Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: AnthonyPadua on March 26, 2024, 07:55:23 AM
-
Reading faith of the early fathers volume 2, and came across this statement.
(https://i.imgur.com/Fo3uz0A.jpeg)
Reading it it appears that St. Ambrose leaves out no room for BoD, BoB and Invincible Ignorance. And seems to suggest some potential justification though he is unsure if they can have the 'honor of the kingdom'. This seems almost contradictory.
(https://i.imgur.com/y4Y1abB.png)
This was the author's note on this passage. He reduces St. Ambrose remake to be about scripture leaving no exceptions with Ambrose being unsure hence the 'honor of the kingdom' statement. However it is strange to me to say that there are no exceptions, then list groups of people that are not excepted, but then also say that you're not sure if they really are exceptions of not...:(
-
Great find. I want to track down the Latin here. This is exactly what I was saying about the Valentinian passage, that everyone has missed, that St. Ambrose says such can be "washed" (have punishments remitted) but not "crowned" (enter the Kingdom).
This cements my reading of the Valentinian passage.
This kicks one leg out from the "Augustine and Ambrose" pillars on which all of BoD relies.
-
This is also reminiscent of the teaching of Pope Pius IX that the invincible ignorant won't receive "punishments" on account of involuntary sin.
Punishments due to sin, guit of sin, and the glory of the Kingdom are 3 separate things, and simply because someone might be "washed" of the punishments either through martyrdom or else their votum does not mean they can enter the Beatific Vision.
-
We add this to the list on this thread.
https://www.cathinfo.com/baptism-of-desire-and-feeneyism/patristic-support-for-ladilausian-soteriology/
I have long concluded and argued regarding the distinction between "punishment" and the glory of the Kingdom.
-
Is there a reference in the book for this passage? It would be good to track that down. The context of the quote could be very important, as well.
-
Distinguishing between "punishments" and the "honor of the Kingom" is also precisely what St. Gregory nαzιanzen does. This passage from St. Ambrose is making the exact same distinction.
St. Gregory nαzιanzen:
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.
-
Is there a reference in the book for this passage? It would be good to track that down. The context of the quote could be very important, as well.
Right, if OP can give us an exact citation, I'll dig it up from Migne. I'd love to see the Latin for "undisclosed", "exemption", and "punishments".
-
This was the author's note on this passage. He reduces St. Ambrose remake to be about scripture leaving no exceptions with Ambrose being unsure hence the 'honor of the kingdom' statement. However it is strange to me to say that there are no exceptions, then list groups of people that are not excepted, but then also say that you're not sure if they really are exceptions of not...:(
That's because the individual making the commentary fails to see the distinction between punishments and the honor of the Kingdom that St. Ambrose explicitly states. Cf. St. Gregory nαzιanzen also on that. There's this Pelagian undercurrent in the BoD mentality that if one isn't bad enough to be punished that he "deserves" entry into the Kingdom. This "exemption" is with regard to the "punishments".
-
I've found "On Abraham" but it's pretty long, so narrowing it down would help.
-
Regarding the citation. the numbers 2, 11, 84 is what you want to look at. To understand this you may need to this these images
First image is the book
(https://i.imgur.com/yLTLUlK.jpeg)
first attachment image is the foreword of Volume 2, I am unsure if Volume 2 explains the numbers so I have attached the relevant parts (i hope) from the vol 1 foerword
-
Lad, I asked the omnicscient ChatGPT where this quote came from, and this is what it came back with: This quote is from St. Ambrose's "On Abraham" in Book 2, Chapter 11, Section 79.
I haven't time to look it up, but you might start there.
-
Reading faith of the early fathers volume 2, and came across this statement.
(https://i.imgur.com/Fo3uz0A.jpeg)
Reading it it appears that St. Ambrose leaves out no room for BoD, BoB and Invincible Ignorance. And seems to suggest some potential justification though he is unsure if they can have the 'honor of the kingdom'. This seems almost contradictory.
(https://i.imgur.com/y4Y1abB.png)
This was the author's note on this passage. He reduces St. Ambrose remake to be about scripture leaving no exceptions with Ambrose being unsure hence the 'honor of the kingdom' statement. However it is strange to me to say that there are no exceptions, then list groups of people that are not excepted, but then also say that you're not sure if they really are exceptions of not...:(
(https://i.imgur.com/YES9tQk.jpeg)
Baptism is also mentioned in an earlier passage quoted right above in the source book FoteF, 2, 11 ,79
-
Thanks. When I have some time later today, I'll try to find it in Migne Patrologia Latina. Problem is that the copies online are not easy to search through. Seems to indicate Volume 4 for PL. I've not seen a CSEL online anywhere.
-
I found CSEL online ... http://www.earlymedievalmonasticism.org/Corpus-Scriptorum-Ecclesiasticorum-Latinorum.html
But it doesn't have De Abraham and the citation to Volume 32 Part 1 page 419 puts us in the middle of De Noe ("On Noah"). Perhaps it's in a different edition, or this work got mysteriously excised. hmmm.
-
Found the Latin for the quotation from 2,11,84:
nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum dei. utique nullum excepit, non infantem, non aliqua praeventum necessitate: habeant tamen illam opertam poenarum inmunitatem, nescio an habeant regni honorem.
Translation above is fairly accurate. I'm not sure about the punctuation (added by editor, since the Latin writers didn't use the punctuation). It's a bit of a peculiar syntax. I'll make some comments later when I have more time.
-
Another interesting quote by St. Ambrose. The final end statement.
-
Another interesting quote by St. Ambrose. The final end statement.
Thanks. Yes, this one has been "out there" in the BoD debate, but the De Abraham quote is new to me, and I've read tons of material regarding the BoD question, and the one from De Abraham is even more clear and explicit than this here. That was a great find in the OP.
Combined with St. Ambrose's statement in the Oration about Valentinian about his hope that Valentinian might be like the martyrs, whom he then states are "washed but not crowned", it makes the Valentinian quote an ANTI-BoD statement, i.e. an anti-salvation-by-BoD-statement, limiting the fruits of BoD to the remission of PUNISHMENTS due to sin.
-
St. Ambrose De Abraham:
nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum dei. utique nullum excepit, non infantem, non aliqua praeventum necessitate: habeant tamen illam opertam poenarum inmunitatem, nescio an habeant regni honorem.
I still intend to study this quotation a bit more. There's a lot of interplay here between the various verb moods, with a strange use of the "subjunctive" outside of a subordinate clause, which may be implied.
My general sense of it is, "While I think they might have some undisclosed immunity from punishments, I really don't think they could have the honor of the Kindom." Is he distinguishing between "entering the Kingom" and having the "honor of the Kingdom"? I'm not sure. But the original quotation from Our Lord he admits allows for no exceptions, and so he doesn't see how they might have the "honor of the Kingdom."
Even in the weakest possible sense, this completely undermines the norion of the "authority" of Ambrose somehow allegedly teaching Baptism of Desire. AT BEST, you could say he didn't completely rule it out, but leaned strongly against it.
As you know, the "authority" of Augustine and Ambrose are what all BoD theory is based on, and between this from St. Ambrose and St. Augustine's admitted speculation (that he later retracted), that is the sum total of all evidence among the Church Fathers in favor of BoD. Ridiculous that some try to elevate BoD speculation to some kind of dogma. If it were revealed dogma, you'd surely have more Patristic support than this. You'd have multiple Fathers repeating it as a teaching that was handed down to them by those who taught them the faith, and not admitting that they're speculating.