Author Topic: Consider the Following (Read 13779 times)

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #45 on:** September 28, 2013, 12:50:40 AM »

Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange expounds upon the question regarding the possibility of salvation for heathen children in Grace: Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, Ia IIae, q. 109-14 (trans. The Dominican Nuns of Corpus Christi Monastery; St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1952). The tome was used in its original Latin text as a standard Seminary textbook in ages past.

What he discusses is pertinent to the matter in question in this thread (and the many other threads that treat upon these subjects).

bowler · « **Reply #46 on:** September 28, 2013, 10:32:28 AM »

Quote from: SJB

The anti-modernist theological manuals of the early 20th century EXPLAIN Catholic teaching. Something like Spirago-Clarke's The Catechism Explained is a further explanation of the basic catechism. You may have noticed that bowler and stubborn dismiss this type of source and provide none of their own. They speak of "modernist theologians" yet they are referring to approved catechisms and Doctors of the Church.

You are referring to your belief that someone who has no desire to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, can be saved. That teaching is opposed to ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and the Athanasian Creed. In other words it has no basis in the Fathers (and the dogmatic Creed), or St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri. You are now asking us to give up all of those sources teachings, for a 20th century private catechism?

What planet are you from?

bowler · « **Reply #47 on:** September 28, 2013, 11:32:23 AM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange expounds upon the question regarding the possibility of salvation for heathen children in Grace: Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, Ia IIae, q. 109-14 (trans. The Dominican Nuns of Corpus Christi Monastery; St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1952). The tome was used in its original Latin text as a standard Seminary textbook in ages past.

What he discusses is pertinent to the matter in question in this thread (and the many other threads that treat upon these subjects).

Is their a reason why you post JPEG pages instead of posting in a format that can be cut, copied and pasted on this form? I'm a slow typist and there's a lot there to comment on.

To put "all the ducks in a row", first you said that on the subject of BOD you follow the teaching of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange (GL), I then asked you what GL teaches, and if you would follow him if he opposed say St. Thomas. You then sent me those 5 pages to show me what GL teaches that is your belief.

I read the 5 pages, it is about as it says "Justificatiobn of a pagan child who, when he arrives at the full use of reason, does what lies in his power, with the help of actual grace, to love God above all things".

That isn't really at all the subject we are discussing. Moreover, I don't think anyone here on CI that is in favor of BOD has the wherewithal to understand and discuss these 4 pages, except maybe Nishant. Therefore it is a waste of time to discuss all of the theological speculations that go into every turn in this writing. Therefore, to keep it simple I will just focus on the key point. (Unless you can scan those pages into a format that I can write my comments in to. )

St. Thomas and the Thomists taught that the supernatural truths of the faith which must be known for salvation are the belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. While GL is not even mentioning that objection, and moreover, is giving the impression throughout that the supernatural truths of the faith which are necessary for salvation "are at least that God is, and is a rewarder".

In that teaching, he is opposed by ALL the Fathers, Saints, Doctiors and the Athansaina Creed.

bowler · « **Reply #48 on:** September 28, 2013, 11:45:40 AM »

- SSPX Fr. Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, pp. 55-56
St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. II, ad 1: objection; “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith.

Reply; It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation…provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”

- Fr. Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, pp. 56
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: “After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.”

Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: “And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”

In regard to the objection about one who had never heard of Christ, St. Thomas replies:
- Fr. Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, pp. 55
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man, born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or by sending a teacher to him.”

- Fr. Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, pp. 55
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solut. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

Cantarella · « **Reply #49 on:** September 28, 2013, 12:35:50 PM »

All cultures are under the dominion of the Devil until they are evangelized to the Holy Catholic Faith. All the people who die in cultures which have never been penetrated by the Gospel go to Hell because bad will and failure to cooperate with God’s grace is the reason He does not reveal the Gospel to them.

St. Augustine (+428): “… God foreknew that if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it without belief.”

And if somebody accepted the truth, if he were intellectually honest enough to say, “God, this piece of wood can’t be You, reveal Yourself to me,” then God would send an angel, if necessary, as He sent an angel to Cornelius in Acts chapter 10; and He would follow it up with a missionary who would bring the good news and the Sacrament of Baptism.

John 18:37: “For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth: every one who is of the truth, heareth my voice.”

Jehanne · « **Reply #50 on:** September 28, 2013, 03:24:40 PM »

Hobbledehoy,

You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it:

Quote

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Ergo, everyone desires Baptism, at least implicitly. "No salvation outside the Church" becomes "No salvation outside the World." And, of course, if a pagan (or, Muslim, Jєωιѕн, etc.) child can respond to Baptismal grace, if only implicitly, why bother sharing the Gospel with him or his people? Why disturb his conscience if he is in a state of grace? It's little wonder why the modern Catholic Church evangelizes no one!

Cantarella · « **Reply #51 on:** September 28, 2013, 03:38:24 PM »

The heresy that non-Catholics can be saved by “invincible ignorance” has culminated in our situation today, in which almost 100% of people who claim to be “Catholics” (and even “traditional Catholics”) believe that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, etc. can be saved. We can thank the heretical idea of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” for this.

Invisible ignorance turns into a destructive heresy that annihilates the necessity of the Catholic Faith all over the world.

Why then would be any need at all to evangelize and convert all heretics, pagans, Jews, freemasons, etc. to the True Faith?

PereJoseph · « **Reply #52 on:** September 28, 2013, 03:38:30 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Hobbledehoy,

You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it...

That is absolutely ridiculous. Reverend Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was one of the foremost opponents of Neo-Modernism, even coining the term "nouvelle théologie," pejoratively, in a famous article attacking the chief neo-Modernist periti at the Robber Council many years before they were able to implement their wicked schemes. It is intolerable for you to speak this way of one of the most venerable and eminent theologians of the XXth century, one who was frequently cited by Archbishop Lefebvre and who was the foremost opponent of the Conciliar errors. Besides, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and don't understand neo-Modernism. If you knew more about the theological foundations of the nouvelle théologie and about the theological project of Garrigou-Lagrange, you would quickly realise the utter absurdity of blaming him even in a small way for the Council.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #53 on:** September 28, 2013, 04:06:08 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Moreover, I don't think anyone here on CI that is in favor of BOD has the wherewithal to understand and discuss these 4 pages, except maybe Nishant.

I believe in Baptism of Desire because the Popes, Doctors, and theologians have spoken on the subject authoritatively. One Irish Jesuit who was excommunicated by Pius XII disputes what the consensus of theologians, the Holy Office, and the Popes have taught. I read the entire thing with interest and think that I understand it. Of course, it would help to read it again, and I probably should.

Quote

Therefore it is a waste of time to discuss all of the theological speculations that go into every turn in this writing.

So, basically what you are saying is that you are too lazy or inept to read one of the stronger arguments by an approved theologian against your position. You already know what you believe and you are not willing to be convinced by respected theologians of the Church to the contrary. Your private understanding as a layman is sufficient. It seems pretty clear that that is what you are in fact saying.

Quote

St. Thomas and the Thomists taught that the supernatural truths of the faith which must be known for salvation are the belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. While GL is not even mentioning that objection, and moreover, is giving the impression throughout that the supernatural truths of the faith which are necessary for salvation "are at least that God is, and is a rewarder".

How would you know if he mentions the "objection" or not, since you have yourself admitted that you did not read all of it or did not understand it and/or have a difficult time understanding Garrigou-Lagrange ? He does actually mention what you claim he doesn't; his own position on the matter is integrated into the rest of his system.

Quote

In that teaching, he is opposed by ALL the Fathers, Saints, Doctiors and the Athansaina Creed.

Except St Ambrose, St Bernard de Clairvaux, Pius IX, St Alphonsus, the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani, Pius XII, etc.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #54 on:** September 28, 2013, 04:10:44 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

The heresy that non-Catholics can be saved by “invincible ignorance” has culminated in our situation today, in which almost 100% of people who claim to be “Catholics” (and even “traditional Catholics”) believe that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, etc. can be saved. We can thank the heretical idea of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” for this.

Invisible ignorance turns into a destructive heresy that annihilates the necessity of the Catholic Faith all over the world.

Why then would be any need at all to evangelize and convert all heretics, pagans, Jews, freemasons, etc. to the True Faith?

Cantarella, I have liked your posts in the past and think you are a good contributor here. Therefore, let me say this : I, too, was once taken in by the propaganda of St Benedict Center. Don't believe it. You are not a trained theologian and perhaps don't understand the depth of what you are getting yourself involved in. The fact of the matter is that the position of the followers of Fr. Feeney is neither taught by the Church nor is it defensible by rigorous theological argumentation. Calling implicit Baptism of Desire a "heresy" is incredibly dangerous. Therefore, I earnestly implore you to back away from St Benedict Center and content yourself with trusting in the wisdom of the eminent theologians of the Church and of the papal teaching office.

Jehanne · « **Reply #55 on:** September 28, 2013, 04:30:23 PM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

Quote from: Jehanne
Hobbledehoy,

You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it...

That is absolutely ridiculous. Reverend Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was one of the foremost opponents of Neo-Modernism, even coining the term "nouvelle théologie," pejoratively, in a famous article attacking the chief neo-Modernist periti at the Robber Council many years before they were able to implement their wicked schemes. It is intolerable for you to speak this way of one of the most venerable and eminent theologians of the XXth century, one who was frequently cited by Archbishop Lefebvre and who was the foremost opponent of the Conciliar errors. Besides, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and don't understand neo-Modernism. If you knew more about the theological foundations of the nouvelle théologie and about the theological project of Garrigou-Lagrange, you would quickly realise the utter absurdity of blaming him even in a small way for the Council.

I don't see how you can say that Reverend Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange is to be praised and Father Kahner Rahner is to be despised. Both were prominent theologians who were both in good standing with Pope Pius XII. I don't see how Father Garrigou-Lagrange's theology of implicit faith is any different than Father Rahner's anonymous Christian. Pray tell, what is the difference?

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #56 on:** September 28, 2013, 06:26:06 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Hobbledehoy,

You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it.

Jehanne,

You should really accept Vatican I because apparently you think you know more than the teaching authority of the Church, and your distorted cognitive patterns (and those of others individuals who have taken it upon themselves to promulgate a new lay magisterium) have apparently entrapped you into some sort of ecclesiological solipsism.

Who exactly are you to have such an air of authority to be passing judgment on theologians such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, who had the wisdom and sanctity to which none of us here at CathInfo could ever claim to have attained? Who sent you? What office or jurisdiction do you claim to possess to enable you to police your peers and evaluate on those who are your superiors in matters of faith and morals (in this case Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange as well as all approved and duly deputed teachers of the Catholic faith) as if you are something greater than they?

Matto · « **Reply #57 on:** September 28, 2013, 06:28:35 PM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

Quote from: Jehanne
Hobbledehoy,

You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it.

Jehanne,

You should really accept Vatican I because apparently you think you know more than the teaching authority of the Church, and your distorted cognitive patterns (and those of others individuals who have taken it upon themselves to promulgate a new lay magisterium) have apparently entrapped you into some sort of ecclesiological solipsism.

Who exactly are you to have such an air of authority to be passing judgment on theologians such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, who had the wisdom and sanctity to which none of us here at CathInfo could ever claim to have attained? Who sent you? What office or jurisdiction do you claim to possess to enable you to police your peers and evaluate on those who are your superiors in matters of faith and morals (in this case Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange as well as all approved and duly deputed teachers of the Catholic faith) as if you are something greater than they?

Hobbles, you could say the same about all of us for rejecting Vatican II.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #58 on:** September 28, 2013, 06:41:56 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Hobbledehoy
Quote from: Jehanne
Hobbledehoy,

You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it.

Jehanne,

You should really accept Vatican I because apparently you think you know more than the teaching authority of the Church, and your distorted cognitive patterns (and those of others individuals who have taken it upon themselves to promulgate a new lay magisterium) have apparently entrapped you into some sort of ecclesiological solipsism.

Who exactly are you to have such an air of authority to be passing judgment on theologians such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, who had the wisdom and sanctity to which none of us here at CathInfo could ever claim to have attained? Who sent you? What office or jurisdiction do you claim to possess to enable you to police your peers and evaluate on those who are your superiors in matters of faith and morals (in this case Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange as well as all approved and duly deputed teachers of the Catholic faith) as if you are something greater than they?

Hobbles, you could say the same about all of us for rejecting Vatican II.

How so? I don't understand the necessity of bringing out this red-herring.

As bowler wrote somewhere else, it's rude to derail threads in this matter. Jehanne has nothing to offer but red-herrings, and you are his accomplice in this.

Ambrose · « **Reply #59 on:** September 28, 2013, 06:42:52 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Hobbledehoy
Quote from: Jehanne
Hobbledehoy,

You really should accept all of Vatican II, because the late Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's theology is the basis of it.

Jehanne,

You should really accept Vatican I because apparently you think you know more than the teaching authority of the Church, and your distorted cognitive patterns (and those of others individuals who have taken it upon themselves to promulgate a new lay magisterium) have apparently entrapped you into some sort of ecclesiological solipsism.

Who exactly are you to have such an air of authority to be passing judgment on theologians such as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, who had the wisdom and sanctity to which none of us here at CathInfo could ever claim to have attained? Who sent you? What office or jurisdiction do you claim to possess to enable you to police your peers and evaluate on those who are your superiors in matters of faith and morals (in this case Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange as well as all approved and duly deputed teachers of the Catholic faith) as if you are something greater than they?

Hobbles, you could say the same about all of us for rejecting Vatican II.

Many of the clergy who were sent by God through His Church led the way in rejecting Vatican II. Some bishops, and countless clergy around the world resisted Paul VI's new theology and Novus Ordo Missae.

There are stories of these courageous priests among many Catholics from various dioceses all around the world.