I disagree (vehemently) w/ St Augustine.. so call me Heretic or whatever
#11
(05-19-2018, 02:49 AM)yablabo Wrote: Here's a pertinent exerpt from St. Augustine's letter to Simplicianus:

"But the grace of faith in some is such that it is insufficient for obtaining the kingdom of heaven,
this is another thing that may sound heretical but I tend to believe that those who are not baptized, have not known about Jesus (albeit those are few these days?) will not go to Hell. They won't go to heaven but won't go to Hell either. Hell is for punishment of sin. How can you know absolutely, objectively, what is serious sin to God when you have not been taught (catechized)?
i defer to the official teachings of the Church on this, but that is my thought (I defer to the teachings prior to Vat II... but I don't think Vat II changed dogma...)
Reply
#12
(05-19-2018, 01:12 PM)gracemary5 Wrote:
(05-19-2018, 02:49 AM)yablabo Wrote: Here's a pertinent exerpt from St. Augustine's letter to Simplicianus:

"But the grace of faith in some is such that it is insufficient for obtaining the kingdom of heaven,
this is another thing that may sound heretical but I tend to believe that those who are not baptized, have not known about Jesus (albeit those are few these days?) will not go to Hell. They won't go to heaven but won't go to Hell either. Hell is for punishment of sin. How can you know absolutely, objectively, what is serious sin to God when you have not been taught (catechized)?
i defer to the official teachings of the Church on this, but that is my thought (I defer to the teachings prior to Vat II... but I don't think Vat II changed dogma...)

Firstly, it is impossible for dogma to change.

Secondly, original sin alone suffices to send an unbaptized person to hell.   To say that the merits of human nature, i.e., desire for baptism or an apparent death for one's belief prior to baptism, takes away original sin, seems to me would fall under an anathema from the Council of Trent.

Another consideration for you, I believe the statement:

"It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere else the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God’, what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run to the left."

by Pope St. Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, can. 3, is binding universally on the faithful.

Support for statement of belief:

1) First Vatican Council:

"...the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion. What is more, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession: The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled. Then there is the definition of the council of Florence: The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church."

My own words:

If the Roman Pontiff so defines that anyone who says such-and-such is anathema (i.e., cursed and judged already acc. to the Second Council of Constantinople; i.e., committed to death acc. to the Fourth Council of Constantinople), since an anathema is a statement of judgment, we are universally bound to believe it and hold anyone who says such-and-such is, in fact, anathema. It is by the judgment of the Roman Pontiff that matters concerning the faith are settled.

2) Fourth Council of Constantinople:

"Therefore we declare that we are preserving and maintaining the canons which have been entrusted to the holy, catholic and apostolic church by the holy and renowned apostles, and by universal as well as local councils of orthodox [bishops], and even by any inspired father or teacher of the church. Consequently, we rule our own life and conduct by these canons and we decree that all those who have the rank of priests and all those who are described by the name of Christian are, by ecclesiastical law, included under the penalties and condemnations as well as, on the other hand, the absolutions and acquittals which have been imposed and defined by them. For Paul, the great apostle, openly urges us to preserve the traditions which we have received, either by word or by letter, of the saints who were famous in times past."

My own words:

If the Roman Pontiff has put forth a canon, even at a local council, we are still bound to rule our own life and conduct by it.

However, there is an added dimension to the whole consideration of how this canon binds us when it comes from the Holy Father himself; one would have to consider whether he is speaking ex Cathedra:

I believe that this canon put forth under the authority of the Holy Father, the Roman Pontiff, is universally binding on the assent of faith of the faithful.

Support for statement of belief:

1) First Vatican Council:

"The Roman Pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning Ecumenical Councils or consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special Synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Traditions.

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles. Indeed, their Apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable Fathers and reverenced and followed by all the Holy Orthodox Doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the Prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

"This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

"But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the Apostolic Office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, We judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the Supreme Pastoral Office.

"Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his Supreme Apostolic Authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

My own words:

The sixteenth Council of Carthage was a local synod whose canons were approved by Pope St. Zosimus in 418. It contained the same canons of a previous local synod at which St. Augustine was present, the second Council of Mileum, which were approved by Pope Innocent in 416.

Pope St. Zosimus was not present at the Council of Carthage XVI, but its canons were referred to him for his approval. These canons were not being sent to the Bishop of Rome as if he were merely the Metropolitan Bishop of that region; Carthage was considered the head of Africa at the time and therefore the head Bishop of Carthage would have been the Metropolitan. Referring the canons to Pope St. Zosimus would only make sense if it was for him to act in his capacity of "shepherd and teacher of all Christians," that is, as the supreme pontiff, since the Bishop of Rome is not part of the local hierarchy of Africa, but the visible head of the universal hierarchy. In his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, then, he approved these canons.

The action of Pope St. Zosimus' approval in the case of the canons of the sixteenth Council of Carthage would also have to be "in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority." If the African bishops are going to anathematize an indefinite group of people who fall under the canons of the council, they would have to be certain that the judgment they settled upon was correct, and therefore need to have recourse to the See where faith can know no failing, or otherwise cause schisms because they would anathemize those with whom their brother bishops outside of Africa could licitly keep communion.

Pope St. Zosimus' approval of the canons in his office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, in which a doctrine concerning faith or morals is defined, makes the canons his own. That means that the Pope himself is defining what is written in canon 3a. This canon defines two things: a doctrine concerning faith, that is, without baptism one cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven; and a doctrine concerning morals, that is, we must believe a person who says that the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ so that it might be understood "that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere else the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism" is anathema and are thereby bound to apply the Church's regulations when dealing with such a person (as found in the canons of the second Council of Constantinople #s 11, 13, 14), which is to anathematize him ourselves.

If the fathers of the Council of Carthage XVI were looking only for an approval binding on a specific locality (Africa) the canons, then that locality would have to be defined in the canon and not left indefinite such as in canon 3a where it begins "It has been decided likewise that if anyone says...let him be anathema." Since the canon is left indefinite in the version which is approved by the Pope, then it is obvious he is binding it to be held by the whole Church.
[-] The following 1 user Likes yablabo's post:
  • RyanPatrick
Reply
#13
(05-19-2018, 01:39 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(05-19-2018, 01:12 PM)gracemary5 Wrote:
(05-19-2018, 02:49 AM)yablabo Wrote: Here's a pertinent exerpt from St. Augustine's letter to Simplicianus:

"But the grace of faith in some is such that it is insufficient for obtaining the kingdom of heaven,
this is another thing that may sound heretical but I tend to believe that those who are not baptized, have not known about Jesus (albeit those are few these days?) will not go to Hell. They won't go to heaven but won't go to Hell either. Hell is for punishment of sin. How can you know absolutely, objectively, what is serious sin to God when you have not been taught (catechized)?
i defer to the official teachings of the Church on this, but that is my thought (I defer to the teachings prior to Vat II... but I don't think Vat II changed dogma...)



Secondly, original sin alone suffices to send an unbaptized person to hell.   To say that the merits of human nature, i.e., desire for baptism or an apparent death for one's belief prior to baptism, takes away original sin, seems to me would fall under an anathema from the Council of Trent.





1) First Vatican Council:

"The Roman Pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning Ecumenical Councils or consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special Synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Traditions.
I have read to this part so far, will read the rest later, God willing.

my overall perceptions will not be ignored here. I perceive that you are saying that a person created in God's image, which is everyone, goes to hell if he is not baptized. Well, if that is so, it would certainly be a high level of hell since the person is ignorant maybe even a child, as many parents do not baptize their children. Jesus said that the person who is ignorant but has done many bad things (my words) will be "beaten" lighter than the one who KNOWS . To whom more is given more is required. So logic and God agree here: that ignorance really is an excuse of some sort... Wilful ignorance is something else again of course--- anyway, I have long belived in levels of Hell.. I think priests who fall away will get the lowest part of Hell... depending on whether or not they commit mortal sin but just falling away in a big way is a mortal sin... anyway----
Reply
#14
That’s what Limbo is. The Latin word limbus means edge, in this case the edge of hell. The debate was always whether unbaptised children suffer the pains of hell, since they committed no personal sin. St Augustine believed they did; the majority view was that they did not. But it’s still hell, since they don’t enjoy the Beatific Vision. Only in very recent times have Catholics believed the unbaptised have a hope of heaven.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • RyanPatrick
Reply
#15
(05-19-2018, 02:02 PM)Paul Wrote: That’s what Limbo is. The Latin word limbus means edge, in this case the edge of hell. The debate was always whether unbaptised children suffer the pains of hell, since they committed no personal sin. St Augustine believed they did; the majority view was that they did not. But it’s still hell, since they don’t enjoy the Beatific Vision. Only in very recent times have Catholics believed the unbaptised have a hope of heaven.

so who is right?

I thought Truth doesn't change? But humans do and so we should never entrust truth to THEM!!!
Reply
#16
(05-19-2018, 01:00 PM)gracemary5 Wrote:
(05-18-2018, 06:31 PM)Dominicus Wrote:
(05-18-2018, 05:20 PM)gracemary5 Wrote: I read this stuff that St Augustine was supposed to have written, about predestination, about how if a person dies for Christ but is not baptized he won't go to Heaven and that if God wants (wills) someone to be baptized, by gosh, he or she will be baptized!

sorry, but that sounds ridiculous so i don't think Augustine said that but who knows? Anyone here know Augustine fairly well? It just doesn't make any sense. God doesn't will anyone to go to Hell and I think we can safely assume that he wants EVERYONE to be baptized... but will do what he can for those who for whatever reason have not been baptized.. (through no fault of their own)

I think someone was mistaken about his beliefs, can't believe a canonized saint would believe in predestination

First of all he's a saint but that doesn't mean he's always right.

Second of all, in the spirit of humility one shouldn't seek to put the teachings of the saints against ones own personal ideas. That's rather protestant. Instead we should trust that the saints knew better than we do even if we dont see how they can.

Thirdly the Church teaches that without baptism it is impossible to be saved. Even if only baptism of desire or blood, they still grant the fruit of the sacrament when properly disposed. 

Fourthly God wills all men to be saved but allows them freedom to reject it, those who accept it can only do so by cooperating with His grace. Everything that happens happens because of either God's ordaining or permissive will.

I am not terribly familiar with augustine so this is about as much as I can say.

i don't think it is protestant to "put the teachings of the saints against ones [sic] own personal ideas"

If I smell heresy, I am going to say something and tht is what truth  requires. to just believe anything someone says bc he has been canonized is not only idiotic but not in accordance w/ Church teaching. We are not required to believe everything a saint says, and I will not believe anything so illogical no matter what saint says it. I follow Jesus Christ, not human beings. And i have never heard of any other human beings, saints or otherwise, in good standing w/ the Church say such things (predestination)
Except the saints don't get to heaven by preaching heresy and yet we know they are in heaven. You however frequently say things which are unorthodox at best. I suggest you actually learn a bit more about what the Chrich teaches and what Augustine taught before going around saying that you know better than St Augustine, one of the greatest theologians to have ever lived.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dominicus's post:
  • RyanPatrick
Reply
#17
(05-19-2018, 02:31 PM)Dominicus Wrote:
(05-19-2018, 01:00 PM)gracemary5 Wrote:
(05-18-2018, 06:31 PM)Dominicus Wrote:
(05-18-2018, 05:20 PM)gracemary5 Wrote: I read this stuff that St Augustine was supposed to have written, about predestination, about how if a person dies for Christ but is not baptized he won't go to Heaven and that if God wants (wills) someone to be baptized, by gosh, he or she will be baptized!

sorry, but that sounds ridiculous so i don't think Augustine said that but who knows? Anyone here know Augustine fairly well? It just doesn't make any sense. God doesn't will anyone to go to Hell and I think we can safely assume that he wants EVERYONE to be baptized... but will do what he can for those who for whatever reason have not been baptized.. (through no fault of their own)

I think someone was mistaken about his beliefs, can't believe a canonized saint would believe in predestination

First of all he's a saint but that doesn't mean he's always right.

Second of all, in the spirit of humility one shouldn't seek to put the teachings of the saints against ones own personal ideas. That's rather protestant. Instead we should trust that the saints knew better than we do even if we dont see how they can.

Thirdly the Church teaches that without baptism it is impossible to be saved. Even if only baptism of desire or blood, they still grant the fruit of the sacrament when properly disposed. 

Fourthly God wills all men to be saved but allows them freedom to reject it, those who accept it can only do so by cooperating with His grace. Everything that happens happens because of either God's ordaining or permissive will.

I am not terribly familiar with augustine so this is about as much as I can say.

i don't think it is protestant to "put the teachings of the saints against ones [sic] own personal ideas"

If I smell heresy, I am going to say something and tht is what truth  requires. to just believe anything someone says bc he has been canonized is not only idiotic but not in accordance w/ Church teaching. We are not required to believe everything a saint says, and I will not believe anything so illogical no matter what saint says it. I follow Jesus Christ, not human beings. And i have never heard of any other human beings, saints or otherwise, in good standing w/ the Church say such things (predestination)
Except the saints don't get to heaven by preaching heresy and yet we know they are in heaven. You however frequently say things which are unorthodox at best. I suggest you actually learn a bit more about what the Chrich teaches and what Augustine taught before going around saying that you know better than St Augustine, one of the greatest theologians to have ever lived.

just so you know: I am not responding to your posts anymore. You have some weird animus toward me and since I know there is no reason for such, I am having nothing more to do with you..
Reply
#18
To the OP: talk to a priest about this stuff. I had to talk to a priest after I realized that many trads are Jansenist.
1.) God is love 
2.) God loves us 
3.) baptism of desire is a doctrine of the church
[-] The following 3 users Like randomtradguy's post:
  • CaptCrunch73, HailGilbert, jovan66102
Reply
#19
(05-25-2018, 01:12 PM)randomtradguy Wrote: To the OP: talk to a priest about this stuff. I had to talk to a priest after I realized that many trads are Jansenist.
1.) God is love 
2.) God loves us 
3.) baptism of desire is a doctrine of the church

Regarding #3 - 'fraid not.

Baptism of desire is a hypothesis. 

It is a dogma that baptism (i.e., with true and natural water) is necessary for salvation, and to say otherwise is anathema.
[-] The following 1 user Likes yablabo's post:
  • RyanPatrick
Reply
#20
(05-25-2018, 05:34 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(05-25-2018, 01:12 PM)randomtradguy Wrote: To the OP: talk to a priest about this stuff. I had to talk to a priest after I realized that many trads are Jansenist.
1.) God is love 
2.) God loves us 
3.) baptism of desire is a doctrine of the church

Regarding #3 - 'fraid not.

Baptism of desire is a hypothesis. 

It is a dogma that baptism (i.e., with true and natural water) is necessary for salvation, and to say otherwise is anathema.

From wiki 
The Catholic 1582 Rheims New Testament, the first published tome of the Douay-Rheims Bible, specifically notes in its annotations to John 3:5 both the necessity of Baptism and the availability of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. The Catholic Church had been expelled from England at the time of the production of the Bible and many annotations were designed to assist lay Catholics to keep to their faith in the absence of clergy.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)