R
Rubee
Guest
Ah, no. You are espousing a long-condemned heresy and not Catholicism. But its good you are no longer telling falsehoods about people claiming salvation will be given to people who choose hell.
Last edited:
Which dogmas do we have that with certainty excludes universalism?
- Status
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
No. You are.
You made intercessory prayer be a guarentee for salvation. Don’t lie to yourself. :man_shrugging:t6:
R
Rubee
Guest
You are plainly lying. Don’t do that to yourself just for internet points, being heavenbound and all. It’s kind of inconsistent.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Saying someone is lying don’t make it so.
R
Rubee
Guest
No, someone lying makes it so. :wink:Your claim that I “made prayer a guarantee of salvation” or that anyone claimed people don’t have to accept God to be saved are PLAIN LIES and you are knowingly telling them just to score internet points because its been pointed out to you OVER AND OVER again, but you CHOOSE to do it, again and again, . . and again.
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
This was the actual section I should’ve posted from that article.
The existence of preventing grace, officially determined by the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. v), must be admitted with the same certainty as the facts that the illuminating grace of the intellect belongs to a faculty not free in itself and that the grace of the will must first and foremost exhibit itself in spontaneous, indeliberate, unfree emotions. This is proved by the Biblical metaphors of the reluctant hearing of the voice of God (Jeremiah 17:23; Psalm 94:8), of the drawing by the Father (John 6:44), of the knocking at the gate (Apocalypse 3:20). The Fathers of the Church bear witness to the reality of preventing grace in their very appropriate formula: “Gratia est in nobis, sed sine nobis”, that is, grace as a vital act is in the soul, but as an unfree, salutary act it does not proceed from the soul, but immediately from God. Thus Augustine (De grat. et lib. arbitr., xvii 33), Gregory the Great (Moral., XVI, x), Bernard of Clairvaux (De grat. et lib. arbitr., xiv), and others.
Graces regarding free will
If we take the attitude of free will as the dividing principle of actual grace, we must first have a grace which precedes the free determination of the will and another which follows this determination and co-operates with the will. This is the first pair of graces, preventing and co-operating grace ( gratia praeveniens et cooperans ). Preventing grace must, according to its physical nature consist in unfree, indeliberate vital acts of the soul; co-operating grace, on the contrary, solely in free, deliberate actions of the will. The latter assume the character of actual graces, not only because they are immediately suggested by God, but also because they may become, after the achievement of success, the principle of new salutary acts. In this manner an intense act of perfect love of God may simultaneously effect and, as it were, assure by itself the observance of the Divine commandments.The existence of preventing grace, officially determined by the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. v), must be admitted with the same certainty as the facts that the illuminating grace of the intellect belongs to a faculty not free in itself and that the grace of the will must first and foremost exhibit itself in spontaneous, indeliberate, unfree emotions. This is proved by the Biblical metaphors of the reluctant hearing of the voice of God (Jeremiah 17:23; Psalm 94:8), of the drawing by the Father (John 6:44), of the knocking at the gate (Apocalypse 3:20). The Fathers of the Church bear witness to the reality of preventing grace in their very appropriate formula: “Gratia est in nobis, sed sine nobis”, that is, grace as a vital act is in the soul, but as an unfree, salutary act it does not proceed from the soul, but immediately from God. Thus Augustine (De grat. et lib. arbitr., xvii 33), Gregory the Great (Moral., XVI, x), Bernard of Clairvaux (De grat. et lib. arbitr., xiv), and others.
R
Rubee
Guest
Continued:
As the unfree emotion of the will are by their very nature destined to elicit free salutary acts, it is clear that preventing grace must develop into helping or co-operating grace as soon as free will gives its consent. These free salutary acts are, according to the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. xvi), not only actual graces, but also meritorious actions ( actus meritorii ). There is just as little doubt possible regarding their existence as concerning the fact that many men freely follow the call of grace, work out their eternal salvation, and attain the beatific vision, so that the dogma of the Christian heaven proves simultaneously the reality of co-operating graces. Their principal advocate is Augustine (De grat. et lib. arbitr., xvi, 32).
If the more philosophical question of the co-operation of grace and liberty be raised, it will be easily perceived that the supernatural element of the free salutary act can be only from God, its vitality only from the will. The postulated unity of the action of the will could evidently not be safeguarded, if God and the will Performed either two separate acts or mere halves of an act. It can exist only when the supernatural power of grace transforms itself into the vital strength of the will, constitutes the latter as a free faculty in actu primo by elevation to the supernatural order, and simultaneously co-operates as supernatural Divine concurrence in the performance of the real salutary act or actus secundus.
This co-operation is not unlike that of God with the creature in the natural order, in which both perform together one and the same act, God as first cause ( causa prima ), the creature as secondary cause ( causa secunda ). For further particulars see St. Thomas, “Contra Gent.”, III, lxx.
…
So, yes, grace is prior to ANY movement towards repentance. It is prior to the exercise of free will in repentance. Like wind to a sail on a boat, it first powers the boat BEFORE the roars of the boat can elect the direction to go. Before we can co-operate with grace, we must first receive the aid to do so INSIDE OUR WILLS (and reason) in the first place. That’s how God talks to us when steeped in our sin! Otherwise, we would never repent. If he waited for us “to want it before he can give it to us,” we’d all go to hell. By the time you “want it” you’re already the effect of grace. So it’s not only legitimate to pray for the hardened sinner, it’s entirely appropriate and a WORK OF MERCY to do so. And we have excellent examples of its practice and effectiveness among our saints, to boot. Sts. Monica and Maria Goretti most prominently but by no means the only ones.
As the unfree emotion of the will are by their very nature destined to elicit free salutary acts, it is clear that preventing grace must develop into helping or co-operating grace as soon as free will gives its consent. These free salutary acts are, according to the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. xvi), not only actual graces, but also meritorious actions ( actus meritorii ). There is just as little doubt possible regarding their existence as concerning the fact that many men freely follow the call of grace, work out their eternal salvation, and attain the beatific vision, so that the dogma of the Christian heaven proves simultaneously the reality of co-operating graces. Their principal advocate is Augustine (De grat. et lib. arbitr., xvi, 32).
If the more philosophical question of the co-operation of grace and liberty be raised, it will be easily perceived that the supernatural element of the free salutary act can be only from God, its vitality only from the will. The postulated unity of the action of the will could evidently not be safeguarded, if God and the will Performed either two separate acts or mere halves of an act. It can exist only when the supernatural power of grace transforms itself into the vital strength of the will, constitutes the latter as a free faculty in actu primo by elevation to the supernatural order, and simultaneously co-operates as supernatural Divine concurrence in the performance of the real salutary act or actus secundus.
This co-operation is not unlike that of God with the creature in the natural order, in which both perform together one and the same act, God as first cause ( causa prima ), the creature as secondary cause ( causa secunda ). For further particulars see St. Thomas, “Contra Gent.”, III, lxx.
…
So, yes, grace is prior to ANY movement towards repentance. It is prior to the exercise of free will in repentance. Like wind to a sail on a boat, it first powers the boat BEFORE the roars of the boat can elect the direction to go. Before we can co-operate with grace, we must first receive the aid to do so INSIDE OUR WILLS (and reason) in the first place. That’s how God talks to us when steeped in our sin! Otherwise, we would never repent. If he waited for us “to want it before he can give it to us,” we’d all go to hell. By the time you “want it” you’re already the effect of grace. So it’s not only legitimate to pray for the hardened sinner, it’s entirely appropriate and a WORK OF MERCY to do so. And we have excellent examples of its practice and effectiveness among our saints, to boot. Sts. Monica and Maria Goretti most prominently but by no means the only ones.
Last edited:
P
PilgrimMichelangelo
Guest
St Pope John Paul II is not the Arbiter of the Catholic Faith. Popes (as well as Councils, Encyclicals, etc.) are bound by the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church as expressed within the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils and approved revelations. This constitutes alongside Holy Scripture the Deposit of Faith. If a Pope teaches anything contrary to this Deposit then it is his words which are set aside, not the Deposit of Faith, which cannot be altered.
Also, per Universalism there is clearly a controversy as to exactly what was condemned at the Constantinopolitan Councils, though the teaching on the reality of Judas being condemned to Hell as the “Son of Perdition” is fairly obvious.
R
Rubee
Guest
Unless you can show St. John Paul II was doing that, this is irrelevant. The point I was making was that there’s no such unanimity, given St. John Paul II clearly contradicts those claims and has not been “corrected” by anyone except people on sites like CAF. In fact, it seems a pretty standard and ubiquitous teaching in the current day that “the church has not declared anyone to be in hell, not even Judas.”
Last edited:
P
PilgrimMichelangelo
Guest
Forgive me, but you and Montrose both deliberately ignored, twisted and otherwise dismissed the evidence cited by (name removed by moderator), who is correct in citing the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. Whereas you only furnished a quote from a single source, St. Pope John Paul II which clearly does not fully align with the continuous teachings of the Church as (name removed by moderator) clearly showed you, especially when contrasted with the teaching of Pope St. Leo the All-Wise, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and the EF Liturgy for Maundy Thursday. Therefore, we must believe that while St. Pope John Paul II was a holy man, worthy of imitation in virtue, he was incorrect in this teaching of Judas being in hell.
But all of this distracts from the actual point of the thread which deals with Universalism and whether or not a Catholic can hold to that doctrine.
But all of this distracts from the actual point of the thread which deals with Universalism and whether or not a Catholic can hold to that doctrine.
Arianism was a ubiquitous teaching in the current day of 324 A.D. until its condemnation via the Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325.
M
Montrose
Guest
Forgive me, but you and Montrose both deliberately ignored, twisted and otherwise dismissed the evidence cited by (name removed by moderator), who is correct in citing the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. Whereas you only furnished a quote from a single source, St. Pope John Paul II which clearly does not fully align with the continuous teachings of the Church as (name removed by moderator) clearly showed you, especially when contrasted with the teaching of Pope St. Leo the All-Wise, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and the EF Liturgy for Maundy Thursday. Therefore, we must believe that while St. Pope John Paul II was a holy man, worthy of imitation in virtue, he was incorrect in this teaching of Judas being in hell.
But all of this distracts from the actual point of the thread which deals with Universalism and whether or not a Catholic can hold to that doctrine.
Rubee:
Arianism was a ubiquitous teaching in the current day of 324 A.D. until its condemnation via the Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325.
- Universalism (meaning everyone, including the devil and the other fallen angels WILL be saved) is a heresy condemned by the Church and Catholics are not permitted to believe that.
- The Church has no official teaching that Judas is in Hell. If it did we would all be bound to believe that upon pain of mortal sin and that is certainly not the case.
None of what was shown proves that. It simply alluded/speculated/inferred. - Pope John Paul II was NOT WRONG!!
Last edited:
P
PilgrimMichelangelo
Guest
Well as my grandmother used to say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. 
You have been clearly refuted and refuse to believe that, thus you are both disagreeing and being disagreeable. Therefore our conversation is ended.
Good night.
You have been clearly refuted and refuse to believe that, thus you are both disagreeing and being disagreeable. Therefore our conversation is ended.
Good night.
R
Rubee
Guest
Forgive me, but you are busy committing slander here: I did not “twist” anything (name removed by moderator) cited, I accepted it and said John Paul II was aware of it when he taught as he did so his understanding of what the magisterium is on the question is still valid.
Also, forgive me but your interpretation of what church Tradition with a capital “T” is bears about as much weight against JP II as a gnat. Your declaration that you know definitively what Tradition is and the pope didn’t is pure arrogance. You are not the Catholic Church and you don’t get to invent anathemas that don’t exist. When the Catholic Church condemns the hope that all will be saved, you are free to come here and correct both Pope St. JP II and those of us who retain such hope. Meanwhile, your opinions, passionate or otherwise, remain no more than that.
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
You would do well to heed your own counsel.
Last edited:
- Status