Errors of the Catechism of the Conciliar Church
INP, could you explain to me, either here on in PM, the a summary of the Church's teaching on Predestination. Not you're own opinion etc., but what Sancta Mater has said. I'd appreciate it.
Reply
(02-11-2012, 05:41 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 09:50 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 09:32 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The reprobate, not to mention the devil and his angels, were predestined from all time to be there.

The Catholic Church has repeatedly stated that it is improper to describe the reprobate as predestined to Hell.  

This is a heresy call predestinarianism: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12376b.htm

The Council of Quiersy in 853 stated:

Quote:Chap. 1. Omnipotent God created man noble without sin with a free will, and he whom He wished to remain in the sanctity of justice, He placed in Paradise. Man using his free will badly sinned and fell, and became the "mass of perdition" of the entire human race. The just and good God, however, chose from the same mass of perdition according to His foreknowledge those whom through grace He predestined to life [Rom. 8:29 ff.; Eph. 1:11], and He predestined for these eternal life; the others, whom by the judgment of justice he left in the mass of perdition, however, He knew would perish, but He did not predestine that they would perish, because He is just; however, He predestined eternal punishment for them. And on account of this we speak of only one predestination of God, which pertains either to the gift of grace or to the retribution of justice.

Saint Thomas Aquinas says:

Quote:The causality of reprobation is unlike that of predestination. For predestination is the cause both of what is awaited in the future, namely glory, and of what is received in the present, namely grace. Whereas reprobation is not the cause of present fault, but of future result, namely, of being abandoned by God. Fault is born of the freewill of the person who deserts grace.

The Council of Trent also condemned double predestination:

Quote:If anyone shall say that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of Himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul: let him be anathema.

What you are describing sounds more like John Calvin:

Quote:They are predestined to eternal death solely by his decision, apart from their own merit.

. . . those, then, whom he created for dishonor in life and destruction in death . . .

. . . his immutable decree had once for all destined them to destruction.
 

This is a very interesting post, Someone1776. I appreciate these thoughts on the matter because I believe this is a matter of importance. Predestination is my favorite doctrine of the Church and so it gives me great delight to speak of it and to meditate upon it. It is an incredible mystery.

But I think what Vetus Ordo is saying, which I believe he clarified in a subsequent post, is that it is incorrect to say that they are unconditionally predestined to reprobation. To say that God predestined them to Hell irrespective of their own theoretical cooperation with grace (or at least failure to reject it), or that He did not give them the real and genuine opportunity to cooperate with grace hic et nunc via his dispensation of sufficient grace, would be an unconditional reprobation, which would be heretical. This is the sense in which double predestination is condemned, as far as I am aware. "Predestinarianism" is predicated upon the belief that the same mechanism determining election determines reprobation--namely, that while good fruit is a consequence of election (rather than the cause), bad fruit is a consequence of reprobation (rather than a cause). But this is not the case. As Vetus Ordo pointed out, they are predestined to Hell insomuch as God, foreseeing their future demerits, permits via His consequent will their eternal reprobation, and creates them with an infallible foreknowledge of their damnation. This means that reprobation is the consequence of their bad fruits, not that their bad fruits are the consequence of reprobation. This does not mean that He does not offer them the genuine opportunity to escape their destiny (which, despite being unbeknownst to them at the time, is what they freely choose); rather, it means that He infallibly knows they won't escape their destiny because of their own fault. He creates them knowing this and permits it in order to show His justice, as St. Paul writes.

What you wrote is true. However, the Church has still repeatedly stated that speaking of the damned as predestined to Hell (even though God in his omnipotence knows the fate of all) is not the proper way to discuss this topic. It just leads to too much confusion and even heresy . This is why the Church speaks of God saving the elect and the reprobate damning themselves. Predestination is a tricky topic that has gotten a lot of smart people into trouble. It's probably best that laymen not heavily focus on it. For this reason I don't like commenting too much on it even though I have read a bit on the subject. The Church teaches a perfect balance between God's providence and our free will. It is as you said a mystery that is beyond our comprehension. Unfortunately, people trying to bring comprehension to this mystery can easily slip and fall into the abyss.

Saying that God has predestined the reprobate to Hell is heresy. Trying to be sneaky and say God has by forseeing future actions predestined the reprobate for their acts to Hell is technically true, but the Church has repeatedly said that is not the proper emphasis or a good way to discuss the reprobate.

The other day I was reading a sermon by the seventeenth century New England Puritan Increase Mather. This guy is considered an arch-calvanist. He stressed that people are damned for their acts and rejection of God not because God has predestined them to Hell. It seems very problematic for a Catholic to emphasize the predestination of the reprobate more than a Calvinist would.
Reply
(02-11-2012, 01:07 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: Jayne: I think your most recent expression is better, but not just the words: it's substantively different. You can hope that, though there are souls in hell, that they are not those of the ones you have known and loved.

That's different from hoping no one's in hell. The first is obviously legitimate. The second doesn't seem to be.

But I am not just concerned about souls of those I know and love being in hell.  Perhaps what I need to say is that I hope that everyone accepts the salvation that God offers through Jesus Christ..  I think that captures what I mean while being orthodox.
Reply
(02-11-2012, 11:42 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(02-11-2012, 01:07 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: Jayne: I think your most recent expression is better, but not just the words: it's substantively different. You can hope that, though there are souls in hell, that they are not those of the ones you have known and loved.

That's different from hoping no one's in hell. The first is obviously legitimate. The second doesn't seem to be.

But I am not just concerned about souls of those I know and love being in hell.  Perhaps what I need to say is that I hope that everyone accepts the salvation that God offers through Jesus Christ..  I think that captures what I mean while being orthodox.

Can't you just say: "Oh my Jesus, save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy."
Reply
(02-11-2012, 11:51 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(02-11-2012, 11:42 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(02-11-2012, 01:07 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: Jayne: I think your most recent expression is better, but not just the words: it's substantively different. You can hope that, though there are souls in hell, that they are not those of the ones you have known and loved.

That's different from hoping no one's in hell. The first is obviously legitimate. The second doesn't seem to be.

But I am not just concerned about souls of those I know and love being in hell.  Perhaps what I need to say is that I hope that everyone accepts the salvation that God offers through Jesus Christ..  I think that captures what I mean while being orthodox.

Can't you just say: "Oh my Jesus, save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy."

How silly I am to try to think of my own words when Our Lady already gave perfect ones.  That is exactly what I want to say.
Reply
(02-10-2012, 11:47 PM)Edward Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 10:26 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 10:18 PM)JMartyr Wrote: Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863.. Condemned in the Syllabus of Errors.
Would this include unbaptised babies?

Yes. Unbaptised babies (and adults) are not in the true Church of Christ.
where did my miscarried baby go???

You have my prayers and sympathy.  If you remain in God, someday you will know exactly where your baby is and know that his fate shows God's perfect love and perfect justice.  You will understand and praise Him.
Reply
(02-10-2012, 08:07 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 08:05 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 08:01 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I hope those of you baptized in Latin were baptized by a priest who properly declined all of his nouns.  If not, it's an invalid baptism.  Proper form and all that.  Matter and intention alone don't cut.

So, yeah.  Try to remember your baptism if you can.  If you can't.....you're screwed.  :O

Don't you get tired of playing smart-ass?

Are you denying that an incorrectly declined Holy Trinity would invalidate a baptism?  There's nothing smart-ass about it. 

In the Latin form of prayers for Baptism, are you implying that the priest wanders away and adlibs?   In the N.O.perhaps but hardly ever in the old form.  Look into the rite of Baptism in Latin, there is absolutely no room to add or subtract any word, much less the declension of nouns, etc.
Reply
(02-11-2012, 01:01 PM)Vincentius Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 08:07 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Are you denying that an incorrectly declined Holy Trinity would invalidate a baptism?  There's nothing smart-ass about it. 

In the Latin form of prayers for Baptism, are you implying that the priest wanders away and adlibs?   In the N.O.perhaps but hardly ever in the old form.  Look into the rite of Baptism in Latin, there is absolutely no room to add or subtract any word, much less the declension of nouns, etc.

It is fairly easy to accidentally get the declension ending wrong.  Baptism is done "in the name of" -  in nomine - Patris et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti but it is also very common to pray Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto. My Latin students often mix them up.

However, Dr. Bombay is wrong about this invalidating a baptism so it is not a concern.
Reply
(02-11-2012, 11:26 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: Saying that God has predestined the reprobate to Hell is heresy. Trying to be sneaky and say God has by forseeing future actions predestined the reprobate for their acts to Hell is technically true, but the Church has repeatedly said that is not the proper emphasis or a good way to discuss the reprobate.

Saying that God has predestined the reprobate to Hell is not a heresy. Try to memorise this once and for all. It's a heresy to claim they are unconditionally predestined to Hell but it's the orthodox teaching to say that they are conditionally predestined to Hell. If God elects—unconditionally (thomism) or conditionally (molinism)—some unto salvation, which He does, then it necessary follows that the other ones left are predestined, albeit conditionally, to damnation. There are no other intermediate states. There's nothing "sneaky" about this but it's still quite ironic that you, of all people, should complain about it - since that's your standard modus operandi here - whilst at the same time ignoring the explanations brought forward to you.

Vetus Ordo Wrote:
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Wrote:"God, by an eternal resolve of his will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection." (De fide)

Positive reprobation, that is, an unconditional predestination to the eternal punishment of hell without consideration of foreseen future demerits is indeed a heresy. That, however, was not what I wrote or suggested. A conditional positive reprobation, that is, with consideration of foreseen future demerits, is not a heresy. Not to mention that the Thomist view favours a negative reprobation: a non-election to eternal bliss, together with the divine resolve to permit some rational creatures to fall into sin, and thus by their own guilt to lose eternal salvation.

(02-11-2012, 11:26 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: The other day I was reading a sermon by the seventeenth century New England Puritan Increase Mather. This guy is considered an arch-calvanist. He stressed that people are damned for their acts and rejection of God not because God has predestined them to Hell. It seems very problematic for a Catholic to emphasize the predestination of the reprobate more than a Calvinist would.

The differences between Catholicism and Calvinism on the matter of predestination are very small, since Calvin based his theaching on St. Paul and St. Augustine, but still enough to warrant one true and the other one false. Again, your attempt of "guilt by association" doesn't work and that's really the only thing truly sneaky here.
Reply
(02-11-2012, 01:30 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(02-11-2012, 01:01 PM)Vincentius Wrote:
(02-10-2012, 08:07 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Are you denying that an incorrectly declined Holy Trinity would invalidate a baptism?  There's nothing smart-ass about it. 

In the Latin form of prayers for Baptism, are you implying that the priest wanders away and adlibs?   In the N.O.perhaps but hardly ever in the old form.  Look into the rite of Baptism in Latin, there is absolutely no room to add or subtract any word, much less the declension of nouns, etc.

It is fairly easy to accidentally get the declension ending wrong.  Baptism is done "in the name of" -  in nomine - Patris et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti but it is also very common to pray Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto. My Latin students often mix them up.

However, Dr. Bombay is wrong about this invalidating a baptism so it is not a concern.

I would imagine for a priest, getting the declensions wrong is highly highly unlikely.  A priest prays "in Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti" countless times daily, and also give glory "Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto" throughout each Mass and hour of the Office.  It must be a deeply ingrained reflex for a priest to pray "in nomine" + genitive and "gloria" + dative, and so on.  Without even thinking that he is declining or which declensions the nouns are, or none of it.

Is a priest in English likely to slip up and say, "I baptise you in the names to the Father over the Son without the Holy Spirit"?  For any priest who ever prays in English mixing up such conjunctions and prepositions is hard to really imagine.

Of course it's moot because as you say, it's been established that even if such a highly unlikely mistake were made, it would not invalidate the baptism.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)