Author Topic: Fr. hαɾɾιson corrects The Wanderer for their misinterpretation of EENS (Read 25280 times)

Raoul76 · « **Reply #75 on:** March 05, 2011, 12:27:24 PM »

Trad123 answered my question that I asked SJB. I had asked him about the "subcategories" of necessity of means, to explain how there can be a baptism of desire when baptism is a necessity of means.

In one of trad123's scanned books, it gives the answer: Necessity of absolute means and necessity of relative means.

You are doing your homework, trad123.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #76 on:** March 05, 2011, 12:55:29 PM »

Correction:

I wrote --

Quote

It is not possible for the Church to allow a heresy to be taught for five hundred years, sorry.

I should have written --

Quote

It is not possible for most if not all of the theologians of the Church to teach a heresy over three hundred years.

I have to change that, because of course, the Immaculate Conception was denied by some for a while, including -- arguably -- St. Thomas, and more shockingly, St. Bernard, who, as legend has it, was breast-fed by Mary with the milk of wisdom itself ( no, I didn't make this up, look up Lactation of St. Bernard ).

But just as with the Immaculate Conception, where over time more and more people believed in it until basically everyone believed, and then it became a dogma, the idea of some kind of implicit faith being sufficient for salvation is on the same track. The trend, long before Vatican II, was for more and more theologians to accept that some form of implicit faith being sufficient for salvation is possible.

It's true that very few agree on what must be believed implictly, and what must be believed explicitly. This may be the "vortex of confusion" that Augustine feared. What he didn't see, I think, and what perhaps God showed me after much agonizing over this question -- and I do mean agonizing -- is that it's only confusing if you think that you HAVE to know every last secret of the mind of God. If you leave it a mystery, then there is no problem. God can save certain people under certain conditions, but we don't always know what those conditions are, and therefore, they should take steps to learn the faith and be baptized...

The following quote from an encylical of Pius IX, to me, is the last word on the matter. It explains that the exact boundaries of invincible ignorance are a MYSTERY at which our minds should stop, which we should not try to penetrate further.

Quote

"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.

Of course, this didn't stop all the theologians from inquiring, or myself, but maybe it should.

innocenza · « **Reply #77 on:** March 05, 2011, 01:11:54 PM »

Is it possible to talk about 'absolute necessity' and 'relative necessity'? Sounds funny to me.

SJB · « **Reply #78 on:** March 05, 2011, 02:02:14 PM »

Quote from: innocenza

Is it possible to talk about 'absolute necessity' and 'relative necessity'? Sounds funny to me.

I think the correct terms would be necessity of means and necessity of precept.

Jehanne · « **Reply #79 on:** March 05, 2011, 02:48:54 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

True, you can't just appeal to authority in all cases to settle questions, priests are not perfect, theologians aren't perfect. But you are basically denying, with baptism of desire, what has been taught by FIVE Doctors of the Church, okay? That should show you that it is you with the problem.

I do not deny Baptism of Desire and/or Blood, and I have already expressed my views on that. If "modern" theologians can "improve" on Saints Augustine & Thomas, I am not sure why you think Father Feeney could not, also. However, this is a very old debate, so this will be my last post in this thread. Until next time...

As for theologians teaching "implicit faith" for five centuries and the Church tolerating it, I do not think that statement is accurate. The late Father Michael Muller, in his book The Catholic Dogma, stated the following:

"Hence it has always been, from the beginning, absolutely necessary for salvation to know, by divine faith, God as the Creator of heaven and earth and the eternal Rewarder of the good and the wicked, and the Incarnation of the Son of God, and consequently the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity; 'For he that cometh to God,' says St. Paul, 'must believe that he is, and is a rewarder of those who seek him.' (Heb. xi. 6.) Upon these words of the great Apostle, Cornelius a Lapide comments as follows..." (page 9)

So, I guess the answer to "implicit faith" depends upon whom you ask, a Paulist or a Redemptorist. If Paulists can "improve" upon Saint Thomas, why can't Father Feeney?

In any case, I am through with this one, so thank you for your comments. I was contemplating going to the CMRI, but no longer. So, this message board is very useful to me, just a "guy on the Internet."