Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Justification, the BoD of the Catechumen, and Classical "Feeneyism"  (Read 39476 times)

1 Member and 26 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
BS ... he did NOT have "the same view as [you]."  YOU ARTCULTED SALVATION BY FAITH ALONE, where justification would later be lost of one failed toj follow through on the precept.  I see no such quote in St. Bonaventure, so you can stop slandering him now just to defend your own heresy.

That what's Bonaventure said:


Quote
Reply Obj. 4. The last objection has already been resolved: for it is called a necessary sacrament, not because without it a man cannot be saved, but because he is bound to it if he can, and neglecting it, he cannot be saved.

https://thecenturion1.wordpress.com/2024/01/01/st-bonaventure-on-those-who-receive-only-the-reality-of-baptism/



My gosh, he even said a man could be saved without a sacrament by denying its negative. Of course, he was simply talking about the actual receipt. I have no different understanding. 

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter

Quote
St. Bonaventure: "not because without it a man cannot be saved"


What's clear, Lad, is that if St. Bonaventure wrote that here, you would have called him a heretic. No question. 


Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Quote
What I mean is that being born in pre-Columbian America or a country like that with no real christian presence locking you out of salvation
I've already answered this, with examples.  Both examples apply to pre-Columbian american indians.  God MIRACULOUSLY sent people to preach to indian nations, who were of good will.  What I wrote, I'll repeat.

There are 2 indian nations who we know about who have told of miraculous visitors who instructed them in the Faith.  I'm sure there are others.  In one instance, God repeatedly sent a 'man in white'.  Was that an angel or a bilocated priest, or a saint from heaven?  I don't know but it doesn't matter.

In the second case, we have the bilocation of Mary of Agreda, whom the indians called the "lady in blue".  Her visits were confirmed by missionaries who arrived soon after her last visit.

So, yes, God does send holy persons to instruct native indians.  Of course, most of the indians in america in the 1400s/1500s (pre Our Lady of Guadalupe) were savages, who worshipped satan, sacrificed children and practiced widespread cannibalism.  To these, Scripture says that "God does not cast pearls before swine."

Just want to point out the modernism in this phrase.  St Augustine, St Thomas, St Bellarmine and Trent all stated that EXPLICIT desire for the Church, through baptism, was necessary for justification.  AND ALSO, a knowledge and acceptance of the Incarnation/Trinity...just as the letter from the Holy Office to the Missionaries explained.


Quote
What I mean is that under your view an implicit one has to precede it in order for God to send the "man in white" to instruct you in the Faith, no? God won't send one to someone who's deeply evil and has contempt for Him.
It's not my view, it's the catholic view.
1.  First of all, it's an infallible doctrine that ALL MEN (catholic, atheist, mason, joo, hindu) are given ACTUAL graces every moment of their life.  Actual grace is given to fight temptations against the natural law, which is written on all men's hearts, and which all men know they must reject sins against nature and follow their conscience.

2.  The old adage of "grace builds on nature" means that if a person is TRYING to live a good life (following the natural law), then they will eventually be given (or accept) more and more grace, as their nature corresponds to actual graces and they TRY to live a good life.

3.  Scripture tells us that God does not cast pearls before swine.  So if a person has no interest in the natural law and is rejecting actual graces, they have already damned themselves and God will not send them religious instruction, because a) it's a waste of time, b) God's mercy knows that them rejecting religious instruction would give them MORE punishments in hell.

4.  St Paul tells us that God will not tempt us beyond our strength.  So all who sin, choose sin.  No one can complain that the temptation was too strong.  They choose it.  Further, they choose not to repent.  They rejected their conscience.

5.  St Thomas (and others) tell us that ignorance is a punishment for sin.  This flows from the above, where if a person has rejected the natural law and lives an evil life, they will have ignorance of religion.

6.  Ignorance of religion and of the True Faith IS A PUNISHMENT.  It's not a "whoops, God messed up".  It's not a "God is not very fair."  It's not a "What God did makes no sense and we need to come up with a theological explanation."  God doesn't make mistakes.  God doesn't forget.  God is all-just, all-fair and all-merciful.

Conclusion-- Those pre-Columbian indian tribes who did NOT get sent a "man in white" or a "nun in blue" were not sent religious instruction, because they were living evil lives.  And we know that most indians were worshipping demons, practicing cannibalism, constantly killing each other to rule over lands, and sacrificing children to their demons.  Most pre-columbian indian cultures were satanic.

Quote
I mean let's be honest, this *has* happened, Innocent III mentions it but even aside from that I'm sure if you asked all over the US many priests can tell you someone unbaptized in their RCIA died a sudden death before the Easter Vigil.
Yes, and I think it was one of the french revolution masons (Robespierre) who was on his deathbed, screaming for a priest for hours, but none ever came.  God knows the heart of everyone.  We don't.  If a catechumen dies before baptism, GOD LET IT HAPPEN.  We can't make up new rules to "help out" the "poor guy" who died.  No.  GOD TOOK HIS LIFE EXACTLY WHEN HE WANTED TO.  It's not our job to come up with a "backup plan" for when things "don't work out" according to our stupid, unknowing, limited minds.

I've already answered this, with examples.  Both examples apply to pre-Columbian american indians.  God MIRACULOUSLY sent people to preach to indian nations, who were of good will.  What I wrote, I'll repeat.

There are 2 indian nations who we know about who have told of miraculous visitors who instructed them in the Faith.  I'm sure there are others.  In one instance, God repeatedly sent a 'man in white'.  Was that an angel or a bilocated priest, or a saint from heaven?  I don't know but it doesn't matter.

In the second case, we have the bilocation of Mary of Agreda, whom the indians called the "lady in blue".  Her visits were confirmed by missionaries who arrived soon after her last visit.

So, yes, God does send holy persons to instruct native indians.  Of course, most of the indians in america in the 1400s/1500s (pre Our Lady of Guadalupe) were savages, who worshipped satan, sacrificed children and practiced widespread cannibalism.  To these, Scripture says that "God does not cast pearls before swine."

Just want to point out the modernism in this phrase.  St Augustine, St Thomas, St Bellarmine and Trent all stated that EXPLICIT desire for the Church, through baptism, was necessary for justification.  AND ALSO, a knowledge and acceptance of the Incarnation/Trinity...just as the letter from the Holy Office to the Missionaries explained.

It's not my view, it's the catholic view.
1.  First of all, it's an infallible doctrine that ALL MEN (catholic, atheist, mason, joo, hindu) are given ACTUAL graces every moment of their life.  Actual grace is given to fight temptations against the natural law, which is written on all men's hearts, and which all men know they must reject sins against nature and follow their conscience.

2.  The old adage of "grace builds on nature" means that if a person is TRYING to live a good life (following the natural law), then they will eventually be given (or accept) more and more grace, as their nature corresponds to actual graces and they TRY to live a good life.

3.  Scripture tells us that God does not cast pearls before swine.  So if a person has no interest in the natural law and is rejecting actual graces, they have already damned themselves and God will not send them religious instruction, because a) it's a waste of time, b) God's mercy knows that them rejecting religious instruction would give them MORE punishments in hell.

4.  St Paul tells us that God will not tempt us beyond our strength.  So all who sin, choose sin.  No one can complain that the temptation was too strong.  They choose it.  Further, they choose not to repent.  They rejected their conscience.

5.  St Thomas (and others) tell us that ignorance is a punishment for sin.  This flows from the above, where if a person has rejected the natural law and lives an evil life, they will have ignorance of religion.

6.  Ignorance of religion and of the True Faith IS A PUNISHMENT.  It's not a "whoops, God messed up".  It's not a "God is not very fair."  It's not a "What God did makes no sense and we need to come up with a theological explanation."  God doesn't make mistakes.  God doesn't forget.  God is all-just, all-fair and all-merciful.

Conclusion-- Those pre-Columbian indian tribes who did NOT get sent a "man in white" or a "nun in blue" were not sent religious instruction, because they were living evil lives.  And we know that most indians were worshipping demons, practicing cannibalism, constantly killing each other to rule over lands, and sacrificing children to their demons.  Most pre-columbian indian cultures were satanic.
Yes, and I think it was one of the french revolution masons (Robespierre) who was on his deathbed, screaming for a priest for hours, but none ever came.  God knows the heart of everyone.  We don't.  If a catechumen dies before baptism, GOD LET IT HAPPEN.  We can't make up new rules to "help out" the "poor guy" who died.  No.  GOD TOOK HIS LIFE EXACTLY WHEN HE WANTED TO.  It's not our job to come up with a "backup plan" for when things "don't work out" according to our stupid, unknowing, limited minds.
Thanks Pax, we still disagree but I did enjoy our exchange, you make good arguments and I learned stuff from them. Stubborn too, though he begged the question sometimes. God bless

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Thanks Pax, we still disagree but I did enjoy our exchange, you make good arguments and I learned stuff from them. Stubborn too, though he begged the question sometimes. God bless
Sure thing.