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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 61

Author Topic: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)  (Read 42110 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trad123

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #200 on: August 27, 2022, 08:15:45 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on August 27, 2022, 08:12:21 PM
You can "agree" all you want, but the post-Tridentine theologians did not agree that the only sense of the term justification refers to entering a state of grace, supernatural life.

Xavier seems to have had three accounts: Nishant, Nishant Xavier, and XavierSem


Whatever he posted under the XavierSem account is gone.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #201 on: August 27, 2022, 08:19:12 PM »
Quote from: trad123 on August 27, 2022, 08:10:56 PM
I think it would be more apt to say a state of innocence.

Now you're just throwing words out there, and this is semantics.  There's natural state of being "right with God" (that you term "innocence" and then the supernatural state where one is not only "right with God" (whereby one is elevated about natural justice to the supernatural life).

Call it what you will, but there's a real distinction here, and the post-Tridentine theologians applied the term justification also to natural justification, something at which infidels could arrive without necessarily being in a state of grace.

This distinction was broadly known, and is why Dante, for instance, put the Muslim Saladin in Limbo.

This would also be the state in which, say, unbaptized martyrs would be, having all the natural punishment or poena of their sins removed, and yet unable to become the "adopted sons of God," i.e. have supernatural grace and enter into the life of the Holy Trinity.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #202 on: August 27, 2022, 08:28:05 PM »
Regardless of the disagreement of terms, those of you who believe that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation, but reject the justification/salvation distinction of Father Feeney, what say you?  Do you believe that an unbaptized martyr would go to hell, to suffer for all eternity?

You could argue that God would never allow such a thing, but St. Ambrose seems to disagree, saying that unbaptized martyrs are "washed" but not "crowned" (and this presumes that there were some).  So, in his famous comments about Valentinian, construed by BoD supporters as meaning Valentinian could have been saved without actual reception of Baptism, St. Ambrose is actually making the same distinction of washed but not crowned.

What does it mean to be washed and yet not crowned?
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #203 on: August 27, 2022, 08:32:21 PM »
St. Gregory nαzιanzen, who explicitly rejected salvation by a BoD, also said that there were some who, while not good enough for "glory" (aka beatific vision, entry into heaven) were also not bad enough to be punished.

Our Lord taught that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, but that those who do not believe will be condemned.

What about those who believe and are not baptized?  They'd be neither saved, nor condemned, according to what Our Lord taught here.
Logged

Offline trad123

  • Supporter
Re: John 3:5 defined as Dogma at Trent, Theologian admits (video)
« Reply #204 on: August 27, 2022, 08:33:03 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on August 27, 2022, 08:19:12 PM
Call it what you will, but there's a real distinction here, and the post-Tridentine theologians applied the term justification also to natural justification, something at which infidels could arrive without necessarily being in a state of grace.

This distinction was broadly known, and is why Dante, for instance, put the Muslim Saladin in Limbo.



In other words the soul of an adult person dies with only original sin on their soul, having perhaps avoided mortal sin in their lifetime.

However, I am much more inclined to believe the position of St. Thomas:




St. Thomas Aquinas

Quaestiones disputatae de veritate

Question Fourteen: Faith

ARTICLE XI: In the eleventh article we ask: Is it necessary to believe explicitly?

http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/g3i.htm


Quote
Quote
1. We should not posit any proposition from which an untenable conclusion follows. But, if we claim that explicit belief is necessary for salvation, an untenable conclusion follows. For it is possible for someone to be brought up in the forest or among wolves, and such a one cannot have explicit knowledge of any matter of faith. Thus, there will be a man who will inevitably be damned. But this is untenable. Hence, explicit belief in something does not seem necessary.

Answers to Difficulties

1. Granted that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, no untenable conclusion follows even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to divine providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).








Logged
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 61
« previous next »