new

[From "Unbaptized Infants Suffer Fire and Limbo is a Heretical Pelagian Fable"]

Conclusion: supralapsarianism and docility

The Jansenists were right about this. We have seen that it has been defined that unbaptized infants have the punishment of fire in hell with the devil and that it has been condemned to say that they have some place anywhere of rest and happiness. As such it is heretical to deny the fiery fate of infants or to attempt to revive the Pelagian fable of Limbo. No pope or Scholastic can change that. The infants die guilty of original sin and are punished for it in the fire.

However, original sin provides only a partial explanation, because it may be asked why – if all are subject to suffering because they deserve it due to Adam’s sin, which they have inherited – why did God not create a different man who was as free in soul as Adam was, whom he foresaw would not sin? Then there would have been no original sin, none would have been created guilty and all this suffering would not have been justified. Presumably such a man was possible, given the infinite number of possible men whom God could have created. Indeed, Catholics believe that the Virgin Mary lived her whole life without sin: so if God is good and wills only good to his creatures, why did he not create a sinless first couple, shall we say, Mary and Martin rather than the sinful Adam and Eve? Why did God not create an entire race of Marys and Martins? Why did he choose rather to create a first couple that he foresaw would sin and then hold their progeny guilty of that sin? Did he not create the world with people the way that he wanted them to be? as fundamentalists are wont to protest against homosexuals when they say that God made not Adam and Steve. It would be incoherent to say that God could not have created a world without evil and suffering: God is all-knowing, all-powerful and eminently prudent, that is, he is perfectly wise; the wise man always first decides what he wants to achieve and then acts so as to accomplish his end. So, why is there all this suffering?

The Dominican Thomists, following the doctrine of Aquinas, teach that God created the universe to manifest to the utmost his goodness in his creatures: and that his aim is best accomplished through the creation of the greatest variety, which includes creatures that fail in the accomplishment of their ends, their goods, and so suffer. Reprobation is a part of God’s providence, that he should allow some to fail. For thereby the goodness of his justice and wrath is manifest and not only the goodness of his mercy and loving-kindness. With people, that entails that they not only suffer in this life, but also that they fail to attain salvation, die guilty and so manifest the goodness of God’s justice in the eternal sufferings they experience in hell. This explanation is known as supralapsarianism, the doctrine that God willed even prior to the fall of humanity in Adam to reprobate creatures and to inflict punishments upon people. That is, God willed to damn infants in hellfire from all eternity. The infralapsarian position – which maintains that God willed evil to his creatures only after the fall – seems incoherent for the reasons given above. Indeed, God could have just created all people in heaven, free but sinless like the glorified saints now, including those baptized infants who never chose God but were chosen by him, for none would refuse the beatific vision as it is good under every aspect. We have argued this from the writings of Aquinas in the essay, ‘Does God Want All to be Saved?’

One should be worshipfully docile in this matter. God is to be adored because he punishes infants and has chosen to do so from all eternity, not because they deserve it, for he permitted their guilt only that he might punish them for the sake of his glory. It would be rebellion against the righteous God not to submit oneself to his wonderful justice and wisdom and to worshipfully join our will to his – whether it regard the merciless punishments of infants in this world or the next. We have a responsibility to protect infants from harm, though the extent of that responsibility is disputed, whether it extends to children not our own, home or abroad. But the guilt had by negligent adults does not change the providential character of God’s permission of that negligence, which he permits so that his justice should be manifest in the punishments suffered by the infants. There is nothing unjust about this. God deliberately permits infants to be burnt alive in fires and to die without baptism and to go to hell to be burnt for all eternity, all for his own glory and may he be praised for it!

This may be a “hard teaching” to some, like unto that according to which some no longer walked with Jesus (St. John 6) but those who have caritas, even the divine and supernatural virtue of the love of God, will be disposed to accept his will and to believe in him as he really is and to accept these teachings about his salvific will. It is impossible to be saved without caritas (charity) and those who do not love God for his own sake but are motivated in their religion by cupiditas, that is, by a worldly love that is not properly ordered to God, may well refuse to accept this doctrine because they love the world above God, saying that they are swayed by their emotions regarding the fate of the infants. The two loves produce contrary motions, affections, causing ambivalence but God gives victory to his elect through delight, an affectionate cleaving unto him. He gives his elect to know him and to love him as he is and to accept the doctrines regarding him. God saves whomsoever he wants by making them lovingly faithful. If people reject this doctrine of infants, it is because they do not love God as he is, they hate him and prefer the world over him. Concupiscent delight has conquered in them and has produced the bitter fruit of blasphemy.

It is a false and harmful charity that seeks to obscure ‘hard teachings’ and to hide the gratuitous nature of God’s love for his creatures and the nature of the loving response that he gratuitously puts into the hearts of his elect. Indeed, if God is eminently prudent, then the devil is thoroughly cheeky and his demons delight to incite people to despise the true God and to thus damn themselves, blaspheming him in their inordinate worldly concern for the reprobate and in their refusal to know him and to adore him as he is. They are wont to utter such dreadful blasphemies as that, Such a God would be unjust, cruel, the devil himself and eminently unlovable! Thus the devil constructs a blasphemous parody of the true religion to damn people in, sometimes called Pelagianism or Molinism. It is almost impossible to find an orthodox Christian these days, who really loves God. People who teach a false doctrine that compromises the doctrines about God, original sin and the punishments that he subjects people to, unite themselves with the demons, inciting blasphemy. Historically, the Jansenists represented honesty and the Jesuits represented doctrinal and moral compromise. The elect are few, the damned many.

We can't wait 6 months to oust Obama from office

The United States, Europe and the rest of the world is in violent upheaval. At home, fraudulently elected illegitimate President Barack Hussein Obama, along with with his black-Muslim friends like so-called Rev. Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, and Black Lives Matter allies, have finally succeeded in igniting a race war.

To add insult to very serious injury, President Obama refuses to use his powers as the commander in chief to destroy ISIS and other Muslim terrorists in a decisive way. The reason is obvious, and it’s time for people to just start saying it: The “Muslim King” does not want to go hard against his Islamic brothers and frankly, in my view, sympathizes with their quest to have allah reign supreme to further a worldwide caliphate. To add insult to injury, Obama has, through unconstitutional executive orders, opened the floodgates to millions of illegal immigrants who in many states like California can even obtain driver’s licenses, allowing them to register to vote.

Thus, the Muslim King has subverted the electoral process in favor of his creed as the overwhelming majority of illegals will vote Democrat, that is, for the Wicked Witch of the Left, Hillary Clinton, in November’s presidential election. And, they will also vote for leftist Democrats and others for Congress. This will further the will of the Muslim King after his term ends – assuming he does not declare a state of emergency over the crises he has created and attempt to remain in power.

The last seven and one half years have also seen a never-ending spate of scandals in and around the Obama administration, ranging from Fast and Furious-gate, to IRS-gate, to Benghazi-gate, and now the cover-up of the crimes committed by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton over her private email server. In this regard, it has been disclosed that Obama himself received highly classified emails from the Wicked Witch of the Left on her unprotected private email server, which was then easily hacked by the nation’s enemies, Russia and China in particular. Obama is thus complicit in this breach of American national security, notwithstanding the other traitorous acts he has committed – including but not limited to the sham nuclear treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which existentially endangers with another Holocaust not just Israel but the United States and the rest of the non-Muslim Western world.

Clearly, if there ever were a case for impeachment and conviction of a president, the Muslim King has exceeded “all expectations.” By Obama’s criminally minded standards, President Richard Nixon’s Watergate caper was, in the commander in chief’s own ironic words, simply a junior varsity effort at corruption.

The Hussein Obama is simply the most compromised, corrupt and evil president in American history. While there have been other presidents who committed crimes – and in one of my cases in the 1990s Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that Slick Willy Clinton had also done so in illegally releasing the Privacy Act protected White House file of a woman he sexually harassed in the Oval Office, one Kathleen Willey, my former client – neither he nor any other president has actually been removed from the presidency through constitutional impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives and then conviction before the U.S. Senate, as is required for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Thus, while President Nixon, once caught in his caper, had the “patriotism” to eventually resign, he, like former President Andrew Johnson, who was also simply impeached but not convicted, no American leader has ever been constitutionally forced from office.

The Founding Fathers and framers of our Constitution were inspired by God, but they were not God. The likes of the Adams, Jefferson and Franklin were not infallible, however great they were. Unfortunately, they did not devise a viable constitutional method to remove from office a corrupt, criminal, traitorous and destructive president like the Muslim King.

So, today what can we do about President Barack Hussein Obama, a man who at every turn favors only his fellow blacks and Muslims over the rest of us, particularly whites, Christians and Jews? And, it is simply not “favoritism” that I am talking about; it’s dangerous persecution to the point that we all are at fatal risk given the racial war and the Islamic terrorism Obama has furthered with his leftist, black-Muslim comrades. Indeed, the Muslim King, in my view, is far worse and more dangerous that another king, King George III, who provoked the Declaration of Independence and the first American Revolution in and around 1776.

Couple this with the fact that much like the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server was “rigged” by the Washington establishment of both political parties – FBI Director James Comey is a Republican – and the subversion of our ability to have fair presidential and congressional elections given that millions of illegal aliens are capable of fraudulently voting, what would our Founding Fathers do today differently than in 1776?

So, I pose this question: How can the Muslim King be legally removed from office before he does even more irreparable damage in the next six months of his presidency? What would our Founding Fathers have done under these dire circumstances? I do not think that We the People can just sit back and hope for the best, particularly in light of the heinous terrorist attacks of the last weeks, the latest in Nice, France, and the race war Obama and his friends have caused to explode in Dallas and around the nation. Our lives and the lives of our loved ones are in mortal danger!