Church Contradiction on Baptism of Desire

[Quaremerepulisti]

About the first and second qualities of Predestination:

Which I agree with 100%.

[Gardener]

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.

[Cantarella]

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:

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:

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."

[Quaremerepulisti]

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.

Thesis 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.

[Cantarella]

Our Lady's entire exemption from personal, actual sin, due to a special privilege of God is confirmed dogmatically by the Council of Trent:

"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.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Our Lady's entire exemption from personal, actual sin, due to a special privilege of God is confirmed dogmatically by the Council of Trent:

"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.

[Non Nobis]

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.

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?

[Quaremerepulisti]

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.

[Man_With_A_Plan]

Baltimore Catechism, 1891:

Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

Baltimore Catechism, revised:

An 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.

[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?

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).

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:

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.

[james03]

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.

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)

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.

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.

[Quaremerepulisti]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Cantarella]

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.

[james03]

Well written.

[james03]

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.

1.  Without Grace, man is not constantly sinning.
2.  With Grace, man sins.

Man sins out of his own free choice.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.