitting-man's-freely-willed-sin, not only God-not-giving-grace.
I agree that Reprobation-followed-by-limbo is due simply to God not giving Sanctifying Grace - but in this case a baby cannot freely sin.
James,
I agree with everything in your last post (well except for accusing Msgr. Pohl of pride); but again, even given all that you said; here is a group of immortal souls that never had a chance to attain eternal salvation. Free will, sin etc. etc. are only applicable to those who reach the age of reason; and God knew beforehand that such cases as these would occur. So why not save all these souls? He has the power; Christ has paid the price of their salvation; there really isn't an obstacle set up by these souls.
Not that I doubt God's mercy or goodness or the order that He has set up. I just don't see in the replies given an entirely satisfactory resolution of the question.
Another problem I have with the idea of most people being reprobate is that that means we are not all created to know, love, and serve God in this world and be happy with Him forever in the next. Only some of us are. Most of us are created to be reprobated. If we're all damned by default, with a small elect being saved, how can it be said that we're created for Heaven? Some of us are. I suppose I might be... but then... It gets depressing! Why did God make me? God made me possibly to be happy with Him forever, but more likely to be reprobated; whatever is His sovereign will.
That can't be right though. Where is my train of thought going wrong?
Quote from: Clare on October 04, 2015, 08:06:01 AM
Another problem I have with the idea of most people being reprobate is that that means we are not all created to know, love, and serve God in this world and be happy with Him forever in the next. Only some of us are. Most of us are created to be reprobated. If we're all damned by default, with a small elect being saved, how can it be said that we're created for Heaven? Some of us are. I suppose I might be... but then... It gets depressing! Why did God make me? God made me possibly to be happy with Him forever, but more likely to be reprobated; whatever is His sovereign will.
That can't be right though. Where is my train of thought going wrong?
Yes.
QuoteSo why not save all these souls?
Let us consider the one cell human being flushed down the toilet at the fertility clinic.
1. Since it is human, by default it metaphysically can not view the beatific vision. It is fallen. Therefore for God to declare it Just would be an offense against Prudence.
2. Where do you draw the line? Pete the good Catholic who raised a bunch of kids and was living most of his life in Sanctifying Grace falls into adultery and goes to hell. So he says to God, "You "save" a one celled human, but your sheep who WAS saved, you idly sat by and allowed to wander off? And now I burn forever in hell, and all you had to do, anytime during 40 years, was to bring my death, and I'd be in heaven." How about Babu that gets thrown into the neighbors cook pot a few months after reaching the age of reason? Where do you draw the line? Where does this end up?......wait for it..........Vatican II. And the canonization of the heresiarch Karol Wojtyla and people taking his ridiculous personalism seriously.
3. There is a premise in this question, and that is dualism. That there is a "ghost" soul of the one celled human that CAN got to heaven and view the Beatific Vision. Dualism has been completely refuted. So if we take the Aristotelian-Thomistic view, that the soul is just the form of man, and man is only the complete man, we see we have a one-cell human. He has no ability to contemplate. He has no name. He has no senses. He is almost completely unactualized potential. We can say certainly that he will suffer no torments. But I have even a problem saying he'll have natural happiness. I'd say he is at peace. And I'd say that any happiness possible, if it is possible, will be his. But metaphysically his existence is a one celled human being that had barely any potential actualized. Therefore it is metaphysically impossible for him to contemplate the Beatific Vision.
QuoteThat can't be right though. Where is my train of thought going wrong?
By worrying about reprobation and predestination. What you need to overcome is your impulse to reject Original Sin.
For example:
QuoteMost of us are created to be reprobated.
Change that thought to this: ALL of us are born incapable of going to heaven. We are born with Original Sin and are a fallen race.
Reprobation is God's decision to leave us in our natural state. It changes nothing. It does not set up an absolute impossibility for salvation, but leaves us in a conditionally impossible situation.
QuoteWhy did God make me? God made me possibly to be happy with Him forever, but more likely to be reprobated; whatever is His sovereign will.
Baptized Catholic who says her rosary and goes to the TLM, and you think more likely than not you are reprobated?
QuoteAnother problem I have with the idea of most people being reprobate is that that means we are not all created to know, love, and serve God in this world and be happy with Him forever in the next.
If 99.99% were saved, this objection would still exist.
ALL are made to know, love, and serve God, etc... IN POTENTIAL. However, this potential is not actualized (at least not fully) in the reprobate.
Quote from: james03 on October 04, 2015, 12:37:52 PM
QuoteAnother problem I have with the idea of most people being reprobate is that that means we are not all created to know, love, and serve God in this world and be happy with Him forever in the next.
If 99.99% were saved, this objection would still exist.
ALL are made to know, love, and serve God, etc... IN POTENTIAL. However, this potential is not actualized (at least not fully) in the reprobate.
I don't have a problem with the idea that one is reprobated for failing. It's the idea that one fails because one is reprobated that I don't get. Is that APM vs PPM again? I prefer PPM.
QuoteI don't have a problem with the idea that one is reprobated for failing. It's the idea that one fails because one is reprobated that I don't get.
How about one fails because one has Original Sin? Start with that. Then tell me why God should save anyone.
QuoteIs that APM vs PPM again? I prefer PPM.
If you know about PPM, maybe you can answer my questions about it no one else can. First question, where is the predestination? If it is not a system of predestination, then it is heresy.
James,
"draw the line"; well in the examples you gave, except for the baby of one cell, the rest reached the age of reason; therefore they were responsible for their eternal salvation through their free will cooperation with God's grace. But the one cell baby cannot cooperate or refuse God's grace; why does God not save it?
What is the problem? God wills all men to be saved, and Christ died for all men; and Christ's death is "sufficient" for all men; therefore....
"Dualism"; I don't really follow you there. If the soul is infused into the body at conception, then "one cell" or "million cells" doesn't make a difference, it is a human being.
Quote from: james03 on October 04, 2015, 03:44:25 PM
QuoteI don't have a problem with the idea that one is reprobated for failing. It's the idea that one fails because one is reprobated that I don't get.
How about one fails because one has Original Sin? Start with that. Then tell me why God should save anyone.
QuoteIs that APM vs PPM again? I prefer PPM.
If you know about PPM, maybe you can answer my questions about it no one else can. First question, where is the predestination? If it is not a system of predestination, then it is heresy.
"Why should God save anyone?" Because He sent His only begotten Son to die on the Cross for the salvation of all men. Therefore, the price of our salvation has been paid; God's justice has been satisfied; His mercy is now given free reign; the floodgates of grace and salvation were opened and poured fourth when Christ's Heart was pierced with a lance on Mt. Calvary.
If God did not want to save anyone, then the Incarnation/redemption is purposeless.
"Predestination"; we had a long thread on this subject in which all of the present posters participated. Both APM and PPM are Catholic systems. So "heresy" is not the question here, but rather, how to square apparently contradictory doctrines i.e. The universal salvific will of God with the condemnation of those who never had a chance to attain eternal life.
Clare stated:
QuoteI don't have a problem with the idea that one is reprobated for failing. It's the idea that one fails because one is reprobated that I don't get. Is that APM vs PPM again? I prefer PPM.
Yes, that is my problem; if God decides APM what souls are going to be saved and which are not, then why send His Son to die on the Cross? Why even try to be good? Its all been decided. If I am one of the elect, then God will send me an irresistible efficacious grace that will save me and if I'm not, then no matter how hard I try,
He wont send me the efficacious graces I need to persevere in good and I will infallibly fall; "too bad, so sad" for me.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 04, 2015, 09:10:13 PM
Clare stated: QuoteI don't have a problem with the idea that one is reprobated for failing. It's the idea that one fails because one is reprobated that I don't get. Is that APM vs PPM again? I prefer PPM.
Yes, that is my problem; if God decides APM what souls are going to be saved and which are not, then why send His Son to die on the Cross? Why even try to be good? Its all been decided. If I am one of the elect, then God will send me an irresistible efficacious grace that will save me and if I'm not, then no matter how hard I try,
He wont send me the efficacious graces I need to persevere in good and I will infallibly fall; "too bad, so sad" for me.
In a side conversation I had with INPEFESS, he stated something which might help:
(paraphrasing)
The idea of someone sliding towards the pit and crying out to Jesus and God just saying, "nope!" is a misnomer.
Rather, such a person who is rejecting grace is going to do so in a way which is antithetical to trying to be holy.
So we should have hope when we are trying, and even have a good desire, because it lets us know the truth of what St. Paul said in Philippians 2:
" [12] Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation. [13]
For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will."
Michael, if you get a chance, please get in touch with INPEFESS. He has been able to explain some things which have really opened up some understanding of this topic from the Thomistic point of view.
I'm hoping he gets a chance to send me his notes, as they break it all down very clearly, quickly, and are a goldmine of synthesizing Garrigou-Lagrange and St. Thomas on this subject. To be honest, his breakdown of this subject is unlike any other I've read in its clarity and cohesiveness. It truly is systematic and for some reason doesn't translate well to the forum, but in other methods of communication is quite beautiful and serene.
Edit: fixed a sentence.
Quote from: james03 on October 04, 2015, 12:36:05 PM
QuoteWhy did God make me? God made me possibly to be happy with Him forever, but more likely to be reprobated; whatever is His sovereign will.
Baptized Catholic who says her rosary and goes to the TLM, and you think more likely than not you are reprobated?
Well why shouldn't she, when you continually use erroneous examples of some good Catholic who goes his whole life fighting the good fight and at the last minute God abandons him and the guy necessarily goes into mortal sin (contradicting Augustine's exhortation that we abandon God first).
Quote from: james03 on October 03, 2015, 12:20:31 PM
QuoteIf I believed the same way you and/or Cantarella do, I would still say that God gives any pagan sufficient grace to get to heaven. God might give him a grace to consider that his pagan god cannot be the True God; then another to ask more about it; then another... and so on to pray for light... and finally pray for a missionary ... or to by God's blessing move to another country... then another to read the Bible... then another to consider the Church... etc. At any point he can reject a grace or many graces and thus possibly waste the sufficient grace that is given; or God can forgive him and give him more grace. If he is damned he cannot say that it was because God did not give him sufficient grace, because God DOES give every man sufficient grace. He is damned because he did not cooperate.
First, I have to check an assumption. Do you understand the precise theological meaning of the term sufficient grace?
Because God does NOT give every man efficacious grace. The cause of salvation is predestination.
You said: " if Barrack were "less fallen", then he would have cooperated with the sufficient Grace.".
When "sufficient grace" is distinguished from "efficacious grace" by Thomists, sufficient grace must be cooperated with (not resisted), but efficacious grace works of itself.
There is "sufficient sufficient grace" for salvation for any man IF he does cooperate (not resist). Cooperation and the actual doing of supernatural good require efficacious grace. Only the elect receive "sufficient efficacious grace" for salvation. A reprobate is damned because he did not cooperate with "sufficient sufficient grace", not because God did not give him "sufficient efficacious grace".
Not very good but it's what I have for now.
Quote from: Clare on October 03, 2015, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 03, 2015, 08:40:15 AM
... Many theologians believe that they are placed in a state of natural happiness; but God has not revealed to us their fate of condition.
Fr Arminjon suggests:
QuoteBut children who die unbaptized do not possess the kernel of glory; they have never been able to apprehend its price; their minds, unenlightened by baptism, do not possess any disposition or aptitude preparing them for the vision of supernatural things, any more than animals have the capacity to be taught by the light of reason and to grasp mathematical and speculative truths. Thus it is inconsistent to grant that they will suffer the loss of a good to which by nature, they were not destined. These children who have died unbaptized will not be separated from God completely: they will be united to Him in the sense that they will attain their natural end, and will see God, as far as it is possible to see Him, through the medium of eternal beings, to the extent that He manifests Himself in the marvels and harmonies of creation. A precious doctrine, which reconciles both divine justice and divine goodness, a sweet consolation for Christian mothers who mourn their children killed in a natural accident without having been reborn by the sacrament of the Redemption!
The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life (http://archive.org/stream/TheEndOfThisPresentWorldAndTheMysteriesOfTheLifeToCome/EndOfThisPresentWorldAndMysteriesOfTheLifeToCome-FatherCharlesArminjon_djvu.txt)
St. Thomas Aquinas says something similar:
Quote from: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/6001.htm#article2.. it must be observed that if one is guided by right reason one does not grieve through being deprived of what is beyond one's power to obtain, but only through lack of that which, in some way, one is capable of obtaining. Thus no wise man grieves for being unable to fly like a bird, or for that he is not a king or an emperor, since these things are not due to him; whereas he would grieve if he lacked that to which he had some kind of claim. I say, then, that every man who has the use of free-will is adapted to obtain eternal life, because he can prepare himself for grace whereby to merit eternal life [Cf. I-II, 109, 5 and 6]; so that if he fail in this, his grief will be very great, since he has lost what he was able to possess. But children were never adapted to possess eternal life, since neither was this due to them by virtue of their natural principles, for it surpasses the entire faculty of nature, nor could they perform acts of their own whereby to obtain so great a good. Hence they will nowise grieve for being deprived of the divine vision; nay, rather will they rejoice for that they will have a large share of God's goodness and their own natural perfections. Nor can it be said that they were adapted to obtain eternal life, not indeed by their own action, but by the actions of others around them, since they could be baptized by others, like other children of the same condition who have been [ being ] baptized and obtained eternal life: for this is of superabundant grace that one should be rewarded without any act of one's own. Wherefore the lack of such a grace will not cause sorrow in children who die without Baptism, any more than the lack of many graces accorded to others of the same condition makes a wise man to grieve
We could envy Our Lady for Her immeasurable abundance of grace; but what foolishness: God gives us what is abundant goodness for
us.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 04, 2015, 09:10:13 PM
Clare stated: QuoteI don't have a problem with the idea that one is reprobated for failing. It's the idea that one fails because one is reprobated that I don't get. Is that APM vs PPM again? I prefer PPM.
Yes, that is my problem; if God decides APM what souls are going to be saved and which are not, then why send His Son to die on the Cross? Why even try to be good? Its all been decided. If I am one of the elect, then God will send me an irresistible efficacious grace that will save me and if I'm not, then no matter how hard I try,
He wont send me the efficacious graces I need to persevere in good and I will infallibly fall; "too bad, so sad" for me.
Furthermore, what's the point in evangelising? Elect are saved, reprobate are not; and we are powerless to make anyone who is reprobate elect.
Quote from: Clare on October 05, 2015, 12:34:51 AM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 04, 2015, 09:10:13 PM
Clare stated: QuoteI don't have a problem with the idea that one is reprobated for failing. It's the idea that one fails because one is reprobated that I don't get. Is that APM vs PPM again? I prefer PPM.
Yes, that is my problem; if God decides APM what souls are going to be saved and which are not, then why send His Son to die on the Cross? Why even try to be good? Its all been decided. If I am one of the elect, then God will send me an irresistible efficacious grace that will save me and if I'm not, then no matter how hard I try,
He wont send me the efficacious graces I need to persevere in good and I will infallibly fall; "too bad, so sad" for me.
Furthermore, what's the point in evangelising? Elect are saved, reprobate are not; and we are powerless to make anyone who is reprobate elect.
If you don't live a holy life or evangelize, then it will have been true that there was reprobation from eternity, but it was your free will to sin that brought damnation. Do live a holy life and do evangelize, and the primary cause of goodness and salvation will have been God predestining, but God worked in your free will doing good.
Do good, avoid evil, and above all pray, and don't worry about predestination and reprobation. The main point is to give all the credit to God, and place all the blame on yourself.
Even if you don't believe in predestination, you have the problem of not knowing if you will suddenly reject God's grace at the end of a holy life. "Pray, hope, and don't worry", as Padre Pio said.
To make myself less miserable, I keep thinking God does have a sovereign plan, and our free will is part of it. My trouble with reprobation APM is, it seems He programs most of us to reject Him, and a few of us to accept Him. But we're not robots, and God doesn't make robots; we do.
Gardener,
thank you so much for the suggestion re. INPEFESS and His notes. I cannot look at this issue right now; I have a total block on APM and the Thomistic concepts of "sufficient" and "efficacious" grace; the "predestination" thread left me pretty much wrung out. But I do have a couple of books by Garigou-Lagrange that I will eventually get around to reading, such as "Predestination", "Providence" and "God, His Existence and Nature". When and if I finish those, I will "knock on INPEFESS' door" and see how his explanation differs from what he posted on that thread.
QuoteWell why shouldn't she, when you continually use erroneous examples of some good Catholic who goes his whole life fighting the good fight and at the last minute God abandons him and the guy necessarily goes into mortal sin (contradicting Augustine's exhortation that we abandon God first).
Because there's a guy right now who just died. He went through a big chunk of his life as a good Catholic, then divorced his wife and lived in adultery. It's a real world scenario that probably most people have an example of, and a system of predestination MUST be able to deal with it, or it is no system at all.
Quote"Dualism"; I don't really follow you there. If the soul is infused into the body at conception, then "one cell" or "million cells" doesn't make a difference, it is a human being.
If we take the normal meaning of the word "infused", then your very statement is Dualism.
There is a big difference in a human being between a one celled human and a fully grown human. As I said previously, a one celled human is almost completely unactualized potential.
Put it another way,
per impossibile, IF God "saved" this one celled human, He would have a robot. He would have to construct a personality for it, give it a name, and everything else that makes up a human. So it would be a totally arbitrary human, and therefore would not have free will. Because it is almost completely unactualized potential.
Quote"Why should God save anyone?" Because He sent His only begotten Son to die on the Cross for the salvation of all men.
Begging the question. Sending His Son was the principle act of Salvation. So why should God do that?
Quote"Predestination"; we had a long thread on this subject in which all of the present posters participated. Both APM and PPM are Catholic systems.
Notice my request goes unanswered again.
Walk me through the PPM system and show me how it is predestination. If it is not predestination, then it is certainly not Catholic (Council of Quenzy, first canon).
Quotehow to square apparently contradictory doctrines i.e. The universal salvific will of God with the condemnation of those who never had a chance to attain eternal life.
In other words, PPM can not deal with real life. The Thomist system explains Michael's quandary perfectly.
QuoteWhen "sufficient grace" is distinguished from "efficacious grace" by Thomists, sufficient grace must be cooperated with (not resisted), but efficacious grace works of itself.
Sufficient grace on its own will not lead to salvation. Efficacious grace leads to salvation infallibly.
In the example, both Barrack and Achmed were given sufficient grace. It worked in both, they both stopped sinning for a bit. Both were confronted by their friends and both wavered. However God sent efficacious graces for Achmed so that he stood up to his friends and the iman, and eventually professed Christ and was martyred.
Barrack was left in his moslem state. He went to hell denying the Trinity.
QuoteTo make myself less miserable, I keep thinking God does have a sovereign plan, and our free will is part of it. My trouble with reprobation APM is, it seems He programs most of us to reject Him, and a few of us to accept Him.
Clare, say this over and over until it sinks in: ALL are "programmed" to reject Him, as ALL are born with ORIGINAL SIN.
And if this causes you a problem, then your problem is not with predestination, but with the doctrine of Original Sin.
edit: and before anyone objects, I would not use the word program, either for reprobation, or for Original Sin. I'm going with her choice of words.
QuoteFurthermore, what's the point in evangelising? Elect are saved, reprobate are not; and we are powerless to make anyone who is reprobate elect.
We have the power to make the elect justified.
However the point is that God incorporates our free will response into His Sovereign plan. Free will cooperation and grace work together.
Therefore, in a moslem society, few if any are saved. That is reality. In a Catholic society, I think we can say over half are saved. Therefore we need to evangelize the head hunters and more will be saved. That the two work together is a mystery: Why not raise a St. Vincent Ferrere today? IF God did, more moslems and jews would be saved from hell. But God doesn't. Nor does He OWE salvation to anyone.
God has many factors He considered: free will, desire to save all men, reality/Truth/Prudence, Justice, Mercy.
Quote from: james03 on October 06, 2015, 10:53:56 AM
Quote"Dualism"; I don't really follow you there. If the soul is infused into the body at conception, then "one cell" or "million cells" doesn't make a difference, it is a human being.
If we take the normal meaning of the word "infused", then your very statement is Dualism.
There is a big difference in a human being between a one celled human and a fully grown human. As I said previously, a one celled human is almost completely unactualized potential.
Put it another way, per impossibile, IF God "saved" this one celled human, He would have a robot. He would have to construct a personality for it, give it a name, and everything else that makes up a human. So it would be a totally arbitrary human, and therefore would not have free will. Because it is almost completely unactualized potential.
"Infused"; I've always heard it stated in this manner; do you have anything on this?
A one celled human with a soul is fully human. You could take your example and say that a one armed man is not fully human; or a man who has Alzheimer's.
As for him being "a robot"; well how are babies that receive baptism any different? If God can save the latter, then God can save the former.
Quote from: james03 on October 06, 2015, 10:53:56 AM
Quote"Dualism"; I don't really follow you there. If the soul is infused into the body at conception, then "one cell" or "million cells" doesn't make a difference, it is a human being.
If we take the normal meaning of the word "infused", then your very statement is Dualism.
There is a big difference in a human being between a one celled human and a fully grown human. As I said previously, a one celled human is almost completely unactualized potential.
Put it another way, per impossibile, IF God "saved" this one celled human, He would have a robot. He would have to construct a personality for it, give it a name, and everything else that makes up a human. So it would be a totally arbitrary human, and therefore would not have free will. Because it is almost completely unactualized potential.
God DOES save humans without names, free wills that can be exercised, or even personalities (using our common idea of personality). When a baby is born, however early, or even if a baby survives an abortion, at ANY stage, it can be BAPTIZED. Even the fetus from a miscarriage at ANY stage can be baptized (at least conditionally). God created the barely actualized human being with a soul and a real potency that He CAN and does actualize when it is saved. We are not talking about a "totally arbitrary human". Even such a baby who is NOT baptized and saved is not a "totally arbitrary human". No human being with an immortal soul is "arbitrary".
An actual one-celled human couldn't be baptized since it couldn't be seen; but I speculate that God could actualize its potential in limbo.
Quote from: james03 on October 06, 2015, 11:14:40 AM
QuoteTo make myself less miserable, I keep thinking God does have a sovereign plan, and our free will is part of it. My trouble with reprobation APM is, it seems He programs most of us to reject Him, and a few of us to accept Him.
Clare, say this over and over until it sinks in: ALL are "programmed" to reject Him, as ALL are born with ORIGINAL SIN.
And if this causes you a problem, then your problem is not with predestination, but with the doctrine of Original Sin.
edit: and before anyone objects, I would not use the word program, either for reprobation, or for Original Sin. I'm going with her choice of words.
Well call it what you want instead of program: "Playbook", "Choreographed"; "Pre-planned";
If God determines "APM" from all eternity that 3/4 of the human race will not be saved; then 3/4 of the human race will not be saved. Given the fact that only about 1/7 of the human race is nominally Catholic and that of these not many are living good Catholic lives; the 3/4 estimate is a bit generous.
Quote from: james03 on October 06, 2015, 11:22:25 AM
QuoteFurthermore, what's the point in evangelising? Elect are saved, reprobate are not; and we are powerless to make anyone who is reprobate elect.
We have the power to make the elect justified.
However the point is that God incorporates our free will response into His Sovereign plan. Free will cooperation and grace work together.
Therefore, in a moslem society, few if any are saved. That is reality. In a Catholic society, I think we can say over half are saved. Therefore we need to evangelize the head hunters and more will be saved. That the two work together is a mystery: Why not raise a St. Vincent Ferrere today? IF God did, more moslems and jews would be saved from hell. But God doesn't. Nor does He OWE salvation to anyone.
God has many factors He considered: free will, desire to save all men, reality/Truth/Prudence, Justice, Mercy.
"Mystery" that is Clare's point; according to our Catechism, Man is created to know, love and serve God; and by this means, to save our souls. But according to all normal calculations and what you have been posting here and in past threads; God does not create the majority of men "to know love and serve Him.."; rather to live out sad useless lives and to spend eternity in Hell.
So should we change the response in the Catechism to better fit Catholic doctrine as you have explained it?
"Only Catholics (and only about max half of them) are created to know love and serve God etc."?
Quote"Infused"; I've always heard it stated in this manner; do you have anything on this?
Example of what? There is no ghost made of ectoplasm that is infused into a body. That you heard it explained this way is no surprise.
QuoteA one celled human with a soul is fully human. You could take your example and say that a one armed man is not fully human; or a man who has Alzheimer's.
OK, here's a challenge. Take my argument, WITHOUT INSERTING WHAT YOU ASSUME (probably incorrectly) I BELIEVE AND USE IT TO PROVE A ONE ARMED MAN IS NOT FULLY HUMAN. Otherwise, retract what you wrote.
QuoteAs for him being "a robot"; well how are babies that receive baptism any different? If God can save the latter, then God can save the former.
A baby has far more potential actualized than a one celled human being. Do I even have to write this?
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 06, 2015, 03:58:43 PM
Quote from: james03 on October 06, 2015, 11:14:40 AM
QuoteTo make myself less miserable, I keep thinking God does have a sovereign plan, and our free will is part of it. My trouble with reprobation APM is, it seems He programs most of us to reject Him, and a few of us to accept Him.
Clare, say this over and over until it sinks in: ALL are "programmed" to reject Him, as ALL are born with ORIGINAL SIN.
And if this causes you a problem, then your problem is not with predestination, but with the doctrine of Original Sin.
edit: and before anyone objects, I would not use the word program, either for reprobation, or for Original Sin. I'm going with her choice of words.
Well call it what you want instead of program: "Playbook", "Choreographed"; "Pre-planned";
If God determines "APM" from all eternity that 3/4 of the human race will not be saved; then 3/4 of the human race will not be saved. Given the fact that only about 1/7 of the human race is nominally Catholic and that of these not many are living good Catholic lives; the 3/4 estimate is a bit generous.
You do think that God foreknows from eternity how many will not be saved don't you? Don't you think that knowledge is infallible? If God foreknows that 3/4 of the human race will not be saved, then 3/4 of the human race will not be saved. Speaking of the numbers alone that seems to make it equally certain and disconcerting that 3/4 of us WILL not be saved. I think some people have this problem even with PPM predestination; they need to be explicitly reminded that God's foreknowledge is of their own freely willed acts.
With APM God not only foreknows but eternally (and infallibly) permits man's freely willed sins; but He isn't the cause; man is just as free as under PPM. Because God eternally permitted Judas to sin, as a part of His Eternal Plan, didn't make Judas a robot.
I agree that APM has more mystery and difficulties than PPM (how exactly does grace work with free will) to me it makes God more truly absolutely powerful.
QuoteGod DOES save humans without names, free wills that can be exercised, or even personalities (using our common idea of personality). When a baby is born, however early, or even if a baby survives an abortion, at ANY stage, it can be BAPTIZED. Even the fetus from a miscarriage at ANY stage can be baptized (at least conditionally). God created the barely actualized human being with a soul and a real potency that He CAN and does actualize when it is saved. We are not talking about a "totally arbitrary human". Even such a baby who is NOT baptized and saved is not a "totally arbitrary human". No human being with an immortal soul is "arbitrary".
And all of this has what to do with my example of the one celled human? Why waste the space with non sequiturs?
QuoteAn actual one-celled human couldn't be baptized since it couldn't be seen; but I speculate that God could actualize its potential in limbo.
Actually He can't. Limbo is in eternity, and nothing changes in eternity. Otherwise you would have a past and a present and a future, which don't exist outside of time.
QuoteIf God determines "APM" from all eternity that 3/4 of the human race will not be saved; then 3/4 of the human race will not be saved.
Restated correctly: From all eternity, God foreordained to save probably 25% of humanity (though 10% is probably the better estimate). And there's no "if". Predestination is Catholic Dogma.
QuoteSo should we change the response in the Catechism to better fit Catholic doctrine as you have explained it?
Since people no longer have the mental capacity to distinguish between a possibility and a certainty, I think dumbing it down would be a good idea.
So they should change it to this: "God made us to know, love, and serve him, t
hough many will not know, love, and serve him.
Now that I've batted away the sticks and twigs thrown up, and cleared the smoke screens, my question remains:
Walk me through how PPM is predestination.
Because it is not. It is warmed over semi-pelagianism. For those who don't know what it is, here is the system:
"We are not changing the Church's Dogma on marriage, I mean Original Sin. At conception, God gives everyone the same grace and same chance, and removes Original Sin (see, we believe in Original Sin, wink, wink). Some men are nice and do good. God rewards them with salvation. Some people are not nice, so God does not reward them with salvation."
That is PPM. But if I'm wrong, perhaps someone would like to explain it and show the predestination piece of it.
Quote from: james03 on October 04, 2015, 12:30:37 PM
QuoteSo why not save all these souls?
Let us consider the one cell human being flushed down the toilet at the fertility clinic.
1. Since it is human, by default it metaphysically can not view the beatific vision. It is fallen. Therefore for God to declare it Just would be an offense against Prudence.
2. Where do you draw the line? Pete the good Catholic who raised a bunch of kids and was living most of his life in Sanctifying Grace falls into adultery and goes to hell. So he says to God, "You "save" a one celled human, but your sheep who WAS saved, you idly sat by and allowed to wander off? And now I burn forever in hell, and all you had to do, anytime during 40 years, was to bring my death, and I'd be in heaven." How about Babu that gets thrown into the neighbors cook pot a few months after reaching the age of reason? Where do you draw the line? Where does this end up?......wait for it..........Vatican II. And the canonization of the heresiarch Karol Wojtyla and people taking his ridiculous personalism seriously.
3. There is a premise in this question, and that is dualism. That there is a "ghost" soul of the one celled human that CAN got to heaven and view the Beatific Vision. Dualism has been completely refuted. So if we take the Aristotelian-Thomistic view, that the soul is just the form of man, and man is only the complete man, we see we have a one-cell human. He has no ability to contemplate. He has no name. He has no senses. He is almost completely unactualized potential. We can say certainly that he will suffer no torments. But I have even a problem saying he'll have natural happiness. I'd say he is at peace. And I'd say that any happiness possible, if it is possible, will be his. But metaphysically his existence is a one celled human being that had barely any potential actualized. Therefore it is metaphysically impossible for him to contemplate the Beatific Vision.
Personally, I think after reading this, that you need to print out your recent posts in this thread and make an appointment with a priest to talk about what you print out. Seriously.
Edit: too much rhetoric already.
Ok, walk me through. What do you disagree with?
Point 1: It is metaphysically impossible for a one celled human to view the Beatific Vision.
Quote from: St. ThomasBut children were never adapted to possess eternal life, since neither was this due to them by virtue of their natural principles, for it surpasses the entire faculty of nature, nor could they perform acts of their own whereby to obtain so great a good. Hence they will nowise grieve for being deprived of the divine vision;
Point 2: A question, where do you draw the line?
Point 3: I oppose dualism, which is the teaching that there is some sort of ectoplasm infused into matter. Condemned by the Catholic Church, I believe against Origen, but can't remember. Also a repeat of what St. Thomas wrote, see 1 above.
So what exactly do I need to talk to a priest about? Actually, reading Michael's latest posts full of despair, I'd say he is in more need to talk to a priest.
Here's an interesting theological thing to consider: Suppose a couple goes to a fertility clinic and you end up with 2 humans stuck in test tubes. The couple converts to the Faith, and goes and gets their children before they are destroyed. (Overlooking questions on the resulting death of the children), the couple gets a priest and sponsors and baptizes their children.
We know that Original Sin would be removed, and they would be infused with the Trinity, giving them the ability to contemplate the Divine Beatitude, and therefore go to heaven. What would their existence be like? It's an interesting question, I don't know. There's definitely a rank in heaven, so I speculate they would be at the lower level, but that's just a first guess on my part. So we can say it would have been better if they had been born and lived awhile.
Quote from: james03 on October 06, 2015, 04:35:44 PM
QuoteAn actual one-celled human couldn't be baptized since it couldn't be seen; but I speculate that God could actualize its potential in limbo.
Actually He can't. Limbo is in eternity, and nothing changes in eternity. Otherwise you would have a past and a present and a future, which don't exist outside of time.
At the resurrection of the bodies of the elect, all defects of the body are gone. How would you prove this is not true for people in limbo? - their bodies are resurrected too.
An unreasoning baby that is baptized will have reason (a working intellect) in heaven. A baby has only the potency to reason, but God actualizes it. Just because a one-celled human has the least actualized potential of all doesn't prove that God couldn't actualize it fully in limbo.
Before the resurrection a soul in heaven contemplates God supernaturally. The state of His body on earth doesn't matter.
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas, The Apostles Creed
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/Creed.htm
(d) The Age of the Risen Bodies.—All will rise in the condition of perfect age, which is of thirty-two or thirty-three years. This is because all who were not yet arrived at this age, did not possess this perfect age, and the old had already lost it. Hence, youths and children will be given what they lack, and what the aged once had will be restored to them: "Until we all attain the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" [Eph 4:13].
I'm not saying a one-celled human being can be saved - at least not in the ordinary way (baptism or baptism of desire; although God's exceptions are His to say). But I don't think the problem is that he is one-celled, but that he is (probably) impossible to baptize.
Some more thoughts, mainly for james03, regarding Limbo and unbaptised children.
Dorothy has an abortion. She repents and converts to the Faith, eventually dying and going to Heaven. Her baby was predestined APM to Limbo, and she APM to Heaven. Her abortion worked out according to God's plan; that was where her baby was supposed to go APM anyway. And the same goes for any other aborted child. It's where God predestined the APM. So why mourn them? They were never going to go to Heaven anyway, APM.
And is it only unbaptised infants post-redemption who are incapable of seeing the Beatific Vision? The Holy Innocents are capable of it. Now some have condemned the attempt to "abolish" Limbo as tantamount to making abortion a sacrament, but is Herod's slaying of infants any more of a sacrament? Those infants were also predestined, APM, of course. But they were unbaptised and are still able to enjoy the Beatific Vision. I assume they had to wait till Jesus harrowed Hell. It seems infants and unborn children who died before the crucifixion were at an advantage. Might He harrow Hell again? Leaving the people who are actually guilty of sin, of course, but liberating those with just Original Sin?
Quote from: james03 on October 06, 2015, 06:16:46 PM
Here's an interesting theological thing to consider: Suppose a couple goes to a fertility clinic and you end up with 2 humans stuck in test tubes. The couple converts to the Faith, and goes and gets their children before they are destroyed. (Overlooking questions on the resulting death of the children), the couple gets a priest and sponsors and baptizes their children.
We know that Original Sin would be removed, and they would be infused with the Trinity, giving them the ability to contemplate the Divine Beatitude, and therefore go to heaven. What would their existence be like? It's an interesting question, I don't know. There's definitely a rank in heaven, so I speculate they would be at the lower level, but that's just a first guess on my part. So we can say it would have been better if they had been born and lived awhile.
How does "it would have been better if..." fit with predestination?
Non Stated:
QuoteYou do think that God foreknows from eternity how many will not be saved don't you? Don't you think that knowledge is infallible? If God foreknows that 3/4 of the human race will not be saved, then 3/4 of the human race will not be saved. Speaking of the numbers alone that seems to make it equally certain and disconcerting that 3/4 of us WILL not be saved. I think some people have this problem even with PPM predestination; they need to be explicitly reminded that God's foreknowledge is of their own freely willed acts.
With APM God not only foreknows but eternally (and infallibly) permits man's freely willed sins; but He isn't the cause; man is just as free as under PPM. Because God eternally permitted Judas to sin, as a part of His Eternal Plan, didn't make Judas a robot.
I agree that APM has more mystery and difficulties than PPM (how exactly does grace work with free will) to me it makes God more truly absolutely powerful.
Yes, I agree with all of that; I am arguing that in the light of APM, God does not create the supermajority of men "to know, love and serve Him"; since by the time men are created, their eternal damnation has already been decreed. Added to this is James' own arguments repeated over several threads that God deliberately places men in circumstances that baring a miracle, they will not be saved i.e. "Babu"; "Tyronne the gangsta"; "Yun pin lin, pagan" and the millions and millions that are born like them.
Quote from: james03 on October 06, 2015, 04:31:42 PM
Quote"Infused"; I've always heard it stated in this manner; do you have anything on this?
Example of what? There is no ghost made of ectoplasm that is infused into a body. That you heard it explained this way is no surprise.
QuoteA one celled human with a soul is fully human. You could take your example and say that a one armed man is not fully human; or a man who has Alzheimer's.
OK, here's a challenge. Take my argument, WITHOUT INSERTING WHAT YOU ASSUME (probably incorrectly) I BELIEVE AND USE IT TO PROVE A ONE ARMED MAN IS NOT FULLY HUMAN. Otherwise, retract what you wrote.
QuoteAs for him being "a robot"; well how are babies that receive baptism any different? If God can save the latter, then God can save the former.
.
A baby has far more potential actualized than a one celled human being. Do I even have to write this?
James, You stated:
QuoteThere is a big difference in a human being between a one celled human and a fully grown human. As I said previously, a one celled human is almost completely unactualized potential.
If men are infused with a soul at the moment of their conception; then they are fully human.
You stated that "Infused" as in God infuses a soul into a body is somehow wrong; but you never stated why or what was the correct term.
If they have an immortal soul, then God can bestow upon them eternal salvation; where is this argument leading to?
Also, you still have not explained how or why speaking of the use of the word "infused" as in God infuses a soul into the body of a newly conceived baby" is wrong; and why is it wrong?
Re. The "one armed man" argument; to me it appears to flow from the premise that if a human being doesn't have all of their parts i.e. Only "one cell" ; then the same premise can be extended "ab absurdum" to cover the "one armed man" and the old man with Alzheimer's.
However if this argument offends you, then please accept my apologies; I will withdraw it.
Quote from: james03 on October 06, 2015, 06:16:46 PM
Here's an interesting theological thing to consider: Suppose a couple goes to a fertility clinic and you end up with 2 humans stuck in test tubes. The couple converts to the Faith, and goes and gets their children before they are destroyed. (Overlooking questions on the resulting death of the children), the couple gets a priest and sponsors and baptizes their children.
We know that Original Sin would be removed, and they would be infused with the Trinity, giving them the ability to contemplate the Divine Beatitude, and therefore go to heaven. What would their existence be like? It's an interesting question, I don't know. There's definitely a rank in heaven, so I speculate they would be at the lower level, but that's just a first guess on my part. So we can say it would have been better if they had been born and lived awhile.
Definitely the rank of baptized infants is lower than those of men who have lived good lives and acquired greater merit.
Quote from: Clare on October 07, 2015, 02:39:27 AM
... is it only unbaptised infants post-redemption who are incapable of seeing the Beatific Vision? The Holy Innocents are capable of it. Now some have condemned the attempt to "abolish" Limbo as tantamount to making abortion a sacrament, but is Herod's slaying of infants any more of a sacrament? Those infants were also predestined, APM, of course. But they were unbaptised and are still able to enjoy the Beatific Vision. I assume they had to wait till Jesus harrowed Hell. It seems infants and unborn children who died before the crucifixion were at an advantage. Might He harrow Hell again? Leaving the people who are actually guilty of sin, of course, but liberating those with just Original Sin?
Interesting speculation. But Public Revelation ended with the apostles. There is no new doctrine, just drawing out of what is implicitly there already. It's hard to see that something so immense as a second descent into hell wouldn't have been reflected in past tradition and creed. Instead St. Thomas teaches limbo is eternal. I think rather that God allows some exceptions such as the Holy Innocents. They are exceptions
for a reason - they were were in some way martyrs for Christ. If every unbaptized baby went to heaven, the Holy Innocents wouldn't be so remarkable.
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 08, 2015, 12:06:47 AM
Quote from: Clare on October 07, 2015, 02:39:27 AM
... is it only unbaptised infants post-redemption who are incapable of seeing the Beatific Vision? The Holy Innocents are capable of it. Now some have condemned the attempt to "abolish" Limbo as tantamount to making abortion a sacrament, but is Herod's slaying of infants any more of a sacrament? Those infants were also predestined, APM, of course. But they were unbaptised and are still able to enjoy the Beatific Vision. I assume they had to wait till Jesus harrowed Hell. It seems infants and unborn children who died before the crucifixion were at an advantage. Might He harrow Hell again? Leaving the people who are actually guilty of sin, of course, but liberating those with just Original Sin?
Interesting speculation. But Public Revelation ended with the apostles. There is no new doctrine, just drawing out of what is implicitly there already. It's hard to see that something so immense as a second descent into hell wouldn't have been reflected in past tradition and creed. Instead St. Thomas teaches limbo is eternal. I think rather that God allows some exceptions such as the Holy Innocents. They are exceptions for a reason - they were were in some way martyrs for Christ. If every unbaptized baby went to heaven, the Holy Innocents wouldn't be so remarkable.
What about the other infants who died before Christ came though? They would have gone to the Limbo of the Fathers, which Jesus harrowed? Or would they have gone to the Limbo of the Infants, and why wouldn't Jesus have harrowed that too?
Some more questions. Circumcision remitted Original Sin (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4070.htm#article4), it seems. But the circumcised couldn't go to Heaven until it was opened by Jesus, right? What of boys who died before it? Or girls and women, and uncircumcised men? Were the just in the Limbo of the Fathers only those who'd had Original Sin remitted in circumcision? (I guess that would answer the question about the Holy Innocents; chances are they'd been circumcised.)
QuoteAt the resurrection of the bodies of the elect, all defects of the body are gone. How would you prove this is not true for people in limbo? - their bodies are resurrected too.
An unreasoning baby that is baptized will have reason (a working intellect) in heaven.
True. Now a baby did have some actualization via its senses. It had smell, sight, and hearing, as well as feeling its mama hold it.
I think we are in the realm of very speculative philosophy. I admit by Faith we can know that ALL are given resurrected bodies, so I do concede your point. The problem gets back to personality, etc..., that develop over life.
QuoteDorothy has an abortion. She repents and converts to the Faith, eventually dying and going to Heaven. Her baby was predestined APM to Limbo, and she APM to Heaven. Her abortion worked out according to God's plan; that was where her baby was supposed to go APM anyway. And the same goes for any other aborted child. It's where God predestined the APM. So why mourn them? They were never going to go to Heaven anyway, APM.
Clare,
What has this got to do with APM? Because you reject the complete teaching of Original Sin, you are falling into heresy.
The baby goes to Limbo because it has Original Sin. And what do you mean to say the baby is supposed to go to Limbo "APM". Are you saying there is an alternative theory? If so, what is it?
On the other topics:
The babies Herod killed were circumcized, probably 99%. The few uncircumcized would have also been saved, similar to how a female Old Testament baby is saved. They went to limbo like every other Jew under the Old Covenant.
Limbo is in hell, where hell is the place of the dead. There was a place in hell reserved for the Jews and other people who were saved miraculously. St. Thomas reports of old graves with writings indicating a Faith in Christ. That Limbo was emptied when Jesus came and preached to the souls there, teaching them about the Trinity and the Incarnation. So in the Limbo of the Fathers were the circumcized and those saved by Faith in Jesus.
The rest of hell was not emptied. This includes level(s) we call Limbo where pagan babies went, and where those who are unbaptized go with Original Sin only.
Quoteand why wouldn't Jesus have harrowed that too?
They would lack Faith, or circumcision.
QuoteHowever if this argument offends you, then please accept my apologies; I will withdraw it.
Not offended, just frustrated by your pride and ignorance.
In you very quote I call the one celled organism "HUMAN". I asked you to use my words, not what you ASSUME I believe, to prove a one armed man is not human.
And thus your pride. A proper response: "James, I reviewed what you wrote, and it is evident you consider a one celled human to be human. You even used personal pronouns to refer to them. So if you consider a one cell human to be human, you definitely would consider a one armed man to be human. So I retract my statement" That would take humility to admit you don't understand the argument about Actual vs. Potential. Rube is the same, he thinks I need to go talk to a priest because I'm using Catholic arguments on Actual vs. Potential.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 07:08:35 AM
QuoteDorothy has an abortion. She repents and converts to the Faith, eventually dying and going to Heaven. Her baby was predestined APM to Limbo, and she APM to Heaven. Her abortion worked out according to God's plan; that was where her baby was supposed to go APM anyway. And the same goes for any other aborted child. It's where God predestined the APM. So why mourn them? They were never going to go to Heaven anyway, APM.
Clare,
What has this got to do with APM? Because you reject the complete teaching of Original Sin, you are falling into heresy.
The baby goes to Limbo because it has Original Sin. And what do you mean to say the baby is supposed to go to Limbo "APM". Are you saying there is an alternative theory? If so, what is it?
No, I don't reject the teaching on Original Sin. I'm just asking questions about predestination APM, and thinking aloud. I just don't get how anything we do matters if we're predestined APM.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 07:23:31 AM
QuoteHowever if this argument offends you, then please accept my apologies; I will withdraw it.
Not offended, just frustrated by your pride and ignorance.
In you very quote I call the one celled organism "HUMAN". I asked you to use my words, not what you ASSUME I believe, to prove a one armed man is not human.
And thus your pride. A proper response: "James, I reviewed what you wrote, and it is evident you consider a one celled human to be human. You even used personal pronouns to refer to them. So if you consider a one cell human to be human, you definitely would consider a one armed man to be human. So I retract my statement" That would take humility to admit you don't understand the argument about Actual vs. Potential. Rube is the same, he thinks I need to go talk to a priest because I'm using Catholic arguments on Actual vs. Potential.
Ok, so I misunderstood your argument, sorry about that. But the fact that a one celled baby with a soul infused into it is fully human, then why limit God's ability to save it. God infuses Sanctifying Grace into newborn babies who are mostly unactualized potential, then why not a pre-born baby?
Also, are you going to clear up the matter of why "infused" is wrong?
Quote from: james03 on October 06, 2015, 04:48:17 PM
Now that I've batted away the sticks and twigs thrown up, and cleared the smoke screens, my question remains:
Walk me through how PPM is predestination.
Because it is not. It is warmed over semi-pelagianism. For those who don't know what it is, here is the system:
"We are not changing the Church's Dogma on marriage, I mean Original Sin. At conception, God gives everyone the same grace and same chance, and removes Original Sin (see, we believe in Original Sin, wink, wink). Some men are nice and do good. God rewards them with salvation. Some people are not nice, so God does not reward them with salvation."
That is PPM. But if I'm wrong, perhaps someone would like to explain it and show the predestination piece of it.
Here is the real system:
1. God decrees that He will create intelligent creatures: Angels and Men;
2. He then sees what graces they will need to save their souls.
3.He then foresees the free will acceptance or rejection of these graces
4.Finally He ratifies these individual choices.
No 'Warmed over Pelagianism; as far a I can see.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 07:16:01 AM
The babies Herod killed were circumcized, probably 99%. The few uncircumcized would have also been saved, similar to how a female Old Testament baby is saved. They went to limbo like every other Jew under the Old Covenant.
So the uncircumcised few were saved even without having their Original Sin remitted? They were uncircumcised infants, unable to desire circumcision.
Quote... So in the Limbo of the Fathers were the circumcized and those saved by Faith in Jesus.
The rest of hell was not emptied. This includes level(s) we call Limbo where pagan babies went, and where those who are unbaptized go with Original Sin only.
Quoteand why wouldn't Jesus have harrowed that too?
They would lack Faith, or circumcision.
As did infant girls, and any uncircumcised boys caught up in Herod's policy.
QuoteSo the uncircumcised few were saved even without having their Original Sin remitted? They were uncircumcised infants, unable to desire circumcision.
Clare, how were Jewish girls saved back then? As I said, the uncircumcized boys were saved the same way. The participation in the Old Covenant of the parents.
QuoteI'm just asking questions about predestination APM, and thinking aloud. I just don't get how anything we do matters if we're predestined APM.
I answer your questions. You obviously feel no need to answer mine. Please tell me an alternative system whereby a baby is aborted, and how that is not God's plan.
QuoteAlso, are you going to clear up the matter of why "infused" is wrong?
The verb "infused" presupposed you put one substance into another substance. Thus you would say that a soul has substance, i.e. ectoplasm to use a sci-fi term.
The best way to say it is that humanity is created when the material of the body participates in the form of a human, and that this form of the human is called its soul.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 07:58:29 AM
QuoteSo the uncircumcised few were saved even without having their Original Sin remitted? They were uncircumcised infants, unable to desire circumcision.
Clare, how were Jewish girls saved back then? As I said, the uncircumcized boys were saved the same way. The participation in the Old Covenant of the parents.
Vicarious circumcision of desire! I wonder if their miscarried babies would have benefited from that too?
It's not hard to hope for something along those lines for the deceased unbaptised infants of Catholics. Is it unthinkable?
Anyhow, I know none of us is entitled to Heaven; that God doesn't owe anyone, and that whatever happens is merciful and just.
And again, what is the alternative system to the aborted baby? Why do you say the aborted baby is predestined APM to abortion? Using your terminology, tell me an alternative system of how this works.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 07:59:52 AM
QuoteI'm just asking questions about predestination APM, and thinking aloud. I just don't get how anything we do matters if we're predestined APM.
I answer your questions. You obviously feel no need to answer mine. Please tell me an alternative system whereby a baby is aborted, and how that is not God's plan.
Not sure I understand the question. Are you saying it is God's plan that a baby is aborted? That was my question, and if it is, why do we complain about it??
I'm also reminded of the Padre Pio anecdote, where a woman's aborted baby would have become a priest. But, if he was APM headed for Limbo, he was never going to be a priest. God had predestined him APM to Limbo. So, why the big deal?
This question has been missed:
Quote from: Clare on October 07, 2015, 03:24:27 AM
Quote from: james03 on October 06, 2015, 06:16:46 PM
Here's an interesting theological thing to consider: Suppose a couple goes to a fertility clinic and you end up with 2 humans stuck in test tubes. The couple converts to the Faith, and goes and gets their children before they are destroyed. (Overlooking questions on the resulting death of the children), the couple gets a priest and sponsors and baptizes their children.
We know that Original Sin would be removed, and they would be infused with the Trinity, giving them the ability to contemplate the Divine Beatitude, and therefore go to heaven. What would their existence be like? It's an interesting question, I don't know. There's definitely a rank in heaven, so I speculate they would be at the lower level, but that's just a first guess on my part. So we can say it would have been better if they had been born and lived awhile.
How does "it would have been better if..." fit with predestination?
Because God predestines no one to Limbo or Hell, that is Calvanism. The precise use of the terms is critical, or you end up with Vatican II.
By Divine Providence, God allows a baby to be aborted, which is incorporated into His Sovereign Plan.
By Divine Providence, God allows fallen man to remain in his fallen state, which is really man's natural state.
QuoteHow does "it would have been better if..." fit with predestination?
It actually proves predestination. "It would be better that a man had a mill stone tied around his neck then harm a kid." We'll use that.
It would be better FOR THE MAN. However, God, for His secret purpose, has other objectives BESIDES THE MAN'S SALVATION that He considers.
Look at the horror of war. God used the Babylonians to slaughter the jews to chastise them. It would be better for the Babylonian soldiers who committed attrocities that they had not done them, but God allows it to accomplish His Will.
QuoteHere is the real system:
1. God decrees that He will create intelligent creatures: Angels and Men;
2. He then sees what graces they will need to save their souls.
3.He then foresees the free will acceptance or rejection of these graces
4.Finally He ratifies these individual choices.
No 'Warmed over Pelagianism; as far a I can see.
Thank you for answering my question.
1. Where is the predestination?
2. What does ratify mean?
3. It appears you are saying the individual choice of man determines if he is saved or not. This is indeed Pelagian.
4. Why does God send such a weak Grace that it will not save a man in your system? Are you claiming God CAN'T save a certain man?
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 08:16:02 AM
Because God predestines no one to Limbo or Hell, that is Calvanism. The precise use of the terms is critical, or you end up with Vatican II.
By Divine Providence, God allows a baby to be aborted, which is incorporated into His Sovereign Plan.
By Divine Providence, God allows fallen man to remain in his fallen state, which is really man's natural state.
Right, this I can go for. This I have no problem with.
And this is incorporated into the Church's teaching on predestination. Predestination only concerns the elect. All else are left to their natural state. Predestination is an act of Mercy.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 08:20:36 AM
QuoteHow does "it would have been better if..." fit with predestination?
It actually proves predestination. "It would be better that a man had a mill stone tied around his neck then harm a kid." We'll use that.
It would be better FOR THE MAN. However, God, for His secret purpose, has other objectives BESIDES THE MAN'S SALVATION that He considers.
Yes, that occurred to me. Jesus does actually say, "... it were better
for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck..." and "... it were better
for him, if that man had not been born."
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 08:30:28 AM
And this is incorporated into the Church's teaching on predestination. Predestination only concerns the elect. All else are left to their natural state. Predestination is an act of Mercy.
And yet... God wills the salvation of all.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 08:24:22 AM
3. It appears you are saying the individual choice of man determines if he is saved or not. This is indeed Pelagian.
Which brings me back to my question, why does what we do matter then? Why evangelise? We can't make someone who's reprobate elect, or make ourselves elect if we're not.
QuoteAnd yet... God wills the salvation of all.
And this is one factor He considers. However scripture tells us: "MANY are called, few are chosen" and again: "Wide is the way to destruction, and many who go to it, narrow is the path to salvation, and few travel it". And the narrow gate.
In the end billions will be saved, which shows God's Mercy, however we can not neglect to consider many more billions are left to their natural state and are lost.
QuoteWhich brings me back to my question, why does what we do matter then? Why evangelise? We can't make someone who's reprobate elect, or make ourselves elect if we're not.
Alright, I'll confuse things some more. The astute reader saw that I switched from my molinist beliefs to the "Thomist" system of predestination. This was because I couldn't get people to stop incorrectly using the term "sufficient" grace, which is a "Thomistic" concept, and doesn't make any sense in the molinist system. Thus I was forced to use the term "efficacious grace". However I follow the Molinist system of predestination as codified by St. Robert and taught by the Jesuits. After that introduction:
God is Truth. Therefore He works according to metaphysical laws (and if you can bear it, He IS the metaphysical laws). So He can not deny Himself.
He has decreed Free Will. Therefore God has created His Sovereign Plan taking into consideration our free will. Therefore, the more people who are Catholic, and live a more Catholic life, the more people God can save. This includes miracles as it appears most miracles happen AFTER someone prays for the miracle, again which depends on the free will response.
So let's take a close look at an example:
Clare prays for a moslem to quit worshipping the devil and convert to the Catholic Faith. A miracle happens, the savage is given the Faith, refuses to deny Christ and professes Him, is martyred and saved.
Was it predestination or Clare's free will? Did not Clare choose to pray for the savage? Yes. BUT....Why was Clare a baptized Catholic and in the position to see the need to pray and actually pray? Why wasn't Clare the savage?
Now if Clare does not pray for the moslem, God could still save him some other way, but you add a metaphysical constraint to the system as a whole. One less person to pray for a miracle.
Taking that all in, I can confidently say that a larger proportion of Catholics were saved under Christendom, and that a larger proportion of Trads are saved then under the Novus Ordo, that circumstances matter. That God can save ANY individual savage or neo-Catholic, I do not deny, but taken as a whole, the more Catholic, the more that are saved. So it matters greatly whether you have the TLM and proper communion vs. the NO Mess and communion in the paw.
That is why I can reasonably argue against Vatican II, and Michael can not.
Can God save a demon? No He can not, because of the metaphysical constraints. If God saves a demon, He would have to deny Himself.
What about this piece of speculation?
Quote from: Clare on October 08, 2015, 08:03:18 AM
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 07:58:29 AM
QuoteSo the uncircumcised few were saved even without having their Original Sin remitted? They were uncircumcised infants, unable to desire circumcision.
Clare, how were Jewish girls saved back then? As I said, the uncircumcized boys were saved the same way. The participation in the Old Covenant of the parents.
Vicarious circumcision of desire! I wonder if their miscarried babies would have benefited from that too?
It's not hard to hope for something along those lines for the deceased unbaptised infants of Catholics. Is it unthinkable?
Anyhow, I know none of us is entitled to Heaven; that God doesn't owe anyone, and that whatever happens is merciful and just.
Unborn jew babies were not saved. They did not participate in the Old Covenant.
Which raises the question: why does this matter? I'll tell you why, it is because of the never ending summer block party view of heaven that we teach to 4 year olds. "If so and so is not in heaven with me, I can not imagine being happy there." Or worse: "If all of my kids aren't in heaven with me, then I don't want to go knowing they're suffering."
The child in Original Sin only, suffers no loss, and has natural happiness as much as it is able.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 02:08:50 PM
Unborn jew babies were not saved. They did not participate in the Old Covenant.
You earlier wrote,
"how were Jewish girls saved back then? As I said, the uncircumcized boys were saved the same way. The participation in the Old Covenant of the parents."Why were unborn ones not saved by their parents' participation in the Old Covenant, when born girls and uncircumcised boys were?
And can that not also apply to infants who die before baptism? If uncircumcised boys had their sins remitted by their parents' participation in the Old Covenant, why not unbaptised infants by their parents' participation in the New?
I do believe in the necessity of baptism; it just seems that their wasn't the same necessity to circumcise to remit Original Sin back then.
There is no proof that uncircumcized boys were among those killed by Herod. For the girls, I don't know what the ritual was. Probably involved offering a bird at the temple or something.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 08:03:08 AM
QuoteAlso, are you going to clear up the matter of why "infused" is wrong?
The verb "infused" presupposed you put one substance into another substance. Thus you would say that a soul has substance, i.e. ectoplasm to use a sci-fi term.
The best way to say it is that humanity is created when the material of the body participates in the form of a human, and that this form of the human is called its soul.
I still don't understand; are you saying that the soul isn't infused into the body by God? Or Are you stating that a soul isn't infused at the moment of conception?
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 08:24:22 AM
QuoteHere is the real system:
1. God decrees that He will create intelligent creatures: Angels and Men;
2. He then sees what graces they will need to save their souls.
3.He then foresees the free will acceptance or rejection of these graces
4.Finally He ratifies these individual choices.
No 'Warmed over Pelagianism; as far a I can see.
Thank you for answering my question.
1. Where is the predestination?
2. What does ratify mean?
3. It appears you are saying the individual choice of man determines if he is saved or not. This is indeed Pelagian.
4. Why does God send such a weak Grace that it will not save a man in your system? Are you claiming God CAN'T save a certain man?
"Predestination occurs PMP" i.e. After God has foreseen the free choices of men and angels response to His grace.
"Ratify"; signifies that God from the moment that He foresees the acceptance or rejection of His grace, He accepts this decision decreeing that this choice will take place.
"Pelagian"; No, it would be Pelagian if the system held that man makes the choice or is saved unaided by God's grace.
#4. God sends a strong enough grace that man is left with a clear choice to either assent or not to this grace. God can send a stronger grace as in the case of St. Paul or Ven. Lieberman; but His normal graces are sufficient to obtain man's free consent.
The advantage of this system is that it is much easier to understand and explain: 1. God's Universal salvific will. 2. The necessity and importance the creature's co-operation with God's grace.
Quote"Predestination occurs PMP" i.e. After God has foreseen the free choices of men and angels response to His grace.
Single grace fallacy. WHICH of the thousands of graces count, and which don't? How is that determined?
Quote"Ratify"; signifies that God from the moment that He foresees the acceptance or rejection of His grace, He accepts this decision decreeing that this choice will take place.
But if He foresees this happening, why does He have to do anything?
QuoteGod can send a stronger grace as in the case of St. Paul or Ven. Lieberman; but His normal graces are sufficient to obtain man's free consent.
You know you are a hypocrit? But I'm not a Thomist, so I don't care. They would rightly be ticked at this. Sufficient Grace? As in Grace that will NOT obtain man's consent? If you accept this, then what is your beef with the Thomist system?
Council of Orange:
QuoteCANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).
Per Orange, the response to Grace is itself a Grace. In your system, you would have to maintain that God CAN'T save someone, which is why a person does not respond and/or that the Grace is merely sufficient but not efficacious.
James, why don't you discuss this with a priest. You really need to. Are you expecting better answer from non-clergy here? You obviously have a problem that nobody else manifests.
Are you going to throw darts again? What problem are you talking about? Thomism? Congruentism? How about something specific?
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 04:55:28 PM
Are you going to throw darts again? What problem are you talking about? Thomism? Congruentism? How about something specific?
I threw you a shield to protect you from the darts.
So you accuse me of something uncatholic, hurting my reputation, but when asked for specifics, you punt. You need to talk to a priest.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 05:08:57 PM
So you accuse me of something uncatholic, hurting my reputation, but when asked for specifics, you punt. You need to talk to a priest.
Any priest I would talk to, would tell me he was glad I gave you my advice.
Quit trolling.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 05:22:02 PM
Quit trolling.
No trolling, I am very serious, and can give details of my thinking to support what I say.
LOL. Go away.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 05:27:28 PM
LOL. Go away.
Do you think your priest would LOL, too?
We'll see if the moderators laugh at your trolling.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 05:37:37 PM
We'll see if the moderators laugh at your trolling.
If they laugh, it is not gonna be because of trolling.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 04:37:54 PM
Quote"Predestination occurs PMP" i.e. After God has foreseen the free choices of men and angels response to His grace.
Single grace fallacy. WHICH of the thousands of graces count, and which don't? How is that determined?
Quote"Ratify"; signifies that God from the moment that He foresees the acceptance or rejection of His grace, He accepts this decision decreeing that this choice will take place.
But if He foresees this happening, why does He have to do anything?
QuoteGod can send a stronger grace as in the case of St. Paul or Ven. Lieberman; but His normal graces are sufficient to obtain man's free consent.
You know you are a hypocrit? But I'm not a Thomist, so I don't care. They would rightly be ticked at this. Sufficient Grace? As in Grace that will NOT obtain man's consent? If you accept this, then what is your beef with the Thomist system?
Council of Orange:
QuoteCANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).
Per Orange, the response to Grace is itself a Grace. In your system, you would have to maintain that God CAN'T save someone, which is why a person does not respond and/or that the Grace is merely sufficient but not efficacious.
Re."Single Grace fallacy"; not at all; its just a simplified manner of speaking. However some are saved by one grace accepted at an instant before death; others are saved through fidelity to a series of graces.
Re."Foresees it happening; so why does He have to do anything"; because it is the response of the creature to God's grace that He foresees; If He didn't give the grace and the ability to respond, then nothing would occur.
Re. Orange. No problem; even a man's or angels' response must first be elicited by God's grace. Nothing we have is our own as if it came from us.
Re. "Sufficient Grace" that will not obtain a man's consent. Yes, that is what the Molinist hold; that man is free to accept of reject God's grace; the difference between "sufficient" grace and "efficacious" grace is not intrinsic to the grace (as in the Thomist system), but is determined by the acceptance or rejection of the grace by the free will of the creature.
"Hypocrite", Ha!
Here is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Molinism; which explains more clearly what the Molinist position holds in relationship of grace vs. free will:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm
Quote...Molinism escaped every suspicion of Pelagianism by laying down at the outset that the soul with its faculties (the intellect and will) must be first constituted by prevenient grace a supernatural principle of operation in actu primo, before it can, in conjunction with the help of the supernatural concursus of God, elicit a salutary act in actu secundo. Thus, the salutary act is itself an act of grace rather than of the will; it is the common work of God and man, because and in so far as the supernatural element of the act is due to God and its vitality and freedom to man. It must not be imagined, however, that the will has such an influence on grace that its consent conditions or strengthens the power of grace; the fact is rather that the supernatural power of grace is first transformed into the vital energy of the will, and then, as a supernatural concursus, excites and accompanies the free and salutary act. In other words, as a helping or co-operating grace (gratia adiuvans seu cooperans), it produces the act conjointly with the will. According to this explanation, not only does Divine grace make a supernatural act possible, but the act itself, though free, is wholly dependent on grace, because it is grace which makes the salutary act possible and which stimulates and assists in producing it. Thus the act is produced entirely by God as First Cause (Causa prima), and also entirely by the will as second cause (causa secunda). The unprejudiced mind must acknowledge that this exposition is far from incurring the suspicion of Pelagianism or Semipelagianism.
Here is the same article on the use of the terms "sufficient'' and "efficacius" as the Molinist do:
QuoteThe second characteristic difference between the two systems of grace lies in the radically different conception of the nature of merely sufficient grace (gratia sufficiens) and of efficacious grace (gratia efficax). Whereas Thomism derives the infallible success of efficacious grace from the very nature of this grace, and assumes consequently the grace to be efficacious intrinsically (gratia efficax ab intrinseco), Molinism ascribes the efficacy of grace to the free co-operation of the will and consequently admits a grace which is merely extrinsically efficacious (gratia efficax ab extrinseco). It is the free will that by the extrinsic circumstance of its consent makes efficacious the grace offered by God. If the will gives its consent, the grace which in itself is sufficient becomes efficacious; if it withholds its consent, the grace remains inefficacious (gratia inefficax), and it is due — not to God, but — solely to the will that the grace it reduced to one which is merely sufficient (gratia mere sufficiens).
I guess we have to conclude that the Molinists and the writer of the above article are all "hypocrites", because they use the term "sufficient grace" to mean one that is not intrinsically efficacious, no?
QuoteHere is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Molinism;
But you are not preaching molinism. You are saying that the Man's response to Grace determines if God saves him or not. That is pelagian.
Quotethe difference between "sufficient" grace and "efficacious" grace is not intrinsic to the grace (as in the Thomist system), but is determined by the acceptance or rejection of the grace by the free will of the creature.
No, the Molinist holds that God creates the conditions whereby a man will accept His Graces.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 07:06:01 PM
QuoteHere is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Molinism;
But you are not preaching molinism. You are saying that the Man's response to Grace determines if God saves him or not. That is pelagian.
Quotethe difference between "sufficient" grace and "efficacious" grace is not intrinsic to the grace (as in the Thomist system), but is determined by the acceptance or rejection of the grace by the free will of the creature.
No, the Molinist holds that God creates the conditions whereby a man will accept His Graces.
re. Molinism; any misunderstanding comes from my lack of intelligence and ability to explain the system. But I hold as the Molinists explain it. See the whole C.E. Article linked above.
re. "efficacious" vs. "sufficient" no, even the Congruist system holds that there is no "intrinsic" difference between "sufficient" and "efficacious" grace.
QuoteI guess we have to conclude that the Molinists and the writer of the above article are all "hypocrites", because they use the term "sufficient grace" to mean one that is not intrinsically efficacious, no?
Again, you did not argue this. Here is what you wrote:
Quote4. Why does God send such a weak Grace that it will not save a man in your system? Are you claiming God CAN'T save a certain man?
Quote#4. God sends a strong enough grace that man is left with a clear choice to either assent or not to this grace. God can send a stronger grace as in the case of St. Paul or Ven. Lieberman; but His normal graces are sufficient to obtain man's free consent.
If man does not consent, then the graces were not sufficient. Orange tells us man's ability to consent comes from Grace. You are claiming this grace is not strong enough. So why doesn't God send a strong enough grace to gain consent?
Molinism explains HOW Grace and Free Will work together. That is all. You are trying to use it to explain WHY God saves certain people and not others.
In Molinism:
1. God determines who He will save.
2. He foresees the various free will response of man to various graces.
3. He sends the graces that man will respond to.
4. Man retains free will.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 07:10:59 PM
QuoteI guess we have to conclude that the Molinists and the writer of the above article are all "hypocrites", because they use the term "sufficient grace" to mean one that is not intrinsically efficacious, no?
Again, you did not argue this. Here is what you wrote:Quote4. Why does God send such a weak Grace that it will not save a man in your system? Are you claiming God CAN'T save a certain man?
Quote#4. God sends a strong enough grace that man is left with a clear choice to either assent or not to this grace. God can send a stronger grace as in the case of St. Paul or Ven. Lieberman; but His normal graces are sufficient to obtain man's free consent.
If man does not consent, then the graces were not sufficient. Orange tells us man's ability to consent comes from Grace. You are claiming this grace is not strong enough. So why doesn't God send a strong enough grace to gain consent?
I'm arguing exactly from a Molinist perspective. God's grace still leaves men's will free to either accept or reject, the grace. The acceptance renders the grace 'efficacious'; its rejection renders the grace 'merely sufficient'.
Again read the C.E. Article; I concede that I cannot explain it any more clearly or any better.
God can send a grace that will overcome man's free will as in the case of St. Paul or Lieberman; but ordinarily God does not act in this way. You can ask the converts on this forum such as Gardener, Jayne, or QMR; if their conversions were sudden and instantaneous affairs, or the result of a long process.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 07:13:59 PM
Molinism explains HOW Grace and Free Will work together. That is all. You are trying to use it to explain WHY God saves certain people and not others.
In Molinism:
1. God determines who He will save.
2. He foresees the various free will response of man to various graces.
3. He sends the graces that man will respond to.
4. Man retains free will.
God wills to save all men; not all men respond to His call. Those that do will be saved, those that don't will be lost. I really don't see the big problem.
Are you saying that God can't save certain people, or that God has decided not to save certain people?
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 08:30:28 AM
And this is incorporated into the Church's teaching on predestination. Predestination only concerns the elect. All else are left to their natural state. Predestination is an act of Mercy.
Not "all else" - those who are damned to eternal torments are not just left in their natural state. They are positively punished for their sin. "Eternal torments" are not the natural state. (The state they are in does not include only the absence of Sanctifying grace, but also eternal torments).
Here is St. Thomas' brief description of predestination and reprobation:
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I Q23 A3
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article3
...as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.
St. Thomas talks about predestination and reprobation together, and shows that the root of reprobation is the permission of man's sin. Jame, I think your definition is seriously flawed by trying cover the elect and then covering "all else" with no distinctions. When the word "predestination" is used, as it sometimes is, to cover both the damned and the saved (e.g. in the title of Garrigou-Lagrange's book), the permission of sin is an essential topic.
Clare and Michael,
I think St. Thomas' careful description of reprobation is a good base for the discussion of this topic. Reprobation is PERMISSION, infallible because God is God, but in no way causing man's sin or breaking his will. Punishment is not DUE to (on account of) reprobation, but to sin.
"
reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin."
==
God wills all to be saved, but saves only those who freely obey him. You can't leave out the "but".
God causes all good (and chooses it), but it is carried out by men freely.
God permits all evil, but does not cause it or hamper man's freedom.
To me the problem is how man's freedom is unhampered by God's causality. "God wills all to be saved" I don't see as a serious issue if you accept that man is free, and that God only saves those who freely obey Him.
I see the puzzle of "if you aren't elect you are reprobate" but that is just a logical consequence.
WHO God elects is a mystery. If we COULD accept that God can make this eternal choice wisely (taking HIS view of all creation, not ours) I think that the rest of the problems would be minimized.
I know this does not satisfy you and I appreciate your thinking. It is hard - I don't think I am "on top of it" but I do my best.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 03:19:34 PM
There is no proof that uncircumcized boys were among those killed by Herod. For the girls, I don't know what the ritual was. Probably involved offering a bird at the temple or something.
I wasn't talking about the Holy Innocents this time. You said girls and uncircumcised boys were saved on account of "
the participation in the Old Covenant of the parents". Did you still have the Holy Innocents in mind? Were any girls slain in that episode anyway?
Anyhow, I was thinking of regular Jewish boys who died before the 8th day.
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 09, 2015, 12:23:39 AM
God wills all to be saved, but saves only those who freely obey him. You can't leave out the "but".
God causes all good (and chooses it), but it is carried out by men freely.
God permits all evil, but does not cause it or hamper man's freedom.
Yes, I can accept this.
James, Clare, and Michael,
I apologize for my last post (repeated here) as it combined a reply to James with other considerations for Michael and Clare. A little confusing..
NN
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 09, 2015, 12:23:39 AM
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 08:30:28 AM
And this is incorporated into the Church's teaching on predestination. Predestination only concerns the elect. All else are left to their natural state. Predestination is an act of Mercy.
Not "all else" - those who are damned to eternal torments are not just left in their natural state. They are positively punished for their sin. "Eternal torments" are not the natural state. (The state they are in does not include only the absence of Sanctifying grace, but also eternal torments).
Here is St. Thomas' brief description of predestination and reprobation:
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I Q23 A3
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article3
...as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.
St. Thomas talks about predestination and reprobation together, and shows that the root of reprobation is the permission of man's sin. James, I think your definition is seriously flawed by trying cover the elect and then covering "all else" with no distinctions. When the word "predestination" is used, as it sometimes is, to cover both the damned and the saved (e.g. in the title of Garrigou-Lagrange's book), the permission of sin is an essential topic.
Clare and Michael,
I think St. Thomas' careful description of reprobation is a good base for the discussion of this topic. Reprobation is PERMISSION, infallible because God is God, but in no way causing man's sin or breaking his will. Punishment is not DUE to (on account of) reprobation, but to sin.
"reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin."
==
God wills all to be saved, but saves only those who freely obey him. You can't leave out the "but".
God causes all good (and chooses it), but it is carried out by men freely.
God permits all evil, but does not cause it or hamper man's freedom.
To me the problem is how man's freedom is unhampered by God's causality. "God wills all to be saved" I don't see as a serious issue if you accept that man is free, and that God only saves those who freely obey Him.
I see the puzzle of "if you aren't elect you are reprobate" but that is just a logical consequence.
WHO God elects is a mystery. If we COULD accept that God can make this eternal choice wisely (taking HIS view of all creation, not ours) I think that the rest of the problems would be minimized.
I know this does not satisfy you and I appreciate your thinking. It is hard - I don't think I am "on top of it" but I do my best.
Just my two cents both on grace and predestination:
All "classic" systems of grace, whether Thomist, Molinist, or Congruist, and their corresponding systems of predestinations, incorporate the same two false assumptions, which is why everyone has been battling it out for centuries with no solution in sight. Of course universalism is not an answer either, but it is not surprising at all to me that some should end up embracing it, given the real problems of the classic systems. The main false assumption (regarding grace) is this: since resistance to grace is an evil, non-resistance must be a good which must therefore come from God, the source of all good. The true metaphysical premise underlying this is that evil is a privation of a good which ought to be there. The logic is faulty. If the evil lies in an accident of some entity, then it is true the evil is removed if the accident is removed or changed. It is also true the evil is removed if the entity fails to exist. For instance, it is an evil if a car drives the wrong way and causes a crash. The accident is going the wrong way; it would be a good if instead the car drove the right way and thereby didn't crash. But the crash also wouldn't occur if the oncoming car didn't exist at all, or weren't in motion at all. So, relevant to grace, non-resistance is the absence of something, and therefore needs no metaphysical source. AFAIK, the first one to realize this was Fr. Francisco Marin-Sola, O.P., in the early 20th century.
Once this is understood, all the classic problems vanish into thin air and the official Catholic teaching can be accepted in its entirety (cf. Council of Orange) without recourse to sophistic rationalizations of what each system is implicitly denying, even though their partisans protest otherwise.
Efficacious grace is efficacious of itself, bringing about the willing and the doing. It could have been resisted, true, but (contra Molinism) it does not derive its causal efficacy from non-resistance, which is a non-entity, anymore than a car driving down a street derives its cause of motion from the fact that a car isn't coming in the opposing direction and crashing. Efficacious grace is God's gift, alone, for which humans can not glory in at all, in any respect, as though it were of themselves. "What hast thou that thou hast not received?" Yet it is human fault alone if grace is resisted and one thereby falls into sin. "Man has nothing of his own save vice and sin." That is why increase in holiness goes hand-in-hand with a turn away from self: "He must increase, but I must decrease." Yet (contra Thomism) is nothing is lacking from God when grace is resisted, as though He failed to do what He needed to in order to render the grace efficacious.
I'll continue with predestination a little later.
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 07:41:33 PM
Are you saying that God can't save certain people, or that God has decided not to save certain people?
Neither.
I'm saying that as far as He is concerned wills to save all men; but He wills that the creature makes (under His grace) a free election to choose Him and eternal salvation; or to reject Him.
Non,
the way you explain it is fine.
I do not believe that God wills the damnation of any Angel or man, except as a consequence of their deliberate sin. Therefore I believe that God grants to all, those graces that are necessary to obey Him and not to sin.
If there is a fault, it lies entirely on the part of the creature and not of God.
QRM,
thanks for your input; and I look forward to your future posts.
James,
here is an excerpt from the article "Predestination" in the C.E. Which describes P.P.M.
You can read the whole article here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm
QuoteThe theory of predestination post prævisa merita
This theory defended by the earlier Scholastics (Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus), as well as by the majority of the Molinists, and warmly recommended by St. Francis de Sales "as the truer and more attractive opinion", has this as its chief distinction, that it is free from the logical necessity of upholding negative reprobation. It differs from predestination ante prævisa merita in two points: first, it rejects the absolute decree and assumes a hypothetical predestination to glory; secondly, it does not reverse the succession of grace and glory in the two orders of eternal intention and of execution in time, but makes glory depend on merit in eternity as well as in the order of time. This hypothetical decree reads as follows: Just as in time eternal happiness depends on merit as a condition, so I intended heaven from all eternity only for foreseen merit. — It is only by reason of the infallible foreknowledge of these merits that the hypothetical decree is changed into an absolute: These and no others shall be saved.
This view not only safeguards the universality and sincerity of God's salvific will, but coincides admirably with the teachings of St. Paul (cf. 2 Timothy 4:8), who knows that there "is laid up" (reposita est, apokeitai) in heaven "a crown of justice", which "the just judge will render" (reddet, apodosei) to him on the day of judgment. Clearer still is the inference drawn from the sentence of the universal Judge (Matthew 25:34 sq.): "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat" etc. As the "possessing" of the Kingdom of Heaven in time is here linked to the works of mercy as a condition, so the "preparation" of the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity, that is, predestination to glory is conceived as dependent on the foreknowledge that good works will be performed. The same conclusion follows from the parallel sentence of condemnation (Matthew 25:41 sq.): "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat" etc. For it is evident that the "everlasting fire of hell" can only have been intended from all eternity for sin and demerit, that is, for neglect of Christian charity, in the same sense in which it is inflicted in time. Concluding a pari, we must say the same of eternal bliss. This explanation is splendidly confirmed by the Greek Fathers. Generally speaking, the Greeks are the chief authorities for conditional predestination dependent on foreseen merits. The Latins, too, are so unanimous on this question that St. Augustine is practically the only adversary in the Occident. St. Hilary (In Ps. lxiv, n. 5) expressly describes eternal election as proceeding from "the choice of merit" (ex meriti delectu), and St. Ambrose teaches in his paraphrase of Rom., viii, 29 (De fide, V, vi, 83): "Non enim ante prædestinavit quam præscivit, sed quorum merita præscivit, eorum præmia prædestinavit" (He did not predestine before He foreknew, but for those whose merits He foresaw, He predestined the reward). To conclude: no one can accuse us of boldness if we assert that the theory here presented has a firmer basis in Scripture and Tradition than the opposite opinion.
(Continued)
The second questionable assumption is that sufficient grace is a potency per modum actus rather than something which exists all the time. Again, the true metaphysical premise is that the order of grace is distinct from nature. But the logic is faulty. To be sure, the potency to receive grace is not intrinsic to human nature in the same way reason is, or walking is. It does not follow from that that God has not, by elevating human nature in potency (which must be admitted given a universal salvific will), given it a habitual potency to receive grace (that it would not have had He not so elevated it).
If this is admitted, then all the problems with the varying systems of predestination and how to reconcile with God's salvific will likewise disappear into thin air. Just like a seed is a full-grown plant in potency, and is ordered to becoming a full-grown plant by its nature, although it may per accidens fail to actualize (not enough rain may fall, an animal may eat it while still a seedling, etc.) So, likewise the potential of salvation may fail to actualize per accidens (a baby dies before Baptism, or one resists grace and falls into sin and then resists the grace of repentance). Yet it is still God's will alone and His efficacious grace alone which cause salvation for baptized babies and virtuous adults.
Of course, one could still press the point, if God is omnipotent, why didn't He will that the baby stay alive until its baptism, or why didn't He simply prevent the man from falling into sin in the first place? A system of predestination, no matter how satisfactory, is not a theodicy. If one wants to discuss this I suggest a new thread.
Quote from: Michael Wilson
James,
here is an excerpt from the article "Predestination" in the C.E. Which describes P.P.M.
You can read the whole article here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm
From that link, this is what is most important, summarized as follows:
The Catholic dogma
Reserving the theological controversies for the next section,
we deal here only with those articles of faith relating to predestination and reprobation, the denial of which would involve heresy....
According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events, all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact. Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil. Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all, not only for the predestined, or for the faithful, though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption. Though God preordained both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect, yet, on the other hand, He predestined no one positively to hell, much less to sin. Consequently, just as no one is saved against his will, so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness. God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins, though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners or pass over those who are not predestined. As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true Christians and members of the Church, just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity and of the Church. Without special revelation no one can know with certainty that he belongs to the number of the elect.
This is also very important:
The process of predestination consists of the following five steps:
1. the first grace of vocation, especially faith as the beginning, foundation, and root of justification;
2. a number of additional, actual graces for the successful accomplishment of justification;
3. justification itself as the beginning of the state of grace and love;
4. final perseverance or at least the grace of a happy death;
5. lastly, the admission to eternal bliss.
If it is a truth of Revelation that there are many who, following this path, seek and find their eternal salvation with infallible certainty, then the existence of Divine predestination is proved (cf. Matthew 25:34; Revelation 20:15). St. Paul says quite explicitly (Romans 8:28 sq.): "we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints.
For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the first born amongst many brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified." (Cf. Ephesians 1:4-11)
Quote from: Michael Wilson on October 09, 2015, 03:47:43 PM
Non,
the way you explain it is fine.
I do not believe that God wills the damnation of any Angel or man, except as a consequence of their deliberate sin. Therefore I believe that God grants to all, those graces that are necessary to obey Him and not to sin.
If there is a fault, it lies entirely on the part of the creature and not of God.
QRM,
thanks for your input; and I look forward to your future posts.
Hmm, I think if I spell out more precisely what I mean here maybe you will not so readily agree:
Quote from: Non Nobis
God causes all good (and chooses it), but it is carried out by men freely.
God permits all evil, but does not cause it or hamper man's freedom.
These must mean that:
- God causes the good and salvation of the elect and from eternity chooses who they are: He even causes the very heart of good free willing; He causes the will's choosing of good. These things are what is MOST good in man.
- God chooses whom He will permit to die in sin. He gives them sufficient grace, but from all eternity infallibly permits them to freely reject it. "It is sufficient but not if men reject it" you will accept; "It is sufficient but not if God infallibly permits men to reject it" you will probably deny: but they are the same. It is man and not God who causes the rejection.
- The elect God causes to certainly die in grace; the reprobate God permits to be certainly finally unrepentant. This is from all eternity; the numbers are fixed; God doesn't sit back to see what man does. And yet both the elect and the reprobate are free. The numbers and the "whos" and the "whys" are rooted in God's infinite Wisdom about all of creation; not something we should delve into.
Fit these things with the rest of what I've said.
None of this contradicts what you have said.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on October 09, 2015, 07:06:37 AM
...relevant to grace, non-resistance is the absence of something, and therefore needs no metaphysical source. ...
Grace insistently demands a response from man's free will; if it is not given (the absence of acceptance), it is resistance, unless man is inculpably ignoring it (sleeping, thinking about something else). The non-resistance response is not "nothing" it is "letting in God's grace", which is good and needs to be caused.
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 09, 2015, 11:49:34 PM
... the numbers are fixed; ...
That is what makes me ask, "What is the point in doing good, evangelising, etc?"
Of course, if it's only the
numbers that are fixed, and
I want to be in that number, then that means pushing someone else out!
Quote from: Clare on October 10, 2015, 01:33:48 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 09, 2015, 11:49:34 PM
... the numbers are fixed; ...
That is what makes me ask, "What is the point in doing good, evangelising, etc?"
Of course, if it's only the numbers that are fixed, and I want to be in that number, then that means pushing someone else out!
The point in evangelizing and etc. is according to the justice of God. The reprobate will see in eternity the chances God gave them to convert, and they will see that of their own free will they rejected the grace. The souls in hell cannot blame God for their own perdition, they will know that they can blame only themselves for rejecting the grace of God.
Conversely, the souls in heaven will rejoice that God sent them someone to preach and that of their own free will they accepted, corresponded and converted. In their eternity, they praise God for sending that preacher.
The numbers are only fixed because from eternity, God knows who will and who will not, of their own free will, correspond to His graces. God has sufficient grace waiting for every man in the world, would he but take it. Were God to see that he would take it were it offered to him, it would be given.
Quote from: Stubborn on October 10, 2015, 03:54:50 AM
Quote from: Clare on October 10, 2015, 01:33:48 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 09, 2015, 11:49:34 PM
... the numbers are fixed; ...
That is what makes me ask, "What is the point in doing good, evangelising, etc?"
Of course, if it's only the numbers that are fixed, and I want to be in that number, then that means pushing someone else out!
The point in evangelizing and etc. is according to the justice of God. The reprobate will see in eternity the chances God gave them to convert, and they will see that of their own free will they rejected the grace. The souls in hell cannot blame God for their own perdition, they will know that they can blame only themselves for rejecting the grace of God.
Conversely, the souls in heaven will rejoice that God sent them someone to preach and that of their own free will they accepted, corresponded and converted. In their eternity, they praise God for sending that preacher.
The numbers are only fixed because from eternity, God knows who will and who will not, of their own free will, correspond to His graces. God has sufficient grace waiting for every man in the world, would he but take it. Were God to see that he would take it were it offered to him, it would be given.
Yes, I accept all that. I just struggle to reconcile the idea that everyone has a chance of being saved with the idea that God only elects a few, knowing that the others actually
don't have a chance, because they can't be saved without being elected. Everyone has a chance, but most people don't.
Ok Non.
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 10, 2015, 12:34:11 AM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on October 09, 2015, 07:06:37 AM
...relevant to grace, non-resistance is the absence of something, and therefore needs no metaphysical source. ...
Grace insistently demands a response from man's free will; if it is not given (the absence of acceptance), it is resistance, unless man is inculpably ignoring it (sleeping, thinking about something else). The non-resistance response is not "nothing" it is "letting in God's grace", which is good and needs to be caused.
There are myriad philosophical and theological problems with the above. It attempts to avoid the problems of Thomism but only succeeds in making things even worse. First, this is mere argument by assertion. No proof is provided.
Instead of simply having grace causing the consent of man's free will (as I do and as Thomism does), you now have a separate "response" of free will apart from grace. Thus, this response must be from nature. Thus, grace makes a supernaturally good act possible, but unelevated nature actualizes it. This is philosophical and theological nonsense. It makes efficacious grace, by its very definition, miraculous
in the strict sense (not in the broad sense in which we say a conversion of a great sinner is a "miracle of grace"; it is a "miracle" only in the broad sense of being unusual but not in the strict sense, since at least according to Thomism and sound philosophy grace has the natural power in itself to convert sinners). Why? Because the definition of a miracle is when God bypasses the normal secondary order of causality and does something directly. Changing water into wine is a miracle, for water has no such natural power to spontaneously so transform. So unelevated human nature has no power to do anything at all in the supernatural order.
QuoteThe main false assumption (regarding grace) is this: since resistance to grace is an evil, non-resistance must be a good which must therefore come from God, the source of all good.
Exactly how is this an assumption of Congruentism?
God arranges the conditions of man (Vincent Terranova is born to a Trad family) so that he will freely cooperate with the various graces He sends. There is no sufficient/efficacious distinction, or no "enabling" grace. There's just Graces. Period.
QuoteI'm saying that as far as He is concerned wills to save all men; but He wills that the creature makes (under His grace) a free election to choose Him and eternal salvation; or to reject Him.
It's binary. Are you saying God CAN'T save this person, or that God COULD save him, but does not provide enough Graces? You see, PPM blows up.
QuoteNot "all else" - those who are damned to eternal torments are not just left in their natural state. They are positively punished for their sin.
I was talking about up to the point of their death, which you can see by the context.
Quote from: james03 on October 10, 2015, 12:45:12 PM
QuoteI'm saying that as far as He is concerned wills to save all men; but He wills that the creature makes (under His grace) a free election to choose Him and eternal salvation; or to reject Him.
It's binary. Are you saying God CAN'T save this person, or that God COULD save him, but does not provide enough Graces? You see, PPM blows up.
It doesn't blow up if you accept the fact that man can resist God's grace, and that God ordinarily doesn't override man's free will.
God could save all men and all Angels even the damned right now; but He doesn't. God wanted to save all of them, but it was necessary for them to freely co-operate with His grace.
Look James,
I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again to you; I'm going to drop out of this discussion.
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 09, 2015, 12:23:39 AM
Quote from: james03 on October 08, 2015, 08:30:28 AM
And this is incorporated into the Church's teaching on predestination. Predestination only concerns the elect. All else are left to their natural state. Predestination is an act of Mercy.
Not "all else" - those who are damned to eternal torments are not just left in their natural state. They are positively punished for their sin. "Eternal torments" are not the natural state. (The state they are in does not include only the absence of Sanctifying grace, but also eternal torments).
Quote from: james03 on October 10, 2015, 12:46:20 PM
QuoteNot "all else" - those who are damned to eternal torments are not just left in their natural state. They are positively punished for their sin.
I was talking about up to the point of their death, which you can see by the context.
I don't see it; "predestination only concerns the elect" refers primarily to man's final destination, not the state of his soul during life.
I have to stretch the context to cover text in a previous post "By Divine Providence, God allows fallen man to remain in his fallen state, which is really man's natural state" to make sense of what you are saying. As your quote above stands, the context "predestination" refers to eternal destination not state in life before death.
Even if "natural state" refers to the state of the soul before death, it is not true that "all else are left in their natural state". Some of the non-predestined have no original sin, and had Sanctifying Grace and lost it. They are in a worse state (even before death) than the "natural state", by their own doing, not by being left there by God.
QuoteIt doesn't blow up if you accept the fact that man can resist God's grace, and that God ordinarily doesn't override man's free will.
God can send graces to save any man, without overriding his free will. I agree, God normally doesn't override man's free will. I can think of only one example, when He hardened Pharoah's heart.
You can't answer the question: For those who fall, is it that God CAN'T save them, or that God WON'T save them?
(James be sure to see my post before your last one)
Quote from: james03 on October 10, 2015, 04:45:07 PM
....God normally doesn't override man's free will. I can think of only one example, when He hardened Pharoah's heart.
St. Thomas does not explain hardening Pharoah's heart as overriding man's free will at all:
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I IIae Q79 A3
Spiritual blindness and hardness of heart imply two things. One is the movement of the human mind in cleaving to evil, and turning away from the Divine light; and as regards this, God is not the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart, just as He is not the cause of sin. The other thing is the withdrawal of grace, the result of which is that the mind is not enlightened by God to see aright, and man's heart is not softened to live aright; and as regards this God is the cause of spiritual blindness and hardness of heart.
...Now although the sun, so far as it is concerned, enlightens all bodies, yet if it be encountered by an obstacle in a body, it leaves it in darkness, as happens to a house whose window-shutters are closed, although the sun is in no way the cause of the house being darkened, since it does not act of its own accord in failing to light up the interior of the house; and the cause of this is the person who closed the shutters. On the other hand, God, of His own accord, withholds His grace from those in whom He finds an obstacle: so that the cause of grace being withheld is not only the man who raises an obstacle to grace; but God, Who, of His own accord, withholds His grace. In this way, God is the cause of spiritual blindness, deafness of ear, and hardness of heart.
...
Reply to Objection 1. Blindness and hardheartedness, as regards the withholding of grace, are punishments, and therefore, in this respect, they make man no worse. It is because he is already worsened by sin that he incurs them, even as other punishments.
God punished Pharoah by withdrawing grace; this did not override free will, but removed the light of grace.
Quote from: james03 on October 10, 2015, 04:45:07 PM
QuoteIt doesn't blow up if you accept the fact that man can resist God's grace, and that God ordinarily doesn't override man's free will.
You can't answer the question: For those who fall, is it that God CAN'T save them, or that God WON'T save them?
On behalf of Michael (partly), I would say that indeed God WON'T save them but you have to ask WHY: it is because of man's free willed sin.
St. Thomas: "reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin."
God doesn't start by saying "I won't save personX (and then whatever that implies)", He says "I will eternally permit personX to die in sin and account of that sin I will not save him" The will to permit comes first. (This is how I see things now)
Quotethis did not override free will,
Yes it did. St. Thomas only says it is a punishment for sin.
QuoteOn behalf of Michael (partly),
Michael can't answer. It's check mate.
QuoteHe says "I will eternally permit personX to die in sin and account of that sin I will not save him" The will to permit comes first. (This is how I see things now)
That's fine, but the elect would sin if God did not save them. He chooses not to save the reprobate, as in, permit them to fall into sin. He also allows the elect to fall into sin, but He sends them Grace to repent.
Quote from: james03 on October 10, 2015, 07:44:11 PM
Quotethis did not override free will,
Yes it did. St. Thomas only says it is a punishment for sin.
St. Thomas speaks of "sin", "cleaving to evil", "turning away from the light". These are caused by man. A man cannot sin if his will is not free. Free will is an essential part of the nature of man. There is no evidence here that "mind is not enlightened by God to see aright, and man's heart is not softened to live aright" refers to the overriding of free will; even if these mean a man does will evil, he does it freely, or it is not sin.
You can say "yes it did" as you like, but St. Thomas does not support this.
I'd be interested in any Fathers of the Church which claim God caused Pharaoh to sin. They don't exist to my knowledge.
God
cannot be the first cause of evil: not always, not 3 times, not once. If one believes that even once God was the first cause of evil, based on a misreading of Scripture, then they believe Calvinism or some variant which is not compatible with the Catholic Faith.
The rain is the cause of the ground softening. Not-rain hardening the ground is not a per se cause of the rain, in a positive sense. It is a negative causation, rather, with the thing opposite the rain -- dryness -- acting as the causation of hardening.
Quote15 And Pharao seeing that rest was given, hardened his own heart, and did not hear them, as the Lord had commanded.
Ex 8:15
QuoteVer. 15. Pharao hardened his own heart. By this we see that Pharao was himself the efficient cause of his heart being hardened, and not God. See the same repeated in ver. 32, Pharao hardened his heart at this time also; likewise chap. ix. 7, 35, and chap. xiii. 15. (Challoner) --- This is the constant doctrine of the holy fathers, St. Augustine, ser. 88, de Temp. q. 18, 28, 36; St. Basil, orat., "that God is not the author of evil;" St. Chrysostom, hom. 67, in Jo.; &c. Hence Origen, periar. 3, says, "The Scripture sheweth manifestly that Pharao was hardened by his own will; for God said to him, thou wouldst not: if thou wilt not dismiss Israel." Even the priests of the Philistines were so well convinced of this, that they said, (1 Kings vi. 6,) Why do you harden your hearts? God therefore hardened them only by not absolutely hindering their wickedness, and by punishing them with less severity, as they did not deserve to be corrected like dear children, Hebrews xii. --- Perdition is from thyself, Osee xiii. 9. As cold naturally congeals water, so we of ourselves run to evil. Thus God cast Pharao into the sea, by permitting, not by forcing, him to enter, Exodus xv. 4. How shocking must then the blasphemous doctrine of Zuinglius, (ser. de provid. 5,) Calvin, (Instit. 8, 17,) &c., appear, who attribute every wicked deed to God, though they pretend at the same time that he is not unjust, even when he commands and impels a man to commit murder or adultery. Idem facinus puta adulterium...quantum Dei est auctoris, motoris, impulsoris opus est, crimen non est; quantum hominis est, crimen ac scelus est. (Zuinglius, sup.) The light of reason may suffice to confute such absurdity. (Worthington)
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id386.html
Quote from: Clare on October 10, 2015, 01:33:48 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 09, 2015, 11:49:34 PM
... the numbers are fixed; ...
That is what makes me ask, "What is the point in doing good, evangelising, etc?"
Of course, if it's only the numbers that are fixed, and I want to be in that number, then that means pushing someone else out!
One of the qualities of Predestination is
immutability which means that the number of the Elect is fixed, or as the link Michael Wilson posted states that: "the whole future membership of heaven, down to its minutest details, with all the different measures of grace and the various degrees of happiness, has been irrevocably fixed from all eternity". Nor could it be otherwise. For if it were possible that a predestined individual should after all be cast into hell or that one not predestined should in the end reach heaven, then God would have been mistaken in his foreknowledge of future events; He would no longer be omniscient. Hence the Good Shepherd says of his sheep (John 10:28): "
And I give them life everlasting; and they shalt not perish forever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand."
The error is in confusing the immutability of Predestination with the fatalistic sense present in Calvinism for example, which totally eliminates human will in cooperating or refusing God's grace. God's foreknowledge does not force upon a soul unavoidable coercion. Holy Scripture tells us about the Book of Life, which is a list with the names of all the Elect, in which no name can be added or erased. We know that God is the First Mover of Grace and that He chooses whoever he wishes to give such Grace, regardless of merits. We know not the parameters He uses for choosing. That is the true mystery of predestination. For any soul to be justified it is necessary that God has chosen it. The Council of Trent teaches infallibly and quite emphasizing that a soul is
unable to receive the grace of Justification without first receiving the Divine call:
Quote from: Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter 16Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God . . . God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits.
Quote from: Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 3If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.
Quote from: Clare
"What is the point in doing good, evangelising, etc?"
The Elect does not know who they are. It may be that God uses YOU as a witness to the Faith and an apostle for a chosen soul, as
Faith comes by hearing. That is our call and the rest is in God's hands.
Quote from: Romans 10, 14:17
14 How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But all do not obey the gospel. For Isaias saith: Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.
I agree, God withdraws His grace to harden the heart, He does not override Free Will in that case.
Quote from: james03 on October 11, 2015, 07:50:14 AM
I agree, God withdraws His grace to harden the heart, He does not override Free Will in that case.
Orestes Brownson, a convert from Protestantism and probably the best apologist for the Faith America has ever produced, says:
Quote from: Orestes BrownsonUndoubtedly men may innocently adhere to error, but it does not therefore follow that they are in spirit members of the Church; for a man, though not in sin by reason of his error, may yet be in error by reason of his sin. It may be, that, if he had complied with the graces given him, and which are given to all men, he would have had the opportunity of being enlightened and brought to the knowledge of the truth. It is possible, then, that the reason why a man is not an actual member of the Church is his own fault, not, indeed, that fault of not knowing what he had no opportunity of learning, but of not complying with the graces given him and with which he was bound to comply, and we presume no one will pretend that he is in spirit a member of the Church, who through his own fault is not an actual member.
The withdrawal of Grace is a punishment for sin, which inevitably leads to both spiritual blindness during this earthly exile and eternal damnation after death. The traditional Thomist view on the the Damnation of the Reprobate is that "God's eternal decree includes both the permission to sin and the punishment of sin without regard to future demerits, but God is not the cause of sin, as Scripture teaches. This means that the permission and the punishment come from God, but the defect (the sin) comes from man".
A good way to put way would be: God causes and determines the final end of the Elect, but He merely permits the fate of the reprobate, who damn themselves as in "free fall" for their sins.
Quote from: james03 on October 10, 2015, 12:42:50 PM
QuoteThe main false assumption (regarding grace) is this: since resistance to grace is an evil, non-resistance must be a good which must therefore come from God, the source of all good.
Exactly how is this an assumption of Congruentism?
God arranges the conditions of man (Vincent Terranova is born to a Trad family) so that he will freely cooperate with the various graces He sends. There is no sufficient/efficacious distinction, or no "enabling" grace. There's just Graces. Period.
This free cooperation you refer to is identical to non-resistance, so the same problem exists. An additional problem is to explain exactly how it works out that the external conditions are arranged "so that" that non-resistance is obtained (called the "grounding objection").
Quote from: james03 on October 10, 2015, 12:45:12 PM
QuoteI'm saying that as far as He is concerned wills to save all men; but He wills that the creature makes (under His grace) a free election to choose Him and eternal salvation; or to reject Him.
It's binary. Are you saying God CAN'T save this person, or that God COULD save him, but does not provide enough Graces? You see, PPM blows up.
When you really analyze this, you end up with an infinite regress, and our minds are not built to understand infinities. The famous dictum of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, "either God determining or God determined" can be shown to be a fallacy.
God can't save a person who is determined not to be saved (this is the definition of a person with final impenitence). This does not go against God's omnipotence, for God cannot do the logically impossible.
OK, but can't God will that such a person not determine to be not saved? Not if the person is determined to be determined to be not saved. Against, that's logically impossible. (If an unrepentant person does not have such determination, he may for instance ask God for the grace of repentance even though he is not at the moment repentant, a prayer which is always granted.)
Well, then can't God will that the person not determine to determined to be not saved?
Not if the person determines that. And on to infinity.
QuoteThis free cooperation you refer to is identical to non-resistance, so the same problem exists.
God is the cause of all good, He is not the efficient Cause. Beauty is a Good. Say a pink flower is beautiful. Ultimately God is the cause of the beauty, but the efficient cause would be say some sort of chemical pigment in the petal.
Same thing. God is the First Cause, Prime Mover, and Form of the Good, but He is not the efficient cause of Man's free will choice for Good.
It is almost like you are claiming that the pigment is not in the causal chain, or that if we assert that the pigment is in the causal chain, we are taking away from God, or something.
As far as HOW God arranges the conditions, that is explained by Molinism. I'd prefer not to fork this thread and go into that.
ETA: some links; more quotes from St. Thomas.
Quote from: james03 on October 12, 2015, 02:29:46 PM
God is the cause of all good, He is not the efficient Cause. Beauty is a Good. Say a pink flower is beautiful. Ultimately God is the cause of the beauty, but the efficient cause would be say some sort of chemical pigment in the petal.
Same thing. God is the First Cause, Prime Mover, and Form of the Good, but He is not the efficient cause of Man's free will choice for Good.
St. Thomas' second argument for the existence of God is based on the necessity of there being a first efficient cause, which is God:
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I Q2 A3
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The efficient cause of the pigment in a petal is not itself. The FIRST efficient cause is God.
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I Q44 A4 Ad4
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1044.htm#article4
God is the efficient, the exemplar and the final cause of all things
Also:
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I Q6 A1.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm
..since God is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness belong to Him; and hence Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) attributes good to God as to the first efficient cause, saying that, God is called good "as by Whom all things subsist."
I think that the movement of a good free choice needs a primary efficient cause too, which is God. To say otherwise IS to take something away from God. This is my understanding.
QuotePhilippians 2:13
For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will
I think "working in you... to will" has the nature of an efficient cause.
I know the reaction is "wrong! that is impossible!", but I think God works in our free will without violating its freedom.
St. Thomas, directly to the point:
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I Q83 A1 Ad3.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm
Reply to Objection 3: Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.
QuoteThe second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes.
St. Thomas agrees with me. I already said God is the First Cause, however, the color pigment in the petal is in the Causal Chain, just as man's free will choice for Good is in the causal chain for him choosing good.
Man is an efficient cause in the Good that he does. Otherwise you are left with the fallacy of Occasionalism.
True, God is the First Cause of this Good, but man's choice is free.
Man chooses what he views as good. Why he considers something good is because of God's grace that works on the intellect and faculties.
Someone claiming that man is not an efficient cause must explain why this is not Occasionalism, which according to Wiki comes from nominalism (which I agree, it does). It stinks of Hume.
Quote from: james03 on October 13, 2015, 07:40:42 AM
Man is an efficient cause in the Good that he does. Otherwise you are left with the fallacy of Occasionalism...
Someone claiming that man is not an efficient cause must explain why this is not Occasionalism...
I really can't tell that you read the quotes from St. Thomas.
St. Thomas certainly puts man in the causal chain as a true efficient cause of the good he does. But he says that God is the FIRST (primary) efficient cause in the chain.
I'll repeat the last quote since it was "ETA" so maybe you missed it:
(Read it all closely. I almost put the whole thing in boldface)
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I Q83 A1 Ad3.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm
Reply to Objection 3: Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.
... God is the primary cause of man's good (even naturally good) free willing; God is "a cause that moves a voluntary cause". But He cannot cause evil, and will not destroy what He Himself causes: the very freedom in man's actions.
This is huge and hard to understand; but this is what St. Thomas is saying.
Supernatural good in addition requires grace.
Again, I have in no way denied that God is the First Cause. I stipulate, God is the First Cause of all Good. Let's quit talking about First Causes.
That taken care of, man's free will is the efficient cause of his choosing the good.
Quote from: james03 on October 13, 2015, 06:05:54 PM
Again, I have in no way denied that God is the First Cause. I stipulate, God is the First Cause of all Good. Let's quit talking about First Causes.
That taken care of, man's free will is the efficient cause of his choosing the good.
Even in everyday talk, when A is the cause of B, and B is the cause of C, we sometimes say simply "B is the cause of C" (this is true), but we sometimes say "A is the cause of C" (also true; maybe less direct, but often more fundamental). The same thing is true for efficient causality.
Man's free will is the efficient cause of his choosing the good - TRUE
God is the efficient cause of Man's freely choosing the good - ALSO TRUE
It must be understood (and explained here, where it is not obvious) that in the first case we are talking about SECONDARY efficient causality, but in the second case about PRIMARY efficient causality.
St. Thomas says "for one thing to be cause of another [it need not] be the first cause".
Both the secondary cause and the primary cause cause the same thing, but the primary cause is more fundamental. In the case of God, He CAUSES the secondary causality itself, even while it is causing.
We can't stop talking about First Causes because every secondary efficient cause requires a first (primary) efficient cause, and we are not only talking about man but also about God. Or, do you want to leave God out of the discussion? (Maybe that is it, as far as thinking about free will goes....)
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I Q6 A1.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm
..since God is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness belong to Him; and hence Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) attributes good to God as to the first efficient cause, saying that, God is called good "as by Whom all things subsist."
QuoteEven in everyday talk, when A is the cause of B, and B is the cause of C, we sometimes say simply "B is the cause of C" (this is true), but we sometimes say "A is the cause of C" (also true; maybe less direct, but often more fundamental). The same thing is true for efficient causality.
Which is why I stipulated that God is the First Cause, which in your example is A causing C. I stipulated that because I have always said that, and it has never been in dispute. So why won't you let it drop?
At issue is that "B causes C". It appears (I probably misunderstand) that Q. is denying "B causes C" and is presupposing an occasionalist system. So what I am attempting to discuss is how Q is not an occasionalist.
QuoteMan's free will is the efficient cause of his choosing the good - TRUE
I'm waiting to find out if Q agrees.
QuoteWe I can't stop talking about First Causes
True.
Furthermore, since God is the Form of the Good, we can also say that God is the formal cause of man choosing the good. However, man is the efficient (or instrumental) cause of his free will choice to do good.
Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2015, 08:19:39 AMAt issue is that "B causes C". It appears (I probably misunderstand) that Q. is denying "B causes C" and is presupposing an occasionalist system. So what I am attempting to discuss is how Q is not an occasionalist.
You must be misunderstanding something. Nowhere do I deny secondary causality of man.
Quote
QuoteMan's free will is the efficient cause of his choosing the good - TRUE
I'm waiting to find out if Q agrees.
Yes.
QuoteFurthermore, since God is the Form of the Good, we can also say that God is the formal cause of man choosing the good. However, man is the efficient (or instrumental) cause of his free will choice to do good.
Man is the secondary efficient cause. God is the First Cause, not only first formal cause but also first efficient cause.
I almost posted at greater length, but QMR said it better.
Quote from: QMR
Man is the secondary efficient cause. God is the First Cause, not only first formal cause but also first efficient cause.
QuoteMan is the secondary efficient cause. God is the First Cause, not only first formal cause but also first efficient cause.
Agreed. So what is the problem with the Molinist system? In that system, God is the First Cause and man is the secondary efficient cause.
Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2015, 05:17:38 PM
QuoteMan is the secondary efficient cause. God is the First Cause, not only first formal cause but also first efficient cause.
Agreed. So what is the problem with the Molinist system? In that system, God is the First Cause and man is the secondary efficient cause.
My understanding is that in the Thomist system the Primary efficient cause moves the Secondary efficient cause infallibly, although freely in the case of a voluntary cause.
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas
CONTRA GENTILES
BOOK THREE: PROVIDENCE
Part II:
C148 [3]
Again, that divine help is provided man so that he may act well is to be understood in this way: it performs our works in us, as the primary cause performs the operations of secondary causes, and as a principal agent performs the action of an instrument. Hence, it is said in Isaiah (26:1213): "You have wrought all our works for us, O Lord." Now, the first cause causes the operation of the secondary cause according to the measure of the latter. So, God also causes our works in us in accord with our measure, which means that we act voluntarily and not as forced. Therefore, no one is forced to right action by the divine help.
I don't think the Molinists have this idea of primary and secondary causes.
Why not? Take St. Robert: God sends the Grace (Primary Cause) that is congruent with the circumstances. The Grace works on the intellect, and the person chooses to do a certain good thing. His will is the secondary cause.
Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2015, 07:05:52 PM
Why not? Take St. Robert: God sends the Grace (Primary Cause) that is congruent with the circumstances. The Grace works on the intellect, and the person chooses to do a certain good thing. His will is the secondary cause.
For the Thomist the Primary Cause is God who works via grace (Supernatural, internal) to move the Secondary Cause (the human will) to good. He doesn't need circumstances (natural, external) to move the human will.
Natural, external things can be a kind of sufficient grace (e.g. a good book of Catholic teaching); I think Garrigou-Lagrange says this. But the actual movement of the will to good takes efficacious grace, and is God as primary cause working the secondary cause, no external things needed.
Do you think circumstances are infallible in their effect? If Person-A and Person-B have identical circumstances, do they infallibly choose or reject the same good? God moves the heart infallibly to good when He moves it, which CAN be against circumstances.
QuoteBut the actual movement of the will to good takes efficacious grace,
Actually St. Thomas rejects this. He says that the will is free. God's Grace works on the intellect, faculties, and passions.
QuoteDo you think circumstances are infallible in their effect? If Person-A and Person-B have identical circumstances, do they infallibly choose or reject the same good?
Yes. By definition A and B would be the same.
But put two different people in the same circumstances and you get different outcomes. Or add God's Grace and expect something different also. But God knows HOW to get the result He wills while respecting the Free Will He decreed for us.
Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2015, 10:09:10 PM
QuoteBut the actual movement of the will to good takes efficacious grace,
Actually St. Thomas rejects this. He says that the will is free. God's Grace works on the intellect, faculties, and passions.
James...
Surely you agree that grace is a necessary help to the will? This is so basic. St. Thomas: "free-will is the subject of grace, by the help of which it chooses what is good" ( http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm )
Yeah, he says more. The help comes from what I described previously. The Lord presents to the intellect what is good.
From the book "Predestination" by Fr. Reginald Garrigou - Lagrange:
"The great mystery, too, according to St. Augustine and St. Thomas, it is not how to reconcile God's foreknowledge and His decrees with created liberty; for, if God is God, His efficacious will must extend to the free mode of our acts. From the fact of His willingly efficaciously that Paul be freely converted on a certain day at a certain time, on his way to Damascus, it must follow that Paul is freely converted; and, if in this case the effect of the divine motion on the human will does not destroy its liberty why would it do so in other cases?
We must seek elsewhere for the reason of this great mystery. It is to be found in God's permission of moral evil or sin in this particular man or angel rather than in a certain other. St. Augustine and St. Thomas say that if the grace of final perseverance is granted, as it was to the good thief, that is because of God's mercy; if it is not granted, that is in just punishment as a rule for repeated sins, and for having resisted the final appeal, a final resistance that God permits in this one rather than in a certain other. This makes St. Augustine say: "Why God draws this one and not that one; judge not, if thou will not err". St Thomas says in like manner: "No one thing would be better than another, if God did not will greater good for one than for the other".
On the other hand, God never commands what is impossible. Even when Judas fell from grace, though so near to Christ His redeemer, it was still truly possible for him to comply with the divine law."
Quote from: Cantarella on October 15, 2015, 11:24:39 PM
From the book "Predestination" by Fr. Reginald Garrigou - Lagrange:
This is easily refuted with some simple logic, notwithstanding the notable qualifications of the author.
QuoteWe must seek elsewhere for the reason of this great mystery. It is to be found in God's permission of moral evil or sin in this particular man or angel rather than in a certain other. St. Augustine and St. Thomas say that if the grace of final perseverance is granted, as it was to the good thief, that is because of God's mercy; if it is not granted, that is in just punishment as a rule for repeated sins, and for having resisted the final appeal, a final resistance that God permits in this one rather than in a certain other.
If God's permission of moral evil or sin in any particular man is a punishment for past sin, we are led into a vicious infinite regress, for the permission of the past sin must be a punishment for sin before that.
Moreover, in this system God's permission of moral evil in a man is simply identical to a failure on God's part to will that the man will the contrary good. The use of the terms "permission" or "permissive will" is simply an attempt to cover this up. Likewise for "sufficient grace" and "efficacious grace": it simply moves the issue back one step, from man's specific act of virtue or vice to resistance or non-resistance to grace. If grace is merely sufficient, God simply failed to will non-resistance.
If pressed on the point, some Thomists will admit this but take refuge in a supposed greater good than a soul's salvation willed by God. That is easily refuted as well.
Yet, the Thomists do have a valid point. Efficacious grace must
causally derive its efficacy to move the will and bring about a good act from somewhere. The Thomist solution is that this is directly from God: efficacious grace is efficacious of its very nature, without a secondary cause. All other solutions (e.g. positing a secondary cause) have serious problems. If it is another grace making the first grace efficacious, then what makes the second grace efficacious? If it is something from nature, whether internal (act of the will under its natural power) or external (circumstance) then the efficacy of grace is miraculous.
Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2015, 10:09:10 PM
QuoteBut the actual movement of the will to good takes efficacious grace,
Actually St. Thomas rejects this. He says that the will is free. God's Grace works on the intellect, faculties, and passions.
"Free" will was not understood by St. Thomas and the Scholastics in the modern, libertarian, contra-causal sense. They were all compatibilists.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on October 16, 2015, 06:43:49 AM
Quote from: james03 on October 15, 2015, 10:09:10 PM
QuoteBut the actual movement of the will to good takes efficacious grace,
Actually St. Thomas rejects this. He says that the will is free. God's Grace works on the intellect, faculties, and passions.
"Free" will was not understood by St. Thomas and the Scholastics in the modern, libertarian, contra-causal sense. They were all compatibilists.
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
QuoteCompatibilism was championed by the ancient Stoics[3] and medieval scholasticism, such as that of St. Thomas Aquinas,[4] and by such modern philosophers like David Hume and Thomas Hobbes.[5] Actually the scholastics, including Thomas Aquinas, rejected what would now be called "compatiblism"—they held that humans could do otherwise than they do, otherwise the concept of "sin" is meaningless.
You can comment on compatibilism vs "what would now be called "compatibilism"."
For some reason I don't see St. Thomas, Hume, and Hobbes agreeing on a whole lot.
Really all of the First Part of the Second Part, Q6 should be read on St. Thomas's opinion on God moving the will. Here's an excerpt:
QuoteReply to Objection 1. God Who is more powerful than the human will, can move the will of man, according to Proverbs 21:1: "The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord; whithersoever He will He shall turn it." But if this were by compulsion, it would no longer be by an act of the will, nor would the will itself be moved, but something else against the will.
Bottom line (read all of Q6), God influences the intellect and passions through Grace. The will chooses the Good presented to it by God. That choice is absolutely free, though we are made and ordered to choosing the good.
edit:
Quoteand, if in this case the effect of the divine motion on the human will does not destroy its liberty why would it do so in other cases?
G-L is not following St. Thomas. I think St. Robert is a better Thomist than G-L.
QuoteIf God's permission of moral evil or sin in any particular man is a punishment for past sin, we are led into a vicious infinite regress, for the permission of the past sin must be a punishment for sin before that.
Moreover, in this system God's permission of moral evil in a man is simply identical to a failure on God's part to will that the man will the contrary good. The use of the terms "permission" or "permissive will" is simply an attempt to cover this up.
You are not reading G-L correctly. He is saying that the refusal to grant
final perseverance is an act of justice for past sins. So there is no infinite regress.
Quote from: james03 on October 17, 2015, 10:32:40 AM
Really all of the First Part of the Second Part, Q6 should be read on St. Thomas's opinion on God moving the will. Here's an excerpt:
QuoteReply to Objection 1. God Who is more powerful than the human will, can move the will of man, according to Proverbs 21:1: "The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord; whithersoever He will He shall turn it." But if this were by compulsion, it would no longer be by an act of the will, nor would the will itself be moved, but something else against the will.
Bottom line (read all of Q6), God influences the intellect and passions through Grace. The will chooses the Good presented to it by God. That choice is absolutely free, though we are made and ordered to choosing the good.
edit: Quoteand, if in this case the effect of the divine motion on the human will does not destroy its liberty why would it do so in other cases?
G-L is not following St. Thomas. I think St. Robert is a better Thomist than G-L.
I think you are reading G-L as if he is saying that God does violence to the will so that it is not free.
But I think he believes that God moves the will in a way that leaves it completely free as St. Thomas says here in Q6:
QuoteA1 Reply to Objection 3. God moves man to act, not only by proposing the appetible to the senses, or by effecting a change in his body, but also by moving the will itself; because every movement either of the will or of nature, proceeds from God as the First Mover. And just as it is not incompatible with nature that the natural movement be from God as the First Mover, inasmuch as nature is an instrument of God moving it: so it is not contrary to the essence of a voluntary act, that it proceed from God, inasmuch as the will is moved by God
.
I do not understand how God moves the will without doing it violence, but I think St. Thomas and G-L both support this. I think it is a mystery.
Note God is not called just "First Cause" but "First Mover"; a mover is the efficient cause of motion. It's not just God presenting good, but God actually MOVING the WILL but because it is God it is not force; the man is doing the choosing freely. Mystery.
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 17, 2015, 12:53:10 AM
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
QuoteCompatibilism was championed by the ancient Stoics[3] and medieval scholasticism, such as that of St. Thomas Aquinas,[4] and by such modern philosophers like David Hume and Thomas Hobbes.[5] Actually the scholastics, including Thomas Aquinas, rejected what would now be called "compatiblism"—they held that humans could do otherwise than they do, otherwise the concept of "sin" is meaningless.
You can comment on compatibilism vs "what would now be called "compatibilism"."
Well all this shows is that the scholastics were logically inconsistent. The scholastics were determinists - everything, including free choices of rational beings, were predetermined by the will of God. So how to claim moral fault or virtue if a human's act is predetermined? Well, they say his action isn't predetermined in the "composite" sense (abstracting from the will of God) but only in the "divided sense" (taking the will of God into account). This is of course pure sophistry and everything goes downhill from there.
Quote from: james03 on October 17, 2015, 10:43:47 AM
QuoteIf God's permission of moral evil or sin in any particular man is a punishment for past sin, we are led into a vicious infinite regress, for the permission of the past sin must be a punishment for sin before that.
Moreover, in this system God's permission of moral evil in a man is simply identical to a failure on God's part to will that the man will the contrary good. The use of the terms "permission" or "permissive will" is simply an attempt to cover this up.
You are not reading G-L correctly. He is saying that the refusal to grant final perseverance is an act of justice for past sins. So there is no infinite regress.
What matters is not whether I'm reading G-L correctly but where logic leads. The past sins entail a refusal to grant the grace to avoid them, and then a refusal to grant the grace of repentance. Now either this refusal is just, or it is unjust. If it is unjust, then the refusal to grant final perseverance is likewise unjust. If it is just, then it must be a punishment or not a punishment. If it is just and a punishment, then it must be a punishment for some other prior sin, and so the same problem presents itself on to infinity. If it is just and not a punishment, then likewise the refusal to grant the grace of repentance is not a punishment.
God bestows mercy on sinners according to how much He loves them and wills their good, which is the principle of Divine Predilection. Everyone is born with
sufficient grace to be saved but there is an Elect whom God will infallibly save and who receive infallible graces towards that end, but they do not know who they are. God reveals certain things to His Elect while hides them from the others. According to the Thomist reasoning,
God loves all men, but loves some more than others, simply due to the fact that He creates more goodness in one sinner than in another. (This may sound disturbing to Modernist sentimental ears but nonetheless makes perfect sense). One sinner would not be better than another unless he were loved more and given more help by God. God's choice of election is a true mystery which is based on His love of the "better things" of which He Himself is the cause.
God is the cause of all goodness, and no thing would be better than another unless it were loved more by God. The 3rd canon of the Third Council of Valence says:
QuoteBut God foreknew the malice of the wicked, and because it was their own and He was not the cause of it, He did not predestine it. The punishment, of course, following their demerit, this He foreknew and predestined."
The punishment is the withdrawal of Grace and hardness of heart in this earthly life and eternal damnation and suffering in the next.
Repeating the same Thomist talking points we've all heard 1000 times before doesn't make them any more convincing.
Quote from: Cantarella on October 21, 2015, 12:01:51 AM
God bestows mercy on sinners according to how much He loves them and wills their good, which is the principle of Divine Predilection.
So, if God doesn't convert a sinner it proves He doesn't love him enough to will his conversion.
He loved him enough, apparently, to die on a Cross for his conversion but not enough to actually will his conversion. Of course the Thomists will follow with the usual sophistry about sufficient grace and resistance to grace but the previous sentence stands regardless.
QuoteEveryone is born with sufficient grace to be saved but there is an Elect whom God will infallibly save and who receive infallible graces towards that end, but they do not know who they are.
No one denies this, but the debate is about precisely
where this infallibility derives from: God's will, or His foreknowledge?
QuoteAccording to the Thomist reasoning, God loves all men, but loves some more than others, simply due to the fact that He creates more goodness in one sinner than in another. (This may sound disturbing to Modernist sentimental ears but nonetheless makes perfect sense). One sinner would not be better than another unless he were loved more and given more help by God.
And that highlighted word is "simply" (pun intended) the fallacy of the entire system. First, does God love some more than others because of the greater goodness He created in them or is the greater goodness the result of His greater love? Which is it?
Here is a simple refutation of this "simply". What about the sinner who prays for his conversion and therefore the grace is granted? God doesn't convert the sinner "simply" because He loves Him more, but also because of the sinner's prayer. Deny this, and you deny the efficacy of prayer. Admit this, and then you admit an ontological dependence of the will of God toward creatures on the actions of those creatures. It is no answer to say (as the Thomists will) that the prayer was willed by God. The ontological dependence still exists.
QuoteGod's choice of election is a true mystery which is based on His love of the "better things" of which He Himself is the cause.
Again there is the appeal to "mystery" at the exact time when things being to get uncomfortable for the Thomist in terms of reason. He however makes no such allowance for his opponents.
QuoteGod is the cause of all goodness, and no thing would be better than another unless it were loved more by God.
And no thing would be loved more by God unless it were better. Right?
Quote
QuoteBut God foreknew the malice of the wicked, and because it was their own and He was not the cause of it, He did not predestine it. The punishment, of course, following their demerit, this He foreknew and predestined."
The punishment is the withdrawal of Grace and hardness of heart in this earthly life and eternal damnation and suffering in the next.
Again, no one doubts this. But the Thomist system begins, and not ends, with an absence of grace.
The reason why grace and predestination are mysteries is because they involve the concept of infinity, which our finite intellects aren't built to wrap themselves around. It reminds me of the (old) Dr. Who episode where the Doctor and the Master have their Tardises inside each other (and also outside each other). Both of these are true (and in Scripture so infallible).
Convert us to You, and we will be converted. (on the part of man)
Turn ye to Me, and I will turn to you. (on the part of God).
Undoubtedly, if we are converted, it is because God converted us. Yet, if He turned to us, it is because we turned to Him. It goes on to infinity.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
Undoubtedly, if we are converted, it is because God converted us. Yet, if He turned to us, it is because we turned to Him. It goes on to infinity.
Then how would you explain the teachings of Holy Scripture that God knows and chooses us
since before the very foundation of the world? It must be that somehow God KNOWS beforehand which ones are HIS. In Ephesians, St. Paul says "
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. As He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in His sight in charity. Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to the purpose of His will. Unto the praise and glory of His grace, in which He hath graced us in His beloved Son".
And in Romans, he says: "
We know that to them that love God all things work together unto good: to such as according to His purpose are called to be saints. For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. And whom He predestinated, them He also called. And whom He called, them He also justified. And whom He justified, them He also glorified."
What about the rest then?
It seems more an Augustinian position in which God chooses souls in a completely autonomous and sovereign way giving Grace to some (the Elect), but not to all (the reprobate). He leaves the reprobate in their sin to be justly condemned through their own choice. Although it seems unequal, it is not necessarily unfair because we are all born sinners who have no claim whatsoever to the grace of God. Perhaps he allows the fate of the reprobate for the greater good of the Elect, as he can permit evil for "a greater good".
From
Augustine's Doctrine of Grace and the Church's Approval of It
http://www.romancatholicism.org/augustine-notes.html
QuoteAugustine taught that since the Fall, man always acts according to whatever attracts (or "delights") him the most. The grace of Christ gives him to love God and infallibly to do the good for delight in him. Otherwise man is infallibly drawn into sin by the delight of concupiscence, worldly love. God saves the predestined by upholding them in grace, allowing others to finally fall away.
Since the Fall is fine. But Adam and Eve had not yet fallen until they fell... which kind of throws the whole "Fallen" argument into a tailspin.
Quote from: Cantarella on October 21, 2015, 10:35:18 PM
... Perhaps he allows the fate of the reprobate for the greater good of the Elect,..
I can't really imagine the elect thinking, "Thanks for eternally punishing all these reprobate; it makes things even better for us!"
Quote from: Gardener on October 21, 2015, 11:51:03 PM
Since the Fall is fine. But Adam and Eve had not yet fallen until they fell... which kind of throws the whole "Fallen" argument into a tailspin.
I think that even for us not all sin is due to concupiscence or worldly love. Pride of self over God is something Satan had, something Adam and Eve had, and something we can have.
I understand that concupiscence is something that makes each individual sin easier, not something that infallibly causes each individual sin. (St. Augustine I do not understand)
Meandering thoughts (it is late)
Man freely chooses each sin.
I find the distinction between sufficient grace and efficacious grace fits with my own experience. Not all grace is irresistible, because I do resist grace from Christ; e.g. the grace of confession, even if it was a good confession. Yet when I actually make a final good choice, the good is in the ultimate sense entirely from God, and God is all powerful, and He can choose some grace to be irresistible. He gave such grace to Our Lady, and I see no reason why He could not give a minuscule portion to us.
Not thinking about grace at all, when I sin it is my fault. What God does or does not do regarding giving me grace before or after I sin does not make the sin any less my fault. i think this is important to remember. There is no unfairness in God's punishment. Grace, gratia, is free, purely a gift. Our very ability to use it is itself a gift. Adam and Eve had Sanctifying Grace and sufficient grace to obey God, but they disobeyed. Saying "But why didn't God give them efficacious grace" is like a child prying into God's infinite wisdom and love. God is not bound to prevent the free-will from sinning; He did it for Mary, but He was not bound to do it for Adam and Eve or for us.
Quote from: Clare on October 22, 2015, 12:25:51 AM
Quote from: Cantarella on October 21, 2015, 10:35:18 PM
... Perhaps he allows the fate of the reprobate for the greater good of the Elect,..
I can't really imagine the elect thinking, "Thanks for eternally punishing all these reprobate; it makes things even better for us!"
I'm reading All For Jesus (https://archive.org/stream/AllForJesus/AllForJesus_djvu.txt) by Fr Faber at the moment, and it contains this passage:
Quote... Anxiety for the salvation of souls. This is the third and last instinct of the saints which puts us in sympathy with Jesus. The world and the material interests of the world are all against us. They carry us away. What we see is so much more impressive than what we believe. Yet Jesus came into the world for the saving of souls; He died for them; He shed His Precious Blood for them. In proportion as souls are saved His interests prosper; in proportion as they are lost, His interests as the Saviour of souls are injured...
I struggle to reconcile that with the idea of reprobation APM, or that it is allowed for the Elect's benefit. I've said it elsewhere, but it makes it sound like most people will just end up as collateral damage. It doesn't really fit with the fact that Jesus died for each one of us.
Quote from: Clare on October 22, 2015, 12:25:51 AM
Quote from: Cantarella on October 21, 2015, 10:35:18 PM
... Perhaps he allows the fate of the reprobate for the greater good of the Elect,..
I can't really imagine the elect thinking, "Thanks for eternally punishing all these reprobate; it makes things even better for us!"
Well, they can't be thinking that because they don't know who they are, to begin with. This is part of the dogma:
Without special revelation no one can know with certainty that he belongs to the number of the elect (Denz., nn. 805 sq., 825 sq.)
805 No one moreover, so long as he lives in this mortal state, ought so far to presume concerning the secret mystery of divine predestination, as to decide for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestined [can. 15], as if it were true that he who is justified either cannot sin any more [can. 23], or if he shall have sinned, that he ought to promise himself an assured reformation. For except by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God has chosen for Himself [can. 16].
825 Can. 15. If anyone shall say that a man who is born again and justified is bound by faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestined: let him be anathema [cf. n. 805].
Quote from: Clare
I struggle to reconcile that with the idea of reprobation APM, or that it is allowed for the Elect's benefit. I've said it elsewhere, but it makes it sound like most people will just end up as collateral damage. It doesn't really fit with the fact that Jesus died for each one of us.
There is a clear Predestination / Predilection doctrine in the Church regardless of your agreement or disagreement on it. It is here again in case you missed it:
The Catholic dogma
Reserving the theological controversies for the next section, we deal here only with those articles of faith relating to predestination and reprobation,
the denial of which would involve heresy....
According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events, all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact. Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil. Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all, not only for the predestined, or for the faithful, though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption. Though God preordained both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect, yet, on the other hand, He predestined no one positively to hell, much less to sin. Consequently, just as no one is saved against his will, so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness. God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins, though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners or pass over those who are not predestined. As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true Christians and members of the Church, just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity and of the Church. Without special revelation no one can know with certainty that he belongs to the number of the elect.
Here are the Dezinger statements associated with the above dogma:
"God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events (cf. Denzinger, n. 1784), all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact (Denz., n. 607). Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil (Denz., n. 797). Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all (Denz., n. 794), not only for the predestined (Denz., n. 1096), or for the faithful (Denz., n. 1294), though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption (Denz., n. 795). Though God preordained both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect (Denz., n. 322), yet, on the other hand, He predestined no one positively to hell, much less to sin (Denz., nn. 200, 816). Consequently, just as no one is saved against his will (Denz., n. 1363), so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness (Denz., nn. 318, 321). God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins (Denz., n. 322), though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners (Denz., n. 807), or pass over those who are not predestined (Denz., n. 827). As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true Christians and members of the Church, just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity and of the Church (Denz., nn. 628, 631). Without special revelation no one can know with certainty that he belongs to the number of the elect (Denz., nn. 805 sq., 825 sq.)".
God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events (cf. Denzinger, n. 1784)
1784 [The result of creation] .But God protects and governs by His providence all things which He created, "reaching from end to end mightily and ordering all things sweetly" [cf. Wisd. 8:1]. For "all things are naked and open to His eyes" [ Heb. 4:13], even those which by the free action of creatures are in the future.
all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact (Denz., n. 607).
607 27. All things happen from absolute necessity.
Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil (Denz., n. 797).
Chap. 5. On the Necessity of Preparation for Justification of Adults, and Whence it Proceeds
797 It [the Synod] furthermore declares that in adults the beginning of that justification must be derived from the predisposing grace [can. 3] of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby without any existing merits on their part they are called, so that they who by sin were turned away from God, through His stimulating and assisting grace are disposed to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and cooperating with the same grace [can. 4 and 5], in such wise that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself receiving that inspiration does not do nothing at all inasmuch as he can indeed reject it, nor on the other hand can he [can. 3] of his own free will without the grace of God move himself to justice before Him. Hence, when it is said in the Sacred Writings: "Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you" [Zach. 1:3], we are reminded of our liberty; when we reply: "Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted" [Lam. 5:21], we confess that we are anticipated by the grace of God.
Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all (Denz., n. 794)
794 Whereby it came to pass that the heavenly Father, "the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort" [2 Cor. 1:3], when that "blessed fullness of time" was come [Eph. 1:10; Gal. 4:4] sent to men Christ Jesus [can. 1], his Son, who had been announced and promised [cf. Gen. 49:10, 18], both before the Law and at the time of the Law to many holy Fathers, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law, and the "gentiles, who did not follow after justice, might attain to justice" [Rom. 9:30], and that all men "might receive the adoption of sons" [Gal. 4:5]. "Him God has proposed as a propitiator through faith in his blood, for our sins" [Rom. 3:25], and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world [1 John 2:2].
not only for the predestined (Denz., n. 1096),
1096 5. It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men without exception.
Declared and condemned as false, rash, scandalous, and intended in this sense, that Christ died for the salvation of the predestined, impious, blasphemous, contumelious, dishonoring todivinepiety, and heretical.
or for the faithful (Denz., n. 1294),
1294 4. Christ gave Himself for us as an oblation to God, not for the elect only, but for all the faithful only.
though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption (Denz., n. 795)
795 But although Christ died for all [2 Cor. 5:15], yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For, as indeed men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, in conception, injustice as their own, so unless they were born again in Christ, they never would be justified [can. 2 and 10], since in that new birth through the merit of His passion, the grace, whereby they are made just, is bestowed upon them. For this benefit the Apostle exhorts us always to "give thanks to the Father who has made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light" [Col. 1:12], "and has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption and remission of sins [Col. 1:13 ff.].
Though God preordained both eternal happiness and the good works of the Elect (Denz., n. 322),
322 Can. 3. But also it has seemed right concerning predestination and truly it is right according to the apostolic authority which says: "Or has not the potter power over the clay, from the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, but another unto dishonor?" [Rom. 9:21] where also he immediately adds: "What if God willing to show His wrath and to make known His power, endured with much patience vessels of wrath fitted or prepared for destruction, so that He might show the riches of His grace on the vessels of mercy, which He has prepared unto glory" [Rom. 9:22 f.]: faithfully we confess the predestination of the elect to life, and the predestination of the impious to death; in the election, moreover, of those who are to be saved, the mercy of God precedes the merited good. In the condemnation, however, of those who are to be lost, the evil which they have deserved precedes the just judgment of God. In predestination, however, (we believe) that God has determined only those things which He Himself either in His gratuitous mercy or in His just judgment would do * according to Scripture which says: "Who has done the things which are to be done" [ Is. 4 5:11, LXX]; in regard to evil men, however, we believe that God foreknew their malice, because it is from them, but that He did not predestine it, because it is not from Him. (We believe) that God, who sees all things, foreknew and predestined that their evil deserved the punishment which followed, because He is just, in whom, as Saint Augustine* says, there is concerning all things everywhere so fixed a decree as a certain predestination. To this indeed he applies the saying of Wisdom: "Judgments are prepared for scorners, and striking hammers for the bodies of fools" [Prov. 19:29]. Concerning this unchangeableness of the foreknowledge of the predestination of God, through which in Him future things have already taken place, even in Ecclesiastes the saying is well understood: "I know that all the works which God has made continue forever. We cannot add anything, nor take away those things which God has made that He may be feared" [ Eccles. 3:14]. "But we do not only not believe the saying that some have been predestined to evil by divine power," namely as if they could not be different, "but even if there are those who wish to believe such malice, with all detestation," as the Synod of Orange, "we say anathema to them" [see n. 200].
yet, on the other hand, He predestined no one positively to hell, much less to sin (Denz., nn. 200, 816).
200a 1 . . . To your petition, which you have composed with laudable solicitude for the Faith, we have not delayed to give a Catholic reply. For you point out that some bishops of the Gauls, although they now agree that other goods are born of God's grace, think that faith, by which we believe in Christ, is only of nature, not of grace; and that (faith) has remained in the free will of man from Adam-which it is a sin to sayand is not even now conferred on individuals by the bounty of God's mercy; asking that, for the sake of ending the ambiguity, we confirm by the authority of the Apostolic See your confession, in which in the Opposite way you explain that right faith in Christ and the beginning of all good will, according to Catholic truth, is inspired in the minds of individuals by the preceding grace of God.
200b 2. And therefore, since many Fathers, and above all Bishop Augustine of blessed memory, but also our former high priests of the Apostolic See are proved to have discussed this with such detailed reasoning that there should be no further doubt in anyone that faith itself also comes to us from grace, we have thought that we should desist from a complex response, especially since according to these statements from the Apostle which you have arranged, in which he says: I have obtained mercy, that I may be faithful [1 Cor. 7:25], and elsewhere: It has been given to you, for Christ, not only that you may believe in Him, but also that you may suffer for Him [Phil. 1:29], it clearly appears that the faith by which we believe in Christ, just as all blessings, comes to each man from the gift of supernal grace, not from the power of human nature. And this, too, we rejoice that your Fraternity, after holding a meeting with certain priests of the Gauls, understood according to the Catholic faith, namely in these matters in which with one accord, as you have indicated, they explained that the faith, by which we believe in Christ, is conferred by the preceding grace of God; adding also that there is no good at all according to God, that anyone can will, or begin, or accomplish without the grace of God, since our Savior Himself says: Without Me you can do nothing" [John 15:5]. For it is certain and Catholic that in all blessings of which the chief is faith, though we do not will it, the mercy of God precedes us, that we may be steadfast in faith, just as David the prophet says: "My God, his mercy will prevent me" [Ps. 58:11]; and again: My mercy is with him [Ps. 88:25]; and elsewhere: His mercy follows me [ Ps. 22:6]. And similarly blessed Paul says: Or did anyone first give to him, and will he be rewarded by him? Since from him, and through him, andin him are all things[ Rom. 11:35 f.]. So we marvel very much that those, who believe the contrary, are oppressed by the remains of an ancient error even to the point that they do not believe that we come to Christ by the favor of God, but by that of nature, and say that the good of that very nature, which is known to have been perverted by Adam's sin, is the author of our faith rather than Christ; and do not perceive that they contradict the statement of the master who said: No one comes to me, except it be given to him by my Father [ John 6:44]; but they also oppose blessed Paul likewise, who exclaims to the Hebrews:Let us run in the contest proposed to us, looking uponthe author and finisher of faith, Jesus Christ[ Heb. 2:1 f.]. Since this is so, we cannot discover what they impute to the human will without the grace of God for belief in Christ, since Christ is the author and consummator of faith.
816 Can. 6. If anyone shall say that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of Himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul: let him be anathema.
Consequently, just as no one is saved against his will (Denz., n. 1363),
1363 13. When God wishes to save a soul and touches it with the interior hand of His grace, no human will resists Him.
so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness (Denz., nn. 318, 321).
318 Chap. 3. Omnipotent God wishes all menwithout exception to besaved[1 Tim. 2:4 ] although not all will be saved. However, that certain ones are saved, is the gift of the one who saves; that certain ones perish, however, is the deserved punishment of those who perish.
321 Can. 2. We faithfully hold that "God foreknows and has foreknown eternally both the good deeds which good men will do, and the evil which evil men will do," because we have that word of Scripture which says: "Eternal God, who are the witness of all things hidden, who knew all things before they are" [ Dan. 13:42]; and it seems right to hold "that the good certainly have known that through His grace they would be good, and that through the same grace they would receive eternal rewards; that the wicked have known that through their own malice they would do evil deeds and that through His justice they would be condemned by eternal punishment";* so that according to the Psalmist: "Because power belongs to God and mercy to the Lord, so that He will render to each man according to his works" [ Ps. 61:12 f.], and as apostolic doctrine holds: "To them indeed, who according to patience in good works, seek glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life; but to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man doing evil" [Rom. 2:7 ff.]. In the same sense, this same one says elsewhere: "In the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of His power, in a flame of fire, giving vengeance to them who do not know God, and who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction . . . when He shall come to be glorified in His Saints, and to be made wonderful in all them who have believed [2 Thess. 1:7 ff.]. Certainly neither (do we believe) that the foreknowledge of God has placed a necessity on any wicked man, so that he cannot be different, but what that one would be from his own will, as God, who knew all things before they are, He foreknew from His omnipotent and immutable Majesty. "Neither do we believe that anyone is condemned by a previous judgment on the part of God but by reason of his own iniquity." * "Nor (do we believe) that the wicked thus perish because they were not able to be good; but because they were unwilling to be good, they have remained by their own vice in the mass of damnation either by reason of original sin or even by actual sin." *
God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins (Denz., n. 322),
322 Can. 3. But also it has seemed right concerning predestination and truly it is right according to the apostolic authority which says: "Or has not the potter power over the clay, from the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, but another unto dishonor?" [Rom. 9:21] where also he immediately adds: "What if God willing to show His wrath and to make known His power, endured with much patience vessels of wrath fitted or prepared for destruction, so that He might show the riches of His grace on the vessels of mercy, which He has prepared unto glory" [Rom. 9:22 f.]: faithfully we confess the predestination of the elect to life, and the predestination of the impious to death; in the election, moreover, of those who are to be saved, the mercy of God precedes the merited good. In the condemnation, however, of those who are to be lost, the evil which they have deserved precedes the just judgment of God. In predestination, however, (we believe) that God has determined only those things which He Himself either in His gratuitous mercy or in His just judgment would do * according to Scripture which says: "Who has done the things which are to be done" [ Is. 4 5:11, LXX]; in regard to evil men, however, we believe that God foreknew their malice, because it is from them, but that He did not predestine it, because it is not from Him. (We believe) that God, who sees all things, foreknew and predestined that their evil deserved the punishment which followed, because He is just, in whom, as Saint Augustine* says, there is concerning all things everywhere so fixed a decree as a certain predestination. To this indeed he applies the saying of Wisdom: "Judgments are prepared for scorners, and striking hammers for the bodies of fools" [Prov. 19:29]. Concerning this unchangeableness of the foreknowledge of the predestination of God, through which in Him future things have already taken place, even in Ecclesiastes the saying is well understood: "I know that all the works which God has made continue forever. We cannot add anything, nor take away those things which God has made that He may be feared" [ Eccles. 3:14]. "But we do not only not believe the saying that some have been predestined to evil by divine power," namely as if they could not be different, "but even if there are those who wish to believe such malice, with all detestation," as the Synod of Orange, "we say anathema to them" [see n. 200].
though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners (Denz., n. 807),
807 Those who by sin have fallen away from the received grace of justification, will again be able to be justified [can. 29] when, roused by God through the sacrament of penance, they by the merit of Christ shall have attended to the recovery of the grace lost. For this manner of justification is the reparation of one fallen, which the holy Fathers * have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of lost grace. For on behalf of those who after baptism fall into sin, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of penance, when He said: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained" [John 20:22, 23]. Hence it must be taught that the repentance of a Christian after his fall is very different from that at his baptism, and that it includes not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation of them, or "a contrite and humble heart" [Ps. 50:19], but also the sacramental confession of the same, at least in desire and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution, as well as satisfaction by fasting, almsgiving, prayers, and other devout exercises of the spiritual life, not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment [can. 30], which (as the Sacred Writings teach) is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, "have grieved the Holy Spirit" [cf. Eph. 4:30], and have not feared to "violate the temple of God" [1 Cor. 3:17]. Of this repentance it is written: "Be mindful, whence thou art fallen, do penance, and do the first works" [Rev. 2:5], and again: "The sorrow which is according to God, worketh penance steadfast unto salvation" [2 Cor. 7:10], and again: "Do penance" [Matt. 3:2; 4:17], and, "Bring forth fruits worthy of penance" [Matt. 3:8].
or pass over those who are not predestined (Denz., n. 827).
827 Can. 17. If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only who are predestined unto life, but that all others, who are called, are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil: let him be anathema [cf. n. 800].
As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true Christians and members of the Church, just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity and of the Church (Denz., nn. 628, 631).
628 2. Paul never was a member of the devil, although he did certain acts similar to the acts of those who malign the Church.
631 5. The foreknown, although at one time he is in grace according to the present justice, yet is never a part of the holy Church; and the predestined always remains a member of the Church, although at times he may fall away from additional grace, but not from the grace of predestination
Without special revelation no one can know with certainty that he belongs to the number of the elect
805 No one moreover, so long as he lives in this mortal state, ought so far to presume concerning the secret mystery of divine predestination, as to decide for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestined [can. 15], as if it were true that he who is justified either cannot sin any more [can. 23], or if he shall have sinned, that he ought to promise himself an assured reformation. For except by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God has chosen for Himself [can. 16].
825 Can. 15. If anyone shall say that a man who is born again and justified is bound by faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestined: let him be anathema [cf. n. 805].
Quote from: Cantarella on October 22, 2015, 10:07:40 AM
Quote from: Clare on October 22, 2015, 12:25:51 AM
Quote from: Cantarella on October 21, 2015, 10:35:18 PM
... Perhaps he allows the fate of the reprobate for the greater good of the Elect,..
I can't really imagine the elect thinking, "Thanks for eternally punishing all these reprobate; it makes things even better for us!"
Well, they can't be thinking that because they don't know who they are, to begin with.
I mean the people who are already in Heaven.
Quote from: Cantarella on October 22, 2015, 10:11:58 AM
Quote from: Clare
I struggle to reconcile that with the idea of reprobation APM, or that it is allowed for the Elect's benefit. I've said it elsewhere, but it makes it sound like most people will just end up as collateral damage. It doesn't really fit with the fact that Jesus died for each one of us.
There is a clear Predestination / Predilection doctrine in the Church regardless of your agreement or disagreement on it. It is here again in case you missed it:
The Catholic dogma
Reserving the theological controversies for the next section, we deal here only with those articles of faith relating to predestination and reprobation, the denial of which would involve heresy....
According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events, all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact. Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil. Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all, not only for the predestined, or for the faithful, though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption. Though God preordained both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect, yet, on the other hand, He predestined no one positively to hell, much less to sin. Consequently, just as no one is saved against his will, so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness. God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins, though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners or pass over those who are not predestined. As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true Christians and members of the Church, just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity and of the Church. Without special revelation no one can know with certainty that he belongs to the number of the elect.
I don't have a problem with that.
Quote from: Cantarella on October 21, 2015, 10:35:18 PM
Then how would you explain the teachings of Holy Scripture that God knows and chooses us since before the very foundation of the world? It must be that somehow God KNOWS beforehand which ones are HIS.
Of course He does. No one denies His foreknowledge. But it is still true that God grants grace because of a prayer, even though God knew from all eternity the prayer would be made and the grace granted.
Quote
And in Romans, he says: "We know that to them that love God all things work together unto good: to such as according to His purpose are called to be saints. For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. And whom He predestinated, them He also called. And whom He called, them He also justified. And whom He justified, them He also glorified."
Note well in this passage: predestination here is ontologically
after foreknowledge, not prior to it.
QuoteIt seems more an Augustinian position in which God chooses souls in a completely autonomous and sovereign way giving Grace to some (the Elect), but not to all (the reprobate). He leaves the reprobate in their sin to be justly condemned through their own choice.
Unfortunately, it requires quite a bit of sophistry to reconcile this with the dogmatic teaching that Christ died for all and not just for the elect, and the Church has quite rightly not followed St. Augustine on everything.
QuoteAlthough it seems unequal, it is not necessarily unfair because we are all born sinners who have no claim whatsoever to the grace of God.
Ah, but we do, if Christ died for us. If I have a debt I can't pay I have no claim on the creditor to demand he forgive the debt. But, if someone else pays the debt on my behalf, I have every right to demand that. This is what Christ did for us.
QuotePerhaps he allows the fate of the reprobate for the greater good of the Elect, as he can permit evil for "a greater good".
And this is the lengths to which the defenders of St. Augustine and Thomism must go! No thanks. There
is no greater creaturely good than the salvation of a soul. So one must claim that's God's (accidental) glory is greater when a soul is damned then when a soul is saved. No thanks.
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiOf course He does. No one denies His foreknowledge. But it is still true that God grants grace because of a prayer, even though God knew from all eternity the prayer would be made and the grace granted.
Are you saying that the Grace (of conversion) is depending upon particular actions on our part? I am not sure I understand your stand on Predestination. Do you hold a Molinist position?
"What, then, do we pray for on behalf of those who are unwilling to believe, except that God would work in them to will also? Certainly the apostle says, "Brethren, my heart's good will, indeed, and my prayer to God for them, is for their salvation." [Rom. x. 1] He prays for those who do not believe,--for what, except that they may believe? For in no other way do they obtain salvation.
If, then, the faith of the petitioners precede the grace of God, does the faith of them on whose behalf prayer is made that they may believe precede the grace of God?--since this is the very thing that is besought for them, that on them that believe not--that is, who have not faith--faith itself may be bestowed? When, therefore, the gospel is preached, some believe, some believe not; but they who believe at the voice of the preacher from without, hear of the Father from within, and learn; while they who do not believe, hear outwardly, but inwardly do not hear nor learn;--that is to say, to the former it is given to believe; to the latter it is not given.
Because "no man," says He, "cometh to me, except the Father which sent me draw him."
From "On Predestination of the Saints" by St. Augustine
Quote from: Cantarella on October 22, 2015, 10:13:23 PM
Quote from: QuaremerepulistiOf course He does. No one denies His foreknowledge. But it is still true that God grants grace because of a prayer, even though God knew from all eternity the prayer would be made and the grace granted.
Are you saying that the Grace (of conversion) is depending upon particular actions on our part?
It can be, if it is granted as a result of prayer. The prayer is admittedly itself a grace, though, and a grace which could have been hindered.
But note that even in the Thomist viewpoint the will of God has an ontological dependence on the actions of man. God wills to punish the damned
because of their sins and lack of repentance; this Divine will does not exist
simpliciter.
QuoteI am not sure I understand your stand on Predestination. Do you hold a Molinist position?
No. My position is neither Thomist nor Molinist. It comes closest to that advocated by Fr. Francisco Marin-Sola, O.P., in the West. God has foreknowledge of a given man's lack of resistance to grace and another man's resistance to it. Yet the causal efficacy of grace does not derive from the lack of resistance, anymore than the causal efficacy of a car in motion does not derive from the lack of something blocking its path. So for those who do not resist grace, predestination is certainly ante praevisa merita - grace is given as ordered to glory. For those who demand a cause or explanation as to the lack of resistance, the answer is that it is a category error - an absence of something does not have a cause by definition.
Quote"What, then, do we pray for on behalf of those who are unwilling to believe, except that God would work in them to will also? Certainly the apostle says, "Brethren, my heart's good will, indeed, and my prayer to God for them, is for their salvation." [Rom. x. 1] He prays for those who do not believe,--for what, except that they may believe? For in no other way do they obtain salvation. If, then, the faith of the petitioners precede the grace of God, does the faith of them on whose behalf prayer is made that they may believe precede the grace of God?--since this is the very thing that is besought for them, that on them that believe not--that is, who have not faith--faith itself may be bestowed? When, therefore, the gospel is preached, some believe, some believe not; but they who believe at the voice of the preacher from without, hear of the Father from within, and learn; while they who do not believe, hear outwardly, but inwardly do not hear nor learn;--that is to say, to the former it is given to believe; to the latter it is not given. Because "no man," says He, "cometh to me, except the Father which sent me draw him."
From "On Predestination of the Saints" by St. Augustine
I would be
very careful about thinking that St. Augustine is the last word on everything relating to grace and predestination. The Church has not followed him on everything, and doing so logically leads to heresies like Calvinism and Jansenism.
Quote from: Clare on October 22, 2015, 10:27:05 AM
Quote from: Cantarella on October 22, 2015, 10:11:58 AM
Quote from: Clare
I struggle to reconcile that with the idea of reprobation APM, or that it is allowed for the Elect's benefit. I've said it elsewhere, but it makes it sound like most people will just end up as collateral damage. It doesn't really fit with the fact that Jesus died for each one of us.
There is a clear Predestination / Predilection doctrine in the Church regardless of your agreement or disagreement on it. It is here again in case you missed it:
The Catholic dogma
Reserving the theological controversies for the next section, we deal here only with those articles of faith relating to predestination and reprobation, the denial of which would involve heresy....
According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future event [good events, not sin], all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact. Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil. Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all, not only for the predestined, or for the faithful, though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption. Though God preordained both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect, yet, on the other hand, He predestined no one positively to hell, much less to sin. Consequently, just as no one is saved against his will, so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness. God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins, though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners or pass over those who are not predestined. As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true Christians and members of the Church, just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity and of the Church. Without special revelation no one can know with certainty that he belongs to the number of the elect.
I don't have a problem with that.
Clare, what does "preordained" mean in the passage above? It applies only to good events: "both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect". But it is NOT the same as foreknowledge: "God infallibly foresees
and immutably preordains from eternity all future event [good events, not sin]".
"Pre"(ordain) means (of course) "fore", or "ante", as in APM. Isn't APM true for the elect? I don't see how else to interpret this passage.
Surely "ordain" does not mean just "intend" or "wish" or "desire"? God's "true and sincere will" to save ALL men is NOT ordaining, because otherwise all men would actually be saved. Doesn't what God ORDAINS infallibly happen, and isn't it more than foreknowledge?
Thomists (and St.Thomas) in every way agree that the will is left free, even if it is hard for you (or Q or me for that matter) to understand how this can be.
I am not talking about reprobation here.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on October 21, 2015, 11:21:15 AM
Quote from: Cantarella on October 21, 2015, 12:01:51 AM
God bestows mercy on sinners according to how much He loves them and wills their good, which is the principle of Divine Predilection.
So, if God doesn't convert a sinner it proves He doesn't love him enough to will his conversion. He loved him enough, apparently, to die on a Cross for his conversion but not enough to actually will his conversion.
God's ways are mysterious.
God loves all of us and wants us to be converted and saved. So why doesn't He after Christ's death create all of us as full of grace as Mary, who would never sin or be damned, although she had a will that was completely free? Or why doesn't He put us into this state after our first conversion? ("Once saved, always saved")
God loved Mary above all, excepting Christ.
Do you believe God SOMETIMES can infallibly prevent a sin and yet let the will be free? If so, why doesn't He ALWAYS do this, if He loves us? All would be saved.
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 23, 2015, 04:56:16 PM
Quote from: Clare on October 22, 2015, 10:27:05 AM
Quote from: Cantarella on October 22, 2015, 10:11:58 AM
Quote from: Clare
I struggle to reconcile that with the idea of reprobation APM, or that it is allowed for the Elect's benefit. I've said it elsewhere, but it makes it sound like most people will just end up as collateral damage. It doesn't really fit with the fact that Jesus died for each one of us.
There is a clear Predestination / Predilection doctrine in the Church regardless of your agreement or disagreement on it. It is here again in case you missed it:
The Catholic dogma
Reserving the theological controversies for the next section, we deal here only with those articles of faith relating to predestination and reprobation, the denial of which would involve heresy....
According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future event [good events, not sin], all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact. Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil. Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all, not only for the predestined, or for the faithful, though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption. Though God preordained both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect, yet, on the other hand, He predestined no one positively to hell, much less to sin. Consequently, just as no one is saved against his will, so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness. God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins, though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners or pass over those who are not predestined. As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true Christians and members of the Church, just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity and of the Church. Without special revelation no one can know with certainty that he belongs to the number of the elect.
I don't have a problem with that.
Clare, what does "preordained" mean in the passage above? It applies only to good events: "both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect". But it is NOT the same as foreknowledge: "God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future event [good events, not sin]".
"Pre"(ordain) means (of course) "fore", or "ante", as in APM. Isn't APM true for the elect? I don't see how else to interpret this passage.
Surely "ordain" does not mean just "intend" or "wish" or "desire"? God's "true and sincere will" to save ALL men is NOT ordaining, because otherwise all men would actually be saved. Doesn't what God ORDAINS infallibly happen, and isn't it more than foreknowledge?
Thomists (and St.Thomas) in every way agree that the will is left free, even if it is hard for you (or Q or me for that matter) to understand how this can be.
I am not talking about reprobation here.
Well, maybe I do have a difficulty with that. Or maybe I should just stop worrying my pretty little head about it all!
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 23, 2015, 05:26:06 PM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on October 21, 2015, 11:21:15 AM
Quote from: Cantarella on October 21, 2015, 12:01:51 AM
God bestows mercy on sinners according to how much He loves them and wills their good, which is the principle of Divine Predilection.
So, if God doesn't convert a sinner it proves He doesn't love him enough to will his conversion. He loved him enough, apparently, to die on a Cross for his conversion but not enough to actually will his conversion.
God's ways are mysterious.
True, but it isn't a "mystery" how 2 + 2 could possibly equal 5. And it isn't a "mystery" how, if God died on a Cross for the salvation of all (not only the elect), anything could possibly be lacking to God for the salvation of anyone.
QuoteGod loves all of us and wants us to be converted and saved. So why doesn't He after Christ's death create all of us as full of grace as Mary, who would never sin or be damned, although she had a will that was completely free?
Adam and Eve were as free from original sin from the first moment of existence as Mary, yet they sinned. Sin was not an absolute impossibility for Mary.
QuoteDo you believe God SOMETIMES can infallibly prevent a sin and yet let the will be free? If so, why doesn't He ALWAYS do this, if He loves us? All would be saved.
Of course God can infallibly prevent a sin by taking away the person's life beforehand. But the possibility of sin is necessary for the person to be able to gain greater merit and advance in virtue.
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 23, 2015, 04:56:16 PM
Clare, what does "preordained" mean in the passage above? It applies only to good events: "both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect". But it is NOT the same as foreknowledge: "God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future event [good events, not sin]".
"Pre"(ordain) means (of course) "fore", or "ante", as in APM. Isn't APM true for the elect? I don't see how else to interpret this passage.
Surely "ordain" does not mean just "intend" or "wish" or "desire"? God's "true and sincere will" to save ALL men is NOT ordaining, because otherwise all men would actually be saved. Doesn't what God ORDAINS infallibly happen, and isn't it more than foreknowledge?
Thomists (and St.Thomas) in every way agree that the will is left free, even if it is hard for you (or Q or me for that matter) to understand how this can be.
I am not talking about reprobation here.
Well, two things need to be distinguished. When we say God preordains "from eternity" what is meant is that God is immutable; His will cannot change in time. This does not mean His will is not ontologically dependent in any way upon creatures. So, with foreknowledge of a given man's lack of resistance to grace, He preordains the grace to be given.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on October 24, 2015, 04:24:49 PM
QuoteGod loves all of us and wants us to be converted and saved. So why doesn't He after Christ's death create all of us as full of grace as Mary, who would never sin or be damned, although she had a will that was completely free?
Adam and Eve were as free from original sin from the first moment of existence as Mary, yet they sinned. Sin was not an absolute impossibility for Mary.
Quote from: CCC492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son". The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".
This cannot be applied to Eve. Mary was predestined not to sin.
From INEFFABILIS DEUS (The Immaculate Conception) by Pope Pius IX dogma declaration:
Quote
"Concerning the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed is that devotion of the faithful based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul's infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin. And in this sense have the faithful ever solemnized and celebrated the Feast of the Conception.
Mary, the mother of God, was predestined by God to be the most perfect human creature, the Second Eve, free from Original sin and the dominion of the Devil since the very moment of her conception which allowed her to receive the Sanctifying Grace other mortals can only receive after Baptism. The above dogmatic definition makes no mention of other actual sins but it is the Tradition of the Church that Our Lady was also infallibly free from any actual sin being conceived in the state of grace without any stain of concupiscence.
Quote from: Council of Trent"If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema
QMR,
Before you asked:
Quote from: QMRFirst, does God love some more than others because of the greater goodness He created in them or is the greater goodness the result of His greater love? Which is it?
For Mary aren't these both true?
God created the world out of love and saw that it was good (Genesis). He loved it because of the goodness He created in it. He loved man more than animals, and man's greater goodness was on account of His greater love.
Mustn't you admit that those with the same lack of resistance to grace are given greater or lesser amounts of grace (even if the sufficient/efficacious distinction is invalid)? That one saint is greater than another is due to God's love, the cause of all goodness. The goodness of praying itself is caused by God (God's love).
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 26, 2015, 11:18:42 PM
This cannot be applied to Eve. Mary was predestined not to sin.
And this is like saying damnation is impossible for the predestined - therefore "once saved, always saved".
We will continue to argue in circles until you can grasp the distinction between God preordaining something "from eternity" or "before the foundation of the world" (which must be the case since God is atemporal and immutable) and an ontological independence or dependence of God's will on the actions of creatures.
Quote from: Cantarella on October 27, 2015, 04:01:09 PM
Mary, the mother of God, was predestined by God to be the most perfect human creature, the Second Eve, free from Original sin and the dominion of the Devil since the very moment of her conception which allowed her to receive the Sanctifying Grace other mortals can only receive after Baptism. The above dogmatic definition makes no mention of other actual sins but it is the Tradition of the Church that Our Lady was also infallibly free from any actual sin being conceived in the state of grace without any stain of concupiscence.
Can't resist the opportunity to try to sneak in some Feeneyism, can you, even though you know it's a banned topic? Mary's lack of original sin is,
by definition, the presence of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence. It is not something which "allows" sanctifying grace to be received, as though lack of original sin is compossible with lack of sanctifying grace. And other mortals can receive sanctifying grace before Baptism with an act of perfect charity and/or contrition.
As for Mary's sinlessness, Adam and Eve were also created in the state of grace without any stain of concupiscence. Yet they sinned. More explanation than that is necessary.
Quote
Quote from: Council of Trent"If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema
The definition says "can". It does not say "infallibly must".
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 27, 2015, 11:54:56 PM
QMR,
Before you asked:
Quote from: QMRFirst, does God love some more than others because of the greater goodness He created in them or is the greater goodness the result of His greater love? Which is it?
For Mary aren't these both true?
You can't have a causal loop. If A is the cause of B, B cannot also be the cause of A.
QuoteGod created the world out of love and saw that it was good (Genesis). He loved it because of the goodness He created in it. He loved man more than animals, and man's greater goodness was on account of His greater love.
If His love for the world is because of the goodness He created in it, then His creation of the world cannot be because of His love for the world.
Distinctions must be made when we talk about God's love. God's love exists
in a general sense (a general will to diffuse His goodness) which can exist prior to the creation of anything. God's love also exists
in a specific sense (willing good to a particular creature) which must be metaphysically anterior to the creature's existence (one can't will good to something which doesn't exist).
QuoteMustn't you admit that those with the same lack of resistance to grace are given greater or lesser amounts of grace (even if the sufficient/efficacious distinction is invalid)? That one saint is greater than another is due to God's love, the cause of all goodness. The goodness of praying itself is caused by God (God's love).
Of course. For instance many who are perfectly willing to suffer martyrdom are nevertheless not given the grace of martyrdom.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
As for Mary's sinlessness, Adam and Eve were also created in the state of grace without any stain of concupiscence. Yet they sinned. More explanation than that is necessary.
Quote from: Council of Trent
"If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema
The definition says "can". It does not say "infallibly must".
Do you say then, than Our Lady, the Mother of God, did not commit a sin, simply because she
chose not, but could have? That assertion would have totally altered the entire divine
plan of human Redemption and runs contrary to what we know about Predestination. I do not think you will find a reliable Catholic source to support such position that Our Lady
could have sin, but did not because of choice, but not because of the fact that she was actually conceived without the stain of Original & Actual Sin and infallibly preserved from it. If you do, please post it.
If there are any evident examples of Predestination in the
regenerated human race are precisely Our Lady Mary, and Our Lord Jesus Christ. Followed by the predestination of the saints (the Elect)
About the first and second qualities of Predestination:
Quote from: Catholic Encyclopedia
The first quality, the immutability of the Divine decree, is based both on the infallible foreknowledge of God that certain, quite determined individuals will leave this life in the state of grace, and on the immutable will of God to give precisely to these men and to no others eternal happiness as a reward for their supernatural merits. Consequently, the whole future membership of heaven, down to its minutest details, with all the different measures of grace and the various degrees of happiness, has been irrevocably fixed from all eternity. Nor could it be otherwise. For if it were possible that a predestined individual should after all be cast into hell or that one not predestined should in the end reach heaven, then God would have been mistaken in his foreknowledge of future events; He would no longer be omniscient.
Hence the Good Shepherd says of his sheep (John 10:28): "And I give them life everlasting; and they shalt not perish forever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand." But we must beware of conceiving the immutability of predestination either as fatalistic in the sense of the Mahommedan kismet or as a convenient pretext for idle resignation to inexorable fate. God's infallible foreknowledge cannot force upon man unavoidable coercion, for the simple reason that it is at bottom nothing else than the eternal vision of the future historical actuality. God foresees the free activity of a man precisely as that individual is willing to shape it. Whatever may promote the work of our salvation, whether our own prayers and good works, or the prayers of others in our behalf, is eo ipso included in the infallible foreknowledge of God and consequently in the scope of predestination (cf. St. Thomas, I, Q. xxiii). It is in such practical considerations that the ascetical maxim (falsely ascribed to St. Augustine) originated: "Si non es prædestinatus, fac ut prædestineris" (if you are not predestined, so act that you may be predestined). Strict theology, it is true, cannot approve this bold saying, except in so far as the original decree of predestination is conceived as at first a hypothetical decree, which is afterwards changed to an absolute and irrevocable decree by the prayers, good works, and perseverance of him who is predestined, according to the words of the Apostle (2 Peter 1:10): "Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election."
Quote
(2) The second quality of predestination, the definiteness of the number of the elect, follows naturally from the first. For if the eternal counsel of God regarding the predestined is unchangeable, then the number of the predestined must likewise be unchangeable and definite, subject neither to additions nor to cancellations. Anything indefinite in the number would eo ipso imply a lack of certitude in God's knowledge and would destroy His omniscience. Furthermore, the very nature of omniscience demands that not only the abstract number of the elect, but also the individuals with their names and their entire career on earth, should be present before the Divine mind from all eternity. Naturally, human curiosity is eager for definite information about the absolute as well as the relative number of the elect. How high should the absolute number be estimated? But it would be idle and useless to undertake calculations and to guess at so and so many millions or billions of predestined. St. Thomas (I, Q. xxiii, a. 7) mentions the opinion of some theologians that as many men will be saved as there are fallen angels, while others held that the number of predestined will equal the number of the faithful angels.
Quote... the immutable will of God to give precisely to these men and to no others eternal happiness...
And yet God wills the salvation of all, even those whose salvation He doesn't will??
This is the kind of thing which makes me ask all those "what's the point?" questions!
Quote from: Cantarella on October 28, 2015, 11:15:51 AM
Do you say then, than Our Lady, the Mother of God, did not commit a sin, simply because she chose not, but could have? That assertion would have totally altered the entire divine plan of human Redemption and runs contrary to what we know about Predestination. I do not think you will find a reliable Catholic source to support such position that Our Lady could have sin, but did not because of choice, but not because of the fact that she was actually conceived without the stain of Original & Actual Sin and infallibly preserved from it. If you do, please post it.
No Catholic source would support an impeccability of Mary based only on the Immaculate Conception and nothing else. Some kind of special privilege from God over and beyond that would be required. As for whether Mary was in fact impeccable or just sinless (the possibility of sinning still remaining), that is still an open question among theologians. Here's a source which calls impeccability of Mary "a merely probable theological opinion". It's too long to quote in its entirety.
http://www.evangelizationstation.com/htm_html/church%20history/Mariology/mary's%20sinlessness.htm
Quote from: Cantarella on October 28, 2015, 11:20:23 AM
About the first and second qualities of Predestination:
Which I agree with 100%.
Mary had to retain potential to sin or else she would have not merited.
So yes, she chose not to sin, but that was a good choice informed first by grace.
To take away Mary as a free agent in the course of her life does massive violence to the sinlessness of Mary.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on October 28, 2015, 12:08:11 PM
Quote from: Cantarella on October 28, 2015, 11:15:51 AM
Do you say then, than Our Lady, the Mother of God, did not commit a sin, simply because she chose not, but could have? That assertion would have totally altered the entire divine plan of human Redemption and runs contrary to what we know about Predestination. I do not think you will find a reliable Catholic source to support such position that Our Lady could have sin, but did not because of choice, but not because of the fact that she was actually conceived without the stain of Original & Actual Sin and infallibly preserved from it. If you do, please post it.
No Catholic source would support an impeccability of Mary based only on the Immaculate Conception and nothing else. Some kind of special privilege from God over and beyond that would be required. As for whether Mary was in fact impeccable or just sinless (the possibility of sinning still remaining), that is still an open question among theologians. Here's a source which calls impeccability of Mary "a merely probable theological opinion". It's too long to quote in its entirety.
http://www.evangelizationstation.com/htm_html/church%20history/Mariology/mary's%20sinlessness.htm
No, the theological opinion this article discusses in thesis III is that the impeccability of Mary' remote and ultimate cause
was the grace of Divine Motherhood, not the reality of Mary's impeccability.
From the very first paragraph of Thesis III:
Quote
Proof. Sinlessness (impeccantia) is actual freedom from sin; impeccability (impeccabilitas), absolute inability to sin. The former does not necessarily imply the latter, because God could preserve a human being from sin by simply with- holding his physical concurrence. In the case of our Lady, however, we are justified in assuming that her purity was due to a kind of intrinsic impeccability.
Now in Thesis II
The Blessed Virgin Mary was by a special divine privilege actually exempt from personal sin it is cleary stated that:
Quote
The Blessed Virgin Mary was pre- served from sin may be inferred:
(1) from the Scriptural and Patristic teaching that she enjoyed the fullness of grace and
(2) from the fact that her purity surpassed that of the angels. The argument is strengthened by a consideration of her intimate union with Christ, the "second Adam," and her own antithetical relation to the "first Eve."
Quote from: Cantarella on October 28, 2015, 01:02:19 PM
No, the theological opinion this article discusses in thesis III is that the impeccability of Mary' remote and ultimate cause was the grace of Divine Motherhood, not the reality of Mary's impeccability.
Not so.
QuoteThesis III: The proximate cause of our Lady's sinlessness was a kind of impeccability; its remote and ultimate cause was the grace of Divine Motherhood.
We are now dealing with a merely probable theological opinion.
Our Lady's entire exemption from personal, actual sin, due to
a special privilege of God is confirmed dogmatically by the Council of Trent:
Quote from: Council of Trent (Session VI, Canon 23)"If any one say that man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, as the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God, let him be anathema."
Now, yes we could argue until blue about the exact mechanics of it and how this is actually possible in regards to the "impeccability" of Mary but it is a fact that the vast majority of theologians and Church Fathers, at least since the V century, maintain that Our Lady never even experienced the slightest concupiscence. It is the overwhelming Tradition of the Church that Our Lady Mary was
impeccable, not by the perfection or merit of her nature, but by a
special Divine privilege, as the Council of Trent confirms.
Quote from: Cantarella on October 28, 2015, 01:41:22 PM
Our Lady's entire exemption from personal, actual sin, due to a special privilege of God is confirmed dogmatically by the Council of Trent:
Quote from: Council of Trent (Session VI, Canon 23)"If any one say that man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, as the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God, let him be anathema."
Now, yes we could argue until blue about the exact mechanics of it and how this is actually possible in regards to the "impeccability" of Mary but it is a fact that the vast majority of theologians and Church Fathers, at least since the V century, maintain that Our Lady never even experienced the slightest concupiscence. It is the overwhelming Tradition of the Church that Our Lady Mary was impeccable, not by the perfection or merit of her nature, but by a special Divine privilege, as the Council of Trent confirms.
You're confusing impeccability with sinlessness, or somehow imagining the lack of concupiscence equals impeccability. The dogma at Trent involves sinlessness, not impeccability. Some of the Fathers and Doctors thought that she obtained impeccability at the moment of the Incarnation but not at the moment of her conception. Anyway, it's still an open question.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on October 28, 2015, 06:33:35 AM
QuoteMustn't you admit that those with the same lack of resistance to grace are given greater or lesser amounts of grace (even if the sufficient/efficacious distinction is invalid)? That one saint is greater than another is due to God's love, the cause of all goodness. The goodness of praying itself is caused by God (God's love).
Of course. For instance many who are perfectly willing to suffer martyrdom are nevertheless not given the grace of martyrdom.
Just a request for clarification: when you say "grace of martyrdom" here do you mean grace in a general sense - i.e. the opportunity to be martyred?
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 28, 2015, 11:54:42 PM
Just a request for clarification: when you say "grace of martyrdom" here do you mean grace in a general sense - i.e. the opportunity to be martyred?
Yes.
Quote from: james03 on August 27, 2015, 12:58:26 PM
Baltimore Catechism, 1891:
QuoteBaptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
Baltimore Catechism, revised:
QuoteAn unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation.
Definition 1 excludes moslems, jews, hindus, and pagans.
Definition 2 includes them. Exact opposite.
Once Definition 2 becomes accepted by the Church, Vatican II MUST FOLLOW BY NECESSITY.
The jews teach elements of the natural law, belief in God, and salvation. Therefore it is salvific. How should the Church respond? It should move from a stance advocating conversion, to one advocating ecumenism and dialogue, and building up the City of Man.
The anonymous Catholic heresy is the root cause of the problems, and those problems won't be solved until the anonymous Catholic heresy is expunged from the Church.
Those two definitions don't contradict each other. I think perhaps you're reading into it too much.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on October 28, 2015, 06:33:35 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 27, 2015, 11:54:56 PM
QMR,
Before you asked:
Quote from: QMRFirst, does God love some more than others because of the greater goodness He created in them or is the greater goodness the result of His greater love? Which is it?
For Mary aren't these both true?
You can't have a causal loop. If A is the cause of B, B cannot also be the cause of A.
QuoteGod created the world out of love and saw that it was good (Genesis). He loved it because of the goodness He created in it. He loved man more than animals, and man's greater goodness was on account of His greater love.
If His love for the world is because of the goodness He created in it, then His creation of the world cannot be because of His love for the world.
Distinctions must be made when we talk about God's love. God's love exists in a general sense (a general will to diffuse His goodness) which can exist prior to the creation of anything. God's love also exists in a specific sense (willing good to a particular creature) which must be metaphysically anterior to the creature's existence (one can't will good to something which doesn't exist).
I would make different distinctions.
I think "love" can mean different things (at least these, and sometimes together):
- doing or willing to do good to someone (we do and God does)
- rejoicing in goodness in someone (we do and God does)
- increasing the goodness in someone (we do, teaching them etc, but primarily God does)
- causing the goodness in someone (causing the goodness OF someone) (only God does in the fullest sense)
When God creates someone, He gives him (causes) the first fundamental good, existence, and then gives him all his natural and supernatural gifts. All this is out of love. God has an eternal idea of each person and in creating him in time shows him His love, giving him all His blessings.
God causes the goodness OF His creatures, and then rejoices in the goodness He caused (as an artist causes the beauty of his work, and then rejoices in that beauty). (with different senses of love, "His love for the world (rejoicing in it) is because of the goodness He created in it, and His creation of the world is because of (and by) His love (causing goodness) for each being He creates"
St. Thomas:
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas, S.T. I Q20 A2
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1020.htm#article2
...
I answer that, God loves all existing things. For all existing things, in so far as they exist, are good, since the existence of a thing is itself a good; and likewise, whatever perfection it possesses. Now it has been shown above (Question 19, Article 4) that God's will is the cause of all things. It must needs be, therefore, that a thing has existence, or any kind of good, only inasmuch as it is willed by God. To every existing thing, then, God wills some good. Hence, since to love anything is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it is manifest that God loves everything that exists. Yet not as we love. Because since our will is not the cause of the goodness of things, but is moved by it as by its object, our love, whereby we will good to anything, is not the cause of its goodness; but conversely its goodness, whether real or imaginary, calls forth our love, by which we will that it should preserve the good it has, and receive besides the good it has not, and to this end we direct our actions: whereas the love of God infuses and creates goodness.
...
Read all of Q20 on God's love.
QuoteThe past sins entail a refusal to grant the grace to avoid them, and then a refusal to grant the grace of repentance. Now either this refusal is just, or it is unjust. If it is unjust, then the refusal to grant final perseverance is likewise unjust.
1. Past sins don't entail a refusal to grant grace. They are acts freely chosen by man.
2. God has zero obligation to give grace. Therefore refusal to grant grace is never unjust. (I believe point 2 is the major sticking point for most people who can't grasp predestination)
QuoteIf it is just, then it must be a punishment or not a punishment. If it is just and a punishment, then it must be a punishment for some other prior sin, and so the same problem presents itself on to infinity. If it is just and not a punishment, then likewise the refusal to grant the grace of repentance is not a punishment.
There is no infinite regress. Man sins according to his free choice. God punishes man for his sin. I could use your same argument to say hell is unjust. I perceive you have a problem with God not owing anyone even one grace.
For those saved, it is an act of Mercy.
Quote from: james03 on November 07, 2015, 09:54:02 AM
QuoteThe past sins entail a refusal to grant the grace to avoid them, and then a refusal to grant the grace of repentance. Now either this refusal is just, or it is unjust. If it is unjust, then the refusal to grant final perseverance is likewise unjust.
1. Past sins don't entail a refusal to grant grace. They are acts freely chosen by man.
2. God has zero obligation to give grace. Therefore refusal to grant grace is never unjust. (I believe point 2 is the major sticking point for most people who can't grasp predestination)
Both your points are false. Past sins, while indeed acts freely chosen by man, DO entail the absence of the graces which would have caused the man to instead choose acts of virtue. But in the Thomist system (which I reject but is assumed here), the absence of those graces entails a refusal by God to grant them. As for the second point, in the absence of the Redemption, admitted; in its presence, denied. God WOULD be unjust if He ever rejected a Mass (which is the offering of Christ as a propitiation for sin), saying, naaah, I don't think so. When the Son of God offers Himself for the Redemption of all men such is owed IN JUSTICE, not indeed to us, but to Him.
QuoteThere is no infinite regress. Man sins according to his free choice. God punishes man for his sin. I could use your same argument to say hell is unjust. I perceive you have a problem with God not owing anyone even one grace.
For those saved, it is an act of Mercy.
But it is also an act of Justice. If you imagine that there could be an act of Mercy by God which is not at the same time also an act of Justice you deny Divine simplicity.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
As for the second point, in the absence of the Redemption, admitted; in its presence, denied.
I think the second point was about all of us being born without Sanctifying Grace and under certain dominion of the Devil as Catholic dogma teaches, so in that sense, God does not owe us anything. If the Father does not draw us to Him, it is not because He purposely intends our damnation but because he is simply allowing our "default" state of Original Sin runs its proper course. But in order to enter the state of Sanctifying Grace, which is necessary for salvation (not Actual Grace, but Sanctifying) then God
must draw us to Him, as Jesus Our Lord
undoubtedly teaches us in Holy Scripture. Such a Grace is a true undeserved gift from Heaven and it is given to us regardless of our merits.
Well written.
QuoteBoth your points are false. Past sins, while indeed acts freely chosen by man, DO entail the absence of the graces which would have caused the man to instead choose acts of virtue.
1. Without Grace, man is not constantly sinning.
2. With Grace, man sins.
Man sins out of his own free choice.
QuoteWhen the Son of God offers Himself for the Redemption of all men such is owed IN JUSTICE, not indeed to us, but to Him.
Jesus does not offer himself up for all men. His propitiatory sacrifice is only applied to those who have Faith in Him and are baptized. His Sacrifice is sufficient to save all men, true, but it does not apply to those not in Sanctifying Grace. Only the elect are saved.
QuoteBut it is also an act of Justice. If you imagine that there could be an act of Mercy by God which is not at the same time also an act of Justice you deny Divine simplicity.
The Justice is towards Jesus. Mercy towards the sinner. For the sinner, the Justice is his Faith in Jesus Christ. However the Faith of the sinner is granted as an act of Mercy also.
Quote from: Mark 14And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.
Quote from: Cantarella on November 07, 2015, 03:49:03 PM
I think the second point was about all of us being born without Sanctifying Grace and under certain dominion of the Devil as Catholic dogma teaches, so in that sense, God does not owe us anything.
But that isn't the whole story. There is also a Redemption and, in that sense, God does owe us something.
QuoteIf the Father does not draw us to Him, it is not because He purposely intends our damnation but because he is simply allowing our "default" state of Original Sin runs its proper course.
And this is the standard Thomist-Banezian nonsense. It is Limited Atonement minus the name. 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.
QuoteBut in order to enter the state of Sanctifying Grace, which is necessary for salvation (not Actual Grace, but Sanctifying) then God must draw us to Him, as Jesus Our Lord undoubtedly teaches us in Holy Scripture. Such a Grace is a true undeserved gift from Heaven and it is given to us regardless of our merits.
Undeserved by us, but deserved by the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Quote1. Without Grace, man is not constantly sinning.
No, but without grace, man cannot avoid all mortal sins.
Quote2. With Grace, man sins.
Man can still sin venially with sanctifying grace, true, but he cannot sin with the presence of the efficacious actual grace causing the opposite act of virtue: that is a contradiction in terms.
QuoteJesus does not offer himself up for all men.
This is heresy. Pure and simple Calvinism.
QuoteHis propitiatory sacrifice is only applied to those who have Faith in Him and are baptized.
Then how do any of the unbaptized ever attain Faith and receive baptism?
QuoteHis Sacrifice is sufficient to save all men, true, but it does not apply to those not in Sanctifying Grace.
Of course it does. From where else would graces of repentance come from?
QuoteOnly the elect are saved.
That is a tautology, since the "elect" are defined as those who are saved.
QuoteThe Justice is towards Jesus. Mercy towards the sinner.
Yes.
QuoteFor the sinner, the Justice is his Faith in Jesus Christ. However the Faith of the sinner is granted as an act of Mercy also.
So his conversion is both just and merciful.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
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.
QuoteThis is heresy. Pure and simple Calvinism.
Ignorance on your part. I believe you are accusing me of believing in Limited Atonement. I'm not.
QuoteThen how do any of the unbaptized ever attain Faith and receive baptism?
The Father calls them. However until they are baptized, they are outside of the New Covenant and are not redeemed.
QuoteThat is a tautology, since the "elect" are defined as those who are saved.
Germane to our discussion, it's more than that. The elect are also predestined by God, and that is the deciding factor.
QuoteThere is also a Redemption and, in that sense, God does owe us something.
Now you're changing your tune again. You previously said that God owes Jesus, not us.
QuoteNo, the obstacle is already there by default.
Key point. Everyone has the obstacle of Original Sin. Some God saves, the majority He leaves in their natural state.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 07, 2015, 02:26:33 PM
Past sins, while indeed acts freely chosen by man, DO entail the absence of the graces which would have caused the man to instead choose acts of virtue.
It seems to me that you are saying God in justice, having Redeemed the world must give graces that CAUSE (not just influence) man to choose acts of virtue every time. I suspect this is not what you want to be saying.
Man resists the grace first (in some sense), and God BECAUSE he PERMITS this resistance from eternity, does not give the grace that would have overcome this resistance. The sinner can't claim that from eternity God must by justice not permit his sin, and otherwise is a cruel monster who refuses him grace. God doesn't owe the sinner grace; because He freely gives grace to others gives the sinner no right to say "it is Your fault, because You REFUSED me grace You gave to others". "Refused" is an absurd word for a sinner to use (or for us to use it for him). It is the sinner who refuses grace (sufficient grace), not God who does not stop him. In freely refusing sufficient grace man in effect refuses all grace; God is not bound to prevent his refusal..
Quote from: Non Nobis on November 08, 2015, 12:33:49 AM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 07, 2015, 02:26:33 PM
Past sins, while indeed acts freely chosen by man, DO entail the absence of the graces which would have caused the man to instead choose acts of virtue.
It seems to me that you are saying God in justice, having Redeemed the world must give graces that CAUSE (not just influence) man to choose acts of virtue every time. I suspect this is not what you want to be saying.
Yes it is what I am saying, as long as man puts no obstacle in the way.
QuoteMan resists the grace first (in some sense), and God BECAUSE he PERMITS this resistance from eternity, does not give the grace that would have overcome this resistance.
God can't give "grace that would overcome resistance". That is a contradiction in terms. If resistance is present, grace is not efficacious, by definition.
QuoteThe sinner can't claim that from eternity God must by justice not permit his sin, and otherwise is a cruel monster who refuses him grace.
Of course not. But our disagreement is on the precise implications of that statement.
QuoteGod doesn't owe the sinner grace; because He freely gives grace to others gives the sinner no right to say "it is Your fault, because You REFUSED me grace You gave to others".
But the sinner has every right to say this if the sin were the result of God's refusal to grant grace and only that. God can't make the avoidance of sin a metaphysical impossibility and then punish the sinner for the sin. That would be unjust, no matter how hard you pound the table about how God doesn't "owe" the sinner anything.
Quote"Refused" is an absurd word for a sinner to use (or for us to use it for him). It is the sinner who refuses grace (sufficient grace), not God who does not stop him. In freely refusing sufficient grace man in effect refuses all grace; God is not bound to prevent his refusal..
Then we had better be sure that whatever system of grace we end up embracing that nothing whatsoever is lacking from God. If something IS lacking from God then sin and damnation are His fault, notwithstanding all the sophistry in the world used by its defenders.
Quote from: Cantarella on November 07, 2015, 10:33:50 PM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
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.
Quote from: james03 on November 07, 2015, 10:41:37 PM
Ignorance on your part. I believe you are accusing me of believing in Limited Atonement. I'm not.
Well, you might say you don't believe in Limited Atonement, but your statement
QuoteJesus does not offer himself up for all men.
is Limited Atonement and is heresy. It's not enough to avoid the charge of Limited Atonement to say that the sacrifice of Jesus is of infinite value and therefore sufficient in that sense for the salvation of all. All Protestants admit that much. But Calvinists say He died for the elect only. That is heresy.
QuoteThe Father calls them. However until they are baptized, they are outside of the New Covenant and are not redeemed.
And how can the Father call them if they are not redeemed?
QuoteGermane to our discussion, it's more than that. The elect are also predestined by God, and that is the deciding factor.
No one denies the predestination of the elect. The question is of course how to reconcile God's foreknowledge, His aseity, His immutability, and His will to save all men.
Quote
QuoteThere is also a Redemption and, in that sense, God does owe us something.
Now you're changing your tune again. You previously said that God owes Jesus, not us.
That's not a contradiction. If you get arrested and the bail is way more than you could to afford to pay, but then I step in and pay your bail for you, both you and I have every right in justice to demand the court set you free.
QuoteIt's not enough to avoid the charge of Limited Atonement to say that the sacrifice of Jesus is of infinite value and therefore sufficient in that sense for the salvation of all. All Protestants admit that much. But Calvinists say He died for the elect only. That is heresy.
You are just wrong on this:
Quote from: TA comment on Titus 2:6"Christ is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect."
Quote from: TrentBut, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.
Christ's Passion is super abundant in sufficiency, but it is only communicated to the elect, and those justified who later fall away. Otherwise everyone would be saved, or at least receive Sanctifying Grace. In fact, they'd be born with Sanctifying Grace. What you claim is absurd.
Also, Prots believe Christ suffered all the punishments for sin, and don't believe in the propitiation. Calvinists believe that He suffered the punishments for the Elect only. So you are wrong there.
Furthermore, between the two of us, you are the one flirting with Calvinism, in your case with Total Depravity.
Quote
And how can the Father call them if they are not redeemed?
By sending Actual Graces.
QuoteThe question is of course how to reconcile God's foreknowledge, His aseity, His immutability, and His will to save all men.
Simple. Free Will. That men go to hell is proof Free Will exists.
QuoteIf you get arrested and the bail is way more than you could to afford to pay, but then I step in and pay your bail for you, both you and I have every right in justice to demand the court set you free.
False analogy. Using your example, Jesus has an over-abundance of bail money, earned from His Passion. He is willing to pay your bail IF you enter into the New Covenant with Him.
Quote from: james03 on November 08, 2015, 12:20:24 PM
You are just wrong on this:
You are refuted by your own quote.
Quote from: TrentBut, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.
If you deny that Christ died for all (which you did) you are a heretic.
QuoteChrist's Passion is super abundant in sufficiency, but it is only communicated to the elect...
No one denies this.
QuoteQuote
And how can the Father call them if they are not redeemed?
By sending Actual Graces.
But He would not send actual graces ordered towards their justification if they were not already redeemed in the first place!
QuoteSimple. Free Will. That men go to hell is proof Free Will exists.
It is not that simple. No one here denies free will.
QuoteFalse analogy. Using your example, Jesus has an over-abundance of bail money, earned from His Passion. He is willing to pay your bail IF you enter into the New Covenant with Him.
The bail has already to be paid
first before I can be invited to enter into the New Covenant. That's part of the New Covenant itself: the Redemption of mankind.
QuoteIf you deny that Christ died for all (which you did) you are a heretic.
To be clear, I believe what the Church believes: The merit of Christ's passion is only communicated to those in the New Covenant. In that sense, He did not die for all men. As far as God's antecedent Will that all men be saved, and the sufficiency of the Propitiation, we can say Christ died for all men. And I was very clear on this:
"Jesus does not offer himself up for all men. His propitiatory sacrifice
is only applied to those who have Faith in Him and are baptized.
His Sacrifice is sufficient to save all men, true, but it does not apply to those not in Sanctifying Grace."
I believe you would not have a problem with the above.
Since we know from Trent that the merits of Christ's propitiatory Sacrifice are not communicated to all men, we see this statement is false:
QuoteWhen the Son of God offers Himself for the Redemption of all men such is owed IN JUSTICE, not indeed to us, but to Him.
If the merit is not communicated to everyone, then it is not an act of injustice for God not to save someone.
QuoteBut He would not send actual graces ordered towards their justification if they were not already redeemed in the first place!
Makes no logical sense. You have the potential to be redeemed. True, if that POTENTIAL was not there, then actual graces would be worthless.
Quote
The bail has already to be paid first before I can be invited to enter into the New Covenant. That's part of the New Covenant itself: the Redemption of mankind.
Again, if the bail is actually paid, then you are a free man. Using your analogy, all men are born with Sanctifying Grace, or God is unjust. That is false.
The correct analogy is that Jesus has the bail money, in fact enough for the entire human race, but only pays it for those in the New Covenant. That is why our justice is Faith in Jesus.
QuoteIt is not that simple. No one here denies free will.
But you didn't mention it. Free will explains why God's antecedent will to save all men does not mean all men are saved.
Quote from: james03 on November 08, 2015, 01:11:42 PM
To be clear, I believe what the Church believes: The merit of Christ's passion is only communicated to those in the New Covenant. In that sense, He did not die for all men. As far as God's antecedent Will that all men be saved, and the sufficiency of the Propitiation, we can say Christ died for all men.
This is not what the Church believes. The Church believes that while the merits of Christ's passion are only communicated to many, He died for all simpliciter.
Quote"Jesus does not offer himself up for all men. His propitiatory sacrifice is only applied to those who have Faith in Him and are baptized. His Sacrifice is sufficient to save all men, true, but it does not apply to those not in Sanctifying Grace
I believe you would not have a problem with the above.
Jesus does offer Himself for all. Jesus offers Himself up for those not in sanctifying grace so that they may obtain sanctifying grace.
QuoteSince we know from Trent that the merits of Christ's propitiatory Sacrifice are not communicated to all men, we see this statement is false:
QuoteWhen the Son of God offers Himself for the Redemption of all men such is owed IN JUSTICE, not indeed to us, but to Him.
The Redemption is not the COMMUNICATION of Christ's merits to men. That is justification. The Redemption is the earning of the merits by which we might become justified.
QuoteIf the merit is not communicated to everyone, then it is not an act of injustice for God not to save someone.
Of course, but the reason the merit is not communicated to a particular person is an obstacle he himself puts in the way, not a prior will by God not to communicate it. That sort of prior will would be unjust.
QuoteMakes no logical sense. You have the potential to be redeemed. True, if that POTENTIAL was not there, then actual graces would be worthless.
No, it is because you are redeemed that there is the potential to be justified.
QuoteAgain, if the bail is actually paid, then you are a free man.
As you know, this does not happen automatically. A judicial act must follow freeing you.
QuoteUsing your analogy, all men are born with Sanctifying Grace, or God is unjust. That is false.
The analogy is false. All men are born with the potential to be justified and receive sanctifying grace. If that were not true, God would be unjust.
QuoteThe correct analogy is that Jesus has the bail money, in fact enough for the entire human race, but only pays it for those in the New Covenant. That is why our justice is Faith in Jesus.
It is not the correct analogy. It is the paying of the bail which set up the New Covenant in the first place and gave the potential of being in it.
QuoteFree will explains why God's antecedent will to save all men does not mean all men are saved.
No, it doesn't, since God works the willing and the doing. If God has an antecedent will to save all men, then why don't all men freely choose Him?
QuoteOf course, but the reason the merit is not communicated to a particular person is an obstacle he himself puts in the way, not a prior will by God not to communicate it.
Define "obstacle", that is a weasel word.
And is it a single obstacle? We're back at the one grace fallacy.
Finally, are people not saved because God CAN'T save them, or because He WON'T save them?
QuoteThe analogy is false. All men are born with the potential to be justified and receive sanctifying grace. If that were not true, God would be unjust.
In my analogy, all men have the potential to be bailed out and receive freedom. Analogy still stands.
QuoteIf God has an antecedent will to save all men, then why don't all men freely choose Him?
I have never quite figured out why the "opposition" has problems with this. I'm being sincere. There are MANY factors involved, not JUST His antecedent will that all men be saved.
For example, if men do not freely choose to cooperate, then they are not saved. This is on account of God's decree for Free Will.
One other factor that must be accepted before considering predestination is that in hell everyone receives perfect justice. Therefore, if NO MAN is saved, by definition, all men are treated in justice. That anyone is saved is an act of Mercy.
Quote from: james03 on November 10, 2015, 07:56:52 AM
Define "obstacle", that is a weasel word.
No, it isn't. An obstacle is something which impedes motion. Just like a car going the wrong way down a one-way street is an obstacle to a car going the right way.
QuoteAnd is it a single obstacle? We're back at the one grace fallacy.
In the final analysis, yes, since it is a single grace which converts a sinner.
QuoteFinally, are people not saved because God CAN'T save them, or because He WON'T save them?
Because He can't. We've had this discussion before. If it is because He won't save them, then He didn't really die for them. It is pure sophistry to say He died for their salvation but then refused to save them.
As for the objection that saying He can't save them denies His omnipotence, even God can't do the logically impossible. God can't save someone who has the determination to reject Him. To the argument that God could change that determination, it is responded that one could have the determination to reject that change.
We actually have not had this discussion, maybe I'm forgetting. To nail this down, please clarify whether you mean God can't save everyone, or whether God can't save a particular person. I agree God can't save everyone, GIVEN the other truths, such as Free Will. But God can save any particular person. Are you saying that for those in hell, there was no way God could save them?
QuoteIf it is because He won't save them, then He didn't really die for them.
You just proved my point, but we'll get to that. He "really" didn't die for everyone, else everyone would be saved. However, His atonement was more than sufficient to save the entire human race.
Quote from: james03 on November 10, 2015, 08:33:13 AM
In my analogy, all men have the potential to be bailed out and receive freedom. Analogy still stands.
No, because even if Christ didn't come to earth they would still have that potential.
Quote
QuoteIf God has an antecedent will to save all men, then why don't all men freely choose Him?
I have never quite figured out why the "opposition" has problems with this. I'm being sincere. There are MANY factors involved, not JUST His antecedent will that all men be saved.
Well, it seems there is just one: cooperation.
QuoteFor example, if men do not freely choose to cooperate, then they are not saved. This is on account of God's decree for Free Will.
Right, but if this cooperation is a a real good which must be anteriorly willed by God, then it is pure sophistry to talk of an "antecedent will for salvation" without an antecedent will for this cooperation without which salvation would not occur. The only way out of this conundrum is to say that "cooperation" is in fact a lack of something (rather than a something) and thus not something anteriorly willed by God.
QuoteOne other factor that must be accepted before considering predestination is that in hell everyone receives perfect justice. Therefore, if NO MAN is saved, by definition, all men are treated in justice. That anyone is saved is an act of Mercy.
That salvation is an act of Mercy, admitted; that damnation is an act of Justice prescinding from and anterior to consideration of a man's sins, denied. Damnation is an act of Justice because of a man's sins.
QuoteIn the final analysis, yes, since it is a single grace which converts a sinner.
However the sinner frequently falls into mortal sin in a vast majority of the cases. Each time he is forgiven, he is justified and would go to heaven. Each time he is in mortal sin, he'd go to hell if he died. So there are a multitude of graces involved in order to obtain final perseverance.
QuoteNo, because even if Christ didn't come to earth they would still have that potential.
That violates Trent:
Quote-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.
CHAPTER II.
On the dispensation and mystery of Christ's advent.
Whence it came to pass, that the heavenly Father, the father of mercies and the God of all comfort, when that blessed fulness of the time was come, sent unto men, Jesus Christ, His own Son-who had been, both before the Law, and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised-that He might both redeem the Jews who were under the Law, and that the Gentiles, who followed not after justice, might attain to justice, and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God hath proposed as a propitiator, through faith in his blood, for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world.
CHAPTER III.
Who are justified through Christ.
But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His [Page 32] death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.
Never means no potential without His passion being communicated.
QuoteRight, but if this cooperation is a a real good which must be anteriorly willed by God, then it is pure sophistry to talk of an "antecedent will for salvation" without an antecedent will for this cooperation without which salvation would not occur.
Since cooperation is required for salvation, an antecedent will for cooperation is contained in an antecedent will for salvation. However there are other factors such as Free Will, the fact that God is Truth, and other considerations that were not revealed. For one thing we know from life experience that hardship is a good thing. Look what happens to the bulk of rich kids living off a trust fund. Therefore we live a life of hardship and it develops virtue in us. However virtue implies the risk of failure, again because God is Truth.
Quote from: james03 on November 10, 2015, 07:51:28 PM
We actually have not had this discussion, maybe I'm forgetting. To nail this down, please clarify whether you mean God can't save everyone, or whether God can't save a particular person. I agree God can't save everyone, GIVEN the other truths, such as Free Will. But God can save any particular person. Are you saying that for those in hell, there was no way God could save them?
First of all, are you really saying the salvation of someone entails, as a logical consequence, the damnation of another? Because if not, if God can save any particular person, He can save all.
Anyway, I am saying that, for those in hell, given their determination to reject Him, there was no way to save them, for it is a logical impossibility. I am also saying that God can't simply will that determination out of existence, for that is also a contradiction in terms.
Quote
QuoteIf it is because He won't save them, then He didn't really die for them.
You just proved my point, but we'll get to that. He "really" didn't die for everyone, else everyone would be saved. However, His atonement was more than sufficient to save the entire human race.
James, this is heresy. It is Catholic dogma that Christ died for all. There would simply be no theological debate raging on for centuries if the theologians had simply accepted the proposition that Christ didn't really die for all. And that's of course exactly what the Calvinists and Lutherans did in order to evade the problem.
Quote from: james03 on November 10, 2015, 08:01:38 PM
QuoteNo, because even if Christ didn't come to earth they would still have that potential.
That violates Trent:
No, it doesn't. The actualization of the potential would be an impossibility. That doesn't mean the potency doesn't exist.
Quote from: james03 on November 10, 2015, 08:06:16 PM
Since cooperation is required for salvation, an antecedent will for cooperation is contained in an antecedent will for salvation.
(playing "Devil's advocate" here)
Well then if God antecedently wills salvation for all, and antecedently wills cooperation with grace for all, then all are saved.
QuoteHowever there are other factors such as Free Will, the fact that God is Truth, and other considerations that were not revealed. For one thing we know from life experience that hardship is a good thing. Look what happens to the bulk of rich kids living off a trust fund. Therefore we live a life of hardship and it develops virtue in us.
An omnipotent God could will the virtue to exist even without such hardship.
QuoteHowever virtue implies the risk of failure, again because God is Truth.
There is no such thing as "risk" as applied to an omniscient and omnipotent God. "Risk" is something we humans have only due to our lack of knowledge. There would be no "risk" of investing money in the stock market if we had infallible foreknowledge of what the market would do, right?
QuoteFirst of all, are you really saying the salvation of someone entails, as a logical consequence, the damnation of another? Because if not, if God can save any particular person, He can save all.
Not at all. I'm saying from what has been revealed that Free Will means men go to hell. For the sake of argument (and I reject this), we'll say the
only other consideration besides God's desire for all men to be saved is His decree of Free Will. Since men go to hell, we can conclude that Free Will results in damnation.
QuoteAnyway, I am saying that, for those in hell, given their determination to reject Him, there was no way to save them, for it is a logical impossibility.
This is easily proven false. Any man who attained justification can go to heaven if God kills him. Hitler, assuming (quite likely) that he is in hell, was baptized and would have gone to heaven if God killed him in his youth. He didn't.
Are you proposing "once saved, always saved"? Hitler, if he went to hell, went there because of an invalid baptism?
QuoteJames, this is heresy. It is Catholic dogma that Christ died for all.
What does the Church mean by this phrase "Christ died for all"? It means that God PROPOSES Christ as a propitiation for all men, however only some have the merit of His death communicated to them. This is Trent and I firmly believe it. I also believe that God gives graces for all men to be saved, but He allows some to reject His grace. However for a particular person He could overcome this rejection, or prevent it, such as killing them while they are in a state of justification.
QuoteNo, it doesn't. The actualization of the potential would be an impossibility. That doesn't mean the potency doesn't exist.
The
actualization potency IS an impossibility. What happens is the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity which is separate from the individual, obviously.
QuoteWell then if God antecedently wills salvation for all, and antecedently wills cooperation with grace for all, then all are saved.
Not with Free Will.
QuoteAn omnipotent God could will the virtue to exist even without such hardship.
I don't know if that is logically possible. First, it appears to violate justice. Second, it appears to violate Prudence, that is Truth. Contra to this is the Virgin Mary, whom God removed Original Sin and also subordinated her passions to her intellect. However look at the price she paid.
But even if this it is true that God could have just decreed virtue, God has chosen to deliver virtue through sacrifice, so that we really are virtuous. This also provides an avenue for congruent merit. In heaven, we will view the Beatific Vision knowing that we freely chose to Love Him without seeing Him. That will be a great Beatitude.
Furthermore, we would not be in Original Sin, and arguably we would not be humans. We would be some sort of angelic creature, nay even higher than angels.
Here's an analogy. Suppose I have a wooden shaft that I want to make into an arrow to penetrate a tough hide. However no matter how sharp I get the point, it won't penetrate. The wooden shaft has no potency to penetrate the hide. However if I add to the shaft a metal broad head, it now has the potency to penetrate. The broad head is the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity.
It would be correct to say that after the Passion, man has a potency to have Sanctifying Grace. However on his own, even with the Passion, he lacks the potency to view the Beatific Vision. He must be reborn in Christ.
Quote from: james03 on November 10, 2015, 08:21:59 PM
Not at all. I'm saying from what has been revealed that Free Will means men go to hell. For the sake of argument (and I reject this), we'll say the only other consideration besides God's desire for all men to be saved is His decree of Free Will. Since men go to hell, we can conclude that Free Will results in damnation.
This is quite confused. Sure, rational creatures have free will by nature, and God willed to create rational creatures, so in this sense He "decreed" free will. 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".
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.
QuoteThis is easily proven false. Any man who attained justification can go to heaven if God kills him. Hitler, assuming (quite likely) that he is in hell, was baptized and would have gone to heaven if God killed him in his youth. He didn't.
This is not nearly as "easily" as you might think. Any man who attains justification needs to not fall into mortal sin the instant before his death in order to be saved. You do not know this would not have happened had Hitler died in his youth.
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.
QuoteWhat does the Church mean by this phrase "Christ died for all"? It means that God PROPOSES Christ as a propitiation for all men, however only some have the merit of His death communicated to them.
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.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 08, 2015, 11:04:55 AM
QuoteMan resists the grace first (in some sense), and God BECAUSE he PERMITS this resistance from eternity, does not give the grace that would have prevented this resistance.
God can't give "grace that would overcome resistance". That is a contradiction in terms. If resistance is present, grace is not efficacious, by definition.
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)
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.
QuoteHowever, 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.
QuoteAlso, 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.
QuoteIf 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.
QuotePROPOSES 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.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 08, 2015, 11:08:24 AM
Quote from: Cantarella on November 07, 2015, 10:33:50 PM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti
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?
Quote41The 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".
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 10, 2015, 10:13:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Non Nobis on November 10, 2015, 11:56:25 PM
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.
QuoteBut 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.
Quote from: james03 on November 11, 2015, 12:20:37 AM
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.
Quote
QuoteAlso, 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.
QuoteGod 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.
QuoteOn Hitler, if he died before the age of reason, he would have gone straight to heaven.
Sure.
Quote
QuoteIf 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.
QuoteTrent: "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.
Quote, 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.
QuoteHe 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?
Quote from: Cantarella on November 11, 2015, 12:32:35 AM
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.
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.