Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Ladislaus on February 18, 2025, 10:04:46 PM
-
So, reading the dogmatic definition of EENS from the Council of Florence, in the bull Cantate Domino by Pope Eugene IV, a realization struck me that there's a definitive nail in the coffin against so-called "Baptism of Desire" right in that dogmatic definition, at least a BoD meaning that souls can be ultimately SAVED without actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism. Father Feeney maintained that justification can happen via a Baptism of Desire but not salvation.
Now, even the proponents of BoD must admit that in a BoD scenario, it's still the SACRAMENT of Baptism that supplies the grace, even if it is via the votum for it. Trent taught right after the infamous "or the desire thereof" passage that the Sacrament of Baptism is the instrumental causes of justification. Otherwise you're a Pelagian heretic who believes that salvation can be achieved ex opere operantis, and also a heretic for claiming that salvation can be achieved without the Sacraments.
Now, with that in mind, let's have a look at Florence (in the Latin):
[Sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia] ... credit, profitetur et predicat ... tantum que valere ecclesiastici corporis unitatem, ut solis in ea manentibus ad salutem ecclesiastica sacramenta proficient ....
I provide the entire context here, so people can check it, but want to focus on the section above.
https://www.vatican.va/content/eugenius-iv/la/docuмents/bulla-cantate-domino-4-febr-1442.html
Firmiter credit, profitetur et predicat nullos extra ecclesiam catholicam existentes, non solum paganos, sed nec iudeos aut hereticos atque scismaticos eterne vite fieri posse participes, sed in ignem eternum ituros, qui paratus est dyabolo et angelis eius (Mt 25, 41), nisi ante finem vite eidem fuerint aggregati, tantum que valere ecclesiastici corporis unitatem, ut solis in ea manentibus ad salutem ecclesiastica sacramenta proficiant et ieiunia, elemosine ac cetera pietatis officia et exercitia militie christiane premia eterna parturiant, neminem que quantascunque elemosinas fecerit, et si pro Christi nomine sanguinem effuderit, posse salvari, nisi in catholice ecclesie gremio et unitate permanserit.
So, the subject of the verbs at the beginning is the Sacrosanct Roman Church from many paragraphs earlier, with paragraph after paragraph of what the Church "believes, professes, and preaches".
Now let's translate this section ...
[Sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia] ... credit, profitetur et predicat ... tantum que valere ecclesiastici corporis unitatem, ut solis in ea manentibus ad salutem ecclesiastica sacramenta proficient ....
So the Sacrosanct Roman Church "believes, professes, and preaches ... that so much weight (strength / power) does the unity of the ecclesiastical body have that the Sacraments of the Church can profit to salvation for those only who remain in it [the unity of the body].
In other words, the Sacraments (including the Sacrament of Baptism) cannot even PROFIT TO SALVATION to those who remain outside the unity of the body, meaning that the Sacrament of Baptism cannot lead to the salvation of any who are not in the unity of the ecclesiastical BODY. This passage alone renders heretical the entire "Soul of the Church" theory, where people can be saved by being in the soul of the Church but not in the body of the Church. Yet BoD can only exist if the Sacrament of Baptism can profit the souls receiving it via the votum to salvation.
This is 100% game over for BoD theory, since those who are outside the UNITY OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL BODY cannot even be PROFITTED by the Sacrament of Baptism to salvation, and that's the very definition of BoD, where the Sacrament of Baptism somehow profits them to salvation despite the fact that they haven't actually received it. But it's being dogmatically taught here that only those who remain in the unity of the Body of the Church can profit unto salvation from the Sacrament of Baptism.
Now, the one retort by the BoD-promoters would be that the term "remains" refers to people who had once been members of the Church but then actively severed their membership. This is incorrect, as the term is a reference to final perseverance in the unity of the Church, period, and not simply for remaining in the unity of the Church's Body IF you ever achieved it in the first place, i.e. it echoes the earlier phrase that in order to be saved one must have been joined to this unity of the Church before the end of their life ... "nisi ante finem vite fuerit aggregati", unless they will have been joined (aggregated to) the Church before the end of life. So those two passages go together, "unless they will have been joined to the Church before the end of their life and remained in the unity of the Church's body [until death]".
-
Father Feeney maintained that justification can happen via a Baptism of Desire but not salvation.
Really dumb question here, how can one be justified without being saved?
-
Really dumb question here, how can one be justified without being saved?
You can be in a state of justification until your entire life but unless you receive the grace of final perseverance, it doesn't become salvation.
Justification refers to being in friendship with God, rather than enmity with Him, and one can be in that state without yet having the requirements to enter the glory of the Kingdom of Heaven. Quite a few Church Fathers make this distinction.
Melchior Cano, approved and highly respected post-Tridentine Dominican theologian, held for instance that infidels could be justified but not saved. Father Feeney did not invent or make up that distinction.
But that's a side point anyway, whether one accepts justification vs. salvation. So, for instance, the Dimond Brothers do not.
Bottom line is that Florence explicitly teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism cannot profit unto salvation for those who are not aggregated (joined to the flock, literal Latin of that term) and remain in the unity of the ecclesiastical body. That is the very definition of the BoD theory that somehow the Sacrament can profit unto salvation those who have not been joined to the unity of the ecclesiastical body (which only happens with the actual reception of Baptism ... as per Trent's teaching and as even BoDers must admit).
There's just no getting around this without denying the dogmatic definition of Florence. This dogmatically scuttles the "soul of the Church" explanation for BoD. Even BoDers must admit that those allegedly saved by BoD are in the Church (somehow) but do not become members of the Church, i.e. are not joined to the unity of the Church's body ... since that can only happen via ACTUAL reception of the Sacrament of Baptism. But this teaching here unequivocally states that the Sacrament cannot PROFIT UNTO SALVATION those who are not joined to the unity of the Church's Body, which, as mentioned, is the very definition of BoD theory where somehow the Sacrament profits them unto salvation DESPITE not having been in the unity of the Church's Body. Then, if you try to claim that something OTHER than the Sacraments profit unto salvation, you're in heresy for denying the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation (as taught by Trent), and you're also a Pelagian. So you're stuck between the rock of heresy and the hard place of heresy ... with no escape.
BoD ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYWgAmxSvro
-
How long until the Dimonds make a video on this I love to see it. Unfortunately despite the clear teaching of the Church most trads are just going to call you a 'feenyite' and deny the Truth.
-
How long until the Dimonds make a video on this I love to see it. Unfortunately despite the clear teaching of the Church most trads are just going to call you a 'feenyite' and deny the Truth.
I did send them a link to these thoughts, but you're right that for the diehard BoDers, secret anti-EENSers, we won't be able to pull BoD from their cold dead brains (to paraphrase Heston on guns).
Right there within this dogmatic definition it says that the Sacraments cannot profit or benefit unto salvation any other than those who are joined in the unity of the Church's body, i.e. members of the Church, and we do not become joined to the Church's body until the ACTUAL reception of the Sacrament. I'm sure the Dimond Brothers can ferret out all those quotes, including from Trent. Even BoDers must admit that those with BoD do not become members of the Church's body, and so the Sacrament cannot avail them unto salvation even through the votum to receive it.
So the only alternative is even more heretical, to claim that BoD entails something other than the Sacrament of Baptism effecting salvation through the votum, i.e. some Pelagian-heretical ex opere operantis self-salvation and that salvation can occur without the agency of the Sacraments acting as instrumental causes of salvation ... something that Trent explicitly condemns as heretical
-
So the Sacrosanct Roman Church "believes, professes, and preaches ... that so much weight (strength / power) does the unity of the ecclesiastical body have that the Sacraments of the Church can profit to salvation for those only who remain in it [the unity of the body].
In other words, the Sacraments (including the Sacrament of Baptism) cannot even PROFIT TO SALVATION to those who remain outside the unity of the body, meaning that the Sacrament of Baptism cannot lead to the salvation of any who are not in the unity of the ecclesiastical BODY. This passage alone renders heretical the entire "Soul of the Church" theory, where people can be saved by being in the soul of the Church but not in the body of the Church. Yet BoD can only exist if the Sacrament of Baptism can profit the souls receiving it via the votum to salvation.
Great find, Ladislaus. This agrees with Christ, in Scripture, where He tells us:
1. He who believes, and is baptized, will be saved. (Belief + Baptism = members in the Church)
2. He who does not believe, will be condemned. (No belief = no membership = damnation).
The "unspoken middle ground" are those who BELIEVE but are not baptized (i.e. BOD). These are neither saved, nor condemned. They aren't members in the Church but they die justified. Which leaves them to Limbo.
-
Great find, Ladislaus. This agrees with Christ, in Scripture, where He tells us:
1. He who believes, and is baptized, will be saved. (Belief + Baptism = members in the Church)
2. He who does not believe, will be condemned. (No belief = no membership = damnation).
The "unspoken middle ground" are those who BELIEVE but are not baptized (i.e. BOD). These are neither saved, nor condemned. They aren't members in the Church but they die justified. Which leaves them to Limbo.
Yes, that passage confused me since I was a young man ... that in between.
It's also consistent with St. Ambrose declaring that those who have some kind of benefit from a repentance of sorts (like Valentinian) are, like the actual martyrs, possibly "washed but not crowned", where washing refers to a type of justification or at least non-condemnation, and crowning to entry into the Beatific Vision. St. Gregory nαzιanzen teaches, in rejecting BoD explicitly, that there are some who are not good enough to be glorified (enter the Kingdom) but not bad enough to be punished. It all fits.
-
Good points here. I have always felt that the Council of Florence is the most definitive declaration when it comes to the topic of "Salvation outside the Church." I watched this one guy, Christian Wagner, and he wrote an article on Salvation outside the Church, https://www.christianbwagner.com/post/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation-vatican-i-and-ven-pius-xii Unfortunately, he is like so many others who begin with the dogma Extra Ecclsiam Nulla Salus, and then talk themselves into a corner by saying Extra Ecclesiam Salus Interdum, "Salvation outside the Church sometimes."
I watched some of his Twitter talk on the issue and he maintained that "There was not a single theologian at the Vatican Council I who supported Fr. Feeney's position"...blah, blah, blah. Too many guys today, who do not understand the issue, begin their reasoning with infallible definitions, only to end up arguing themselves into hypothetical corners. The process should be the exact opposite, we reason from the hypothetical to infallible definitions.
Somewhere at home I have a Latin docuмent, pre-Vatican II, where the theologian says that the Blessed Virgin, although justified, needed to have the sacrament of baptism to be saved; because only the sacrament of baptism incorporates us into the Church.
-
I watched some of his Twitter talk on the issue and he maintained that "There was not a single theologian at the Vatican Council I who supported Fr. Feeney's position"...blah, blah, blah.
Right, so what? Despite the big deal they raise about this, Father Cekada could only find 2 dozen theologians who even dealt with the subject, and the vast majority simply mentioned it in passing, "Yep, BoD". There was almost no in-depth theological discussion of it since Sts. Bellarmine and Alphonsus, just a mere mention and regurgitation.
On the contrary, every single theologian (with one possible exception, Guerard des Laurier) concluded that Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass are Catholic.
BoD is nonsense. Majority of Church Fathers rejected it, several quite explicitly. St. Ambrose said something about Valentinian, but he linked his status to those of martyrs who are also "washed but not crowned" and elsewhere states, in "De Sacramentis" that even noble catechumens cannot be saved without receiving the Sacrament. St. Augustine in a very youthful speculation (admits it's speculation) throws BoD theory out there, but then retracts it so forceful after his more mature anti-Pelagian days that his are some of the most powerful ANTI-BoD statements in existence. St. Fulgentius his disciple rejects BoD and the EENS language of Florence comes largely from him. After St. Fulgentius, there's not another mention of "BoD" until there's a debate among the pre-scholastics, Hugh of St. Victor (for) and Abelard (against). Peter Lombard then writes to St. Bernard asking his opinion and St. Bernard very tentatively sides with "Augustine" (or so he mistakenly thinks), stating that he'd rather be wrong with Augustine than right on his own. While he was a saintly man, obviously, theology was not his strength and clearly truth comes before being a respecter of persons, and St. Bernard very unjustly persecuted Abelard for "heresy" later because Abelard actually pioneered the scholastic method that St. Thomas later adopted, in his seminal work "Sic et Non", in which he did exactly what St. Thomas later did, examine a position and then with a view toward the CONTRARY positions, i.e. the objections, etc. St. Bernard considered it impious to subject faith to this type of reason. He was dead wrong, and Abelard right. Abelard is really the father of the scholastic method.
In any case, after Peter Lombard went with St. Bernard, in his "Sentences", the manual used by nearly all the scholastics, and St. Thomas went with it ... it went viral.
But there's zero evidence of BoD having been revealed or being anything other than sheer speculation. Nor has it ever been demonstrated to flow logically and necessarily from other revealed dogma.
Finally, the fruits of BoD are completely pernicious. No good comes of it. If God chooses to save some by BoD, that He hasn't revealed, then glory to Him. But my not believing in it doesn't change what God actually does. Meanwhile, believing in BoD ironically erodes belief in the necessity of Baptism, making salvation by BoD even less likely, for, as Father Feeney put it, people start to desire the desire for Baptism rather than Baptism itself. It leads inexorably to religious indifferentism and EENS-denial.
At the very least, all discussion of it must be banned. If I were Pope, before studying it for formal condemnation, I would immediately forbid any mention of BoD among Catholics and would order mention of it expunged from the works of St. Thomas, St. Robert, St. Alphonsus, and all of them.
-
What about a version of Baptism of desire which would be God giving the soul the actual sacrament of Baptism while dispensing the need for water ? The person would then be incorporated into the Church, under the jurisdiction of the Pope, and have actually received the sacrament of Baptism itself, but in an invisible way. I'm not sure if this is compatible with sacramental theology though.
I know that this is probably not what a lot of the people who believe in BoD hold, but this seems to me like it would make it compatible with all of the dogmatic definitions on EENS.
Also, since Latin doesn't have definite articles, maybe the Council of Florence meant that it is only in the Unity of the Body that some of the Sacraments profit for salvation, which could be excluding Baptism.
For instance, if I say Occurrit ursis, how do you know if the person met all the bears, or only some bears ? I might be wrong because I'm no Latin expert though.
-
What about a version of Baptism of desire which would be God giving the soul the actual sacrament of Baptism while dispensing the need for water ? The person would then be incorporated into the Church, under the jurisdiction of the Pope, and have actually received the sacrament of Baptism itself, but in an invisible way. I'm not sure if this is compatible with sacramental theology though.
I know that this is probably not what a lot of the people who believe in BoD hold, but this seems to me like it would make it compatible with all of the dogmatic definitions on EENS.
Also, since Latin doesn't have definite articles, maybe the Council of Florence meant that it is only in the Unity of the Body that some of the Sacraments profit for salvation, which could be excluding Baptism.
For instance, if I say Occurrit ursis, how do you know if the person met all the bears, or only some bears ? I might be wrong because I'm no Latin expert though.
"If anyone says that real and natural water is not necessary in the sacrament of baptism, let him be anathema" It is in Denzinger somewhere. I think Trent. No water, no sacrament. To say that you can have baptism without water is about as ridiculous as to say you can have marriage without a bride.
-
"If anyone says that real and natural water is not necessary in the sacrament of baptism, let him be anathema" It is in Denzinger somewhere. I think Trent. No water, no sacrament. To say that you can have baptism without water is about as ridiculous as to say you can have marriage without a bride.
Could this be explained by saying that the water would be there but In voto instead of In re ?
-
"If anyone says that real and natural water is not necessary in the sacrament of baptism, let him be anathema" It is in Denzinger somewhere. I think Trent. No water, no sacrament. To say that you can have baptism without water is about as ridiculous as to say you can have marriage without a bride.
OA,
This is for you, since you're a great admirer of Brownson. I've no intention to revisit this oft repeated topic, which, if people want to ponder, there's plenty of good threads here already to review.
But, OA, you do admit that Brownson disagreed with you, yes?
It is evident, both from Bellarmine and Billuart, that no one can be saved unless he belongs to the visible communion of the Church, either actually or virtually, and also that the salvation of catechumens can be asserted only because they do so belong; that is, because they are in the vestibule, for the purpose of entering, – have already entered in their will and proximate disposition. St. Thomas teaches with regard to these, in case they have faith working by love, that all they lack is the reception of the visible sacrament in re; but if they are prevented by death from receiving it in re before the Church is ready to administer it, that God supplies the defect, accepts the will for the deed, and reputes them to be baptized. If the defect is supplied, and God reputes them to be baptized, they are so in effect, have in effect received the visible sacrament, are truly members of the external communion of the Church, and therefore are saved in it, not out of it (Summa, 3, Q.68, a.2, corp. ad 2. Et ad 3.)… …Bellarmine, Billuart, Perrone, etc., in speaking of persons as belonging to the soul and not to the body, mean, it is evident, not persons who in no sense belong to the body, but simply those who, though they in effect belong to it, do not belong to it in the full and strict sense of the word, because they have not received the visible sacrament in re. All they teach is simply that persons may be saved who have not received the visible sacrament in re; but they by no means teach that persons can be saved without having received the visible sacrament at all. There is no difference between their view and ours, for we have never contended for anything more than this; only we think, that, in these times especially, when the tendency is to depreciate the external, it is more proper to speak of them simply as belonging to the soul, for the fact the most important to be insisted on is, not that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament in re, but that it is impossible to be saved without receiving the visible sacrament at least in voto et proxima dispositione.
Brownson, Orestes. “The Great Question.” Brownson’s Quarterly Review. Oct. 1847. Found in: Brownson, Henry F. The Works of Orestes A. Brownson: Collected and Arranged. Vol.V. (pp.562-563). Detroit: Thorndike Nourse, Publisher, 1884.
Was Brownson being "ridiculous"?
-
But there's zero evidence of BoD having been revealed or being anything other than sheer speculation. Nor has it ever been demonstrated to flow logically and necessarily from other revealed dogma.
Finally, the fruits of BoD are completely pernicious. No good comes of it. If God chooses to save some by BoD, that He hasn't revealed, then glory to Him. But my not believing in it doesn't change what God actually does. Meanwhile, believing in BoD ironically erodes belief in the necessity of Baptism, making salvation by BoD even less likely, for, as Father Feeney put it, people start to desire the desire for Baptism rather than Baptism itself. It leads inexorably to religious indifferentism and EENS-denial.
Quite agreed. At the end of the day, that's all BOD is, speculation.
-
OA,
This is for you, since you're a great admirer of Brownson. I've no intention to revisit this oft repeated topic, which, if people want to ponder, there's plenty of good threads here already to review.
But, OA, you do admit that Brownson disagreed with you, yes?
Was Brownson being "ridiculous"?
Decem Decem, you ought to mean what you say. You obviously had the intention of revisiting "this oft repeated topic," which is evidenced by the fact that you revisited it. Brownson, in 1874, two years before his death, wrote an article precisely against those who deny the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Brownson never in his writings opened the door of salvation to those imaginary people of good will, those people whom catholic liberals like to parade in their own minds, people who never knew the Church but somehow wanted to enter it. In fact this is what Brownson said about the matter:
"To us there is something shocking in the supposition that the dogma, Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, is only generally true, and therefore not a catholic dogma. All Catholic dogmas, if catholic, are not generally, but universally true, and admit no exception or restriction whatever. If men can come to Christ and be saved without the church or union with Christ in the church, she is not Catholic, and it is false to call her the one holy Catholic Church, as in the creed. The latitudinarianism which explains away the dogma of exclusive salvation, and which is so widely prevalent, is a denial, in principle, of the catholicity of the church, and of the faith she holds and teaches, and seems to us to grow out of forgetfulness of the relation of the church to the Incarnation, her office in the economy of salvation, the teleological character of the Christian order, the religion of the end, and the disposition of the modern world to mistake liberality for charity...One thing is certain, namely, that no one can be saved, enter into the kingdom of God, or attain to beatitude, without being regenerated or born again of the incarnate Word, or if not united to regenerated humanity in Christ."
"Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus," April, 1874
And in the same article Brownson quotes the Council of Florence and says that unbaptized infants go to hell, in infernos, though they will not suffer for actual sins, of which they were incapable. Hopefully this clears up your confusion about Brownson.
-
Decem Decem, you ought to mean what you say. You obviously had the intention of revisiting "this oft repeated topic," which is evidenced by the fact that you revisited it.
:laugh1:
-
Quite agreed. At the end of the day, that's all BOD is, speculation.
Indeed, St. Augustine admitted as such when he floated the speculation. While he's always cited as THE authority behind the "teaching," if you read what he actually wrote without the ellipses generally inserted by the BoD-promoters, you'll find that he said that he floated the opinion after he had gone back and forth on the question, so, something along the lines of, "Having gone back and forth on the matter in my mind, I find that ..." There's no assertion that this was received teaching or that he was teaching it with authority, but that he was clearly speculating and opining based on HIS personal thinking ("I find ..."). Lesser known is the fact that he later retracted this youthful speculation, issuing some of the strongest ANTI-BoD statements in existence, after he had cut his teeth battling the Pelagians. St. Augustine barely ever had a thought he didn't write down, to the point that as the years went by, he felt compelled to issue an entire book of "Corrections". There's St. Ambrose but I believe that the oration for Valentinian is seriously misinterpreted, probably on purpose. He said that he HOPED that Valentinian could receive some grace from his confession and zeal, similar to the martyrs, but then added that even the martyrs who die without Baptism are not crowned even if they are washed. That sentence generally has escaped everyone's notice. That's your sum total of Patristic authority for BoD. Meanwhile you have 6 or 7 Church Fathers who explicitly rejected it.
There's no need for it either. If I promote disbelief in it, that makes it all the MORE likely that someone would ardently desire the Sacrament and possibly be saved by it (if that is in fact part of God's salvific providence). Yet if I promote BoD, it actually could make individuals more complacent that they could be saved without it and therefore desire it less ardently. There's no benefit. If I'm wrong, God will save this soul regardless of my opinion. If I'm right, then some souls might be lost due to an indifference to receiving the Sacrament.
St. Thomas wrote that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary for salvation, and said that if there's some poor ignorant native who had not placed obstacle (from other sin) in the way, God would send an angel if necessary (or else interior enlightenment) to convert the soul ... and then that same angel could easily baptize the individual or God could bilocate a Catholic, such as He had done with Mary of Agreda to the Native Americans.
See, the BoDers claimed that we "limit" or "constrain" God by the Sacraments. Hogwash. We're trying to lean what constraints God has imposed on us. Quite to the contrary, the BoDers limit God by "impossibility", a heretical notion since the Holy Ghost teaches us that with God all things are possible. So St. Augustine later declared that you can't accept that God could be prevented from bringing the Sacrament to His Elect ... if "you wish to be Catholic". God arranges all things according to His Providence for the good of His elect. Period. And no kind of "impossibility" could ever prevent bringing Baptism to His elect being simple childsplay for God.
-
...
So what if Brownson believed in an explicit Baptism of Desire? I've regularly said that it has not (yet) been condemned as heresy or error by the Church, and that the problem comes in where people try to undermine or gut EENS using BoD as the pretext and as the weapon. They use BoD not merely to supply for the reception of the Sacrament itself, but even to get various heretics and infidels saved by some "extension" of BoD to being a general umbrella term for "personal sincerity". "Nithe people" must be saved.
Now, I disagree with the speculation, but if that's ALL someone believed, as St. Robert Bellarmine did, for instance, there's no issue (yet) with it, as it does not necessarily gut Catholic ecclesiology as, how even Rahner explains it, the idea originally was predicated upon SOME notion that whoever could receive this was already somehow visibly joined to the society of the Church, i.e. pretty much only to Catechumens who had already professed the faith, were allowed to be called Christian, and were marked with the sign of the cross in a formal Liturgical ceremony. This notion, however, that these "Anonymous Catholics" float around the entire world, not only does it gut Tridentine ecclesiology, but it's perfectly consistent with the Vatican II ecclesiology that's at the root of all the V2 errors. If I believed as most Trads do that non-Catholics can be saved, I would drop all theological objections to Vatican II ... with the NOM being a separate matter.
-
Great find, Ladislaus. This agrees with Christ, in Scripture, where He tells us:
1. He who believes, and is baptized, will be saved. (Belief + Baptism = members in the Church)
2. He who does not believe, will be condemned. (No belief = no membership = damnation).
The "unspoken middle ground" are those who BELIEVE but are not baptized (i.e. BOD). These are neither saved, nor condemned. They aren't members in the Church but they die justified. Which leaves them to Limbo.
I didn't read what everyone wrote, yet. So I apologize if this was discussed.
Limbo of the Just existed before Jesus' death, when he went to hell he visited these souls. I assumed he took them to heaven and that part of Hell was closed. (sorry just my simplicity of thought) From your discussion it sounds like it may not have closed, and others continue to go to Limbo of the Just. These would be people who believed, but were never baptized. For clarification the Limbo of the Just is a place of natural happiness, but not of the beatific vision, right? Would this be where miscarried babies go?
Now this is where I will probably cause heads to spin.
Now here is why this topic becomes very sensitive. If a mother wants to go to Heaven, and has had miscarriages, and is told that the baby is in a natural place of happiness, but not Heaven and if Heaven is the happiest place, then how could it be happy for the mother who lost a child and will never see that child again. Do you think that those in Heaven can visit those in the Limbo of the Just. It is just mothers are constantly told that Heaven will have everything you could want and more, but most Catholic women want there family and friends to be there. Most of the time when we bring up these thoughts we get "you will understand when you are there", but for miscarriages, that seems kind of insensitive. Probably some men feel this way, too.
Thoughts?
Personally I could handle EENS and BoD better, if this topic was addressed.
-
Seems odd that people insist on speculating about the various means possible regarding someone's salvation. Imagine speculating about the means of someone's salvation and getting it wrong, leading individuals to perdition. So why do people speculate as if something like BOD might save when they have no guarantee and no proof?
-
Seems odd that people insist on speculating about the various means possible regarding someone's salvation. Imagine speculating about the means of someone's salvation and getting it wrong, leading individuals to perdition. So why do people speculate as if something like BOD might save when they have no guarantee and no proof?
Yes, that's a solid question. So, St. Augustine explained it a bit actually. He pointed out that some Catholics had been put off by situations where a devout Catechumen may have died before Baptism but then some scoundrel who continued sinning was Baptized in his final moments ... i.e. questioning the Mercy and the Justice of God. That's largely where the attitude comes from. This speculation absolutely does NOT benefit someone who MAY somehow be saved by a BoD. In fact, it lessens the chance they might be, since they would undoubtedly be less ardent in their desire for Baptism if they felt that their "desire" will suffice for their salvation even if they dont' actually receive Baptism. No, this does nothing to help save souls, and in fact could be an impediment to savings souls not only if they're wrong about it, but even if they're right because, as I said, it'll make it less likely that people will desire Baptism with sufficient ardor that it would qualify as "Baptism of Desire". It's utterly pointless. This questioning of God's Mercy and Justice is 100% the impetus behind it and not the welfare of those souls who die before receiving the Sacrament, since God will decide their eternal fate regardless of our OPINION regarding BoD. So many people have lost the faith after questioning God's Mercy after some tragedy or something they judged to be "unfair".
-
Gray, the "Limbo of the Just" in the Old Testament is ended, since it's purpose was for OT holy persons to wait for Christ to open the gates of heaven.
The new testament Limbo is the highest/upper part of hell (as is purgatory). While purgatory is a state of purification, Limbo is state of natural happiness.
In God's mercy, some babies are sent to Limbo due to dying young and without baptism. God foresaw (as only He can do) that had they been baptized and lived an adult life, they would not have saved their soul. So, in his mercy, he hears the prayers of their parents/family and sends them to Limbo, which is infinitely better than hell.
-
This notion, however, that these "Anonymous Catholics" float around the entire world, not only does it gut Tridentine ecclesiology, but it's perfectly consistent with the Vatican II ecclesiology that's at the root of all the V2 errors. If I believed as most Trads do that non-Catholics can be saved, I would drop all theological objections to Vatican II ... with the NOM being a separate matter.
Where do you think that Vatican II teaches this ecclesiology ? Do you think it is taught clearly anywhere ?
-
Decem Decem, you ought to mean what you say. You obviously had the intention of revisiting "this oft repeated topic," which is evidenced by the fact that you revisited it. Brownson, in 1874, two years before his death, wrote an article precisely against those who deny the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Brownson never in his writings opened the door of salvation to those imaginary people of good will, those people whom catholic liberals like to parade in their own minds, people who never knew the Church but somehow wanted to enter it. In fact this is what Brownson said about the matter:
"To us there is something shocking in the supposition that the dogma, Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, is only generally true, and therefore not a catholic dogma. All Catholic dogmas, if catholic, are not generally, but universally true, and admit no exception or restriction whatever. If men can come to Christ and be saved without the church or union with Christ in the church, she is not Catholic, and it is false to call her the one holy Catholic Church, as in the creed. The latitudinarianism which explains away the dogma of exclusive salvation, and which is so widely prevalent, is a denial, in principle, of the catholicity of the church, and of the faith she holds and teaches, and seems to us to grow out of forgetfulness of the relation of the church to the Incarnation, her office in the economy of salvation, the teleological character of the Christian order, the religion of the end, and the disposition of the modern world to mistake liberality for charity...One thing is certain, namely, that no one can be saved, enter into the kingdom of God, or attain to beatitude, without being regenerated or born again of the incarnate Word, or if not united to regenerated humanity in Christ."
"Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus," April, 1874
And in the same article Brownson quotes the Council of Florence and says that unbaptized infants go to hell, in infernos, though they will not suffer for actual sins, of which they were incapable. Hopefully this clears up your confusion about Brownson.
OA,
No, my intention was simply to point out to an admirer of Brownson's intellect, judgment and theological sense his view on the possibility of saving regeneration without receiving the waters of baptism, a position you jibed at as "ridiculous." I thought that might temper your judgment; apparently not.
There was no need for "clear[ing up." Brownson was quite clear: he does not believe that there is a need to actually receive the sacramental waters of the fount to be saved. I notice you did not address the quote on baptism. I understand why.
There is no contradiction between Brownson's position on BoD and your quote on EENS. None. His view on BoD and EENS are consistent.
Did you actually read Brownson's quote on baptism?
In case you meant one of your last sentences to indicate the quotes were inconsistent and Brownson rejected his view on baptism which I quoted, unbaptized infants are incapable of exercising the volition necessary to receive the sacrament "in voto et proxima dispositione." So that observation is irrelevant.
I believe you can do better than that, or hope so.
-
Limbo of the Just existed before Jesus' death, when he went to hell he visited these souls. I assumed he took them to heaven and that part of Hell was closed. (sorry just my simplicity of thought) From your discussion it sounds like it may not have closed, and others continue to go to Limbo of the Just. These would be people who believed, but were never baptized. For clarification the Limbo of the Just is a place of natural happiness, but not of the beatific vision, right? Would this be where miscarried babies go?
Right, that is in fact my theory. If you look at what the Church actually teaches about the exact layout of the realms in eternity, it's actually VERY LITTLE. Until about the 12th century, all Catholics (in the West at least) held that unbaptized infants, for instance, went to Hell. It wasn't until Abelard and then St. Thomas Aquinas speculated about a "Limbo Infantium" that this idea of a continuing Limbo came about. Clearly speculation, but the Church actually condemned the strict Augustinians who rejected Limbo as a "Pelagian fable". In other words, the Church declared belief in Limbo permissible even though it was speculated upon much later, with the reasoning that some of the Eastern Fathers HAD in fact worked out, namely, this state of people who are not good enough to be glorified, but not bad enought to be punished (per St. Gregory "the Theologian" nαzιanzen).
So there's a ton of room for speculation. When St. Ambrose said that martyrs could be washed but not crowned, what does that imply? Well, it implies that they do not enter the glory of the Kingdom, the Beatific Vision, but nevertheless are not punished in Hell.
So this is my theory as well.
I believe that the biggest animus working against the acceptance of EENS dogma has been this strange monolithic view of Hell, where some naturally virtuous Jєωιѕн grandma, who maybe even lays down her life for her grandchildren, ends up burning in Hell right next to Joe Stalin, in some monolithic cauldron of fire. But even one of the Catholic EENS definitions explains that each individual's punishment is commensurate to his sins. We all know some naturally virtuous, genuinely kind and generous people who die without the faith, so do those people get hurled into a cauldron of fire to be burned forever next to the serial murderers who are also there?
I believe that there are some naturally virtuous people who suffer very little or not at all in eternity due to their natural virtue having offset some of their natural vice, or due to invincible ignorance (that God mercifully allowed them to live in, knowing that if they had received the gift of faith they would have been damned for eternity), perhaps similar to the "Happy Hunting Ground" concept the Native Americans have.
So, it was St. Thomas Aquinas (though the Greek Fathers, not well known in the West, thought this through before him) who distinguished clearly between the NATURAL aspect of sin and the SUPERNATURAL state of the Beatific Vision. NOBODY is owed the latter, it is a free gift from God, and no one's perfect happiness requires the beatific vision, since we are not suffering any privation of our nature, which would then cause suffering. In other words, we have no idea what we're missing ... just like an animal has no idea what it's missing by lacking our rational faculties and therefore doesn't suffer for privation of them. Suffering results from a privation of a due good.
I also think that many of the descriptions of God's justice make God sound like some sadist who enjoys torturing people. I understand that they're TRYing to put out deterrents against the lax who without such fear would undoubtedly continue in sin, but what would someone think of a PERSON who captured people, even if they were criminals, for instance, and then tortured them. We'd think the man a deviant of some kind. So then why would we project this kind of a notion on God? I believe that the sufferings of Hell, the Latin poenae are nothing more than the direct natural results caused by the privation of good on our souls. Because various natural virtues are required for our happiness, if we die without these, we enter into a state or SELF-INFLICTED misery that's the direct consequences of what we made of ourselves.
There have been some episodes of the famous Twilight Zone series which were descriptions of Hell, where the individual first got there and thought it was a great place, filled with any pleasure they wanted, but then after a short time they got sick of it and found themselves disgusted by it all, thereby realizing what Hell is truly about. Or imagine if you love sugar or cake, but then it's all you ever wanted, and then you get to eat nothing but sugar, how you'd get sick and disgusted by it.
Another analogy is this. People who just love rock music often hate Classical music. I on the other hand love listening to Classical music. Now we both die, and in Heaven all you hear is Classical music. I would find it blissful, while these others, based on their on self-conditioning, would find it torture to just listent to it all the time.
Some people love to pray and to be with God, whereas others hate being in church and can't wait to get out. But eternity is one long "church", and so these types were be horrifically tortured by it.
I had a Modernist Jesuit teacher who did hold some heresies, but he had an interesting analogy for Hell. He said that there was a married couple and the husband was unfaithful to the wife, and the wife found out, but then instead of hating on him she still treated him with love, kindness, respect, etc. Well after weeks and months of this, the husband finally blew up because he couldn't take it anymore, telling her that he wished that she would chew him out, yell at him, something ... to which she just said that she still loves him and refused. That caused him torture. So in fact some saints indicated that those who go to Hell are tortured actually by God's love for them, since they hate it and want it to stop.
God is perfectly simple, where He does not have a Just side and a Merciful side, and every single "act" of His, though He is pure Existence, is at once perfectly Just and perfectly Merciful, where the same God (Who is Love) causes both Justice and Mercy on all souls without Himself being different or changing despite the dispositon of the soul, so it's your own disposition that causes your own suffering.
So if people understood these types of considerations, they would not be averse to EENS dogma, since no one gets thrown kicking and screaming into Hell against their will. There was a saint who pitied the damned and asked God to help one of them. So God plucked a soul from Hell and put it in Heaven. Immediately the soul absolutely hated it there and wanted out. So the saint then said, please at least put him in Purgatory. So God complied. There the soul complained about being neither here nor there. So then finally God said, "I will let you go wherever you choose." ... and the soul dove right back into Hell, because that's where he willed to be.
-
So what if Brownson believed in an explicit Baptism of Desire? I've regularly said that it has not (yet) been condemned as heresy or error by the Church, and that the problem comes in where people try to undermine or gut EENS using BoD as the pretext and as the weapon. They use BoD not merely to supply for the reception of the Sacrament itself, but even to get various heretics and infidels saved by some "extension" of BoD to being a general umbrella term for "personal sincerity". "Nithe people" must be saved.
Now, I disagree with the speculation, but if that's ALL someone believed, as St. Robert Bellarmine did, for instance, there's no issue (yet) with it, as it does not necessarily gut Catholic ecclesiology as, how even Rahner explains it, the idea originally was predicated upon SOME notion that whoever could receive this was already somehow visibly joined to the society of the Church, i.e. pretty much only to Catechumens who had already professed the faith, were allowed to be called Christian, and were marked with the sign of the cross in a formal Liturgical ceremony. This notion, however, that these "Anonymous Catholics" float around the entire world, not only does it gut Tridentine ecclesiology, but it's perfectly consistent with the Vatican II ecclesiology that's at the root of all the V2 errors. If I believed as most Trads do that non-Catholics can be saved, I would drop all theological objections to Vatican II ... with the NOM being a separate matter.
Mr. So What,
Been awhile. Miss the exercise sparring with you.
The quote was meant for OA for the reasons expressed.
That's what.
-
Gray, the "Limbo of the Just" in the Old Testament is ended, since it's purpose was for OT holy persons to wait for Christ to open the gates of heaven.
The new testament Limbo is the highest/upper part of hell (as is purgatory). While purgatory is a state of purification, Limbo is state of natural happiness.
In God's mercy, some babies are sent to Limbo due to dying young and without baptism. God foresaw (as only He can do) that had they been baptized and lived an adult life, they would not have saved their soul. So, in his mercy, he hears the prayers of their parents/family and sends them to Limbo, which is infinitely better than hell.
That last paragraph is important. Now one criticism the anti-BoDers get is that we deny God's will to save all people, and that everyone must have the active concrete opportunity to be saved. So I always ask about the unbaptized infants. What about them? I always get crickets in reponse. Then I explain as you did that God's Mercy made it so they ended up in a place of perfect happiness because foresaw that if they had received the gift of faith they would have been damned and would suffer forever in Hell.
-
That last paragraph is important. Now one criticism the anti-BoDers get is that we deny God's will to save all people, and that everyone must have the active concrete opportunity to be saved. So I always ask about the unbaptized infants. What about them? I always get crickets in reponse. Then I explain as you did that God's Mercy made it so they ended up in a place of perfect happiness because foresaw that if they had received the gift of faith they would have been damned and would suffer forever in Hell.
I have once read someone claiming that God could infuse them reason and reveal Himself to them at the last moment before their death, making it possible for them to receive BoD. I don't know if it works.
-
I have once read someone claiming that God could infuse them reason and reveal Himself to them at the last moment before their death, making it possible for them to receive BoD. I don't know if it works.
Well that's a speculation, rooted in emotion, that runs counter to a long Tradition in the Church, and repeated Magisterial teachings that the only hope for infants to be saved is actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism. Cajetan held that theory, where the infants could be saved by VICARIOUS desire (of parents or godparents), but St. Pius V ordered that opinion stricken from his works. Even the, why would God allow some infants who died without Baptism who vicariously saved them by their desire but other infants not to have such parents?
There's no requirement for God to present some choice to an infant before death, and, as mentioned, the Patristic and Magisterial Tradition strongly militates against this view. In fact, if this were the case, there couldn't possibly be a Limbo of Infants at all, a possibility which the Church largely endorsed, since everyone would then make a choice for or against God before dying.
But the bottom line, if it's permissible to hold there's such a thing as Limbo, then it's not inherently incompatible with God's will that all be saved for some to be deprived of the actual grace for conversion. God WOULD certainly offer the grace of He foresaw that the soul would accept it and then be saved, but foreseeing that the soul would reject it, God in His Mercy permits them to have PERFECT natural happiness rather than an eternity in Hell. Imagine every possible joy one could have, on this eternal vacation with no more pain or suffering or sickness or any affliction of any sort, but perfect natural bliss ... that's actually what MOST peole envision Heaven to be, one long extended enjoyable vacation, and none of us can even begin to imagine the actual Beatific Vision, since our minds are naturally incapable of conceiving of it.
It's for that reason that I hold there to be a huge surge in abortions, with 73 million per year worldwide, every year now for many decades. We're approaching quickly a billion aborted infants ... and they will all enjoy perfect natural happiness forever. What a great Mercy from God ... because in this wicked, corrupt world, especially if you were to be born to and raised by parents who would think nothing of murdering you, your chances for salvation are slim to none anyway, so the less a chance people have of being saved, the more you'll see them being aborted and going to Limbo for eternity ... where they will praise God in perfect bliss for His Mercy through all eternity.
-
Mr. So What,
Been awhile. Miss the exercise sparring with you.
The quote was meant for OA for the reasons expressed.
That's what.
Check the post you're referencing here again, bud. That's what. You'll notice that I was NOT responding to you but to QABrownson1876's comments. He was describing Orestes Brownson's position, to which I threw in my own observations. Despite your ego believing that I was responding to you, I didn't even read what you wrote, because quite honestly I don't care about your opinion.
So before inserting foot in your mouth, look again that I was not responding to you or even sparring with you, and I didn't read your initial question to Orestes, but was merely responding to his response to you, without the context of your original post.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/council-of-florence-a-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-bod/msg973213/#msg973213
... responding to QA here with no mention whatsoever of you or anything you posted, not intentionally, since I don't know what you actually posted.
Now, since you're being rude, I'll also point out that this is MY thread and YOU are the one hijacking it by engaging with QA here on a topic entirely unrelated to my post. You're welcome to start your duel with QA on your own dedicated thread and stop derailing mine while accusing ME of somehow not respecting YOU for addressing a comment by someone else after you derailed my thread with your own "sparring" with someone else. Take this to another thread.
-
That last paragraph is important. Now one criticism the anti-BoDers get is that we deny God's will to save all people, and that everyone must have the active concrete opportunity to be saved. So I always ask about the unbaptized infants. What about them? I always get crickets in reponse. Then I explain as you did that God's Mercy made it so they ended up in a place of perfect happiness because foresaw that if they had received the gift of faith they would have been damned and would suffer forever in Hell.
This seems like the most reasonable answer to the salvific will/unbaptized infant dilemma but it still raises the question of why God did not allow the infant to be baptised before it died (at least in the cases where the parents would have baptised the child had it lived).
-
This seems like the most reasonable answer to the salvific will/unbaptized infant dilemma but it still raises the question of why God did not allow the infant to be baptised before it died (at least in the cases where the parents would have baptised the child had it lived).
Because salvation is a gift, no one deserves it. And humans have free will, these people murder their own unborn children, since that is their will God allows it and does mercy by allowing the unbaptised infant into limbo. Had the child lived and grown up they would have gone to hell. And if you ask why not baptised without growing up? We look at it in reverse, the fact that they are in limbo means they weren't among the elect so think of the implications.
-
Check the post you're referencing here again, bud. That's what. You'll notice that I was NOT responding to you but to QABrownson1876's comments. He was describing Orestes Brownson's position, to which I threw in my own observations. Despite your ego believing that I was responding to you, I didn't even read what you wrote, because quite honestly I don't care about your opinion.
That's not entirely convincing, since the first line of your response is:
So what if Brownson believed in an explicit Baptism of Desire?
OA's quote wasn't concerned with BoD, while mine was, and indicated OB's view as to "explicit Baptism of Desire."
But technically you were responding to OA's response containing my quote of OB on "explicit baptism of desire." Got it.
-
Because salvation is a gift, no one deserves it.
Yeah it really boils down to that. I was thinking more along the lines of a Catholic family where the mother has a miscarriage, but that is a good point about starting at the end..ultimately they did not merit salvation, so them dying an unbaptised infant must be the "best case" scenario.
-
It's for that reason that I hold there to be a huge surge in abortions, with 73 million per year worldwide, every year now for many decades. We're approaching quickly a billion aborted infants ... and they will all enjoy perfect natural happiness forever. What a great Mercy from God ... because in this wicked, corrupt world, especially if you were to be born to and raised by parents who would think nothing of murdering you, your chances for salvation are slim to none anyway, so the less a chance people have of being saved, the more you'll see them being aborted and going to Limbo for eternity ... where they will praise God in perfect bliss for His Mercy through all eternity.
And to this last point I remember Fr. Wathen saying that had these aborted souls received baptism and gone on to lead adult lives, the vast majority of them would have been damned; it is a mercy, per se, that they were spared their adult lives in this Valley of Tears.
-
And to this last point I remember Fr. Wathen saying that had these aborted souls received baptism and gone on to lead adult lives, the vast majority of them would have been damned; it is a mercy, per se, that they were spared their adult lives in this Valley of Tears.
Or even if they hadn't received the Sacrament of Baptism.
God wants everyone elevated to the supernatural state, since the lowest supernatural happiness infinitely exceeds the greatest possible natural happiness, but not having the supernatural happiness causes no suffering, since we do not have the faculties to even comprehend what that is, and, as I said, we experience suffering due to a privation of our nature. Now, why God allows some to live and then lose their souls while others to be killed as infants and therefore to at least enjoy perfect natural happiness, He alone knows, but we know that He gives the best possible chance for everyone depending also somehwat on what they deserve. So, for instance, God might foresee that no matter what conditions a certain souls ends up in, he's going to damn himself, whereas for some of the aborted ones maybe they wouldn't have been filled with such malice just wouldn't have much of a fighting chance.
As St. Augustine says, those who start speculating about God's Mercy and Justice inevitably involve themselves in a "vortex of confusion", and we really needn't spend much time on this, as second-guessing the Mercy of God has caused the shipwreck of many a soul. When we get to Heaven, God willing, we'll understand and see that everything God has done is at the same time both the most Merciful and most Just thing that He could possibly have done, given human free will in the mix.
But as soon as I see people thinking, "We must have BoD because it wouldn't be fair." ... if you think it's a legitimate line of inquiry, that's opening such a massive can of worms that, what's next? "Well, it wouldn't be fair is an unbaptized infant had no chance to be saved." "Well, it wouldn't be fair that this person was born into a Catholic family but that one was born into a drug-gang family in the hood." etc. etc. That type of thinking never ends well, since our pea brains are simply incapable of comprehending the complexity of the economy of salvation. God alone knows that if this person does this, then it'll cause that, which in turn will cause this, and that in turn will cause something else, and each individual's free will, how it interacts with any other individual's free will, etc. ... God alone knows and the hubris of second-guessing what God should or should not do has destroyed many souls.
Unfortunately, as St. Augustine realized, this is precisely the very thinking behind BoD, and so he rejected it as a "vortex of confusion" that anyone who wishes to be Catholic must reject. Sadly, all the anti-EENS "theology" that's been done is NOT based on logic or reason, where we examine what God has revealed and draw conclusions from it, but from this emotional premise of "oh, if this person dies before Baptism, it wouldn't be fair ... it wouldn't be NITHE of God to do". THAT IS NOT THEOLOGY. If God does make various extraordinary provisions to save some souls, then glory be to Him, but He has chosen not to reveal such things to us, so we go with what we know, namely, that no one who does not receive the Sacrament of Baptism can be saved. If we're wrong, as I've said, so what? God will still save His elect, regardless of my incorrect opinon. If we're right, then the people promoting BoD are doing great damage to souls. That's the bottom line here.
But the reason this is a huge issue ... and why I disagree with Matthew that it's meaningless (ideas matter, Matthew, as Bishop Williamson emphasized constantly) ... is because ALL THE ERRORS OF VATICAN II HINGE ON THIS QUESTION. Why can't Trads get that through their thick skulls.
MAJOR: There can be no salvation outside the Church. Dogma.
MINOR: Prots, schismatics, Jews, Muslims, pagans can be saved.
CONCLUSION: Prots, schismatics, Jews, Muslims, pagans can be in the Church.
That conclusions is in fact Vatican II in a nutshell, and if I believed the above premise (in the MINOR), I would accept all of Vatican II immediately. I would have to. EVERY ERROR in Vatican II except perhaps, oh, collegiality, derives from this soteriology and the resulting ecclesiology, as even Rahner recognized and admitted. Even religious liberty. Why? Because if we have no subjectivized the criteria for salvation, where we please God and save our souls by doing what we (even erroneously) think is right, then since we have a right to save our souls and please God, we have a right to do what we (even erroneously) think is right.
That's the subjectivism that Bishop Williamson was one of the few to identify as THE ROOT cause of the Vatican II errors ... it's just that he failed to take it to its final conclusion with regard to EENS and the V2 ecclesiology.
-
Because salvation is a gift, no one deserves it.
So much so that we don't even have the faculties (the potential) to experience God supernaturally ....
That is actually what the character of the Sacrament of Baptism does and why it's impossible to have the beatific vision without that Sacramental character. Due to the BoD craze, many theologians have minimized the Sacramental character into meaninglessness ... where it's little more than a non-repeatability marker and some badge of honor that some people in Heaven have and others lack. That's nonsense. This Sacramental character actually imprints the likeness of God's Son onto our souls so that we're recognized as members of the family of the Holy Trinity, by supernatural adoption, and this character also gives us the faculties to be able to see God face to face, as He is, in the beatific vision. It's like we're getting a new "sense", a new power ... that we do not inherently have in our natural created soul. As such, no one is owed this, and there's no "punishment" whatsoever involved with NOT being given this gift, of not being elevated to this supernatural state. If God gives the possibility of perfect natural happiness to everyone, that's all that Justice requires, and God is perfectly just.
-
Can we believe that anyone who sincerely wants, I mean sincerely, to be saved, would necessarily be saved? Will this person receive baptism sooner or later? Or is it possible that even this person will be damned, for lack of predestination? For example, let's take a Novus Ordo guy who sincerely practices his faith and thinks he is baptized but in reality is not, because the priest invented a formula, but he does not know it, how can this person receive baptism if he thinks he is already baptized? This is worrying, isn't it?
-
I believe that the biggest animus working against the acceptance of EENS dogma has been this strange monolithic view of Hell, where some naturally virtuous Jєωιѕн grandma, who maybe even lays down her life for her grandchildren, ends up burning in Hell right next to Joe Stalin, in some monolithic cauldron of fire. But even one of the Catholic EENS definitions explains that each individual's punishment is commensurate to his sins. We all know some naturally virtuous, genuinely kind and generous people who die without the faith, so do those people get hurled into a cauldron of fire to be burned forever next to the serial murderers who are also there?
This is typical Newchurch muddle-headedness, to imagine that hell is equally bad for everyone. Another such example is the inability of Newchurchers to think in terms of mortal or venial sin --- I once heard someone grasping at the concept of a "moral sin" (they'd heard the terminology but didn't know how to process it, similar to how people nowadays use the term "immaculate conception" to refer to parthenogenesis, "yes, she got pregnant, and we know it wasn't an immaculate conception") --- and not to understand the concept of "grave" sin. I also heard someone else say that a "grave" sin is a sin against any one of the Ten Commandments, but when you exclude those, you don't have many sins left, the Precepts of the Church would be about all.
Some of this confusion may be by design, or to put a finer point on it, to decouple gravely sinful matter, committed with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will, from loss of one's salvation. This probably rears its head most of all in sins of the flesh and sins involving marriage and the reproductive faculty, such that they might be willing to concede that such things as contraception, self-gratification, cohabiting without marriage (or living in an invalid marriage) and being sɛҳuąƖly engaged, and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity, are indeed "grave", but do not exclude someone from salvation. That's the kind of assurance the world itches to hear.
-
Can we believe that anyone who sincerely wants, I mean sincerely, to be saved, would necessarily be saved? Will this person receive baptism sooner or later? Or is it possible that even this person will be damned, for lack of predestination? For example, let's take a Novus Ordo guy who sincerely practices his faith and thinks he is baptized but in reality is not, because the priest invented a formula, but he does not know it, how can this person receive baptism if he thinks he is already baptized? This is worrying, isn't it?
We can't confuse some "sincerely wanting" with having the will, intention, and desire to do something. It also depends on his motives. Sure, who doesn't want to be happy forever? But is the person WILLING to do what it takes and does the person actually love God, or just want something for himself. That's one of the worst problems with this notion of Baptism of Desire. Latin word mis-translated as simple desire is votum, which is more like a vow, an act of the will (word derives from willing something), and even Catholic Encyclopedia states that this term refers to having all the dispositions indicated by Trent as necessary for receiving the Sacrament.
With that said, if God allows someone to be invalidly baptized, He has His reasons, just like He has His reasons for having various people die as unbaptized infants. If God willed this person to have the Baptism corrected, then He'll take care of it, bring its invalidity to light, or even work some extraordinary and miraculous thing. There was such a case in the life of St. Peter Claver, where a woman had been a devout Catholic for years, a daily Communicant, etc. She died without the Last Sacraments. St. Peter was inspired to raise her back to life because he knew something was amiss. So he started to hear her confession and then suddenly received the light that she had never been validly baptized. St. Peter baptized her, and then she died. Now, this woman reported to St. Peter that after she died she was told at one point that she could "go no further" due to lacking the wedding garment. So here's a woman who had been a devout daily Communicant and evidently her sincere desire and intention to practice the faith did not suffice for entry into the Kingdom. But sine she was among God's elect, He took care of the problem, in this case miraculously. He'd do the same as needed for anyone else, perhaps bilocating someone to that person's side in his last moments, or having an angel baptized the individual (nothing to prevent that ... so what's the need for "BoD"?), or simply work in an ordinary way by (as happened in a couple cases in the United States), having some video come to light where this deacon had been baptizing invalidly for decades.
This kind of speculation here never ends well. We simply trust God that everything He does is the most Merciful and most Just thing He could possibly do. And that's all we need to know, and it's nefas to inquire further.
-
This is typical Newchurch muddle-headedness, to imagine that hell is equally bad for everyone.
See, I don't think it's just NewChurch or even primarily NewChurch. NewChurch just gets around the problem where they "hope" that ALL will be saved, either by way of the Origen heresy (as Bergoglio has articulated it), or just because God wants to save everyone, so Hell is empty.
But Trads have this same conception of Hell, that everyone who isn't saved and doesn't have the Beatific Vision goes to some torture chamber for all eternity.
-
I remember Vin Lewis in one of his talks said that on the last day of the world it was possible that those not validly baptized will be baptized. He theorized that as long as time remains, there is an oppurtunity to recieve the sacraments.
In a separate note, I remember reading the life of Dr. Simone Weil, she was a Jewess in France, had a PhD in Philosophy, and she died in 1943. She once said that the reason she did into enter the Catholic Church was because of the dogma Extra Eccesiam Nulla Salus. She felt that she knew some "good hearted Jews who must be in heaven too." This is just emotional hogwash!
Once again, Brownson in his 1874 article on Extra Ecclesiam says on positive/negative vincible/invincible ignorance:
“But they who are merely negative infidels, or unbelievers purely through ignorance, in consequence of never having heard about the Gospel, are not guilty of the sin of infidelity? Certainly not. Every Catholic is presumed to know that the 68th proposition of Baius, Infidelitas pure negativa in his, quibus Christus non est praedicatus, peccatum est, 'Purely negative infidelity in those among whom Christ has not been preached, is a sin,' is a condemned proposition, and therefore that purely negative infidelity in those to whom Christ has not been preached is inculpable – as St. Augustine teaches, the penalty of sin, not sin itself. But who therefore concludes that they are in the way of salvation, or that they can be saved without becoming living members of the body of our Lord? ‘Infidels of this sort,’ says St. Thomas, ‘are damned, indeed, for other sins which without faith cannot be remitted, but they are not damned for the sin of infidelity. Whence the Lord says, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin”; that is, as St. Augustine explains it, would not have the sin of not believing in Christ.’ There is a considerable distance between being free from the formal sin of infidelity, and being in the way of salvation. No infidel, positive or negative, in vincible or invincible ignorance, can be saved; ‘for without faith it is impossible to please God,’ and ‘he that believeth not shall be damned,’ and faith in voto not in re, is inconceivable. Neither of the subdivisions of the unbelieving class of our countrymen are, then, in the way of salvation."
("Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus," April 1874, Brownson's Quarterly Review)
-
We can't confuse some "sincerely wanting" with having the will, intention, and desire to do something. It also depends on his motives. Sure, who doesn't want to be happy forever? But is the person WILLING to do what it takes and does the person actually love God, or just want something for himself. That's one of the worst problems with this notion of Baptism of Desire. Latin word mis-translated as simple desire is votum, which is more like a vow, an act of the will (word derives from willing something), and even Catholic Encyclopedia states that this term refers to having all the dispositions indicated by Trent as necessary for receiving the Sacrament.
With that said, if God allows someone to be invalidly baptized, He has His reasons, just like He has His reasons for having various people die as unbaptized infants. If God willed this person to have the Baptism corrected, then He'll take care of it, bring its invalidity to light, or even work some extraordinary and miraculous thing. There was such a case in the life of St. Peter Claver, where a woman had been a devout Catholic for years, a daily Communicant, etc. She died without the Last Sacraments. St. Peter was inspired to raise her back to life because he knew something was amiss. So he started to hear her confession and then suddenly received the light that she had never been validly baptized. St. Peter baptized her, and then she died. Now, this woman reported to St. Peter that after she died she was told at one point that she could "go no further" due to lacking the wedding garment. So here's a woman who had been a devout daily Communicant and evidently her sincere desire and intention to practice the faith did not suffice for entry into the Kingdom. But sine she was among God's elect, He took care of the problem, in this case miraculously. He'd do the same as needed for anyone else, perhaps bilocating someone to that person's side in his last moments, or having an angel baptized the individual (nothing to prevent that ... so what's the need for "BoD"?), or simply work in an ordinary way by (as happened in a couple cases in the United States), having some video come to light where this deacon had been baptizing invalidly for decades.
This kind of speculation here never ends well. We simply trust God that everything He does is the most Merciful and most Just thing He could possibly do. And that's all we need to know, and it's nefas to inquire further.
When I speak of someone who sincerely wants to be saved, I am speaking of someone who has faith and seeks to fulfill God's will and sanctify himself, who prays the Rosary every day, goes to Mass regularly, etc. If this person does not fall into mortal sin, will this person necessarily be saved? Is it possible that God will still refuse him salvation? Will this person learn by surprise at death that he was not baptized and then, too bad for you?
-
See, I don't think it's just NewChurch or even primarily NewChurch. NewChurch just gets around the problem where they "hope" that ALL will be saved, either by way of the Origen heresy (as Bergoglio has articulated it), or just because God wants to save everyone, so Hell is empty.
But Trads have this same conception of Hell, that everyone who isn't saved and doesn't have the Beatific Vision goes to some torture chamber for all eternity.
But do they think that hell is equally bad for everyone? I tend to doubt it. Traditional Catholic teaching is that the punishments of hell will be commensurate with the gravity of the sins that put the soul there.
-
When I speak of someone who sincerely wants to be saved, I am speaking of someone who has faith and seeks to fulfill God's will and sanctify himself, who prays the Rosary every day, goes to Mass regularly, etc. If this person does not fall into mortal sin, will this person necessarily be saved? Is it possible that God will still refuse him salvation? Will this person learn by surprise at death that he was not baptized and then, too bad for you?
Yes, it is possible - after all, who knows the mind of God outside of what He has already revealed? But we know God wants all men to be saved so there is nothing to stop God from providing a valid sacrament to the person you speak of before he dies - were such a person to exist.
-
Yes, it is possible - after all, who knows the mind of God outside of what He has already revealed? But we know God wants all men to be saved so there is nothing to stop God from providing a valid sacrament to the person you speak of before he dies - were such a person to exist.
If there is nothing to prevent God from providing a valid sacrament for this person, then why do you say it is possible then? It seems to me that if the criteria I have given, if God wants the salvation of all men, it would be absurd for this man not to be saved. What more could he have done to prove to God his sincere will?
-
I didn't read what everyone wrote, yet. So I apologize if this was discussed.
Limbo of the Just existed before Jesus' death, when he went to hell he visited these souls. I assumed he took them to heaven and that part of Hell was closed. (sorry just my simplicity of thought) From your discussion it sounds like it may not have closed, and others continue to go to Limbo of the Just. These would be people who believed, but were never baptized. For clarification the Limbo of the Just is a place of natural happiness, but not of the beatific vision, right? Would this be where miscarried babies go?
Now this is where I will probably cause heads to spin.
Now here is why this topic becomes very sensitive. If a mother wants to go to Heaven, and has had miscarriages, and is told that the baby is in a natural place of happiness, but not Heaven and if Heaven is the happiest place, then how could it be happy for the mother who lost a child and will never see that child again. Do you think that those in Heaven can visit those in the Limbo of the Just. It is just mothers are constantly told that Heaven will have everything you could want and more, but most Catholic women want there family and friends to be there. Most of the time when we bring up these thoughts we get "you will understand when you are there", but for miscarriages, that seems kind of insensitive. Probably some men feel this way, too.
Thoughts?
Personally I could handle EENS and BoD better, if this topic was addressed.
Fr. Feeney:
"Unbaptized infants who die go to Limbo. Notice, they do not go to Hell. Also notice, they do not go to Heaven.
Unbaptized adults who die go to Hell. Notice they do not go either to Limbo or to Heaven." - Bread of Life
Nobody knows if those in Heaven can visit those in the Limbo, it does not seem possible imo. Remember the story of Lazarus and the rich man - there is a great gulf between heaven and hell (limbo?) so that neither side can cross to the other. Luke 16:26
The sad situation offers the mother comfort in this world in knowing that her baby is not suffering.
-
If there is nothing to prevent God from providing a valid sacrament for this person, then why do you say it is possible then? It seems to me that if the criteria I have given, if God wants the salvation of all men, it would be absurd for this man not to be saved. What more could he have done to prove to God his sincere will?
I was answering it was possible to: Is it possible that God will still refuse him salvation? Will this person learn by surprise at death that he was not baptized and then, too bad for you?
We do not know what God knows, perhaps God saw through his outward sincerity as being false. Who knows? Because God made the sacrament a requirement, it is ultimately up to God to provide it - same as He provides it for everyone who has ever been and ever will be baptized.
But you are talking a hypothetical situation....someone not baptized who does not fall into mortal sin is imo, impossible.
-
Nobody knows if those in Heaven can visit those in the Limbo, it does not seem possible imo. Remember the story of Lazarus and the rich man - there is a great gulf between heaven and hell (limbo?) so that neither side can cross to the other. Luke 16:26
There's no reason those in Heaven can't visit Limbo. Why not? So, the Rich Man was clearly in Hell, not Limbo (of the Fathers), whereas the Lazarus was the one in the "bosom of Abraham", i.e. Limbo of the Fathers.
-
I was answering it was possible to: Is it possible that God will still refuse him salvation? Will this person learn by surprise at death that he was not baptized and then, too bad for you?
We do not know what God knows, perhaps God saw through his outward sincerity as being false. Who knows? Because God made the sacrament a requirement, it is ultimately up to God to provide it - same as He provides it for everyone who has ever been and ever will be baptized.
But you are talking a hypothetical situation....someone not baptized who does not fall into mortal sin is imo, impossible.
I have mentioned before in a previous thread, in the life of St. Martin of Tours, some girl died unbaptized. The monks knew that she was not baptized. They kept her body in the monastery for six months and prayed to St. Martin. St. Martin showed up at the monastery, raised the girl to life, baptized her, and she died.
Where was the girl's soul during these six months? If she had baptism of desire, then why water baptism?
-
There's no reason those in Heaven can't visit Limbo. Why not? So, the Rich Man was clearly in Hell, not Limbo (of the Fathers), whereas the Lazarus was the one in the "bosom of Abraham", i.e. Limbo of the Fathers.
Lazarus is an interesting case because he presumably died under the Old Law when Our Lord raised him to life; Lazarus then, if I recall, was baptized, became a bishop in France (first bishop of Marseilles), and then died years later under the New Law. Feast day, Dec. 17.
-
Lazarus is an interesting case because he presumably died under the Old Law when Our Lord raised him to life; Lazarus then, if I recall, was baptized, became a bishop in France (first bishop of Marseilles), and then died years later under the New Law. Feast day, Dec. 17.
I think it's disputed whether the Lazarus in Our Lord's parable is the same one as was raised later.
-
I have mentioned before in a previous thread, in the life of St. Martin of Tours, some girl died unbaptized. The monks knew that she was not baptized. They kept her body in the monastery for six months and prayed to St. Martin. St. Martin showed up at the monastery, raised the girl to life, baptized her, and she died.
Where was the girl's soul during these six months? If she had baptism of desire, then why water baptism?
This story seems to prove that this girl was in a true good will and God did not permit for her to be damned. I guess that's what should happen to every person of good will?
-
I have mentioned before in a previous thread, in the life of St. Martin of Tours, some girl died unbaptized. The monks knew that she was not baptized. They kept her body in the monastery for six months and prayed to St. Martin. St. Martin showed up at the monastery, raised the girl to life, baptized her, and she died.
Where was the girl's soul during these six months? If she had baptism of desire, then why water baptism?
Yeah, good question. Was she in a holding place like Limbo? Or was here soul still somehow attached to her body, where she was in a state like that of coma?
If I recall from the St. Peter Claver story, the woman who had been raised said that she was in some beautiful place, filled with light, but then was told she couldn't go any further.
There are probably many different areas and regions in the after-life or after-world, but God simply did not reveal all the details. He didn't even reveal Limbo of Infants, as that was the result of theological speculation. God probably very deliberately emphasized the extreme tortures of the deepest Hell vs. the ineffable bliss of Heaven as the two poles, since a gray area would hardly incentivize most people from committing sin and doing evil, and only the fear of the extreme sufferings of Hell would have that effect.
While these need to be taken with a huge grain of salt, many people in these NDEs report being in places of great natural happiness, peace, and love ... but obviously they would not have entered the Heaven of the Beatific vision. Some stopped at these gates, beyond which presumably was Heaven proper and the Beatific Vision. St. Paul went to the Third Heaven ... but it didn't appear as though he experienced the Beatific Vision, since I don't believe you "come back" from that, and he would have tried to relate that in his Epistle. SO there are more things in Heaven than are dreamt of in our philosophy.
-
There's no reason those in Heaven can't visit Limbo. Why not? So, the Rich Man was clearly in Hell, not Limbo (of the Fathers), whereas the Lazarus was the one in the "bosom of Abraham", i.e. Limbo of the Fathers.
Well, as I said, who knows? Nobody. The only thing for sure is that in this world, the mother can take some type of comfort knowing her baby is not suffering.
We've heard stories about saints in heaven and damned souls in hell visiting the living, and the living seeing purgatory, hell and heaven etc., but nothing whatsoever about anyone visiting or seeing Limbo, or anything about souls in Limbo at all, nothing at all. We really know nothing about it outside of knowing that Limbo exists.
-
This story seems to prove that this girl was in a true good will and God did not permit for her to be damned. I guess that's what should happen to every person of good will?
Again, you need to snap out of deciding what "should happen to every person [you decide might be] of good will". We know that God is perfeclty Just and perfectly Merciful, and no one will be dealt with "unfairly". If our perception is that something might SEEM unfair to us, we reject that thinking, and we most certinly don't draw theological conclusions from our emotional reaction to things. That's not theology. Theology starts with revealed truth, and then we apply reason to those truths and draw out greater detail from them logically.
We know that God is Love and that He is all Just and all Merciful. We know what He has revealed, that there's a Heaven and there's a Hell and there's a Purgatory. We know that He taught that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary to enter into the Kingdom of God, "water and the Holy Spirit". I'm sure there's a ton of detail that He did not reveal, such as Limbo of the Infants, and we can try to speculate. But we can never start second-guessing specific scenarios and decide it would be "unfair", and therefore we're going to make it so that Baptism isn't necessary like He said.
-
Well, as I said, who knows? Nobody. The only thing for sure is that in this world, the mother can take some type of comfort knowing her baby is not suffering.
We've heard stories about saints in heaven and damned souls in hell visiting the living, and the living seeing purgatory, hell and heaven etc., but nothing whatsoever about anyone visiting or seeing Limbo, or anything about souls in Limbo at all, nothing at all. We really know nothing about it outside of knowing that Limbo exists.
Right ... there's all kinds of detail that we probably know next-to-nothing about, and I think God chose not to reveal them for some very good reasons, i.e. where if people didn't keep focus on Heaven vs. Hell, many more would be lost, so excessive detail would be a distractron from souls being saved.
-
Again, you need to snap out of deciding what "should happen to every person [you decide might be] of good will". We know that God is perfeclty Just and perfectly Merciful, and no one will be dealt with "unfairly". If our perception is that something might SEEM unfair to us, we reject that thinking, and we most certinly don't draw theological conclusions from our emotional reaction to things. That's not theology. Theology starts with revealed truth, and then we apply reason to those truths and draw out greater detail from them logically.
We know that God is Love and that He is all Just and all Merciful. We know what He has revealed, that there's a Heaven and there's a Hell and there's a Purgatory. We know that He taught that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary to enter into the Kingdom of God, "water and the Holy Spirit". I'm sure there's a ton of detail that He did not reveal, such as Limbo of the Infants, and we can try to speculate. But we can never start second-guessing specific scenarios and decide it would be "unfair", and therefore we're going to make it so that Baptism isn't necessary like He said.
What you say is true and I do not say the opposite. When I speak of people of good will, I speak of those who are ontologically of good will, not according to my perception, but according to the Truth. And the question is whether people of ontological good will are necessarily saved or not. I have simply tried to give an example but God alone knows who is truly of good will.
-
Can we believe that anyone who sincerely wants, I mean sincerely, to be saved, would necessarily be saved? Will this person receive baptism sooner or later? Or is it possible that even this person will be damned, for lack of predestination? For example, let's take a Novus Ordo guy who sincerely practices his faith and thinks he is baptized but in reality is not, because the priest invented a formula, but he does not know it, how can this person receive baptism if he thinks he is already baptized? This is worrying, isn't it?
I didn't see this question answered the way I would answer it, so let me explain how I came to understand BOD: I sat outside of a busy restaurant the day I realized there is no salvation outside the Church. All those people coming and going and it seemed by the way they dressed, or went about, were largely unconcerned about their eternal souls. The knot in my gut grew and excluding all judgement, it came to me that hoping for BOD was the perfect way to relieve me of doing everything I could for them, i.e. really praying for them to get Baptism, or working with some of them to get Baptism (a much more intense love of neighbor and duty than just hoping they squeezed through with BOD). I knew accepting EENS at face value and outright rejecting BOD demanded more serious prayer, or following more closely the days of fast and abstinence, doing corporal works of mercy etc. Because BOD is uncertain at best (no outward sign), or non-existent at worst, hoping in BOD is evil because such a "hope" doesn't help souls, rather, it insidiously placates the conscience and often undermines zeal for love of neighbor.
-
I didn't see this question answered the way I would answer it, so let me explain how I came to understand BOD: I sat outside of a busy restaurant the day I realized there is no salvation outside the Church. All those people coming and going and it seemed by the way they dressed, or went about, were largely unconcerned about their eternal souls. The knot in my gut grew and excluding all judgement, it came to me that hoping for BOD was the perfect way to relieve me of doing everything I could for them, i.e. really praying for them to get Baptism, or working with some of them to get Baptism (a much more intense love of neighbor and duty than just hoping they squeezed through with BOD). I knew accepting EENS at face value and outright rejecting BOD demanded more serious prayer, or following more closely the days of fast and abstinence, doing corporal works of mercy etc. Because BOD is uncertain at best (no outward sign), or non-existent at worst, hoping in BOD is evil because such a "hope" doesn't help souls, rather, it insidiously placates the conscience and often undermines zeal for love of neighbor.
You are 100% right.
-
Yes, I totally agree with Ladiaus. Tradman, I read this somewhere, which might be applied with your reply: KAB stands for Knowledge begets-A for attitude, begets -B for behavior. Now I found this to be very important to apply to certain issues. If I have the correct knowledge then I should have correct attitude to behavior.
And guess what, KAB came from the communists. See how clever the enemy is?!!