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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?  (Read 3023 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bodeens

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1514
  • Reputation: +798/-159
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2021, 08:12:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on November 19, 2021, 07:53:25 AM
    I joined Perlego, as least for the trial membership, and I'm reading Fr. Sullivan's book. It does seem like an honest examination. For example, I'm in the first chapter, and he juxtaposes the older, infallible statements of EENS - you know, Cantate Domino, Unam Sanctam, etc. - against V2 statements and then the V1 statement about retaining the meaning of once declared dogma "without deviation from that meaning on the specious ground . . . of a more profound understanding."

    I'll share thoughts as I'm able.

     
    A very interesting thing the book points out (softly) is that the only reason Augustine wrote anything pro-BoD was because of his thoughts on predestination. Obvious problems for some people who love to quote him here. I was just thinking about your other thread and figured you'd want to know but thankfully you are already reading the book :)
    Logged
    Regard all of my posts as unfounded slander, heresy, theologically specious etc
    I accept Church teaching on Implicit Baptism of Desire.
    Francis is Pope.
    NO is a good Mass.
    Not an ironic sig.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2050
    • Reputation: +751/-132
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
    « Reply #16 on: November 19, 2021, 08:33:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: bodeens on November 19, 2021, 08:12:12 AM
    A very interesting thing the book points out (softly) is that the only reason Augustine wrote anything pro-BoD was because of his thoughts on predestination. Obvious problems for some people who love to quote him here. I was just thinking about your other thread and figured you'd want to know but thankfully you are already reading the book :)

    Bodeens,

    Thanks. I look forward to reading his thoughts on Augustine in that regard.

    As is clear in my other thread, I think the topic of predestination - and the general avoidance of the classical Catholic understanding - is underlying much of the problems that manifested themselves in the now reigning magisterium of the "Conciliar Church." Liberal thinking on BOD and EENS is a natural outgrowth of seeing man as the center of things, even the determiner of his salvation.

    The classical, traditional and orthodox Thomistic understanding embraces human freedom as a secondary cause and harmonizes a true understanding of human "free will" with the divine will remaining as primary cause and the determiner of the good, eternal life (for each individual He saves), while permitting the bad, damnation, i.e. the torments of hell (for those who reject actual - not sanctifying - graces given to all who reach maturity).

    If one understands salvation as a gratuitous gift granted and bestowed by God on whom He chooses, one can readily accept the logic that he would give and bestow it through a means or way He selects as well - through His Son, and a conscious embracing of His truth as revealed through His selected organ of communcation, the Catholic Church. 

    DR
    Logged
    Zech. 13:7-9  Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that cleaveth to me, saith the Lord of hosts: strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn my hand to the little ones.  8 And there shall be in all the earth, saith the Lord, two parts in it shall be scattered, and shall perish: but the third part shall be left therein. 9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined . . .

    Offline bodeens

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1514
    • Reputation: +798/-159
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
    « Reply #17 on: November 19, 2021, 08:48:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on November 19, 2021, 08:33:13 AM
    Bodeens,

    Thanks. I look forward to reading his thoughts on Augustine in that regard.

    As is clear in my other thread, I think the topic of predestination - and the general avoidance of the classical Catholic understanding - is underlying much of the problems that manifested themselves in the now reigning magisterium of the "Conciliar Church." Liberal thinking on BOD and EENS is a natural outgrowth of seeing man as the center of things, even the determiner of his salvation.

    The classical, traditional and orthodox Thomistic understanding embraces human freedom as a secondary cause and harmonizes a true understanding of human "free will" with the divine will remaining as primary cause and the determiner of the good, eternal life (for each individual He saves), while permitting the bad, damnation, i.e. the torments of hell (for those who reject actual - not sanctifying - graces given to all who reach maturity).

    If one understands salvation as a gratuitous gift granted and bestowed by God on whom He chooses, one can readily accept the logic that he would give and bestow it through a means or way He selects as well - through His Son, and a conscious embracing of His truth as revealed through His selected organ of communcation, the Catholic Church. 

    DR
    To be honest I haven't grappled much with predestination so clearly this needs to be a focus in my studies of the future. This really is a whole side of the debate that I don't think gets much exposure, and as such I may have to revise what I think in the future, or at least be able to get deeper into some distinctions based on my understanding of predestination. 
    Logged
    Regard all of my posts as unfounded slander, heresy, theologically specious etc
    I accept Church teaching on Implicit Baptism of Desire.
    Francis is Pope.
    NO is a good Mass.
    Not an ironic sig.

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2050
    • Reputation: +751/-132
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
    « Reply #18 on: November 19, 2021, 09:09:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: bodeens on November 19, 2021, 08:48:11 AM

    To be honest I haven't grappled much with predestination so clearly this needs to be a focus in my studies of the future. This really is a whole side of the debate that I don't think gets much exposure, and as such I may have to revise what I think in the future, or at least be able to get deeper into some distinctions based on my understanding of predestination.

    Exactly. It's an ignored subject. I think Catholics run from it because of emphasis on it by Calvinists - maybe that's part of Satan's deception: put a stain on the subject for Catholics by having a heretical and schismatic sect make it a cause célèbre.

    I won't derail this thread, but there's a good sermon by Bishop Sanborn on the subject - I'll post it in my other thread. I think the sermon is about 25 minutes, and gives a great overview.
    Logged
    Zech. 13:7-9  Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that cleaveth to me, saith the Lord of hosts: strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn my hand to the little ones.  8 And there shall be in all the earth, saith the Lord, two parts in it shall be scattered, and shall perish: but the third part shall be left therein. 9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined . . .

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 818
    • Reputation: +364/-68
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
    « Reply #19 on: November 19, 2021, 11:09:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • If anyone will just read the excerpted pages of Sullivan's book, provided by Tradman (above in this thread), you can see one thing very clearly: the precise formulation and understanding of the EENS dogma has been debated for many centuries by prominent Catholic theologians (many of whom were canonized saints). 

    So the fact that canonized saints cannot agree on the precise formulation should give pause to people on this forum who think they CAN give a precise formulation and that anyone who doesn't agree with their formulation is a heretic. 

    Please just accept that there is some element of mystery in the EENS dogma. That doesn't mean that the dogma is not valid or true. It simply means that our limited human minds cannot completely grasp the thought of God that the dogma attempts to express. Cut people some slack. 

    Differences of opinion, within limits, should be acceptable, unless the stated opinion has been specifically anathematized. Formulations of BoD that are not heretical, then, would have to be stated to avoid anathemas. Any of those formulations, should be considered open for discussion/debate. Formulations of BoD that are truly "heretical" could be proved to be as heretical by showing contradiction of that exact formulation with some anathema. If you cannot prove it is heretical, stop claiming that it is.

    Logged

    Offline bodeens

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1514
    • Reputation: +798/-159
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
    « Reply #20 on: November 19, 2021, 12:27:25 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on November 19, 2021, 11:09:30 AM
    If anyone will just read the excerpted pages of Sullivan's book, provided by Tradman (above in this thread), you can see one thing very clearly: the precise formulation and understanding of the EENS dogma has been debated for many centuries by prominent Catholic theologians (many of whom were canonized saints).

    So the fact that canonized saints cannot agree on the precise formulation should give pause to people on this forum who think they CAN give a precise formulation and that anyone who doesn't agree with their formulation is a heretic.

    Please just accept that there is some element of mystery in the EENS dogma. That doesn't mean that the dogma is not valid or true. It simply means that our limited human minds cannot completely grasp the thought of God that the dogma attempts to express. Cut people some slack.

    Differences of opinion, within limits, should be acceptable, unless the stated opinion has been specifically anathematized. Formulations of BoD that are not heretical, then, would have to be stated to avoid anathemas. Any of those formulations, should be considered open for discussion/debate. Formulations of BoD that are truly "heretical" could be proved to be as heretical by showing contradiction of that exact formulation with some anathema. If you cannot prove it is heretical, stop claiming that it is.
    The only people being called heretics or being warned there is heresy in their opinions on here are people who formulate BoD in a Pelagian manner. In my whole time here I have only seen potentially materially heretical formulations of BoD from people who probably don't obsesses over BoD/EENS a handful of times. I don't think anyone in this thread particularly has an axe to grind in this regard.
    Logged
    Regard all of my posts as unfounded slander, heresy, theologically specious etc
    I accept Church teaching on Implicit Baptism of Desire.
    Francis is Pope.
    NO is a good Mass.
    Not an ironic sig.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 39434
    • Reputation: +22674/-4291
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding?
    « Reply #21 on: November 19, 2021, 02:39:56 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • There's nothing unclear about the "formulation".
    Logged
    Pages: 1 [2]
    « previous next »