Church Contradiction on Baptism of Desire

[Non Nobis]

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.

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):

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.

[Clare]

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.

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.)

[Michael Wilson]

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.

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. 

[St.Justin]

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.

[Arun]

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?

[Arun]

i went ahead and sigged it; any issues pm me or something and i'll take it back off.

[james03]

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.

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.

[james03]

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?

  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.

[james03]

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.

  Necessary, but not sufficient.  God has to predestine the elect to be saved by Jesus Christ.

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;

see above on children before the age of reason.

 

otherwise 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?

[Clare]

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?

  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!)

[james03]

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.

[Clare]

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.

[james03]

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.

[Michael Wilson]

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".

[Clare]

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.