Thus it is dogmatically defined that the impious are translated from NOT being sons of God, but sons of Adam, to being adopted sons of God by baptism.
Thank you Pope Leo. Why else, then, would St. John the Evangelist say: "But as many as received him, he gave them power to be MADE the sons of God, to them that believe in his name."? (St. John 1:12)
"Nam cum Deus hominem creaverit ad imaginem suam, nec illam ceteris animantibus impertiverit, ex hoc singulari munere, quo hominem ornavit, jure omnium hominum, nec fideliummodo, sed etiam infidelium, Pater in divinis scripturis appellatur."
That is to say: "Given that God has created man to His image, and has not bestowed it upon the other living creatures, on account of this unique privilege, with which He has adorned man, a right of all men, not only of the faithful, but also of infidels, in the divine Scriptures He is called Father."
It is indeed true that the faithful and the unbelieving are made in the image and likeness of God, and no amount of unbelief can remove that from them. But do not be deceived by modern corrupt translations, which allege this passage to teach that God is called the Father of unbelievers in Scripture. We have already seen seen above that such an allegation is absolutely false and indeed contrary to the Scriptures, and also contrary to the dogmatic canon of Trent quoted at the beginning of this article. It is only by adoption that can we be His sons, since we are not of God's nature. A look at an English Catechism from 1873 confirms this clear distinction between "Father" and "Creator" as separate titles. Though we may have lost our sonship and inheritance by the taint of original sin, and though some lose it after Baptism by subsequent unbelief and sin, neither of these causes are sufficient to remove from God the appellation of Father in a general sense, though certainly these causes remove our worthiness to have Him as our Father.
Here is an excerpt from my communication with a Latin translator I hired to help me understand the sense of this text from the Roman Catechism:
I asked "Is "jure omnium hominum" referring to "ex hoc singulari munere, quo hominem ornavit" or "Pater in divinis scripturis appellatur", or is it possible to read it either the one way or the other? Which way is more tenable?"
And aside from creating rational being in his image, and again adopting us as His children through faith, there is one more cause, for which God the Father is called "Father":
Who spared not His own Son, but for us,who were not His natural sons,
delivered Him up.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, First Part of the Second Part, Question 82. Original sin, as to its essence, Article 4. Whether original sin is equally in all: "I answer that, There are two things in original sin: one is the privation of original justice; the other is the relation of this privation to the sin of our first parent, from whom it is transmitted to man through his corrupt origin."
Romans 8:13-17: "For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live. For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father). For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him"
Leo XIII would have us believe that the whole human race is now already under the mothership of Mary and Fathership of God.