St. Thomas Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception

In the final period of his career, when writing the Exposito super salutatione angelica----which is certainly authentic [39]-----in 1272 or 1273, St. Thomas expressed himself thus: 'For she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure in the matter of fault (quantum ad culpam) and incurred neither Original nor mental nor venial sin.' (Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange)

Extract from THE MOTHER OF THE SAVIOR, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, 1948:

'As certain commentators have suggested, three periods may be distinguished in St. Thomas's teaching.

In the first-----that of 1253-1254, the beginning of his theological career-----he supports the privilege, probably because of the liturgical tradition which favoured it, as well as because of his pious admiration for the perfect holiness of the Mother of God. It is in this period that he wrote (I Sent., d. 44, q. I, a. 3, ad 3): 'Purity is increased by withdrawing from its opposite: hence there can be a creature than whom no more pure is possible in creation, if it be free from all contagion of sin: and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin who was immune from Original and actual sin.' This text states therefore that Mary was so pure as to be exempt from all Original and actual sin.

During the second period St. Thomas, seeing better the difficulties in the question-----for the theologians of his time held that Mary was immaculate independently of Christ's merits-----hesitated, and refused to commit himself. He, of course, held that all men without exception are redeemed by one Saviour (Rom. 3: 23; 5: 12, 19; Gal. 3: 22; 2 Cor. 5: 14; 1 Tim. 2: 6). Hence we find him proposing the question thus in IIIa, q. 27, a. 2: Was the Blessed Virgin sanctified in the conception of her body before its animation? For, according to him and many other theologians, the conception of the body was to be distinguished from the animation, or creation of the soul. This latter [called today the consummated passive conception] was thought to be about a month later in time than the initial conception.

The holy doctor mentions certain arguments at the beginning of the article which favour the Immaculate Conception-----even taking conception to be that which precedes animation. He then answers them as follows: 'There are two reasons why the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot have taken place before her animation: 1st-----the sanctification in question is cleansing from Original Sin . . . but the guilt of sin can be removed only by grace [which has as object the soul itself] . . . 2nd-----if the Blessed Virgin had been sanctified before animation she would have have incurred the stain of Original Sin and would therefore never have stood in need of redemption by Christ. . . . But this may not be admitted, since Christ is Head of all men (1 Tim. 2: 6).'

Even had he written after the definition of 1854 St. Thomas could have said that Mary was not sanctified before animation. However, he goes further than that here, for he adds at the end of the article: 'Hence it follows that the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin took place after her animation.' Nor does he distinguish, as he does in many other contexts, between posteriority in nature and posteriority in time. In the answer to the second objection he even states that the Blessed Virgin 'contracted Original Sin'. [38] However, it must be recognized that the whole point of his argument is to show that Mary incurred the debt of Original Sin since she descended from Adam by way of natural generation. Unfortunately he did not distinguish sufficiently the debt from actually incurring the stain.

Regarding the question of the exact moment at which Mary was sanctified in the womb of her mother, St. Thomas does not make any definite pronouncement. He states that it followed close on animation-----cito post are his words in Quodl. VI, a. 7. But he believes that nothing more precise can be said: 'the time of her sanctification is unknown' (IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 3).

St. Thomas does not consider in the Summa if Mary was sanctified in the very instant of animation. St. Bonaventure had put himself that question and had answered it in the negative. It is possible that St. Thomas's silence was inspired by the reserved attitude of the Roman Church which, unlike so many other Churches, did not celebrate the Feast of the Conception (cf. ibid., ad 3). This is the explanation proposed by Fr. N. del Prado, O.P., in Santo Tomas y la lmmaculada, Vergara, 1909, by Fr. Mandonnet, O.P., Dict. Theol. Cath., art. Freres Precheurs, col. 899, and by Fr. Hugon, O.P., Tractatus Dogmatici, t. II, ed. 5, 1927, p. 749. For these authors the thought of the holy doctor in this second period of his professional career was that expressed long afterwards by Gregory XV in his letters of July 4th, 1622: 'Spiritus Sanctus nondum tanti mysterii arcanum Ecclesiae suae patefecit.'

The texts we have considered so far do not therefore imply any contradiction of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. They could even be retained if the idea of preservative redemption were introduced. There is however one text which cannot be so easily explained away. In III Sent., dist. III, q. 1, a. 1, ad 2am qm, we read: 'Nor (did it happen) even in the instant of infusion of the soul, namely, by grace being then given her so as to preserve her from incurring the original fault. Christ alone among men has the privilege of not needing redemption.' Frs. del Prado and Hugon explain this text as follows: The meaning of St. Thomas's words may be that the Blessed Virgin was not preserved from Original Sin in such a way as not to incur its debt, as that would mean not to stand in need of redemption. However, one could have expected to find in the text itself the explicit distinction between the debt and the fact of incurring the stain.

In the final period of his career, when writing the Exposito super salutatione angelica----which is certainly authentic [39]-----in 1272 or 1273, St. Thomas expressed himself thus: 'For she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure in the matter of fault (quantum ad culpam) and incurred neither Original nor mental nor venial sin.''

[END of extract]

Indeed, Saint Thomas was the greatest of the Church's theologians, and he is, for all traditional Catholics, the "Candle in the Dark" (to paraphrase Sagan's book). Question is, "Would Saint Thomas have any difficulty or find any fault with any of Father Feeney's teachings?" In my opinion, no, he would not.

Jehanne wrote:Indeed, Saint Thomas was the greatest of the Church's theologians, and he is, for all traditional Catholics, the "Candle in the Dark" (to paraphrase Sagan's book). Question is, "Would Saint Thomas have any difficulty or find any fault with any of Father Feeney's teachings?" In my opinion, no, he would not.

What is this obsession with Fr. Feeney?

Fr. Feeney had significant difficulty with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on baptism of desire, and did in fact find fault with it; but St. Aquinas would have no "difficulty" with Fr. Feeney's position which rejected any notion of a salvific justification without actual sacramental ablution.

Sure. St. Aquinas would have no problem with scrapping his Summa and revising his teaching on baptism of blood/baptism of desire so that it conformed with the unique doctrine of Fr. Feeney.

I think that you need to read the Bread of Life, and if you have, show me where Father Feeney disagrees with Saint Thomas, whom he quotes at length in that work. Sure, Father Feeney did not hold to Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, instead appealing to the Providence of the One and Triune God to bring sacramental Baptism to whomever was worthy of it. Question is, "Would Saint Thomas agree with the present Catholic teaching over the last century, as expressed by modern Catholic theologians?" I do not think that he would. Even Father Harrison acknowledges this, by the way, in that he, you, me, and everyone else on this board is holding to a minority view within the present-day Church.

Jehanne wrote:I think that you need to read the Bread of Life, and if you have, show me where Father Feeney disagrees with Saint Thomas, whom he quotes at length in that work. Sure, Father Feeney did not hold to Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, instead appealing to the Providence of the One and Triune God to bring sacramental Baptism to whomever was worthy of it. Question is, "Would Saint Thomas agree with the present Catholic teaching over the last century, as expressed by modern Catholic theologians?" I do not think that he would. Even Father Harrison acknowledges this, by the way, in that he, you, me, and everyone else on this board is holding to a minority view within the present-day Church.

I have read Bread of Life, long before you probably knew there was a Fr. Feeney. Fr. Feeney disagreed with St. Thomas’ teaching on salvific justification by insisting that this justification could not save without water baptism.

The two positions cannot be reconciled – only one of them can be true.

This is not about whether God in His providence can bring Baptism to each of His elect, this is about whether our Lord “binds” Himself exclusively to the sacrament in order to bring about one’s sanctification and salvation. To pretend that there is no difficulty between Fr. Feeney and St. Thomas on this crucial matter and teaching of the Church makes one wonder if you ever read Bread of Life.

You need to read it again:

"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you." (Bread of Life, pg. 56)

Jehanne wrote:You need to read it again:

"There is no one about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you." (Bread of Life, pg. 56)

Now you are just being obtuse (one of my favorite lines from The Shawshank Redemption). You ignore what I said about what this is about and what this is not about, and provide a citation to prove the latter.

OK, my turn.

Bread of Life:

Pg 121:

Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of “Baptism of Desire,” and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?
A. Never.

Pg 126:

If you do not receive Baptism of Water, you cannot be saved, whether you were guilty or not guilty for not having received it. If it was not your fault that you did not receive it, then you just do not go to heaven.

Pg 128:

And now let me go back to what is called necessity of means in sacramental requirements. Necessity of means means, if you have not got the requirement, it is just too bad for you, whether you are to blame, or whether you are not to blame. If you are not to blame, so much the worse!

Pg 131:

But, let us suppose an act of perfect love has occurred in a man’s soul. Can this man be said to be freed from original sin by this perfect act of love of God? He cannot, in the true and full sense. There has not been imprinted on his soul, by reason of this perfect act of love of God, the character which Baptism imprints, to seal him as redeemed, and outfit him for the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.

Now, reconcile that with the doctrine of St. Thomas, and get back with us.

What is there to "reconcile"? Saint Thomas said,

"Forasmuch as someone’s heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood,one receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost (Summa Theologica, [hereafter ST] III, Q.66 A.11).

Okay, great, I agree with that statement and teaching 100%! So would Father Feeney. Notice what he said from some of your own quotes:

Pg 131:

"But, let us suppose an act of perfect love has occurred in a man’s soul. Can this man be said to be freed from original sin by this perfect act of love of God? He cannot, in the true and full sense. There has not been imprinted on his soul, by reason of this perfect act of love of God, the character which Baptism imprints, to seal him as redeemed, and outfit him for the resurrection of the body and life everlasting."

If you would take time to read more of the literature of the St. Benedict Center, you will find (which I have already pointed out to you), that no one is advocating the absurdity of someone being martyred for Christ yet who is excluded from Heaven because he or she died without Baptism of Water.

You say that I am being "obtuse," but how so? You see, Father Feeney believed both in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. He just did not believe that they ever occurred, which would, by the process of elimination, leave only Baptism of Water as the sole and only means of salvation. QED.

He just did not believe that they ever occurred, which would, by the process of elimination, leave only Baptism of Water as the sole and only means of salvation. QED.

No, it doesn't, Jehanne. That's like saying wearing a red hat was the cause of salvation because all of those saved wore a red hat.

This is important: the cause of justification/salvation is the Spirit, who utilizes baptism as the ordinary means of accomplishing and effecting the same. You are elevating the sacrament to a necessity that it does not have - a sine qua non necessity as to salvation. The rebirth of baptism in the Spirit through the Blood of Christ (Trent: whereby one has the merit of Christ's passion communicated to one) is necessary in the sine qua non sense, as St. Thomas taught:

a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence, it is written (Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this, it is written (Is. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism.

Again, this is important, lest we become Pharisees. To extend my analogy, if all who are reborn by the Spirit end up wearing "red hats" - and perhaps they do, we don't know; though we do know the Church has spoken clearly about baptism of desire and baptism of blood, perhaps to emphasize the point I'm making and to highlight the spiritual meaning of what baptism is - that does not make the red hats "the sole and only means of salvation."

Even if you're right, all the elect after the promulgation are baptized, you would be emphasing an important accidental characteristic and not the substance or essence of what redeems them - the communication of Christ's Passion which makes them reborn in Spirit. That is why it is important not to say that no one can be saved without baptism, which is what Father Feeney says.

Baptism by water, like membership in the Church, is not an "intrinsic necessity" to salvation, as indicated in the Holy Office letter:

In his infinite mercy God has willed that the effects necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the Sacrament of Baptism and in reference to the Sacrament of Penance (a).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

You don't have to wear the red hat, even if everyone does. So says the Church.

MRyan,

You know how big a fan of Father GL I am . . . do you have The Mother of the Saviour? That's on my "must get" list. What do you think of it if you have it?

tornpage wrote:Baptism by water, like membership in the Church, is not an "intrinsic necessity" to salvation, as indicated in the Holy Office letter:

In his infinite mercy God has willed that the effects necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the Sacrament of Baptism and in reference to the Sacrament of Penance (a).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

You don't have to wear the red hat, even if everyone does. So says the Church.

The Church did say that one must wear the "red hat" at the Council of Florence:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

I would suggest that you read Father Harrison's article:

https://servimg.com/view/16106856/1

The Council of Florence decided the issue, once and for all, the Holy Office letter notwithstanding. In any case, Vatican II corrected the errors in that Holy Office letter:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/3_2005_Vatican2.pdf

tornpage wrote:

He just did not believe that they ever occurred, which would, by the process of elimination, leave only Baptism of Water as the sole and only means of salvation. QED.

No, it doesn't, Jehanne. That's like saying wearing a red hat was the cause of salvation because all of those saved wore a red hat.

This is important: the cause of justification/salvation is the Spirit, who utilizes baptism as the ordinary means of accomplishing and effecting the same. You are elevating the sacrament to a necessity that it does not have - a sine qua non necessity as to salvation. The rebirth of baptism in the Spirit through the Blood of Christ (Trent: whereby one has the merit of Christ's passion communicated to one) is necessary in the sine qua non sense, as St. Thomas taught:

a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence, it is written (Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this, it is written (Is. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism.

I agree with all of this 100%. So would Father Feeney. However, as Father Feeney pointed out in The Bread of Life, Baptism of Desire & Blood are impossible to prove, and we have excellent reasons to think otherwise:

1) You cannot prove that any human being has, in fact, ever died without Baptism. This would be equivalent to "proving a negative"; that is, that someone had never been baptized. Even with an infant who is stillborn, there is always conditional baptism, which means that unless one is with such an infant every second from his/her birth until burial, one could never prove that he/she was not Baptized.

2) Sacramental Baptism, according to Saint Thomas, brings with it unique graces. Saint Thomas taught that Baptism of Desire does not remit the temporal punishment due to sin, only sacramental Baptism. Likewise, only sacramental Baptism produces the "mark on the soul." Therefore, it seems more probable than not that the One and Triune God would insure that anyone who is worthy of Baptism will receive it.

3) Saying that Baptism of Desire and Blood occur mocks Catholic Tradition. Numerous instances have happened of individuals being raised from the dead and of water miraculously appearing where it could not because individuals desired to be baptized. Clearly, God can provide for those who genuinely seek Him, which is all that Father Feeney ever asserted.

Jehanne,

So, when the Council of Florence says that one will go to Hell "unless before death he is joined with Her" she means one must be baptized in water? How convenient of you to define the exclusive means of being joined to her (sacramental baptism) and plug it into Florence - because Florence doesn't mention baptism in that paragraph at all.

Oh but we've been through this before. You dismiss the annotations of the theologians who gave us the great traditional Catholic bibles in English, the Douay Rheims and the Haydock bible; you dismiss doctors of the Church like St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Alphonsus Liguori; you dismiss the Council of Trent; the Roman Catechism and the current Catechism . . .

And Father Harrison: are you actually saying that Father Harrison believes that the sacrament of baptism is absolutely necessary in all cases for salvation. You should let Father Harrison know, so he can correct himself promptly, and line up what he "believes" more precisely with what he, well, believes.

There is no contradiction between Florence and the Holy Office letter. Do you think Cardinal Ottaviani didn't know Florence, and that he would contradict it? Please.

This gets more bizarre every day.

1) You cannot prove that any human being has, in fact, ever died without Baptism. This would be equivalent to "proving a negative"; that is, that someone had never been baptized. Even with an infant who is stillborn, there is always conditional baptism, which means that unless one is with such an infant every second from his/her birth until burial, one could never prove that he/she was not Baptized.

You cannot "prove" that there are no unbaptized babies in heaven, either. Ergo . . .

This is an utter waste of time.

It's about what the Church says on these issues, and the proper authority for interpreting what the Church has said - the Church.

This dialogue does not go on in a vacuum, as if your mind and my mind settle the issue. Thanks be to God, he has set up another authority.

When you divorce the ordinary Magisterium from the solemn infallible, and when you reject the Magisterium's interpretation of her own statements, you are not much better than a Protestant (in this regard) who separates Scripture from her interpreter (the Magisterium). You take the infallible Magisterium as your guide, while the Protestant takes the Bible. And you both reject the authority which created both and contains both in her larger and fuller truth. You have ripped out the heart and thrown the rest of the body away. And the result is a dying or already dead thing.

Wake up.

You cannot show any canons from any Church Council, Pope, and/or Catechism that ever claims Baptism of Desire and/or Baptism of Blood have ever occurred without Baptism of Water. Theological possibilities, yes, absolutely; realized actualities, maybe, maybe not. While it is possible to prove that a person has been baptized, the converse is not so easy. You are claiming that the Church teaches not only Baptism of Desire, but also that it has happened, is happening, and will happen, and that is simply false. Father Feeney provides a completely plausible alternative, one that, as far as I can tell, was the final position of Saint Augustine.

As for unbaptized infants, one could cite numerous Councils, Popes, catechisms, saints, and theologians who teach that an infant who dies without sacramental Baptism is forever excluded from Heaven.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I accept both Baptism of Desire and Blood, as taught by Saint Thomas. I also accept the views of the St. Benedict Center. You may see a contradiction, but I do not.

Jehanne,

There is no contradiction, or difficultly between Fr. Feeney and St. Thomas because you say there isn't, never mind that their respective teachings are clearly opposed.

You go on and on about how Fr. Feeney was simply making the point that baptism of desire cannot be “proven” and that God can provide the sacrament in every case, without even once addressing his teaching (that stands in stark contradiction to the teaching of St. Thomas) that says that justification by the desire thereof can “never” save someone without the sacrament and that sanctification by a perfect charity can never be a “true and fulfilled” justification (in opposition to Trent), even for those who are justified in a defective or deficient state of sanctifying grace (as a son of God and heir to the kingdom) but cannot receive the sacrament through no fault of their own.

“It's too bad for you”, you cannot be saved, is the response of Fr. Feeney because, he suggests, an intrinsic necessity of means pertains to the sacrament itself, and not to the intrinsic necessity of the regenerative grace of the sacrament which can be received without the sacrament, but never without the desire for it (through one's faith, charity and intention).

Again, this is opposed to the teaching of St. Thomas who clearly made the necessary distinctions (notwithstanding the argument of those who suggest that he was so confused that he did not realize that he was contradicting his own teaching!).

In other words, according to Fr. Feeney, one may receive the merit of Christ's Blood, have one's sins remitted, and be conformed to Christ in a state of sanctifying grace, but one cannot be truly justified and truly conformed to Christ and saved without being configured to Christ by way of the sacramental seal.

Jehanne wrote: I want to make it absolutely clear that I accept both Baptism of Desire and Blood, as taught by Saint Thomas. I also accept the views of the St. Benedict Center. You may see a contradiction, but I do not.

Well, its nice to know that you no longer hold that an implicit desire for baptism that does not eventually become “explicit” is “formal heresy”, though you have yet to actually admit this.

The leader of the St. Benedict Center NH holds that the justifying efficacy of sanctifying grace “by the desire thereof” does not include the efficacy of salvation for a soul that does not receive water baptism.

This position, and that of Fr. Feeney, is a direct contradiction to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, and, as far as I am concerned, the Council of Trent and the Church.

No amount of spin on your part can change this difference (and opposition) between the teaching of Fr. Feeney and St. Thomas.

First of all, I am not affiliated, either formally or informally, with any of the Saint Benedict Centers, so my views are my own, not necessarily theirs. Perhaps a syllogism will help:

Premise #1: The One and Triune is able to being sacramental Baptism to whomever He deems to be worthy of it, even via miraculous means. In this sense, the One and Triune God is not bound by the physical laws of the Cosmos, which, He, after all, created.

Premise #2: Baptism of Desire & Blood are possible, so the One and Triune God is not bound by His Sacraments, either. He can use extraordinary means to save someone if He wishes to, provided that He has that person's cooperation. It is, however, impossible for any of us to know if such has ever happened or not.

Premise #3: Given the historical testimony of the Church, we can hypothesize that Premise #2 never happens, based upon the miraculous occurrences that have been documented in favor of Premise #1. Since we have absolutely no evidence for Premise #2, we can conclude that it may be, in fact, devoid of any human beings.

Conclusion: Sacramental Baptism by Water is absolutely necessary for salvation if Premise #2 is devoid of any human beings.

As for implicit desire for Baptism, in perpetuity, while I think that Saint Thomas would have "rolled his eyes" at that idea, along with the Fathers at Trent, I have no choice but to withdraw my assertion that such an idea is "formal heresy." I suppose that a vow for Baptism, even if it is implicit, as long as it is accompanied by explicit faith in the 14 Articles of Faith, then, yes, such is possible. I do not think that such has ever happened or ever will happen. We can all imagine a dying pagan, who, upon hearing the Gospel, embraces it, but since he is in a desert and there is no water to baptize him, the preacher decides not to mention the necessity of sacramental Baptism. However, as I said above, we have good testimony that the One and Triune God could remedy such a situation if He choose to do so.

Perhaps a syllogism will help:

Premise #1: The One and Triune is able to being sacramental Baptism to whomever He deems to be worthy of it, even via miraculous means. In this sense, the One and Triune God is not bound by the physical laws of the Cosmos, which, He, after all, created.

Premise #2: Baptism of Desire & Blood are possible, so the One and Triune God is not bound by His Sacraments, either. He can use extraordinary means to save someone if He wishes to, provided that He has that person's cooperation. It is, however, impossible for any of us to know if such has ever happened or not.

Premise #3: Given the historical testimony of the Church, we can hypothesize that Premise #2 never happens, based upon the miraculous occurrences that have been documented in favor of Premise #1. Since we have absolutely no evidence for Premise #2, we can conclude that it may be, in fact, devoid of any human beings.

Conclusion: Sacramental Baptism by Water is absolutely necessary for salvation if Premise #2 is devoid of any human beings.

Syllogism? I don't know about that, but it is redolent of the Greeks: how about the labyrinth of the Minotaur?

It is really perverse how you take the opening of a possibility and slam the door on it because, "hey, after all, it's only a possibility, and it might not happen." It would seem to me that the opening of the door has meaning, and it's intention is to "keep open" the entrance, not close it. It also seems to me that someone who creeps up to the open door and slams it closed is acting contrary to the intent of the person who opened the door.

Jehanne, why did the Church open the door if: a) she did not intend the door to remain open? b) if no one gets in through the opening. Did the baptized saints need some fresh air?

I do not see how one respects and believes in accordance the intent and teaching of the Church if they hold your position. And I say that with no trace of contempt or scorn, especially since I once shared your view.

tornpage wrote:MRyan,

You know how big a fan of Father GL I am . . . do you have The Mother of the Saviour? That's on my "must get" list. What do you think of it if you have it?

Yes, I know how big a fan you are, which is why I knew you'd appreciate the citation. But no, I do not have the The Mother of the Saviour; I had to dig the citation out from the archives.

MRyan wrote:

tornpage wrote:MRyan,

You know how big a fan of Father GL I am . . . do you have The Mother of the Saviour? That's on my "must get" list. What do you think of it if you have it?

Yes, I know how big a fan you are, which is why I knew you'd appreciate the citation. But no, I do not have the The Mother of the Saviour; I had to dig the citation out from the archives.

That's alright. Since Father GL wrote it, I know it's good, anyway; it has to be.

tornpage wrote:

Perhaps a syllogism will help:

Premise #1: The One and Triune is able to being sacramental Baptism to whomever He deems to be worthy of it, even via miraculous means. In this sense, the One and Triune God is not bound by the physical laws of the Cosmos, which, He, after all, created.

Premise #2: Baptism of Desire & Blood are possible, so the One and Triune God is not bound by His Sacraments, either. He can use extraordinary means to save someone if He wishes to, provided that He has that person's cooperation. It is, however, impossible for any of us to know if such has ever happened or not.

Premise #3: Given the historical testimony of the Church, we can hypothesize that Premise #2 never happens, based upon the miraculous occurrences that have been documented in favor of Premise #1. Since we have absolutely no evidence for Premise #2, we can conclude that it may be, in fact, devoid of any human beings.

Conclusion: Sacramental Baptism by Water is absolutely necessary for salvation if Premise #2 is devoid of any human beings.

Syllogism? I don't know about that, but it is redolent of the Greeks: how about the labyrinth of the Minotaur?

It is really perverse how you take the opening of a possibility and slam the door on it because, "hey, after all, it's only a possibility, and it might not happen." It would seem to me that the opening of the door has meaning, and it's intention is to "keep open" the entrance, not close it. It also seems to me that someone who creeps up to the open door and slams it closed is acting contrary to the intent of the person who opened the door.

Jehanne, why did the Church open the door if: a) she did not intend the door to remain open? b) if no one gets in through the opening. Did the baptized saints need some fresh air?

I do not see how one respects and believes in accordance the intent and teaching of the Church if they hold your position. And I say that with no trace of contempt or scorn, especially since I once shared your view.

Well, I share your view. Yes, Baptism of Blood and/or Baptism of Desire are possibilities, but just that, possibilities. As for the Church's position, it is summed up in the CCC:

"The Church does not know of any other means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude."

I suppose that the Church, in spite of the vagueness since Vatican II, has not seen fit to extend dogma where it does not belong, into the realm of theological opinion, which you and MRyan seem, obtusely, to think does not and can not exist.

In any case, consider this scenario:

You are in an Islamic country, condemned to death by beheading in a secret, extrajudicial trial for having converted a Muslim to the One True Faith. However, your would-be convert has not yet received sacramental Baptism, even though he has embraced the 14 Articles of Faith. It is the day of your execution, and your jailers decide to put both of you in the same cell together. Would you not pray to the One and Triune God for a miracle, that is, for the Baptism of your fellow, yet unbaptized, believer? Or, are you just going to say to him, "Well, your desire is sufficient. Don't worry, be happy." Would you be willing to risk torture, even mutilation, in trying to grab some water, say, a cup out of a guard's hands to baptize your convert? Or, would you just quietly go to your death thinking, "Well, his desire seems real enough...he should be okay."?

You are in an Islamic country, condemned to death by beheading in a secret, extrajudicial trial for having converted a Muslim to the One True Faith. However, your would-be convert has not yet received sacramental Baptism, even though he has embraced the 14 Articles of Faith. It is the day of your execution, and your jailers decide to put both of you in the same cell together. Would you not pray to the One and Triune God for a miracle, that is, for the Baptism of your fellow, yet unbaptized, believer? Or, are you just going to say to him, "Well, your desire is sufficient. Don't worry, be happy." Would you be willing to risk torture, even mutilation, in trying to grab some water, say, a cup out of a guard's hands to baptize your convert? Or, would you just quietly go to your death thinking, "Well, his desire seems real enough...he should be okay."?

May I also answer that?

I wouldn’t pray to God for the water. I would pray to God for the man’s salvation and leave HOW God wants to save the man to God. If God wants to provide the water visibly or if God wants to baptize the man Himself with His own holy water in the moments between life and death, in another realm in a way that is invisible to me, or if God simply wants to take the man into Heaven. Because He is God and is allowed to do that and make exceptions to His own norms and we are in no position to tell God that He isn’t being consistent in His rules and is too ambiguous.

The most important thing I would pray for is the man’s salvation, because water or no water, the man’s salvation and my salvation are not assured. I have no way of knowing for sure until the end if God has predestined the man or me for salvation. I can guess and pray and hope.

BUT what I would pray to God for is different than what I would DO. Salvation and miracles is up to God. But I would do everything in my power to find water to baptize that man. Even until the very last moment. Even if I could only find a few tears from my own eyes. I would trick any guard or pay any price to find that water.

Why? Because baptism of desire is POSSIBLE, but is not assured. There is only one sure path to salvation. Accepting the grace for faith in Jesus Christ and His Church and water baptism, along with charity and repentance.

Maybe you are missing that from all our arguments. Several of us believe, as the Church teaches, that baptism of desire MAY happen. I personally think it is very likely. Others believe it is possible, but unlikely. (not talking about you with the null sets that says it will NEVER happen.) But none of us has said that it definitely has happened and will happen.

And salvation is too important to rest on maybes. So we pray as if it may happen and hope for the salvation of as many as possible. But we ACT with what is certain. And visible earthly baptism by water is the ONLY CERTAINTY.

If the moment of that Islamic convert’s martyrdom comes and I couldn’t find any water, then I certainly would tell the man to pray to God that his desire and faith and charity would be enough, because the Church says that it MAY be enough.

That the Church “knows of no other means” doesn’t mean that there is no other means. And the Church specifically allows us to “hope” that there is a way of salvation for infants and converts, a way that is known only to God.

The Church can only teach what the Holy Spirit has specifically revealed to her. So the Church can’t teach details of “hows” and “whens” that have not yet been revealed. Like the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The church taught 2 truths (Mary being sinless and still needing a Savior) that seemed to be impossible to reconcile, until the Holy Spirit revealed to the church the details of how to reconcile them.

The Holy Spirit has not revealed if there is another way or what that way might be, so we only “hope.” But the Holy Spirit has ALSO NEVER revealed that there definitely is NO other way. Or the Church could not “hope” for some other way.

The Church does not preclude that there may be some “unknown” other means. Unless and until this other possible means is revealed to the Church, she cannot define it or teach is as certain in her catechism. But she does not have to deny its existence, if the possibility of that existence has been revealed to her.

I may believe in baptism of desire and think it likely. And I, personally, believe limbo is possible, but unlikely. Personally, I believe Christ can baptize these infants in His own holy water in another realm and we don’t see it. Same with converts in the moments between life and death. Maybe from the “river of life-giving water” in Heaven that is mentioned in the book of Revelation.

That is my HOPE and that is my prayer. But, like the Islamic convert example, I ACT only with what is certain. So I would make it my business to see everyone I love baptized. Like my own children’s and Godchildren’s “conditional retroactive baptism of emergency.” lol Go ahead. Try and google that. lol I think it is in the encyclical from Pope Giussepe in the 1400’s. Just kidding.

Elisa wrote:I wouldn’t pray to God for the water. I would pray to God for the man’s salvation and leave HOW God wants to save the man to God.

Why not pray for both? Many cite St. Ambrose's funeral oration of Emperor Valentinian as "proof" of Baptism of Desire, but clearly, St. Ambrose was upset over the fact that Valentinian had died without sacramental Baptism; otherwise, why mention it?

Elisa wrote:Maybe you are missing that from all our arguments. Several of us believe, as the Church teaches, that baptism of desire MAY happen. I personally think it is very likely. Others believe it is possible, but unlikely. (not talking about you with the null sets that says it will NEVER happen.) But none of us has said that it definitely has happened and will happen.

I agree with everything in the above quote 100%, except for the "very likely" part. Even Father Harrison admits, in his article (posted on this forum), that Baptism of Blood is "very rare." Perhaps the category of Baptism of Desire is similar? In any case, if you are going to say that Baptism of Desire is "very likely," what issue, then, do you have with those who would say that it is "very unlikely"? And, how is "very unlikely" any different from the "never happens" set?

Elisa wrote:And salvation is too important to rest on maybes. So we pray as if it may happen and hope for the salvation of as many as possible. But we ACT with what is certain. And visible earthly baptism by water is the ONLY CERTAINTY.

Agreed.

Elisa wrote:If the moment of that Islamic convert’s martyrdom comes and I couldn’t find any water, then I certainly would tell the man to pray to God that his desire and faith and charity would be enough, because the Church says that it MAY be enough.

Agreed.

Elisa wrote:That the Church “knows of no other means” doesn’t mean that there is no other means. And the Church specifically allows us to “hope” that there is a way of salvation for infants and converts, a way that is known only to God.

The latter is true, the former is absolutely false.

Elisa wrote:I may believe in baptism of desire and think it likely. And I, personally, believe limbo is possible, but unlikely. Personally, I believe Christ can baptize these infants in His own holy water in another realm and we don’t see it. Same with converts in the moments between life and death. Maybe from the “river of life-giving water” in Heaven that is mentioned in the book of Revelation

This paragraph is just full of modernistic novelty. It amazes me that some on this forum condemn Father Feeney for teaching that the One and Triune God can bring sacramental Baptism to whomever sincerely desires it, yet embrace the heretical notion that infants, who have no desire, can be saved without it:

“If anyone says that it might be understood that, in the kingdom of Heaven, there will be some middle place or some place anywhere that infants live who departed this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven which is eternal life: Let him be anathema.” (Pope St. Zosimus, Council of Carthage)

You, Elisa, have cited ad nauseam the many quotes from Popes, Doctors, and Saints of the Church testifying to Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, but for each of those sources, I can provide another quote that teaches that infants cannot and will not be saved without sacramental Baptism. Such is their one and only hope:

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism..." (Council of Florence).

Why not take the above words literally? If you are going to find support for Baptism of Desire in a funeral oration, why not take the Council of Florence at "its word"?

It amazes me that some on this forum condemn Father Feeney for teaching that the One and Triune God can bring sacramental Baptism to whomever sincerely desires it

Do you know why these debates go on and on and on? It's because one (or both) sides just doesn't get the point the other is making.

Jehanne, it's amazing to me that you think that is the point. I dare to say that no one here doubts that God could bring sacramental Baptism to whomever He wishes. That is not the point.

THE POINT is that the Church says some can attain the justifying and saving (if one dies in the state of justification granted) grace of the sacrament of baptism without the sacrament of baptism, and that these other ways (through desire for baptism or baptism of blood) are also called "baptism" because they effect the rebirth of spirit in Christ and through his Blood which is the sine qua non for justification and salvation.

Father Feeney rejected that. He said one could not be saved without water baptism. He rejected the teaching of the Church in that regard. Was he excommunicated for that? No. He was already excommunicated for disobedience before he even adopted his rejection of the view expressed above.

It is about the saying "no" to something the Church has clearly and authoritatively taught in her Magisterium for centuries (with regard to Father Feeney). Or how one understands and incorporates into one's theology and understanding of what the Church teaches about salvation the paragraph highlighted above. You say, "yes, it could happen, but it hasn't," which you are permitted to do without rejecting the Magisterium per se. We can freely, and profitably, discuss the implications of your view in this regard without either of us becoming heretical or taking a stand that formally or informally puts us outside the Church or involves us in forbidden (in the sense of closed) discussion.

But this is not about whether I (or Elisa, or MRyan) accepts that God could provide the sacrament to all His elect. Of course He could. And that possibility, together with His Providence and Predestination of the elect, compelled me once to share your view. But the Church teaches other. And that it the point that wore me down and I hope wears you down to see that, even if your (and my former) view is sound logically and even compelling logically, it is not what the Church teaches. And from there, to adapt one's thinking in light of what the Church teaches to properly understand salvation and justification.

As we used to say at Pasc's, it always comes back to the Authority.

Jehanne,

As to your hypothetical, Elisa said:

I would pray to God for the man’s salvation and leave HOW God wants to save the man to God

I agree with Elisa.

And I think your hypothetical is irrelevant to our discussion, which involves, first, whether the Church teaches that one could be saved by faith and a desire for baptism: she does. Secondly (for me), the oddity of the position that holds that the Church teaches that, and then declares that no one is in fact saved that way.

I have no interest in answering to your hypothetical, or in grandstanding as to "what I would do" under such situations, when in truth I don't know what I would do, and won't presume to say what I would. And the answer, as I said, is irrelevant to the discussion anyway - though you're trying to use it to imply, what, "that the Church only knows" baptism as the sure means of salvation? She already has said that.

tornpage wrote:

It amazes me that some on this forum condemn Father Feeney for teaching that the One and Triune God can bring sacramental Baptism to whomever sincerely desires it

Do you know why these debates go on and on and on? It's because one (or both) sides just doesn't get the point the other is making.

Jehanne, it's amazing to me that you think that is the point. I dare to say that no one here doubts that God could bring sacramental Baptism to whomever He wishes.

I agree with this 100%, except for your comments about me.

tornpage wrote:That is not the point.

I don't agree with that.

tornpage wrote:THE POINT is that the Church says some can attain the justifying and saving (if one dies in the state of justification granted) grace of the sacrament of baptism without the sacrament of baptism, and that these other ways (through desire for baptism or baptism of blood) are also called "baptism" because they effect the rebirth of spirit in Christ and through his Blood which is the sine qua non for justification and salvation.

I agree with this 100%, but only for those who have desire, which infants lack.

tornpage wrote:Father Feeney rejected that. He said one could not be saved without water baptism. He rejected the teaching of the Church in that regard. Was he excommunicated for that? No. He was already excommunicated for disobedience before he even adopted his rejection of the view expressed above.

I do not think that you are representing Father Feeney's views accurately, but as I said, I do not have any relationship with the SBCs. My views are my own.

tornpage wrote:It is about the saying "no" to something the Church has clearly and authoritatively taught in her Magisterium for centuries (with regard to Father Feeney). Or how one understands and incorporates into one's theology and understanding of what the Church teaches about salvation the paragraph highlighted above. You say, "yes, it could happen, but it hasn't," which you are permitted to do without rejecting the Magisterium per se. We can freely, and profitably, discuss the implications of your view in this regard without either of us becoming heretical or taking a stand that formally or informally puts us outside the Church or involves us in forbidden (in the sense of closed) discussion.

But this is not about whether I (or Elisa, or MRyan) accepts that God could provide the sacrament to all His elect. Of course He could. And that possibility, together with His Providence and Predestination of the elect, compelled me once to share your view. But the Church teaches other. And that it the point that wore me down and I hope wears you down to see that, even if your (and my former) view is sound logically and even compelling logically, it is not what the Church teaches. And from there, to adapt one's thinking in light of what the Church teaches to properly understand salvation and justification.

As we used to say at Pasc's, it always comes back to the Authority.

Oh, I agree, so please stop putting unbaptized infants in Heaven.

tornpage wrote:Jehanne,

As to your hypothetical, Elisa said:

I would pray to God for the man’s salvation and leave HOW God wants to save the man to God

I agree with Elisa.

And I think your hypothetical is irrelevant to our discussion, which involves, first, whether the Church teaches that one could be saved by faith and a desire for baptism: she does. Secondly (for me), the oddity of the position that holds that the Church teaches that, and then declares that no one is in fact saved that way.

I have no interest in answering to your hypothetical, or in grandstanding as to "what I would do" under such situations, when in truth I don't know what I would do, and won't presume to say what I would. And the answer, as I said, is irrelevant to the discussion anyway - though you're trying to use it to imply, what, "that the Church only knows" baptism as the sure means of salvation? She already has said that.

Sure, could be saved, not would be saved. I agreed with that. In the end, we just don't know, do we?

Jehanne,

Oh, I agree, so please stop putting unbaptized infants in Heaven.

I not only haven't, but I didn't even mention infants in this discussion.

Please remember whom you are talking to when you talk: Elisa (female, self-described "neocon"; very nice lady); MRyan (male, resident manual of dogmatic theology; bitingly sarcastic at times; former Feeneyite); and, tornpage (still largely undefined; former Feeneyite; mildly sarcastic at times).

I'm sure you can think of other identifiers to keep us straight.

tornpage (I must go back to signing off my posts I fear)

Well, you kind of identified you and them as a group. However, point taken. My apologies.

Jehanne: In any case, if you are going to say that Baptism of Desire is "very likely," what issue, then, do you have with those who would say that it is "very unlikely"? And, how is "very unlikely" any different from the "never happens" set?

I have no issue whatsoever with those who think it is “unlikely,” and I said as much here in the past. It is a perfectly Catholic and orthodox position to take. That something is possible and may have happened or may happen in the future, but that they think it is unlikely that it did or would happen.

But that is not the same as saying something is a theoretical possibility, but removing any real possibility of the thing happening by emphatically and without any doubt saying it NEVER happened and NEVER will happen in the future. To say something is unlikely, still leaves the possibility open that it MAY happen. Saying something NEVER will happen leaves no possibility of it ever happening.

Do you now see the difference between the 2 positions of “unlikely” and “NEVER?” I put the person’s position of “unlikely,” but still possibly happening on equal footing with my position of “likely,” but still possibly not happening.

“NEVER” is another case and removes the actual possibility of it ever happening. Which is contrary to the Church’s teaching for centuries that it MAY happen and is a real actual possibility. Not just an empty theological exercise of possibility that in the end removes any possibility of it ever happening by saying emphatically that it NEVER will happen.

It amazes me that some on this forum condemn Father Feeney for teaching that the One and Triune God can bring sacramental Baptism to whomever sincerely desires it, yet embrace the heretical notion that infants, who have no desire, can be saved without it

I have never condemned the belief that God can bring the actual sacrament of Baptism to whomever He wishes who sincerely desires it. Even to the point of resurrecting them from the dead. And I know of noone here who has said such a thing.

But that He CAN doesn’t mean I have to believe He ALWAYS DOES. Sometimes He can and might simply bring the effects of the sacrament of baptism by baptism from some other way unseen or unknown to us.

It doesn’t have to be either/or. It can be both/and. (Like I said on the other thread.)

And how do you know that every infant has no desire for baptism? In the moments between life and death, perhaps Christ enlightens them with all the explicit faith they need, including the desire for baptism. You are not God. You cannot read the mind and heart of any man, including an infant.

You, Elisa, have cited ad nauseam the many quotes from Popes, Doctors, and Saints of the Church testifying to Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, but for each of those sources, I can provide another quote that teaches that infants cannot and will not be saved without sacramental Baptism.

While the first part of your sentence is unfortunate, I’ll ignore it and still respond to it. I note that you did not say that you can provide any quotes from authoritative sources that specifically deny Baptism of Desire. Because, as you know, no one here has ever come up with one Church statement or Church Father who specifically denied baptism of desire. And none of the Fathers or authorities ever once mentioned “null sets” or said it is possible but will NEVER happen, thereby removing the actual possibility of it.

As to quotes you provide that teaches infants CANNOT EVER be saved or that they go to limbo - the Church interprets those statements differently than the way you are interpreting them through your own private interpretation.

I go with how the Church interprets them. That there may be a limbo. That there is no certainty of salvation for infants who die without baptism. That the only sure path to salvation for them is baptism. But that we can still “hope” that God can and may provide the effects of baptism for these children and we may “hope” for their salvation. And the Church has NEVER in all her 2,000 years equated salvation with limbo. Limbo is not salvation. Only Heaven has ever been considered salvation. When the Church says we can “hope” for the salvation of these infants, she is most definitely not talking about limbo, but Heaven. You are twisting the catechism and interpreting it privately in a way contrary to the meaning of the Church’s statement. If you don’t believe me, write the Pope and see what he says about CCC#1261.

And like Mike has said, “the only remedy available to THEM” is something that is within the scope of human action – visible water baptism. But God may have some other remedy available to Himself.


Plus if one takes that quote from Florence literally, then that would mean there is no limbo. Because the only way to snatch the children from the Devil is visible water baptism. Which would mean that without it, then the children would be subject to the “dominion of the devil.” And limbo is not subject to the dominion of the Devil.

See how it never makes sense to interpret Scripture or Tradition differently than the way the Church does?

Elisa wrote:As to quotes you provide that teaches infants CANNOT EVER be saved or that they go to limbo - the Church interprets those statements differently than the way you are interpreting them through your own private interpretation.

One must wonder at the condemnation of the Holy Office in 1958:

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

Or, Pope Pius XII:

"an act of love can suffice for an adult to acquire sanctifying grace and supply for the lack of baptism; to the unborn or newly born infant, this way is not open" (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLIII, 84)

Funny, how that Boston letter never made it into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis???

Elisa wrote:Plus if one takes that quote from Florence literally, then that would mean there is no limbo. Because the only way to snatch the children from the Devil is visible water baptism. Which would mean that without it, then the children would be subject to the “dominion of the devil.” And limbo is not subject to the dominion of the Devil.

Limbo is in Hell, which means that it is not in Heaven. This is my last post for this thread. I will try to get Brother Andre Maria to publish on this.

If there is a limbo, (and there very well may be,) limbo, Heaven and Hell are outside of time and space, so a discussion on the actual location of these “places” is probably not a good idea.

Purgatory is in the realm of Heaven.

Limbo may be near Hell, but it is not "IN" the Hell of the damned. It does not pertain to Satan. Both the limbo of infants and the limbo of the Fathers/bosom of Abraham (when it existed as a SEPERATED part of Hades – remember Lazarus could not cross the great chasm between the 2?) were never subject to “the dominion/dominiation of the devil” as the Hell of the damned is. While it may not be in Heaven, limbo may be a separate area of Hades, but in English Hell is reserved for the Hell of the damned and it is separate from limbo. It is NOT IN HELL, nor subject to Satan. As if God would ever place these innocents or the Old Testament Patriarchs under the dominion of Satan.

So if that quote of the council of Florence is to be taken literally as you interpret it, and not read with the mind of the Church, then it would mean there is no limbo. Because you say it said that the ONLY WAY to snatch the children from “the dominion/domination of the devil” is with water baptism. Limbo is not under “the dominion/domination of the devil.”

Of course the quote actually doesn’t say the only remedy AVAILABLE TO GOD, it says the only remedy AVAILABLE TO THEM.

Elisa wrote:If there is a limbo, (and there very well may be,) limbo, Heaven and Hell are outside of time and space, so a discussion on the actual location of these “places” is probably not a good idea.

Purgatory is in the realm of Heaven.

Limbo may be near Hell, but it is not "IN" the Hell of the damned. It does not pertain to Satan. Both the limbo of infants and the limbo of the Fathers/bosom of Abraham (when it existed as a SEPERATED part of Hades – remember Lazarus could not cross the great chasm between the 2?) were never subject to “the dominion/dominiation of the devil” as the Hell of the damned is. While it may not be in Heaven, limbo may be a separate area of Hades, but in English Hell is reserved for the Hell of the damned and it is separate from limbo. It is NOT IN HELL, nor subject to Satan. As if God would ever place these innocents or the Old Testament Patriarchs under the dominion of Satan.

So if that quote of the council of Florence is to be taken literally as you interpret it, and not read with the mind of the Church, then it would mean there is no limbo. Because you say it said that the ONLY WAY to snatch the children from “the dominion/domination of the devil” is with water baptism. Limbo is not under “the dominion/domination of the devil.”

Of course the quote actually doesn’t say the only remedy AVAILABLE TO GOD, it says the only remedy AVAILABLE TO THEM.

We've been through this so many times. Limbo would be the Hell of Separation. The Council of Carthage (418) declared this:

"It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: 'In my father’s house there are many mansions' (John 14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :'Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God' (John 3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left." (Canon 3.1, Council of Carthage, Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)

St. Pope Zosimus published Carthage’s canons as his own. It is referred to in the Council of Ephesus. The Tractoria was sent to the whole world:

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

And, not just to the eastern churches:

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

Zosimus accepted the council of Carthage as his own and proclaimed it to the whole Church, thus making it infallible:

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

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

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

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

Luke 16:22-26:

“When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.' Abraham replied, 'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.'”

Jehanne,

You have not addressed my point.

Whatever name you want to call it and wherever it is located, there are 2 things about limbo that no one can dispute. If it does exist, limbo is separated from the Hell of the damned by a chasm that cannot be crossed and limbo is NOT under “the dominion/domination of the devil.”

Follow me here. Maybe I haven’t been clear up till now.

Heaven is NOT under the dominion of the devil.

Limbo is NOT under the dominion of the devil.

Hell IS under the dominion of the devil.

We know that one will go to Heaven (if predestined so by God) if he is baptized with water. The water baptized do not go to limbo.

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

You believe the Church is not interpreting this quote correctly, because it allows its Catechism to say we can “hope” in a possible salvation in Heaven for these infants. You interpret this statement literally to read that there is no hope of salvation in Heaven for these infants. You say the salvation spoken of in other Church quotes for these infants is really limbo, even though the Church always has meant Heaven when talking about salvation.

Now you take this quote to literally say the ONLY way for these children to be “snatched away from the dominion of the devil” is water baptism. If one has water baptism, then they go to Heaven, not limbo. So, since the ONLY way to snatch them away from the dominion of the devil results in Heaven, then there is no limbo, (if one logically follows the literal interpretation you present and not the interpretation of the Church.)

Because that only leaves Hell as an alternative to water baptism and Heaven. Because Hell is the only remaining place that is under “the dominion/domination of the devil.”

Limbo is not under “the dominion/domination of the devil.” Whether it is adjacent to the Hell of the damned or not, it is separated in some way and it is under God’s domination. He does not allow Satan to rule in limbo and wouldn’t put these innocents or the Old Testament Patriarchs under the dominion of Satan.

Got it? That’s why I say that your literal interpretation of this quote logically rules out limbo as a possibility.

___________________________________________________-

I have a question for you.

Why can’t there be a temporary limbo only until the end of the world at the Second Coming and final judgment? Even if there is a limbo (and I believe there may be) why can’t the Church “hope” for the final salvation in Heaven of these children?

All our bodies will be resurrected on that day. Not only those in Heaven, but those in Hell. I imagine those babies in limbo will also have a resurrection of the body. Why would they be any different than everyone else God created? Why can’t Our Lord water baptize them Himself at that point?[/ There is a rare tradition of God in the past resurrecting some people to water baptize them. So if you believe He NEVER would have baptized these infants moments before their death in a realm unseen by humans and that they can NEVER be in Heaven, do you also believe it will NEVER happen that He might baptize them at the Resurrection of the Body?

If He can do that, then the Church is soooo correct in saying that we can “hope” for their final salvation.

And this can also apply to adults and baptism of desire. Maybe they go to some other place like limbo, maybe even limbo itself, temporarily until the final judgment and the resurrection of the body.

Good night and God bless you all.
Love,
Elisa

Elisa wrote:Luke 16:22-26:

“When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.' Abraham replied, 'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.'”

That's a parable, and you should not necessarily base the theology of the afterlife on it, as it was not meant, principally, to teach about the afterlife, but instead, about moral truths. Even so, if it does describe the spiritual realm, all that it says is that the damned in Hell are forever separated from the blissful in Paradise. As Saint Thomas taught, they will at least be able to "see" each other.

Elisa wrote:Limbo is not under “the dominion/domination of the devil.” Whether it is adjacent to the Hell of the damned or not, it is separated in some way and it is under God’s domination. He does not allow Satan to rule in limbo and wouldn’t put these innocents or the Old Testament Patriarchs under the dominion of Satan.

Got it? That’s why I say that your literal interpretation of this quote logically rules out limbo as a possibility.

___________________________________________________-

I have a question for you.

Why can’t there be a temporary limbo only until the end of the world at the Second Coming and final judgment? Even if there is a limbo (and I believe there may be) why can’t the Church “hope” for the final salvation in Heaven of these children?

All our bodies will be resurrected on that day. Not only those in Heaven, but those in Hell. I imagine those babies in limbo will also have a resurrection of the body. Why would they be any different than everyone else God created? Why can’t Our Lord water baptize them Himself at that point?[/ There is a rare tradition of God in the past resurrecting some people to water baptize them. So if you believe He NEVER would have baptized these infants moments before their death in a realm unseen by humans and that they can NEVER be in Heaven, do you also believe it will NEVER happen that He might baptize them at the Resurrection of the Body?

If He can do that, then the Church is soooo correct in saying that we can “hope” for their final salvation.

And this can also apply to adults and baptism of desire. Maybe they go to some other place like limbo, maybe even limbo itself, temporarily until the final judgment and the resurrection of the body.

Good night and God bless you all.
Love,
Elisa

Pope Pius VI all but defined Limbo:

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

As for "second chances" after death, the parable that you cite above gives the reason:

"When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.' Abraham replied, 'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours." (Luke 16:22-26)

"And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment." (Hebrews 9:27)

This is why Saint Thomas says,

"Although original sin is such that one person can be assisted by another on its account, nevertheless the souls of the children in Limbo are in such a state that they cannot be assisted, because after this life there is no time for obtaining grace." (Summa Theologica, Supplement to the Third Part, Q.71, A.7)

If you are going to embrace salutary repentance at death, as does the CCC for suicides, then you might as well embrace universal salvation. In spite of its wondrous, tempting beauty, salutary repentance was the beginning, IMHO, of modernist theology. It is not part of Revelation, and is contrary to all of Catholic theology that came before it. You have this life, and this life alone, and after that, "comes judgment."

This is why infants who died without Baptism and those who committed suicide were denied Masses of Christian Burial, because they had died "without hope."

Jehanne,

If you are going to embrace salutary repentance at death, as does the CCC for suicides

This is ambiguous. Do you mean after death?

And, can you post the CCC section being referenced?

tornpage wrote:Jehanne,

If you are going to embrace salutary repentance at death, as does the CCC for suicides

This is ambiguous. Do you mean after death?

And, can you post the CCC section being referenced?

Is there really a difference? We all agree that the One and Triune God can (and did) raise infants and adults from the dead so that they could receive Baptism or perhaps for other reasons. I suppose that NDEs would also fall into this category. This has, however, always been viewed as the exception and not the rule, but with modernistic theology, it is the rule and not the exception. Hell, it seems also, is now "the exception" (unless you are a traditional Catholic!)

With infants who died without Baptism, this is what people prayed for, a miracle, that the dead infant would be raised to life so that he or she could be baptized. Their "desire" was not enough. In the case of Jehanne la Pucelle (aka, "Joan of Arc"), she and a group prayed for days, before their prayers were granted. They did not view their "desire" and/or prayers as being sufficient for the dead infant in question.

Salutary repentance for infants and suicides is a novelty, like implicit faith. No one has ever shown me a clear reference from any of the Church fathers that ever taught such a thing.

It's #2280 - #2283 in the CCC. Note that the CCC says that "we should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives..." Sorry, from a historical point of view, this is pure novelty.

Jehanne wrote:
Salutary repentance for infants and suicides is a novelty, like implicit faith. No one has ever shown me a clear reference from any of the Church fathers that ever taught such a thing.

This is why infants who died without Baptism and those who committed suicide were denied Masses of Christian Burial, because they had died "without hope."

It's #2280 - #2283 in the CCC. Note that the CCC says that "we should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives..." Sorry, from a historical point of view, this is pure novelty.

Sorry, but from the point of moral theology and Catholic teaching, it is wholly orthodox. The historical teaching that suicide is a mortal sin and a heinous affront and insult to God remains true because truth cannot change; which is why those who committed suicide in ages past were barred from Christian burial in consecrated ground.

If that is no longer the case, it is because, being a changeable discipline, the determination of who will be afforded Christian burial is the exclusive prerogative of the Church; and if she has decided to place the emphasis on God's mercy and to offer her prayers for the sinner that he was given the grace of final repentance, that's totally up to her and not up to you.

You've heard the example of the suicide who, in the distance between the bridge and the water, repented of his act and begged for God's forgiveness. Objectively, it is still a grievous sin; subjectively, grace can still abound.

Only a fundamentalist Pharisee would accuse the Catholic Church of “pure novelty” when she teaches that “we should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives...".

Only a fundamentalist Pharisee would say that anyone who was "denied Masses of Christian Burial ... died 'without hope'."

Get this through your head: The Church cannot determine who was given the grace of final repentance, and who was not. She can only judge the objective sinful nature of the act itself and entrust the soul to God, and may or may not allow Christian burial as times and circumstances permit.

If you want to chastise the Church for showing leniency where in the past she was severe so as to avoid giving the impression that the unbaptized and the suicide deserve the same respect in burial as any other baptized Catholic, then go right ahead ... we expect nothing less.

But the Church will NEVER despair of God's grace, not for an un-baptized infant, and not for a suicide.

I would say that yours is a typical Feeneyite reaction, but this is an insult even to Feeneyites, at least to those who understand this basic premise of moral theology and the Church's teaching that “we should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives..."

“Despair” is not in a Catholic's vocabulary.

Jehanne,

tornpage wrote:

Jehanne,

If you are going to embrace salutary repentance at death, as does the CCC for suicides



This is ambiguous. Do you mean after death?

And, can you post the CCC section being referenced?

Is there really a difference? We all agree that the One and Triune God can (and did) raise infants and adults from the dead so that they could receive Baptism or perhaps for other reasons.

Of course there's a difference. I believe you quoted authority that indicates that one's fate is sealed at death - and then follows judgment. One could have died without baptism but with such overpowering contrition (and love for Christ) that God might very well want to raise them and give them the seal of baptism so that they immediately depart into His presence, and not suffer in Purgatory. And, of course, besides serving that purpose, such raisings also serve the purpose of delivering to the living the awesome power and importance of baptism.

Now, as to infants, the raising of infants for baptism could support your view - there is no other remedy but baptism for them, and there may be no extraordinary means provided by God. I have not entered that debate, other than to agree with Elisa and MRyan that the Church's permitting "hope" that there are extraordinary means for unbaptized infants is no contradiction to the "no other remedy" language of the infallible Magisterium.

MRyan has already dispatched your "pure novelty" idea about having hope for the repentance of suicides who took their own lives but perhaps (?) repented of having done the deed before death closed the door.

Jehanne,

Of course Luke 16:22-26 was a parable. Lazarus and the rich man and their dialogue were not real. But Jesus never used untruth in His parables. The part about the Hell of the damned being separated from limbo by “a great chasm” is real. If fact, the name given to the limbo of the Fathers by the Church (“the bosom of Abraham”) came from this exact parable.

That was the whole point I was making and why I quoted Luke. To show that limbo is separated from the Hell of the damned by a great chasm that cannot be crossed by those on either side. And Satan does not rule in limbo.

I marvel that you say I can’t use this passage to prove my point because it’s a parable, but later you use the exact same parable to try and prove your point. lol While this passage is specifically talking about the bosom of Abraham and not Heaven, at the time of Jesus that is where those who died in a state of grace went, awaiting Christ’s opening of Heaven. So the Church naturally extends this parable to Heaven also being separated from Hell and that those on either side cannot cross.

None of that is in dispute here. And you keep trying to prove limbo to me when I am not disputing its existence. I believe limbo is an actual possibility. And I’m not talking about “null sets” either.

It’s like you aren’t even trying to get my point. You keep bypassing it and not addressing it.

Once more – limbo is separated from the Hell of the damned and Satan does not rule limbo.

Your faulty literal private interpretation of the quote from Florence says that there can be no hope for unbaptized babies and that the ONLY remedy to keep them from “the dominion/domination of the devil” is visible water baptism.

Baptized babies go to Heaven, which is NOT under “the dominion of the devil.”

Limbo is NOT under “the dominion of the devil.”

Only the Hell of the damned IS “under the dominion of the devil.” So your faulty literal private interpretation of that passage would logically result in the conclusion that that there is no limbo because the only place left for these babies to go is Hell, because that is the ONLY place left that is under “the dominion of the devil.”

Since neither you nor I agree that such a conclusion is correct, then your literal private interpretation of the quote is wrong. And the Church’s interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, that there may be some “hope” of final salvation for these babies, is certainly possible and does not conflict with that quote from Florence. (Salvation ALWAYS having meant Heaven when spoken of by the Church.)

___________________________-

You quickly dismiss the possibility of these infants being baptized by Christ at the end of time at His Second Coming when there will be the resurrection of the body – everyone’s bodies. And you misuse the Luke parable about those not being able to cross from Hell into limbo to dismiss the possibility of that baptism.

Hell is separated from limbo by a great chasm that on one can cross from either side.

Hell is separated from Heaven by a great chasm that no one can cross from either side.

But no where does Scripture or Tradition say that same “great chasm” exists between limbo and Heaven and that none can cross from limbo to Heaven, if they are resurrected and baptized.

Otherwise, those noted miracles in tradition of the adult dead being resurrected and baptized could not possibly be true. Because if those people were not saved and in Heaven or Purgatory immediately upon their death, then they would not be able to cross into Heaven or Purgatory after being resurrected and baptized, as noted to have occurred in the reported miracles we all believe were possible.

If it was possible for any unbaptized adult to be resurrected after death and be baptized and saved and allowed entry into Heaven, then it is possible for these infants who may be in limbo until the Second Coming to be baptized at their resurrection and receive final salvation in Heaven.

"And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment." (Hebrews 9:27)

This is talking about the particular judgment we each receive immediately upon our individual deaths. After the Second Coming, when there is the resurrection of the body (all our bodies, whether in Heaven or Hell) there will be the Final Judgment.

Since the Church doesn’t tell God how He should be deciding on individuals on that Final Judgment day, I’d suggest that you don’t tell God that He can’t decide anyway He wants or that He would be some sort of liar or inconsistent with His Holy Word to baptize these little resurrected bodies and bring them into His loving embrace and Beatific Vision.

None of this leads to the belief in universal salvation, which is something that none of us here believe. Don’t get me started on that. lol

Have a good weekend everyone and God bless you all.
Love,
Elisa

Obviously I agree with Myan and Tornpage on suicide.

One question though for anyone who knows. The Church in the past had the discipline of not holding funerals for those who committed suicide and not burying them in Catholic cemeteries, as an example to the living and not to cause scandal to the faithful after such a grievous sin. But I’m pretty sure that the Church NEVER said we couldn’t pray for the souls of those people, like we pray for any other dead person. I think people were allowed in the past to pray for them. I’m not 100% sure, so if someone knows for sure either way, I’d be interested.

Also, the Church distinguishes between those who are mentally ill and those who in their right minds reject the life God gave them and refuse to serve Him. The Church believes that for some their thinking was so seriously impaired at the time of the suicide that it may lessen their sin. Certainly God could momentarily restore their minds to think clearly in the moments between life and death and then give them the grace for repentance.

Only God can read the hearts and minds of men. He knows who is rejecting His grace and sinning and who is answering His call, even in the final moments. “God will not be mocked.” No one can feign confusion with Him. He knows the truth always. And He will judge accordingly.

MRyan:
Only a fundamentalist Pharisee would say that anyone who was "denied Masses of Christian Burial ... died 'without hope'." . . . .

But the Church will NEVER despair of God's grace, not for an un-baptized infant, and not for a suicide. . . .

“Despair” is not in a Catholic's vocabulary. .

Mike,

I thought of this that you wrote when I read the excerpts of Pope Benedict's new book Jesus of Nazareth Part 2. I think I will post all the excerpts on another thread in case someone is interested.

I haven't finished his Jesus of Nazareth Part 1 book yet, but I loved what I read. This one looks good too. We are blessed to have him. His love of Scripture and knowledge of it are beautiful to read.

Here is the part about Judas that made me think of what you said. We should all note that the Church has never defined that Judas is in Hell. The Church has only defined that some are in Heaven, canonized Saints.

True, the light shed by Jesus into Judas' soul was not completely extinguished. He does take a step toward conversion: "I have sinned", he says to those who commissioned him. He tries to save Jesus, and he gives the money back (Mt 27:3–5). Everything pure and great that he had received from Jesus remained inscribed on his soul — he could not forget it.

His second tragedy — after the betrayal — is that he can no longer believe in forgiveness. His remorse turns into despair. Now he sees only himself and his darkness; he no longer sees the light of Jesus, which can illumine and overcome the darkness. He shows us the wrong type of remorse: the type that is unable to hope, that sees only its own darkness, the type that is destructive and in no way authentic. Genuine remorse is marked by the certainty of hope born of faith in the superior power of the light that was made flesh in Jesus.

John concludes the passage about Judas with these dramatic words: "After receiving the morsel, he immediately went out; and it was night" (13:30). Judas goes out — in a deeper sense. He goes into the night; he moves out of light into darkness: the "power of darkness" has taken hold of him (cf. Jn 3:19; Lk 22:53).

Elisa wrote:Since neither you nor I agree that such a conclusion is correct, then your literal private interpretation of the quote is wrong. And the Church’s interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, that there may be some “hope” of final salvation for these babies, is certainly possible and does not conflict with that quote from Florence. (Salvation ALWAYS having meant Heaven when spoken of by the Church.)

The definitive statement on the impossibility of salvation for infants who die without Baptism was given at the Council of Carthage, which I cited above. As for people who commit suicide, you can certainly pray for them, but as Saint Thomas teaches, "Hence suicide is always a mortal sin, as being contrary to the natural law and to charity."(Summa Theologica, II II, A.64, A.5)

You can certainly "toss in" all sorts of psychobabble that deny that human beings, created in the image of God, have free will. If you are, however, coherent enough to work your way onto a bridge, you are coherent enough to decide whether or not to jump, and in the 3 or 4 seconds that it takes to hit the water, concrete, etc., I do not think that you will have the time to make a thorough "examination of conscience" and/or make a Perfect Act of Contrition to seek forgiveness from the One and Triune God.

As for "second chances" after death, such an idea is thoroughly non-Catholic, which is why dead infants were raised to life so that they could be baptized. It is also the whole idea behind conditional baptism, that God will hold a soul in its body long enough for the Sacrament to be ministered.

Jehanne wrote:As for people who commit suicide, you can certainly pray for them, but as Saint Thomas teaches, "Hence suicide is always a mortal sin, as being contrary to the natural law and to charity."(Summa Theologica, II II, A.64, A.5)

You can certainly "toss in" all sorts of psychobabble that deny that human beings, created in the image of God, have free will. If you are, however, coherent enough to work your way onto a bridge, you are coherent enough to decide whether or not to jump, and in the 3 or 4 seconds that it takes to hit the water, concrete, etc., I do not think that you will have the time to make a thorough "examination of conscience" and/or make a Perfect Act of Contrition to seek forgiveness from the One and Triune God.

So who said that in the objective order "suicide is [NOT] always a mortal sin, as being contrary to the natural law and to charity"?

Moral theology and Catholic teaching are nothing more than “psychobabble” to our resident Pharisee who believes that the letter of the law governing the objective mortal sin of suicide prohibits any possibility of contrition, free will and grace acting on the suicide/penitent between the bridge and the water.

So he pulls out his stop watch and says that in that eternity of 3 to 4 seconds between life and death, between damnation and salvation, there is not enough to time for grace to move the person who has despaired of all hope to make a proper “examination of conscience” and/or to make a “Perfect Act of Contrition” (in caps, no less), as if our resident Pharisee knows how much time is needed to turn to God and to beg for mercy and forgiveness with a contrite heart; for, if grace is to work, the Author of Time also has His stopwatch on and tells the suicide, “Sorry, you lose – you did not finish your 'Act of Contrition' on time”.

What more is there to say?

If you are going to embrace the idea of salutary repentance (as does the CCC), then these debates are over. The miracle of ensoulment begins life at conception and the miracle of grace with salutary repentance ends life at physical death, and from there, follows universal salvation.

This is a theology that is equivalent to atheistic materialism, with a thin veneer of Catholic spirituality on top, kind of like a Dairy Queen Dilly Bar. From conception until death, it does not matter what one does with his or life. Preferably, you should be a good person, life your life to the fullest, help others, be a productive member of society and the world, etc., but in the end, everyone ends-up in the same place. The only difference would be that in materialism, everyone is decaying in their graves at differing rates, whereas in universal Catholicism, some people are flying first-class while others are flying coach.

It is an interesting theology, but one that is simply contrary to Scripture, Tradition, and the universal Magisterium of the Church (at least until recently.) It is also contrary to the revelations that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave at Fatima:

http://www.fatima.org/essentials/message/tspart1.asp

While universal salvation is very, very appealing, I just do not think that it is "in the cards." We have this life and this life alone to make our choices, and if we choose to jump off a bridge, having had refused the graces of the Holy Spirit to "not jump," I seriously doubt that there will be any further graces on one's trip down to the water, concrete, etc.

Jehanne,

What on earth is in your mind when you refer to "salutary repentance"? It seems you are presuming a repentance [i]after[/i death, which is absurd. The burden is on you to show that that is what the CCC means when it refers to "salutary repentance." Since I do not think the CCC is absurd, I am almost certain you can't prove that.

Douay Rheims 2 Corinthians 7:10

For the sorrow that is according to God worketh penance, steadfast unto salvation; but the sorrow of the world worketh death.

Haydock Commentary

For the sorrow, &c. Sorrow for the loss of temporal goods, such as friends, riches, honours, &c. is productive of no good effects; but on the contrary, it ruins the constitution, exciting in the soul emotions of anger, murmuring, revenge, and brooding melancholy. It moreover betrays an inordinate attachment to creatures. But sorrow for our own sins, and for those of others, sufferings which we endure for the glory of God, work penance unto salvation, which is lasting; or, as the Greek has it, worketh penance unto salvation, of which we shall never repent. For tears shed in prayer unto God are sweeter, says S. Augustine, (Ps. cxxvii.) than any pleasure that can be procured from the stage, &c. The tears of the saints are like sweet wine, which inebriate those who love God. S. Aug. Ps. lxxxiii. — Contrition, or a hearty sorrow for sin, and not faith alone, as some pretend, is essential to salvation.

Clementine Latin Vulgate

Quæ enim secundum Deum tristitia est, pœnitentiam in salutem stabilem operatur: sæculi autem tristitia mortem operatur.

http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock:lvb/2_Corinthians_7:10

I would imagine that is the "salutary repentance" the CCC is referencing, and it has nothing to do with "repentance" after death - again, the whole idea of "repentance" after death is absurd. I agree with you on that point, while rejecting your unfounded leap that that is what the CCC means by "salutary repentance."

The veritasbible.com site, by the way, is a great site for reading the Bible verse by verse, with the Haydock commentary right next to the verse, and the Clementine Vulgate right next to that. The format is very nice - click on that link and see.

I don't know what happened to the link. I'll try it again:

http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock:lvb/2_Corinthians_7:10

I do not know what the CCC means by "salutary repentance." Here is the section of the CCC:

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. the Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

I can only assume that if someone "blows their brains out," that such repentance would have to take place after the physical death of that person's brain. I guess the CCC is saying something along the lines of conditional Baptism, absolution, etc., where the One and Triune God holds the soul of the deceased in his or her body long enough to have the Sacrament ministered to that person, or for that person, in his or her soul, to make an Act of Perfect Contrition.

Thanks for the link.

I can only assume that if someone "blows their brains out," that such repentance would have to take place after the physical death of that person's brain.

You start from a disgust or alienation from the current Magisterium (and the Post-Vatican II Magisterium in general) and interpret everything said by the same through the prism of your disgust. You need to step outside of that box you are trapped in.

You're intelligent, and striving for wisdom. Let go of your "disgust" and see if maybe you're jumping to interpretations or conclusions, not necessary and harmful conclusions, through your own bias.

I speak from experience.