Latest topics
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:24 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:59 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Padre Pio told Fr.Gabriel Amorth," It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church" -Bishop Richard Williamson
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Mons. Brunero Gherardini misled the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and many traditionalists
Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office
Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:50 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» 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


Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan on Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:43 am

Mark,

Please bear with me, I will return to this. Things are a bit hectic at the moment in prep for our grandson's baptism/reception tomorrow (yay!), and other priorities.

I've been doing some late night reading as well (no, not Scheeben Cool), and I think I can identify the fundamental root cause for the misunderstanding.

Anyway, I hope to return soon; this should be interesting. Btw, I truly appreciate the obvious good-will and the logic of your arguments manifested in your last couple of posts - superb.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  George Brenner on Sat Sep 01, 2012 1:12 pm

Mark,

I have found your last post to be of humble, honest and deeply sincere soul searching. I believe that you demonstrate remarkable good will. It will take me a little time to pray and reflect upon what you have written. There is no doubt in my mind that you are searching for truth and open to not being frustrated by the limitations of what we are allowed to understand so as to jeopardize Salvation. I will have much more to say and as always am limited to my station in life.

JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  George Brenner on Sat Sep 01, 2012 1:47 pm

Mike said:

Things are a bit hectic at the moment in prep for our grandson's baptism/reception tomorrow (yay!), and other priorities.

Congratulations, Mike to you and all your family and friends. First name? This child of God now begins his journey into eternity. Enjoy.

God Bless you,

George












avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage on Sat Sep 01, 2012 3:25 pm

Please bear with me, I will return to this. Things are a bit hectic at the moment in prep for our grandson's baptism/reception tomorrow (yay!), and other priorities.

Congratulations! Very Happy Enjoy the moment with the family.

Look forward to a continuance of the discussion.

Mark
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage on Sat Sep 01, 2012 3:26 pm

Thanks, George.

I always value your solid and wise input.

God Bless,

Mark
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  George Brenner on Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:24 am

Mark,

I dispense with all of the following from all the appropriate quotation enclosures etc.... My apologies

I was prepared to post this last night and found myself saying that I needed more time and was not ready to hit the send button. I now have read your post several times and find that the issue of predestination is critical for you so as to make sense out of Salvation as seen through the eyes of God. No small task to be sure. With humility, I know my limitations and defer to the MRyan all that I write on this post to sort through and to explain that there is NO predestination so that you may come to know the truth. Help is on the way. I know now that you need strong evidence, support and logical explanation so that not only will you accept but more importantly embrace no predestination as truth. It is all about free will. I can still remember in grade school when the Sisters would explain that there is no predestination and the simple answer consistently was that in God knowing all , that does not in any way influence or cause us to act good or evil. The free will each and every one is created with makes the choices that determine our judgement and eternal destiny. What an insane world earth would be if we were simply pre-wired as saved or lost. That to me would resemble a game of chess that came with a slip pf paper in the box that said here are all the moves that will be made and please pay special attention to the final check mate move. What would be the purpose?
Did God make or pre-wire Eve to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree? It would be impossible to believe in predestination and have any quality of spiritual life in my opinion. I would think that would by implication lead to questioning God on practically every issue rather than trusting in the justice and mercy of God. Who is to say that God simply by His divine design or intent might not at times hit the knowledge mute button so that He may partake and experience the decisions being made by those He created. Why would God discuss with Abraham the possibilities of saving Sodom and Gomorrah, if Abraham could find only 10 righteous people. Why banter back and forth? Why not save the discussion and just destroy the City? Better yet instead of destroying all in the world except Noah and his family, why not just start with Noah. I could go on and on. Predestination is the work of satan not God. Predestination would reduce God and creation to some kind of sadistic pre arranged game for the sole pleasure of the Creator.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tornpage (Mark) said the following:


As always, George, there is a lot of wisdom in what you say. God might say that to those, like me, who seek answers to certain questions. I think, however, that the people who he would say that to are people who forsake the Church because they have not found the answer, and are perturbed and put off by the answer[s] put forth by other Catholics, answers that don't make sense, are contradictory to aspects of His revealed truth, and are foisted on the world as being the Catholic position in contradistinction to the position of Protestants and other Christians. I have been guilty of this myself, so I know of what I speak.

Thank the Lord, though, the day has not set on my life, and I also know that the Lord forgives us of our ignorance and weakness of mind and will - if we only trust in Him, and repent of our errors. You are right: we must trust the Church. However, to the extent that you say we must stop pursuing certain questions, I think you are wrong. We must be cautious and patient in our inquiries - I have learned this. But I also trust that answers will be found to almost all of the most perplexing and disturbing questions on the basis of God's revelation in His Word, the magisterial pronouncements of the Church, and the collective wisdom of the saints, such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas.

It is not wrong to doggedly persist in the search for answers. Chesterton, in his wonderful short biography of St. Thomas, said the saint would often latch on to a question that was troubling him, would be obsessed with it; that he would often be seemingly absent from his surroundings, and blurt out things that came to him as he pursued these questions in his mind. St. Thomas would not rest, or leave the questions alone. With him as model and example, I also seek and will not let go until I am satisfied with an answer.

Again, the only qualification that must be added to that is we must not be rash and succumb to the tempter who is always whispering in our ear, and using everything, not only the concupiscence of our flesh, but the inquiries and questions in our mind to lead us away from the Church and the truth.

Inquiry is not wrong, and I say never wrong. Our response to doubts and our actions sometimes while we are searching and unsatisfied - that is the problem, not the searching or the pursuit of truth
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mark,
Praying, inquiry and persistence is a very good undertaking in hopefully reaching truth, peace and serenity.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

and Mark said:So discussing the doctors of the Church, pursuing these questions - they can actually keep one Catholic, and do great good for some.

I trust that a full, deliberate and patient consideration of this issue about the fate of unbaptized infants will lead me to a resolution that is fully Catholic, consistent and doctrinally orthodox and sound.

Like St. Thomas, I won't let go of it until I find an "answer." But you are right, we must not react to a state of mystery or succumb to voices in our search on difficult issues that lead us to question the Church or the truth that we must trust her to possess in her vast treasury of the wisdom of her saints and doctors. etc....

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Mark, My simple response to the above is that I understand much clearer your current state of belief, thought, probing and inquiries for truth as long as that search for truth is accompanied by prayer and good will. I have every reason to believe that you are acting in good faith and thus optimistic that you will find the contentment of mind and soul that you seek. Mike will be of great help, Seek and you shall find,

Father Michael Rodriquez said on 9/3/12:
- Faith, the first of the theological virtues, is a virtue infused by God in the intellect by which we firmly assent to divinely revealed truths on the authority of God who reveals them.

- Hope is the theological virtue infused into the will, by which we trust with complete certitude in the attainment of eternal life and the means necessary for reaching it assisted by the omnipotent help of God. Three principal characteristics of the operation of hope in perfect souls: (1) Universal confidence in God, (2) Indestructible peace and serenity, (3) The desire to die in order to reach heaven

- Charity is the theological virtue infused by God into the will, by which we love God for Himself above all things, and ourselves and our neighbor for God.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Mark said:

Let me explain. And it ties in directly to the issue under discussion.

I have moved away from the Church because I have found the response of many Catholics on certain issues absurd in the light of what I think are clear Scriptures on, for example, predestination and election. In light of the positions of those Catholics, the only voices I heard speaking what I believed to be the Scriptural truth on these issues were Reformed voices. But there are Catholic voices, wise Catholic voices, even doctors of the Church, who hold to the views I feel are indisputably based on Scripture - those voices are muted in the overwhelmingly Molinist environment of current Catholic apologetics. To such an extent that a Reformed apologist like James White acts as if all Catholics are Molinists and Arminians (I won't elaborate on that term for those who don't know it - simply look it up on the internet).

I'll give a specific example, using a text from Romans.

If you read Romans chapter 9 I think you can only come to one conclusion: God elects his saints on the basis of His sovereign choice, nothing else - not their "foreseen" "free" determinations. Here's Romans 9:11-13 in the Douay Rheims:

For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,) [12] Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger. [Romans 9:12] [Latin] [13] As it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.


The text is clear, and the whole chapter makes it clearer: God chooses to save and have mercy on some prior to "foreseen" merits.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mark, in Romans 9 after verse 13 we read: [14] What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid. [15] For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.


Chapter 9 deals primarily with Israel’s PAST (as God’s chosen and privileged people).

Chapter 10 deals primarily with Israel’s PRESENT (as a nation which has refused to submit to God’s gospel).

Chapter 11 deals primarily with Israel’s FUTURE (a nation which someday will be saved and which will enjoy the fulfillment of the new covenant promises).


Mark,
I do point out the following for your prayer and consideration. I care because you care so much and pray that you find the truth you seek.

The doctrine of election is clearly taught in the Word of God: "God hath from the beginning chosen you (believers in Christ) unto salvation" (2 Thess.2:13; compare also Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; Col. 3:12; etc.). Since election is taught, men have wrongly assumed and reasoned that the opposite must be true also. In other words, if God has chosen some unto salvation then it must also be true that God has chosen others unto damnation. The opposite of election has been called "REPROBATION," the doctrine that certain people are foreordained to damnation or chosen ahead of time to damnation. To some this may appear reasonable and logical, BUT IT IS NOT BIBLICAL! Here are three examples from Scripture showing that REPROBATION is not a Biblical doctrine:


Romans 9:22-23. In verse 23 we are told that HE (God) prepared beforehand the vessels of mercy unto glory. If REPROBATION were true then we might expect verse 22 to read something like this: "the vessels of wrath which HE (God) fitted to destruction." This is not what the text says.

Compare Matthew 25:34 with Matthew 25:41. The kingdom was prepared by God for the righteous from the foundation of the world (v.34). If REPROBATION were true then we should expect the opposite to be stated in verse 41. We would expect to read, "Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared (by God) for YOU." No, the eternal fire was not prepared for man, but for the devil and his angels.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-13. Note that in v.13 we have a clear statement of the glorious doctrine of election (for which Paul gave much thanks). Verse 10 speaks of "them that perish." Why do they perish? If REPROBATION were true we would expect Paul to say, ". . .because God has not chosen them to salvation." This is not what verse 10 says. They are damned, not because they were chosen by God to damnation but because they "believed not the truth" (v.12).
Romans 9:24

Who are these vessels of mercy? "EVEN US!" The vessels of mercy are those whom God has called (see Romans 8:28,30). The CHURCH is God’s CALLED OUT ASSEMBLY (ekklesia) made up of both Jews and Gentiles (compare Rom. 3:29).
Keep in mind the historical background. The book of Romans was penned by Paul about 56 A.D. which was about 25 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. The majority of Jews were not responding to the gospel (Rom.11:28). A very small minority of Jews had put their faith in Jesus as the Messiah, including Paul. When the church first began, the membership was entirely Jewish (Acts 2). In Acts chapter 10 the first Gentiles were saved and entered the church. As time went on more and more non-Jews (Gentiles) came to Christ, and before long the majority of Christians were Gentiles. Saved Jews soon became a minority group in the churches. Today a believing Jew is a rarity. In the days when Paul wrote to the Romans this posed quite a problem: If the Jews are God’s chosen people (Romans 9:1-5), then why are so few being saved? "Has God cast away His people?" (See Romans 11:1.) In Romans 9:24 Paul is helping them to understand that in this present age God’s chosen people are those whom He has called "not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles."


<< Romans 4 >>
Douay-Rheims Bible
1 WHAT shall we say then that Abraham hath found, who is our father according to the flesh. 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. 4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God. 6 As David also termeth the blessedness of a man, to whom God reputeth justice without works

The Bible makes it very clear that THOSE WHO ARE SAVED AND HEAVEN-BOUND, do so by merit and HAVE GOD TO THANK and THOSE WHO ARE LOST AND DAMNED HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME.

Mark,
God does hate sin but is never the cause or author of someones wickedness and damnation. God does say that you must hate your Father and Mother and follow me so as to point out the loss of ones self in God but not in contradiction of His commandment to Honor thy Father and Mother.

(Mark 16:16). "He that believeth not is condemned already, because he bath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18). "Of sin, because they believe not on Me" (John 16:9). "And still you are not willing (but refuse) to come to Me, so that you might have life" (John
5:40)

...... ' from whence He will come to judge the living and the dead'... Unfortunately with some, many or nearly all ( take your pick) there will never be any foreseen merits to deserve Salvation, quite simply because the choice has been irrevocable and/or irreversably made by free will to permanently choose evil and in these cases God can and does make that judgement for all to hear and learn from. This is not predestination ...... and so we pray


JMJ,

George






avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage on Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:49 pm

George,

Thanks for the post. I'll give it a fuller reading, but right now let me say this.

You write: "Predestination is the work of satan not God. Predestination would reduce God and creation to some kind of sadistic pre arranged game for the sole pleasure of the Creator."

Well, I disagree, but that's not my point at the moment. I don't even think you believe that "predestination" is the work of Satan, for you clearly accept the fact of election.

Election is a part of predestination - it actually precedes it. St. Thomas has a whole chapter in the Summa on Predestination. It is the work of God, not Satan.

Mark

Mark
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  George Brenner on Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:38 pm

Mark,

Much more for me to study and pray about. My puny brain has such limitations.


From Douay Rheims Ezkiel 33 11:





11 Say to them: As I live, saith the Lord God, I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way, and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways: and why will you die, O house of Israel? [12] Thou therefore, O son of man, say to the children of thy people: The justice of the just shall not deliver him, in what day soever he shall sin: and the wickedness of the wicked shall not hurt him, in what day soever he shall turn from his wickedness: and the just shall not be able to live in his justice, in what day soever he shall sin. [13] Yea, if I shall say to the just that he shall surely live, and he, trusting in his justice, commit iniquity: all his justices shall be forgotten, and in his iniquity, which he hath committed, in the same shall he die. [14] And if I shall say to the wicked: Thou shalt surely die: and he do penance for his sin, and do judgment and justice, [15] And if that wicked man restore the pledge, and render what he had robbed, and walk in the commandments of life, and do no unjust thing: he shall surely live, and shall not die.


and from Viva Catholic:

All Christians believe in the predestination of the Elect – it is clearly stated in the Scripture (Matthew 25:34, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30). In Catechism of the Catholic Church the term “the Elect” appears in a number of clauses (CCC # 769, 842, 1031, 1045, 1344). How does God predestine the Elect? Is it based on His foreknowledge of our response to His Grace or on His eternal decree when He created the world? The former view is known as Conditional Election and the latter as Unconditional Election. Protestants and “Bible only” Christians who adhere to Calvinism believe in the latter while the so called Arminianist Protestants believe in the former. Until now the Catholic Church does not declare dogmatically on how God predestines the Elect, whether it is Conditional or Unconditional Election. Catholics are still free to choose from a number of predestination views, among which are: Thomism (after Thomas Aquinas) and Molinism (after Luis de Molina). Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was philosopher, theologian, Doctor of the Church and patron of Catholic universities, colleges and schools. Luis de Molina (1535-1600) was Jesuit theologian. Thomists (and some Molisnists) teach Unconditional Election while Molinism believes in the Conditional Election.
As for the Reprobate, Catholics believe that God predestines no one to hell. Scripture says God loves the world (John 3:16); He desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) and that He has no pleasure on the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). The belief that God predestines no one to evil has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church.
We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.
Council of Orange (529 AD)
If any one saith, that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon VI of the Decrees on Justification

God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1037
Because God predestines no one to hell, Catholics believe He gives His Grace, through Christ, to everyone and calls every one, no exception, to salvation.
For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men.
Titus 2:11
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:22
“‘All men are called to this catholic [universal] unity of the People of God…. And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.‘
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 836

If God gives His Grace to every one and desires all men to be saved, then why can’t all enter heaven? Scripture says that God gives His Grace lavishly to the Elect (Ephesians 1:7-Cool and He has mercy but also hardens the hearts of whom He will (cf. Romans 9:18). This is something we cannot question – God is the potter and we are the clay (Romans 9:20-21). In Catholic Church’s terminology God gives the Elect sufficient and efficacious Grace while the Reprobates receive sufficient but inefficacious Grace. Catholics believe God gives everyone sufficient Grace to make him/her, using his/her freedom, turn to God and be saved. One way to explain it is using Jesus’ parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). In the parable the Master gave different number of talents to his three servants according to their abilities. The Master obviously had the right to decide how many talents each servant received. The servant with only one talent was later condemned. Yet his Master did not intend to condemn him by giving him only one talent. Had he deposited it in the bank he would be fine like the other two. The servant was condemned for his own wrong action, i.e. hiding the single talent entrusted to him. Thus Catholics believe that condemnation of the Reprobate always involves their freedom to reject God’s Grace – in other words they are responsible for their damnation. Catholic’s view on Reprobation is called as Positive Conditional Reprobation – when God created the world He, being omniscience, foresaw the Reprobate’s rejection to His Grace and let them use their freedom to do so. Yet God still wants them to be saved and still gives them sufficient Grace.
“To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination’, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: ‘In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place [Acts 4:27-28]. For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 600

Catholics, on the other hand, believe that without God’s Grace we can neither believe in God nor obey His commandments – our salvation is impossible without God’s Grace but we have freedom to cooperate with that Grace or not.
To Calvinists God gives His (saving) Grace only to the Elect who can neither reject nor lose it. However Jude 4 says that those who were designated for condemnation pervert the Grace of God – something they cannot do if they do not receive it in the first place. The belief that God gives His Grace only to the Elect was condemned in the Council of Trent.
If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XVII of the Decrees on Justification

JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  George Brenner on Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:08 pm

Mark,

Also I was not even considering the Elect when I posted earlier. I was so focused on those that are judged deserving of hell that I forgot about the glorious side of the equation, the Elect. I just cannot imagine someone looking in the mirror and saying to themselves that eternity is a done deal rather then it is mine to earn or loose.


JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne on Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:27 pm

I think that it is even more appropriate to continue to consider what the Catholic Church actually teaches in the matter of infants who die without sacramental Baptism. First the matter of "hope":

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.

Now, from the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:
1º the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;
2º there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.
§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

Not just a "hope" but a "founded hope"; so anyone who says that whenever the Church speaks of "hope" that somehow such a concept is monolithic is definitively not reading all the texts. Clearly, there are "degrees" of "hope".
avatar
Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan on Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:59 pm

So who said there was no such thing as "degrees" of "hope"?

Jehanne, aren't you the same person who tried to sell the cautious but prayerful hope of the Church as being equivalent to the hope of winning at the casino or playing the lottery.

Unfortunately, your appeal (once again) to ecclesiastical law simply misses the boat, for you are clearly trying to suggest that without the "founded hope" of the parents or guardian(s) that is required for a LICIT Baptism, that what would render a Baptism "illicit" extends to the salvation of infants as well -- where the hope of salvation would be "illicit" if the deceased child did not have well-intentioned parents or guardians.

The canonical prescriptions for a LICIT Baptism have NOTHING to do with the “prayerful hope” for the salvation of infants who die without benefit of the Sacrament. If God accepts the faith of the parents (in a vicarious baptism of desire), He can also accept the faith and desire of the Church, whose faith it is the parents represent with their intention to baptize and rear the child in the faith. What is required for a licit baptism is not binding on God in extending the grace of baptism in an extra-sacramental manner, Who may in fact listen to the prayers of His Church, and that of the communion of saints, to include the parents.

A LICIT baptism canonically requires that the there is a “founded hope” that the child will be brought up in the faith of the Church, for there must be a realistic assurance that the habit of faith (infused in Baptism) will have a chance to blossom into the virtue of faith when the child reaches the age of reason (which the Church supplies until then - with the guardians as proxies). Only in the danger of death can this prescription be waived – and for obvious reasons you don’t seem to fully appreciate.

Yes, there are “degrees” of "hope", and we might say that the closer one is to living the life of grace in the Church, with the various steps this journey can entail, the greater the “hope” of salvation, objectively speaking. But tell me Jehanne, does the fact that it is now commonplace for non-Catholic spouses or close relatives of a Catholic to be buried next to their loved one in the Catholic cemetery without special permission say anything at all about a greater degree of “hope” than before this privilege was granted?

We also know that prior to VCII, “in the Latin Church, there was no Christian funeral rite for unbaptised infants and such infants were buried in unconsecrated ground. Strictly speaking, there was no funeral rite for baptised infants either, but in their case a Mass of the Angels was celebrated and of course they were given a Christian burial.” (ITC document)

Does the fact that there was no proper funeral rite for baptized infants “lessen” the “hope” for their salvation when infants are incapable of sin? Yes, there was a “Mass of the Angels”, and yet we see a cautious reservation in extending to the baptized infant the prayers of the Church in a funeral rite when an infant cannot express the faith.

And of course, what you absolutely fail to consider in your stubborn apples to oranges conflation of canon law (concerning the requirements for a licit baptism) with the Church’s “prayerful hope” for the salvation of unbaptized infants, is that this new “hope” is in part based on the Church’s new liturgical rite for infants:

3.5. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi

100. Thanks to the liturgical reform after the Council, the Roman Missal now has a funeral Mass for a child who died before Baptism, and there are also special prayers for such a situation in the Ordo Exsequiarum. Though the tone of the prayers in both instances is noticeably cautious, it is now the case that the Church liturgically expresses hope in the mercy of God, to whose loving care the infant is entrusted. This liturgical prayer both reflects and shapes the sensus fidei of the Latin Church regarding the fate of unbaptised infants who die: lex orandi, lex credendi. Significantly, in the Greek Catholic Church there is only one funeral rite for infants whether baptised or not yet baptised, and the Church prays for all deceased infants that they may be received into the bosom of Abraham where there is no sorrow or anguish but only eternal life.
What type of “hope” can we call the liturgical prayer of this “monolith”, the Catholic Church?

Prayerful hope! Not “no hope” or “bad hope” or “casino or lottery hope” or "illicit hope", but prayerful hope:

3.6. Hope … Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).
And, citing the CCC, it says:
101. “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 should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’ (Mk 10:14; cf.1Tim 2:4), 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”.[134]
Quit appealing to canon law in an attempt to denigrate the "prayerful hope" of the Church, and read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne on Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:22 am

Mike,

The ITC report had no Magistrrial authority, and its 38 pages did not even mention Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam. The 1983 Code of Canon Law does, however, have Magisterial authority. Consider this:
Can. 252 §1. Theological instruction is to be imparted in the light of faith and under the leadership of the magisterium in such a way that the students understand the entire Catholic doctrine grounded in divine revelation, gain nourishment for their own spiritual life, and are able properly to announce and safeguard it in the exercise of the ministry.
§2. Students are to be instructed in sacred scripture with special diligence in such a way that they acquire a comprehensive view of the whole of sacred scripture.
§3. There are to be classes in dogmatic theology, always grounded in the written word of God together with sacred tradition; through these, students are to learn to penetrate more intimately the mysteries of salvation, especially with St. Thomas as a teacher. There are also to be classes in moral and pastoral theology, canon law, liturgy, ecclesiastical history, and other auxiliary and special disciplines, according to the norm of the prescripts of the program of priestly formation.

Saint Thomas, of course, taught and believed in the Limbo of the Children.
avatar
Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan on Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:16 am

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

The ITC report had no Magistrrial authority, and its 38 pages did not even mention Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam. The 1983 Code of Canon Law does, however, have Magisterial authority. Consider this:
Can. 252 §1. Theological instruction is to be imparted in the light of faith and under the leadership of the magisterium in such a way that the students understand the entire Catholic doctrine grounded in divine revelation, gain nourishment for their own spiritual life, and are able properly to announce and safeguard it in the exercise of the ministry.
§2. Students are to be instructed in sacred scripture with special diligence in such a way that they acquire a comprehensive view of the whole of sacred scripture.
§3. There are to be classes in dogmatic theology, always grounded in the written word of God together with sacred tradition; through these, students are to learn to penetrate more intimately the mysteries of salvation, especially with St. Thomas as a teacher. There are also to be classes in moral and pastoral theology, canon law, liturgy, ecclesiastical history, and other auxiliary and special disciplines, according to the norm of the prescripts of the program of priestly formation.

Saint Thomas, of course, taught and believed in the Limbo of the Children.
That the ITC did not "cite" Effraenatam is irrelevant, it cited or made reference to other official and magisterial documents such as Maiores Ecclesiae causas, Moralia, the Council of Carthage, the Synod of Quiercy, The Synod of Pistoia, Auctorem Fidei, The Council of Lyons II, The Decree of the Jacobites from the Council of Florence (as well as Laetentur Caeli and Cantate Domino), the Bull Unam Sanctam, The Council of Trent (Decrees on Original Sin and Justification), Quanto conficiamur, Singulari Quadam, Humani generis, The Allocution to Italian Midwives, The Roman Missal of 1970, the CDF's 1980 Instruction on Children's Baptism and Pastoralis actio, Guadium et Spes, Lumen Gentium, Evangelium Vitae, Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus, the CCC and Holy Scripture.

It also cited or made reference to the teaching of the Greek Fathers, such as Pseudo-Athanasios, Theophylactus, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Anastasius of Sinai, John Chrysostom and John Damascene; and to the Latin Fathers such as Irenaeus, Augustine, Jerome, Fulgentius, Polycarp and Avitus of Vienna; and to the Medieval Scholastics such as Anslem of Cantebury, Hugh St. Victor, Abelard, Lombard, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Bellarmine and the theologians of the Augustinian School.

It made reference to the teaching of the various Pope throughout the ages such as Popes Paul III, Innocent III, Gregory the Great, Boniface VIII, John XXII, Benedict XIV, Clement XIII, Pius IX, Pius XII, Paul VI and JPII.

Your appeal to The 1983 Code of Canon Law (which is NOT a teaching document of the magisterium, though it can affirm Catholic doctrines) as some sort of "Magisterial authority" for imposing a non-defined and unresolved theological opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas on the "mysteries of salvation" (when his own theological principles affirm the legitimacy of other opinions), and simply ignore the magisterial teaching authority of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Popes who promulgated and affirmed the teachings within as "sure" guides for the Faith, is ludicrous, especially when we consider that a least two Popes affirmed the legitimacy of denying "limbo", as the Augustinians did without censor.

It matters not that the ITC document is not "magisterial", it was approved by Pope Benedict XVI and, with respect to "hope", reflects the very same teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Guadem et Spes and Evangelium Vitae, which, last I checked, are all "magisterial".

Nice try.



avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne on Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:43 am

MRyan wrote:It matters not that the ITC document is not "magisterial", it was approved by Pope Benedict XVI and, with respect to "hope", reflects the very same teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Guadem et Spes and Evangelium Vitae, which, last I checked, are all "magisterial".

The current Catechism nowhere teaches that all infants who end this life without sacramental Baptism go to Heaven. In fact, the Catechism teaches otherwise:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

You are, of course, correct to say that the CCC nowhere mentions the Limbo of the Children, however, neither did the Roman Catechism nor the Catechism of Saint Pius X. But, I think that it is time for some specifics. I want to know what "theological grade" that you would assign to the Limbo of the Children teaching. Here is a list from Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

http://www.catholictreasury.info/quote4.htm

Please do the same for the new "Mercy Reigns" teaching which, allegedly, claims that all infants go to Heaven and enjoy the same state, whether they have been sacramentally baptized or not.
avatar
Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan on Tue Sep 04, 2012 10:44 am

Jehanne wrote:

The current Catechism nowhere teaches that all infants who end this life without sacramental Baptism go to Heaven.
You know this is just more deliberate obfuscation, for the doctrine of "hope" is NOT the same as "teaching that all infants who end this life without sacramental Baptism go to Heaven"; though we are certainly allowed to hold this. You are simply being obtuse.

Jehanne wrote:
In fact, the Catechism teaches otherwise:
No, it does not.

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
The CCC is speaking objectively with reference to the visible material unity that baptism represents by rendering the infant a "child of God" who is visibly incorporated into the Church, whereby an infant that could have been incorporated, and is not, is thereby denied the visible grace of Christian initiation (as a "child of God"), and should he die, the still real possibility of being denied the beatific vision. The emphasis here is on the responsibility of the parents or guardians not to unduly delay the baptism of their child, for the Church knows of NO means other than Baptism that can assure the infant of salvation.

But, the CCC is NOT addressing here (as it will) the possibility and hope of salvation should the infant die before Baptism can be conferred.

Jehanne wrote:
You are, of course, correct to say that the CCC nowhere mentions the Limbo of the Children, however, neither did the Roman Catechism nor the Catechism of Saint Pius X. But, I think that it is time for some specifics. I want to know what "theological grade" that you would assign to the Limbo of the Children teaching. Here is a list from Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

http://www.catholictreasury.info/quote4.htm

Please do the same for the new "Mercy Reigns" teaching which, allegedly, claims that all infants go to Heaven and enjoy the same state, whether they have been sacramentally baptized or not.
Since the "Mercy Reigns" thread nowhere "claims that all infants go to Heaven and enjoy the same state, whether they have been sacramentally baptized or not", I am not going to play your "pin your 'theological grade' on the doctrine of hope" game, for nowhere does the Church suggest that her teaching is in any way "certain", beyond the assurance that the prayerful hope of the Church is justified.

If you want to "reject" all hope and tell the mothers whose infants died without the Sacrament that their children are forever denied the beatific vision; and in fact, if you want to cast these infants into the fires of hell where they suffer only mildly from the eternal torments, feel free; you cannot be accused of heresy, and you are certainly entitled to your specious opinions.

Thankfully, these mothers will listen to the Church about the "hope" of salvation, and not to some lay crank who thinks he is smarter than the Church.

There is nothing unjust or unmerciful about the Limbo of the Children, and if that is their eternal resting place, it is God's will. But we are allowed to hope for something better - and we have good reasons to hope, as the Church tells us.



avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne on Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:02 am

Wow, back to "name calling," again, huh?! Such conduct would have gotten you "kicked-off" CAF. Did you ever post there?

It is amazing to me that you can promote and defend a "teaching" without being able to qualify that teaching with any theological grade?! On the converse, you are deriding the "common opinion" of the Church's theologians which was taught for centuries, and at the same time, you cannot give a theological grade to the opinion you're deriding!

As for #1250, one could certainly interpret that as indicating that at least some infant children die in "original sin alone." Likewise, the Catechism states:
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

The reference for that paragraph is to "617 Cf. DS 76; 409; 411; 801; 858; 1002; 1351; 1575; Paul VI, CPG § 12" which includes the de fide declaration made at the Council of Florence:

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

And, yet, you will say that I am a "crank" for believing that the Council of Florence, an ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, did not define a "null set." Of course, prior to Florence, the ecumenical Council of Constance declared:

Condemned: "Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this." (Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 -- Condemning the articles of John Wyclif, Proposition 6)

Well, at least you did not call me "stupid and presumptuous".
avatar
Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan on Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:24 pm

Jehanne,

The reference to “crank” was in direct reference to your sanctimonious and bloviating statement that you would have no problem telling a grieving mother who is suffering from the loss of her unbaptized child that there is no hope for the salvation of her child; that the Roman Catholic Church is in “error” and has no right to give her “false hope”.

Of course a “lay crank” also refers to someone who actually blogs about the how the Church has solemnly declared through her infallible universal magisterium that infants who die without water baptism are definitively lost – period and end of story.

In other words – a “lay crank” is someone who says such things and refuses to be corrected, though there is no “doctrine” that can correct bad manners falsely posing as “charity”.

When, after all this time, you say things like “The current Catechism nowhere teaches that all infants who end this life without sacramental Baptism go to Heaven”, as if anyone said the Church teaches this, you are being obtuse, for you continue to do this time and again even when you KNOW that the Church gives no assurance of salvation with the doctrine of “hope”, for you cannot NOT know this after all this time.

You simply say these obtuse things so you can tear down your falsely constructed straw-men, all the while missing the point entirely – as is your wont and modus operandi.

The fact that you think I have some obligation to assign a “theological note” to a doctrine that the Church can only assign the “note” of “prayerful hope” to, says it all. But, just so you know, it's called obedience of the mind and will to the teaching authority of the Church, even if one has reservations about the doctrine of "hope". If you cannot render such obedience and respect towards the Roman Pontiff and all of the Bishops of the world, I really do not care.

No one said you have to believe in “hope”, but you cannot leave it alone – you must insist on proving the Church wrong - but you are only revealing the paucity, shallow and fallacious nature of your own “doctrine”.

But there is a solution, and that is to simply ignore you – but I thank you for this enlightening exchange.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne on Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:50 pm

Mike,

Go right ahead. But, "just for the record," the above sophistry does not (and has not) represent (represented) my viewpoints, nor do they represent the beliefs of the Catholic Church. The fact that you cannot (or will not) attach a "theological qualifier" to the theological positions which you advance and criticize demonstrates just how vacuous your reasoning to be.

The true religion is not about making people "feel good about themselves" but about attaining Heaven, and in doing so, avoiding eternal Hell, for both adults as well as infant children.
avatar
Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  George Brenner on Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:16 pm

Mike said:

Jehanne, aren't you the same person who tried to sell the cautious but prayerful hopeof the Church as being equivalent to the hope of winning at the casino or playing the lottery.

Unfortunately, your appeal (once again) to ecclesiastical law simply misses the boat, for you are clearly trying to suggest that without the "founded hope" of the parents or guardian(s) that is required for a LICIT Baptism, that what would render a Baptism "illicit" extends to the salvation of infants as well -- where the hope of salvation would be "illicit" if the deceased child did not have well-intentioned parents or guardians.

The canonical prescriptions for a LICIT Baptism have NOTHING to do with the “prayerful hope” for the salvation of infants who die without benefit of the Sacrament. If God accepts the faith of the parents (in a vicarious baptism of desire), He can also accept the faith and desire of the Church, whose faith it is the parents represent with their intention to baptize and rear the child in the faith. What is required for a licit baptism is not binding on God in extending the grace of baptism in an extra-sacramental manner, Who may in fact listen to the prayers of His Church, and that of the communion of saints, to include the parents.

A LICIT baptism canonically requires that the there is a “founded hope” that the child will be brought up in the faith of the Church, for there must be a realistic assurance that the habit of faith (infused in Baptism) will have a chance to blossom into the virtue of faith when the child reaches the age of reason (which the Church supplies until then - with the guardians as proxies). Only in the danger of death can this prescription be waived – and for obvious reasons you don’t seem to fully appreciate.


Mike,

Thank you for your patience. I took the time to read this over several times. I am still at a loss on how it can be that you can answer so many questions or posts with clarity and they either go unanswered, ignored or the subject is completely modified or changed. So often there seems to be no specific rebuttal. This post of yours completely describes what Cannon 868 is saying and yet no thank you or admission of error. I know that some would say that your answer is wrong and if it were an isolated comment(s) that might be valid argument on their part. Over time there comes a point when good will, pride, humility and honesty must factor in the thought process. I made a terrible post recently in an exchange with Tornpage. No excuses. I expressed my inner thoughts wrongly and really needed a re do . It can and does happen.

JMJ,


George




avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan on Wed Sep 05, 2012 3:46 pm

George, don’t worry about the “no excuses” post on predestination; for, as you said, it happens. We all misspeak or say something that comes out the opposite of our intention. I also share Mark’s frustration when I go back to correct something in a recent post only to be “timed out”. If the error is glaring enough, I may post a correction, but often I just leave it knowing that most folks will recognize my unintentional error and what I was really trying to say (besides, I think we’re down to 4 or 5 people who actually read this forum).

I don’t expect any “thanks” if I happen to get it right, though, to your point, I don’t know why it is so difficult to admit one’s error.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage on Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:15 pm

I think we’re down to 4 or 5 people who actually read this forum)

But I think we have something here. Very Happy

And what an eclectic group!!!!

Mike - been busy with work and other issues (kids started school this week). That, coupled with the fact that the topic we’re addressing in that other thread is very deep and not one that is susceptible to quick responses - has prevented me from responding. I have some thoughts, but not the time to properly set them down. Maybe I’ll post some quick observations that jump out - that will also make the posts short and focused, which will be helpful.

Mark
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage on Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:20 pm

George,

Forget about it!!!

There’s a great clip from Donnie Brasco on youtube about that . . . which I’d post, but some better Catholics with more class and morals than me, or at the least a lot (a lot) more “proper,” might find it offensive.

Probably none of them here . . . but I’ll play it safe. Very Happy

Mark
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan on Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:33 pm

Mark,

No rush, I know how deep and difficult this subject is; we should approach with caution.

I've got my first Religious Ed class this Sunday, and I'm only now getting my lesson plan together. Thank goodness the DRE is giving us a lot of leeway ... the course material (Loyala Pres) is, well, yuk. So long as I hit all of the Diocesan objectives for my 8th grade class, we're good to go, and creativity is encouraged.

I didn't expect the anxiety level to be this high, but it is. I'm sure I'll be fine ... just first day jitters.


avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage on Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:46 pm

Mike,

I trust you will go far, far beyond the textbook and set them straight, right? Very Happy

Mark
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan on Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:50 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

I trust you will go far, far beyond the textbook and set them straight, right? Very Happy

Mark
Absolutely!
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage on Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:58 pm

Absolutely!

Well alright!!

I expect to be reading about you in the papers real soon. Smile
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne on Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:44 am

MRyan wrote:There is nothing unjust or unmerciful about the Limbo of the Children, and if that is their eternal resting place, it is God's will. But we are allowed to hope for something better - and we have good reasons to hope, as the Church tells us.

This thread has (appeared -- I "hope"!) to have run its course, and since I started it to begin with, I wish to have the last word, so, please, no replies after this one. (You can open a new thread, if you wish to discuss this issue further, but I will not be posting in it, at least for awhile.)

The above text from Mike sum-up my position very well, and is well-stated. As I concluded on my blog:

In conclusion.

It is heretical and absurd to say that all children who end this life without sacramental Baptism go to Heaven, for this is definitively not what the Church taught (barring "universal salvation," of course, which has never been widely believed, at least until very recently); likewise, it is absurd (and, perhaps, even heretical) to say that there can be no exceptions whatsoever, even ones involving a miracle.

The above text is, by the way, not a "recent addition" and has been on my blog for many months, long before this most recent thread:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/infants-who-die-without-sacramental.html

So, for a mother who had an abortion and who is wondering about the fate of her unborn, aborted baby and if he/she is in Heaven? Assurance? Definitive not. Good Hope? Probably not. Some Hope? Sure, why not? Still, for any woman contemplating a future abortion of her unborn child, I would take what Pope Sixtus V stated in Effraenatam seriously. Ditto for those politicians who wish to make "exceptions" for the "life of the mother," rape, incest, etc., etc.
avatar
Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan on Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:39 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:There is nothing unjust or unmerciful about the Limbo of the Children, and if that is their eternal resting place, it is God's will. But we are allowed to hope for something better - and we have good reasons to hope, as the Church tells us.
This thread has (appeared -- I "hope"!) to have run its course, and since I started it to begin with, I wish to have the last word, so, please, no replies after this one. (You can open a new thread, if you wish to discuss this issue further, but I will not be posting in it, at least for awhile.)
Sorry. I always have to spoil all the fun.

Jehanne wrote: The above text from Mike sum-up my position very well, and is well-stated. As I concluded on my blog:

In conclusion.

It is heretical and absurd to say that all children who end this life without sacramental Baptism go to Heaven, for this is definitively not what the Church taught (barring "universal salvation," of course, which has never been widely believed, at least until very recently); likewise, it is absurd (and, perhaps, even heretical) to say that there can be no exceptions whatsoever, even ones involving a miracle.
You don’t even realize the “absurdity” of saying that my text sums-up your position “very well”, and then calling the same position “heretical and absurd” should anyone understand my position to mean that the hope of salvation may extend to all unbaptized infants, and not just to “some” (the obvious meaning, since nowhere does the Church suggest such a necessary restriction).

Btw, the hope for the universal salvation of unbaptized infants is not "universal salvation", good grief.

It is absolutely “absurd” to think that you can “define” the limits of “hope” by imposing your personal opinion on the doctrine such that it is perfectly orthodox to hold that God may choose to save “some” unbaptized infants, but it is “heretical and absurd” to believe that He may save “all” such infants. So tell us Jehanne, what about holding out “hope” for “most” unbaptized infants?

After all, didn’t you take great exception to my refusal to play your “pin the theological note on the doctrine of hope” game by saying such a refusal “demonstrates just how vacuous your reasoning to be?”

So, are you now an approved theologian with the authority to assign a “theological note” (of at least “de fide” no less!) to the infallible doctrine that says “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 [ONLY 'SOME'] children who have died without Baptism.”

And of course, you can then make up your own anathema, such as: “If any one says that we are allowed to hope that there is a way of salvation for ALL children who have died without Baptism, anathema sit."

Jehanne, did you know that a particular theological note assigned by a theologian(s) to an undefined and non-definitive doctrine which does not enjoy a universal moral consensus is fallible? So why is it “vacuous” to refuse to assign a fallible “note” that is binding on no one? Is it not enough that the Church teaches that we owe at least the assent of the mind and will to the authority of the Church teaching, even if the doctrine is not “infallible” (though neither can it be harmful to the Faith)?

If you want to withhold assent; feel free; but your "heretical and absurd" argument is itself sheer absurdity.

Jehanne wrote:
The above text is, by the way, not a "recent addition" and has been on my blog for many months, long before this most recent thread:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/infants-who-die-without-sacramental.html

So, for a mother who had an abortion and who is wondering about the fate of her unborn, aborted baby and if he/she is in Heaven? Assurance? Definitive not. Good Hope? Probably not. Some Hope? Sure, why not? Still, for any woman contemplating a future abortion of her unborn child, I would take what Pope Sixtus V stated in Effraenatam seriously. Ditto for those politicians who wish to make "exceptions" for the "life of the mother," rape, incest, etc., etc.
So, according the magisterial authority of Jehanne, mothers who have had an abortion can have “some hope”, but “probably not good hope” (is that a “theological note”?); and it is definitively “heretical and absurd” to have reasons to hope for “all” aborted infants, or perhaps just “all” infants in general since “all aborted infants” may be one of those “probably not” theological notes.

Jehanne hasn’t quite worked out all of the “theological notes” to his new doctrine.

Next, he’ll be working on an official condemnation of “hope” if it extends to “many” or “most”, as being “proximate to heresy”, the denial of which is Mortal Sin; while the denial of a “probably not” theological note is “Temerarious”.

Again, Jehanne, this has been very enlightening, I must say.

Thank goodness, this thread is done.





avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne on Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:50 pm

Yeah, it is done, because the Church is not into "defining null sets":

We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.

Also, the body of Christ is truly confected in both unleavened and leavened wheat bread, and priests should confect the body of Christ in either, that is, each priest according to the custom of his western or eastern church. Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church's ordinances.

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define...

So, yes, it is de fide that there are souls (i.e., "infant children") who die in "original sin alone". This is why, as the SSPX has rightly noted, the Limbo of the Children is a theological conclusion, one which, for centuries, was taught as being certain.
avatar
Jehanne

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

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage on Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:10 pm

Jehanne,

Yeah, it is done, because the Church is not into "defining null sets":

We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.

Also, the body of Christ is truly confected in both unleavened and leavened wheat bread, and priests should confect the body of Christ in either, that is, each priest according to the custom of his western or eastern church. Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church's ordinances.

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define...


So, yes, it is de fide that there are souls (i.e., "infant children") who die in "original sin alone". This is why, as the SSPX has rightly noted, the Limbo of the Children is a theological conclusion, one which, for centuries, was taught as being certain.

I agree. And that is why the Church will never say that unbaptized infants are in heaven.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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