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

Author Topic: Garrigou-Lagrange the Progressivists Useful Idiot?  (Read 4422 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bowler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3299
  • Reputation: +15/-1
  • Gender: Male
Garrigou-Lagrange the Progressivists Useful Idiot?
« on: January 08, 2014, 09:42:46 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0


  • Quote from: Garrigou-Lagrange

    “Theologians in general are inclined to fill out what Scripture and tradition tell us by distinguishing the means of salvation given to Catholics from those that are given men of good will beyond the borders of the Church. …If we are treating of all Christians, of all who have been baptized, Catholic, schismatic, Protestant, it is more probable, theologians generally say, that the great number is saved. First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution. If the question is of the entire human race, the answer must remain uncertain, for the reasons given above. But even if, absolutely, the number of the elect is less great, the glory of God’s government cannot suffer. Quality prevails over quantity. One elect soul is a spiritual universe; further, no evil happens that is not permitted for a higher good. Further, among non-Christians (Jєωs, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jєωs and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even to pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God.” (Part 5, Chapter 32-The Number of the Elect)


    "the greatest 20th century theologian" according to "traditionalists". No wonder the modernists left him alone.  Any traditionalist that believes what he teaches, has not a leg to stand on in complaining about Vatican II speak on  religious freedom and ecuмenism.



    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +15/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Garrigou-Lagrange the Progressivists Useful Idiot?
    « Reply #1 on: January 08, 2014, 09:45:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    .

    This was a very good post:

    Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: Stubborn

    This certainly applies:
    Quote from: Fr. Wathen

    15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on.  He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it....



    Father Wathen understood the crisis perfectly.  Not only do BoDers explain EENS away immediately, but they explain the dogma away so much so that they even accuse those of us (like Father Feeney) who accept EENS as heretics for upholding the dogma.  

    They have turned EENS into teaching the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it actually says.

    I see it as providential that this video was posted now.  

    Father Wathen points out that the Traditional movement, the sum of Traditional theological objections to V2, is rooted in EENS.  In fact, to prove Father Wathen's statement true, +Sanborn uses EENS quotes to attack Vatican II.  But then then makes EENS exceptions which Fastiggi exploits to show how Vatican II doe not contradict tradition.

    EENS is the key, and Traditionalists who reject Vatican II but hold to extended BoD are in fact dishonest, as Fastiggi says.  Their rejection of Vatican II can be reduced to a visceral reaction against and revulsion to clown Masses and similar liturgical abuses.




    I would like to take this one step higher, if that's okay.  This 'visceral reaction' is the principal substance of their opposition to everything Newchurch.  Trads who reject Vat.II but accept BoD tend to rely on their 'feelings' about what's wrong with Newsacraments and Newmass and everything else Conciliar.  It's as though their preference for the TLM is founded on its trappings and appearances and prayers, but not so much on the complete integrity of its doctrine.  They will CLAIM to adhere to its doctrine, but when it comes to EENS, they defer to the popular notion of BoD and BoB as if they were fundamental principles.

    There are some of these BoD-ers who try to keep TLM preference founded on doctrine, but they are frustrated because their thinking keeps running into self-contradictions.  Other, more superficial Trads rely entirely on emotionalism, because they don't have the patience or perhaps the intelligence to think deeply about doctrine and theological principles.  And when given the opportunity, they try to change topic to something they're more 'comfortable' talking about, such as movies, celebrities, politicians or their friends and acquaintances.

    For these, the visceral reaction and revulsion they experience against clown masses and other liturgical abuses, is all they know.  It's not right because it doesn't FEEL right.  All they know is their feelings.  

    I would like to thank Stubborn and Ladislaus for this thread because your contributions are actually more informative than the recorded debate.  


    .



    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +15/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Garrigou-Lagrange the Progressivists Useful Idiot?
    « Reply #2 on: January 08, 2014, 09:56:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Compare

    1947

    Quote from: Garrigou-Lagrange

    “Theologians in general are inclined to fill out what Scripture and tradition tell us by distinguishing the means of salvation given to Catholics from those that are given men of good will beyond the borders of the Church. …If we are treating of all Christians, of all who have been baptized, Catholic, schismatic, Protestant, it is more probable, theologians generally say, that the great number is saved. First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution. If the question is of the entire human race, the answer must remain uncertain, for the reasons given above. But even if, absolutely, the number of the elect is less great, the glory of God’s government cannot suffer. Quality prevails over quantity. One elect soul is a spiritual universe; further, no evil happens that is not permitted for a higher good. Further, among non-Christians (Jєωs, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jєωs and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even to pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God.” (LIFE EVERLASTING. By Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Part 5, Chapter 32-The Number of the Elect)


    Just 50+ years before:

    Quote
    The Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism Concerning the Salvation of Non-Catholics orginally published in 1891
    by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead
    from Lesson 11: On the Church
    * 121. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?

    A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.

    Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.

    In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.

    Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never—even in the past—had the slightest doubt of that fact—what will become of him?

    If he was  validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister—not being a true priest—has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition—that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic—with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts—might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

    If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.

    I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

    I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.

    I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.

    from Lesson 14: On Baptism
    154. Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

    A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

    Those who through no fault of theirs die without Baptism, though they have never committed sin, cannot enter Heaven neither will they go to Hell. After the Last Judgment there will be no Purgatory. Where, then, will they go? God in His goodness will provide a place of rest for them, where they will not suffer and will be in a state of natural peace; but they will never see God or Heaven. God might have created us for a purely natural and material end, so that we would live forever upon the earth and be naturally happy with the good things God would give us. But then we would never have known of Heaven or God as we do now. Such happiness on earth would be nothing compared to the delights of Heaven and the presence of God; so that, now, since God has given us, through His holy revelations, a knowledge of Himself and Heaven, we would be miserable if left always upon the earth. Those, then, who die without Baptism do not know what they have lost, and are naturally happy; but we who know all they have lost for want of Baptism know how very unfortunate they are.

    Think, then, what a terrible crime it is to willfully allow anyone to die without Baptism, or to deprive a little child of life before it can be baptized! Suppose all the members of a family but one little infant have been baptized; when the Day of Judgment comes, while all the other members of a family—father, mother, and children—may go into Heaven, that little one will have to remain out; that little brother or sister will be separated from its family forever, and never, never see God or Heaven. How heartless and cruel, then, must a person be who would deprive that little infant of happiness for all eternity—just that its mother or someone else might have a little less trouble or suffering here upon earth.

    157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?

    A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.

    158. Q. What is Baptism of water?

    A. Baptism of water is that which is given by pouring water on the head of the person to be baptized, and saying at the same time, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

    159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?

    A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.

    “Ardent wish” by one who has no opportunity of being baptized—for no one can baptize himself. He must be sorry for his sins and have the desire of receiving the Baptism of water as soon as he can; just as a person in mortal sin and without a priest to absolve him may, when in danger of death, save his soul from Hell by an act of perfect contrition and the firm resolution of going to confession as soon as possible....

    160. Q. What is Baptism of blood?

    A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ.

    Baptism of blood, called martyrdom, is received by those who were not baptized with water, but were put to death for their Catholic faith. This takes place even nowadays in pagan countries where the missionaries are trying to convert the poor natives. These pagans have to be instructed before they are baptized. They do everything required of them, let us suppose, and are waiting for the day of Baptism. Those who are being thus instructed are called Catechumens. Someday, while they are attending their instructions, the enemies of religion rush down upon them and put them to death. They do not resist, but willingly suffer death for the sake of the true religion. They are martyrs then and are baptized in their own blood; although, as we said above, blood would not do for an ordinary Baptism even when we could not get water; so that if a person drew blood from his own body and asked to be baptized with it, the Baptism would not be valid. Neither would they be martyrs if put to death not for religion or virtue but for some other reason—say political.

    161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?

    A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.


    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    Garrigou-Lagrange the Progressivists Useful Idiot?
    « Reply #3 on: January 08, 2014, 09:57:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    EENS is the key, and Traditionalists who reject Vatican II but hold to extended BoD are in fact dishonest, as Fastiggi says.  Their rejection of Vatican II can be reduced to a visceral reaction against and revulsion to clown Masses and similar liturgical abuses.


    The thing you seem to ignore is that some form of BOD is admitted here. Sacramental Baptism is not required in ALL cases. Ladislaus is complaining that this has been extended to those who do not have an explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation.



    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    Garrigou-Lagrange the Progressivists Useful Idiot?
    « Reply #4 on: January 08, 2014, 10:02:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bowler, you argue against ALL that is in the Baltimore Catechism excerpt. Like I said before, I don't think you actually know what you believe.

    No perfect contrition, for example. You say Trent teaches sacramental confession is absolutely required in all cases.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil


    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +15/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Garrigou-Lagrange the Progressivists Useful Idiot?
    « Reply #5 on: January 08, 2014, 10:33:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Compare

    1947

    Quote from: Garrigou-Lagrange

    “Theologians in general are inclined to fill out what Scripture and tradition tell us by distinguishing the means of salvation given to Catholics from those that are given men of good will beyond the borders of the Church. …If we are treating of all Christians, of all who have been baptized, Catholic, schismatic, Protestant, it is more probable, theologians generally say, that the great number is saved. First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution. If the question is of the entire human race, the answer must remain uncertain, for the reasons given above. But even if, absolutely, the number of the elect is less great, the glory of God’s government cannot suffer. Quality prevails over quantity. One elect soul is a spiritual universe; further, no evil happens that is not permitted for a higher good. Further, among non-Christians (Jєωs, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jєωs and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even to pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God.” (LIFE EVERLASTING. By Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Part 5, Chapter 32-The Number of the Elect)


    To what baptism of desire was to St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri :

    (ST. Alphonsus Ligouri rejected your belief that someone can be saved who has no belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity. (As a matter of fact ALL the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints also reject your belief, as well as the Athanasian Creed, and the Council Trent)

    St. Alphonsus, quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The Catholic Dogma: “‘Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved.’ (First Command. No. 8.).”

    St. Alphonsus: “If you are ignorant of the truths of the faith, you are obliged to learn them. Every Christian is bound to learn the Creed, the Our Father, and the Hail Mary under pain of mortal sin. Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, mortal sin, Judgment, Paradise, Hell, or Eternity; and this deplorable ignorance damns them.” (Michael Malone, The Apostolic Digest, p. 159.)

    St. Alphonsus: “See also the special love which God has shown you in bringing you into life in a Christian country, and in the bosom of the Catholic or true Church. How many are born among the pagans, among the Jєωs, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.” (Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219)
     
    O ye atheists who do not believe in God, what fools you are! But if you do believe there is a God, you must also believe there is a true religion. And if not the Roman Catholic, which is it? Perhaps that of the pagans who admit many gods, thus they deny them all. Perhaps that of Mohammed, a religion invented by an impostor and framed for beasts rather than humans. Perhaps that of the Jєωs who had the true faith at one time but, because they rejected their redeemer, lost their faith, their country, their everything. Perhaps that of the heretics who, separating themselves from our Church, have confused all revealed dogmas in such a way that the belief of one heretic is contrary to that of his neighbor. O holy faith! Enlighten all those poor blind creatures who run to eternal perdition! (St. Alphonsus Liguori)


    In the great deluge in the days of Noah, all mankind perished, eight persons alone being saved in the Ark. In our days a deluge, not of water, but sins, continually inundates the earth, and out of this deluge very few escape. Scarcely anyone is saved. ( St. Alphonsus Liguori)






    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +15/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Garrigou-Lagrange the Progressivists Useful Idiot?
    « Reply #6 on: January 08, 2014, 10:56:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Compare

    1947

    Quote from: Garrigou-Lagrange

    “Theologians in general are inclined to fill out what Scripture and tradition tell us by distinguishing the means of salvation given to Catholics from those that are given men of good will beyond the borders of the Church. …If we are treating of all Christians, of all who have been baptized, Catholic, schismatic, Protestant, it is more probable, theologians generally say, that the great number is saved. First, the number of infants who die in the state of grace before reaching the age of reason is very great. Secondly, many Protestants, being today in good faith, can be reconciled to God by an act of contrition, particularly in danger of death. Thirdly, schismatics can receive a valid absolution. If the question is of the entire human race, the answer must remain uncertain, for the reasons given above. But even if, absolutely, the number of the elect is less great, the glory of God’s government cannot suffer. Quality prevails over quantity. One elect soul is a spiritual universe; further, no evil happens that is not permitted for a higher good. Further, among non-Christians (Jєωs, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls which are elect. Jєωs and Mohammedans not only admit monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even to pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are offered, by means known to God.” (LIFE EVERLASTING. By Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Part 5, Chapter 32-The Number of the Elect)




    To what the Great Fathers, Doctors of the Church Taught  :


    Here are St. Augustine and St. Ambrose speaking clearly EVEN against explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen:

    St Augustine, 395: “… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.”

    St. Augustine, 412: “… the Punic Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but salvation… Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the Kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too.”

    St. Augustine, 391: “When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.”

    St. Augustine: “However much progress the catechumen should make, he still carries the load of his iniquity: nor is it removed from him unless he comes to Baptism.”

    St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘ they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)




    St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:

    “You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

    St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
    “The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jєω or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”



    St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
    “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”


    St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jєω mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”

    It should be noted that since the term “baptism of desire” was not in use at the time, one won’t find St. John Chrysostom or any other father explicitly rejecting that term. They reject baptism of desire when they reject the concept that unbaptized catechumens can be saved without Baptism, as St. John Chrysostom repeatedly does.

    St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”



    St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3:
    “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.”



    St. John Chrysostom, Homily III. On Phil. 1:1-20:
    “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.”

    The “seal” is the fathers’ term for the mark of the Sacrament of Baptism. And here we see St. John affirming the apostolic truth held by all the fathers: that no one – including a catechumen – is saved without being born again of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism.

    St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXV: “Hear, ye as many as are unilluminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat, fearful is the sentence. ‘It is not possible,’ He [Christ] saith, ‘for one not born of water and the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of heaven’; because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition, he hath not yet received his Lord’s token, he is a stranger and an alien, he hath not the royal watchword. ‘Except,’ He saith, ‘a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.”

    St. John Chrysostom clearly rejected any possibility of salvation for one who has not received the Sacrament of Baptism. He affirmed the words of Christ in John 3:5 with an unequivocally literal understanding, which is the unanimous teaching of Tradition and the teaching of defined Catholic dogma.






    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    Garrigou-Lagrange the Progressivists Useful Idiot?
    « Reply #7 on: January 08, 2014, 11:15:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Bowler, you argue against ALL that is in the Baltimore Catechism excerpt. Like I said before, I don't think you actually know what you believe.

    No perfect contrition, for example. You say Trent teaches sacramental confession is absolutely required in all cases.


    Bowler, I was wrong. You're no less an idiot than "stubborn."
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil


    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    Garrigou-Lagrange the Progressivists Useful Idiot?
    « Reply #8 on: January 08, 2014, 11:19:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: bowler
    ST. Alphonsus Ligouri rejected your belief that someone can be saved who has no belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity. (As a matter of fact ALL the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints also reject your belief, as well as the Athanasian Creed, and the Council Trent)


    I don't hold that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are not requirements.

    Now, do you admit that Sacramental Baptism isn't required in fact in ALL cases?
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13823
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Garrigou-Lagrange the Progressivists Useful Idiot?
    « Reply #9 on: January 08, 2014, 11:38:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • As SJB calles him: "G-L is the most well-respected and trustworthy Thomist theologian of the 20th century".

    Who else includes people from other planets in the universal salvation formula.

    Quote
    “When we speak of men exclusively, we do not know, first of all, if among the worlds scattered in space the earth is the only one that is habitable. But if we restrict our question to men on our planet, the number of the elect remains a matter of controversy. …Many Fathers and theologians incline to the smaller number of the elect, because it is said in Scripture: ‘Many are called, but few are chosen.’ Again: ‘Enter you in at the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction; and many there are who go in thereat; how narrow is the gate and strait is the way that leadeth to life and few there are that find it.’ Still, these texts are not absolutely demonstrative. Thus, following many others, Pere Monsabre remarks: ‘If these words were intended for all places and for all times, then the opinion of the small number of the elect would triumph. But we are permitted to think that they are meant, directly, for the ungrateful time of our Savior’s own preaching. When Jesus wishes us to think of the future, He speaks in another manner. Thus He says to His disciples: ‘If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to Myself.’ …The common opinion of the Fathers and ancient theologians is without doubt that those who are saved do not represent the greater number. We may cite in favor of this view the following saints: Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory nαzιanzen, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Leo the Great, Bernard, Thomas Aquinas. Then, nearer to our own times: Molina, St. Robert Bellarmine, Suarez, Vasquez, Lessius, and St. Alphonsus. But they give this view as opinion, not as revealed truth, not as certain conclusion. In the last century the contrary opinion, namely, of the greater number of the elect, was defended… Restricting the question to Catholics, we find the doctrine, generally held especially since Suarez, that, if we consider merely adults, the number of the elect surpasses that of the reprobate. If adult Catholics do at one time or another sin mortally, nevertheless they can arise in the tribunal of penance, and there are relatively few who at the end of life do not repent, or even refuse to receive the sacraments.” (Part 5, Chapter 32-The Number of the Elect)


    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    Garrigou-Lagrange the Progressivists Useful Idiot?
    « Reply #10 on: January 08, 2014, 12:38:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SJB
    Quote from: bowler
    ST. Alphonsus Ligouri rejected your belief that someone can be saved who has no belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity. (As a matter of fact ALL the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints also reject your belief, as well as the Athanasian Creed, and the Council Trent)


    I don't hold that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are not requirements.

    Now, do you admit that Sacramental Baptism isn't required in fact in ALL cases?


    You try to bury the real questions with your stupid posts about things I never even said. Now it's an attack on Garrigou-Lagrange to divert attention away from your own unorthodoxy.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4577/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Garrigou-Lagrange the Progressivists Useful Idiot?
    « Reply #11 on: January 08, 2014, 12:44:24 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is clear as water. This theologian is a modernist progressive, at least on the matter of salvation for those outside the visible Church. I wish I had known this before buying the book. I got super excited about the topic of Predestination and I rushed.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4577/-579
    • Gender: Female
    Garrigou-Lagrange the Progressivists Useful Idiot?
    « Reply #12 on: January 08, 2014, 12:45:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How disappointing!

     :faint:
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline SJB

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5171
    • Reputation: +1932/-17
    • Gender: Male
    Garrigou-Lagrange the Progressivists Useful Idiot?
    « Reply #13 on: January 08, 2014, 01:00:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nice try, Cantrella.
    It would be comparatively easy for us to be holy if only we could always see the character of our neighbours either in soft shade or with the kindly deceits of moonlight upon them. Of course, we are not to grow blind to evil

    Offline bowler

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3299
    • Reputation: +15/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Garrigou-Lagrange the Progressivists Useful Idiot?
    « Reply #14 on: January 08, 2014, 02:02:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks for the addition Cantarella, I think it was providential that you got the book, and that I saw today a posting by Stubborn about G-L and I pulled his quote by G-L and made a thread of it. Now you get your book and add to it.

    It is clear to see in my COMPARE postings that what G-L taught was anything but traditional.


    And G-L is the "greatest 20th Century thrologian" according to "traditionalists". Yes, and:

    "In the country of blind men, the one eyed man is a King."