Dante and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Everyone,

With the return of Lionel to the forum ("Glad you're back!"), there has been a flurry of posts on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. I would like everyone to consider what Dante had to say and imply on the subject:

First Circle (Limbo)

In Limbo reside the unbaptized and the virtuous pagans, who, though not sinful, did not accept Christ. Limbo shares many characteristics with the Asphodel Meadows; thus the guiltless damned are punished by living in a deficient form of Heaven. Without baptism ("the portal of the faith that you embrace"[6]) they lacked the hope for something greater than rational minds can conceive. Limbo includes green fields and a castle with seven gates to represent the seven virtues. The castle is the dwelling place of the wisest men of antiquity, including Virgil himself, as well as the Persian polymath Avicenna. In the castle Dante meets the poets Homer, Horace, Ovid, and Lucan; the Amazon queen Penthesilea; the mathematician Euclid; the scientist Pedanius Dioscorides; the statesman Cicero; the first doctor Hippocrates; the philosophers Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Averroes; the historical figures Lucretia, Lucius Junius Brutus, and Julius Caesar in his role as Roman general ("in his armor, falcon-eyed"[7]); mythological characters Hector, Electra, Camilla, Latinus, and Orpheus; and many others. Interestingly, he also sees Saladin in Limbo (Canto IV). Dante implies that all virtuous non-Christians find themselves here, although he later encounters two (Cato of Utica and Statius) in Purgatory and two (Trajan and Ripheus) in Heaven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_%28Dante%29

Here is what many medievals believed about Trajan:

Ancient sources on Trajan's personality and accomplishments are unanimously positive. Pliny the Younger, for example, celebrates Trajan in his panegyric as a wise and just emperor and a moral man. Dio Cassius added that he always remained dignified and fair.[35] The Christianisation of Rome resulted in further embellishment of his legend: it was commonly said in medieval times that Pope Gregory I, through divine intercession, resurrected Trajan from the dead and baptized him into the Christian faith. An account of this features in the Golden Legend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan

And Ripheus:

The salvation of the Trojan Ripheus, a pagan who lived long before the advent of Christianity, conveys to Dante the extraordinary power of predestination, the idea that certain souls are chosen--or predestined--to be saved. This doctrine was the subject of lively debate among Christian theologians throughout the Middle Ages. Following the thinking of Thomas Aquinas and others on predestination, Dante shows how it is intrinsically bound up with the concepts of grace, providence, knowledge, and justice. Ripheus, through the workings of grace so profound that no created being has ever seen its ultimate source, directed all his love to justice; God therefore granted Ripheus a vision of future redemption, which, by leading him to repudiate paganism, allowed him to be baptized by the holy virtues (faith, hope, charity) over a thousand years before baptism existed (Par. 20.118-29). By the time he died, Ripheus had strong faith in Christ, referred to by the eagle as "the feet that were to suffer" (Par. 20.103-5). Dante's representation of Ripheus's blessedness finds support in Aquinas's claim that "revelation about Christ was in fact given to many of the pagans" and that even those who did not believe explicitly in Christ could be saved if they had "an implicit faith in God's providence, believing that God is man's deliverer in ways of his own choosing, as the Spirit would reveal this to those who know the truth" (Summa theologiae 2a2ae.2.7).

http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/paradiso/06jupiter.html

According to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, many were unhappy with Dante, and his work, The Divine Comedy, was scoured for traces of heresy:

Dante's vehement denunciation of the ecclesiastical corruption of his times, and his condemnation of most of the contemporary popes (including the canonized Celestine V) to hell have led to some questioning as to the poet's attitude towards the Church. Even in the fourteenth century attempts were made to find heresy in the "Divina Commedia", and the "De Monarchiâ" was burned at Bologna by order of a papal legate. In more recent times Dante has been hailed as a precursor of the Reformation. His theological position as an orthodox Catholic has been amply and repeatedly vindicated, recently and most notably by Dr. Moore, who declares that "there is no trace in his writings of doubt or dissatisfaction respecting any part of the teaching of the Church in matters of doctrine authoritatively laid down". A strenuous opponent of the political aims of the popes of his own day, the beautiful episodes of Casella and Manfred in the "Purgatorio", no less than the closing chapter of the "De Monarchiâ" itself, bear witness to Dante's reverence for the spiritual power of the papacy, which he accepts as of Divine origin. Not the least striking testimony to his orthodoxy is the part played by the Blessed Virgin in the sacred poem from the beginning to the end. It is, as it were, the working out in inspired poetry of the sentence of Richard of St. Victor: "Through Mary not only is the light of grace given to man on earth but even the vision of God vouchsafed to souls in Heaven."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04628a.htm

Of course, no one ever accused Dante of heresy for having placed two non-Christians in Purgatory and an additional two in Paradise.

Jehanne wrote:
Of course, no one ever accused Dante of heresy for having placed two non-Christians in Purgatory and an additional two in Paradise.

That Dante hersey has since been condemned. We know now that everyone is saved.
We managed to destroy that Limbo nonsense, but how can we get rid of the Purgatory heresy? It's so contrary to the dignity of Man (sorry, humankind).

Columba,

To say that the Limbo of the Children does not exist is to say that North America does not exist or that planet Earth does not exist.

Limbo exists, because everyone who was united to the Roman Pontiff believed in the existence of the Limbo of the Children, for centuries on end, and the Holy Spirit would never allow such a sensus fidelium to be present ubiquitously throughout the universal Church, which is the body of Christ, if the Limbo of the Children did not, in fact, exist. Even Vatican II reaffirmed this notion; to claim otherwise would be to claim that the Catholic Church was not indefectible. As with the Dogma of the Assumption (did the Blessed Virgin Mary, in fact, ever experience physical death?), the only difference within the theological schools was the state of the children who are there. Do such kids experience a "pain of the senses"? That was, really, the only difference.

No theologian, Saint, Doctor, and/or Pope put all children who die without sacramental Baptism into Paradise; such is a modern invention, which, on the Last Day, will be shown to be false to everyone without exception.

Jehanne,

It really is unfortunate to see you continue this line of defective thinking.

The medieval Limbo of the Children, as you well know, or should know, is NOT the doctrine of the East, whose saints and theologians preferred to leave the fate of unbaptized infants in the merciful hands of God. As I said, there is no such thing as “Limbo by default”.

So your claim that God has allowed “such a sensus fidelium to be present ubiquitously throughout the universal Church” is dead on arrival for you suffer from the common malady known as Latinization, where “universal” means whatever non-definitive common opinion the theologians of the Latin Church holds at a particular point in time (even if for centuries at a time).

And, as you should also know, the doctrine on the fate of unbaptized children has never been definitively settled, but we know that the Church would condemn any notion of “eternal torments” for these same infants. If anyone believes the doctrine is still “debatable” on that score, that person does not think with the mind of the Church - period.

Furthermore, that God would allow the doctrine of Limbo to exist in the Latin Church for several centuries as a logical theological answer to a difficult dilemma, does not mean that He would be playing some cosmic trick on the faithful should He actually have them saved. There is absolutely no harm that can come from this doctrine, and, with the "hope" of salvation, there is only upside.

He has kept this truth hidden, though He has, in the fullness of time, spoken through His Church to let her know it is perfectly fine to have good hope for their salvation, while the rusty gates of Limbo are kept open, just in case. If the Limbo of the Children does not actually exist, as we are allowed to hope, good riddance, and thanks be to God, for the only alternative is eternal salvation by a means known only to God.

MRyan wrote:
Furthermore, that God would allow the doctrine of Limbo to exist in the Latin Church for several centuries as a logical theological answer to a difficult dilemma, does not mean that He would be playing some cosmic trick on the faithful should He actually have them saved. There is absolutely no harm that can come from this doctrine, and, with the "hope" of salvation, there is only upside.

Mike,
I can scarcely read anything you write without finding at least one fallacious statement.

"No harm," you say?... And you yourself Mike are a living, breathing example of the "harm" caused by such ridiculous, off-the-cuff postulations. Let me offer one example of how "harmless" such statements as these really are.

The Church has explicitly taught (regardless of whether limbo exists or not) that those infants who die without Baptism cannot partake of the beatific vision.
Fact or fiction? Answer: Fact. Therefore such speculative prattle can't help but bring (and it's already here) the inevitable questioning of the soundness of the Church's teachings, not only concerning the matter at hand, but also every single one of the authoritive pronouncements she ever made or will make. Tell me, where does this train stop? And what's at the end of the line? Could it be anything other than the big happy-go-lucky, Christ-forsaken, humanistic One World Church, devoid of dogma and stuffed to the neck with worshipers glorying in their fallen nature while believing they're all on the fast train to heaven.

Wasn't there a few popes who mentioned somethin' along them lines once upon a time? Nah.... I probably just imagined it or read it in a big bad sede book. or somethin' like that. Your right Mike, there's no harm done.

MRyan wrote:And, as you should also know, the doctrine on the fate of unbaptized children has never been definitively settled, but we know that the Church would condemn any notion of “eternal torments” for these same infants. If anyone believes the doctrine is still “debatable” on that score, that person does not think with the mind of the Church - period.

"Eternal torment" or "eternal torments"; yes, Pope Pius IX chose his words carefully, because, as we both know, the teachings of Saint Augustine are wholly orthodox:

26. Augustine's thought enjoyed a revival in the 16th century, and with it his theory regarding the fate of unbaptised infants, as Robert Bellarmine, for example, bears witness.[51] One consequence of this revival of Augustinianism was Jansenism. Together with Catholic theologians of the Augustinian school, the Jansenists vigorously opposed the theory of Limbo. During this period the popes (Paul III, Benedict XIV, Clement XIII)[52] defended the right of Catholics to teach Augustine's stern view that infants dying with original sin alone are damned and punished with the perpetual torment of the fire of hell, though with the “mildest pain” (Augustine) compared with what was suffered by adults who were punished for their mortal sins. On the other hand, when the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786) denounced the medieval theory of “Limbo”, Pius VI defended the right of the Catholic Schools to teach that those who died with the guilt of original sin alone are punished with the lack of the Beatific Vision (“punishment of loss”), but not sensible pains (the punishment of "fire"). In the bull “Auctorem Fidei” (1794), the Pope condemned as “false, rash, injurious to the Catholic schools” the Jansenist teaching “which rejects as a Pelagian fable [fabula pelagiana] that place in the lower regions (which the faithful call the ‘Limbo of Children’) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, without the punishment of fire, just as if whoever removes the punishment of fire thereby introduces that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation of which the Pelagians idly talk”.[53] Papal interventions during this period, then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

We still profess it, as does the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc., as well as a number of "Novus Ordo" theologians who are in good standing with the Church:

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html

Is the denial of Limbo "harmful"? I believe so:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."

Give that the Council of Florence defined:

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

Did any of the Fathers at that Council "understand" that they were defining a "null set" and that no one, in fact, dies "in original sin alone"?

I don't think so.

As for the Greek Fathers, they taught:

14. On the one hand, these Greek Fathers teach that children who die without Baptism do not suffer eternal damnation, though they do not attain the same state as those who have been baptised. On the other hand, they do not explain what their state is like or where they go. In this matter, the Greek Fathers display their characteristic apophatic sensitivity.

"A Rose by any other name?"

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Furthermore, that God would allow the doctrine of Limbo to exist in the Latin Church for several centuries as a logical theological answer to a difficult dilemma, does not mean that He would be playing some cosmic trick on the faithful should He actually have them saved. There is absolutely no harm that can come from this doctrine, and, with the "hope" of salvation, there is only upside.

Mike,
I can scarcely read anything you write without finding at least one fallacious statement.

Coming from you, that's very funny!

columba wrote:
"No harm," you say?... And you yourself Mike are a living, breathing example of the "harm" caused by such ridiculous, off-the-cuff postulations. Let me offer one example of how "harmless" such statements as these really are.

Of course, what columba calls “fallacious” and "ridiculous, off-the-cuff postulations” just so happens to be in this case an infallible doctrine of the Church that says the Church cannot give harm by way of her doctrine or disciplines. For example, if the common opinion of the Limbo of the Children could give harm, she would have condemned it long ago; and if the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants could give harm, she never would have proposed it to the faithful in her universal Catechism and in an approved ITC report which provided the Scriptural, liturgical and theological foundation for this same "hope".

That is not "fallacious", it is the truth.

Btw, Jehanne, when you say that St. Augustine’s doctrine on eternal sense suffering for unbaptized infants is “orthodox”, you only demonstrate that you do not know what the word means, for his doctrine no longer conforms to the approved form of the current doctrine of the Church. The definition of “orthodox” is not any doctrine that is not formally heretical.

columba wrote:The Church has explicitly taught (regardless of whether limbo exists or not) that those infants who die without Baptism cannot partake of the beatific vision.

Fact or fiction? Answer: Fact.

Actually, I dispute that so-called “fact”. The Church has never explicitly “taught” this common doctrine as a function of her teaching magisterium that would preclude any future development of this difficult doctrine. Whenever the various popes expressed this common belief, especially in the middle ages, it was always in the context of addressing another subject matter. For example, as the ITC report says:

… the affirmation that infants who die without Baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the Church, which must be distinguished from the faith of the Church. … It must be observed however that, in a general way, the focus of these Church pronouncements was not on the lack of salvation for unbaptised infants, but on the immediacy of the particular judgment after death and the assignment of souls to heaven or hell. These magisterial statements do not oblige us to think that these infants necessarily die with original sin, so that there would be no way of salvation for them.

It must be clearly acknowledged that the Church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptised infants who die. She knows and celebrates the glory of the Holy Innocents, but the destiny of the generality of infants who die without Baptism has not been revealed to us, and the Church teaches and judges only with regard to what has been revealed. What we do positively know of God, Christ and the Church gives us grounds to hope for their salvation, as must now be explained.

Of course, I realize that this has absolutely meaning for you, except to condemn it outright, for you are indeed a force and magisterium of one who can only make snarky remarks and mock the Church.

We’ve already had this debate, and it is absolutely pointless to go down this path again. We have a living, authoritative Magisterium, and one either accepts this fact, or doesn’t. Of course, a real sedevacantist would conclude that the “harm” the “current” Magisterium has allegedly inflicted on the Church cannot come from a legitimate Pope, and it cannot then be the legitimate Church of Christ, it is an imposter.

Instead, we have to suffer these insufferable fence-sitters who relish casting their snarky aspersions from their lofty wobbly seats of self-professed authority which dares to stand in judgment of the Church for, among other things, daring to profess a “hope” for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

MRyan wrote:
and if the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants could give harm, she never would have proposed it to the faithful in her universal Catechism and in an approved ITC report which provided the Scriptural, liturgical and theological foundation for this same "hope".

The approved ITC report -I take it- uses the same logic as the CCC? The Scriptural foundation being Christ's love for children, the liturgical foundation being the newly invented burial rite for non-baptized infants, and the theological foundation being wishful thinking, which not surprizingly turns out to be a non-theological foundation.

Each individual consideration depends on the validity of the other considerations; and what do we see? We see a new burial rite (the liturgical consideration) which in turn pumps up the theological consideration, which in turn interprets "Christ love for children" as the validity for other two, seemingly unaware that this Scripural consideration was known to all the Doctors, theologians and prior magisteria and yet not one of the above considered this Scriptural consideration as favoring a hope for the salvation of non-baptized infants; In fact the exact opposite is true.

Right up to the threshold of VCII we can see that the Church never had this hope and actually taught that this hope was misplaced as can be proved from Pope Pius XII's Allocution to Midwives where he says, "An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open"

This very passage which aludes to a possible baptism of desire for adults, you accept, because it conforms with your own belief in the efficacy of baptism of desire, yet you reject the part that condemns your belief that hope can be entertained regarding the salvation of non-baptized infants.

Even of those theologians who held that some hope could be possible for non-baptized infants received censure from the Church. Cardinal Cajetan who espoused this theory, had the speculative passage removed from his works by Pope St. Pius V.

What we do know, Mike, is that non-baptized infants cannot gain salvation. Their salvation lies in the hope that God can provide for them the waters of Baptism; even miraculously, which I have shown recently is not beyond his providence.

MRyan wrote:

ITC report

It must be clearly acknowledged that the Church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptised infants who die. She knows and celebrates the glory of the Holy Innocents, but the destiny of the generality of infants who die without Baptism has not been revealed to us, and the Church teaches and judges only with regard to what has been revealed. What we do positively know of God, Christ and the Church gives us grounds to hope for their salvation, as must now be explained.

Of course, I realize that this has absolutely meaning[less] for you, except to condemn it outright, for you are indeed a force and magisterium of one who can only make snarky remarks and mock the Church.

If the Church teaches and judges only with regard to what has been revealed, why teach at all that there is hope for unbaptized infants? The Church NEVER held the hope that these children coud be saved without Basptism; in fact she taught the very opposite; that Baptism was their ONLY hope. This is the same hope that I hold for these children and to say that I "mock the Church" is false. I have no trouble however mockng those who purport to be speaking on behalf of the Church but speak only for their previously condemned, modernistic notions. The only thing they gain by their rantings is the applause of those who believe the Church was founded in 1962.

MRyan wrote:
We’ve already had this debate, and it is absolutely pointless to go down this path again. We have a living, authoritative Magisterium, and one either accepts this fact, or doesn’t.

There is another option.
A Fact is something which is true regardless of whether one believes it or not. If we do have a living, authoritative Magisterium, this truth won't change whether I believe it or not. If we do in fact have an imposter magisterium, this truth won't change whether you refuse to believe it or not. We have 2000 years of Church teaching, enough to establish the credibility of any given theory or the likely truth of any proposition. When 50 years of babel is weighed against 1,960 years of coherence, the babbler always becomes the suspect. The "fence-sitter" acknowledges this reality. Reality pertains to fact, and vice versa.

MRyan wrote:
Instead, we have to suffer these insufferable fence-sitters who relish casting their snarky aspersions from their lofty wobbly seats of self-professed authority which dares to stand in judgment of the Church for, among other things, daring to profess a “hope” for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

"And looking up to heaven, he sighed" (Mark 7:34)
You can't see me Mike but I'm shaking my head.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
and if the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants could give harm, she never would have proposed it to the faithful in her universal Catechism and in an approved ITC report which provided the Scriptural, liturgical and theological foundation for this same "hope".

The approved ITC report -I take it- uses the same logic as the CCC? The Scriptural foundation being Christ's love for children, the liturgical foundation being the newly invented burial rite for non-baptized infants, and the theological foundation being wishful thinking, which not surprizingly turns out to be a non-theological foundation.

Yes, just like “the liturgical foundation being the newly invented burial rite for non-baptized” catechumens that Pope St. Pius X and Pope Benedict XV approved and promulgated in 1917, “and the theological foundation being wishful thinking, which not surprisingly turns out to be a non-theological foundation”.

You nailed it, the very same magisterial “logic”.

columba wrote:Each individual consideration depends on the validity of the other considerations; and what do we see? We see a new burial rite (the liturgical consideration) which in turn pumps up the theological consideration, which in turn interprets "Christ love for children" as the validity for other two, seemingly unaware that this Scripural consideration was known to all the Doctors, theologians and prior magisteria and yet not one of the above considered this Scriptural consideration as favoring a hope for the salvation of non-baptized infants; In fact the exact opposite is true.

You realize that when you say “known to all the Doctors, theologians and prior magisterial” you have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

columba wrote:Right up to the threshold of VCII we can see that the Church never had this hope and actually taught that this hope was misplaced as can be proved from Pope Pius XII's Allocution to Midwives where he says, "An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open"

Nonsense, in no way did Pope Pius XII suggest that all hope is lost, when he in fact qualified his statement with “In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason.” Thus, as the ITC report says:

The specification that little children (unlike adults) are unable to act on their own behalf, that is, are incapable of an act of reason and freedom that could “supply for Baptism”, did not constitute a pronouncement on the content of current theological theories and did not prohibit the theological search for other ways of salvation. Pius XII rather recalled the limits within which the debate must take place and reasserted firmly the moral obligation to provide Baptism to infants in danger of death.

Furthermore,

Pius XII had vigorously brought this to the consciousness of the Church by explaining that one destroys the gratuity of the supernatural order if one asserts that God could not create intelligent beings without ordaining and calling them to the Beatific Vision.[Humani Generis] The goodness and justice of God do not imply that grace is necessarily or “automatically” given. Among theologians, then, reflection on the destiny of unbaptised infants involved from that time onwards a renewed consideration of the absolute gratuity of grace, and of the ordination of all human beings to Christ and to the redemption that he won for us.

For a more detailed explanation of the theology being discussed following Pope Pius XII’s emphasis of a “renewed consideration”, where “The golden mean, the steady equatorial line of truth, lies in a moderate intrinsicalism” is proposed as opposed to an unbending extrinsicalism and a radical intrinsicalism, see “Reflections on Human Nature and the Supernatural” by J. P. Kenny, S.J (http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/14/14.2/14.2.5.pdf).

No, columba, I am not suggesting that you read it (perish the thought), this suggestion is directed at others who may be interested in knowing some of the theological ground work the ITC is referring to.

columba wrote:This very passage which aludes to a possible baptism of desire for adults, you accept, because it conforms with your own belief in the efficacy of baptism of desire, yet you reject the part that condemns your belief that hope can be entertained regarding the salvation of non-baptized infants.

As to Pope Pius XII’s affirmation of the traditional doctrine that says an “act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”, I accept it on the pope's authority, and because he is repeating a long established and uncontested doctrine.

And, as to “In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason”, and “to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open", far from “rejecting” this affirmation, I accept it precisely as Pop Pius XII intended that it be understood, as indicated above. Today, Pope Pius XII would most certainly agree that:

In the present economy, while it must be clearly acknowledged that the Church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptised infants who die, what we do positively know of God, Christ and the Church gives us grounds to hope for their salvation.

Oh yes he would, an that's a FACT!

columba wrote:
Even of those theologians who held that some hope could be possible for non-baptized infants received censure from the Church. Cardinal Cajetan who espoused this theory, had the speculative passage removed from his works by Pope St. Pius V.

Nonsense, you do not know what you are talking about. Cardinal Cajetan’s vicarious baptism of desire doctrine did not receive “censure”, it was removed from the official commentary on the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas for the simple reason that it did not reflect the common theological opinion in the “present economy” of St. Thomas Aquinas (though it was never ruled out), and the Church did not want to appear to being giving the untested doctrine her magisterial stamp of approval. The theological groundwork was still in its early development, and would only slowly come to the fruition of “hope” in the 20th century, especially following the theological emphasis of Pope Pius XII.

Furthermore, far from having “rejected” or “censured” the hope of salvation, the ITC report states:

Suarez and the later scholastics emphasised that Christ restores human nature (his grace is gratia sanans, healing of human nature) and thereby enables the very natural happiness that Aquinas attributed to the souls in Limbo. The grace of Christ was therefore implicit in Aquinas' account, though not developed. The later scholastics thereby envisaged three possible destinies (at least in practice, though in principle they might have accepted only two destinies: heaven and hell), and understood, against Augustine, that it was by the grace of Christ that the numerous infants in Limbo were there and not in hell!

Seriously, columba, you know not of what you speak.

columba wrote:
What we do know, Mike, is that non-baptized infants cannot gain salvation. Their salvation lies in the hope that God can provide for them the waters of Baptism; even miraculously, which I have shown recently is not beyond his providence.

We know no such thing; in fact, we have good hope for their salvation, as the authentic, living Magisterium teaches. What you have “shown” is pure private conjecture having no basis in doctrine.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:

ITC report:

It must be clearly acknowledged that the Church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptised infants who die. She knows and celebrates the glory of the Holy Innocents, but the destiny of the generality of infants who die without Baptism has not been revealed to us, and the Church teaches and judges only with regard to what has been revealed. What we do positively know of God, Christ and the Church gives us grounds to hope for their salvation, as must now be explained.

Of course, I realize that this has absolutely meaning[less] for you, except to condemn it outright, for you are indeed a force and magisterium of one who can only make snarky remarks and mock the Church.

If the Church teaches and judges only with regard to what has been revealed, why teach at all that there is hope for unbaptized infants?

Because the Church is not some static monolith that cannot develop non-revealed elements of her own doctrine.

columba wrote:
The Church NEVER held the hope that these children coud be saved without Basptism; in fact she taught the very opposite; that Baptism was their ONLY hope. This is the same hope that I hold for these children and to say that I "mock the Church" is false. I have no trouble however mockng those who purport to be speaking on behalf of the Church but speak only for their previously condemned, modernistic notions. The only thing they gain by their rantings is the applause of those who believe the Church was founded in 1962.

The Church has NEVER shut the door to this hope, NEVER. And yes, the grace of Baptism is their only hope.

"columba

MRyan wrote:
Instead, we have to suffer these insufferable fence-sitters who relish casting their snarky aspersions from their lofty wobbly seats of self-professed authority which dares to stand in judgment of the Church for, among other things, daring to profess a “hope” for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

"And looking up to heaven, he sighed" (Mark 7:34)
You can't see me Mike but I'm shaking my head.

Fr. Marin Solà wrote:

Adversaries: Certain heretics have affirmed that ‘no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water.’ Baius also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.”

Columba wrote:

The notion that baptism of desire -prevalent within the modernized Church- is to be held as a doctrine of faith, to me is a heretical notion that goes against Church dogma, therefore your position on baptism of desire is heretical. In consideration of the state of almost universal, diabolical disorientation, no judgment on culpability from this quarter either. I believe we will one day see this "doctrine" anathematized for the Church cannot contradict herself.

You heard it here first, folks, the doctrine of the baptism of desire goes “against Church dogma, therefore … baptism of desire is heretical”.

And this from the same person who declared that the OT just were justified by the merits of Christ for the remission of sins, exclusive of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; well, at least for the time being!

Someone should have told the Doctors, the saints and a universal moral consensus of theologians (not a single dissenting voice since Trent dogmatically defined "justification") that they were teaching the heresy of baptism of desire. Someone should have told the Church that the heretical doctrine is reflected in her own Liturgy (e.g., The Feast of the Holy Innocents and The Roman Martyrology). The Church should have condemned this heresy that was spelled out in the Summa Sententiarum of Hugo of St. Victor, the Sentences of Peter Lombard and the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas.

And, it gets worse; Pope Pius V affirmed this same heresy in “Ex omnibus afflictionibus", as did Pope Innocent III in the Canon Apostolicam. And of course, the heresy is spelled out in the Liber II, Caput XXX of St. Robert Bellarmine and in the Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus Liguori. The “heresy” is also affirmed by the Doctors Albert the Great, Bernard of Clairvaux, Bonaventure, Catherine, Canisius, and Theresa; while being dogmatically and “heretically” affirmed by Trent, in Session VI, Ch. 4 and in Session 7, Canon IV.

This “heresy” was infallibly affirmed in the two universal Roman Catechisms of the Catholic Church (Trent and VCII) promulgated some 600 years apart; and is heretically spelled out in both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law; while also being affirmed in the heretical official commentaries of Haydock, Rheims and Douhay on John 3:5; and, scandal of scandals, this so-called heresy is openly affirmed in the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X and in an Allocution of Pope Pius XII.

They brought to Him one who was deaf and spoke with difficulty, and they implored Him to lay His hand on him. Jesus took him aside from the crowd, by himself, and put His fingers into his ears, and after spitting, He touched his tongue with the saliva; and looking up to heaven with a deep sigh, He said to him, “Ephphatha!” that is, “Be opened!” And his ears were opened, and the impediment of his tongue was removed, and he began speaking plainly. (Matt. 7: 32-36)

One can only pray.

MRyan wrote:
For a more detailed explanation of the theology being discussed following Pope Pius XII’s emphasis of a “renewed consideration”, where “The golden mean, the steady equatorial line of truth, lies in a moderate intrinsicalism” is proposed as opposed to an unbending extrinsicalism and a radical intrinsicalism, see “Reflections on Human Nature and the Supernatural” by J. P. Kenny, S.J (http://www.ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/14/14.2/14.2.5.pdf).

No, columba, I am not suggesting that you read it (perish the thought), this suggestion is directed at others who may be interested in knowing some of the theological ground work the ITC is referring to.

Ok Mike. I read it. And I'm so happy that I have, because if ever there was something to convince me of my "magisterium of one," then this has to be it.

Where does one begin? First off, this J. P. Kenny has created a problem where no problem existed, but of course, how could he fail to do that when his idol is Karl Rahner? As he testifies:

1 Those familiar with the thought of Prof. Karl Rahner, S.J., of the State University of Innsbruck, will realize how greatly I am indebted to him. See particularly his article, "Ein Weg zur Bestimmung des Verhaltnisses von Natur und Gnade," Orientierung (Zurich), June, 1950, pp. 141-45.

Let me (with my magisterium of one) help solve his dilemma. A quote from St Augustine would probably do the trick, "Our hearts are restless O Lord until they rest in You," but I'll give my own twopence worth as to how the supernatural can be present in each man without the man himself being supernaturalized by its presence.

Each indivdual beyond the age of reason, whether he likes it or not, is aware of a law pressing on him which comes from without and which he himself has not invented. This law, known by all, is called the natural law, Although being called natural, its origin is supernatural because it was -like everything that exists- created by God. If a man where to abide by this natural law (which needs no teacher) he would be guided (by the grace of God, even miraculously if need be) to the supernatural law, and thus, the means of obtaining supernatural grace.

Why this J. P. Kenny feels the need to make a whole song and dance about an imaginary problem existing in the traditional understanding of the natural state of man vs the supernatural state, is beyond me. His problem though can be easily identified; he's reading too many books by that master of confussion, Karl Rahner. Even while acknowledging that the mystery of original sin is just that, a mystery, he then sets out to solve the mystery with his (and Karl Rahners) new enlightenment theology that the unfortunates who lived before VCII were not privy to.

Hmmm...This new school of "the new enlightenment" boasts some big players, including, may I add, some not so big popes.

You didn't understand a word of it. And please stop with the "guilt by association" logical fallacy. His paper must be read and understood on its own merit.

We already saw what you did with Aquinas - you have no business reading theology, period.

.....and if the Church is not to be found under the guidance of Peter ( Pope Benedict XVI ) and in our Churches and tabernacles then please inform me where the Catholic Church is to be found so that I may be enlightened and report there for duty.



JMJ,


George

Columba, your insufferable arrogance, as usual, is on full display. But, since you felt the need not only to lecture Fr. Kenny on his imaginary problem with nature and grace, but then tried to smear him by associating him with Fr. Rahner, whose own work in this area has influenced (as noted) the current theological development (ooooh, bad!), I am compelled to provide a short synthesis of Rahner's own system where he relies heavily "on the Thomistic notion of obediential potency", and let you lecture Fr. Rahner as well. I mean, after summarily dismissing the Angelic Doctor (getouttahere!), Rahner doesn't stand a chance against your penetrating analysis. I've never seen anything like it; sheer intuitive arm-chair genius!

Have at it:

Grace and the Supernatural Existential

Rahner’s view of divine grace is made possible because we have congeniality for receiving it. This is what he calls the “supernatural existential.” Rahner distinguishes existential from existentiell, although both are inseparable and refer to the same human finitude. While the former refers to the ontological dimension, the latter to the everyday categorical dimension. When Rahner talks about supernatural existential he criticizes both traditional scholasticism and the nouvelle theologie (particularly of Henri de Lubac) of his own era. Here Rahner enters the classical “nature and grace” debate within Catholic theology. The neo-scholastics held to the view of extrinsicism, namely, an understanding that God’s grace is imposed from outside on nature; whereas the theologians of the nouvelle théologie emphasized the intrinsic orientation of nature to grace. For the proponents of the nouvelle théologie (such as de Lubac), there is no such thing as “pure nature” which then accepts grace; instead there is a “natural desire” (Thomas’s desiderium naturale) within human nature for God.

Against both positions, Rahner argues that human beings as God’s partner have to be able to receive God’s loving grace. Here he relies on the Thomistic notion of obediential potency, which becomes the condition—or better, a remainder concept (Restbegriff)—in the human existential constitution that has been present before God offers grace, “even prior to sin” (FCF, 124). This condition he calls the “supernatural existential.” In Rahner’s most-quoted words, “God’s self-communication as offer is also the necessary condition which makes its acceptance possible” (FCF 128). The end and goal of God’s grace, finally, is that human beings receive the final vision of God (beatific vision), which implies an ontological relationship between God and creatures. Yet, it is not merely an ideal reality in the future. Rather, according to Rahner, it is an historical experience, hic et nunc,

[I]n grace, that is, in the self-communication of God’s Holy Spirit, the event of immediacy to God as man’s fulfillment is prepared for in such a way that we must say of man here and now that he participates in God’s being; that he has been given the divine Spirit who fathoms the depths of God; that he is already God’s son here and now, and what he already is must only become manifest. (FCF, 120) (http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/rahner.htm)

Columba, I wanted you to have fun with this because it is easy pickings. Bishop Williamson (SSPX) tore his thesis apart, "Karl Rahner – Prime Delinquent".

But one must be careful to distinguish between potency (some level of existence) and existence itself as completed act. Neither does it follow that this system of “supernatural existential” suggests the preexistence of sanctifying grace in the soul. Rather, some of its more orthodox elements (similar to our human natures already, in some non-salvific but very real way, being united to our Lord by virtue of the Incarnation) are "borrowed" and developed by the theologians examining the doctrine of "hope".

Neither does it follow that any merit found in the “supernatural existential” has anything to do with Rahner's doctrine of original sin.

Anyone can knee-jerk, but it takes some effort to distinguish and unpack dense theological ideas, some more worthy of consideration than others. If you had read the ITC report, you would have found some of the same ideas presented in an orthodox fashion, which was my only point in giving one example of where some of the development may have come from, without suggesting for a moment that the Church has embraced Rahner's entire theological system carte blanche.

Unfortunately, you took the red bait and had the typical knee-jerk arrogant reaction devoid of any depth or substance whatsoever.

I should have known better.

MRyan wrote:
You didn't understand a word of it.

And neither does J. p. Kenny, nor you Mike for that matter. To understand it you would have to be fluent in the VCII native tongue, better known as gobbledegook and once you are, you'll never know what your talking about again.

Having said that, I understand only too well what he means and where he's going. He uses the nice, balanced, fair-minded approach that doesn't condemn anyone’s point of view but only seeks the middle ground, regardless of the truth of either side. Got that much right, didn't I? In doing so he turns both sides arguments into a meaningless formula. He can never imagine that one might be true and the other false and so truth itself is proposed by him as something unknowable and the best that we mere mortals can do is peddle the middle line in all maters theological. Yep. I know his methods only too well. Heck, I've been living with his brand of theology for the greater part of 50 years.

MRyan wrote:
And please stop with the "guilt by association" logical fallacy. His paper must be read and understood on its own merit.

He's not guilty by association; he's guilty all on his own, for his brand of doctrinal development has been already condemned by many popes. I've read it and understood it on its own merits, but it don't surprise me one bit that he considers himself in debt to Karl Rahner.

MRyan wrote:
We already saw what you did with Aquinas - you have no business reading theology, period.

After the first paragraph I never believed for a moment I was reading theology.

I'll get to your latest post shortly. In the meantime, I'm off to read Pascendi again. I need an antidote for this.

George Brenner wrote:
.....and if the Church is not to be found under the guidance of Peter ( Pope Benedict XVI ) and in our Churches and tabernacles then please inform me where the Catholic Church is to be found so that I may be enlightened and report there for duty.

I'm but a layman too George and I can't advise you, but I can point you to those already in heaven who can advise.

..let not these priests be misled, in the maze of current opinions, by the miracles of a false Democracy. Let them not borrow from the Rhetoric of the worst enemies of the Church and of the people, the high-flown phrases, full of promises; which are as high-sounding as unattainable. Let them be convinced that the social question and social science did not arise only yesterday; that the Church and the State, at all times and in happy concert, have raised up fruitful organizations to this end; that the Church, which has never betrayed the happiness of the people by consenting to dubious alliances, does not have to free herself from the past; that all that is needed is to take up again, with the help of the true workers for a social restoration, the organisms which the Revolution shattered, and to adapt them, in the same Christian spirit that inspired them, to the new environment arising from the material development of today’s society. Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists. (Notre Charge Apostolique"Our Apostolic Mandate"Given by Pope Pius X to the French Bishops August 15, 1910)

May God comfort you. I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, Letter of (St. Athanasius to Catholics Suffering at the Hand of Arian Heretics)

Columba,

Good post to reflect on. Thank You. I believe that we probably, maybe, hopefully can ALL agree that there has been a crisis in our Faith of enormous and sad proportions for the last half century or longer. Would it not be a blessing if someone (perhaps only Jesus can and will solve this crisis) would come forward and admit and explain the Why's along with the solution. One could resort to simple practice of their faith or continue to fight and search for truth as we do on this forum. Our Catholic faith was never intended to be so complicated. This has not been good and thus the times we live in.

JMJ,

Your friend

George

Mrayan wrote:
Columba, your insufferable arrogance, as usual, is on full display. But, since you felt the need not only to lecture Fr. Kenny on his imaginary problem with nature and grace, but then tried to smear him by associating him with Fr. Rahner, whose own work in this area has influenced (as noted) the current theological development (ooooh, bad!), I am compelled to provide a short synthesis of Rahner's own system where he relies heavily "on the Thomistic notion of obediential potency", and let you lecture Fr. Rahner as well. I mean, after summarily dismissing the Angelic Doctor (getouttahere!), Rahner doesn't stand a chance against your penetrating analysis. I've never seen anything like it; sheer intuitive arm-chair genius!

Thanks Mike for the oportunity to say a little more on Rahner's Philosophy cum "theology," but whether I like it or not, his existentialistic, man-centered gospel has won the day as far as the present goes; the fruits alone of which are enough to discredit it without further analysis.

[I]n grace, that is, in the self-communication of God’s Holy Spirit, the event of immediacy to God as man’s fulfillment is prepared for in such a way that we must say of man here and now that he participates in God’s being; that he has been given the divine Spirit who fathoms the depths of God; that he is already God’s son here and now, and what he already is must only become manifest. (FCF, 120) (http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/rahner.htm)

This grace of course (under the Rahner system) is possessed by all humanity, making all humanity "sons of God" regardless whether they accept grace or not, regardless of Baptism, and, to add to the confussion, he speaks of grace without any distinctions being made. (Bad and all as you say my theology is, I'm light years ahead of Rahner at least in my ability to make distinctions. He too should have read the CE).

It's not really that he doesn't know the distintions; he'd rather speak in such a way that he can purposely blur those distinctions and convince the unwary listener that this is all common knowledge stuff albeit understood in a new way. He should have been in marketing; that was his true calling in life.

It's hard to believe, but there are some "not so unwary" Rahner pupils who throw all caution to the wind in their eagerness to embrace this "theology." One word could some it all up... Assisi.

Mryan wrote:
Anyone can knee-jerk, but it takes some effort to distinguish and unpack dense theological ideas, some more worthy of consideration than others.

I suggest that it ain't only the theological ideas that are dense.

If you had read the ITC report, you would have found some of the same ideas presented in an orthodox fashion, which was my only point in giving one example of where some of the development may have come from, without suggesting for a moment that the Church has embraced Rahner's entire theological system carte blanche.

The ITC and I have become estranged in recent years; which is sad, because I could have lent them my copy of the Summa Theologica. They are the international equivalent of the British Milk Marketing Board (now under a new name) -the body that conned the dairy farmers of Britain to give up their traditional ideas on farming -for their own good of course- and submit to the new european standards of health and safety.

Nah, they haven't embraced Rahner's entire theological system carte blanche; they merely remarketed it as the "New, Improved" version.

columba wrote:

The ITC and I have become estranged in recent years; which is sad, because I could have lent them my copy of the Summa Theologica.

Ha!

Yes, please do lend them your copy of the Summa Theologica, the one in which you deleted the sections on sanctifying grace in the souls of the OT just; on the sanctification of the child in the woods who (since the promulgation of the Gospel), upon reaching the age of reason turns his mind to God and is sanctified in grace without water baptism; and of course, make sure you include the deleted sections on the various kinds of Baptism such as baptism of blood, baptism of desire (or “the baptism of Repentance”) and the comparisons between various Baptisms.

Yes, you do that, I’m sure the ITC will be most impressed with the humility and scholarship of one like yourself.

Please also tell them what a bunch of modernist twits they are for having "re-marketed" the entire modernist agenda of Rahner, et al.

Please also tell them that the Catholic Church has revealed (or at least made infallibly "definitive”) that non-Baptized infants CANNOT be saved and our Lord will NOT allow Himself to do any such thing. There is no HOPE! And this infallible TRUTH comes on the same authority as the person who took his scissors to the Summa, who said that justification and the remission of sins can exist without sanctifying grace, and that the baptisms of blood and desire are heretical.

Now, that’s some kind of authority!

And while you are at it, you can tell them that you are in communion with the Pope, well, but then again, maybe not.

They might take you about as seriously as I do!

Mike,

It is interesting that you, and especially, any theologian on the ITC, can have any sympathies with the late Father Karl Rahner, who, like, many of his modernist counterparts, denied, at least implicitly, the bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/chap2.html

It's not a long article, and I suggest that you read it all. Here are some highlights:

I must confess that, prior to investigating the resurrection for myself, I had not considered the possibility that one could deny the material nature of Jesus' resurrection yet still be a Christian. However, since beginning my investigation, I have become acquainted with several scholars (Küng, Rahner, Borg, et al) who deny (or at least do not feel they must affirm) the material nature of Jesus' resurrection, but claim to be Christians. A careful description and consideration of their views is therefore in order.

First, non-materialists emphasize that the resurrection was not a historical event. As Borg writes, "Speaking as a Christian, I regard these stories not as straightforward events that you could capture on video" (Ibid., p. 49.). The Jesuit Karl Rahner once wrote, "it is obvious that the resurrection of Jesus neither can be nor intends to be a `historical' event" (p. 277). Hans Küng makes essentially the same point, but in greater detail (p. 349-350):

The second important feature of non-materialists is that they do not think Jesus' resurrected body is the same body. Küng (p. 351) argues that there is "no continuity of the body: questions of natural science, like that of the persistence of molecules, do not arise." Likewise, they do not necessarily consider the resurrection body a material body. Rahner once said, "We miss the meaning of `resurrection' in general and also of the resurrection of Jesus to begin with if our original preconception is the notion of a resuscitation of a physical, material body" (p. 266). And Borg writes, "Resurrection could, but need not mean that the corpse had been affected; a corpse coming to life is not the point" (p. 15, emphasis added). This distinction is also significant because it is hardly ever even considered by skeptics who argue about the resurrection. As we will see in chapter 4, both sides tacitly assume that resurrection involves a material body, which is interesting when scholars like Borg claim that "the point" does not depend on the the raising of a corpse. (Of course, materialists would respond that "the point" may depend on the raising of a corpse.) But more about that later.

If the resurrection body need not be material, then what do non-materialists make of the empty tomb? They clearly do not regard it as necessary for Easter faith. For example, the Late Revd Dr. David Walker wrote that, "The corporality of the resurrection does not require the tomb to be empty" (p.173). Rahner says, "An empty tomb as such and by itself can never testify to the meaning and to the existence of a resurrection" (p. 267). Küng argues that if the empty tomb story is true, "faith in the risen Christ would not be made any easier and for some people today it would even become more difficult" (p. 365). Conversely, if the empty tomb story is unhistorical, that in no way would discredit the resurrection. As Walker states (Ibid.), "It is quite possible to affirm unambiguously that Christ rose from the dead while either denying the historicity of the empty tomb or being agnostic about the precise connection between it and Jesus' `rising.'"

In your opinion, Mike, what happened to Jesus' corpse on Easter morning?

Mrayan wrote:
Yes, please do lend them your copy of the Summa Theologica, the one in which you deleted the sections on sanctifying grace in the souls of the OT just;

"For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist. But he that is the lesser in the kingdom of God, is greater than he." (Luke 7:28)

The Kingdom of God on earth is the Church. There was no Church until Christ founded it. The just of the OT therefore could not have entered a Church that didn't exist and membership of the Curch is abosolutely essential for salvation. The just of the OT are of course now in the Church; the Church Triumphant. Christ made known the only means by which one enters the Church and this prescribed means would not have been withheld from the OT saints. However, they could not have gained entry until the Church came into existence. There are only Catholics in heaven. Isn't that correct?

Mryan wrote:
...on the sanctification of the child in the woods who (since the promulgation of the Gospel), upon reaching the age of reason turns his mind to God and is sanctified in grace without water baptism;

The child in the woods requires Baptism just like everyone else. Without Baptism the child cannot be sanctified. Dogma of the Faith.

Mryan wrote:
and of course, make sure you include the deleted sections on the various kinds of Baptism such as baptism of blood, baptism of desire (or “the baptism of Repentance”) and the comparisons between various Baptisms.

Various kinds of Baptism?... I acknowledge one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
How can there be a comparison between various Baptisms when there is (the last time I checked), only one.

Yes, you do that, I’m sure the ITC will be most impressed with the humility and scholarship of one like yourself.

I couldn't care less what the ITC thinks of me. When the saints can't impress them there's poor chance of me gaining their respect. In fact I'd be a bit worried if they were impressed; after all, the humility it must take to overrule the teachings of the Church and transform it (or sholud I say "her.") (I believe they finally got round to correcting this in the new NO missal) from a militia, to a bunch of spineless yes-men, groveling after every crumb of human respect they can get, and all to the delight of the Church's enemies (and we all know who they are) who manipulate them at will and can now actually make use of them in the advancement of their own evil agenda. Wonder what hermeneutic that comes under.

And speaking of hermeneutics; What they're really lacking is a well placed steel-toe-capped boot up the derriere ; they could call it the hermeneutic of the hemorrhoidal hemorrhage.

Please also tell them what a bunch of modernist twits they are for having "re-marketed" the entire modernist agenda of Rahner, et al.

No point. They've been told by countless holy men from the time of Archbishop Lefebvre to the present. Not only will they not listen, they won't even discuss it. The best chance I'd have would be to disguise myself as a rabbi.

Please also tell them that the Catholic Church has revealed (or at least made infallibly "definitive”) that non-Baptized infants CANNOT be saved and our Lord will NOT allow Himself to do any such thing. There is no HOPE! And this infallible TRUTH comes on the same authority as the person who took his scissors to the Summa, who said that justification and the remission of sins can exist without sanctifying grace, and that the baptisms of blood and desire are heretical.

There is hope! The Lord will baptize those who will be saved for He is true to His word. As to justification, the remission of sins and sanctifying grace; these are mysteries and not yet fully determined as to how they are applied. We know for an infalible certainty though that it ain't the way Karl Rahner says it is.

And while you are at it, you can tell them that you are in communion with the Pope, well, but then again, maybe not.

I'm in communion with the infallible teachings of the Church? What other kind of communion is necessary, for Isn't the Pope also in communion with all the other popes who were in communion with the infallible teachings of the Church? Well, isn't he?

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE ROMAN CURIA
OFFERING THEM HIS CHRISTMAS GREETINGS
Thursday, 22 December 2005



The last event of this year on which I wish to reflect here is the celebration of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council 40 years ago. This memory prompts the question: What has been the result of the Council? Was it well received? What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken? What still remains to be done? No one can deny that in vast areas of the Church the implementation of the Council has been somewhat difficult, even without wishing to apply to what occurred in these years the description that St Basil, the great Doctor of the Church, made of the Church's situation after the Council of Nicea: he compares her situation to a naval battle in the darkness of the storm, saying among other things: "The raucous shouting of those who through disagreement rise up against one another, the incomprehensible chatter, the confused din of uninterrupted clamouring, has now filled almost the whole of the Church, falsifying through excess or failure the right doctrine of the faith..." (De Spiritu Sancto, XXX, 77; PG 32, 213 A; SCh 17 ff., p. 524).
We do not want to apply precisely this dramatic description to the situation of the post-conciliar period, yet something from all that occurred is nevertheless reflected in it. The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?
Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or - as we would say today - on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.
On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.
The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.
These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the true spirit of the Council and its newness, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the Council's deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague.
In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.
The nature of a Council as such is therefore basically misunderstood. In this way, it is considered as a sort of constituent that eliminates an old constitution and creates a new one. However, the Constituent Assembly needs a mandator and then confirmation by the mandator, in other words, the people the constitution must serve. The Fathers had no such mandate and no one had ever given them one; nor could anyone have given them one because the essential constitution of the Church comes from the Lord and was given to us so that we might attain eternal life and, starting from this perspective, be able to illuminate life in time and time itself.
Through the Sacrament they have received, Bishops are stewards of the Lord's gift. They are "stewards of the mysteries of God" (I Cor 4: 1); as such, they must be found to be "faithful" and "wise" (cf. Lk 12: 41-48). This requires them to administer the Lord's gift in the right way, so that it is not left concealed in some hiding place but bears fruit, and the Lord may end by saying to the administrator: "Since you were dependable in a small matter I will put you in charge of larger affairs" (cf. Mt 25: 14-30; Lk 19: 11-27).
These Gospel parables express the dynamic of fidelity required in the Lord's service; and through them it becomes clear that, as in a Council, the dynamic and fidelity must converge.
The hermeneutic of discontinuity is countered by the hermeneutic of reform, as it was presented first by Pope John XXIII in his Speech inaugurating the Council on 11 October 1962 and later by Pope Paul VI in his Discourse for the Council's conclusion on 7 December 1965.
Here I shall cite only John XXIII's well-known words, which unequivocally express this hermeneutic when he says that the Council wishes "to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion". And he continues: "Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us...". It is necessary that "adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness..." be presented in "faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another...", retaining the same meaning and message (The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., p. 715).
It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.

Jehanne wrote:
Mike,

It is interesting that you, and especially, any theologian on the ITC, can have any sympathies with the late Father Karl Rahner, who, like, many of his modernist counterparts, denied, at least implicitly, the bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ: ...

You know, Jehanne, you are a real piece of work. Never once did I call you out for your “sympathies with the late Father Karl Rahner” (other than suggesting that you could condemn his work and praise it in the same breadth - when it suits you) when you repeatedly told us of his “honest” scholarship when he wrote, against the opinion of Aquinas and the great Doctors, that St. Augustine had actually reversed and rejected his long-standing opinion on baptism of desire.

Rather than playing the guilt-by-association game whereby it is alleged that anyone who cites Karl Rahner must have sympathies with his rather unorthodox views on original sin, the materially of the Resurrection, the Eucharist and Mariology, I challenged his thesis on Augustine directly by not only citing the Doctors and theologians who were every bit as familiar with Augustine’s work as Rahner (you think?), but also by examining Augustine’s actual subject writing (especially on predestination), its specific context, and finally, his polemical style that would often exaggerate a certain point for effect if only to demonstrate the inherent flaw in the argument of his protagonist.

For example, when Augustine wrote “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’", to understand what he is saying (and not saying) one must first identify who he is addressing and why; and also realize that it does NOT logically follow that he believed every one of the elect is predestined to water baptism, especially given the mountain of evidence for his longstanding views on the baptisms of blood and desire, on the primacy of “circumcision of the heart” over material incorporation, and his traditional teaching that God is not bound by his sacraments to effect the same end.

In fact, to allege that Augustine simply jettisoned all of his previous teachings is to allege that he jettisoned his entire system on grace.

But there you are, extolling the “honest” scholarship of “the liberal Karl Rahner” as you berate me for daring to suggest that the ITC’s and the Church’s doctrine on “hope” for unbaptized infants is based in part on such clearly Thomistic themes as “obediential potency" that is found both in “Reflections on Human Nature and the Supernatural” by J. P. Kenny, S.J (who is “sympathetic” to Rahner) and in the voluminous works of Karl Rahner, who may have taken this orthodox theme a bit too far in his own doctrine, though the ITC report certainly did not.

This same theme that recognizes in unregenerate man a certain salvific orientation towards the efficacy of the Redemption is also stated as, “For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man.” And, whenever such truths and theological themes are presented (found especially in the works of the Eastern Fathers); the knee-jerk arm-chair theologians go into attack mode by accusing JPII and the Church of teaching “universal salvation”. After all, Karl Rahner, whose “creative, challenging and non-traditional approach to theology often got him into trouble with the authorities”, was a major influence at VCII:

John XXIII appointed Rahner a peritus (expert advisor) to the Second Vatican Council. Rahner had complete access to the council and numerous opportunities to share his thought. Rahner’s influence at Vatican II was widespread. He was chosen as one of seven theologians who would develop Lumen Gentium, the dogmatic explication of the doctrine of the Church, and he had input to many of the other conciliar presentations as well. The council’s openness to other religious traditions can be linked to Rahner’s notions of the renovation of the church, God’s universal salvific revelation and his desire to support and encourage the ecumenical movement. According to Vorgrimler, it is not hard to trace Rahner’s influence on the work of the Council (with the exception, however, of four texts: the Decree On the Means of Social Communication, the Decree On the Catholic Eastern Churches, the Declaration on Christian education, and the Declaration on Religious Liberty) (Vorgrimler 1986, 100). (http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/rahner.htm)

Well, there you go, why don’t you and columba simply declare that the See is vacant, that the “Novus Ordo Church” has apostatized and it is being run by “honest” liberals in the mold of Karl Rahner.

Isn’t that how the game is played?

Ah, but such distinctions are lost on the likes of you and columba, so I refuse to answer your questions on Rahner’s theology that have nothing to do with the present subject.

I’m not going to play your game, and I resent your insinuations while noting your self-serving hypocrisy.

Don’t ever cite Rahner again in defense of your novel theories.

Mike,

It's one thing to cite a scholar as a historian; it's quite another to cite that scholar as a theologian. I hope that you can see the difference -- Rahner was a thorough, high-quality historian but he was also a modernist theologian. Even the ITC report, per Brother Andre, gave a good summary of the Church's teachings throughout the ages:

One very good thing about the ITC’s document is that its study of scriptural, patristic, and magisterial sources provides abundant proof for the conclusion that unbaptized infants do not partake of the Beatific Vision. Few defenders of the orthodox position could have put the case better. Only in its last few pages, where modern theologians suddenly took precedence over these much weightier authorities, do we find a false optimism concerning the unbaptized. It is not disrespectful to write this way of “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized,” The document, as I said, has no magisterial authority.

http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-141.html

However, the ITC did miss some things:

Is Benedict XVI aware of the above documents from Catholic tradition ruling out that “hope” which the new Catechism permits? If he has trusted and depended on theological advice like that given him by the International Theological Commission, probably not. For, astonishingly, not one of the five statements mentioned in the previous paragraph is referred to in the ITC’s thirty-eight-page study. While the natural happiness of limbo was and is only a hypothesis, that is the case only because the Church never condemned St. Augustine’s alternative hypothesis (revived by some Catholic theologians as recently as the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) that unbaptized infants suffer, albeit very mildly, in hell. Both permissible hypotheses excluded them eternally from heaven. The Church traditionally taught that exclusion as doctrine, not mere opinion.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/04/correspondence

In my opinion, the ITC's report gets a B+ in terms of history; C- in terms of doctrine.

Once again, consider the following:

Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 464)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:

“26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1526)

The sensus fidelium of all of the entire Catholic Church, both East & West, for centuries on end was that there were at least some individuals (e.g. infants, mentally retarded, etc.) who ended this life "in original sin alone," and as such, were forever excluded from Heaven, the Beatific Vision. His Excellency, Bishop Williamson, summed-up the modernist heresy very nicely (courtesy of you):

Thus Rahner, by starting from modern man’s wonderful feeling about himself, has arrived immediately at those two major heresies of which Donoso Cortés said that they lie at the root of nearly all modern heresies: the denial of the supernatural and the denial of original sin. Now as a Catholic priest and theologian, Rahner could not come clean with such an overthrow of basic Catholic truth. Here, says McCarthy, is the explanation of Rahner’s al-most impenetrable obscurity, and his invention of phrases like “supernatural existential”. However, what is obscure in the master is made clear by the disciples. Similarly Vatican II could not come clean with its overthrow of the old religion, because it had to pretend to be still Catholic, but that overthrow which is ambiguous in the Council’s 16 documents is clear for all to see in the Council’s fruits.

http://www.sspxseminary.org/publications/rectors-letters-separator/rectors-letter/287.html

columba wrote:

The child in the woods requires Baptism just like everyone else. Without Baptism the child cannot be sanctified. Dogma of the Faith.

Unbelievable. The “heresy” of Aquinas and the entire Church stands formally condemned by the so-called “dogma” as it is professed by the true arbiter of truth and tradition.

This from the same heretic who said that the merits (“the justice”) of Christ’s Passion were applied to the justified saints of the old dispensation for the remission of sins “to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them”, a heresy which was formally condemned by Trent, Session XI, Canon XI.

Columba thinks he can get around this formal anathema by claiming that a future claim to sanctifying grace that can only be realized with the Ascension of our Lord and sacramental ablution, yet he still allows for the application of the future merits of our Lord’s Passion for the forgiveness of sins – even (until the Ascension) “to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them”.

Heresy, we know thy name. It is sanctifying grace that drives out sin by the justice of Christ, and anyone who says that the remission of sins can be effected by the merits and justice of Christ “to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them” is condemned by the Church, anathema sit.

MRyan wrote:
..t is alleged that anyone who cites Karl Rahner must have sympathies with his rather unorthodox views on original sin, the materially of the Resurrection, the Eucharist and Mariology, I challenged his thesis on Augustine directly by not only citing the Doctors and theologians who were every bit as familiar with Augustine’s work as Rahner,

This is extremely amusing, that the person who wrote the above concerning a "theologian" who had great influence over a council and who's "theology" aided the progress of the modernist agenda that set the Church into auto-destruction mode, describes these heresies of Rahner as "rather unorthodox;" Yet without batting an eyelid he writes concerning a certain poster on a forum (whom he reminds ad nauseum) that he is no theologian and has no business discussing matters of theology with anyone:

]This from the same heretic who said that the merits (“the justice”) of Christ’s Passion were applied to the justified saints of the old dispensation for the remission of sins “to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them”, a heresy which was formally condemned by Trent, Session XI, Canon XI.

I'm highlighting this, not because I'm offended in any way, but rather to put on display the hypocracy of one who projects onto others the same defect that he himself is oblivious to in his own rantings. Mike, try taking the Amazon Rain Forest out of your own eye before taking the splinter out of your neighbor's.

MRyan wrote:
Heresy, we know thy name. It is sanctifying grace that drives out sin by the justice of Christ, and anyone who says that the remission of sins can be effected by the merits and justice of Christ “to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them” is condemned by the Church, anathema sit.

Mike, your own theology is found wanting. You do not understand the meaning of the canon you are quoting. Sanctifying grace does not drive out sin and nowhere is this alluded to in the cannon. Sincere repentance drives out sin which in turn is accompanied by grace poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost. The initial grace offered to excite repentance is not called sanctifying grace and the grace accompanying repentance isn't mentioned as being sanctifying grace. You read it your way, I read it my way; which is actually consistent with all the other canons.

Anyway gota split for now. duty calls.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

It's one thing to cite a scholar as a historian; it's quite another to cite that scholar as a theologian. I hope that you can see the difference -- Rahner was a thorough, high-quality historian but he was also a modernist theologian. Even the ITC report, per Brother Andre, gave a good summary of the Church's teachings throughout the ages:].

I can see the “difference” just fine, and you are making a distinction without a difference, for I am making the same claim to the historical scholarship of Karl Rahner who recognizes, in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Eastern Fathers and in partiucalar, Pope “Pius XII”, who

vigorously brought this to the consciousness of the Church by explaining that one destroys the gratuity of the supernatural order if one asserts that God could not create intelligent beings without ordaining and calling them to the Beatific Vision.[Humani Generis] The goodness and justice of God do not imply that grace is necessarily or “automatically” given. Among theologians, then, reflection on the destiny of unbaptised infants involved from that time onwards a renewed consideration of the absolute gratuity of grace, and of the ordination of all human beings to Christ and to the redemption that he won for us.

To demonstrate the historical veracity of this “orientation”, I cited “Reflections on Human Nature and the Supernatural” by J. P. Kenny, S.J, whose own work was influenced by Karl Rahner who actually “relies heavily on the Thomistic notion of obediential potency, which becomes the condition—or better, a remainder concept (Restbegriff)—in the human existential constitution”.

So, far from advocating the “theology” of Karl Rahner, I was adding and pointing out his scholastic testimony as to the historical veracity of this divine obediential potency or “the ordination of all human beings to Christ and to the redemption that he won for us”, after all, “For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man.”

I reject your specious guilt-by-proximity accusations and your false distinctions, for I am referring simply to Rahner’s historical accuracy in verifying the truth of the ITC’s reference to the theological themes that are present in the works of the Fathers (especially the Eastern Fathers), Aquinas and Pope Pius XII, all of which spurred “a renewed consideration of the absolute gratuity of grace, and of the ordination of all human beings to Christ and to the redemption that he won for us.”

Take your Bishop Williamson stuff elsewhere, I really don’t care, for if you want to “prove” that Rahner denied “the supernatural and … of original sin”, go right ahead, but don’t even think for a minute that I am going to let you imply some guit-by association nonsense.

You set off on these false tangents, and you shall not be dissuaded, no matter how inane, how fallacious and no matter how totally irrelevant it is to anything I am posting. But it sure makes your feel good, or something.

Knock it off, Jehanne, I am getting weary of having to respond to your vacuous attempts at argumentation.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
..t is alleged that anyone who cites Karl Rahner must have sympathies with his rather unorthodox views on original sin, the materially of the Resurrection, the Eucharist and Mariology, I challenged his thesis on Augustine directly by not only citing the Doctors and theologians who were every bit as familiar with Augustine’s work as Rahner,

This is extremely amusing, that the person who wrote the above concerning a "theologian" who had great influence over a council and who's "theology" aided the progress of the modernist agenda that set the Church into auto-destruction mode, describes these heresies of Rahner as "rather unorthodox;"

Columba, you have already accused St. Thomas Aquinas and the Doctors, the universal moral consensus of the theologians and the Catholic Church herself of heresy for denying a formally revealed dogma of the Church, and you think that you can accuse me of some “hypocrisy” because I can level the charge of heresy against you while calling the dense theology of Rahner “rather unorthodox”?

The Church has never accused Rahner of heresy, though he fell, for a time, “under Roman pre-censorship, which meant that he could not publish or lecture without prior permission. The basic objections of the Roman authorities focused, essentially, on Rahner’s views on the Eucharist and Mariology.” This is not to say that some of his views were not heterodox, but only that he has never been accused by the Church of heresy; and if he had been, he would have been given the opportunity to defend his more unorthodox theology against his accusers.

In similar fashion, we remember the uproar from certain traditionalist circles when Archbishop Gerhard Müller was appointed as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, where in typical knee-jerk fashion (speaking for the common consensus of raddie-traddies) an article by “A Concerned Catholic Priest” appeared in one of the leading “We Resist You to Your Face” publications with the headline, “New Head of CDF Dissents from Certain Doctrines of Faith?”, where in dire apocalyptic terms the article lead off with:

The unthinkable happened at noon today. It appears we now have a Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Müller who himself publicly dissents from certain Doctrines of the Faith. He does not believe in Our Lady's Virginity in partu, contrary to the teaching of Vatican II (Lumen Gentium: 57 and the Popes, Councils and Doctors cited in support of that doctrine in the accompanying footnote 10). Müller's reduction of this de fide physical miracle to a generic statement about the influence of "grace . . . on human nature" is the classic demythologizing tactic.

Of course, there were and there remain numerous problems with such serious allegations, and as Archbishop Gerhard Müller became aware of the false accusations, he addressed them in more than one interview where he said they were unfounded. Dr. Jeffrey Mirus provides some insight, here: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=983

The difference is that unlike Rahner, the Prefect for the CDF is the Pope’s right hand man for the protection and the propagation of the true doctrines of the faith, so the prospect of the Pope having appointed a heretic to such an important position is actually quite ludicrous.

In fact, I agree with the new Prefect of the CDF when he labeled the accusation of the false traditionalists, who accuse the Second Vatican Council of teaching doctrinal error, as “heretical” when,

With respect to the Second Vatican Council itself, Archbishop Müller has insisted that “the Church cannot, on the doctrinal level, contradict herself—that is impossible. Any perceived contradiction is caused by a false interpretation.” In November, he went farther and called such interpretations “heretical”. Just last month he emphasized again the need to distinguish “between the true teaching…and specific abuses that occurred after the Council, but which are not founded in the Council’s documents.” (Ibid)

As the Church has not condemned Fr. Rahner, nor shall I, except to say that some of his theories have the odor of heresy.

However, your heresy is not implied, it is quite explicit. The difference is I was able to ask you to clarify and defend your “rather unorthodox views” on the remission of sins by virtue of the merits of Christ who was to come; the very same merits that were efficacious for the forgiveness of sins but NOT, as you allege, for the sanctification of these same justified OT saints who would not be sanctified until the Ascension and, as you also surmise, until they received water baptism.

You have solidified for me that your heresy is real, it is manifest, and as far as I am concerned, it is obstinate. Only the Church, the very Church that you consider to be a heretical institution of human heretical design, can make such formal determinations, but I am under no such constraint to call you out and to warn others. I wouldn’t let you near my CCD class of 8th graders (not that you would have the opportunity) – and I have every right to denounce your heresy.

I also believe that your “rather unorthodox view” that says justification cannot exist without sacramental ablution is a heresy against the Council of Trent, Session 6, Ch. 4, as it has always been understood by the Church and by a universal consensus of theologians, “as it is written”. When Fr. Marin Solà wrote that “Certain heretics have affirmed that ‘no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water’”, guess who he was referring to?

And when Baius was formally condemned by the Church for teaching that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins, guess who else is being condemned?

columba wrote:
Yet without batting an eyelid he writes concerning a certain poster on a forum (whom he reminds ad nauseum) that [anyone who did what “you did with Aquinas” on the baptism of blood and desire, and the universal moral consensus of theologians on Trent, Sess. 6, Ch. 4] is no theologian and has no business discussing matters of theology with anyone:

Yes, indeed, and I stand by that statement. Your arrogant incompetence in things theological is the stuff of legend.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
This from the same heretic who said that the merits (“the justice”) of Christ’s Passion were applied to the justified saints of the old dispensation for the remission of sins “to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them”, a heresy which was formally condemned by Trent, Session XI, Canon XI.

I'm highlighting this, not because I'm offended in any way, but rather to put on display the hypocracy of one who projects onto others the same defect that he himself is oblivious to in his own rantings. Mike, try taking the Amazon Rain Forest out of your own eye before taking the splinter out of your neighbor's.

I am not oblivious to heresy, such as yours, when it is explained over and over again in explicit detail, rather than being strongly implied.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Heresy, we know thy name. It is sanctifying grace that drives out sin by the justice of Christ, and anyone who says that the remission of sins can be effected by the merits and justice of Christ “to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them” is condemned by the Church, anathema sit.

Mike, your own theology is found wanting. You do not understand the meaning of the canon you are quoting. Sanctifying grace does not drive out sin and nowhere is this alluded to in the cannon. Sincere repentance drives out sin which in turn is accompanied by grace poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost. The initial grace offered to excite repentance is not called sanctifying grace and the grace accompanying repentance isn't mentioned as being sanctifying grace. You read it your way, I read it my way; which is actually consistent with all the other canons.

Columba, you cannot even defend your own heterodoxy without falling right back into the quagmire of heresy.

If “repentance drives out sin which in turn is accompanied by grace poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost”, we must first qualify this by saying repentance can drive nothing out except by entreaty (a response in faith and charity that our Lord cannot resist, who in turn responds with the grace of justification and indwelling). Second, sin cannot be driven out in the impious without the application of the merits of Christ.

Third, it is absolutely correct to say that “The initial grace offered to excite repentance is not called sanctifying grace”, for it is in fact called “prevenient” or assisting grace. However, you are actually suggesting that after the penitent has been excited to repentance by prevenient grace, and the future merits or justice of Christ have been applied to his soul for the remission of sins, “the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them” is not sanctifying grace and the grace of charity, it is another dose of the same assisting or prevenient grace that is not inherent in them (as is habitual sanctifying grace), but only “prepares” the justified soul for the future transmission of sanctifying grace, even though his sins have been remitted and his non-sanctifying “justice” is allegedly derived from the future merits of Christ.

And you say this with a straight face.

Incredibly, columba, you actually argue that when Trent dogmatically declared that “those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated” are those who “receive the benefit of His death” and “there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just” by “the Father” who “hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins”; the “grace whereby they are made just …” by “the Father in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins” is NOT always sanctifying grace; for the OT just, it was prevenient or assisting grace that was poured forth into their hearts for the remission of sins, and would prepare them for the sanctification that was to come.

The just who were not just.

So the “justice of the OT saints whereby “the Holy Ghost resided by grace” in the “Souls of the Just” who were “numbered among the children of God” in that “their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”, which is defined by Trent as “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”, is NOT, you say, the state of sanctifying grace that Pope Leo XIII was referring to when he taught “the just man” is “he who lives the life of divine grace”.

Oh no, says Columba, the “just man” of the OT, upon receiving the remission of sins by the transmission of the merits of Christ who was to come, is “he who lives the life of divine [assisting] grace” in order that he be prepared to receive the actual “life of divine grace” upon the Ascension and the reception of actual sacramental ablution.

And I am the one who does “not understand the meaning of” Canon XI of the Council of Trent which condemns anyone who says the remission of sins can be effected by the merits and justice of Christ “to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them”.

According to columba, not only does this canon NOT suggest that “the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them” is sanctifying grace and supernatural charity, neither does this canon suggest that a state of grace must be concurrent with the remission of sins, let alone drive out sins.

Columba’s doctrine is thoroughly and unapologetically Protestant.

Justification and Sanctification are one

The Council of Trent helped to clarify and reinforce the Church’s doctrine of justification, by focusing on sanctification as part of justification. The Council’s decrees laid to rest the heretical doctrines of the Protestant Reformers by insisting that justification of the believer is not a forensic declaration of a person’s righteousness, but an actual interior purification of the soul. Justification truly makes the soul just through grace. Thus the sanctification of the soul is a necessary part of justification. Sin is not covered or concealed, but is literally cleansed away by purification of sanctifying grace. Justification consists of one act of God that includes forgiveness of sin and sanctification of the soul. Thus a justified person is truly made pleasing to God. (http://www.saintaquinas.com/Justification_by_Grace.html)

Furthermore,

God does not only look at the outside of man; He looks at the heart, and is related to man according to the condition of the man’s heart. If a man has sanctifying grace and agape in his soul, then his relation with God is one of friendship and he is justified, and the God who cannot lie cannot claim that he is unjust. But if a man does not have sanctifying grace and agape, then he is not a friend of God, and the God who cannot lie cannot say that he is just, without first making him just in his soul. (http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/aquinas-and-trent-part-7/)

Neither Trent nor Pope Leo XIII (in Divinum Illud Munus) used the term “sanctifying grace”, therefore, you allege, you are free to hold that the grace of justification is not always sanctifying grace, it may be prevenient or assisting grace.

And you say this with a straight face, and would be playing us for fools if anyone would actually believe such heretical nonsense.

This is still going on? It will forever keep going.

This may seem unrelated, but I think it might be. Did anyone of you see that Alex Jones vs. Piers Morgan showdown on CNN? Many people thought Alex made a fool of the right cause. Others think he performed as required for the situation. I'm split, and tend to side with the hothead tactic of Alex, even though many think he's just a shill or he'd never have been let on to speak his mind.

Does this all sound really strange? I sure hope so. At any rate, the way I figure it, Alex decided that the time for dialogue was over, and he was going to move to take things outside, so to speak, which is initially instigated with words. He basically didn't let Piers speak, he didn't dialogue, he just let Piers know that the dialogue was over.

Maybe you should all do that, but without taking it on outside. Maybe the real intelligence here is to figure out that the "dialogue" ain't working and it is time to let it go. Hell, hasn't the Church just learned this the hard way for over forty years?

As for me, and I approve this message, sometimes waving the bird and getting on with your life is actually a spiritually viable solution. This issue of No Salvation Outside the Church, I've got it wrapped up. I can handle anyone on it. But the whole point of it was really just fidelity to Christ, defense of a divine marriage between Christ and the Church. The rest of that spiritual marriage is quite personal.

Just an opinion, but I suggest everyone wrap it up. Cease fire, agree that you'll never be at terms, and go pray and do daily duty and love people by serving them. It was the traditional no-brainer path of all the saints.

And no, the Catholic Faith won't be helped or hindered if you win or fail at your arguments. Frankly, no one cares.

pascendi wrote:
And no, the Catholic Faith won't be helped or hindered if you win or fail at your arguments. Frankly, no one cares.

That's right, no one cares about the truth and none of this matters for it is all about "winning" one's argument. Isn't that right?

That you don't care is entirely irrelevant. The truth matters and the doctrines of the Church are not disposable play things to be discarded at will by laymen who think they are smarter than the Church and all of her Doctors.

columba wrote:

Sincere repentance drives out sin which in turn is accompanied by grace poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost … the grace accompanying repentance [and the remission of sins] isn't mentioned as being sanctifying grace. You read it your way, I read it my way; which is actually consistent with all the other canons.

Again, according to columba, the divine grace (the efficacy of the merits of Christ) by which, as Pope Leo XIII teaches, the Holy Ghost resides and indwells in the justified saints of the OT (“the just man, that is to say he who lives the life of divine grace”), that accompanies the remission of sins was NOT sanctifying grace.

And, when Canon XI of the Sixth session of Trent condemned anyone who said “that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them”, the grace that was poured forth and was inherent in the souls of the OT just was the prevenient grace of assistance that prepares one for the (sanctifying) “grace and the [supernatural] charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them”, which is poured forth, according to columba, solely through the sacrament of Baptism.

So tell us, columba, if the justifying grace that was inherent in the souls of the OT saints was prevenient or assisting grace, what was this non-supernatural species of charity that “was poured forth in their hearts and is inherent in them”, since it was obviously not the justice or charity of Christ?

What does your private "I read it my way" interpretation tell us?

Would you like to hear what the "private reading" of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Doctors tells us? No? Well, pardon me:

Forasmuch as someone’s heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood, one receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost. (ST, III, Q.66 A.11).

No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit: and by faith in Christ man belongs to the New Testament. Consequently whoever had the law of grace instilled into them belonged to the New Testament. (ST, I-II, Q.106, A.1, ad 3)

Now the effect of the Divine love in us, which is taken away by sin, is grace, whereby a man is made worthy of eternal life, from which sin shuts him out. Hence we could not conceive the remission of guilt, without the infusion of grace. (ST, I-II, Q.113, A.2)

I answer that, There are four things which are accounted to be necessary for the justification of the ungodly, viz. the infusion of grace, the movement of the free-will towards God by faith, the movement of the free-will towards sin, and the remission of sins. The reason for this is that, as stated above (Article 1), the justification of the ungodly is a movement whereby the soul is moved by God from a state of sin to a state of justice. (ST, I-II, Q.113, A.6)

The justification of the ungodly is caused by the justifying grace of the Holy Spirit. Now the Holy Spirit comes to men's minds suddenly, according to Acts 2:2: "And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a mighty wind coming," upon which the gloss says that "the grace of the Holy Ghost knows no tardy efforts." Hence the justification of the ungodly is not successive, but instantaneous.

I answer that, The entire justification of the ungodly consists as to its origin in the infusion of grace. For it is by grace that free-will is moved and sin is remitted. Now the infusion of grace takes place in an instant and without succession.” (ST, I-II, Q.113, A.7)

Pascendi wrote:
This is still going on? It will forever keep going.

hehe.. It's groundhog day every day here.

Likewise in politics; it's been groundhog day for decades. Here in Ireland we have many of the same politicians holding office who were holding office 30 years ago. When they finally die or retire, they're replacements are clones of their predecessors and groundhog day continues unabated; yet people still vote.. Amazing.

In the USA, the same can be said except for the faces changing more regularly. but still there are faces always there in the background that never change, like Rumsfeld and Cheney to name but two; the steering committi.

People do eventually wake up but usually not before some major catastrophe has hit which can't be explained without acknowledgeing the involvement of their trusted leadership. As a result, people now take heed to the Alex Jones' of this world where previously they would have laughed him out of town.

The equivalent spiritual catastrophe initiated by VCII has called into question the reliability of the leadership of that council and its current die-hard adherents, who allowed such a catastrophe to occur and continue to occur. Nothing like a whole family loosing the faith (despite the efforts of parents to teach it) to sound the wake up call, many of whom who are sounding the call being victims themselves of that same council.

In days gone by, if the likes of men such as Archbishop Lefebvre had had the means of communication that we now possess, things may have worked out quite differently.
We may not solve anything on this particular forum but at least the issues are kept alive via this mediam of communication which happens to be the only means available at present to break the status quo and bring an added 2,000 years of context into the lives of the V2 victim sheeple.

While Mike tries to shovel 2,000 years of Church teaching through the VCII sieve in the hope of filtering out those previously established doctrines that cause embarrassment, I work the other way round. He's currently got St Thomas half way through the sieve but the rest of the good Doctor refuses to follow.

MRyan wrote:
..because I can level the charge of heresy against you while calling the dense theology of Rahner “rather unorthodox”?

Mike,
I was placing both comments side by side, not for the purpose of making an issue of your accusation of heresy against me (because I gladly accept the charge of being in heresy against the false doctrines of Rahner whom you admire while maintaining your allegiance -albeit by misrepresentation of his teachings- to the Angelic Doctor), but rather to alert you to your hypocrisy in calling the heresies of a particular "theologian" "rather unorthodox" while branding as a heretic a layman who holds the orthodox interpretations of the Church's dogmas. (See how I'm looking out for you?)

MRyan wrote:
The Church has never accused Rahner of heresy, though he fell, for a time, “under Roman pre-censorship, which meant that he could not publish or lecture without prior permission.

To my knowledge I've never fallen under any Church censorship let alone a Church declaration of heresy, unless of course you have been officially chosen as her instrument of conveyance of the verdict. To my knowledge, neither have I been prohibited from publishing or lecturing (not that I do either); but then again, I've never had any of my writtings officially examined by legitimate Church authorities; have any of yours been examined Mike?

MRyan wrote:
The basic objections of the Roman authorities focused, essentially, on Rahner’s views on the Eucharist and Mariology.” This is not to say that some of his views were not heterodox,

I've never been accused of heterdox beliefs concerning the Blesed Eucharist or The Blessed Virgin Mary... Thus far I'm scoring quite well against Rahner.

MRyan wrote:
but only that he has never been accused by the Church of heresy;

Ah right!... One must wait for the Church to decide these matters. Sorry, I didn't realize that. Did you?

MRyan wrote:
and if he had been, he would have been given the opportunity to defend his more unorthodox theology against his accusers.

I'm itching for the chance to defend myself against my accusers by having my "unorthodox" theology scrutinized by legitimate Church authories. Thus far the nearest I got to a hearing was when I challenge in public the next-Cardinal-to-be of Ireland on the appalling so called "Catholic" education our children are receiving in Irish schools. His only reaction was a stunned minute silence while his face burned red and then after composing himself agreed with what I said. (Still scoring quite well agianst Karl Rahner I think).

Mryan wrote:
In similar fashion, we remember the uproar from certain traditionalist circles when Archbishop Gerhard Müller was appointed as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, where in typical knee-jerk fashion (speaking for the common consensus of raddie-traddies) an article by “A Concerned Catholic Priest” appeared in one of the leading “We Resist You to Your Face” publications with the headline, “New Head of CDF Dissents from Certain Doctrines of Faith?”, where in dire apocalyptic terms the article lead off with:

Let's see then how far off the mark those bad rad trads were. They said:

The unthinkable happened at noon today. It appears we now have a Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Müller who himself publicly dissents from certain Doctrines of the Faith. He does not believe in Our Lady's Virginity in partu, contrary to the teaching of Vatican II (Lumen Gentium: 57 and the Popes, Councils and Doctors cited in support of that doctrine in the accompanying footnote 10). Müller's reduction of this de fide physical miracle to a generic statement about the influence of "grace . . . on human nature" is the classic demythologizing tactic.

Right. OK... And let's see how they were shown to be wrong in their assessment.

Of course, there were and there remain numerous problems with such serious allegations, and as Archbishop Gerhard Müller became aware of the false accusations, he addressed them in more than one interview where he said they were unfounded. Dr. Jeffrey Mirus provides some insight, here: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=983

Ahh... I see. Archbishop Gerhard Müller (the accused) decided the issue would be settled by his own authority by declaring that the charges against him were false. Wonder how those bad rad trads ever got the wrong impression in the first place?
I mean the Archbishop's writings were so clear cut that no one could have possibly misunderstood him. After 50 years you'd think that those rad trads would be pretty fluent in post VCII speak; instead they go about making fools of themselves by thinking that the same rules apply in modern language as applied pre V2. They need to get with the program!

The difference is that unlike Rahner, the Prefect for the CDF is the Pope’s right hand man for the protection and the propagation of the true doctrines of the faith, so the prospect of the Pope having appointed a heretic to such an important position is actually quite ludicrous.

It sure is... Next they'll be accusing the Pope of appointing sodomite bishops.

MRyan wrote:
In fact, I agree with the new Prefect of the CDF when he labeled the accusation of the false traditionalists, who accuse the Second Vatican Council of teaching doctrinal error, as “heretical” when,

With respect to the Second Vatican Council itself, Archbishop Müller has insisted that “the Church cannot, on the doctrinal level, contradict herself—that is impossible. Any perceived contradiction is caused by a false interpretation.” In November, he went farther and called such interpretations “heretical”. Just last month he emphasized again the need to distinguish “between the true teaching…and specific abuses that occurred after the Council, but which are not founded in the Council’s documents.” (Ibid)

If he said it, and you agree with him, it must be true. But then, what was all that fuss about? Ya know, the SSPX thing and all that doctrinal nonsense?

MRyan wrote:
As the Church has not condemned Fr. Rahner, nor shall I, except to say that some of his theories have the odor of heresy.

That's very charitable of you Mike. You just go ahead and follow him then; but a word of advice; don't be put off by those heretical ramblings; they can all be resolved if you just read them with a proper Catholic mind.

MRyan wrote:
However, your heresy is not implied, it is quite explicit.

My "heresy" appears explicit to you Mike because you are not understanding, or refusing to understand the orthodoxy of what I wrote concerning forgiveness of sins, justification and the sanctification of these same OT saints.

I've re-read everything in the Summa concerning grace, justification and sanctification and nowhere did I find the Angelic Doctor mention sanctifying grace in the way you say he does concerning the OT saints. When speaking of the New Law of Grace he mentions sanctifying grace quite a lot.

MRyan wrote:
You have solidified for me that your heresy is real, it is manifest, and as far as I am concerned, it is obstinate. Only the Church, the very Church that you consider to be a heretical institution of human heretical design, can make such formal determinations, but I am under no such constraint to call you out and to warn others. I wouldn’t let you near my CCD class of 8th graders (not that you would have the opportunity) – and I have every right to denounce your heresy.

Mike,

The highlighted part above is a downright lie. but of course from your Protestant understanding of "Church," the very notion you're condemning happens to be your own, so I won't be getting too upset about your accusations. As for the 8th graders; they should turn out quite respectable -if not thoroughly confused- Vatican II sheeple. Their exposure to the ever-changing doctrines of the hermeneutics of the "great big melting pot" should serve them well in the One World Church of the UN family of Man. Somehow I think the Lord will have had enough of it by then.

MRyan wrote:
I also believe that your “rather unorthodox view” that says justification cannot exist without sacramental ablution is a heresy against the Council of Trent, Session 6, Ch. 4, as it has always been understood by the Church and by a universal consensus of theologians, “as it is written”. When Fr. Marin Solà wrote that “Certain heretics have affirmed that ‘no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water’”, guess who he was referring to?

I don't know... Was it St. Justin Myrtr, St. Gregory Nyssa, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Basil the Great, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St Augustine or Pope St. Gregory the Great.?

[quote]MRyan wrote:
I am not oblivious to heresy, such as yours, when it is explained over and over again in explicit detail, rather than being strongly implied.

But oblivious to your own.

[quote]Mryan wrote:
Third, it is absolutely correct to say that “The initial grace offered to excite repentance is not called sanctifying grace”, for it is in fact called “prevenient” or assisting grace. However, you are actually suggesting that after the penitent has been excited to repentance by prevenient grace, and the future merits or justice of Christ have been applied to his soul for the remission of sins, “the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them” is not sanctifying grace and the grace of charity, it is another dose of the same assisting or prevenient grace that is not inherent in them (as is habitual sanctifying grace), but only “prepares” the justified soul for the future transmission of sanctifying grace, even though his sins have been remitted and his non-sanctifying “justice” is allegedly derived from the future merits of Christ.

And you say this with a straight face.

All grace comes through Christ and is given for a particular end. That end is the eventual incorporation into Christ. Not just Christ as God but also Christ as man for since His incarnation His humanity cannot be separate from His divinity. It is because of the incarnation (Christ sharing in our humanity) that man can now share in His divinity. How then could man share in the divinity of Christ before His incarnation; or rather how could the OT saints be incorporated into Christ the Man God who as yet had not become Man? But incorporated they were because all the saints in heaven whether OT or NT are all of them incorporated into Christ by means of His Church His Mystical Body both here on earth (militant) and in heaven (triumphant).

If in view of their predestination and their eventual glorification in heaven, they (the OT saints) received in part what they would infalibly receive in full (incorporation into His Body) at the resurrection and ascension of Christ, then I have no trouble with that and neither had St. Thomas from my reading. For how could incorporation take place before the incarnation without denying the incarnation as an historical fact. Both the OT and the NT saints received their sanctification by the fact of an act which took place in time. The OT saints looked forward in hope, for what they hoped for had not yet come, while those of the NT had it already in reality. But no matter how you look at it, all of them new and old, would be incorporated into Christ. The means of incorporation did not exist prior to the birth of the Church and so how could one be incorporated into a body that did not yet exist? The only way round this would be to deny the founding of the Church as an historical fact.

However chronologically racist the above may sound, I've found nothing in St. Thomas or the teachings of the Church which condemn it. The reason why you, Mike, have to make such a play of this is because you think that therein lies the justification for the false doctrine of baptism of desire. You need to get over it. It isn't there.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Columba, you have already accused St. Thomas Aquinas and the Doctors, the universal moral consensus of the theologians and the Catholic Church herself of heresy for denying a formally revealed dogma of the Church, and you think that you can accuse me of some “hypocrisy” because I can level the charge of heresy against you while calling the dense theology of Rahner “rather unorthodox”?

Mike,
I was placing both comments side by side, not for the purpose of making an issue of your accusation of heresy against me (because I gladly accept the charge of being in heresy against the false doctrines of Rahner whom you admire while maintaining your allegiance -albeit by misrepresentation of his teachings- to the Angelic Doctor), but rather to alert you to your hypocrisy in calling the heresies of a particular "theologian" "rather unorthodox" while branding as a heretic a layman who holds the orthodox interpretations of the Church's dogmas. (See how I'm looking out for you?)

There are two charges of heresy you accept, for you are on public record for each; that of leveling the charge of heresy against “St. Thomas Aquinas and the Doctors, the universal moral consensus of the theologians and the Catholic Church herself of heresy for denying a formally revealed dogma of the Church”, and “gladly” accepting the charge of heresy for denying that the remission of sins can be exclusive of sanctifying grace and supernatural charity. It matters not that you deny the “heresy” of the latter by calling justifying grace prevenient or assisting grace, your heresy is inexcusable.

Furthermore, as I told Jehanne, “far from advocating the ‘theology’ of Karl Rahner” my sole reason for making reference to his work on this specific topic was to confirm “the historical veracity of this divine obediential potency”. So “I reject your specious guilt-by-proximity accusations and your false distinctions, for I am referring simply to Rahner’s historical accuracy in verifying the truth of the ITC’s reference to the theological themes that are present in the works of the Fathers (especially the Eastern Fathers), Aquinas and Pope Pius XII, all of which spurred “a renewed consideration of the absolute gratuity of grace, and of the ordination of all human beings to Christ and to the redemption that he won for us.”

The rest of your snarky sarcasms on Rahner and the Prefect for the CDF are irrelevant, but only demonstrate your haughty arrogance; after all, who cares if you charge Rahner with heresy – you did the same against St. Thomas Aquinas and all of the Doctors, as well as against the Catholic Church?

columba wrote:I'm itching for the chance to defend myself against my accusers by having my "unorthodox" theology scrutinized by legitimate Church authories. Thus far the nearest I got to a hearing was when I challenge in public the next-Cardinal-to-be of Ireland on the appalling so called "Catholic" education our children are receiving in Irish schools. His only reaction was a stunned minute silence while his face burned red and then after composing himself agreed with what I said. (Still scoring quite well agianst Karl Rahner I think).

That’s what I mean by "arrogance”, as if the Church is going to concern herself with some snarky layman who accuses Aquinas, the Doctors and the Church of heresy for denying a formally revealed dogma.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
However, your heresy is not implied, it is quite explicit.

My "heresy" appears explicit to you Mike because you are not understanding, or refusing to understand the orthodoxy of what I wrote concerning forgiveness of sins, justification and the sanctification of these same OT saints.

I've re-read everything in the Summa concerning grace, justification and sanctification and nowhere did I find the Angelic Doctor mention sanctifying grace in the way you say he does concerning the OT saints. When speaking of the New Law of Grace he mentions sanctifying grace quite a lot.

If you had read St. Thomas Aquinas, you would know that justification and sanctification mean the exact same thing.

For Aquinas, justification and sanctification are not different events, one extrinsic and the other intrinsic, as the Protestant Augusburg (1530) and Westminster (1646) confessions teach…For Aquinas, justification is as much about getting heaven into us as it is about getting us into heaven.

(http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/was-aquinas-a-proto-protestant.html)

Furthermore, that which you categorically deny, Aquinas positively affirms:

ST, III, Q.70, Article 4. Whether circumcision bestowed sanctifying grace?

Objection 1. It seems that circumcision did not bestow sanctifying grace. For the Apostle says (Galatians 2:21): "If justice be by the Law, then Christ died in vain," i.e. without cause. But circumcision was an obligation imposed by the Law, according to Galatians 5:3: "I testify . . . to every man circumcising himself, that ne is a debtor to do the whole law." Therefore, if justice be by circumcision, "Christ died in vain," i.e. without cause. But this cannot be allowed. Therefore circumcision did not confer grace whereby the sinner is made righteous.

Objection 4. Further, nothing but sin closes the entrance to the heavenly kingdom. But before the Passion the entrance to the heavenly kingdom was closed to the circumcised. Therefore men were not justified from sin by circumcision.

On the contrary, Augustine says, writing to Valerius in answer to Julian (De Nup. et Concup. i.): "From the time that circumcision was instituted among God's people, as 'a seal of the justice of the faith,' it availed little children unto sanctification by cleansing them from the original and bygone sin; just as Baptism also from the time of its institution began to avail unto the renewal of man."

I answer that, All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision. But some said that no grace was conferred, and that the only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this opinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss on Romans 4:11. But this is impossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace, according to Romans 3:24: "Being justified freely by His grace," etc.

Romans 3:21-26 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Wherefore others said that grace was bestowed by circumcision, as to that effect which is the remission of guilt, but not as to its positive effects; lest they should be compelled to say that the grace bestowed in circumcision sufficed for the fulfilling of the precepts of the Law, and that, consequently, the coming of Christ was unnecessary. But neither can this opinion stand. First, because by circumcision children received the power of obtaining glory at the allotted time, which is the last positive effect of grace. Secondly, because, in the order of the formal cause, positive effects naturally precede those that denote privation, although it is the reverse in the order of the material cause: since a form does not remove a privation save by informing the subject.

Consequently, others said that grace was conferred in circumcision, also as a particular positive effect consisting in being made worthy of eternal life; but not as to all its effects, for it did not suffice for the repression of the concupiscence of the fomes, nor again for the fulfilment of the precepts of the Law. And this was my opinion at one time (Sent. iv, D, 1; 2, 4). But if one consider the matter carefully, it is clear that this is not true. Because the least grace can resist any degree of concupiscence, and avoid every mortal sin, that is committed in transgressing the precepts of the Law; for the smallest degree of charity loves God more than cupidity loves "thousands of gold and silver". (Psalm 118:72).

We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision as to all the effects of grace, but not as in Baptism. Because in Baptism grace is bestowed by the very power of Baptism itself, which power Baptism has as the instrument of Christ's Passion already consummated. Whereas circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith; whether, being an adult, he made profession for himself, or, being a child, someone else made profession for him. Hence, too, the Apostle says (Romans 4:11), that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith": because, to wit, justice was of faith signified: not of circumcision signifying. And since Baptism operates instrumentally by the power of Christ's Passion, whereas circumcision does not, therefore Baptism imprints a character that incorporates man in Christ, and bestows grace more copiously than does circumcision; since greater is the effect of a thing already present, than of the hope thereof.

Reply to Objection 5. When adults were circumcised, they received remission not only of original, but also of actual sin: yet not so as to be delivered from all debt of punishment, as in Baptism, in which grace is conferred more copiously.

I would suggest, columba, that you take a remedial reading course.

Heresy, we know thy name.

MRyan wrote:
There are two charges of heresy you accept, for you are on public record for each; that of leveling the charge of heresy against “St. Thomas Aquinas and the Doctors, the universal moral consensus of the theologians and the Catholic Church herself of heresy for denying a formally revealed dogma of the Church”, and “gladly” accepting the charge of heresy for denying that the remission of sins can be exclusive of sanctifying grace and supernatural charity.

Sorry for the double-negative; should read: "for … 'gladly' accepting the charge of heresy for alleging that the remission of sins can be exclusive of sanctifying grace and supernatural charity."

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
and if the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants could give harm, she never would have proposed it to the faithful in her universal Catechism and in an approved ITC report which provided the Scriptural, liturgical and theological foundation for this same "hope".

The approved ITC report -I take it- uses the same logic as the CCC? The Scriptural foundation being Christ's love for children, the liturgical foundation being the newly invented burial rite for non-baptized infants, and the theological foundation being wishful thinking, which not surprizingly turns out to be a non-theological foundation.

Yes, just like “the liturgical foundation being the newly invented burial rite for non-baptized” catechumens that Pope St. Pius X and Pope Benedict XV approved and promulgated in 1917, “and the theological foundation being wishful thinking, which not surprisingly turns out to be a non-theological foundation”.

You nailed it, the very same magisterial “logic”.

Columba,

Why did you ignore this? No snarky rejoinder? No sarcastic witticism leveled against Popes St. Pius X and Benedict XV?

After all, did they not codify into law that “Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.”; a law you say is based on "wishful thinking"; the "non-theological foundation" of which is actually heretical?

Why are you so selective with your snarkiness?

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
I also believe that your “rather unorthodox view” that says justification cannot exist without sacramental ablution is a heresy against the Council of Trent, Session 6, Ch. 4, as it has always been understood by the Church and by a universal consensus of theologians, “as it is written”. When Fr. Marin Solà wrote that “Certain heretics have affirmed that ‘no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water’”, guess who he was referring to?

I don't know... Was it St. Justin Myrtr, St. Gregory Nyssa, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Basil the Great, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St Augustine or Pope St. Gregory the Great?

Do you think that throwing names around is supposed to lift the burden of your heresy, as if a single one of them believed your charge of heresy against St. Thomas Aquinas, against the universal moral consensus of the theologians, and against the Church?

And, though you do not profess to being a "Feeneyite" (your brand of "Feeneyism" being more akin to that of a heretical and notorious sede sect):

Some of those who follow Father Feeney believe that their interpretation must be believed because it is the one always believed everywhere by all. However, even their own publication admits this: They list Church Fathers who disagree with their interpretation of these dogmas --- "Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Prosper of Aquitaine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bede" [Bro. Robert Mary, M.I.C.M. Tert.; "Father Feeney and the Truth about Salvation", p.78 & 135 - A "From the Rooftops" Publication] (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/desire.html)

As Brian Kelly acknowledges, even the Saint Benedict Center “admits unanimity among those fathers and doctors who have spoken about baptism of blood”.

And as far as the named Fathers, there is not a shred of hard evidence that a single one of them “rejected” baptism of desire, there are only out-of context selective citations and the deliberate refusal to acknowledge in their writings where the baptisms of blood and desire are explicitly confirmed, or at least strongly implied.

The doctrine of the baptism of desire was clearly implied in the teachings of St. Justin Martyr, (c. 150 AD), where he wrote, for example:

We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . .”

The books of the prophets and the apostles [say] that the Church is not [only] now, but from the beginning. She was spiritual, like also our Jesus. She was manifested in the last days to save us.

You never fail to mention St. Gregory of Nyssa, and you never fail to ignore the context of his alleged “rejection” of baptism of desire for the catechumen, the actual text of which is taken from an ancient baptism liturgy. Once again, go ahead and stick your head in the sand as his words are placed into context:

At the beginning of the Procatechesis, St. Cyril says to those who come to be enrolled: "Henceforth you are in the vestibule of the palace. May you soon be led into it by the king" (XXXIII,333 A). This is an exact description of the candidates' state. They were in the vestibule, "breathing already the perfume of beatitude. They are gathering the flowers of which their crowns will be woven" (XXXIII, 332 B). Here we find once more the symbolism of paradise. But they are not yet inside the sanctuary itself. The leading into the baptistry signifies the entrance into the Church, that is to say, the return to Paradise, lost by the sin of the first man: "You are outside of Paradise, O catechumen," says Gregory to those who would put off their Baptism. "You share the exile of Adam, our first father. Now the door is opening. Return whence you came forth" (P. G. XLVI, 417 C. See also 420 C and 600 A). In the same way, Cyril of Jerusalem says to the candidate: "Soon Paradise will open for each one of you" (XXXIII, 357 A).

(Jean Danielou, S.J., The Bible and the Liturgy, http://www.scribd.com/doc/19253635/Jean-Danielou-Bible-and-the-Liturgy). See also http://www.trushare.com/92JAN03/JA03FAFA.htm

This is the exact same context as we find in the writings of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom and all of the other Fathers (especially the Eastern Fathers) who gave instruction to the Catechumen. For example, St. John Chrysostom, in The Consolation of Death, wrote:

And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.

In fact, St. John Chrysostom also taught:

"Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a baptism, for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is the taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul, and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood" (Panegyric on St. Lucian 2 [A.D. 387]).

Those who portend that St. Gregory is speaking of baptism of blood only in the context of a second baptism for those already baptized in water miss the obvious meaning, for he is speaking clearly of the same “taking away of sins and a [an even greater] wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul” in the baptism of blood as that which is effected in “those being baptized [and] washed in water”.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote, "If anyone does not receive Baptism, he shall not be saved, except the martyrs, who even without the water shall receive the kingdom"; thus does he join the illustrious columba club of "material heretics" who taught “heresy” against a formally defined dogma.

We have discussed the teachings of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine enough to know that their respective teachings on the baptism of desire has been confirmed by Popes, saints and the Doctors throughout the ages, and that they are a distinct minority who suggest that St. Ambrose’s funeral oration for the Emperor is a fairy tale or he does not mean what he actually says, and/or that St. Augustine reversed an entire theology encompassing such fundamental tenets as 1) God is not bound by the sacraments to effect the same end; 2) "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body . . . All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark"; and 3) “That the place of Baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering”, etc.

I have also demonstrated time and again that St. Augustine’s later statements against the folly of saying that God cannot bring to fruition that which He has predestined must be understood in the context of predestination, which does NOT suggest that each and every one of the elect is predestined to water Baptism. He himself has admitted to using exclusivist and exaggerated language if only to prevent the Pelagians and his other protagonists from using his words against him, as Feeneyites do all the time with their out of context citations.

Bottom line, columba, you cannot produce a single text from any of your (few) named sources who is on record as “rejecting” the baptisms of blood and/or desire; let alone who affirms your heresy that holds that the grace of justification is not always sanctifying grace, and, therefore, the merits of Christ’s passion were applied to the OT just for the remission of sins, exclusive of sanctifying grace and supernatural charity (until the Ascenscion).

MRyan wrote:

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
and if the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants could give harm, she never would have proposed it to the faithful in her universal Catechism and in an approved ITC report which provided the Scriptural, liturgical and theological foundation for this same "hope".

The approved ITC report -I take it- uses the same logic as the CCC? The Scriptural foundation being Christ's love for children, the liturgical foundation being the newly invented burial rite for non-baptized infants, and the theological foundation being wishful thinking, which not surprizingly turns out to be a non-theological foundation.

Yes, just like “the liturgical foundation being the newly invented burial rite for non-baptized” catechumens that Pope St. Pius X and Pope Benedict XV approved and promulgated in 1917, “and the theological foundation being wishful thinking, which not surprisingly turns out to be a non-theological foundation”.

You nailed it, the very same magisterial “logic”.

Columba,

Why did you ignore this? No snarky rejoinder? No sarcastic witticism leveled against Popes St. Pius X and Benedict XV?

After all, did they not codify into law that “Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.”; a law you say is based on "wishful thinking"; the "non-theological foundation" of which is actually heretical?

Why are you so selective with your snarkiness?

Mike,
There was no need for comment. You addressed something that I did not mention in my post. You substituted the words I used, "non-baptized infants," and replaced them with your own words, "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism." As I made no reference to catechumens in connection with the new, modern burial rite but was speaking of the post VC2 burial rite that applies to non-baptized infants, I didn't see the need to address your comment.

However, just to be clear, the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Canon 1239. States quite clearly,

"Unbaptized persons may not receive ecclesiastical burial, with the exception of catechumens who, through no fault of theirs, die without having received baptism, and therefore to be regarded as among those baptized.”

therefore I implied correctly that the new, post VC2 burial rite for non-baptized infants was in contradiction to the 1917 code. Like wise, the 1917 code in its reference to the catechumen is in contradiction with almost 2,000 years of prior Church tradition and teaching. This can easily be determined from the fact that canon 1239 is possibly the only canon in the 1917 code that has no corresponding foot note referencing the tradition from whence the canon was derived. Infact it actually contradicts the 6th century second Council of Braga which states: Canon 17:

Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who
have died without baptism.”8

You see Mike, there is a problem when one canon overturns another canon on a matter of faith or morals, for it would mean that the Church deprived her members of that which was to their spiritual benefit and in the case of the teaching prior to 1917, all the souls of those catachumens who died without Baptism (and presumably entered Purgatory) were deprived of the prayers and helps of the Church necessary to aid them on their way to heaven. If the Church had held out the hope (prior to 1917) that these catechumens could be saved, she would never had denied them these helps. We could say then, that for over 1,900 years, the Church erred concerning her belief in the fate of the unbaptized catechumen, but in 1917 (around the time of the modernist rise) she finally corrected her error, and corrected it with any previous teaching to call upon.

The Catholic Encyclopedia agrees that there existed no tradition concerning the hope of salvation for the nonbaptized. On the necessity of Baptism, 1913 it states:

“IX NECESSITY OF BAPTISM: …A certain
statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance…”

Having cleared that up, there are in fact a few outstanding points from my earlier posts that you have avoided commenting on. I'll use the following as one example:

columba wrote:
The Kingdom of God on earth is the Church. There was no Church until Christ founded it. The just of the OT therefore could not have entered a Church that didn't exist and membership of the Curch is abosolutely essential for salvation. The just of the OT are of course now in the Church; the Church Triumphant. Christ made known the only means by which one enters the Church and this prescribed means would not have been withheld from the OT saints. However, they could not have gained entry until the Church came into existence. There are only Catholics in heaven. Isn't that correct?

The Council of Trent, Session V, Concerning Original Sin:

FIRST DECREE

Celebrated on the seventeenth day of the month of June, in the year 1546.

3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam … is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world …

4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs … are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, let him be anathema.

Columba,

Can you explain, in the light of the dogma that says we “are baptized indeed for the remission of sins” by the sole remedy of “the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption”, how the OT just received “the [future] merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption” for the remission of sins, when Baptism had not yet been instituted as the ex opere operato instrument for the remission of sins?

How, in other words, could the sins of the OT just be remitted by the sole remedy of the merit of Christ [“who was to come”], when one could not “be incorporated [by Baptism] into a body that did not yet exist”?

Furthermore, if, as Canon XI of the 6th Session of Trent dogmatically declares, “If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; … let him be anathema”, do you also allege that with respect to the OT saints, “men are justified … by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by [or for] the sole remission of sins, to the [immediate] exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them”?

Again, along with the non-sanctifying preveneint “grace … which is [allegedly] poured forth in their hearts [the OT saints] by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them”, what species of non-supernatural "charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them”?

Mike,

I can only deal with a few points in your latest post right now but I'll get to the remainder later.

MRyan wrote:
And as far as the named Fathers, there is not a shred of hard evidence that a single one of them “rejected” baptism of desire, there are only out-of context selective citations and the deliberate refusal to acknowledge in their writings where the baptisms of blood and desire are explicitly confirmed, or at least strongly implied.

Let's rewrite this in a orthodox way:

And as far as the named Fathers, there is not a shred of hard evidence that a single one of them “proposed” baptism of desire, there are only out-of context selective citations and the deliberate refusal to acknowledge in their writings where the baptisms of blood and desire are implicitly, if not always explicitly denied.

MRyan wrote:
The doctrine of the baptism of desire was clearly implied in the teachings of St. Justin Martyr, (c. 150 AD), where he wrote, for example:

We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . .”

The books of the prophets and the apostles [say] that the Church is not [only] now, but from the beginning. She was spiritual, like also our Jesus. She was manifested in the last days to save us.

Of course it's very possible that Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them could have lived according to the law of God (or the natural law) as also did the OT saints and by that means became justified. However, could the term "Christian" be applicable to anyone who lived before the coming of Christ?

MRyan wrote:
You never fail to mention St. Gregory of Nyssa, and you never fail to ignore the context of his alleged “rejection” of baptism of desire for the catechumen, the actual text of which is taken from an ancient baptism liturgy. Once again, go ahead and stick your head in the sand as his words are placed into context:

At the beginning of the Procatechesis, St. Cyril says to those who come to be enrolled: "Henceforth you are in the vestibule of the palace. May you soon be led into it by the king" (XXXIII,333 A). This is an exact description of the candidates' state. They were in the vestibule, "breathing already the perfume of beatitude. They are gathering the flowers of which their crowns will be woven" (XXXIII, 332 B). Here we find once more the symbolism of paradise. But they are not yet inside the sanctuary itself. The leading into the baptistry signifies the entrance into the Church, that is to say, the return to Paradise, lost by the sin of the first man: "You are outside of Paradise, O catechumen," says Gregory to those who would put off their Baptism. "You share the exile of Adam, our first father. Now the door is opening. Return whence you came forth" (P. G. XLVI, 417 C. See also 420 C and 600 A). In the same way, Cyril of Jerusalem says to the candidate: "Soon Paradise will open for each one of you" (XXXIII, 357 A).

(Jean Danielou, S.J., The Bible and the Liturgy, http://www.scribd.com/doc/19253635/Jean-Danielou-Bible-and-the-Liturgy). See also http://www.trushare.com/92JAN03/JA03FAFA.htm

I can't see how the extra context agrees with your argument; in fact the very opposite is the case. St. Gregory of Nyssa is making it quite clear that the catechumen is outside; not within; still awaiting his crown. What was the piont of that quote?

I've read the rest of your quotes and have not the time right now to comment further but nothing in them poses any difficulty to the necessity of means of Baptism.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Why did you ignore this? No snarky rejoinder? No sarcastic witticism leveled against Popes St. Pius X and Benedict XV?

After all, did they not codify into law that “Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.”; a law you say is based on "wishful thinking"; the "non-theological foundation" of which is actually heretical?

Why are you so selective with your snarkiness?

Mike,
There was no need for comment. You addressed something that I did not mention in my post. ...

However, just to be clear, the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Canon 1239. States quite clearly,

"Unbaptized persons may not receive ecclesiastical burial, with the exception of catechumens who, through no fault of theirs, die without having received baptism, and therefore to be regarded as among those baptized.”

Therefore I implied correctly that the new, post VC2 burial rite for non-baptized infants was in contradiction to the 1917 code. Like wise, the 1917 code in its reference to the catechumen is in contradiction with almost 2,000 years of prior Church tradition and teaching.
[...]

You see Mike, there is a problem when one canon overturns another canon on a matter of faith or morals,

Need I say more?

Columba, you haven't a clue.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
And as far as the named Fathers, there is not a shred of hard evidence that a single one of them “rejected” baptism of desire, there are only out-of context selective citations and the deliberate refusal to acknowledge in their writings where the baptisms of blood and desire are explicitly confirmed, or at least strongly implied.

Let's rewrite this in a orthodox way:

And as far as the named Fathers, there is not a shred of hard evidence that a single one of them “proposed” baptism of desire, there are only out-of context selective citations and the deliberate refusal to acknowledge in their writings where the baptisms of blood and desire are implicitly, if not always explicitly denied.

That would be fine if it weren’t blatantly false.

But, that is your modus operandi, to pretend there is a “2000 year tradition” against the baptisms of blood and desire, to pretend that there is a form of “justification” (the Justice of Christ) that remits sins and places one in a state of non-sanctifying “prevenient” grace to the immediate exclusion of sanctifying grace and the infusion of charity; to pretend that the 1917 (and 1983) code of canon law “overturn[ed] another canon on a matter of faith or morals”, and to pretend that the Church’s understanding of Trent, Session 6, Ch. 4, as it is presented in the universal Catechism of the same name, in the codes of canon law, etc,. etc, is not the same understanding as it is understood and explicitly affirmed by a universal consensus of theologians.

In other words, you live in a fantasy world marked by insolence, arrogance and heresy. So when the Church teaches that she “has always held the firm conviction that …This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament”, it is not the One true Church of Christ that is in error, it is the father of lies who whispers in the itching ears of the “smarter-than-the Church” false sects that the Church is teaching heresy and is opposed to her own dogmas, and has been in heresy for well over a millennium.

You want to examine the official record on baptism of blood, columba?

Go ahead, challenge me.

MRyan wrote;
You want to examine the official record on baptism of blood, columba?

Go ahead, challenge me.

Well. It looks like the baptism of desire debate has given way to the baptism of blood. That's progress.
But it could be a bit futile Mike, because the same dogmatic teachings can be brought against baptism of blood as were brought against baptism of desire. Every saint and Doctor, every theologian who ever lived, great as they and their writings were, can't stand (nor would they let stand) against one sentence in a dogmatic proclaimation.

MRYan wrote:
In other words, you live in a fantasy world marked by insolence, arrogance and heresy.

You obviously don't believe then that it's a dogma of the faith that smokers are low in self esteem and shy away from controversy? You need to read more RG theology.

columba wrote:

MRYan wrote:
In other words, you live in a fantasy world marked by insolence, arrogance and heresy.

You obviously don't believe then that it's a dogma of the faith that smokers are low in self esteem and shy away from controversy? You need to read more RG theology.

Gee Columba are you having a go at me ? You are misquoting me and I hate (as much as you do) being misunderstood and misquoted. Let me throw some clarity on what I believe you are unclarified about. Smokers are not a certain class or type of person, I was both a smoker and a non-smoker at various times all my life, I have been a non-smoker for over 5 years now, ie no nicotine in any format. Personally when I smoked I suffered from low self-esteem because I could not function without smoking, that is what nicotine does to ANY person, it demands that gradually they be a slave and that they must have cigarettes ALL the time, that sure does affect self-esteem whether the smoker is conscious of that fact or not is irrelavant. If I demanded that you be my slave and pay me 10 bucks a day , each day , every day for the 'privilege' for the REST OF YOUR LIFE (unless you make a conscious massive effort to not be my slave) then whether you can accept this fact or not... your self-esteem would feel pretty low. I hope I clarified my point.. any questions? If so ask Mike, he will give you a shoulder to cry on and make you feel better... then tell you that you're an idiot and destroy the little bit of self-esteem you have remaining! lol

BTW If Mike wants to be my slave I won't charge him. I try to do charitable acts as much as I can :-).

If so ask Mike, he will give you a shoulder to cry on and make you feel better... then tell you that you're an idiot and destroy the little bit of self-esteem you have remaining! lol

RG,
Mike has lifted my confidence no end recently. His arguments are so weak that the penny catechism suffices to refute them.., ya Know, just the basics of the faith.
My worry now is that I might be damaging his own self esteem without him even smokin' a cigarette.

I wasn't taking a malicious shot at you RG; I was just checkin' if you were still around. SimpleFaith has this habit of pokin' his nose into a topic and firing off a few rounds before retreating into his neo-con bunker where he does most of his study from the Medjegoogoo Herald. I was hoping he hadn't damaged your self esteem with his all-mush-no-meat comments. He rarely carries live ammo; mostly all blanks, but they can frighten off chain smokers. We smokers and ex smokers need to be aware of these tactics. One live round of dogmatic teaching can send them scurrying for their lives. The only thing they've left is their dictionary of offensive words which they have no scrupples in launching while they retreat

columba wrote:

If so ask Mike, he will give you a shoulder to cry on and make you feel better... then tell you that you're an idiot and destroy the little bit of self-esteem you have remaining! lol

RG,
Mike has lifted my confidence no end recently. His arguments are so weak that the penny catechism suffices to refute them.., ya Know, just the basics of the faith.
My worry now is that I might be damaging his own self esteem without him even smokin' a cigarette.

I wasn't taking a malicious shot at you RG; I was just checkin' if you were still around. SimpleFaith has this habit of pokin' his nose into a topic and firing off a few rounds before retreating into his neo-con bunker where he does most of his study from the Medjegoogoo Herald. I was hoping he hadn't damaged your self esteem with his all-mush-no-meat comments. He rarely carries live ammo; mostly all blanks, but they can frighten off chain smokers. We smokers and ex smokers need to be aware of these tactics. One live round of dogmatic teaching can send them scurrying for their lives. The only thing they've left is their dictionary of offensive words which they have no scrupples in launching while they retreat

Nah I wasn't sent into hiding by that guy Simple, I was sent into apathy by the playground level of spurious attack, was really quite pathetic, but he's probably a chain-smoker with really bad self-esteen let's hope he's not acting as the V2 ambassador for Ireland.. but kids these days I guess ..going round dressed up pretending they have real guns.. a bit like men going round dressed up as priests and really think they are so lol

Hi, just popped out of my bunker for a few moments to get a quick smoke so I’ll make this brief as I want to get back to watch my favourite comedy channel (mostholyfamilymonastery.com). In this episode, Brother Peter pretends to be a Catholic, phones up some random guy unexpectedly and tells him he’s going to hell. ’ It’s a bit similar to all the other episodes but is still great fun.

Anyway Columba, the next time you’re using the Penny Catechism to refute Mryan, maybe you could explain the following extract from it: (Maybe RG could also explain)

86. Has the Church a visible Head on earth?
The Church has a visible Head on earth - the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ.

87. Why is the Bishop of Rome the Head of the Church?
The Bishop of Rome is the Head of the Church because he is the successor of St. Peter, whom Christ appointed to be the Head of the Church.

88. How do you know that Christ appointed St. Peter to be the Head of the Church?
I know that Christ appointed St. Peter to be the Head of the Church because Christ said to him; 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven'. Matt. 16:18,19

89. What is the Bishop of Rome called?
The Bishop of Rome is called the Pope, which word signifies Father.

90. Is the Pope the Spiritual Father of all Christians?
The Pope is the Spiritual Father of all Christians.

91. Is the Pope the Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians?
The Pope is the Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, because Christ made St. Peter the Shepherd of the whole flock when he said: 'Feed my lambs, feed my sheep'. He also prayed that his 'faith' might never fail, and commanded him to 'confirm' his brethren. Jn.21:15-17,Lk.22:32

92. Is the Pope infallible?
The Pope is infallible.

93. What do you mean when you say that the Pope is infallible?
When I say that the Pope is infallible, I mean that the Pope cannot err when, as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals, to be held by the whole Church.

No doubt Columba you will choose to "rewrite this in an orthodox way" to suit the beliefs of your own private church with it's magisterium of one.
It would also be interesting to compare Columba's responses on the above with RG's.

BTW RG who is the current 'visible' head of your sect? or are you, like Columba, also a member of a headless chicken church?