Yes, He is one of my all time favorites, it killed me to disagree with him, if like you said we actually are in disagreement.Agreed on all counts. And I never really suspected that you were doubting anything about the Immaculate Conception, but in theology I guess the fine points often get picked on.
Plus, my antenna goes up when someone disagrees with the esteemed JR.
I have learned alot from him though, and he has earned alot of respect from me.Don’t read anything into it more than has been said.
Let me try to explain this more clearly. When the Church holds that Mary was redeemed, she is not saying that Mary was cleansed of Original Sin. Mary never had Original Sin. That is her redemption. She was preserved from Original Sin.I have alot of respect for JR and hardly ever disagree with him. But here is where I do not agree with him. He said Mary could not have been cleansed at the exact moment of her conception because she did not exist at her conception?I do not understand that? I was taught she was saved at the moment of her conception? Thats where I am hoping he will enlighten me on where he disagrees with what I said.
ANd he can explain to me what he is saying?
The Holy Spirit has never erred and never will. And no, “the Church” has not universally and definitively taught the Immaculate Conception. Rome has, but it is not, in and of itself, “the Church”.
If by “yet” you mean to insist that at some point in the future the Church could say that she now has enough revelation or that she now has a new revelation that infants that die without baptism are saved, then that understanding would be mistaken because it would then imply that there is some revelation that has not yet been revealed (aka new revelation). Scripture and sacred Tradition are the only revelation we have. They are fixed. Set in stone. They can only be better understood, aka developed, but they cannot change, and they cannot be added to. There will never be a fourth person defined as being God. There can never be a revelation that Jesus ever committed any sins. There can never be a revelation that infants who die without baptism will be saved. Why? Because Scripture and Tradition do not teach any of those things. In fact, they contradict them. Scripture clearly contradicts the idea that one can be saved without receiving baptism. I suppose one could speculate (erroneously in my opinion) that the desire of the parents for the child to receive baptism could somehow be some kind of indirect baptism of desire, but again we have NO revelation whatsoever that such could be possible. As a result, it would be pure speculation. But to conclude that an infant who dies without any baptism could be saved through some extra-sacramental means would be to contradict Scripture and Tradition. Again, I will leave anyone who thinks that infants who die without baptism can attain the beatific vision–which again God owes to no one–where they can find such a teaching in Catholic Tradition. Limbo is a place in on the edge of hell and hence one can absolutely find Limbo in Catholic teaching since it is the same conclusion that the Church has reached for 2000 years: without baptism (by water or at least by desire) one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
JP2 was not making any dogmatic statement here. He was speaking as a private theologian in which case he can be wrong. Even the first pope, Peter, was wrong and was confronted by St. Paul “to his face, because he was to be blamed.” One word in the above English sentence (which itself is a translation, potentially inaccurate) was wrong and that word was “whether.” JP2 must not have been aware of the following:
**Can a Catholic believe that all men will be saved?I did not take a position on the teaching whether in agreement or not. I did not make a challenge. To me your three line summary looks like a strong case for predestination.
There is one thing that we have to understand here. When a pope makes a public statement, this one was public, he is not speaking as a private theologian. He is speaking as the Pope. This is the Ordinary Teaching Magisterium of the Church speaking.
Predestination has two different meanings, one of which is contrary to Christian faith. To believe that God has destined some to be saved and others to be damned without any possibility of working out their salvation, as Paul would say, is contrary to the teaching of the Aposles.I did not take a position on the teaching whether in agreement or not. I did not make a challenge. To me your three line summary looks like a strong case for predestination.
Rinnie suggested that (as she was taught) “she was saved from original sin at the moment of her conception.” You said in reply that "Mary NEVER had contact with original sin. Ever.
That’s all there is to it."
JReducation also stated “But in Mary’s case, redemption went one step further. Rather than cleansing her from Original Sin, he was preserved from ever having contact with it.” What we are saying here then, is that Mary was positively and specifically chosen for this special grace.
No one else gets this, God intervened at a moment in time previous to the actual conception of a creature. No one yet has ventured to claim that this was a spontaneous accident or an unintended gap in the wounding of all humanity, and I don’t expect to see that claim.
Now check carefully, does your church allow belief in predestination?
Many would say yes, and I gather most apologists of the Catholic church would agree, what do you say?
You certainly believe it in the case of Mary.
This I know.
I don’t remember that.
Yes JR as usual we are on the same page. And I agree how can you be cleansed of something you never had. Wrong word on my account. As alway’s a joy to talk to you. Hope all is well with you and your family:thumbsup:.Let me try to explain this more clearly. When the Church holds that Mary was redeemed, she is not saying that Mary was cleansed of Original Sin. Mary never had Original Sin. That is her redemption. She was preserved from Original Sin.
Is Mary redeemed? Yes. Was Mary cleansed of Original Sin? No. How was Mary redeemed? By being preserved from Original Sin before her conception; therefore, she was conceived without Original Sin.
I think that we get stuck thinking that redemption is being cleansed from Original Sin. But in Mary’s case, redemption went one step further. Rather than cleansing her from Original Sin, he was preserved from ever having contact with it.
I hope that helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Br JR has covered this for me, but yes Catholics have no problem with the term predestination if it is properly understood. It is not the Calvinist version, though.I did not take a position on the teaching whether in agreement or not. I did not make a challenge. To me your three line summary looks like a strong case for predestination.
Rinnie suggested that (as she was taught) “she was saved from original sin at the moment of her conception.” You said in reply that "Mary NEVER had contact with original sin. Ever.
That’s all there is to it."
JReducation also stated “But in Mary’s case, redemption went one step further. Rather than cleansing her from Original Sin, he was preserved from ever having contact with it.” What we are saying here then, is that Mary was positively and specifically chosen for this special grace.
No one else gets this, God intervened at a moment in time previous to the actual conception of a creature. No one yet has ventured to claim that this was a spontaneous accident or an unintended gap in the wounding of all humanity, and I don’t expect to see that claim.
Now check carefully, does your church allow belief in predestination?
Many would say yes, and I gather most apologists of the Catholic church would agree, what do you say?
You certainly believe it in the case of Mary.
Thank-you Jr that is what I was trying to say. That everything that we are taught is never new revelation, which I believe I stated because all Revelation came from the word of God. But as time goes on it is revealed to us more clear, and we can understand it better. I know as a RC that everyhing I need to know from the word of God will come to me from the CC.There is one thing that we have to understand here. When a pope makes a public statement, this one was public, he is not speaking as a private theologian. He is speaking as the Pope. This is the Ordinary Teaching Magisterium of the Church speaking.
One can say that it is not a decree from the Chair of Peter. That would be correct. But that is very different from saying that it is a private theological position. He is deliberately making it public with the intent of having the faithful assent to it. Popes do not make public statements on moral issues for the sake of academic discussion. When they do, they indicate that this is what they are doing. A good example of this is Pope Benedict’s book, Jesus of Nazareth. In the prolgoue, I believe, he states that this work is not intended as teaching and he welcomes debate.
But notice that a pope makes a distinction when he is open to discussion and when he is posing a position to which he expects the assent of the faithful. In this case, the assent is to the authority of the pope. That is what is expected. No one is asking for a dogmatic assent. There is a difference. However, unless one can prove that the pope is wrong, one has to assent, because of the obedience due to the office.
I would also, respectuflly caution any Catholic, when you pull out scripture and previous documents and statements by the Church, remember that the pope knows and understands them better than the average Catholic. No pope is going to go out on a limb and make a statement on faith or morals without knowledge of what has been said in the past or in scripture.
[SIGN]When a pope makes a statement, such as this, he is not revealing something new. He is clarifying a revealed truth that may not be clearly explained or clearly understood.[/SIGN] There are many points in Revelation that have not been clearly explained or which explanatioins are not easy for us to understand today, because of the evolution of language. Therefore, they require that the current popes restate them in language that we can understand today. What I’m trying to say is that what was clear to someone 1,000 years ago, may not be as clear to us, because we don’t speak and write the same way. The nuance is lost on us. The truth has not changed, but the understanding is not there, because language changes.
I’ll offer a much simpler example. Our Holy Father Francis wrote our rule in 1209. In 1223 Pope Honorius put a Papal Bull on it, meaning that it could not be changed. The problem that arose 800 years later is that the rule was written using theological language that is no longer used. To the younger generations this creates many questions and generates many interpretations. What the Church did in 1990 was authorize the writing of a constitution to “translate” the rule into 20th century language. The theology is the same. The rule is the same. But thanks to John Paul II, we have been able to get past the confusion that began in the 1950s and continued into the late 70s or early 80s, because of the language.
As you can see from this example, the Church does not change truth. She changes language to help us understand truth. Therefore, Pope John Paul’s statement is not contrary to what has been taught. It is a reformatting of the language, so that it is clearer for us today. He certainly knew his scripture, councils and Church teachings. It would be prideful to accuse him of not understanding these things. We have to accept that he is rephrasing these things for our understanding. He has the authority to do so.
I hope this helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I don’t get it:shrug:What did the last universal Catechism teach? Finally, as the Apostle teaches, if by one man’s offence death reigned through one, much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. If, then, through the transgression of Adam, children inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This, however, cannot be effected otherwise than by Baptism.Does the CCC say that a baby that is not baptised is going to hell? No it does not. The teaching’s of the Church is we can only rely on God’s mercy. That is what I said and here is the teaching.
CCC 1261 As regards children who have died without baptism the church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed he great mercy of God desires that all men should be saved and Jesus’ tenderness towards children which caused him to say let the children come to me do not hinder them, alllow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
That is the teaching of the CCC.