Author Topic: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants (Read 7809 times)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #45 on:** December 18, 2021, 03:59:35 PM »

Working through Mr. Salza's book on Predestination (see reply #43 above). At this point, I definitely would recommend it, and it's a good supplement to Father Garrigou-Lagrange's book, Predestination. I am tempted to say "highly recommend," but I want to finish it first. Mr Salza does a very good job of explaining some complex issues regarding the topic in direct and easily understandable terms.

Mr. Salza has a large section where he basically takes apart Father William Most's book, Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God. Most, an apologist for the Conciliar Church and the V2 revolution, applies the "deveolpments" in dogma of the Conciliar Church in the area of Predestination, and the results are "in your face" and blatant in terms of a rejection of the Church's great doctors, St. Augustine and St. Thomas, whose "interpretation" on this subject has been dominant for over 1500 years, while (it is true) not elevated to the level of official adoption by the Church .

You see, Fr. Most says, St. A and St. Thomas were simply "wrong," poor fools, and "all exegetes today reject this interpretation":

Quote

Fr. Most claims “that the interpretation of Romans 8-9 which St. Thomas inherited from St. Augustine is erroneous,”90 and he emphatically states, “All exegetes today reject this interpretation.”91

Salza, John. The Mystery of Predestination: According to Scripture, the Church and St. Thomas Aquinas (p. 30). TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

I say there is no coincidence between that rejection and the debacle of the Church in our day (indeed, that is a major theme of this thread).

I'll continue with further discussion of Salza's withering of Most in subsequent posts here.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #46 on:** December 18, 2021, 04:25:01 PM »

Quote

Fr. Most’s rejection of the traditional interpretation of Romans 8-9 is the basis for many of his novel interpretations of St. Thomas and his theories on grace (more on this later). Thirdly, interacting with Fr. Most’s argumentation helps us see more clearly the principles that St. Thomas has left us. These principles help us build our spiritual lives upon a necessary, dogmatic foundation and give the greatest glory to God.

Salza, John. The Mystery of Predestination: According to Scripture, the Church and St. Thomas Aquinas (p. 30). TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

True, true, very true. The loss of looking at Predestination (well, actually a total failure of even considering the topic) and grace via those Thomistic principles is vital to an underlying understanding of the theological crisis in doctrine of the Conciliar Church.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #47 on:** December 19, 2021, 07:09:27 AM »

Mr. Salza does a wonderful job of exposing the false readings by Fr. Most of Romans 8 and 9 and Holy Writ's revelation of the individual predestination of the saints to salvation, which is easily extrapolated to mean, in conjunction with the dogma of the Catholic necessities tied up with salvation - Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus (Cantate Domino, etc.), and possession of the Catholic faith (the Athanasian and Tridentine Creeds, etc.) - their entrance into Catholic Church (the one and only ark of salvation) prior to death.

The Satanic expansion of salvation to non-Catholics and non-Christians (the infernal campaign inaugurated in Genesis 3 transformed into an attack on God's plan of correction and redemption after the Fall, so that now the false counter Church that Bishop Sheen said would "ape" the true religion proclaims the false gospel that "all men" could possess immortal life and beatific bliss, becoming "as God") necessitated an attack on the Catholic dogma of the predestination of the saints in the Church and while holding the Catholic faith, lest one actually stumble upon the dogma (despite the silence that it is generally wrapped in to hide it) and realize its significance and implication regarding those twin necessities of being Catholic and possessing the Catholic faith, which then make absolute sense as the unique and only means of salvation employed by a God who sovereignly determines who and how men are saved.

I will now proceed to quote from Mr. Salza's withering critique at length:

Quote

We first note that Fr. Most in GPS [the book cited in reply #45 above] does not provide any meaningful exegesis of Romans 8 or 9. He engages in no contextual, grammatical, or lexical analysis of the applicable texts. This is uncharacteristic of Fr. Most’s otherwise thorough scholarship. One would expect more from a renowned scholar, particularly when he is criticizing a position shared by the two greatest minds of the Church. Yet Fr.Most repeatedly claims that St.Augustine, St.Thomas, and other theologians who followed them “were severely hampered by a formerly current misinterpretation” of the passages.92 Fr.Most says, “Today we know that these interpretations of Scripture were all erroneous for they are rejected with unanimity by all good exegetes of all schools.”93 Fr. Most continues by saying, “[E]xegetes of all schools teach a different interpretation of the passage from the Epistle to the Romans.”94 And again, he says, “[T]his interpretation … is now rightly abandoned, as false and lacking in foundation, by all good exegetes of all schools.”95 Fr. Most makes these kinds of sweeping statements throughout his nearly 700-page book.

Salza, John. The Mystery of Predestination: According to Scripture, the Church and St. Thomas Aquinas (pp. 30-31). TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

***numbers (e.g., 92, 93 etc., are to footnotes to the text)

Salza continues:

Quote

After summarily dismissing the views of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, Fr.Most appeals to the “modern scholarship” of Père Lagrange, J. Huby, and A.M.Dubarle. Based on this modern scholarship, Fr. Most says, “As a result, we are able to know clearly that which was hidden in the days of St. Thomas, namely:St. Paul, in Romans 8-9, was not speaking about the infallible predestination of individuals to eternal glory, but about the plans of God for the call of peoples to be members of the Church, in the Old or New Testament, in the full sense, and about the divine plans for those who already are members of the Church in the full sense.”96

Salza, John. The Mystery of Predestination: According to Scripture, the Church and St. Thomas Aquinas (p. 31). TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

You might say, "oh, there Fr. Most is talking about "the plans of God for the call of peoples to be members of the Church . . . in the full sense," so he does say Romans 8 and 9 concern themselves with the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith. However, note the typical Conciliar Church speech regarding the Catholic Church and faith, where the Church of God and the faith exists (or should we say "subsists") more completely (or should we say, not "partially" as in other faiths). Anyway, if you say that, not so fast . . .

Salza continues:

Quote

Continuing with his novel theory about Romans 9, Fr. Most sees a distinction between what he calls the “internal economy” that regards individual salvation (whether a man will go to heaven or hell) and the “external economy” that regards the external order (whether a man or a nation will belong to the Church). Fr. Most applies this concocted paradigm to any verse he thinks speaks of individual predestination (e.g., Rom. 8-9; 1 Cor. 4:7; Acts 13:48).Fr. Most argues that Romans 9 is about the external economy, not the internal economy. Specifically, Fr. Most advances the Arminian argument that St. Paul is speaking about the predestination of “nations” and not individuals.98

Salza, John. The Mystery of Predestination: According to Scripture, the Church and St. Thomas Aquinas (p. 32). TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

Note the distinction between the "internal economy" or "internal order" and the "external economy" or "external order." Salza will hit the nail squarely on the head with great force regarding the "upshot" of this Mostian distinction.

To continue with Mr. Salza, he goes on to show how Fr. Most's interpretation is at odds with the Church in the Council of Valence:

Quote

Notwithstanding Fr. Most’s assertions, the Council of Valence authentically teaches that Romans 9 is about individual predestination and election! After citing both Romans 9:21 (about the potter’s power over the clay) and Romans 9:22 (about the vessels of mercy and wrath), the council offers its interpretation of those verses: “[F]aithfully we confess the predestination of the elect to life, and the predestination of the impious to death; in the election, moreover, of those who are to be saved, the mercy of God precedes merited good. In the condemnation, however, of those who are to be lost, the evil which they have deserved precedes the just judgment of God.”97 In short, Fr. Most’s interpretation of Romans 8-9 is expressly rejected by the Council of Valence as well as the constant teaching tradition of the Church espoused by Sts. Augustine and Thomas.

Salza, John. The Mystery of Predestination: According to Scripture, the Church and St. Thomas Aquinas (pp. 31-32). TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

After showing how Fr. Most's reading has been rejected by the Church, Mr. Salza goes on:

Quote

When Fr. Most reveals his two categories, he also includes the Church in the category of the “external economy.” However, St. Paul never mentions the “Church” in Romans 8 or 9. Rather, he is focused on the nation of Israel and the Jєωs’erroneous understanding of how God determines His election. Moreover, we fail to understand Fr. Most’s distinction between individual election (internal economy) and membership in the Church (external economy). God predestines people (internal economy) to eternal salvation precisely by bringing them into the Catholic Church (external economy). In light of this truth, we must also disagree with Fr. Most’s assertion that “God has freely decided upon different fundamental principles for the two economies. These principles are quite incompatible with one another.”100

This assertion is problematic because individual salvation is one effect of predestination, and membership in the Church is another effect of predestination. In fact, one effect (Church membership) may be called the cause of the other effect (salvation). As St. Thomas remarks, “[T]here is no reason why one effect of predestination should not be the reason or cause of another.”101 Even if there were two economies as Fr. Most maintains, this does not mean that God would govern them by different principles, since both economies flow from God’s single decree of predestination. This is why St.Thomas says that all the effects of predestination proceed “from its first moving principle,” which is God.102 If God really governed the “external economy” differently than the “internal economy,” one could argue that God wills to save some people (internal economy) but doesn’t will them to be Catholic (external economy). Nevertheless, we do not assume that Fr. Most’s distinction was motivated by any dissent from the Church’s infallible dogma: Extra ecclesia nulla salus est (outside the Church there is no salvation).103

Salza, John. The Mystery of Predestination: According to Scripture, the Church and St. Thomas Aquinas (pp. 32-33). TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

And there it is, the inglorious upshot of Fr. Most's assault on individual predestination of the saints as set forth by St. Paul and the great doctors of the Church, St. Augustine and St. Thomas: so that "ONE COULD ARGUE THAT GOD WILLS TO SAVE SOME PEOPLE (INTERNAL ECONOMY) BUT DOESN'T WILL THEN TO BE CATHOLIC (EXTERNAL ECONOMY)."

Mr. Salza kindly assumes that Fr. Most is not motivated by dissent to the infallible dogma of EENS, but the result of Fr. Most's doctrine is the same: one doesn't need to be Catholic. And as I pointed out earlier in this thread, if one retains at least some semblance of God's providential control of things (in recognition of the fact that not even a sparrow falls to the ground without God's oversight, Matt. 10:29), how does one not reach the conclusion that God actually wills that some of the elect not be Catholic?

And thus, so now the thinking goes in the Conciliar Church, members of various false Christian Sects, Jєωs, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists (and on and on), can be saved even "in their false religions" by way of a "development" manifested by the Conciliar Church in its dropping of the "but not by their false religions" expression to which the expression "in their false religions" was previously joined by otherwise true and faithful pastors of the Church like Archbishop Lefebvre, a comforting or palliating tag that likely reflected an attempt to suppress the necessarily concomitant association of a derogation of those joint necessities previously held to by the Church, EENS and the necessity of the Catholic faith, an attempt that utterly failed to stem the rushing waters of their erosion unleashed by V2 and the Conciliar establishment.

I'll end Mr. Salza's insightful review with his passage containing a quote of Father Most that shows forth the effrontery and brash disdain for the traditions and teachings of the fathers, saints and doctors of the Church by the Conciliar Church, which simply often brushes them aside in its surpassing wisdom and more developed insight:

Quote

Fr. Most contends that modern scholarship refutes the massa damnata interpretation of Romans 9. He even implies that the Church has overturned this long-standing interpretation. After claiming that “the obstacles that arose from the erroneous interpretations of the Epistle to the Romans (and a few other passages in St. Paul) have been removed,” he says that “the Church, benefiting from the cuмulative light which the Holy Spirit has now sent through so many centuries, teaches many truths more clearly, especially the salvific will of God.”104

Salza, John. The Mystery of Predestination: According to Scripture, the Church and St. Thomas Aquinas (p. 33). TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

Despite having said I would refrain from highly recommending Mr. Salza book until I finished it, I now "develop" my own testimony, and will highly recommend it prior to its completion by me.

DR

DecemRationis · « **Reply #48 on:** December 24, 2021, 06:54:15 AM »

St. Augustine believed that God's election to grace was a vital truth forcefully enunciated in Scripture and that predestination must be preached:

Quote

Chapter 51 [XX.]—Predestination Must Be Preached.

Wherefore, if both the apostles and the teachers of the Church who succeeded them and imitated them did both these things,—that is, both truly preached the grace of God which is not given according to our merits, and inculcated by wholesome precepts a pious obedience,—what is it which these people of our time think themselves rightly bound by the invincible force of truth to say, “Even if what is said of the predestination of God’s benefits be true, yet it must not be preached to the people”?[ 597 ] It must absolutely be preached, so that he who has ears to hear, may hear. And who has them if he has not received them from Him who says, “I will give them a heart to know me, and ears to hear?”( Baruch ii. 31 . ) Assuredly, he who has not received may reject; while, yet, he who receives may take and drink, may drink and live. For as piety must be preached, that, by him who has ears to hear, God may be rightly worshipped; modesty must be preached, that, by him who has ears to hear, no illicit act may be perpetrated by his fleshly nature; charity must be preached, that, by him who has ears to hear, God and his neighbours may be loved;—so also must be preached such a predestination of God’s benefits that he who has ears to hear may glory, not in himself, but in the Lord.

Augustine, Saint. The Complete Works of St. Augustine: Cross-linked to the Bible and with in-line footnotes (p. 9509). Kindle Edition.

And from St. Augustine's quote in Reply #37 (commenting on 1 John 2:19):

Quote

Nevertheless, in respect of a certain other distinction, they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they certainly would have continued with us. What then is this distinction? God’s books lie open, let us not turn away our view; the divine Scripture cries aloud, let us give it a hearing. They were not of them, because they had not been “called according to the purpose;” they had not been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world; they had not gained a lot in Him; they had not been predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things. For if they had been this, they would have been of them, and without doubt they would have continued with them.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #49 on:** January 26, 2022, 06:31:08 AM »

St. Augustine corrected an error in an early edition of his book, A Treatise On The Soul and its Origin, as follows:

Quote

Chapter 13 [X]—His Seventh Error. (See Above in Book II. 13 [IX.].)
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. Now these are your words: “We say that some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of infants who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ.” Is it then really true that any who have been predestinated to baptism are forestalled before they come to it by the failing of this life? And could God predestinate anything which He either in His foreknowledge saw would not come to pass, or in ignorance knew not that it could not come to pass, either to the frustration of His purpose or the discredit of His foreknowledge? You see how many weighty remarks might be made on this subject; but I am restrained by the fact of having treated on it a little while ago, so that I content myself with this brief and passing admonition.

Augustine, Saint. The Complete Works of St. Augustine: Cross-linked to the Bible and with in-line footnotes (p. 8846). Kindle Edition.

This is St. Augustine's considered response to the idea that some of the predestined (infants) could be snatched away by death before they obtain baptism.

It is also a very powerful response to those who would say that baptism of desire supplies for the lack of baptism in catechumen or other "just" among the elect (and some misguided souls also apply this to non-Christians) who do not receive baptism: the truth of predestination and God's law of the necessity of baptism makes a mockery of the thought of the need for such a "supply" as BOD provides.

If only St. Augustine had written a passage in his later life explicitly confronting the idea of BOD as salvific in light of his mature understanding of Predestination, which he so eloquently talked about in his anti-Pelagian writings.

And yet again the importance of this dogma of the faith, Predestination, and the long-reaching consequences of its recession from the front of the Catholic mind, is demonstrated: BOD, the salvation of non-Catholics, etc.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #50 on:** August 11, 2022, 05:22:51 PM »

2 Tim 2:17-19

And their speech spreadeth like a canker: of whom are Hymeneus and Philetus: [18] Who have erred from the truth, saying, that the resurrection is past already, and have subverted the faith of some. [19] But the sure foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal: the Lord knoweth who are his; and let every one depart from iniquity who nameth the name of the Lord.

Haydock Commentary

Ver. 19. But the sure foundation of God and of the Christian faith standeth firm, though some fall from it, and will stand to the end of the world, the Church being built on a rock, and upon the promises of Christ, which cannot fail. Having this seal: the Lord knoweth who are his. The words are applied from Numbers xvi. 5. The sense is, that the faith and Church of Christ cannot fail, because God has decreed and promised to remain with his Church, and especially to protect his elect, to the end of the world. To know his, here is not only to have a knowledge, but is accompanied with a love and singular protection over them, with such graces as shall make them persevere to the end . . .

Ladislaus · « **Reply #51 on:** August 11, 2022, 07:09:14 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on December 18, 2021, 03:59:35 PM

Working through Mr. Salza's book on Predestination (see reply #43 above). At this point, I definitely would recommend it ...

Mr. Salza has a large section where he basically takes apart Father William Most's book, Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God. ...

Salza has no business masquerading as a Catholic theologian ... especially after having been completely discredited as a result the anti-SV screed that he co-authored.

Stick with Father Garrigou-Lagrange and other approved pre-Vatican II ACTUAL theologians, not this pop arm-chair theological wannabe ... who spent hundreds of pages arguing that St. Robert Bellarmine basically held the same opinion as Cajetan on the pope issue, even though St. Robert explicitly rejected it.

His absurd legalistic principles have now led him to conclude that, while Joe Biden and Nancy Peℓσѕι are Catholics in good standing, Traditional Catholics (even those who aren't SVs) are outside the Church.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #52 on:** August 11, 2022, 10:32:32 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 11, 2022, 07:09:14 PM

Salza has no business masquerading as a Catholic theologian ... especially after having been completely discredited as a result the anti-SV screed that he co-authored.

Stick with Father Garrigou-Lagrange and other approved pre-Vatican II ACTUAL theologians, not this pop arm-chair theological wannabe ... who spent hundreds of pages arguing that St. Robert Bellarmine basically held the same opinion as Cajetan on the pope issue, even though St. Robert explicitly rejected it.

His absurd legalistic principles have now led him to conclude that, while Joe Biden and Nancy Peℓσѕι are Catholics in good standing, Traditional Catholics (even those who aren't SVs) are outside the Church.

Bravo!

Ladislaus · « **Reply #53 on:** August 12, 2022, 09:49:00 AM »

Quote from: Mark 79 on August 11, 2022, 10:32:32 PM

Bravo!

I think that I got riled up because Predestination in particular is an extremely complicated theological subject that even the Church did not definitively rule on (down to the level of Thomism and Molinism), and even the Church's top theologians have struggled with it. I would never presume to write some book on predestination. Salza has no theological training, not even at the level of what a simple SSPX priest or pre-Vatican II priest would have, and to me it would be great hubris to write a book about it.

I recall an older pre-Vatican II priest who visited us at St. Thomas Aquinas seminary. He complained that so many Traditional priests carry on as if they were theologians, whereas before Vatican II you wouldn't even THINK to pretend to be qualified unless you've had advanced degrees from Rome. I could see perhaps writing an article or blog piece in which one might opine on the subject, but to write a book about Predestination without a lick of theological training?

It would be out of line for a properly-trained priest to write such a book, much less someone who has had zero formal training in scholastic philosophy and theology.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #54 on:** November 07, 2022, 07:19:17 AM »

"If, according to the word of truth, no one is delivered from the condemnation which was incurred through Adam except through faith in Jesus Christ, and yet from this condemnation they shall not deliver themselves who shall be able to say that they have not heard the gospel of Christ, on the ground that ‘faith cometh by hearing,’ how much less shall they deliver themselves who shall say, “We have not received perseverance!” For the excuse of those who say, “We have not received hearing,” seems more equitable than that of those who say, “We have not received perseverance;” since it may be said, O man, in that which thou hadst heard and kept, in that thou mightest persevere if thou wouldest; but in no wise can it be said, That which thou hadst not heard thou mightest believe if thou wouldest. And, consequently, both those who have not heard the gospel, and those who, having heard it and been changed by it for the better, have not received perseverance, and those who, having heard the gospel, have refused to come to Christ, that is, to believe on Him - since He Himself says, ‘No man cometh unto me, except it were given him of my Father,’ - and those who by their tender age were unable to believe, but might be absolved from original sin by the sole laver of regeneration, and yet have not received this laver, and have perished in death: are not made to differ from that lump which it is plain is condemned, as all go from one into condemnation. Some are made to differ, however, not by their own merits, but by the grace of the Mediator; that is to say, they are justified freely in the blood of the second Adam."

(On Correction and Grace 11-12)

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #55 on:** November 10, 2022, 07:44:37 AM »

Some of the greatest saints had rosary in one hand and bible in the other. And the clothes on their backs. They owned nothing else.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #56 on:** December 23, 2022, 10:54:13 AM »

In Reply #1 in this thread I posted the following quote:

Quote

THE DEATH of an unbaptized infant presents Catholic theologians with a poignant problem. The dawn star of Christian culture had hardly risen when men first raised the question, and it has continued to echo through the centuries. There are reasons enough for the persistent reappearance of the difficulty. The fate of an unbaptized child is closely tied to several highly volatile questions: original sin, the necessity of baptism, the salvific will of God. Each of these issues is a vital nerve in the body of Catholic doctrine, and each can be studied with clinical precision in the person of an unbaptized child. The question, then, is not pure pedantry; and if it seems a discouraging one, we have the admonition of St. Gregory of Nyssa: "I venture to assert that it is not right to omit the examination which is within the range of our ability, or to leave the question here raised without making any inquiries or having any ideas about it."

(LIMBO: A THEOLOGICAL EVALUATION by GEORGE J. DYER, 1958)

The reason the "fate of an unbaptized infant" has such significance on questions of original sin, the necessity of baptism, and the salvific will of God is very simple: an infant can no nothing, can do no meritorious work, can make no claim or, better, take no action, by virtue of an exercise of free will regarding its eternal salvation.

In the attached screen capture from the 1896 Catholic Dictionary entry on baptism (specifically its necessity), you see again language about the significance of the fate of unbaptized infants and the theological impacts of that issue on ultimate questions regarding grace and salvation: it notes that "Protestants difficulties on this point arise from inadequate ideas on grace and the sovereignty of God."

The link for the page is: https://archive.org/details/TheCatholicDictionary/page/61/mode/2up

DecemRationis · « **Reply #57 on:** December 23, 2022, 11:35:21 AM »

One of the main theses in this thread is the observation, akin to Fr. Feeney's observation about the erosion of EENS (and subsequently the doctrine of BOD), that an ever-increasing man-centeredness about the workings of grace and man's cooperative role in salvation, and consequent erosion of the traditional Augustinian-Thomistic doctrine, was one of the distinctives of that heresy of heresies, Modernism.

You can see the "development" here in the attached definitions of three Catholic dictionaries of the word, "predestination": the first definition from an 1896 Catholic Dictionary with an imprimatur from Cardinal Manning, the second from Attwater's Catholic Dictionary (first published in 1931), and the third from an appendix to the New American Bible called "Encyclopedic Dictionary" (2006-2007 edition).

Note the "large number of Jesuits" in parens (3) in the 1896 dictionary.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #58 on:** December 30, 2022, 08:39:34 AM »

Quote

Pius XI, Studiorum Ducem (On St. Thomas Aquinas)

19. The other branch of Theology, which is concerned with the interpretation of dogmas, also found in St. Thomas by far the richest of all commentators; for nobody ever more profoundly penetrated or expounded with greater subtlety all the august mysteries, as, for example, the intimate life of God, the obscurity of eternal predestination, the supernatural government of the world, the faculty granted to rational creatures of attaining their end, the redemption of the human race achieved by Jesus Christ and continued by the Church and the sacraments, both of which the Angelic Doctor describes as "relics, so to speak, of the divine Incarnation."

Library : Studiorum Ducem (On St. Thomas Aquinas) | Catholic Culture

As noted here before, St. Thomas has a whole question with 8 articles in the Summa on Predestination - Part Ia, Question 23.

Here's excerpts posted in this thread previously:

Quote

Part Ia, Q.23, a.4

Whether the predestined are chosen by God? [*"Eligantur."]

Objection 1: It seems that the predestined are not chosen by God. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv, 1) that as the corporeal sun sends his rays upon all without selection, so does God His goodness. But the goodness of God is communicated to some in an especial manner through a participation of grace and glory. Therefore God without any selection communicates His grace and glory; and this belongs to predestination.

Objection 2: Further, election is of things that exist. But predestination from all eternity is also of things which do not exist. Therefore, some are predestined without election.

Objection 3: Further, election implies some discrimination. Now God "wills all men to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4). Therefore, predestination which ordains men towards eternal salvation, is without election.

On the contrary, It is said (Eph. 1:4): "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world."

I answer that, Predestination presupposes election in the order of reason; and election presupposes love. The reason of this is that predestination, as stated above (A[1]), is a part of providence. Now providence, as also prudence, is the plan existing in the intellect directing the ordering of some things towards an end; as was proved above (Q[22], A[2]). But nothing is directed towards an end unless the will for that end already exists. Whence the predestination of some to eternal salvation presupposes, in the order of reason, that God wills their salvation; and to this belong both election and love:---love, inasmuch as He wills them this particular good of eternal salvation; since to love is to wish well to anyone, as stated above (Q[20], AA[2],3):---election, inasmuch as He wills this good to some in preference to others; since He reprobates some, as stated above (A[3]). Election and love, however, are differently ordered in God, and in ourselves: because in us the will in loving does not cause good, but we are incited to love by the good which already exists; and therefore we choose someone to love, and so election in us precedes love. In God, however, it is the reverse. For His will, by which in loving He wishes good to someone, is the cause of that good possessed by some in preference to others. Thus it is clear that love precedes election in the order of reason, and election precedes predestination. Whence all the predestinate are objects of election and love.

Reply to Objection 1: If the communication of the divine goodness in general be considered, God communicates His goodness without election; inasmuch as there is nothing which does not in some way share in His goodness, as we said above (Q[6], A[4]). But if we consider the communication of this or that particular good, He does not allot it without election; since He gives certain goods to some men, which He does not give to others. Thus in the conferring of grace and glory election is implied.

Reply to Objection 2: When the will of the person choosing is incited to make a choice by the good already pre-existing in the object chosen, the choice must needs be of those things which already exist, as happens in our choice. In God it is otherwise; as was said above (Q[20], A[2]). Thus, as Augustine says (De Verb. Ap. Serm. 11): "Those are chosen by God, who do not exist; yet He does not err in His choice."

Reply to Objection 3: God wills all men to be saved by His antecedent will, which is to will not simply but relatively; and not by His consequent will, which is to will simply.

Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica - Enhanced Version . Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Kindle Edition.

Part Ia, Question 23, Article 5, Objection 3

Objection 3. Further, "There is no injustice in God" (Romans 9:14). Now it would seem unjust that unequal things be given to equals. But all men are equal as regards both nature and original sin; and inequality in them arises from the merits or demerits of their actions. Therefore God does not prepare unequal things for men by predestinating and reprobating, unless through the foreknowledge of their merits and demerits.

Reply to Objection 3.The reason for the predestination of some, and reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of God. Thus He is said to have made all things through His goodness, so that the divine goodness might be represented in things. Now it is necessary that God's goodness, which in itself is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for the completion of the universe there are required different grades of being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the universe. That this multiformity of grades may be preserved in things, God allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was said above (Question 22, Article 2). Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe. God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others. To this the Apostle refers, saying (Romans 9:22-23): "What if God, willing to show His wrath [that is, the vengeance of His justice], and to make His power known, endured [that is, permitted] with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction; that He might show the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He hath prepared unto glory" and (2 Timothy 2:20): "But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver; but also of wood and of earth; and some, indeed, unto honor, but some unto dishonor." Yet why He chooses some for glory, and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will. Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): "Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err." Thus too, in the things of nature, a reason can be assigned, since primary matter is altogether uniform, why one part of it was fashioned by God from the beginning under the form of fire, another under the form of earth, that there might be a diversity of species in things of nature. Yet why this particular part of matter is under this particular form, and that under another, depends upon the simple will of God; as from the simple will of the artificer it depends that this stone is in part of the wall, and that in another; although the plan requires that some stones should be in this place, and some in that place. Neither on this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares unequal lots for not unequal things. This would be altogether contrary to the notion of justice, if the effect of predestination were granted as a debt, and not gratuitously. In things which are given gratuitously, a person can give more or less, just as he pleases (provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of justice. This is what the master of the house said: "Take what is thine, and go thy way. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?" (Matthew 20:14-15).

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Predestination (Prima Pars, Q. 23) (newadvent.org)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #59 on:** September 07, 2023, 09:21:45 AM »

OABrownson posted an interesting article on the abomination of the ICEL translation of "pro multis" as "for all" in the Novus Ordo: https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/patrick-omlor-the-ventriloquists-no-2-'dr-jeremias-and-the-icel-'for-all''/

In the article, Omlor notes:

Quote

This evil and dangerous doctrine of "the final salvation of all mankind," so absolutely at variance with the Church's teaching and so opposed to the clear teaching of Christ Himself, is the actual cornerstone of the whole edifice of heresy being promoted today under the guise of "ecuмenism." Although this doctrine is not preached openly, explicitly, and in these precise terms (at least not yet on a wide scale), nevertheless it is believed by many; it is the animus of what parades as "ecuмenism."

There has been a progression to this "evil and dangerous doctrine," and that progression has been a main focus of this thread. I would trace its development as a perversion of God's desire to save "all men" into the idea that God gives all men sufficient grace for salvation. A more traditional understanding of this phrase in various senses is expressed by St. Thomas in the Summa, First Part, Question 19, Article 6, Objection 1:

Quote

Reply to Objection 1. The words of the Apostle, "God will have all men to be saved," etc. can be understood in three ways.

First, by a restricted application, in which case they would mean, as Augustine says (De praed. sanct. i, 8: Enchiridion 103), "God wills all men to be saved that are saved, not because there is no man whom He does not wish saved, but because there is no man saved whose salvation He does not will."

Secondly, they can be understood as applying to every class of individuals, not to every individual of each class; in which case they mean that God wills some men of every class and condition to be saved, males and females, Jєωs and Gentiles, great and small, but not all of every condition.

Thirdly, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 29), they are understood of the antecedent will of God; not of the consequent will. This distinction must not be taken as applying to the divine will itself, in which there is nothing antecedent nor consequent, but to the things willed.

It's the third sense, regarding the antecedent will to save all men, that morphed in stages to its heretical (I would argue) expression, under veils that are being removed piece by piece, of the NO in "the final salvation of all mankind." But as I said, its earlier (I think first "development") was in the idea that God offers the grace of salvation to all men, meaning all men specifically and generally - as in every single human being conceived, or perhaps let's say born.

It is patent that the idea formulated in the "every single man sense" is absurd: one merely has to consider the fate of unbaptized infants who perish in infancy. Considered as individuals, it should be obvious that an infant who dies in infancy unbaptized is deprived of individual control over his eternal fate; that is, he can do nothing of his own volition to merit or cooperate with his salvation. As Pius XII noted in his speech to midwives, the possibility of a salvific "act of love" is not available to an infant.

Despite this obvious fact of human existence, theologians today maintain that every single human being is offered the possibility of salvation, and that the failure to achieve the same is the fault of the unsaved individual. Again, this idea apparently excludes unbaptized infants from the class of human beings, thus falsifying its claim of universality about the fate of mankind, of which these infants are members.

The antecedent will of God to save all men (in the third of the senses identified by St. Thomas above) is only true, and only survives the test of reason, as understood and expressed by St. Alphonsus:

Quote

Ch 3. Children who die without Baptism

Here it only remains for us to answer the objection which is drawn from children being lost when they die before Baptism, and before they come to the use of reason. If God wills all to be saved, it is objected, how is it that these children perish without any fault of their own, since God gives them no assistance to attain eternal salvation? There are two answers to this objection, the latter more correct than the former, I will state them briefly.

First, it is answered that God, by antecedent will, wishes all to be saved, and therefore has granted universal means for the salvation of all; but these means at times fail of their effect, either by reason of the unwillingness of some persons to avail themselves of them, or because others are unable to make use of them, on account of secondary causes [such as the death of children], whose course God is not bound to change, after having disposed the whole according to the just judgment of His general Providence; all this is collected from what St. Thomas says: Jesus Christ offered His merits for all men, and instituted Baptism for all; but the application of this means of salvation, so far as relates to children who die before the use of reason, is not prevented by the direct will of God, but by a merely permissive will; because as He is the general provider of all things, He is not bound to disturb the general order, to provide for the particular order.

The second answer is, that to perish is not the same as not to be blessed: since eternal happiness is a gift entirely gratuitous; and therefore the want of it is not a punishment. The opinion, therefore, of St. Thomas-----is very just, that children who die in infancy have neither the pain of sense nor the pain of loss; not the pain of sense, he says, "because pain of sense corresponds to conversion to creatures; and in Original Sin there is not conversion to creatures" [as the fault is not our own], "and therefore pain of sense is not due to Original Sin;" because Original Sin does not imply an act. [De Mal. q. 5, a. 2]

Objectors oppose to this the teaching of St. Augustine, who in some places shows that his opinion was that children are condemned even to the pain of sense. But in another place he declares that he was very much confused about this point. These are his words: When I come to the punishment of infants, I find myself [believe me] in great straits; nor can I at all find anything to say." [Epist. 166, E. B.] And in another place he writes, that it may be said that such children receive neither reward nor punishment: "Nor need we fear that it is impossible there should be a middle sentence between reward and punishment; since their life was midway between sin and good works." [De Lib. Ar. 1, 3, c. 23] This was directly affirmed by St. Gregory nαzιanzen: "Children will be sentenced by the just judge neither to the glory of Heaven nor to punishment." St. Gregory of Nyssa was of the same opinion: "The premature death of children shows that they who have thus ceased to live will not be in pain and unhappiness."

And as far as relates to the pain of loss, although these children are excluded from glory, nevertheless St. Thomas, [In 2 Sent. d. 33, q. 2, a. 2] who had reflected most deeply on this point, teaches that no one feels pain for the want of that good of which he is not capable; so that as no man grieves that he cannot fly, or no private person that he is not emperor, so these children feel no pain at being deprived of the glory of which they were never capable; since they could never pretend to it either by the principles of nature, or by their own merits.

St. Thomas adds, in another place, [De Mal. q. 5, a. 3] a further reason, which is, that the supernatural knowledge of glory comes only by means of actual faith, which transcends all natural knowledge; so that children can never feel pain for the privation of that glory, of which they never had a supernatural knowledge.

He further says, in the former passage, that such children will not only not grieve for the loss of eternal happiness, but will, moreover, have pleasure in their natural gifts; and will even in some way enjoy God, so far as is implied in natural knowledge, and in natural love: "Rather will they rejoice in this, that they will participate much in the Divine goodness, and in natural perfections." And he immediately adds, that although they will be separated from God, as regards the union of glory, nevertheless 'they will be united with Him by participation of natural gifts; and so will even be able to rejoice in Him with a natural knowledge and love." [In 2 Sent. d. 33, q. 2, a. 2]

http://www.catholictreasury.info/books/prayer/pr18.php#bk3

While Lad and I had a bit of a row over the use of "punishment" with regard to the deprivation of the beatific vision to these infants in the thread, "Why is limbo the lower part of hell and not the upper" -

(https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/why-is-limbo-the-lower-part-of-hell-and-not-the-upper/new/#new

that is beside the point here. The point is - and St. Alphonsus assumes it because it's true when he addressed the objection - all men qua individual men do not personally get sufficient grace for salvation.

Once it was falsely assumed that all men qua individual men did get sufficient grace for salvation, the issue naturally arose about men which had not heard the Gospel; men who heard it but grew up in other religions, and with "good will" under other traditions and influences . . . what about these men who must, since all men do qua individual men, have an opportunity to decide for heaven? We see the further morphing of the idea in JPII's observations in Redemptoris Missio:

Quote

Salvation in Christ Is Offered to All

10. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that "this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God."19

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio.html

And away we go.

This is the logical and natural development of the idea that all men qua individual men are given the chance to exercise their "free will" and achieve salvation: it must extend, to be "fair" as men understand "fairness," to those "good" men of "good" will "in other religious traditions" and under other "social and cultural conditions" which deprive them of "an opportunity to come to know the gospel," etc.

Some sincere and honest reflection, added by as objective reasoning as one if capable, in light of the fact of unbaptized infants who die in infancy and that fact's collision with Catholic principles and theological truths and historically honest attempts to deal with it, e.g., Limbo, show the utter falsity of the idea that all men qua men have an "opportunity" for salvation by exercise of their free will, and that salvation is determined ultimately by men, and not by the gratuitous grace of God, as St. Paul taught us explicitly in Romans, and as God revealed elsewhere in Scripture - as interpreted by sainted Catholic theologians, and in traditionally annotated Catholic Bibles (such as Haydock), cited in this thread.

Fr. Feeney famously opined that BOD was the cause of the rot. I say it is the related, but underlying and preceding, erosion of God's predestination and election as taught by Scripture and the Church Traditionally.

Author Topic: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants (Read 7809 times)

DecemRationis

Re: Salza on Father William Most's book on Predestination

DecemRationis

Re: Salza on Fr. Most

DecemRationis

Re: Most's adulteration of the doctrine of Predestination: non-Catholics saved

DecemRationis

Re: St. Augustine on the preaching of predestination

DecemRationis

Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants

DecemRationis

Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants

Ladislaus

Re: Salza on Father William Most's book on Predestination

Mark 79

Re: Salza on Father William Most's book on Predestination

Ladislaus

Re: Salza on Father William Most's book on Predestination

DecemRationis

St. Augustine, On Correction and Grace

Viva Cristo Rey

Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants

DecemRationis

Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants

DecemRationis

Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants

DecemRationis

Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants

DecemRationis

Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants