Latest topics
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:43 pm by tornpage

» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM and Christine Niles approve liberal theology on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Christine Niles misses the elephant in the living room
Fri May 15, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Cardinal Pell recommends the Roman Forum and telling a lie
Wed May 13, 2015 9:43 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» GOOGLE CLOSES DOWN BLOG EUCHARIST AND MISSION
Tue May 12, 2015 9:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this
Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:25 am by George Brenner

» Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:27 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:49 am by Lionel Andrades

» Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:25 am by Lionel Andrades

» Beautiful Gregorian Chant
Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:10 pm by tornpage


Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:33 pm

Jehanne wrote:
tornpage wrote:Lionel,


Here you go:


However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

And, if there are such people who are reaching out to the One and Triune God, why does He not reach out to them, say, by providing them with the explicit knowledge of the Mysteries of the One True Faith?
 
Yes, and then the desire would be explicit. 

Error. 

Two in the choir so far. Smile
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 853
Reputation : 916
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:13 pm

Jehanne wrote:
tornpage wrote:Lionel,


Here you go:


However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

And, if there are such people who are reaching out to the One and Triune God, why does He not reach out to them, say, by providing them with the explicit knowledge of the Mysteries of the One True Faith?
And why does He not make water baptism accessible to all of His elect without fail? The answer is the same.

What may become explicit knowledge (and actual regeneration) to the one seeking in good faith may not become explicitly known to others if that same faith and regeneration comes by way of internal inspiration -- resulting in supernatural faith and charity.  

Hence, "moral certitude" can only be had with respect to the objective reality concerning another's external membership in the Church, and not to the possibility of an internal unity, which may be known to God alone. I can be "morally certain" of a catechumen's imperfect unity with the Church, but I cannot be morally certain of his salvation.

When you say "even if they are beheaded by ISIS while confessing the 'name of Jesus' on their lips, end their lives without moral certitude of eternal salvation", this suggests that someone can be morally certain of their own salvation.

They can only have the hope of salvation while WE, as objective observers, can be morally certain only of their external unity with the Church, which appears in this case to be lacking, while also having hope for their salvation (that full incorporation will be offered or effected by God at the point of death).
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2248
Reputation : 2420
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Jehanne on Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:40 pm

MRyan wrote:When you say "even if they are beheaded by ISIS while confessing the 'name of Jesus' on their lips, end their lives without moral certitude of eternal salvation", this suggests that someone can be morally certain of their own salvation.

Pope Pius XII taught that one can have "assurance" (which is the equivalent of "moral certitude") of one's salvation, if one is a visible member of the Catholic Church:

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).

Ergo, Catholics can have assurance of their salvation if they are not in a state of grave sin and are partaking of the Sacraments worthily.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:01 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:When you say "even if they are beheaded by ISIS while confessing the 'name of Jesus' on their lips, end their lives without moral certitude of eternal salvation", this suggests that someone can be morally certain of their own salvation.

Pope Pius XII taught that one can have "assurance" (which is the equivalent of "moral certitude") of one's salvation, if one is a visible member of the Catholic Church:

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).

Ergo, Catholics can have assurance of their salvation if they are not in a state of grave sin and are partaking of the Sacraments worthily.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM
We may be quibbling here, but "moral certainty" is not necessarily "assurance", for assurance connotes something a bit stronger, and I would argue that Pope Pius XII is using "assurance" as you suggest, it is conditioned upon a state of grace, which the Church provides through the very sacraments that "assure" one of salvation provided the proper dispositions are present.

Sede's are morally certain that Pope Francis is not the pope.
I am morally certain Pope Francis is the pope.
Columba hasn't a clue.
Pope Francis is morally certain that the Coptic Christians are true martyrs (saved).
Jehanne is not morally certain of the same.

Now, some context:

Moral certitude is the unwavering assent of the mind to what expresses the normal mode of human conduct. Thus we have moral certitude that a mother will love her child. It is to be noted in passing that the expressions, "It is morally certain," and "It is a moral certainty" are "newspaper English" for a greater or lesser degree of "probability." These expressions, as used casually in unscientific speech, are not to be confused with the terms moral certitude and morally certain, used in Criteriology. For these terms do not indicate a mere opinion, however probable, but true certitude, a full and unwavering assent of the mind upon evidence taken from the normal human mode of action, evidence which the mind finds sufficient to win its full assent.

Another phase of moral certitude is that which the mind achieves by adverting to the evidence of normal human conduct in the circumstances. If I am in doubt whether a bill is paid; if I can find no evidence in writing that it was or was not paid; then I consider the character of the debtor, and the character of the creditor. I find that the debtor is scrupulously honest. I find that the creditor is exact in keeping accounts. By the evidence of these facts, by the evidence of what an honest debtor and a business-like creditor would normally do in the circumstances, I can arrive at moral certainty that the bill was paid. But if I an unable to determine the issue by such investigation; if the character of the debtor and the creditor leave me in doubt about the bill, then I fall back upon a reflex principle, viz., "A law of doubtful application cannot bind to certain obligation." This principle expresses the normal, sane view of prudent men; it is a dictum of common human sense. Hence, direct methods failing, I may resolve my doubt by invoking this reflex principle and may achieve moral certitude thereby.

Again: moral certitude, while true certitude, depends upon the rational and normal conduct of men. I am certain that a mother loves her child, even though a rare exception to this rule may occur without the intervention of a miracle. Hence moral certitude rests upon a condition that is more likely to have an exception than the condition upon which physical certitude rests; in so far, moral certitude is a lesser degree of certitude than physical certitude.

Metaphysical, physical, and moral certitude are therefore, not only classes of certitude; they are grades or degrees of certitude. They are degrees or certitude because they rest upon motives of graded necessity for their acceptance by the mind.

In a word, there are degrees of certitude founded upon the motives which impel the mind to give its unwavering assent. But there are no degrees of certitude in the sense of degrees in the exclusion of the fear of error which characterizes the unwavering assent. If the smallest fear of error should creep in, the assent of mind would no longer be certitude, but opinion. (Right Rev. Msgr. Paul J. Glenn PH.D., S.T.D., CRITERIOLOGY — A Class Manual in Major Logic, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis & London, 1933. Book 3, Ch. 1, pp. 141-153)
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2248
Reputation : 2420
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Jehanne on Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:21 pm

MRyan wrote:Pope Francis is morally certain that the Coptic Christians are true martyrs (saved).
Jehanne is not morally certain of the same.

Are you morally certain that they were saved, all of them?  If so, how does one shed his/her blood "in the Name of Christ" outside of the Catholic Church?  Under what circumstances, if any, does such occur, if ever? By the way, Francis should canonize these "martyrs", if he truly feels that they are in Paradise.

As for Francis, the "best" thing that you can say about him is also the "worst," and that is that he contradicts himself.

But, back to the topic at hand, if "assurance" is only to be found within the visible boundaries of the One True Church with all of the "many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church", is it not reasonable that the One Triune God, a Perfect and Omnipotent Being, would want and desire to lead all of His Elect, without exception, into the One True Church, His Immaculate Bride and His very Mystical Body?
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Thu Mar 12, 2015 9:03 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Pope Francis is morally certain that the Coptic Christians are true martyrs (saved).
Jehanne is not morally certain of the same.

Are you morally certain that they were saved, all of them?
Of course not. 

Jehanne wrote:But, back to the topic at hand, if "assurance" is only to be found within the visible boundaries of the One True Church with all of the "many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church", is it not reasonable that the One Triune God, a Perfect and Omnipotent Being, would want and desire to lead all of His Elect, without exception, into the One True Church, His Immaculate Bride and His very Mystical Body?
It is not only reasonable, it is "certain", for He leads each and every one of His elect into the One True Church (by ordinary or extraordinary means), outside of which there is no salvation.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2248
Reputation : 2420
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Jehanne on Thu Mar 12, 2015 9:09 pm

MRyan wrote:It is not only reasonable, it is "certain", for He leads each and every one of His elect into the One True Church (by ordinary or extraordinary means), outside of which there is no salvation.

We cannot ever presume "extraordinary means," as we can never observe such, but we can offer assurance to those who fruitfully partake of the "Church's sacraments" along with "fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia" if they "persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."  By the way, Francis does not believe that it is even certain that the Son of Perdition, Judas, is in eternal Hell:

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-is-asked-about-hell.htm

Little wonder that Francis even cares what religion an individual professes.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Thu Mar 12, 2015 9:30 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:It is not only reasonable, it is "certain", for He leads each and every one of His elect into the One True Church (by ordinary or extraordinary means), outside of which there is no salvation.

We cannot ever presume "extraordinary means," as we can never observe such, but we can offer assurance to those who fruitfully partake of the "Church's sacraments" along with "fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia" if they "persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."  
We most certainly can presume "extraordinary means," when it concerns, for example, the non-water baptized catechumen who is martyred professing the true Faith. In fact, our presumption is even greater than that which can be held for the baptized Catholic who dies a normal death, dying, objectively speaking, in the bosom of the Church, but not necessarily manifesting heroic virtue.

Jehanne, I really don’t care about the private opinions of papa Francis.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2248
Reputation : 2420
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Jehanne on Thu Mar 12, 2015 9:52 pm

MRyan wrote:We most certainly can presume "extraordinary means," when it concerns, for example, the non-water baptized catechumen who is martyred professing the true Faith.

And, we're back to "proving negatives" again, because Father Feeney would assert that those tiny handful of individuals were, in fact, all sacramentally baptized prior to their martyrdoms. So, yes, while their eternal salvation is absolutely certain, is their non-Baptisms just as certain?

MRyan wrote:Jehanne, I really don’t care about the private opinions of papa Francis.

He's expressing those "opinions" publicly, though.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Fri Mar 13, 2015 8:11 am

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:We most certainly can presume "extraordinary means," when it concerns, for example, the non-water baptized catechumen who is martyred professing the true Faith.

And, we're back to "proving negatives" again, because Father Feeney would assert that those tiny handful of individuals were, in fact, all sacramentally baptized prior to their martyrdoms.  So, yes, while their eternal salvation is absolutely certain, is their non-Baptisms just as certain?
No, we’re not back to “proving” anything, except what the Church teaches. You and Lionel seem hell bent on “proving” that the saved must be “known to us”, visible to us by the fact of their sacramental baptism, as if that “proves” salvation (or, as you would have it, it provides for us a greater “moral certainty”).

But you can’t reply to the example of the flesh and blood example of the publically martyred catechumen except to suggest that God is somehow bound or compelled to provide water baptism to the “tiny handful” who are regenerated in the baptism of blood, which calls into question the doctrine itself, as if Feeneyites have been right all along on the alleged non-salvific efficacy of the baptisms of blood and desire (a deficient form of sanctifying grace that does not actually render one an adopted son of God and heir to the kingdom).

You accept the “immutability” of the doctrine of the baptism of blood/baptism of desire, but see how you tear at it every chance you get. The “number” of souls saved by an extraordinary means is irrelevant, and this isn’t about “proving" it with "moral certainty”, but recognizing that what the Church teaches is absolutely true.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2248
Reputation : 2420
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Jehanne on Fri Mar 13, 2015 9:29 am

MRyan wrote:But you can’t reply to the example of the flesh and blood example of the publically martyred catechumen except to suggest that God is somehow bound or compelled to provide water baptism to the “tiny handful” who are regenerated in the baptism of blood, which calls into question the doctrine itself, as if Feeneyites have been right all along on the alleged non-salvific efficacy of the baptisms of blood and desire (a deficient form of sanctifying grace that does not actually render one an adopted son of God and heir to the kingdom.

I don't know; I don't think that the One and Triune God's "hands are tied".  He can bring the character of sacramental Baptism to whomever He wishes, just as He can lead anyone in any culture and/or non-Catholic religion into the One True Faith if that individual is willing to cooperate with the graces which are bestowed upon him.  But, yes, you may be right; there may be martyrs in Paradise who lack the character of sacramental Baptism.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  George Brenner on Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:13 pm

As our money says "In God we Trust"...... that is really the answer. On Earth we are compelled and commanded to embrace as Catholics and teach that all peoples need to enter, remain or return to the One true Catholic Church and receive one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins in order to be saved. How can something so simple be so complicated? Must be the work of the devil, me thinks. The conditions of sanctity as defined by the Catholic Church describes those nearly impossible states of grace that one would need who is not a visible member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved as determined by God. Although the specifics of one's particular judgment by God has been the debate of the centuries, what is the point? God is God and in God we trust and dare not question. If someone is in Heaven it is because God has deemed them worthy! Almost all in the Catholic Church in recent decades are guilty of the sin of presumption in forecasting, assuming or encouraging the salvation of non Catholics, without the command to teach them otherwise. Why in the world would a Catholic ever do this? We as Catholics are the only ones who by the death of Jesus and institution of the Catholic Church OWN the only formula for Salvation and antidote against the gates of hell to be saved..

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:54 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:We most certainly can presume "extraordinary means," when it concerns, for example, the non-water baptized catechumen who is martyred professing the true Faith.

And, we're back to "proving negatives" again, because Father Feeney would assert that those tiny handful of individuals were, in fact, all sacramentally baptized prior to their martyrdoms.  So, yes, while their eternal salvation is absolutely certain, is their non-Baptisms just as certain?
No, we’re not back to “proving” anything, except what the Church teaches. You and Lionel seem hell bent on “proving” that the saved must be “known to us”, visible to us by the fact of their sacramental baptism, as if that “proves” salvation (or, as you would have it, it provides for us a greater “moral certainty”).

But you can’t reply to the example of the flesh and blood example of the publically martyred catechumen except to suggest that God is somehow bound or compelled to provide water baptism to the “tiny handful” who are regenerated in the baptism of blood, which calls into question the doctrine itself, as if Feeneyites have been right all along on the alleged non-salvific efficacy of the baptisms of blood and desire (a deficient form of sanctifying grace that does not actually render one an adopted son of God and heir to the kingdom).

You accept the “immutability” of the doctrine of the baptism of blood/baptism of desire, but see how you tear at it every chance you get. The “number” of souls saved by an extraordinary means is irrelevant, and this isn’t about “proving" it with "moral certainty”, but recognizing that what the Church teaches is absolutely true.

Right . . . and the set of those in heaven without water baptism may indeed be a “null set.” 

We have some precedent in Church teaching for statements which express a truth which might not be the case in actuality - of something which would be true if it happened, but might not actually happen:


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." 

And we are told:


103. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.


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

Who would die with the stain of original sin alone? Infants who died without baptism. We may hope that Pope Eugene’s set is “null” in that respect, though the truth of Pope Eugene’s statement about what would happen to such (were it to happen) is true.


Likewise, if someone were to die without having committed mortal sin, etc., even though not baptized or having explicit faith in Christ, and were cleansed by some type of act of love or charity without an explicit desire of baptism or joining the Church, they’d be saved. 


If, if, if . . . 


I have a strong opinion, based upon Church teaching on the necessity of the Catholic faith and baptism or the explicit desire for the same, that that’s not the situation in reality.


Since the promulgation of the Gospel, faith and an explicit desire for baptism is necessary:



CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.


By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being 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, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. 


http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

We know that the desire referenced is “explicit” from the teaching of the Trent fathers in the catechism of that name:



On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.



http://catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml

Those under the Old Covenant were saved by an implicit faith in Christ and the Cross, but implicit faith is not salvific “since the promulgation of the Gospel.” 


So much for the error of “implicit faith,” and all the errors it has spawned, rejecting the necessity of faith and baptism (or at least the desire for the same - which hypothetically would certainly be enough) under the New and Final Dispensation. 
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 853
Reputation : 916
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:02 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:We most certainly can presume "extraordinary means," when it concerns, for example, the non-water baptized catechumen who is martyred professing the true Faith.



And, we're back to "proving negatives" again, because Father Feeney would assert that those tiny handful of individuals were, in fact, all sacramentally baptized prior to their martyrdoms.  So, yes, while their eternal salvation is absolutely certain, is their non-Baptisms just as certain?


No, we’re not back to “proving” anything, except what the Church teaches. You and Lionel seem hell bent on “proving” that the saved must be “known to us”, visible to us by the fact of their sacramental baptism, as if that “proves” salvation (or, as you would have it, it provides for us a greater “moral certainty”).

But you can’t reply to the example of the flesh and blood example of the publically martyred catechumen except to suggest that God is somehow bound or compelled to provide water baptism to the “tiny handful” who are regenerated in the baptism of blood, which calls into question the doctrine itself, as if Feeneyites have been right all along on the alleged non-salvific efficacy of the baptisms of blood and desire (a deficient form of sanctifying grace that does not actually render one an adopted son of God and heir to the kingdom).

You accept the “immutability” of the doctrine of the baptism of blood/baptism of desire, but see how you tear at it every chance you get. The “number” of souls saved by an extraordinary means is irrelevant, and this isn’t about “proving" it with "moral certainty”, but recognizing that what the Church teaches is absolutely true.



Right . . . and the set of those in heaven without water baptism may indeed be a “null set.” 


We have some precedent in Church teaching for statements which express a truth which might not be the case in actuality - of something which would be true if it happened, but might not actually happen:


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." 





And we are told:


103. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.


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



Who would die with the stain of original sin alone? Infants who died without baptism. We may hope that Pope Eugene’s set is “null” in that respect, though the truth of Pope Eugene’s statement about what would happen to such (were it to happen) is true.


Likewise, if someone were to die without having committed mortal sin, etc., even though not baptized or having explicit faith in Christ, and were cleansed by some type of act of love or charity without an explicit desire of baptism or joining the Church, they’d be saved. 

If, if, if . . . 

I have a strong opinion, based upon Church teaching on the necessity of the Catholic faith and baptism or the explicit desire for the same, that that’s not the situation in reality.


Since the promulgation of the Gospel, faith and an explicit desire for baptism is necessary:


CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.


By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being 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, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. 


http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm




We know that the desire referenced is “explicit” from the teaching of the Trent fathers in the catechism of that name:


On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.



http://catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml




Those under the Old Covenant were saved by an implicit faith in Christ and the Cross, but implicit faith is not salvific “since the promulgation of the Gospel.” 

So much for the error of “implicit faith,” and all the errors it has spawned, rejecting the necessity of faith and baptism (or at least the desire for the same - which hypothetically would certainly be enough) under the New and Final Dispensation. 
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 853
Reputation : 916
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Jehanne on Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:23 pm

Yeah, how does one die in "original sin alone"? Perhaps Pope Francis and/or Mike can describe the conditions under which such would take place??
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Fri Mar 13, 2015 2:07 pm

Jehanne wrote:Yeah, how does one die in "original sin alone"?  Perhaps Pope Francis and/or Mike can describe the conditions under which such would take place??

For purposes of genuine and meaningful discussion which might be informative I’d rather here that from Mike. But hearing it from Pope Francis would be a hoot.

Sad, but true.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 853
Reputation : 916
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  George Brenner on Fri Mar 13, 2015 2:55 pm


I had a discussion with a priest very recently who when questioned said that other faiths are incorporated in the plan of salvation. That is good old fashioned heresy. I asked him, even if they held some of truths that Catholic's believe are they ever excused from being taught that they must convert to the one true Church in order to be saved. No answer...just the stink eye! That is the popular opinion held by the majority of clergy.

Actually, just as Pope Pius IX and countless others have commanded that it is unlawful to teach anything but the rigorist definition of Salvation. Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance are totally and completely irrelevant to teaching the faith clearly and exactly. If we were standing next to someone who was going to be a martyr and was to be proclaimed a Saint for the faith unbeknownst to them or us, even they would need to be taught the truth on salvation. This is the critical nature of not wavering in our faith. These other Church taught conditions of sanctity have been used by all save a few to achieve eventual Universalism and one world religion.


Pope Pius IX SINGULARI QUADAM


"For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic
teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [Eph. 4:5]; it is UNLAWFULL to proceed further in inquiry"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



St. Augustine:


"Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him" (ibid., 141:5). "

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lactantius



"It is, therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the domicile of faith; this, the temple of God. Whoever does not enter there or whoever does not go out from there, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. . . . Because, however, all the various groups of heretics are confident that they are the Christians and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, let it be known that this is the true Church, in which there is confession and penance and which takes a health-promoting care of the sins and wounds to which the weak flesh is subject" (Divine Institutes 4:30:11–13 [A.D. 307])."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Cyprian of Carthage

"When we say, ‘Do you believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through the holy Church?’ we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the Church" (ibid., 69[70]:2 [A.D. 253]).

"Peter himself, showing and vindicating the unity, has commanded and warned us that we cannot be saved except by the one only baptism of the one Church. He says, ‘In the ark of Noah a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Similarly, baptism will in like manner save you" [1 Peter 3:20-21]. In how short and spiritual a summary has he set forth the sacrament of unity! In that baptism of the world in which its ancient wickedness was washed away, he who was not in the ark of Noah could not be saved by water. Likewise, neither can he be saved by baptism who has not been baptized in the Church which is established in the unity of the Lord according to the sacrament of the one ark" (ibid., 73[71]:11).

"[O]utside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism" (Treatise on Rebaptism 10 [A.D. 256]). "
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:27 pm

Jehanne wrote:Yeah, how does one die in "original sin alone"?  Perhaps Pope Francis and/or Mike can describe the conditions under which such would take place??
I'm not sure I understand the point of the question. I thought Mark and I already agreed that it applies only to infants. To die in original sin alone is to die without sanctifying grace. An infant who dies in original sin is deprived of the beatific vision, but is not deprived of an eternity of natural beatitude/happiness.

It seems to me that it would be impossible for an adult to die in original sin alone, for, if we follow the doctrine of St. Thomas, the inculpably ignorant youth who comes of age without access to the true faith must choose for or against the Creator. If he chooses for, original sin is removed with the influx of sanctifying grace.

Btw, is this the same alleged non-salvific and unfulfilled form of sanctifying grace (unless the doctrine of St. Thomas is denied, by maintaining that every youth who comes of age falls immediately into mortal sin without a revelation leading to an explicit faith in Jesus Christ - good luck with that) which is just like the alleged non-salvific form of sanctifying grace known as baptism of blood/baptism of desire championed by the St. Benedict Center?

Twice wrong is not a double negative.

Like St. Thomas Aquinas, I believe that every one of the elect will come to an explicit faith in Jesus Christ, and, like the grace of final perseverance, it is necessary unto salvation ... but, unlike persevering grace, not intrinsically so (it is not a dogma). We know, however, that every soul in heaven, by intrinsic necessity, has an explicit faith! How God brings this about between death's door and the particular judgment shall remain a mystery - though the doctrine of internal inspiration is no real mystery.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2248
Reputation : 2420
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Jehanne on Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:43 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Yeah, how does one die in "original sin alone"?  Perhaps Pope Francis and/or Mike can describe the conditions under which such would take place??
I'm not sure I understand the point of the question. I thought Mark and I already agreed that it applies only to infants. To die in original sin alone is to die without sanctifying grace. An infant who dies in original sin is deprived of the beatific vision, but is not deprived of an eternity of natural beatitude/happiness.

Saint Thomas states that those who have been mentally impaired from birth should be sacramentally baptized:

Imbeciles who never had, and have not now, the use of reason, are baptized, according to the Church's intention, just as according to the Church's ritual, they believe and repent; as we have stated above of children (9, ad Objection). But those who have had the use of reason at some time, or have now, are baptized according to their own intention, which they have now, or had when they were sane. (ST III, Q.68, A.12 ad 1)

By the way, I am glad that you are consistent in your treatment of theological "null sets."
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  MRyan on Fri Mar 13, 2015 6:39 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Yeah, how does one die in "original sin alone"?  Perhaps Pope Francis and/or Mike can describe the conditions under which such would take place??
I'm not sure I understand the point of the question. I thought Mark and I already agreed that it applies only to infants. To die in original sin alone is to die without sanctifying grace. An infant who dies in original sin is deprived of the beatific vision, but is not deprived of an eternity of natural beatitude/happiness.

Saint Thomas states that those who have been mentally impaired from birth should be sacramentally baptized:

Imbeciles who never had, and have not now, the use of reason, are baptized, according to the Church's intention, just as according to the Church's ritual, they believe and repent; as we have stated above of children (9, ad Objection). But those who have had the use of reason at some time, or have now, are baptized according to their own intention, which they have now, or had when they were sane. (ST III, Q.68, A.12 ad 1)
And? How is that relevant to your question and my response? Of course EVERY infant, regardless of impairment or level of cognition, SHOULD be baptized.

Jehanne wrote:By the way, I am glad that you are consistent in your treatment of theological "null sets."
Yes, I treat them with the respect they deserve. Smile
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2248
Reputation : 2420
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  George Brenner on Sat Mar 14, 2015 11:18 am


God predestines the graces by which His elect become Catholic. God predestines the preaching of the Gospel to the elect...................................




I came across this today in my saved file for constant review. After reading the below again it gives me pause to ask:

1. Who in the Church of today still teaches the faith with clarity and accuracy that is pleasing to God?
In light of a bishop saying recently thanks be to God that the misunderstanding of the protestant
reformation is behind us.
2 in light of a formula of ecumenicism and dialogue that shows no urgency or need for conversion
and strongly by practice suggests and promotes that Salvation can be found outside the Catholic Church.
3.. How very small might be number of those who are saved? What became of the children under the age of
reason and in the womb during the flood and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah ?
4. In light of the fact that the Church no longer resembles the reverence or sermons from sixty years ago
5. In light of the fact that there is a corollary between abortion and lack of faith in the degenerate mind set
of both. Abortion went from being something that was acceptable for rape or incest ( which is not
acceptable to God or Church) to being acceptable for no reason at all. Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire
and Invincible Ignorance, which are totally irrelevant to teaching the faith to all coupled with Church
teaching on salvation and the "elect" has during the era of VCII been ignored, massaged, extrapolated,
presumed and suggested as an all inclusive path to Salvation for those outside the Catholic Church in
opposition to centuries of teaching. It no longer matters what the Church teaches for all save a few do
not teach what the Church teaches and has taught for centuries.
6. In light of the fact that Church may be on the cusp of rampant apostasy.
7 In light of the fact the current catechism says that we together along with other religions adore the one,
merciful God. That is heresy



Douay-Rheims Bible
2Corinthians 4:1-6

The Light of the Gospel

1Therefore, seeing we have this ministration, according as we have obtained mercy, we faint not; 2But we renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the word of God; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience, in the sight of God. 3And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, 4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them. 5For we preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ our Lord; and ourselves your servants through Jesus. 6For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Christ Jesus

“Even so then at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” (Romans 11:5-6)



Mostly from St. Augustine:


Predestination is the preparation of God’s gratuitous gifts whereby the elect are eternally assumed in Christ



Indeed, the predestination of the elect is precisely nothing but God’s preparation of the gratuitous gifts whereby He eternally assumes the elect into Christ; gratuitous grace is the infallible execution of that predestination. It is primarily His work, not that of men, through whom He executes His infallible designs. Saint Augustine explained this with reference to God’s promise to Abraham:



“Moreover, that which I said [in his Epistle 102, to Deogratias], “That the salvation of this religion has never been lacking to him who was worthy of it, and that he to whom it was lacking was not worthy,”--if it be discussed and it be asked whence any man can be worthy there are not wanting those who say--by human will. But we say, by divine grace or predestination. Further, between grace and predestination there is only this difference, that predestination is the preparation for grace, while grace is the donation itself. When, therefore the apostle says, “Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works,” it is grace; but what follows--”which God hath prepared that we should walk in them”--is predestination, which cannot exist without foreknowledge, although foreknowledge may exist without predestination; because God foreknew by predestination those things which He was about to
do, whence it was said, “He made those things that shall be.”



“Moreover, He is able to foreknow even those things which He does not Himself do,--as all sins whatever. Because, although there are some which are in such wise sins as that they are also the penalties of sins, whence it is said, “God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient,” it is not in such a case the sin that is God's, but the judgment.



“Therefore God's predestination of good is, as I have said, the preparation of grace; which grace is the effect of that predestination. Therefore when God promised to Abraham in his seed the faith of the nations, saying, “I have established thee a father of many nations,” whence the apostle says, “Therefore it is of faith, that the promise, according to grace, might be established to all the seed,” He promised not from the power of our will but from His own predestination. For He promised what He Himself would do, not what men would do. Because, although men do those good things which pertain to God's worship, He Himself makes them to do what He has commanded; it is not they that cause Him to do what He has promised. Otherwise the fulfilment of God's promises would not be in the power of God, but in that of men; and thus what was promised by God to Abraham would be given to Abraham by men themselves. Abraham, however, did not believe thus, but
“he believed, giving glory to God, that what He promised He is able also to do.” He does not say, “to foretell”--he does not say, “to foreknow;” for He can foretell and foreknow the doings of strangers also; but he says, “He is able also to do;” and thus he is speaking not of the doings of others, but of His own.” (The Predestination of the Saints 19)



This being so, it would make no sense to raise objections about invincible ignorance. As we shall see St. Augustine explain, Omnipotent God predestines to His elect all the external and internal graces which bring them to incorporation into the Mystical Body and to the salvation of eternal assumption into Christ.





God predestines the graces by which His elect become Catholic



The elect are assumed into Christ only in the Catholic Church, which is His Mystical Body. Saint Augustine explains, as we shall see, that the graces, by which the predestined are eternally assumed into Christ comprise:



- The preaching of the Gospel by which the elect are given the word to which they consent;

- The thought that the word of the Faith is to be believed;

- The will to accept the Faith by which they are brought to baptism into Christ;

- Perseverance in the Faith and in righteousness;

- Or in the case of the elect who die in infancy, at least the baptism by which they are eternally assumed into Christ.



It is all God’s doing by which the elect are infallibly saved in the Catholic Church. We may note that this was indicated by the Apostle Peter upon the founding of the Church at Pentecost: “And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:47) And the Lord says: “And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” (Saint John 10:14)





God predestines the preaching of the Gospel to the elect



In His gratuitous predestination of the saints, God predestines that the Gospel shall be preached wheresoever the elect shall be foreknown to be, so that they may be assumed into Christ. St. Augustine:



“Do you not see that my desire was, without any prejudgment of the hidden counsel of God, and of other reasons, to say what might seem sufficient about Christ's foreknowledge, to convince the unbelief of the pagans who had brought forward this question? For what is more true than that Christ foreknew who should believe on Him, and at what times and places they should believe? But whether by the preaching of Christ to themselves by themselves they were to have faith, or whether they would receive it by God's gift,--that is, whether God only foreknew them, or also predestinated them, I did not at that time [Epistle 102] think it necessary to inquire or to discuss. Therefore what I said, “that Christ willed to appear to men at that time, and that His doctrine should be preached among them when He knew, and where He knew, that there were those who would believe on Him” may also thus be said, “That Christ willed to appear to men at that time, and that
His gospel should be preached among those, whom He knew, and where He knew, that there were those who had been elected in Himself before the foundation of the word.” But since, if it were so said, it would make the reader desirous of asking about those things which now by the warning of Pelagian errors must of necessity be discussed with greater copiousness and care, it seemed to me that what at that time was sufficient should be briefly said, leaving to one side, as I said, the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God, and without prejudging other reasons, concerning which I thought that we might more fittingly argue, not then, but at some other time.” (The Predestination of the Saints 18)



We may observe this preaching of the Gospel that the elect might be eternally assumed into Christ, in the work of the Apostle Paul, the tireless preacher of the Gospel to the nations: “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation, which is in Christ Jesus, with heavenly glory.” (II Timothy 2:10) Vivid instances of this predestined preaching of the Gospel to the elect may be observed in the book of Acts, where the Gospel is brought to the Ethiopian Eunuch, Cornelius, Saint Paul and Lydia, through the intervention of God





The invincibly ignorant are of the righteously reprobated



Hence those who are left in that ignorance of the Faith termed “invincible”, for that they have never, in the designs of God heard of it, and therefore could not believe, are simply left in that ignorance of divine matters which is due to the original sin, from which ignorance God was obliged to save no one, Who freely chose to gratuitously predestine an elect from the mass of that damnation such as that they would receive the hearing of the Gospel and all other required graces. Omnipotent God could bring the Gospel to all, but chooses not to.



“From this misery, most righteously inflicted on sinners, God's grace delivers, because man of his own accord, that is, by free will, could fall, but could not also rise. To this misery of just condemnation belong the ignorance and the difficulty which every man suffers from the beginning of his birth, and no one is delivered from that evil except by the grace of God. And this misery the Pelagians will not have to descend from a just condemnation, because they deny original sin; although even if the ignorance and difficulty were the natural beginnings of man, God would not even thus deserve to be reproached, but to be praised.” (The Gift of Perseverance 27)





Tyre and Sidon are instances of the divine reprobation of the invincibly ignorant



Saint Augustine illustrated the gratuity of the preaching of the Gospel with reference to the people of Tyre and Sidon of whom the Lord made mention, who would have repented if they had the external witness of Christ, and yet were left by God in ignorance unto condemnation.



“Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida: for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you. And thou Capharnaum, shalt thou be exalted up to heaven? thou shalt go down even unto hell. For if in Sodom had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in thee, perhaps it had remained unto this day. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones. Yea, Father; for so hath it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither
doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.” (Saint Matthew 11:21-26)



Again:



“This is the predestination of the saints,--nothing else; to wit, the foreknowledge and the preparation of God's kindnesses, whereby they are most certainly delivered, whoever they are that are delivered. But where are the rest left by the righteous divine judgment except in the mass of ruin, where the Tyrians and the Sidonians were left? who, moreover, might have believed if they had seen Christ's wonderful miracles. But since it was not given to them to believe, the means of believing also were denied them. […] But what the Lord said of the Tyrians and Sidonians may perchance be understood in another way: that no one nevertheless comes to Christ unless it were given him, and that it is given to those who are chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, he confesses beyond a doubt who hears the divine utterance. […] Because, “To you,” said He, “it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.” Of
these, the one refers to the mercy, the other to the judgment of Him to whom our soul cries, “I will sing of mercy and judgment unto Thee, O Lord.”” (The Gift of Perseverance 35)



Again:



“Tyre and Sidon would not have been condemned, although more slightly than those cities in which, although they did not believe, wonderful works were done by Christ the Lord; because if they had been done in them, they would have repented in dust and ashes, as the utterances of the Truth declare, in which words of His the Lord Jesus shows to us the loftier mystery of predestination. […] But can we say that even the Tyrians and Sidonians would have refused to believe such mighty works done among them, or would not have believed them if they had been done, when the Lord Himself bears witness to them that they would have repented with great humility if those signs of divine power had been done among them? And yet in the day of judgment they will be punished; although with a less punishment than those cities which would not believe the mighty works done in them.” (The Gift of Perseverance 22, 23)





God predestines the belief of the Gospel to the elect



Although Saint Augustine used the instance of Tyre and Sidon to illustrate that the preaching of the Gospel is gratuitously given, nevertheless, he also taught that the internal assent to the truth is itself given by God: wherefore it is true to say that the people of Tyre and Sidon would have repented and embraced the Gospel, upon hearing it, if God had moved them to belief in the same. For Faith is a gift of God, that the elect might be eternally assumed into Christ, which He can give to whomso He will; indeed He often gives faith even to the reprobate to whom He does not give perseverance in good.





God predestines to the elect the thought that the Gospel is to be believed



Saint Augustine explained that the assent to the preaching of the Faith depends on the thought that it is to be believed, which thought is gratuitously predestined by God to the elect. He took from his teacher Saint Ambrose the principle that a man’s thoughts are not in his own power, but are directed by God.



“But why do we not in opposition to this, rather hear the words, “Who hath first given to Him and it shall be recompensed to him again? since of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things.” And from whom, then, is that very beginning of our faith if not from Him? For this is not excepted when other things are spoken of as of Him; but “of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things.” […] “Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake.” He shows that both are the gifts of God, because he said that both were given. And he does not say, “to believe on Him more fully and perfectly,” but, “to believe on Him.” Neither does he say that he himself had obtained mercy to be more faithful, but “to be faithful” because he knew that he had not first given the beginning of his faith to God, and had its increase given back to him again by Him; but that he had been made
faithful by God, who also had made him [Saint Paul] an apostle. […]



“And, therefore, commending that grace which is not given according to any merits, but is the cause of all good merits, he says, “Not that we are sufficient to think anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God.” Let them give attention to this, and well weigh these words, who think that the beginning of faith is of ourselves, and the supplement of faith is of God. For who cannot see that thinking is prior to believing? For no one believes anything unless he has first thought that it is to be believed. For however suddenly, however rapidly, some thoughts fly before the will to believe, and this [will] presently follows in such wise as to attend them, as it were, in closest conjunction, it is yet necessary that everything which is believed should be believed after thought [that it is to be believed] has preceded; although even belief itself is nothing else than to think with assent. For it is not every one who thinks that believes, since
many think in order that they may not believe; but everybody who believes, thinks,--both thinks in believing and believes in thinking. Therefore in what pertains to religion and piety (of which the apostle was speaking), if we are not capable of thinking anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, we are certainly not capable of believing anything as of ourselves, since we cannot do this without thinking; but our sufficiency, by which we begin to believe, is of God. Wherefore, as no one is sufficient for himself, for the beginning or the completion of any good work whatever,--and this those brethren of yours, as what you have written intimates, already agree to be true, whence, as well in the beginning as in the carrying out of every good work, our sufficiency is of God,--so no one is sufficient for himself, either to begin or to perfect faith; but our sufficiency is of God.” (The Predestination of the Saints 4, 5)



We may consider that thoughts do not entirely have their origin in consciousness, but appear in consciousness once they have already begun to exist, and in so appearing have their existence. God gives the thought that the Gospel is to be believed, and thus it is that the elect think that the Gospel is to be believed.





God predestines to the elect the will to believe the Gospel



Once the elect has been granted the thought that the preached Gospel is to be believed, God then infallibly moves the free will of the elect, such as that they consent to the thought and become believers in the Gospel. For man is both intellect and will, and God moves both.



“And thus, when it is said, “For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou receivedst not?” if any one dare to say, “I have faith of myself, I did not, therefore, receive it,” he directly contradicts this most manifest truth,--not because it is not in the choice of man's will to believe or not to believe, but because in the elect the will is prepared by the Lord. Thus, moreover, the passage, “For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou receivedst not?” refers to that very faith which is in the will of man.” (The Predestination of the Saints 10)



Again:



“We see that many come to the Son because we see that many believe on Christ, but when and how they have heard this from the Father, and have learned, we see not. It is true that that grace is exceedingly secret, but who doubts that it is grace? This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart. When, therefore, the Father is heard within, and teaches, so that a man comes to the Son, He takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, as in the declaration of the prophet He has promised. Because He thus makes them children and vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory.” (The Predestination of the Saints 13)



Again:



“Now, therefore, the definite determination of God's will concerning predestination is of such a kind that some from unbelief receive the will to obey, and are converted to the faith or persevere in the faith, while others who abide in the delight of damnable sins, even if they have been predestinated, have not yet arisen, because the aid of pitying grace has not yet lifted them up.” (The Gift of Perseverance 58)





The invincibly ignorant do not receive the belief of the Gospel



Hence, those are in a sense invincibly ignorant, not only whom the Lord has not afforded the preaching of the Gospel, but also those to whom He does not give the thought that the Gospel is to be believed or the will to convert to the Faith, without which they are left in the mass of perdition. The belief of the Gospel is supernatural, not of earthly wisdom, and cannot be attained to without the assistance of God.



Saint Augustine explained that God could have saved all, but chose not to.



““Many hear the word of truth; but some believe, while others contradict. Therefore, the former will to believe; the latter do not will.” Who does not know this? Who can deny this? But since in some the will is prepared by the Lord, in others it is not prepared, we must assuredly be able to distinguish what comes from God's mercy, and what from His judgment. […] Here is mercy and judgment,--mercy towards the election which has obtained the righteousness of God, but judgment to the rest which have been blinded. And yet the former, because they willed, believed; the latter, because they did not will believed not. Therefore mercy and judgment were manifested in the very wills themselves. Certainly such an election is of grace, not at all of merits. For he had before said, “So, therefore, even at this present time, the remnant has been saved by the election of grace. And if by grace, now it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace.”
Therefore the election obtained what it obtained gratuitously; there preceded none of those things which they might first give, and it should be given to them again. He saved them for nothing.” (The Predestination of the Saints 11)



Again:



“Why, then, does He not teach all that they may come to Christ, except because all whom He teaches, He teaches in mercy, while those whom He teaches not, in judgment He teaches not? Since, “On whom He will He has mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.” But He has mercy when He gives good things. He hardens when He recompenses what is deserved. […] And why He does not teach all men the apostle explained, as far as he judged that it was to be explained, because, “willing to show His wrath, and to exhibit His power, He endured with much patience the vessels of wrath which were perfected for destruction; and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory.” Hence it is that the “word of the cross is foolishness to them that perish; but unto them that are saved it is the power of God.” God teaches all such to come to Christ, for He wills all such to be saved, and to come to the knowledge
of the truth. And if He had willed to teach even those to whom the word of the cross is foolishness to come to Christ beyond all doubt these also would have come. For He neither deceives nor is deceived when He says, “Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.”” (The Predestination of the Saints 14)



The elect shall exhibit God’s mercy for all eternity, and the reprobate shall exhibit His justice, and each shall exhibit the goodness of God. For the creation is to manifest the goodness of God.





The worthiness of the elect is from election not from their will



There is no difference per se between the predestined and the reprobate: they are all born as “the clay of the same lump”, worthy of condemnation from their original sin, and unable to rise without the gratuitous mercy of God. They are all without distinction of worthiness, over whom “the Potter hath power” (Romans 11) unto the worthiness of election or to reprobation unto condemnation. There is no unrighteousness with God that He should leave the invincibly ignorant to receive their just punishment, be it for original or further sins. They are already dishonourable, being conceived in original sin.



Saint Augustine explains as follows:



“Moreover, that which I said [Epistle 102], “That the salvation of this religion has never been lacking to him who was worthy of it, and that he to whom it was lacking was not worthy,”--if it be discussed and it be asked whence any man can be worthy there are not wanting those who say--by human will. But we say, by divine grace or predestination.” (The Predestination of the Saints 19)



Again:



“It is therefore settled that God's grace is not given according to the deserts of the recipients, but according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise and glory of His own grace; so that he who glorieth may by no means glory in himself, but in the Lord, who gives to those men to whom He will, because He is merciful, what if, however, He does not give, He is righteous: and He does not give to whom He will not, that He may make known the riches of His glory to the vessels of mercy. For by giving to some what they do not deserve, He has certainly willed that His grace should be gratuitous, and thus genuine grace; by not giving to all, He has shown what all deserve. Good in His goodness to some, righteous in the punishment of others; both good in respect of all, because it is good when that which is due is rendered, and righteous in respect of all, since that which is not due is given without wrong to any one.” (The Gift of Perseverance 28)



Again:



“Wherefore, the above-mentioned most excellent commentators on the divine declarations [Saints Cyprian and Ambrose] both preached the true grace of God as
as it ought to be preached,--that is, as a grace preceded by no human deservings,--and urgently exhorted to the doing of the divine commandments, that they who might have the gift of obedience should hear what commands they ought to obey. […] But God calls those whom He makes worthy, and makes religious whom He will.” (The Gift of Perseverance 49)





God predestines the elect to persevere in Christ unto eternal assumption in Him



Saint Augustine explained that even as God works the obedience of the Faith that the elect might come to Christ, being assumed into Him through baptism, likewise, it is the purely gratuitous gift of God that the elect do not finally depart from the Church, but persevere in Him that they might remain in Him eternally. Only the elect are given the great grace of final perseverance in the Faith and in that justification by which we are made living members of Christ, having been assumed into Him through baptism. The grace of perseverance is in part the grace of abiding in the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. God is able to give this grace to all, as He is able to predestine and save all; but most He reprobates.



“Even so then at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” (Romans 11:5-6)



St. Augustine:



“This grace He placed “in Him in whom we have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things.” And thus as He worketh that we come to Him, so He worketh that we do not depart. Wherefore it was said to Him by the mouth of the prophet, “Let Thy hand be upon the man of Thy right hand, and upon the Son of man whom Thou madest strong for Thyself, and we will not depart from Thee.” This certainly is not the first Adam, in whom we departed from Him, but the second Adam, upon whom His hand is placed, so that we do not depart from Him. For Christ altogether with His members is--for the Church's sake, which is His body--the fulness of Him. When, therefore, God's hand is upon Him, that we depart not from God, assuredly God's work reaches to us (for this is God's hand); by which work of God we are caused to be abiding in Christ with God--not, as in Adam, departing from God. For “in Christ we have obtained a
lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things.” This, therefore, is God's hand, not ours, that we depart not from God. That, I say, is His hand who said, “I will put my fear in their hearts, that they depart not from me.”” (The Gift of Perseverance 14)



Again:



“I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. […] And the believer of one year, or of a period as much shorter as may be conceived of, if he has lived faithfully until he died, has rather had this perseverance than the believer of many years' standing, if a little time before his death he has fallen away from the steadfastness of his faith.” (The Gift of Perseverance 1)



Again:



“If, then, there were no other proofs, this Lord's Prayer alone would be sufficient for us on behalf of the grace which I am defending; because it leaves us nothing wherein we may, as it were, glory as in our own, since it shows that our not departing from God is not given except by God, when it shows that it must be asked for from God. For he who is not led into temptation does not depart from God. This is absolutely not in the strength of free will, such as it now is.” (The Gift of Perseverance 13)



Hence, not only the invincibly ignorant, but all who are not of the elect are infallibly damned, whether they have previously abided in the Gospel or not. Some He preserves unto the end and others He allows to infallibly fall away to perdition.





The destiny of those who die in infanthood is determined by whether they are predestined to receive baptism into Christ



Infants only die young because God permits or causes this to happen. Some such are elect and are predestinated to receive baptism that they might be assumed into Christ; others are reprobate and are damned. There is no difference between them. St. Augustine:



“Be it therefore far from us so to forsake the case of infants as to say to ourselves that it is uncertain whether, being regenerated in Christ, if they die in infancy they pass into eternal salvation; but that, not being regenerated, they pass into the second death. Because that which is written, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men,” cannot be rightly understood in any other manner. Nor from that eternal death which is most righteously repaid to sin does any deliver anyone, small or great, save He who, for the sake of remitting our sins, both original and personal, died without any sin of His own, either original or personal. But why some rather than others? Again and again we say, and do not shrink from it: “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” “His judgments are unsearchable, and His ways past finding out.” And let us add this: “Seek not out the things that are too high
for thee, and search not the things that are above thy strength.” […]



“We see this in more evident truth especially in infants. For God is not compelled by fate to come to the help of these infants, and not to come to the help of those,--since the case is alike to both. Or shall we think that human affairs in the case of infants are not managed by Divine Providence, but by fortuitous chances, when rational souls are either to be condemned or delivered, although, indeed, not a sparrow falls to the ground without the will of our Father which is in heaven? Or must we so attribute it to the negligence of parents that infants die without baptism, as that heavenly judgments have nothing to do with it; as if they themselves who in this way die badly had of their own will chosen the negligent parents for themselves of whom they were born? What shall I say when an infant expires some time before he can possibly be advantaged by the ministry of baptism? For often when the parents are eager and the ministers prepared for giving
baptism to the infants, it still is not given, because God does not choose; since He has not kept it in this life for a little while in order that baptism might be given it. What, moreover, when sometimes aid could be afforded by baptism to the children of unbelievers, that they should not go into perdition, and could not be afforded to the children of believers? In which case it is certainly shown that there is no acceptance of persons with God; otherwise He would rather deliver the children of His worshippers than the children of His enemies.” (The Gift of Perseverance 30, 31)



The reprobate infants are invincibly ignorant also, and perish in eternity simply because this is the decree of God. They die, not only without a belief in Christ but before they have reached the age at which they are capable of believing and seeking baptism.





Conclusion



We see that Saint Augustine considered the fate of the invincibly ignorant from the perspective of the gratuitous predestination of the saints as the Mystical Body of Christ - and the reprobation of the reprobate. Let not anyone say that the invincibility of ignorance is a new consideration, only recently introduced into the consideration of the Church. Saint Augustine pointed out that people justly die perchance without the gratuitously given capacity to believe (as infants), or without the gratuitously given preaching of the Gospel, or the gratuitously given thought that the Gospel is to be believed, or the gratuitously given will to believe the Faith, or the gratuitously given perseverance in the Faith and justice – they die without the gratuitous predestination of the graces by which the elect are infallibly saved, and without which the reprobate are infallibly damned.









avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Sat Mar 14, 2015 11:36 am

George Brenner wrote:
  God predestines the graces by which His elect become Catholic. God predestines the preaching of the Gospel to the elect...................................




I came across this today in my saved file for constant review. After reading the below again it gives me pause to ask:

     1.  Who in the Church of today still teaches the faith with clarity and accuracy that is pleasing to God?
           In light of a bishop saying recently thanks be to God that the misunderstanding of the protestant  
           reformation is behind us.
     2  in light of a formula of ecumenicism and dialogue that shows no urgency or need for conversion
           and strongly by practice suggests and promotes that Salvation can be found outside the Catholic Church.
     3..  How very small might be number of those who are saved? What became of the  children under the age of
            reason and in the womb during the flood and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah ?
     4.   In light of the fact that the Church no longer resembles the reverence or sermons from sixty years ago
     5.   In light of the fact that there is a corollary between abortion and lack of faith in the degenerate mind set
           of both. Abortion went from being something that was acceptable for rape or incest ( which is not
           acceptable to God or Church) to being acceptable for no reason at all. Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire
           and Invincible Ignorance, which are totally irrelevant to teaching the faith to all coupled with Church
           teaching on salvation and the "elect" has during the era of VCII been ignored, massaged, extrapolated,    
           presumed and suggested as an all inclusive path to Salvation for those outside the Catholic Church in
           opposition to centuries of teaching. It no longer matters what the Church teaches for all save a few do
           not teach what the Church teaches and has taught for centuries.
       6. In light of the fact that Church may be on the cusp of rampant apostasy.
       7 In light of the fact the current catechism says that we together along with other religions adore the one,
           merciful God. That is heresy
   


Douay-Rheims Bible
2Corinthians 4:1-6

The Light of the Gospel

1Therefore, seeing we have this ministration, according as we have obtained mercy, we faint not; 2But we renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the word of God; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience, in the sight of God. 3And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, 4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them. 5For we preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ our Lord; and ourselves your servants through Jesus. 6For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Christ Jesus

“Even so then at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” (Romans 11:5-6)



Mostly from St. Augustine:


Predestination is the preparation of God’s gratuitous gifts whereby the elect are eternally assumed in Christ



Indeed, the predestination of the elect is precisely nothing but God’s preparation of the gratuitous gifts whereby He eternally assumes the elect into Christ; gratuitous grace is the infallible execution of that predestination.  It is primarily His work, not that of men, through whom He executes His infallible designs.  Saint Augustine explained this with reference to God’s promise to Abraham:



“Moreover, that which I said [in his Epistle 102, to Deogratias], “That the salvation of this religion has never been lacking to him who was worthy of it, and that he to whom it was lacking was not worthy,”--if it be discussed and it be asked whence any man can be worthy there are not wanting those who say--by human will. But we say, by divine grace or predestination. Further, between grace and predestination there is only this difference, that predestination is the preparation for grace, while grace is the donation itself. When, therefore the apostle says, “Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works,” it is grace; but what follows--”which God hath prepared that we should walk in them”--is predestination, which cannot exist without foreknowledge, although foreknowledge may exist without predestination; because God foreknew by predestination those things which He was about to
do, whence it was said, “He made those things that shall be.”



“Moreover, He is able to foreknow even those things which He does not Himself do,--as all sins whatever. Because, although there are some which are in such wise sins as that they are also the penalties of sins, whence it is said, “God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient,” it is not in such a case the sin that is God's, but the judgment.



“Therefore God's predestination of good is, as I have said, the preparation of grace; which grace is the effect of that predestination. Therefore when God promised to Abraham in his seed the faith of the nations, saying, “I have established thee a father of many nations,” whence the apostle says, “Therefore it is of faith, that the promise, according to grace, might be established to all the seed,” He promised not from the power of our will but from His own predestination. For He promised what He Himself would do, not what men would do. Because, although men do those good things which pertain to God's worship, He Himself makes them to do what He has commanded; it is not they that cause Him to do what He has promised. Otherwise the fulfilment of God's promises would not be in the power of God, but in that of men; and thus what was promised by God to Abraham would be given to Abraham by men themselves. Abraham, however, did not believe thus, but
“he believed, giving glory to God, that what He promised He is able also to do.” He does not say, “to foretell”--he does not say, “to foreknow;” for He can foretell and foreknow the doings of strangers also; but he says, “He is able also to do;” and thus he is speaking not of the doings of others, but of His own.” (The Predestination of the Saints 19)



This being so, it would make no sense to raise objections about invincible ignorance.  As we shall see St. Augustine explain, Omnipotent God predestines to His elect all the external and internal graces which bring them to incorporation into the Mystical Body and to the salvation of eternal assumption into Christ.





God predestines the graces by which His elect become Catholic



The elect are assumed into Christ only in the Catholic Church, which is His Mystical Body.  Saint Augustine explains, as we shall see, that the graces, by which the predestined are eternally assumed into Christ comprise:



- The preaching of the Gospel by which the elect are given the word to which they consent;

- The thought that the word of the Faith is to be believed;

- The will to accept the Faith by which they are brought to baptism into Christ;

- Perseverance in the Faith and in righteousness;

- Or in the case of the elect who die in infancy, at least the baptism by which they are eternally assumed into Christ.



It is all God’s doing by which the elect are infallibly saved in the Catholic Church.  We may note that this was indicated by the Apostle Peter upon the founding of the Church at Pentecost: “And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:47)  And the Lord says: “And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” (Saint John 10:14)





God predestines the preaching of the Gospel to the elect



In His gratuitous predestination of the saints, God predestines that the Gospel shall be preached wheresoever the elect shall be foreknown to be, so that they may be assumed into Christ. St. Augustine:



“Do you not see that my desire was, without any prejudgment of the hidden counsel of God, and of other reasons, to say what might seem sufficient about Christ's foreknowledge, to convince the unbelief of the pagans who had brought forward this question? For what is more true than that Christ foreknew who should believe on Him, and at what times and places they should believe? But whether by the preaching of Christ to themselves by themselves they were to have faith, or whether they would receive it by God's gift,--that is, whether God only foreknew them, or also predestinated them, I did not at that time [Epistle 102] think it necessary to inquire or to discuss. Therefore what I said, “that Christ willed to appear to men at that time, and that His doctrine should be preached among them when He knew, and where He knew, that there were those who would believe on Him” may also thus be said, “That Christ willed to appear to men at that time, and that
His gospel should be preached among those, whom He knew, and where He knew, that there were those who had been elected in Himself before the foundation of the word.” But since, if it were so said, it would make the reader desirous of asking about those things which now by the warning of Pelagian errors must of necessity be discussed with greater copiousness and care, it seemed to me that what at that time was sufficient should be briefly said, leaving to one side, as I said, the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God, and without prejudging other reasons, concerning which I thought that we might more fittingly argue, not then, but at some other time.” (The Predestination of the Saints 18)



We may observe this preaching of the Gospel that the elect might be eternally assumed into Christ, in the work of the Apostle Paul, the tireless preacher of the Gospel to the nations: “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation, which is in Christ Jesus, with heavenly glory.” (II Timothy 2:10)  Vivid instances of this predestined preaching of the Gospel to the elect may be observed in the book of Acts, where the Gospel is brought to the Ethiopian Eunuch, Cornelius, Saint Paul and Lydia, through the intervention of God





The invincibly ignorant are of the righteously reprobated



Hence those who are left in that ignorance of the Faith termed “invincible”, for that they have never, in the designs of God heard of it, and therefore could not believe, are simply left in that ignorance of divine matters which is due to the original sin, from which ignorance God was obliged to save no one, Who freely chose to gratuitously predestine an elect from the mass of that damnation such as that they would receive the hearing of the Gospel and all other required graces.  Omnipotent God could bring the Gospel to all, but chooses not to.



“From this misery, most righteously inflicted on sinners, God's grace delivers, because man of his own accord, that is, by free will, could fall, but could not also rise. To this misery of just condemnation belong the ignorance and the difficulty which every man suffers from the beginning of his birth, and no one is delivered from that evil except by the grace of God. And this misery the Pelagians will not have to descend from a just condemnation, because they deny original sin; although even if the ignorance and difficulty were the natural beginnings of man, God would not even thus deserve to be reproached, but to be praised.” (The Gift of Perseverance 27)





Tyre and Sidon are instances of the divine reprobation of the invincibly ignorant



Saint Augustine illustrated the gratuity of the preaching of the Gospel with reference to the people of Tyre and Sidon of whom the Lord made mention, who would have repented if they had the external witness of Christ, and yet were left by God in ignorance unto condemnation.



“Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida: for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you. And thou Capharnaum, shalt thou be exalted up to heaven? thou shalt go down even unto hell. For if in Sodom had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in thee, perhaps it had remained unto this day. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones. Yea, Father; for so hath it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither
doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.” (Saint Matthew 11:21-26)



Again:



“This is the predestination of the saints,--nothing else; to wit, the foreknowledge and the preparation of God's kindnesses, whereby they are most certainly delivered, whoever they are that are delivered. But where are the rest left by the righteous divine judgment except in the mass of ruin, where the Tyrians and the Sidonians were left? who, moreover, might have believed if they had seen Christ's wonderful miracles. But since it was not given to them to believe, the means of believing also were denied them. […] But what the Lord said of the Tyrians and Sidonians may perchance be understood in another way: that no one nevertheless comes to Christ unless it were given him, and that it is given to those who are chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, he confesses beyond a doubt who hears the divine utterance. […] Because, “To you,” said He, “it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.” Of
these, the one refers to the mercy, the other to the judgment of Him to whom our soul cries, “I will sing of mercy and judgment unto Thee, O Lord.”” (The Gift of Perseverance 35)



Again:



“Tyre and Sidon would not have been condemned, although more slightly than those cities in which, although they did not believe, wonderful works were done by Christ the Lord; because if they had been done in them, they would have repented in dust and ashes, as the utterances of the Truth declare, in which words of His the Lord Jesus shows to us the loftier mystery of predestination. […] But can we say that even the Tyrians and Sidonians would have refused to believe such mighty works done among them, or would not have believed them if they had been done, when the Lord Himself bears witness to them that they would have repented with great humility if those signs of divine power had been done among them? And yet in the day of judgment they will be punished; although with a less punishment than those cities which would not believe the mighty works done in them.” (The Gift of Perseverance 22, 23)





God predestines the belief of the Gospel to the elect



Although Saint Augustine used the instance of Tyre and Sidon to illustrate that the preaching of the Gospel is gratuitously given, nevertheless, he also taught that the internal assent to the truth is itself given by God: wherefore it is true to say that the people of Tyre and Sidon would have repented and embraced the Gospel, upon hearing it, if God had moved them to belief in the same.  For Faith is a gift of God, that the elect might be eternally assumed into Christ, which He can give to whomso He will; indeed He often gives faith even to the reprobate to whom He does not give perseverance in good.





God predestines to the elect the thought that the Gospel is to be believed



Saint Augustine explained that the assent to the preaching of the Faith depends on the thought that it is to be believed, which thought is gratuitously predestined by God to the elect.  He took from his teacher Saint Ambrose the principle that a man’s thoughts are not in his own power, but are directed by God.



“But why do we not in opposition to this, rather hear the words, “Who hath first given to Him and it shall be recompensed to him again? since of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things.” And from whom, then, is that very beginning of our faith if not from Him? For this is not excepted when other things are spoken of as of Him; but “of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things.” […] “Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake.” He shows that both are the gifts of God, because he said that both were given. And he does not say, “to believe on Him more fully and perfectly,” but, “to believe on Him.” Neither does he say that he himself had obtained mercy to be more faithful, but “to be faithful” because he knew that he had not first given the beginning of his faith to God, and had its increase given back to him again by Him; but that he had been made
faithful by God, who also had made him [Saint Paul] an apostle. […]



“And, therefore, commending that grace which is not given according to any merits, but is the cause of all good merits, he says, “Not that we are sufficient to think anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God.” Let them give attention to this, and well weigh these words, who think that the beginning of faith is of ourselves, and the supplement of faith is of God. For who cannot see that thinking is prior to believing? For no one believes anything unless he has first thought that it is to be believed. For however suddenly, however rapidly, some thoughts fly before the will to believe, and this [will] presently follows in such wise as to attend them, as it were, in closest conjunction, it is yet necessary that everything which is believed should be believed after thought [that it is to be believed] has preceded; although even belief itself is nothing else than to think with assent. For it is not every one who thinks that believes, since
many think in order that they may not believe; but everybody who believes, thinks,--both thinks in believing and believes in thinking. Therefore in what pertains to religion and piety (of which the apostle was speaking), if we are not capable of thinking anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, we are certainly not capable of believing anything as of ourselves, since we cannot do this without thinking; but our sufficiency, by which we begin to believe, is of God. Wherefore, as no one is sufficient for himself, for the beginning or the completion of any good work whatever,--and this those brethren of yours, as what you have written intimates, already agree to be true, whence, as well in the beginning as in the carrying out of every good work, our sufficiency is of God,--so no one is sufficient for himself, either to begin or to perfect faith; but our sufficiency is of God.” (The Predestination of the Saints 4, 5)



We may consider that thoughts do not entirely have their origin in consciousness, but appear in consciousness once they have already begun to exist, and in so appearing have their existence.  God gives the thought that the Gospel is to be believed, and thus it is that the elect think that the Gospel is to be believed.





God predestines to the elect the will to believe the Gospel



Once the elect has been granted the thought that the preached Gospel is to be believed, God then infallibly moves the free will of the elect, such as that they consent to the thought and become believers in the Gospel.  For man is both intellect and will, and God moves both.



“And thus, when it is said, “For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou receivedst not?” if any one dare to say, “I have faith of myself, I did not, therefore, receive it,” he directly contradicts this most manifest truth,--not because it is not in the choice of man's will to believe or not to believe, but because in the elect the will is prepared by the Lord. Thus, moreover, the passage, “For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou receivedst not?” refers to that very faith which is in the will of man.” (The Predestination of the Saints 10)



Again:



“We see that many come to the Son because we see that many believe on Christ, but when and how they have heard this from the Father, and have learned, we see not. It is true that that grace is exceedingly secret, but who doubts that it is grace? This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart. When, therefore, the Father is heard within, and teaches, so that a man comes to the Son, He takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, as in the declaration of the prophet He has promised. Because He thus makes them children and vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory.” (The Predestination of the Saints 13)



Again:



“Now, therefore, the definite determination of God's will concerning predestination is of such a kind that some from unbelief receive the will to obey, and are converted to the faith or persevere in the faith, while others who abide in the delight of damnable sins, even if they have been predestinated, have not yet arisen, because the aid of pitying grace has not yet lifted them up.” (The Gift of Perseverance 58)





The invincibly ignorant do not receive the belief of the Gospel



Hence, those are in a sense invincibly ignorant, not only whom the Lord has not afforded the preaching of the Gospel, but also those to whom He does not give the thought that the Gospel is to be believed or the will to convert to the Faith, without which they are left in the mass of perdition.  The belief of the Gospel is supernatural, not of earthly wisdom, and cannot be attained to without the assistance of God.



Saint Augustine explained that God could have saved all, but chose not to.



““Many hear the word of truth; but some believe, while others contradict. Therefore, the former will to believe; the latter do not will.” Who does not know this? Who can deny this? But since in some the will is prepared by the Lord, in others it is not prepared, we must assuredly be able to distinguish what comes from God's mercy, and what from His judgment. […] Here is mercy and judgment,--mercy towards the election which has obtained the righteousness of God, but judgment to the rest which have been blinded. And yet the former, because they willed, believed; the latter, because they did not will believed not. Therefore mercy and judgment were manifested in the very wills themselves. Certainly such an election is of grace, not at all of merits. For he had before said, “So, therefore, even at this present time, the remnant has been saved by the election of grace. And if by grace, now it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace.”
Therefore the election obtained what it obtained gratuitously; there preceded none of those things which they might first give, and it should be given to them again. He saved them for nothing.” (The Predestination of the Saints 11)



Again:



“Why, then, does He not teach all that they may come to Christ, except because all whom He teaches, He teaches in mercy, while those whom He teaches not, in judgment He teaches not? Since, “On whom He will He has mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.” But He has mercy when He gives good things. He hardens when He recompenses what is deserved. […] And why He does not teach all men the apostle  explained, as far as he judged that it was to be explained, because, “willing to show His wrath, and to exhibit His power, He endured with much patience the vessels of wrath which were perfected for destruction; and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory.” Hence it is that the “word of the cross is foolishness to them that perish; but unto them that are saved it is the power of God.” God teaches all such to come to Christ, for He wills all such to be saved, and to come to the knowledge
of the truth. And if He had willed to teach even those to whom the word of the cross is foolishness to come to Christ beyond all doubt these also would have come. For He neither deceives nor is deceived when He says, “Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.”” (The Predestination of the Saints 14)



The elect shall exhibit God’s mercy for all eternity, and the reprobate shall exhibit His justice, and each shall exhibit the goodness of God.  For the creation is to manifest the goodness of God.





The worthiness of the elect is from election not from their will



There is no difference per se between the predestined and the reprobate: they are all born as “the clay of the same lump”, worthy of condemnation from their original sin, and unable to rise without the gratuitous mercy of God.  They are all without distinction of worthiness, over whom “the Potter hath power” (Romans 11) unto the worthiness of election or to reprobation unto condemnation. There is no unrighteousness with God that He should leave the invincibly ignorant to receive their just punishment, be it for original or further sins.  They are already dishonourable, being conceived in original sin.



Saint Augustine explains as follows:



“Moreover, that which I said [Epistle 102], “That the salvation of this religion has never been lacking to him who was worthy of it, and that he to whom it was lacking was not worthy,”--if it be discussed and it be asked whence any man can be worthy there are not wanting those who say--by human will. But we say, by divine grace or predestination.” (The Predestination of the Saints 19)



Again:



“It is therefore settled that God's grace is not given according to the deserts of the recipients, but according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise and glory of His own grace; so that he who glorieth may by no means glory in himself, but in the Lord, who gives to those men to whom He will, because He is merciful, what if, however, He does not give, He is righteous: and He does not give to whom He will not, that He may make known the riches of His glory to the vessels of mercy. For by giving to some what they do not deserve, He has certainly willed that His grace should be gratuitous, and thus genuine grace; by not giving to all, He has shown what all deserve. Good in His goodness to some, righteous in the punishment of others; both good in respect of all, because it is good when that which is due is rendered, and righteous in respect of all, since that which is not due is given without wrong to any one.” (The Gift of Perseverance 28)



Again:



“Wherefore, the above-mentioned most excellent commentators on the divine declarations [Saints Cyprian and Ambrose]  both preached the true grace of God as  
as it ought to be preached,--that is, as a grace preceded by no human deservings,--and urgently exhorted to the doing of the divine commandments, that they who might have the gift of obedience should hear what commands they ought to obey. […] But God calls those whom He makes worthy, and makes religious whom He will.” (The Gift of Perseverance 49)





God predestines the elect to persevere in Christ unto eternal assumption in Him



Saint Augustine explained that even as God works the obedience of the Faith that the elect might come to Christ, being assumed into Him through baptism, likewise, it is the purely gratuitous gift of God that the elect do not finally depart from the Church, but persevere in Him that they might remain in Him eternally.  Only the elect are given the great grace of final perseverance in the Faith and in that justification by which we are made living members of Christ, having been assumed into Him through baptism.  The grace of perseverance is in part the grace of abiding in the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.  God is able to give this grace to all, as He is able to predestine and save all; but most He reprobates.



“Even so then at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” (Romans 11:5-6)



St. Augustine:



“This grace He placed “in Him in whom we have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things.” And thus as He worketh that we come to Him, so He worketh that we do not depart. Wherefore it was said to Him by the mouth of the prophet, “Let Thy hand be upon the man of Thy right hand, and upon the Son of man whom Thou madest strong for Thyself, and we will not depart from Thee.” This certainly is not the first Adam, in whom we departed from Him, but the second Adam, upon whom His hand is placed, so that we do not depart from Him. For Christ altogether with His members is--for the Church's sake, which is His body--the fulness of Him. When, therefore, God's hand is upon Him, that we depart not from God, assuredly God's work reaches to us (for this is God's hand); by which work of God we are caused to be abiding in Christ with God--not, as in Adam, departing from God. For “in Christ we have obtained a
lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things.” This, therefore, is God's hand, not ours, that we depart not from God. That, I say, is His hand who said, “I will put my fear in their hearts, that they depart not from me.”” (The Gift of Perseverance 14)



Again:



“I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. […] And the believer of one year, or of a period as much shorter as may be conceived of, if he has lived faithfully until he died, has rather had this perseverance than the believer of many years' standing, if a little time before his death he has fallen away from the steadfastness of his faith.” (The Gift of Perseverance 1)



Again:



“If, then, there were no other proofs, this Lord's Prayer alone would be sufficient for us on behalf of the grace which I am defending; because it leaves us nothing wherein we may, as it were, glory as in our own, since it shows that our not departing from God is not given except by God, when it shows that it must be asked for from God. For he who is not led into temptation does not depart from God. This is absolutely not in the strength of free will, such as it now is.” (The Gift of Perseverance 13)



Hence, not only the invincibly ignorant, but all who are not of the elect are infallibly damned, whether they have previously abided in the Gospel or not.  Some He preserves unto the end and others He allows to infallibly fall away to perdition.





The destiny of those who die in infanthood is determined by whether they are predestined to receive baptism into Christ



Infants only die young because God permits or causes this to happen.  Some such are elect and are predestinated to receive baptism that they might be assumed into Christ; others are reprobate and are damned.  There is no difference between them.  St. Augustine:



“Be it therefore far from us so to forsake the case of infants as to say to ourselves that it is uncertain whether, being regenerated in Christ, if they die in infancy they pass into eternal salvation; but that, not being regenerated, they pass into the second death. Because that which is written, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men,” cannot be rightly understood in any other manner.  Nor from that eternal death which is most righteously repaid to sin does any deliver anyone, small or great, save He who, for the sake of remitting our sins, both original and personal, died without any sin of His own, either original or personal. But why some rather than others? Again and again we say, and do not shrink from it: “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” “His judgments are unsearchable, and His ways past finding out.” And let us add this: “Seek not out the things that are too high
for thee, and search not the things that are above thy strength.”  […]



“We see this in more evident truth especially in infants. For God is not compelled by fate to come to the help of these infants, and not to come to the help of those,--since the case is alike to both. Or shall we think that human affairs in the case of infants are not managed by Divine Providence, but by fortuitous chances, when rational souls are either to be condemned or delivered, although, indeed, not a sparrow falls to the ground without the will of our Father which is in heaven? Or must we so attribute it to the negligence of parents that infants die without baptism, as that heavenly judgments have nothing to do with it; as if they themselves who in this way die badly had of their own will chosen the negligent parents for themselves of whom they were born? What shall I say when an infant expires some time before he can possibly be advantaged by the ministry of baptism? For often when the parents are eager and the ministers prepared for giving
baptism to the infants, it still is not given, because God does not choose; since He has not kept it in this life for a little while in order that baptism might be given it. What, moreover, when sometimes aid could be afforded by baptism to the children of unbelievers, that they should not go into perdition, and could not be afforded to the children of believers? In which case it is certainly shown that there is no acceptance of persons with God; otherwise He would rather deliver the children of His worshippers than the children of His enemies.” (The Gift of Perseverance 30, 31)



The reprobate infants are invincibly ignorant also, and perish in eternity simply because this is the decree of God.  They die, not only without a belief in Christ but before they have reached the age at which they are capable of believing and seeking baptism.





Conclusion



We see that Saint Augustine considered the fate of the invincibly ignorant from the perspective of the gratuitous predestination of the saints as the Mystical Body of Christ - and the reprobation of the reprobate.  Let not anyone say that the invincibility of ignorance is a new consideration, only recently introduced into the consideration of the Church.  Saint Augustine pointed out that people justly die perchance without the gratuitously given capacity to believe (as infants), or without the gratuitously given preaching of the Gospel, or the gratuitously given thought that the Gospel is to be believed, or the gratuitously given will to believe the Faith, or the gratuitously given perseverance in the Faith and justice – they die without the gratuitous predestination of the graces by which the elect are infallibly saved, and without which the reprobate are infallibly damned.










Excellent, George. And spot on. 

The idea that any of the “elect” would die invincibly ignorant or without faith in Christ or without baptism is absurd. The idea is the fruit of modernism, and at the back of it is the pride of man and man’s self-love. 

You only get to salvation of the “invincibly ignorant” by gutting God of His power and control over His creation.

I think my signature line quote from St. Augustine summarizes the same thing pretty concisely.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 853
Reputation : 916
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  George Brenner on Sat Mar 14, 2015 11:47 am

Tornpage(Mark)

I forgot to mention to you before that your quote line is great. In fact my quotations from St. Augustine may have come from you on an earlier post. God would know.
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  George Brenner on Sun Mar 15, 2015 9:19 pm


There are no non-Catholics ever in the Church and there are no non-Catholics ever in Heaven. The only souls in Heaven are those who have joined themselves to the Church in fact or Desire/Blood. With love, charity and truth as taught by the Church with moral certainty over the ages, the Church describes and acknowledges the extraordinary moral miracle of those souls who find themselves in a state of sanctity which deems them worthy and subject to the judgment of God to be joined to the Catholic Church after their death. These extraordinary means of Salvation are to held with the same reverence and Holy awe along with all fellow Catholics who are blessed to spend eternity with God in Heaven. With this understanding , the Church is prohibited from teaching all peoples for all times anything other than the absolute necessity and ordinary formula as commanded by Jesus: There is only one Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church and one Baptism by Water outside which no one shall be saved. God forbid that any Catholic would teach, presume, project or encourage any non Catholic that they may find salvation by any other means other than Her commanded teaching mission and formula. Conditions of impossibility or Ignorance if and where they may exist are lovingly placed at God's door and we must take comfort in his justice and mercy. God will grant Salvation for all the elect.



Pope Pius V 1566-1572

"That holy baptism, the gateway to the Christian religion and to eternal life, holding as it does the first place among the sacraments instituted by Christ for the New Covenant, is necessary for salvation for all, either in act or desire, is testified by the divine Truth Himself in these words: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn 3.5). Therefore, the greatest concern is to be exercised for its correct and timely administration and reception" (Roman Ritual, Part II, Chapter I, para #1, emphasis added.)..
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE / ON PROMOTION OF FALSE DOCTRINES

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX

AUGUST 10, 1863




" 7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As early as 1713 Pope Clement XI condemned in his dogmatic Bull "Unigenitus" the proposition of the Jensenist Quesnel that affirmed that “no grace is given outside the Church” just as Alexander VIII has already condemned in 1690 the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld that “Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  George Brenner on Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:31 am

I found this interesting as I had not referenced this before:

The three errors of the Feeneyites SSPX FAQ's

by, Fr. Francois Laisney




We must defend the Catholic Faith, the absolute necessity of interior sanctifying grace as inseparable from true faith, hope and charity, and the necessity of the exterior sacraments "re aut voto - in reality or at least in desire" as taught by the Council of Trent.

In this time of confusion in the teaching of the Church we must hold fast to the unchangeable teaching of the Tradition of the Church, believing what the Church has always believed and taught "in the same meaning and the same words," not changing one iota to the right or to the left, for falling from the Faith on one side or the other is still falling from the true Faith, "without faith no one has ever been justified" (Council of Trent, TCT 563).

Let us pray that Our Lord Jesus Christ may give them the light to see and the grace to accept the age-old teaching of our holy Mother the Church by her popes, fathers, doctors and saints, and that, correcting themselves, they may serve the Church rather than change her doctrine


The three errors of the Feeneyites

Fr. Francois Laisney

Originally printed in the September 1998 issue of The Angelus magazine, this article is a follow-up to Fr. Joseph Pfieffer’s article in The Angelus of March 1998. It seems that some of the followers of Fr. Feeney took objection to his convincing dissertation proving the Catholic teaching concerning "baptism of desire." In fairness, the purpose of this article by Fr. Laisney is to clarify the three principle errors of the followers of Fr. Feeney which explain why they refuse the common teaching of Catholic theologians concerning "baptism of desire."




Error I:

Misrepresentation of the dogma, "Outside the Church There Is No Salvation"

The first error of those who take their doctrine from Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney, commonly known as "Feeneyites," is that they misrepresent the dogma, "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation." The Feeneyites misrepresent this as, "Without baptism of water there is no salvation."

St. Cyprian (c.210-258) was the first Catholic saint to use in writing[1] the expression "extra ecclesiam nulla salus," ("Outside the Church there is no salvation"). In the very passage in which he uses this phrase, St. Cyprian also expresses that baptism of water is inferior to baptism of blood. Since baptism of blood, he says, is not fruitful outside the Church, because "outside the Church there is no salvation," baptism of water also cannot be fruitful outside the Church. The reason for this is that it would imprint the character of baptism but would not give sanctifying grace, i.e., justification, which opens the gates of heaven.

In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the fathers, doctors, popes and unanimously all theologians, that baptism of blood, that is, dying for the Catholic Faith, is the most glorious and perfect baptism of all, explicitly stating "even without the water." In the paragraph following this one, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic faithful who, through no fault of their own, were received into the Catholic Church without a valid baptism,[2] would still go to heaven. This is to say that they would die with the requisite Catholic faith and charity, necessary to go to heaven, though without the waters of baptism. These requisites are exactly the conditions of "baptism of desire."

Why not then believe the dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation" "...with the same sense and the same understanding - in eodem sensu eademque sententia"[3] - as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the "three baptisms"? Fr. Leonard Feeney and his followers give a new meaning, a new interpretation, to this dogma.

This traditional interpretation of this dogma, including the "three baptisms," is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc., and unanimously all theologians (prior to the modernists). St. Alphonsus says: "It is de fide [that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith - Ed.] that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit."[4]

The traditional interpretation of "Outside the Church there is no salvation," was approved by the Council of Florence (1438-1445). The Council Fathers present made theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there was "no other remedy."[5] This expression is taken directly from St. Thomas (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q.68, A. 3) and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (ST, IIIa, Q.68, A.2). Despite the fact that the Council of Florence espoused the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing this council to St. Thomas!

None of the arguments of the Feeneyites have value against the rock of Tradition. But, to be consistent, let us refute two more of their major errors.

Error II:

The doctrine of baptism of desire is optional

The Feeneyites present the Church’s doctrine of baptism of desire as a question to be freely discussed within the Church: "...what amounts to an academic difference to be settled by the Church."[6] If this were the case, each school of thought would then have to be accepted until the pope later defined this doctrine. This is false. The error here is to claim that only that which has already been defined belongs to the deposit of Faith, and everything else is opened to free discussion. The truth is that one must believe everything which belongs to the deposit of Faith, that being what has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church.

Such is the case for the doctrine on baptism of desire, by the Feeneyites’ own admission. They write: "This teaching [on the "three baptisms"] indeed was and is the common teaching of theologians since the early part of this millennium."[7] However, this was not only the "common teaching of theologians," but also that of popes, Doctors of the Church, and saints! In addition, it is found even before this millennium in the very early years of the Church without a single dissenting voice.

Therefore one ought to believe in the doctrine of "three baptisms," as it belongs to the Catholic Faith, though not yet defined. That is why St. Alphonsus can say, as we have already reported: "It is de fide...."

We can concede that if a point of doctrine is not yet defined, one may be excused in case of ignorance or may be allowed to discuss some precision within the doctrine. In the case of baptism of desire, for instance, we are allowed to discuss how explicit the Catholic Faith must be in one for baptism of desire. But one is not allowed to simply deny baptism of desire and reject the doctrine itself. Rigorism always tends to destroy the truth.

He who denies a point of doctrine of the Church, knowing that it is unanimously taught in the Tradition of the Church, even though it is not yet defined, is not without sin against the virtue of Faith "without which [Faith] no one ever was justified" (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 799; hereafter abbreviated Dz).

Error III:

The Council of Trent teaches that baptism of desire is sufficient for justification "but not for salvation"

Let us preface this section by saying the Council of Trent clearly teaches that baptism of desire is sufficient for justification. The Council anathematizes anyone believing the contrary. It is very explicitly stated in Session VII, Canon 4 on the sacraments in general:

If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they are superfluous; and that men can, without the sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the grace of justification by faith alone, although it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary for each individual; let him be anathema (The Church Teaches, 668; Dz 847).

We must be wary of ambiguous translations from the original Latin. (The accuracy of Latin is supreme and must be respected.) In a recent flyer published by the Feeneyites entitled, "Desire, Justification and Salvation at the Council of Trent," an ambiguous translation of Session VI, Chapter 7 (Dz 799) is used: "...the instrumental cause [of justification - Ed.] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the ‘sacrament of faith,’ without which no one is ever justified....". Now the Latin has: "sine qua nulli unquam contigit iustificatio." In the Latin original, therefore, the phrase "without which" (or, in the Latin original, "sine qua", is a feminine pronoun meant to agree with a feminine noun) refers to the "faith" (a feminine noun in Latin) and not to "sacrament" (a neuter noun in Latin meant to agree with a neuter pronoun). If it was "sacrament" the Council Fathers wanted to highlight "without which no one is ever justified," they would have written "sine quo."

The English translation of Chapter 7 as found in The Church Teaches (TCT 563) accurately reflects the Latin (The Church Teaches, TAN Books & Publishers). In this edition, this important sentence is correctly translated: …The instrumental cause [of justification - Ed.] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the ‘sacrament of faith’; without faith no one has ever been justified." The correct translation of the original Latin expresses the Church’s traditional teaching and refutes the Feeneyite error.

When the Council of Trent is read carefully, we see that the Council teaches that:


...it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time (if they but die in the state of grace) (see Apoc. 14:13; 606, can. 32), because Christ our Savior says: "He who drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst, but it will become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting" (see Jn. 4:13 ff.)[8] [Session VI, Chap. 16; Dz 809].

In other words, salvation, which is at the end of the Christian life on earth, only requires perseverance in the state of grace received at justification, which is at the beginning of the Christian life on earth. Baptism is the sacrament of justification, the sacrament of the beginning of the Christian life. If one has received sanctifying grace, which is the reality of the sacrament - res sacramenti - of baptism, he only needs to persevere in that grace to be saved. Perseverance in grace requires obedience to the Commandments of God, including the commandment to receive the sacrament of baptism. Thus there remains for him the obligation to receive baptism of water. But, this is no longer absolutely necessary (by necessity of means), since he has already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that means. It still remains necessary in virtue of our Lord’s precept to be baptized by water. When and if circumstances independent of our will prevent us from fulfilling such a precept, the principle taught by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others is to be applied: "God takes the will as the fact."[9] This means that God accepts the intention to receive the sacrament of baptism as equivalent to the actual reception of the sacrament.

It is false to pretend that Canon 4 of Session VII (TCT 668) of the Council of Trent (quoted above) on the "Sacraments in General" deals with justification as opposed to salvation. Desire is explicitly mentioned in this canon, for when it uses the expression "aut eorum voto," it admits that the grace of justification can be obtained by desire of the sacraments. It is also false to say that Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism from Session VII of the Council of Trent deals with salvation as opposed to justification. Indeed Canon 4 (of Session VII) deals explicitly with the necessity of sacraments "for salvation." In that context, the expression "grace of justification" appears manifestly as being precisely the only essential requisite for salvation, as is taught explicitly in Session VI, Chapter 16. That which is said of the sacraments in general applies to each sacrament in particular, without having to be repeated each time. Simplistic reasoning which disregards the explicit teaching of the Church on baptism of desire only arrives at false conclusions.

That it is not necessary to repeat the clause "re aut voto" is so much the more true since baptism of desire is an exception, a special case, not the normal one. One need not mention exceptions each time one speaks of a law. For instance, there are many definitions of the Church on original sin that do not mention the Immaculate Conception. This does not invalidate the Immaculate Conception! For instance Pope St. Zosimus wrote: "nullus omnino —absolutely nobody" (Dz 109a) was exempt of the guilt of original sin. Such a "definition" must be understood as the Church understands it, that is, in this particular case, not including the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the same way, it is sufficient that baptism of desire be explicitly taught by the Church, by the Council of Trent, in some place, but it is not necessary to expect it on every page of her teaching. Silence on an exception is not a negation of it. This principle is important to remember so as not to be deceived by a frequent technique of the Feeneyites. They accumulate quotes on the general necessity of baptism as if these quotes were against baptism of desire. The very persons they quote hold explicitly the common teaching on baptism of desire! These quotes affirming the general necessity of baptism do not refer exclusively to baptism by water, nor do they exclude baptism of blood and/or of desire. They are to be understood "in the same sense and in the same words" as the Catholic Church has always understood them, which means to include baptism of blood and/or of desire along with that of water.

Lack of proper Thomistic theology is the root of the error of the Feeneyites

To remedy the errors of Modernism, St. Pius X ordered the study of St. Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy and theology. A book like Desire and Deception,[10] authored and published by Feeneyites, is very dangerous for its opposition to St. Thomas. Let us hear St. Pius X:

We will and strictly ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences. And let it be clearly understood above all things that when We prescribe scholastic philosophy We understand chiefly that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us. They cannot set aside St. Thomas, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave disadvantage.[11]

In obedience, we must consider the sacramental theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. He distinguishes three elements in each sacrament:

1. the exterior sign, called sacramentum tantum - sacrament itself, signifying and producing the other two elements. This exterior sign is composed of matter such as water, and form such as the words of the sacrament.


2.An intermediate reality, called sacramentum et re - sacrament and reality, which, in the case of baptism, is the character. This intermediate reality is both signified and produced by the exterior sign and further signifies and produces the third element.


3. The ultimate reality, res sacramenti - the (ultimate) reality of the sacrament, which is the sacramental grace, i.e., sanctifying grace, as source of further actual graces to live as a child of God, as soldier of Christ, etc.


A sacrament may be valid but not fruitful. To be valid the exterior sign needs valid matter, form, intention and the proper minister. If these are present, then it always signifies and produces the second element. To be fruitful, there must be no obstacle. Therefore, baptism in an heretical church, if done with proper matter, form, and intention, gives the character of baptism but does not give sanctifying grace. The person thus remains with original sin and actual sins. He has not become a child of God. Baptism is thus deprived of its ultimate effect, the most important one, because of the obstacle of a false faith, i.e., of heresy. In the same way, baptism in a Catholic Church of a person attached to his sin, for example, a person who has stolen and refuses to render that which he stole, places an obstacle which deprives his baptism of its ultimate effect, that is, sanctifying grace.

It is a fact that one can go to hell despite having the character of baptism. Yet, we know there are saints in heaven, such as the saints of the Old Testament (Abraham, David, etc.) who do not have the character of baptism. But nobody, however, dying with sanctifying grace goes to hell, says the Council of Trent. Contrariwise, nobody dying without sanctifying grace goes to heaven.

For the third element of baptism, i.e., the infusion of sacramental grace, the necessity of baptism for salvation is absolute. This third element is found in each of the "three baptisms," and even more perfectly in baptism of blood than in baptism of water, as is the constant teaching of the Church. Hence the common teaching on the necessity of Baptism[12] includes the "three baptisms."

The necessity of the exterior element (#1 above) of baptism, i.e., the sacrament itself, is relative to the third element as the only means at our disposal to receive the third element, that is, living Faith. The sacrament itself is "...’the sacrament of faith’; without faith no one has ever been justified," says the Council of Trent (TCT 563). See how the Council of Trent clearly sets the absolute necessity on the third element, i.e., living faith, faith working through charity? One finds the same distinction in the Holy Scripture, in St. John’s Gospel (chap. 3). That which is absolutely necessary is the new birth, that is, the infusion of new life, sanctifying grace, the life of God in us. Five times Our Lord insists on the necessity to be reborn, "born of the Spirit." The water is mentioned only once as the means for that rebirth, the only means at our disposal. This is not meant to limit God’s power. He can infuse this new life (justification) even without water, as he did to Cornelius (Acts 10).

There is an appalling confusion in the writings of the Feeneyites when they deal with the sacramental character and with what they refer to as "fulfilled/unfulfilled justice." Their confusion regards the second and third elements (see above) of the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church. Dare one add with St. Pius X, as the cause of their error, a certain pride that makes them more attached to their novelty than to the age-old teaching of the popes, fathers, doctors, and saints?

Conclusion


Brethren, the will of my heart, indeed, and my prayer to God, is for them unto salvation. For I bear witness, that they have a zeal of God,[13] but not according to knowledge (Rom. 10:1-2).

How much I wish and pray that, relinquishing their error concerning baptism of desire and blood, they might embrace the whole of the Catholic Faith. Their error caricatures the Catholic Faith and gives easy weapons to the enemies of dogma!


Not knowing the justice of God [interior sanctifying grace of justification by living faith] and seeking to establish their own [exterior belonging to the Church by exterior sacraments], [they] have not submitted themselves to the justice of God (cf. Rom. 10:3).


avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Mon Mar 16, 2015 1:16 pm

George,

Not sure who that was meant for. I guess there was a recent “Feeneyite” here, and perhaps you meant it for them. 

Personally, I have a lot less of a problem with the Feeneyite position than I do with the SSPX crowd which includes Father Laisney - or included, I have no idea if the Father is among us on earth at present. The SSPX, including Archbishop Lefebvre, takes a very liberal stand when it comes to the salvation of “good will” Muslims, Buddhists, pagans and what not. I’ll take the Feeneyite “error” over such garbage any day. 

While we do not know if someone can die with a genuine faith and an explicit desire for baptism and die before receiving baptism, I take the Church as teaching that if that happened salvation would be possible for such a person. To say “no” to that proposition would be counter Trent in my view.  

I simply read Trent as indicating that a person must have faith in Christ and an explicit desire for baptism to be justified and born again, which is necessary for salvation. 

I reject anything beyond that, and am not aware of my position being non-Catholic, condemned, etc. 

The fact that the Laisney’s of the world, fellow Catholics, think differently bothers me as much as my position bothers them. 

I’ve gone the gamut from thinking them heretics to simply thinking them to merely be in error without any eternal significance to their mistake, and everything in between.  

The Church apparently allows or permits the rigorist or strict view of the Feeneyites - they are after all in good standing with the Church, the one with the authority, not Laisney and his crowd. So my slightly less rigorist view is thereby ok by that token. 

So far so good. 

I don’t know what to make of the fact that the popes and hierarchy apparently reject my view. It troubles me to no end. Are they heretics? Should I get out of this corrupt institution? Am I bound to? 

I pray to the Holy Mother, and have the assurance of the Lord’s word: Seek and ye SHALL FIND. And that all that the Father has given Him will come to Him, and none of those shall be lost. 

I have hope I am not one of the lost, one who is justified and then taken by Satan or the cares of the world, and that I am one of the elect sealed by those infallible words of Our Lord. 

I trust in those words, have that hope, and that is quite enough at present - and I hope always.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 853
Reputation : 916
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  tornpage on Mon Mar 16, 2015 2:03 pm

My apologies for formatting - I copied and pasted it from the net. 






Is Laisneyism Catholic?
       By Bro. Thomas Mary Sennott

Fr. François Laisney, a member of the Society of St. Pius X, the disciples of Archbishop Lefebvre,
has written a book entitled Is Feeneyism Catholic? 1 I don't know what the exact canonical status of
the Society of St. Pius X is at the moment, but I presume they still think that Vatican II is heretical,
and that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid. That someone would think that an ecumenical Council
whose decrees have been approved by the Holy Father, no matter how badly phrased, is heretical,
and that the Novus Ordo Mass which was established by Pope Paul VI with such a high authority,
despite its ugliness, could be invalid, should tell us a priori that such a person could not do good
theology. He has cut himself off from the necessary grace, so he is on the outside looking in.
Ordinarily I would never respond to a book such as this, but I am doing so at the urging of two of my
friends.

The thesis of the book is that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are the teaching of the
ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. Father Laisney writes:
"This teaching being part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church, it is part of the
deposit of Faith, which each Catholic ought to hold fast faithfully! One is NOT entitled to reject a
unanimous teaching of the Magisterium under the mere pretext that it has not been defined." (2)

He concludes:
"Can Father Feeney and His Followers Be Called 'Heretics'"
"The decree of excommunication of Fr. Feeney, approved and confirmed by Pope Pius XII, 1953,
does not mention the charge of heretic, but rather that of a "grievous disobedience to the Authority
of the Church." One cannot condemn them more than the Church did, so one should not say they
are formal 'heretics.'
"However if, after one has explained to them properly the Catholic doctrine on baptism of desire [i.e.
according to Father Laisney] (not the liberal doctrine), they publicly, stubbornly, 'pertinaciously'
refuse to correct themselves and 'to hold fast to the doctrine of the Fathers' (Pope Innocent III), I
cannot see how they could be excused of a grievous sin of pride! Thus they could be denied Holy
Communion." (3)
Father Laisney's thesis on baptism of desire and baptism of blood can not possibly be true. We
certainly would have heard of it before now, and from some more reliable source than the Society of
St. Pius X, like the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or through our own bishop. On the
contrary,when Father Feeney was"reconciled" to the Church in 1972 with the approval of Pope Paul
VI, through the good offices of Cardinal Medeiros of Boston, and Bishop Flanagan of Worcester, he
was not required to retract any of his speculations on baptism of desire or baptism of blood. Also my
book They Fought the Good Fight (1987) (which, incidently Father Laisney does not include in his
bibliography) which included Father Feeney's speculations on baptism of desire and baptism of
blood, received the Imprimi potest from Bishop Timothy J. Harrington of Worcester, and the retired
bishop of Worcester, Bernard J. Flanagan, acted as Censor deputatus. (4) Of course Father
Laisney's book has no Imprimatur. Note: Sweet! LOL)eeney's speculations on baptism of desire and baptism of
blood, received the Imprimi potest from Bishop Timothy J. Harrington of Worcester, and the retired
bishop of Worcester, Bernard J. Flanagan, acted as Censor deputatus. (4) Of course Father
Laisney's book has no Imprimatur. (My Note: Sweet! LOL)
2
2
I should also mention that when the Sisters of St. Anne were trying to get their status "regularized,"
they were asked through Bishop Harrington by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to
"understand" the "Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston." My They Fought the Good
Fight was still in manuscript at the time, but it had been read approvingly by both the bishop and the
sisters. I suggested they use the following "understanding" of the "Letter" in my book:
"A reference to the "Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston" appears in an official
footnote to Lumen Gentium (2,16)...The relevant passage of Lumen Gentium reads:
"'Those also can attain to everlasting life who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel
of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God, and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His
will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.'
"This passage of Lumen Gentium is similar to the "Letter" but with one significant difference. The
phrase 'implicit desire' (votum implicitum) which was so objectionable to Father Feeney has been
dropped...The relevant passage from Lumen Gentium continues:
"'...Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who without blame on
their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life,
thanks to His grace. Whatever goodness or truth is found among them is looked upon by the
Church as a preparation for the Gospel (my emphasis TMS). She rewards such qualities as given
by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.'
"So a person of goodwill who is involved in invincible ignorance and has an implicit desire to be
joined to the Church, may indeed be saved, but not where he is. Whatever truth or goodness is
found in such a person is looked upon by the Church as a "preparation for the Gospel," and Lumen
Gentium continues, it is to such persons that the Church 'to promote the glory of God and procure
the salvation of all such men (emphasis mine), and mindful of the command of the Lord, 'Preach the
Gospel to every creature' (Mk.16:16), ...painstakingly fosters her missionary work.'"(5)
This "understanding" was accepted by both Bishop Harrington and the Sisters, and on his next ad
liminal visit to Rome the Bishop presented it to the Congregation. It was accepted, and the status of
the Sisters was "regularized."
Father Laisney spends most of his time attacking the books of what he calls the "followers" of
Father Feeney. I know or knew (some are dead) all of these followers, and have read all their
books. Most of them did not know Father Feeney in his prime, but in his later years when he was
afflicted with Parkinson's disease. Some of these authors we hardly knew; they just attached
themselves to our crusade, and we had no control over them. Everybody is looking for some kind of
a crusade. Their books were not submitted to Father Feeney for his approval, so it is unfair to say
the least, to hold him responsible for statements in them. However, two of these writers did send me
copies of their manuscripts, and asked me for comments. I made a detailed critique (as did Bro.
Dominic Maria) of these two books, but all my suggestions were ignored. One of these authors told
me later, very humbly, God bless him, "the only things that were any good in my book were what I
copied from you."
One of the few things I am proud of in my life, is that I was associated with Father Feeney from the
earliest days, coming to the Center in 1947 after having read Brother Francis' marvelous article in
3
the Housetops, "Sentimental Theology." Father Feeney wanted us to be a real monastery, and to do
all our own work. One of the first things he decided to do was to make all our own clothes, and five
brothers were assigned to this work, myself included. Brother Jude, who had been in the navy, got a
hold of some navy manuals on tailoring. The navy assumes that every sailor is a moron, so they
were very easy to follow, and we soon became very proficient, making all the clothes for the
brothers, the sisters, and the children. We worked at the back of the Center at 23 Arrow St., and
incidently provided a body guard for Father Feeney (I suspect this was more important to Sister
Catherine than making clothes), who was continually harassed by unwelcome visitors. We had it
down to a real routine, as the voice of the visitor, usually some Harvard student, got louder and
more abusive, without any pre-arranged signal, the five brothers would get up and drop their folding
metal chairs on the cement floor with a tremendous crash, and move deliberately to the front of the
room. The student was usually gone before we reached there. If you saw Brother Jude, who was
from the Bronx and who used to be a sand hog, moving menacingly toward you, you would be gone
too. The reason I tell this story, is that several times a day, Father Feeney would come down to the
"tailor shop" and give us little impromptu talks on Scripture or theology. Father Feeney did not like to
take notes or make an outline, but to just keep talking till his ideas became clear in his own mind. I
didn't really appreciate it at the time, but I realize now that it was invaluable in knowing just how
Father Feeney's mind worked.
Father Feeney was a great theologian, but he was also a professional rhetorician; he taught Sacred
Eloquence at the Jesuit Seminary at Weston. Father would try out a tentative idea on us, and
sometimes the more tentative it was in his own mind, the more vehement he became in its
presentation. He used to humorously call these rhetorical outbursts "de Feeney definita." He used
to say "my danger is that I can make anything sound plausible."Of course he never did this with
some well established truth. All Father Feeney's speculations on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of
Blood are of this de Feeney definita variety. In other words they are pure speculations and nothing
else. I had written in They Fought the Good Fight:
"The newspaper reporters would often ask Father Feeney 'what would you do if the Pope came out
and defined that there is salvation outside the Church.' Father Feeney would reply, 'but the Pope
couldn't do that.' 'Why not they would ask, 'he's the Pope isn't he?' Father Feeney would say, 'God
can't contradict Himself; the Holy Ghost would prevent him.' The reporters would fall silent, but I
suspect remain unconvinced.
"Father Feeney's opinion on the absolute necessity of Baptism for salvation, which developed only
after his condemnation, was never the subject of reporter's questions. But if a reporter had asked,
'what would you do if the Pope said that a catechumen who had faith and charity, but died before
the reception of Baptism, could be saved?' Father Feeney I am sure, would have answered, 'I would
submit immediately.' Father Feeney always considered his position on Baptism of Desire an
opinion, an opinion which he shared with some great saints, such as St. Augustine, but only an
opinion. That is why he sent copies of Bread of Life in which the following lecture "The Waters of
Salvation" is contained, to the Holy Father and to every Cardinal; he was submitting his opinion to
the judgment of the Church."(6)
In a second edition of They Fought the Good Fight which has never been published, I added:
"Father Feeney was strongly attracted to this opinion of St. Augustine, but there is nothing from the
Solemn Magisterium to settle the matter. To make this particular point then, the essential part of
Father Feeney's "doctrinal crusade," is to reduce the crusade to a mere theological opinion. As Fr.
Dennis Smith writes: 'My rule of thumb is whenever presenting a doctrinal position, stick with
authoritative sources; "my saint tops your saint" or "my commentator tops your commentator" is a
4
game no one can win. In the end it is only what the Church says which really counts.' The Church
has not yet told us who was correct on this particular point, St. Thomas or St. Augustine, but she
has told us that there is no salvation without her, and that is what really matters."
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in its section on Baptism: "The Church does not know
of any other means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude. " (7) This is a
perfect summary of Father Feeney's position on the absolute necessity of Baptism of Water for
salvation; it is almost as if he wrote it himself. The implication is that what follows, and what follows
is St. Thomas on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, is not known by the Church with the
certitude she knows the sacrament of Baptism. These teachings are of lesser or no authority, or as I
have been calling them, theological speculations. Father Laisney considers the Catechism heretical,
because it is the Catechism of Vatican Council II, despite the very high authority given it by Pope
John Paul II. This is what I mean when I say that Father Laisney is outside looking in. The dogmas
of the Church are based on the unanimous, or near-unanimous consent of the Fathers. The reason
that the Catechism has to make this statement is because, Father Laisney not withstanding, there is
no consensus of the Fathers on Baptism of Desire. Even the arch-liberal Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J. is
honest enough to admit this:
"...we have to admit...that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for
someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace
of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine
grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is
something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference
to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be
noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already
'Christianus', and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen 57 and Gregory of Nyssa
58 deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be
impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of
salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact,
even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a
baptism by desire. 59 " (Cool
If you would know that someone who considers Vatican Council II, and The Catechism of the
Catholic Church heretical and the Novus Ordo Mass invalid, couldn't do good theology, a fortiori you
would know he couldn't do good Scripture. Father Laisney makes the unbelievable claim that Our
Lord Himself teaches Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire in the Gospels. Let me give just two
illustrations:
"Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught baptism of blood:...'Can you...be baptized with the baptism
wherewith I am baptized? [...]and with the baptism wherewith I am baptized you shall be baptized'
(Mk. 10:38,39)." (9)
Our Lord is speaking here to St. James and St. John who had asked that they might sit at His right
and left hand in His kingdom. Our Lord is not speaking here about baptism of blood as a substitute
for baptism of water, but about martyrdom. It is tradition that all the apostles were baptized with
water, probably by Our Lord Himself. Both St. James and St. John did suffer martyrdom. James was
beheaded by Herod, and John was thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, from which he was
miraculously preserved, but he is still given the title of martyr.
"Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught baptism of desire, saying to the penitent thief: 'Amen I say to
5
thee: this day thou shalt be with me in paradise!' (Lk.23:43)."(10)
This is not an example of Baptism of Desire, because the good thief died before the sacrament of
baptism became obligatory, after the foundation of the Church at Pentecost. Father Laisney gives
several more such examples, and I could go through them one by one, and show that in no case is
Our Lord speaking of Baptism of Blood or Baptism of Desire, so our strongest argument concerning
the absolute necessity of Baptism of Water, Our Lord's own words, still stand.
"And he said to them: go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that
believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mk.
16:15,16)
"Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Jn. 3:5).
But Father Laisney, despite his posturing, does not really believe there is "no salvation outside the
Church." Here is his final summary of his position: "The doctrine of baptism of blood and baptism of
desire is inseparably linked by the Church to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. It
belongs to the very proper understanding of that dogma, so that if one denies it, he no longer holds
the dogma in the same sense and the same words as the Church holds it." (11) This is just a tricky
was of saying there is salvation outside the Church. He himself makes this abundantly clear on the
last page of his book:
"Another example: 'Among Protestants, schismatics and pagans, there are souls which are really on
the road to eternal life.' 170 The whole booklet is quite good, but this sentence is not properly
worded: the rest of the pamphlet manifests that the author means that some people living among
Protestants, schismatics and pagans, yet, by the grace of God, not adhering to their Protestantism,
schisms and paganism, but rather to those truths which God revealed to them, are on the road to
heaven. The whole pamphlet makes it clear that the author does not mean that some real
Protestants, real schismatics or real pagans are on the road to heaven!" (12)
Father Laisney is writing about Father J. Bainvel, S.J. who was one of the main authorities of Fr.
Philip J. Donnelly, S.J. a professor of theology at Weston College, who wrote the Jesuit position
paper entitled Some Observations on the Question of Salvation Outside the Church. Raymond
Karam rebutted (one Jesuit said "buried") this paper in a masterly article entitled "Reply to a Liberal"
in From the Housetops. Raymond Karam says of Father Bainvel:
"Father Bainvel, S.J. is guilty of the same inconsistency. He says that it is against the teaching of
the Church to say that a person can be saved by good faith alone, or by belonging to the soul of the
Church, or by belonging to the invisible Church. It is absolutely necessary for salvation, Father
Bainvel says, that a man believe in the truths of the Church and belong to her body, and visibly.
Moreover, he goes on, some theologians say that the Church is necessary for salvation by a
necessity of precept so that a person totally ignorant of its existence could be saved without
belonging to it. This, he says, is against the teaching of the Church, we must hold that the Church is
necessary for salvation by a necessity of means, so that without it salvation is absolutely
impossible. BUT, he adds, good faith and invincible ignorance can easily excuse a man so that he
could attain salvation without joining the Catholic Church, without knowing about the Church, and
without believing in its truths!" (13)
6
In other words Father Laisney would have found Father Donnelly's position paper "quite good," and
if he had been in Father Feeney's place, there never would have been a "Boston Heresy Case." He
would never have called us into the back room in 1948, long before Vatican II and the Novus Ordo,
and told us solemnly, "My children, we have put our finger on what is troubling the Church today,
and the whole world. The doctrine of 'no salvation outside the Church' is being denied."
I found reading Father Laisney's continual carping at Bread of Life terribly exasperating.He has no
appreciation of the fact that this little book contains some of the most beautiful writings on the
Blessed Eucharist of this century. But the morning Office, Matins and Lauds, is always full of
consolation and encouragement. While I was reading Father Laisney's book, Father Anthony was
reading from the Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians:
"Do not be intimidated by your opponents in any situation. Their opposition foreshadows downfall
for them, but salvation for you. All this is as God intends, for it is your special privilege to take
Christ's part - not only to believe in him but also to suffer for him." (14)
Bro. Thomas Mary, M.I.C.M
Feast of Bl. Dom Columba Marmion
**********************.
1. Laisney, François, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, Angelus Press, Kansas City, MO, 2001.
2. Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p.87.
3. Laisney, p.112.2
4. I should mention that the good angel behind Bishop Flanagan and Bishop Harrington, was the
late Msgr. Lawrence Deery, the Judicial Vicar of the diocese. He told us that at the very beginning of
the Father Feeney Case, that his uncle who was also a priest, said "Father Feeney was right."
5. Thomas Mary Sennott, They Fought the Good Fight, Catholic Treasures, Monrovia, CA, 1987,
pp.362,363.
6. Sennott, Op. Cit., p.377.
7. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1257.
8. Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church, Translated by Karl H.
Kruger, pp.40,41, 57 Or. 40, 23 (PG 36, 3890), 58 'Sermo contra dilationem Baptismi' (PG 46, 424),
59 Cf. Fr. Hoffmann, Der Kirchenbegriff des hl. Augustinus (Munich 1933), pp.221 sqq., 381 sqq.,
464 sqq., New York, The Seabury Press, 1975.
9. Laisney, p.40.
10. Laisney, p.40.
11. Laisney, pp.85,86.
12. Laisney, p.115, 170 Fr. J. Bainvel, S.J. Is There Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church?
(Rockford, IL; TAN books and Publishers) p.19.
13. Karam, Raymond, "Reply to a Liberal," From the Housetops, Vol. III, No. 3, Spring, 1949, St.
Benedict Center, Cambridge, Ma, p.10. Father Donnelly's
Further Observations on the Question of Salvation Outside the Church and Raymond Karam's
Reply to a Liberal are printed in their entirety in my They Fought the Good Fight.

14. Twenty-Sixth Week in Ordinary Time, Tuesday, Office of Readings.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 853
Reputation : 916
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  George Brenner on Mon Mar 16, 2015 4:28 pm

Tornpage, Mark

I was not looking for the extract that I last posted from the SSPX. I was searching to see if they had a crisper, more concise and faithful stance on the centuries of Church teaching on Salvation, when I came across their comments concerning Father Feeney's position. I did not expect to find this in their FAQ's. I had no particular person in mind when I quoted it. I consider it a double edged sword in that I have lived in two Catholic worlds. There are very few similarities between pre Vatican II and the VCII era and it's aftermath. The word Salvation came up constantly when I was in school and in Church. No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and the necessity for Baptism by water was taught constantly as absolutely necessary for Salvation. I could give you many examples but will share one. I remember the associate Pastor coming over to our house for dinner as he would occasionally do and my mom said to him how nice the manger scene looked across the street at the Bethany Lutheran Church. He turned red and said those people need to convert to the one truth faith and we should be telling and helping them. That always stuck with me. Well years latter he did 180 degree turnaround. I remember year after year in grade school of talking about Baptism from the Baltimore Catechism and both reading and answering the section covering Baptism by water, Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire. These types of Baptism were ALWAYS quickly discussed. Baptism by Water is what we had to have to be saved, Baptism of Desire was possible by wanting water but could not get it before somebody died. Baptism of Blood was ALWAYS said with being a Martyr in the same breath before getting baptized. Usually the emperor Diocletian was the responsible one. Invincible Ignorance for whatever the reason was ALWAYS some native in a tree in a remote jungle who did not hear the word. We were worried about them but the nuns said that there was no need to worry because they were in the hands of God. It all seemed so simple. And it was. The Churches were full, confession lines were long and assistant pastors worried that they might not get their own parish.

So what went wrong? Well back then even Catholics who wanted to disagree with the Church seemed to always know at least what the RULES were. Then came VCII. Did St. John XXIII set out to place the church in troubled seas and undermine what was at the time a thriving Church? Of course not. Did St. John Paul II mean to do any harm to the Church? Of course not. Did any of the Popes think that any of the documents, encyclicals, changes in the liturgy were going to hurt the church? Of course not. So what happened? In attempts to let fresh air enter the Church, the Church found Herself overwhelmed with novel ideas, liberal introduction and changes in the Sacrifice of the Mass that had been forewarned for centuries along with free for all experimentation in many aspects of Catholicism. Reverence and faithful catechesis in preparation for the priesthood in the seminaries was sacked and vocations would be reduced to a fraction of what they had just been. So why did the Popes not correct the problems? They were caught up in the spirit of VCII and did not realize the full extent of the damage. There were plenty of lay people who were devastated and fought to restore and correct the damage in every year during and after VCII. Didn't any Pope during this era try to undue the harm? They were all prisoners of the evil that had entered the Church and try that they may were not able to undo it. Were attempts made? Plenty and even more that we will never know about but they were met with stiff resistance at every turn from the liberal majority who opposed them. There was great earthly pressure from Pope to Pope to protect the legacy of their era for it was their time as Vicar of Christ. Just look at Pope Benedict XVI who re stated that which no Pope dare reduce or remove in resoring the Latin Extraordinary Sacrifice of the Mass , communion kneeling on the tongue and many other forms of reverence due our Savior. Why would St John XXIII and St John Paul II be declared Saints? What is bound on earth is also bound in Heaven. They are Saints and we should ask for their prayers without doubt or reservation. Who can even fathom the purgatory on earth that they suffered for the damage that was done to what they loved more than life itself. Who could even conjecture if they suffered in Purgatory possibly right up to the moment their Sainthood was pronounced. Why did this happen? This time we live in is a punishment from God and willed by God for our sins. We wanted a smorgasbord, anything goes, use contraception if you wish, be pro homosexual marriage if you wish, think that abortion can be acceptable and on and on and on type of Church. Why do I feel so compelled to write this? Quite simply because we have arrived at the point where it is next to impossible to find a Priest who will speak the words that in order to be saved we embrace and must be a member of the Catholic Church and have one Baptism of water for the forgiveness of sins. As I mentioned before it is far more likely for me in a discussion with a non Catholic to have them to ask me do you people STILL teach that you must be a Catholic to get to Heaven?
If only I heard that from more than handful of priests when questioned. Thank God you do still hear this with certainty from the FSSP Priests. Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and being saved by that perfect sanctity by them we know not, are completely irrelevant to teaching the faith as commanded by Jesus to ALL. Why have they become so important in just the last century. Quite simply, these possible conditions of sanctity are being used to promote a one world ,all encompassing Church by reducing No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church to a meaningless formula for all practicality. That is evil!

Mark, I know your love of Blessed Mother and am reading the memoirs of Sister Lucy, ' In Her Words'. When Lucy asks Blessed Mother if she will go to Heaven. Our Lady answered yes but you will suffer much. When Lucy asks about her sister Jacinta she says yes but she will die soon. When Lucy asks about her brother Francesco , Our Lady says that he will need to pray many rosaries and lastly when Lucy asks about a good friend of hers, Our Lady answers by saying that she will be in purgatory until the end of the world. How did our Lady know? I only raise the question; Is Blessed Mother the Co-Redemptrix of the world?

Mark, never doubt your faith for it is deep and above all, this crisis will pass and the gates of hell do not prevail.

God Bless you,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  George Brenner on Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:25 am

As sent today to his Eminence Cardinal Raymond Burke:

Not as an attack on any Pope but out of necessity for the protection of souls we need:

PLEADING AND PETITION OF THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLICAL CHURCH MILLTANT FOR A CHURCH SYLLABUS AS HUMBLY PRESENTED UNDER THE PROTECTION and SUBMISSION TO CARDINAL BURKE


My name is George Brenner, a Roman Catholic, 66 years old, married for 45 years with five children and five grand children for which we are deeply blessed. I have read and watched much of what you have had to say over recent times and salute your efforts. I have lived my life in the world of two churches, one of reverence, discipline and sound catechesis and the one since VCII of babel, confusion, lack of reverence and discipline and terrible catechesis in keeping with past centuries. My Mom circled all the prayer books as the word 'ALL' was substituted for 'MANY' in the consecration. I prayed that 'MANY' might be restored and by the grace of God it was. We have a long way to go. After writing clerics, priests and blogging on many traditional websites for decades along with intense prayer I came to the following conclusion with much help from reverent theologians and priests. WE NEED A SYLABUS. With the synod on the family fast approaching, we laymen
who are part of the Church Militant must fight ! There are countless websites, priests, clerics, SSPX, FSSP and individuals that must be included in a world wide effort with great urgency along with planning and organization to do the following..........



PLEADING AND PETITION BY THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLICAL CHURCH MILLTANT FOR A CHURCH SYLLABUS AS HUMBLY PRESENTED UNDER THE PROTECTION and SUBMISSION TO CARDINAL BURKE :

First Draft as discussed with many:

• The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

• The Catholic Church is an external visible commonwealth.

• There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

• God desires that all men enter the Catholic Church.

. Clarity in Catechesis, conversion and missionary work in light of Baptism of Blood, Baptism of
Blood and Invincible Ignorance.

. We alone adore the one merciful God as defined by the Catholic Church.

• Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God.

• Souls who depart this life in the state of mortal sin suffer the torments of hell.

• A valid marriage is indissoluble.

• Adultery is a mortal sin.

• Sodomy is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.

• The Pope does not have the power to change doctrine or to introduce any novelty.

• The state has an obligation to recognize, support and promote the Catholic Church

The sin of sodomy, which is the voluntary sexual union between two or more persons of the same sex or opposite sex, is at all times and in all places a mortal sin.

The sin of fornication, which is the voluntary sexual union between one man and one woman, is at all times and in all places a mortal sin.

It is false to assert that reasonable hope exists for the salvation of all human beings.

It is false and heretical to assert that we need not bring sacramental Baptism to all human beings.

It is false and heretical to assert that invincible ignorance and/or theological errors is a source of actual and/or sanctifying grace.

It is false and heretical to assert that the teachings of the infallible ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot be known with certainty.

It is false and heretical to assert that one may sometimes have voluntary sexual relations with another person who is not a sacramental spouse without mortal sin.

It is false and heretical to assert that one may have two or more sacramental spouses.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Submitted for your consideration in love of our Faith,

George Brenner
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum