Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Rupture Theology of extreme Feeneyism

Father Feeney always considered his position on Baptism of Desire an opinion, an opinion which he shared with some great saints, such as St. Augustine, but only an opinion. That is why he sent copies of Bread of Life in which the following lecture "The Waters of Salvation" is contained, to the Holy Father and to every Cardinal; he was submitting his opinion to the judgment of the Church."

columba wrote:

I can't be so silly as to deny that those existing before the institution of Baptism could not be saved. All that I asserted was that their salvation was totally dependant on the redemptive work of Christ. How the merits of Christ were applied in the period before the institution of the sacrament of Baptism is not clear to me but I can understand it in a way that neither detracts from the post-pentecost necessity of Baptism and the Church's understanding of justification.

columba wrote:

I never mentioned the term "sancifying grace" in connection with OT times. Prevenient grace (that was the term I was looking for all this time and couldn't remember it. Thanks for mentioning it in your post) is what I believe they received which was, or will be, translated to sanctifying grace with the death, decent into hell and the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and quite possibly by the sprinkling of water at the resurrection of the body on the last day. As Our Lord says, "The Last shall be First, and the First Last" (Matt 20:16)

columba wrote:

A state of pre-justification (there's a term for that too which escapes me) existed for those of faith in OT times, for as we know, the law which they were under in that time did not have the power to save; hence the present-day Jews (still laboring under the old law) have excluded themselves from the hope of salvation.

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, … they are called; … so they,… may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace.

Ch. III: But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, … if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.

Ch. VII: For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated; … by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit … and is inherent therein:”

“It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ ... their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come" [by] the communication of the Holy Ghost"; and thus "It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”.

Jehanne wrote:

Father Feeney always considered his position on Baptism of Desire an opinion, an opinion which he shared with some great saints, such as St. Augustine, but only an opinion. That is why he sent copies of Bread of Life in which the following lecture "The Waters of Salvation" is contained, to the Holy Father and to every Cardinal; he was submitting his opinion to the judgment of the Church."

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart." All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged. (Lumen Gentium, 14)

Jehanne wrote:
If I met you in Heaven someday, Mike, I will surprised, pleasantly so! In any case, you have no authority within the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. You're not an approved theologian, your not a canonist, you don't have Holy Orders, and you're not the Pope.

Jehanne wrote:As I said, the Brothers & Sisters at the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire are in full communion with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome. They labor under no canonical penalties, sanctions, and/or decrees whatsoever. They are wholly orthodox, as was Father Feeney, who died in full communion with the Catholic Church.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
If I met you in Heaven someday, Mike, I will surprised, pleasantly so! In any case, you have no authority within the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. You're not an approved theologian, your not a canonist, you don't have Holy Orders, and you're not the Pope.

You forgot to add, "You're not a Third Order M.I.C.M tertiary" who has vowed to remain in full communion with the Holy Father; and who makes no judgments about the pope (like, "he deserves to be burning in Hell").

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:As I said, the Brothers & Sisters at the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire are in full communion with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome. They labor under no canonical penalties, sanctions, and/or decrees whatsoever. They are wholly orthodox, as was Father Feeney, who died in full communion with the Catholic Church.

You have no authority or competency within the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church to determine that anyone or any one group who has suffered under canonical censures, interdicts and/or excommunication to be "wholly orthodox" simply because the penalties have been lifted and no decree of "heresy" has been forthcoming (though some of them may indeed be wholly orthodox).

Heterodoxy does NOT mean "wholly orthodox", and any doctrine that rejects the justifying and salvific efficacy of the baptisms of blood and desire is heterodox. Please don't try and tell me that anyone who REJECTS the CCC's teaching and the Church's tradition on the baptisms of blood and desire is "wholly orthodox", it's not going to work. To be a Catholic in good standing with the Church does not make one "wholly orthodox".

MRyan wrote:And, as a Roman Catholic I have every right to make that determination, for I do not believe that the doctrines of the Church should be subject to the opinion polls of a splinter group; and I have every right to defend the Church and her magisterial teachings - all of them, just as Fr. Feeney and certain of his followers had every right to accuse the Holy Office of teaching heresy. Where are the accusers now? Oh, they're still out there, mark my word. In fact, I know one of them who said that an implicit desire that does not turn explicit before one's death is "formally heretical". He says just the darnedest things.

MRyan wrote:But that's OK, he says loopy things like that all the time because he doesn't know any better. But he knows what is "wholly orthodox" and what isn't, just ask him.

I'm done responding to your foolishness, good luck talking to yourself.

MRyan wrote:
I love it Columba, when you say such things as “the baptism of desire brigade”, as if there is any other “brigade” of Catholics that does not affirm with the Church that a state of sanctifying grace can be effected by faith, charity and intention – “the desire thereof” for baptism.

MRyan wrote:
Such belief is affirmed by the Doctors, the saints..[etc, etc, etc]

MRyan wrote:
Columba’s “brigade”, however, would seem to consist of Duckbill, Peter Abelard and the condemned heretic Baius.

MRyan wrote:
Speaking of which, in his discussion of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, the Spanish Dominican Fr. Marin Solà wrote:

Adversaries: Certain heretics have affirmed that ‘no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water.’ Baius also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.”

Against the second part [baptism of blood] there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which the martyrdom achieves its effect. (De Sacramentis, [BAC 1954], 69. His emphasis.)

Mryan wrote:
Fr. Solà simply confirms what St. Alphonsus Liguori and at least nine other accredited theologians also affirmed, when not hesitating to call this doctrine “de fide”. And if not necessarily “de fide” there is not a single theologian since Trent that anyone can point to who does not hold the doctrine as “true”.

MRyan wrote:
And, btw, it is precisely that doctrine “or the desire thereof” on the translation to justification that is dogmatically defined de fide by the Council of Trent, which is why Pope Pius XII teaches, for example, that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”; and why the CCC teaches “The Church has always held the firm conviction that ... This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament”; and this is why Pope Leo XIII infallibly declared that "nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external".

MRyan wrote:
But it is the infallible magisterial Encyclical “On the Holy Ghost”, Divinum Illud Munus, by Pope Leo XIII that completely demolishes Columba’s novel heterodoxy that says the justice enjoyed by the saints, e.g., “the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”, was NOT “derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”, at least not until our Lord came and actually redeemed the human race and instituted the sacrament of Baptism, the sole means by which the merits of his redemption can be applied.

MRyan wrote:
Columba's doctrine effectively leaves the massa damnata (the justified saints of the old law) in a state of original sin, and NOT as justified children of God (though not yet adopted sons) in whom the Holy Ghost “resided by grace” and whose justice was “derived from the merits of Christ who was to come” by the “communication of the Holy Ghost”.

Just so we're clear, Columba tells us the justified saints (the massa damnata) were left in some sort of “pre-justified” state of “prevenient” or assisting grace that disposes one for the reception of grace, but does not actually remove original sin or justify/sanctify anyone by the communication of “the merits of Christ who was to come”.

MRyan wrote:
And now Columba has another one of his Gnostic-like eureka moments while reading again Trent’s Session VI, Ch. 4, and has gained some new insight that seems to have escaped all of the above named magisterial and accredited authorities, even all of the Doctors and theologians, to include the Fathers of Trent who wrote its Catechism and affirmed the universal understanding of this same dogmatic passage in Chapter 4 of Trent's Session VI.

MRyan wrote:
Just to be clear, it brings a soul to a state of “extra-baptismal justification” by re-birth in the grace of Baptism.

There is no such thing as a “pre-baptismal justification” that does not apply the merits of Christ’s passion or places one in a state of sanctifying grace.

If you mean by “pre-baptismal justification” a state of sanctifying grace that may be effected prior to water Baptism, OK.

MRyan wrote:

Columba wrote:
Here's the problem. The chapter is speaking about the impius and how they (the impius) are translated to a state of justification. It is not speaking about those who have been already justified through a pre-baptismal faith animated by charity; it's talking about the impius.. In other words; the non-justified.

This is problematic on more than one level. The Council is indeed providing a dogmatic “description … of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.” As such, the Council is affirming that under the law of grace, the impious are justified by the laver of regeneration, or its desire (faith, charity, intention).

MRyan wrote:
And this is the same internal regeneration (re-birth) affirmed by Christ in His decree “unless a man be born again by … [communication of the merits of] the Holy Ghost”, with “by water and the Holy Ghost” (the sacrament) being the external sign (of signification) and ordinary means of internal regeneration; the sacrament of which He instituted for our redemption and incorporation into His Body that we may participate in the sacramental life of the Church, and, ultimately, will result in our glorification.

This is why the esteemed Fr. O'Kane, speaking with the universal moral consensus of theologians, and with the Church, teaches:

There is no other means (baptism of blood and baptism of desire) of supplying for the Baptism of water, or Baptismus Fluminis, which is always meant by the word Baptism, when used simply and without any adjunct, and which alone is a sacrament.

MRyan wrote:
Columba, get it through your thick Irish head that this particular dogmatic passage has NOTHING to do with validity of the sacrament, for the only disposition that can render the sacrament invalid (which is not even the subject) is the disposition of the person administrating the sacrament who does not have the intention to do what the Church does, to baptize “In the name of the Father and …”.

MRyan wrote:
You in fact prove my point and render your own argument entirely worthless when you say “the word ‘desire’ has to refer to a disposition that must be present (in an adult) for the sacrament to be valid”,

Mryan wrote:
So yes, please stew on that for awhile; and perhaps you should spend more time reading and trying to understand what the Church and her theologians actually teach before taking it upon yourself to dissect the dogmatic passages of the Church that you apparently have not the competency to understand.

MRyan wrote:
However, with personable "theology" and private interpretation given free reign today, not matter how loopy, it would be most uncharitable of me to tell someone that they have it completely wrong; but seriously, Columba, your "theology" is appalling, and your latest in a long line of errors is most egregious.

Jehanne wrote:
I think that you should align yourself fully with the position of the Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/

The theology which they espouse leads to the exact same outcome which you profess, namely, that all of the One and Triune God's Elect in Paradise will have ended this life with sacramental Baptism in Water, no exceptions whatsoever.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:

I can't be so silly as to deny that those existing before the institution of Baptism could not be saved. All that I asserted was that their salvation was totally dependant on the redemptive work of Christ. How the merits of Christ were applied in the period before the institution of the sacrament of Baptism is not clear to me but I can understand it in a way that neither detracts from the post-pentecost necessity of Baptism and the Church's understanding of justification.

I do not know how Pope Leo XIII could have made it any clearer, “their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”, by “the communication of the Holy Ghost”. What, not clear enough? Is this "ambiguous"?

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:

I never mentioned the term "sancifying grace" in connection with OT times. Prevenient grace (that was the term I was looking for all this time and couldn't remember it. Thanks for mentioning it in your post) is what I believe they received which was, or will be, translated to sanctifying grace with the death, decent into hell and the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and quite possibly by the sprinkling of water at the resurrection of the body on the last day. As Our Lord says, "The Last shall be First, and the First Last" (Matt 20:16)

When you start citing Scripture, caveat emptor! This “first justified [but not really], last saved” theory has no place in Scripture or theology, and your out-of-context “proof” text doesn’t get you there.

MRyan wrote:
As you should know, Columba, prevenient grace is not the grace of justification, it is an assisting grace that disposes one for justification, as we read in Trent, Session 6, Ch. 5, “On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds”:

MRyan wrote:
For justification, the merits of Christ must be communicated by the Holy Ghost in the souls of those who are properly disposed, whether under the Old Law or the New. Pope Leo XIII:

MRyan wrote:
“Moreover, not only was their justice derived from the merits of Christ who was to come, but the communication of the Holy Ghost after Christ was much more abundant”. In other words, the Holy Ghost communicated the merits of Christ in “those of the just who lived before Christ”, and thus, “It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”.

MRyan wrote:
Speaking of “insight”, with respect to the conformity of “minds” between the Fathers of Trent, Pope Leo XIII and tradition, please follow this closely, Columba. The Council of Trent, chapters III and VII, dogmatically defined exactly what the communication of the merits of Christ means:

Ch. III: But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, … if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.

Ch. VII: For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated; … by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit … and is inherent therein:”

MRyan wrote:

It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ ... their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come" [by] the communication of the Holy Ghost"; and thus "It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”.

Any lights going off yet?

Columba wrote]

MRyan wrote:
With that behind us, let me summarize your position as I understand it by noting how you characterize the differences in the translation to justification in OT versus NT times.

Under the former, the virtues/dispositions of faith, charity and contrition (“circumcision of the heart”) moved our Lord to respond with the gift of sanctifying grace and the future merits of His passion. We are in agreement, and that's where our agreement ends.

I don't think we actually are in agreement here.

I never mentioned the term "sancifying grace" in connection with OT times. Prevenient grace … is what I believe they received which was, or will be, translated to sanctifying grace with the death, decent into hell and the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and quite possibly by the sprinkling of water at the resurrection of the body on the last day. As Our Lord says, "The Last shall be First, and the First Last" (Matt 20:16)

A state of pre-justification … existed for those of faith in OT times, for as we know, the law which they were under in that time did not have the power to save; hence the present-day Jews (still laboring under the old law) have excluded themselves from the hope of salvation.

Penance and the remission of sins were always possible both OT and NT times.
In OT times remission of sins was granted to those penitents who placed their hope in the Lord through faith in the redeemer to come. The merits of Christ are applicable to all generations past and present and availed of by following the precepts laid down by the Lord for each period.

Yes of course. We all agree on this. What is not clear however is in what manner the Holy Ghost applies the merits of Christ under the Old Law; as in: At what instant could an "Old Law" subject declare himself free of original sin? We know that the presence of original sin alone disqualifies one from the Beatific Vision. We also know that a soul who receives sacramental Baptism can tell you to the very hour and minute the exact time at which his soul was washed clean of the stain of originasl sin. In other words, we know how the Holy Ghost actually applies the merits of Christ under the new law. We can't say the same concerning the old law.

I may not have made it too clear, but for the record, I believe that the just of the OT received their justification by having the merits of Christ applied to them before His coming by means of following the precepts of the Lord which were in force at that time. Ultimate salvation however was available to no one until Christ actually opened the gates of heaven with His ascension into glory. There's nowhere to be found in the teaching of the Church that those who entered heaven with the Lord did not receive the laver of regeneration. I'm not saying that I hold this as de fide; all I'm saying is that I'm not in heresy for speculating thus. What I do hold as de fide is that all who entered heaven since the time the sacrament of Baptism was made obligatory by the Lord Himself, each of those post-pentecost souls received it.

Just so we're clear, Columba tells us the justified saints (the massa damnata) were left in some sort of “pre-justified” state of “prevenient” or assisting grace that disposes one for the reception of grace, but does not actually remove original sin or justify/sanctify anyone by the communication of “the merits of Christ who was to come”.

MRyan wrote:
And I am a bit disappointed that you would start to patronize me with your snarky responses to my numerous references to Divinum Illud Munus as if we have been in agreement all along with the teaching of Pope Leo XIII On the Holy Ghost confirming that the remission of sins and the state of sanctifying grace were effected in the souls of the just who received "the merits of Christ who was to come".

so that on Pentecost the Holy Ghost did not communicate Himself in such a way "as then for the first time to begin to dwell in the saints, but by pouring Himself forth more abundantly; crowning, not beginning His gifts; not commencing a new work, but giving more abundantly" (St. Leo the Great, Hom. iii., de Pentec.). But if they also were numbered among the children of God, they were in a state like that of servants, (Divinum Illud Munus; 7)

MRyan wrote:Columba,

All I see is an Irish tap dance around the central issue.

Again, do you or do you not hold that by the very fact that “the OT received their justification by having the merits of Christ applied to them” they received not only the remission of sins, but the salvific gift of sanctifying grace?

We’re not going anywhere until you answer the question.

MRyan wrote:

MRyan wrote:Columba,

All I see is an Irish tap dance around the central issue.

Again, do you or do you not hold that by the very fact that “the OT received their justification by having the merits of Christ applied to them” they received not only the remission of sins, but the salvific gift of sanctifying grace?

We’re not going anywhere until you answer the question.

columba wrote:
What is not clear however is in what manner the Holy Ghost applies the merits of Christ under the Old Law; as in: At what instant could an "Old Law" subject declare himself free of original sin? We know that the presence of original sin alone disqualifies one from the Beatific Vision. We also know that a soul who receives sacramental Baptism can tell you to the very hour and minute the exact time at which his soul was washed clean of the stain of originasl sin. In other words, we know how the Holy Ghost actually applies the merits of Christ under the new law. We can't say the same concerning the old law.

Columba wrote:

No. I do not hold to your above assertion for several reasons.

1. You cannot show me where the term "sanctifying grace" was ever used in connection with the justification of the OT saints

"Thy heart has a certain hidden power, and therefore the Holy Ghost, who invisibly vivifies and unites the Church, is compared to the heart." (Summ. Th. 3a, q. vii., a. I, ad 3). More than this, the just man, that is to say he who lives the life of divine grace, and acts by the fitting virtues as by means of faculties, has need of those seven gifts which are properly attributed to the Holy Ghost.

Moreover, God by grace resides in the just soul as in a temple, in a most intimate and peculiar manner. From this proceeds that union of affection by which the soul adheres most closely to God, more so than the friend is united to his most loving and beloved friend, and enjoys God in all fulness and sweetness. Now this wonderful union, which is properly called "indwelling," differing only in degree or state from that with which God beatifies the saints in heaven, although it is most certainly produced by the presence of the whole Blessed Trinity-"We will come to Him and make our abode with Him," (John xiv. 23.)-nevertheless is attributed in a peculiar manner to the Holy Ghost. For, whilst traces of divine power and wisdom appear even in the wicked man, charity, which, as it were, is the special mark of the Holy Ghost, is shared in only by the just. In harmony with this, the same Spirit is called Holy, for He, the first and supreme Love, moves souls and leads them to sanctity, which ultimately consists in the love of God.

On which point the words of Blessed Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: "It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same."(35) [....] while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: "His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error."(36)

22. The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris_en.html

I've no doubt the Angelic Doctor would have abandoned this view [“Baptism of Repentence”] in favor of the dogmatic pronoucements of Trent. Having established that the other two Baptisms are contained in, and part of, the sacrament of Baptism, he separartes them above into three independent Baptisms. Obviously both views are not consistent with each other and one view must ultimately give way to the other.

2. Even though they received the remission of their sins, they lacked the means of obtaining salvific justification under the old law, the new law of grace having not yet been proclaimed. They knew the precepts of God but lacked the power under the old law to fulfill them perfectly.

I answer that, All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision. But some said that no grace was conferred, and that the only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this opinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss on Romans 4:11. But this is impossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace, according to Romans 3:2: "Being justified freely by His grace," etc. (Sth. III, q.70, a.4)

If anyone should say that men are justified either by the imputation of Christ’s justice alone or by the remission of sins alone, exclusive of grace and charity, which are diffused in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and that it inheres in them, or even that grace, by which we are justified, is only a favor from God: let him be anathema.”

4. He [Baius] says, in the forty-second and sixty-ninth propositions, that the justification of the sinner does not consist in the infusion of Grace, but in obedience to the Commandments; but the Council teaches (Sess. vi, cap. 7), that no one can become just, unless the merits of Jesus Christ are communicated to him; for it is by these the Grace which justifies is infused into him: "Nemo potest esse Justus, nisi cui merita passionis D. N. Jesu Christi communicantur." And this is what St. Paul says: "Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. iii, 24). (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/hrefute.pdf)

If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

Reply to third objection. As St. Augustine says (I Retract., chap. 23), to grace pertains not only the remission of sins, but also reconciliation and peace; moreover, the very remission of sins is itself accomplished by sanctifying grace received into the soul, as will be clear from what follows below (q.113, a. 2).

Similarly the Council of Trent (Denz., no. 821) speaks of grace as diffused and inhering in the soul; again (Denz., no. 809): “It is called our justice because by its inherence in us we are justified.” As Gonet observes in his commentary on this article (p. 87), the Council of Trent proscribes the error of the Master of the Sentences according to whom charity is the Holy Ghost Himself dwelling in us and moving us to the act of charity.

Again in IIa IIae, q. 23, a. 2, he makes it clear that charity is something created in the soul and not, as the Master of the Sentences would have it, the Spirit Himself moving us to an act of charity. In the latter case, the soul would not produce the act of charity connaturally or meritoriously; to do so requires an infused habit elevating the will. Otherwise the supernatural order would be less perfect than the natural order. At the same time, an infused habit is, as it were, a second nature in us, so that our supernatural acts are also connatural.

1. By justification sins are truly remitted, deleted, taken away, not merely externally covered. Were it otherwise, man would be simultaneously just and unjust, God's love for sinners would be the same as His love for His friends and children, and sinners remaining in a state of sin would be worthy to receive eternal life, and Jesus Christ would not have taken away the sins of the world. [1160].

For this remissive justification, infusion of sanctifying grace is absolutely necessary. [1161] Against Scotists and Nominalists, Thomists insist on this doctrine, because justification is an effect of God's love, and God's love, since it is not merely affective, but effective, produces something real in the soul, the grace, namely, which justifies and sanctifies. God's act of adoption is not a mere human adoption.

Opposed to this Thomistic teaching is the Nominalistic position which prepared the Lutheran doctrine of justification without infusion of grace, by merely external attribution of the merits of Christ. Thomists have always affirmed, even before the Council of Trent, the doctrine defined by that Council, [1167] that the formal cause of justification is sanctifying grace. (http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/reality.htm#31)

the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation.

Chapter V. Grace in the Old Testament

Justification in the Old Testament. Justification may be described simply as the acquisition of sanctifying grace (or of infused justice). If a man is in the state of sin (original or mortal) justification will mean for him a transition from the state of sin and injustice to the state of sanctifying grace and justice. Justification is all-important for salvation, for only the just – those in sanctifying grace – at the moment of death will be saved and reach the love and enjoyment of the Beatific Vision.

Could men be justified in the Old Testament after the fall of Adam? Yes. From the moment God promised a Redeemer, the grace of Christ began to flow out, so to speak, in view of His future merits and by its help men could achieve justification. This meant concretely that there was a remedy for original sin, open to all men, whereby they could gain remission of original sin, infusion of sanctifying grace and the right to the Beatific Vision, its love and enjoyment.

This remedy, according to many theologians, took two forms, that of “sacrament” and that of an interior act – or perfect love or contrition. The Old Law “sacraments,” however, were not the cause of sanctifying grace, as ours are, but only conditions. Still, sanctifying grace did come to men when they received these “sacraments.”

Summary. For Old Testament adults generally the way to sanctifying grace was an act of perfect contrition or love. For Jewish adults certain “sacraments” were also available. For Old Testament infants generally the way to sanctifying grace was the so-called “sacrament of nature,” an outward sign serving as a condition or occasion for internal grace. For Jewish boys there was the “sacrament of circumcision.” (http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_002.htm)

columba wrote:A question for you Mike:

columba wrote:
What is not clear however is in what manner the Holy Ghost applies the merits of Christ under the Old Law; as in: At what instant could an "Old Law" subject declare himself free of original sin? We know that the presence of original sin alone disqualifies one from the Beatific Vision. We also know that a soul who receives sacramental Baptism can tell you to the very hour and minute the exact time at which his soul was washed clean of the stain of originasl sin. In other words, we know how the Holy Ghost actually applies the merits of Christ under the new law. We can't say the same concerning the old law.

Is the above a true statement?

http://hebrewca.ipower.com/files/10.02GraceandPoweroftheSacraments.pdf

2. The Grace and Power of the Sacraments

by Dr. Lawrence Feingold STD

The Sacraments of the Old Covenant Did Not Function ex Opere Operato

The intrinsic efficacy of the sacraments that function ex opere operato is a property unique to the seven sacraments of the New Covenant. The sacraments of the Old Covenant did not have this property of being intrinsically efficacious. They served as public signs and manifestations of faith in God’s redemption (through the Messiah) which would justify Israel. Through this manifestation of faith, God conferred grace on Israel. This is taught by St. Paul in Romans 4:9–11:

We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

Furthermore, St. Paul speaks of the rites of the Old Law, in comparison with those of the New, as “weak and needy elements” (Gal 4:9). The contrast between the sacraments of the Old and New Covenants is brought out in Hebrews 9:13–14:

For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

We see from this that the rites of the Old Testament did not have the intrinsic power to purify man’s interior, for they were outward signs that “point to what would be effected by our sacraments of the New Law.” They were not yet instruments applying to the faithful the merits gained from the Blood of Christ.

The Council of Trent defined that the sacraments of the New Law differ essentially from those of the Old, and not merely in their outward forms.16 This implies that the sacraments of the Mosaic Law do not have the same property of being efficacious ex opere operato.

St. Thomas gives a profound reason for this difference between the sacraments of the Old and New Covenants. The sacraments of the Old Covenant could not fittingly work ex opere operato simply because Christ had not yet become incarnate.

They could only work as still obscure signs of faith and hope in the coming Incarnation and Passion which would work man’s salvation. The sacraments of the New Covenant can have this power to work ex opere operato because they are instituted by the Word Incarnate, who alone among men has the power to make His words and gestures—and words and gestures realized in His Person through ministers—efficacious in producing grace and applying the fruit of His Passion to men.

The faithful of Israel were justified by their faith in the coming of the Messiah. A future event can achieve its effect in advance of its actual occurrence insofar as it is somehow known, desired, and loved, and thus already active in man’s spiritual life. The rites of Israel are signs of these future salvific events. They are also memorials of events of God’s saving action in Israel’s history, which typologically prefigure Christ and the Church. These signs are not efficacious in themselves as the words of the Word Incarnate, for they were given prior to the Incarnation, but rather are signs of His future working.

An instrumental cause such as a chisel can work as an efficient cause only when the sculptor is physically present and holding the chisel in his hand. Before that time the chisel cannot carve the statue. However, it can produce some effect in the mind of an observer. It can be a sign that the statue will soon be made, when the sculptor finally arrives. The chisel waiting to be used can give hope to a client that the statue he has commissioned will one day be completed. The rites of Israel were like chisels without the hand of the sculptor physically present to wield them. They were signs, instituted by God, manifesting faith and hope in future salvific events, and their pious use drew down God’s grace upon Israel. The sacraments of the New Covenant, on the other hand, are instruments in the hand of Christ who, having come and merited the successful completion of the entire work, has ascended into heaven, and yet has these instruments working on earth through words and gestures realized in His person through ministers in the Church marked by Holy Orders.

Does the fact that the rites of Israel did not cause grace ex opere operato mean that they were not at all efficacious in imparting grace? No. Pope Innocent III, in a letter of 1201 to Humbert, Archbishop of Arles, teaches that “original sin was remitted by the mystery of circumcision and the danger of damnation avoided,” although no one could enter heaven until the Sacrifice of Christ was accomplished. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that grace was conferred on the faithful of Israel on the occasion of receiving the sacraments of the Old Covenant, such as circumcision, by a direct act of God, but not opere operato.

Interestingly, he states that all theologians were in agreement that original sin was remitted by the rite of circumcision. They differed, however, with regard to the effects of grace bestowed. Some theologians held that circumcision only remitted original sin, but bestowed no grace. This is impossible, however, because original sin essentially consists in the privation of sanctifying grace. Thus the remission of original sin necessarily implies the giving of sanctifying grace.

If original sin was remitted on the occasion of circumcision, which was received only by boys, what about the girls of Israel? To my knowledge, St. Thomas does not address this issue. However, the fact that the rites of Israel did not function ex opere operato is helpful here. Reception of the rite of circumcision was the occasion of God’s remitting original sin, but the salvific effect was not coming uniquely through circumcision as through the only efficacious instrument. Thus the giving of sanctifying grace was not limited to circumcision. God could equally remit original sin for the girls in the ceremony in which they received their names (Simchat bat), which like circumcision, is a ceremony that incorporated a person (in this case, a girl) into the people of Israel.

The best way to explain, it seems to me, why the giving of grace in the Old Testament was tied to circumcision is that circumcision was the visible sign by which males became members of the people of Israel, and salvation was given by God to the members of Israel on the occasion of their incorporation into the People of God. In this way girls likewise could be participants of this grace when they were incorporated into the People on the celebration of their naming.

St. Thomas also held that the grace of God would have been given to remit original sin also prior to the institution of circumcision under the Patriarchs and also to the nations outside of Israel. He hypothesized that this gift would have been given on the occasion of the prayers of parents for the sanctification of their children, according to whatever rite was traditional in their culture:

Just as before the institution of circumcision, faith in Christ to come justified both children and adults, so, too, after its institution. But before, there was no need of a sign expressive of this faith; because as yet believers had not begun to be united together apart from unbelievers for the worship of one God. It is probable, however, that parents who were believers offered up some prayers to God for their children, especially if these were in any danger. Or bestowed some blessing on them, as a “seal of faith”; just as the adults offered prayers and sacrifices for themselves. (ST III, q. 70, a. 4, ad 2.)

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Again, do you or do you not hold that by the very fact that “the OT received their justification by having the merits of Christ applied to them” they received not only the remission of sins, but the salvific gift of sanctifying grace?

No. I do not hold to your above assertion for several reasons. [Reasons 1 and 2 already proven false, and no. 2 heretical]

3. At the ressurection of Christ from the dead, He first descended into hell to preach to the souls of the just there detained. (1 Peter 3:18) Did He preach that they had yet "to come up throgh the water" to receive their full regeneration in Christ? Could be, for we are told in Matt 27:52, "And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose."

What was the purpose of them regaining their mortal bodies? There must be some reason, for we know that the resurrection of the body is a feature of the final judgment, not commonly a feature before it, yet it has been known in the past where great saints raised the dead for the specific purpose of administering the sacrament of Baptism.

columba wrote:4. In the two volume work, The Apostolic Fathers, (Loeb Classical Library), a footnote on p. 236 of volume II, states, "The idea of hearing the Gospel and that Baptism is necessary for the righteous dead of pre Christian times is common."

It may not be common now but there'll be no charges of heresy for believing it.

columba wrote:I hold that the just of the old covenant did not receive, there and then, the sancifying grace which was a promise pertaining to the new covenant but were assured of it at the coming of Christ and His descend among the dead.

columba wrote:"For whom he has predestinated, these also he has called; and whom he has called, these also he has justified; but whom he has justified, these also he has glorified." (Romans 8:30)

columba wrote:
CCC, 1277: Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.

this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

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

columba wrote:

CCC, 1254: ...Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.

Pay particular attention to the [dark blue] highlighted reference and tell me once again how baptism of desire takes a soul beyond "the threshold of new life."

Mryan wrote:

Columba,

If you take offense to my so-called “accusation” of heresy, get over it,

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
And columba says that the just saints of the old dispensation were justified by the imputation of the justice and merits of Christ, inclusive of the remission of sins; to the exclusion of the grace and the charity.

And columba says no such thing. I said that the just of the OT would not be denied regeneration in Christ.

MRyan wrote:
You flat out deny that the OT just received the gift of sanctification at the same time they received the remission of sins by the application of the future merits of our Lord -- merits that for some reason were efficacious for the remission of sins, but without the power to infuse the very grace by which sins are removed in the first place.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema. (Trent, Session VI)

MRyan wrote:
Columba,

It's bad enough that you dismiss as so much refuse the common doctrine of the theologians and especially the Doctor of Doctor's, St. Thomas Aquinas, whose Summa was cited by Pope Leo XIII no less than nine times in his brief Encyclical On the Holy Spirit, but, when you usurp the role of the Doctors and start playing arm-chair "theologian", it is a sight to behold, a real spectacle.

On the contrary, It is written (Leviticus 20:eight): "I am the Lord that sanctify you." But nothing unreasonable is done by God, for it is written (Psalm 103:24): "Thou hast made all things in wisdom." Therefore there was nothing without a reasonable cause in the sacraments of the Old Law, which were ordained to the sanctification of man. (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2102.htm#article5)

A supernatural quality infused by God into the soul at the moment of justification, perfecting the soul in a supernatural way, establishing it in justice and sanctity, making it a sharer in the Divine Nature, truly constituting it an adopted son of God with a title to eternal life, and consecrating it as a living temple of the Most High God. By habitual grace, a free gift of God, the soul is privileged to enter on a state of friendship with God, which is of its nature permanent, but may be broken temporarily or forever by the abuse of free will and the introduction of sin. Cherished and guarded in the soul it is an unfailing pledge of everlasting life with God. (http://saints.sqpn.com/ncd03799.htm)