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 16295 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
« Reply #65 on: June 02, 2021, 12:19:49 PM »
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

  • Supporter
Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
« Reply #66 on: September 05, 2021, 10:27:03 AM »

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

  • Supporter
Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
« Reply #67 on: September 05, 2021, 10:39:18 AM »
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.