Church Contradiction on Baptism of Desire

[james03]

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.

And 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.

[james03]

That 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.

[Gardener]

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.

And 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:

Nevertheless 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

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

Were anything of God's commands impossible, it would be an injustice because:

Chapter 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

[james03]

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.

Non sequitur.  The passage has nothing to do with Baptism of Blood. 

[james03]

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.

Your quotes do not refute the above.  Also, it is hard to tell what St. Augustine acutally said.

Actually, this supports my point:

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.

Same with the Contra Gentiles quote.

[Michael Wilson]

This 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.

[Non Nobis]

He 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.

[Non Nobis]

Dup

[james03]

You 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:

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.

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.

[james03]

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?

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. 

[Clare]

... 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.

[james03]

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.

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.

[Michael Wilson]

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?

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? 

[james03]

God 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.

#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.

He 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. 

Men 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.

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?

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.

[Non Nobis]

You 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.