Author Topic: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology  (Read 2902 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trad123

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1467
  • Reputation: +264/-78
  • Gender: Male
Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
« Reply #60 on: April 28, 2021, 11:10:21 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Furthermore, if it's possible that the souls of the Old Testament just were resurrected in order to be baptized (as I've read somewhere on this forum) why not the same for those of the New Testament that (theoretically) go to Limbo, who have received the remission of sins, but not the sacrament?



    Quote
    Matthew 27

    [47] And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying: Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [47] And some that stood there and heard, said: This man calleth Elias. [48] And immediately one of them running took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar; and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. [49] And the others said: Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to deliver him. [50] And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. [51] And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent. [52] And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, [53] And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many.
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline XavierSem

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2413
    • Reputation: +387/-656
    • Gender: Male
    • Glorious Risen Lord Jesus Christ, Save Us All!
    Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
    « Reply #61 on: April 29, 2021, 12:12:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Furthermore, if it's possible that the souls of the Old Testament just were resurrected in order to be baptized (as I've read somewhere on this forum) why not the same for those of the New Testament that (theoretically) go to Limbo, who have received the remission of sins, but not the sacrament?
    Yes, this would indeed be possible if the other actually took place. It's just not possible imo for those who die Justified, in the State of Sanctifying Grace, to be eternally and ultimately deprived of the Beatific Vision. It would be heresy to say the Saintly Patriarch Abraham is eternally lost, as it would be heresy to say it of the OT Just, or of anyone else that dies in Grace. Trent defines that those who are justified, and who die in Grace, will certainly be saved. It's not impossible that there will be some waiting time. According to some Saints, there are three levels in Purgatory, and the uppermost level is a kind of Limbo. Souls go there who generally did not desire God enough, and remain there for a time, after which they go to Heaven. It is possible some go to some kind of limbo temporarily, but ultimately to Heaven, and if God needs to supply Baptism in the Hour of Death for such souls, or in some way known to Him, He can.

    It is certain that God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and therefore they who seek Truth will find it.
    Please join my Rosary Crusade to end Abortion: https://rosarycrusadingarmytoendabortion.home.blog/

    Make this Life Offering to the Twin Hearts of Jesus and Mary today! You can Save Souls! 
    https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 25857
    • Reputation: +14664/-3832
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
    « Reply #62 on: April 29, 2021, 05:46:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree that we cannot rule it out. I for one believe that St. Joseph was raised from the dead and assumed into heaven.  We see many stories of saints who did just that, raise people from the dead to baptize them.  There’s nothing to stop God from raising them back to life even from their ashes a thousand years later.  We need not do violence to the dogma that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.

    Offline trad123

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1467
    • Reputation: +264/-78
    • Gender: Male
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1217
    • Reputation: +547/-95
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • @DigitalLogos on Minds.com
    Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
    « Reply #64 on: June 02, 2021, 10:45:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm late to the party here, but one remark: Your soteriology suggests that those cleansed of sin, but not crowned, are kept from the beatific vision because they are not in the Kingdom of God. Would that then suggest that those who are baptized, but lukewarm, and have no works to merit beyond the remission of original sin, would also be kept in Limbo?

    I recall the parable of the talents

    Quote
    But he that had received the one talent, came and said: Lord, I know that thou art a hard man; thou reapest where thou hast not sown, and gatherest where thou hast not strewed. [25] And being afraid I went and hid thy talent in the earth: behold here thou hast that which is thine.

    [26] And his lord answering, said to him: Wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sow not, and gather where I have not strewed: [27] Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the båñkêrs, and at my coming I should have received my own with usury. [28] Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him that hath ten talents. [29] For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away. [30] And the unprofitable servant cast ye out into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    To me, this doesn't speak to a euphoric state of natural happiness, like Limbo, but the upper echelons of hell. I imagine that the loss of God, the Good, is the most terrible punishment of hell beyond any other suffering.

    Further, would not the baptism of blood of the martyrs in itself merit a crown as a grace-filled act of charity?
    "The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7204
    • Reputation: +3945/-1235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
    « Reply #65 on: June 02, 2021, 10:51:58 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Would that then suggest that those who are baptized, but lukewarm, and have no works to merit beyond the remission of original sin, would also be kept in Limbo?

    The act of receiving baptism is a meritorious work, which makes one a child of God and an heir to heaven.  So, yes, those baptized would gain heaven, not Limbo.

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5248
    • Reputation: +2738/-1072
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
    « Reply #66 on: June 02, 2021, 11:11:42 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Before all decision to create the world, the infinite knowledge of God presents to Him all the graces, and different series of graces, which He can prepare for each soul, along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circumstance, and that in millions of possible combinations ... Thus, for each man in particular there are in the thought of God, limitless possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; and God will be free in choosing such a world, such a series of graces, and in determining the future history and final destiny of each soul. And this is precisely what He does when among all possible worlds, by an absolutely free act, he decides to realize the actual world with all the circumstances of its historic evolutions, with all the graces which in fact have been and will be distributed until the end of the world, and consequently with all the elect and all the reprobate who God foresaw would be in it if de facto He created it." [The Catholic Encyclopedia Appleton, 1909, on Augustine, pg 97]
     
     
    In other words before a man is conceived, God in his infinite knowledge has already put that person through the test with millions of possible combinations and possible histories, some histories of virtue and salvation, others of crime and damnation; along with the consent or refusal which would follow in each circumstance (of millions of possible combinations!!!) and God will be free in determining which future history and final destiny He assigns each soul.
     
     
    The idea of salvation outside the Church is opposed to the Doctrine of Predestination. This Doctrine means that from all eternity God has known who were His own. It is for the salvation of these, His Elect, that Providence has directed, does direct, and will always direct, the affairs of men and the events of history. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that happens, has not been taken into account by the infinite God, and woven into that tapestry in which is written the history of the salvation of His saints. Central in this providential overlordship is the Church itself, which is the sacred implement which God devised for the rescuing of His beloved ones from the damnation decreed for those who would not. (Mt. 23:37).
     
    The Doctrine of Divine ɛƖɛctıon means that only certain individuals will be saved.  They will be saved primarily because, in the inscrutable omniscience of God, only certain individuals out of all the human family will respond to the grace of salvation. In essence, this doctrine refers to what in terms of human understanding and vision, is before and after, the past, the present, and the future, but what in God is certain knowledge and unpreventable fact, divine action and human response.
     
    Calvin and others have made the mistake of believing that these words mean that predestination excludes human choice and dispenses from true virtue. Catholic doctrine explains simply that the foreknowledge of God precedes the giving of grace. It means, further, that, since without grace there can be no merit, and without merit no salvation, those who will be saved must be foreknown as saved by God, if they are to receive the graces necessary for salvation.
     
    Those who say there is salvation outside the Church (no matter how they say it) do not comprehend that those who are in the Church have been brought into it by the Father, through Christ the Savior, in fulfillment of His eternal design to save them. The only reason that God does not succeed in getting others into the Church must be found in the reluctant will of those who do not enter it. If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children. Nothing prevents His using the skies for his billboard, and the clouds for lettering, or the rolling thunder for the proclamation of His word. (Indeed, for believers, He does just this: "The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands." I Ps. 18: 11. But for atheists the heavens have no message at all.) If poverty were the reason some do not believe, he could load them down with diamonds; if youth were the reason, He could make sure they grew to a hoary old age. If it were merely the want of information, put a library on their doorstep, or a dozen missionaries in their front room. Were it for a want of brains, he could give every man an I.Q. of three hundred: it would cost Him nothing.
     
    The idea that someone died before he was able to receive Baptism, suggests that God was unable to control events, so as to give the person time to enter the Church. If time made any difference, God could and would keep any person on earth a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years.
     
    Thus, what is the meaning of this ɛƖɛctıon? That from all eternity God has ordered the events of history, so that His Elect might have the grace of salvation. And how do they know of this ɛƖɛctıon? By the fact that they are in the Church, through no deservingness of their own? They know of no reason why God should bestow this grace, the knowledge of the truth, and the willingness and power to believe it, upon them, while others, who seem more worthy, go without it. As regards His Elect, not only has God determined to bestow necessary grace, but also, all His actions in the world must be seen as part of His salvific plan. In a word, nothing that He does is unrelated to the salvation of His Beloved Sheep. Human history, apart from the glory of Holy Church, and the salvation of the Elect, and the punishment of the wicked, has little importance for almighty God. Yet, all these purposes are only a part of the manifestation of His glory.
     
    Those who speak of it have the problem of reconciling the mystery of Predestination with the idea of "baptism of desire." From all eternity, almighty God has known the fate of every soul. In His Providence, He has arranged for the entrance into the Church of certain millions of persons, and has seen to it that they receive the grace of faith, the Sacrament of Baptism, the grace of repentance, the forgiveness of their sins, and all the other requisites of salvation. According to the Attenuators, in the case of "non Catholic saints," and of those who died before they might receive Baptism, God was simply unable to see to these necessaries. Untoward and unforeseen circumstances arose which prevented His providing these other millions with the means of salvation. Theirs is a story of supreme irony, that although the God of omniscience and omnipotence mastered the history of all nations and the course of every life, angelic and human, in the case of certain ones, His timing was off by just a few days, or hours, or minutes. It was His earlier intention to make sure that they received Baptism of water; He had it all planned out; but alas! on the particular day of their demise, His schedule was so full, that He simply could not get to them; for which reason, in that it was His fault, He is bound to provide an alternative instrumentality: "baptism of desire" is his substitute for the real thing!
     
    The Diluters of the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation do not perceive the Pelagian tenor of their position, that some may be saved outside the Church through nothing but their good will. It is exactly because this is impossible and, more important, offensive to God, that the notion must be
    rejected. We say impossible, because no man can save himself. The fact that every man must receive Baptism and thus enter the Church means that he is dependent upon God to make it possible for him to receive the Sacrament, and further, through this Sacrament, it is Christ Who acts to purge the sinner of his sins, and ingraft him into His Mystical Body. No individual can do this by himself. He is dependent upon another to pour the water and say the words, and he is dependent upon God to provide this minister, and to make the sacramental sign effective of grace. It is thus so that none may attribute his salvation to his own doing.
     
    Pride is the chief vice of man, as it was and is of the demons of Hell. It is pride more than any other fault that blinds men to the truth, that obstructs faith, and hardens their hearts to conversion from sin.
     
    The Doctrine of Predestination is that almighty God from all eternity both knew and determined who would be saved, that is, who would allow Him to save them. He would be the cause of their salvation, and, as there is no power that can even faintly obstruct or withstand Him, there is no power which can prevent His saving whom He wishes, except, of course, the man himself.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 25857
    • Reputation: +14664/-3832
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
    « Reply #67 on: June 02, 2021, 12:19:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lad,

    Did you see my post from earlier?


    https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/patristic-support-for-ladilausian-soteriology/msg744491/#msg744491

    Sorry I missed this earlier.  I distinguish here between the remission of sin in terms of the guilt for it vs. the poena for the sin, the actual temporal penalty.  I believe that the poena can be remitted, while the guilty still remains.  This is one reason why such souls cannot enter heaven, due to the guilt of the sin, even if the actual suffering owed on their account is mitigated or offset.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 25857
    • Reputation: +14664/-3832
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
    « Reply #68 on: September 05, 2021, 10:27:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Lad,

    If you postulate the remission of sins can be obtained by catechumens prior to the reception of the sacrament of baptism, and being that the remission of sins is not possible outside the Church, how can you not thereby include such justified souls in the bosom of the Church?

    1) remission of sins by a non-member          remission of sins OUTSIDE the Church

    2) remission of sins by a non-member    =   remission of sins INSIDE the Church

    3) remission of sins by a non-member          INSIDE the Church of the Faithful without being one of the FAITHFUL


    If 1 and 2 are true, how can number 3 not be false?

    Pope Boniface VIII - 1302
    Unam Sanctam
    One God, One Faith, One Spiritual Authority
    https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm

    https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/one-universal-church-of-the-faithful/msg744342/#msg744342

    OK, missed this post since this thread disappears, being in the Feeney ghetto.

    There are two aspects of remission of sin, one is the remission of the guilt of sin, the other is the remission of the punishment due to the sin.  So, for instance, even when the guilt of sin is remitted by the Sacrament of Confession, the punishment due to the sin isn't (always) entirely remitted ... as it would be in Baptism.

    What I believe, based on the Fathers, is that the punishment due to sin is remitted, but not the guilt of sin (Original or actual).  Those latter can only be remitted through the Sacraments.

    Going back again to the effects of the Sacrament of Baptism:
    1) character of the Sacrament
    2) remission of guilt due to sin
    3) remission of all punishment due to sin.

    Meanwhile, Confession only has #2 as its effect, and possibly some #3, but that's more ex opere operantis based on the disposition of the penitent.

    For a BoD, I hold that can have effect #3 only.  So, for instance, unbaptized infants who go to Limbo, they lack effect #1, and they lack effect #2 (vis-a-vis Original Sin, since of course they have no actual sin), but they do not have any "punishment due to sin" ... which is why they end up in Limbo.  Similarly, an adult who has a Baptism of Desire, would wipe out some or all (in the case, say of a martyr) of the punishment due to sin.

    Recall that St. Gregory nαzιanzen speaks of those who aren't bad enough to be punished, but not good enough to be glorified.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 25857
    • Reputation: +14664/-3832
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
    « Reply #69 on: September 05, 2021, 10:39:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There are basically two different "economies" at work here, a natural economy and a supernatural economy.

    Natural Economy:  When I do bad, God punishes the bad.  When I do good, God rewards the good.

    Supernatural Economy:  Completely unmerited, a free gift of God, which cannot be earned by the Natural Economy (above).

    There is some interplay here, though, namely that, when I do something (very) bad, I lose the supernatural grace, but on the flip side, there's nothing good I can do to gain that back.  It has to be restored by a free gift of God, though the Sacraments.  I cooperate of course by going to the Sacrament, but that itself doesn't earn the grace of God back.

    On top of that, if someone is in the state of grace, whatever good they do also has supernatural merit, but that's only a function of the fact that it is God acting through us who is earning the merit for us.  If I am not in a state of grace, the natural good that I do has no supernatural merit.

    But I hold that it is possible to offset the natural punishment due to sin by good works.

    Let's say I am in a state of grace, and I steal $100 from a poor person (a mortal sin).  I lose the grace of God.  But then I immediately regret it and return the $100, and then give them an additional $50 for good measure.  Returning the money doesn't restore me to the grace of God, because that's a different economy, but it does offset the punishment due to the theft.

    Let's say I am in a state of grace, and I steal $100 from a poor person (a moral sin).  I lose the grace of God.  I go to Confession and am restored to grace.  I still need to make good on the $100 I stole from the person, and until I do so, I am owed punishment for that despite having the guilt of sin remitted.

    Let's say I am not a Catholic.  I steal the same $100.  I return the $100 and give an extra $50 to make up for it.  Would I be punished for this in eternity the exact same way that a person who stole $100 and failed to pay restitution?  That would be not be right in the natural economy of justice.  Neither one of these people who the guilt of sin remitted since there's no remission of sin outside the Church, but their punishment in eternity will be quite different.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16