Author Topic: CODEX IURIS CANONICI (Read 9439 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #120 on:** April 04, 2014, 06:24:56 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Nishant, let's say that I grant for now that someone could be saved by believing explicitly merely in the Rewarder/Punisher God so long as he believes it with a supernatural motive.

Dear Ladislaus, thank you for the comments. I typed out a response, and just saw your other thread, I'm not sure where to respond, I put it here for now. We'll discuss it further there if you like.

In defense of what was written in the Catechism, and your point about supernatural faith of course necessarily preceding supernatural charity - Yes, that is true but the reason it suffices to say an act of perfect love of God can have the baptismal effect is because someone who who loves God with all his heart and for His own sake already firmly assents to the proposition, as to a revealed truth, that "God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" and that He is not merely an object to be contemplated, but a Subject to be loved, and this with all of one's strength.

Why would a man love God so if he did not already know (as by faith) that God was to be loved in such a way? And if he knows this, and bears witness by his living faith that works by charity, that he believes it, how does he believe it and who revealed it to him?

Such a revelation could hardly come from merely natural motives, but of this too it must be said, It was not flesh and blood that proposed this, but the Father in heaven. Indeed, it was what Christ called the greatest of the commandments, that God is to be loved with all one's strength and heart. This great precept of the law, in which as it were is contained the whole law, a man can come to the knowledge of only if he seeks God with all his heart.

St. Thomas says God will then propose what must be believed, at least interiorly and by inspiration, if not exteriorly, by a Saint or Angel.

Before I come to your example, let me ask you if we can do it like this. Let's take two cases, pagans living near the Himalayas in North India, far away from Christianity and civilization. The one in 100 B.C. and the other in 100 A.D.

Now, what must the former pagan do to be saved? He must follow closely the natural law, and inasmuch as he continually does this, and remains in good faith, under the operation of actual grace he will receive the inspiration to seek after God with all his strength, and to love Him with all of his heart, and therefore he can be justified. Now, because this was in the Old dispensation, God required nothing more.

Such a man is not a pagan in his heart, but is in truth one of the faithful of Israel (which prefigured the Church) of old, united to Her invisibly and by inner and interior bonds, circuмcized in heart, and therefore a Christian at least by anticipation, as was the case with all the OT just.

Now, what of the latter pagan, in identical conditions, except that he lives in the era after Jesus Christ has come, and the Christian dispensation has been instituted?

Does it seem right to say that such a man, although he did everything else identically, would perish? What God has established remains true, because he who is in good faith, and under the operation of actual grace and in response to it begins to love God with all his heart will immediately be justified. But in the Christian dispensation, as the Doctors teach, we ought piously to believe that such a one will come to explicit faith in Christ before the end of their lives.

Again, Cornelius in the New Testament era is generally given as an example of this. For St. Thomas and others say that as per the Scriptural text, Cornelius was justified even before he heard of Christ, because he had implicit faith in Him through explicit faith in God and the universal will to believe what God reveals and do what God commands. Such men are few, but undoubtedly they will be taken care of by divine Providence, who governs such men in a special way. And therefore, we ought to believe piously that if any are justified by implicit faith in Christ, they will come to explicit faith in Christ before they die, once the Christian dispensation has been instituted.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #121 on:** April 04, 2014, 08:33:39 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Now, what must the former pagan do to be saved? He must follow closely the natural law, and inasmuch as he continually does this, and remains in good faith, under the operation of actual grace he will receive the inspiration to seek after God with all his strength, and to love Him with all of his heart, and therefore he can be justified. Now, because this was in the Old dispensation, God required nothing more.

Even in the old dispensation most of the Church Fathers said that people were saved by their faith in the coming Messiah, from the expectation of the Messiah. Some have said that circuмcision was salvific, though I'm not sure how that would have worked out for girls. There's no notion, in my recollection, that there were any exceptions for the pre- or post- new dispensation "noble pagan".

Quote

Does it seem right to say that such a man, although he did everything else identically, would perish?

You see, this is my problem. This is simply not theology. It's emotional speculation regarding what would or would not be fair or just of God to do. St. Augustine rejected this type of reasoning as leading to a "vortex" of confusion and something which must be avoided if we "wish to remain Catholic." We do not know why God allowed this person to be born in this state. We have to recall that salvation is owed to NO ONE. And the person's natural state (i..e the degree or punishment or lack thereof) would depend on the person's actual sins. God perhaps knew that such a soul, had he been born into a Catholic family in some other time period would have rejected the faith and merited a much greater punishment.

How about the case of the aborted baby? That person never "had a chance" either.

We just cannot do "theology" (pseudo-theology) based on speculations of this nature.

But I don't want to get into this too much. I'd rather stick to the Jew example. I am just trying to illustrate the logical consequences of saying "yes" to that question.

We have to remember that elevation to the supernatural state is not something that's owed to anyone; our created natures are not even capable of it. On the other hand, we also have to remember that hell is not a monolithic place, a single one-temperature cauldron where this well-meaning pagan might be sitting right next to Joe Stalin or Judas Iscariot. Even one of the EENS definitions stated that the punishments of hell are directly commensurate with one's actual sins, that people suffer there to "differing degrees". I believe that there are people like this in hell who do not suffer all that much. Of course there are the unbaptized infants who don't suffer at all. But the "suffering" in hell is due entirely to ACTUAL sin, and so whatever people suffer in hell is perfectly just and cannot ever be questioned. Whereas the eternal "loss" aspect of it, no one is owed that and so there can never be a question of God's being unjust to deny someone the beatific vision and supernatural life.

Quote

Again, Cornelius in the New Testament era is generally given as an example of this. For St. Thomas and others say that as per the Scriptural text, Cornelius was justified even before he heard of Christ, because he had implicit faith in Him through explicit faith in God and the universal will to believe what God reveals and do what God commands.

Did Cornelius die unbaptized? All we see in the Sacred Scriptures is that the Holy Spirit manifested His activity upon Cornelius. it doesn't say that Cornelius was in a state of sanctifying grace. If you read Trent, you'll find that the Council attributes the predisposing of the soul to the activity of the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit manifested this predisposing activity in order to correct St. Peter's tendencies towards judaizing. He responded by saying that he couldn't refuse Baptism to such a one in whom he saw the (predisposing) activity of the Holy Spirit. In other words, if the Holy Spirit was preparing Cornelius for Baptism, then it showed to St. Peter God's will that this one should be baptized.

So Cornelius is no proof of Baptism of Desire.

Nishant · « **Reply #122 on:** April 04, 2014, 11:03:03 AM »

Ok, so you deny that an act of perfect love of God suffices for justification, then?

Well, I agree with you that the damned suffer the pain of sense to different degrees according to the indulgence of their passions, and the pain of loss in common.

I believe what you say on the patristic view of righteous Gentiles is incorrect, but we will come back to that in just a moment. I ask you, could the Jєωιѕн people, at least, have had supernatural faith through implicit faith in Jesus Christ?

St. Thomas in summarizing the view of the Fathers says that faith of some kind in Christ's Incarnation and Passion has always been necessary. Likewise desire of baptism at least implicit. Hence no one has been saved without at least implicit faith in Christ. Likewise, the baptismal effect has never been conferred without at least an implicit desire for the sacrament, through perfect love of God.

Quote from: Fathers

St. Augustine, <City of God> 18.47: (413-26 AD): "Nor do I think the
Jews would dare to argue that no one pertained to God except the
Israelites, from the time that Israel came to be... they cannot deny
that there were certain men even in other nations who pertained to
the true Israelites, the citizens of the fatherland above, not by
earthly but by heavenly association."

<Retractions> 1.13.3: (426-27 AD): "This very thing which is now
called the Christian religion existed among the ancients, nor was it
lacking from the beginning of the human race until Christ Himself
came in the flesh, when the true religion, that already existed,
began to be called Christian."

St. Nilus, <Epistle 1>. 154:(c. 430 AD): "In every nation the
one who fears God and does justice is acceptable to Him. For it is
clear that such a one is acceptable to God and is not to be cast
aside, who at his own right time flees to the worship of the blessed
knowledge of God."

St. Cyril of Alexandria, <Against Julian> 3.107: (433-41 AD): "For if
there is One over all, and there is no other besides Him, He would be
Master of all, because He was Maker of all. For He is also the God of
the gentiles, and has fully satisfied by laws implanted in their
hearts, which the Maker has engraved in the hearts of all [cf. Rom
2.14-16]. For when the gentiles, [Paul] says, not having the law, do
by nature the things of the law, they show the work of the law
written on their hearts. But since He is not only the Maker and God
of the Jews [cf. Rom 3.29] but also of the gentiles... He sees fit by
His providence to care not only for those who are of the blood of
Israel, but also for all those upon the earth."

Now, if this is the case, as I think you will agree, the question remains - how did they acquire supernatural faith, and charity following upon it?

Let me briefly mention three authorities/sources that support my view,

Quote from: Pope Pius XII, AAS: XLIII (1951) p. 84

In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open

Quote from: Baltimore Catechism

Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?

A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.

Then there is of course the Catechism of St. Pius. Really, I have a lengthy introduction by Msgr. Hagan, he mentions in detail how St. Pius X had wanted a Catechism for the faithful written by the Pope and mentioned it to the then Holy Father and then took up the idea himself when he was elected. Not a word on how he may have let something written by someone else pass off as his own, or that he would not have approved himself what was written.

No writer of repute has ever cast doubt on the authorship of that Catechism by St. Pius X. It is related in the Catholic Encyclopedia among thousands of other places that he is its author. Only the Dimonds and a few modern persons (and the Dimonds say they wouldnt believe it even if St. Pius X had really authored it, so what is the point of proving that he did) have uttered such an absurdity.

Nishant · « **Reply #123 on:** April 04, 2014, 11:08:18 AM »

This is from a much older post, I put it here for those who were arguing about Trent's teaching. I'll comment on the Roman Catechism and whether it teaches BOD later.

Quote

The council of Trent explained how the sacrament of the eucharist may be received in desire:

Now as to the use of this holy SACRAMENT [of the Eucharist], the Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished THREE WAYS OF RECEIVING IT. For they have taught that some receive it SACRAMENTALLY ONLY, to wit sinners; OTHERS SPIRITUALLY ONLY, those to wit who EATING IN DESIRE [voto] that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof; whereas the third (class) receive it both SACRAMENTALLY AND SPIRITUALLY, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment. (Denz. 881)

St. Thomas:

In another way one may eat Christ spiritually, as He is under the sacramental species, inasmuch as a man believes in Christ, WHILE DESIRING TO RECEIVE THIS SACRAMENT; and this is NOT MERELY TO EAT CHRIST SPIRITUALLY, BUT LIKEWISE TO EAT THIS SACRAMENT. (Summa Theologica 3, 80, 2)

Trent, the sacrament of penance may be received in desire:

The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this CONTRITION IS PERFECT through charity, and reconciles man with God BEFORE THIS SACRAMENT BE ACTUALLY RECEIVED, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of THE DESIRE OF THE SACRAMENT which is included therein. (Denz. 898)

Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also THE SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION OF THE SAID SINS, AT LEAST IN DESIRE [saltem in voto], and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for THE ETERNAL PUNISHMENT,-which is, together with the guilt, REMITTED, EITHER BY THE SACRAMENT, OR BY THE DESIRE OF THE SACRAMENT,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted (Denz 807)

St. Thomas:

Moreover, the SACRAMENTS of grace are ordained in order that man may receive the infusion of grace, and before HE RECEIVES THEM, EITHER ACTUALLY OR IN HIS DESIRE, he does not RECEIVE GRACE. This is evident in the case of Baptism, and applies to PENANCE likewise. (Summa Theologica, Supplement 6, 1)

Trent, the sacrament of baptism may be received in desire:

And this translation [to the state of justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be EFFECTED, WITHOUT THE LAVER OF REGENERATION, AT LEAST IN THE DESIRE THEREOF, as it is written; “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” (Denz. 796)

St. Thomas:

Moreover, the SACRAMENTS of grace are ordained in order that man may receive the infusion of grace, and before HE RECEIVES THEM, EITHER ACTUALLY OR IN HIS INTENTION, he does not receive grace. THIS IS EVIDENT IN THE CASE OF BAPTISM, and applies to Penance likewise. (Summa Theologica, Supplement 6, 1)

Thus, the sacraments of baptism and penance are necessary for salvation, yet they may be received in desire.

Trent: “And this SACRAMENT OF PENANCE is, for those who have fallen after baptism, NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, AS BAPTISM ITSELF IS for those who have not as yet been regenerated.” (Denz. 895)

Syllogism:

1. Sacrament of penance is necessary for salvation as baptism itself is necessary. (Trent)
2. Sacrament of penance is necessary in fact or at least in desire. (Trent)
3. Therefore, baptism is also necessary in fact or at least in desire (From 1 and 2)

And question for those who claim desire is a mere disposition - if in two cases the word desire above refers to the reception of the sacramental effect in desire (perfect contrition and spiritual communion), how can it be rationally believed that in the third case it refers only to a mere disposition? Such a claim is a novelty and is unworthy of credence.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #124 on:** April 04, 2014, 02:17:08 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

OK. I've distilled the bottom line.

Quote from: Lover of Truth
If such a person were to die in a state of [sanctifying] grace [h]e would be saved. But to be in a state of sanctifying grace one must have supernatural faith and charity.

He must explicitly believe there is a God and that He rewards good and punishes evil.

You admit the possibility (for now -- perhaps after this you'll retract) that this Jew (who obviously does not explicitly believe in Jesus or the Trinity) can be saved by virtue of believing in God as a Rewarder.

Now, as Nishant pointed out, even this natural truth (God's existence as Rewarder), although it CAN be believed based on natural reasons alone, must be believed with the supernatural motive, based on the authority of God revealing, in order for it to qualify as supernatural faith.

So if such a one is saved, he was saved because he believed in God's existence based upon God's authority in Old Testament Revelation. Is that correct?

As long as he has a supernatural faith. We are assuming this practicer of the Jєωιѕн faith has not heard of the Catholic Faith and is not willfully blind to it. How many of them are there? I'd say around zero.

But again, explicit belief may be necessary in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity. The issue has not be definitively settled. They MUST believe that God exists and he is the rewarder of good and evil. Whether their belief in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity must be explicit or not has not be definitively defined. If the last two must be explicit I think that would eliminate the chance for any practicer of a non-Catholic religion to die in a state of sanctifying grace within the Church as a non-member.

I will accept either conclusion if and when it is definitively decided. If a Pope declares the last two beliefs must be explicit I will accept it. If he says they only have to be implicit I will accept. For now I am torn down the middle. Perhaps SJB and or Ambrose can explain what two or four beliefs are necessary and explain the minority and majority views on each and support us with who takes the one view and who takes the other.

Ambrose · « **Reply #125 on:** April 04, 2014, 02:42:33 PM »

LoT wrote:

Quote

I will accept either conclusion if and when it is definitively decided. If a Pope declares the last two beliefs must be explicit I will accept it. If he says they only have to be implicit I will accept. For now I am torn down the middle. Perhaps SJB and or Ambrose can explain what two or four beliefs are necessary and explain the minority and majority views on each and support us with who takes the one view and who takes the other.

Pope Pius XII could have settled this when the issue was front and center but left it unanswered by authority. This means that the Pope has left it for the theologians to work out. A Catholic cannot be accused of heresy or error by holding the minority opinion.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #126 on:** April 04, 2014, 03:13:19 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Pope Pius XII could have settled this when the issue was front and center but left it unanswered by authority. This means that the Pope has left it for the theologians to work out. A Catholic cannot be accused of heresy or error by holding the minority opinion.

Then you have absolutely no grounds for accusing either Vatican II or the Vatican II popes of heresy, because all of Vatican II is based on that "minority opinion". In fact, I should say that Vatican II settled or "answered" the theological uncertainty by authoritatively teaching the minority opinion.

Ambrose · « **Reply #127 on:** April 04, 2014, 03:25:04 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
Pope Pius XII could have settled this when the issue was front and center but left it unanswered by authority. This means that the Pope has left it for the theologians to work out. A Catholic cannot be accused of heresy or error by holding the minority opinion.

Then you have absolutely no grounds for accusing either Vatican II or the Vatican II popes of heresy, because all of Vatican II is based on that "minority opinion". In fact, I should say that Vatican II settled or "answered" the theological uncertainty by authoritatively teaching the minority opinion.

You say this, but it is your idea only, which displays an ignorance of this subject. Vatican II taught that non-Catholic religions were a means of salvation. That is heresy. The 1949 Holy Office Letter left open the question of the minimum Faith necessary, and never taught that non-Catholic religions were a means to salvation.

In addition to Vatican II's heretical and erroneous teaching on false religions being a means to salvation, there are other heresies and errors against the Faith. Your tunnel vision on this subject is blinding you to the bigger picture.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #128 on:** April 04, 2014, 03:46:59 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Vatican II taught that non-Catholic religions were a means of salvation.

So do you.

See the thread I started about how non Catholics can be saved.

Quote

That is heresy.

From your own mouth...

Ladislaus · « **Reply #129 on:** April 04, 2014, 03:48:02 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

In addition to Vatican II's heretical and erroneous teaching on false religions being a means to salvation, there are other heresies and errors against the Faith.

Feel free to list them, and I'll be happy to show how each and every one of them derives from your own ecclesiology.

Ambrose · « **Reply #130 on:** April 04, 2014, 03:59:44 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
Vatican II taught that non-Catholic religions were a means of salvation.

So do you.

See the thread I started about how non Catholics can be saved.

Quote
That is heresy.

From your own mouth...

You display your ignorance for all to see.

Non Catholic religions are not a means to salvation. The Holy Office did not teach that. You can't make a square peg fit into a round hole.

bowler · « **Reply #131 on:** April 06, 2014, 03:26:24 AM »

Quote from: bowler

The latest Eleison Comment unknowingly highlights exactly the point that Ladislaus keeps stressing, "that traditionalist BODers fail to see how religious indifferentism, the condemned notion that people can be saved in any religion, comes directly from pre Vatican II theology. That there is nothing heretical in Vatican II that BOD adherents already do not believe in anyway. From the 16 docuмents of Vatican II (only 2 which are entitled "dogmatic") I cannot find a single heretical statement that the BOD believers are not holding themselves anyway. I still don't know why they reject Vatican II and then proceed to adhere to the same heresies".

Snippet from the latest "Eleison Comments" by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCCLI - 351 5th April 2014

Quote
CANONISATIONS UNREAL
The “canonisation”of two Conciliar Popes, John XXIII and John-Paul II, is scheduled for the last Sunday of this month, and many believing Catholics are scared stiff. They know that the Conciliar Popes have been (objective) destroyers of the Church. They know that the Church holds canonisations to be infallible. Are they going to be forced to believe that John XXIII and John-Paul II are Saints ? It boggles the mind. But it need not do so.
In August of last year these “Comments” stated the fact that Newchurch “canonisations” are such a different reality from pre-Conciliar canonisations that no Catholic need believe that the post-conciliar canonisations are infallible. I was not wrong, but while I stated the fact that this is so, I did not give the reason why, which is a superior way of knowing something. On the contrary in a retreat conference, perhaps of 1989, Archbishop Lefebvre gave the deep-down reason why. This reason – modernist mind-rot -- is crucial to understand correctly the whole Conciliar Revolution.
The Archbishop said that like a mass of modern men, the Conciliar Popes do not believe in any truth being stable. For instance John-Paul II’s formation was based on truth evolving, moving with the times, progressing with the advance of science, etc.. Truth never being fixed is the reason why in 1988 John-Paul II condemned the SSPX’s Episcopal Consecrations, because they sprang from a fixed and not living or moving idea of Catholic Tradition. For indeed Catholics hold, for example, every word in the Credo to be unchangeable, because the words have been hammered out over the ages to express as perfectly as possible the unchanging truths of the Faith, and these words have been infallibly defined by the Church’s Popes and Councils.
True canonisations are another example: (1) the Pope pronounces as Pope, (2) such and such a person to be a model of faith and morals, (3) once and for all (nobody used to get uncanonised), (4) for all the Church to accept as such a model. As such, canonisations used to fulfil the four conditions of infallible Church teaching, and they were held to be infallible. But this Catholic idea of an unchangeable truth is inconceivable for fluid modern minds like those of the Conciliar Popes. For them, truth is life, a life developing, evolving, growing towards perfection. How then can a Conciliar Pope perform, let alone impose, an infallible canonisation ?
The Archbishop imagines how a Conciliar Pope might react to the idea of his having done any such thing: “Oh no ! If ever in the future it turns out that the person I canonised did not have all the qualities required, well, some successor of mine may well declare that I made a declaration on that person’s virtue but not a once and for all definition of their sanctity.” Meanwhile the “canonising” Pope’s “declaration” has made the President of the local Republic and the local Christians happy, and he has given them all an excuse to have a party to celebrate.
If one thinks about it, this explanation of the Archbishop applies to the Newchurch across the board. What we have in Vatican II is the demanding beauty of God’s unchangeable Truth, which leads to Heaven, being replaced by the undemanding ugliness of man’s fluid fantasy, which may lead to Hell but enables man, as he thinks, to take the place of God. The key step in this process is the unhooking of the mind from reality. When the process is applied today to the Church as modernism, the results are so totally unlike what went before that the new realities absolutely call for new names: Newchurch, Newcanonisations, Newsaints, etc.. After all, are not the Conciliarists proud of making everything new ?

Quote
truth evolving, moving with the times, progressing with the advance of science............
For indeed Catholics hold, for example, every word in the Credo to be unchangeable, because the words have been hammered out over the ages to express as perfectly as possible the unchanging truths of the Faith, and these words have been infallibly defined by the Church’s Popes and Councils.

The Trad BODers deny the very words of the Athanasian Creed (a credo), the unanimous opinion of the Fathers of the Church, the teaching of all the doctors and saints, and the dogmatically defined words of the Council of Florence. In every word, Bp. Williamson is describing the exact action of the trad BODers ALL of who end up believing that someone can be saved who has no explcit desire to be baptized, martyred, or to be a Catholic, nor belief in the Trintiy and the Incarnation (Christ), and not a one BODer condemns the notion.
Quote from: bowler
Quote from: bowler
Quote from: bowler

It's obvious to anyone who is honest about this subject of BOD, that the subject of this tread is that to be saved by baptism of desire, one must have explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity. ALL of you BODers are denying that. They are denying clear dogma.

The Subject of this Thread: BODers say anyone can be saved witout explicit belief in Christ

DOGMA:

Quote
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

If that dogma does not mean what it CLEARLY says, then words have no meaning whatsoever. It is a waste of time to talk to people like you, for you have no regard for dogma. Moreover, it does not phase you one iota that not a Father, Saint, Doctor, or Council ever taught that anyone can be saved without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.

If you will not hear clear dogma from the Holy Ghost, no one and nothing will convince you that you are wrong. Be prepared though that if this clear dogma does not mean what it clearly says, then NOTHING that is written means what it says! And you might as well go talk to yourself.

BODers deny Dogma (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8)

BODers deny Creeds

Athanasian Creed
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

BODers deny St. Thomas Aquinas:

St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)

Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #132 on:** April 07, 2014, 02:09:57 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

LoT wrote:

Quote
I will accept either conclusion if and when it is definitively decided. If a Pope declares the last two beliefs must be explicit I will accept it. If he says they only have to be implicit I will accept. For now I am torn down the middle. Perhaps SJB and or Ambrose can explain what two or four beliefs are necessary and explain the minority and majority views on each and support us with who takes the one view and who takes the other.

Pope Pius XII could have settled this when the issue was front and center but left it unanswered by authority. This means that the Pope has left it for the theologians to work out. A Catholic cannot be accused of heresy or error by holding the minority opinion.

Thank you Ambrose. This is what I thought but it is good to be reassured.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #133 on:** April 07, 2014, 02:24:40 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ambrose
LoT wrote:

Quote
I will accept either conclusion if and when it is definitively decided. If a Pope declares the last two beliefs must be explicit I will accept it. If he says they only have to be implicit I will accept. For now I am torn down the middle. Perhaps SJB and or Ambrose can explain what two or four beliefs are necessary and explain the minority and majority views on each and support us with who takes the one view and who takes the other.

Pope Pius XII could have settled this when the issue was front and center but left it unanswered by authority. This means that the Pope has left it for the theologians to work out. A Catholic cannot be accused of heresy or error by holding the minority opinion.

Thank you Ambrose. This is what I thought but it is good to be reassured.

It's been settled ... dogmatically by Vatican I.

Quote from: Vatican I

The Catholic Church has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation.

bowler · « **Reply #134 on:** April 07, 2014, 02:48:25 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ambrose
LoT wrote:

Quote
I will accept either conclusion if and when it is definitively decided. If a Pope declares the last two beliefs must be explicit I will accept it. If he says they only have to be implicit I will accept. For now I am torn down the middle. Perhaps SJB and or Ambrose can explain what two or four beliefs are necessary and explain the minority and majority views on each and support us with who takes the one view and who takes the other.

Pope Pius XII could have settled this when the issue was front and center but left it unanswered by authority. This means that the Pope has left it for the theologians to work out. A Catholic cannot be accused of heresy or error by holding the minority opinion.

Thank you Ambrose. This is what I thought but it is good to be reassured.

You BODers are denying the clear dogma, you know it is dogma, why do you deny it? There can only be one reason, it is not dogma, other than that, you are denying clear dogma. It has been defined, how can you sit there and deny it? If this clear dogma does not mean what it says then no dogma or quote from a theologian means what it says.

Quote

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”