Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments
#48
(09-27-2011, 09:47 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(09-27-2011, 03:12 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: This is a reasonable objection. I hope my answer can help to resolve the apparent contradiction.

The difference is that, in the first case, unbaptized infants can not use their free will to intend to receive the sacraments. Hence, they do not merit its effects. In the second case, however, the soul who freely cooperates with God's grace to choose to receive the sacraments, but does not know that they are invalid, has positively chosen to respond to God's grace. Because he is invincibly ignorant as to the validity of the sacrament, no fault can be found in his execution of his free will.

The unborn infant must freely choose to serve God with his own free will in order to enjoy eternal life in the presence of God, but because he is unable to use his free will no fault is found in him. As a result, he is born into perfect natural happiness and suffers only the privation of the unmerited presence of God. The soul who has reached the age of reason, however, has freely chosen to serve God via the free co-operation of his will, and his invincible ignorance of the invalid sacrament cannot be counted against him.

The unborn infant glorifies God's goodness by being a testament to His justice while the soul who unknowingly receives an invalid sacrament glorifies God's goodness by being a testament to His mercy. They both glorify God and give testament to His goodness to equal degrees, though in different ways. Each soul, having perfect understanding of (and resignation to) this after death, finds no displeasure in the means by which God has chosen that they should give Him glory.

I hate having to say this to you because you are truly a respectable, kind and polite person.  But this idea of salvation based on merits is a clear example of what happens when someone relies solely on scholasticism, stripped of any attachment to a mystical understanding.  Vetus, I'll save you the time of typing your cliched response, no, I'm not condemning scholasticism in and of itself because I prefer to be eastern over Catholic, but rather when it is basically idolized and goes beyond what it is necessary for, namely, anchoring mysticism in reality so that theology doesn't become a mere fantasy.  INPEFESS, it's clear from the Gospel that Christ didn't require merits to show mercy, he showed it beforehand.  And to mix it in with the predestination argument, if God can't grant heaven to someone just because, but has to wait for someone to merit it, is he not bound?  Does he not lose a portion of his sovereignty?  Baptized man doesn't really control his salvation, but is elect by God irrespective of his choice, because God must be sovereign, but the exact opposite is true with unbaptized infants, God is bound by the situation they are in and can do nothing because they haven't merited it. 

At any rate, what I had intended to get at was that the Gospel shows Christ granting mercy to whomever he wants irrespective of merits.  Salvation by merit is a theological construct that is popular in Latin theology because medieval Latin theologians had the tendency to abandon mysticism and go for an ultramontane Scholasticism of sorts.  It was overstretched above and beyond its proper use.  Limbo is just the logical conclusion of such an overstretched scholastic paradigm.  Salvation by merit is a theological construct contrary to the Gospel.

Free will must--absolutely must--co-operate with God's grace by freely corresponding to goodness in order to enjoy the Beatific Vision. If you deny this, you undermine everything we know about God, His goodness, the whole purpose we are here in the first place, and Christianity itself.

This includes the angels.

God does not just make things appear and then force them to be in His presence. Such an act is not to create rational beings; it is to create robots.

Love is a choice. Creating beings that don't choose to love you but are forced to do so anyway can't really be said to love. Yet God is all love. So, in order to be united to God, who is perfect love, a rational being must first be able to choose to love by co-operating with the grace of God. One cannot be intimately united to God's perfect love if one doesn't have perfect love in the first place.

The Beatific Vision is perfect love. One can't enjoy it unless one has freely chosen to do so. It makes absolutely know sense to claim otherwise because perfect love involves having the capacity to freely choose to love. Even God Himself chooses to love mankind. 

The angels freely chose to love when they chose to serve man. Those who chose not to serve God were not forced to do so, and so they lost the opportunity to see God.

To claim that God just makes a tree and then forces it to love Him and then putting it in His presence undermines everything we know about love.

Love is not a feeling; it is a choice. 
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments - by Jesse - 09-24-2011, 02:57 PM
Re: Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments - by INPEFESS - 09-28-2011, 09:41 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)