Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 13

Author Topic: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans  (Read 9108 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ByzCat3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1949
  • Reputation: +518/-147
  • Gender: Male
Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
« Reply #135 on: August 08, 2019, 05:23:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote
    As I have asked twice in this thread, once to you, once to Sean, "If you can name any situation where God cannot secure the sacrament for anyone at any time, then please, name it". Well, please, go ahead and name it, or admit there is no such situation and never was nor will be.
    God can do whatever he wants.  I can't speak for Sean, but as far as I'm concerned, this is a non issue.  
    Logged

    Offline donkath

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1517
    • Reputation: +616/-116
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
    « Reply #136 on: August 09, 2019, 12:36:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • OOPS!








    Logged
    "In His wisdom," says St. Gregory, "almighty God preferred rather to bring good out of evil than never allow evil to occur."

    Offline donkath

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1517
    • Reputation: +616/-116
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
    « Reply #137 on: August 09, 2019, 12:42:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • The Disposition of a Man's soul can only be seen by God.

    Excerpt from Fr. Wathen's book " Who can Ascend
    Logged
    "In His wisdom," says St. Gregory, "almighty God preferred rather to bring good out of evil than never allow evil to occur."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46682
    • Reputation: +27550/-5115
    • Gender: Male
    Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
    « Reply #138 on: August 09, 2019, 09:50:06 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on August 08, 2019, 01:51:35 PM
    ...it seems possible that Trent wasn't settling this debate.

    And honestly, contextually, it seems likely that it wasn't trying to.  Because it seems like the real thrust of what Trent is getting at isn't really ruling on BOD, but ruling on Sola Fide.  If I recall correctly, in context, its not anathemizing a position on baptism of desire, but anathemizing faith alone.

    Yes.  When it came to Sacramental theology, Trent was busy rejecting the Protestant theology.  If you read the entire Treatise on Justification and not just the famous purported BoD line out of context, the entire point is that justification and salvation involve a conjunction of grace and free will.  It is freely initiated by God and but then requires cooperation of the free will to accept the grace.  So in the famous passage, Trent is in fact teaching that both the Sacrament AND the cooperation of the will are required for justification.  There's a later Canon which anathematizes the proposition that the Sacrament justifies on its own without the cooperation of the will.

    Do you know that the word routinely translated as "desire" is the Latin votum?  Now the word votum is actually a form the verb volo ... a principle part or inflection of the Latin word that means "to will".  So in using the votum, Trent is actually saying that one cannot be justified without the Sacrament (ex opere operato grace) AND the WILL.  To claim that Trent is teaching that one can be justified with EITHER the Sacrament OR the will actually undermines the very thing Trent was trying to teach, that justification cannot be willed (in Pelagian and Protestant fashion) without first there being an unmerited grace.

    Trent hammered the point, denied by Protestants, that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation, and that someone cannot simply will their own salvation.  And then we really think that Trent undermines the entire position by suddenly teaching:  "Well, we kept teaching that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation and that salvation cannot be willed, but actually it can be willed without the Sacrament."

    See, if you try to distort the "BoD" passage as an either ... or, then you're making Trent say that one might be saved EITHER by the Sacrament OR by the will.  But Trent ANATHEMATIZES the proposition that someone can be saved by the Sacrament WITHOUT the will.  So it's clearly teaching that BOTH are necessary ... against the Prot errors.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46682
    • Reputation: +27550/-5115
    • Gender: Male
    Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
    « Reply #139 on: August 09, 2019, 09:57:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • So, for BoDers, they read the passage, "one cannot be justified without the Sacrament or the will" as meaning "one cannot be justified without the Sacrament or ELSE the will", then you're making Trent teach, "one CAN be justified WITHOUT THE SACRAMENT."  So Trent's major emphasis, repeated over and over, that one cannot be justified WITHOUT the Sacrament, now suddenly means that one CAN be justified WITHOUT the Sacrament?  That's laughable.

    See the language is important.  Even in BoD theory, one can never be said to be justified WITHOUT the Sacrament.  Even in BoD, the Sacrament must remain the instrumental cause of justification, for justification cannot take place "WITHOUT" the Sacrament.  Even in BoD theory, justification does not take place WITHOUT the Sacrament, but there's merely a different mode of receiving it.

    So Trent is absolutely in no way, shape, or form in this passage attempting to teach and define BoD.  Not to mention that, for allegedly being a dogmatic pronouncement, why is there not actual definition of what the term means?  Why are there about a dozen different theories about what BoD is and how it works and what conditions are required?  When the Church "defines" something, it clearly and explicitly teaches what exactly must be believed about it.  So I am supposed to believe in BoD but I don't really understand WHAT it is that I'm required to believe?
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46682
    • Reputation: +27550/-5115
    • Gender: Male
    Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
    « Reply #140 on: August 09, 2019, 10:00:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Also, the negative language of "one cannot be justified without" is very significant.

    When I say that x cannot happen without y, this does not mean that y is SUFFICIENT to cause x, just that it's necessary.

    So, for instance, it is true that "man cannot live without water"?  Does it mean that water alone suffices to keep man alive?  No.  Water is NECESSARY (i.e. a necessary cause) to keep man alive, but it is not SUFFICIENT (i.e. a sufficient cause).  So when Trent says that justification cannot happen without the desire for it, it means, just like it was teaching the entire time, that the desire/will is REQUIRED for justification, but not necessarily that it suffices on its own.  To say that the will or desire suffices on its own without the graces of the Sacrament contradicts everything that Trent was trying to teach the entire time against the Protestant errors.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12142
    • Reputation: +7668/-2344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
    « Reply #141 on: August 09, 2019, 10:21:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    There's a later Canon which anathematizes the proposition that the Sacrament justifies on its own without the cooperation of the will.

    Wasn't that because during this time there were people baptizing others against their will?  For example, the Church says that a doctor can't go around the hospital and baptize people who are in a coma or who are in danger of death, without getting their permission (there is an exception for infants, for obvious reasons).  Just like the Church forbid American missionaries from baptizing Indians who didn't yet understand the Trinity or the Incarnation.  For baptism to work, the person has to WANT the Faith (which presupposes they understand it).
    Logged

    Offline donkath

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1517
    • Reputation: +616/-116
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
    « Reply #142 on: August 09, 2019, 11:13:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I appreciate this discussion very much.   Thanks to all involved.
    Logged
    "In His wisdom," says St. Gregory, "almighty God preferred rather to bring good out of evil than never allow evil to occur."

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1650
    • Reputation: +454/-366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
    « Reply #143 on: August 09, 2019, 11:57:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 09, 2019, 08:27:37 AM
    The gray area which the Church has yet to define applies to catechumens only.

    There is no such gray area. Catechumens, like anyone else, won't be saved without receiving the sacrament of baptism first. That's truth fallen from heaven and therefore the case without the slighest doubt.


    The Council of Trent condemns you, if you keep repeating this heresy about catechumens over and over again. And the Vatican Council requires you to confess that

    1.) it is necessary for salvation to receive a sacrament
    2.) it is necessary to be saved to confess that it is necessary for salvation to receive a sacrament


    Quote from: Vatican Council, Session 2, Jan 6, 1870
    Profession of faith

    1. [...] profession of faith which the holy Roman Church uses, namely:
    [...]
    4. I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all. [...]
    [...]
    14. [...]
    This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess [...]




    Conclusion: God makes sure, that all catechumens which are to be saved actually are saved not without the sacrament of baptism. God cares for his flock. On the other hand, Pax Vobis should not throw away his grace of baptism and his chances to be saved, by contradicting the true catholic faith as specified by the said holy Councils.

    Logged

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1949
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
    « Reply #144 on: August 09, 2019, 11:58:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Struthio on August 09, 2019, 11:57:24 AM
    There is no such gray area. Catechumens, like anyone else, won't be saved without receiving the sacrament of baptism first. That's truth fallen from heaven and therefore the case without the slighest doubt.


    The Council of Trent condemns you, if you keep repeating this heresy about catechumens over and over again. And the Vatican Council requires you to confess that

    1.) it is necessary for salvation to receive a sacrament
    2.) it is necessary to be saved to confess that it is necessary for salvation to receive a sacrament





    Conclusion: God makes sure, that all catechumens which are to be saved actually are saved not without the sacrament of baptism. God cares for his flock. On the other hand, Pax Vobis should not throw away his grace of baptism and his chances to be saved, by contradicting the true catholic faith as specified by the said holy Councils.
    Dimondite?
    Logged

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1650
    • Reputation: +454/-366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
    « Reply #145 on: August 09, 2019, 12:03:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on August 09, 2019, 11:58:15 AM
    Dimondite?

    Neither Dimondite, nor Feeneyite.
    Trentite and Vaticanite.

    Why not just take note of what the fathers of these Councils say? It's truth fallen from heaven, it's the true faith without which you can't be saved, even after baptism.

    Who cares, what a Father Feeney said? Who cares, what Dimond brothers say?

    But you should care what these Councils say, in case you want to be saved.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12142
    • Reputation: +7668/-2344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
    « Reply #146 on: August 09, 2019, 12:09:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I personally take the hard line approach, Struthio, because I agree, like you, that God wouldn't allow a catechumen to die without baptism, since God decides when everyone dies.  Therefore, if God decided a catechumen was to die before baptism, then He had a good reason to not give him the grace of Baptism, which He can decide as the judge of all hearts.
    .
    However, I still hold that Trent is not totally clear and that St Thomas and others argued for a strict BOD option.  Could St Thomas be wrong?  Yes, he has been wrong on other topics.  Could Trent have been clearer?  Yes.  Could I be wrong, and Trent was clear enough?  Yes.  Do I believe that those who preach BOD for non-catechumens are wrong?  Absolutely.
    Logged

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1650
    • Reputation: +454/-366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
    « Reply #147 on: August 09, 2019, 12:59:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 09, 2019, 12:09:45 PM
    I personally take the hard line approach, Struthio, because I agree, like you, that God wouldn't allow a catechumen to die without baptism, since God decides when everyone dies.  Therefore, if God decided a catechumen was to die before baptism, then He had a good reason to not give him the grace of Baptism, which He can decide as the judge of all hearts.
    .
    However, I still hold that Trent is not totally clear and that St Thomas and others argued for a strict BOD option.  Could St Thomas be wrong?  Yes, he has been wrong on other topics.  Could Trent have been clearer?  Yes.  Could I be wrong, and Trent was clear enough?  Yes.  Do I believe that those who preach BOD for non-catechumens are wrong?  Absolutely.

    Yes sure. Trent could have been clearer. But still, Trent is univocal and leaves no way for anything but the sacrament of baptism, where supernatural faith is infused. Those who defend BoD and/or BoD lack sane reasoning. They construct a sufficent cause from a bare necessity.


    For those who would appreciate a more simple declaration. What about the Vatican Council?


    Quote from: Quote from: Vatican Council, Session 2, Jan 6, 1870
    Profession of faith

    1. [...] profession of faith which the holy Roman Church uses, namely:
    [...]
    4. I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all. [...]
    [...]
    14. [...]
    This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess [...]


    Isn't that as simple as needed? It's necessary to receive a sacrament to be saved.


    Those who defend BoD do not accept dogma as absolute truth, but rather, in modernist error, as a precept which allows for exceptions. And BoD for a catechumen is in no way different from that. It's just another arbitrary choice of who might benefit from exceptions. The Council of Trent leaves no backdoor open for a catechumen, and the Vatican Council confirms this.
    Logged

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1949
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
    « Reply #148 on: August 09, 2019, 01:07:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Struthio on August 09, 2019, 12:59:54 PM
    Yes sure. Trent could have been clearer. But still, Trent is univocal and leaves no way for anything but the sacrament of baptism, where supernatural faith is infused. Those who defend BoD and/or BoD lack sane reasoning. They construct a sufficent cause from a bare necessity.


    For those who would appreciate a more simple declaration. What about the Vatican Council?



    Isn't that as simple as needed? It's necessary to receive a sacrament to be saved.


    Those who defend BoD do not accept dogma as absolute truth, but rather, in modernist error, as a precept which allows for exceptions. And BoD for a catechumen is in no way different from that. It's just another arbitrary choice of who might benefit from exceptions. The Council of Trent leaves no backdoor open for a catechumen, and the Vatican Council confirms this.
    I can't take people who think guys like St Alphonsus just missed the obvious seriously.  And no, I realize Ladislaus and Pax aren't saying that.

    Like its one thing to say theologians and catechisms aren't infallible, and can err.  Its another thing to essentially accuse them of abject stupidity.

    I ultimately concluded that the Dimondites are not traditional Catholics for this reason.  They don't care what was actually believed in the past,  by actual humans.  Actual history.  They're sola scriptura, with a larger canon.

    This particular TYPE of BOD denial seems similar to me.
    Logged

    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1650
    • Reputation: +454/-366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: CONDEMNED: Salvation for good-willed, ignorant pagans
    « Reply #149 on: August 09, 2019, 01:20:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on August 09, 2019, 01:07:16 PM
    I can't take people who think guys like St Alphonsus just missed the obvious seriously.  And no, I realize Ladislaus and Pax aren't saying that.

    Like its one thing to say theologians and catechisms aren't infallible, and can err.  Its another thing to essentially accuse them of abject stupidity.

    I ultimately concluded that the Dimondites are not traditional Catholics for this reason.  They don't care what was actually believed in the past,  by actual humans.  Actual history.  They're sola scriptura, with a larger canon.

    This particular TYPE of BOD denial seems similar to me.

    I'm not really interested in what guys like you or me can or can't take, what they think, or what seems to them.
    I am interested in the truth fallen from heaven, in the true faith. The source for that faith is the Magisterium of the Church, which includes the Councils of Florence, Trent, and the Vatican, and which does not include fallible doctors and/or Saints.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 13
    « previous next »