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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:47 am by Lionel Andrades


Dishonest scholarship

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Dishonest scholarship

Post  MRyan on Sun Aug 28, 2011 10:00 pm

Fr. William Jurgens:
If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God' is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.
How may Feeneyites on this forum have cited this passage as “proof” that Fr. Jurgens had to admit that “the constant tradition in the Fathers” in their understanding of John 3:5 is “so constant as to constitute revelation”; meaning of course, that the "constant tradition" made no allowance whatsoever for baptism of blood and baptism of desire. Heck, this used to be one of my favorite passages!

And yet, how many Feeneyites have ever checked the actual citation of Fr. Jurgens to see if might have been taken out of context?

You already know the answer … never trust a Feeneyite source. This is just one more typical example of dishonest scholarship, for the sentence immediately preceding this oft-cited "proof-text" is: “31. The state of infants who die without Baptism has long been one of the knottier problems of theology.”; and is followed immediately by “The Church has always admitted Baptism of desire as a rescuing factor, when the desire is a personal and conscious one on the part of the one desiring Baptism for himself, as in the case of a catechumen.

To get the full context, I will cite the entire passage, but for those who have a copy of the three volume work The Faith of the Early Fathers, the citation can be found as footnote 31 on pages 14 and 15 of Volume 3, and pertains to paragraph 1441 (pg 9), which is a part of the Letter of Augustine to Jermone addressing St. Cyprian's teaching on infant Baptism, where Augustine writes:

Let each one think what he likes contrary to any of Cyprian's opinions but let no one hold any opinion contrary to the manifest belief of the Apostle. ... (Ps. 26[27]:9) A reason must be sought and given why souls, if they are newly created for each one being born, are damned if the infants die without Christ's Sacrament [31]. That they are damned if they so depart the body is the testimony both of Holy Scripture and of Holy Church.
Here is footnote 31, in its entirety:

Fr. Jurgens:

31. The state of infants who die without Baptism has long been one of the knottier problems of theology. If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of "Unless a man be born again et reliqua" is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation. The Church has always admitted Baptism of desire as a rescuing factor, when the desire is a personal and conscious one on the part of the one desiring Baptism for himself, as in the case of a catechumen.

Some loose thinkers are content to apply Baptism of desire to an infant, who is incapable of knowing and desiring. That being pointed out, they will posit the desire in parents on behalf of children; but if in fact the parents do not desire or if they positively reject Baptism for their infant child, is the infant then to be damned because of the parents' ignorance or malice? Many today are content to ignore the problem as if it did not exist, or to treat it as a ridiculous scruple. We hear them quote the Scriptures, that God desires all men to be saved, as if that had any application here! Let us turn back to the notion of Baptism of desire, and I think we will find a solution apart from the generous but questionable notion of limbo, without condemning these infants outright as Augustine reluctantly does, and without doing violence either to Scripture or Tradition.

Saint Thomas notes that the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. If a man has never received the Eucharist, he cannot be saved. But Thomas then adds these distinctions: that if one is dying and has never received the Eucharist, his positive desire for it will suffice (the precise parallel of Baptism of desire); or in the case of infants or ignorant savages the desire on their behalf on the part of the Church herself will suffice. If this latter is true in regard to the Eucharist, why not in regard to Baptism? Tradition already admits Thomas' first Eucharistic distinction in regard also to Baptism: a desire on the part of the individual himself. Why not, then, his second distinction in regard to infants and the invincibly ignorant, a desire supplied by the desire of the Church herself? This obviates the necessary objection to a desire supplied by parents: they may not have such a desire. The Church always desires the welfare of mankind and it is impossible that she should not desire it.
So much for the so-called “rejection” by the Fathers of baptism of blood and baptism of desire, when it is clear that the “constant tradition” being spoken of by Jurgens pertains to infant Baptism.

This should be an interesting thread; there are many more such examples.







MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  Roguejim on Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:52 am

Malone-ism. Any idea why Malone titled his book Apostolic Digest?

Roguejim

Posts : 211
Reputation : 315
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : southern Oregon

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  Jehanne on Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:05 pm

They probably did not cite Fr. Jurgens in full because he is a heretic, and why give a voice to a heretic?? While he is a honest historian, he is a poor theologian.

Infants who die without Baptism do not go to Heaven. This is de fide:

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

We take the good and toss the bad ("the chaff" versus "the wheat"); sometimes, of course, we make mistakes, and I am sure that Brian Kelly is sorry for that.

If you think that infants can go to Heaven without Baptism, stop citing Saint Thomas and everyone else! Of course, what applies to infants also applies to adults and those children beyond the Age of Reason. One cannot "choose" to be "baptized" just "by desire"; it's something that can only happen to you, through no fault of your own, not something that one can "choose."

Infants, of course, cannot choose anything, which is why they are damned for eternity if they die without Baptism:

"Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, . . . but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently."(Council of Florence, Denz. 1349).

What's the "hurry," if infants can be saved through the Church's desire???

Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  MRyan on Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:29 pm

Jehanne wrote:They probably did not cite Fr. Jurgens in full because he is a heretic, and why give a voice to a heretic?? While he is a honest historian, he is a poor theologian.
So an honest historian and Patristic scholar is deliberately cited out of context because, according to Jehanne, he is a poor theologian and "heretic" to boot. And such flagrant dishonesty is justified because the end justifies the means.

So, ignoring or excusing the dishonesty of deliberately taking the oft-cited Jurgens citation out of context, Jehanne wants to pounce on the alleged "heresy" of Jurgens on infant Baptism. But Jehanne's accusation of heresy is "false, rash and injurious to Catholic schools", as we shall see. We will also see why Jehanne has no business schooling anyone on such matters.

Jehanne wrote:
Infants who die without Baptism do not go to Heaven. This is de fide:

"The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name Limbo of the Children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of fire, just as if by this very fact, that those who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state, free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk: [Condemned as] false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools (Pope Pius VI, Denz. 1526)."
First of all, what is specifically being condemned as "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools"? It is "The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable" the Limbo of the Children (where those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of fire) AS IF "by this very fact, that those who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state, free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation".

In other words, nowhere does Pope Pius VI make a de fide pronouncement that "Infants who die without Baptism do not go to Heaven." However, what is de fide is the dogma that those who depart "with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned" ("exclusive of fire" is not de fide, but the common doctrine).

But does this necessarily mean that it is "de fide" that every infant who dies without water Baptism must depart with the stain of original sin, as if God, the first, final efficient, meritorious and alone formal cause of Justification will not or cannot remove the stain of original sin in those infants He so chooses?

While the Church knows of no means other than Baptism (at her disposal) by which a soul can be saved, she also teaches that God is not bound by His sacraments to effect the same end. The very fact that the Church allows theologians to propose that unbaptized infants who die a martyr's death are saved by "baptism of blood" proves that Jehanne's (not the Church's) "de fide" proposition is false, since the Church allows this exception to be taught in the Schools.

The Church also allows "hope" for the salvation of unbaptized infants without making a definitive judgement, or dismissing the common doctrine of Limbo. She leaves the question unsettled, while allowing for hope - and that's all she does.

What all of this proves is that Jehanne has once again extended his logical fallacy to a false "de fide" conclusion, and then attributes this "de fide" private pronouncement to Pope Pius VI, while ignoring the actual words and the context of the condemned proposition, and ignoring what the Church actually teaches on this matter.

But, like columba, he already "knows" what the Church teaches, see, there it is in black and white, and his "logical de fide conclusion" on the "clear meaning of the words", cannot be false, the Church has spoken, and has spoken through the savant Jehanne.

Why do we have to suffer these insufferable pharisees who found their "scholarship" in a Cracker-Jack box?

Fr. Jurgens speculations on the possibility of salvation for unbaptized infants does not constitute "heresy". And whether Catholics disagree with him or not is irrelevant.

Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center can propose their specious "opinion" that there is a species of non-salvific justifying sanctifying grace that exists under the new law of grace that can save no one who dies in this state of grace; and see, Brian Kelly wrote that Trent did not define that a justified soul who dies without the sacrament can be saved - so let the "opinion" run rampant that under the new law of grace there is a species of sanctifying grace that cannot truly translate a justified soul with the gift of divine sonship as a true heir to the kingdom.

So it is NOT de fide that every soul who dies in a state of sanctifying grace dies in a state of salvation, isn't that right, Jehanne?

But let's condemn Fr. Jurgens as a "heretic" for doing what theologians do, speculate on the non-defined fate of non-baptized infants, while recognizing what is de fide and what isn't, and being respectful towards the living and authoritative Magisterium under whose authority and purview they work and submit their opinions.

No double-standard there.

But, we're not finished. Jehanne also demonstrates a profound ignorance in his ability to understand that when a proposition is condemned as "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools" that "false" does not necessarily mean "heretical".

Get out your Denzinger and read a good many of the condemned propositions in the Errors of the Synod of Pistoia, and you will see that whenever a proposition is condemned as "heretical", it is spelled out quite clearly (and obviously pertains to a heretical denial of a dogma).

In fact, a quick perusal of the many condemned propositions in the Errors of the Synod of Pistoia reveals only three (there may be one two more) that are condemned actually as "heretical" (DZ 1515, 1559, 1593).

But, when a proposition is condemned as "false", there follows the sense in which it is false, such as "rash, injurious to Catholic schools, at least erroneous, pernicious, harmful, dangerous, deceitful, scandalous, abusive, contrary to the safe and approved practices of the Church, disturbing the peace of souls, leading to errors, insulting to the Church, suspected of heresy, favorable to heretics, and fostering schism and heresy", etc.

Go back to (or begin) school, Jehanne; and take columba with you.










MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  Jehanne on Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:41 pm

Apparently, Mike, you cannot read:

"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 3:5], 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 25:41,46]” (Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45, note 2).

Now some claim that the Council of Carthage, being a regional Council of the Church, was not infallible. However, St. Pope Zosimus published Carthage’s canons as his own, which made them infallible and binding upon the universal Church. This is referred to in the Council of Ephesus. Pope Zosimus’ Tractoria was sent to the whole world:

“Pope Zosimus of blessed memory directs us, when writing to the bishops of the whole world.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 134)

“The same teacher Zosimus trained us, who, when he spoke to the bishops of the whole world.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 135)

“We[Zozimus], however, by the inspiration of God have referred all things to that of our brothers and co-bishops.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 134)

This is the beginning of his Tractoria and it tells us all things are referred to the African bishops, which is why the Council of Carthage received this great praise:

“Furthermore that which was determined in the decrees of the synod of Carthage [418 AD], we have embraced as the Apostolic See’s own.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 136), and,

“But although we do not dare to esteem lightly the deeper and more difficult parts of the questions which they [Augustine and Zozimus] have treated in more detail who have restrained the heretics, we do not consider it necessary to add what their writings, according to the aforementioned regulation of the Apostolic See, have taught us.” (Ephesus; Denzinger 142)

I noticed how you, once again, "selectively skipped" the infallible pronouncement 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, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians."

Or, how about the Roman Catechism:

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

How about Pope Pis XII:

"All that we have said about the protection and care of natural life is with even greater reason true of the supernatural life, which the newborn child receives with baptism. In the present dispensation there is no other means of communicating this life to the child, who has not yet the use of reason. And yet the state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, cannot be attained. In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of baptism; to the child still unborn, or newly born, this way is not open. If therefore we remember that charity towards our neighbor obliges us to assist him in case of necessity; that this obligation is graver and more urgent according to the greatness of the good to be procured or the evil to be avoided, and according to the inability of the needy one to help himself; then it is easy to understand the importance of providing for the baptism of a child, devoid of the use of reason and in grave danger or even certainty of death.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, December 20, 1951, p. 854)

Okay, start twisting words for us!

Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  MRyan on Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:02 pm

I don’t have to twist any words; all the twisting has already been accomplished by you through the employment of your always-at-the-ready ill-informed Jehannian logical fallacies.

All that is needed is some perspective, context, and the guidance of the Church.

Let’s begin with the last, and Pope Pius XII, and the game of “selective citations” employed by certain Feeneyites who are responsible for the “official” position of the St. Benedict Center, NH. The St. Benedict Center NH rejects the teaching of the Church and of Pope Pius XII that holds that:

the state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, cannot be attained. In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of baptism.
The St. Benedict Center rejects the latter part of this doctrine, and you say that the same doctrine is a meaningless “null set” devoid of any human beings … but gee, you could be wrong. So you have no problem supporting the St. Benedict Center in rejecting this doctrine, and you have no problem calling this doctrine into question with your inane “null set” theory; but you then turn to the authority of Pope Pius XII in the very same Allocution you just called into question to “prove” that “Infants who die without Baptism do not go to Heaven. This is de fide".

And yet, Pope Pius XII makes no such statement or inference, for it is absolutely true that an unbaptized infant cannot "make an act of love”, so “this way” to sanctification “is not open”. In fact, the Church knows of no way other than Baptism (which includes the grace of Baptism inherent within baptism of blood and baptism of desire) that can assure salvation. What part of this do you not understand? When Pope Pius XII teaches that “In the present dispensation there is no other means of communicating this life to the child, who has not yet the use of reason”, he is repeating the same universal doctrine of the Church, most recently taught in the CCC.

But, once again, does this mean that Pope Pius XII is “infallibly” or is in any way declaring that “Infants who die without Baptism do not go to Heaven. This is de fide"? Not at all; he simply reiterates the immutable truth that being incapable of an act of love, this way to sanctification is not open to them, and this is so because the Church knows of no way other than Baptism that can assure anyone of their salvation.

Pius XII does not comment at all on baptism of blood or the possibility of “hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism”; and, though the “Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God”, she cannot assure these infants of salvation; thus, “All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism” (CCC, 1261).

So you are the one “twisting” his words by applying one of your infamous logical de fide fallacies (de fide Jehannita). This is “pick-and-choose” theology at its finest.

With respect to the Council of Carthage, I can read just fine. However, what I don’t do is read into a Canon what is not there by employing a logical fallacy. I also know the difference between general infallibility and a dogmatic definition protected from any possibility of error by the infallibility of the papal act itself. You went to great lengths to “prove” that the canons of the Council of Carthage are “infallible”, without making any distinctions whatsoever as to whether Canon 3 (in the footnote) contains a dogmatic definition binding as a matter of divine and Catholic faith.

And course, asking you to understand a certain passage on the necessity of baptism for infants with the mind of the Church (meaning the authoritative and living Ordinary Magisterium), especially when it has never been defined that all of those who die without Baptism necessarily die without the grace of the sacrament (though the Church knows of no other means that can assure salvation) is too much to ask, for nothing that the Church can teach through her authoritative Magisterium can register with you once you have made up your mind that a certain undefined doctrine is a defined dogma, even if you can only get there though a fallible logical deduction which is in fact a logical fallacy having no more magisterial weight than your private opinions on "formal heresy" and on schismatics and heretics (rash and unfounded accusations).

However, let’s begin by being clear on the record. The Canon 3 you cite is indeed contained in note 2 of Denzinger, 30th edition, because the actual 3rd Canon cited by Denziner under the “Council of Mileum II” (against the Pelagians, on Original Sin and Grace) states:

Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that the grace of God, by which man is justified through Jesus Christ, our Lord, has power only for the remission of sins which have already been committed, and not also for help, that they be not committed, let him be anathema.
The “other” Canon 3 in the footnote (your citation) is preceded by “There is added here in a certain codex another anathema canon:”

It should be obvious that this Canon 3 is listed only in a certain codex, but it is not in the original source document cited by Denzinger. That may have nothing to do with the legitimacy and even “infallibility” of either or both Canon 3’s, but demonstrates that the sources for these ancient Canons might not always be consistent (though there is no reason to doubt their authenticity or the truths they contain).

But like any truth affirmed by a Council of a Church, the same rules governing general infallibility (cannot give harm or universally impose heretical doctrines), dogmatic definitions, definitive and infallible proposals of non-revealed truths, the confirmation of infallible truths (not always “infallibly” stated), and how Catholics are to discern the will of the Pope and the Council for any proposal, whether infallibly defined or not, has not changed, and in fact has been clarified and confirmed most recently by the CDF in its commentary on the Professio Fidei.

To the alleged “proof” that Pope Zozimus solemnly defined (de fide) that “Infants who die without Baptism do not go to Heaven. This is de fide". The canon in the footnote reads:

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.
Again, no one disputes that “without baptism … they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven”; but this is understood in the same sense the Church understands it, and as Pope Pius VI prescribed it when he condemned:

The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name Limbo of the Children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of fire, just as if by this very fact, that those who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state, free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk: [Condemned as] false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools (Pope Pius VI, Denz. 1526)."
None of which contradicts the authoritative Magisterium when she declares:

CCC, 1261 As regards children 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 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. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
In fact, let’s return to Pope Zozimus and to the development of doctrine we see in the subsequent teaching of Pius VI, and in the CCC of Popes JPII and Benedict XVI.

Please note that Pope Zozimus mentions nothing of a Limbo of the Children that is located in hell, but exclusive of fire. In fact, he condemns only the notion of “some middle place or some place” "in the kingdom of heaven … where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism”.

Not only does he make no mention of a Limbo of the Children as it would be taught by the Magisterium in the middle ages, he states quite unequivocally that:

… 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?
So lets extend Jehannian de fide logic to this “infallible” prescription by taking it to its logical conclusion:

It is “de fide” that all of those who depart this life without the sacrament of baptism will be a partner of the devil and will thus suffer, as St. Augustine reluctantly taught, the eternal sense torments, as “mild” as fire can be to the senses. As such, there can be no such thing as some region (middle place) in heaven or hell “where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism.”

In fact, the St. Benedict Center NH is in perfect accord with this "de fide" prescription (with most of it anyway) when they teach that a justified (in sanctifying grace) but unbaptized catechumen cannot be translated to a "coheir of Christ" (which IS Justification under the new law of grace) because he cannot be a true heir to the Kingdom. He is still a "servant", as under the Old Law. Those justified under the Old Law were assured of their salvation, but Fr. Feeney wasn't sure just where these sanctified souls would go (under the new law of grace); he just knew it wasn't the Kingdom of heaven!

But, there you have it, “Pope Zozimus of blessed memory directs us” and “although we do not dare to esteem lightly the deeper and more difficult parts of the questions which they [Augustine and Zozimus] have treated in more detail who have restrained the heretics, we do not consider it necessary to add what their writings, according to the aforementioned regulation of the Apostolic See, have taught us. (Ephesus; Denzinger 142)”

And that, my friends is "de fide Jehannista"!

So let’s reject what Pope Pius VI would teach on the Limbo of the Children, and let’s reject the current Magisterium in its offer of “hope” for unbaptized infants as “Pelagian fables”.

Lost on Jehanne is the point that just as there is a development of doctrine on the Limbo of the Children, there is also a development of doctrine on a possible “hope” for the salvation of unbaptized infants, while recognizing the legitimacy of the more traditional doctrine on Limbo. The Church has not definitively settled this matter.

For, contrary to Jehanne’s rash and false accusations, the Church has never defined as a matter of divine and Catholic faith that all of those who depart this life without the sacrament of baptism (to include infants) necessarily depart without the grace of the sacrament. The Church simply affirms that she knows of no way open to infants other than the sacrament, but leaves the rest to the mercy of God.

As far as the Council of Florence, I did not “selectively skip” it’s infallible pronouncement; and already affirmed with the Council that “With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism”; for it is absolutely true that an unbaptized infant cannot "make an act of love”, so “this way” to sanctification and salvation “is not open” to him. In fact, the Church knows of no way other than Baptism (which includes the grace of Baptism inherent within baptism of blood and baptism of desire) that can assure salvation.

But I would ask you once again where the Council of Florence defined as a matter of faith, or affirmed as a Catholic doctrine, that all infants who depart this life without the sacrament of baptism must necessarily depart with the stain of original sin, and that it is de fide, therefore, that there can be no hope for the possibility of their salvation through the mercy of God, who is not bound to His sacraments to effect the same end; though the Church knows of no way other than Baptism that can assure their salvation.

Lastly, the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches nothing different than what has already been presented, and affirms that “infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism”, which is understood precisely as the Church understands it. Do I need to repeat myself and the teachings of the Magisterium?

You can read, but you have not the sensus fidelium that can read and think with the mind of the Church, for you set your will against the will of the Supreme Pontiff (and against the living, authoritative Magisterium), and do not hesitate to accuse the Vicars of Christ of teaching false doctrines.

You and columba have a lot in common. But I can't accuse you of hi-jacking this thread ... I finally started a thread where you and columba can feel right home -- "Dishonest scholarship".


MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  Jehanne on Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:36 pm

MRyan wrote:The St. Benedict Center rejects the latter part of this doctrine, and you say that the same doctrine is a meaningless “null set” devoid of any human beings … but gee, you could be wrong.

What a great title to this thread, dishonest scholarship. I have never said/declared/etc. that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are "null sets"; indeed, this is my theological opinion/hope. For it is at least my hope that everyone in Heaven will have died with sacramental Baptism in Water, and certainly, such is the One and Triune God's Will, also; all that I am "claiming" is that what God wills He can bring about, provided that we confirm our wills to His, which, of course, infants cannot do. As for other things, I do not agree with the official St. Benedict Center position, never have, so stop "painting me with that brush." You know my position.

MRyan wrote:What part of this do you not understand? When Pope Pius XII teaches that “In the present dispensation there is no other means of communicating this life to the child, who has not yet the use of reason”, he is repeating the same universal doctrine of the Church, most recently taught in the CCC.

Oh really (in 1958):

"The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature" a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism. Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible..." (Acta L, 114)

Interesting that the language "with the approval of the Holy Father" appears nowhere in the 1949 letter.

MRyan wrote:Again, no one disputes that “without baptism … they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven”; but this is understood in the same sense the Church understands it, and as Pope Pius VI prescribed it when he condemned:

The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name Limbo of the Children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of fire, just as if by this very fact, that those who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state, free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk: [Condemned as] false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools (Pope Pius VI, Denz. 1526)."
None of which contradicts the authoritative Magisterium when she declares:

CCC, 1261 As regards children 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 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. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
In fact, let’s return to Pope Zozimus and to the development of doctrine we see in the subsequent teaching of Pius VI, and in the CCC of Popes JPII and Benedict XVI.

Please note that Pope Zozimus mentions nothing of a Limbo of the Children that is located in hell, but exclusive of fire. In fact, he condemns only the notion of “some middle place or some place” "in the kingdom of heaven … where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism”.

Not only does he make no mention of a Limbo of the Children as it would be taught by the Magisterium in the middle ages, he states quite unequivocally that:

… 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?
So lets extend Jehannian de fide logic to this “infallible” prescription by taking it to its logical conclusion:

It is “de fide” that all of those who depart this life without the sacrament of baptism will be a partner of the devil and will thus suffer, as St. Augustine reluctantly taught, the eternal sense torments, as “mild” as fire can be to the senses. As such, there can be no such thing as some region (middle place) in heaven or hell “where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism.”

Limbo is in Hell but at the highest level. Still not clear for you? Here's some more:

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.

Q. 642. Is it wrong to defer the baptism of an infant?

A. It is wrong to defer the baptism of an infant, because we thereby expose the child to the danger of dying without the Sacrament.

Pope Pius X Catechism -- 11 Q: When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptized?

A: Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptized as soon as possible.

12 Q: Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?

A: There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptized because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.

13 Q: Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism, or who defer it?

A: Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it.

Okay, twist away...

Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  tornpage on Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:44 pm

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 . . .

Just repeating what was said (albeit not as directly) in magisterial statements centuries before. But, hey, now we can "hope" that all infants who die in infancy are saved. I'm not mocking the hope, but the consistency of the authority that expresses it.

The question of the salvation of infants who die in infancy in light of the question of whether (and if so, in what sense) God wills that "all" men be saved is worth considering - deeply - in the quest for truth, and finding out who speaks it.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  Jehanne on Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:17 am

It should also be pointed out (and, often, it is not) that per the Council of Trent (and even the CCC) imperfect contrition is not sufficient to remit the eternal punishment due to mortal sin. For that, the actual reception of the Sacrament of Penance is necessary, and by extension, for a catechumen who has only imperfect charity, the actual reception of Baptism would also be necessary for eternal life. Since infants lack perfect charity, the actual reception of Baptism would be necessary for them also.

Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  MRyan on Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:02 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:The St. Benedict Center rejects the latter part of this doctrine, and you say that the same doctrine is a meaningless “null set” devoid of any human beings … but gee, you could be wrong.

What a great title to this thread, dishonest scholarship. I have never said/declared/etc. that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are "null sets"; indeed, this is my theological opinion/hope. For it is at least my hope that everyone in Heaven will have died with sacramental Baptism in Water, and certainly, such is the One and Triune God's Will, also; all that I am "claiming" is that what God wills He can bring about, provided that we confirm our wills to His, which, of course, infants cannot do. As for other things, I do not agree with the official St. Benedict Center position, never have, so stop "painting me with that brush." You know my position.

MRyan wrote:What part of this do you not understand? When Pope Pius XII teaches that “In the present dispensation there is no other means of communicating this life to the child, who has not yet the use of reason”, he is repeating the same universal doctrine of the Church, most recently taught in the CCC.
Oh really (in 1958):

"The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature" a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism. Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible..." (Acta L, 114)
Sorry, but what is that supposed to prove? The CCC says the same thing. Allowing the "hope of salvation" cannot justify "The practice ... of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons ... favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism".

The CCC:

1257... 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.

1261 As regards children 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 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. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
As the International Theological Commission also stated:

However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament.

Is there something here you do not understand? Being motivated by a new approach that explores possible theological and liturgical reasons (a foundation) concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism does NOT justify the practice that "has arisen in some places of delaying Baptism".

And you tell me you don't twist words? You simply deny what is specially stated, and then twist it to your own nefarious ends.

Jehanne wrote:all that I am "claiming" is that what God wills He can bring about, provided that we confirm our wills to His, which, of course, infants cannot do.
And neither can Baptized infants.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Again, no one disputes that “without baptism … they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven”; but this is understood in the same sense the Church understands it, and as Pope Pius VI prescribed it when he condemned:

The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name Limbo of the Children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of fire, just as if by this very fact, that those who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state, free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk: [Condemned as] false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools (Pope Pius VI, Denz. 1526)."
None of which contradicts the authoritative Magisterium when she declares:

CCC, 1261 As regards children 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 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. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
In fact, let’s return to Pope Zozimus and to the development of doctrine we see in the subsequent teaching of Pius VI, and in the CCC of Popes JPII and Benedict XVI.

Please note that Pope Zozimus mentions nothing of a Limbo of the Children that is located in hell, but exclusive of fire. In fact, he condemns only the notion of “some middle place or some place” "in the kingdom of heaven … where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism”.

Not only does he make no mention of a Limbo of the Children as it would be taught by the Magisterium in the middle ages, he states quite unequivocally that:

… 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?
So lets extend Jehannian de fide logic to this “infallible” prescription by taking it to its logical conclusion:

It is “de fide” that all of those who depart this life without the sacrament of baptism will be a partner of the devil and will thus suffer, as St. Augustine reluctantly taught, the eternal sense torments, as “mild” as fire can be to the senses. As such, there can be no such thing as some region (middle place) in heaven or hell “where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism.”

Limbo is in Hell but at the highest level. Still not clear for you?
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Did I ever suggest that the Limbo that has been taught (the common opinion) since the Middle Ages is NOT in hell?

Limbo is a theory (a practical, if not totally satisfying, solution to a deep mystery that God has not revealed and reserves for Himself) that did not take its present form as a place of "natural happiness" in Hell until the Middle Ages. For at least 800 years the Church knew of no other common opinion than that of Augustine and his reluctant belief that eternal punishments were meted out to an unbaptized infant who suffered as a "partner with the devil" in the fires of hell.

I guess those "salvation sentimentalists" of the Middle Ages couldn't come to grips with such a hard doctrine that seemed to eternally punish the most innocent of God's children for an inherited sin they have no control over.

Let me say this, for all the sugar coating we apply to the doctrine of Limbo as a place IN HELL of "natural happiness", who can begin to fathom the torments of the soul which longs with every fiber of its created being to be united as one as a co-heir with our Lord, and knows that it can never partake of the eternal destiny for which it was created?

Ah, we say, the soul is kept in blissful ignorance of the eternal destiny for which it was created (he does not know who he is); while we comfort ourselves by suggesting that our Blessed Mother, who cannot help but radiate the very essence of incorporation with her Divine Son, visits these children to give them comfort. But why do they need comfort if they do NOT know they are missing the very reason for their creation?

We do not know any such thing. This is all speculation. The Church has every right to explore the depths and bounds of God's salvific will; for the truth is, this troubling question regarding infants remains unsettled.

Limbo has long been (since the Middle Ages) an accepted solution to this dilemma, for there appeared to be no other; but it may not be the only solution. Contrary to popular belief (of rad trads), the Church has not "gotten rid of Limbo", and the necessity of Baptism (and its urgency for infants) remains as necessary as ever.

Funny how Fr. Jurgens may have been ahead of the curve on this one, and he was not a "heretic" as you so pompously and ignorantly allege. Jurgens said nothing different than the Theological Commission (whose findings were approved by Pope BXVI) and the CCC; so I guess you should hurl your "heresy" charge at the Church as well.

Wait, I think you have, while telling us you agree with everything she teaches.




MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  Jehanne on Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:25 pm

I can "on and on," Mike, all day. Just the "tip of the iceberg" here:

"Calvin says that infants born of parents who have the faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism. But this is false: for David was born of parents who had the faith, and he confessed that he was born in sin. This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned." (St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Explanation of Trent)

Should I stop here, or go on? You've quoted from St. Alphonsus, haven't you? Numerous times? Correct? Was he wrong on this, Mike? Notice that I have not even quoted from Saint Thomas or Master Lombard, not yet at least.

If St. Alphonsus was wrong on this, how could you trust him on "other" things???

As for Saint Augustine, his belief was not "written in stone" (except, of course, that infants who die without Baptism do not go to Heaven) and he taught that such infants would only experience "the mildest of punishments," such that they would want to continue to exist. In other areas, he certainly implied Saint Thomas' teaching on Limbo. Are you saying that the Church "changed" her teaching on this question during the Middle Ages?

Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  MRyan on Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:40 pm

Jehanne wrote:I can "on and on," Mike, all day. Just the "tip of the iceberg" here:

"Calvin says that infants born of parents who have the faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism. But this is false: for David was born of parents who had the faith, and he confessed that he was born in sin. This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned." (St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Explanation of Trent)

Should I stop here, or go on? You've quoted from St. Alphonsus, haven't you? Numerous times? Correct? Was he wrong on this, Mike? Notice that I have not even quoted from Saint Thomas or Master Lombard, not yet at least.

If St. Alphonsus was wrong on this, how could you trust him on "other" things???
You can go on if you don't mind making a total fool of yourself. Go back and read Jurgens and you will see that he says the exact same thing. If you will pay attention to the colored highlights, you will see the immediate context for why Calvin and everyone else is wrong who takes the faith of the parents as some sort of vicarious baptism of desire.

You are not equipped for this. Such subtle but obviously stated and important distinctions are simply lost on you. How do infants who cannot "will" receive the grace of baptism? When you can answer that question, you might begin to understand what Jurgens, The Theological Commission and the CCC were actually saying -- without accusing Jurgens of being a "heretic" (easy target; I guess you will avoid making such an accusation against Pope BXVI).

Jehanne wrote:As for Saint Augustine, his belief was not "written in stone" (except, of course, that infants who die without Baptism do not go to Heaven) and he taught that such infants would only experience "the mildest of punishments," such that they would want to continue to exist. In other areas, he certainly implied Saint Thomas' teaching on Limbo. Are you saying that the Church "changed" her teaching on this question during the Middle Ages?
It is really is sad to watch you walk-back your previous post on the "infallibility" of the Council of Carthage which approved the Council of Mileum II, which was pure Augustinian doctrine in its Canons condemning the errors of the Pelagians on Original Sin and Grace. Remember foot note 2 of Denzinger pertaining to an "authentic canon 3" found in a "certain codex"?

How soon we forget:

… 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?
Do you find a place of "natural happiness" in this Canon? Are you suggesting that there is a Limbo of the Children described therein that resembles the Limbo that emerged in the Middle Ages, except that the former results only in the "mildest" of sense suffering from fire?

Well, they do have one thing in common, the eternity of hell; though in the latter case, the infant is not aware that he is devoid of the happiness and beatific vision he was created for.

Well, I'm sure this "implied Limbo" is some consolation for the children burning for all eternity with only the "mildest of pains" from the fires of hell.

Canon 3 expresses the "common doctrine", and no, once the Limbo of the Children was introduced in the Middle Ages (a place of natural happiness devoid of sense suffering), I don't see how these infants could still be "a partner of the devil".

Does the devil have any dominion over them? Would God allow it?

After trying to tell us this Canon is "infallible", you now tell us that this same belief of Saint Augustine (this is his doctrine), as spelled out in the Canon, "was not 'written in stone'". So the doctrine of Limbo as it would evolve in the Middles Ages was "set in stone", while the "infallible" doctrine of sense suffering in the fires of hell for these same infants was not so much "set in stone", though it was "infallible"; well, sort of.

Will you make up your mind?

The "change" to which you refer is called "development", meaning the Church's understanding of the doctrine she would later call "The Limbo of the Children" had evolved considerably; just as her reasons for hope for the salvation of infants is a development of the same doctrine on infant baptism (the later of which is less certain -- for now -- but gives theological and Liturgical reasons for hope).

There is a natural tension between "reasons for hope" and Limbo, for the latter cannot exist if the former is true. But, the Church is aware of this tension. She is in control and she is fully aware of the limits of her authority, while being especially cognizant of her responsibility for guarding and handing on the Faith - so don't sweat it; we're in good hands -the hands of our Lord.







MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  Jehanne on Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:01 pm

Infants who die without Baptism are "partner(s) of the devil" in the sense that they are deprived of the Vision of the Triune God, the Beatific Vision, for all Eternity. The exact conditions under which such infants would spend Eternity was never defined, and as you fully know. St. Gregory Nazianzen:

"Children will be sentenced by the just Judge neither to the glory of heaven nor to punishment."

Or, how about St. Gregory of Nyssa:

"The premature death of children shows that they who have thus ceased to live will not be in pain and unhappiness."

Both of these men, of course, were born before Augustine. The later, of course, taught that such infants would suffer some positive punishment, but it would be so mild that they would want to continue to exist, for all practical purposes, the Limbo of Saint Thomas.

Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  MRyan on Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:54 pm

tornpage wrote:
The question of the salvation of infants who die in infancy in light of the question of whether (and if so, in what sense) God wills that "all" men be saved is worth considering - deeply - in the quest for truth, and finding out who speaks it.
Excellent, I agree - let's consider this deep question on the salvific will of God and see where it goes.

Can we? With columba and Jehanne, it is a wasted effort.

I have only one condition. I can no longer tolerate responding to the appalling ignorance of those whose primary arguments include the accusation of heresy against the Church and her theologians for being so incredibly stupid and incompetent that they do not realize that the fate of all unbaptized infants has already been infallibly settled, de fide.

If we can have a reasoned discussion of the salvific will of God and the development of doctrine along this front; I'm all for it.

If not - whatever.








MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  tornpage on Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:16 pm

If not - whatever.

Not exactly an auspicious start. But a start.

I did start this discussion awhile back, in two separate threads. I'll resurrect one or both, and we'll get started.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  columba on Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:31 am

Great start from Mike. Your not permitted to question a majesterial understanding of a certain doctine, even if the majsterial undertanding is suspected of containing some modernist corruption and is possibly the very reason for having the discussion in the first place.

This should be good.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  tornpage on Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:42 am

Columba,

I think Mike is simply saying he won't brook accusations of heresy directed at the Church. A respectful pointing out of perceived inconsistency or of a logical or other problem would not be a problem for Mike . . . I think, and hope.

I certainly am in a "respectful" frame of mind at the moment, but won't pull any punches and see a lot of inconsistency in saying God wills the salvation of all men (meaning all men, everyone) and the Church's position with regard to unbaptized infants and the necessity of baptism in their regard.

I do not read 1 Timothy 2:4 as meaning all men without exception, and agree with St. Augustine that it means men from every walk of life, kings, servants, slaves, merchants, etc. - I think the context makes that clear.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  tornpage on Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:46 am

And my comment about not an auspicious start was directed at what I perceive to be Mike's locked in position regrading the impossibility of the Church being wrong . . . which is not to say he's wrong - that's the position a good Catholic should take - but just that . . . well, I'm certainly not a "good" Catholic in that regard. I could see the Church being wrong there, and I know what the consequences of that are, and am prepared to accept that if necessary.

tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  columba on Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:50 pm

tornpage wrote:Columba,;;I think Mike is simply saying he won't brook accusations of heresy directed at the Church. A respectful pointing out of perceived inconsistency or of a logical or other problem would not be a problem for Mike . . . I think, and hope.

That's the proper Christian way to understand Mike's caveat. I've probably grown a little cynical.
I'll keep out of this one and hopefully learn by following along. (that's of course if Mike doesn't use the opportunity to dierect some personal comments my way. I don't mind if he does but if he does, -for the sake of truth- I will defend myself if I feel he's wrong.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  columba on Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:21 pm

tornpage wrote:And my comment about not an auspicious start was directed at what I perceive to be Mike's locked in position regrading the impossibility of the Church being wrong . . . which is not to say he's wrong - that's the position a good Catholic should take - but just that . . . well, I'm certainly not a "good" Catholic in that regard. I could see the Church being wrong there, and I know what the consequences of that are, and am prepared to accept that if necessary.

I'm actually with Mike on this one. I too believe the Church can't be wrong and if she is wrong, she must not be the Church. Of course I do also understand that the Divine guarantee of infallibility has already been determined by the Church and the strict conditions in which this guarantee applies.
I believe that the Church (presently) has pemitted some error to be taught, either by direct condoning or unintentional/intentional silence.
Whether or not she maintains that these errors are infallibly taught and are now part of the doctrine of faith is what I've been disputing with Mike. He believes they are and this is where I part company with Mike.
I believe that nothing since Vat II bears the mark of infallibility and can yet be pronounced upon definitively. I deduce this from the Councils own teaching regarding the nature and limits of the Council and, as we are still (unfortunately in my view) under the umberella of that Council we can safely adhere to the traditional understandings of the Church's prior, dogmatic proclamations where they do not correspond with some present-day but fallible understanding.

Sorry for side-tracking the topic. Enough of that. Please continue.


columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  DeSelby on Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:35 pm

That's not a sidetrack and is important to point out, Columba.
Because...
Tornpage, when you say "I could see the Church being wrong there, and I know what the consequences of that are, and am prepared to accept that if necessary." I have to ask.... what consequences, that you would be prepared to accept, did you have in mind? It could mean anything from Sedevacantism to Nihilism and Apostasy, generally speaking. I ask only in charity for the sake of clarity. It just seems to me to be too much of a vague and troublingly broad statement to leave unaddressed.

DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  MRyan on Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:50 pm

tornpage wrote:Columba,

I think Mike is simply saying he won't brook accusations of heresy directed at the Church. A respectful pointing out of perceived inconsistency or of a logical or other problem would not be a problem for Mike . . . I think, and hope.
Precisely .. I thought you'd understand my intent.

And yes, my "whatever" comment was probably out of line; born out of frustration with others.




MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  tornpage on Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:09 pm

what consequences, that you would be prepared to accept, did you have in mind?

DeSelby,

I don't think that far ahead. Very Happy

Forget I said it.

I look forward to the discussion.



tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  tornpage on Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:11 pm

Mike,

I got you.

I will work on maintaing a "respectful," objective tone.


tornpage

Posts : 849
Reputation : 910
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Dishonest scholarship

Post  Sponsored content Today at 10:09 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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