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

Author Topic: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology  (Read 16306 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2021, 09:28:33 AM »
Quote
But apart from the concept that there are physical gates to heaven, what is the ontological explanation for why these OT just could not enter heaven?  They were lacking SOMEthing.
I was always taught that there were 2 reasons why the OT just could not enter heaven.  The first reason is sound - the OT just had to wait in Limbo until Christ opened the gates of heaven on Ascension Thursday.  Christ, being the Redeemer and Reconciler of man with God, was the only one, and the first one, to re-enter heaven.  Christ was a new-Adam, who conquered Original Sin.
.
The second reason, which is speculative, is that the OT just had to be baptized.  Even St John the Baptist, who was part of the Old Law, said that Christ would Baptize with the Holy Ghost.  And another reason would be that Christ would provide them the Holy Eucharist, but this is also speculative.  Would God require all of the OT Just to enter the Church (the perfect, fulfilled Church of the New Law) before entering Heaven?  I don't see why not.  But I also can't say for sure.
.

Quote
Recall that curious episode where the Gospel speaks of how the dead were raised to life after the Resurrection?  Why?  Was it just to create a spectacle?  Some of the Church Fathers held that they were temporarily raised from the dead to be baptized.

This also explains what Our Lord mean when saying that St. John the Baptist was the greatest person "born of woman" but lesser than the least in the Kingdom of God (those born again of water and the Holy Spirit).  We are talking about a division here between the natural (natural virtue, etc.) and the supernatural REbirth inito the Kingdom (the "crowning" of St. Ambrose).

Even Our Lady, who was full of grace, who never sinned, still needed a Redeemer.  She still called Our Lord Her Savior.  But if She was free from sin (the most justified person ever), why did She still need to be baptized?  Because She still did not have the baptismal character fully.  The Old Law was imperfect; it was a precursor; it was incomplete.  Christ completed the Old Law and the Holy Ghost started the Church on Pentacost.  Thus, it stands to reason, that to get into heaven under the New Law, you had to be baptized, receive the Eucharist, and become a perfect member of God's new kingdom.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2021, 09:59:20 AM »
I was always taught that there were 2 reasons why the OT just could not enter heaven.  The first reason is sound - the OT just had to wait in Limbo until Christ opened the gates of heaven on Ascension Thursday.  Christ, being the Redeemer and Reconciler of man with God, was the only one, and the first one, to re-enter heaven.  Christ was a new-Adam, who conquered Original Sin.
.
The second reason, which is speculative, is that the OT just had to be baptized.  Even St John the Baptist, who was part of the Old Law, said that Christ would Baptize with the Holy Ghost.  And another reason would be that Christ would provide them the Holy Eucharist, but this is also speculative.  Would God require all of the OT Just to enter the Church (the perfect, fulfilled Church of the New Law) before entering Heaven?  I don't see why not.  But I also can't say for sure.
.

Even Our Lady, who was full of grace, who never sinned, still needed a Redeemer.  She still called Our Lord Her Savior.  But if She was free from sin (the most justified person ever), why did She still need to be baptized?  Because She still did not have the baptismal character fully.  The Old Law was imperfect; it was a precursor; it was incomplete.  Christ completed the Old Law and the Holy Ghost started the Church on Pentacost.  Thus, it stands to reason, that to get into heaven under the New Law, you had to be baptized, receive the Eucharist, and become a perfect member of God's new kingdom.

I just feel that the expression regarding "opening the gates of Heaven" is metaphorical for making it possible for souls to enter Heaven.  So in a sense I believe that both of these reasons refer to the same phenomenon in different ways.

It would be an interesting speculation to wonder if Our Lady had died before Our Lord's Resurrection, would she have gone to Heaven or waited in Limbo.  I'm guessing the latter.


Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2021, 10:45:33 AM »

Quote
I just feel that the expression regarding "opening the gates of Heaven" is metaphorical for making it possible for souls to enter Heaven.

True.  However, and I don't know, could Original Sin be remitted under the Old Law?  Did circuмcision or any of the Jєωιѕн rites remit Original Sin?
.
Even if so, did the Old Law provide all the effects of Baptism?  I would guess no.
.
So, being that the whole purpose of Christ's birth/death was to conquer Original Sin, the OT Just could not enter heaven because (even being justified),
.
1) Christ had not yet reconciled humanity with God the Father fully.  The Ascension into heaven was the culmination of His purpose on earth.
.
2) If Original Sin still remained in the Old Testament just, they would need baptism to gain heaven.
.
3) If Original Sin was remitted in the Old Law, they still did not have the baptismal character.
.
4) The Church did not officially exist until Pentacost, so Christ had to baptize them in Limbo.  But heaven, I would argue, was still not open until Christ's Ascension.  I think this is more than a metaphor.  Adam closed heaven due to his sin; only Christ could re-open heaven.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2021, 01:00:59 PM »
Gospel of St. Mark 16:16 (said by Our Lord):

Quote
And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

After the promulgation of the Gospel ...

FAITH + BAPTISM = SALVATION

NO FAITH = CONDEMNATION

ergo, FAITH BUT NOT BAPTISM, neither Salvation nor Condemnation (the same in between state).

Echoes St. Gregory nαzιanzen who distinguishes between glory (from Baptism) and lack of condemnation.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
« Reply #29 on: March 19, 2021, 02:00:34 PM »
In Mark 16:16, Our Lord says that those who believe AND are baptized will be saved, but that those who don't believe will be condemned.

What about those who believe but are not baptized?

He remains silent about them and does not reveal what happens to them.  But they are neither among the saved, nor among the condemned.