St. Thomas Aquinas on the salvation of non-Christians

[USMC]

USMC:

If a person dies in original sin only, and has never committed an actual sin themselves, they will immediately descend into hell. Do you believe that?

Lazerlike42:

No, and neither does the Catholic Church. This is the key distinction between Catholic theology and all Protestant theologies from which virtually every other disagreement stems. If Protestants had the Catholic understanding of original sin, they would be much closer to Catholic theology in virtually every area.

You seem fairly knowledgeable, but you are off base on some doctrinal issues.

You may not know this, but it is de fide Catholic dogma that souls who depart this life in original sin only do indeed descend into hell. That is Catholic dogma. Here are the quotes:

Council of Lyons II: “…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished with different punishments…-- (Denzinger 464)

Pope John XXII: “It (The Roman Church) teaches… that the souls… of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places.” (Denzinger 493(a).

Council of Florence: “…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.— (Denzinger 693)

That is the infallible teaching of the Church as revealed by God. You will now need to adjust your theology so that it is in agreement with that teaching.

 

[USMC]

Lazerlike42:

That would make sense. But that’s not what St. Thomas says. he says that every choice of the free will must be moved by God in addition to the initial grace.

I am pretty sure the way I described it is what he taught. And actually, it is not different than what you said.

God does move (or incline) the will initially, but then man can either correspond to this movement (inclination), or resits it. If man corresponds, then God sends the consequent grace.

Our Lord said that no one comes to the father unless the father draws him. This drawing is the initial movement of grace, which does indeed move - or incline - the will.

You may have just misunderstood what St. Thomas meant.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I’m going to have to do a lot of reading because the Catechism contradicts this, as have most of the apologists that I have ever heard.

 

[Lazerlike42]

USMC:

I am pretty sure the way I described it is what he taught. And actually, it is not different than what you said.

God does move (or incline) the will initially, but then man can either correspond to this movement (inclination), or resits it. If man corresponds, then God sends the consequent grace.

Our Lord said that no one comes to the father unless the father draws him. This drawing is the initial movement of grace, which does indeed move - or incline - the will.

You may have just misunderstood what St. Thomas meant.

St. Thomas very clearly teaches that men’s wills cannot accept grace unless God actually moves the will apart from grace.

 

[USMC]

Lazerlike42:

St. Thomas very clearly teaches that men’s wills cannot accept grace unless God actually moves the will apart from grace.

If you can direct me to a link I will read what he says and respond. I am almost positive that he did not teach that God moves the will apart from grace, because it is the grace that does the moving. That is what moves the will.

St. Thomas can be difficult to understand sometimes.

 

[USMC]

Lazerlike42:

I’m going to have to do a lot of reading because the Catechism contradicts this, as have most of the apologists that I have ever heard.

The Catechism probably doesn’t explicitly contradict it; it probably just says something that gives the impression of contradicting it.

I read your profile and noticed that you are on your way into the Church. Congradulation. I am also a convert. One bit of advice I will give you is to stick with the older Catholic materials - prior to 1960. The newer one’s are often too ambiguous, confusing, and even sometimes misleading.

The Church today, unfortunately, has some bad people in high places, and these people have confused a lot of Catholics. The Popes at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century warned Catholics that the enemies of the Church had infiltrated the Church. In fact, there was a U.N document from years ago that stated that there were over 3000 communist agents who had infiltrated the Catholic Church, and also Protestant denominations.

The devil attacked the Church from without for years with no success. His new plan of attack is that of infiltration.

There is no question, the Church is in a battle today. I look forward to having you join the Church and fight for the truth. For now, while you are forming your faith, stick with the older materials. I would suggest the Baltimore Catechism (which is the one I first used), and also the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Both are excellent.

Feel free to post any questions that you have.

 

[JSmitty2005]

USMC:

The Catechism probably doesn’t explicitly contradict it; it probably just says something that gives the impression of contradicting it.

I read your profile and noticed that you are on your way into the Church. Congradulation. I am also a convert. One bit of advice I will give you is to stick with the older Catholic materials - prior to 1960. The newer one’s are often too ambiguous, confusing, and even sometimes misleading.

The Church today, unfortunately, has some bad people in high places, and these people have confused a lot of Catholics. The Popes at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century warned Catholics that the enemies of the Church had infiltrated the Church. In fact, there was a U.N document from years ago that stated that there were over 3000 communist agents who had infiltrated the Church.

The devil attacked the Church from without for years with no success. His new plan of attack is that of infiltration.

There is not question, the Church is in a battle today. I look forward to having you join the Church and fight for the truth. For now, while you are forming your faith, stick with the older materials. I would suggest the Baltimore Catechism (which is the one I first used), and also the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Both are excellent.

Feel free to post any questions that you have.

I would just like to second that.

 

[Lazerlike42]

USMC:

Council of Lyons II: “…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished with different punishments…-- (Denzinger 464)

So far I have only gotten this far, but I cannot find this anywhere in any of the documents of the 2nd Council of Lyons.

 

[USMC]

Lazerlike42:

So far I have only gotten this far, but I cannot find this anywhere in any of the documents of the 2nd Council of Lyons.

In Denzingers, where I found the quote, it is under the section titled “Declaration Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit”. In that section, the first heading is “Profession of Faith of Michael Palaeologus”. The second heading is “Varian Readings”. It is near the end of the first paragraph (a long paragraph), under that section. The paragraph begins by saying “We believe that the true Church is holy, Catholic, apostolic”, etc.

If you have Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma it is near the bottom of page 184.

 

[Lazerlike42]

USMC:

In Denzingers, where I found the quote, it is under the section titled “Declaration Concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit”. In that section, the first heading is “Profession of Faith of Michael Palaeologus”. The second heading is “Varian Readings”. It is near the end of the first paragraph (a long paragraph), under that section. The paragraph begins by saying “We believe that the true Church is holy, Catholic, apostolic”, etc.

If you have Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma it is near the bottom of page 184.

I don’t doubt you, but I cannot find this citation online anywhere. Take a look, it is really strange.

 

[Lazerlike42]

This understanding makes sense to me only if the teaching of limbo were to be held. If the Church were to eliminate the understanding of limbo, I see a lot of problems.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I actually don’t need to adjust my theology because of this. After a lot of reading, I realized that the way I understood things was in the same way that Aquinas describes limbo, I just never knew it before. I had never studied limbo that much because it is one of those things that tends to be thought of as on its way out. If the Church says that there is no such thing as limbo, then I will have to really try to figure out what my theology is, but I would imagine that a whole lot of people would in that case. It troubles me a little that Benedict does not believe in limbo, because he is one of the top theologians in the world. It is difficult to imagine how one could reconcile the idea that unbaptized infants do not suffer the pains of hell, which he holds, and the teaching that we have been discussing here.

I’m still against Aquinas when it comes to predestination though .

p.s. - thanks for helping with that… though I am still confused about Lyons.

 

[USMC]

Lazerlike42:

I actually don’t need to adjust my theology because of this. After a lot of reading, I realized that the way I understood things was in the same way that Aquinas describes limbo, I just never knew it before. I had never studied limbo that much because it is one of those things that tends to be thought of as on its way out. If the Church says that there is no such thing as limbo, then I will have to really try to figure out what my theology is, but I would imagine that a whole lot of people would in that case. It troubles me a little that Benedict does not believe in limbo, because he is one of the top theologians in the world.

It should trouble you that he questions Limbo, because Limbo is a doctrinal teaching of the Church. Limbo is not merely speculation, as many today would have us believe: it is part of the universal magisterium of the Church.

Limbo has not been defened yet, but that does not mean that it is not Church teaching. The only thing left for the Church to define is whether those in Limbo suffer the fires of hell (which is what Augustine and other believed), or if they are in a state of natural happiness (which is what St. Thomas and others believe).

The following are two links you should read regarding Limbo. The first is a recent article written by Fr. Brian Harrison. He gives many good magisterial quotes on the subject of Limbo. His article can be found here: thecatholicfaith.blogspot.com/ The article is titled “Could Limbo be Abolished”, and is located on the lower left side of the page.

The other next link is to the Catholic Encyclopedia. It gives a thorough explanation of Limbo and also includes many magisterial texts, as well as quotes from the Church fathers.

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

In addition to the quotes found in those links, I will provide a few others here.

Baltimore Catechism: Chapter XI:

21 Q. How were the just who died before the time of Christ freed from original sin?

A. The just, who died before the time of Christ, were detained in Limbo until Christ redeemed them from original sin.

23 Q. What is Limbo?

A. Limbo is the name given by the early fathers of the church to the place or condition in which dwelt the souls of the just who died before the Redemption.

24 Q. Does the Bible speak of Limbo?

A. In the epistle of St. Peter (iii, 18) we read: “Christ being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlived in the spirit…coming He preached to those spirits who were in prison…they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noah.”

Chapter XVII:

13 Q. What is Limbo called in the Apostles’ Creed?

A. In the Apostles’ Creed, Limbo is called Hell; it says: “He descended into Hell.”

14 Q. Was Limbo really Hell?

A. Limbo was not the Hell of the damned but a place or state of rest where the souls of the just were waiting for Redemption.-- (Baltimore Catechism)

continue

 

[USMC]

continuation

Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology: *"Limbo … is a place adjoining hell, where the just who died in the grace of God before Christianity dwelled until they were liberated by Christ, and where babies who die without baptism dwell and remain forever.

"Holy Scripture speaks of Abraham’s bosom as sojourn of the just (Luke 16:22), but not of a place for babies who died without baptism. Tradition begins, especially with the Greek Fathers, to differentiate between adults who die with only personal sin and infants who die with only original sin, who cannot enter the heaven of the blessed and yet cannot share the fate of the damned in hell. In reacting against Pelagianism, which denied the transmission of original sin and its consequences, St. Augustine, endeavoring to defend this truth, held that babies who die without baptism will be subjected to the pain of fire, albeit very slight, on account of original sin. This opinion later on influenced some theologians, but did not hinder the course of the other more correct and benign opinion, according to which babies who die without baptism will suffer only privation of the beatific vision. This opinion was defended and developed by St. Thomas , and from then on prevailed in the schools. We find it in a letter of Innocent III to the archbishop of Arles, and in the Constitution Auctorem fidei with which Pius VI condemned the Synod of Pistoia (Denzinger 1526)

“The babies in limbo will not enjoy the vision of God, but will not be unhappy on this score, since the beatific vision is a supernatural good of which they have no knowledge. Some theologians (Billot) think that limbo is the eternal residence not only of babies and abnormal adults who did not have the use of reason, but also of certain classes of men of low-grade civilization, who are comparable to babies in the lack of development of moral consciousness…” (Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, The Bruce Publishing Company (1951), with Imprimi potest, Nihil obstat & Imprimatur, pp.164-65)*

The Catechism Explained: “Besides heaven and hell, the limbo for unbaptized infants will exist for all eternity. Limbo…is a state or place destined for those souls which, without personal sin, are excluded from heaven. We must distinguish between the limbo of the fathers, or Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22), where the just who died before the coming of Christ awaited without punishment or suffering their entry into heaven; and the limbo of infants, the place or state in which mainly children dying without Baptism (and hence unworthy of heaven but not guilty of hell) are excluded from the sight of God for all eternity.” The Catechism Explained, Benziger Brothers, Inc., (1899, 1921, 1949, 1961), with Nihil obstat & Imprimatur, pp. 148-49

Saint Augustine “Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament (Baptism) shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal church, in which it is the practice to loose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive, must necessarily remain under the condemnation, of which the apostle says, " by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation.” (Letter 166: To Saint Jerome)

Limbo is a teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church, and as such cannot be changed. The Church does not create the truth, or change the truth, it merely declares the truth.

The confusion of many people today regarding Limbo is an example of the confusion I spoke of in an earlier post.

 

[Matt16_18]

USMC:

The Church today, unfortunately, has some bad people in high places, and these people have confused a lot of Catholics.

People in high places such as Pope John Paul II and Pope Pope Benedict XVI? Closing the doors of limbo: Theologians say it was hypothesis
Catholic News Service

For now, while you are forming your faith, stick with the older materials. I would suggest the Baltimore Catechism (which is the one I first used), and also the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

I notice you do not recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Which doesn’t surprise me.**Catechism of the Catholic Church

1283** With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy **and to pray for their salvation. **Lazerlike42, I would suggest that you would do well to be skeptical of those who believe that they have a better understanding of the Catholic faith than Pope John Paul II and Pope Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Actually I read both of those articles already today. I think are off base though on saying that Limbo is a doctrine of the faith. Limbus Patrum doctrine of the faith and a teaching of the universal Magesterium, but Limbus Infantium is not. There isn’t anything

However, there are things which have been taught in the universal Magesterium which would lean toward the idea of Limbus Infantium, such as the statement in Florence that you quoted below.

I could be wrong, but Limbus Infantium doesn’t have very much explicit Magesterial support.

 

[USMC]

Matt16_18:

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

1283** With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy **and to pray for their salvation. **[/INDENT]

That may indeed be the passage of the Catechism that caused Lazerlike42 to believe that no one will be sent to hell who dies in original sin only; of course that is not what it says.

The Catechism of Trent, however, does directly address the question:

The Catechism of the Council of Trent " 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 through baptism. Pastors therefore should inculate the absolute necessity of administering baptism to infants, and of gradually forming their minds to piety by education in the Christian religion… The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the Church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death."

Let me guess, you don’t believe the clear teaching of that Catechism do you?

You will probably base your rejection of that clear teaching by saying that the doctrine has “developled” (by which you will mean “completely reversed” itself).

The teaching of the Church has not changed, nor can it. And if you believe it has, then your faith is built on sand.

 

[Matt16_18]

Lazerlike42:

However, there are things which have been taught in the universal Magesterium which would lean toward the idea of Limbus Infantium, such as the statement in Florence that you quoted below.

The statement of the Council of Florence was written in Latin. Here is an English translationDS 1306):“The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or only original sin descend into the realm of the dead (infernum), to be punished however with unequal punishments.”

The OT Saints also descended into the realm of the dead (infernum - hell) where they were deprived of the grace of the beatific vision, a “punishment” that was due to the fact that they were conceived in original sin. And before Christ descended into the realm of the dead, the damned were also suffering “unequal punishments” from the OT Saints, just as Jesus taught in the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Matt16_18:

The statement of the Council of Florence was written in Latin. Here is an English translationDS 1306):“The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or only original sin descend into the realm of the dead (infernum), to be punished however with unequal punishments.”

The OT Saints also descended into the realm of the dead (infernum - hell) where they were deprived of the grace of the beatific vision, a “punishment” that was due to the fact that they were conceived in original sin. And before Christ descended into the realm of the dead, the damned were also suffering “unequal punishments” from the OT Saints, just as Jesus taught in the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

The Latin term for Hell, as opposed to the underworld, is different, isn’t it?

 

[Matt16_18]

USMC:

Let me guess, you don’t believe the clear teaching of that Catechism do you?

Sure I do. But unlike you, I don’t believe that the Catechism of the Council of Trent contradicts the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Nor do I believe that Pope John Paul II was ignorant of the teachings of the Council of Trent for his whole life and that Pope Benedict XVI is still ignorant of the teachings of the Council of Trent. Nor do I believe that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are so infused with the spirit of antichrist, that these two popes are engaged in a conspiracy to lead the faithful into the great apostasy. In short, I am not sypathetic to paranoid beliefs of the schismatics of the SSPX and their ilk.

What do you believe about Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI?