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

Author Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?  (Read 55891 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #485 on: May 31, 2023, 06:01:30 PM »
Sean, you keep going back to the notion that a sin has to be committed against faith to lose supernatural faith.  Normally yes, for an adult, but I hold infants to be a special case.

Even the "Rewarder God" folks held that explicit faith in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked is a sine qua non for supernatural faith ... for adults.  I hold, with St. Thomas and others, that explicit knowledge of Christ and the Holy Trinity are also essential.  In fact, this was held unanimously until the discovery of the New World, when a Franciscan and some Jesuits floated Rewarder God theory in response to finding all those unevangelized masses.  In any case, until Bergoglio said it some years ago, no Catholic ever entertained the notion that an atheist, someone who had explicit faith in nothing, could be saved.  So, if the infant grows up to acquire the use of reason but does not have any explicit belief in anything, that supernatural virtue of faith fades away, like the seed sown on the rocky ground where it has nothing to take root in.  As to why God may have allowed this, we can only speculate, but St. Thomas holds that this ignorance, if invincible, is itself not a sin, but God would allow this to happen on account of other sins.  It can also be God's Mercy, as perhaps He knows that the person would end up rejecting the faith and therefore meriting a worse eternal fate.  We don't know.

Based on how you're asking the question, in your scenario, let's imagine an infant who's secretly baptized by some overzealous individual and ends up being raised by atheists.  He reaches the age of reason, and then dies at the age of 15 without having actively rejected the faith or committed any other grave sin.  Would that person be saved?  To say yes would be to say that atheists can be saved without explicit faith in anything ... which no Catholic thinker or theologian has ever held prior to Bergoglio's utterance.  You're saying that individuals can have some infused supernatural virtue of faith without any knowledge or awareness of it.  You'd basically be promoting a variation of Rahner's Anonymous Christian theory and agreeing with Bergoglio that atheists can be saved.

Lad-

please explain how grace is lost without sin (or conversely, how those in the state of grace are damned).

Online Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #486 on: May 31, 2023, 06:43:41 PM »
Quote
please explain how grace is lost without sin (or conversely, how those in the state of grace are damned).
If you want to have an intelligent conversation then please provide more details.  Your generic scenarios help no one. 

p.s.  A baptized catholic (even if brought up as atheist) who doesn't act like one (i.e. follow church law, receive communion, go to confession, etc) commits many sins of omission.  If such a person reaches the age of reason and doesn't follow God's promptings to search for Truth, and doesn't go to church (at least), they sin in all manner of ways against the virtue of religion.  Then, they won't last long in a state of grace.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #487 on: May 31, 2023, 07:53:56 PM »
Lad-

please explain how grace is lost without sin (or conversely, how those in the state of grace are damned).

It was explain in the paragraphs to which you are responding, but you're fixated on your own imagined paradigm so that my explanation simply didn't register.  If I responded again, I would rewrite the above.

So in your opinion, someone can be saved as an atheist if they were baptized as an infant and then didn't commit an active sin against the faith after reaching the age of reason?

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #488 on: May 31, 2023, 07:58:54 PM »
It was explain in the paragraphs to which you are responding, but you're fixated on your own imagined paradigm so that my explanation simply didn't register.  If I responded again, I would rewrite the above.

So in your opinion, someone can be saved as an atheist if they were baptized as an infant and then didn't commit an active sin against the faith after reaching the age of reason?

Lad,

In your opinion, can the state of grace be lost without mortal sin?

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #489 on: May 31, 2023, 09:51:09 PM »
Lad,

In your opinion, can the state of grace be lost without mortal sin?

I've already answered this question.  Did you not read what I wrote?  Yes, it can be, in the unique case of an infant where the supernatural virtue of faith is merely infused.  Then without supernatural faith, there can be no supernatural virtue.  You're framing your question from the mindset of a normal adult in a state of sanctifying grace.  That is completely different from the state of an infant who has merely infused supernatural virtues.  You continue to be fixated on this notion because your mind can't grasp anything outside the normal paradigm for adults.

Now answer my question about whether you think an atheist in the above scenario can be saved.