Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...  (Read 18641 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Augustinian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 172
  • Reputation: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
« Reply #135 on: January 10, 2012, 05:06:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Canon 1325 §1: "The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circuмstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor."

    (Translated here: http://www.olmhtchurch.org/Church/1stCommandment.html)

    Answer this question or get out of this thread and stop pretending to be in a place to ask me questions:

    Do you believe that babies who die without baptism are guiltless, free of punishment, blissful, and in the presence of God?

    Offline Roman Catholic

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2679
    • Reputation: +397/-1
    • Gender: Male
    All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
    « Reply #136 on: January 10, 2012, 06:49:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Augustinian


    [Unlike you, I believe in the infallible teachings of the Church, including the first Vatican Council.

    ... you know you hold to Pelagian heresies.


    In fact I believe all the infallible teachings of the Church and I hold to no heresies.

    You sow discord among traditional Catholics. You are disruptive, divisive, impious and rash.

    You despise Saints and the Catholic Church's pronouncements on them.

    YOU are suspect.





    Offline Roman Catholic

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2679
    • Reputation: +397/-1
    • Gender: Male
    All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
    « Reply #137 on: January 10, 2012, 08:06:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Augustinian
    Canon 1325 §1: "The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circuмstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor."

    (Translated here: http://www.olmhtchurch.org/Church/1stCommandment.html)

    Answer this question or get out of this thread and stop pretending to be in a place to ask me questions:

    Do you believe that babies who die without baptism are guiltless, free of punishment, blissful, and in the presence of God?


    You sure are presumptuous. The Canon you quote does not apply to the the situation at hand concerning me.

    I have not acted in a manner which implicitly amounts to a denial of the faith. On  the contrary I have explicitly professed that I am a Roman Catholic.

    Even though you presume to, you can't arrogate any authority to demand that anyone gets out of this thread or any other thread.

    But what is a much more grevious matter is that you have manifested that you have a contempt of the Church by despising Saints and Popes that have been declared infallibly by Holy Church to be worthy of veneration.


    Offline Roman Catholic

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2679
    • Reputation: +397/-1
    • Gender: Male
    All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
    « Reply #138 on: January 10, 2012, 08:32:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Augustinian


    Thomas held several heretical beliefs, some of which were heretical prior to his birth (ex: Pelagianism) and some of which were heresy only after his death (ex: denial of the Immaculate Conception).


    Further proof that it is not a "given" that St Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception, is found in the following survey of the opinions of theologians on this question, from Volume VI, "Mariology", of Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology (12 volumes) Herder 1953, page 67:

    "5. The Teaching of St Thomas --- Theologians are divided in their opinion as to what was the mind of St Thomas in regard to the Immaculate Conception. Some frankly admit that he opposed what in his day was not yet a defined dogma, but insist that he virtually admitted what he formally denied. Others claim that the Angelic Doctor expressly defended the Immaculate Conception and that the (about fifteen) adverse passages quoted from his writings must be regarded as later interpolations. Between these two extremes stand two other groups of theologians, one of which holds that St Thomas was undecided in his attitude towards the Immaculate Conception, while the other merely maintains the impossibility of proving that he opposed it."

    Full article here: http://www.sedevacantist.net/stthomas/StThomas&IC.htm

    Offline Roman Catholic

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2679
    • Reputation: +397/-1
    • Gender: Male
    All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
    « Reply #139 on: January 10, 2012, 08:43:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Augustinian
    Canon 1325 §1: "The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circuмstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor."

    (Translated here: http://www.olmhtchurch.org/Church/1stCommandment.html)

    Answer this question or get out of this thread and stop pretending to be in a place to ask me questions:

    Do you believe that babies who die without baptism are guiltless, free of punishment, blissful, and in the presence of God?


    Why wouldn't the Athanasian Creed suffice?

    The church you linked to above seems to think it would be a suitable profession of Faith.

    BTW your question is defective and unsuitable for your aims, but I am not going to help you fix it because I do not want to aid you in your cause.


    Offline Roman Catholic

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2679
    • Reputation: +397/-1
    • Gender: Male
    All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
    « Reply #140 on: January 10, 2012, 08:47:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lastly (for now :smile:)bump:

    Quote from: Hobbledehoy
    It behooves me to take some time to admonish the participants and readers of this thread (and the Forum in general) regarding a fundamental truth often ignored, and I am not at all implying or insinuating that this applies to the participants of this thread, and I apologize if I give that impression in any way.

    In my personal experience, I have seen numerous persons give themselves over to the study and disputation of lofty questions regarding sacred doctrine, whilst neglecting to cultivate their own interior life. It often happens that certain souls neglect prayer for the sake of study, and this is often a dangerous delusion which can ultimately imperil the salvation of the individual. So many have been the heresies, errors and dissensions that have had their ultimate origin in such a diabolical disorientation.

    It particularly behooves us to be temperate in intellectual endeavors, for the Angelic Doctor expounds upon studiousness as the moral virtue which has knowledge as its proper matter (Summa IIa IIæ, q. clxvi., art. 1), and “is a potential part of temperance, as a subordinate virtue annexed to a principle virtue” (“studiositas sit pars potentialis temperantiae, sicut virtus secundaria ei adiuncta ut principali virtuti”), for the moderation of the natural desire that all men have for knowledge pertains to the virtue of studiousness (“moderatio autem hujus appetitus pertinet ad virtutem studiositatis;” ibid., art. 2). St. Thomas goes on to teach that “on the part of the soul, [man] is inclined to desire knowledge of things; and so it behooves him to exercise a praiseworthy restraint of this desire, lest he seek knowledge immoderately” (“ex parte animae, inclinatur homo ad hoc quod cognitionem rerum desideret: et sic oportet ut homo laudabiliter huiusmodi appetitum refrenet, ne immoderate rerum cognition intendat;” ibid. ad iii. dub.).

    However, what is temperance without humility? For it is never expedient to search into things that are above us if we fail to cultivate a pure and earnest heart wherewith to search into such sacred things, after the example of King David who prayed unto the Lord, singing, "Lord, my heart is not exalted: neither are mine eyes lofty. Neither have I walked in great matters, nor in marvelous things above me," "Domine, non est exaltatum cor meum: neque elati sunt oculi mei. Neque ambulavi in magnis: neque in mirabilibus super me" (Ps. cxxx. 1).

    Lend ear to the admonitions placed upon the lips of our dear Lord and found in the great treatise De Imitatione Christi: "Son, be not curious, and give not way to useless cares. What is  this or that to thee? Follow thou Me," ("Fili, noli esse curiosus, nec vacuas gerere sollicitudines. Quid hoc vel illud ad te? tu me sequere," Lib. III., cap. xxiv. n. 1), for, "I would gladly speak My word to thee, and reveal My secrets, if thou wouldst diligently observe My coming, and open to Me the door of thy heart. Be circuмspect, and watch in prayers, and humble thyself in all things," ("Libenter loquerer tibi verbum meum, et abscondita revelarem, si adventum meum diligenter observares, et ostium cordis mihi aperires. Esto providus, et vigila in orationibus, et humilia te in omnibus," ibid., n. 2). For, "I am He that in an instant elevateth the humble mind to comprehend more reasons of the eternal truth than if any one had studied ten years in the schools. I teach without noise of words, without confusion of opinions, without ambition of honor, without strife of arguments," ("Ego sum, qui humilem in puncto elevo mentem: ut plures æternæ veritatis capiat rationes, quam si quis decem annis studuisset in scholis. Ego doceo sine strepitu verborum, sine confusione opinionum, sine fastu honoris, sine pugnatione argumentorum," Lib. III., cap. xliii., n. 3) --- "For a certain person, by loving Me intimately, learned things divine and spoke wonders. He profiteth more by foresaking all things than by studying subtleties," ("Nam quidam amando me intime, didicit divina et loquebatur mirabilia. Plus profecit in relinquendo omnia, quam in studendo subtilia," ibid., n. 4). "Study the mortification of thy vices; for this will more avail thee than the knowledge of many difficult questions," ("Stude mortificationi vitiorum, quia hoc amplius tibi proderit, quam notitia multarum difficilium quæstionum," ibid., n. 1) --- "In everything attend to thyself, what thou art doing, and what thou art saying: and direct thy whole attention to this, that thou mayest please Me alone, and neither desire nor seek anything out of me," ("In omni re attende tibi, quid facias, et quid dicas: et omnem intentionem tuam ad hoc dirige, ut mihi soli placeas, et extra me nihil cupias vel quæras," Lib. III., cap. xxv., n. 3).

    Those who are industrious and diligent to study upon lofty matters and yet neglect their interior lives are in exceeding great peril: "Woe to them that inquire after many curious things of men, and are little curious of the way to serve Me," ("Væ eis qui multa curiosa ab hominibus inquirunt, et de via mihi serviendi parum curat," Lib. III., cap. xliii., n. 2). "For he that would fully and with relish understand the words of Christ, must study to conform his whole life to Him," ("Qui autem vult plene et sapide Christ verba intelligere, oportet ut totam vitam suam illi studeat conformare," Lib. I., cap. i., n. 2). "What doth it profit thee to dispute deeply about the Trinity, if thou be wanting in humility, and so be displeasing to the Trinity?" ("Quid prodest tibi, alta de Trinitate disputare, si careas humilitate, unde displiceas Trinitati?" ibid., n. 3). "Oftentimes call to mind the proverb: The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor is the ear filled with hearing. Study, therefore, to wean thy heart from love of visible things, and to betake thee to the things unseen," ("Memento illius frequenter proverbii: quia non satiatur oculus viso, nec auris impletur auditu. Stude ergo cor tuum ad amore visibilium abstrahere, et ad invisibilia te transferre," ibid., n. 5). "Truly, a lowly rustic that serveth God is better than a proud philosopher who pondereth the courses of the stars, and neglecteth himself," ("Melior est profecto humilis rusticus, qui Deo servit, quam superbus Philosophus, qui se neglecto, cursum cœli considerat," Lib. I., cap ii., n. 1). The humble of heart have not this admonition to fear: "The more thou knowest, and the better, so much the heavier will thy judgment therefore be, unless thy life be also more holy," ("Quanto plus et melius scis, tanto gravius inde judicaberis, nisi sanctius vixeris," ibid., n. 3).

    From the above-cited admonitions of this great treatise upon the Christian life, it is clear that prayer should be the primal concern of the student of sacred doctrine.

    Now, as I have hitherto written elsewhere, the Holy Rosary is the most apt prayer for students of sacred doctrine, as this most wondrous Psalterium Jesu et Mariæ is above all the school of contemplation and a mirror of virtues to be imitated in the divine lives of Jesus and Mary. The Holy Rosary is in truth a school wherein the Mysteries of the Faith shine forth before the eyes of the soul with a supernal effulgence that dispels the darkness of sin and ignorance, and illumines the soul with a vivifying light that harmonizes prayer with study, and makes the interior and exterior life of the student correspond with these elements that enlighten and strengthen one another.

    In my personal experience, at least, it has come to pass that a well-meditated and well-prayed Rosary has in some instances taught me more regarding certain truths than the Manuals and treatises of sacred theology, perhaps because in the course of meditating upon the Rosary Mysteries certain theological principles taken on a profundity and immensity that overwhelm and thrill the amplitude of the soul, so that in due time discursive reasoning at times gives way to the simple and prolonged gaze of the soul rapt in mute veneration and devout dread before the inexhaustible riches of the wisdom and goodness of God. If this continues, and the soul begins to be purified passively (having already been purged actively by the penance and self-abnegation characteristic of the purgative way) and becomes more detached from self and more docile to the Holy Ghost, then the soul enters the ethereal, transluminous realm of the mystical ways of prayer.

    Such is the power of the Holy Rosary, and why it was so recommended by Our Lady at Fatima and elsewhere, and so richly indulged and promoted by the Supreme Pontiffs and lauded by Saints and spiritual authors. For the student of sacred doctrine the Holy Rosary is truly the path not only to sacred knowledge, but to holy contemplation, the plenitude of that divinely revealed faith which is the object of sacred theology.

    To conclude: a student of sacred doctrine must be given over to prayer first and foremost, and must frequent the holy Sacraments and avail himself of the spiritual direction of a devout and learned Priest (either personally or by correspondence if a Priest is not accessible because of the times). Availing oneself of the divinely-ordained patronage and tutelage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Sedes sapientiae (Litaniæ Lauretanæ Beatæ Mariæ Virginis, Rituale Romanum, Tit. XI, cap. iii.), particularly by means of the devout recitation of the Holy Rosary, is morally indispensable for the fruitful study of sacred doctrine, for the greater glory of Our Lord and for the salvation and edification of souls.

    Well, those are my two cents... nay, they have been clemently vouchsafed me by holy grace, for I of myself can produce nothing but that which is damnably evil: it is by grace alone that man can work any good.

    Offline ServusSpiritusSancti

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8212
    • Reputation: +7174/-7
    • Gender: Male
    All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
    « Reply #141 on: January 10, 2012, 09:22:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So Augustinian, you don't think Pope Pius X is a Saint? Wow, are you AntiClimax (aka "Pope" Augustine) or David Landry on another account?
    Please ignore ALL of my posts. I was naive during my time posting on this forum and didn’t know any better. I retract and deeply regret any and all uncharitable or erroneous statements I ever made here.

    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +0/-7
    • Gender: Male
    All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
    « Reply #142 on: January 10, 2012, 09:59:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Gregory, did you read the New Advent article? Because it traces the history fairly well. Specifically it shows the doctrine of the early Fathers and St.Augustine's own early thought being opposed to his later one. After the ascendancy of extreme Augustinianism, the article says, it was sounded the death knell by the condemnation of Pius VI in 1794. This seems to answer the question with which you began your thread, so I'd like to see you address it. Thanks.

    Moreover, please answer this question. Was Pope Innocent's teaching that infants experience no other pain than the deprivation of the beatific vision heretical? I'm even willing to concede it is theologically permissible to say that infants experience some conscious pain, but I don't hold it, nor do I believe the Church requires it, and I'll explain why to the former below.

    This is the argument offered contra the view of actual sensible torment, and I'd like to see you address it.

    Quote
    "Nor does this sin belong to this particular man, except in so far as he has such a nature, that is deprived of this good, which in the ordinary course of things he would have had and would have been able to keep. Wherefore no further punishment is due to him, besides the privation of that end to which the gift withdrawn destined him, which gift human nature is unable of itself to obtain.

    Now this is the divine vision; and consequently the loss of this vision is the proper and only punishment of original sin after death: because, if any other sensible punishment were inflicted after death for original sin, a man would be punished out of proportion to his guilt, for sensible punishment is inflicted for that which is proper to the person, since a man undergoes sensible punishment in so far as he suffers in his person. Hence, as his guilt did not result from an action of his own, even so neither should he be punished by suffering himself, but only by losing that which his nature was unable to obtain."

     
    Quote
    SO, while I disagree, I hope to do it AMICABLY


    Likewise, me too.

    Quote
    Wait. Stop. Original sin is NOT ONLY the privation of original justice, but also the the actual personal participation in the GUILT of the sin of Adam.


    I do not think you express your thought with the precision of the Angelic Doctor, but no problem, I essentially agree with you here. I just ask you to be careful, because on some points regarding original sin you seem to border on the exaggerations of the early Protestants, who also appealed to St.Augustine, and which neither the Church nor her theologians adopted.

    In all of humanity, descended from one man, the first Adam, there is the character of what is truly and properly sin, and the effect of this is both the privation of grace and a fallen nature that is wounded and turned away from God.

    Quote
    Wait. There is no PUNISHMENT where the penalty is not experienced.


    Not at all. The punishment is the objective loss of supernatural bliss. To say that the loss of such majestic glory, the joy we were created to share, does not constitute punishment, is what is truly baffling to me.

    Quote
    St. Thomas repeatedly says that the condemned infant does not know of his loss. In what therefore does his punishment consist?


    If you want to argue with St.Thomas, you will have to argue against this -
    Quote
    "If unbaptized children have interior sorrow after death, they will grieve either for their sin or for their punishment.

    If for their sin, since they cannot be further cleansed from that sin, their sorrow will lead them to despair. Now sorrow of this kind in the damned is the worm of conscience. Therefore these children will have the worm of conscience, and consequently theirs would not be the mildest punishment, as Augustine says it is.  [Comment: the worm of conscience is formally excluded by Pope Innocent III later, as is material fire]

    If, on the other hand, they grieve for their punishment, it follows, since their punishment is justly inflicted by God, that their will opposes itself to divine justice, and thus would be actually inordinate, which is not to be granted. Therefore they will feel no sorrow."

    Further, right reason does not allow one to be disturbed on account of what one was unable to avoid; hence Seneca proves (Ep. lxxxv, and De ira ii, 6) that "a wise man is not disturbed." Now in these children there is right reason deflected by no actual sin. Therefore they will not be disturbed for that they undergo this punishment which they could nowise avoid."


    Quote
    It is the same problem that reincarnation-ists have: Reincarnation is unjust


    Interesting argument, but reincarnation has bigger problems. And the analogy is inaccurate, because divine justice is satisfied by the exclusion of the infant from the beatific vision, and of supernatural bliss.

    Quote
    It makes FAR MORE sense to say


    I disagree, but I note that this is an argument from reason. So I ask again, is this, whether the punishment is positive or not, in your opinion, a matter open to theological dispute, or objectively heretical? Because theologians often disagree with each other and offer arguments in support of their position, and the Church lets it play out before finally passing judgment. Has the Church closed the question or not?

    Quote
    that the unbaptized infant is made aware of Christ and of his lack, and experiences a kind of eternal sorrow and gloom.


    Again, your argument is not based on what follows from the nature of original sin. I maintain that all that follows from the nature of original sin is the deprivation of the beatific vision. Your argument is that God actively intervenes to make the child's fate worse, theologically permissible, but in my judgment, unwarranted by argument.

    Quote
    Once again, the context is actually irrelevant. We are BOUND to understand the dogmas on their face, and as presented. "


    This is exactly what those who follow Fr.Feeney argue, and with their own interpretation of canons opposed to the theological consensus of interpretation on the same canons. It is the same case here. The truth is that we are to understand the dogmas in accordance with the mind of the Church.

    Quote
    Vatican I clearly taught that NO ONE may rescind from the clear meaning of a dogma on the grounds of a "deeper interpretation.


    Of course, but that doesn't apply at all here.

    Quote
    Yes, before the advent of Pentecost when Baptism was made OBLIGATORY UPON ALL.


    St.Thomas treats of baptism and argues for its explicit necessity, especially for infants. He also says infants may be sanctified in the womb today, being cleansed of original sin, because this grace granted them is not to be accounted apart from the sacrament, but is an extraordinary means of the same which remits original sin.

    To say God can do this is clearly in his view hindered by no theological difficulty of the Faith considered as a whole, never taught by the Church before or after (he himself held the view that they descend immediately to hell and are punished), and to say the contrary frankly seems to place limits on His Omnipotence. He can do this, therefore the mother can pray for her dying child. He may do it, though, or He may not.

    Quote
    As I said, the dogmas are clear, the teaching of the XVI council of Carthage is clear, its promulgation as the teaching of the Catholic Church is clear, its ratification at Ephesus and Nicea II is clear, and  800 years of unquestioned Augustinian teaching and the teaching of the Latin Fathers is clear.


    If that is the case, Thomas Aquinas is not a Saint but a heretic for embracing something the Church had already condemned, and perhaps one should embrace the sedevacantism that goes further back several centuries. And if that seems evidently absurd, the early Councils must be admitted to have in no way settled the question.

    Quote
    Moreover, even if one were to admit for the sake of argument that this canon of the Council of Carthage acquired the force of an ecuмenical definition, one ought to interpret it in the light of what was understood to be at issue by both sides in the controversy, and therefore add to the simple locus medius the qualification which is added by Pius VI when, in the Constitution "Auctoreum Fidei", he speaks of "locuм illium et statum medium expertem culpae et poenae."


    Quote
    I know it's hard, but that's the truth. History bearing witness, and the dogmas of the church.


    I appreciate the tone of this discussion with you so far, and also that you think so, but I respectfully disagree.


    Offline Gregory I

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1542
    • Reputation: +659/-108
    • Gender: Male
    All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
    « Reply #143 on: January 10, 2012, 08:57:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Augustinian, I appreciate your zeal, but I think there are some things you need to think a bit more about.

    Let's assume for a minute that you are a Jansenist. I am not saying you are, but that is the worst case scenario, so let's pretend.

    The Jansenist theologian, Arnauld, came to have a great respect fro St. Thomas Aquinas and his writings on free will and liberty. In fact, it was due to St. Thomas that he left behind some of the erroneous propositions of Jansenism. I suggest you read the article entitled:

    Grace and free will in Arnauld. http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/kremer-arnauld.htm

    I appreciated it, although I myself am NOT a Jansenist. I accept the declarations of the Bull Unigenitus, I accept the condemnation of Baius, and The Bull Auctorem Fidei.

    I make no bones about the sanctity of St. Thomas. I make no bones about the fact that in his writings there are some mistakes. Let's remember that, just like St. Augustine, whom everybody is ready to ignore, he also submitted his work to the final judgement of the church, and the church has made decisions that appear to run counter to some of his arguments.

    Roman Catholic, perhaps it would be beneficial for peace for you to simply say that there is such a thing as a pelagian understanding of limbo and tell us what it would be in YOUR opinion. You seem to avoid doing that. I converse to understand things.

    Nishant, I appreciate you taking the time to reply to me. Let's see if I can get through this intact...lol.

    Quote
    Moreover, please answer this question. Was Pope Innocent's teaching that infants experience no other pain than the deprivation of the beatific vision heretical? I'm even willing to concede it is theologically permissible to say that infants experience some conscious pain, but I don't hold it, nor do I believe the Church requires it, and I'll explain why to the former below.


    NO. In the bull Auctorem Fide, Pope Pius VI condemned the notion that a view of infant damnation that does not involve The torment of Fire is pelagian.

    TO believe that infants are not tormented by fire is not pelagian.

    It introduces no middle place and does not grant them any kind of blessedness. This is the essence of a heretical understanding of the condemnation of unbaptized infants.

    I would like to see this adressed in your response. I do not call The Angelic Doctor a heretic. It is a mortal sin of sacrilege and blasphemy and temererity to call a canonized saint a heretic.

    There ARE objectively speaking, saints who were material heretics, and unwittingly so. St. John Cassian is a prime example. He founded the heresy of semi-pelagianism, albeit somewhat unwittingly.

    Quote
    "Nor does this sin belong to this particular man, except in so far as he has such a nature, that is deprived of this good, which in the ordinary course of things he would have had and would have been able to keep. Wherefore no further punishment is due to him, besides the privation of that end to which the gift withdrawn destined him, which gift human nature is unable of itself to obtain.

    Now this is the divine vision; and consequently the loss of this vision is the proper and only punishment of original sin after death: because, if any other sensible punishment were inflicted after death for original sin, a man would be punished out of proportion to his guilt, for sensible punishment is inflicted for that which is proper to the person, since a man undergoes sensible punishment in so far as he suffers in his person. Hence, as his guilt did not result from an action of his own, even so neither should he be punished by suffering himself, but only by losing that which his nature was unable to obtain."


    Whose argument is this, Abelard's, or Pope Innocent III's? Or the Angelic doctor?

    Here is my sole problem with this argument: If man is guilty for the sin of Adam, which Trent teaches that he is, then he bears IN HIS SOUL the guilt for a proper act. Because of the general corruption of human nature (not total depravity), all men bear the guilt of a proper sin: the sin of Adam. Otherwise, whence flows the inherent guilt of all humanity?

    Allow me to establish authoritatively that this is indeed so:

    COT, Session 5, Par. 3:

    Quote
    " ...this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own..."

    Pardon the ellipses, but they are not deceitful.

    COT Session 6 Capter III

    Quote
    "...seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own"


    The sin of Adam is in each as his own, as well as the loss of justice . Therefore the guilt is present as well, for there is no sin present without guilt.

    Now, the sin of Adam was committed with the body, and we contract this sin, therefore we contract the deserved guilt due to the body and are therefore bodily punished for original sin alone.

    Consider this:

    Quote
    "The Augustinian General Vasquez sent a formal petition to Pope Clement XIII requesting protection from calumny in 1758 because the Jesuits of France, Spain and Italy were calling his men “Jansenists” and accused them of heresy. He sent Clement a list of twenty-three propositions fundamental to the Augustinian doctrine. The following was among them.
     
    “Unbaptized children who die in original sin are not only distressed by the loss of the beatific vision but the are tormented by the pain of fire in hell, however mildly it may be. This is in keeping with the opinions of St. Augustine.”
     
    Clement replied that the doctrine of the Augustinian school had been made secure by the decision of Paul III in Alias in 1660; of Innocent XII in Reddidit in 1694; Clement XI in Pastoralis officii in 1718; Benedict XIII in Demissas preces in 1724 and in Pretiosus in 1727; Clement XII in Exponit in 1732 and in Apostolicae providentiae in 1733; and Benedict XIV in his letter to the Spanish Inquisition.


    This belief has never been censured or declared as wrong by the church, because the church endorsed it for 800 years.

    Now, lest you accuse me of wresting Trent to my own devices, allow me to quote the Catechism of the Council of Trent which is an AUTHENTIC and Authoritative` interpreter of that council:

    In Article II of the Apostles creed:

    Quote
    Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all posterity.


    So, in sum, infants are punished sensibly because they are guilty of a sin that was sensibly committed: the sin of Adam. Therefore it is not erroneous to believe that infants are sensibly tormented in hell.

    In Fact, the same Catechism which is an AUTHENTIC and AUTHORITATIVE interpreter of Trent CLEARLY says:

    Quote
    Necessity of Baptism

    If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

    Infant Baptism: It's Necessity

    That this law extends not only to adults but also to infants and children, and that the Church has received this from Apostolic tradition, is confirmed by the unanimous teaching and authority of the Fathers.


    There is no mention of the mitigation of consequences for infants. Indeed, they are treated as being subject to the same severity.

    Quote
    I just ask you to be careful, because on some points regarding original sin you seem to border on the exaggerations of the early Protestants, who also appealed to St.Augustine, and which neither the Church nor her theologians adopted.


    All the terminology I used is used by the council of Trent and its catechism in the same Context. God hates what is in the infant born in original sin. This is taught in Trent. Men are subject to God's wrath because of sin. This is taught in Trent. They are partners with the devil from their birth. This is also taught by Trent.

    So if an unborn infant is guilty of the sin of Adam (defined by Trent), they bear the consequences for that guilt, and they are under the wrath of God (Trent), his enemies (Trent), and God hates the sin within them (Trent), deprived of any holiness (Trent) and are unjust (Trent), then what kind of mitigation do you hope for?

    Quote
    Further, right reason does not allow one to be disturbed on account of what one was unable to avoid; hence Seneca proves (Ep. lxxxv, and De ira ii, 6) that "a wise man is not disturbed." Now in these children there is right reason deflected by no actual sin. Therefore they will not be disturbed for that they undergo this punishment which they could nowise avoid."


    This to me is EXTREMELY problematic. Hell is a complete absence of the vision of God coupled with the fire of torment for sinners. The will and the intellect are darkened by sin. They are surrounded by sinners and misery and terror.  In what conditions are they supposed to enjoy a natural blessedness? How are they even capable of clear and rational thought in HELL? That is to me simply absurd.

    The Angelic doctor here does say that we should not be tormented by the thought of the unavoidable. But the problem is that the infants COULD have been baptized. They will know what baptism is. THey will know that they were not given this cure.

    But even worse:

    What happens in the general judgement? Christ is revealed to ALL. There is no ignorance. The condemned infants in hell, whether at its edge or in its flames are FIXED in their fate. And after the general judgement, death and hades are thrown, along with the Devil, into the burning lake of fire, the second death. So whether now, or later, infants who die without baptism are destined to undergo the sensible punishments of hellfire. In the end, there is nowhere else for them to be except in the fire, justly condemned by the just judge for their participation in the guilt of Adam's sin.

    Remember the last day. If they are not in heaven NOW, they never will be, and where will they go but with the devil?

    PLease tell me if there was anything in particular you want me to get to. Thanks Nishant!









    Offline Gregory I

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1542
    • Reputation: +659/-108
    • Gender: Male
    All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
    « Reply #144 on: January 10, 2012, 09:38:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • TO Nishant:

    Allow me to Add:

    "According to Abbé A. Michel (The Last Things, Edinburgh, 1929), “many eminent theologians, such as Petavius, St. Robert Bellarmine, Estius, Bossuet and others have upheld the Augustinian interpretation of the decree” of Florence that it implies the doctrine that “unbaptized infants are not only deprived of the beatific vision, but have to undergo a positive punishment.”
     
    Dionysus Petavius (-1652) judged that the Council of Florence had determined that the punishment of unbaptized infants is of the same kind (in the same hell) as that of adults who died in mortal sin. “Infants,” he taught, “are tormented with unequal tortures of fire but are tormented nevertheless.”

    Incredibly, Petavius was a Jesuit.

    The idea that Florence was simply a reunion council and did not have these things in mind apparently never crossed the minds of these Catholic theologians

    Offline Gregory I

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1542
    • Reputation: +659/-108
    • Gender: Male
    All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
    « Reply #145 on: January 12, 2012, 12:47:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It should also be noted, by a Pelagian understanding of the fate of unbaptized infants, I meant the almost universal Bogus Ordo sentiment that these souls will simply go to heaven somehow, even though they have not been baptized and are stained with the fault, the consequences and the guilt of original sin, which is the sin of Adam, in each as his own.

    It was not originally about the Angelic Doctor's notion of infants in a state of natural happiness, though I view that as problematic, but not with hostility.

    Just FYI.



    Offline Gregory I

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1542
    • Reputation: +659/-108
    • Gender: Male
    All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
    « Reply #146 on: January 13, 2012, 04:45:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It comes to mind that those who support the limbo of the infants of St. Thomas Aquinas need to wrestle with a key question; it is a question that it would seem the Angelic doctor did not consider.

    We must remember there are two judgments: the immediate particular judgement, and the general judgement.

    The particular judgement is what we experience immediately upon death. The general judgement is what we experience bodily and at the end of this world with the coming of Christ.

    It seems that the Angelic doctor's teaching on limbo takes seriously only one of these judgments: the particular judgement. That is, the intermediate state of the dead before the Resurrection. In the intermediate state of the dead, the damned do experience various degrees, and perhaps KINDS of suffering. However, in the general judgement, ALL the damned share one common suffering, one common KIND of torment, the lake of Fire.

    Apocalypse 20: 11-15

    11" And I saw a great white throne, and one sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away, and there was no place found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works. 14 And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire."

    This is apparent because death itself and Hades, that is, the abode of the dead which is the intermediate state of the dead and the damned, are cast into the lake of fire along with Satan and all those who are already damned.

    So we must ask a serious question:

    If the souls of the unbaptized infants are forever deprived of the vision of God (Everyone agrees with this), and if Limbo is itself a part of Hell (anyone who has read the Angelic doctor will agree with this) then it is INEVITABLE that those ressurected souls who were once infants who are brought before the general judgement, CANNOT IN ANY WAY escape the common fate of Satan and his angels and all the rest of the damned. Why? Because their names are NOT WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE:

    That is, they MUST be subject to the eternal and sensible punishment of the lake of fire.

    This brings up another point: It would be unjust for God to trade a lighter suffering for infants for a greater one when they have done nothing more to merit a greater suffering.

    However, since it is inevitable the infants will be sensibly tormented in fire at the END of the world, it does NOT stand to reason that they deserve to be in anything less NOW. Otherwise, where is the justice of God?

    Why would soul of the unbaptized infant get such a rude awakening?

    But if LIMBO is in itself debatable (and it is, since there are two other perfectly orthodox explanations) then IT must bow to any inconsistencies in the reasons given for its existence. The primary reason Limbo must be done away with is because it implicitly DENIES the truth of scripture: That ALL the damned are tormented together in fire with the Devil at the end of the world.

    NOW we begin to see what St. Augustine was so furious over: It is plain and manifest to all that the damned will be sensibly tormented forever with the Devil. It is also plain that infants are damned, since limbo is a part of Hell. Those in Hell are not written in the book of life.

    Now, to grant them natural happiness is to turn away the justice of God: for it makes him out to be a monster who allows the souls of unbaptized infants a gentle ignorance (ignorance is bliss) for a time (until the world's end) only to awaken them to the horror of their condition in the general Resurrection!

    This is not justice, and is against the Fathers, the dogmatic teaching of the Church, and scripture. Perhaps now we can understand why the African synod of Carthage condemned any such blessedness and declared that the souls of the unbaptized infants run to the left with the devil. Incidentally, this synod was promulgated by two Popes and two ecuмenical councils.

    Remember the Final day.

    Offline Gregory I

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1542
    • Reputation: +659/-108
    • Gender: Male
    All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
    « Reply #147 on: January 21, 2012, 11:47:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nishant...waiting.

    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +0/-7
    • Gender: Male
    All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
    « Reply #148 on: January 22, 2012, 09:39:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hi Greg. Thanks for your patience. I should note that I don't maintain either that your position is condemned, only that my own about no pain other than deprivation of the beatific vision is more amenable to reason and the whole Faith in general, while the topic is open to theological discussion and hasn't been closed by the Magisterium. However, as a matter of fact, what you say of the Angelic Doctor is not strictly accurate. I'll quote some more passages from him that should suffice as a reply to all you have said, respectively.

    Quote
    Original sin is the sin of nature, as stated above. But nature is equally in all. Therefore original sin is too.

    There are two things in original sin: one is the privation of original justice; the other is the relation of this privation to the sin of our first parent, from whom it is transmitted to man through his corrupt origin. As to the first, original sin has no degrees, since the gift of original justice is taken away entirely; and privations that remove something entirely, such as death and darkness, cannot be more or less, as stated above. In like manner, neither is this possible, as to the second: since all are related equally to the first principle of our corrupt origin, from which principle original sin takes the nature of guilt; for relations cannot be more or less.

    Of all sins original sin is the least, because it is the least voluntary; for it is voluntary not by the will of the person, but only by the will of the origin of our nature.

    The limbo of the Fathers and the limbo of children, without any doubt, differ as to the quality of punishment or reward. For children have no hope of the blessed life, as the Fathers in limbo had, in whom, moreover, shone forth the light of faith and grace. But as regards their situation, there is reason to believe that the place of both is the same; except that the limbo of the Fathers is placed higher than the limbo of children, just as we have stated in reference to limbo and hell

    The bodies of children will be impassible, not through their being unable in themselves to suffer, but through the lack of an external agent to act upon them: because, after the resurrection, no body will act on another, least of all so as to induce corruption by the action of nature, but there will only be action to the effect of punishing them by order of the divine justice. Wherefore those bodies to which pain of sense is not due by divine justice will not suffer punishment. On the other hand, the bodies of the saints will be impassible, because they will lack the capability of suffering; hence impassibility in them will be a gift, but not in children.

    Accordingly, it must be observed that if one is guided by right reason one does not grieve through being deprived of what is beyond one's power to obtain, but only through lack of that which, in some way, one is capable of obtaining. Thus no wise man grieves for being unable to fly like a bird, or for that he is not a king or an emperor, since these things are not due to him; whereas he would grieve if he lacked that to which he had some kind of claim.



    So there you have it, which I think more or less addresses most of your posts. Tell me if I've left something out.


    Offline Gregory I

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1542
    • Reputation: +659/-108
    • Gender: Male
    All the NOers seem to be semi-pelagians...
    « Reply #149 on: January 23, 2012, 01:09:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Apocalypse 20: 11-15

    11" And I saw a great white throne, and one sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away, and there was no place found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works. 14 And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire."

    This is apparent because death itself and Hades, that is, the abode of the dead which is the intermediate state of the dead and the damned, are cast into the lake of fire along with Satan and all those who are already damned.

    So we must ask a serious question:

    If the souls of the unbaptized infants are forever deprived of the vision of God (Everyone agrees with this), and if Limbo is itself a part of Hell (anyone who has read the Angelic doctor will agree with this) then it is INEVITABLE that those ressurected souls who were once infants who are brought before the general judgement, CANNOT IN ANY WAY escape the common fate of Satan and his angels and all the rest of the damned. Why? Because their names are NOT WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE:

    That is, they MUST be subject to the eternal and sensible punishment of the lake of fire.

    This brings up another point: It would be unjust for God to trade a lighter suffering for infants for a greater one when they have done nothing more to merit a greater suffering.

    However, since it is inevitable the infants will be sensibly tormented in fire at the END of the world, it does NOT stand to reason that they deserve to be in anything less NOW. Otherwise, where is the justice of God?

    Why would soul of the unbaptized infant get such a rude awakening?