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 16289 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
« 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:

Quote
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.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2021, 06:32:37 PM »
St. Ambrose on Valentinian:
Quote
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".


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2021, 06:35:21 PM »
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.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2021, 06:46:16 PM »
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..."

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Patristic Support for Ladilausian soteriology
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2021, 07:07:58 PM »
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.