Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Forum (No Salvation Outside the Church Forum)
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Latest topics
» The Unity of the Body (the Church, Israel)
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptySun Mar 17, 2024 9:23 am by tornpage

» Defilement of the Temple
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptyTue Feb 06, 2024 7:44 am by tornpage

» Forum update
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptySat Feb 03, 2024 8:24 am by tornpage

» Bishop Williamson's Recent Comments
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptyThu Feb 01, 2024 12:42 pm by MRyan

» The Mysterious 45 days of Daniel 12:11-12
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptyFri Jan 26, 2024 11:04 am by tornpage

» St. Bonaventure on the Necessity of Baptism
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptyTue Jan 23, 2024 7:06 pm by tornpage

» Isaiah 22:20-25
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptyFri Jan 19, 2024 10:44 am by tornpage

» Translation of Bellarmine's De Amissione Gratiae, Bk. VI
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptyFri Jan 19, 2024 10:04 am by tornpage

» Orestes Brownson Nails it on Baptism of Desire
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptyThu Jan 18, 2024 3:06 pm by MRyan

» Do Feeneyites still exist?
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptyWed Jan 17, 2024 8:02 am by Jehanne

» Sedevacantism and the Church's Indefectibility
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptySat Jan 13, 2024 5:22 pm by tornpage

» Inallible safety?
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptyThu Jan 11, 2024 1:47 pm by MRyan

» Usury - Has the Church Erred?
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptyTue Jan 09, 2024 11:05 pm by tornpage

» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptyTue Jan 09, 2024 8:40 pm by MRyan

» SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptyFri Jan 05, 2024 8:57 am by Jehanne

» Anyone still around?
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptyMon Jan 01, 2024 11:04 pm by Jehanne

» Angelqueen.org???
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptyTue Oct 16, 2018 8:38 am by Paul

» Vatican (CDF/Ecclesia Dei) has no objection if the SSPX and all religious communities affirm Vatican Council II (without the premise)
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptySun Dec 10, 2017 8:29 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Piazza Spagna - mission
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptySun Dec 10, 2017 8:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fund,Catholic organisation needed to help Catholic priests in Italy like Fr. Alessandro Minutella
Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 EmptySun Dec 10, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

4 posters

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:31 pm

George,

I think that you should consider posting on the Catholic Answers Forums. While a short-term regular there, I can assure you that the level of scholarship on that board is substantially less than it is here. In fact, I was surprised by the level of "uninformedness" by those in the "15 K to 30 K+" club (yes, there are folks there who post a dozen times per day who have accumulated 35,000 or more posts.) Some "Catholics" there were almost fully pantheist as far as I could tell.

One woman, a "Carmelite secular" who had several thousand posts, claimed that the Catholic Church, in her 2,000 year history, had only made two ex cathedra declarations, the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. In response to a new forum member who simply asked in a new thread, "Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?, she responded, "YES!", big letters and all. Still, I found CAF to be nothing but a pond of neo-con censorship, and I did not last there but a few months, not that I had anything more to say.

As for the SSPX, they are not gong to budge and why should they? If you are going to claim that the Pope is infallible every time that he exhales, then you are claiming a power for him which he does not claim for himself. One need look no farther than the "Preliminary Note of Explanation" which got appended to the text of Lumen Gentium at Vatican II to see how close the modernists came to pulling "a fast one" on Pope Paul VI. He caught their errors only after others had pointed them out to him, and when he did, he acted quickly and decisively, as a good Pope should.

The fact that the CDF is "clarifying" the texts of Vatican II nearly 50 years after close of the Council should be compelling proof to anyone of the Council's ambiguities, and hence, deficiencies. The Council wrote more than all the previous Councils combined with more footnotes too, and even the present Pope has admitted that the texts are vague. The SSPX will return to "the fold" only after the progressives stop claiming that Vatican II was, in fact, a rupture with Catholic Tradition. Until then, the SSPX will keep telling women that they should only be wearing skirts while their Novus Ordo "counterparts" are on national television saying that gay marriage is completely moral. And, unlike many of their Novus Ordo counterparts, the SSPX can read "the originals" in their native Latin; the fact that they say that there are problems is evidence that there are, indeed, problems. Most Catholics, of course, don't know and they don't care.

As for Limbo, I think that it exists, and if it does exist, it's probably not empty. And, if Limbo truly exists, then it is even more real than Planet Earth, for our World is someday destined to pass away, unlike Limbo, which will be around forever. So, if Limbo does, indeed, exist, then to claim otherwise will do absolutely nothing to cause it not to exist. One might as well argue that the Moon is made of cheese.

Still, do all infants who die without sacramental Baptism die without all hope of eternal life? I do not think so, for if angels truly exist, then they can sacramentally baptize even the unborn, and "Lord only knows" what else. And, certainly the One and Triune God can "sanctify in the womb"; how often that occurs, however, is anyone's guess. Still, I doubt that Pope Sixtus V in "Effraenatam" was just expressing some "common opinion." It would be interesting to get the CDF's view on this; perhaps someone, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, mentioned Pope Sixtus V's bull to Pope John Paul II before Evangelium Vitae got sent to the publisher, preserving the See of Peter from a major blunder.

Still, if we take #1261 as being de fide, it only states that "a way of salvation" may exist for children who have died without sacramental Baptism. That, of course, does not mean that all such children will be saved. A "way of salvation" existed, once upon a time, for angels, and not all of them made it. The same is and will be true for all human adults. "Time will tell," I suppose.

This discussion, for me, was not about wishing that there are infant children who have been forever consigned to Hell. Rather, I am only concerned with what is True and what is not. Ultimately, "What is, is."

Please let me know if you register at CAF, just in case I get "the itching" to re-register there using a different IP, email, and pseudonym. It won't be as informative as is the repetitive stuff that you're getting here, that I promise you!
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:10 am

MRyan wrote:Despite "a storm of opposition", the "most excellent" argument of theologians and the Church offers the hope of salvation to unbaptized infants, for God can do it, it is appropriate, therefore "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."

Why didn't God save all the angels?
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:38 am

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Despite "a storm of opposition", the "most excellent" argument of theologians and the Church offers the hope of salvation to unbaptized infants, for God can do it, it is appropriate, therefore "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."

Why didn't God save all the angels?
Save them from what ... themselves? Were they created in original sin?

The angels were already "saved", and those that rebelled did so freely. As the Archangel Michael asked the "light-bearer" (Lucifer), "Who is like God?"





MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:16 am

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Despite "a storm of opposition", the "most excellent" argument of theologians and the Church offers the hope of salvation to unbaptized infants, for God can do it, it is appropriate, therefore "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."

Why didn't God save all the angels?
Save them from what ... themselves? Were they created in original sin?

The angels were already "saved", and those that rebelled did so freely. As the Archangel Michael asked the "light-bearer" (Lucifer), "Who is like God?"

Yes, "save them from themselves..." Sure, why not? (A Sacrament of Reconciliation for angels???) As for infant children, the ("pessimistic") Council of Trent taught that not only do they incur the "sin of Adam" but the guilt of his sin as well, and so why should God save them apart from sacramental Baptism? Besides, even some theologians of the recent ITC report (which, of course, came after the publication of the CCC) have stated that God may "enlighten" unbaptized infants at the point of their death such that they could make a choice either for or against Him, in which case, some infants who die without sacramental Baptism would not go to the Hell of Separation (i.e., "Limbo") but to the Hell of Suffering, for having committed personal sin.
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:40 am

tornpage wrote:
A human [and divine!] sense of justice requires that, if God wills the salvation of all men, He must give all men the opportunity to be saved. Obviously, you, I and St. Alphonsus share that human sense. Unlike you and St. Alphonsus, I do not assume God does will the salvation of all men. I have to be persuaded. So I look at Scripture (not in discussion here, and not necessary at present) and the reasons advanced for, or the justifications underpinning that, belief, and I find them wanting - again, it does not appear to me that the necessary condition - asserted as necessary by the people who assert belief in God's universal salvific will (St. Alphonsus) - is fulfilled.
The only way one can find Scripture wanting with its numerous passages testifying to the truth that God wills the salvation of all men it to ignore the obvious meaning and context of the words, and by imposing an erroneous "hermeneutic" entailing a false interpretation of other passages that are speaking only to God's particular will in the salvation of those who "finish the race", the elect.

So when our Lord says in Matt 11-28 "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest", He did NOT mean to suggest the He calls all men that labour and are heavy laden with the promise of rest, for, He calls ONLY the elect, for those He actually calls, He justifies, and those He justifies He glorifies - the elect, and the elect only does He call. So once this passage in Romans is taken out of context, it can be used as the hermeneutic for interpreting all of the other passages testifying to God's universal desire to have all men saved.

In other words, as the Protestant Rev. Waite explains:

Matthew 11:28 PARAPHRASED FALSELY (AS UNLIMITED ATONEMENT PEOPLE MIGHT SAY IT): "Come unto me, ALL YE--PROVIDED THAT YOU ARE ELECT AND ONLY ELECT AND NOTHING BUT ELECT--that labour and are heavy laden, and I WILL GIVE YOU--that is, ONLY THE ELECT" because I am NOT going to die on Calvary's cross for you who are NON-ELECT, but only for the ELECT."
And of course, in the pure and unadulterated philosophy of Calvinism (we cannot dignify it as "theology"), when St. Paul declares in Rom. 5:6, "For when we were yet without strength, in due time CHRIST DIED FOR THE UNGODLY", he actually meant to add at the end, "but not really, for Christ did NOT die for the ungodly, but ONLY for the elect."

We could go on and on, but these seemingly endless passages confirming the truth of God's universal salvific will -- will not persuade Tornpage, for, he says, "I do not assume God does will the salvation of all men. I have to be persuaded."

Perhaps there is no "persuasion", no matter how persuasive (not even our Lord's own words can convince them), but only the gift of faith that allows some men to accept the truth that others can see as plain as the nose on one's face.

It’s funny that there can be found Reformed scholars (“Calvinistic in our theology”) who, while paying lip service to the heretical “limited atonement”, still recognize that our Lord did in fact die for all men “in some sense”. Rev. D.A. Waite (“Independent, Fundament, Evangelistic”), in his article (cited above) “Calvin's Error of Limited Atonement”, explains this rather “mixed-up” school, thus:

There is, however, a school of what I term "mixed-up" Calvinists, who think they also hold to a "LIMITED ATONEMENT" theory who teach that Christ's death was sufficient for the whole world, but efficient or effective only for those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. This explanation of Christ's death is CORRECT, and is Scripturally SOUND, but it is NOT the proper definition of "LIMITED ATONEMENT," and all who hold it, therefore, are NOT believers in "LIMITED ATONEMENT," but rather in "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT."

The respected Pastor and prolific author, John Piper, appears to be one of those “mixed-up Calvinists”, who has this to say about Limited Atonement:

We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense [sounds like the universal antecedent will of God to me!]. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers—from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16)—is made possible because of the cross. (http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism/#Election
So “all men”, by the antecedent will of God, “are the intended beneficiaries of the death of Christ”, for Christ is "the Savior of all men” (1 Timothy 4:10 ) “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (I Tim 2:4).

That sounds perfectly orthodox to me and a clear, even if reluctant, rejection of “Limited Atonement”. And then we read this, from the same article:

Election refers to God's choosing whom to save. It is unconditional in that there is no condition man must meet before God chooses to save him. Man is dead in trespasses and sins. So there is no condition he can meet before God chooses to save him from his deadness.
So is final salvation unconditional since man has no say about the faith he cannot help but accept because it was preordained before man was created that he would do so?

Well, as Mark would say, "not exactly". Piper goes on to say:

We are not saying that final salvation is unconditional. It is not. We must meet the condition of faith in Christ in order to inherit eternal life. But faith is not a condition for election. Just the reverse. Election is a condition for faith. It is because God chose us before the foundation of the world that he purchases our redemption at the cross and quickens us with irresistible grace and brings us to faith.
What? Final salvation is conditional because “We must meet the condition of faith in Christ in order to inherit eternal life [election] … But faith is not a condition for election [eternal life]".

Let me make an attempt at an orthodox spin:

A) "Faith is a condition for election" [in the unfolding of God's universal will in the particular] and B) "Faith is not a condition for election" [that is, not in the antecedent predestination of God.]

Because Piper cannot seem to recognize this distinction, he simply contradicts himself by confusing universal election with the condition of particular faith, and ends up saying that in the particular conditions (contingencies) that play out in the great drama of salvation (there is no drama for a true Calvinist), faith is NOT really a condition for salvation (election), for no one can have the gift of faith without first being elected to salvation.

This can come only from the father of lies.

And when Catholics say with St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church that God wills (antecedently) the salvation of all men, but not all men are saved, this is “illogical” to certain folks smitten with the pure Reformist corrupted philosophy of so-called limited atonement.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:02 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Despite "a storm of opposition", the "most excellent" argument of theologians and the Church offers the hope of salvation to unbaptized infants, for God can do it, it is appropriate, therefore "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."

Why didn't God save all the angels?
Save them from what ... themselves? Were they created in original sin?

The angels were already "saved", and those that rebelled did so freely. As the Archangel Michael asked the "light-bearer" (Lucifer), "Who is like God?"
Yes, "save them from themselves..." Sure, why not? (A Sacrament of Reconciliation for angels???)
Here's why not:

A dark and seductive voice entered into the domain of man. Out of hatred for God it sought the ruin of the human race. The Church teaches us that the source of sin and evil is manifested in the fallen angel, Lucifer, or as he is more commonly known, Satan the devil. Church Tradition and teachings implore that evil could not originate from God, the source of justice and quintessence of holiness. Evil itself, the rejection of the loving grace of God, began with the angel Lucifer. God created Lucifer as a good angel, a being of pure spirit. Lucifer as a spiritual creature was one of beauty, power and intelligence. Like all creatures Lucifer was created to love God and serve him, but Lucifer began to focus on his own individual power, intelligence and qualities. Rather than attribute his strengths and qualities to the service and love of his creator, Lucifer turned from God and sought himself as the source of his own pleasures and service. By a free choice, Lucifer rejected God and fell from his place in heaven. He also took with him many other angels, who likewise rejected God. By separating themselves from the creator, the fallen angels introduced evil into creation and authored the first sin. The fallen angels sin could not be forgiven because, "It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect of the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angel’s sin unforgivable. ‘There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death". (CCC 393) [http://www.saintaquinas.com/original_sin.html.]
I'll respond to "the Council of Trent taught that not only do they incur the 'sin of Adam' but the guilt of his sin as well, and so why should God save them apart from sacramental Baptism?" in due time - an important subject that does not need to be a part of this silly discussion.

MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:19 pm

Yes, that's a powerful statement from the Catechism:

393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."

Contrast that with what #1261 is saying:

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.

However, if a child has, indeed, "died," then there is "no repentance", which means that any such repentance for children who died without Baptism would have to occur prior to death, if the CCC is going to be consistent with itself. So, the "way of salvation" does not imply that all such children will be saved any more than the "way of salvation" for adults implies that all of them will be saved.
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:38 pm

Jehanne wrote:Yes, that's a powerful statement from the Catechism:

393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death[."
Yes, so powerful it blows your "Yes, 'save them from themselves...' Sure, why not? (A Sacrament of Reconciliation for angels???)" right out of the water.

You have this tendency to just throw stuff on the wall in the mostly vain hope that something will eventually stick. If I haven't responded to all of your questions or comments, this type of off-the-wall stuff has a lot to do with it.

Jehanne wrote:
Contrast that with what #1261 is saying:

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.
However, if a child has, indeed, "died," then there is "no repentance", which means that any such repentance for children who died without Baptism would have to occur prior to death, if the CCC is going to be consistent with itself.

No, you are the one who needs to be consistent.

What "sin" requires the repentance of the infant? Original sin is not a personal sin, and thus there is no repentance necessary for this sin. It is remitted by true charity and by the Sacrament of Faith, with faith and charity being supplied by the Church (in the case of infants). The "guilt" (Trent) it imposes, as the Church teaches, is only analogous to personal sin and to the "sin of nature".

Original sin can only be atoned and forgiven gratuitously by our Lord, who removes this stain in the ordinary instrument of Baptism, in the baptisms of blood and desire, and, if He so chooses, He may apply the merit of His blood redemption even to infants who cannot profess the true faith, or love God, except vicariously through the Church and the Communion of Saints - and of course, prior to the death of the infant.

The CCC does not need to be "consistent" in this regard, for nowhere does it suggest that infants can be saved after death (when the soul departs the body). So why do you even bring it up?

Jehanne wrote:So, the "way of salvation" [the "hope" of salvation] does not imply that all such children will be saved any more than the "way of salvation" for adults implies that all of them will be saved.
You are missing this important distinction: Those infants who die having received the sacrament of baptism, and those adults who have received the grace of regeneration (through ordinary or extra-ordinary means - meaning, they are assured of sanctifying grace if they are properly disposed and die in that state), have the assurance of salvation.

Unbaptized infants who have only the hope that God's mercy will extend to them have no such assurance of salvation.






MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:54 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Yes, that's a powerful statement from the Catechism:

393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death[."
Yes, so powerful it blows your "Yes, 'save them from themselves...' Sure, why not? (A Sacrament of Reconciliation for angels???)" right out of the water.

You have this tendency to just throw stuff on the wall in the mostly vain hope that something will eventually stick. If I haven't responded to all of your questions or comments, this type of off-the-wall stuff has a lot to do with it.

It was just a caricature. I was expressing the idea that just because the Triune God can, at least in principle, do something does not necessarily mean that he will do something, especially if that "something" contradicts His Perfect Nature. And, so, no, I have never believed in some sort of "sacrament of reconciliation" for angels. As for "thorw(ing) stuff on the wall," it has been you, and not me, who has accused Saint Thomas and all of the Church's Saints, Doctors, and her theologians, from well before the time of Saint Augustine and the Council of Carthage all the way up through the time of Dr. Ludwig Ott, who, in his seminal Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, reaffirmed the existence of the "Limbo of the Children" as being the "common opinion" of the Church, as having some "pessimistic theology" which denied the possibility of salvation to children who die without Baptism. And, yet, it was the Old Catholic Encyclopedia which stated:

Unbaptized infants

The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull "Lætentur Caeli" of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.

The article is here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XI

Now, you'll just say that it is all "just speculation...la-di-da," notwithstanding, of course, the fact that everyone, without exception, believed it. For all the theologians whom you cite (which I included on my blog post), without exception, believed in the Limbo of the Children. Pray tell, name a single one who did not. No one, including the Pelagians, taught the universal salvation of infants who die without sacramental Baptism.

MRyan wrote:Unbaptized infants who have only the hope that God's mercy will extend to them have no such assurance of salvation.

Fine. I still believe that Pope Sixtus V, in Effraenatam, was expressing something more than just a "common opinion." Let us have "Rome decide" if he was, okay?
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:55 pm

Jehanne,

It seems it never ends, with this being just one more gross distortion, "caricature" and falsehood where you cite the following text and then follow with your own "spin":

Jehanne wrote:
Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.
Now, you'll just say that it is all "just speculation...la-di-da," notwithstanding, of course, the fact that everyone, without exception, believed it. For all the theologians whom you cite (which I included on my blog post), without exception, believed in the Limbo of the Children.
So, that "Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision" is the same as saying it is a "fact that everyone, without exception, believed ... in the Limbo of the Children".

In fact, the article says just the opposite of what you portend, for not only does it say "Many theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision", and not "everyone, without exception", it also makes it clear that these same "Many theologians" did not agree "as to the exact state of these souls in the next world"; meaning, they did not agree on whether they were in Limbo (and precisely what this meant), or suffered the positive torments of the dammed. And just when the "Decretum Horribilis" was making a resurgence, other theologians began to speculate in earnest as to whether these same infants could be saved by other means.

Jehanne wrote: Pray tell, name a single one who did not [believe in the Limbo of the Children]
For starters, the Eastern Fathers and theologians. Next, the Latin Fathers. Next, the Augustinians who had been cleared by various popes against the accusation of heresy for denying limbo.

You were saying?

Jehanne wrote:
No one, including the Pelagians, taught the universal salvation of infants who die without sacramental Baptism.
And no one today teaches "the universal salvation of children", but, with the Church, only allows for the hope of their salvation.

Actually, Pelagius granted the truth of John 3:5, but then made a distinction between the kingdom of God (for entrance to which baptism is required) and what he called "eternal life", which, he claimed, unbaptized infants enjoy by virtue of their having immortal souls. Jansenus, for good reason, taught that the medieval non-suffering happy place called the Limbo of the Children sounded suspiciously like that Pelagian happy place where non-baptized infants enjoy "eternal life", without benefit of the beatific vision.

In fact, Dons Scotus taught that "there can be no unhappiness of any sort in limbo. Grief, he remarks, is a greater punishment than the pain of sense, because it attacks a higher faculty, the human will. Since children are spared the pain of sense, they must logically be free of any unhappiness. It would be absurd to suppose that they were spared the lighter punishment and left to bear the heavier." (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2007/06/antinomies-of-limbo-some-histo)

And, according to Cardinal Journet, "children in limbo share in salvation because of the resurrection of Christ, in which it is absolutely certain they will share." (http://www.adveritatem.com/av/19990401.pdf)

Now, when you can reconcile the "share in salvation" and non-suffering (of any type) "Limbo" above (the "common opinion") with “the Second Council of Lyon (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438—1445), which both taught, in almost identical words: ‘The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin or in original sin only immediately descend into hell, even though they suffer different penalties’, please let me know.

Jehanne wrote:
it has been you, and not me, who has accused Saint Thomas and all of the Church's Saints, Doctors, and her theologians, from well before the time of Saint Augustine and the Council of Carthage all the way up through the time of Dr. Ludwig Ott, who, in his seminal Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, reaffirmed the existence of the "Limbo of the Children" as being the "common opinion" of the Church, as having some "pessimistic theology" which denied the possibility of salvation to children who die without Baptism.
First of all, the "Limbo of the Children" was a medieval development that attempted to answer the question of where do unbaptized infants go who die in original sin alone. For the first 800 years of the Church the more common opinion of the Latin Church was that these infants suffered the positive torments of hell (however "slight" they may be).

Now if your argument is that the common opinion of Latin Church presumed the loss of all unbaptized infants, regardless of when the doctrine of Limbo became the more common opinion, you'll get no argument from me.

However, the fact that you refer to Fr. Ott, the very theologian whose "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" makes it very clear that the Church allows for the theological teachings that have developed over the last several centuries that give us reasons for "hope" for the salvation of unbaptized infants, simply places the "common opinion" into context by recognizing that the issue has never been settled, and that from at least the 16th century onward the "more common opinion" would be more and more challenged as the doctrine developed.

Yeah, Jehanne, "la-di-da".












MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:10 pm

tornpage wrote:
11. INFANT SALVATION

The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith , repentance or good works, whether actual or foreseen. It does not, however, find a logical place in Arminianism or any other system. Furthermore, it would seem that a system such as Arminianism, which suspends salvation on a personal act of rational choice, would logically demand that those dying in infancy must either be given another period of probation after death, in order that their destiny may be fixed, or that they must be annihilated.

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.iv.iii.xi.html)
On the contrary, while “the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined” by God’s predetermining decree, God’s particular will in this instance will not allow the salvation of any soul apart from the desire and the faith of the “sacrament of salvation”, His Church, and the community of believers who make up the One Body.

Such as “system” is not only “rational”, but is a grace assisted personal act of choice (the greater the degree of conformity to God’s grace, the greater the freedom to choose the good). An example of this (though, with respect to grace, an extreme example) is the Holy Spirit’s invitation to our Blessed Mother to become the Mother of God. The heavens and the earth held its collected breadth in anticipation of the “fiat” of our Blessed Mother, and God would not impose His will upon her without her free consent.

Did our Blessed Mother consent because she found the offer “irresistible” (the gentle but firmly binding ropes of “irresistible” grace, from which she could only “theoretically” escape by declining the offer); or, was her will so perfected by God’s grace that the fiat was entirely of her own grace-filled free volition?

If our Blessed Mother was not entirely free to make her fiat, I doubt that God would have waited for her consent. But He did wait, and would not “overshadow her” until He heard these words: “Be It Done to Me According to Your Word”.

“And the Word was made flesh …”

“O happy fault,
O necessary sin of Adam

which gained for us
so great a Redeemer!”


MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  George Brenner Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:55 pm


Our Blessed Mother, Saint Joseph, Saint Padre Pio and more souls on Earth and in Heaven then we will ever know along with Holy Mother Church have intense love for those in the womb. We have much to pray and hope for......


As taken from:

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7hIHYj1QLjYAIfhXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1djRpbmM2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDOARjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1NNRTEyOV8xOTk-/SIG=1385pr83f/EXP=1346228871/**http%3a//our-lady-for-life.forumotion.com/t986-padre-pio-a-patron-saint-for-the-unborn


Padre Pio: A Patron Saint for the Unborn

The Blessed Mother said to him: “I am entrusting this unborn child to your care and protection.”

by Frank M. Rega, S.F.O.

While two patron saints are generally invoked for the protection of the unborn, St. Joseph and St. Gerard Majella, neither is specifically assigned by the Church for that cause. St. Gerard is in fact the Patron of Expectant Mothers, and by accommodation becomes a patron for the unborn. St. Joseph has often been proposed as a patron saint of the unborn, because of his role as protector of the Holy Family and patron of the Universal Church. However, St. Padre Pio has a specific claim to this honor, a prerogative that was confirmed by the Blessed Virgin Mary herself.

The story begins in 1905, well before he became famous for his stigmata and other spiritual gifts. At that time he was still a seminarian, known as Brother Pio, and was assigned to the humble friary of St. Elia a’ Pianisi, in southern Italy. After his involvement in an unusual and striking spiritual encounter, Brother Pio immediately wrote everything down and handed it to his spiritual director, Padre Agostino. The note eventually became part of the documentation presented to the Vatican during the process of his canonization over seventy-five years later. Here is what occurred, in Brother Pio’s own words:

Several days ago I had an extraordinary experience. About 11:00 in the evening [of January 18, 1905] Brother Anastasio and I were in the choir. Suddenly I found myself at the same time in the palace of an extremely wealthy family. The master of the house was dying just as his daughter was about to be born.

Then the Blessed Mother appeared and, turning to me, said, “I am entrusting this unborn child to your care and protection. Although she will become a precious jewel, right now she has no form. Shape and polish her. Make her as brilliant as you can, because one day I would like to adorn myself with her.”

I replied, “How can this be possible? I am only a poor seminarian and don’t even know whether I will have the joy and good fortune to become a priest. Even if I do, how will I ever be able to take care of this girl since I will be so far way from here?”

The Blessed Mother admonished me, “Don’t doubt me. She will come to you, but first you will find her in the Basilica of St. Peter’s in Rome.”

After that I found myself back in the choir.



Until now, this note has been considered important primarily because it is the first documented instance of St. Pio’s supernatural gift of bilocation. However, in the light of today’s battle against the abortion holocaust, another aspect of the note takes on added significance. That is, the words of the Blessed Virgin to Brother Pio: “I am entrusting this unborn child to your care and protection.”

What greater recommendation could there possibly be for Padre Pio to be the patron saint of the unborn, than that given by the Blessed Mother herself? She specifically entrusted the care of an infant still in her mother’s womb, and whose father lay dying, to a young seminarian destined to become one of the greatest saints in the history of the Church. Furthermore, she called this girl about to be born a child; she was not a lump of flesh or a blob of tissue, whose life could be legally snuffed out in today’s world by a heinous partial birth abortion procedure.

The name of the child was Giovanna Rizzani. Events happened as Our Lady had predicted, and Padre Pio did meet Giovanna, now a young girl, in St. Peter’s Basilica in 1922. It was another case of bilocation, where he heard her confession and resolved her doubts about the faith. The next year, she did come to see him, again as Our Lady had prophesized, and she realized he was the friar who had heard her confession in Rome. At this latest encounter, Padre Pio explained to her the vision and supernatural events of 1905 when he witnessed her father’s death. He explained that the Virgin Mary had entrusted her to him in order to direct and perfect her soul.

For the next forty-five years, until Padre’s passing in 1968, Giovanna visited him often for spiritual direction, and confessed almost exclusively to him. On one occasion she asked him, “Padre, do you really care for me? He replied: “How could I not care for you. You are the first born of my heart. Love Jesus. Love Our Lady, who thought of you before you were born!” 1,2,3



Abortion: “That’s Killing!”

Padre Pio’s horror of abortion is made clear in an incident told to one of his biographers, Rev. Bernard Ruffin, and recounted in the book Padre Pio: The True Story. 4 Ruffin had interviewed a gentleman named Albert Cardone, who stated that he had learned of Padre Pio from a woman who had gone to the saint for confession. After the woman had enumerated all the sins she could recall, Padre Pio asked her, “Try to remember the other sin.” She said that she could not think of anything more, and Padre Pio told her to visit the cross that is at the top of the mountain, and to recite fifteen Ave Maria’s and Our Fathers as a penance. She then returned to Padre Pio’s confessional a second time, and he asked her if she remembered all of her sins. She insisted that she remembered all of them, but the Padre replied, “No, you still don’t remember all.” He sent her once again to the cross on the mountain. The scenario was repeated a third time, and she still did not recall any other sins. Finally, in a loud voice, Padre Pio said, “Don’t you know he could have been a good priest, a bishop, even a cardinal?”

The poor woman began to cry, exclaiming that she did not know abortion was a sin. The saint countered with, “What do you mean, you didn’t know that this was a sin? That’s killing!” The woman said that no one had been told of the abortion except for her mother, and asked how he could say that the child would have been a priest or a cardinal. Padre Pio answered by repeating, “But it’s a sin, a great sin.” In other words, it did not matter what his position in life would have been.

The Padre Pio literature is replete with stories of infertile couples asking Padre’s intercession for the grace of childbirth. The following story is typical.

During confession, among other things, I manifested to him my great desire to become a father. I had been married for three years, but my wife had not succeeded in having a child. I had her visit the most famous specialists and all of them said that we had to resign ourselves to the situation. There was no other alternative but to ask for a miracle from Padre Pio, and I did so. He replied to me: ‘Do not worry about this, for within a year you will become a father.’ Although I realized that to believe in these words meant denying the medical evidence, my heart was filled with joy. As the Padre had predicted, in 1944 I became the father of a lovely little girl. 5

(It is important to note here that Padre Pio never attributed miraculous cures and occurrences to himself, but always to the grace of God and his Virgin Mother.)

Often he would even successfully predict whether the child would be a boy or a girl. One day an officer in the Carabinieri (State Police) and his expectant wife visited Padre Pio. He asked the saint what name they should give to the soon-to-be-born baby.

“Name him Pio.”

“And what if it is a girl?”

“I said, call him Pio!”

When the time arrived, the newborn boy was given the name of Pio.

Two years later, the same officer went to San Giovanni Rotondo to ask Padre Pio what they should name their second child, who was expected shortly.

“Call him Francesco.”

“But Padre, I grant that you were right last time, but what if it is a girl?”

“Man of little faith!”

A beautiful child was born, and given the name Francesco. 6



Padre Pio is currently known as the patron saint of civil defense volunteers, after a group of 160 of them petitioned the Italian Bishops’ conference. The Bishops forwarded the request to the Vatican, which gave its approval to the designation. 7 He is also “less officially” known as the patron Saint of stress relief and the “January blues,” after the Catholic Enquiry Office in London proclaimed him as such. They designated the most depressing day of the year, January 22, as Don’t Worry Be Happy day, in honor of Padre Pio’s famous advice: “Pray, hope, and don’t worry.” 8 (Quite interesting that the British found the 22nd, the day of Roe v. Wade in the USA, as their most dismal day too.)

Perhaps the latter patronage is a little tongue-in-cheek, but that of the civil defense volunteers is quite legitimate. It is significant to note that it only took 160 signatures for the Vatican to give its official approval to that designation. Incidentally, Padre Pio believed 8 children was an ideal family "
***********************************************************************
and:http://sainteliaschurch.blogspot.com/
TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2012

Vatican Approves Texts for ‘Blessing of a Child in the Womb’
March 26, 2012
SOURCE: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops



WASHINGTON—The Vatican has approved the publication of the "Rite for the Blessing of a Child in the Womb," which will be printed in English and Spanish in a combined booklet and should be available for parishes by Mothers' Day. The U.S. bishops who collaborated on the development of the blessing welcomed the announcement of the recognitio, or approval, by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in Rome.

"I'm impressed with the beauty of this blessing for human life in the womb," said Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). "I can think of no better day to announce this news than on the feast of the Annunciation, when we remember Mary's 'yes' to God and the incarnation of that child in her the womb that saved the world."

"We wanted to make this announcement as soon as possible so that parishes might begin to look at how this blessing might be woven into the fabric of parish life," said Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship. "Eventually the new blessing will be included in the Book of Blessings when that text is revised."

The blessing was prepared to support parents awaiting the birth of their child, to encourage parish prayers for and recognition of the precious gift of the child in the womb, and to foster respect for human life within society. It can be offered within the context of the Mass as well as outside of Mass.

And lastly who has thought about:

THE POSSIBLE BODILY ASSUMPTION of
ST. JOSEPH INTO HEAVEN
link:
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7hIHYj1QLjYADvhXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1NmZhbmFlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1NNRTEyOV8xOTk-/SIG=12lhlea2t/EXP=1346228871/**http%3a//princeofthechurch.yolasite.com/assumption-of-st-joseph.php







George Brenner
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:37 am

Tornpage wrote:

It's one thing to speculate on how sufficient grace could reach unbaptized infants, but that is insufficient when the principle at issue requires the fulfillment of a necessary condition - that sufficient grace for salvation is offered to every human being.
Mark,

I agree that it is one thing to speculate, using established theological principles, how sufficient grace could reach unbaptized infants, while it is quite another to establish whether God offers the grace of salvation to all men, and the conditions necessary for its fulfillment.

However, as we already know, the possible “how” of it, for example, by using an already established precedence such as showing how the faith of baptized infants is supplied vicariously by the Church, shows us a mechanism by which a necessary condition for salvation might be fulfilled in the case of unbaptized infants.

In other words, by demonstrating the plausible “how” of it, and by examining other theological principles which lend credible support, we are establishing not only that there are necessary conditions that are intrinsic to salvation (regeneration, faith and charity), but we are also affirming that “sufficient grace for salvation is offered to every human being”, for, as Gaudium et Spes declares, “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery" (GS, 22, §5).

Now, I have produced numerous proofs establishing “that sufficient grace for salvation is offered to every human being”, and I have also demonstrated how these proofs fulfill the conditions necessary for salvation.

You asked me to demonstrate “how God provides sufficient grace for salvation to infants who die without being provided the sufficient grace of the baptism”, and I have demonstrated not only the inconsistency of your question (it is a simple contradiction), I have also demonstrated that A) sufficient grace is provided by God for all men and B) how God [might] provide sufficient grace for salvation to infants who die without baptism.

In other words, proposition A is true regardless of whether B can be proven definitely, for the universal offer of sufficient grace is not the same as a universal efficacy. The very fact that some men spurn the offer of sufficient grace, and fall from grace, proves this.

Your argument seems to be that if sufficient grace is offered, then it must be partaken by all men to whom it is offered (and what is partaken must be efficacious), and if it is not partaken, it was never offered in the first place, thereby “proving” that our Lord did not die for, and does not will the salvation of, all men, but only the “elect”. But this is just circular reasoning, and an ever-restricting circle from which you cannot seem to escape.

This severe flaw in your thinking, as it appears to me, is driven by your reluctance to accept the fact that God does indeed will (desire) the salvation of all men, though not all men will be saved. Yours is a late corruption of Augustinian doctrine, and it is a lie that spawned the heresy of Calvin. Unfortunately, you have to twist even the clear words of our Lord and numerous other Scripture passages to justify this pernicious error.

You also said that if I “can't” see the penetrating logic that says “If a proposition requires that for A to be true B must be the case, and B is not the case, then the proposition isn't true - on its own terms”, then “we won't benefit from discussing this further.”

Well, I’ve answered your question in more than sufficient detail, and exposed the flaw in your “if not B, then not A” logic tree, but it appears that you have determined either that your flawed logic remains unassailable, or that you simply want no more part of this.

In any case, I’m disappointed that you have made no attempt to reply to my responses.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:30 am

MRyan wrote:However, as we already know, the possible “how” of it, for example, by using an already established precedence such as showing how the faith of baptized infants is supplied vicariously by the Church, shows us a mechanism by which a necessary condition for salvation might be fulfilled in the case of unbaptized infants.

Mike,

You're stretching things quite a bit. The 1983 Code of Canon Law states:

Can. 1183 §1. When it concerns funerals, catechumens must be counted among the Christian faithful.
§2. The local ordinary can permit children whom the parents intended to baptize but who died before baptism to be given ecclesiastical funerals.
§3. In the prudent judgment of the local ordinary, ecclesiastical funerals can be granted to baptized persons who are enrolled in a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community unless their intention is evidently to the contrary and provided that their own minister is not available.

So, if the parents, even if they were Catholic, did not have any intention of baptizing their newborn baby, it should, per canon law, be denied a Mass of Christian Burial. By this canon, it is not the "faith of the Church," but the "faith of parents" which would be necessary for there to be a funeral Mass for their dead baby.

Also remember what Master Peter Lombard stated in his Four Books of Sentences:

Nor is another's faith so valuable to an infant, as his own to an adult. For the faith of the Church does not suffice for infants without the sacrament, because, if they die without baptism, even when they are being brought to baptism, they will be damned, as is proved by many authorities of the saints; on this point let one suffice. Augustine : "Maintain firmly that infants who either begin to live in their mothers' wombs, and die there, or born of their mothers pass from this life without the sacrament of baptism, must be punished with eternal torture, because although they have no sins of their own doing, yet they have inherited original sin from their conception in carnal concupiscence." And as infants who die without baptism, are numbered with the infidels, so those who are baptized are called faithful and are not separated from the fellowship of the faithful, when the Church prays for the faithful dead. They are faithful, therefore, not on account of their own virtue, but on account of the sacrament of faith. Wherefore Augustine: "An infant, although he has not yet that faith which depends upon the will of the believers, nevertheless has faith through the sacrament of that faith, that is, baptism ; for as the response is made that he believes, so also he is called faithful, not because he assents to the truth by his own judgment, but because he receives the sacrament of that truth."

It was the Fourth Lateran Council that declared,

We, however, with the approval of this sacred and universal council, believe and confess with Peter Lombard that there exists a certain supreme reality, incomprehensible and ineffable, which truly is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, the three persons together and each one of them separately.

Once again, you can say that Master Lombard was just spouting some "theological opinion," but no one believed that. The Council of Florence was quite clear:

"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."

And, they affirmed, also (as you yourself have quoted):

By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. (Council of Florence at Basel, Session 22 -- 15 October 1435)
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:52 am

Tornpage wrote:A human sense of justice requires that, if God wills the salvation of all men, He must give all men the opportunity to be saved. Obviously, you, I and St. Alphonsus share that human sense. Unlike you and St. Alphonsus, I do not assume God does will the salvation of all men. I have to be persuaded.
Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery" (Gaudium et Spes, 22, §5).

In his Commentary On Romans 5:18, John Calvin writes:

"Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world. And is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all men, yet not all receive him" . (Calvin's "COMMENTARY ON ROMANS AND THESSALONIANS", 1973, p. 829, published by Eerdmans in Grand Rapids)

Imagine that, Gaudium et Spes and John Calvin appearing to teach the same doctrine.

There's more. Mark, since you are not persuaded by Scripture, tradition or the Church, can Calvin himself persuade you?

http://www.biblebelievers.net/calvinism/kjcalvn4.htm:

B. JOHN CALVIN HIMSELF MODIFIED HIS POSITION AND OPPOSED HIS OWN FORMER TEACHING OF "LIMITED ATONEMENT" IN FAVOR FINALLY OF AN "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT."

We have saved one of the most powerful witnesses until last, namely, JOHN CALVIN HIMSELF. Yes, John Calvin himself, as we will see, is his own most convincing witness AGAINST HIS OWN FORMER ERROR of "LIMITED ATONEMENT" and in FAVOR finally of "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT."

1. Some "LIMITED ATONEMENT" Fanatics Disagree That Calvin, In These Quotes Favored "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT."

I was very much surprised to receive a long, long letter from a very devoted "LIMITED ATONEMENT" man a few weeks ago, who told me that I had misinterpreted John Calvin in the quotations that I will be using here. He interpreted Calvin's words in a "LIMITED ATONEMENT" sense which he claims is the way ALL "LIMITED ATONEMENT" people understood them. Read his quotations very carefully, and see if there can be any doubt whatsoever, unless people are "WRITING OUT OF BOTH SIDE OF THEIR PEN"!!

2. Dr. John R. Rice Quoted August H. Strong On Calvin's MODIFICATION OF HIS VIEWS."

Though I to not concur in everything Rice writes on a number of subjects, yet, as I was reading his book, PREDESTINED FOR HELL? NO! [1958 and 1977] (pp. 11-12), I noted an interesting lead. Rice wrote: However, it is fair to say that CALVIN IS THOUGHT TO HAVE MODIFIED HIS VIEWS SOMEWHAT THROUGH THE YEARS. Dr. Augustus H. Strong, in his standard Systematic Theology Vol. II, Doctrine of Salvation, page 778, quotes CALVIN'S LATER COMMENTS to prove this, as follows:...(op.cit. p. 12). Part of Rice's quotation from Strong was a follows:

The progress in Calvin's thought may be seen by comparing some of his earlier with his later utterances. . . . IN LATER DAYS Calvin wrote in his Commentary on 1 John 2:2--"he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world"--as follows: "CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD. and in the goodness of God is OFFERED UNTO ALL MEN WITHOUT DISTINCTION, HIS BLOOD BEING SHED NOT FOR A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT FOR THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he HOLDS OUT THE PROPITIATION TO THE WHOLE WORLD, since without exception he SUMMONS ALL TO THE FAITH OF CHRIST, which is nothing else than the door unto hope." (Rice, op. cit., p.12). Let it be very plainly stated: Calvin himself here repudiates "LIMITED ATONEMENT" and affirms an "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT"!! And everyone of his "followers" should do likewise!! No amount of semantical gymnastics can twist the clear meaning of Calvin's words quoted above into anything else but that!!

3. John Calvin Witnesses For "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" In His Commentary On Mark 14:24.

Mark 14:24 states in English (KJV): And He said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY. (Mark l4:24). Here is the comment that John Calvin made on Mark 14:24, as translated and published in the Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Volume III, p. 139 [as published by Eerdmans in Grand Rapids, 1972]:

"The word 'many' DOES NOT MEAN A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE: he contrasts many with one as if to say that he would not be the Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver many of their cursed guilt. No doubt that in speaking to a few Christ wished to make His teaching available to a larger number...So when we come to the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind that THE WORLD IS REDEEMED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST but also each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered. (op. cit., p. 139).

In this passage, John Calvin clearly and unmistakably affirms his belief in the "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" of the Lord Jesus Christ who "SHED" His blood for "THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE" with the result that it can be said that "THE WORLD IS REDEEMED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." What could be clearer? John Calvin by no means took the "Fifth Amendment" on this verse! In fact, where many of his "LIMITED ATONEMENT" followers use the "many" to try to force a "LIMITED ATONEMENT" into that word, John Calvin broadened it out in an "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" sense as it should be broadened by way of contrast with a "few."

4. John Calvin Witnesses for "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" In His Commentary On Romans 5:18:

Romans 5:18 states in English (KJV): Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Romans 5:18) Calvin's comment on Romans 5:18, as translated and published in the COMMENTARY ON ROMANS AND THESSALONIANS, 1973, pp. 117-18 [as published by Eerdmans in Grand Rapids] was:

"Paul makes grace COMMON TO ALL MEN, not because it in fact EXTENDS TO ALL, but because IT IS OFFERED TO ALL. Although CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD. AND IS OFFERED BY THE GOODNESS OF GOD WITHOUT DISTINCTION TO ALL MEN, yet not all receive him" (op. cit., p. 829).

If indeed Christ "SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD," John Calvin was himself (at least at the time of his writing this Commentary on Romans) a confirmed believer, as is the BIBLE FOR TODAY, in an "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" of the Lord Jesus Christ! Any self-respecting friend of John Calvin presently holding the unscriptural and anti-Scriptural error of "LIMITED ATONEMENT," should immediately get rid of it--If only in deference to their friend! A BETTER reason, however, for getting rid of it, would be because it is unbiblical!

5. John Calvin Witnesses For "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" In His Last Will, And Farewells

Calvin's "LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, April 25, 1564" as printed in the History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8, pp. 828-29, by Philip Schaff [as published by Eerdmans in Grand Rapids, 1972], states:

"I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to was and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer HAS SHED FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat...."(op. cit., p 829).

Here is a clear testimony made by John Calvin who was about to die, in 1564, that He, at least at the end of his life, had come to believe most definitely that the Lord Jesus Christ "SHED" his precious "BLOOD" "FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE "

This is, in very essence, an "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" for which we have been speaking, writing, and arguing these many months [28 to be exact]. Again, let me urge every follower of John Calvin, because of the biblical truth of his position, to JOIN HIM in this sound belief in the "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT" that is, that the Lord Jesus Christ "HAS SHED" His blood "FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE"!! Notice that in these words, John Calvin, however, seemed to be in DOUBT of HIS SALVATION! Thus he sounded like he no longer was certain, for himself, at least in the "perseverance of the saints." This is a rather SAD statement, I believe, for Calvin himself to make on his death bed!

Will the real "reformed theology" on "limited atonement" please stand up?

This is what happens when there is no Magisterium (willed and established by Christ).
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:00 pm

MRyan wrote:
Tornpage wrote:A human sense of justice requires that, if God wills the salvation of all men, He must give all men the opportunity to be saved. Obviously, you, I and St. Alphonsus share that human sense. Unlike you and St. Alphonsus, I do not assume God does will the salvation of all men. I have to be persuaded.
Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery" (Gaudium et Spes, 22, §5).

This is no different than what the Council of Quiercy declared:

Chap. 1. Omnipotent God created man noble without sin with a free will, and he whom He wished to remain in the sanctity of justice, He placed in Paradise. Man using his free will badly sinned and fell, and became the “mass of perdition” of the entire human race. The just and good God, however, chose from this same mass of perdition according to His foreknowledge those whom through grace He predestined to life. [Rom. 8:29 ff; Eph. 1:11], and He predestined for these eternal life; the others, whom by the judgment of justice he left in the mass of perdition, however, He knew would perish, but He did not predestine that they would perish, because He is just; however, He predestined eternal punishment for them. And on account of this we speak of only one predestination of God, which pertains either to the gift of grace or to the retribution of justice.

Chap. 2. The freedom of will which we lost in the first man, we have received back through Christ our Lord; and we have free will for good, preceded and aided by grace, and we have free will for evil, abandoned by grace. Moreover, because freed by grace and by grace healed from corruption, we have free will.

Chap. 3. Omnipotent God wishes all men without exception to between saved [I Tim. 2:4] although not all will be saved. However, that certain ones are saved, is the gift of the one who saves; that certain ones perish, however, is the deserved punishment of those who perish.

Chap. 4. Christ Jesus our Lord, as no man who is or has been or ever will be whose nature will not have been assumed in Him, so there is, has been, or will be, no man, for whom He has not suffered; although not all will be saved by the mystery of His passion. But because all are not redeemed by the mystery of His passion, He does not regard the greatness and the fullness of the price, but He regards the part of the unfaithful ones and those not believing in faith those things which He has worked through loves [Gal. 5:6], because the drink of human safety, which has been prepared by our infirmity and by divine strength, has indeed in itself that it may be beneficial to all; but if it is not drunk, it does not heal.

Nowhere does Gaudium et Spes say that infant children can be saved without sacramental Baptism. And, as you yourself have acknowledged, those children who are in Limbo are partakers of the Paschal mystery:

Although unbaptized children are separated from God as regards the union of glory, they are not utterly separated from Him: in fact they are united to Him by their share of natural goods, and so will also be able to rejoice in Him by their natural knowledge and love. (Summa Theologica App. 1, q.1, a.2, ad 5)
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Wed Aug 29, 2012 1:45 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:However, as we already know, the possible “how” of it, for example, by using an already established precedence such as showing how the faith of baptized infants is supplied vicariously by the Church, shows us a mechanism by which a necessary condition for salvation might be fulfilled in the case of unbaptized infants.

Mike,

You're stretching things quite a bit. The 1983 Code of Canon Law states:

Can. 1183 §1. When it concerns funerals, catechumens must be counted among the Christian faithful.
§2. The local ordinary can permit children whom the parents intended to baptize but who died before baptism to be given ecclesiastical funerals.
§3. In the prudent judgment of the local ordinary, ecclesiastical funerals can be granted to baptized persons who are enrolled in a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community unless their intention is evidently to the contrary and provided that their own minister is not available.
So, if the parents, even if they were Catholic, did not have any intention of baptizing their newborn baby, it should, per canon law, be denied a Mass of Christian Burial. By this canon, it is not the "faith of the Church," but the "faith of parents" which would be necessary for there to be a funeral Mass for their dead baby.
Jehanne,

You cannot use ecclesiastical law that is designed to give local ordinaries some guidance when determining who should and should not be granted the privilege of Christian burial as some sort of doctrinal "proof" against the Church supplying for the faith of an unbaptized infant just because one of the conditions for Christian burial is the intention of the parents.

This ecclesiastical guidance does NOT mean that the Church cannot supply for the faith of the child in cases where Christan burial is denied because the parents had no intention to have the child baptized. You may argue that the chances of salvation might be lessened when this intention of the parents is lacking, just as you might argue that the chances are lessened for a non-Catechumen who has not heard the Gospel, but never has the Church determined that the faith of the parents is a prerequisite for the gratuitous transmission of sanctifying grace, or that the Church cannot supply for the necessary faith of the child.

She simply does not know, but feels more comfortable with granting Christian burial when she knows of the positive intentions of the parents (a greater "hope" of salvation). She does not grant a universal privilege for the simple reason that it might give scandal by suggesting that unbaptized infants have the assurance of salvation. Christian burial grants no such assurance, but it does reflect (in this instance) a greater hope for a “baptism of desire”.

Jehanne wrote:Also remember what Master Peter Lombard stated in his Four Books of Sentences:
And you complain to me about “quote mining” when the opinion of Master Lombard is no longer held? The fact that he believed that unbaptized infants are numbered with “damned infidels” where they are “punished with eternal torture” only demonstrates that his opinion is not only fallible, it is no longer the "common opinion" (and hasn't been since Aquinas).

Jehanne wrote:
It was the Fourth Lateran Council that declared,

We, however, with the approval of this sacred and universal council, believe and confess with Peter Lombard that there exists a certain supreme reality, incomprehensible and ineffable, which truly is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, the three persons together and each one of them separately.
And you want me to take you seriously when the citation above has absolutely NOTHING to do with Lombard’s opinion on the fate of unbaptized infants, and everything to do with the Church’s belief “that there exists a certain supreme reality, incomprehensible and ineffable, which truly is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, the three persons together and each one of them separately”?

Do you do this just to annoy me?

Jehanne wrote:Once again, you can say that Master Lombard was just spouting some "theological opinion," but no one believed that. The Council of Florence was quite clear:

"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."
And the Council of Florence nowhere declared that the Church can have no hope of salvation for unbaptized infants, but only that she knows of no means other than Baptism (the “only” known “remedy available to them”, as Pope Pius XII said, "In the present economy") that can remove the stain of original sin and assure their salvation.

The subject of this dogmatic passage is the urgency of Baptism in that 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”. Florence did not concern herself here with settling definitively whether the grace of baptism can be conferred by God extra-sacramentally, at least with respect to infants in general.

It may be true that she had no reason to settle the matter because the common opinion assumed their eternal loss, but that does not change the intent (subject) of this passage, or the fact that the Church has never definitely settled this matter.

Jehanne wrote:
And, they affirmed, also (as you yourself have quoted):

By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. (Council of Florence at Basel, Session 22 -- 15 October 1435)
This is just one more absolutely outrageous attempt at proving a point while “quote mining” from magisterial pronouncements having nothing to do with the point you are trying to “prove”. Neither the Church nor the theological schools hold as the “common opinion” Master Lombard’s teaching on the fate of unbaptized infants.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:02 pm

MRyan wrote:Jehanne,

You cannot use ecclesiastical law that is designed to give local ordinaries some guidance when determining who should and should not be granted the privilege of Christian burial as some sort of doctrinal "proof" against the Church supplying for the faith of an unbaptized infant just because one of the conditions for Christian burial is the intention of the parents.

Pope Pius XI did:

"Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth, let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: 'As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,' -- and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law -- 'The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.'" (Casti Connubii, 17)
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:05 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Tornpage wrote:A human sense of justice requires that, if God wills the salvation of all men, He must give all men the opportunity to be saved. Obviously, you, I and St. Alphonsus share that human sense. Unlike you and St. Alphonsus, I do not assume God does will the salvation of all men. I have to be persuaded.
Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery" (Gaudium et Spes, 22, §5).

This is no different than what the Council of Quiercy declared: [...]
Was that for my benefit, or for Tornpage? Was there a point besides the obvious fact that there is no conflict between Gaudium et Spes and Quiercy?

Jehanne wrote:
Nowhere does Gaudium et Spes say that infant children can be saved without sacramental Baptism.
Not quite; it suggests that children can be saved without water baptism by the simple fact that it declares that God offers even unbaptized infants the possibility of salvation, "in a way known to God", and the same Church teaches that they have the "hope" of salvation.

Nowhere does it say that unbaptized infants have the assurance of salvation. One of these days you will learn the difference.

Jehanne wrote:And, as you yourself have acknowledged, those children who are in Limbo are partakers of the Paschal mystery:

Although unbaptized children are separated from God as regards the union of glory, they are not utterly separated from Him: in fact they are united to Him by their share of natural goods, and so will also be able to rejoice in Him by their natural knowledge and love. (Summa Theologica App. 1, q.1, a.2, ad 5)
Yes, IF they are Limbo, I agree with St. Thomas.

However, the "divine destiny" to which all men are called (Gaudium et Spes), is not the "divine destiny" we call "Limbo", for the destiny that does not include the beatific vision is not the destiny to which all men are called, it is still a "punishment" that cannot include the beatific vision, no matter the degree of "natural happiness". There is no divine (supernatural) happiness in Limbo ... period.

But, nice try in elevating Limbo to a state of salvation.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:16 pm

MRyan wrote:But, nice try in elevating Limbo to a state of salvation.

The "Paschal mystery" would extend to Limbo. All unborn children are called to the "divine destiny," but nowhere does Gaudium et Spes state that they will attain it. Again, God "is not bound to disturb the general order, to provide for the particular order," which means that the Triune God is not the cause of miscarriages, accidents, abortions, etc., so in that respect, God has not predestined any child to die within the womb, and hence, to die without sacramental Baptism. That does not mean that He, as with the fallen angels not getting a "second chance", is bound to "sanctify in the womb" those children who were conceived in original sin. It is enough that God has offered to them the possibility of experiencing sacramental Baptism.
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:25 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Jehanne,

You cannot use ecclesiastical law that is designed to give local ordinaries some guidance when determining who should and should not be granted the privilege of Christian burial as some sort of doctrinal "proof" against the Church supplying for the faith of an unbaptized infant just because one of the conditions for Christian burial is the intention of the parents.

Pope Pius XI did:

"Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth, let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: 'As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,' -- and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law -- 'The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.'" (Casti Connubii, 17)
Jehanne, you are seriously confused.

Pope Pius IX is using Canon Law's affirmation of the primary end of marriage to reaffirm the Church's traditional teaching on the responsibility of parents towards the education of their children ("who should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously").

The same can be said of Canon Law's affirmation of the Church's teaching which says the Church already considers Catechumens as belonging to the Church, and that she has the right to determine if unbaptizd infants can receive a Christian burial. Both of these laws affirm the Church's rights over Catechumens and the infants of Christan parents.

What has that to do with the Church's teaching that "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery", and the "hope" of salvation?

Nothing.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:30 pm

MRyan wrote:What has that to do with the Church's teaching that "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery", and the "hope" of salvation?

Not all "hope" is "good hope":

Condemned Error: 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

In this respect, #1261 is simply being pastoral or "nice" to women who have had miscarriages, abortions, etc.
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:42 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:But, nice try in elevating Limbo to a state of salvation.

The "Paschal mystery" would extend to Limbo. All unborn children are called to the "divine destiny," but nowhere does Gaudium et Spes state that they will attain it.

Stop avoiding and confusing the issue. Infants (who are included in "all men") are not "called" to the "divine destiny" of Limbo, for Limbo is NOT the destiny to which all men are called, which is divine life in the beatific vision.

And nowhere did I say that GS said that they will attain the divine destiny to which all men are called - the divine life. However, you appear to be trying to include "limbo", the absence of supernatural life and the deprivation of the beatific vision, in the divine destiny to which all men are called.

Heresy. Our Lord does not call all men to a destiny of natural happiness; He calls them to a state of glorification. In Limbo, there is no justification - no divine life of grace.

You are not going to get away with this.
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:48 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:But, nice try in elevating Limbo to a state of salvation.

The "Paschal mystery" would extend to Limbo. All unborn children are called to the "divine destiny," but nowhere does Gaudium et Spes state that they will attain it.

Stop avoiding and confusing the issue. Infants (who are included in "all men") are not "called" to the "divine destiny" of Limbo, for Limbo is NOT the destiny to which all men are called, which is divine life in the beatific vision.

And nowhere did I say that GS said that they will attain the divine destiny to which all men are called - the divine life. However, you appear to be trying to include "limbo", the absence of supernatural life and the deprivation of the beatific vision, in the divine destiny to which all men are called.

Heresy. Our Lord does not call all men to a destiny of natural happiness; He calls them to a state of glorification. In Limbo, there is no justification - no divine life of grace.

You are not going to get away with this.

I agree that the "divine destiny" is Heaven, and yes, all unborn and born children are called to that, however, the "Paschal mystery" does extend to Limbo, as Saint Thomas taught, for Limbo is part of the Triune God's merciful plan.
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Wed Aug 29, 2012 3:13 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:What has that to do with the Church's teaching that "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery", and the "hope" of salvation?

Not all "hope" is "good hope"
There is no such thing as "bad hope", stop being silly.

Jehanne wrote:
Condemned Error: 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

In this respect, #1261 is simply being pastoral or "nice" to women who have had miscarriages, abortions, etc.
Nonsense, Pope Pius IX is obviously referring to the objective state of those who are "not at all" in the institutional Church of Christ, and obstinately refuse to enter her.

In fact, we've been over this before, but you refuse to listen to the Pope's own words. The negative dogmatic condemnation has no authority or meaning apart from the specific positive infallible teaching he references in "Quanto conficiamur", which makes very clear the error being condemned:

7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching...

8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4]
And in the same paragraph 7, Pope Pius IX tells us who is NOT being condemned:

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

So #1261 is NOT "simply being pastoral or "nice" to women who have had miscarriages, abortions, etc", while "really" teaching that the "hope" of salvation is blown way out or proportion since there is no real hope - and a pipe dream having no real basis in "reality".

Sure, Jehanne, that's what the Church teaches.

But really, feel free to tell all such woman that their children are eternally lost, and they can take your word for it.





MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Wed Aug 29, 2012 3:29 pm

Jehanne wrote:
I agree that the "divine destiny" is Heaven, and yes, all unborn and born children are called to that, however, the "Paschal mystery" does extend to Limbo, as Saint Thomas taught, for Limbo is part of the Triune God's merciful plan.
And that has NOTHING to do with Gaudium et Spes and its particular reference to the Pascal Mystery, by which it means participation in the divine life to which all men are called (glorification in Christ).

In other words, the fact "we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery" - does NOT mean by this that it includes "Limbo", as merciful as it might be.

Can it be said that unbaptized infants in limbo are called to participate in the Pascal Mystery by their (eventual) sharing in the resurrection of the body (without the divine life of grace)? Of course, but that is not the subject or intent of GS.



MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:48 am

'[The disciples asked Jesus:] "Who is of greatest importance in the kingdom of God?" He called a little child over and stood him in their midst and said: "I assure you, unless you change and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of God.... Take heed that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost… Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." (Matt. 18:1-2, 10-11, 14).'
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:00 am

You're "pounding on open doors," Mike. It is not the will of the Triune God that any unborn child should perish through miscarriage, accident, disease, neglect, abortion, etc., yet these things still happen. Every conceived baby has the possibility of salvation, in that child has the possibility of being born, and after that, the possibility of being sacramentally baptized. If God does not intervene to prevent a miscarriage, what makes you think that He intervenes to cleanse a child of original sin while still in the womb?

As you have already posted, the angels were not given any "second chances," so what makes you think that a child conceived in original sin would be given any graces beyond those conferred and contained in sacramental Baptism? And, as the theologians have always taught, the "faith of the Church" is not sufficient for the cleansing of original sin; perhaps, at most, the explicit faith, desire, and intention of the parents. Is any theologian of today postulating "universal salvation" for infants who die without sacramental Baptism? If so, such a view is one of complete novelty and cannot be found at all in the Tradition of the Church.
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:59 am

Wow . . . you guys have been busy; I have some reading to do.

Mike, Jehanne, George . . . thanks for your responses. It will take me some time to read them.

After my last reply to Mike on Sunday, this is my first stop back. I thought it was going the way all of these discussions usually go, and I thought it best to simply walk away.

I can’t say that wasn’t the right choice, but I promise I will read everything you guys posted.

I can see a lot of thought went into the responses and I believe some new ground was opened for consideration . . . I truly look forward to reading your discussion over the last few days.

tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:34 pm

Jehanne,

I asked you if you thought God desired to save unbaptized infants, and you responded:

Yes, but "He is not bound to disturb the general order, to provide for the particular order." Does God will that an infant be denied his/her very own existence through the use of artificial contraception? Certainly not! However, does He interfere with the "natural order" to bring conception and ensoulment about? Rarely, it would seem.

Fair enough. I should have been clearer.

St. Alphonsus indicated (accurately I think, because I see the necessary condition pointed out by him as indeed necessary if God has a true will to save all men) . . . shoot, let me just quote him:

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

The problem I have with this is . . . those graces and aids are not given to the unbaptized infants.

The classical response, St. Alphonsus’s response, is that God "is not bound to disturb the general order, to provide for the particular order.” In other words, it is said that He does extend the grace and aid to these infants indirectly because He has instituted the sacrament of baptism, which would save them were they to receive it and die before maturity.

Under this scenario, God has a will to save each of those individual infants but permits the grace and aid necessary for their salvation to not reach them because of various factors: a) the interposing human wills of third parties, e.g. parents who reject the faith and do not bring the infants to the font; b) circumstances of birth unrelated to human will - being born in pre-Christian North or South America, etc.

Those things would be the “general order.”

As to a), you could argue that God has determined, in the “general order,” that the importance of “free will” and letting it play should trump His desire to save those infants. I do not understand that, and find it unacceptable - to sacrifice the souls of some human beings because of the exercise of a malign or negligent will by others.

As to the impersonal and geographical and historical considerations of b) - that is even less acceptable to me.

This is why I have a problem with “God wills the salvation of all (meaning each individual) man.” It is not a question of Him giving more graces to some than others. The necessary aid and grace fails to reach some at all.

It seems to me that you have to simply blindly chant “God wills to save all men” in the face of facts that make that claim ridiculous, particularly where it is necessary for that will to be “true” that He provide the necessary grace and aid to all (each particular) man.

Jehanne, since your view is closest to mine on this issue (unbaptized infants who have not been chosen to receive the only remedy that can avail them (without any input from them) are unsaved, while other infants who have been chosen to receive it (without any input from them) are saved), I was wondering if you could address some of my concerns and issues - if I am finally making myself clear on this.

Mike, of course I look forward to any comments you have to make on this.

I say that understanding that either or both of you may have addressed these concerns over the last several days - again, I will read your posts.


tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:54 pm

Mike,

Proposition A: “Not all men are saved"
Proposition B: Therefore, “God does NOT will the salvation of all men”
Proposition C: “not exactly”

Proposition A: “I do not assume God does will the salvation of all men”
Proposition B: Therefore, I do not assume all men are saved
Proposition C: “not exactly”

Proposition A: “The Catholic Church (not I) says that God died for all men, and that He wills all to be saved”
Proposition B: I (not the Catholic Church) say that God did NOT die for all men, and that he does NOT will the salvation of all men
Proposition C: “not exactly”

I don’t understand your syllogism or propositions.

The issue has been properly framed by St. Alphonsus:

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

The propositions at issue are therefore these:

Prop A : If then God wills all to be saved, it follows that He gives to all that grace and those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation

Prop B: God does not give the grace and aid necessary for salvation to the unbaptized infants

Prop C : God does not will all men to be saved

Obviously, the issue is Prop B.

You are satisfied that God gives the grace and aid for salvation to all men because He
has instituted the sacrament of baptism for all men. I am not satisfied by that, since the grace and aid of that sacrament never reach a vast number of men, including some, the infants under discussion.

I do not see any possible justification for God allowing “the general order” to trump His will to save and the “particular order” regarding the infants who die without baptism. One justification would be, and it holds as to adults, the interests of individual responsibility and non-coerced choice. That is, God wills the salvation of all men but men reject that will by their actions, for which they are held responsible.

That justification evaporates as to these infants, who have no choice, free or otherwise.

It makes much more sense to say, God saves by His gratuitous choice and will. Therefore, some of these infants are saved and baptized, some are not. The actions of men are not determinative, so the fact that the infants do not act is irrelevant, and does not strain the theology and truth of it all.

There is no strained construction foisted on things to justify the fiction that man takes a central role in saving himself.

This is my understanding.

tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:28 pm

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

The problem I have with this is . . . those graces and aids are not given to the unbaptized infants.

And, who's fault is that? The Triune God's? If an unborn infant miscarries, is that God's fault? Did He will that? Cause it? How about an unborn baby who dies in an auto crash? Did God will that? Cause it? How about an expecting mother who dies in an earthquake? Tornado? Fire? Did God will that? Cause it? Why didn't He save her and her unborn baby?
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:56 pm

And, who's fault is that? The Triune God's? If an unborn infant miscarries, is that God's fault? Did He will that? Cause it? How about an unborn baby who dies in an auto crash? Did God will that? Cause it? How about an expecting mother who dies in an earthquake? Tornado? Fire? Did God will that? Cause it? Why didn't He save her and her unborn baby?

Of course it is not God’s fault. The definition of right, wrong, fault, is derived from His Being. It is impossible for God to be at fault, no matter what He does - again, He defines fault. The standard has no independent existence, no meaning apart from Him.

More germane to the issue would be the observation that it is not the infant’s fault, and they are not given the grace to do something that is “at fault."
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:54 pm

tornpage wrote:
And, who's fault is that? The Triune God's? If an unborn infant miscarries, is that God's fault? Did He will that? Cause it? How about an unborn baby who dies in an auto crash? Did God will that? Cause it? How about an expecting mother who dies in an earthquake? Tornado? Fire? Did God will that? Cause it? Why didn't He save her and her unborn baby?

Of course it is not God’s fault. The definition of right, wrong, fault, is derived from His Being. It is impossible for God to be at fault, no matter what He does - again, He defines fault. The standard has no independent existence, no meaning apart from Him.

More germane to the issue would be the observation that it is not the infant’s fault, and they are not given the grace to do something that is “at fault."

No one, of course, has a "right" to Heaven; such is a gift of God. And, God, neither willing nor being the cause of an infant's death (or, even, an infant's nonexistence), may not simply provide any additional graces beyond those which He has already provided through the Sacrament of Baptism. (He did not, after all, provide any additional graces for fallen angels after their sin.) I agree that God may "sanctify in the womb," but not necessarily that He will "sanctify in the womb." Mike, of course, will say that "hope" must always be a "good hope," but that's like saying that if I play the lottery and hope to win means that my odds of doing so are "good."
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:20 pm

[The disciples asked Jesus:] "Who is of greatest importance in the kingdom of God?" He called a little child over and stood him in their midst and said: "I assure you, unless you change and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of God.... Take heed that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost… Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." (Matt. 18:1-2, 10-11, 14).'

Jehanne wrote:You're "pounding on open doors," Mike.
That’s your favorite response, and it is absolutely meaningless. In fact, I let the words of our Lord speak for themselves without any commentary whatsoever, and your visceral reaction and protest against these same words speak volumes.

Truth is, I posted it primarily for the benefit of Tornpage to demonstrate the one and unconditional will of Christ. His own logic tells me that if our Lord wills the salvation of these little ones, they are preordained to election/salvation.

Perhaps Mark can comment.

Regarding your comments, OK, let’s go there. The "door" of salvation was “pounded open" by our Lord who solemnly declares that it is NOT His WILL “that one of these little ones should perish … For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost”. I am simply confirming, through the very words of our Lord, the consistent magisterial pronouncements of Guadium et Spes (22), Evangelium Vitae and the CCC #1261.

Now, what is another way of saying “it is not the will of your Father … that one of these little ones should perish”? It is this: “It is the will of your Father … that all of these little ones should be saved.”

Of course, Jehanne, you can parse His clear words all you want by suggesting that He was referring only to His antecedent will, and that in the particular circumstances of life, He will not lift a finger to save the little ones who die in the womb or before they can be Baptized; but the Church has scriptural, liturgical and theological reasons to believe that these same little ones are included in her magisterial proposal that says:

For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (GS, 22)
That sounds like a good reason why "we ought to believe" that our Lord offers the grace of salvation to the little ones, for it is His will that not one of these is lost.

Jehanne wrote:It is not the will of the Triune God that any unborn child should perish through miscarriage, accident, disease, neglect, abortion, etc., yet these things still happen.
You need to go back and read Aquinas. It does not follow that because our Lord allows (wills and preordains) death by whatever means that He must needs "allow" for the damnation of infants when it is His will that these little ones should be saved (and we have good hope it is).

Their natural or unnatural deaths do not necessarily reflect or necessitate a particular will that allows for their eternal loss, for His salvific will can be realized by ordinary or extra-ordinary means.

And who says these little ones “perish”, when our Lord said He came “to save that which was lost” and makes it clear that it is His divine will that not “one of these little ones should perish”?

Our Lord is not using “perish” in the natural sense as you do, but in the supernatural sense.

Please tell us why we should NOT take Him at His word when the Church allows us to have the good hope that He means what He says and may in fact intervene to save these little ones?

Tell us why, when there is no definitive answer, we should not follow the sure guidance of the Church and trust that the merit of Christ has greater power over original sin than the demerit of Adam?

Why are you so opposed to "hope" for the salvation of these little ones?

Jehanne wrote:Every conceived baby has the possibility of salvation, in that child has the possibility of being born, and after that, the possibility of being sacramentally baptized. If God does not intervene to prevent a miscarriage, what makes you think that He intervenes to cleanse a child of original sin while still in the womb?
A) Because He said that it is His will that not one of these little ones will perish, and B), because the Church tells us that we are allowed to hope that our Lord will intervene by a means unknown to the Church (in the present economy).

Jehanne wrote:As you have already posted, the angels were not given any "second chances," so what makes you think that a child conceived in original sin would be given any graces beyond those conferred and contained in sacramental Baptism?
How in the world can you compare the deliberate and utterly evil “non-servium” of the fallen angels (who enjoyed an abundance of supernatural life in God's presence) with the innocence of unbaptized infants whose only sin is one of natural inheritance (thanks to the fallen angels), by which they can do nothing to remit?

Must God intervene to save these little ones – no; does He – we have solid grounds for hope, and I have come to believe He does.

Jehanne wrote:And, as the theologians have always taught, the "faith of the Church" is not sufficient for the cleansing of original sin; perhaps, at most, the explicit faith, desire, and intention of the parents.

No, for the theologians have always taught that for infants the faith of the Church is sufficient for the cleansing of original sin in the sacrament of Baptism, but they did not know how this same faith could be supplied extra-sacramentally, and generally assumed that it is not. As we know, the Church no longer makes this assumption.

And you have it backwards, for "the explicit faith, desire, and intention of the parents” is meaningless unless it represents “the explicit faith, and desire” of the Church, whose faith is the faith supplied in the sacrament and, if possible, extra-sacramentally.

The parents and guardians are witnesses to the Faith of the Church. Theologians have also speculated that the faith and desire of the parents may also serve as effective witnesses to the faith and desire of the Church in a vicarious “baptism of desire” if their child dies before Baptism.

Either way, no one is saved outside of the communion of faith - the faith of the "sacrament of the Church".

Jehanne wrote:Is any theologian of today postulating "universal salvation" for infants who die without sacramental Baptism? If so,
You need to get out more, for almost all theologians are “postulating ‘universal salvation’ for infants who die without sacramental Baptism”, precisely as GS and the CCC teach this doctrine of "hope".

In fact, the theologians featured in the "Mercy Reigns" thread made an argument for going beyond "hope" to the certainty of salvation for aborted infants. The magisterial jury is still out, but they made a very compelling argument, IMHO.

Besides, your question is equivalent to someone from the middle ages asking “if there are any theologians of today postulating the natural happiness of Limbo", and saying “If so, such a view is one of complete novelty and cannot be found at all in the Tradition of the Church.”

See, that Pelagian sounding “non-suffering place of happiness” would have been a "novelty" to St. Augustine and Master Lombard, and almost every theologian in between.

Quit pounding shut the door of salvation!
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:17 pm

Wow, Mike, I'm shocked. Did not Trent declare:

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

Can you find me a single Church Father to support your Protestant private interpretation of Sacred Scripture? Even the ITC is honest enough to admit:

The idea of Limbo, which the Church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without Baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation, even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching. Moreover, the notion that infants who die without Baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the Church, gives rise to numerous pastoral problems, so much so that many pastors of souls have asked for a deeper reflection on the ways of salvation. The necessary reconsideration of the theological issues cannot ignore the tragic consequences of original sin. Original sin implies a state of separation from Christ, and that excludes the possibility of the vision of God for those who die in that state.

This ("original sin") is what "shuts the door of salvation," and not anything that I am saying. But, there's more:
19. The Council of Carthage of 418 rejected the teaching of Pelagius. It condemned the opinion that infants “do not contract from Adam any trace of original sin, which must be expiated by the bath of regeneration that leads to eternal life”. Positively, this council taught that “even children who of themselves cannot have yet committed any sin are truly baptised for the remission of sins, so that by regeneration they may be cleansed from what they contracted through generation”. It was also added that there is no “intermediate or other happy dwelling place for children who have left this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, that is, eternal life”. This council did not, however, explicitly endorse all aspects of Augustine's stern view about the destiny of infants who die without Baptism.

The ITC neglected to mention that Carthage spoke infallibly. And, according to them, it was Saint Gregory of Nazianzus who laid the foundations for Limbo:

13. Gregory of Nazianzus does not write about the place and status after death of infants who die without sacramental Baptism, but he enlarges the subject with another consideration. He writes, namely, that these children receive neither praise nor punishment from the Just Judge, because they have suffered injury rather than provoked it. “The one who does not deserve punishment is not thereby worthy of praise, and the one who does not deserve praise is not thereby deserving of punishment”. The profound teaching of the Greek Fathers can be summarized in the opinion of Anastasius of Sinai: “It would not be fitting to probe God’s judgments with one's hands”.

14. On the one hand, these Greek Fathers teach that children who die without Baptism do not suffer eternal damnation, though they do not attain the same state as those who have been baptised. On the other hand, they do not explain what their state is like or where they go. In this matter, the Greek Fathers display their characteristic apophatic sensitivity.

Even Saint Jerome, whose agnosticism you love to quote, came around:
20. So great was Augustine's authority in the West, however, that the Latin Fathers (e.g., Jerome, Fulgentius, Avitus of Vienne, and Gregory the Great) did adopt his opinion. Gregory the Great asserts that God condemns even those with only original sin on their souls; even infants who have never sinned by their own will must go to “everlasting torments”. He cites Job 14:4-5 (LXX), John 3:5, and Ephesians 2:3 on our condition at birth as “children of wrath”.

As for the modern Catholic (sic) theologians whom you like to read, most of them support gay sex, and they will use the "development of Limbo" as an excuse to "develop" other teachings.
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:25 pm

tornpage wrote:Wow . . . you guys have been busy; I have some reading to do.

Mike, Jehanne, George . . . thanks for your responses. It will take me some time to read them.

After my last reply to Mike on Sunday, this is my first stop back. I thought it was going the way all of these discussions usually go, and I thought it best to simply walk away.

I can’t say that wasn’t the right choice, but I promise I will read everything you guys posted.

I can see a lot of thought went into the responses and I believe some new ground was opened for consideration . . . I truly look forward to reading your discussion over the last few days.

Mark,

I'm glad to see you've reconsidered your impulse to walk away. I've tried to answer your questions and open up some new ground - not sure if we can get there from here; but let's give it a shot.

Give me some time to digest your responses, and I'll give you some time to read the mine. I'm actually looking forward to a robust discussion.

Mike
MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:16 pm

Mike,

Yes, perhaps we can advance the discussion with some more deliberation and patience. We shall give it a shot.

Mark
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:42 am

Jehanne wrote:Wow, Mike, I'm shocked. Did not Trent declare:

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.
Can you find me a single Church Father to support your Protestant private interpretation of Sacred Scripture?
Once again you simply regress into total incoherence by throwing magisterial texts against the wall as if they support your false assertions that A) There is a unanimous and constant tradition for Limbo when in fact it is a medeival theological development that theologians are free to reject, just as the Augustinians rejected it and the theologians of the first 800 years of the Church did not teach it; and B) that Limbo is contained in "Scripture" -- when Scripture (revelation) is silent.

There is nothing "Protestant" about the rejection of Limbo by the Augustinians, with such rejection being defended by more than one Roman Pontiff; there is nothing "Protestant" about the fact that the doctrine of Limbo is a medieval development and there is nothing "Protestant" about the fact that Limbo was not taught by the Eastern Fathers and theologians, and there is nothing "Protestant" about the Church's doctrine of "hope" for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

But there is something "Protestant" about your protest against the Church, your distortion of the facts, your appalling non sequiturs and your private "interpretation" of Scripture and dogmatic and non-dogmatic texts.

Jehanne wrote:
Even the ITC is honest enough to admit:

The idea of Limbo, which the Church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without Baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation [e.g., Scripture], even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching. Moreover, the notion that infants who die without Baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the Church, gives rise to numerous pastoral problems, so much so that many pastors of souls have asked for a deeper reflection on the ways of salvation. The necessary reconsideration of the theological issues cannot ignore the tragic consequences of original sin. Original sin implies a state of separation from Christ, and that excludes the possibility of the vision of God for those who die in that state.
Yes, and even the Church is "honest" enough to admit all of the above, while also being honest and courageous enough to exercise her magisterial authority in the development of the doctrine of "hope", which does NOT exclude the possibility that those infants who die in a state of original sin will be lost (de fide).

That "the notion that infants who die without Baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the Church" does not change the fact that the question has never been definitively settled, thus leaving theologians and the Church free to develop the doctrine and "open" the door to hope.

And she does not need your permission to do so.

Jehanne wrote:
This ("original sin") is what "shuts the door of salvation," and not anything that I am saying.
Really? Do you think I actually "deny" that? And does the merit of Christ open the door and the possibility of salvation for all men, especially those for whom His merits are applied?

And isn't our Lord free to apply the merit of His Redemption, as the Church teaches, to whomever He so chooses (but never apart from His Church), even by a means unknown to the Church in the present economy, without your kind permission?

Jehanne wrote:But, there's more:
19. The Council of Carthage of 418 rejected the teaching of Pelagius. It condemned the opinion that infants “do not contract from Adam any trace of original sin, which must be expiated by the bath of regeneration that leads to eternal life”.
No kidding?

Jehanne wrote:
Positively, this council taught that “even children who of themselves cannot have yet committed any sin are truly baptised for the remission of sins, so that by regeneration they may be cleansed from what they contracted through generation”. It was also added that there is no “intermediate or other happy dwelling place for children who have left this life without Baptism without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, that is, eternal life”. This council did not, however, explicitly endorse all aspects of Augustine's stern view about the destiny of infants who die without Baptism.
You mean Carthage condemned Limbo? You mean Augustine's massa damnata doctrine did not teach Limbo?

Jehanne wrote:The ITC neglected to mention that Carthage spoke infallibly.
Here we go again. The ITC did not neglect to mention:

This theory [of limbo], elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.
Tell us, what did Carthage "infallibly" declare, that "there is no intermediate or other happy dwelling place for children who have left this life without Baptism"? Isn't Limbo a happy dwelling place for children who have left this life without Baptism?

Or, are you suggesting that we can dismiss of freely apply a contextual interpretation to the primary object of the condemnation (as I have done), you know, this "other happy dwelling place" of the Pelagians where infants who do not have original sin reside, and focus instead on the "infallible" ancillary part of the declaration that simply confirms the common opinion that "for children who have left this life without Baptism" ("without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven") "there is no intermediate or other happy dwelling place" where they find rest?

Did Carthage intend to definitively settle the question of whether those who die without water Baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, when not only was this not the primary purpose or subject of the declaration, but the Pelagians denied the existence of original sin in infants, and denied thus the need to have this non-existent sin remitted (condemned: "children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall”)?

Are you "picking and choosing" what is "infallible" (defined or settled definitively) and what isn't? Sound very "Protestant".

The FACT of the matter is this canon was never dogmatically received into the Church as a binding declaration that settles the matter of Limbo, let alone whether there exists the possibility of an extra-sacramental means of salvation for unbaptized infants known to God alone. See, the ITC was "honest" enough to admit this as well.

Jehanne wrote:
And, according to them, it was Saint Gregory of Nazianzus who laid the foundations for Limbo:[...]
You can speculate all you want that St. Gregory of Nazianzus "laid the foundations for Limbo", but:

The scholastic theory of limbo requires an understanding of nature and grace that has never been part of Eastern theology; moreover, Gregory shared in the then common Origenist optimism of a universal reconciliation with God (apocatastasis). It is therefore likely that he anticipated, with his friend Gregory Nyssen, the post-mortem growth of unbaptized infants into supernatural joy. (http://pontifications.wordpress.com/limbo/)
The theosis of Eastern theology does not seem conducive to an "other happy dwelling place", and simply leaves the question unresolved, as in “It would not be fitting to probe God’s judgments with one's hands”.

Jehanne wrote:Even Saint Jerome, whose agnosticism you love to quote, came around:
I love to quote his "agnosticism", what in the blue blazes are you talking about?

20. So great was Augustine's authority in the West, however, that the Latin Fathers (e.g., Jerome, Fulgentius, Avitus of Vienne, and Gregory the Great) did adopt his opinion.
Yes, the Latin Fathers adopted his opinion on the positive punishment and torment of hell for unbaptized infants. Is this another one of your "foundations for Limbo"?

Gregory the Great asserts that God condemns even those with only original sin on their souls; even infants who have never sinned by their own will must go to “everlasting torments”. He cites Job 14:4-5 (LXX), John 3:5, and Ephesians 2:3 on our condition at birth as “children of wrath”.
And your point is? Since the Church has magisterially and consistently rejected any notion that says infants who die in original sin alone suffer the “everlasting torments” (though not definitively, although Pope Pius IX's pronouncement is "magisterial" enough), what are you suggesting?

Jehanne wrote:
As for the modern Catholic (sic) theologians whom you like to read, most of them support gay sex, and they will use the "development of Limbo" as an excuse to "develop" other teachings.
This is absolutely pathetic, and a complete lie. Go back and read my "Mercy Reigns" thread, or any other theologian I have ever cited, and show me even one who "supports gay sex".

Your ad hominems and twisted logical fallacies are disgusting, but typical of your nasty regressions when you can't respond with anything resembling a cogent argument.



MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Jehanne Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:11 pm

MRyan wrote:Once again you simply regress into total incoherence by throwing magisterial texts against the wall as if they support your false assertions that A) There is a unanimous and constant tradition for Limbo when in fact it is a medeival theological development that theologians are free to reject, just as the Augustinians rejected it and the theologians of the first 800 years of the Church did not teach it; and B) that Limbo is contained in "Scripture" -- when Scripture (revelation) is silent.

No Pope, Doctor, Saint, or theologian placed all unbaptized infants in Heaven. As for Limbo, you're "putting the cart before the horse":

Catechism of the Summa Theologica by Thomas Pegues, O.P. 1922

XLVIIL OF THE PLACE OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT JUDGED, VIZ., OF THE LIMBO OF INFANTS

(A) Are there any human beings who at the moment of death are not judged?

Yes. All children who die before attaining the age of reason, or those who though adults never had the use of reason (LXIX. 6).

Is there any allotment at all as regards infants and those who have not had the use of reason?

Yes, but this is not by reason of their merits or demerits; and it is not made by way of judgment. It comes about by the fact that some have received baptism and others have not. Those that have received baptism immediately go to heaven; whereas those who have not received this sacrament go to a place reserved for them which is called Limbo.

OF THE LIMBO OF INFANT

(B) Is Limbo distinct from purgatory and hell?

Yes, because these two latter are places where punishment is inflicted for personal sins (LXIX. 6).

Do infants who have died without baptism suffer the pain of loss in Limbo?

Yes, to a certain degree, for they know they are deprived of the vision of God; but this has not the character of torture such as those in hell suffer (Appendix, 1.2).

Whence arises this difference as regards the pain of loss?

It comes from this, that although they know they are deprived of the vision of God, they also know that this is not by reason of any personal sin but by reason of their being born of Adam, who sinned (ibid.).

For them, then, there is no horrible worm that gnaws their souls such as torments the damned in hell?

No. But they live in a state without any kind of suffering or sadness, except that they are conscious of that supreme happiness which would have been theirs had the merits of the redemption been applied to them and which they will never have, not by any fault on their part but because the inscrutable counsels of God have arranged it so (ibid.).

(c) Do the souls of these infants know the mysteries of the redemption?

Most certainly.

Have they the light of faith?

No, they have not faith in the sense of that interior supernatural light perfecting the mind whereby in a certain intimate manner it penetrates revealed mysteries and generates in the soul a strong desire towards them; they know these mysteries very much in the same way as those who cannot help but assent to the truth of the divine mysteries revealed by God, but who are not drawn by an impulse of grace to cling supernaturally to these mysteries, and as a consequence they do not penetrate the intimate meaning of them.

Besides this Limbo of the souls of children who die before baptism, is not mention made of another Limbo in the language of the Church?

Yes, it is that Limbo where formerly the just were detained, that is, those in whom there was no personal hindrance as regards entrance into heaven, but who had to await the coming of the Redeemer (LXIX. 7).

Is there anyone now in this Limbo of the just?

Since the day when Jesus Christ at the moment of His death descended there and left it on the day of His Resurrection, bringing with Him all the souls of the just, this place ceased to be occupied by those for whom it was primarily destined; but it may be that since then it is the place where children go who die without baptism, so in this case it would be the same as the Limbo of infants.

Now, in the past, you've told me that the above catechism was engaging in "pure speculation," and even the ITC admits that such a claim is just plain false. For what the above catechism was teaching was also being taught throughout the Catholic Church for centuries on end.

But, you'll say that there is a difference between what Saint Thomas taught and what Saint Augustine taught! Therefore, since 2+2 = 4 by Saint Augustine's reasoning and 2+2 = 5 by Saint Aquinas' reasoning, therefore, 2+2 = 10,000 must be true! So, fine, perhaps Saint Thomas and some of his successors got some things wrong?!

But, did they??? All that Saint Augustine said is that infants who die without the sacramental of Baptism "suffer the mildest of punishments," an opinion which he changed his mind on during the course of his life. Now, does the "mildest of punishments" necessarily mean "punishment of fire"? In other words, is it possible for an infant to die without sacramental Baptism and in original sin alone and go to the highest level of Hell (which is referred to as "Limbo") and only experience "the mildest of punishments" which does not involve fire? So, if the above catechism is correct, then there seems to be little practical difference between the teachings of Saint Augustine and that of Saint Thomas Aquinas!

But, to you, what the Catholic Church taught for centuries on end just consisted of "speculations".

I asked this question of you before and you did not answer it, so please answer it for me now. I ask it in complete sincerity:

In the "Mercy Reigns" theology, how does one die in original sin alone??? Is such even possible??? If so, how does that happen?
Jehanne
Jehanne

Posts : 933
Reputation : 1036
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 56
Location : Iowa

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:34 pm

On the issue of unbaptized infants in heaven . . .

The Church in her wisdom sometimes allows two contradictory positions to be held by her children. Because of a particular interest of mine, I can refer to the example of Molinism and Thomism on the issues of grace, predestination, etc. I don’t have the quote handy, but Father Garrigou- Lagrange has said, quite clearly, that one of these views must be wrong, and the other right - they cannot both be right. Being as the disagreement touches on essential things like grace and predestination (as I mentioned), we are not dealing with minor issues. Yet the Church permits both opinions.

I believe the Church will never close the door on this issue, and answer it definitively.

Thus, some, like Jehanne and I, may believe that original sin bars infants who die without baptism from heaven. We both believe (Jehanne can tell me if I’m wrong) that, if the Church were to settle this against us, the Church would be inconsistent with her prior teachings and magisterial statements. For example, I feel very strongly that Pope Eugene IV was not teaching - and that the Church does not teach - a “null set” here:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds."

The dispute over that text between Mike and I led me away from this site, and worse.

Anyway, I say that Pope Eugene IV is not defining a “null set,” and that he infallibly decreed by a necessary inference that the only ones (and they exist) who depart this life in original sin alone are unbaptized infants and mentally deficient adults, and that they are in hell. I acknowledge however (now) that that is my opinion, as solid as it is. Very Happy

I embrace Thomism, and I embrace the Augustinian understanding of original sin and what it means for infants who die without the sacrament of baptism. Some Catholics disagree with me, and I think they are wrong. But the issue is not essential. How do I know? Because the Church has not held that one’s understanding on these issues is essential to one’s salvation.

If the Church were to definitively settle the matter for Molinism or hold that infants who die without the sacrament of baptism are in heaven, I would see a contradiction between it, prior magisterial statements, and truth, and I would have a problem to deal with. One of those opinions comes from Pope Eugene’s statement above; I believe it is indisputable. I believe it. But I will resolve this by allowing that the Church’s merely allowing “hope” does not signal a contradiction that creates a problem that I must confront.

If the Catholic Church is truly the Bride of Christ, and if I am right on these issues, I trust that the Church will never hold out for Molinism, or declare that infants who die without the sacrament of baptism are in heaven - which would, to me, eradicate the bar of original sin - for reasons we went into in great, great detail here before.

Because I am coming again to trust in the Church, I trust that I will never have to confront that issue.

George had a wonderful post in this thread that relates to some of these doctrinal questions - and I applaud him for it. We can disagree about this issue and many others freely, even though one side may, and as a matter of logical and doctrinal consistency sometimes must (in one’s view), be wrong. As Mike points out, we do not make that call, the Church does.

This issue is not one that I - we - should get worked up over, and I hope to leave that behind.

Let’s see how long that lasts. Very Happy

tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:57 pm

MRyan wrote:[The disciples asked Jesus:] "Who is of greatest importance in the kingdom of God?" He called a little child over and stood him in their midst and said: "I assure you, unless you change and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of God.... Take heed that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost… Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." (Matt. 18:1-2, 10-11, 14).'
And:
Truth is, I posted this primarily for the benefit of Tornpage to demonstrate the one and unconditional will of Christ. His own logic tells me that if our Lord wills the salvation of these little ones, they are preordained to election/salvation.

Perhaps Mark can comment.
Mark, I would appreciate your take on the above. Please explain why this is not a clearly stated example of God's sovereign will.

You wrote:

The propositions at issue are therefore these:

Prop A: If then God wills all to be saved, it follows that He gives to all that grace and those aids which are necessary for the attainment of salvation
Even Calvin admits that "Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world. and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed not for a part of the world only, but for the whole human race; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he holds out the propitiation to the whole world, since without exception he summons all to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door unto hope."

But it does not follow from this that because the grace of salvation is “offered” to “all men without distinction”, that all men will be saved (meaning the grace "given" or offered is always transmitted through an ordinary or extra-ordinary means), for “not all receive him" and not all will benefit from the merit of His blood (even without fault).

Prop B: God does not give the grace and aid necessary for salvation to the unbaptized infants
You have no way of knowing this, thus, Prop C fails.

Prop C: God does not will all men to be saved
Fail. See Prop B.

Obviously, the issue is Prop B.
Agreed, and if you cannot demonstrate that we know with definitive certitude that “God does not give the grace and aid necessary for salvation to the unbaptized infants”, especially when our Lord solemnly declared that it is NOT His will that one of these little ones should perish, the burden is on you to “prove” that “God does not give the grace and aid necessary for salvation to the unbaptized infants”.

You cannot possibly know or prove this, and you cannot argue that God will NOT use extra-ordinary means to transmit the merit of His blood to unbaptized infants, as Scripture suggests.

Tornpage wrote:
You are satisfied that God gives the grace and aid for salvation to all men because He has instituted the sacrament of baptism for all men. I am not satisfied by that, since the grace and aid of that sacrament never reach a vast number of men, including some, the infants under discussion. I do not see any possible justification for God allowing “the general order” to trump His will to save and the “particular order” regarding the infants who die without baptism. One justification would be, and it holds as to adults, the interests of individual responsibility and non-coerced choice. That is, God wills the salvation of all men but men reject that will by their actions, for which they are held responsible.

That justification evaporates as to these infants, who have no choice, free or otherwise.
Are you confusing the "aid" (the sacrament and instrument of Baptism) with the "grace" of Baptism, as if the “aid” (the sacrament) of Baptism defines the limits of the application of the “grace” it contains?

Again, you have absolutely no way of knowing that “the grace … of that sacrament never reach[es] a vast number of … the infants under discussion”.

Tornpage wrote:
It makes much more sense to say, God saves by His gratuitous choice and will. Therefore, some of these infants are saved and baptized, some are not. The actions of men are not determinative, so the fact that the infants do not act is irrelevant, and does not strain the theology and truth of it all.
I have absolutely no problem with this; but only with your unsubstantiated presumption that says there are infants for whom the grace of regeneration is/will be denied, by God's sovereign will. You can speculate that God does not save all unbaptized infants, but you cannot say with any certitude that He does not.

And, if the actions of men are not determinative of God will and grace, how can you suggest that a known absence of the "aid” of the Sacrament IS determinative (as in “proof”) of God’s “gratuitous choice and will" NOT to save a particular infant?

Furthermore, I agree that recognizing the fact that infants cannot “act” is irrelevant, for if it is His will to regenerate and save unbaptizd infants, He will do so, and will do so only through His Church, and only through the faith and desire of His Church which supplies the virtue of faith for the infant.

And in that sense the action of the Church (in her active will, faith and desire) IS determinative, for Christ will not act except though her. And in that same sense, the acts of men, in as much as they represent the faith and desire of the community of believers (the Faithful and the Saints), is also determinative, for again, our Lord will not act upon an individual soul apart from this same communion of believers.

Tornpage wrote:
There is no strained construction foisted on things to justify the fiction that man takes a central role in saving himself.

This is my understanding.
Sorry, Mark, but this appears to be a “strained construction” of your own making, for nowhere have I (or has the Church) suggested that an infant “takes a central role in saving himself”. And there is no Catholic syllogism you can construct that suggests any such thing, but only one or more flawed premises, leading to a false conclusion.


MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:58 pm

Jehanne,

I'm giving you a "time out".

MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  MRyan Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:05 pm

tornpage wrote:On the issue of unbaptized infants in heaven . . .

The Church in her wisdom sometimes allows two contradictory positions to be held by her children. Because of a particular interest of mine, I can refer to the example of Molinism and Thomism on the issues of grace, predestination, etc. I don’t have the quote handy, but Father Garrigou- Lagrange has said, quite clearly, that one of these views must be wrong, and the other right - they cannot both be right. Being as the disagreement touches on essential things like grace and predestination (as I mentioned), we are not dealing with minor issues. Yet the Church permits both opinions.
Mark, real quick; it does not matter if one system of grace is “wrong”, making the other right. What matters is whether either system can be considered to be contrary to the faith.

The answer is a resounding no, as the Church herself attests. One can hold either opinion without endangering one's faith.

And you're right, I doubt that the Church will ever settle either debate, and it really doesn't matter.

MRyan
MRyan

Posts : 2314
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:22 pm

Mike,

Thanks for posting this and focusing the questions - there’s a ton of things in what was posted that could be responded to.

Mark, I would appreciate your take on the above. Please explain why this is not a clearly stated example of God's sovereign will.

The text does not talk about God’s willing their salvation, but not desiring their damnation. You might think that distinction is quibbling, but it is consistent with the distinction also between a “negative reprobation” (God may not will perishing of anyone but He clearly does does not extend salvation to some and has made that decision and decreed it prior to any action on the part of those not saved) and a positive call and election to glory.

But it does not follow from this that because the grace of salvation is “offered” to “all men without distinction”, that all men will be saved (meaning the grace "given" or offered is always transmitted through an ordinary or extra-ordinary means), for “not all receive him" and not all will benefit from the merit of His blood (even without fault).

Seems to me that you’re basing the “follow from this” on a statement by Calvin. Is that so? I don’t particularly care what Calving thinks. So moving on . . .

Agreed, and if you cannot demonstrate that we know with definitive certitude that “God does not give the grace and aid necessary for salvation to the unbaptized infants”, especially when our Lord solemnly declared that it is NOT His will that one of these little ones should perish, the burden is on you to “prove” that “God does not give the grace and aid necessary for salvation to the unbaptized infants”.

You cannot possibly know or prove this, and you cannot argue that God will NOT use extra-ordinary means to transmit the merit of His blood to unbaptized infants, as Scripture suggests.

A claim has been made, and I am disputing it. There is no burden on me, but on those making the claim. It is said that God offers sufficient grace for salvation to all men. I ask for proof. Some men do not come to maturity and receive the grace (to make choices, to act, etc.) that all men who come to maturity do. Of the ones not receiving that grace, some receive other grace (through the sacrament of baptism) and some do not apparently receive any grace.

In order for the proposition for your claim to stand - “god gives sufficient grace to all men” - you must prove or establish that these infants do receive sufficient grace. You have not, and failed in your claim and your burden.

I will pick the rest up later and see if there is anything that must further be responded to.
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:03 pm

Mike,


Tornpage wrote:
There is no strained construction foisted on things to justify the fiction that man takes a central role in saving himself.

This is my understanding.

Sorry, Mark, but this appears to be a “strained construction” of your own making, for nowhere have I (or has the Church) suggested that an infant “takes a central role in saving himself”. And there is no Catholic syllogism you can construct that suggests any such thing, but only one or more flawed premises, leading to a false conclusion.

Precisely. You haven’t because they don’t.

This discussion is good because it is clarifying some things for me. One must not take the statements of fellow Catholics, even the vast majority of fellow Catholics, and judge the Church’s authority or position on that basis.

One could say, antecedently, that God wills the salvation of all men. I have discussed this elsewhere, and I will quote myself from elsewhere rather than reinvent the wheel:

My understanding of St. Thomas (who goes into the Timothy passage and discusses the two wills in the Summa Theologica, Aa.q23.a3) is that God has a general willingness to save all men in the abstract, not considered in their particular circumstances, which would includes their inheritance of the stain of the original sin of the fall as children of Adam. So I do not see God’s antecedent will to save all men – a general concept which is true and exists in God’s nature/intellect/will as a general a priori concept divorced from the particulars of actual men – as applying to all (this is key) of the individual men who have come after Adam’s fall. So in asking you that question, I am first seeking some qualification and attempting to understand how you the Church interprets or explains the antecedent will – as a will to save all men and women, each particular one, who is born with the stain of original sin?

I can agree that God antecedently wills the salvation of man. However, consequently and under the circumstances as they actually exist, He does not will the salvation of the vast majority of men and women who are born with the stain of Adam and part of the damnable mass of mankind. They are the reprobate. Efficacious grace is necessary for salvation, and they don’t get it.

It is said that the only ones not getting efficacious grace are those who resist sufficient grace and that those who respond favorably to sufficient grace get efficacious grace. And here we are getting to the core of my problem. These infants do not resist sufficient grace - they get none. Therefore the denial to them of the efficacious grace necessary for salvation shows that the provision of that grace to some men is a gratuitous act of God, since some men, the baptized infants, did not respond positively to efficacious grace, and some who did not get it did not reject sufficient grace.

I hope this is clarifying where I am coming from.

Mark

tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:20 pm

I tried to edit that and took too long.

I’m more and more convinced that this is probably not worth the effort.
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  George Brenner Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:09 pm


Many answers are to be found in the bible verses quoted below. Is Salvation without good will possible? God wills that all men would be saved and Jesus died on the Cross so that all may be saved but the reasons and the measure of Grace given by God is known only to God. Many are called but few are chosen and quite simply it is because the calls and the degrees of supernatural grace given are rejected. Grace is not an inherent right owed by God to any man. Free will plays a critical role in this matter. When made available, Grace and especially the state of Sanctifying Grace is the lifeline for our soul to be eternally grateful. Grace can be accepted , squandered or rejected and thus in this case a soul completely lost to damnation.

As for the infants, the unborn, mentally challenged, those below the age of reason and the invincibly ignorant, there is no need to question or hope against the mercies of God. We simply do not know how these souls are judged by God. Those in these categories are incapable of making decisions for themselves. Their criteria for judgement is known only to God and is beyond earthly and thus mortal comprehension. I believe that we would only burden ourselves in vain with needing to know where their eternal destination lies. Needing an answer is not only futile but these situations might be an affront to God Himself.
Might not God say to anyone needing, 'the answer', was there not centuries of deep prayer , thought, debate and struggles with this question? Has the Church declared the answer to this question as doctrine? Trust in God gives much peace to mind, heart and soul. Jesus gave us the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Teach and live the faith with reverence and profess the known teachings of the Church to all men.



Douay Rheims John 3, 16-22
16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. 18 He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. 20 For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. 21 But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.

Douay Rheims Luke 2, 14
14 Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.
In looking at 15 parallel translations this I believe to be the only faithful version (imho)

George Brenner
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage Sat Sep 01, 2012 1:56 am

George,

As for the infants, the unborn, mentally challenged, those below the age of reason and the invincibly ignorant, there is no need to question or hope against the mercies of God. We simply do not know how these souls are judged by God. Those in these categories are incapable of making decisions for themselves. Their criteria for judgement is known only to God and is beyond earthly and thus mortal comprehension. I believe that we would only burden ourselves in vain with needing to know where their eternal destination lies. Needing an answer is not only futile but these situations might be an affront to God Himself.

Might not God say to anyone needing, 'the answer', was there not centuries of deep prayer , thought, debate and struggles with this question? Has the Church declared the answer to this question as doctrine? Trust in God gives much peace to mind, heart and soul. Jesus gave us the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Teach and live the faith with reverence and profess the known teachings of the Church to all men.

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.

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.

But our lay Catholic Molinist apologists take this same text and say that Romans 9 is not speaking of individuals, but only of "nations." They tell us the Reformed reading of this text is wrong. Well, it isn't wrong. Someone like me reads Romans 9 and hears this nonsense from these Catholic apologists and says, hey, the Reformed view is palpably right and true to the text, and the Catholic position is wrong. Ergo, the Reformed faith is correct, and represents the Gospel truth on this, and the Catholic position is false. What does that do to one's Catholic faith?

I should know better, and I am at fault for not knowing better and not trusting the Church, but can you blame me? People who have lost their Catholic faith can point to other things in contemporary Catholicism, but for me it is the damage on certain doctrinal issues foisted on us by contemporary Catholic pundits and lay (and even clerical) theologians that have damaged my faith.

A book that has done the greatest good to me, and I thank God for it, is Father Garrigou Lagrange's book, "Predestination." I went back to that book over the last few days, and spent a couple of hours with it tonight. You will find, page after page after page, learned Catholic theologians expounding passages of Scripture relied upon by the Reformed with the so-called Reformed understanding. I'll give you an example - doctor of our faith, St. Robert Bellarmine, whose work is being cited and expounded by Father GL:

"Finally he [i.e., St. Robert] adds that the elect were chosen gratuitously but independently of any foreseeing of their good works, according to the teaching of St. Paul, who says: 'For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil, that the purpose of of God, according to election might stand . . . there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace.' St. Bellarmine shows that these principles of St. Paul applies not only to the election of nations, but also to individuals chosen for eternal life. To those who object that in St. Paul's text foreknowledge precedes predestination, he says: 'Whom he foreknew, He also predestinated,' St. Bellarmine replies that it is not a question here of the foreknowledge of merits, for which there would be no foundation in St. Paul's epistles, and which would be in contradiction to several of his texts, but the meaning is: 'whom He foreknew by the knowledge of approbation, whom He loved, whom He willed, whom He predestined . . . For to know and foreknow in the Scripture are frequently taken to mean the knowledge of approbation, as is evident from the following text: 'God hath not cast away His people, which He foreknew' (Rom. 11:2). This is the exegesis of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, and is retained at the present day by Fathers Lagrange, Allo, Zahn, Julicher, and others."

Predestination, p. 155

You will often hear James White use this point on the meaning of "foreknow" in his debates with Catholic apologists and Protestant Arminians/Molinists. Had I not read Father GL's Predestination, I'd have abandoned the Catholic faith as nonsense, believing that the Catholic position was the absurd position being presented as contrary to the Reformed position by the Catholic Molinists of our day.

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.




tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  tornpage Sat Sep 01, 2012 2:17 am

Mike,

In Father GL's Predestination, he sometimes touches, just touches, on the issue of these infants, and I wish I could find some work of his where he goes into it deeper. Anyway, I cite these texts because they help explain some of my struggle on this issue:

"If St. Proper mitigated his master's [i.e., St. Augustine's] teaching on any point, it was on the question of reprobation. He is not satisfied with merely speaking of souls left by God in the mass of perdition, for he considers that reprobation is the result of personal sins foreseen by God. This way of viewing it cannot be maintained as the reason of non-election of children who die without being baptized." (p.47)

"The question has been raised whether original sin is a sufficient motive for reprobation. Evidently not so, if it is a question of reprobates who have been freed from original sin, although the effects of this sin remain in them, such as concupiscence that inclines one to evil. But the case is not the same for unbaptized children who die before the age of reason. Because of original sin they are deprived of the beatific vision, thought they do not have to suffer the punishment of the senses." (p.211).

For the last sentence, Father GL cites Denzinger, nos. 410, 1526.

Also, to follow up my point on sufficient and efficient grace, Father GL notes as follows:

"This efficacious grace is thus within our power, though certainly not as something that can be produced by us, but as a gift that would be granted to us if our will did not resist sufficient grace." (p. 331)

Do you see my "problem" with regard to these infants? If efficacious grace infallibly leads to salvation (and it does), and if everyone who receives sufficient grace and does not reject or resist it gets this efficacious grace, how can the Church, holding this, say that she doesn't know if these infants are saved if she says they get sufficient grace (and she says all men get sufficient grace), and they do nothing to resist or reject it? It would then necessarily follow that the infants therefore get efficacious grace and are saved under these principles. No?

I hope you find the issue becoming clearer in terms of my "problem."

Mark
tornpage
tornpage

Posts : 953
Reputation : 1034
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible? - Page 2 Empty Re: Is Pope Sixtus V's Effraenatam infallible?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

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