Monday, July 9, 2018

The Copernican Revolution In Ecclesiology


 The heretical Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, "promulgated" by Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) on November 21, 1964, spawned a man-made sect with a heretical ecclesiology (the study/teaching regarding the nature of the Church). Nothing brought that home better than when I read the proposed "Constitution on the Church" from the Vatican Council of 1869-1870. Discussion of the document on the nature of the Church was to continue when the bishops returned after a summer break, however, the Franco-Prussian War put a halt to these plans. The swift German advance and the capture of Emperor Napoleon III disabled France from being able to protect the Pope’s rule in Rome. The Vatican Council thus ended before finishing its work.

Even though this proposed document (called a schema) was never debated and voted upon by the Council, or taken up by Pope Pius IX, it is invaluable for assessing Catholic vs. Modernist ecclesiology. A schema is only drawn up by the most eminent approved theologians, distinguished in both learning and personal piety. They are hand-picked by the Pontiff, and they work together to write a document that contains theological truths which they feel are ripe for dogmatic definition. The unanimous teachings of the theologians give witness that these truths are ready to be declared of Divine and Catholic Faith. When you compare this schema to the documents of Vatican II, no thinking person could possibly say the two express the same Faith. Not only are the Vatican II documents substantially different in what they teach, they proposed things that are mutually exclusive with pre-Vatican II teaching.

Hence, if Vatican II is correct, pre-Vatican II ecclesiology isn't merely "less developed" or "teaching other compatible truths" or "expressing the same things in different terminology," it is wrong. However, the One True Church is Infallible and Indefectible. She cannot teach error, and cannot give evil. Nor can She be stopped from Her Divine Mission to govern, teach, and sanctify. The inescapable conclusion is that either (a) the Church only started teaching the Truth in 1964 and was wrong prior to that time (impossible), or (b) the documents didn't come to us from the Church. Montini either never attained the papacy or lost it prior to November 21, 1964 by the profession of heresy as a private theologian. Had he been pope on November 21, 1964, the Holy Ghost would have prevented him from signing it, and he would have censured those who wrote it and/or voted for it. Below I will compare the theology as expressed at the Vatican Council (1870) and Robber Council Vatican II (1964).

The "People of God"

The schema at the Vatican Council had this to say in Chapter 10:
Christ's Church is not a society of equals as if all the faithful in Her had the same rights; but it is a society in which not all are equal. And this is not only because some of the faithful are clerics and some laymen, but especially because in the Church there is a power of Divine institution, by which some are authorized to sanctify, teach, and govern, and others do not have this authority...Hence, we believe Christ's Church is a perfect society. This true and highly favored Church of Christ is none other than the one, holy, catholic, and Roman Church. (All quotes are taken from The Church Teaches by The Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College, B.Herder Book Co., [1955], pgs. 86-94).

This document clearly sets forth the traditional teaching that the Church is hierarchical and monarchical in nature. The Church is Divinely appointed to govern, teach, and sanctify by Her Founder, Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is solely and uniquely the One True Church of Christ and bears the Four Marks (One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic). This also is affirmed by theologian Dorsch, who teaches that the nature of the Church does not change, even during a very long period of sedevacante.

 "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine).

Vatican II has a novel and heretical view of the Church as the "People of God." In Lumen Gentium para #9 and 10, we read :This [The Church] was to be the new People of God. For those who believe in Christ, who are reborn not from a perishable but from an imperishable seed through the word of the living God, not from the flesh but from water and the Holy Spirit, are finally established as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people . . . who in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God"...
Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. (Emphasis and words in brackets mine).

The new definition takes the part for the whole, meaning that it takes the "people of God," mentioned in I Pet. 2:10 ("Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."), for the totality of the Church. This is a radical twist lending itself to a strictly "democratic" and "communitarian" vision of the Church herself, a vision alien to Catholic Tradition but close to the thinking and meaning of Protestant heretics. On the other hand, the hierarchy is included in the idea of "people," and so are defined simply as "members of the people of God." The downplaying of the hierarchical and monarchical structure is clearly seen in discussing a "ministerial" priesthood distinct from the hierarchical one, and they both are interrelated. This is the "topsy-turvy-dom of ecclesiology." The "people" are put on more or less equal footing with the hierarchy. The hierarchy are part of the people, rather than the people being completely distinct and subordinate to the hierarchy. This is why laymen as "lectors," "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist" (sic), and "leaders of song" dominate at the Novus Bogus "mass."

The priest loses his authentic vocation because he becomes a mere function of the "People of God" as a whole. This function is exercised under two forms: the "common priesthood of the faithful," and the "ministerial" or "hierarchic" priesthood, that is, the authentic priesthood of priests, which have been eradicated by the invalid Pauline Rite of Holy Orders.

The Vatican schema emphasized that only the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church of Christ. Lumen Gentium, in para. #8 says:

 This Church [of Christ] constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic (sic) unity. (Emphasis and words in parenthesis mine).

The Church of Christ is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church. It "subsists" there in it's fullness because it contains all the "elements" of the Church of Christ. However, the Church of Christ "subsists" in other sects according to how many "elements" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but just having some is just as good and "impels toward catholic (sic) unity." Maybe they would like to explain why the Eastern Schismatics and Protestants have not been "impelled" to become Catholic? The answer is easy enough: They don't need to convert because they are "in partial communion" with the Church of Christ and can be saved outside the Catholic Church. It is in this warped and false sense the elements "impel" unity. This is pure heresy, yet it explains why Bergoglio can say, "Proselytism is nonsense." 

The Theologians Once More Affirm Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

The Vatican schema has a whole section strongly reaffirming that Outside the One True Church there is no salvation. Section 6 states:
Therefore, We teach that the Church is not a free society, as if it were a matter indifferent to salvation whether it were known or ignored, entered or abandoned; but the Church is absolutely necessary, and, indeed, not just with a necessity coming from a precept of the Lord by which the Savior commanded all nations to enter it; but it is also necessary as a means because, in the order of salvation established by Providence, the communication of the Holy Ghost and the participation of truth and life is not had except in the Church and through the Church of which Christ is the Head. (Emphasis mine).

Notice the complete lack of ambiguity as to the True Church, the Church of Christ, being one and the same as the Roman Catholic Church, which is absolutely necessary for all human beings to achieve salvation. However, in a rebuke to Feeneyites (unheard of in 1870), the very next chapter of the schema shows Baptism of Desire (BOD) as completely in accord, and in no way opposed to, the teaching Extra Ecclesiam Nullas Salus ("outside the Church, there is no salvation"). In chapter 7, the schema declares:

Furthermore, it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the Church. Nevertheless, those who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church are not to be judged worthy of eternal punishment because of this ignorance. For they are innocent in the eyes of the Lord of any fault in this matter. God wishes all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth; and if one does what he can, God does not withhold the grace for him to obtain justification and eternal life. (Emphasis mine).

Be assured that ignorance saves no one. However, if a person does not know of the True Church because of invincible (inculpable) ignorance, and cooperates with God's actual graces in trying to lead an upright life, God can enlighten him at the moment of death with the Faith and sanctifying grace so the person dies within the Catholic Church. Some Feeneyites will object that God allowed the Franco-Prussian War to prevent the Vatican Council from "committing error." Two responses: (1) the teaching of BOD and BOB are already truths of the Catholic Faith by virtue of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) as taught by that same Council and (2) Pope Pius IX already taught this truth in his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore:

"Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." (para. #7; Emphasis mine). BOD and BOB were ready for elevation via ex cathedra pronouncement almost 150 years ago, yet Feeneyites will protest that it is "error" taught by "liberal theologians"!

Conclusion

The documents of Vatican II, and the schema of the First Vatican Council (the only Vatican Council) reveal a tale of two opposing ecclesiologies. According to Vatican II the Church of Christ is separate from the Roman Catholic Church, but "subsists" there in its fullness because it contains all the "elements" of sanctification. Other sects also possess some elements of sanctification, and they are in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church. These sects are a "means of salvation" (as Vatican II stated in Unitatis Redintegratio) because of the elements they have.  

The theologians at the Vatican Council in 1870 taught that the Church of Christ is identical to the Roman Catholic Church, outside of which no one can be saved. No other sect can save you, or is in "partial communion" with the One True Church. Furthermore, in contrast to today's Feeneyites, the same theologians after teaching the absolute necessity of salvation through membership in the Church, grant that those of good will in invincible ignorance who do what they can to lead a good life and cooperate with grace, can be enlightened and saved by a miracle of grace (BOD). It should be clear that there is no "hermeneutic of continuity" that can make one believe there is no substantial difference. Just as Copernicus changed the view of the world, Vatican II gave us an entirely new, and heretical, view of the Church


71 comments:

  1. More than a commentary I have these honest questions: Is the new ecclesiology the basis for "Opus Judei"? It seems that being a layman and not a cleric is based in this new ecclesiology. If both give their life to God, why would that make a difference? Many thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m not sure what “Opus Judei” is, If you could please give me a citation that would be most helpful. That the laity is exalted to the level of the clergy, is indeed a result of the new ecclesiology—-the “People Of God.”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Opus Dei aka "Opus Judei". Thanks.

      Delete
    3. Yes. “Opus Diaboli” as I like to call them are a product of the new ecclesiology—-everything from the Vatican II sect originates from it. For more on “Opus” see my post of 2 years ago:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/07/opus-diaboli.html?m=1

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Thank you very much.

      Delete
    5. Read your blog on "Opus Diaboli". I liked it; excellent content as usual. Though, if I may, would suggest you look into chapter XXXI of the book Iota Unum on Work, Technology and Contemplation. It's a good complement to analyze "Opus Judei". God Bless.

      Delete
    6. I have the book and I will check out chapter 31!

      Many thanks,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. Dear Intro,

      I would be curious to read what you find on chapter 31 iota unum. I dont have that book.

      Jesus and Mary,
      David

      Delete
    8. I will leave a short summary before next Monday, David.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. "Opus Judei" or "Opus Diaboli" alleged contribution is the laymen's "sanctification of work".

      In Quanta Cura, Pius IX said that "..But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?...".

      In Quas Primas Pius XI rejects laicism: "We refer to the plague of anti-clericalism, its errors and impious activities. This evil spirit, as you are well aware, Venerable Brethren, has not come into being in one day; it has long lurked beneath the surface. ...".

      Further, Iota Unum makes the point that: "...There is not a trace of the glorification of work in Christ's preaching, which lifts the whole perspective towards the Kingdom of Heaven. ... The lauding of work as the universal category for all men's spiritual activity is a moving back towards a theology that the New Testament left behind, when it firmly subordinated the conquest of this earth to the quest for the kingdom of heaven. ...".

      Summing up, "Opus Judei" or "Opus Diaboli" is as good as Vatican II, a pretended reconciliation or aggiornamento with the world. No compromise until Christ is King...

      Delete
    10. @anonymous7:29,
      Thank you for that excellent summary! I’ve been busy at work and couldn’t get to it until Saturday.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. Thank you for this. I could use a course in Sedevacantism 101. Can you explain (b) regarding Montini?

    "The inescapable conclusion is that either (a) the Church only started teaching the Truth in 1964 and was wrong prior to that time (impossible), or (b) the documents didn't come to us from the Church. Montini either never attained the papacy or lost it prior to November 21, 1964 by the profession of heresy as a private theologian."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad to help, Barbara! The Church is not only infallible in ex cathedra declarations of popes and ecumenical councils. There are what the theologians refer to as "secondary objects of infallibility" which are so intimately bound up with the Church's mission to teach and sanctify, they must (and ARE) preserved free from error by the Holy Ghost. Examples of such secondary objects of infallibility include canonizations of saints, matters of universal Church discipline--like the Code of Canon Law, and dogmatic fact (See, e.g., theologian Van Noort, "Dogmatic Theology" 2:110).

      The Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" has a heretical ecclesiology opposed to all past Church teaching. It is being proposed to the faithful as a dogmatic fact, something that all Catholics MUST give their assent.

      If on November 21, 1964, Giovanni Montini had been Vicar of Christ, the Holy Ghost would have prevented him from signing it. Therefore, one of two things must have happened. Montini was a heretic PRIOR to his "election." Cum Ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV (1559) tells that the election of a heretic is barred by Divine Law and the 1917 Code of Canon Law affirms this truth. OR--Montini was validly elected, but lost his authority by professing heresy as a private teacher. According to St. Alphonsus Liguori, “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” (See "Oeuvres Complètes" 9:232)

      Since Montini was a practicing sodomite, most likely a Freemason, and suspect of Modernism before Vatican II, I don't believe he was ever validly elected. In either case, he was NOT pope 11/21/64, when he signed that damnable document. It's NOT (as some people wrongly think) the pope taught error in his capacity as pope, and as a consequence, lost office. (This is impossible). He either never attained the office or lost it as a private theologian proclaiming heresy to even a few individuals.

      Let me know if this helped!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you. I have no problem with the objections to the Documents of Vatican 2. The explanation of a pope's valid election is helpful; that's the part that can be difficult, especially, as you stated, there are many other wrong ideas floating around.

      Something else that is so galling is how many of the events and docs of Vatican 2 occurred on feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (this one on the Presentation of Mary) This is to provide a traditional veneer, yet a separate document on Our Lady was vetoed by these crooks.

      Delete
  3. Introibo - I have seen photos of Montini wearing the 12 stoned breast plate of the Jewish high priest. What are your thoughts on this? Also, didn’t Montini give away the Papal Tiara? I find this a significant symbol of his not possessing the true faith. Your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      There is evidence Montini was a Freemason and Freemasonry has many Jewish members and symbols from the Talmud, etc. I think Montini hated Our Lord, And was wearing such things as the 12 stoned breast plate.

      He did indeed give away the papal tiara to the Masonic infiltrated U.N. This was symbolic of giving the papacy over to its enemies.

      Evil times of the Great Apostasy.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Personally,I think it's obvious Bp.Montini was involved in some type of sorcery.
      He destroyed the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,the Rite of Holy Orders,and helped in destroying the other Sacramental rubrics from 1965-1975.
      That alone is sufficient evidence in my opinion.
      -ANDREW

      Delete
  4. Another angle on the council might be to call it the council of the rebellion of Core (or Korah) where rebels rose up against the ordained priesthood of Moses and Aaron and proclaimed a priesthood of the people (Numbers 16).....it did not go well for them. St Jude reminds us in his epistle of the fate of those that follow the rebellion of Core.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make a good point looking at it from that perspective!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. Father Hunwicke has just concluded a 5 part discussion on the nature of the mass and the consecration. Very erudite and informative. Here is my take and question which I hope you will address. It concerns the very nature of the priesthood and the mass. Who consecrates the elements...the priest..in persona Christi...or the Holy Ghost? As I understand it, up until Vatican 2, in the latin church,the church of Rome, it was considered to be the priest who consecrated the elements. It was by his hands and words that the transubstantiation took place. Vatican 2 changed this notion and it is reflected in the 1969 new ordination rites, that strip the priesthood of it's sacrificing nature and make him little more than a presider, someone that presides over the consecration with the people and the consecration is done by the eclipsis or the Holy Ghost. This is more in line with the greeks, anglicans and lutherans concept of eucharist but a radical departure from the latin pre vatican 2 understanding of the consecration. Ratzinger gave a talk in 1990 on the priesthood that most certainly reflects this new protestanized notion of priesthood....a priesthood that presides...not a sacrificial priesthood...which he seems to view with abhorrence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct. It is the priest acting “in the person of Christ” who effectuates Transubstantiation. He also must act “in the person of the Church” for it to be efficacious unto sanctification. Hence, valid priests who offer valid Masses in Schismatic Eastern sects do not avail anyone as they are not in union with the Church.

      Modernists are clever, and they often hide their errors under the veneer of Truth. “Well only God can change the substance of the bread and wine,” they will protest. Yes, Christ is the efficient cause, but the priest is the necessary and indispensable instrumental cause through which He operates.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Ironic given
      "Father Hunwicke" was
      "Ordained" in the new rite by a new rite "Bishop."
      -ANDREW

      Delete
    3. I was unaware “Fr” Hunwicke is Mr Hunwick!

      Thank you for the information, Andrew.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. Putting things in perspective - Protestant ecclesiology is really a nightmare.

    See my debate with one such http://ppt.li/402 (short link, can be written directly in adress bar and will redirect to longer full link to the message).

    ReplyDelete
  7. If BOD, BOB, and Invincible Ignorance are true, we don't need a Church, we don,t need any priesthood, nor do we need any Sacraments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not true. The Church is necessary for salvation. It is the usual means to be baptized by water and receive the Sacraments. In a rare miracle of grace can supply the Faith and grace to someone in invincible ignorance who wants to follow God and has contrition for all sins committed.

      In similar fashion, God has allowed certain saints to exist by only taking Holy Communion for sustenance. Does that imply we don’t need food, and shouldn’t help the poor because God could do the same for them?

      BOD, BOB are rare miracles that are extraordinary ways of bringing some persons into the Church by extraordinary means.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I denied the possibility of BOB/BOD until Bishop Robert Dymek taught me the proper meaning & understanding.
      (2014/2015)
      I printed one of your blog entry's on this subject for him to read.
      (He was a hermit without Tv/radio/internet)
      At first it shocked me to see a traditional Catholic Bishop unapologetically support what I thought was heresy.
      He enthusiastically supported & loved your post & was going to use it for future chapel members.
      Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ called him home April 2017.
      In case you're wondering,
      Bp.Dymek was ordained/consecrated by Bp.Slupski who was ordained in 1961 & consecrated by Bp.McKenna 1999.
      -ANDREW

      Delete
    3. @Andrew
      I’m glad the good Bishop found my post useful. May he enjoy eternal glory with Christ and His Mother Whom he served!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  8. I have a question:

    How does God's universal salvific will pertain to those who have not reached the age of reason and have not been baptized?

    ReplyDelete
  9. God desires everyone’s salvation. How does this comport with those who go to Limbo? (Die only in Original Sin). I believe this is what you are asking. Those who live to the age of reason can obviously be saved.

    My opinion is this:
    In that case, anybody who never hears about the Church because of intellectual defects and is sent to Limbo would have rejected the Church and been sent to Hell, if he was of sound mind and was baptized because God could foresee His dying in mortal sin. However, for reasons known only to God, that person’s existence was necessary as an occasion for others to be moved to enter the Church or repent of sin. No one could stand before God on the Judgement Day and complain, “All right, God, so I didn’t respond to your general revelation in nature and conscience! But if only I had Use of reason then I would have believed!” For God will say, “No, I knew that even if you had heard the Gospel, you would not have believed it.”

    —-Introibo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (1) God desires to save "all men" by providing them sufficient grace for salvation. (based on the doctrine of unlimited atonement)
      (2) This includes those who die before the age of reason. To contradict this point entails a repudiation of unlimited Atonement.
      (3) Since those who die before reaching the age of reason before receiving sacramental baptism are included in God's plan of salvation, yet can't consciously respond to such grace, these graces must be infused outside the sacramental rite of baptism.


      The real question is, does God provide sufficient grace to all or only to some. Your position entail a repudiation of unlimited Atonement.

      Delete
    2. No it doesn’t. The Church teaches:

      Every human being (except the human nature of Our Lord, and the Most Blessed Virgin Mary) is born in the state of Original Sin, which is primarily the deprivation of Sanctifying Grace. (See theologian Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1954], pg. 110)
      The only means of obtaining salvation is by entering the Catholic Church and dying in the state of Grace. (See theologian Tanquerey, Manual of Dogmatic Theology,1:138)
      Membership in the Church is effectuated in the ordinary way by the Sacrament of Baptism, by which all stain of Original Sin and (in the case of those who have attained to the age of reason), all actual sins are remitted and Sanctifying Grace is infused in the soul. (See Ott, op. cit. pgs. 309-311)
      By extraordinary means, a person can enter inside the Church and receive Sanctifying Grace by Baptism of Desire (BOD) or Baptism of Blood (BOB).(See Ott, Ibid, pgs.356-357)
      Infants, the habitually insane, and the retarded, who are deprived of reason are incapable of receiving BOD. As Pope Pius XII taught, "In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..." (See Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives [Oct. 29, 1951] Emphasis mine).
      Infants and those deprived of reason can receive BOB. (Ott, Ibid, pg. 357)
      Sanctifying Grace becomes "lumen gloriae" ("the light of glory") upon the soul's separation from the body and entrance into Heaven, thereby allowing the soul to enter the Beatific Vision of God for all eternity. (Ott, Ibid, pg. 22)
      Those who die without Sanctifying Grace due to mortal sin go to Hell for eternity. (Ott, Ibid,pgs. 479-481)
      There are different punishments for those who go to Hell due to Original Sin alone. (Ott, Ibid, pg. 114)
      Hell consists in two punishments: poena damni (pain of separation), and poena sensus (the pain of sense). (Ibid)
      Those who die in Original Sin alone are subject to the separation from God, but not the positive infliction of pain (Hell fire) This conclusion, which is taught by nearly every theologian in the past eight hundred years, is in accordance with a pronouncement of Pope Innocent III (III Decr. 42:3): "The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell."
      "Limbo" means "edge"--those who are on the "edge of Hell," meaning those least worthy of punishment.

      How then do we reconcile Limbo with God’s Universal salvific will?

      God foresaw that in all possible worlds, some people would reject His grace and go to Hell. Knowing this is not causing this to happen (Theologian Molina). These people are necessary to effectuate the maximum number of people who are saved, so they must be conceived. To prevent their damnation, he permits them to die prior to reason and without baptism.

      No denial of unlimited atonement.
      (Continued below)

      Delete
    3. Moreover, some pre-Vatican II theologians did formulate certain teachings in place of limbo; although their number was very few. The most famous was Cajetan, who taught that infants could be saved by a "vicarious baptism of desire" through the prayers and desire of the parents. This teaching was ordered to be redacted from his writings by Pope St. Pius V. Theologian Klee taught that God would illuminate the intellect of the child just before the moment of death, and give him/her an opportunity to accept or reject Him, in a manner similar to the test given to the angels. Theologian Schell taught that the child's sufering and death served as a "baptism of suffering." Neither of those theories has any support in Revelation, and were basically rebuffed definitively by Pope Pius VI and the unanimous consent of the theologians, especially after Trent. Finally, Pope Sixtus V taught in a 1588 Constitution that victims of abortion, being deprived of Baptism, are "excluded from Beatific Vision," hence abortion is a most grievous offense.

      ——Introibo

      Delete
  10. The doctrine of unlimited atonement teaches that Christ not only died for all, but that He provides sufficient grace to all to be saved. This would include those who die before they've reached the age of reason.


    My argument is simple:

    (1) God desires to save "all men" by providing them sufficient grace for salvation. (based on the doctrine of unlimited atonement)
    (2) There exist men who die before the age of reason.
    (3) Those who die before reaching the age of reason are included in God's plan of salvation. (to contradict this point entails a conflict between points 1 & 2).

    (4) Since those who die before the age of reason are included in God's plan of salvation, yet can't consciously respond to such grace, these graces must be infused outside the sacramental rite of baptism.


    so such graces must be infused outside of the sacramental rites.
    (4)



    ReplyDelete
  11. Being in limbo still means being in hell, even if it it is on the extremities of hell. There is no hope of them ever experiencing the beatific vision.

    The doctrine of unlimited atonement entails that all men receive sufficient grace for salvation. However, under your view there exist certain men (i.e. those who die before the age of reason who weren't baptized) who don't receive such grace. Hence, you reject the doctrine of unlimited Atonement.

    There must exist a means of salvation for those who die before reaching the age reason without receiving sacramental baptism for unlimited atonement to hold.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. Under my view God FORESAW THAT THEY WOULD FREELY REJECT HIS GRACE IN ALL POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES. The grace is thereby not efficacious. God, in His Infinite mercy chose to allow them some degree of natural happiness as is taught by most pre-V2 theologians, but for reasons known but to God. One could say they received actual graces not acted upon as is the case with some non-Catholics in bad faith who reject Christ’s One True Church.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. Is it your position that those who haven't reached the AOR are guilty of the sin of omission?

    If it is, I don't think that is possible with infants.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Help me to understand your position better.

    (1) Are they condemned for sins they would have committed in the future?
    (2) Are they condemned for original sin alone?
    (3) Are they condemned for not acting upon graces they received?


    If your position is #1, I think this is manifestly heretical. I'm not aware of any Catholic document that makes such a claim.

    If your position is #2, Pope Pius IX states, “Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.” [Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, n. 7.]

    If your position is #3, (1) how could they act upon these graces, and (2) what kind of graces are these?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First remember that the Church has not pronounced on this subject. St. Robert Bellarmine teaches that infants who die without being baptized are excluded from the Divine Salvific Will. His opinion was never condemned nor censured. (See Pohle, Dogmatic Theology 7:164).

      My solution is that God SAVES those Who He knows would have otherwise been damned by their own free will. Why He chooses them could be to effectuate the largest number of the saved because of the effect their existence has on others.

      As a result, they enjoy natural happiness in Limbo. This is in line with Church teaching because the Universality Of God’s salvific Will need not extend to children as the teaching of Bellarmine clearly shows. Therefore, grace need not be given. However, He saves them from an eternity of torture and grants some natural happiness.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  14. If unbaptized infants are excluded from the divine salvific will, then God's salvific will is not truly "universal" (in the sense that it applies to all), hence the repudiation of unlimited atonement.

    Suggesting that unbaptized infants are in fact "saved" by being sent to limbo contradicts the very notion of salvation as consisting of eternal beatitude, i.e., supernatural happiness.

    In any event, I reject that the limbo of infants consists of natural happiness for two reasons: (1) because sanctifying grace is needed for both natural and supernatural happiness, and(2) the recognition of eternal damnation would eliminate any sort of happiness. Since God is Truth, these souls are not ignorant of their eternal destiny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God’s salvific Will May not be truly universal in the unrestricted sense as Bellarmine’s uncensored teaching clearly is allowed. My solution makes it truly universal. Salvation has been used by theologians since the time of Trent to encompass Limbo insofar as you escape the poena sensus and have natural happiness.

      No where have I seen any approved theologian teach sanctifying grace is need for natural happiness. The recognition that God spared them the pains of Hell, and took mercy upon them allowing them to be used in His plan would be a source of joy.

      The idea that Limbo excludes natural happiness was rejected not only by the Angelic Doctor but by the unanimous consent of the theologians post-Trent. Your idea is (at the least) offensive to pious ears and has no backing from the Church.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  15. I don't know whether it is offensive to pious ears, but it certainly would contradict the notion of God's universal salvific will, as Joseph Pohle himself claims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m not sure if you’re the same anonymous to whom I responded, and I’m not sure to that which you refer —-what, exactly, would contradict the notion of God’s universal salvific will? Limbo?

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. The view that the limbo of infants does not consist in natural beatitude contradicts the notion of God's universal salvific will.

      To quote Pohle:

      "A way out of the difficulty is suggested by Gutberlet and others, who, holding with St. Thomas that infants that die without Baptism will enjoy a kind of natural beatitude, think it possible that God, in view of their sufferings, may mercifully cleanse them from original sin and thereby place them in a state of innocence. This theory is based on the assumption that the ultimate fate of unbaptized children is deprivation of the beatific vision of God and therefore a state of real damnation(poena damm, infernum), and that the remission of original sin has for its object merely to enable these unfortunate infants to enjoy a perfect natural beatitude, which they could not otherwise attain. It is reasonable to argue that, as these infants are deprived of celestial happiness through no guilt of their own, the Creator can hardly deny them some sort of natural beatitude, to which their very nature seems to entitle them. "Hell" for them probably consists in being deprived of the beatific vision of God, which is a supernatural grace and as such lies outside the sphere of those prerogatives to which human nature has a claim by the fact of creation. This theory would seem to establish at least some manner of salvation for the infants in question, and consequently, to vindicate the divine voluntas salvifica in the same measure."

      Delete
    3. I agree wholeheartedly!!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Carinal Bellarmine also teaches as an article of faith that children who die without sacramental baptism are deprived both of supernatural as well as natural beatitude (cf. Pohle, God: the Author of Nature).

      Delete
    5. @anonymous7:50
      Yes. His is the minority view which was abandoned completely after the Vatican Council (1870).

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  16. Two concerns:

    (1) If the concept of salvation extends to those in limbo,

    "Salvation has been used by theologians since the time of Trent to encompass Limbo insofar as you escape the poena sensus and have natural happiness."

    Then you're going to have to give your strict interpretation of EENS.

    (2) Also, your previous claim that my rejection that limbo entails natural happiness is "offensive to pious ears" would place St. Bellarmine's position in the same boat.

    You've cited Bellarmine as authoritative but reject his conclusions regarding the state of those damned as infants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. The Church teaches infants cannot receive Baptism Of Desire but they can receive Baptism of Blood (Holy Innocents).

      2. Bellarmine is not alone in seeing a restriction in God's universal salvific Will. It remains an open point if dispute. His opinion on the absence of natural happiness is abandoned after 1870, and if there were a pope, his view in that matter would be rejected by the Magisterium just as was the teaching of Aquinas on the Immaculate Conception leading up to the Dogmatic definition in 1854.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  17. (1) Are you suggesting that unbaptized infants that die as such, receive a baptism of blood? If that is the case, then why don't they attain the beatific vision?


    (2) Whether he is alone or not is irrelevant since it manifestly contradicts the doctrine of unlimited atonement and its implications. Granted, the universal salvific will may not be absolutely unconditional, but this is a far cry from admitting that billions of infants, prenatals, etc. end up in hell. When a significant portion of the population ends up in hell through no fault of their own, it is a far cry from being "universal" in any sense of the word.


    (3) In a previous reply you stated that Bellarmine "clearly shows" that God's salvific will need not be universal in an unrestricted sense. Where does he clearly show this (i.e., citation)? Also he explicitly states that the opinion that the limbo of infants consists of natural happiness is manifestly heretical. You would have to argue to the contrary, instead of merely claiming that the theologians of post-Vatican I abandoned such a teaching. They also abandoned the strict interpretation of EENS (e.g., Pope Pius IX, Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman, Victor Cardinal Dechamps, Pope Pius X, Bishop Louis Gaston de Ségur, Msgr. Joseph Pohle, Fr. Matthias Scheeben, Fr. Stephen Keenan, Fr. Bertrand L. Conway, C.S.P., Fr. Francis Spirago, Fr. Patrick Power, Charles Cardinal Journet, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Mgsr. Joseph Fenton, Fr. Louis Monden, S.J., etc.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Infants WHO ARE MARTYRS FIR THE FAITH receive BOB, such as the Holy Innocents and they DO attain the Beatific Vision.

      2. Bellarmine was not censured. Universal can be universal for adults with reason. It remains a fact that his opinion stands uncensured. The Church has never pronounced judgement on the issue.

      3. As to Bellarmine, Pohle teaches, “ The Church has never uttered a dogmatic definition on this, and theologians hold widely different opinions. Bellarmine teaches that infants who die without being baptized, are excluded from the divine voluntas salvifica because while non-reception of Baptism is the proximate reason of their damnation, its ultimate reason must be THE WILL OF GOD.” ( See Dogmatic Theology” 7:173; Emphasis mine). He was never censured, but no theologians post-1870 hold this teaching. The UOM is clearly teaching natural happiness for Limbo.

      You correctly cite many of the theologians after 1870 who taught BOD as it developed and was ripe for definition. I don’t know what you mean by the “strict interpretation.” Feeneyites? Dogma develops under the watchful eye of Holy Mother Church, not as Modernists teach. Those who took BOD too far such as the great theologian Cajetan, whose idea of “vicarious BOD” was censured by no less than Pope St Pius V.

      Those whom you list give the correct teaching on BOD.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  18. You stated previously that unbaptized infants that die as such are amongst the "saved".

    "Salvation has been used by theologians since the time of Trent to encompass Limbo insofar as you escape the poena sensus and have natural happiness."


    Yet this runs contrary to what I've read, "they are to be included in the number of those who in technical language are said to be damnati, i.e., who suffer the loss of God (damnum) to all eternity."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. St. Gregory of Nyssa agrees with me! Brilliant minds think alike! He said, “It is likely that He Who knows the future as well as the past, prevents the progress of the life of the infant to full maturity, lest the evil He foresees by His power of prevision... We conjecture this about the death of newborn infants, that He Who does all things reasonably, in His love of men, takes away the opportunity for evil, not giving to their will the opportunity...” (See De Infantibus qui praemature abripiuntur, PG 46, 183).

      In the technical or strict sense, loss of the Beatific Vision is poena damni, However, in The loose sense it is an eternity of natural happiness free from the pains of Hell.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  19. All the individuals I cited above teach that implicit desire is sufficient for salvation. Do you hold to such a position?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. It is taught by the Church.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  20. "Bellarmine was not censured. Universal can be universal for adults with reason."


    I've yet to find where Bellarmine makes such a claim. Can you provide a reference?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Pohle he is cited. Dogmatic Theology 7:173.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  21. I think you meant page 163.

    In any event, Pohle fails to provide a citation for his claim. Where exactly does Bellarmine make the claim that unbaptized children are excluded from God's salvific will?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry for the mistake in page number. That’s what happens when you work full time and rush to look things up. If the eminent theologian Pohle cited it, you can be sure it is accurate. I don’t have time to trace it in my large library with such limited time as I have. I spend enough time away from my family and friends already.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  22. Also, explain how unbaptized infants being excluded from the divine salvific will doesn't negate unlimited atonement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m not saying that they are. I agree with St Gregory of Nyssa. The term “Universal” could be defined as “everyone who attains the use of reason.” It need not mean “every human being without exception.”

      In similar fashion, God is NOT omnipotent in an unrestricted sense of “being able to do anything without exception.” God cannot tell a lie or do anything contrary to His omnibenevolent Nature. Hence, omnipotence is correctly defined as “being able to do anything that does not go against His Divine Attributes.”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  23. Pope Pius IX, in the encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, taught that no one is punished eternally, unless they have committed a deliberate sin: “Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”


    How do you reconcile this with your view that infants are sent to hell?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two responses:

      *Limbo is not the same as Hell in the sense that since there is no eternal punishment, but rather a natural happiness devoid of any pain of sense (poena sensus), they are NOT thereby suffering eternal punishments. Pope Pius was clearly discussing Hell in the traditional and strict sense of poena damni and poena sensus--"where the worm dieth not."

      *Since God exists outside of time and everything is an eternal "now," in His mercy, he allowed the babies to die rather than grow up to be damned by the fault of the sins God knew they would commit of their own free will. This shows God's "supreme kindness and clemency."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  24. The chief punishment of Hell is the deprivation of the beatific vision, which is exactly what is claimed for infants in limbo. So they do receive eternal punishment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In so far as there is loss of supernatural happiness, it is a punishment in a restricted sense. If you were to inherit 2 million dollars, but for some reason you only received one million dollars, it could be considered "punishment" as you did not obtain your highest good. That's different than instead of getting 2 million dollars you're sent to prison. The punishment differs in kind, not merely degree, which is why the Church calls it "Limbo" and not "Hell."

      Second, God took mercy in preventing them from the sins His Divine foreknowledge knew they would committ, and in that sense they were saved from Hell, properly so-called.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  25. "Second, God took mercy in preventing them from the sins His Divine foreknowledge knew they would committ, and in that sense they were saved from Hell, properly so-called."


    I avoid theodicy mainly because I reject the democratic premise that God needs to be justified before man. I also find that apologists do more harm than good when they offer justifications that are mere conjectures. The idea that God allows children to die infancy before baptism to avoid the greater suffering of hell is just one such conjecture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, conjecturing can show that the death of infants before baptism is in no way incompatible with the Omni-benevolence of God. Many people find this a comfort, even if you do not.

      The idea is more than the mere conjecture of a layman who runs a blog. It was taught by St. Gregory of Nyssa, one of the "Cappadocian Fathers."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  26. There is one version of this idea called the limbo of Hell. The other idea is limbo as a third final destination and purely natural happiness, but in both cases, there is no state of grace and therefore no love, faith, hope, or other virtues, no love of neighbor, friendship, worship of God, joy, peace, kindness, mercy, wisdom, knowledge, etc. So I don’t see how a human person, created to be in a state of grace, can be happy without that state and all that it entails. And they cannot be ignorant of what they are lacking, due to the particular judgment and the general judgment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God can do many things we don’t fully understand. That doesn’t mean they can’t be (or won’t be) done as a result. There’s no hope in Heaven—you don’t need it. It doesn’t make it a bad place!

      The Church has not decreed on this issue. I was asked for my opinion. I gave it and the reasons I believe as I do. Feel free to disagree. It is a matter in which we can differ.


      —-Introibo

      Delete