Re: God's Permission Of Sin: Negative Or Conditioned Decree?

tornpage Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:19 pm

By selectively citing Scripture, and by taking exception to the obvious sense of Ezekiel 33:11

And where, oh where have I "taken exception" to that text?

You know, mate, you're really trying my patience.

Just keep it up.

Jehanne Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:30 pm

Problem with Mike's (and, apparently, the late Father Most's) analysis is what was defined at the First Vatican Council:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14, ex cathedra: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."

Did the Council of Carthage understand that it was defining a "null set":

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: 'In my house there are many mansions': that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God' [John 3], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ?" (Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45, note 2).

Note that the above canon, per the ITC, is authentic.

Now, Father Most will claim (or rather, did claim) that the Magisterium has "corrected this and that," but pray tell, show me one such "correction." Pray tell, show me where the Magisterium has said, "Hey, we are correcting this understanding that was taught for centuries on end..." No, instead, what Mike is presenting is an opinion of a theologian. Father Harrison would disagree as to the fact that there have been any "corrections." "Contradictions," perhaps; "corrections," not necessarily. By the way, how do well tell the difference? For Mike, it is a correction; for me, it is a contradiction, and one that does not even make sense.

As I posted from Vatican I, that Council is teaching that if an individual cooperates with the graces of the Holy Spirit, such an individual will be led by divine grace to the Catholic Church.

MRyan Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:55 am

tornpage wrote:
By selectively citing Scripture, and by taking exception to the obvious sense of Ezekiel 33:11
And where, oh where have I "taken exception" to that text?

You know, mate, you're really trying my patience.

Just keep it up.

Or what?

You just don’t get the point, but don’t let that stop you from taking the high road as if you are scolding some petulant child.

Let’s try this again. I was responding to your response to my statement that your selective citations from Scripture (only one of the eight actually addresses negative reprobation in the context of God’s glory) is a bit hypocritical seeing that you just got done telling me there is “nothing” to discuss about one’s “personal interpretation” of God’s true will in Ezekiel 33:11, since that citation is also “in Banez’s Bible, Alvarez’s Bible, Gonet’s Bible, St. Alphonsus’s Bible, St. Robert Bellarmine’s Bible.”

So why are you citing multiple Scripture citations when there is NOTHING to discuss since my interpretation of the one relevant passage is going to be different from yours (with mine being the more literal, traditional and common senses one), especially when you do NOT actually believe that God truly died on the Cross for all men or that He truly loves all men enough to have them saved, proof of which is that some men are lost; therefore, God must not love them enough to render their insufficient sufficient graces (if they actually receive any) actually sufficient (efficacious)?

In fact, the Haydock Commentary (already provided) on this same passage goes right to the heart of my argument, by saying:

Desire. The sinner's damnation is not an object of God's pleasure. C. xviii. 23. C. --- He has an antecedent will to save all. He knocks at the door of our heart, (Apoc. iii. 20.) and if man do what depends on him, nothing will be wanting on the part of God. S. Tho. i. 2. q. 109. and 112. W.

Under the “reformed” system of grace, this is simply not true, for there is NOTHING a man can do in responding to God’s grace and call that will compel God to save him if he is one of the reprobate, for God will simply let him die in his sins.

What this means is that Our Lord either does not knock at the door of all men’s hearts, or, the knock is sometimes some soft, wimpy, insincere, ineffectual and inaudible tap that the man cannot hear or respond to; or, if he does respond, efficacious grace will still be wanting on the part of God, and the reprobated man will infallibly die in his sins before death, for God does NOT truly will his salvation in the first place; the "first place" being an infallible declaration of reprobation.

You wrote:

The fact remains that the vast majority of human beings ever conceived and born, who died before reaching maturity and without baptism, are not, or are probably not, or as even you must concede, possibly are not, in heaven.

Your system of “love” utterly fails to address what is even for you and your fellow thinkers a real possibility.

My “system of ‘love’” fails in justice if there is even one unbaptized soul who is deprived of the beatific vision, but enjoys an eternity of natural happiness devoid of any mental or physical “pain” whatsoever, and who is visited by our Blessed Mother, the saints and the angels? Are you serious?

Wait, Limbo is a theological construction, so I guess your “system of non-sufficient love” will have to recognize that the possibility remains that “the vast majority of human beings ever conceived and born, who died before reaching maturity and without baptism, are not, or are probably not, or, as even you must concede, possibly are not, in heaven” or in limbo.

The “possibility” remains that “the vast majority of human beings ever conceived and born, who died before reaching maturity and without baptism, are ... as even you must concede,” suffering the eternal torments in Hell, with at least the “pain” of eternal loss.

Physician, heal thyself.

tornpage Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:13 am

To the extend that this doctrine has not been “defined”, there is some leeway for legitimate dissent, but that is always a risky gambit when one resists the living Magisterium to its face and accuses her of “error” on a matter pertaining directly to a matter of salvation.

You need to let go of the past and talk to the man talking to you now. Am I talking with MRyan the Feeneyite? No. You are a living being, not something in stone, and I will treat you as such. Kindly treat me as such.

I have no intention of publicly accusing the Church of error. If I have any reservations about anything the Magisterium puts forth, I will discuss them only to the extent someone tries to shove something down by throat as definitive, as meaning this or that, when it is not definitive, and doesn’t mean this or that, or if it is not necessary for me to believe this or that and it is presented to me as being so.

You got into arguments like this with Pascendi and others here about baptism of desire - a totally different situation. Putting aside the legitimacy of your view in terms of the way things actually stand on that issue, you would clearly have no leg to stand on if “Feeneyism” and its opponents, and the issue of baptism of desire itself, was subject to a decades long inquiry and investigation by the Church, and the Church decided that both were allowed to maintain their views, and that neither should call the other heretic.

That is our situation. You - Most, Marin-Sola, whomever - don’t like “negative reprobation” and the physical premotion of the Thomists. Ok. But if you want to go beyond scholarly discussion on the issue and start pointing fingers about being “opposed to the Magisterium,” you’ll get a mean ornery dog here in that fight.

A good analogy would be the not so distant past when some, even clerics, maintained that the Latin Mass was “banned” and that the Church had “moved beyond that.” A proper response to that would not be going on the offensive and saying the NO was heretical or harmful to the faith or whatever, but simply sticking to the truth: the Latin Mass was never banned; I am free to worship the Lord in the Latin Mass . . . and, beyond that . . . go pound sand. Smile

As to the scholarly discussion regarding Marin-Sola. To me it is “moot,” and for the reason of these infants. Marin-Sola rejects physical premotion because “things really could have been different, de facto,” and men (sinners) could have complied. The position, to me, avoids the critical mass of the majority of human beings who ever lived: infants who die without baptism. Could they have been baptized? Could the infant born in South America in the 7th century have been baptized? Could his parents, himself, have acted differently?

Because Marin-Sola’s theory fails to address, as I said, the situation of the majority of human beings who have been conceived/born, it doesn’t present an answer. It is a hypothesis that doesn’t account for all the data.

If there is room for legitimate discussion here, I will continue and contribute.

tornpage Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:32 am

Wait, Limbo is a theological construction, so I guess your “system of non-sufficient love” will have to recognize that the possibility remains that “the vast majority of human beings ever conceived and born, who died before reaching maturity and without baptism, are not, or are probably not, or, as even you must concede, possibly are not, in heaven” or in limbo.

The “possibility” remains that “the vast majority of human beings ever conceived and born, who died before reaching maturity and without baptism, are ... as even you must concede,” suffering the eternal torments in Hell, with at least the “pain” of eternal loss.

Physician, heal thyself.

This is the product of a total failure to make critical distinctions. And generated simply because I said I agreed with the doctrine of Limbo.

If the infants are in Hell suffering punishment because of original sin, perhaps the “mildest” form as per St. Augustine; if they are in Limbo . . . it doesn’t matter to the point under discussion.

The relevant and critical point is they are not (or might not be) in glory. We all concede that they might not be in glory without personal fault. My view, the view of the Thomist negative reprobationists, is compatible with that real possibility. Your view is inconsistent with a real possible fact, and therefore conflicts with the data, or at least what we must concede may be the data.

The opposite position (to mine) maintains that all men are in glory unless they commit personal sin:

That negative reprobation before prevision of sins seems to us to be, from every point of view, incompatible with the universal salvific will of God. It is true that glory is an entirely gratuitous benefit, which God can grant to whom He wills and refuse to whom He wills, but it is no less true, that God most freely and liberally, has decided to grant that benefit of glory to all men, without exception. If anyone remains without obtaining it, that is not by fault of God, but by his own fault. How, then, could it be maintained that God-even before man has placed resistance to grace by sin-should not elect that one to glory, or should seek to exclude him from heaven?"

The infants do not commit personal sin, and they very well might not be in glory (as you must concede). The theory therefore fails on its own terms.

If Marin-Sola disagrees with Fr. Muniz (quoted above), let me know, and we’ll discuss it.

The rest of your post is petty and not worth addressing, and I won’t waste my time. If it makes you feel good, great.

MRyan Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:33 am

Jehanne wrote:Problem with Mike's (and, apparently, the late Father Most's) analysis is what was defined at the First Vatican Council:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14, ex cathedra: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."
Did the Council of Carthage understand that it was defining a "null set":

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: 'In my house there are many mansions': that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God' [John 3], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ?" (Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45, note 2).

No, Jehanne, the only problem is that you do not know the difference between a "once declared sacred dogma" and a footnoted canon which has never been accepted by the Church as proclaiming a "once declared dogma" on the final fate of non-sacramentally baptized infants, let alone on that happy place called Limbo.

In fact, you can't even name the alleged "once declared dogma" in the subject canon, and, if you were consistent, you would have to say that this particular footnoted canon which does not appear in the more established and oft cited codexes, dogmatically condemned the notion that "there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism", and it also dogmatically declared as a "once declared dogma", "what Catholic will doubt that he [the unbaptized infant] will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ?"

Tell us, Jehanne, is not Limbo "some place ... where happy infants live who departed from this life without baptism"? And, are the infants in Limbo "partners with the devil", or aren't they?

You keep wanting to chase this disputed canon down the dogmatic "once declared" rabbit hole, but you don't know what to do once you get there, except to attend the Mad Hatter Tea Party.

Jehanne wrote:
Note that the above canon, per the ITC, is authentic.

Whether one assumes the canon is "authentic" or not does not change the fact that the Church has never accepted the canon as a "once declared dogma" that condemns "limbo" as some happy place other than heaven where unbaptized infants go, or as a "once declared dogma" that definitely closed the question of extra-excremental regeneration.

Those are indisputable facts, Jehanne, and your attempt to render this canon of Carthage as some "once declared dogma" that definitely sealed the fate of non-water baptized infants cannot change those facts.

Jehanne wrote:
Now, Father Most will claim (or rather, did claim) that the Magisterium has "corrected this and that," but pray tell, show me one such "correction."

What the magisterium "corrected" was the erroneous idea that God does not truly will the salvation of all men, just as she corrected the erroneous idea that unbaptized infants suffer the positive torments of at least the pain of loss - in hell.

Jehanne wrote:
Pray tell, show me where the Magisterium has said, "Hey, we are correcting this understanding that was taught for centuries on end..."

Try reading the documents of VCII, for starters. She corrected both misleading doctrines (though not definitively), even with "positive torments" being the common doctrine for eight centuries. However, that God does not truly will the salvation of all men was held by relatively few "rigorist Thomsists", and was held neither by St. Augustine nor St. Thomas.

Jehanne wrote:
No, instead, what Mike is presenting is an opinion of a theologian. Father Harrison would disagree as to the fact that there have been any "corrections." "Contradictions," perhaps; "corrections," not necessarily. By the way, how do well tell the difference? For Mike, it is a correction; for me, it is a contradiction, and one that does not even make sense.

You have a lot of nerve referencing Fr. Harrison who absolutely rejects your assertion that the footnoted canon of Carthage is a "once declared dogma" that definitively shut the door to the possibility of extra-sacramental salvation for unbaptized infants. His "opinion" rather, and he knows this is just his "opinion", is that such documents as the disciplinary declaration Effraenatam seem to have magisterially settled the question against extra-sacramental salvation for unbaptized infants, but his is a minority theological opinion which is not not held even by the Church.

The fact that Fr. Harrison has the liberty to challenge the Church's teaching on the "hope" of salvation for infants (in this specific case, aborted infants) proves that this is not a "once declared dogma", contrary to your thoroughly discredited and silly assertion. The only "once declared dogma" here is the one which declares that original sin prevents access to the beatific vision.

Jehanne wrote:
As I posted from Vatican I, that Council is teaching that if an individual cooperates with the graces of the Holy Spirit, such an individual will be led by divine grace to the Catholic Church.

When, in actuality, that is NOT what Vatican I declared, rather, she declared:

14. To this witness is added the effective help of power from on high. For, the kind Lord stirs up those who go astray and helps them by his grace so that they may come to the knowledge of the truth; and also confirms by his grace those whom he has translated into his admirable light, so that they may persevere in this light, not abandoning them unless he is first abandoned.

Yes, that "knowledge of the truth" is found only in the Catholic Church, but that does NOT mean that grace and this same truth are confined to her institutional structure.

In fact, you know this, so what are you harping on about?

Jehanne Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:11 pm

Mike,

This is what the ITC stated:

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

Are you saying that the ITC got the part above in bold wrong? How about the part which I underlined?

tornpage Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:29 pm

Mike,

What the magisterium "corrected" was the erroneous idea that God does not truly will the salvation of all men, just as she corrected the erroneous idea that unbaptized infants suffer the positive torments of at least the pain of loss - in hell.

Jehanne wrote:

Pray tell, show me where the Magisterium has said, "Hey, we are correcting this understanding that was taught for centuries on end..."

Try reading the documents of VCII, for starters. She corrected both misleading doctrines (though not definitively), even with "positive torments" being the common doctrine for eight centuries.

Can you cite what you are referring to?

Thank you.

MRyan Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:59 pm

tornpage wrote:
To the extend that this doctrine has not been “defined”, there is some leeway for legitimate dissent, but that is always a risky gambit when one resists the living Magisterium to its face and accuses her of “error” on a matter pertaining directly to a matter of salvation.

You need to let go of the past and talk to the man talking to you now. Am I talking with MRyan the Feeneyite? No. You are a living being, not something in stone, and I will treat you as such. Kindly treat me as such.

I don't know who that man I am talking to actually is, for the man I thought I was talking to still believes that God does not truly desire the salvation of all men, at least not enough to provide for his salvation if he has been infallibly declared one of the reprobate.

True, or false? If false, why are we having this discussion?

tornpage wrote:I have no intention of publicly accusing the Church of error. If I have any reservations about anything the Magisterium puts forth, I will discuss them only to the extent someone tries to shove something down by throat as definitive, as meaning this or that, when it is not definitive, and doesn’t mean this or that, or if it is not necessary for me to believe this or that and it is presented to me as being so.

I have never said that the Church's teaching on this matter has been settled definitively, let alone that an opposing position is heretical, so why all the bluster? Are you sermonizing? Why do you keep erecting this straw-man?

And it does not matter what your intention is, the fact is, as you are so fond of saying, by the very fact that the Church teaches that Our Lord truly died for and truly wills the salvation of all men, and your assertion that He did and does not, means that only one of these propositions can be true; and the other false.

And as I am fond of saying, that the Church has not definitively settled the matter (though I could make the argument that she has) places "error" into context, meaning, by holding an opposing opinion, one is not accusing the Church of heresy (and vice-versa), and there may in fact be legitimate reasons for dissent. But the "safer" course is always to go with the universal doctrine (which today all theologians and Bishops hold), which of course is the same doctrine taught by the Church.

That is precisely how I framed my response, but it seems you still want to make this some sort of personal attack.

tornpage wrote:You got into arguments like this with Pascendi and others here about baptism of desire - a totally different situation.

Putting aside the legitimacy of your view in terms of the way things actually stand on that issue, you would clearly have no leg to stand on if “Feeneyism” and its opponents, and the issue of baptism of desire itself, was subject to a decades long inquiry and investigation by the Church, and the Church decided that both were allowed to maintain their views, and that neither should call the other heretic.

And who ever said that I accused you of being a heretic? Why do you persist in going down this dead end?

And the Church did in fact undertake a decades long inquiry (along the lines of development), and her clear teaching on the true universal salvific will of God is magisterially proclaimed in the documents of VCII and other official documents, and is supported by Scripture, Tradition and the Doctors of the Church, and is thus "infallible" by its universal support by theologians, Bishops and the Faithful.

tornpage wrote:That is our situation. You - Most, Marin-Sola, whomever - don’t like “negative reprobation” and the physical premotion of the Thomists. Ok. But if you want to go beyond scholarly discussion on the issue and start pointing fingers about being “opposed to the Magisterium,” you’ll get a mean ornery dog here in that fight.

That's fine, because your position is opposed to the Magisterium, even if she has not dogmatically and definitely settled the matter. Her teaching is very clear, and enjoys universal support.

tornpage wrote:A good analogy would be the not so distant past when some, even clerics, maintained that the Latin Mass was “banned” and that the Church had “moved beyond that.” A proper response to that would not be going on the offensive and saying the NO was heretical or harmful to the faith or whatever, but simply sticking to the truth: the Latin Mass was never banned; I am free to worship the Lord in the Latin Mass . . . and, beyond that . . . go pound sand.

While ignoring the authority of the local Ordinary and by attending the Mass of an "independent" priest. Sure, why not?

So what's more important, obedience to the Pope through obedience to his Bishops who alone have jurisdiction in their respective diocese, or "go pound sand, my right to attend the TLM is sacrosanct, and I will, approved Mass, and by a priest with jurisdiction, or not".

But your analogy fails for two important reasons, the first being that both forms of the Roman rite are "true" in that they are equal with respect to their inherent efficacy (notwithstanding the protests of the rad-trads who, as you say, consider the N.O invalid and a sacrilege). And second, you cannot compare the suppression of the TLM with a long-discredited doctrine as if the Church will realize one day that the discredited doctrine she does not hold and has never held has an equal place at the table with her own teaching.

That's not going to work. It would be the same as Feenyites holding out for the Church to one day condemn the baptisms of blood and desire as erroneous doctrines. It's not going to happen.

tornpage wrote:
As to the scholarly discussion regarding Marin-Sola. To me it is “moot,” and for the reason of these infants. Marin-Sola rejects physical premotion because “things really could have been different, de facto,” and men (sinners) could have complied. The position, to me, avoids the critical mass of the majority of human beings who ever lived: infants who die without baptism. Could they have been baptized? Could the infant born in South America in the 7th century have been baptized? Could his parents, himself, have acted differently?

Because Marin-Sola’s theory fails to address, as I said, the situation of the majority of human beings who have been conceived/born, it doesn’t present an answer. It is a hypothesis that doesn’t account for all the data.

If there is room for legitimate discussion here, I will continue and contribute.

Seeing that I already addressed every one of your arguments without rebuttal, when you even seemed to agree that if God allows secondary causes to impede the ordinary, and if God chooses, an extra-ordinary means of salvation, that this may not in fact mitigate His true desire to save unbaptized infants (even if you do not think it is a "primary" reason), since the balance of justice must be maintained between the general and practical orders; I'm not sure we can proceed, but, I'm still here willing to give it a go, as always.

tornpage Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:18 pm

Mike,

It appears we’re done discussing this and not going to get any further.

I would ask that you, if you can, provide the citations I asked for from Vatican II.

Second, if you’re capable of answering my question about whether Marin-Sola’s position is the same as that expressed by Fr. Muniz in that quote I provided, it would be appreciated.

Mark

MRyan Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:49 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

It appears we’re done discussing this and not going to get any further.

If that is the case, we're done, and I see no need to respond to your questions after telling me we're done discussing this.

tornpage wrote:I would ask that you, if you can, provide the citations I asked for from Vatican II.

Second, if you’re capable of answering my question about whether Marin-Sola’s position is the same as that expressed by Fr. Muniz in that quote I provided, it would be appreciated.

Mark

tornpage Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:12 pm

Mike,

I’m not shutting down the discussion purposefully. I said, “it appears” we’re done.

Let me rephrase: I have no response to your prior post - or don’t see anything to add that would be constructive, or not repetitive. So it appears we’re done.

I can’t make you answer the questions, so what you wish.

Mark

MRyan Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:57 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

This is what the ITC stated:

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

Are you saying that the ITC got the part above in bold wrong? How about the part which I underlined?

No, it is simply repeating what the canon said in its historical context, without "dogmatizing" it. As far as the underlined part, ditto; and, while it appears the last part of the canon is repeating Augustine's harsh doctrine, it cannot be said to be an "explicit" magisterial endorsement thereof.

I'm still looking for the "once declared" dogma in the canon that you clearly suggest dogmatically and definitively shuts the door to the possibility of an extra-sacramental regeneration for unbaptized infants, but you don't seem to want to help.

MRyan Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:59 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

I’m not shutting down the discussion purposefully. I said, “it appears” we’re done.

Let me rephrase: I have no response to your prior post - or don’t see anything to add that would be constructive, or not repetitive. So it appears we’re done.

I can’t make you answer the questions, so what you wish.

Mark

Mark,

That's fine. I'll give this a bit of a break, but will return.

MRyan Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:55 pm

Actually, Mark, let me tell you what I find troubling, and that is your dismissive attitude as if I have not responded to your arguments with legitimate responses.

It would appear that you want this discussion to progress along the lines/terms you dictate, and those terms only. I am fully aware that you now accept as legitimate the teaching that God has an antecedent will to save all men. However, it is also clear that you hold that this "will" is not a "true" and active will, but more of a weak "velleity" that will leave a "reprobated" soul in his sins, rather than provide graces sufficient for his salvation, which he can accept, or not accept.

Is this correct, or not?

For example, I presented a legitimate response to one of your remarks that you brushed off as somehow being irrelevant to this discussion, just like you have dismissed everything else I have argued. So let me repeat it:

you even seem to agree that if God allows secondary causes to impede the ordinary, and if God chooses, an extra-ordinary means of salvation, that this may not in fact mitigate His true desire to save unbaptized infants (even if you do not think it is a "primary" reason), since the balance of justice must be maintained between the general and practical orders;

You are on recent record as having taken strong objection to St. Liguori's remarks relative to the general and particular orders, but here you seem to recognize its legitimacy, even if you believe that the "primary" reason that God allows a soul to perish without the application of the merits (and grace) of His redemption, is because such a reprobation redounds to the glory of God in the salvation of the elect.

If you refuse to address these reasonable arguments and observations, and simply ignore me and insist on re-framing the debate with these repeated and needless distractions about "heresy", you are correct, it would appear that we are done.

And if it bothers you that much that I consider your doctrine to be opposed to that of the Magisterium and the Doctors of the Church, you'll just have to get over it. If it's a "show-stopper", then stop the show, for I am not going to bury this fact just for the sake of a so-called spirit of peace. I am not going to make this central to my argument, but I am not going to ignore it, either.

You can hold your doctrine without fear of censor from the Church, just as someone can hold without censor that unbaptized infants suffer the positive sensory and spiritual pains of hell. But that does not change the fact that these positions are opposed to the sensus fidelium of the Faithful, and to the mind and will of the Church (as manifested in the mind and will of the Roman Pontiff).

This has to be a give and take.

George Brenner Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:26 pm

The discussions on our faith and eternity can certainly be frustrating. Just ask St. Augustine.

and speaking of St Augustine. There was this twenty year old in 1969 that was on his way to Key West with two of his fraternity buddies at which time he stopped for a night in St Augustine. They did the tourist thing but that was not the reason for the stop. He proceeded to go to Waldron's Music Store in the old towne district on St. George Street. He walked in the front door and went over to the distinguished gentleman and asked if he was George Waldron. He said yes I am. He introduced himself and said that he was going to marry his niece next year in November. He about fell over and said lets all go get a drink. As we left his shoppe, he said this is where my wife, Mary and I live ( Bennett House ? ) right on St. George Street. He said people are always knocking on our door thinking that this place is part of the tourist locations to visit. I was that 20 year old.
Mike and Mark go have a drink. Just one mind you

God's will.... on being saved or dammed.

God the first person of the Blessed Trinity is eternal; no beginning and no end. Thus God says to Moses tell them ' I am '
has sent me to you. Can we even fathom or understand this?

Is God different in the old versus the new testament? Or how about pre Old testament and post New Testament and the end of this world? Is God more or less strict, more or less tolerant, more or less forgiving, more Grace and help or less grace and help based on favor or merit , changing or different criteria at different times within eternity? Would or could someone in hell say if only I had lived in a different time, things would have been different but alas bummer, now I am in hell for eternity. For me I would say God is perfect, all loving, all merciful and all just and we will go to hell if we do not live our Catholic faith and refuse to use the graces afforded us. No one is in hell because of bad fortune. God wills all to be saved. We get what we deserve.

" Before I formed you in the womb I knew you ".( a plan by God for Jeremiah from before he was in the womb ) True and such a great mystery. There is no way to even begin to understand the implications as this applies to God. Some might think that because God knows all that everything is pretty much a done deal to the Glorious side or to the punishment and dammed side. This mystery cannot be grasped so I trust completely in God. What I was trying to say in an earlier post was that it is the work of satan for anyone to live their life as if they are already in the saved or dammed column. Some might say, with this pretext they might as well do as they please. I believe that even thinking along those lines threatens the well being and life line of sanctifying grace for the soul. Can you imagine if God created paradise for Adam and Eve, knowing they would disobey Him and eat the forbidden fruit and thus original sin, the need for Jesus dying for our sins , Baptism, the Catholic Church etc etc.. There is a great mystery in all of this that is beyond our grasp and speculation. Saint Adam and Saint Eve's feast day is celebrated on December 24th. They are with God in Heaven for eternity. Interesting to meditate on this for sure. ( Maybe Adam and Eve have to baptize all the unbaptized aborted babes and infants.) Or how about Noah and his immediate family. Does God create this incredible Universe, knowing that he will destroy/kill well over 99% of the Earths inhabitants because of their sins and immorality. Were these people all predestined to go to hell? I say absolutely not. Each and every one of them chose with free will their life choices and actions. Or what about Sodom and Gomorrah ? There is so much beyond our comprehension and I personally care not to speculate.

I do not believe that the Saints in Heaven along with Blessed Mother and the Angels are in eternal bliss and spend 100% of the time in complete tranquility in heaven. Neither do I believe that the Blessed Trinity is in perpetually bliss and happiness at least as I understand this in earthly terms. I think they are in undescribeable happiness but that they get up and go to work every day ( bad choice of words , but so be it ) and they pray for and feel the pain and hurt of those that our suffering on earth and in purgatory. Look at the constant cries for help that go out to Heaven by the second. Look at the sin of abortion, murder, sins of the flesh etc. There is much work going on in Heaven I know those in feel the pain and have roles to play in God's eternal design to help mankind. I know that anger exists in Heaven as demonstrated by God, Blessed Mother and Jesus. It may be that perfect happiness will exist in Heaven when there is no earth and Purgatory is empty. But then again, eternity is a loooong time so it is not for me to say. There are so many beautiful attributes about our Catholic Faith that we should not let frustration get the best of our soul. I only pray that I could live up to what is expected of me..... I fall so often, but I get up again so that hopefully I do better and continue to learn from all of you and others.

JMJ,

George

tornpage Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:47 pm

However, it is also clear that you hold that this "will" is not a "true" and active will, but more of a weak "velleity" that will leave a "reprobated" soul in his sins, rather than provide graces sufficient for his salvation, which he can accept, or not accept.

I believe that God wills the salvation of all men: he provided the sacraments sufficient for the salvation of everyone, and Christ’s Blood is sufficient for the salvation of everyone. Is that will “false”? Huh?

you even seem to agree that if God allows secondary causes to impede the ordinary, and if God chooses, an extra-ordinary means of salvation, that this may not in fact mitigate His true desire to save unbaptized infants (even if you do not think it is a "primary" reason), since the balance of justice must be maintained between the general and practical orders

Respond to what? I sincerely do not understand it.

And if it bothers you that much that I consider your doctrine to be opposed to that of the Magisterium and the Doctors of the Church, you'll just have to get over it.

What do you mean bother? Hey, you can say it as much as you want, and I’ll continue to tell you various things along the lines of “pound sand.” You don’t judge me. The doctrine is not opposed to the faith of the Church, but is a part of it, endorsed by some of its children - and that’s a fact.

You can hold your doctrine without fear of censor from the Church, just as someone can hold without censor that unbaptized infants suffer the positive sensory and spiritual pains of hell. But that does not change the fact that these positions are opposed to the sensus fidelium of the Faithful, and to the mind and will of the Church (as manifested in the mind and will of the Roman Pontiff).

Says you. I say physical premotion, negative reprobation, and “Thomism" are not opposed to the sensus fidelium of the Faithful.

Do I pass?

Actually, I’m not much interested in your grade, so never mind.

tornpage Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:55 pm

I fall so often, but I get up again so that hopefully I do better and continue to learn from all of you and others.

That’s a wonderful, saintly attitude, George.

God is love, mercy, justice, and truth. It is all one package. An idea that is marked by internal inconsistency cannot be truth, and that’s why this discussion is important - for me.

The Catholic faith is the truth, and will not be beset by internal inconsistency.

MRyan Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:03 pm

tornpage wrote:
Wait, Limbo is a theological construction, so I guess your “system of non-sufficient love” will have to recognize that the possibility remains that “the vast majority of human beings ever conceived and born, who died before reaching maturity and without baptism, are not, or are probably not, or, as even you must concede, possibly are not, in heaven” or in limbo.

The “possibility” remains that “the vast majority of human beings ever conceived and born, who died before reaching maturity and without baptism, are ... as even you must concede,” suffering the eternal torments in Hell, with at least the “pain” of eternal loss.

Physician, heal thyself.
This is the product of a total failure to make critical distinctions. And generated simply because I said I agreed with the doctrine of Limbo.

I don’t care if you agree with Limbo or not, so please don’t try to second guess my motives. As an established but non-definitive doctrine (Limbo), my arguments hold, no matter what your position is on the fate of unbaptized infants; for Limbo and the torments of Hell have to be considered as distinct possibilities under the very arguments you present - that is the whole point.

And the point is this, your argument that I must “concede” the “possibility that the vast majority of human beings ever conceived and born, who died before reaching maturity and without baptism, are not, or are probably not, … possibly are not, in heaven” is as relevant as the argument that says one must concede the possibility that “the vast majority of human beings ever conceived and born, who died before reaching maturity and without baptism, are ... suffering the eternal torments in Hell, with at least the ‘pain’ of eternal loss.”

In fact, I do not have to accept these “possibilities” of eternal separation or damnation for unbaptized infants, for the same reason you can accept Limbo and reject eternal torments (sensory and spiritual pain of loss in hell), so your argument is dead upon arrival, for it proves nothing except it has never been definitively settled, but we do have a living Magsterium who gives us good grounds for hope, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

So I did not fail to make critical distinctions, I simply placed your misplaced argument into context by demonstrating its irrelevancy.

Mark wrote:
If the infants are in Hell suffering punishment because of original sin, perhaps the “mildest” form as per St. Augustine; if they are in Limbo . . . it doesn’t matter to the point under discussion.

The point under discussion is whether I must “concede” that there remains the possibility that God may not save unbaptized infants, as if this somehow negates God’s universal salvific will. It does NOT, as I (and the Doctors) have explained over and over again.

Mark wrote:
The relevant and critical point is they are not (or might not be) in glory. We all concede that they might not be in glory without personal fault. My view, the view of the Thomist negative reprobationists, is compatible with that real possibility. Your view is inconsistent with a real possible fact, and therefore conflicts with the data, or at least what we must concede may be the data.

You have yet to prove that my position is in any way “inconsistent with a real possible fact, and therefore conflicts with the data, or at least what we must concede may be the data”; rather, you simply ignore the arguments of the greatest Doctors and theologians of the Church by appealing to the arguments of certain “Thomists” who deviated from the doctrines of both Augustine and the Angelic Doctor, as has been amply demonstrated. These are the same Doctors who taught that God does in fact have a true and active will to save all men.

Your charge of “inconsistency” is getting a bit stale, and your doctrine which holds that God does not have a true will to save these little ones, and reprobates unbaptized infants in order to manifest His glory in the predestination of the saints is not only “inconsistent”, it is false; for, while God’s actions or non-actions in the particular order always redound to His glory, and the glory of the saints, this has nothing to do with God’s universal love and true desire to save these same infants.

Mark wrote:
The rest of your post is petty and not worth addressing, and I won’t waste my time. If it makes you feel good, great.

Keep it up; ignore my “petty” arguments as somehow being beneath you.

No matter, it would appear I'm striking too close to home by exposing the fallacy of your own doctrine - which you do not appear to want to discuss.

tornpage Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:18 pm

Keep it up; ignore my “petty” arguments as somehow being beneath you.

I honestly don’t think you’re responding to my point. I’m sorry, but I don’t. The “petty” thing goes to your need to always justify this, that, and guessing as to motives you see beneath the surface. I don’t have time for that. I don’t consider you or your argument “beneath me.” BTW, thanks for a good, very recent example of the motive thing.

Maybe someone else can jump in here and comment on the discussion - if they get my point, your point. Maybe they could help.

No matter, it would appear I'm striking too close to home by exposing the fallacy of your own doctrine - which you do not appear to want to discuss

Yes, that’s exactly it. Rolling Eyes

There you go with motive thing, with a little twist.

MRyan Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:49 pm

tornpage wrote:
However, it is also clear that you hold that this "will" is not a "true" and active will, but more of a weak "velleity" that will leave a "reprobated" soul in his sins, rather than provide graces sufficient for his salvation, which he can accept, or not accept.

I believe that God wills the salvation of all men: he provided the sacraments sufficient for the salvation of everyone, and Christ’s Blood is sufficient for the salvation of everyone. Is that will “false”? Huh?

This is what I mean about dictating the terms of this discussion. Go ahead and ignore the truth of your own doctrine.

tornpage wrote:
you even seem to agree that if God allows secondary causes to impede the ordinary, and if God chooses, an extra-ordinary means of salvation, that this may not in fact mitigate His true desire to save unbaptized infants (even if you do not think it is a "primary" reason), since the balance of justice must be maintained between the general and practical orders

Respond to what? I sincerely do not understand it.

You understood it well enough by responding to this the first time around. Suddenly you do not understand. No wonder we cannot make any progress. Why don't you go back and read the original posts and responses, maybe then it will resonate.

tornpage wrote:
And if it bothers you that much that I consider your doctrine to be opposed to that of the Magisterium and the Doctors of the Church, you'll just have to get over it.
What do you mean bother? Hey, you can say it as much as you want, and I’ll continue to tell you various things along the lines of “pound sand.” You don’t judge me. The doctrine is not opposed to the faith of the Church, but is a part of it, endorsed by some of its children - and that’s a fact.

Again, ignore what I actually said and continue to "pound" your pathetic straw men into the sand. This is actually very disturbing -- I expected better.

And it is only a "part" of the Church in that it is a part of the legacy of some theologians, and it has never been officially condemned. I guess that's something you can take solace in.

tornpage wrote:
You can hold your doctrine without fear of censor from the Church, just as someone can hold without censor that unbaptized infants suffer the positive sensory and spiritual pains of hell. But that does not change the fact that these positions are opposed to the sensus fidelium of the Faithful, and to the mind and will of the Church (as manifested in the mind and will of the Roman Pontiff).

Says you. I say physical premotion, negative reprobation, and “Thomism" are not opposed to the sensus fidelium of the Faithful.

They most certainly are, for it also says that God does not truly love all men, or truly wills their salvation; at least not enough to provide them with graces efficaciously "sufficient" for salvation if they are among the infallibly declared reprobate.

If you can demonstrate where even one theologian today (let alone the Church) holds such a view, or that this is in any way the sensus fidelium of the Faithful, go right ahead.

You couldn't be more wrong, and you know it.

Jehanne Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:11 pm

Mike,

Here are some statements from the ITC:

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.

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

21. Augustine was the point of reference for Latin theologians throughout the Middle Ages on this matter. Anselm of Canterbury is a good example: he believes that little children who die without Baptism are damned on account of original sin and in keeping with God's justice. The common doctrine was summarized by Hugh of St. Victor: infants who die unbaptised cannot be saved because (1) they have not received the sacrament, and (2) they cannot make a personal act of faith that would supply for the sacrament. This doctrine implies that one needs to be justified during one's earthly life in order to enter eternal life after death. Death puts an end to the possibility of choosing to accept or reject grace, that is, to adhere to God or turn away from him; after death, a person's fundamental dispositions before God receive no further modification.

26. Augustine's thought enjoyed a revival in the 16th century, and with it his theory regarding the fate of unbaptised infants, as Robert Bellarmine, for example, bears witness. One consequence of this revival of Augustinianism was Jansenism. Together with Catholic theologians of the Augustinian school, the Jansenists vigorously opposed the theory of Limbo. During this period the popes (Paul III, Benedict XIV, Clement XIII) defended the right of Catholics to teach Augustine's stern view that infants dying with original sin alone are damned and punished with the perpetual torment of the fire of hell, though with the “mildest pain” (Augustine) compared with what was suffered by adults who were punished for their mortal sins. On the other hand, when the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786) denounced the medieval theory of “Limbo”, Pius VI defended the right of the Catholic Schools to teach that those who died with the guilt of original sin alone are punished with the lack of the Beatific Vision (“punishment of loss”), but not sensible pains (the punishment of "fire"). In the bull “Auctorem Fidei” (1794), the Pope condemned as “false, rash, injurious to the Catholic schools” the Jansenist teaching “which rejects as a Pelagian fable [fabula pelagiana] that place in the lower regions (which the faithful call the ‘Limbo of Children’) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, without the punishment of fire, just as if whoever removes the punishment of fire thereby introduces that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation of which the Pelagians idly talk”. Papal interventions during this period, then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century.

34. In the Church's tradition, the affirmation that children who died unbaptised are deprived of the beatific vision has for a long time been “common doctrine”. This common doctrine followed upon a certain way of reconciling the received principles of revelation, but it did not possess the certitude of a statement of faith, or the same certitude as other affirmations whose rejection would entail the denial of a divinely revealed dogma or of a teaching proclaimed by a definitive act of the magisterium. The study of the history of the Church's reflection on this subject shows that it is necessary to make distinctions. In this summary we distinguish first, statements of faith and what pertains to the faith; second, common doctrine; and third, theological opinion.

40. In summary: the affirmation that infants who die without Baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the Church, which must be distinguished from the faith of the Church. As for the theory that the privation of the beatific vision is their sole punishment, to the exclusion of any other pain, this is a theological opinion, despite its long acceptance in the West. The particular theological thesis concerning a “natural happiness” sometimes ascribed to these infants likewise constitutes a theological opinion.

41. Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture: the creation of the human being in Christ and his vocation to communion with God; the universal salvific will of God; the transmission and the consequences of original sin; the necessity of grace in order to enter into the Kingdom of God and attain the vision of God; the uniqueness and universality of the saving mediation of Christ Jesus; and the necessity of Baptism for salvation. These other ways are not achieved by modifying the principles of the faith, or by elaborating hypothetical theories; rather, they seek an integration and coherent reconciliation of the principles of the faith under the guidance of the ecclesial magisterium, by giving more weight to God's universal salvific will and to solidarity in Christ (cf. GS 22) in order to account for the hope that infants dying without Baptism could enjoy eternal life in the beatific vision. In keeping with a methodological principle that what is less known must be investigated by way of what is better known, it appears that the point of departure for considering the destiny of these children should be the salvific will of God, the mediation of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit, and a consideration of the condition of children who receive Baptism and are saved through the action of the Church in the name of Christ. The destiny of unbaptised infants remains, however, a limit-case as regards theological inquiry: theologians should keep in mind the apophatic perspective of the Greek Fathers.

The ITC speaks of a "developing sensus fidelium" among the Catholic faithful, who, by very large majorities, reject the Church's teachings on birth control, abortion, premarital sex, divorce and remarriage, homosexual marriage, euthanasia, ordination of women to the priesthood, the primacy of the Pope, etc., in addition to rejecting the "common doctrine" of the Limbo of the Children.

MRyan Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:27 pm

Mark,

I truly would like to know the man and his doctrine, so I would ask that you further explain your own explanation (recently explicated), as I see nothing but inconsistency.

Mark wrote:

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

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

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

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

I hope this is clarifying where I am coming from.

I too seek clarity. Let me see if I understand your doctrine.

God wills the salvation of all men, but only antecedently, generally and abstractly, and not in the concrete (where man lives). If someone is born (the circumstances as they actually exist) as one of the reprobate, God’s antecedent and abstract salvific will means absolutely nothing, for the fate of the reprobate has already been infallibly determined by divine decree, and his life in the concrete has only one direction and end, infallible reprobation.

Is that correct? Is that how you can say “God antecedently wills the salvation of man” and “I do not see God’s antecedent will to save all men” without any sense of contradiction?

How can you separate His antecedent will from His consequent will as if they are from two separate wills - which may be opposed one to the other? How can God at one and the same time will a man's salvation, and will (allow) His fall by divine decree?

Is this why you also said "I do not see God’s antecedent will to save all men”? Do you instinctively see the inconsistency?

Do you see now why it is much more correct to say that God has one universal will for the salvation of all men, and the only thing that can impede that will is inherited sin (perhaps), and a deliberate will that sins by refusing the salvific will and the graces sufficient for salvation?

The consequent will is simply the unfolding of the universal will under the circumstances and contingencies as they actually exist. They are one and the same will. That salvific will does not change, regardless of whether God allows it to be impeded by secondary causes, or overcomes a stubborn will because He chooses to.

God does not "decree" the reprobation of any man. Sin comes from man, not God. He foresees his final refusal of grace, or foresees an impediment (original sin) that He may or many not overcome should the ordinary means fail of its effect. There is no inconsistency here, but a terrible inconsistency with the doctrine of two opposing wills - and negative reprobation.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (never mind its Molinist bias in its concluding paragraph - not cited here):

Whatever view one may take regarding the internal probability of negative reprobation, it cannot be harmonized with the dogmatically certain universality and sincerity of God's salvific will. For the absolute predestination of the blessed is at the same time the absolute will of God "not to elect" a priori the rest of mankind (Suarez), or which comes to the same, "to exclude them from heaven" (Gonet), in other words, not to save them. While certain Thomists (as Bañez, Alvarez, Gonet) accept this conclusion so far as to degrade the "voluntas salvifica" to an ineffectual "velleitas", which conflicts with evident doctrines of revelation, Francisco Suárez labours in the sweat of his brow to safeguard the sincerity of God's salvific will, even towards those who are reprobated negatively. But in vain. How can that will to save be called serious and sincere which has decreed from all eternity the metaphysical impossibility of salvation? He who has been reprobated negatively, may exhaust all his efforts to attain salvation: it avail's him nothing. Moreover, in order to realize infallibly his decree, God is compelled to frustrate the eternal welfare of all excluded a priori from heaven, and to take care that they die in their sins. Is this the language in which Holy Writ speaks to us? No; there we meet an anxious, loving father, who wills not "that any should perish, but that all should return to penance" (2 Peter 3:9). Lessius rightly says that it would be indifferent to him whether he was numbered among those reprobated positively or negatively; for, in either case, his eternal damnation would be certain. The reason for this is that in the present economy exclusion from heaven means for adults practically the same thing as damnation. A middle state, a merely natural happiness, does not exist. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm)

MRyan Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:43 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Here are some statements from the ITC:

[...]

The ITC speaks of a "developing sensus fidelium" among the Catholic faithful, who, by very large majorities, reject the Church's teachings on birth control, abortion, premarital sex, divorce and remarriage, homosexual marriage, euthanasia, ordination of women to the priesthood, the primacy of the Pope, etc., in addition to rejecting the "common doctrine" of the Limbo of the Children.

Jehanne,

You are constantly raising these red herrings as if they have any merit whatsoever. You are speaking about pick-and-choose 'Catholics' who you say REJECT all of those established doctrines of the Catholic Church, and then you throw in the theological opinion on Limbo for good measure as if the prevailing sensus fidelium of the Faithful for the good "hope" that unbaptized children are saved is somehow in the same category as the rejection of established truths by the modernist wing of so-called Catholics.

Furthermore, the "senus fidelium" cannot be separated from the Magisterium when it comes to established truths, so who cares what some malcontents who call themselves Catholic believe when it is clearly opposed to the teaching Church?

Really, Jehanne, your logical fallacies can be so abysmal I wonder how you can spend any time making them up.

MRyan Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:04 pm

George Brenner wrote: The discussions on our faith and eternity can certainly be frustrating. Just ask St. Augustine.

and speaking of St Augustine.

Hi George,

You know, I live just up the road from St. Augustine. Anyone you want me to say hi to?

Can you imagine if God created paradise for Adam and Eve, knowing they would disobey Him and eat the forbidden fruit and thus original sin, the need for Jesus dying for our sins, Baptism, the Catholic Church etc etc.

Yes, actually, I can. Oh, happy fault! God so loved us from the foundations of all eternity that He saw all of this and made it so, just to manifest the love bursting from the Trinity that He did not want to confine to pure Spirit alone. The fallen angels most likely were privileged to see the manifestation of this Love Incarnate in the form of the God-man, and also in our Blessed Mother, and rebelled, to their utter shame and damnation.

Our justification, and God willing, our Glory, is and will be greater than anything given to Adam and Eve in their earthly paradise, for we possess the “Reward exceeding great”.

God would slay the world for the salvation of one of His lost sheep (and almost did so in the Flood), and Our Lord would slay the world for the salvation of one of His flesh and blood little ones (such did His humanity unite us to Him); such is His unspeakable and unquenchable Love, and such are the torrents of unending graces flowing still like a raging river from the Cross.

There is no “inconsistency” with his justice should He save each and every one of His unbaptized infants, who are formed in flesh and in blood already consecrated by our divine Savior, only awaiting the purging of that original inherited stain, which our Lord can remove in an instant; and our Lord calls each and every one of them to the Home for which they were created.

Jehanne Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:06 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Here are some statements from the ITC:

[...]

The ITC speaks of a "developing sensus fidelium" among the Catholic faithful, who, by very large majorities, reject the Church's teachings on birth control, abortion, premarital sex, divorce and remarriage, homosexual marriage, euthanasia, ordination of women to the priesthood, the primacy of the Pope, etc., in addition to rejecting the "common doctrine" of the Limbo of the Children.
Jehanne,

You are constantly raising these red herrings as if they have any merit whatsoever. You are speaking about pick-and-choose 'Catholics' who you say REJECT all of those established doctrines of the Catholic Church, and then you throw in the theological opinion on Limbo for good measure as if the prevailing sensus fidelium of the Faithful for the good "hope" that unbaptized children are saved is somehow in the same category as the rejection of established truths by the modernist wing of so-called Catholics.

Furthermore, the "senus fidelium" cannot be separated from the Magisterium when it comes to established truths, so who cares what some malcontents who call themselves Catholic believe when it is clearly opposed to the teaching Church?

Really, Jehanne, your logical fallacies can be so abysmal I wonder how you can spend any time making them up.

Because, these Catholics, by every measure, constitute the "super majority" of those who call themselves "Catholic." Only around 1 in 10 (at most) of individuals identifying themselves as Catholic would consider artificial birth control to be "intrinsically evil." In fact, one of the leading theologians of the Second Vatican Council, Father Karl Rahner, openly and publicly dissented from Humane Vita. Even the so-called "Winnipeg Statement" has never been formally withdrawn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Statement

MRyan Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:22 pm

Jehanne wrote:
Because, these Catholics, by every measure, constitute the "super majority" of those who call themselves "Catholic." Only around 1 in 10 (at most) of individuals identifying themselves as Catholic would consider artificial birth control to be "intrinsically evil." In fact, one of the leading theologians of the Second Vatican Council, Father Karl Rahner, openly and publicly dissented from Humane Vita. Even the so-called "Winnipeg Statement" has never been formally withdrawn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Statement

Ah, so now the "super majority" of Catholics who practice birth control probably have no problem with the Church's teaching on the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants.

And the logical fallacy is complete, guilt by association!

George Brenner Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:31 pm

Mike said :

There is no “inconsistency” with his justice should He save each and every one of His unbaptized infants, who are formed in flesh and in blood already consecrated by our divine Savior, only awaiting the purging of that original inherited stain, which our Lord can remove in an instant; and our Lord calls each and every one of them to the Home for which they were created.

That will always be my prayer and hope while in this life.

No relatives on my wives side are still alive in St Augustine. George Waldron's son Harry (Ree) and his wife were the last. Ree owned a grocery store in St. Augustine. I can still remember the sign above the entrances that said: " Thru these doors enter the greatest people in the world, our customers"

JMJ,

George

Jehanne Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:50 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
Because, these Catholics, by every measure, constitute the "super majority" of those who call themselves "Catholic." Only around 1 in 10 (at most) of individuals identifying themselves as Catholic would consider artificial birth control to be "intrinsically evil." In fact, one of the leading theologians of the Second Vatican Council, Father Karl Rahner, openly and publicly dissented from Humane Vita. Even the so-called "Winnipeg Statement" has never been formally withdrawn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Statement
Ah, so now the "super majority" of Catholics who practice birth control probably have no problem with the Church's teaching on the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants.

And the logical fallacy is complete, guilt by association!

Of the Catholics who accept Humanae Vitae, most accept the existence of the Limbo of the Children. For instance, Limbo is not disputed at all within the SSPX; all the priests accept it, as do all the faithful. All traditional Catholics accept it, as do many "conservative" Catholics.

MRyan Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:22 pm

Jehanne wrote:
Of the Catholics who accept Humanae Vitae, most accept the existence of the Limbo of the Children. For instance, Limbo is not disputed at all within the SSPX; all the priests accept it, as do all the faithful. All traditional Catholics accept it, as do many "conservative" Catholics.

Jehanne, it is absolutely rash and most likely absolutely false to say “Of the Catholics who accept Humanae Vitae, most accept the existence of the Limbo of the Children”, as if this means that most of the “Catholics who accept Humanae Vitae” reject the hope of salvation for unbaptized infants; for “hope” is NOT the assurance of salvation, thus, the possibility of Limbo cannot be dismissed.

And you cannot say that that “Limbo is not disputed at all within the SSPX; all the priests accept it, as do all the faithful. all traditional Catholics accept it”, because you have absolutely no way of knowing how many accept the possibility of “hope” for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

I have no doubt that a majority within these groups question or reject the doctrine of “hope”, but that is besides the point; for, as you said “The ITC speaks of a ‘developing sensus fidelium’ among the Catholic faithful”.

Get it? The “hope” of salvation for unbaptized infants is not THE sensus fidelium, but "a developing sensus fidelium’ among the Catholic faithful”, and in particular, "a developing sensus fidelium" among conservative Catholics who trust the guidance of the Church in all such matters (you know, those “Catholics who accept Humanae Vitae”).

That Limbo (to the exclusion of "hope") is the sensus fidelium among the SSPX and other traditional types is not surprising, for these groups tend to mistrust everything that comes out of the “modern Church” anyway.

Jehanne Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:32 pm

I will let them (the SSPX) speak for themselves:

Limbo?

Limbo is denied in practice, and that agrees completely with what we are going to see. Since it is not necessary any more that the virtue of the passion of Christ be applied to us by faith and the sacraments, there is no more reason to close the door of heaven to the little children who have died without Baptism:

Concerning the infants who have died without Baptism, the Church can only confide them to the mercy of God, as she does in the rite of funeral for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God which desires that all men be saved,56 and the tenderness of Jesus towards the children who made Him say, "Suffer the little children to come to me, and hinder them not" (Mk. 10:4), permits us to hope that there was a path of salvation for the children who died without Baptism. All the more pressing is the call of the Church to not hinder the little children to come to Christ by the gift of Holy Baptism (§ 1261).

This negation of Limbo is very grave. The Catholic doctrine on Limbo is not defined, but it is certain. Let us recall it briefly. The punishment for original sin is the privation of the vision of God.57 Those who die with original sin go to Limbo where they will remain for all eternity.58 In Limbo, they enjoy a natural happiness, without hatred of God or pain of sense.59 These three affirmations are not defined, but they are taught as certain.

From "Is the New Catechism Catholic?":

http://www.sspx.org/New_Catechism/new_catechism_is_it_catholic_II.htm

Where will unbaptized children (and aborted babies) go on the day of the Last Judgment?

It is not a doctrine of Faith that children dying with original sin only on their soul go to a special place or state called the children’s Limbo. However, it is the common opinion of the theologians. This is based upon the teaching of Pope Innocent III (and the Fathers of the Church) on the effects of baptism, in which he has this to say:

The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell. (Maiores Ecclesiae causas, Dz 780).

The state of Limbo is consequently a suffering from the pain of loss, or separation from God, but not of the pain of the senses. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches (De malo 5, 3), such a pain of loss is compatible with a certain natural happiness. At the last judgment, when the bodies will rise to share in the punishment or reward of heaven or hell, the bodies of those who are in Limbo will also rise. Although separated from God, in which way they share the punishment of the damned in hell, they will not be tormented by remorse nor will they suffer the pain of the sense which the damned suffer forever in hell.

The denial of this common teaching by the heretical council of Pistoia was condemned by Pope Pius VI as "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools." Here is his description of the erroneous doctrine:

The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of 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 the punishment of fire... (Auctorem Fidei, Dz 1526). [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__theological.htm#limbo

Finally, some more here:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/1997/November/St%20Thomas%20on%20the%20Limbo%20of%20Children.htm

MRyan Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:49 pm

Jehanne, citing the illustrious SSPX:

This negation of Limbo is very grave. The Catholic doctrine on Limbo is not defined, but it is certain.

So, the negation of Limbo is “very grave” as in a mortal sin against the faith (if Limbo is “theologically certain”; a “dogmatic fact”) or a “mortal sin of temerity” (against a theologically “certain” doctrine).

So says the SSPX, and they are blowing a lot of smoke. Are you still inhaling this?

According to Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951), On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them (translated and adapted by John Daly), the equivalent term for “Theologically certain” is a “Dogmatic fact; theological conclusion”, which pertains to “A truth logically following from one proposition which is Divinely revealed and another which is historically certain.” The effect of denial is “Mortal sin against faith”.

If that sounds like a bit of a stretch (requiring “firm and definitive assent”, according to the CDF), two rungs down the old theological note tree is the note “Certain”, meaning “Common” or even “theologically certain” (but not the same as a “dogmatic fact”). The note “certain” is “A truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians which is derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning.”

However, if the weight of tradition teaches that unbaptized infants go to a place called Limbo, this is in no way "certain", and it does not matter if one holds that Limbo is “historically certain” or “A truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians”, for both propositions are false, and easily proven to be false.

We’ve been over this before, Jehanne, and it is a proven fact that for a solid eight centuries following the era of St. Augustine, the common doctrine of theologians held that unbaptized infants suffered an eternity of sensory and spiritual pains in hell. St. Augustine taught, however begrudgingly, that all infants who die without baptismal regeneration:

must face the judgment of God, said Augustine; he is a vessel of wrath, a vessel of contumely, and the judgment of God is upon him. Baptism is the only thing that can deliver him from the kingdom of death and the power of the devil. If no one frees him from the grasp of the devil, what wonder is it that he must suffer in flames with Satan? There can be no doubt about the matter, the saint concludes, he must go into eternal fire with the devil. (George Dyer, Limbo: Unsettled Question)

Using the same SSPX ground rules, Augustine's doctrine was once held as “Certain”, and “A truth unanimously held by all [western] schools of theologians (of the time) which is derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning.” Of course, we would have to discount the opinion of the Eastern Fathers, but, they don’t count anyway, right, Jehanne?

And not only did several theologians beginning in the 16th century challenge Limbo as the “no doubt” final fate of unbaptized infants, “Given the fact that earlier popes had cleared the Augustinians of heresy for denying limbo, Pius [VI] could hardly claim that the hypothesis of limbo was an obligatory belief.” (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2007/06/antinomies-of-limbo-some-histo)

And with that, any notion of Limbo as representing some sort of “theologically certain” or “certain” doctrine, the denial of which is a “mortal sin”, comes crashing down, and the fallible and historically inaccurate opinion of the SSPX is sent packing.

In fact, Jehanne, not only is Limbo NOT a “A truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians” (as a “certain” doctrine), but, as with all alleged “certain” doctrines (as opposed to the dogmatic facts called “theologically certain”, which require “firm and definitive assent”):

“Proportionately grave reason can sometimes justify an individual who has carefully studied the evidence in dissenting from such a proposition; since it is not completely impossible for all the theological schools to err on such a matter, although it would be highly unusual and contrary to an extremely weighty presumption.” (http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html)

Jehanne, citing the SSPX (apparently, Fr. Peter Scott, who called the "new mass" a "sacrilege” that is "inherently harmful to souls and to the Catholic Faith"):

Is the New Catechism Catholic?:

Is the SSPX Catholic?

Jehanne Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:55 pm

I think that they are reading Auctorem Fidei differently than you are. By your logic, saying that the Limbo of the Children does not exist is:

1) Not okay, if one says that Limbo does not exist because it is "a Pelangian fable."

2) Is okay, if one simply asserts that Limbo does not exist.

tornpage Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:15 pm

Mike,

It’s a function of time and the depth of the subject, but I don’t have a response right now. I often think out loud and while I am typing in these posts, and it as often gets me in trouble with you. So be patient. I express concerns, criticisms . . . don’t take all of it as a definitive statement of “what I believe,” when it’s often what I feel at the moment.

Maybe I’m finally learning. I think there should be a 48 hour delay regarding posting. That would improve the quality here greatly I think. Very Happy

The standing with the Thomists is deliberate and part of what I believe. That much is certain. As to my “theorizings” and such . . . some salt is needed on your part.

Mark

tornpage Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:47 pm

We’ve been over this before, Jehanne, and it is a proven fact that for a solid eight centuries following the era of St. Augustine, the common doctrine of theologians held that unbaptized infants suffered an eternity of sensory and spiritual pains in hell.

True. And good point.

And then there was Limbo.

And now there is not (maybe not) Limbo.

Point being it’s not settled.

Apropos our discussion: a) there were these rigorist Thomists, who were ok with their doctrine of negative reprobation and physical premotion; b) now those things are not ok (not heretical, but against the teaching of the current Magisterium - per Mike) . . .

Hey, but today’s belief is not definitive. So . . .

I’ll wait until the Church comes back to “me.”

Thank you.

PS - Mike, you are going to either drive me out of the Church or into the camp next to Pascendi's, and I will blissfully go to Mass, say the Rosary, mainly keep my mouth shut, read Augustine and what I can get my hands on from St. John of Thomas and co., and be a quiet “Thomist.” Very Happy

I just had to lighten this topic up a bit.

MRyan Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:57 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

It’s a function of time and the depth of the subject, but I don’t have a response right now. I often think out loud and while I am typing in these posts, and it as often gets me in trouble with you. So be patient. I express concerns, criticisms . . . don’t take all of it as a definitive statement of “what I believe,” when it’s often what I feel at the moment.

Maybe I’m finally learning. I think there should be a 48 hour delay regarding posting. That would improve the quality here greatly I think.

The standing with the Thomists is deliberate and part of what I believe. That much is certain. As to my “theorizings” and such . . . some salt is needed on your part.

Mark

Mark,

No problemo. And don't take my probing questions and bullish analysis of negative reprobation as some sort of indictment; I just want to present, front and center like, all of its true implications, warts and all.

George Brenner Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:04 pm

Mark said: True. And good point.

And then there was Limbo.

And now there is not (maybe not) Limbo.

Point being it’s not settled.

To this I must say " bingo ". It is not settled on earth BUT has been settled in Eternity by God some time ago. So knowing this present 'given' why would we not pray and hope for the best outcome possible?

JMJ,

George

MRyan Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:42 pm

Jehanne wrote:I think that they are reading Auctorem Fidei differently than you are. By your logic, saying that the Limbo of the Children does not exist is:

1) Not okay, if one says that Limbo does not exist because it is "a Pelangian fable."

2) Is okay, if one simply asserts that Limbo does not exist.

No, Jehanne, for you know that is not what I am saying, for never have I said that the Limbo of the Children does not exist, or that it is a "Pelagian fable". In fact, I have gone to great lengths to demonstrate why it is not such a "fable" by highlighting the distinction between the Pelagian concept of "natural happiness" (with no original sin), and the Catholic doctrine. It is true, however, that IF our Lord saves all unbaptized infants, then Limbo has no reason for existing.

Jehanne Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:20 pm

MRyan wrote:It is true, however, that IF our Lord saves all unbaptized infants, then Limbo has no reason for existing.

And, this is the central issue, isn't it?! However, I cannot accept the above proposition for the following reasons:

1) It contradicts the unanimous teaching of all the Fathers of the Church, both East and West, who definitively taught that infants who die with Baptism do not share the same fate as those who die without Baptism. The ITC recognizes this:

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

2) The Council of Florence, in stating, "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains" did not understand their teaching as constituting a "null set," but as an actuality that did, indeed, occur in the real World. Per Vatican I, we are to retain their understanding of the dogma which they defined.

3) The sensus fidelium of the Catholic Faithful, all Popes, all theologians, all Saints, and all Doctors of the Church was, for many centuries, that there were, indeed, infant children who were forever excluded from the Beatific Vision for lack of sacramental Baptism. This is an indisputable historical fact. Neither Thomas Cajetan, Gerson, Jean Gerson, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, nor anyone else ever taught or proposed that all infant children who die without sacramental Baptism would be saved, only that there could be perhaps some exceptions.

MRyan Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:02 pm

Tell you what, Jehanne, we'll keep Limbo open with the "vacancy" light burning just in case, and just for you.

Bottom line, there is a real possibility that Our Lord chooses to save unbaptized infants without exception; and that's fine by me, and I pray it is so. The saints and theologians of days gone by are no more privy to this non-revelation than you or me. And if Limbo is packed with happy infants, it is indeed a "logical" solution, even if it presents it own unique problems.

The Magisterium of today is the same Magisterium of Sts. Augustine and Aquinas, but she has centuries of theological development under her belt and she has moved ever so cautiously but deliberately in providing sure grounds for "hope"; and if hope is all we can ever have, that's fine by me as well, for hope is all we need.

Our Lord has chosen to reserve this mystery for Himself and His Blessed Mother (whose Maternal instincts, I suspect, will not allow for one of these little ones to be lost) and for the angelic choirs and the Blessed in Heaven. Perhaps even the fallen angels, who writhe in agony and anger at such a display of pure will, love and mercy.

He is allowing His Church to touch upon (with expectant hope), but not yet possess, the truth of the wonderful riches of His mercy that is bound up in this mystery.

I suspect He wants to leave this as a surprise, and it's no fun spoiling such a wonderful surprise before "the fullness of time".

Please, Jehanne, try not to be disappointed.

tornpage Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:55 am

Mike,

how you can say “God antecedently wills the salvation of man” and “I do not see God’s antecedent will to save all men” without any sense of contradiction?

I said it and explained in the very passage you quoted. ?

Look at St. Thomas's explanation in the Summa:

Summa Theologica 1a.q.19.a3

Article 6. Whether the will of God is always fulfilled?

Objection 1. It seems that the will of God is not always fulfilled. For the Apostle says (1 Timothy 2:4): "God will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." But this does not happen. Therefore the will of God is not always fulfilled.

Reply to Objection 1. The words of the Apostle, "God will have all men to be saved," etc. can be understood in three ways.

First, by a restricted application, in which case they would mean, as Augustine says (De praed. sanct. i, 8: Enchiridion 103), "God wills all men to be saved that are saved, not because there is no man whom He does not wish saved, but because there is no man saved whose salvation He does not will."

Secondly, they can be understood as applying to every class of individuals, not to every individual of each class; in which case they mean that God wills some men of every class and condition to be saved, males and females, Jews and Gentiles, great and small, but not all of every condition.

Thirdly, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 29), they are understood of the antecedent will of God; not of the consequent will. This distinction must not be taken as applying to the divine will itself, in which there is nothing antecedent nor consequent, but to the things willed.

To understand this we must consider that everything, in so far as it is good, is willed by God. A thing taken in its primary sense, and absolutely considered, may be good or evil, and yet when some additional circumstances are taken into account, by a consequent consideration may be changed into the contrary. Thus that a man should live is good; and that a man should be killed is evil, absolutely considered. But if in a particular case we add that a man is a murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is a good; that he live is an evil. Hence it may be said of a just judge, that antecedently he wills all men to live; but consequently wills the murderer to be hanged. In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts. Nor do we will simply, what we will antecedently, but rather we will it in a qualified manner; for the will is directed to things as they are in themselves, and in themselves they exist under particular qualifications. Hence we will a thing simply inasmuch as we will it when all particular circumstances are considered; and this is what is meant by willing consequently. Thus it may be said that a just judge wills simply the hanging of a murderer, but in a qualified manner he would will him to live, to wit, inasmuch as he is a man. Such a qualified will may be called a willingness rather than an absolute will. Thus it is clear that whatever God simply wills takes place; although what He wills antecedently may not take place.

Compare it with what I said:

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

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

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

Note also the first and second ways that St. Thomas says that 1 Timothy 2:4 can be understood, exactly in the way that St. Augustine (and I) understands the passage.

My view of God's antecedent will of only good (to save) toward man, considered as His creation, considered qua man, accords with St. Thomas's description of how God wills the salvation of His creation, man, antecedently. As St. Alphonsus noted, we can also understand God's antecedent will in that He has formed the Church and given us the sacraments which are capable of saving all men.

Now, if you would, beside commenting on the above, could you answer my question from earlier:

The relevant and critical point is they are not (or might not be) in glory. We all concede that they might not be in glory without personal fault. My view, the view of the Thomist negative reprobationists, is compatible with that real possibility. Your view is inconsistent with a real possible fact, and therefore conflicts with the data, or at least what we must concede may be the data.

The opposite position (to mine) maintains that all men are in glory unless they commit personal sin:

That negative reprobation before prevision of sins seems to us to be, from every point of view, incompatible with the universal salvific will of God. It is true that glory is an entirely gratuitous benefit, which God can grant to whom He wills and refuse to whom He wills, but it is no less true, that God most freely and liberally, has decided to grant that benefit of glory to all men, without exception. If anyone remains without obtaining it, that is not by fault of God, but by his own fault. How, then, could it be maintained that God-even before man has placed resistance to grace by sin-should not elect that one to glory, or should seek to exclude him from heaven?"

The infants do not commit personal sin, and they very well might not be in glory (as you must concede). The theory therefore fails on its own terms.

If Marin-Sola disagrees with Fr. Muniz (quoted above), let me know, and we’ll discuss it.

tornpage Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:47 am

Jehanne writes:

2) The Council of Florence, in stating, "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains" did not understand their teaching as constituting a "null set," but as an actuality that did, indeed, occur in the real World. Per Vatican I, we are to retain their understanding of the dogma which they defined.

I think Jehanne makes a good point here.

Did the framers of the infallible text in Florence understand it to be describing a “null set”? Absolutely not.

Yes, Jehanne, an excellent point.

MRyan Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:28 pm

tornpage wrote:
Jehanne writes:

2) The Council of Florence, in stating, "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains" did not understand their teaching as constituting a "null set," but as an actuality that did, indeed, occur in the real World.

Per Vatican I, we are to retain their understanding of the dogma which they defined.
I think Jehanne makes a good point here.

Did the framers of the infallible text in Florence understand it to be describing a “null set”? Absolutely not.

Yes, Jehanne, an excellent point.

Jehanne never tires of making this "point", and you never tire of agreeing with him.

So, let’s kick the old "null set" can down the road one more time. Jeahnne wrote:

The Council of Florence, in stating, "But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains" did not understand their teaching as constituting a "null set," but as an actuality that did, indeed, occur in the real World. Per Vatican I, we are to retain their understanding of the dogma which they defined.

So, The Council of Florence did not understand their teaching as constituting a "null set”; no, the only “null set” involves “the souls of those who depart this life in… original sin alone” who, “go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains", for, according to the Limbo doctrine, there aren’t any unbaptized infants in “hell” who are “punished … with unequal pains”.

That sounds like a “null set” to me!

So you two have a real problem if it is a once declared dogma that infants who die in original sin alone go straightaway to hell to be "punished" with “unequal pains”, for the “Hell” being described is the “Hell of the Damned”. The “pain of loss” still consists of at least a spiritual pain, as opposed to Limbo where there is NO spiritual pain of loss and there is NO suffering whatsoever, just bliss, and there is no way around it, if, as popes and tradition confirm, Limbo, as just described, cannot be condemned as a "Pelagian Fable".

The problem with the “once declared dogma”, no “null set” dogmatic Limboites is that you want your “defined dogma”, but you do not accept what it actually defines, “as it is written”, and you in fact create a "null set" with your "interpretation" which must take into account the doctrine of Limbo.

Good luck explaining your "null set", fellas.

tornpage Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:48 pm

So you two have a real problem if it is a once declared dogma that infants who die in original sin alone go straightaway to hell to be "punished" with “unequal pains”, for the “Hell” being described is the “Hell of the Damned”. The “pain of loss” still consists of at least a spiritual pain, as opposed to Limbo where there is NO spiritual pain of loss and there is NO suffering whatsoever, just bliss, and there is no way around it, if, as popes and tradition confirm, Limbo, as just described, cannot be condemned as a "Pelagian Fable".

You totally avoided the substance of the argument and went off on this tangent.

Yes, one could very well argue that Limbo does not exist on the basis of Florence. The infants are in Hell but suffer lesser pains. But then, the concept of Limbo could very well fit with the definition of Florence, since it has been described as being part of Hell. Also, as I think Jehanne has indicated, there is authority that supports the proposition that Limbo does not preclude a “pain of loss.”

More importantly, while I said I agreed with Limbo, I have nothing against St. Augustine’s doctrine of either/or, Heaven or Hell, with the non-baptized who die with “original sin alone” being there but suffering lesser punishment (whatever that means) consistent with their lack of personal fault.

My theology on grace doesn’t crumble if these infants are in Hell or Limbo without personal fault.

However, the theology of grace of Father Muniz and those who say no one is deprived of glory - you know, God gives sufficient grace to each person individually so that their absence from glory is a result of their rejection of that grace and “personal fault” - absent personal fault would, obviously, fall apart.

To state somewhat differently so as to include Marin-Sola (since you didn’t answer my question): any theory or theology of grace that holds that unbaptized infants (after all they are a big part of “all” men) would be in heaven if only they or the responsible adults acted differently doesn’t deal with the facts before us: some infants who died without baptism (say infants in 8th century pre-Christian Asia, North America, South America, Africa etc.) may not be in glory - under circumstances where neither their actions or the actions of any living human being would account for that or be at fault for that.

The Thomist theory of negative reprobation, physical premotion, etc. would account for that fact. The Muniz’ theory, and as far as I can tell the Marin-Sola theory, does not.

You can believe either theory.

I will believe the one that provides an explanation for the way things may very well be, and indeed are, if you believe Florence was not defining a “null set.”

Speaking of which, Mike, do you want to take a shot at dealing with the issue of what did the fathers of Florence (Pope Eugene would be the infallible Pontiff acting through them) - so, Pope Eugene believe when he made the definition, and is there a “recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding”?

MRyan Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:47 pm

Tornpage wrote:
Mryan wrote:
So you two have a real problem if it is a once declared dogma that infants who die in original sin alone go straightaway to hell to be "punished" with “unequal pains”, for the “Hell” being described is the “Hell of the Damned”. The “pain of loss” still consists of at least a spiritual pain, as opposed to Limbo where there is NO spiritual pain of loss and there is NO suffering whatsoever, just bliss, and there is no way around it, if, as popes and tradition confirm, Limbo, as just described, cannot be condemned as a "Pelagian Fable".

You totally avoided the substance of the argument and went off on this tangent.

No, I did not. I am telling you can’t have it both ways, and that the “null set” you’ve created with your “once declared” dogma that dogmatically places unbaptized infants in the “null set” of hell where unbaptized infants are punished with at least the spiritual pain of loss, is far worse than the alleged “null set” of a Hell without unbaptized infants or a non-existent Limbo should God choose to save all unbaptized infants, as is His divine prerogative.

Tornpage wrote:
Yes, one could very well argue that Limbo does not exist on the basis of Florence. The infants are in Hell but suffer lesser pains. But then, the concept of Limbo could very well fit with the definition of Florence, since it has been described as being part of Hell. Also, as I think Jehanne has indicated, there is authority that supports the proposition that Limbo does not preclude a “pain of loss.”

I do not see how the "Hell of the Damned" (Florence) fits the doctrine of Aquinas and the universal opinion on the actual definition of Limbo. There is absolutely no match. And Limbo, as a "part" of Hell, is a segregated part of Hell that is completely removed from the dominion of the Devil. Limbo, if it is IN Hell, is in a pain-free happy part of Hell, which is why Pope BXVI refuses to call it Hell, which has always been understood as the Hell of the Damned.

There is no "authority" that supports the proposition that Limbo does not preclude a “pain of loss”, unless one wants to take as their "authority" the fact that it cannot be condemned as "heretical", and unless one wants to jettison the Middle Ages and all subsequent teaching on Limbo. It's like trying to force "Limbo" on the doctrine of St. Augustine; nope, it doesn't work.

Tornpage wrote:
More importantly, while I said I agreed with Limbo, I have nothing against St. Augustine’s doctrine of either/or, Heaven or Hell, with the non-baptized who die with “original sin alone” being there but suffering lesser punishment (whatever that means) consistent with their lack of personal fault.

My theology on grace doesn’t crumble if these infants are in Hell or Limbo without personal fault.

Let’s stay on topic ("null sets"). You said you agree with Jehanne, and I’m saying you can’t have both a pain-free happy Limbo and a suffering (pain of loss) Limbo. It’s one or the other, and you’re on record as saying it’s the latter by virtue of a “once declared dogma”. I’m simply holding your feet to the fire of your own dogma, “as it is written”.

You can’t give it the old “I can accept either one” while running from the implications of your own “once declared dogma”.

Let’s leave Marin-Sola, Muniz and the Thomists to the other relevant posts, which I will respond to in due time.

You guys have been shaking this "null set" tree for too long, I'm simply calling you out.

Tornpage wrote:
Mike, do you want to take a shot at dealing with the issue of what did the fathers of Florence (Pope Eugene would be the infallible Pontiff acting through them) - so, Pope Eugene believe when he made the definition, and is there a “recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding”?

Actually, Mark, I answered this question in specific detail more than once, and no one is listening. I will do so again in a separate post.

For now, you are left with your “once declared” dogmatic “null set”, and you have no way out except to admit that A) Florence did not formally “define” that infants who die in mortal sin alone go straight to hell to receive the punishment of at least the spiritual pain of loss (thereby leaving room for Limbo), or B) the Limbo of the Children is either a misnomer (the fringe of Hell reserved for adults who die in original sin alone, but suffer less sensory and spiritual pains), or a “null set” because unbaptized infants are in the Hell of Damned where they suffer the eternal pain of loss.

The CCC puts it in perspective:

The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire.' The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."(CCC, n. 1035).

Do Hell and Limbo have as their chief punishment the eternal spiritual separation from God – the pain of loss?

The answer, they don’t; for that is NOT how Limbo is taught; but, if it cannot be condemned as a “Pelagian Fable”, how does one reconcile the two without re-writing the so-called “once declared dogma” of Florence on the fate of those who die in original sin alone?

Btw, if you want to read the logical conclusion for holding that “The Magisterium teaches that those who die in original sin alone are punished [‘suffers’]” (as the author, R. Conte, does), read (http://www.catholicplanet.com/RCC/salvation-unbaptized-children.htm).

And they brought to him the little children, so that he might touch them. But the disciples admonished those who brought them. But when Jesus saw this, he took offense, and he said to them: "Allow the little ones to come to me, and do not prohibit them. For of such as these IS the kingdom of God. (Mark 10:13-14)

MRyan Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:01 pm

Mark,

With respect to Florence, I believe that Fr. Al Kimmel places all of this into proper context (I am adding additional paragraph breaks):

Dr Miller believes that the trajectory of the Tradition witnesses against the salvation of unbaptized infants and cites the judgments of two ecumenical councils, II Lyons and Florence: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin or in original sin only immediately descend into hell, even though they suffer different penalties.”

Yet one needs to be careful with this text, which is a direct quotation of St Fulgentius. Pope Clement IV included this statement in the profession of faith that he sent to Emperor Michael Palaeologus. In The Christian Faith (Neuner-Dupuis), we read about this profession of faith that it “was not written at the Council, nor was it accepted by the Greeks as a basis for a doctrinal agreement with the Latins. It was neither promulgated, nor even discussed by the Council Fathers, but simply read from a letter sent by the Byzantine emperor” (p. 17). The Fulgentius citation was, however, subsequently included in the Florentine decree Laetentus caeli.

Traditional Catholics understandably read Florence as reaffirming the Augustinian belief in the damnation of unbaptized infants, just as they understandably read Florence as consigning, without exception, “not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics or schismatics” to “the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Decree for the Copts). Yet the Catholic Church has not restricted itself to a narrow reading of Florence but has affirmed the possibility of salvation for those outside the sacramental bounds of the Church (see William Most).

The Council of Florence was the one General Council of the second millenium that had a substantial Eastern presence. Though its documents are composed in a Western idiom, this does not mean that the Oriental bishops understood themselves as abandoning in any way their fundamental theological convictions. Their subscription to the decree, therefore, does not mean that they suddenly embraced the views of Augustine and Fulgentius on original sin and infant damnation. The Council of Florence must be read with both Western and Eastern eyes. It was, after all, a council of reunion.

It is a basic rule of dogmatic hermeneutics that dogmatic statements, whether conciliar or papal, do not give direct answers to issues that were not seriously debated. In Avery Cardinal Dulles’s words: “No doctrinal decision of the past directly solves a question that was not asked at the time” (The Survival of Dogma, p. 185). If the question “Do all infants who die without baptism die in original sin?” was not being discussed and argued in the 14th century, as it apparently was not, then the Council of Florence cannot be invoked as providing a definitive, irreformable answer to the question.

It may well be that many of the doctors of the council took for granted the possibility, and indeed the reality, of an infant dying “in original sin only”; but this still does not allow us to state that this opinion was formally proposed by the council. That all who die in the state of original sin are excluded from the beatific vision is indeed de fide dogma; but this does not necessarily exclude the possibility that God may regenerate souls by nonsacramental means, even though this possibility might not even have been entertained by the council fathers.

This judgment is strengthened by the observation that the paragraph of Laetentus caeli that addresses baptism and original sin is not formulated in the language of solemn definition: it does not call for an irrevocable act of faith and anathematize the contradictory proposition. In his important essay “Unbaptized Infants: May They Be Saved?” Peter Gumpel asserts that the issue addressed by Florence in the paragraph on original sin is the timing of divine retribution—at the the time of death or at the final judgment. “The thesis that there are (some) infants who die de facto in the state of original sin,” he concludes, “is therefore not directly defined” (Downside Review 72 [November 1954]), p. 432).

The Decree for the Copts also includes a statement on the necessity of baptism for children:

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.
Gumpel notes that the Latin can be equally translated as “for there is no other remedy available for us by which we can come to their rescue” and suggests that this fits in well with the context of the decree, whose aim was “to eradicate the Jacobite practice of delaying Baptism or of using other means in its place” (p. 434).

In his book Limbo: An Unsettled Question (1964), George J. Dyer surveys the history of theological reflection on the question of the salvation of unbaptized infants. He concludes:

During the centuries of the limbo controversy the Church refrained from taking sides. She stepped into the dispute repeatedly, but only to lay down certain rules. Limbo might be defended; it might be rejected; the Church made it clear that neither the defenders nor the opponents of limbo had the right to censure their antagonists. The Church’s action may seem indefinite, but actually it brought an end to the long dispute. But insisting on the orthodoxy of both Augustinians and limbo theologians the Holy See robbed the question of much of its forensic value. … The papal decisions of 1758 and 1794 drew the sting from the controversy, and the dispute itself did not long survive. The Church treated the doctrine of limbo and the denial of limbo simply as “opinions” of theologians; she has been content with her decision to the present day. (pp. 88-89) (http://pontifications.wordpress.com/limbo/

It is clearly evident from the teachings of the living Magisterium that "The thesis that there are (some) infants who die de facto in the state of original sin ... is therefore not directly defined”.

George Brenner Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:06 pm

I follow what I can and grasp what I am able to concerning the possible eternal destination of the aborted, miscarried, stillborn and unbaptized infants and children under the age of reason. I think it is admirable that anyone would love their faith so much as to wrestle with the possible answers. I feel that through the centuries this subject has taken on many twists and turns in trying to understand the answer by some of the greatest minds of the Church, present company included.(Charity, love, truth and prayer to all of good will). I trust completely in God's love, mercy and justice and do not need a defined article of faith to be held by all as official Church teaching on this subject at this time. Jesus taught repeatedly on his love of children and how we MUST be like children. I have my prayers and good hope for this groups eternal comfort and joy. I am much more concerned about us baptized sinners who are trying to live our Catholic Faith so as to merit eternity with our God who loves us all. I have often wandered if anyone of us could get so hung up on one topic so that it might have a negative impact or influence on the big picture of savings one's soul. I have also felt that saving one's soul can not be a self centered or selfish proposition and we have a responsibility to help one another as best we can to live our Catholic faith as friends in Christ without compromising truth, reverence and doing the will of God. So back to the debate, Right?

JMJ,

George

tornpage Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:22 pm

Florence is infallible and says what it says: "the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."

I have no idea what Limbo is, but any definition of Limbo that goes against the above definition is false, and must be abandoned.

I said I "agreed" with, was not opposed to, the description of Limbo by St. Alphonsus, by way of St. Thomas - it made sense. If St. Thomas's definition or description of Limbo conflicts with Florence, it must be abandoned; I don't care how much sense it makes. I have no ox to gore in that fight.

Again, and again, and again: the critical point is the infants are not in the place they are not owed, Heaven, "the gift not due them" - the place that God gratuitously bestows on those He draws with His efficacious and infallible grace, including some infants whom He makes sure that they reach the baptismal font, without their meriting it.

Let’s stay on topic ("null sets"). You said you agree with Jehanne, and I’m saying you can’t have both a pain-free happy Limbo and a suffering (pain of loss) Limbo. It’s one or the other, and you’re on record as saying it’s the latter by virtue of a “once declared dogma”. I’m simply holding your feet to the fire of your own dogma, “as it is written”.

No problem. As I said, if St. Thomas's idea of Limbo is contrary to Florence, I not only don't, but won't, "have it." I have no desire, or need, to spend time on whether that question is true or not - Jehanne can deal with that if he wishes.

And they brought to him the little children, so that he might touch them. But the disciples admonished those who brought them. But when Jesus saw this, he took offense, and he said to them: "Allow the little ones to come to me, and do not prohibit them. For of such as these IS the kingdom of God. (Mark 10:13-14)

No kidding:

Matthew 18:1-5

At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? [2] And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, [3] And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. [4] Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. [5] And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me.

These passages have nothing to do with unbaptized children.

Jehanne Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:35 pm

"And this arose from sorrow without torment,
Which the crowds had, that many were and great,
Of infants and of women and of men.

To me the Master good: "Thou dost not ask
What spirits these, which thou beholdest, are?
Now will I have thee know, ere thou go farther,

That they sinned not; and if they merit had,
'Tis not enough, because they had not baptism
Which is the portal of the Faith thou holdest;"

http://italian.about.com/library/anthology/dante/blinferno004.htm

tornpage Sat Sep 15, 2012 7:08 am

Mike,

From your link:

Here is my theological position: The fringe of Hell exists as a place of eternal but lesser punishment for adults who die in a state of original sin alone. These adults died in that state because they committed the actual mortal sin of omission of never having found sanctifying grace in their lives, despite ample opportunity. So no one at all ever goes to Hell, except due to unrepentant actual mortal sin.

http://www.catholicplanet.com/RCC/salvation-unbaptized-children.htm

There may not be a Limbo of the children, but evidently there's a La La Land, and this guy is there.

But at least for those in La La land the set of those dying with original sin alone is not a "null set."

Sponsored content