Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Ladislaus on March 15, 2021, 06:15:45 PM
-
I have long proposed the notion that there's a theoretical possibility of a Limbo-like state for even adults even in the New Testament.
I distinguish between the undeserved gift of the Beatific Vision (the supernatural state) and the natural punishment for actual sin.
In re-reading St. Gregory nαzιanzen in rejecting Baptism of Desire, I find the following:
For not everyone who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honored; just as not everyone who is not good enough to be honored is bad enough to be punished.
...
If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory.
St. Gregory refers to the Beatific Vision as the "glory" and the "honor" ... as they are above our ability to merit and beyond our natural capacity. So it's an honor above and beyond anything that can be merited by justice.
Notice how he says that not everyone who is not good enough to be honored is bad enough to be punished.
In my next post I will cite St. Ambrose on Valentinian.
-
St. Ambrose on Valentinian:
Grant, therefore, to Thy servant the gift of Thy grace which he never rejected, who on the day before his death refused to restore the privileges of the temples although he was pressed by those whom he could well have feared. A crowd of pagans was present, the Senate entreated, but he was not afraid to displease men so long as he pleased Thee alone in Christ. He who had Thy Spirit, how has he not received Thy grace? Or, if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety also and his desire have washed him.
He refers to MARTYRED CATECHUMENS as "WASHED BUT NOT CROWNED". This means that the martyrdom washes them or cleanses them of their sins, but they are not "crowned". Crowning again is the term for being adopted into the royal family of the Holy Trinity, i.e. receiving the Beatific Vision. [Our Lord said that unless people be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, they cannot enter the KINGdom of Heaven.]
So, according to St. Ambrose, martyred catechumens are cleansed of sin but cannot enjoy the beatific vision, the crowning. Consequently, they would enter a state of Limbo.
And here is the key to what St. Ambrose may be hoping for in the case of Valentinian, that his piety and desire should "wash" him ... even though he could not be "crowned".
-
So both St. Gregory and St Ambrose distinguish between:
glory vs lack of punishment
AND
crowning vs. washing
That's the same distinction I am making. While the Beatific Vision cannot be earned and is beyond the created capacity of human nature to experience, it is given as a free gift by God irrespective of merit. It cannot be earned, but is a pure honor, a pure glory.
Meanwhile, actual sin is punished, while actual virtue rewarded.
So much so that a martyr is completely washed.
-
Some of the Fathers referred to baptized martyrs as having received a baptism of blood.
So, if you recall, Baptism consists of two aspects:
1) the cleansing of sins
AND
2) the entry into the Beatific Vision
So what if everyone is kindof right?
What if a Baptism of Blood effects #1 above (the cleansing of sins) but does not bring about #2. In that case, it can said to supply SOME of the grace of Baptism, but not all, and could loosely be called a Baptism.
What if a Baptism of Desire could effect some (or perhaps all) of #1 as well. I believe this is what St. Ambrose was saying of Valentinian, that his piety and his desire could also obtain some of this washing.
This #1 is the "justification" part, while #2 is the "salvation." So Father Feeney was right too.
I've long held that the Character of Baptism is necessary for #2, nay, that the character of Baptism effectively IS #2, that "crown" and that "glory" spoken of by the Church Fathers.
And St. Alphonsus would be kind of right also, in that BoB would remit all punishment due to sin, whereas BoD would remit some or all depending on its perfection. BoB remits all punishment due to sin for being the perfect act of love, the "no greater love than this..."
-
So here's Ladislausian soteriology in a nutshell.
The Sacrament of Baptism has two aspects to it: 1) the forgiveness and cleansing of sins and 2) entry into the Kingdom of God, the beatific vision as adopted sons of God into the family of the Holy Trinity.
#1 is effected by the graces of the Sacrament, but #2 is conferred in receiving the character of Baptism (the crown and the glory)
#1 deals with actual sin vs. actual virtue, the reward and punishment fitting each in justice, while #2 refers to unmerited grace that is owed to no one
#1 pertains to justification, and #2 to salvation. But BOTH #2 and #1 must be had for salvation, as someone with the character is lost if dying in a state of grave sin.
#1 is the NATURAL aspect and #2 the SUPERnatural
Recall how Our Lord taught that St. John the Baptist was the greatest of all born of women (in the natural respect, #1) but was less than the LEAST member of the Kingdom (note that word again). Ladislausianism also addresses the enigma of what Our Lord meant by that puzzling statement. Those born of women refers to nature, whereas those born again of God refers to super-nature. So as great as one could be naturally, that can't come close to the least bit of supernatural goodness.
So a martyred catechumen receives the Baptism of Blood, a perfect washing, and enters a state of justification and goes to Limbo, to enjoy perfect natural happiness for this act of perfect natural virtue.
But a martyred baptized person goes straight to heaven, since all their actual / natural sins are washed also.
Those who have the character but have some actual sin to cleanse go to Purgatory until they are cleansed so that they can enter the Kingdom.
Those who ardently desire Baptism and live virtuously will also have some (or even all) of their actual sin and punishment due to sin remitted as well (which seems to be what St. Ambrose is hoping for Valentinian).
So there IS in fact a baptism of desire and a baptism of blood, but these are only effective toward the cleansing or the washing part of Baptism, but not the glory or honor or crowning part ... which requires the character of Baptism and therefore the Sacrament.
-
Initially the thinking was that Heaven vs. Hell were a strict BINARY condition.
But even the Church gradually adopted the notion of a Limbo (for infants at least).
So then eternity would consist of 3 states:
Heaven
Limbo
Hell
And even in hell there are many degrees.
But how about we look at it this way.
SUPERNATURAL
NATURAL
SUPERNATURAL is the Kingdom of Heaven in the interior Life of the Holy Trinity
Meanwhile the NATURAL state is, rather a continuum, going from those who are naturally happy (like unbaptized martyrs, to unbaptized infants, to those, perhaps less happy, such as those who were justified but not saved, to those who suffer in varying degrees depending on the balance between their virtues and their sins, right down to the devils who suffer the most).
So perhaps those American Indians who lived naturally virtuous lives do get to go to a "Happy Hunting Ground" of sorts, as they believed. Perhaps all happiness and suffering in Hell is in fact relative. Even the dogmatic EENS definitions refer to the varying degrees of suffering in Hell.
This would then relieve the pressure against EENS from all those sentiments which wrongly imagine a naturally virtuous Jєωιѕн grandmother who perhaps sacrificed her life for her children suffering the same fate as Joe Stalin or Judas.
I believe that it is this misconception of Hell that has people recoiling against EENS and grasping for straws looking for a BoD.
-
Here's another quote from St. Ambrose in Duties of the Clergy:
..for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.
-
While the Beatific Vision cannot be earned and is beyond the created capacity of human nature to experience, it is given as a free gift by God irrespective of merit. It cannot be earned, but is a pure honor, a pure glory.
Right. That's exactly why Catholics have to pray for "final perseverance" because we don't know what will happen, if we will prevail, at the hour of our death.
.
But, apparently, for BOD'ers, the hour of death is a walk in the park. And any old non-catholic can "wish upon a star" for heaven, and be granted it, whether a priest is present or not. Whether they've been baptized or not.
.
Christ gave us an entire sacrament wholly dedicated to the last hours, yet a non-catholic can waltz into heaven, just based on a desire for God.
.
Salvific-BOD theology has more holes than swiss cheese. Sure, BOD can justify. But can it save the unbaptized? No, it just doesn't stand the test of catholic sanity.
-
Since the greatest pain of the souls in Hell is the deprivation of the Beatific Vision, it would make more sense to put them in the "upper part" of Hell, where the suffering from the fire would be minimum than in Limbo with the infants who have no personal sin.
It sounds strange that those who die with personal and original sin should have a similar fate to those who have only original sin.
Highly speculative talk anyway.
-
St. Augustine:
When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism.
St. Augustine also says that martyrdom results in a washing or "remission of their sins" (he defines "washing" here). He was instructed by St. Ambrose who clearly distinguished between the washing and the CROWNING.
There in fact TWO effects of Baptism: 1) the washing of sins and 2) membership in the Church through the "crowning".
Another word used by the Fathers for this other effect is "the seal".
I hold that martyrdom (perfectly) and desire (imperfectly depending on the degree of the desire) can supply the one effect of Baptism, but not the other. Most theologians agree that BoD and BoB do not confer the character of Baptism.
Ladislausian soteriology holds that, even while BoD and BoB suffice for the remission of sins, they do not suffice to enable souls to receive the Beatific Vision (the crown and the glory). Consequently, they can justify to varying degrees, but they can never save (i.e. allow entry into the Kingdom of Heaven).
Unbaptized martyrs, therefore, end up in a place of Limbo, and those with the intention to receive Baptism can receive various degrees of remission proportionate to their votum for Baptism.
At some point after the Fathers, theologians generally lost their grip on the meaning of this "character" of Baptism, reducing it to a mere non-repeatability marker that some people in heaven have and others don't. Ladislausianism rejects that understanding.
As with the Priesthood, this character renders the soul into the likeness of Christ, so that the Father recognizes them as His own (adopted) sons into the life of the Holy Trinity, almost as adopted members of the Holy Trinity. It is also the supernatural faculty which allows the soul the capability to see God as He is, in the Beatific Vision, a faculty with human beings lack in their created nature.
-
It sounds strange that those who die with personal and original sin should have a similar fate to those who have only original sin.
A justified, unbaptized would have no personal sin, so the similar fate makes sense.
-
Since the greatest pain of the souls in Hell is the deprivation of the Beatific Vision, it would make more sense to put them in the "upper part" of Hell, where the suffering from the fire would be minimum than in Limbo with the infants who have no personal sin.
It sounds strange that those who die with personal and original sin should have a similar fate to those who have only original sin.
Highly speculative talk anyway.
Well, that's the entire point of Ladislausianism, that the martyrs too have all their personal sin washed away. I hold that unbaptized martyrs (catechumens) if there are any such in Limbo, experience even a greater measure of natural happiness than the infants who die without Baptism. Just as the infants realize that they were spared eternal torment by being taken from life early, so too these martyrs realize that they were allowed this state of happiness because they would have been lost had they lived, been baptized, and then lost the faith somehow or died in mortal sin later on down the road. Those catechumens with BoD, however, they may or may not have all their sins remitted by their desire, depending on how perfect it was.
Just as the pain of sense is not monolithic, neither is the pain of desire. Infants who did nothing to lose it suffer no pain of loss, as per St. Thomas. And those, perhaps, who lived in invincible ignorance, feel little or no pain of loss, though they may feel some pain of sense for actual sin. Catholics who had the faith but then died in mortal sin feel more pain of loss. Catholics who had the faith but then lost it or rejected it feel even more. Perhaps Judas feels the most pain of loss of anyone. So just as pain of sense admits of degrees, so does pain of loss.
There may or may not be a "hard" border between Limbo and Hell, as some theologians hold it to be a part of Hell, but the main point is that outside the Kingdom of Heaven there's a continuum from the highest degree of perfect happiness (say, for martyrs) to a high degree (unbaptized infants) to virtuous invincibly ignorant to unvirtuous invincibly ignorant to Judas and the demons. I don't believe that there are 7 levels of hell, but, rather, basically a unique "level" of suffering for every single soul directly proportionate to their degree of sinfulness vs. their degree of natural virtue vs. their culpability with regard to various sins.
-
But, apparently, for BOD'ers, the hour of death is a walk in the park. And any old non-catholic can "wish upon a star" for heaven, and be granted it, whether a priest is present or not. Whether they've been baptized or not.
Pax, how are you any different than a Protestant? You are distorting the doctrine of baptism of desire and attacking a straw man. That is the same tactics Protestants use.
Christ gave us an entire sacrament wholly dedicated to the last hours, yet a non-catholic can waltz into heaven, just based on a desire for God.
What catechism or theologian ever taught that "a desire for God" suffices for salvation?
Salvific-BOD theology has more holes than swiss cheese. Sure, BOD can justify. But can it save the unbaptized? No, it just doesn't stand the test of catholic sanity.
What doesn't pass the Catholic sanity test is saying BOD can justify, but cannot save. What do you think it means to be justified?
-
Catholic Encyclopedia:
The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins.
Yes, but it doesn't supply the other effect of Baptism, membership in the Body of Christ and the supernatural faculty for the Beatific Vision. He calls it the "principal" effect only because over time the other main effect was minimized into a simple non-repeatability marker which some in heaven have and others don''t. I hold this to be incorrect.
St. Augustine defines the "washing" part as referring to the "remission of sins" but Saint Ambrose refers two the two effects as the washing and the crowning, saying specifically that martyred catechumens receive the washing but not the crowning. So, back to St. Augustine, he says only that the same martyrs receive the washing aspect. St. Gregory nαzιanzen distinguishes between lack of punishment and honor or glory, so remission of sins is different from the crown (in the KINGdom), the honor, the glory, i.e. life in the Kingdom.
This also puts a brand new spin on the whole notion of predestination and election.
It takes the "bite" out of EENS that cause so many to want to reject it.
-
Notice, also, that St. Ambrose specifically limits this washing to martyred CATECHUMENS.
-
I have long proposed the notion that there's a theoretical possibility of a Limbo-like state for even adults even in the New Testament.
.
Sheesh, Ladislaus, just read a catechism book! (https://giphy.com/gifs/13SksYIeOh9HdC/html5)
-
I'm going to have to ponder this thread some more, but the one thing that immediately comes to mind is that this argument contradicts all the "hurr durr dogmas don't have to be interpreted" pseudo-Protestants on here. Because Florence pretty clearly talks about the *fires* of Hell for all non Catholics.
-
Because Florence pretty clearly talks about the *fires* of Hell for all non Catholics.
But a justified, unbaptized person is not a non-catholic. They desire to be catholic but God did not allow them to be baptized. A catechumen is not a non-catholic. They are a non-catholic by the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law recognizes their catholic desires. They are an in-between, which is exactly what Limbo is.
-
I'm going to have to ponder this thread some more, but the one thing that immєdιαtely comes to mind is that this argument contradicts all the "hurr durr dogmas don't have to be interpreted" pseudo-Protestants on here. Because Florence pretty clearly talks about the *fires* of Hell for all non Catholics.
Except we know that those in Limbo do not experience these fires. Catechumens are in a different state altogether and are not in that list of "heretics, schismatics, and infidels" listed by Florence. What to stop, say, an unbaptized martyr from having his sins washed and ending up in Limbo, having all personal/actual sin blotted out ... and joining those others in Limbo? I would imagine that there are very few of these cases, but that's what would happen in theory. As I mentioned before, both St. Cyprian and that 5th-century theological manual held that martyrs received the Sacrament ... because all the "sacred elements" were there. But it appears that St. Ambrose disagrees, stating that thy are washed but not crowned.
-
But a justified, unbaptized person is not a non-catholic. They desire to be catholic but God did not allow them to be baptized. A catechumen is not a non-catholic. They are a non-catholic by the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law recognizes their catholic desires. They are an in-between, which is exactly what Limbo is.
Right, I responded the same way before I saw yours. Catechumens were considered to be in an in-between state.
-
So, for e.g. what precisely happened to the OT Just in limbo, so that they could go to Heaven? They clearly were already justified, and they were ultimately going to be saved. But did Our Lord Baptize them?
I agree that Our Lord must have changed something about them. Some say that, while they earlier had only implicit faith in Him, He brought them to explicit faith, and thus they were enabled to enter Heaven.
Yes, exactly. That is what I have been saying for a long time. When I posed this question years ago, LoT answered that Our Lord opened the "gates of heaven". 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.
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).
-
I agree with this, but I don't believe such persons would remain eternally and ultimately in limbo. I believe they will be ultimately saved, and if the Baptismal Character is necessary, God will confer that on them.
God can do it through an Angel, He can do it by Himself, or by having some Saint do it. Nothing can constrain His Will to save His elect.
Yes. We read many stories from the Saints and other missionaries like Father DeSmet where people were raised back from the dead and restored to life in order to be baptized.
There's no need to inflict this Pelagian view that people are saved by some natural virtue onto Catholic soteriology even with a concept of Baptism of Desire and Blood that produce a "washing" effect.
But I posit hypothetically that if there WERE an martyr catechumen who died without the Sacrament, they would be washed of all personal sin but not crowned into the Kingdom as St. Ambrose appeared to believe. I'll look at the St. Ambrose quote more closely, but he likens Valentinian to a martyr catechumen, who would be washed but not crowned. But somehow Valentinian was different a little, which sounds as though he was either not a formal catechumen or was not considered martyred. We know that Valentinian requested Baptism from St. Ambrose himself, and that's why he was murdered. So it sounds like he would be considered a martyr? Or did they have a very strict definition of martyrdom where the person had to deliberately hand himself over (profess Christianity) in order to be considered a martyr?
So St. Ambrose speculates that, LIKE a martyred catechumen, his "piety and zeal" COULD perhaps also given him some measure of washing similar to that of a martyred catechumen. It's hard to know what he was thinking. To me it sounds as if Valentinian WOULD be a "martyred catechumen," but for some reason St. Ambrose didn't put him in that exact category ... either because he didn't think he was a martyr or he wasn't a formal catechumen. I'm not sure whether it's known if Valentinian was in fact a formal Catechumen.
-
Even the Catholic Encyclopedia states that BoD and BoB are called Baptism only by analogy with the Sacrament, in that it only provides the ONE effect of Baptism, washing of sins, BoB perfectly as if quasi ex opere operato, and BoD more ex opere operantis and proportionate to the person's degree of contrition, zeal, etc. That is consistent with St. Ambrose saying that a martyred catechumen is washed but not crowned (into the Kingdom). It's also consistent with St. Gregory nαzιanzen who distinguishes clearly between being "not punished" and receiving "glory".
It all fits.
And perhaps now we can reconcile the notion of a BoD/BoB with the requirement of Baptism to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Father Feeney was right, and the notion of BoD/BoB can be salvaged ... when understood properly in these terms.
Then we can go on to discuss whether BoD/BoB applies to anyone other than Catechumens. I hold that there is absolutely no support for this anywhere in the Fathers or the Magisterium.
-
And you'll never guess what else fits perfectly with this.
St. Siricius
St. Siricius stated that every single one of those who did not receive the Sacrament, although desiring it, would lose ... regnum et vitam, "the KINGDOM and life", life being a reference to the new supernatural life engendered at the rebirth by water and the Holy Spirit. So he's saying that no one can have the KINGDOM (be crowned into the Kingdom) without having the Sacrament.
-
So in this article from St. Benedict Center by Brian Kelly:
he says this of St. Ambrose's oration on Valentinian:
“Grant, therefore, to Thy servant the gift of Thy grace which he never rejected, who on the day before his death refused to restore the privileges of the temples although he was pressed by those whom he could well have feared. A crowd of pagans was present, the Senate entreated, but he was not afraid to displease men so long as he pleased Thee alone in Christ. He who had Thy Spirit, how has he not received Thy grace? Or, if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety also and his desire have washed him.” (De Consolatione in obitu Valentiniani, 51-54 = PL 16, 1374-75. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari, Ph.D., in Funeral Orations by St. Gregory nαzιanzen and St. Ambrose, pp. 287-288)
...
The translation is not the problem here. The last two sentences, which seem contradictory, are exactly accurate from the Latin of Migne’s Patrologia Latina. In the next to the last sentence Saint Ambrose says “that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated.” Does he mean that they are saved, but not crowned? Then, in the last sentence, he says that “if they [martyrs] are washed in their own blood, his piety also and his desire have washed him.” I cannot understand what the holy doctor is affirming or denying in these sentences. Perhaps something is missing from the original transcription itself.
Ladislausian soteriology makes perfect sense of these last two sentences.
St. Ambrose states that martyred catechumens are washed but not crowned.
He's hoping that Valentinian can be washed (even if not crowned) by virtue of "his piety ... and his desire".
For some reason St. Ambrose doesn't believe that Valentinian fits the bill to be a "martyred catechumen." I'm not certain if this was because he didn't consider him a martyr (despite the circuмstances which appear to suggest that he was) or because he didn't consider him to be a catechumen (I'll try to research Valentinian's statement).
So St. Ambrose is hoping that Valentinian's piety and zeal (I'll have to look up the Latin here soon) have washed him (brought remission of sin to some extent) in a manner similar to how martyred catechumens are washed.
But NEITHER are crowned, as there is no crowning without the Sacrament of Baptism.
And I have given the key to what is meaning by "crowning" ... which allows one to enter the Kingdom of God.
-
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.
.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Gospel of St. Mark 16:16 (said by Our Lord):
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.
-
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.
-
Still though, if all these doctors and saints are hinting at an adult limbo, there should surely be quotes from at least some of them explicitly saying it, right?
-
Still though, if all these doctors and saints are hinting at an adult limbo, there should surely be quotes from at least some of them explicitly saying it, right?
Why do you think I call it Ladislausian soteriology?
I'm building the case from the Fathers and from Sacred Scripture and applying various theological arguments. What do you think that these doctors, saints, and theologians do?
Father Feeney came the closest, but he did not take the next steps.
I do not deny the existence of a BoB or even perhaps a BoD, but I apply the teaching of St. Ambrose and St. Gregory nαzιanzen, and Sacred Scripture, and an understand of what the character of Baptism does and what is role or function is in soteriology.
Even BoD proponents agree that BoD/BoB only supply the one effect of the Sacrament, namely, the remission of sins. It does not supply the character of Baptism nor does it render the subject a member of the Church.
St. Ambrose refers to this as a "washing" without "crowning" ... even for martyred catechumens.
I hold that the crowning, the seal, what St. Gregory nαzιanzen calls "the glory" are essential to the Beatific Vision, which cannot be had without them.
Consequently, a martyred catechumen would have all his sins washed but still not enter the Beatific Vision.
ergo, an adult in Limbo
Now, the reason that unbaptized infants go to Limbo is because they have no actual sin. But a martyred catechumen would have his actual sin washed away.
Not only that, but I hold that a martyred catechumen would have even a greater degree of natural happiness than an infant who died without Baptism.
-
adult limbo
I believe Dante put Saladin in adult limbo with the poets and the philosophers.
-
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.
They go to a hell where they do not get beaten as much by the devils, a place like the swamps of Panama in the 1700's, where Spanish explorers would not even go close to shore because they would be eaten alive by the jejen (no see'ums, an almost invisible gnat who's bites itch more than Mosquito bites). No air conditioning, no mosquito screens. People lived there though.
-
I believe Dante put Saladin in adult limbo with the poets and the philosophers.
Indeed he did.
Although the following is not a theological article, it states "When Dante Alighieri compiled his great medieval Who's Who of heroes and villains, the Divine Comedy, the highest a non-Christian could climb was Limbo."
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,36516,00.html
-
I'm reading from the 16th century Dominican (scholastic) theologian Melchior Cano, who distinguishes also (as did Fr. Feeney) between justification and salvation, and he believes that a certain state of justification can be arrived at through natural exertion, whereas salvation requires supernatural faith (he doesn't discuss Baptism as much as faith).
De Lugo, as pointed out by XavierSem, listed 3 different opinions which all revolved around the different permutations of justification and salvation.
So Father Feeney did NOT invent that distinction.
-
All the pieces to the puzzle are out there, and they fit, not only together, but perfectly with Sacred Scripture.
-
Catholic Encyclopedia article on Heaven (see the bolded):
(2) It is of faith that the beatific vision is supernatural, that it transcends the powers and claims of created nature, of angels as well as of men. The opposite doctrine of the Beghards and Beguines was condemned (1311) by the Council of Vienne (Denz., n. 475 — old, n. 403), and likewise a similar error of Baius by Pius V (Denz., n. 1003 — old, n. 883).
...
(3) To enable it to see God, the intellect of the blessed is supernaturally perfected by the light of glory (lumen gloriae). This was defined by the Council of Vienne in 1311 (Denz., n. 475; old, n. 403); and it is also evident from the supernatural character of the beatific vision. For the beatific vision transcends the natural powers of the intellect; therefore, to see God the intellect stands in need of some supernatural strength, not merely transient, but permanent as the vision itself. This permanent invigoration is called the "light of glory", because it enables the souls in glory to see God with their intellect, just as material light enables our bodily eyes to see corporeal objects.
Recall how St. Gregory nαzιanzen says that those who are not bad enough to be punished are not necessarily good enough to receive "glory" (in a line reminiscent of Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit).
-
Catholic Encyclopedia article on Heaven
My favorite story about the Catholic Encyclopedia was that it was given to Pope Pius X and he read it and after he read it he showed it to someone and said one word, "Modernism", and threw it in the trash. I don't know if the story is true, but I think it is a good story. An old poster here, I believe it was Ambrose, said the story was apocryphal but I not see it proven it either way.
-
Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Character":
The character imparted by these [three] sacraments is something distinct from the grace imparted by them.
...
All theologians affirm that the sacramental character is not a mere external denomination; and practically all are agreed that it is a sort of quality or state made inherent in the soul. Those, such as Scotus, who say that it is a relation (to Christ) mean that it is a relation with a real fundamentum, or ground and whether we say that it is a relation having a ground in the soul, or a state or quality involving a relation, seems to signify quite the same thing, the difference being only in the expression. The category of quality being divided by Aristotelean and Scholastic philosophers into four kinds, theologians for the most part classify the sacramental character as something akin to the genus of quality called power.
...
Now, every created perfection is a shadow of some perfection of the Deity, and therefore assimilation to Christ even in His human nature is assimilation to God. And as the Son is described in the Epistle to the Hebrews as "the Character of the Father's substance", hence the sacramental character has been defined as "a distinction impressed by the Eternal Character [the Son] upon the created trinity [i.e. the soul with the intellect and the will] sealing it into a likeness (secundum imaginem consignans) unto the Trinity which creates and anew-creates (Trinitati creanti et recreanti)." For theology distinguishes in the soul
--the natural image and likeness of God;
--the likeness produced by sanctifying grace and faith, hope, and charity;
--the likeness not moral, but, so to say, legal and official, produced by the sacramental character.
This character is a power, a potency, otherwise known as a faculty. But it is no natural faculty, but a supernatural faculty. What this faculty does is to allow for the soul to experience the supernatural vision of God. Just as natural vision is a faculty, so is supernatural vision, but it's something that the soul lacks by nature and is, I argue, supplied by the character of Baptism. It also conforms the soul to the likeness of Christ so that we become sons of God, adopted into the family or household of the Holy Trinity. Without this faculty provided by the character of Baptism, we are incapable of beholding God as He is, i.e., incapable of the Beatific Vision.
-
My favorite story about the Catholic Encyclopedia was that it was given to Pope Pius X and he read it and after he read it he showed it to someone and said one word, "Modernism", and threw it in the trash. I don't know if the story is true, but I think it is a good story. An old poster here, I believe it was Ambrose, said the story was apocryphal but I not see it proven it either way.
Right, I heard the story from Bishop Williamson when I was at the seminary, and it sounds like he believed it to be true. Indeed, there are some very Modernistic articles in there, especially with regard to the nature of Sacred Scripture ... the first casualty of most Modernists.
-
On another quote, Fr. Feeney said he didn't believe adults go to Limbo. But St. Ambrose spoke of martyred catechumens who died without the Sacrament as having been washed (of their sins) although not crowned. So where do these martyred catechumens end up ... in hell? Even though they have had their sins washed? Lacking person sin (and the punishment due to it) is precisely what Limbo is all about. Matto pointed out that Dante put some adults in Limbo. Not that Dante was a theologian, but I guess he reflects some theological thinking prevalent in his day. I don't see anything contrary to Church doctrine in positing adults in Limbo.
Now, could some of these Catechumens have been actually baptized by having the angels pronounce the words of Baptism, as St. Cyprian believed and was also taught in that 5th century theological manual? Perhaps, but St. Ambrose doesn't seem to believe so. It's speculation, really, after the point of what has been revealed. And what has been revealed is that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, even if not for justification.
-
St. John Chrysostom:
Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven. (Homily III. On Phil. 1:1-20)
He clearly teaches here that there's no entry into the Kingdom, the Palace, without the seal (Greek Patristic term for the character of Baptism), which he clearly ties to and equates with the "illumination". Illumination is related to the Beatific Vision, which the Church has defined with the term "lumen gloriae" (light of glory). St. John Chrysostom ties the Beatific Vision to the character of Baptism.
Dogmatic Definition of the Council of Vienne:
To enable it to see God, the intellect of the blessed is supernaturally perfected by the light of glory (lumen gloriae).
St. John ties this illumination of the intellect to the "seal" or character of Baptism.
-
So, as a result, St. John Chrysostom rejects Baptism of Desire (in the sense of providing salvation or entry into the Kingdom):
For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble. (Hom. in Io. 25, 3)
Several theologians later described the character of Baptism in the same way, as enabling "citizenship" in the Kingdom. But perhaps God issues Green Cards to departed Catechumens? Not so, according to St. John Chrysostom.
-
from The Shepherd of Hermas ... early 2nd century Patristic source:
They were obliged,” he answered, “to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive; for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not in any other way enter into the kingdom of God. … For,” he continued, “before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God.”
Again, the "seal" (aka character) is required to "enter into the Kingdom of God". That's another way the character is described, as essentially branding the likeness of the Son of God onto the soul "before a man bears the name of the Son of God".
-
Not related to the "seal," but also interesting.
St. Irenaeus (mid second century).
For our bodies have received unity among themselves by means of that laver which leads to incorruption; but our souls by means of the Spirit. Wherefore both are necessary, since both contribute towards the life of God.
St. Irenaeus teaches that BOTH the laver (Tridentine language) AND the Spirit are necessary. bod is described by its proponents as "Baptism of the Spirit" (flaminis) ... which has just the Spirit but not the water.
Poor St. Irenaeus. He was condemned by Trent, which allegedly teaches that only one OR the other is necessary. How could he have gotten this so wrong?
-
St. Irenaeus again, in The Proof of Apostolic Preaching:
Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised, and in the Holy Spirit of God; and that this baptism is the seal of eternal life and is rebirth unto God, that we be no more children of mortal men, but of the eternal everlasting God.
As I have argued, the "seal" of Baptism is what renders us children by adoption of God (in our supernatural life), rather than of mortal men (our natural life) ... thus the second birth (into the supernatural life).
-
St. Clement of Alexandria (3rd century):
This is the one grace of illumination, that our characters are not the same as before our washing.
...
Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal. “I,” says He, “have said that you are gods, and all sons of the Highest.” This work is variously called grace, and illumination, and perfection, and washing: washing, by which we cleanse away our sins; grace, by which the penalties accruing to transgressions are remitted; and illumination, by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly.
How can it get more clear?
Here he explicitly ties "illumination" to the change of "character". He speaks of multiple effects of Baptism, a washing and a change of character.
Then he goes on to define "illumination" as that "by which ... we see God clearly."
Illumination, the lumen gloriae, i.e. the Beatific Vision by which we "see God clearly" is tied directly to the change of character.
St Clement actually adds a third component to Baptism, distinguishing between the "washing," defined as a cleansing away of our sins, and then a separate thing he calls "grace," which he defines as remitting the temporal punishment due to sin as well ("penalties accruing to transgressions are remitted").
-
Tertullian, On Baptism, written between A.D. 200 and 206.
When, however, the prescript is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none’ (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless one be born of water, he has not life’ [Jn. 3:5]” (chapter 12)
Here, then, those miscreants provoke questions. And so they say, “Baptism is not necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of faith.” But in all cases it is the later things which have a conclusive force, and the subsequent which prevail over the antecedent. Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and has become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added to the sacrament, viz., the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in some sense, of the faith which before was bare, and which cannot exist now without its proper law. For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: “Go,” He says, “teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The comparison with this law of that definition, “Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,” has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.
Tertullian rejects the argument that in the New Covenant "faith is sufficient" for salvation. While valid in the OT, it's no longer valid because the "faith has been enlarged," with explicit belief now in "His nativity, passion, and resurrection" (i.e. explicit faith). He ties this explicit faith to the "sealing act" (character) of Baptism.
-
Tertullian again in On the Resurrection of the Flesh:
[T]he flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; ... They cannot then be separated in their recompense, when they are united in their service.
He speaks about how washing of the flesh is the "very condition on which salvation hinges". I'm not sure how that works with bod.
-
St. Hippolytus of Rome, Discourse on the Holy Theophany (written shortly after A.D. 200).
The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and He, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the breath (spirit) of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead.
...
For he who comes down in faith to the laver of regeneration, and renounces the devil, and joins himself to Christ; ... he comes up from the baptism brilliant as the sun, flashing forth the beams of righteousness, and, which is indeed the chief thing, he returns a son of God and joint-heir with Christ.
St. Hippolytus also links adoption as a son of God to being a "joint-heir with Christ" after the resurrection from the dead. So the physical aspect of washing the flesh is key.
-
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, mid-4th century, Third Catechetical Lecture:
For since man is of twofold nature, soul and body, the purification also is twofold, the one incorporeal for the incorporeal part, and the other bodily for the body: the water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul;
...
When going down, therefore, into the water, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Ghost: for without both you can not possibly be made perfect. It is not I that say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter: for He says, Except a man be born anew (and He adds the words) of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Neither does he that is baptized with water, but not found worthy of the Spirit, receive the grace in perfection; nor if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but receive not the seal by water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine, for it is Jesus who has declared it: and here is the proof of the statement from Holy Scripture. Cornelius was a just man, who was honoured with a vision of Angels, and had set up his prayers and alms-deeds as a good memorial before God in heaven. Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them that believed, and they spoke with other tongues, and prophesied: and after the grace of the Spirit the Scripture says that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith, the body also might by the water partake of the grace. (sections 3-4)
If any man receive not Baptism, he has no salvation; except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom.
Notice again how St. Cyril speaks about the two principal effects of Baptism, 1) the grace of perfection, the "Holy Spirit" aspect and 2) "the seal by water".
He says that if the soul is unworthy, he does not receive the grace of the Sacrament. But if he is not washed in water, he does not receive the seal.
Notice he says that nor does a man (even virtuous, i.e. not unworthy, i.e. has the proper dispositions) who does not "receive the seal by water ... enter into the Kingdom of heaven." It cannot get any more clear than that.
He states ABSOLUTELY CLEARLY that without the seal of water (the Sacramental character) even a person with the proper dispositions cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
He does state that martyrs are an exception ... but he does not explain why. As a 5th century manual declares, that's because some of the Fathers considered martyrdom to have all the elements of the Sacrament. St. Ambrose seems to disagree with that part.
-
St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Baptism of Christ (mid 4th century):
Let us however, if it seems well, persevere in enquiring more fully and more minutely concerning Baptism, starting, as from the fountain-head, from the Scriptural declaration, “Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ” Why are both named, and why is not the Spirit alone accounted sufficient for the completion of Baptism? Man, as we know full well, is compound, not simple: and therefore the cognate and similar medicines are assigned for healing to him who is twofold and conglomerate:— for his visible body, water, the sensible element—for his soul, which we cannot see, the Spirit invisible, invoked by faith, present unspeakably.
St. Gregory of Nyssa CLEARLY states here that the "Spirit alone [is not] accounted sufficient for the completion of Baptism" ... because, as other Fathers also answered, human beings are both body and soul.
-
To channel my inner Croix, I applaud Ladislaus for these quotes, and declare: “Church Fathers...for...the...win!”
-
To channel my inner Croix, I applaud Ladislaus for these quotes, and declare: “Church Fathers...for...the...win!”
Yes, it couldn't be any clearer. All the Church Fathers distinguish multiple aspects of the Sacrament: the "washing" (forgiveness of sin) and the "seal/illumination/crowning/glory". Some distinguish the remission of temporal punishment for sin into a third aspect, which they call "grace". In any case, while a few held that some washing or forgiveness of sin could happen without the seal, they indisputably hold that the "seal/illumination/crowning/glory/character" is required for entry into the Kingdom, ultimate salvation.
Some of them held bob to be the only exception (while ruling out bod), but they don't explain why. Yet St. Cyprian and that 5th century theology manual hold that it's because they receive the SACRAMENT through being washed in blood rather than water, but that all the sacred elements (i.e. matter and form) are present in martyrdom. St. Ambrose disagrees and says that even martyred catechumens, while "washed" are not "crowned".
So a bod that suffices for salvation is UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED by the Church Fathers, while bob is disputed, and in the case of those who accept it, generally considered to be THE Sacrament of Baptism received in an extraordinary manner.
-
“Church Fathers...for...the...win!”
Absolutely.
Church Fathers...for...the...win!
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/MeaslyAmpleFrilledlizard-small.gif)
-
See, both the Dimonds and the author of that article on catholicism.org about St. Augustine retracting bod, assert that there's a perplexing contradiction in St. Ambrose's oration on Valentinian.
But that's only due to their failure to understand that the Church Fathers clearly distinguish between the different effects of the Sacrament of Baptism, and that St. Ambrose held that they can be "washed" (remission of sins) ... we see that term throughout the quotes above ... but not "crowned". That's why St. Ambrose elsewhere teaches that even virtuous catechumens cannot be saved, enter the Kingdom, without the Sacrament. He's not in contradiction, but merely distinguishing the different effects of the Sacrament ... as nearly all the Church Fathers clearly do above here.
This distinction is the foundation for what I refer to in the thread title as Ladislausian soteriology. It's kind of a middle ground that reconciles the apparent contradictions. That there can possibly be a bod that leads to some remission of sin, concedo; that there can possibly be a bod that leads to salvation, the Kingdom, and the Beatific Vision, nego. With regard to bob, it's possible that even they are not crowned, as St. Ambrose holds, or else I leave open the possibility that the angels could pronounce the form and render it the Sacrament ... except that Trent taught that natural water is the only proper matter for the Sacrament ... so that seems to end bod as a Sacrament speculation, and rule in favor of St. Ambrose, that they do NOT receive the Sacrament.
That is why Pope St. Simplicius taught clearly that each and every one who dies without the Sacrament even while desiring it would forfeit the "KINGDOM" ... even exactly as St. John Chrysostom taught.
It's mind-numbingly clear and puts a nail in the coffin of salvation by bod.
-
And the FINAL nail in the coffin of salvation by bod.
Their famous proof-text from Trent has just evaporated the last few days.
Xavier himself posted a citation from DeLugo regarding implicit vs implicit faith, where the permutations included theologians disagreeing over whether implicit faith can provide both justification and salvation, with some holding justification but not salvation. So I researched the issue, and read Melchior Cano in Latin, and he's doing exactly that. What this does is to show quite clearly that the distinction between justification, a remission of sin, and salvation, ultimate entry into the Kingdom and the Beatific Vision is quite valid, and was not pulled out of thin air by Father Feeney. That is the very same distinction made by St. Ambrose in "washing" vs. "crowning".
Now, Trent in the famous bod "proof-text" passage is clearly speaking about JUSTIFICATION and not salvation, so it is in no way a proof for salvation by bod.
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=60354.msg737837#msg737837)
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?
Some of the Fathers referred to baptized martyrs as having received a baptism of blood.
So, if you recall, Baptism consists of two aspects:
1) the cleansing of sins
AND
2) the entry into the Beatific Vision
So what if everyone is kind of right?
What if a Baptism of Blood effects #1 above (the cleansing of sins) but does not bring about #2. In that case, it can said to supply SOME of the grace of Baptism, but not all, and could loosely be called a Baptism.
What if a Baptism of Desire could effect some (or perhaps all) of #1 as well. I believe this is what St. Ambrose was saying of Valentinian, that his piety and his desire could also obtain some of this washing.
Pope Boniface VIII - 1302
Unam Sanctam
One God, One Faith, One Spiritual Authority
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,‘ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/one-universal-church-of-the-faithful/msg744342/#msg744342
Monsignor Fenton wrote a paper where he admitted that the term "faithful" refers only to the baptized and positively excludes catechumens.
So how then did he get around the dogmatic teaching that there's no salvation outside the Church OF THE FAITHFUL?
He claims that one can be INSIDE the Church of the Faithful without being one of the FAITHFUL.
I call this undigested hamburger ecclesiology. Just as a hamburger enters the body but is not actually part of the body. It's like a foreign substance in the body, a parasite that goes along for the ride to heaven.
That's how ridiculous this has become.
That is why the Church has to define EENS over and over again. So now the Church will have to be more specific to condemn the Fentonian "interpretation" of No Salvation Outside the Church of the FAITHFUL.
This particular dogmatic definition comes THE closest to rendering BoD, BoD in the sense of SALVATION (vs. justification) heretical. On that other thread I started about "Ladislausian soteriology" I explained that St. Amborse, for instance, believed that there's a BoD of justification vs. salvation. Even that article from St. Benedict Center and the Dimonds feel that St. Ambrose is contradicting himself. He's not. He's distinguishing between justification "washing" and salvation.
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
Lad,
Did you see my post from earlier?
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/patristic-support-for-ladilausian-soteriology/msg744491/#msg744491
-
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
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?
-
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.
-
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 circuмstance, 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 circuмstances 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 circuмstance (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 circuмstances 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.
-
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.
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=60354.msg737837#msg737837)
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.
-
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.