Re: 1 Timothy 2:4

tornpage Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:02 pm

Wait, there is another response we've seen here, other than that of St. Alphonsus.

Mike wrote:

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”?

That is a test I must be bold and principled enough to say I fail.

Move over, Jehanne.

MRyan Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:01 pm

This so-called "Feeneyite" forum is fast becoming a sedevacantist forum.

Who's next? Come on all you fence-sitters who are so taken in by the heresies manufactured for the purpose of justifying their schism, the pope-less remnant of "true believers" awaits you.

To Rasha and Marian Librarian, this is what you get when you open the forum to the sede contingent who are allowed to hurl their invective against the pope and against forum members with impunity:

My answer to your idiotic question...the chair of Peter is occupied by a heretic...by an apostate, raging liberal, modernist, phony "pope", and thanks to you and all of the rest of the stupid, duped, NO Catholics that bought into the papolotry business...we have to suffer the heretics until God sees fit to intervene … you Protestantized Catholics are the biggest enemies of the Church...you have no back bone and no true love of your Faith …You are a raging apostate.... Cowards resort to acting boorish in my experience.

Where were you when all of this was going on?

Don't say I didn't warn you.

I'll be returning to the sede sub-forum shortly in order to refute their pernicious errors. The arguments and complete hypocrisy of bernadette, who privately asked me to read a linked article, will be revealed for what they are.

Simple-Faith and Allie, hang in there ... we're not going to concede even one inch.

MRyan Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:08 pm

columba wrote:I think that was a worth while digression DeSelby.

Since you read my response, you can state your reasons why this little digression by DeSelby was worthwhile.

Are you calling into question the historical scholarship of Bishop Hefele (who wrote the History of the Councils of the Church), or just the integrity of the editors; or the fact that you would suspect anyone who would say that the canon listed under a footnote in Denzinger (because this same canon was not listed in the original source document, but is still generally considered as authentic) has been called into question by certain historical scholars who maintain that "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"?

Karl Rahner was the editor of my edition of Denzinger, so I guess I can call into question the authenticity of its documents.

Is that how this game is played? If not, I suppose you have valid reasons for supporting this "digression" that calls into question the scholastic integrity of Bishop Hefele, all because he was initially opposed to defining the dogma of papal infallibility. I'd like to hear your reasons.

I hope your reasons go beyond taking satisfaction in the inherent merits of any post that takes exception to the merits of my posts. I hope you are not that shallow.

tornpage Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:19 pm

Come on all you fence-sitters who are so taken in by the heresies manufactured for the purpose of justifying their schism, the pope-less remnant of "true believers" awaits you.

Yeah, Mike, that's what I did, manufacture a "heresy" to justify my schism. Why don't you respond to my "manufacturing"? Go ahead:

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 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.

Show me the "Catholic" truth. It is the truth, right? Instead of resorting, like a naked man who has no other weapon, to sarcasm . . . why don't you show us how God wills the salvation of the infant who dies without baptism - the one, you know, who the Church "hopes" but "doesn't know" if he's saved.

You can do it in the sede forum, or you can do it here.

columba Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:26 pm

MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:I think that was a worth while digression DeSelby.
Since you read my response, you can state your reasons why this little digression by DeSelby was worthwhile.

Are you calling into question the historical scholarship of Bishop Hefele (who wrote the History of the Councils of the Church), or just the integrity of the editors; or the fact that you would suspect anyone who would say that the canon listed under a footnote in Denzinger (because this same canon was not listed in the original source document, but is still generally considered as authentic) has been called into question by certain historical scholars who maintain that "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"?

Karl Rahner was the editor of my edition of Denzinger, so I guess I can call into question the authenticity of its documents.

Is that how this game is played? If not, I suppose you have valid reasons for supporting this "digression" that calls into question the scholastic integrity of Bishop Hefele, all because he was initially opposed to defining the dogma of papal infallibility. I'd like to hear your reasons.

I hope your reasons go beyond taking satisfaction in the inherent merits of any post that takes exception to the merits of my posts. I hope you are not that shallow.

Mike your being a bit paranoid. It wasnt in relation to your post that I said DeSelby's digression was worthwhile. It was because I wasn't aware of Rev. Daniel R. Jennings background and it was worthwhile for me to learn of it. Thats all.

DeSelby Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:47 pm

Just want to say I'll reply to Mike's response soon.... I intended to last night but something came up.

MRyan Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:04 pm

columba wrote:
Mike your being a bit paranoid. It wasnt in relation to your post that I said DeSelby's digression was worthwhile. It was because I wasn't aware of Rev. Daniel R. Jennings background and it was worthwhile for me to learn of it. Thats all.

Not at all; your post followed mine by one hour, so I had absolutely no reason to believe that the digression you had in mind had nothing to do with the purpose of DeSelby's post, or with mine.

Fine. If that's paranoid, call me paranoid.

MRyan Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:48 pm

tornpage wrote:
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.

There is no contradiction. That God wills the salvation of all men, and not all men are saved has nothing to do with whether or not He loves all men equally (He does not).

God does not love all men equally, he favors some more than He does others. But to suggest that His love for any soul is less than that which He wills the salvation of all men is simply false, and a true contradiction; and a wrong-turn made with Augustinian doctrine.

If He withholds the grace of final perseverance, it is not because of His particular will that He should withhold it because it was already predetermined that this soul is damned; or because He does not love this soul ENOUGH that he should be saved; it is because this particular person has in some way rejected even this final grace.

In other words, if he conforms his will to the grace of God that abides in him through justification, he WILL receive the grace of final perseverance so long as he perseveres in grace through the instrumental means of the Church and through his own desire (that he lives IN Christ, and Christ WILL live in him). This is no different from saying that no man can remain in grace for long who does not avail himself to the sacraments (at least in intention) and to the life of prayer.

To say that God does not love a soul ENOUGH to have him saved is the doctrine of divine reprobation that excuses God from positively “willing” the damnation of individual souls, but, Who only wills their destruction indirectly. In either case, it is God who does “the willing”. The latter is true in the sense that God is the formal and first cause of all things, but there are also efficient causes with respect to the infallible fulfillment of the universal cause (this is a topic for another discussion).

But this can be easily misconstrued and convoluted, and it no wonder columba can say:

“ 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 I am not mistaken, this error was condemned by the Church as heretical; though Calvin would be proud.

Does God's universal salvific will include the salvation of unbaptized infants? Yes, but there is no contradiction in the doctrine that says water baptism is the only known means that can assure them of salvation. Theology does NOT explain how to resolve this tension and divine mystery. What the Church avoids are the extremes. Our Lord has infallibly tied salvation to the intrinsic necessity of regeneration, but the Church does not know how our Lord might accomplish this with unbaptized infants ... so she simply places their eternal fate in His merciful hands while affirming the doctrine of regeneration.

Why you see a “contraction” in this divine mystery is beyond me. You appear to have taken what has never been infallibly defined as an infallible belief of divine and Catholic faith ... and you build a straw-man condemnation of the Church around it.

As Pope Pius IX declared, every schism fabricates a heresy to justify itself, and you've been working overtime, I am sorry to say.

tornpage Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:39 am

Mike,

I wrote:

why don't you show us how God wills the salvation of the infant who dies without baptism - the one, you know, who the Church "hopes" but "doesn't know" if he's saved.

I guess with that last post you believe you have. I fail to see it. I don't know how you've shown that the Church or you have established that these infants are included within a purported will of God to save all men with your "don't know" if these infants are saved. As I see it, you've failed utterly.

St. Alphonsus said that if God failed to give all men the grace and aid necessary for salvation it could not be truly said that God wills the salvation of all men. If these infants are not saved, God cannot truly will that all men be saved, because they do not get the grace and aid necessary for salvation: they do not receive baptism, and do not live to the opportunity to make an act of love or charity to God. I agree with St. Alphonsus's framing of the question, and therefore cannot believe that God truly wills to save all men. The claim is not of the truth, and I cannot follow it.
And your and the Church's "don't know" rings hollow, and is found wanting.

The Catholic Church says that he who rejects its assertion that God wills the salvation of all men is a heretic. Neither my reading of Scripture, nor my consideration of the issue with the lights God has given me to weigh the competing claims, allows me to embrace it's claim that God wills to save every man, woman and child, even the unbaptized infants it nonetheless says it "doesn't know" are saved. So there we are.

As always, I thank you for your contribution. You have confirmed things for me. You are the most capable and intelligent apologist for the Church I have not only ever personally encountered but even read or been exposed to. In my trying to sort these things out, you've been a great help. And you've always been a friend.

Thanks. I don't think we can add anything here.

MRyan Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:48 am

Tornpage,

I really do not know what to say. I simply cannot see the conflict where the distinction between God’s universal salvific will and the contingencies by which that will reaches the elect effectively (or not) -- seems to have been obliterated in your own mind.

You understand that all men are called (universal salvific will), but few are chosen (not all will respond to God’s grace, or persevere in grace), and yet you seem to be complaining that if God’s salvific will is universal, then all men without exception must be saved.

You seem to be saying that God does NOT will the salvation of all men … and I get the feeling that you are rejecting the Catholic doctrine completely, and embracing reformed (Calvin’s) theology. Can you confirm, and spell out your doctrine?

I appreciate your nice comments about my efforts, though I do not deserve them.

This is not the Tornpage I know who could write so intelligently and eloquently about predestination and especially the predestination as taught by Garrigou-Lagrange, though you and I parted company on what I thought was your overemphasis on God as first cause (not all men are saved) which would render the efficient causes of salvation and our cooperation with grace practically irrelevant since the fate of every soul has already been predetermined. This misplaced emphasis would then render sufficient grace insufficient for salvation unless an infallible form of irresistible grace is ultimately conferred, which is reserved only for the predetermined elect.

If I have failed utterly, I'm not sure what I am supposed to have failed at, besides turning you away from whatever that direction is you seem bound and determined to follow.

But I don’t think Catholic theology has failed, I think your understanding has failed. You’ve always had a weak spot for TULIP, and were convinced of its total orthodoxy (reformed Calvinist converts still extol its riches and compatibility with Catholic theology), and even if it is barely compatible, it is but one small half-step removed from heresy.

This might fail utterly, but I will leave you with this excerpt from Fr. Matthias Joseph Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, Ch. 27, The True Mystery of Predestination (pp 724-727):

103. PREDESTINATION AS ELECTION AND SELECTION

"Before dealing with the somber, forbidding aspect of predestination, we wish briefly to consider it under another form, the luminous form in which Holy Scripture lays it before us.

Sacred Scripture and, in the spirit of Scripture, the Fathers and theologians, refer to predestination as election. That is to say, the decree by which God proposes to conduct us to our supernatural end is a free, gratuitous choice whereby He singles out and wills to admit certain souls to the possession of Himself as His children, His spouses. The sublimity of the dignity, and the greatness of the riches of His grace and glory, mark this choice as an act of His supernatural providence. The soul has nothing in its nature or its natural, free activity that could ever make it worthy of being chosen by God; but at the same time it has nothing that could unconditionally deter God from choosing it. The goodness of God and the merits of Christ constitute the sole motive governing His choice; but this motive is infinitely efficacious. The actual elevation of the soul to the august state intended for it by God can take place either by simple regeneration, as in the case of infants, or by formal espousals, as in the case of adults, who must advance to meet their heavenly bridegroom at the reception of sanctifying grace, through the disposition which precedes it, and at the reception of glory, by perseverance in grace to the end. All human souls are chosen, and consequently called, by God's universal salvific will to be His children and spouses. But only those who actually receive baptism, or who respond to God's choice of them up to the very end with a counterchoice of their own, effectively and absolutely constitute the elect, and are separated out from the multitude of those who are merely chosen in the sense that God has created all men for eternal bliss.

It is clear that this election is as unmerited and infallible, and in the same form, as predestination, with which it is at bottom identical. God does not choose us because we have chosen Him; but through His choice, through the call whereby He invites and draws us, He makes it possible for us to choose Him. The election (election), like predestination, issues from the unmerited, but absolutely reliable and powerful love (dilectio) by which God has called us to supernatural union with Himself. This love, although wholly unmerited on our part, gives us confident assurance that we will attain our end, just as if the election depended on the natural bent of our will over which we alone have control. But this love becomes actually selective, and inextricably ties the bond between God and man, only so far as God foresees man's counterchoice and response which He evokes. It is not in our power, of course, to effect our choice and call; but it does depend on us to follow the call and thereby, in the words of the Apostle, to make our election and our call really effective and certain.

Up to this point we find in the election, as also in predestination, nothing but cheerful light, nothing but comforting truths that instill in us the most confident assurance concerning the attainment of the supreme Good. We have every reason to make our own the sentiments expressed by the Apostle at the beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and to praise and glorify God for the mystery of His predestination and election.

But the same Apostle cries out to us in the Epistle to the Philippians: "With fear and trembling work out your salvation. For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to accomplish, according to His good will." (Phil. 2:12 f) Since we can work out our salvation only in dependence on the divine influence whereby God calls and moves us, we must submit to His influence with fear and trembling, lest by rebelling against it we take upon ourselves a heavier burden than if we had to work out our salvation by our own efforts. For then we would wantonly fling away our happiness, and would thrust aside the hand of God stretched out to save us, and would frustrate the tender exertions He puts forth in our behalf out of sheer goodness and love (pro bona voluntate). Further, since our endeavor is conditioned by God's influence, and since this influence depends exclusively on God's unconstrained good pleasure which we can of ourselves in no wise merit, we have grounds to fear that God will withdraw His saving hand once we have defied Him, that He will no longer help us with His prevenient grace, at least not with the same abundance of grace He had previously intended for us, and that He will forsake us, since we have forsaken Him. Thus we would wander ever farther from our vocation and destiny. In this fear, the Apostle admonishes us, we must guard against ever resisting a grace. With trembling we must eagerly receive all of God's inspirations, and allow ourselves to be used and guided by Him as willing instruments in His hands.

However, this formidable aspect of predestination and election is no more than a shadow which we ourselves cast, and so we have it entirely in our own power to dissipate it. We can readily perceive that neither God's mercy nor man's free will is here jeopardized in any way. Still, the curse laid upon man by divine justice springs from this very mercy which man, abusing his freedom, so basely scorns and contemns.

Dark clouds gather when we reflect that God in His omnipotence could undoubtedly show mercy even to those who, as a matter of fact, resist His grace, and that those who actually follow His call would quite likely have trifled grace away like the others, if their graces and the circumstances in which they were placed had been different. Here a special predilection of God for the latter and a certain rejection with regard to the former seem to emerge, and indeed in such wise as to precede the actual use or abuse of human freedom, since it depends precisely on that predilection or rejection whether God places man in those circumstances in which He knows that man will cooperate with His grace or not.

If the fact that God, although He could do so, does not save all men from abusing their free will and the grace they have received, is represented as an effect of God's rejection of these men, the procedure must surely appear to be unjustified and terrifying. Actually, however, it is nothing but an indication that God in His prevenient love does not will the salvation of those men to such a degree or with such resoluteness that He intends to see to it that they will definitively and unfailingly attain to salvation no matter what the cost.

There is, to be sure, no reason in men themselves why God should secure some rather than others against the final abuse of their free will. But neither is there any reason why God must shield all men against such abuse, once He has made it possible for all to make a good use of their freedom. No doubt, those who are placed under a system of providence wherein they can cooperate with grace and, as is foreseen, will cooperate, must thank God not only for grace itself, but also for the effective congruity of grace, and they must regard the latter as a special benefit. But the others cannot on that account complain against God, who had bestowed on them His prevenient grace which they had not merited, and was prepared to save them if they had been willing to cooperate with that grace.

The matter shapes up somewhat differently in the case of infants, who receive or do not receive baptism before their death, according to the incidence of external circumstances, without any reference to the use of their free will. Those who are lost without any personal fault of their own can have no complaints concerning the gratuitous providence which effectively extends grace to others, because they neither had any right to such grace, nor are held personally responsible for the non-possession of grace, and hence do not suffer the loss of their natural goods and rights. Consequently, if the saving mercy of God never reaches them effectively, God is not to be blamed any more than in the case of those adults who had indeed experienced His mercy, but did not continue to avail themselves of it up to the very end."

[END of Excerpt]

MRyan Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:09 am

Tornpage, this bears repeating:

If the fact that God, although He could do so, does not save all men from abusing their free will and the grace they have received, is represented as an effect of God's rejection of these men, the procedure must surely appear to be unjustified and terrifying. Actually, however, it is nothing but an indication that God in His prevenient love does not will the salvation of those men to such a degree or with such resoluteness that He intends to see to it that they will definitively and unfailingly attain to salvation no matter what the cost.

That is precisely what I meant when I said;

God does not love all men equally, he favors some more than He does others. But to suggest that His love for any soul is less than that which He wills the salvation of all men is simply false, and a true contradiction; and a wrong-turn made with Augustinian doctrine.

But you seem to be suggesting that if God’s salvific will is truly universal, His universal will MUST also extend to the contingencies that effect how man will unfailingly respond to grace since “He intends to see to it that they will definitively and unfailingly attain to salvation no matter what the cost.”

And, since not all men are saved, from this you appear to derive your doctrine “God does not will the salvation of all men”.

Is that an accurate assessment, or am I off base?

MRyan Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:18 am

tornpage wrote:
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.

If unbaptized infants are saved, they are saved by a particular efficient cause of God (a means of regeneration unknown to us) that is subsumed and becomes effective under His universal salvific will.

tornpage wrote: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.

If “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 means merely that it is not thwarted by an insurmountable obstacle, that it is thwarted only so far as God permits, and only so far as God does not, from the treasury of His omnipotence, overwhelm the will with graces which He knows would bring about man's cooperation. (Scheeben)

Again, “if the saving mercy of God never reaches [infants] effectively, God is not to be blamed any more than in the case of those adults who had indeed experienced His mercy, but did not continue to avail themselves of it up to the very end." And IF the saving mercy of God reaches them effectively, they are saved by a particular efficient cause of God (a means of regeneration unknown to us) that is subsumed and becomes effective under His universal salvific will.

MRyan Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:40 pm

tornpage wrote:
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.

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.

Baptized infants cannot “exercise their free will to love and serve Him” so they are saved by that grace and aids (e.g., the Faith of the Church) found in Baptism.

But, it is a logical fallacy to conclude from this that God’s universal salvific will does not necessarily include the salvation of unbaptized infants; for you are restricting “those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation” to the exercise of free will, since you apparently assume that our Lord, as the efficient cause of salvation, cannot or will not supply the faith of the Church and the grace of baptism by another effective means (unknown to the Church) since the Church knows of no other means that can assure their salvation.

In other words, if it is God’s particular will that un-baptized shall be saved, then the saving mercy of God reaches them effectively, and they are saved by a particular efficient cause of God (a means of regeneration unknown to us) that is subsumed and becomes effective under His (as first cause) universal will.

Does that mean that infants do not need to be baptized? No, but maybe its just me.

Let me know when you're ready to move on to exhibit B (other than infants).

MRyan Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:10 pm

Tornpage,

Forgive me for initially not taking your posts very seriously, and for failing to respond to you until much later (and not very effectively) when you directed one of your initial posts to me.

I did not realize or appreciate that you were not doing this as an exercise to test a hypothesis or to dig deeper into the mysteries of this doctrine, or how seriously you were frustrated at not being able to resolve this dilemma. You weren’t getting much help, and I don’t know if anything I have written since is helpful.

Not realizing how serious you were taking this, and with the sede defections and talk, I let my emotions get the best of me.

Anyway, I hope you haven’t left us and that you will resume this discussion.

Your friend,

Mike

tornpage Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:49 pm

Mike,

Thanks. I have not departed the site. Yes, this is serious business, and I'm not testing a hypothesis. I appreciate your observations and look forward to continuing the discussion.

Thanks. As always.

I won't respond until I'm sure I'd be doing more than just reiterating. Let me weigh what you have said today.

MRyan Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:32 pm

Limbo and the Gospel Out of Season
Jun 21, 2007
Robert T. Miller (assistant professor at the Villanova University School of Law)
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2007/06/limbo-and-the-gospel-out-of-se

... For all its faults, however, the [International Theological Commission] document gets right the essential point: "Our conclusion is that [there are] . . . grounds for hope that unbaptized infants will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision" (no. 102), but "the church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptized infants" because "the destiny of . . . infants who die without baptism has not been revealed to us, and the church teaches and judges only with regard to what has been revealed" (no. 79). In other words, after 42 pages, 135 footnotes, and more than 22,000 words, the ITC has said no more than what the Catechism had said back in 1994: It is possible that unbaptized infants are saved and so we may hope that they are, but we do not know for sure because God has not revealed to us their destiny.

—the argument comes down to this: God's universal salvific will, plus the fact that Christ entered into solidarity with all humanity in a "great cosmic mystery of communion" (no. 92), give us "grounds for hope that unbaptized infants . . . will be saved" (no. 102). Given all the doctors, theologians, and popes on the other side of the question, one might think of this argument as being the triumph of hope over expertise.

Even calling it an argument, however, is generous. It amounts to nothing more than saying, "There seems to be a tension between . . . the universal salvific will of God on the one hand and the necessity of sacramental baptism on the other," because the latter "seems to limit the extension of God's universal salvific will" (no. 10).

The answer to this, of course, is obvious and well-known in sacred tradition. Although God wants all men to be saved, nevertheless some men are damned to hell (a fact the ITC acknowledges by quoting from the Synod of Quiercy), and if God's universal salvific will is compatible with some men being damned to hell, then there's no problem at all with it being compatible with some unbaptized infants enjoying a natural but not a supernatural happiness in limbo. God wills all men to be saved, provided that certain conditions are met—for instance, that they not die in a state of mortal sin. Once we are clear that God's universal salvific will is conditional in this way, the question becomes whether sacramental baptism is such a condition for infants, and the tradition strongly (though not conclusively) supports the idea that it is.

The "tension" the ITC perceives between God's universal salvific will and the necessity of sacramental baptism arises only if one thinks that that will entails that all human beings are in fact saved, which is rather the opposite of what the Catholic Church has traditionally taught (see Avery Cardinal Dulles' review of the question in First Things, May 2003).

tornpage Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:05 am

But you seem to be suggesting that if God’s salvific will is truly universal, His universal will MUST also extend to the contingencies that effect how man will unfailingly respond to grace since “He intends to see to it that they will definitively and unfailingly attain to salvation no matter what the cost.”

I'm saying we see a true will to save with the elect, and it is precisely this: it "extend[s] to the contingencies that effect how man will unfailingly respond to grace since 'He intends to see to it that they will definitively and unfailingly attain to salvation no matter what the cost.' ” His Blood was the cost, and the will is infallible and precious:

John 10:27-8

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Such is God's true will to save some.

I don't understand a "will to save" that calls forth a "don't know" if the recipients of that will are in Heaven (or will be) by the oracle that is supposed to explain that will.

It sounds nice and man pleasing to say, "God wills the salvation of all men," meaning every man, woman and child. But if He did, they'd be saved, all of them:

Job 23:13-14

But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? And what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.

Scheeben says:

Those who are lost without any personal fault of their own can have no complaints concerning the gratuitous providence which effectively extends grace to others, because they neither had any right to such grace, nor are held personally responsible for the non-possession of grace, and hence do not suffer the loss of their natural goods and rights. Consequently, if the saving mercy of God never reaches them effectively, God is not to be blamed any more than in the case of those adults who had indeed experienced His mercy, but did not continue to avail themselves of it up to the very end."

It is a separate question whether the infants would have legitimate complaints if God does not save them, as well as a separate question as to whether God can be "blamed" for not saving them. I am not going there, and agree with Scheeben. In my view, the infants do not have a legitimate complaint, and God cannot be blamed, yet I do not say to those infants (or believe) that God desired to save you. But if you say to those infants "God desires to save you," and they are not saved, then it seems to me the infants would have a legitimate complaint: "where is that desire, O Lord? What have I done to be denied the bounty of your presence? You wanted me there, and what stayed you? I did not by my actions. Where is your will to save me, O Lord?" To me, the ones who say God wills their salvation lie.

It is not the case with the infants that it is with the adults - of course. Scheeben writes:

There is, to be sure, no reason in men themselves why God should secure some rather than others against the final abuse of their free will. But neither is there any reason why God must shield all men against such abuse, once He has made it possible for all to make a good use of their freedom. No doubt, those who are placed under a system of providence wherein they can cooperate with grace and, as is foreseen, will cooperate, must thank God not only for grace itself, but also for the effective congruity of grace, and they must regard the latter as a special benefit. But the others cannot on that account complain against God, who had bestowed on them His prevenient grace which they had not merited, and was prepared to save them if they had been willing to cooperate with that grace.

The highlighted language is the rub as to the infants.

I, and some other Christians, most of whom would be called Calvinist, do not say "God wills to save every man, woman and child." Neither I nor they say, "God was going to save them, wanted to save them, but they defeated His will by their sin." We say, "they sinned, and they are damned for their sin." We do not put two wills in God, or make Him either schizophrenic or impotent as to His will, a bystander to the actions of men, and waiting upon their response. We agree that they respond, and respond freely: they are free secondary causes, as St. Thomas would say. As to the damned, they either deserve their damnation for personal fault, or truly can not complain of the deprivation of something they are not owed, as Scheeben says.

As to the infants, I can say "I don't know," and not get into the same tangle - because I don't say God wills to save them, and don't have to justify or explain a situation where there salvation is "up in the air" despite the fact that God did not give them the graces or aids which a true will to save demands that all men get (St. Alphonsus).

Here's something from our maligned Protestant friends, some of those fearful Calvinists:

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

Chapter 3: Of God's Decree

1. God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )

I think that's accurate, and ironically an almost pure Thomism. But that's a digression, of sorts.

Getting back to the point at hand: I mostly agree with Scheeben in what you quoted. But when you enfold it in "God wills the salvation of every man, woman and child," it goes false, rings hollow, and seems to me duplicitous as to the infants.

I do not demand that God save the infants; I do not blame Him if He does not. But I also do not say, "God desires to save every man, woman and child," and then make a mockery of His will and potency by saying we "don't know" if He saves these infants that He desires to save, who do not receive the prevenient grace (Scheeben) that would be necessary as a warrant of that will. With that, it is once again useful to quote 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.

He doesn't give it to those infants, and it cannot be said He has a true will to save all.

Since I don't say He has a true will to save all, their is no problem (logically or theologically) with the fact that He doesn't save these infants if He doesn't, and there would not be an offense to justice or to God (who would be rendered impotent as to those "innocent" infants despite His will to save them) if they were not saved.

I hope that clarifies a bit.

MRyan Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:34 pm

tornpage wrote:
Here's something from our maligned Protestant friends, some of those fearful Calvinists:

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

Chapter 3: Of God's Decree

1. God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.
( Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11; Hebrews 6:17; Romans 9:15, 18; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5; Acts 4:27, 28; John 19:11; Numbers 23:19; Ephesians 1:3-5 )

I think that's accurate, and ironically an almost pure Thomism. But that's a digression, of sorts.

But it only scratches the surface of Calvin's doctrine, and when taken as a whole, it is anything but Thomism, and neither is it Augustinian.

But it is an important digression since it is integral to this discussion. If effectual election and predeterminism (an “infallible assurance of salvation”) does not completely destroy the mystery of predestination, “its true character is distorted, and its distinctive greatness is obscured”. (Scheeben)

But let’s get back to the “1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith” to get the full flavor of Calvin’s doctrine (Note: Scripture references removed for brevity):

Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling

1._____ Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

3._____ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

4._____ Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.

Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints

1._____ Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved … notwithstanding, through unbelief and the temptations of Satan, the sensible sight of the light and love of God may for a time be clouded and obscured from them, yet he is still the same, and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraven upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all eternity.

Chapter 18: Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation

2._____ This certainty [“True believers … have the assurance of their salvation”] is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope, but an infallible assurance of faith founded on the blood and righteousness of Christ revealed in the Gospel; and also upon the inward evidence of those graces of the Spirit unto which promises are made, and on the testimony of the Spirit of adoption, witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God; and, as a fruit thereof, keeping the heart both humble and holy.

On the one hand it is maintained: “God … by his almighty power determining them to that which is good” such that “True believers … have the assurance of their salvation” and thus “can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace … and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation” ...

Whereas on the other hand “nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established”.

Fr. Scheeben responds:

The ultramystical conception, which is diametrically opposed to the view combatted by St. Augustine, is in general characterized by its attachment to the idea that the influence of God's action upon the will is a predetermination, which the movement of the will resulting from its impetus cannot recognize at all, or only with the greatest difficulty, as a self-movement, as a product of the will's free self-determination. (Proponents of this system are, among others, Calvin, Baius, Jansenius, and Karl Barth. [Editor])

We call it ultramystical, because it stresses the mystical element of predestination beyond all limits. However, by going too far, it ends up by debasing this mystical element, and so reduces the living mystery to a more or less dead mechanism. For if I emphasize God's motive influence upon the will so excessively that the latter is simply put in motion without moving itself, I deprive that influence of its noblest property, namely, that it places man in a position to determine himself, not only upon the natural plane, but also upon the supernatural plane, to which he is raised by God's grace.

Where the free self-movement and self-determination of man under God's moving influence are expressly excluded, hence where predeterminism is advocated in its unmitigated crudity, we have before us an open denial of the Christian mystery of predestination. This error, no less injurious to God's power and transcendence than the opposite error of naturalism, deeply degrades man in the very faculty wherein God proposes to raise him to the highest level.

Even if the mystery is not entirely destroyed, its true character is distorted, and its distinctive greatness is obscured. At least this is the case if God's moving influence upon the will is so conceived that the cooperation of the will or its self-determination must spring from the force of the existing impulse with an inner infallibility, if not with absolute necessity. If anyone can distinguish between this infallibility and necessity, let him approve of this view. We are unable to do so, particularly if infallibility is to be understood strictly; for from a given cause the only effect that follows with absolute infallibility is an effect which cannot fail to result, and which therefore is so determined in its cause that it cannot be absent as , -long as the cause is in operation. (The MOC, pp 717-718)

This a good place to begin.

tornpage Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:43 pm

Mike,

So you quote Scheeben and I quote Thomists back at you? I'd love to continue a discussion on Calvinist soteriology. Let's do it. Perhaps another thread.

But let's stay on the issue of God's universal salvific will and these infants. Any comment on that score regarding my last post?

MRyan Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:21 am

tornpage wrote:Scheeben says:

Those who are lost without any personal fault of their own can have no complaints concerning the gratuitous providence which effectively extends grace to others, because they neither had any right to such grace, nor are held personally responsible for the non-possession of grace, and hence do not suffer the loss of their natural goods and rights. Consequently, if the saving mercy of God never reaches them effectively, God is not to be blamed any more than in the case of those adults who had indeed experienced His mercy, but did not continue to avail themselves of it up to the very end."

It is a separate question whether the infants would have legitimate complaints if God does not save them, as well as a separate question as to whether God can be "blamed" for not saving them. I am not going there, and agree with Scheeben. In my view, the infants do not have a legitimate complaint, and God cannot be blamed, yet I do not say to those infants (or believe) that God desired to save you.

Really, so when our Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved", died on the cross for the atonement of sins, He did not have in mind a universal conditional will (the desire) to save all men for the remission of sins, but only some men. Must be a "typo".

And of course, since, according to Calvin’s doctrine, “Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance” of baptism, it follows that if “Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ”, they are saved “through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases”, since infants “are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” (1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith)

And if some infants are not “effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved”. (Ibid)

Let’s keep that in mind as you clarify your objection:

tornpage wrote:But if you say to those infants "God desires to save you," and they are not saved, then it seems to me the infants would have a legitimate complaint: "where is that desire, O Lord? What have I done to be denied the bounty of your presence? You wanted me there, and what stayed you? I did not by my actions. Where is your will to save me, O Lord?" To me, the ones who say God wills their salvation lie.

It is not the case with the infants that it is with the adults - of course. Scheeben writes:

There is, to be sure, no reason in men themselves why God should secure some rather than others against the final abuse of their free will. But neither is there any reason why God must shield all men against such abuse, once He has made it possible for all to make a good use of their freedom. No doubt, those who are placed under a system of providence wherein they can cooperate with grace and, as is foreseen, will cooperate, must thank God not only for grace itself, but also for the effective congruity of grace, and they must regard the latter as a special benefit. But the others cannot on that account complain against God, who had bestowed on them His prevenient grace which they had not merited, and was prepared to save them if they had been willing to cooperate with that grace.
The highlighted language is the rub as to the infants.

Why? What’s the rub? Infants cannot make use of their freedom and cannot thus cooperate with grace. Scheeben wrote: “if the saving mercy of God never reaches them effectively, God is not to be blamed any more than in the case of those adults who had indeed experienced His mercy, but did not continue to avail themselves of it up to the very end."

Calvin and Scheeben would agree that IF the saving mercy of God reaches them effectively, they are saved “through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases”, since infants “are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word” (Scheeben extends this calling to Baptism).

The difference is that Scheeben sees the actualization of the particular will of God as a concrete manifestation of God’s universal salvific will.

In other words, contrary to your assertion that “We … put two wills in God” with respect to salvation, there is only one saving will, but with two aspects – the universal and the particular. That there are three Persons of the Blessed Trinity does not mean there are three Gods.

But our Lord has two wills.

And when Pope Honorius said there was but "one will" in our Lord, he was referring only to our Lord's human will, which cannot be opposed to His divine will (two distinct wills that are of ONE mind and will). Similarly, we are saved by the divine will of God, which is manifested in the will of our Lord's human nature, in which all of the elect are saved.

tornpage Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:20 am

Really, so when our Lord, "Who will have all men to be saved", died on the cross for the atonement of sins, He did not have in mind a universal conditional will (the desire) to save all men for the remission of sins, but only some men. Must be a "typo".

No, it's not a "typo." You're just reading wrong. I read it like St. Augustine read it.

According to Father Most - in the article that is cited on the first page of this thread - the "denial of 1 Timothy 2:4" (according to your and Father Most's view - that is, Most calls the view of myself, St. Augustine and the Domincan Domingo Baez, a "denial") was neither endorsed (of course not) nor rejected by the Church.

APPROVAL OF THE CHURCH?: Never has the Church endorsed these points, the
<massa damnata>, or the denial of 1 Timothy 2.4. On the contrary, in 1597,
Pope Clement VIII, seeing that these ideas were disturbing souls in debates
in Spain, ordered both Dominicans and Jesuits to send a delegation to Rome,
to debate before cardinals. (The Dominican theory is not from St. Thomas, but from Domingo Banez (cf. the file 1Thomist) who explicitly denied the salvific will.)

The debates ran for ten years and got nowhere. Chief reason was the both
sides were abusing Scripture - as we just saw St. Augustine doing it -
without considering the context in which something was said. Then the next
Pope, Paul V, consulted St. Francis de Sales, Saint, and great theologian. He
had had six weeks of blackness himself, as he tells in one of his letters,
from the Dominican theory -- in which God really loves no one, for God
blindly picks a small number to save, not for their sake, but to use them, to
make a point. St. Francis advised the Pope to approve neither side. That is
what he did , and ordered them not write on it again without special
permission. That order of course fell into disuse, and early this century
they were at it again, until the ferment of Vatican II brought an end to such
solid and difficult matters, on which neither side had found the right
answer.

Not sure what he means when he says the "ferment of Vatican II brought an end to such solid and difficult matters." But, anyway, perhaps an apology is in order. Perhaps the Church - according to Father Most - has never rejected or forbidden the "denial" of 1 Timothy 2:4. Maybe the official position is not that God wills that all be saved?

Not sure we're you're going with the rest of it. Sorry. If you could clarify, it would be appreciated. Otherwise, I'll respond much later when I can figure it out.

tornpage Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:00 pm

Father Most goes on in another article:

SECOND REASON: St. Thomas never denied the universal salvific will.

1)But the founder of the "Thomist" system, Domingo Banez wrote
(<Scholastica commentaria in primam partem Angelici Doctoris, D.
Thomae, Romae,> 1584. In I.19,6.col. 363): "Quia non est in Deo
formaliter talis voluntas, necessse est quod sit eminenter, cum
Deus sit causa illius in sanctis." That is: God does not really
will all to be saved: He just causes us to will that.

This is not too strange, since the system of Banez is
essentially the same as that of St. Augustine, who clearly denied
the salvific wil:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/1THOMIST.TXT

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/1THOMIST.TXT

This is from an article on St. Thomas, where, as you can see, he notes or argues that St. Thomist did not deny the universal salvific will. After the colon he cites a lot of stuff from St. Augustine supporting St. Augustine's denial of that will.

tornpage Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:18 pm

Father Most's article is interesting and definitely worth reading and commenting on. He searches for a "solution" and says the following:

Scripture never explicitly speaks of predestination to heaven or reprobation to hell. The predestination it speaks of, according to Pere Lagrange, is always and only a
predestination to full membership in the people of God, the Church. Now that we know this, we can get past the obstacle that stopped Thomas.

The quote is amusing to say the least. Scripture never speaks of a predestination to heaven? We can get past an obstacle that stopped St. Thomas?

tornpage Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:36 pm

Scripture never explicitly speaks of predestination to heaven

Romans 8:28-30

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

If anyone finds Most credible in saying, "Scripture never explicitly speaks of predestination to heaven," I ask them to explain his credibility there to me.

tornpage Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:27 pm

Came across this recently. Father Hardon is discussing the position of John C. Gurdon in his book, The Mystical Christ, St. Louis, 1936:

iv. Implies that Infants can be Saved without Baptism

Consistent with his principles, if the author holds that membership in the true Church is only a matter of precept, he should excuse from its observance not only non-Catholic adults, but also, and especially, non-baptized infants for whom incorporation in the Church through Baptism is both morally and physically impossible. However, we are not left to deduce this conclusion from his promises, because he teaches it explicitly. In a long note to the paragraph in which he stated that non-Catholics “are saved not in and through the Church,” he writes: “The proposition declaring that Christ died for all men without exception, is de fide. The doctrine teaching that all adults outside the Catholic Church, Jews, Protestants and pagans, who follow the dictates of their conscience, will receive graces sufficient for salvation, is fidei proxima. No entirely satisfactory solution has yet been offered concerning the fate of children dying before Baptism. It is the common opinion of theologians that God gives them graces sufficient for salvation. [239] However, theologians divide into two groups children dying before Baptism, first, those who die in the maternal womb and, secondly, those who die after natural birth before Baptism. The former, they maintain, are forever deprived of the vision of God, but do enjoy a natural happiness in limbo; the latter may be saved.” [240]

Clearly our author would maintain that only infants who die in the womb are deprived of the Beatific Vision, and that those who die after natural birth may be saved even without actual Baptism. It is difficult to see what he means by the “common opinion of theologians” that children dying before Baptism receive sufficient graces for salvation, apart from and independent of Baptism. If anything, theological “opinion” is all to the opposite; in fact, it is not an opinion but common doctrine that no one, including infants, can be saved without Baptism in re or in voto. Writes a modern authority on the history of the Sacraments: “At the very outset it must be admitted that …. those infants who have not received Baptism in water, either in fact or in desire, will not attain to the Beatific Vision. This is the clear meaning of the words of the Lord to Nicodemus … The mind of the Church, while it has never been expressed in an ex cathedra definition, has been so constant and so pronounced, in its ordinary magisterium, as to exclude all reasonable doubt. The fluctuations which rise here and there only serve to show how strong the tradition is. To indicate the mind of the ancient Church, we may read, for example, the narrative of St. Augustine about an infant who died in the arms of his mother, who was called back to life through the invocation of the martyr, St. Stephen, and baptized. Then he died a second time and was carried to the grave by his mother, now consoled, as she had previously wept more over the fate of his soul than over the death of his body; having passed from tears to expressions of gratitude at seeing that her child was now assured of eternal life. [241] St. Thomas synthesizes on this point the mind of all the Christian centuries when he says that, in view of the necessity of Baptism, God has willed to make it accessible to everyone, both in the choice of its matter, which is most common, and in giving to everyone, in case of necessity, the power of conferring Baptism. Nor does St. Thomas forget that, ‘God has in no sense limited His power to the Sacraments,’ and therefore he allows for the possibility of a miracle. [242] But a miracle, it should be observed, does not pertain to the ordinary course of Providence… Not a few theologians have tried to find a common disposition of Providence to procure the salvation of these infants. In the fourteenth century, there was Durandus; in the fifteenth, Gerson and Biel; in the Sixteenth, Cajetan. The latter believed he had discovered the secret in the prayer of a Christian mother for the fruit of her womb. But the Church never encouraged these efforts. Out of regard for the illustrious memory of Cajetan, the Council of Trent did not wish to condemn his opinion with an anathema. But the page on which his theory appeared, was removed from his works, by order of the Sovereign Pontiff, St. Pius V. [243] The following centuries also witnessed a goodly number of similar attempts. Thus, in the eighteenth century, Cardinal Sfondrati, whose work, Nodu Praedestinationis Dissolutus, described as particularly enviable the lot of infants who die without Baptism, was put on the Index by Sossuet and four bishops of France; and although he was saved (from further condemnation) through the good graces of Pope Innocent XII, he was not excused. In the eighteenth century, Amort and Bianchi; in the nineteenth, Klee, Caron, Vosen and Schell more or less renewed the same efforts, which were condemned, but never praised, by the Church.” [244]

Numerous documents of the Church confirm the fact that the constant Christian tradition is against conceiving any other means of salvation for infants, whether before or after birth, than the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism:

Thus, in the Council of Carthage (418), approved by Pope Zosimus, we read: “It has pleased all the bishops (to declare that), if anyone denies that children recently delivered from their mothers’ wombs need not be baptized… let him be anathema.” [245]

And in a letter of Pope Innocent I (417): “That which Your Fraternity declares that they (the Pelagians) are preaching, namely, that children can attain to the reward of eternal life even without the grace of Baptism, is most absurd.” [246]

Also Pope Leo I (447): “Since the whole offspring of the human race has been vitiated by the prevarication of the first man, no one can be delivered from the lot of ‘the old man’, except through the Sacrament of the Baptism of Christ.” [247]

And Innocent III, in recommending the baptism of infants: “God forbid that all the children, who die in such numbers each day, should perish without God in His mercy giving them a remedy to assure their salvation, since He desires no one to be lost.” [248]

And the Council of Florence, in its Decree for the Jacobites: “Regarding children, because of the danger of death, as often happens, since no other remedy can be offered to them, by which they are snatched from the dominion of the devil and adopted into the sons of God, than the Sacrament of Baptism, (therefore the Council) admonishes that sacred Baptism is not to be deferred, but should be conferred as soon as can conveniently be done. But when there is imminent danger of death, they should be baptized immediately, without delay, even by a layperson or a woman.” [249]

Also the Council of Trent: “This translation (from that state in which a 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), cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.’” [250]

And more recently, Pope Benedict XIV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Orientals, declared that: “Baptism is necessary for salvation, and, therefore, if the danger of death is imminent, it must be conferred immediately, without delay, and, no matter when or by whom conferred, with due matter and form, and intention, it is valid.” [251]

The fundamental reason, according to Bellarmine, why the actual Baptism of infants is necessary for salvation is the universal application of the doctrine that: Outside the Church there is no salvation. Summarily, his argument appears in the form of two syllogism, as given in the Controversies:

“It is possible for infants to be saved. But outside the Church there is no salvation. Therefore, they must enter the Church.”

Then, after proving the premises from Scripture and Tradition, he continues:

“Infants must enter the Church. But they cannot do this except through Baptism.
Therefore, they have to be baptized” [252]

Now, although St. Robert was arguing against the Anabaptists, who said that only adults should be baptized, and then only around the age of thirty after the example of Christ, yet his reasoning is equally effective against those, like the author of the Mystical Christ, who maintain that unbaptized infants, though not members of the Church through Baptism, can still enter heaven by some “extra-ordinary means.”

********************
Footnotes

[239] The only authority cited is Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, III, nos. 228-230. However Tanquerey is not quoted. On examination, we find that he most emphatically does not teach that God gives infants dying without baptism the proximate means of salvation, which is Gruden’s implication. Says Tanqueray: “Deus paravit parvulis etiam iis qui in sinu matris moriuntur antequam baptizari possint, media ex se sufficientia ad salutem. Ita communiter. Certum est Deum remote saltem omnibus illis parvulis media salutis paravisse, dum instituit medium ad originale pecoatum delendum, quale est baptismus. Aliquae aliae solutions propositae sunt, sed parum tutae.” After detailing some of these opinions which claim salvation for infants without baptism, whether before or after birth, he concludes, “Remanet igiturut dicamus hos infants in limbum descendere.” Op. cit., Roma, 1930, pgs. 166-167.

[240] Op. cit., pg. 176.

[241] Sermo 373, 374. Cf. Aposymus de Miraculis S. Stephani, I, 15, 1.

[242] Summa Theologica, Pars 3a, q. 68, s. 11, ad 1.

[243] The work of Cajetan in which this occurs in his Comentary on St. Thomas. The edition is that of Rome, 1576; the section are the articles and 11 of the commentary.

[244] d’Ales, Baptême et Confirmation, Paris, 1977, pgs. 122-124.

[245] DB 102.

[246] ML 20, 596.

[247] ML 54, 685.

[248] DB 410.

[249] DB 712.

[250] DB 796.

[251] DB 1470.

[252] De Sacramento Baptismi, cap. 8.

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Mystical_Body/Mystical_Body_003.htm#_ednref239

The article mainly concerns the necessity of the Church for salvation and discusses the development (ahem!) of in voto membership. If it thus relevant to the discussion currently going on in that other thread somewhere around here. Smile

MRyan Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:58 pm

tornpage wrote:Came across this recently. Father Hardon is discussing the position of John C. Gurdon in his book, The Mystical Christ, St. Louis, 1936:

iv. Implies that Infants can be Saved without Baptism

The article mainly concerns the necessity of the Church for salvation and discusses the development (ahem!) of in voto membership. If it thus relevant to the discussion currently going on in that other thread somewhere around here.

Very good; and please note, Tornpage, what Fr. Hardon is actually saying ... and arguing against:

It is difficult to see what he means by the “common opinion of theologians” that children dying before Baptism receive sufficient graces for salvation, apart from and independent of Baptism. If anything, theological “opinion” is all to the opposite; in fact, it is not an opinion but common doctrine that no one, including infants, can be saved without Baptism in re or in voto. ... Now, although St. Robert was arguing against the Anabaptists, who said that only adults should be baptized, and then only around the age of thirty after the example of Christ, yet his reasoning is equally effective against those, like the author of the Mystical Christ, who maintain that unbaptized infants, though not members of the Church through Baptism, can still enter heaven by some “extra-ordinary means.”

By some “extra-ordinary means”, he means "apart from and independent of Baptism".

But, as Fr. Hardon elsewhere affirms, the "hope" of salvation for these same infants cannot be "apart from and independent of Baptism"; and he means by this only that if the Sacrament is not open to them, the Church knows of no means other than the Sacrament that can assure their salvation, but God may assure their salvation by a means known only to Himself, but never apart from the "regeneration" of Baptism.

tornpage Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:00 pm

Mike,

Are you actually saying that Father Hardon is saying here that the grace of baptism is available to the unbaptized infants through a means other than baptism by water? Shocked

MRyan Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:24 pm

Baptism, the Sacrament of Regeneration and the Supernatural Life

by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

"How necessary is Baptism? It is absolutely necessary to receive Baptism of water or at least of desire, which can be implicit, provided a person believes at least in God and His goodness and is faithful to the graces that God gives him.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “As regards infants who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward infants which caused him to say: ‘Let the little ones come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for infants who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent infants coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” "

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Sacraments/Sacraments_008.htm

tornpage Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:41 pm

Clearly Father Hardon acknowledges the possibility of baptism by desire in the text I cited, and as clearly the discussion in the text quoted indicates that that is not available to infants.

You've quoted something from Father Hardon elsewhere where he also acknowledges baptism of desire. Ok.

You've also cited something from Father Hardon elsewhere where he quotes the CCC. OK.

Yet, as I said:

Are you actually saying that Father Hardon is saying here that the grace of baptism is available to the unbaptized infants through a means other than baptism by water?

I guess that's a "no." I'm glad to hear it.

I see a conflict between what Father said in the text I quoted (below) and the CCC:

Numerous documents of the Church confirm the fact that the constant Christian tradition is against conceiving any other means of salvation for infants, whether before or after birth, than the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism

I know, that's my problem.

Indeed.

MRyan Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:33 pm

Tornpage,

I don't see a conflict.

I'm curious. The link you provided is from Fr. Hardon's "A Comparative Study of Bellarmine's Doctrine on the Relation of Sincere Non-Catholics to the Catholic Church"; which, unfortunately, "is currently not available [on-line] due to the discovery of multiple typing errors."

Did you make a copy of the on-line edition before it disappeared? I noticed the errors, but it never bothered me.

If not, I may purchase the book - its a great reference source.

tornpage Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:36 pm

Mike,

I have saved as a web archive. I'll email it to you.

MRyan Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:15 pm

Tornpage,

You're the man!

Thanks.

tornpage Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:11 pm

Father Harrison on the Church's doctrine and the fate of infants who die without baptism:

http://www.hprweb.com/2012/01/letters-from-our-readers/

January 2012

Responding to articles on issue of salvation for unbaptized infants by Pugh and Hildebrand

Editor: Two articles in your November 2011 issue involve the eternal destiny of infants dying without baptism: “The generational healing of miscarriages,” by Anna Pugh, and “An argument for hope: on the salvation of children who die without baptism,” by Stephen Hildebrand. Unfortunately, both articles fail to raise the question of whether the optimism they share can be reconciled with traditional Catholic doctrine. (It is disappointing to see that this kind of decidedly, non-traditional theology is apparently considered just fine at Steubenville’s Franciscan University, where both authors studied.)

Ms. Pugh’s concern that grieving parents find inner healing is certainly commendable. Nevertheless, her article is the more troubling of the two, since it is quite clearly at odds not only with the Church’s traditional magisterium, but with the contemporary magisterium, as well. Not content with the Catechism’s permission for Catholics to hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants, Ms. Pugh claims that their salvation becomes assured when “the dead child is loved, grieved for, and committed to God (especially through a Mass of the Resurrection).” For when this happens, she asserts, “the miscarried child is freed, made holy, and finally worthy to repose eternally with the Lord”.

Since this assertion presupposes that the child has died in original sin (why else would he/she need to be “freed” and “made holy” after death?), it contradicts the infallibly defined teaching of the Council of Florence that those who die in original sin only, no less than those who die in mortal sin, “descend promptly into Hell” (cf. DS 1302, 1306). (“Hell” is used here in a broad sense that would include Limbo.) In support of her heterodox assertion, Ms. Pugh appeals to no “authority” other than the excommunicated and ex-priest, Francis MacNutt, writing in 1999, years after he had left both the Dominican order, and the Catholic Church! Furthermore, celebrating a “Mass of the Resurrection” for an unbaptized infant would itself violate liturgical law, which allows only a Mass with texts specifically composed for infants who have died without baptism. These texts abstain from affirming any hope of Heaven, and pray rather for the consolation of the grieving family members. They are fully compatible with the traditional and more modest hope that such souls will enjoy eternal happiness at the natural, not supernatural, level.

Dr. Hildebrand’s article shows more respect for the Catholic Catechism’s teaching on unbaptized infants. Nevertheless, he feels entitled to argue that the “cautious hope” for their salvation expressed therein (cf. #1261) is “perhaps understated”; and, by the same token, I think others are entitled to argue that it is overstated. After all, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in his little book, Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, pointed out that the CCC is intended as a compendium of already-existing, Catholic doctrine, and so should not be understood as handing down new magisterial judgments requiring our assent. He said, “The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess” (p. 26).

On that basis, the optimistic doctrinal thesis of #1261 should have no “weight” at all; for it “already possessed” none whatsoever prior to its appearance in the Catechism. Indeed, it is opposed to the teaching of the Church’s previous universal Catechism, by which millions of Catholics had been formed for four centuries. Confirming a virtually unanimous tradition dating back to the early Fathers, the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that while repentance from sin and the “intention and determination” to receive baptism can be sufficient to save adults, “no other means for attaining salvation remains for infant children except baptism” (II, II, 33 and 35). The Church did not, pace Dr. Hildebrand, present the exclusion of unbaptized infants from Heaven as a mere “theory,” but as a certainly true doctrine of the ordinary magisterium.

In a letter to the editor, there is insufficient space to demonstrate this by further citations of relevant Church documents (at least five of which—astonishingly—are ignored altogether in the International Theological Commission’s optimistic 2007 document on this subject). Interested readers can find such citations in my revision of the entry for “Limbo” in the 2010 supplementary volume of the New Catholic Encyclopedia. I would also recommend a recent essay by Norbertine theologian Fr. Hugh Barbour, who claims that those in Limbo will indeed be eternally associated with the Paschal Mystery of Christ—something which Vatican II says is offered to all human beings (cf. GS 22). But in their case, argues Barbour, this association will not consist in attaining the beatific vision, but in sharing in the final bodily resurrection which Christ won for all of us. The essay is in Aidan Nichols, O.P. (ed.), Abortion and Martyrdom (Gracewing, 2002), pp. 79-102.

Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S.
St. Louis, Missouri

MRyan Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:36 pm

At the risk of incurring another false accusation of calumny from Jehanne, I disagree with Fr. Harrison, and will respond when I get the chance.

Sponsored content