1 Timothy 2:4

tornpage Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:56 am

Since this issue concerns God's salvific will and the elect - who are all Catholics and inside the Catholic Church out of which no one will be saved - I think this should be posted here. There is no other forum pertinent, even if this forum may not be a perfect fit.

1 Timothy 2:4

Who will all men to be saved, and to come to knowledge of the truth.

I was recently discussing this passage with the "retired professor," and noted that it is not true in the sense that it expresses God's will for absolutely all men to be saved, since infants who depart this world without baptism have no opportunity at baptism of desire, and I do not see how we can say they are saved (to the Beatific Vision) based on past statements of the Magisterium (not the post-V2 magisterium). Apparently, whoever is referred to in this passage, these infants (who depart the world without baptism) are not being referred to. I therefore agree with the "retired professor" that St. Paul is not talking of a truly universal salvific will (in the sense of all men, which would include these infants) here.

Father Garrigou-Lagrange notes the following in his introduction to Grace: A Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas -

For instance, Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism erroneously maintain that 'God wills equally the salvation of all men, namely, the elect and the reprobate.' The contradictory proposition: 'God does not will equally the salvation of all men,” is true. This indeed is what the predestinationists, Calvinists, and Jansenists declare and in so doing they do not err, but they do err by denying the will of universal salvation, which is affirmed by Augustine when he says: 'God does not demand the impossible.'

This is accurate, if jarring to the ears of contemporary Catholics used to listening to the strains of the Conciliar Church.

Father William Most has an article on St. Augustine and the issue of "Hell for Unbaptized Infants." He describes various statements by St. Augustine:

Tragically, St. Augustine did, more than once, deny that God wills all to
be saved. (1)In his Enchiridion 103: "When we hear and read. . . that He wills all men to be saved. . . we must. . . so understand it. . . as if it
were said that no man is saved except whom He wants [to be saved]." But this
is a vicious circle.

In the same passage, he continues: "Or certainly it was said. . . not
that there is no man WHOM HE IS UNWILLING TO HAVE SAVED, He who was unwilling
to perform the wonders of miracles among those whom He says would have done
penance [Tyre and Sidon] if He had done them: but in such a way that we
understand 'all men' to mean the whole human race distributed into various
categories: kings, private citizens, nobles, ordinary men, lofty, lowly,
learned, unlearned. . . ." So it means not that He wills all to be saved, but
only some from each category of persons!

(2)In his work <De correptione et gratia> 14. 44 he quotes 1 Timothy 2.
4 and continues: [it] can be understood in many ways, of which we have
mentioned some in other works, but I shall give one here. It is said in such
a way. . . that all the predestined are meant, for the whole human race is in
them." But this is not honest. All really means only those whom He
predestines.

(3)ibid. 15. 47: "[it] can be understood also in this way: that He
causes us to wish [that all be saved]." But He Himself does not wish it!

(4)Epistle 217. 6. 19: "And so that which is said, God wills all men to
be saved, ALTHOUGH HE IS UNWILLING THAT SO MANY BE SAVED, IS SAID FOR THIS
REASON: THAT ALL WHO ARE SAVED ARE NOT SAVED EXCEPT BY HIS WILL." So He
really is unwilling that many be saved.

MASSA DAMNATA: This idea, that all humans by original sin became a "damned
and damnable" gob, which God could throw into hell without waiting for anyone
to sin personally, naturally follows from the above. He taught this many
times. Here are some:

(1)To Simplicianus 1. 2. 16: "Therefore all men are . . . one condemned
mass [massa damnata] of sin, that owes a debt of punishment to the divine and
supreme justice. Whether it [the debt] be exacted or whether it be condoned,
there is no injustice."

(2)Epistle 190. 3. 12: He said that the reprobates are so much more
numerous than the saved that "by an incomparable number they are more
numerous than those whom He deigned to predestine as sons of the promise. . .
so that by the very number of those rejected, it might be shown that the
number, howsoever large, of the justly damned, IS OF NO IMPORTANCE WITH A
JUST GOD. . ."

(3)On the predestination of the saints 17:
"Let us, then, understand the call by which the elect are made [elect]. [they
are] not [persons] who are chosen because they have believed, but [they are
chosen] so that they may believe. For even the Lord Himself made this
sufficiently clear when He said: 'You have not chosen me, but I have chosen
you. [Jesus was talking about His choice of men to be apostles, not of heaven
and hell]. . . . this is the unshakable truth of predestination and grace.
For what else does that mean, that the Apostle says, 'As He chose us in Him
before the foundation of the world' [Ephesians 1, speaking of full membership
in the Church, not of heaven and hell]. For surely if it was said because God
foresaw that they would believe [and] not because He himself was going to
make them believers -- the Son speaks against that sort of foreknowledge
saying, 'You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you' [same error as
above]. So they were chosen before the foundation of the world by that
predestination by which God foreknew His own future acts: they are chosen out
of the world by that call by which God fulfilled that which He had
predestined. . Therefore God chose the faithful, not because they were
already [faithful] but that they might he [faithful]."

(4)<Enchiridion> 99: "For grace alone distinguishes the redeemed from
the lost, whom a common cause from [their] beginning had joined into one mass
of perdition. . . ." If it is grace alone, then no human behavior, good or
bad, makes any difference.

(5)<City of God> 21. 12:"Hence there is a condemned mass of the whole
human race. . . so that no one would be freed from this just and due
punishment except by mercy and undue grace; and so the human race is divided
[into two parts] so that in some it may be shown what merciful grace can do,
in others, what just vengeance can do. . . . In it [punishment] there are
many more than in [mercy] so that in this way there may be shown what is due
to all."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/AUG2.TXT

The commentary of the Rheims New Testament of 1582 says this on the passage from Timothy (I have highlighted the one passage from St. Augustine which is clearly referred to also in Fr. Most's article above):

4. Who will all men. ] The perishing or damnation of men must not be imputed to God, who delighteth not in any mans perdition, but hath provided a general medicine and redemption to save all from perishing that will accept it, and so would have all saved by his conditional will and ordinance: that is, if men will themselves, by accepting, doing, or having done unto them all things requisite by God's law. For God useth not his absolute will or power towards all in this case. But he that list see the manifold senses (all good and true) that these words may bear. Let him see St. Augustine, Ad articul. sibi falso impos. resp. 2. to 7.; Ench. c. 103; Ep. 107.; De car. & grat. c. 25; and S. Damascene li. 2 de orthod. fide c. 29. Ad articul. sibi falso impos. resorthod. fide c. 29.

Obviously, Fr. Most and the Catholic theologians who annotated the Rheims New Testament disagree on whether St. Augustine's sense of 1 Timothy 2:4 is "good and true."

I agree with the Rheims commentators that St. Augustine'e sense is "good and true," and also say that God does use his "absolute will and power" to save the elect, a power not used for the mass of men, as indicated by the Rheims Annotators here. The rest of men are just subject to the conditional, universal will of God to save "all men" (see Garrigou-Lagrange and the Rheims commentary above). The unbaptized infants who die in their infancy do not have the benefit of God's universal, conditional will to salvation. Thus, I also agree with the "retired professor" that 1 Timothy 2:4 only applies to adults.

Thus, we face the conundrum of the fact that God's "conditional, universal salvific will" does not apply to all men without qualification. It does not apply to infants who die without baptism unless you hold that all such infants are saved to heaven, and I don't see how you can say that based on past statements of the Magisterium which the Conciliar Church tries to avoid.

It is thus false to say God wills all men to be saved without qualification, with the salvation of all men, the saved and the reprobate, simply coming down to their determination. Some men make no determination, of whom some are saved to Paradise, and some are not: baptized and unbaptized infants who die in infancy. Other men determine their eternal fate to Hell by sin. Other men freely embrace the infallible will of God to save them, a will reserved for only them, who are blessed from the foundation of time to receive this incredible blessing of His gratuitous mercy.

As St. Augustine said in one of the "manifold senses (all good and true)" (Rheims Annotation) - a sense referred to Fr. Most as "part of a vicious circle" - of 1 Timothy 2:4 -

"When we hear and read. . . that He wills all men to be saved. . . we must. . . so understand it. . . as if it were said that no man is saved except whom He wants [to be saved]."

Guest Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:29 am

Don't forget the latter part of the verse either, it fits in nicely with the necessity of explicit faith: "... and to come to knowledge of the truth." God does not merely will that men be saved, but He also wills-- at the same time-- that each of the saved possess knowledge of the truth.

tornpage Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:26 am

Yes, Marian, I agree about the "knowledge of the truth" phrase.

I actually think St. Augustine's fuller explication of this in his Enchiridion 103 - one of his "most good and true" explications of 1 Timothy, in which it with regard to all men, even infants who die in infancy, makes a lot of sense:

Or certainly it was said. . . not that there is no man WHOM HE IS UNWILLING TO HAVE SAVED, He who was unwilling to perform the wonders of miracles among those whom He says would have done penance [Tyre and Sidon] if He had done them: but in such a way that we understand 'all men' to mean the whole human race distributed into various categories: kings, private citizens, nobles, ordinary men, lofty, lowly, learned, unlearned. . . ."

tornpage Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:41 pm

St. Augustine, Enchiridion c.103

"CHAPTER XXVII. Limits of God's Plan for Human Salvation

103. Accordingly, when we hear and read in sacred Scripture that God "willeth that all men should be saved,"221 although we know well enough that not all men are saved, we are not on that account to underrate the fully omnipotent will of God. Rather, we must understand the Scripture, "Who will have all men to be saved," as meaning that no man is saved unless God willeth his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation he doth not will, but that no one is saved unless He willeth it. Moreover, his will should be sought in prayer, because if he willeth, then what he willeth must necessarily be. And, indeed, it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he made that statement. Thus, we are also to understand what is written in the Gospel about Him "who enlighteneth every man."222 This means that there is no man who is enlightened except by God.

In any case, the word concerning God, "who will have all men to be saved," does not mean that there is no one whose salvation he doth not will--he who was unwilling to work miracles among those who, he said, would have repented if he had wrought them--but by "all men" we are to understand the whole of mankind, in every single group into which it can be divided: kings and subjects; nobility and plebeians; the high and the low; the learned and unlearned; the healthy and the sick; the bright, the dull, and the stupid; the rich, the poor, and the middle class; males, females, infants, children, the adolescent, young adults and middle-aged and very old; of every tongue and fashion, of all the arts, of all professions, with the countless variety of wills and minds and all the other things that differentiate people. For from which of these groups doth not God will that some men from every nation should be saved through his only begotten Son our Lord? Therefore, he doth save them since the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever he willeth.

Now, the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be offered "for all men"223 and especially "for kings and all those of exalted station,"224 whose worldly pomp and pride could be supposed to be a sufficient cause for them to despise the humility of the Christian faith. Then, continuing his argument, "for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour"225 -- that is, to pray even for such as these kings--the apostle, to remove any warrant for despair, added, "Who willeth that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth."226 Truly, then, God hath judged it good that through the prayers of the lowly he would deign to grant salvation to the exalted--a paradox we have already seen exemplified. Our Lord also useth the same manner of speech in the Gospel, where he saith to the Pharisees, "You tithe mint and rue and every herb."227 Obviously, the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the people of other lands. Therefore, just as we should interpret "every herb" to mean "every kind of herb," so also we can interpret "all men" to mean "all kinds of men." We could interpret it in any other fashion, as long as we are not compelled to believe that the Omnipotent hath willed anything to be done which was not done. "He hath done all things in heaven and earth, whatsoever he willed,"228 as Truth sings of him, and surely he hath not willed to do anything that he hath not done. There must be no equivocation on this point.

tornpage Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:30 am

I know we have some here who have read, or are reading, some of Father Garrigou-Lagrange's books. Have any of you come across a discussion on this issue, the issue of unbaptized infants who die in infancy in any of his works?

I read St. Alphonsus on 1 Timothy 2:4, and he maintains it applies to all men without exception. I will post his excerpt on unbaptized infants below- the thinking is they come within the conditional, universal salvific will but that God's will that they be saved (and this is one of the reasons He gives the gift of baptism and makes that grace available) is subject to the contingency of human will (with regard to the parents) and to the circumstance and chance of the order of the universe (which is good and the best universe possible for showing forth both His justice and mercy), so as with adults, his antecedent, contingent and universal will may not be fulfilled for all men - both by human action and the order of nature. He says this comes from St. Thomas.

Of course, the elect among those infants receive baptism infallibly.

Here's St. Alphonsus:

PRAYER
The great means of obtaining Salvation and all the graces which we desire of God

by St Alphonsus de Liguori

http://www.catholictreasury.info/books/prayer/pr18.php

Ch 3. Children who die without Baptism

Here it only remains for us to answer the objection which is drawn from children being lost when they die before Baptism, and before they come to the use of reason. If God wills all to be saved, it is objected, how is it that these children perish without any fault of their own, since God gives them no assistance to attain eternal salvation? There are two answers to this objection, the latter more correct than the former, I will state them briefly.

First, it is answered that God, by antecedent will, wishes all to be saved, and therefore has granted universal means for the salvation of all; but these means at times fail of their effect, either by reason of the unwillingness of some persons to avail themselves of them, or because others are unable to make use of them, on account of secondary causes [such as the death of children], whose course God is not bound to change, after having disposed the whole according to the just judgment of His general Providence; all this is collected from what St. Thomas says: Jesus Christ offered His merits for all men, and instituted Baptism for all; but the application of this means of salvation, so far as relates to children who die before the use of reason, is not prevented by the direct will of God, but by a merely permissive will; because as He is the general provider of all things, He is not bound to disturb the general order, to provide for the particular order.

The second answer is, that to perish is not the same as not to be blessed: since eternal happiness is a gift entirely gratuitous; and therefore the want of it is not a punishment. The opinion, therefore, of St. Thomas-----is very just, that children who die in infancy have neither the pain of sense nor the pain of loss; not the pain of sense, he says, "because pain of sense corresponds to conversion to creatures; and in Original Sin there is not conversion to creatures" [as the fault is not our own], "and therefore pain of sense is not due to Original Sin;" because Original Sin does not imply an act. [De Mal. q. 5, a. 2]

Objectors oppose to this the teaching of St. Augustine, who in some places shows that his opinion was that children are condemned even to the pain of sense. But in another place he declares that he was very much confused about this point. These are his words: When I come to the punishment of infants, I find myself [believe me] in great straits; nor can I at all find anything to say." [Epist. 166, E. B.] And in another place he writes, that it may be said that such children receive neither reward nor punishment: "Nor need we fear that it is impossible there should be a middle sentence between reward and punishment; since their life was midway between sin and good works." [De Lib. Ar. 1, 3, c. 23] This was directly affirmed by St. Gregory Nazianzen: "Children will be sentenced by the just judge neither to the glory of Heaven nor to punishment." St. Gregory of Nyssa was of the same opinion: "The premature death of children shows that they who have thus ceased to live will not be in pain and unhappiness."

And as far as relates to the pain of loss, although these children are excluded from glory, nevertheless St. Thomas, [In 2 Sent. d. 33, q. 2, a. 2] who had reflected most deeply on this point, teaches that no one feels pain for the want of that good of which he is not capable; so that as no man grieves that he cannot fly, or no private person that he is not emperor, so these children feel no pain at being deprived of the glory of which they were never capable; since they could never pretend to it either by the principles of nature, or by their own merits.

St. Thomas adds, in another place, [De Mal. q. 5, a. 3] a further reason, which is, that the supernatural knowledge of glory comes only by means of actual faith, which transcends all natural knowledge; so that children can never feel pain for the privation of that glory, of which they never had a supernatural knowledge.

He further says, in the former passage, that such children will not only not grieve for the loss of eternal happiness, but will, moreover, have pleasure in their natural gifts; and will even in some way enjoy God, so far as is implied in natural knowledge, and in natural love: "Rather will they rejoice in this, that they will participate much in the Divine goodness, and in natural perfections." And he immediately adds, that although they will be separated from God, as regards the union of glory, nevertheless 'they will be united with Him by participation of natural gifts; and so will even be able to rejoice in Him with a natural knowledge and love." [In 2 Sent. d. 33, q. 2, a. 2]

So in childrens' case (generally) He provides the grace by institution of the remedy of baptism, so in a sense one can argue (Father GL says that all men get the graces sufficient for salvation) that God provides the graces sufficient for salvation to all men (sufficient grace as opposed to efficacious grace), but not to all infants specifically and individually.

I don't know about that one - since each infant doesn't get that sufficient grace, baptism, while all adults do get sufficient graces, which, if complied with, lead to all that is necessary for their salvation - but I guess it's a way of getting Father GL off the hook . . . I guess.

tornpage Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:52 pm

Mike, here goes.

St. Alphonsus gives two reasons or responses to the objection to the claim that God wills the salvation of all men in light of the fact that some "children perish without any fault of their own, since God gives them no assistance to attain eternal salvation."

I think the first response is stronger, though St. Alphonsus says it's the weaker. It's basically that, according to His general Providence, God has set up the universe in such a way that unfortunately some infants die without an opportunity for salvation through baptism, the only known remedy for them. This reasoning is of a kind with God's permission of evil - for a greater good, which would not exist were it not for the state of events permitted or established by God's general Providence.

The second reason is that these infants are not being punished by being deprived of Heaven. They simply die, which is different from salvation being held back from them. Ok, but I fail to see how this supports a view that God wills the salvation of all men.

My objection is really twofold, and mainly an objection to an assertion that was framed by Father Garrigou-Lagrange, in his book, Predestination, this way: "[w]hat is due to each one, what God refuses to nobody, is sufficient grace for salvation" (page 204-05). I think St. Alphonsus's response via St. Thomas is woefully inadequate: God does give the sufficient grace, baptism, which is prevented to the infant due to causes permitted by God's General Providence. I say this is woefully inadequate because the infants do not receive this "sufficient grace." It's a quibble to say God doesn't "refuse" it; they don't get it, and I think it is therefore false to say that God wills the salvation of all men - all adults get this sufficient grace, and the infants don't.

Second, I think one must hold that all infants who die in infancy are saved if you want to take the position that God wills the salvation of all men and that the only ones who don't get saved don't get saved because of their just deserts, their own fault. Most who take the position that God wills the salvation of all men at least imply this, that the only ones who aren't saved are not saved because of their rejection, sin, fault, etc.

But even if that is not the case, we are then left with some men being deprived of Heaven because of certain chances that God allows to happen pursuant to His General Providence. His universal salvific will thus subjects some men (these infants) to deprivation of Heaven by the fault or non-action of other men or pursuant to just necessary chance built into the best possible system. That is not an alternative that seems proper to a just and loving God.

It seems to me that one must either reject the idea of a universal salvific will of all men (meaning every single one) or take the position that all infants who die before the use of reason are saved pursuant to that universal salvific will. The Church does not take the latter position, and it seems to me that it takes the first.

This is the problem to me.

tornpage Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:25 pm

*BUMP*

tornpage Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:46 pm

The ITC document, "The Hope for the Salvation of Infants," quotes the Synod of Quierzy at one point:

49. The Synod of Quiercy (853) asserts: “Almighty God wishes all men without exception to be saved [1 Tim 2:4], although not all are saved. The fact that some are saved, however, is a gift of the Saviour, while the fact that others perish is the fault of those who perish”.[74]

I believe the thinking on the fate of unbaptized infants at this point in time was dominated by the thought of St. Augustine, who believed that such infants went to "the lower regions" and had the mildest form of punishment. I'm not sure that a Limbo for infants had flashed across anyone's mind at that point.

My question for anyone here: does the reference to "those who perish" include these infants, or not? All I see here is two possible results, salvation or perishing. I believe that accords with the thought of St. Augustine.

tornpage Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:07 pm

Here's St. Alphonsus from the work cited previously, the beginning of Chapter 2:

If then God wills all to be saved, it follows that He gives to all that grace and those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation, otherwise it could never be said that He has a true will to save all

Precisely my point. I think it must be conceded, at a minimum, that God wills the salvation of some more than others: some receive not only a chance at the lottery of baptism, but others actually reach maturity and are personally and directly given graces sufficient to their salvation.

If you protest and say baptism is not a lottery (the elect infants will be baptized), I say it certainly is a lottery to those who are left to the "natural order" and both fail to be baptized and die before maturity.

How could God will "all" men to be saved and then roll the dice (or let them roll) to see if some are?

tornpage Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:36 am

I don't want to wander off topic, but this is related to the issue at hand.

It is said that Christ died for all, but that not all received the benefit of His death. (Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter 3). Here's the Chapter in full:

But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just. For this benefit the apostle exhorts us, evermore to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins.

What does that mean? Did Christ's death then "atone" for the sins of all men? It is said that Christ died for the "whole world." But the whole world is not born again and "justified." In what sense then did He die for the "whole world"?

There appears to be a limitation to the atonement in that not all are saved and in fact atoned for. What value is there in atonement for "all" (if in fact it is an atonement for "all") if it is not applied to all?

There is no salvation outside the Church, and not "all" enter into it.

tornpage Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:04 am

I think it becomes clear how that last little "digression" is related to the question when one considers how the merits of Christ's redemptive Blood are "applied." They are applied through faith and baptism. Some men never hear the Gospel (and have no chance to believe in Christ), and some men die in infancy before baptism. Do any of us really believe that God has installed Fortune (capitalized as a Pagan Goddess) as the determiner in His plan? Some men say it comes down to free will - but what about those infants? So then it's free will plus, or not free will at all (in the sense that free will is determinative).

Free will plus what? The natural order of things, which is merely chance when it comes to infants born in lands without the Gospel, and worse then chance when some are deprived of baptism by the negligent actions of other men in Christian lands.

Has God really subjected the eternal fate of any of His children to chance or the "bad" actions of other men, without them (the infants) being able to do anything about it? If you say "no," then you have to concede - seems to me - that some children are not God's children.

And lurking is that other big question of the necessity of explicit faith in Christ. Because if God can allow some men to die in infancy without access to baptism or the Gospel (those infants who not only do not hear it but are incapable of hearing it) it doesn't seem to me that there is any additional moral imperative or distinction that makes it outrageous that some adults (in distinction to the infants) die without hearing the Gospel. Thus, the necessity of explicit faith in Christ does not involve a concern of justice that makes that necessity outrageous in light of some not hearing the Gospel - just look at the fate of the unbaptized infants who die in infancy.

MRyan Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:33 am

The “value” in atonement for "all” (and yes, it is in fact an atonement for “all”) is that no one could be saved until the sins of the world were atoned for. However, not everyone will receive the benefit of the blood redemption (atonement), but only those to whom the benefit (merit) is applied (in justification), and who persevere in grace.

If God were to apply the merit of the atonement to each and every man indiscriminately (without his cooperation), than free will would have no value. God will have no man be saved who does not respond to His love with love. And, for adults, it must be given freely, as our Lord’s act of pure love in the atonement was given freely.

The primary reason for the atonement was not our salvation, but to atone for the sins of the world through a perfect act of love to the Father. If we are saved, it is because the “value” of the atonement is sufficient for all men; and God wills that all men be saved.

How then can God’s universal salvific will become efficacious for unbaptized infants who cannot freely cooperate with grace?

There are only two answers: The efficacy of baptism is denied and all are lost; or, we don’t know, but we may hope that God will save them in a manner known only to God. God chose not to reveal this mystery, and He has a reason for doing so.

The Magisterium allows us to hope, while affirming that she knows of no way other than baptism that can assure their salvation. But, has God kept this mystery hidden in order to test our love for His Church and the authority of His Vicar on earth, to whom He said “He who hears you, hears me”?

Many of the severally mentally handicapped cannot respond freely to God’s graces, and if the faith of the Church (through baptism; she wills/desires the salvation of all men) can provide in these cases, cannot God (through His Mystical Body) provide for unbaptized infants in a similar but mysterious manner?

The Church suggests that He can.

There are some mysteries, Tornpage, that shall remain mysteries. I don't see where speculating that God, in his particular will, wills less the salvation of unbaptized infants than he does other baptized souls gets us anywhere, but only serves to imply that God does not love unbaptized infants enough to have them saved.

Try explaining that to a mother who has lost her unbaptized child. "Suffer children to come to me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God"? Well, such is the kingdom, but only for baptized children?

And this is precisely what the Church does in her funeral rites for unbaptized children, she forbids them not to come to our Lord, but entrusts them to the One who said "Suffer children to come to me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God."

tornpage Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:17 am

Mike,

Thanks for weighing in.

There are some mysteries, Tornpage, that shall remain mysteries. I don't see where speculating that God, in his particular will, wills less the salvation of unbaptized infants than he does other baptized souls gets us anywhere, but only serves to imply that God does not love unbaptized infants enough to have them saved.

I can accept mysteries. No one who calls himself a Christian can not not "accept" mysteries.

We all have our motives and interests. My particular interest, and where I want to "get," is the truth.

We have an assertion by the Church that God wills the salvation of "all" men in the sense of every single man. Some Christians don't believe that. Now, you can call them "heretics," but I'd like to know, why? What are the reasons why they are heretics? And I don't mean the circular argument, because the Church says they are heretics.

St. Alphonsus said:

If then God wills all to be saved, it follows that He gives to all that grace and those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation, otherwise it could never be said that He has a true will to save all.

I believe that's an accurate analysis: I also know that God does not give the same grace and aids to all men, and in particular we are discussing a portion of them, i.e. certain infants who die without baptism.

I have my opinions but this discussion is not about my opinions: I am trying to objectively address the question in light of competing claims and questions I have.

At some point I hope you again have something to add, but if you "don't see why" this issue is worth addressing, I say, "God bless you," and go on considering the issue.

Allie Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:44 pm

Hi tornpage- I hope you are doing well.

This topic is interesting to me particularly in light of the fact that I have lost several children through miscarriage (although clearly it is a "mystery" that in all likelihood we will not understand completely/or perhaps much at all this side of things) .

A lot of people that I know (both "traditional" and "NO" Catholics) who have suffered miscarriages will answer when asked, "I have 3 children here and 2 in heaven" (or sub any number in this "formula").

However, for me I hope and pray that my children are in heaven, but I cannot be certain. And for me, I accept that they may not be in heaven considering the effects of original sin barring entrance to heaven. This wasn't a particularly palatable truth to consider, especially without learning more about original sin and its truly devastating effects and getting my human mind to understand that heaven is not (since the fall) our default destination.

Also I have read (perhaps Aquinas' teaching?) that some children who are allowed to die without baptism (by miscarriage or other) may ultimately be being given a greater mercy of God than if God had allowed them to be baptized because He could foresee that they would have sinned grievously after baptism and then deserving of a much harsher punishment than if they were "punished" with eternal "natural happiness" as a result of original sin only.

I don't know how this all plays into how much God loves us. Even those who end up in hell, it is not because God doesn't love them - He allowed them life and brought them into the world by His Love. And as I mentioned before, even for those who through His Love He gives life even if for a moment and then they are not able to be baptized (through negligence or ignorance) it may be that they end up with a better fate and lesser punishment than if they had been baptized.

Just a few thoughts I had for the moment, don't know if they add to the discussion the way you were intending.

columba Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:25 pm

I know the sticking point for you Tornpage (and for me) is the fact that God's will to save all can be over-powered by the mere free will of His creatures. Definately sounds like a contradiction of the omnipotence of God and therefore we have to resort to saying that God does NOT will the salvation of all. Even if one person be lost and the rest be all saved, the contradiction still remains.

The other conundrum is the infants who could neither will freely to side with God or reject him freely. So, may I pick up where I left off in this discussion on the other thread?

I said that I had an idea as to where the starting point might be and as we are delving into the realms of the unknown I think that speculation could start from what is in fact already known and revealed either directly or implicitly.
Speculation always provides for opinion and I know tornpage that you're trying to avoid getting into opinions. I will try not to opinion-ate outside of what's permissible.

What is already known truth is that (according to St John) God is love; and as I quoted in the other thread from Wisdom. "God loves all that He has created and holds nothing of the works of His hand in abhorrence."
From this I think it can be deduced that God wills the best for all His creatures, and for Humanity, that would be the salvation of all including infants.
As a side track (in the realms of speculation), does God love Satan and the fallen angels? After all, they are His creatures and he loves all that He has created. If we say that He hates them maybe we should be taking that in a figurative way (can God hate at all) and say that for those who have forfeited (for all eternity) the capability of loving God, can be experienced by them as God's hatred which in reality would be their own hatred for God. That might seem besides the point but when the word "all" appears I'd like to think that it actually means "all."

Anyway.. As with the fallen angels who freely sided with Lucifer in his rebellion against God, would it be outside the realms of legitimate speculation to allow the possibility that God may give every rational creature a chance to freely decide for or against Him.
In the case of those infants who have been deprived of the chance to "freely decide" (if that indeed is the truth of the matter), maybe the hope for them can be found (implicitly) in the accounts of those who were miraculously raised from the dead to receive Baptism, some of whom had been dead for decades. If for decades why not for centuries, even to the last judgment when God may permit those who are of good will to receive the waters of Baptism (maybe even those who died with the desire for Baptism included). This would resolve many of the disputed issues without contradicting a) God's love b) His justice c) His mercy and d) the dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Pure speculation I know, but speculation with at least some credibility based on the considerations above.
To add to this we could also include the writings of Julian of Norwich (who's quoted in the CCC though not in relation to this topic) and though not a canonized saint, made reference to a revelation received concerning a great prodigy which will be worked by Almighty God at the end of time that will leave even the highest of angels in complete amazement at the unfathomable richness of God's mercy.
I know the realms of private revelation are so subjective, but absent any public revelation on the matter they may be a means of shedding light on at least what direction we could profitably spectulate.

I was going to comment on Mikes post (which I found over all to be excellent) but one of his points may have taken us into another baptism of desire debate so I refrained from doing so. Smile

I most likely have contradicted some point of Catholic doctrine in my ramble but I stand to be corrected if I've over-stepped the boundaries.

MRyan Sat Sep 24, 2011 2:44 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

Thanks for weighing in.

At some point I hope you again have something to add, but if you "don't see why" this issue is worth addressing, I say, "God bless you," and go on considering the issue.

I didn't say this issue is not worth discussing; but you're right, I have nothing to add.

Thanks for the blessing.

tornpage Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:48 pm

I'll try to go at this from another angle.

I can accept mystery. As I said elsewhere, God doesn't have to tell us what He does with unbaptized children who die in infancy.

The issue for me is the truthfulness of the statement, "God wills the salvation of all men," with "all" meaning every one. Again, as St. Alphonsus said:

If then God wills all to be saved, it follows that He gives to all that grace and those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation, otherwise it could never be said that He has a true will to save all.

I don't understand how, having phrased the question as he did (and I believe he accurately assessed the situation), St. Alphonsus can agree that God truly has a will to save everyone when "all" manifestly do not get "that grace and those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation." Exhibit A being the infants under discussion.

If someone here can reconcile the statement "God wills the salvation of every single human being" with the fact that some of those human being do not get a chance at salvation that other men get (i.e., do not get the necessary graces and aids that St. Alphonsus said the absence of which for "all" would indicate that God doesn't have a true will to save all men" - and in the absence of any personal fault or sin to boot), I'm all ears. And as I said before, if the Church said that all infants who die in infancy go to Heaven, or that those who don't receive baptism don't, there would be no tension or contradiction (as there appears to me to be). But because the Church has not only not said that, but has said that the only remedy for such infants is baptism, the tension or contradiction is there.

tornpage Sat Sep 24, 2011 7:40 pm

I should have stayed with what I said before, which was if the Church said all infants who die in infancy go to Heaven, there would not be a contradiction. Because if only the baptized infants do, then we still have a problem with "God wills the salvation of every single man."

DeSelby Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:14 pm

Tornpage, I just want to back up to something you quoted from St. Augustine earlier in this thread:

tornpage wrote:I actually think St. Augustine's fuller explication of this in his Enchiridion 103 - one of his "most good and true" explications of 1 Timothy, in which it with regard to all men, even infants who die in infancy, makes a lot of sense:

Or certainly it was said. . . not that there is no man WHOM HE IS UNWILLING TO HAVE SAVED, He who was unwilling to perform the wonders of miracles among those whom He says would have done penance [Tyre and Sidon] if He had done them: but in such a way that we understand 'all men' to mean the whole human race distributed into various categories: kings, private citizens, nobles, ordinary men, lofty, lowly, learned, unlearned. . . ."

I would ask if there is anything actually wrong with a Catholic holding this view?

tornpage Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:19 pm

DeSelby,

I would ask if there is anything actually wrong with a Catholic holding this view?

I would hope not. It happens to be a view I share.

George Brenner Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:57 pm

The death of a baby in the womb is very sad. My wife and I were blessed with five children. Number six was a miscarriage... missed laughter, tears and memories.

Two thoughts:

From a Supernatural stance: With rosary in hand and prayers to the Blessed Trinity, Holy Family and all the Angels and Saints, know that you can compeltely trust in God, his infinite mercy, love and supernatural remedies our beyond our ability to understand. Be comforted and be at peace.

From a Natural Stance: Two babies in heaven who died in the womb are talking to each other. The Infant from 333 BC says to the infant from 333 AD; Being here for eternity with God is so beautiful but I thought you had to be baptized to be here. The 333 AD baby said I did, its a rule of the Catholic Church. So the 333 BC baby said , well then who baptised you whereupon the 333 AD baby says , why my Guardian Angel; she liked to drown me. The 333 BC baby said do the Doctors of the church know this is how it works. The 333 AD baby said not yet !

True Story:

I was at a Latin Mass at Christmas time a couple years ago and during the homily the Priest said that when he was visiting the children in second grade he asked the children; and so why did Jesus himself get baptised by John the Baptist, at which a little girl replied ;" To show He was a good Catholic."

Jehanne Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:57 am

George,

Infants who died prior to the divine institution of Baptism did not go to Heaven, unless they were born to Jewish parents, who, under the Old Law, circumcised their babies on their 8th day after birth. Call it what you wish -- "Divine Commandment Theory" or whatever; it's just the way that it is, a revealed Truth.

I am truly sorry about your dead baby. My wife and I have five children; we lost at least one in the womb, also, although, I suspect that there were two others. It's difficult to tell.

I don't think that it is wrong that you pray for your dead baby, but when you do pray, pray for a miracle, because infants who die without Baptism do not go to Heaven. It's just the way it is. (I do believe that angels can Baptize, by the way -- see my blog for more details on this.)

Even the current Catechism of the Catholic recognizes this (although, somewhat "implicitly"):

1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ. The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately -- or immediate and everlasting damnation.

Does it make you sad, George, to think that there will be some individuals in Heaven who have a "greater reward" than do you? How about infants who are Baptized but die before the Age of Reason? Does it make you sad to think that they will have less of a reward than if they had lived and done some marvelous works for Christ?

Why some individuals are fated to die young and others at an old age is just a mystery that we will have to accept this side of the grave. What is not a mystery is that infants who die without Baptism, whether in the womb or on their way to the Baptismal font, do not go to Heaven, but it's still okay to pray for a miracle. This is the whole idea behind conditional Baptism.

The following section of the Roman Catechism is often quoted by pundits of Baptism of Desire:

Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once

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.

Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation...

However, they often leave out the very next section.

In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be Baptised At Once

Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, as in the case of imminent danger of death, Baptism is not to be deferred, particularly if the person to be baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith. This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the faith.

If Baptism of Desire were such a "slam dunk" dogma of the faith, why worry about "deferring" Baptism? If desire were truly sufficient on the part of any catechumen, why, then, the need for the above instruction? Answer: Baptism is important, which means that even an adult catechumen who sincerely desires it can still go to Hell without it.

George Brenner Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:36 am

Jehanne,

Thank you for kind words.

I always pray for miracles in ways and means unknown to us. I think that there are supernatural revelations and means that we did not know were possible thru the infinite mercy of God , none of which will or could contradict official Church teaching on the necessity of Baptism.

I never thought much about my particular reward in Heaven as much as trying to stay in the state of grace and free from sin. This is an ongoing incredible challenge. I know that we cannot be selfish and just think and work toward our own salvation. We have to share our faith by good example, our deeds, works, loving our enemies, helping the poor, speaking up againt abuse and attacks on our faith and by being humble. Good people who stand by and say or do nothing against wrong are accountable. Do I do all these things? I am a sinner. I'm trying but if it wasn't for Mass, Holy Eucharist, confession, prayer, the rosary and Our Catholic Faith it would be all but impossible, but with these I am prayfully very encouraged and hopefull. I sold my soul to God a long time ago. I pray my lifes efforts earn not only my salvation but as many others as God judges worthy. It remains to be seen.

tornpage Sun Sep 25, 2011 2:41 pm

St. Alphonsus:

If then God wills all to be saved, it follows that He gives to all that grace and those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation, otherwise it could never be said that He has a true will to save all.

I see a syllogism here that I can't escape from.

A) If God wills all men to be saved, He must give all men that grace and those aids which are necesary for the attainment of salvation

B) God does not give all men that grace and those aids which are not necessary for the attainment of salvation

C) God does not will all men to be saved

If in fact God wills all men to be saved and gives them all the grace and aid sufficient for salvation, He must save every infant who dies before they can exercise their free will to love and serve Him. Otherwise, if some infants who die in infancy are not saved, He does not give all men the grace and aid sufficient for salvation.

Of course, the Church does not say He saves all infants who die in infancy. Were it to say that, it would have a problem with its past statements on this issue, which Jehanne has pointed out. Yet, if it doesn't say that, it has a big problem with its theology of "God wills all men to be saved." The necessary consequence of that theology, seems to me, would be that God saves all pursuant to this will who do not sin and prevent the realization of that will by their personal fault.

1891 Baltimore Catechism

Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

My doubts over the current and post-Vatican II magisterium have fed into this and indirectly led to my consideration of this issue, but I don't see how a Church which taught , as for example in the Baltimore Catechism above, that an infant could not enter Heaven without baptism could be taken seriously while teaching, at the same time, that God wills the salvation of all men.

That's it in a nutshell.

George Brenner Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:33 pm

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Froman_curia%2Fcongregations%2Fcfaith%2Fcti_documents%2Frc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html&ei=nI1_TonnHY7DsQLthbk4&usg=AFQjCNGYQXKaqVppCndvaiOdx7Dj83HTMg

As I browse thru above ITC link and Conclusion quote below, I still have great optimism in the Salvation outcome for those who appear to die without Baptism from the instant of conception to the instant of age of reason. In God's mercy we trust.

Conlusion from ITC,
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.

Jehanne Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:57 pm

If the ITC is talking about miracles on a large scale, I am okay with that (angels, after all, may number in the hundreds of trillions or more!); if they are talking about infants who die without Baptism going to Heaven, then they are heretics. So, which is it?

Is the ITC that claiming there are no human beings who die without Baptism? If so, would not the number of infants who die without Baptism constitute a null set??

George Brenner Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:35 pm

Jejanne,

In regards to my personal prayer, I hope that all babies and especially babies in the womb who are the most vulnerable are baptized as decreed in the correct form and manner as held as dogma and mandatory for Salvation, with baptism by humans as the ordinary method or Miracles in any manner that God chooses be it Angels or supernatural means unknown to me.

Jehanne Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:41 pm

George,

If you claim that it is even possible that there are children in Paradise who have died without Baptism, then I want nothing more to do with you; no offense, but such a belief is manifestly heretical, which means that individuals who hold to such a belief are, in my world view at least, heretics.

This is why "Traddies" such as myself are separated, at least in voto, from the modernistic Church. As far as I am concerned, your beliefs are atheism with a layer of sugar-coated "Catholic spirituality" on top.

Please, George, no more "double-talk"/"double-speak." The One and Triune God chose Baptism; we know this to be so because He has revealed such to us. Infants, of course, cannot choose, so they cannot be saved by any desire of any kind, whether from their parents, the Church, or the Blessed Mother Herself. Such is the infallible teaching of Holy Mother Church. If you do not accept this George, then no offense, but you are not Catholic.

MRyan Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:37 am

George,

Please note the admission of schism by the false accuser who dares to judge you as a “non-Catholic” if you don’t submit to his version of Catholic truth.

The qualifier “modernistic” is meaningless since the accusation of manifest heresy is leveled against the living, authentic Ordinary Magisterium which does indeed teach through the same authentic authority of Jesus Christ (“He who hears you hears me”) that “Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.” (CCC 1261).

In other words, our Lord can apply the merits the blood Redemption to whomever He so chooses, regardless of whether a person is capable of actively conforming his will to Christ, or not, as in the case of infants; though the Church also teaches she knows of no means other than water Baptism that can assure them of their salvation. “Hope” is not assurance; it is hope in the divine mercy.

Of course, contrary to what Jehanne says, it has not been divinely revealed that un-baptized infants cannot be saved by our Lord (always through His Church), and neither has it been conclusively demonstrated that baptism of blood/baptism of desire (as a means of salvation) have been formally revealed as truths of divine and Catholic Faith (notwithstanding the opinions of St. Liguori and about six other theologians).

The better argument may be that St. Liguori was ahead of his time by teaching that baptism of blood/baptism of desire are non-revealed “de fide” truths of the universal and ordinary Magisterium that are made “definitive … by their intrinsic connection with revealed truth.” The question remains, however, whether it has been definitively settled that baptism of blood and baptism of desire have been “taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a "sententia definitive tenenda" (Lumen Gentium, 25).

There is no question, however, that baptism of blood/baptism of desire represent at least “an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect".

Jehanne believes these doctrines are revealed truths that never actually happen (“null sets”) because these same revealed truths of God are in conflict with the truths of God’s omnipotence and particular will for each of His elect.

The basis for Jehanne’e error and scurrilous accusation against you is his private interpretation of this infallible declaration of the Council of Florence:

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God..."

But this is no different from the following authentic Magisterial teaching:

The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

In other words, “the only remedy available to them”(children) is the sacrament of baptism, because the Church KNOWS of no other remedy that assure children of salvation by which they are “snatched away from the dominion of the devil”, and “assures entry into eternal beatitude” … “as adopted as children of God”. This is why the Church to this day teaches “All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”

If there is no other remedy that assures their salvation, then the absolute necessity of having children baptized remains "all the more urgent". "Necessity" here refers to the divine precept of the Church, and not to the prerogatives of God who is not bound by the sacraments to effect the same end. But, to unduly and willfully delay a child's Baptism based on a belief that baptism is not necessary shows contentment for the sacrament and for the divine law, and is a mortal sin anyway you slice it.

And this same “Traddie” (spare us) who says “no offense, but you are not Catholic” for trusting in the authority of the ecclesia docens also said that an “implicit desire” for baptism and/or for being subject to the Roman Pontiff must be made explicit before one’s death, or it is “formal heresy”. Oh, and just get him started on his specious doctrine that says “implicit desire” denies free will, as if the desire to do the will of God [in all things ... known and unknown; now and in the future] is NOT a free act of the will.

So please take comfort in the fact that you share your “non-Catholic” status not only with the Catholic Church, but also with the likes of such Doctors as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Liguori, and even Br. Andre of the St. Benedict Center who does not consider “implicit desire” to be “formally heretical”.

Did I say welcome to the forum?

Jehanne Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:21 pm

Fine, then Pope Benedict XVI is heretic, so are you, Mike, and so is George:

"It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: 'In my house there are many mansions': that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God' [John 3], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left. [cf. Matthew 25,46]" (Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45, note 2).

So, there, you've excommunicated yourself. You, George, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI "have fun" in Hell -- I will not be joining you there.

Officially, I am a sede. I found the following web page to be most helpful:

http://www.romancatholicism.org/sedevacantism-reconsidered.htm

And, because I am officially a sede, I am no longer "in the running" to be a Third Order member of M.C.I.M. They do not accept sedes.

Consider joining us, George, and embracing the true Roman Catholic Faith, outside of which no one at all will be saved. Reject the phony impostor who idolatries the throne of Peter and let him and his minions burn in Hell.

P.S. Mike, you are not Catholic.

MRyan Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:18 pm

Jehanne wrote:Fine, then Pope Benedict XVI is heretic, so are you, Mike, and so is George:

Officially, I am a sede.

Now there's a complete surprise! Gee, we didn't see that coming!

Jehanne wrote:I found the following web page to be most helpful:

http://www.romancatholicism.org/sedevacantism-reconsidered.htm

And, because I am officially a sede, I am no longer "in the running" to be a Third Order member of M.C.I.M. They do not accept sedes.

Imagine that. Oh and the recommended site is run by a former M.I.C.M Third Order member who was booted for his extremism long before he became a sede. In fact, he's had so many reversals to his various positions, its hard to keep up with the guy (and I don't). He used to have a paper on his site that argued just as vehemently against the sede position as he now argues for it.

You are in good company, indeed.

Jehanne wrote:Consider joining us, George, and embracing the true Roman Catholic Faith, outside of which no one at all will be saved. Reject the phony impostor who idolatries the throne of Peter and let him and his minions burn in Hell.

P.S. Mike, you are not Catholic.

Thank you, for I reject completely your brand of sede-swill "Catholicism".

One more loony member for the gnostic little "remnant" of "true believers".

Hey "Fatima-of-our-times", you have a new recruit for your pope-less "true Church"!

Hey Jehanne, will you be a "home-aloner"? How many popes have you "offically" rejected? Will you move to a sede enclave? Will you be a pro or con "una cum" sede? I hear Truth of Consequences, New Mexico is nice this time of year.

Does your wife know you've lost your mind? And when you now say "we believe", for whom will you be talking since you can no longer be the official spokesperson for the St. Benedict Center?

But, take it to the sede forum, please. You have no business spreading your sede propaganda and false accusations anywhere else. You're sounding more like bernadette every day, and she's not even a sede; she's only half-a-sede (ha!).

Jehanne Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:39 pm

You're a Puke, Mike. (See, I can "call names," too!) As for me, I will probably join the CMRI or SSPV. Hopefully, the SSPX will join us here soon. Even if Fellay "sells-out," most of the SSPX will not follow him.

tornpage Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:02 pm

I seem to recall somewhere Mike and Jehanne getting into the issue of the infallibility of the Council of Carthage. If someone wants to clue me in to where that is, I'd like to read it.

Or, Mike, how about just addressing the Council of Carthage's "infallibility" here?

columba Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:03 pm

Tornpage, looks like your thread has been way-laid again.
I posted a reply but as happened with Simple Faith it got lost somewhere in cyber space (Grrrr). I'll rewrite it again soon and post it.

tornpage Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:12 pm

Columba,

I'm thinking of taking the issue to Catholic Answers. I don't expect much from them, but maybe someone there can make a decent argument that there's no contradiction between the assertion that God wills the salvation of every man, women and child and the "confusion" (to put it mildly) over whether children who depart this world without personal sin are saved by this same universal will of the Almighty to save.

The Armininian or Molinist argument is that there is an interposition of a sinful act by a free human will which prevents the realization of the otherwise sovereign will of God. It's not there with these infants.

I see this as a huge hole in the Arminian/Molinist position, and I haven't heard anything to patch it up.

MRyan Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:13 pm

Let’s get something straight:

When you come on a Catholic forum and accuse other of being manifest heretics and of not being Catholics for the simple reason that they do not agree with your sedeism, you have lost any right to be treated with the respect you think you deserve. His good name is all a man has, and our names are Catholic; and how dare you think you can take that away.

And I can tell you right that the only sede enclaves that will accept you are those like the hateful anathema-izers in NY and a compound in New Mexico. But if you think the CMRI, for example, will put up with your disgusting assault against the faith of Catholics who will not bend to your will, you have another thing coming. There are actually some good and decent people within the CMRI who will reject your species brand of “Catholicism”, so you’d better get it in check, or move to NY or NM.

Jehanne Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:16 pm

http://www.cmri.org/02-children_baptism.html

MRyan Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:27 pm

http://www.cmri.org/02-baptism_blood-desire_stalph.html

Concerning Baptism of Blood and Desire
An Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori’s Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7

But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment.

MRyan Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:45 pm

tornpage wrote:I seem to recall somewhere Mike and Jehanne getting into the issue of the infallibility of the Council of Carthage. If someone wants to clue me in to where that is, I'd like to read it.

Or, Mike, how about just addressing the Council of Carthage's "infallibility" here?

I don't recall, but feel free to address the Council of Carthage's "infallibility". I'm not sure where you're going with this.

tornpage Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:05 pm

Mike,

Well, not that I think there's wiggle room anyway, but the Council of Carthage says, "baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." If it's infallible, it's impossible for infants to enter Heaven without baptism.

I think the Church taught infants needed to be baptized to enter Heaven anyway, infallible or not, so the problem remains in reconciling God's will to save every man, woman and child with the Church's teachings regarding the need for baptism for infants.

Jehanne Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:17 pm

MRyan wrote:http://www.cmri.org/02-baptism_blood-desire_stalph.html

Concerning Baptism of Blood and Desire
An Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori’s Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7

But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment.

You're pounding on "open doors" again. I have never denied this, other than to say that I think that it is silly and absurd that a catechumen could come to explicit faith in Christ and yet only desire Baptism implicitly for decades on end. I do not believe that the One and Triune God would allow such a thing to occur. When Cornelius came to genuine implicit faith in the Redeemer, what happened? A preacher (Peter) was sent and Cornelius was baptized. Do you think that the following is correct:

“Campaigns that target the Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”

Yes or No, Mike?!

Here's the source:

http://www.cmri.org/02-antisemitism.html

MRyan Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:15 pm

Your on-again off-again positions on "formal heresy" are quite funny.

No need for me to participate further in the hi-jacking of this thread.

Take it to the sede forum. Maybe someone will listen.

MRyan Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:28 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

Well, not that I think there's wiggle room anyway, but the Council of Carthage says, "baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." If it's infallible, it's impossible for infants to enter Heaven without baptism.

I think the Church taught infants needed to be baptized to enter Heaven anyway, infallible or not, so the problem remains in reconciling God's will to save every man, woman and child with the Church's teachings regarding the need for baptism for infants.

The Church infallibly teaches that infants need to be baptized to enter Heaven. If she knows of no other remedy than baptism that can assure this, than baptism remains necessary for their salvation. But, does it remain necessary for God who can supply the same effect (and for the need) by another means?

I still don't know the infallible declaration from Carthage you are referring to. That wasn't much of a quote. Do you mean Canon 2:

CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE MAY 1, 418
Translated By The Right Rev. Charles Joseph Hefele, D.D. & Henry Nutcombe Oxenham, M.A. Edited By Rev. Daniel R. Jennings, M.A.

Can. 2 “If any man says that new-born children need not be baptized, or that they should indeed be baptized for the remission of sins, but that they have in them no original sin inherited from Adam which must be washed away in the bath of regeneration, so that in their ease the formula of baptism ‘for the remission of sins’ must not be taken literally, but figuratively, let him be anathema; because, according to Romans 5:12, the sin of Adam (in quo omnes peccaverunt) has passed upon all.”

Can. 3.1 “If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized live in bliss (beate vivant), whereas without baptism they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,
that is, into eternal life, let him be anathema.” [The authenticity of this canon has been brought into question, though there is some reason to believe that it was part of the original canon listing. In some manuscripts Canon 3.2, listed below, is listed here.]

Can. 3.2 “If any man says that the grace of God, by which man is justified through Jesus Christ, is only effectual for the forgiveness of sins already committed, but is of no avail for avoiding sin in the future, let him be anathema.”

George Brenner Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:36 pm

Mike,

Thank you for the welcome.

Jehanne,

Perhaps I was not clear on my post on infant Baptism

My prayer is that a baby in the womb who dies might be saved by God sending an Angel with the Baptism of water. An example of other manners that I mentioned might be what if God would send the babys Saint Grandfather to baptise the baby with water. Would that not be beautiful. We know not the ways of the Lord.

Jehanne,

Why are you so angry, lets keep talking and praying

tornpage Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:15 pm

Mike,

It was Canon 3.1 - Jehanne had quoted it in full.

The Church infallibly teaches that infants need to be baptized to enter Heaven. If she knows of no other remedy than baptism that can assure this, than baptism remains necessary for their salvation. But, does it remain necessary for God who can supply the same effect (and for the need) by another means?

I agree with St. Alphonsus that it cannot be that God wills the salvation of all men if He does not give all men the means for salvation. Of course, St. Alphonsus believed that God willed the salvation of all men and that infants need to be baptized. Maybe it's just me.

But I . . . shoot, no point in repeating myself yet again. It's getting tiresome. One last time?

One last time:

St. Alphonsus:

If then God wills all to be saved, it follows that He gives to all that grace and those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation, otherwise it could never be said that He has a true will to save all.

I don't understand how, having phrased the question as he did (and I believe he accurately assessed the situation), St. Alphonsus can agree that God truly has a will to save everyone when "all" manifestly do not get "that grace and those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation." Exhibit A being the infants under discussion.

And then you have the situation that these infants might not be saved, without receiving any grace and aid toward Heaven. The Church doesn't know - which is what it says now. How could it not know? It's theology ("God wills the salvation of all men") necessitates that these infants, who don't reject that will, be saved. And formerly the Church said other than it didn't know - another problem.

Quite a weird God who wills that all men be saved and then doesn't save some men who never reject His will.

DeSelby Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:25 pm

MRyan wrote:I still don't know the infallible declaration from Carthage you are referring to. That wasn't much of a quote. Do you mean Canon 2:

CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE MAY 1, 418
Translated By The Right Rev. Charles Joseph Hefele, D.D. & Henry Nutcombe Oxenham, M.A. Edited By Rev. Daniel R. Jennings, M.A.

Can. 2 “If any man says that new-born children need not be baptized, or that they should indeed be baptized for the remission of sins, but that they have in them no original sin inherited from Adam which must be washed away in the bath of regeneration, so that in their ease the formula of baptism ‘for the remission of sins’ must not be taken literally, but figuratively, let him be anathema; because, according to Romans 5:12, the sin of Adam (in quo omnes peccaverunt) has passed upon all.”

Can. 3.1 “If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized live in bliss (beate vivant), whereas without baptism they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,
that is, into eternal life, let him be anathema.” [The authenticity of this canon has been brought into question, though there is some reason to believe that it was part of the original canon listing. In some manuscripts Canon 3.2, listed below, is listed here.]

Can. 3.2 “If any man says that the grace of God, by which man is justified through Jesus Christ, is only effectual for the forgiveness of sins already committed, but is of no avail for avoiding sin in the future, let him be anathema.”

I'm calling horse puckey on the assertion in orange...

Particularly because the editor — if indeed it was the editor who inserted this assertion — Rev. Daniel R. Jennings, M.A., is a protestant of some sort who has published articles for a publication called The Arminian Magazine...

Unless that is another Rev. Daniel R. Jennings, M.A....

Even the translators were a pair of liberal Catholics, as it turns out.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says of Nutcombe, that, "After receiving Anglican orders, he became curate first at Worminghall, in Buckinghamshire, then at St. Bartholomew's, Cripplegate. While at the latter place, he was received into the Church by Monsignor (afterwards Cardinal) Manning. For a time he contemplated becoming a priest, for which purpose he entered St. Edmund's College, Old Hall, but after receiving minor orders, he left: it is said that his reason was that he believed in the validity of Anglican orders, and considered himself already a priest. He continued to dress as an ecclesiastic and in this anomalous position he spent the remainder of his life. His ambition was to work for the reunion of the Anglican with the Catholic Church, with which end in view, he published a sympathetic article, in answer to Pusey's "Eirenicon", in the shape of a letter to his friend and fellow-convert, Father Lockhart. After the Vatican Council his position became still more anomalous, for his unwillingness to accept the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was known. Though influenced by the action of Dr. Döllinger, with whom he was on intimate terms, he never outwardly severed his connexion with the Catholic Church, and before his death received all the sacraments at the hands of Father Lockhart."

Hefele was opposed to Papal Infallibility at the First Vatican Council, and, at least according to an article on Wikipedia, "did not send in his submission to the decrees until 1871, when he explained in a pastoral letter that the dogma 'referred only to doctrine given forth ex cathedra, and therein to the definitions proper only, but not to its proofs or explanations.'"

Sorry Tornpage for the digression.

MRyan Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:08 pm

DeSelby wrote:
MRyan wrote:I still don't know the infallible declaration from Carthage you are referring to. That wasn't much of a quote. Do you mean Canon 2:

CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE MAY 1, 418
Translated By The Right Rev. Charles Joseph Hefele, D.D. & Henry Nutcombe Oxenham, M.A. Edited By Rev. Daniel R. Jennings, M.A.

Can. 2 “If any man says that new-born children need not be baptized, or that they should indeed be baptized for the remission of sins, but that they have in them no original sin inherited from Adam which must be washed away in the bath of regeneration, so that in their ease the formula of baptism ‘for the remission of sins’ must not be taken literally, but figuratively, let him be anathema; because, according to Romans 5:12, the sin of Adam (in quo omnes peccaverunt) has passed upon all.”

Can. 3.1 “If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized live in bliss (beate vivant), whereas without baptism they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,
that is, into eternal life, let him be anathema.” [The authenticity of this canon has been brought into question, though there is some reason to believe that it was part of the original canon listing. In some manuscripts Canon 3.2, listed below, is listed here.]

Can. 3.2 “If any man says that the grace of God, by which man is justified through Jesus Christ, is only effectual for the forgiveness of sins already committed, but is of no avail for avoiding sin in the future, let him be anathema.”

I'm calling horse puckey on the assertion in orange...

Particularly because the editor — if indeed it was the editor who inserted this assertion — Rev. Daniel R. Jennings, M.A., is a protestant of some sort who has published articles for a publication called The Arminian Magazine...

Unless that is another Rev. Daniel R. Jennings, M.A....

Even the translators were a pair of liberal Catholics, as it turns out.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says of Nutcombe, that, "After receiving Anglican orders, he became curate first at Worminghall, in Buckinghamshire, then at St. Bartholomew's, Cripplegate. While at the latter place, he was received into the Church by Monsignor (afterwards Cardinal) Manning. For a time he contemplated becoming a priest, for which purpose he entered St. Edmund's College, Old Hall, but after receiving minor orders, he left: it is said that his reason was that he believed in the validity of Anglican orders, and considered himself already a priest. He continued to dress as an ecclesiastic and in this anomalous position he spent the remainder of his life. His ambition was to work for the reunion of the Anglican with the Catholic Church, with which end in view, he published a sympathetic article, in answer to Pusey's "Eirenicon", in the shape of a letter to his friend and fellow-convert, Father Lockhart. After the Vatican Council his position became still more anomalous, for his unwillingness to accept the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was known. Though influenced by the action of Dr. Döllinger, with whom he was on intimate terms, he never outwardly severed his connexion with the Catholic Church, and before his death received all the sacraments at the hands of Father Lockhart."

Hefele was opposed to Papal Infallibility at the First Vatican Council, and, at least according to an article on Wikipedia, "did not send in his submission to the decrees until 1871, when he explained in a pastoral letter that the dogma 'referred only to doctrine given forth ex cathedra, and therein to the definitions proper only, but not to its proofs or explanations.'"

Sorry Tornpage for the digression.

Wow, that was a real "protest", but I think thou protesteth too much. This was just a convenient citation and I thought it was common knowledge that the authenticity of 3. 1 has been called into question, since in Denzinger there is no 3.1; where the 3.1 listed above is contained in DZ in a footnote as an additional Canon 3, (with Canon 3.2 above listed in DZ as Canon 3).

In other words, as the DZ footnote says, Canon 3 (3.1 above) is not listed in its source document, but was added in another "certain codex". So how authentic is an "infallible canon" when it is not even listed in the authentic source document cited by Denzinger? I'm not saying the "added" canon is not authentic, I'm just wondering why you take such strong exception to Bishop Hefele pointing out the obvious fact that the authenticity of Canon 3.1 has been called into question, though most still consider it authentic

So Bishop Hefele of Rottenburg, who had strongly opposed the definition of papal infallibility and afterwards did in fact loyally accept it, is under "suspicion" for what? Did he defect from the Church, did he join the "Old Catholics"? At least 1/5 of the Council Fathers were opposed to having a formal definition; even if most of them believed in papal infallibility. Those who could not accept the definition left the Church; Bishop Hefele was not one of them.

Is this how one makes an argument these days ... call into question the integrity of the source, when it turns out he said nothing different from Denzinger?

The fact of the matter is the authenticity of 3.1 (above) has been called into question, though most believe it's authentic. If its authenticity had never been called into question, it wouldn't be stashed away as a footnote in DZ.

Furthermore, "If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized live in bliss" sure sounds to me like a "Limbo of the children" (a "middle place" in hell) "where children who die unbaptized live in bliss" is being condemned, no?

Just asking.

MRyan Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:23 pm

tornpage wrote:
One last time:

St. Alphonsus:

If then God wills all to be saved, it follows that He gives to all that grace and those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation, otherwise it could never be said that He has a true will to save all.

I don't understand how, having phrased the question as he did (and I believe he accurately assessed the situation), St. Alphonsus can agree that God truly has a will to save everyone when "all" manifestly do not get "that grace and those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation." Exhibit A being the infants under discussion.

And then you have the situation that these infants might not be saved, without receiving any grace and aid toward Heaven. The Church doesn't know - which is what it says now. How could it not know? It's theology ("God wills the salvation of all men") necessitates that these infants, who don't reject that will, be saved. And formerly the Church said other than it didn't know - another problem.

Quite a weird God who wills that all men be saved and then doesn't save some men who never reject His will.

You know, Tornpage, all of these questions are making my head spin. First you admit there are mysteries that will probably never be revealed, than you complain because the Church does not have the answer to this particular mystery; after all, “How could it not know? It's theology”!

OK, no "value added" there, but I had to say it.

columba Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:09 pm

I think that was a worth while digression DeSelby.

Back to St Alphonsus where he says that God gives the grace of salvation to everyone or as St Thomas would say, "sufficient grace" which doesn't necessarily mean over-whelming grace that can't be resisted.
Regarding the unbaptized infants I'm thinking of St pauls letter to the Ephessians (3:2) where he explains that he himself has been entrusted with graces meant for the Gentiles. Could it be then that this sufficient grace may not come directly but is entrusted to others and thus received indirectly as in the case of parents being entrusted with the Baptismal grace for their children? They have the duty to pass it on.
But what of those infants who saddly die before the parents can fulfill their obligation towards them? This too (the early death of an infant) may be indirectly a rersult of (parental/generational) sin since death and disease entered the world through sin and every single person (bar the Blessed Virgin) is a sinner and therefore we all contribute in some way to the misfortunes of others.

It must also be the case that even though God wills the salvation of all, He also equally wills that those whom He deems unworthy, be eternally excluded from heaven. If He did not will this then there could never exist a hell or a Limbo.
As they would say in Vat II speak concerning God's will to save everyone; To put it in its negative form, God wills the eternal seperation of the unsanctified.

I'm firmly of the opinion (based on what we know of God) that all who perish do so in some way due to their own fault and I'm still of the view that God's foreknowledge has a big part to play in the length of each individuals life and is always tinged with His mercy. As one saint would say (I can't recall which one) that even the damned receive mercy in as far as they do not suffer as much as they ought.

tornpage Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:59 am

You know, Tornpage, all of these questions are making my head spin. First you admit there are mysteries that will probably never be revealed, than you complain because the Church does not have the answer to this particular mystery; after all, “How could it not know? It's theology”!

I was expecting that sooner or later. You don't disappoint.

I'll make it direct and simple (in case I haven't): The Church says God wills the salvation of every man, woman and child, and that He gives all the sufficient grace to be saved. And that some men are not saved because they reject this sufficient grace. Ok, putting aside whether the Bible has a definitive answer about this, that would make sense.

Then I say, "but there's these infants over here that die without baptism. If they get this sufficient grace - since all men get it - and don't reject it, then they are saved, right?" The Church now says - putting to one side its former magisterial statements - "we can hope so, but we don't know."

And I say, "how can you not know based on what you have told us about sufficient grace and God's will to save everyone? If they are not saved, then, it must be because God does not give all men sufficient grace, or because He rejects some men without their rejecting Him. In either case, your claim that 'God wills the salvation of all men (as in every one)' is a crock."

And the only response I see is this, which comes via St. Alphonsus and which you can read on page 1 of this thread:

Jesus Christ offered His merits for all men, and instituted Baptism for all; but the application of this means of salvation, so far as relates to children who die before the use of reason, is not prevented by the direct will of God, but by a merely permissive will; because as He is the general provider of all things, He is not bound to disturb the general order, to provide for the particular order.

That's just great. The death of these infants is "not prevented," - but we are told that God desires or wills the salvation of all. Where is that will as to these infants? It's also nice that God "is not bound to disturb the general order, to provide for the particular order." Duh. Of course he's not, I agree. But then I'm not the one saying He desires and wills to save all men.

So, apparently, He just leaves these infants to fortune and the chances that are built into His "general order" - and yet He desires that every man, woman and child be saved.

You can buy that; I'm not buying it.

You know what makes more sense and doesn't tie itself up in contradictions? God doesn't will the salvation of all men, just as He doesn't love all equally. He gives the grace of final perseverance, a grace that in fact and application is infallible and never fails, only to the elect. Yet some must persist in saying, "God wills the salvation of every man, woman and child," and "loves all equally." And the Church asserts the first, and fumbles into mishmash as to the logical ramifications of its theology when it comes to infants that it insists be baptized and can't figure out what happens if they are not.

I see nothing "wrong" with mystery here, Mike, but the "mystery" doesn't follow if you say God loves all men equally and/or wills the salvation of each. That's the point.

I guess that makes me a heretic. Two heretics this week at Rasha's. I have a feeling the count is going to be rising. Of course, I think the movement is not into heresy, but out of.

Sponsored content