Author Topic: Innocent III Contradicts St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus about BoD (Read 4041 times)

Cantarella · « **Reply #30 on:** August 25, 2014, 12:26:28 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: One Dove
Invincible Ignorance Fallacy: “The invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections.”

The invincible ignorance "fallacy". We are not talking about any fallacy but the truth which the Church infallibly teaches. Feeneyites manifest their ignorance on this topic which is why the discussion continues to go in circles.

They err.

We present Church teaching.

They deny it and call us names.

According to St. Thomas, inculpable ignorance of the true religion excuses a person from the sin of infidelity or heresy. But such ignorance has never been the means of salvation.

From the fact that a person could potentially live a righteous life according to his conscience and not sin against the true Faith because of ignorance, many have drawn the false and heretical conclusion that such a soul is saved, or be granted sanctifying grace, thus making ignorance a means of salvation.

The dogma of "Outside of the Church there is no salvation," means that no one can go to Heaven unless he is in the state of sanctifying grace and furthermore, that in order to receive sanctifying grace, the soul must be prepared for it by divine Faith. Baptism is the entrance to this spiritual life and the gateway for this development. This preparation of the soul cannot be brought by inculpable ignorance. Every Catholic must know and believe the truths of Salvation as well as receive the Sacraments dispensed by the Church to receive the necessary graces.

According to the Angelic Doctor, God in His mercy will lead the worthy, righteous, well disposed souls, to the knowledge of the necessary truths of salvation, even send them an angel, if necessary, to instruct them, rather than let them perish without their fault. If they accept this grace, they will be saved as Catholics. Inculpable ignorance has never been a means of grace or salvation.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #31 on:** August 25, 2014, 12:28:25 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: One Dove
Invincible Ignorance Fallacy: “The invincible ignorance fallacy is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections.”

The invincible ignorance "fallacy". We are not talking about any fallacy but the truth which the Church infallibly teaches. Feeneyites manifest their ignorance on this topic which is why the discussion continues to go in circles.

They err.

We present Church teaching.

They deny it and call us names.

According to St. Thomas, inculpable ignorance of the true religion excuses a person from the sin of infidelity or heresy. But such ignorance has never been the means of salvation.

From the fact that a person could potentially live a righteous life according to his conscience and not sin against the true Faith because of ignorance, many have drawn the false and heretical conclusion that such a soul is saved, or be granted sanctifying grace, thus making ignorance a means of salvation.

The dogma of "Outside of the Church there is no salvation," means that no one can go to Heaven unless he is in the state of sanctifying grace and furthermore, that in order to receive sanctifying grace, the soul must be prepared for it by divine Faith. Baptism is the entrance to this spiritual life and the gateway for this development. This preparation of the soul cannot be brought by inculpable ignorance. Every Catholic must know and believe the truths of Salvation as well as receive the Sacraments dispensed by the Church to receive the necessary graces.

According to the Angelic Doctor, God in His mercy will lead the worthy, righteous, well disposed souls, to the knowledge of the necessary truths of salvation, even send them an angel, if necessary, to instruct them, rather than let them perish without their fault. If they accept this grace, they will be saved as Catholics. Inculpable ignorance has never been a means of grace or salvation.

We never teach ignorance by itself means salvation. Their must be supernatural faith and perfect charity. Do miss this innocently? I must have posted this fact a million or so times now. You either purposely mislead others about what is taught or you are a very selective reader.

Cantarella · « **Reply #32 on:** August 25, 2014, 12:32:49 PM »

According to St. Thomas, invincible ignorance actually serves a necessary means God uses in order to separate the elect from the reprobate. Invincible Ignorance plays an important role in Catholic predestination.

From a Thomist perspective, it is necessary for the perfection and completion of the universe that some things fail in their good. This means that God allows certain creatures to fail in their good for the perfection of the whole (the elect).

And indeed St. Thomas explained that those who die invincibly ignorant, who have heard nothing about the Faith through no fault of their own (except for the fault of original sin, which is in them as their own, as was defined at Trent, and for which they have an ignorance of divine matters), are damned for their sins, including original sin, which cannot be taken away without the Faith; thus they fail to obtain their end, God not preventing this by sending them a missionary:

Quote from: Angelic Doctor

“Unbelief has a double sense. First, it can be taken purely negatively; thus a man is called an unbeliever solely because he does not possess faith. Secondly, by way of opposition to faith; thus when a man refuses to hear of the faith or even contemns it, according to Isaiah, “Who has believed our report?” This is where the full nature of unbelief, properly speaking is found, and where the sin lies.

“If, however, unbelief be taken just negatively, as in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of fault, but of penalty, because their ignorance of divine things is the result of the sin of our first parents. Those who are unbelievers in this sense are condemned on account of other sins, which cannot be forgiven without faith; they are not condemned for the sin of unbelief.” (2, 2, 10, 1)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #33 on:** August 25, 2014, 12:35:14 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

According to St. Thomas, invincible ignorance actually serves a necessary means God uses in order to separate the elect from the reprobate.

From a Thomist perspective, it is necessary for the perfection and completiom of the universe that some things fail in their good. This means that God allows certain creatures to fail in their good for the perfection of the whole (the elect).

And indeed St. Thomas explained that those who die invincibly ignorant, who have heard nothing about the Faith through no fault of their own (except for the fault of original sin, which is in them as their own, as was defined at Trent, and for which they have an ignorance of divine matters), are damned for their sins, including original sin, which cannot be taken away without the Faith; thus they fail to obtain their end, God not preventing this by sending them a missionary:

Quote from: Angelic Doctor

“Unbelief has a double sense. First, it can be taken purely negatively; thus a man is called an unbeliever solely because he does not possess faith. Secondly, by way of opposition to faith; thus when a man refuses to hear of the faith or even contemns it, according to Isaiah, “Who has believed our report?” This is where the full nature of unbelief, properly speaking is found, and where the sin lies.

“If, however, unbelief be taken just negatively, as in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of fault, but of penalty, because their ignorance of divine things is the result of the sin of our first parents. Those who are unbelievers in this sense are condemned on account of other sins, which cannot be forgiven without faith; they are not condemned for the sin of unbelief.” (2, 2, 10, 1)

You do not understand what you read.

Cantarella · « **Reply #34 on:** August 25, 2014, 12:45:41 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Cantarella
According to St. Thomas, invincible ignorance actually serves a necessary means God uses in order to separate the elect from the reprobate.

From a Thomist perspective, it is necessary for the perfection and completiom of the universe that some things fail in their good. This means that God allows certain creatures to fail in their good for the perfection of the whole (the elect).

And indeed St. Thomas explained that those who die invincibly ignorant, who have heard nothing about the Faith through no fault of their own (except for the fault of original sin, which is in them as their own, as was defined at Trent, and for which they have an ignorance of divine matters), are damned for their sins, including original sin, which cannot be taken away without the Faith; thus they fail to obtain their end, God not preventing this by sending them a missionary:

Quote from: Angelic Doctor

“Unbelief has a double sense. First, it can be taken purely negatively; thus a man is called an unbeliever solely because he does not possess faith. Secondly, by way of opposition to faith; thus when a man refuses to hear of the faith or even contemns it, according to Isaiah, “Who has believed our report?” This is where the full nature of unbelief, properly speaking is found, and where the sin lies.

“If, however, unbelief be taken just negatively, as in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of fault, but of penalty, because their ignorance of divine things is the result of the sin of our first parents. Those who are unbelievers in this sense are condemned on account of other sins, which cannot be forgiven without faith; they are not condemned for the sin of unbelief.” (2, 2, 10, 1)

You do not understand what you read.

There is more to Thomism than single isolated quotes supporting "Baptism of Desire" found in dailycatholic.org.

"That some men do not hear of the Faith, and thus are inevitably damned, is because God does not will them the particular goods of the hearing of the Faith, nor of believing it when hearing it, nor of salvation. If He did, then they would most certainly receive them. Rather, He wills to allow them to fall away from their end, not hearing the Faith and not being saved, so that He may manifest His goodness in their damnation; by this damnation the perfection of the universe is accomplished, which must include the variety afforded by the good of avenging justice. He both preconceives and wills to permit their invincible ignorance, that He may damn them as such. It is an adequate means, as we have seen, for the completion of the universe, of the greater good which is willed by God".

This is the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, as interpreted by the Thomists, regarding invincible ignorance.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #35 on:** August 25, 2014, 12:50:54 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Cantarella
According to St. Thomas, invincible ignorance actually serves a necessary means God uses in order to separate the elect from the reprobate.

From a Thomist perspective, it is necessary for the perfection and completiom of the universe that some things fail in their good. This means that God allows certain creatures to fail in their good for the perfection of the whole (the elect).

And indeed St. Thomas explained that those who die invincibly ignorant, who have heard nothing about the Faith through no fault of their own (except for the fault of original sin, which is in them as their own, as was defined at Trent, and for which they have an ignorance of divine matters), are damned for their sins, including original sin, which cannot be taken away without the Faith; thus they fail to obtain their end, God not preventing this by sending them a missionary:

Quote from: Angelic Doctor

“Unbelief has a double sense. First, it can be taken purely negatively; thus a man is called an unbeliever solely because he does not possess faith. Secondly, by way of opposition to faith; thus when a man refuses to hear of the faith or even contemns it, according to Isaiah, “Who has believed our report?” This is where the full nature of unbelief, properly speaking is found, and where the sin lies.

“If, however, unbelief be taken just negatively, as in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of fault, but of penalty, because their ignorance of divine things is the result of the sin of our first parents. Those who are unbelievers in this sense are condemned on account of other sins, which cannot be forgiven without faith; they are not condemned for the sin of unbelief.” (2, 2, 10, 1)

You do not understand what you read.

There is more to Thomism than single quotes supporting Baptism of Desire found in dailycatholic.org.

"That some men do not hear of the Faith, and thus are inevitably damned, is because God does not will them the particular goods of the hearing of the Faith, nor of believing it when hearing it, nor of salvation. If He did, then they would most certainly receive them. Rather, He wills to allow them to fall away from their end, not hearing the Faith and not being saved, so that He may manifest His goodness in their damnation; by this damnation the perfection of the universe is accomplished, which must include the variety afforded by the good of avenging justice. He both preconceives and wills to permit their invincible ignorance, that He may damn them as such. It is an adequate means, as we have seen, for the completion of the universe, of the greater good which is willed by God".

This is the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, as interpreted by the Thomists, regarding invincible ignorance.

Thomas teaches BOD. There would be no need for BOD if those inculpable ignorant of the necessity of the Church and the sacrament [along with the other prerequisites] could not benefit from it.

You are saying Thomas teaches nonsense. That he teaches BOD for no reason. Why does he teach BOD? Who is it for? Those who are not ignorant of the necessity of the Sacrament? I find the quotes in the SUMMA BTW. He says on account of other sins. BOD supposes they are in a state of perfect charity i.e. in a state of sanctifying grace.

JPaul · « **Reply #36 on:** August 25, 2014, 01:29:11 PM »

Canterella, you waste your good efforts upon the culpably ignorant.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #37 on:** August 25, 2014, 01:33:40 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Canterella, you waste your good efforts upon the culpably ignorant.

Good efforts in misleading the unwary.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** August 25, 2014, 01:39:12 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Thomas teaches BOD. There would be no need for BOD if those inculpable ignorant of the necessity of the Church and the sacrament [along with the other prerequisites] could not benefit from it.

So we finally get to the heart of the matter !!! BoD being exploited to undermine EENS. This has nothing to do with the catechumen who dies before being able to receive Baptism.

:geezer:

No, my Pelagian friend, the one Father and Church Doctors who believed in BoD considered it to apply in the case of a catechumen-like person who lacked nothing to be Catholic except the Sacrament of Baptism, which they would then receive in voto.

This has nothing to do with Baptism of Desire but your Pelagian/gnostic/Protestant Faith of Desire, with "Desire" being defined as "trying your best". Salvation by sincerity alone! How you have ANY business rejecting Vatican II is absolutely beyond me.

:heretic:

JPaul · « **Reply #39 on:** August 25, 2014, 05:47:08 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: J.Paul
Canterella, you waste your good efforts upon the culpably ignorant.

Good efforts in misleading the unwary.

Of course not, ....good efforts in trying to educate the incorrigable.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #40 on:** August 25, 2014, 07:16:18 PM »

Still no Cushingite has answered the question posed by this thread.

Cantarella · « **Reply #41 on:** August 25, 2014, 10:30:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Still no Cushingite has answered the question posed by this thread.

When there is nothing left to say, the evasive Cushinguite will respond something along the lines of "baptism of desire", (without fail, they always bring up the hypothetical "baptism of desire" because it is the mask they use in order to justify their pelagian, protestant, gnostic heresy of salvation outside the Church, "salvation by justification alone", or "salvation of the ignorant by implicit desire") but in truth they do not believe in BOD as taught by the Church, or Aquinas anyway, since they think that BOD could ever apply to a pagan or somebody who has not knowledge of the Catholic Faith (foundation of all justification).

Stubborn · « **Reply #42 on:** August 26, 2014, 03:50:33 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Still no Cushingite has answered the question posed by this thread.

Cushingites are lying hypocrites, which is why they can no more be counted on to answer the question in this thread then they can be counted on to defend the necessity of the sacrament for salvation.

Just ain't gonna happen.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #43 on:** August 26, 2014, 04:34:53 AM »

Clearly Innocent III is correct, and St. Thomas / St. Alphonsus are wrong ... despite the fact that St. Thomas corrected Innocent III on other theological points.

1) There can be no initial justification without rebirth. de fide
2) Rebirth means being put into a state where nothing can delay entry into heaven. de fide

Conclusion proxima fidei -- There can be no initial justification without being put into a state where nothing can delay entry into heaven.

Conclusion: St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were wrong in their understanding / description of BoD ... if BoD exists at all.

Why do you get so many different opinions about BoD? Because BoD is completely made up to begin with; it's nothing but theological speculation (albeit one that became widely adopted after St. Thomas). It does NOT derive necessarily from any other Catholic teaching, so all the details about how it works vary from one author to another.

Many of the Church Fathers accepted BoB while rejecting BoD, yet the BoDer reading of Trent eliminates BoB while accepting BoD, i.e. reduces BoB completely to BoD.

Contradictions abound in the wake of BoD. Religious indifferentism and ecuмenism and Religious Liberty and Pelagianism are the fruits of BoD. BoD is junk theology.

Does it actually exist? I don't think so. In the end only God knows. But there is NO PROOF THAT ANYONE HAS EVER BEEN SAVED BY BOD. There's no proof that God has ever willed someone to be saved by this means rather than by providing Baptism (either one is just as easy for God, Who cannot be constrained by impossibility), so if He wills one over the other, it's because He preferred it for that person. But why? Since there's zero proof that God has ever willed to save anyone by this means, that by itself renders it nothing but hypothetical speculative theology.

End of story.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #44 on:** August 26, 2014, 04:50:46 AM »

Now why do the Cushingites ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to admit that St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus were wrong about BoD? Because in the final analysis they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THEIR SIDE EXCEPT "AUTHORITY". There's never been a theological argument demonstrating how BoD derives from Church doctrine. Never. Not one. So the BoDers have nothing but to bring out the "authority" sock puppets and try to beat you over the head with the INFAAALIBLE authority of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus whereas what you actually have is nothing but their exercise in SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY.

Of course what St. Thomas and St. Robert and St. Alphonsus teach has absolutely NOTHING do with what any Church Father ever taught or what any Doctor ever taught; it has nothing to do with LoT and Ambrose's Pelagianism. LoT admits on another thread that there's no point in BoD if those ignorant of their obligation to be Catholic cannot be saved. In point of fact, the Doctors limited BoD specifically to the case of the catechumens who died before Baptism. In fact, that's THE CONCRETE CASE from which the speculations regarding BoD arose.

People saw catechumens who tried to live good lives dying while they saw others who chose to defer Baptism so they could carry on in their sin receiving Baptism on their death beds. So they started to think that something about that was not fair. St. Augustine briefly sided with that in his early days, but then in the end realized that it led STRAIGHT TO PELAGIANISM. He dismissed the speculation, after he had matured in his faith, based on what might or might not be fair for God to do as leading inexorably to a "vortex of confusion", and said that this thinking must be rejected by all who "wish to remain Catholic". But that's where the BoDer devotion to the great thinking of Augustine ends. After that, they ignore him as irrelevant. He was fine when he was speculating shortly after his conversion but eventually lapsed into the error of rejecting BoD towards the end of his life. Poor St. Augustine. But, thankfully, LoT is here to save the day.