Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Alcuin on August 23, 2013, 10:45:24 PM
-
I wanted to focus on the BOD for non-believers, for people without supernatural faith, since that's where the REAL PROBLEM lies and to show how it's ultimately the root cause of all the V2 errors.
I think this point was somewhat lost in the thread. Could you expand and elaborate on this here.
Does the concept of BOD contain the antecedent teachings of Vatican II?
-
I wanted to focus on the BOD for non-believers, for people without supernatural faith, since that's where the REAL PROBLEM lies and to show how it's ultimately the root cause of all the V2 errors.
I think this point was somewhat lost in the thread. Could you expand and elaborate on this here.
Does the concept of BOD contain the antecedent teachings of Vatican II?
For an adult, the sacrament does not give supernatural faith the way it does for infants or those who lack the use of reason and never had it. Infants receive the infused virtues of faith and charity, while an adult who hasn't the faith wouldn't be given the sacrament.
Vatican II called into question all non-dogmatic teachings and all traditions. It didn't set out to deny defined dogmas, because that wouldn't be as effective as undermining all doctrine, which is similar to what the "dogma only" trads do.
-
Vatican II...didn't set out to deny defined dogmas...
Oh, i see.
So i guess, to you, EENS is not a "defined dogma", nor that the Church is ONE.
The latter is not only a dogma but an article of the Creed.
-
Relevant to this thread..
There is a contradiction in the Catholic traditionalist movement, and this contradiction prevents it from mounting the most effective possible resistance to what it refers to as the conciliar church, the Vatican II sect, the Novus Ordo regime, the New Church – in a word, whatever one wishes to call what emerged in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. This contradiction is not fully understood by anyone in the traditionalist movement whom I am aware of, and I fear that even as it is unmasked, it will maintain its grip on the majority of traditionalists, both sedevacantist and non-sedevacantist.
In the simplest terms, the contradiction is between two basic positions: on the one hand, the unconditional, uncritical, unquestioned acceptance of the doctrine of “baptism of desire” (or BOD), and on the other hand, a total rejection of Vatican II's ecclesiology and its core proposition, namely
that the Church of Christ “subsists” fully in the Catholic Church but also partially in other “churches”, various communities, and ultimately, individuals well outside even a nominal Christian faith.
-
I wanted to focus on the BOD for non-believers, for people without supernatural faith, since that's where the REAL PROBLEM lies and to show how it's ultimately the root cause of all the V2 errors.
I think this point was somewhat lost in the thread. Could you expand and elaborate on this here.
Does the concept of BOD contain the antecedent teachings of Vatican II?
For an adult, the sacrament does not give supernatural faith the way it does for infants or those who lack the use of reason and never had it. Infants receive the infused virtues of faith and charity, while an adult who hasn't the faith wouldn't be given the sacrament.
Vatican II called into question all non-dogmatic teachings and all traditions. It didn't set out to deny defined dogmas, because that wouldn't be as effective as undermining all doctrine, which is similar to what the "dogma only" trads do.
While it might be fun to broadbrush everything as being either black
or white, real life isn't quite so clear cut. There are shades of grey.
But in regards to doctrine, it is dangerous to give shades of grey
more emphasis than the necessary contrasts inherent in acceptance
or denial thereof. You can't really partially accept the Immaculate
Conception or the Real presence in the Blessed Sacrament. If you
would do so, you would be a Lutheran, saying that Jesus is present
in the host, but only so long as someone is there looking at the host.
Regarding the non-defined theological speculation called "baptism
of desire," any true definition would have to rely on the essential
doctrine of perfect contrition, for without perfect contrition, no
person dying would have his sins forgiven without water Baptism.
But does this non-defined theological speculation of "baptism of
desire" always entail perfect contrition? That is, whenever anyone
has ever mentioned "baptism of desire" have they always and at
all times meant to place it under the necessary pretext of
perfect contrition, or NOT?
Anyone who can ever once show that one person spoke of "baptism
of desire" with an inherent DENIAL of any abiding perfect contrition
would thereby destroy the definition -- the definition that has never
been given to the Church. If there HAD BEEN a true dogmatic
definition, such a DENIAL would be an act of heresy. But there
has been no definition, so such a DENIAL is merely another
theological speculation to be added to the already-long list.
In any case, all the discussion over the non-defined theological
speculation of "baptism of desire" is now over, even if the pope
has not proclaimed a definition. And anyone who refuses to
acknowledge the facts of the discussion is simply lost in the
dusty trail, and is BEHIND the times. Things have moved on.
Theology has progressed to other topics. So-called baptism
of desire is old hat.
But before Vat.II it was still swirling around like a tempest in a
teapot, adding to the confusion in the subjective minds not only
of the faithful but in the minds of the voting bishops. I dare say,
it was not so confusing to the piriti who counseled them, however.
There were such men who knew what they were doing, and who
merely allowed the voting bishops to bumble their way along in
blithely ignorant fashion, signing their names to docuмents they
had not read or even if they had, they were not really paying
much attention to them. Add to that a bit of acerbic ridicule
and mean-spirited-ness, like when they shut off the microphone
on one prominent cardinal, and you have the recipe for a mini-
revolution, so long as you can keep the crowd pleased and not
raise too many suspicions.
Before Vat.II there were a number of tempests in teapots, such
as the release, or rather, the non-release of the Third Secret of
Fatima; the universal acceptance of EENS; religious liberty;
"just getting along" with other religions; the burgeoning Rock
'n Roll subculture; the rise of sɛҳuąƖ promiscuity; the covert
advancement of Liberalism among the world's bishops - which
was not unrelated to the general state of the faith of Catholics.
But for the REVOLUTION to have its success, it needed not only
cultural and practical aspects, it also needed philosophical,
theoretical, abstract, intellectual nuances like invincible ignorance
and "three kinds of baptism" (even though ONE Baptism was
already dogmatically defined at Trent and in ALL THREE of the
Catholic Credo prayers: Apostles', Athanasian and Nicean; and
that the "other two kinds" are not sacraments, therefore, so-
called baptism of desire would presume to treat water Baptism as
something other than a sacrament, but what exactly, was never
made clear by anyone at any time, anywhere whatsoever).
Now, SSPX fans (and most especially Accordistas, since they're
more deferential toward Liberalism in all its various aspects) may be
inclined to shout, "BUT ABL TAUGHT BoD!" Yes, he did. And ABL
also singed off on numerous Vat.II docuмents that contained
heresies. Does that mean he was a heretic? No, it does not. He
was deceived, is all, like all the rest of the bishops at the Council.
If he had known the consequences of all these data points, he may
well have had other things to say about lots of teachings.
Our vision in hindsight SHOULD be a lot clearer, but some simply
choose not to see. And some of the willfully blind are leaders of
other blind and where do they all end up? Matthew xv. 14.
-
While it might be fun to broadbrush everything as being either black
or white, real life isn't quite so clear cut. There are shades of grey.
Download Saint Thomas' Summa as a PDF file (freely available online). At around 2800 pages, it's a lot to read! However, just do a text search on "opinion" and you will see that Saint Thomas used that word a lot! Now, if some doctrines are opinions, even if they are widely held, can they undergo doctrinal change:
Theological certainty Description
1. De fide Divine revelations with the highest degree of certainty, considered Divine revelation (and infallibly asserted)
2. Fides ecclesiastica Church teachings, which have been definitively decided on by the Magisterium in an infallible manner
3. Sententia fidei proxima Church teachings, which are generally accepted as divine revelation but not defined as such by the magisterium
4. Sententia certa Church teachings which the Magisterium clearly decided for, albeit without claiming infallibility
5. Sententia communis Teachings which are popular but within the free range of theological research
6. Sententia probabilis Teachings with low degree of certainty
7. Sententia bene fundata A well-reasoned teaching which does, however, not arise to being called probable
8. Opinio tolerata Opinions tolerated, but discouraged, within the Catholic Church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_dogma
For instance, can a sententia fidei proxima doctrine, which has been widely taught by "the theologians" for many centuries, undergo profound change? Can "the theologians" of a later century teach something entirely different?
-
Summa Theologica
Question. 66 - OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM (TWELVE
ARTICLES). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Article. 1 - Whether Baptism is the mere washing?. . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 3505
p. 3506
Article. 2 - Whether Baptism was instituted after Christ's Passion?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Article. 3 - Whether water is the proper matter of Baptism?. . . . . . . p. 3507
Article. 4 - Whether plain water is necessary for Baptism?. . . . . . . . p. 3509
p. 3511
Article. 5 - Whether this be a suitable form of Baptism: 'I baptize thee
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost'?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
p. 3513
Article. 6 - Whether Baptism can be conferred in the name of
Christ?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Article. 7 - Whether immersion in water is necessary for Baptism?. . . p. 3514
Article. 8 - Whether trine immersion is essential to Baptism?. . . . . . p. 3516
Article. 9 - Whether Baptism may be reiterated?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 3517
p. 3519
Article. 10 - Whether the Church observes a suitable rite in
baptizing?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
p. 3521
Article. 11 - Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described---viz.
Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
---
Article. 3 - Whether water is the proper matter of Baptism?. . . . . . . p. 3507
Whether water is the proper matter of Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that water is not the proper matter of Baptism. For Baptism, according
to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) and Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv), has a power of enlightening. But
enlightenment is a special characteristic of fire. Therefore Baptism should be conferred with fire
rather than with water: and all the more since John the Baptist said when foretelling Christ's Baptism
(Mat. 3:11): "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire."
Objection 2: Further, the washing away of sins is signified in Baptism. But many other things
besides water are employed in washing, such as wine, oil, and such like. Therefore Baptism can
be conferred with these also; and consequently water is not the proper matter of Baptism.
Objection 3: Further, the sacraments of the Church flowed from the side of Christ hanging on
the cross, as stated above (Q[62], A[5]). But not only water flowed therefrom, but also blood.
Therefore it seems that Baptism can also be conferred with blood. And this seems to be more in
keeping with the effect of Baptism, because it is written (Apoc. 1:5): "(Who) washed us from our
sins in His own blood."
Objection 4: Further, as Augustine (cf. Master of the Sentences, iv, 3) and Bede (Exposit. in
Luc. iii, 21) say, Christ, by "the touch of His most pure flesh, endowed the waters with a regenerating
and cleansing virtue." But all waters are not connected with the waters of the Jordan which Christ
touched with His flesh. Consequently it seems that Baptism cannot be conferred with any water;
and therefore water, as such, is not the proper matter of Baptism.
Objection 5: Further, if water, as such, were the proper matter of Baptism, there would be no
need to do anything to the water before using it for Baptism. But in solemn Baptism the water
which is used for baptizing, is exorcized and blessed. Therefore it seems that water, as such, is not
the proper matter of Baptism.
On the contrary, our Lord said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
I answer that, By Divine institution water is the proper matter of Baptism; and with reason.
First, by reason of the very nature of Baptism, which is a regeneration unto spiritual life. And this
answers to the nature of water in a special degree; wherefore seeds, from which all living things,
viz. plants and animals are generated, are moist and akin to water. For this reason certain philosophers
held that water is the first principle of all things.
Secondly, in regard to the effects of Baptism, to which the properties of water correspond. For
by reason of its moistness it cleanses; and hence it fittingly signifies and causes the cleansing from
sins. By reason of its coolness it tempers superfluous heat: wherefore it fittingly mitigates the
concupiscence of the fomes. By reason of its transparency, it is susceptive of light; hence its
adaptability to Baptism as the "sacrament of Faith."
Thirdly, because it is suitable for the signification of the mysteries of Christ, by which we are
justified. For, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxv in Joan.) on Jn. 3:5, "Unless a man be born again,"
etc., "When we dip our heads under the water as in a kind of tomb our old man is buried, and being
submerged is hidden below, and thence he rises again renewed."
Fourthly, because by being so universal and abundant, it is a matter suitable to our need of this
sacrament: for it can easily be obtained everywhere.
Fire enlightens actively. But he who is baptized does Fire enlightens actively. But he who is baptized does not become an
enlightener, but is enlightened by faith, which "cometh by hearing" (Rom. 10:17). Consequently
water is more suitable, than fire, for Baptism.
But when we find it said: "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire," we may understand
fire, as Jerome says (In Matth. ii), to mean the Holy Ghost, Who appeared above the disciples under
the form of fiery tongues (Acts 2:3). Or we may understand it to mean tribulation, as Chrysostom
says (Hom. iii in Matth.): because tribulation washes away sin, and tempers concupiscence. Or
again, as Hilary says (Super Matth. ii) that "when we have been baptized in the Holy Ghost," we
still have to be "perfected by the fire of the judgment."
Reply to Objection 2: Wine and oil are not so commonly used for washing, as water. Neither
do they wash so efficiently: for whatever is washed with them, contracts a certain smell therefrom;
which is not the case if water be used. Moreover, they are not so universal or so abundant as water.
Reply to Objection 3: Water flowed from Christ's side to wash us; blood, to redeem us.
Wherefore blood belongs to the sacrament of the Eucharist, while water belongs to the sacrament
of Baptism. Yet this latter sacrament derives its cleansing virtue from the power of Christ's blood.
Reply to Objection 4: Christ's power flowed into all waters, by reason of, not connection of
place, but likeness of species, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm.
cxxxv): "The blessing that flowed from the Saviour's Baptism, like a mystic river, swelled the
course of every stream, and filled the channels of every spring."
Reply to Objection 5: The blessing of the water is not essential to Baptism, but belongs to a
certain solemnity, whereby the devotion of the faithful is aroused, and the cunning of the devil
hindered from impeding the baptismal effect.
-
Whether plain water is necessary for Baptism?
Objection 1: It seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism. For the water which we
have is not plain water; as appears especially in sea-water, in which there is a considerable proportion
of the earthly element, as the Philosopher shows (Meteor. ii). Yet this water may be used for
Baptism. Therefore plain and pure water is not necessary for Baptism.
Objection 2: Further, in the solemn celebration of Baptism, chrism is poured into the water.
But this seems to take away the purity and plainness of the water. Therefore pure and plain water
is not necessary for Baptism.
Objection 3: Further, the water that flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross was
a figure of Baptism, as stated above (A[3], ad 3). But that water, seemingly, was not pure, because
the elements do not exist actually in a mixed body, such as Christ's. Therefore it seems that pure
or plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
Objection 4: Further, lye does not seem to be pure water, for it has the properties of heating
and drying, which are contrary to those of water. Nevertheless it seems that lye can be used for
Baptism; for the water of the Baths can be so used, which has filtered through a sulphurous vein,
just as lye percolates through ashes. Therefore it seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
Objection 5: Further, rose-water is distilled from roses, just as chemical waters are distilled
from certain bodies. But seemingly, such like waters may be used in Baptism; just as rain-water,
which is distilled from vapors. Since, therefore, such waters are not pure and plain water, it seems
that pure and plain water is not necessary for Baptism.
On the contrary, The proper matter of Baptism is water, as stated above (A[3]). But plain
water alone has the nature of water. Therefore pure plain water is necessary for Baptism.
I answer that, Water may cease to be pure or plain water in two ways: first, by being mixed
with another body; secondly, by alteration. And each of these may happen in a twofold manner;
artificially and naturally. Now art fails in the operation of nature: because nature gives the substantial
form, which art cannot give; for whatever form is given by art is accidental; except perchance when
art applies a proper agent to its proper matter, as fire to a combustible; in which manner animals
are produced from certain things by way of putrefaction.
Whatever artificial change, then, takes place in the water, whether by mixture or by alteration,
the water's nature is not changed. Consequently such water can be used for Baptism: unless perhaps
such a small quantity of water be mixed artificially with a body that the compound is something
other than water; thus mud is earth rather than water, and diluted wine is wine rather than water.
But if the change be natural, sometimes it destroys the nature of the water; and this is when by
a natural process water enters into the substance of a mixed body: thus water changed into the juice
of the grape is wine, wherefore it has not the nature of water. Sometimes, however, there may be
a natural change of the water, without destruction of species: and this, both by alteration, as we
may see in the case of water heated by the sun; and by mixture, as when the water of a river has
become muddy by being mixed with particles of earth.
We must therefore say that any water may be used for Baptism, no matter how much it may be
changed, as long as the species of water is not destroyed; but if the species of water be destroyed,
it cannot be used for Baptism.
Reply to Objection 1: The change in sea-water and in other waters which we have to hand, is
not so great as to destroy the species of water. And therefore such waters may be used for Baptism.
Reply to Objection 2: Chrism does not destroy the nature of the water by being mixed with
it: just as neither is water changed wherein meat and the like are boiled: except the substance boiled
be so dissolved that the liquor be of a nature foreign to water; in this we may be guided by the
specific gravity [spissitudine]. If, however, from the liquor thus thickened plain water be strained,
it can be used for Baptism: just as water strained from mud, although mud cannot be used for
baptizing.
The water which flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the cross,
was not the phlegmatic humor, as some have supposed. For a liquid of this kind cannot be used for
Baptism, as neither can the blood of an animal, or wine, or any liquid extracted from plants. It was
pure water gushing forth miraculously like the blood from a dead body, to prove the reality of our
Lord's body, and confute the error of the Manichees: water, which is one of the four elements,
showing Christ's body to be composed of the four elements; blood, proving that it was composed
of the four humors.
Reply to Objection 4: Baptism may be conferred with lye and the waters of Sulphur Baths:
because such like waters are not incorporated, artificially or naturally, with certain mixed bodies,
and suffer only a certain alteration by passing through certain bodies.
Reply to Objection 5: Rose-water is a liquid distilled from roses: consequently it cannot be
used for Baptism. For the same reason chemical waters cannot be used, as neither can wine. Nor
does the comparison hold with rain-water, which for the most part is formed by the condensing of
vapors, themselves formed from water, and contains a minimum of the liquid matter from mixed
bodies; which liquid matter by the force of nature, which is stronger than art, is transformed in this
process of condensation into real water, a result which cannot be produced artificially. Consequently
rain-water retains no properties of any mixed body; which cannot be said of rose-water or chemical
waters.
-
Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described---viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Objection 1: It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of
Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Eph. 4:5):
"One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.
Objection 2: Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Q[65], A[1]).
Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
Objection 3: Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism.
Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.
On the contrary, on Heb. 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the
plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood."
I answer that, As stated above (Q[62], A[5]), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's
Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause.
Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it
depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect
from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written
(Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes
and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of
Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without
Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God
and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written
(Is. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the
blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning."
Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of
Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian
argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today
shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed
this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply
for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account
of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
Reply to Objection 1: The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which
derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this
reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Q[60], A[1]), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other
two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal
effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.
Reply to Objection 3: Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the
Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since
then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulg.: 'by water']," according to 1 Pet. 3:20. He also
mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery
from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the
cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary under
the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism
of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism.
-
I wanted to focus on the BOD for non-believers, for people without supernatural faith, since that's where the REAL PROBLEM lies and to show how it's ultimately the root cause of all the V2 errors.
I think this point was somewhat lost in the thread. Could you expand and elaborate on this here.
Does the concept of BOD contain the antecedent teachings of Vatican II?
For an adult, the sacrament does not give supernatural faith the way it does for infants or those who lack the use of reason and never had it. Infants receive the infused virtues of faith and charity, while an adult who hasn't the faith wouldn't be given the sacrament.
Vatican II called into question all non-dogmatic teachings and all traditions. It didn't set out to deny defined dogmas, because that wouldn't be as effective as undermining all doctrine, which is similar to what the "dogma only" trads do.
In my opinion Vatican II took dogma and exaggerated it, till it became a heresy. That way when someone would call them on it, they would point out things like, "didn't Christ die for all man" ... therefor all men are saved. They used BOD to enforce their exaggeration.
-
Vatican II...didn't set out to deny defined dogmas...
Oh, i see.
So i guess, to you, EENS is not a "defined dogma", nor that the Church is ONE.
The latter is not only a dogma but an article of the Creed.
You can talk about how obviously a direct denial of defined dogma occurred, yet it's not that easy to show it in a convincing manner. Vatican II was diabolically ambiguous, craftily not directly saying anything, but undermining everything.
-
Whether plain water is necessary for Baptism?
In his 2800 pages, the great Angelic Doctor never addressed the proposition that,
Objection 6: Those who experience a Baptism of Blood and/or Spirit will, by the Providence of the omnipotent One and Triune God, always receive Baptism of Water, that is, the Sacrament of Baptism.
-
You can talk about how obviously a direct denial of defined dogma occurred, yet it's not that easy to show it in a convincing manner.
Not that easy? Unconvincing? Says who? To whom? You? The sspx?
Vatican II was diabolically ambiguous, craftily not directly saying anything, but undermining everything.
You think ambiguity excuses v-2?
Pope Pius VI condemned ambiguity if there was heresy and error involved and said to hold the author(s) to the heretical/erroneous part.
This is what 90 something % (probably) of false traditionalists think.
They think, oh v-2 was ambiguous, these popes are ambiguous, so we can't really say anything.
Wrong. Those are the tactics of the modernists and heretics.
-
Sorry, I wasn't ignoring this thread addressed to me; I was out of town this weekend and just got back. I'll try to post my thoughts on the matter this evening.
-
I'm glad that Alcuin started this thread; let's not derail it onto yet another pro or con argument regarding BoD, but let's remain focused on the question at hand.
This is a very serious question. I am not being facetious in stating that if I could be convinced regarding the broader application of BoD (i.e. to those other than catechumens or those who explicitly give assent to the Catholic faith), then I would have to accept Vatican II as being substantially error free.
At the heart of Vatican II you'll find a new ecclesiology. But is it really a new ecclesiology if you accept this broader BoD (I'll just refer to it hereafter as BoD for short.)
At the heart of Vatican II you'll find "subsistence ecclesiology", the idea that there are degrees of belonging to and degrees of separation from a core "fullness of truth." Everything else in V2 flows from it. So, for instance, the schismatic Orthodox are closer to this core fullness than are Protestants than are Jews than are various infidels, etc.
Now, if the good-willed Protestant who lives across the street from me can, if he died right now without converting to the Church, save his soul, then based on the dogma EENS, he must be said to be part of the Church. Same with Jews, animists, and all others whom we posit can be saved if they're of good will.
So you have people who are formally part of the Church yet separated from it materially to varying degrees. Consequently, these people can in fact rightly be called our "separated brethren" ... from which follow things like ecuмenism and communicatio in sacris with them.
Now, if people of good will can be saved, and the criterion and mechanism for salvation shifts from the objective possession of supernatural Catholic faith to following the lights of one's conscience, then we please God and save our souls by following our (even erroneous) consciences. Since we have a right to do what pleases God and saves our souls, then we have an objective right to religious liberty, to following our consciences. So, then, by putting pressure on a non-Catholic NOT to follow his conscience by restricting his religious liberty, we could, ironically, be causing the loss of his soul by influencing him away from doing his conscience. So a Protestant's conscience might require him to convert Catholics away from the Church to Protestantism; in legally stopping him from doing that, we may be preventing him from following his conscience, whereby we might be causing him to displease God and lose his soul.
So that's where all this subjectivism in V2 finds its roots. Bishop Williamson nailed that. Unfortunately, I'm stunned that no one realizes the contradiction of saying that Prots and pagans and everyone in between can be within the Church and can save their souls. If you could convince me of this, then I would have to accept Vatican II as substantially error free.
-
I'll try to lay it out in a hypothetical Q & A (quasi-Socratic) format:
Q: There's an animist living somewhere in African who's never heard of the Catholic faith. If he were to die right now, could he be saved?
A: Yes.
Q: How?
A: Because he was invincibly ignorant.
Q: Can an infant who dies without Baptism be saved?
A: No.
Q: But isn't an infant about as invincibly ignorant as someone can be? Ignorance therefore cannot be salvific, but merely exculpatory; in other words, it can excuse from sin but cannot save. What then allowed this animist to save his soul?
A: It was because he followed the lights of his conscience as he knew them and believed in God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked.
Q: What if this "god" required him to sacrifice infants to him and he just did it because he thought that this "god" required it of him?
A: I suppose that if he really believed that it's what God wanted.
Q: Let's say some colonial power came along and banned this child sacrifice under pain of execution. This animist, then, out of abject fear, stopped following nis conscience? Wouldn't his soul be at risk?
A: I don't know.
Q: Well, Vatican II drew the line for religious liberty at doing things that would hurt others, so this may not be the best example. Let's say instead that this animist felt that his "god" required him to do some relatively harmless rituals every once in a while and that, without doing this, he would not be rewarded in the afterlife by this god but would be punished. Wouldn't it be wrong to forbid this person from this practice, if it didn't hurt anyone else? Since following his conscience pleases God and allows him to save his soul, shouldn't he have a right to do this and wouldn't it be wrong for a government to prevent him from doing what pleased God and saved his soul.
A: I suppose so.
[to be continued]
-
I've never seen anything in this as requiring the animist to only follow his conscience. What he must do is follow natural law. Practice of child murder is an obvious break with natural law. The person in question would go to Hell.
-
I've never seen anything in this as requiring the animist to only follow his conscience. What he must do is follow natural law. Practice of child murder is an obvious break with natural law. The person in question would go to Hell.
But people can be in "material error" regarding the natural law also. So this animist can have the formal intention to follow the natural law and thus would be following the natural law in voto, no? I brought up child murder as an extreme, and even V2 Religious Liberty drew a line at when people might harm others. I brought up the child murder as argument ad absurdum.
What "he must do". my friend. is to accept the CATHOLIC FAITH. So now following the natural law becomes "salvific"? I would have to say this indeed would be heresy.
-
One wondered if the image of the Mystical Body might be too narrow a starting point to define the many forms of belonging to the Church now found in the tangle of human history. If we use the image of a body to describe "belonging" we are limited only to the form of representation as "member". Either one is or one is not a member, there are no other possibilities. One can then ask if the image of the body was too restrictive, since there manifestly existed in reality intermediate degrees of belonging.
The Ecclesiology of Vatican II
Ratzinger 2001
-
But people can be in "material error" regarding the natural law also.
1. God has imprinted the natural law on the heart of every man; this forms the fundamental rule of human actions. A young child who has done something wrong lied, perhaps, or committed a theft, feels uncomfortable, frightened, or ashamed; though it may never have heard of the Ten Commandments, it is conscious that it has done amiss. It is the same with the heathen who knows nothing about God's commandments. Hence we may conclude that there is a law of nature in every human heart, a law not written upon it, but inborn in it; an intuitive knowledge of right and wrong. St. Paul declares that the Gentiles do by nature those things that are of the law (what the Ten. Commandments enjoin), and consequently they will be judged by God according to the natural law (Rom. ii. 14-16). The characters wherein this law is inscribed upon our hearts may be obscured but not obliterated; the Roman Catechism tells us no man can be unconscious of this law, divinely imprinted upon his understanding, This natural law teaches us the most important rules of morality, e.g., that homage is due to almighty God; that no man must wilfrily injure himself; that we must not do to others what we would not have others do to us; furthermore from this moral code certain inferences directly follow; these are the Ten Commandments of God (the observance of the Sabbath excepted).
-
But people can be in "material error" regarding the natural law also.
1. God has imprinted the natural law on the heart of every man; this forms the fundamental rule of human actions. A young child who has done something wrong lied, perhaps, or committed a theft, feels uncomfortable, frightened, or ashamed; though it may never have heard of the Ten Commandments, it is conscious that it has done amiss. It is the same with the heathen who knows nothing about God's commandments. Hence we may conclude that there is a law of nature in every human heart, a law not written upon it, but inborn in it; an intuitive knowledge of right and wrong. St. Paul declares that the Gentiles do by nature those things that are of the law (what the Ten. Commandments enjoin), and consequently they will be judged by God according to the natural law (Rom. ii. 14-16). The characters wherein this law is inscribed upon our hearts may be obscured but not obliterated; the Roman Catechism tells us no man can be unconscious of this law, divinely imprinted upon his understanding, This natural law teaches us the most important rules of morality, e.g., that homage is due to almighty God; that no man must wilfrily injure himself; that we must not do to others what we would not have others do to us; furthermore from this moral code certain inferences directly follow; these are the Ten Commandments of God (the observance of the Sabbath excepted).
Makes perfect sense to me, which is why in simple terms, when people do something wrong they sneak around, even a small child.
-
You can talk about how obviously a direct denial of defined dogma occurred, yet it's not that easy to show it in a convincing manner.
Not that easy? Unconvincing? Says who? To whom? You? The sspx?
Who have you "convinced" or "converted?" I'll bet you irritate people more than anything.
Vatican II was diabolically ambiguous, craftily not directly saying anything, but undermining everything.
You think ambiguity excuses v-2?
Who said anything about "excusing V2?"
Pope Pius VI condemned ambiguity if there was heresy and error involved and said to hold the author(s) to the heretical/erroneous part.
This is what 90 something % (probably) of false traditionalists think.
They think, oh v-2 was ambiguous, these popes are ambiguous, so we can't really say anything.
Wrong. Those are the tactics of the modernists and heretics.
Except ambiguity confuses people. Crafty language deceives people. Of course this is the language of the Modernist. You don't even make any sense, little Cathedra.
-
Makes perfect sense to me, which is why in simple terms, when people do something wrong they sneak around, even a small child.
What makes sense to you, Myrna, is simply what you WANT to believe.
Claiming that people can now save their souls by simply following the natural law is nothing short of heresy.
Even the more extreme BoDers would state that one needs to have a supernatural motive in doing so, which then gets tied up with the notion of false religions.
Let's say you have a Protestant who believes that God has revealed that we're saved by faith alone and that he's bound by his beliefs to convert Catholics. He's following his conscience (which here is no longer a pure natural law thing but is based now on what he believes to have been revealed by God). BoDers must posit that this person has formal motive of faith while being in material error, but the formal motive would ironically be uprooted if the state were to thwart this person acting according to his conscience.
-
Makes perfect sense to me, which is why in simple terms, when people do something wrong they sneak around, even a small child.
What makes sense to you, Myrna, is simply what you WANT to believe.
Claiming that people can now save their souls by simply following the natural law is nothing short of heresy.
Even the more extreme BoDers would state that one needs to have a supernatural motive in doing so, which then gets tied up with the notion of false religions.
Let's say you have a Protestant who believes that God has revealed that we're saved by faith alone and that he's bound by his beliefs to convert Catholics. He's following his conscience (which here is no longer a pure natural law thing but is based now on what he believes to have been revealed by God). BoDers must posit that this person has formal motive of faith while being in material error, but the formal motive would ironically be uprooted if the state were to thwart this person acting according to his conscience.
Ladislaus, can you show us a catechism or theologian who teaches the REAL Catholic doctrine?
-
You can talk about how obviously a direct denial of defined dogma occurred, yet it's not that easy to show it in a convincing manner.
Not that easy? Unconvincing? Says who? To whom? You? The sspx?
Who have you "convinced" or "converted?" I'll bet you irritate people more than anything.
Well 4 people so far, of the truth of sedevacantism, but 1 apostatized because she didn't want to change her lifestyle and the other 2 are like in-between, like they know it's true but aren't doing anything yet.
The first one i converted was a 19 year old pagan girl, an american, and when i say pagan i don't mean an indian or native. She is now the only traditional Catholic in her entire family and the only one that dressess modestly.
What about you? How many have you converted?
And i only found out about all this 5 years ago.
Yes, i irritate people because i tell them the truth and how it is. I don't sugar coat things. But you seem like a non-judgmentalist person don't you?
In case you didn't know, if you're preaching to non-Catholics and you're not being persecuted, you're not doing it right.
Vatican II was diabolically ambiguous, craftily not directly saying anything, but undermining everything.
You think ambiguity excuses v-2?
Who said anything about "excusing V2?"
You're just like Williamson. You routinely pull the "I-didn't-say-that" trick.
You say idiotic things and when someone sees through your little word games and draws the logical ridiculous conclusion, you escape by saying "That's not what i said".
You're addicted to this stuff. You must be an eccentric person.
You don't even make any sense, little Cathedra.
Pfft LOL look who's talking.
-
You can talk about how obviously a direct denial of defined dogma occurred, yet it's not that easy to show it in a convincing manner.
Not that easy? Unconvincing? Says who? To whom? You? The sspx?
Who have you "convinced" or "converted?" I'll bet you irritate people more than anything.
Well 4 people so far, of the truth of sedevacantism, but 1 apostatized because she didn't want to change her lifestyle and the other 2 are like in-between, like they know it's true but aren't doing anything yet.
The first one i converted was a 19 year old pagan girl, an american, and when i say pagan i don't mean an indian or native. She is now the only traditional Catholic in her entire family and the only one that dressess modestly.
What about you? How many have you converted?
Actually it's more than 4 people. A few others in my family i have convinced of the fact of sedevacantism and they've acknowledged it but they don't want to abandon their sinful lifestyle so they don't really care either way. Others i have confronted and they just remain in an idle state doing nothing. They see the truth and know it's true but they don't want to give up the people. Their family members and their "friends" stop them from doing anything.
These novus ordos are idolaters now and they idolize the people and put them before God.
-
Well 4 people so far, of the truth of sedevacantism, but 1 apostatized because she didn't want to change her lifestyle and the other 2 are like in-between, like they know it's true but aren't doing anything yet.
Well, it sounds like you've not converted anybody to the Catholic Faith. How many others have you alienated then just assumed they were "bad-willed?"
I know you think I'm a liberal, but that's just because you don't know what you're talking about, especially in the most critical areas.
-
Well 4 people so far, of the truth of sedevacantism, but 1 apostatized because she didn't want to change her lifestyle and the other 2 are like in-between, like they know it's true but aren't doing anything yet.
Well, it sounds like you've not converted anybody to the Catholic Faith. How many others have you alienated then just assumed they were "bad-willed?"
I already told you 1 fully converted to the Catholic Faith.
Now you go assuming good will. You don't even know the people im talking about. They are bad willed liars, heretics and apostates.
But of course you will assume i "alienated" them.
"Alienated" them from what? From the novus ordo apostasy? You bet i have. I got my parents to stop going to the new mess even though they don't really care about anything.
I know you think I'm a liberal, but that's just because you don't know what you're talking about, especially in the most critical areas.
Yes sure i know that you think you're so smart and an enlightened one.
Please specify in detail how is it i don't know what im talking about, especiually in the most critical areas.
Btw you didn't even answer: how many have you converted?
-
Makes perfect sense to me, which is why in simple terms, when people do something wrong they sneak around, even a small child.
What makes sense to you, Myrna, is simply what you WANT to believe.
Claiming that people can now save their souls by simply following the natural law is nothing short of heresy.
Even the more extreme BoDers would state that one needs to have a supernatural motive in doing so, which then gets tied up with the notion of false religions.
Let's say you have a Protestant who believes that God has revealed that we're saved by faith alone and that he's bound by his beliefs to convert Catholics. He's following his conscience (which here is no longer a pure natural law thing but is based now on what he believes to have been revealed by God). BoDers must posit that this person has formal motive of faith while being in material error, but the formal motive would ironically be uprooted if the state were to thwart this person acting according to his conscience.
What I am trying to say is, I don't believe God created anyone just to be damned. He puts into our hearts certain truths, and if someone who never, ever and will never hear about the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but because of God's grace obeys his/her conscience and dies, can save their soul. God does not hold anyone responsible for something impossible, and in the case I just sited, He will judge each person like that by the opportunities He gave them to know the truth.
Some people never get an opportunity, what about them? Again I do not believe that everyone who is in such circuмstances will save their souls, it is probably very rare, since we are all born with a fallen nature. What I am saying is they do have a chance, and we are not to judge, and say they all went to Hell. I like to think that God who knows all things, knows who among those poor unfortunate people would have saved their soul, and He will help them live according to their correctly formed conscience. He also knows who among them would not have saved their soul no matter how much grace or opportunity was given them, therefore they are no better or worse than if they were born to a Catholic family.
I may be wrong because in all honestly some you these notes here lately are over my head, but it just seems to me that when it comes to EENS,BOD etc, things are not black and white, the way you make them sound.
Yes, we have all these teachings from the Church, but in the end, only God can decide who is and who is not a member, especially today, when many people living in the world can not even find the truth because it is so contaminated with false religions, and the truth is in eclipse as Blessed Catherine Emmerich said it would be.
-
What I am trying to say is, I don't believe God created anyone just to be damned. He puts into our hearts certain truths, and if someone who never, ever and will never hear about the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but because of God's grace obeys his/her conscience and dies, can save their soul. God does not hold anyone responsible for something impossible, and in the case I just sited, He will judge each person like that by the opportunities He gave them to know the truth.
We are all created for heaven, but only a few actually make it.
From Who Shall Ascend?:
The idea of salvation outside the Church is opposed to the Doctrine of Predestination. This Doctrine means that from all eternity God has known who were His own. It is for the salvation of these, His Elect, that Providence has directed, does direct, and will always direct, the affairs of men and the events of history. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that happens, has not been taken into account by the infinite God, and woven into that tapestry in which is written the
history of the salvation of His saints. Central in this providential overlordship is the Church itself, which is the sacred implement which God devised for the rescuing of His beloved ones from the damnation decreed for those who would not. (Mt. 23:37).
The Doctrine of Divine Election means that only certain individuals will be saved. They will be saved primarily because, in the inscrutable omniscience of God, only certain individuals out of all the human family will respond to the grace of salvation. In essence, this doctrine refers to what in terms of human understanding and vision, is before and after, the past, the present, and the future, but what in God is certain knowledge and unpreventable fact, divine
action and human response. St. Paul summarized this doctrine with these words in his Letter to the Romans:
8:28 - And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints.
29 - For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren.
30 - And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified.
-
Myrna, do infants who die unbaptized ever "get an opportunity"?
-
Myrna, I truly respect the fact that you desire all people to be saved; so does God, and so do I. There's no greater tragedy than the loss of a soul. But this isn't about "judging" who goes to heaven or who goes to hell. It's about understanding God's requirements for souls to go to heaven.
I don't know if you read the post I made about the fact that I believe a misunderstanding about the nature of hell might be behind BoD thinking. Heaven is nothing other than the beatific vision, a supernatural gift which no one can deserve, and no one is punished for being deprived of this gift. That's basically de fide. People are only punished for their ACTUAL sins. Infants who die without baptism enjoy a perfect natural happiness and don't even know what they're missing. They can be as happy as anyone can possibly be short of experiencing the beatific vision. And I'm sure that they love God with their natural hearts and are thankful to him because they are probably shown that God saved them from eternal suffering by allowing them to die in this state. EVERYTHING that happens is an act of God's mercy. If an animist dies in a jungle, it's undoubtedly because had he received the gift of faith he would have failed to live by it and thus merited a greater punishment. I fully believe that God puts everyone in the situation of the greatest possible mercy.
But we are simply not in a position to understand WHY God allows this or that to happen to some but not to others.
St. Augustine, who was the first and only Church Father, to float the idea of BoD, retracted the opinion in his later years, saying that making theology based on what WE think would be fair or unfair leads to what he called a "vortex of confusion". Where does this questioning of God's mercy stop? I've known a fair number of people who turned away from God due to some tragedy that they decided was not compatible with an all-merciful God.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26707&min=5#p4)
In my opinion Vatican II took dogma and exaggerated it, till it became a heresy. That way when someone would call them on it, they would point out things like, "didn't Christ die for all man" ... therefor all men are saved. They used BOD to enforce their exaggeration.
Can you come up with any more examples of this, MyrnaM?
-
Myrna, do infants who die unbaptized ever "get an opportunity"?
I asked something similar in a thread (Two Questions) just down the page but I will throw my question in here hoping it gets a bit of play.
How does BoD/BoB/Invincible Ignorance work in regards to Original Sin? I asked about the Limbo of the Infants. We know that unbaptized/aborted babies cannot see the Beatific Vision because although they have no personal sins, they still have the stain of Original Sin. So how would this work in relation to say an implicit Baptism of Desire? If an implicit desire can potentially be enough (with a perfect act of contrition too?) why would we even need a Limbo of the Infants in theology? Surely between BoD/BoB/Invincible Ignorance that could cover scenarios for unbaptized or aborted (BoB?) infants as well? So why Limbo then? Or said another way, how does BoD etc. work in conjunction with the Limbo of the Infants?
Thank you in advance for any help answering this question.
Luke
-
Myrna, do infants who die unbaptized ever "get an opportunity"?
Does believing in BoD help a woman who gets an abortion to
feel better about it?
Remember, Vat.II was largely an outgrowth of Americanism,
and Roe vs. Wade was consequent to Vat.II, just by a few
years is all.
-
Myrna, do infants who die unbaptized ever "get an opportunity"?
I asked something similar in a thread (Two Questions) just down the page but I will throw my question in here hoping it gets a bit of play.
How does BoD/BoB/Invincible Ignorance work in regards to Original Sin? I asked about the Limbo of the Infants. We know that unbaptized/aborted babies cannot see the Beatific Vision because although they have no personal sins, they still have the stain of Original Sin. So how would this work in relation to say an implicit Baptism of Desire? If an implicit desire can potentially be enough (with a perfect act of contrition too?) why would we even need a Limbo of the Infants in theology? Surely between BoD/BoB/Invincible Ignorance that could cover scenarios for unbaptized or aborted (BoB?) infants as well? So why Limbo then? Or said another way, how does BoD etc. work in conjunction with the Limbo of the Infants?
Thank you in advance for any help answering this question.
Luke
I suspect you're right here, and that's why the Modernists are trying to
get rid of Limbo because it's problematic, and BoD defenders are really
uncomfy talking about Limbo because they know there are contradictory
snags in the logic of it all.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=26707&min=5#p4)
In my opinion Vatican II took dogma and exaggerated it, till it became a heresy. That way when someone would call them on it, they would point out things like, "didn't Christ die for all man" ... therefor all men are saved. They used BOD to enforce their exaggeration.
Can you come up with any more examples of this, MyrnaM?
The exaggeration of Keeping Holy the Sabbath Day is another example. This might seem just too simple to even notice but prior to Vatican II under the new covenant the Sabbath Day is Sunday. However in today’s Modern world, they say it is necessary for convenience to fulfill their obligation for the Sabbath by going to church on Saturday evening. This is necessary for the salvation of souls, the time is extended. At the same time pleases false religions that worship on Saturday. Falls right into when Karol Wojtyla declared, in the predominantly pagan African Republic of Benin, that "the Church considers religious liberty as an inalienable right..."
Now they teach it is most charitable that we reach out to those who are separated from us, to foster the Mark of Unity within the church. They take this truth of Unity and exaggerate it by going against every thing the Church has warned us about. Now it is most desirable that Catholics should join in "prayer services" with false religions, they identify as separated brethren, also religious activities, except it is forbidden with Traditional Catholics, of course.
They exaggerate doctrine by the mere changing of the definitions of words, which is why they want to do away with Latin. Latin does not change, therefore it makes it difficult to change doctrine unless they can change the meaning of the doctrine in the first place. Therefore the enemy comes up with the idea to toss away the Missal prayer books, where anyone can read the Latin on one side and follow in their own language on the other side. Not only is this an exaggeration of an excuse but it is a lie, always they say it is for the benefit of the laity, but it is to carry out their own agenda.
-
Myrna, do infants who die unbaptized ever "get an opportunity"?
I asked something similar in a thread (Two Questions) just down the page but I will throw my question in here hoping it gets a bit of play.
How does BoD/BoB/Invincible Ignorance work in regards to Original Sin? I asked about the Limbo of the Infants. We know that unbaptized/aborted babies cannot see the Beatific Vision because although they have no personal sins, they still have the stain of Original Sin. So how would this work in relation to say an implicit Baptism of Desire? If an implicit desire can potentially be enough (with a perfect act of contrition too?) why would we even need a Limbo of the Infants in theology? Surely between BoD/BoB/Invincible Ignorance that could cover scenarios for unbaptized or aborted (BoB?) infants as well? So why Limbo then? Or said another way, how does BoD etc. work in conjunction with the Limbo of the Infants?
Thank you in advance for any help answering this question.
Luke
I suspect you're right here, and that's why the Modernists are trying to
get rid of Limbo because it's problematic, and BoD defenders are really
uncomfy talking about Limbo because they know there are contradictory
snags in the logic of it all.
Why would you say that BOD defenders are uncomfortable with the teaching of Limbo. That is not true at all.
Babies can not have BOD because they can not reason, they do not have the use of reason.
First babies in Limbo are in the state of original sin, BUT NOT PERSONAL SIN. Meaning they have not exercised their free will against God.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that God does not condemn anyone through no fault of their own.
It is true these babies will not see the Beatific Vision as one who dies in the State of Sanctifying grace, but they also, will not suffer the torments of Hell. True that some Saints in the horror of not seeing the Beatific Vision describe Limbo as a Hell, because they realize the treasure of the Beatific Vision, the reason we were created, and to be deprived is a sort of Hell to them.
In truth these babies in Limbo will not suffer, because what they never knew they will not miss in the sense that we understand.
Since Limbo is NOT de fide, as I understand it, it is something that even the theologians have discussed. In my days in Catholic school, prior to Vatican II, we were told that it was discussed by theologians that God in His justice might even give all those in Limbo a test, AFTER THE END OF TIME. This would be some sort of test to see if they deserve Heaven as we know it. This is all just a theory, no sense in debating it here, it is only a pious belief, and since every thing has not been revealed to us, it is quite possible.
Pious beliefs are just that, pious, no one is saying you must believe this or you are a heretic, it is a theory. A theory that I was taught in Catholic school in the 40's.
-
Myrna, do infants who die unbaptized ever "get an opportunity"?
I asked something similar in a thread (Two Questions) just down the page but I will throw my question in here hoping it gets a bit of play.
How does BoD/BoB/Invincible Ignorance work in regards to Original Sin? I asked about the Limbo of the Infants. We know that unbaptized/aborted babies cannot see the Beatific Vision because although they have no personal sins, they still have the stain of Original Sin. So how would this work in relation to say an implicit Baptism of Desire? If an implicit desire can potentially be enough (with a perfect act of contrition too?) why would we even need a Limbo of the Infants in theology? Surely between BoD/BoB/Invincible Ignorance that could cover scenarios for unbaptized or aborted (BoB?) infants as well? So why Limbo then? Or said another way, how does BoD etc. work in conjunction with the Limbo of the Infants?
Thank you in advance for any help answering this question.
Luke
You're exactly right about this. That's why I keep pointing out that invincible ignorance CANNOT save, i.e. it's not salvific, but merely exculpatory (it excuses from guilt). Invincible ignorance can do no more than to excuse from the actual sin of disbelief.
Once you get past that misconception, then I keep pressing on WHAT then is the mechanism for salvation of some pagan who follows the natural law? For the longest time all theologians taught that explicit knowledge of the basic revealed supernatural truths of the faith were REQUIRED in order to have supernatural faith. Without a minimal material supernatural convent there could be no "formal" faith. Then very cleverly the enemies of the faith reduced it to just believing in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked. So, this way any pagan living in the woods who never heard about the Holy Trinity or Jesus Christ would save himself by following the lights of natural reason, since the existence of God can be known with certainty through natural reason (de fide Vatican I). But this renders meaningless the entire Church and the Incarnation, reducing the Church, as even Archbishop Lefebvre stated it, to some vague instrumental cause of salvation.
-
When I have some time today, I'll cite the passages from Vatican II with regard to following one's conscience in good faith being salvific and then will challenge the implicit BoDers to explain how it's different from the very same theories they're always promoting. That's really the intent of this thread, but it keeps getting derailed into a broader BoD debate.
-
You're exactly right about this. That's why I keep pointing out that invincible ignorance CANNOT save, i.e. it's not salvific, but merely exculpatory (it excuses from guilt). Invincible ignorance can do no more than to excuse from the actual sin of disbelief.
Without supernatural Faith one cannot be saved. Ignorance of any sort can't save and I have said the about one thousand times. If we follow St. Thomas, what we are saying is that a man who hasn't the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved. This is de fide. If he is innocent, God will send him further graces so that he may be enlightened and brought to salvation.
-
When I have some time today, I'll cite the passages from Vatican II with regard to following one's conscience in good faith being salvific and then will challenge the implicit BoDers to explain how it's different from the very same theories they're always promoting. That's really the intent of this thread, but it keeps getting derailed into a broader BoD debate.
It will no doubt just show another TRUTH, exaggerated to produce a heresy. That does not mean that we who hold to BOD buy it.
-
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).
This could have been lifted from Tanquerey or any of the pre Vatican II Latin-writing modernists.
-
When I have some time today, I'll cite the passages from Vatican II with regard to following one's conscience in good faith being salvific and then will challenge the implicit BoDers to explain how it's different from the very same theories they're always promoting. That's really the intent of this thread, but it keeps getting derailed into a broader BoD debate.
It will no doubt just show another TRUTH, exaggerated to produce a heresy. That does not mean that we who hold to BOD buy it.
Note that Ladislaus NEVER provides any reference to the true teaching of the Church. He can quote no authortative explanations, but can only quote Vatican II and then tell us how the Church has been teaching error in Her catechisms in the centuries leading up to the Second Vatican Council.
Myrna goes to her library of old Catholic books and Ladislaus is critical of what she finds there. No, can't rely on that stuff cause it's what lead to Vatican II !
-
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).
This could have been lifted from Tanquerey or any of the pre Vatican II Latin-writing modernists.
The operative word is "may". Here's one way:
"So a person of goodwill who is involved in invincible ignorance and has an implicit desire to be joined to the Church, may indeed be saved, but not where he is. Whatever truth or goodness is found in such a person is looked upon by the Church as a "preparation for the Gospel," and Lumen Gentium continues, it is to such persons that the Church 'to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all such men (emphasis mine), and mindful of the command of the Lord, 'Preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mk.16:16), ...painstakingly fosters her missionary work.'"
http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html
You have to keep in mind that Vatican II reaffirmed the decrees of the Council of Florence:
This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea,(20*) the Council of Florence (21*) and the Council of Trent.(22*) And at the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God. Let them therefore teach the faithful that the authentic cult of the saints consists not so much in the multiplying of external acts, but rather in the greater intensity of our love, whereby, for our own greater good and that of the whole Church, we seek from the saints "example in their way of life, fellowship in their communion, and aid by their intercession."(23*) On the other hand, let them teach the faithful that our communion with those in heaven, provided that it is understood in the fuller light of faith according to its genuine nature, in no way weakens, but conversely, more thoroughly enriches the latreutic worship we give to God the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit.(24*) (Lumen Gentium, 51)
-
Are the authors of the Vatican II docuмents using the word "conscience" the same way communists use conscience as something to be raised?
In what manners was the word "conscience" used pre-Vatican II?
I smell a rat somewhere.
-
This is the true Magisterial teaching on the subject.
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
No one is saved by natural good will. The internal supernatural virtues of faith and charity are necessary, this is the efficacious virtue of divine light. The Holy Office Letter says the same thing.
One acquires the virtue of supernatural faith if one makes an act of faith where one is truly willing to believe all that God has revealed, to believe all that He has promised, together with supernatural charity, if one loves God above all things, and hates and detests what separates one from Him, namely our sins.
The just of the Old Testament were saved sometimes by implicit faith in Christ. Some theologians hold implicit faith in Christ might suffice where the Gospel has never been preached, Fr. Garrigou Lagrange is one. Archbishop Lefebvre says the same.
Pope Pius XII also taught a perfect act of love of God would bestow the effect of baptism.
Heretics and infidels who are guilty of heresy and infidelity die in mortal sin, outside the Church, and are lost. Those in invincible ignorance are not culpable for unbelief which is not a sin since they have not knowingly and willfully rejected the Church. They are not on this account saved, they may well be lost for other mortal sins, never having been incorporated into the Church.
But for such as these latter, a baptism of desire is possible. Likewise, for those who have been baptized, but raised in heresy or schism, if they are guilty of and culpable for it, they die outside the Church, in mortal sin and cannot be saved. But if these are invincibly ignorant of the true Church, perfect contrition might be possible. Both the sacrament of penance and that of baptism can be had in desire, perfected by charity or love of God and Christ above all things. This is the plain and clear doctrine, there should be no occasion of doubt.
-
SJB, not once have you engaged in an actual rational argument. You just paste stuff in and then demand counter-citations.
If you don't believe the citation from Vatican II essentially echoes the pre-Vatican II teaching, then please make the appropriate distinctions.
-
Are the authors of the Vatican II docuмents using the word "conscience" the same way communists use conscience as something to be raised?
In what manners was the word "conscience" used pre-Vatican II?
I smell a rat somewhere.
McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology, 1931, explains (from the Summa, q. 79, aa. 11-13):
Definition:Conscience is an act of judgment on the part of the practical reason deciding by inference from general principles the moral goodness or malice of a particular act.
(a) It is an act, and as such it differs from moral knowledge and intellectual virtues,which are not transitory but enduring. Moral understanding (synderesis), by which everyone naturally perceives the truth of general and self-evident principles of morality [...] these are preparatory to the act of conscience, in which one makes use of one's knowledge to judge of the lawfullness or unlawfulness of an action in the concrete, as attended by all its circuмstances.
(b) Conscience is an act of judgment, and thus it differs from other acts employed by prudence - from council about the right means or ways of action, and from command as to their use. Council inquires what is the right thing to do, conscience gives the dictate or decision, the moral command moves to action.
(c) Conscience is in the reason - that is, it is a subjective guide, and differs from the law, which is objective.
-
Everyone keeps digressing.
I need someone to explain HOW, i.e. the actual ontological mechanism, by which such people as we're discussing can be saved.
That's why I ruled out invincible ignorance because it's not salvific, so let's put that one aside.
Yeah, yeah, you SAY they have to have perfect charity. But you can't have charity, nor salvation without supernatural faith.
I need you to dig deeper.
What you're saying is that RECTITUDE OF THE WILL supplies for lack thereof in the intellect. What you're saying is that RECTITUDE OF THE WILL can be had WITHOUT RECTITUDE OF THE INTELLECT. That in a nutshell IS subjectivism. Bishop Williamson drilled that into me over two years of having him as a seminary professor as THE error of the modern day. In point of fact, however, the will can only be rightly ordered towards God if the intellect is, since the will cannot will what it does not know. Intellect leads the will and finds the proper object for the will; charity cannot exist without faith.
If the low-level mechanism for the hypothetical salvation of these people is not rectitude of the will, then please explain what it is.
-
SJB, not once have you engaged in an actual rational argument. You just paste stuff in and then demand counter-citations.
This is Ladislaus' way of saying he has no citations of his own.
If you don't believe the citation from Vatican II essentially echoes the pre-Vatican II teaching, then please make the appropriate distinctions.
I'm not defending Vatican II. Why do you quote V2 then fail to provide the "real" teaching. I guess if we go back in time far enough, we'll find the real teaching of the Church (even if you can't tell us precisely where it resides.)
-
Are the authors of the Vatican II docuмents using the word "conscience" the same way communists use conscience as something to be raised?
In what manners was the word "conscience" used pre-Vatican II?
I smell a rat somewhere.
The way I understand "conscience" is that it is knowledge, however sometime the knowledge we hold is wrong. Which is why we need the Church to interpret it’s teachings. If a person for example truly believes that today is a fast day, but he is mistaken the fast day is really tomorrow, but he believes it is today by mistake; says to himself, I don’t care I am going to eat what I want today. Later he finds out the fast day was tomorrow, he still sinned because he went against his erroneous conscience. A good conscience will also make him feel guilty over his past deed described above, and he should go to Confession.
An erroneous conscience still binds it doesn’t mean that one who follows their conscience always does the right thing.
Vatican II, says, just follow your conscience whatever you feel, if it's good for you it probably is, if it will hurt you or your neighbor don't do it. You see they believe the only sin is hurting your fellow man. They forget about hurting God.
-
Ladislaus, I think you are mistaken on both counts. Do ponder this question, how were righteous Gentiles who lived outside Israel, saved in the era before Christ? Was it with or without supernatural faith? Supernatural faith, explains St. Thomas consists in explicit faith in the primary points or articles of faith, and implicit faith in every other article, in that by this internal virtue a man is ready and willing to believe them when he is taught.
Yes, I agree supernatural charity is not possible without supernatural faith, but that is another matter. St. Thomas says it is intrinsically possible to have supernatural faith by having explicit faith in divine Providence and implicit faith in Christ the mediator, and that the just before Christ might have been saved in this way. Today, after Christ, he argues not from intrinsic necessity, but divine dispensation, that no one is saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ. With that teaching of the Angelic Doctor, I completely agree and submit to. However, St. Alphonsus and several others who also held this opinion, give it only as more probable opinion, stating that it is "sufficiently probable" that implicit faith in Christ may suffice in some exceptional cases where the Gospel has never been preached.
Invincible ignorance is relevant, because he who has rejected Christ and His Church can never be saved, in this wilful rejection he is lost. That is why, baptism of desire in this sense would apply only to those who are struggling with invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, as Pope Pius IX says. They will be enlightened by God supernaturally about the minimum explicit content that is necessary for supernatural and salvific faith.
-
SJB, not once have you engaged in an actual rational argument. You just paste stuff in and then demand counter-citations.
This is Ladislaus' way of saying he has no citations of his own.
If you don't believe the citation from Vatican II essentially echoes the pre-Vatican II teaching, then please make the appropriate distinctions.
I'm not defending Vatican II. Why do you quote V2 then fail to provide the "real" teaching. I guess if we go back in time far enough, we'll find the real teaching of the Church (even if you can't tell us precisely where it resides.)
Yes, I too am confused as to why he keeps bringing up what Vatican II teaches, this is a traditional forum, we for the most of us, left the teachings of Vatican II. The Church taught BOD and BOB long before VII. Which is why Vatican II jumped on this teaching and exaggerated it, s t r e t c h e d it, it fits right into their scheme that ... "All men are saved."
-
Ladislaus, I think you are mistaken on both counts. Do ponder this question, how were righteous Gentiles who lived outside Israel, saved in the era before Christ? Was it with or without supernatural faith? Supernatural faith, explains St. Thomas consists in explicit faith in the primary points or articles of faith, and implicit faith in every other article, in that by this internal virtue a man is ready and willing to believe them when he is taught.
Yes, I agree supernatural charity is not possible without supernatural faith, but that is another matter. St. Thomas says it is intrinsically possible to have supernatural faith by having explicit faith in divine Providence and implicit faith in Christ the mediator, and that the just before Christ might have been saved in this way. Today, after Christ, he argues not from intrinsic necessity, but divine dispensation, that no one is saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ. With that teaching of the Angelic Doctor, I completely agree and submit to. However, St. Alphonsus and several others who also held this opinion, give it only as more probable opinion, stating that it is "sufficiently probable" that implicit faith in Christ may suffice in some exceptional cases where the Gospel has never been preached.
Invincible ignorance is relevant, because he who has rejected Christ and His Church can never be saved, in this wilful rejection he is lost. That is why, baptism of desire in this sense would apply only to those who are struggling with invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, as Pope Pius IX says. They will be enlightened by God supernaturally about the minimum explicit content that is necessary for supernatural and salvific faith.
You do realize this is not what Lefebvre believed, or the vast majority of "traditional" priests today.
Lefebvre believed in salvation outside the Church.
-
The way I understand "conscience" is that it is knowledge, however sometime the knowledge we hold is wrong.
In traditional terminology, conscience is the decision we make based on our knowledge of the facts of a particular situation. If we go against this decision or act contrary to this decision, we open ourselves to sin.
As McHugh and Callan explain, conscience is not a faculty or habit but an act of the practical intellect; in other words, it's the application of knowledge to a specific fact. We are obliged to follow an invincibly ignorant conscience because not to follow our conscience is to act contrary to the subjective norm of morality. And, yes, we cannot act contrary to a vincibly ignorant conscience either, because acting without a certain conscience exposes us to sin.
Now compare this to a definition of conscience in a Novus Ordo source:
Encyclopedia of Catholicism says it is "the whole self trying to make judgments about who one ought to be ..."
Sounds like "I'm Okay, You're Okay" to me ...
-
SBJ, I really don't care about your citations; I'm interested in your applying the principles to the question at hand. I would guess that we won't find pre Vatican II citations showing how Vatican II proceeds from pre-Vatican II EENS theology / ecclesiology.
-
Additionally, the Novus Ordo's loaded terminology with words like "dignity" make it appear as though any judgment of conscience deserves to be followed simply because it comes from our "most secret core and sanctuary." That makes regular people think that we don't necessarily have to refrain from action or work to choose a safer or more probable course.
The modern writers may say that we have to inform our conscience through Scripture, Church teaching, and theology. But then they usually add something like the following, from that same source: "The goal of forming conscience is to commit one's freedom to what is right and good so that...one identifies with what one does. The moral decision becomes a commitment of the self to value."
I guess that's true enough, but the rhetoric with its imprecisions, emotional appeal, and "poetic" vocabulary is aimed at confusing and subverting the genuine Catholic thinking that understands just how serious and complex it is to make judgments of conscience.
-
SBJ, I really don't care about your citations; I'm interested in your applying the principles to the question at hand. I would guess that we won't find pre Vatican II citations showing how Vatican II proceeds from pre-Vatican II EENS theology / ecclesiology.
That's because it doesn't exist. IF you would just show the REAL Catholic teaching and explanation, maybe we'd see the "link" you claim exists.
-
And that's another thing; I find the term "invincible" ignorance abhorrent.
Invincible to whom? To God?
If there's a good-willed pagan dying in the jungle somewhere, what's to stop God from sending a revelation regarding the Holy Trinity and Incarnation to this person and allowing him to make the assent of supernatural faith to these truths revealed to him?
Absolutely nothing. There's no such thing as invincible ignorance.
That scenario of course would depend upon explicit Baptism of Desire, but we're not discussing that here. Yet, even with that, there's absolutely nothing to stop God from transporting someone to this person to baptize him. That's reportedly what happened with Mary of Agreda, and there are similar stories about it happening to other saints as well.
I call bovine excrement on the notion of invincible ignorance and impossibility.
-
SBJ, I really don't care about your citations; I'm interested in your applying the principles to the question at hand. I would guess that we won't find pre Vatican II citations showing how Vatican II proceeds from pre-Vatican II EENS theology / ecclesiology.
That's because it doesn't exist. IF you would just show the REAL Catholic teaching and explanation, maybe we'd see the "link" you claim exists.
I've already laid out and demonstrated in detail the logical progression from one to the other. Please read my explanation a few posts back and tell me where I'm wrong. You explain to me the ontological mechanism behind not having the faith and yet having the faith. What's the distinction? Formal vs. Material? You tell me. That's the way I read it.
-
Additionally, the Novus Ordo's loaded terminology with words like "dignity" make it appear as though any judgment of conscience deserves to be followed simply because it comes from our "most secret core and sanctuary." That makes regular people think that we don't necessarily have to refrain from action or work to choose a safer or more probable course.
The modern writers may say that we have to inform our conscience through Scripture, Church teaching, and theology. But then they usually add something like the following, from that same source: "The goal of forming conscience is to commit one's freedom to what is right and good so that...one identifies with what one does. The moral decision becomes a commitment of the self to value."
I guess that's true enough, but the rhetoric with its imprecisions, emotional appeal, and "poetic" vocabulary is aimed at confusing and subverting the genuine Catholic thinking that understands just how serious and complex it is to make judgments of conscience.
Yesterday i heard a novus ordo "catholic" philosopher saying that to sin is to "become empty", and since you become empty, you want more and more and more and you are never satisfied because of the emptiness.
Nothing about sin being an offense to God and a violation of His Law creating debt and punishment, mind you.
-
And that's another thing; I find the term "invincible" ignorance abhorrent.
Invincible to whom? To God?
If there's a good-willed pagan dying in the jungle somewhere, what's to stop God from sending a revelation regarding the Holy Trinity and Incarnation to this person and allowing him to make the assent of supernatural faith to these truths revealed to him?
Absolutely nothing. There's no such thing as invincible ignorance.
That scenario of course would depend upon explicit Baptism of Desire, but we're not discussing that here. Yet, even with that, there's absolutely nothing to stop God from transporting someone to this person to baptize him. That's reportedly what happened with Mary of Agreda, and there are similar stories about it happening to other saints as well.
I call bovine excrement on the notion of invincible ignorance and impossibility.
Why did Pius IX used that term then?
I don't like it either, because nothing is impossible to God, but i would be careful about what i say about it.
-
And that's another thing; I find the term "invincible" ignorance abhorrent.
Invincible to whom? To God?
If there's a good-willed pagan dying in the jungle somewhere, what's to stop God from sending a revelation regarding the Holy Trinity and Incarnation to this person and allowing him to make the assent of supernatural faith to these truths revealed to him?
Absolutely nothing. There's no such thing as invincible ignorance.
That scenario of course would depend upon explicit Baptism of Desire, but we're not discussing that here. Yet, even with that, there's absolutely nothing to stop God from transporting someone to this person to baptize him. That's reportedly what happened with Mary of Agreda, and there are similar stories about it happening to other saints as well.
I call bovine excrement on the notion of invincible ignorance and impossibility.
Why did Pius IX used that term then?
I don't like it either, because nothing is impossible to God, but i would be careful about what i say about it.
It's a traditional term found many places as I've shown before.
-
If there's a good-willed pagan dying in the jungle somewhere, what's to stop God from sending a revelation regarding the Holy Trinity and Incarnation to this person and allowing him to make the assent of supernatural faith to these truths revealed to him?
Absolutely nothing. There's no such thing as invincible ignorance.
We covered this before. The infant-raised-in-the-woods-out-in-Patagonia is specifically answered by St. Thomas. If such a one truly strives to serve God by obedience to the natural law, God will send an angel, a missionary, or His own direct inspiration to enlighten him in the truths of the Faith necessary to salvation; thus coming to the knowledge of the truth. "God wills that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth" (I Tim. 2:4).
-
And that's another thing; I find the term "invincible" ignorance abhorrent.
Invincible to whom? To God?
If there's a good-willed pagan dying in the jungle somewhere, what's to stop God from sending a revelation regarding the Holy Trinity and Incarnation to this person and allowing him to make the assent of supernatural faith to these truths revealed to him?
Absolutely nothing. There's no such thing as invincible ignorance.
That scenario of course would depend upon explicit Baptism of Desire, but we're not discussing that here. Yet, even with that, there's absolutely nothing to stop God from transporting someone to this person to baptize him. That's reportedly what happened with Mary of Agreda, and there are similar stories about it happening to other saints as well.
I call bovine excrement on the notion of invincible ignorance and impossibility.
Why did Pius IX used that term then?
I don't like it either, because nothing is impossible to God, but i would be careful about what i say about it.
Pius IX used it because the term was in vogue at the time. "Traditional" is too strong a word for it.
-
We covered this before. The infant-raised-in-the-woods-out-in-Patagonia is specifically answered by St. Thomas. If such a one truly strives to serve God by obedience to the natural law, God will send an angel, a missionary, or His own direct inspiration to enlighten him in the truths of the Faith necessary to salvation; thus coming to the knowledge of the truth. "God wills that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth" (I Tim. 2:4).
Would you say then this is exactly what Pope Pius IX was talking about in QCM but perhaps only implicitly and not getting into too much detail? Do you believe he was just echoing St. Thomas or was there something new being said?
-
Pius IX used it because the term was in vogue at the time.
Really? Where did you learn this?
-
SJB, what would you say about this one then:
"Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control".
Is that even an accurate translation from the original?
-
We covered this before. The infant-raised-in-the-woods-out-in-Patagonia is specifically answered by St. Thomas. If such a one truly strives to serve God by obedience to the natural law, God will send an angel, a missionary, or His own direct inspiration to enlighten him in the truths of the Faith necessary to salvation; thus coming to the knowledge of the truth. "God wills that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth" (I Tim. 2:4).
Would you say then this is exactly what Pope Pius IX was talking about in QCM but perhaps only implicitly and not getting into too much detail? Do you believe he was just echoing St. Thomas or was there something new being said?
Yes. The point is that without supernatural Faith one cannot be saved, not that ignorance of any sort can or can't save, which is a nonsense. If we follow St. Thomas, what we are saying is that a man who hasn't the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved. This is de fide. If he is innocent, God will send him further graces so that he may be enlightened and brought to salvation, which is all that Ven. Pius IX is saying. He is merely cutting off accusations of injustice or "unfairness" against God, having just laid down that there isn't any salvation outside the Church. In other words, "Don't worry about the invincibly ignorant - they won't be left to die in that state. If they are truly innocent they will be brought to salvation by God's light and grace." That is, by His Light - which means, by being granted the light of true Faith. None of this was controversial when everybody followed St. Thomas, but between the liberals and the "Feeneyites", it has all gotten tangled up.
As for whether we know about individual cases or not, that is not really relevant, although some try to make it so. The point is to establish which PRINCIPLES govern the question of salvation. Individual cases will then fall within or without those parameters.
While I agree that we do not know with absolute certitude the disposition of another's soul, we can know with moral certitude. We must avoid the trap of saying that because we do not have absolute or metaphysical certitude we do not have certitude. Or because there are cases we cannot know about, that we can never know about any cases at all.
-
SJB, what would you say about this one then:
"Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control".
Is that even an accurate translation from the original?
One cannot remain outside. The dogma is very clear on this.
-
SJB, what would you say about this one then:
"Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control".
Is that even an accurate translation from the original?
One cannot remain outside. The dogma is very clear on this.
Of course, but this says those outside can hope for life or salvation if they are excused by I.I.
Is that not saying, "well, if you're outside the Church because of I.I., then you have SOME hope to be saved if you die like that".
-
ON PROMOTION OF FALSE DOCTRINES
QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX
AUGUST 10, 1863
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11]
9. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.
[4] Ecuмenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.
[5] Mt 15.17.
[6] Lk 10.16.
[7] Mk 16.16.
[8] Jn 3.18.
[9] Lk 11.23.
[10] Ti 3.11.
[11] 2 Pt 2.1.
-
ON PROMOTION OF FALSE DOCTRINES
QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX
AUGUST 10, 1863
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11]
9. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.
[4] Ecuмenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.
[5] Mt 15.17.
[6] Lk 10.16.
[7] Mk 16.16.
[8] Jn 3.18.
[9] Lk 11.23.
[10] Ti 3.11.
[11] 2 Pt 2.1.
Yes, i have already read all this.
But this is QCM and the one i gave you is from Singulari Quidem or Quadam.
Do you believe Sanborn, Cekada, Dolan & co. use I.I. to save people by default? Or do you believe what they say on the matter is orthodox?
-
Rationalism and Indifferentism*
[From the Allocution, "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854]
1645 You should inculcate this salutary lesson in the souls of those who exaggerate the strength of human reason to such an extent that they venture by its help to scrutinize and explain even mysteries, although nothing is more inept, nothing more foolish. Strive to withdraw them from such perversity of mind by explaining indisputably that nothing more excellent has been given by the providence of God to man than the authority of divine faith; that this is for us, as it were, a torch in the darkness, a guide which we follow to life; that this is absolutely necessary for salvation; for, "without faith . . . it is impossible to please God" [ Heb. 11:6] and "he that believeth not, shall be condemned"[Mark 16:16].
1646 Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ [see n. 1717]. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition after death of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and "judgments of God" which are 'a great deep" [ Ps. 35:7] and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive from the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with that skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.
1647 For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains "we shall see God as He is" [ 1 John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is "one God, one faith, one baptism" [ Eph. 4:5 ]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
-
Below is what the NO educated CAF forum moderator believes. Note that she wants me to quit quoting Encyclicals, Denziner, Fenton, etc. and "put it in my own words," presumably like she does.
The problem ________ seems to be having is the confusion of the status of those who through no fault of their own are not in the body of the Church and those who leave the Church and refuse to reconcile with her. That is what no salvation outside the Church really means: That those who enter her via baptism, then separate themselves by schism, heresy or apostasy, are endangering their immortal souls.
That is what Pius IX referred to in this part of the cited encyclical:
But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the roman pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom “the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,” cannot obtain eternal salvation.
St. Pius X could not have contradicted the Church in this matter, as he as pope exercised his teaching authority in union with the constant traditional teaching of the Church. As such, even in the capacity of teaching in the ordinary Magisterium, his teaching would be infallibly protected. If one reads what the great pope wrote, one plainly sees his authentic understanding of no salvation outside the Catholic Church, which is carried forward in the Catechism today.
This is a very serious matter for those in schism, such as the leaders of the SSPX and various sedevacantist groups that claim the pope is anything from a heretic to an anti-pope. Pius IX made it plain in his encyclical that such people are more in danger of losing their eternal salvation than a righteous pagan. This is a sobering and disturbing thought, and we must pray for those separated from the body of Christ to be reconciled as soon as possible.
As for his views on EENS, perhaps our knowledgeable ________ would be gracious enough to put into his own words his understanding of the dogma of no salvation outside the Church. It would be greatly appreciated to read his own words instead of re-reading the lengthy material posted.
-
Yes i agree with everything that you posted and i have already read it many times in the past but it doesn't answer what i asked.
The one sentence i quoted seems to contradict everything else he said, all the requirements and conditions, details etc.
That one sentence seems to say those in I.I. can be saved by default.
So is it an error? A contradiction? What?
I only want to get to the truth on that.
-
That one sentence seems to say those in I.I. can be saved by default.
You are reading it incorrectly.
-
That one sentence seems to say those in I.I. can be saved by default.
You are reading it incorrectly.
How so?
-
Pretend i was a liberal salvation heretic looking for any excuse to deny EENS.
Is that all you would say? That i am reading it incorrectly?
-
Pretend i was a liberal salvation heretic looking for any excuse to deny EENS.
Is that all you would say? That i am reading it incorrectly?
If you were a liberal salvation heretic looking for any excuse to deny EENS, you'd believe the Ven. Pope Pius IX denied EENS. You'd be wrong of course.
-
Pretend i was a liberal salvation heretic looking for any excuse to deny EENS.
Is that all you would say? That i am reading it incorrectly?
If you were a liberal salvation heretic looking for any excuse to deny EENS, you'd believe the Ven. Pope Pius IX denied EENS. You'd be wrong of course.
Sure thing, but how would you prove this person wrong? What specifically would you say?
Come now. You know i am being truthful here.
-
Pretend i was a liberal salvation heretic looking for any excuse to deny EENS.
Is that all you would say? That i am reading it incorrectly?
If you were a liberal salvation heretic looking for any excuse to deny EENS, you'd believe the Ven. Pope Pius IX denied EENS. You'd be wrong of course.
Sure thing, but how would you prove this person wrong? What specifically would you say?
Come now. You know i am being truthful here.
I understand. The Ven. Pope Pius IX didn't contradict himself, that would be the Catholic understanding of what is written.
-
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion.
Certainly, the Holy Spirit could deliver someone from such a state, could He not? And, why would He not do that for someone who is sincerely trying to find and please Him and to do His will?
-
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion.
Certainly, the Holy Spirit could deliver someone from such a state, could He not? And, why would He not do that for someone who is sincerely trying to find and please Him and to do His will?
Exactly. Don't worry about the truly invincibly ignorant, if they are truly innocent, they will be given the graces necessary for salvation.
-
Do you believe Sanborn, Cekada, Dolan & co. use I.I. to save people by default?
That's a good question. It would seem that they do. If fact, you would be hard pressed to find a Trad priest or bishop who would say otherwise.
Additionally, this error was also creeping in prior to Vatican II - which is really what this thread is all about.
-
I understand. The Ven. Pope Pius IX didn't contradict himself, that would be the Catholic understanding of what is written.
The point is that it looks like it and i just wanted to see if there was an actual argument that could explain what he said, but i guess there isn't. I suppose you can only say that you have to take it in the context of the other 2 times he mentioned I.I.
Btw, and im not saying that he didn't really deserve it, but Venerable was a title given to him by the Novus Ordo.
-
I understand. The Ven. Pope Pius IX didn't contradict himself, that would be the Catholic understanding of what is written.
The point is that it looks like it and i just wanted to see if there was an actual argument that could explain what he said, but i guess there isn't. I suppose you can only say that you have to take it in the context of the other 2 times he mentioned I.I.
Btw, and im not saying that he didn't really deserve it, but Venerable was a title given to him by the Novus Ordo.
In context is always the correct way, isn't it?
-
Even the present Catechism says that Catholics have the right and duty to evangelize all human beings:
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/848.htm
So, we baptize those who we can and lead them to the One True Faith, and as for the truly "invincibly ignorant," the One and Triune God will deal with them according to His Own Perfection.
-
I understand. The Ven. Pope Pius IX didn't contradict himself, that would be the Catholic understanding of what is written.
The point is that it looks like it and i just wanted to see if there was an actual argument that could explain what he said, but i guess there isn't. I suppose you can only say that you have to take it in the context of the other 2 times he mentioned I.I.
Btw, and im not saying that he didn't really deserve it, but Venerable was a title given to him by the Novus Ordo.
In context is always the correct way, isn't it?
With the other encyclicals yes, but in that one no. I don't believe it should be there and it makes no sense. It is contradictory.
Maybe it was tampered with.
-
I understand. The Ven. Pope Pius IX didn't contradict himself, that would be the Catholic understanding of what is written.
The point is that it looks like it and i just wanted to see if there was an actual argument that could explain what he said, but i guess there isn't. I suppose you can only say that you have to take it in the context of the other 2 times he mentioned I.I.
Btw, and im not saying that he didn't really deserve it, but Venerable was a title given to him by the Novus Ordo.
I believe the title Venerable has been used since his case was introduced to the "apostolic process" which occurred in 1907. I know this isn't what is found on the web, but I believe it is correct. Maybe somebody can verify this.
-
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).
This could have been lifted from Tanquerey or any of the pre Vatican II Latin-writing modernists.
SJB, not once have you engaged in an actual rational argument. You just paste stuff in and then demand counter-citations.
If you don't believe the citation from Vatican II essentially echoes the pre-Vatican II teaching, then please make the appropriate distinctions.
SJB, do you have something to offer on this? Let's get this thread back on track. I'd like to see a meaningful exchange between yourself and Ladislaus.
-
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).
This could have been lifted from Tanquerey or any of the pre Vatican II Latin-writing modernists.
SJB, not once have you engaged in an actual rational argument. You just paste stuff in and then demand counter-citations.
If you don't believe the citation from Vatican II essentially echoes the pre-Vatican II teaching, then please make the appropriate distinctions.
SJB, do you have something to offer on this? Let's get this thread back on track. I'd like to see a meaningful exchange between yourself and Ladislaus.
As I just posted, the Second Vatican Council stated, "the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men." Even if "Baptism of Desire" exists independently of sacramental Baptism, Catholics still have the sacred right to evangelize all non-Catholics, that is, to convert them to the One True Faith. Of course, a right which is sacred is immutable and divine, hence, it can never be abrogated.
-
I understand. The Ven. Pope Pius IX didn't contradict himself, that would be the Catholic understanding of what is written.
The point is that it looks like it and i just wanted to see if there was an actual argument that could explain what he said, but i guess there isn't. I suppose you can only say that you have to take it in the context of the other 2 times he mentioned I.I.
Btw, and im not saying that he didn't really deserve it, but Venerable was a title given to him by the Novus Ordo.
In context is always the correct way, isn't it?
With the other encyclicals yes, but in that one no. I don't believe it should be there and it makes no sense. It is contradictory.
Maybe it was tampered with.
What were the other 2? Are you saying there were 3 in total?
-
That one sentence seems to say those in I.I. can be saved by default.
You are reading it incorrectly.
How do you explain this:
Salvation outside of the Church is impossible only for those who know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, and yet refuse to join it; or who by their own grievous fault persist in unbelief or error.
Handbook of the Christian Religion – for the use of advanced students and the educated laity.
Wilhelm Wilmers, S.J. (1891)[/b]
In other words, salvation outside of the Church is possible for those, through no fault of their own, don't know that the Catholic Church to be the true Church.
Sound familiar? :scratchchin:
-
That one sentence seems to say those in I.I. can be saved by default.
You are reading it incorrectly.
How do you explain this:
Salvation outside of the Church is impossible only for those who know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, and yet refuse to join it; or who by their own grievous fault persist in unbelief or error.
Handbook of the Christian Religion – for the use of advanced students and the educated laity.
Wilhelm Wilmers, S.J. (1891)[/b]
In other words, salvation outside of the Church is possible for those, through no fault of their own, don't know that the Catholic Church to be the true Church.
Sound familiar? :scratchchin:
I agree the choice of words are unfortunate, but as I pointed out a while back, when taken in context, this means outside the actual membership in the Church.
-
We read in the Acts (10), that an angel was sent to the Centurion; and it is worthy of observation that the Centurion received the Holy Ghost, and therefore became a member of the Church, before he received the baptism of water.
Christian Apologetics – A Rational Exposition and Defense of the Catholic Religion
W.Devivier, S.J.
-
We all agree that one must at least be joined to the soul of the Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Just as there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ and His merits, so, too, there is no salvation outside His Mystical Body, which is the Catholic Church, as Christ and His Mystical Body are "one and the same thing."
-
Even the present Catechism says that Catholics have the right and duty to evangelize all human beings:
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/848.htm
So, we baptize those who we can and lead them to the One True Faith, and as for the truly "invincibly ignorant," the One and Triune God will deal with them according to His Own Perfection.
It's citing Vatican II. Lumen Gentium even says this.
This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
Most of the texts are compromise texts with the more orthodox Fathers trying here and there, and unsuccessfully, to limit the damage the heretics were doing. The liberals carried the day at the Council and the universal devastation wrought on the Church afterward proves it.
-
...a man who hasn't the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved. This is de fide.
Not according to the Catholic Encyclopedia it aint.
-
...a man who hasn't the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved. This is de fide.
Not according to the Catholic Encyclopedia it aint.
Provide the quotation.
-
...a man who hasn't the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved. This is de fide.
Not according to the Catholic Encyclopedia it aint.
Provide the quotation.
Well, here's one from the article Justification:
But, not to close the gates of heaven against pagans and those non-Catholics, who without their fault do not know or do not recognize the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Catholic theologians unanimously hold that the desire to receive these sacraments is implicitly contained in the serious resolve to do all that God has commanded, even if His holy will should not become known in every detail.
There you go, pagans and non-Catholics can be justified without the Faith.
It even says that this is the "unanimous" teaching of Catholic theologians.
Really? Was it the teaching of St. Augustine? St. Thomas? Was this "unanimous" before the 20th century?
I'll post more quotes later.
-
You're exactly right about this. That's why I keep pointing out that invincible ignorance CANNOT save, i.e. it's not salvific, but merely exculpatory (it excuses from guilt). Invincible ignorance can do no more than to excuse from the actual sin of disbelief.
Once you get past that misconception, then I keep pressing on WHAT then is the mechanism for salvation of some pagan who follows the natural law? For the longest time all theologians taught that explicit knowledge of the basic revealed supernatural truths of the faith were REQUIRED in order to have supernatural faith. Without a minimal material supernatural convent there could be no "formal" faith. Then very cleverly the enemies of the faith reduced it to just believing in a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked. So, this way any pagan living in the woods who never heard about the Holy Trinity or Jesus Christ would save himself by following the lights of natural reason, since the existence of God can be known with certainty through natural reason (de fide Vatican I). But this renders meaningless the entire Church and the Incarnation, reducing the Church, as even Archbishop Lefebvre stated it, to some vague instrumental cause of salvation.
That's funny, or more like hypocritical, on Lefebvre's part, for, did he not teach the exact same thing?
Did he not say souls can be saved in ANY religion but not by that religion?
An atheist can be saved being an atheist but not by his atheism.
Yeah right buddy!