Church Contradiction on Baptism of Desire

[Non Nobis]

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.

[Non Nobis]

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.

[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!

[Quaremerepulisti]

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.

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? 

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.

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.

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.

[Quaremerepulisti]

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.

[Non Nobis]

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? 

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.

492 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.

[Cantarella]

From INEFFABILIS DEUS (The Immaculate Conception) by Pope Pius IX dogma declaration:

"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.

"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

[Non Nobis]

QMR,

Before you asked:

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?

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).

[Quaremerepulisti]

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.

[Quaremerepulisti]

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.

"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".

[Quaremerepulisti]

QMR,

Before you asked:

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?

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.

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.

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).

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).

Of course.  For instance many who are perfectly willing to suffer martyrdom are nevertheless not given the grace of martyrdom.

[Cantarella]

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)

[Cantarella]

About the first and second qualities of Predestination:

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."

(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.

[Clare]

...  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!

[Quaremerepulisti]

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