Author Topic: Vatican I on the object of supernatural faith (Read 10364 times)

Ladislaus · « **on:** April 07, 2014, 02:00:27 PM »

Quote from: Vatican I

The Catholic Church has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation.

This is why I have always held that the opinion that the existence of God as rewarder cannot suffice for supernatural faith. Vatican I here finishes off holding to that opinion once and for all.

bowler · « **Reply #1 on:** April 07, 2014, 03:01:37 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Vatican I
The Catholic Church has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation.

This is why I have always held that the opinion that the existence of God as rewarder cannot suffice for supernatural faith. Vatican I here finishes off holding to that opinion once and for all.

It confirms the unanimous opinion of the Fathers (considered infallible) as expounded in the ancient Athanasian Creed, it was the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, and it was clearly infallible decreed at the Council of Florence:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

St. Thomas Aquinas:

St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: "After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above."(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)

Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: "And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity." (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** April 07, 2014, 03:05:43 PM »

I've posted numerous times that supernatural faith requires a supernatural object.

I found this quote from Vatican I that completely backs that up and settles the question once and for all.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** April 07, 2014, 03:08:51 PM »

Notice the phrase that supernatural truths "can only be known to us by Divine revelation". And the existence of God as a rewarder is something that CAN be known by natural reason.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** April 07, 2014, 03:26:17 PM »

This strikes a death blow to the extension of BoD to anyone other than Christians with explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.

I've always found the Athanasian Creed and Florence to have been sufficient for that, but this EXPLICITLY rejects the notion that one can have supernatural faith without a supernatural object, i.e. that a natural truth can be known with a supernatural motive of faith.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** April 07, 2014, 03:49:40 PM »

I also find it interesting that BoDers excoriate us for disagreeing with St. Thomas Aquinas on BoD and yet they themselves reject the opinion of St. Thomas regarding the requirement of explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation in order to cling to their version of BoD that doesn't require it. But it's OK for them to think that St. Thomas got that wrong, but not OK for us to think that he got it wrong on BoD. Again, that shows ulterior motives for WANTING to believe in BoD, but not just to believe in ANY BoD but in a kind of BoD that would extend itself to everyone in the world who might believe in God. They're not content with saying that BoD is limited to catechumens or even to "Christians" in general, but to all manner of pagan, infidel, Jew, Muslim, and Thumb worshipper.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** April 08, 2014, 08:16:16 AM »

Now that we have established that Catholics can no longer hold to the opinion that explicit belief in the existence of a rewarder/punisher God can suffice for supernatural faith, let us expand on that.

What is supernatural faith?

Quote from: Catholic Encyclopedia

If the authority upon which we base our assent is human and therefore fallible, we have human and fallible faith; if the authority is Divine, we have Divine and infallible faith.

There are two aspects to faith. 1) a supernatural object of faith (as per Vatican I) and 2) a supernatural formal motive of faith.

Quote from: Catholic Encyclopedia

Let us now take some concrete act of faith, e.g. "I believe in the Most Holy Trinity." This mystery is the material or individual object upon which we are now exercising our faith, the formal object is its character as being a Divine truth, and this truth is clearly inevident as far as we are concerned; it in no way appeals to our intellect, on the contrary it rather repels it. And yet we assent to it by faith, consequently upon evidence which is extrinsic and not intrinsic to the truth we are accepting. But there can be no evidence commensurate with such a mystery save the Divine testimony itself, and this constitutes the motive for our assent to the mystery, and is, in scholastic language, the objectum formale quo of our assent.

So we have a supernatural object to which we assent based on extrinsic evidence, i.e. the authority of God revealing. That a priori belief in the authority of God revealing constitutes what's referred to as the formal motive of faith.

But that formal motive must be based on an infallible and certain authority. We cannot have the certainty of faith regarding the object of faith without an authority that's known with the certainty of faith.

Protestants and others who refuse to accept the teaching authority of the Church base their adherence to these truths on "fallible and human" authority because their ultimate criterion for faith is their own private judgment rather than the authority of God.

Consequently, even when accepting truths such as the Holy Trinity, these are not known with the certainty of supernatural faith unless accepted on an authority that has the certainty of faith.

Consequently, there can be no supernatural faith outside the Catholic Church.

Consequently, only Catholics can be saved. I prescind here from any discussion regarding BoD for catechumens.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** April 08, 2014, 08:21:26 AM »

I invite the BoDers who have formerly argued that those without explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the central mysteries of the Incarnation can be saved to renounce their former error ... in the interests of undoing the damage they have done by advocating that position.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** April 08, 2014, 03:18:43 PM »

No response for ANY of the BoDers?

It shouldn't be that hard to follow the majority theological opinion (including St. Thomas Aquinas) and say that no one can have supernatural faith without explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the mysteries of the Incarnation, and that pagans, infidels, Jews, Muslims, etc. who do not explicitly believe in these revealed truths cannot be saved by BoD (since they cannot have supernatural faith).

In fact, given the evidence from Vatican I, it shouldn't be that hard to condemn the minority opinion as untenable.

If you find it hard, you have to ask yourself why. You need to do some soul-searching and see if it isn't because you just have a hard time emotionally coming to terms with and accepting that such people cannot be saved. Emotional things like that (as admitted by Father Cekada) can be an impediment to honestly seeking and being able to embrace the truth when found. St. Thomas teaches that since truth is the natural object of the will, error usually comes from the will, from an unwillingness to accept the truth. You need to do some soul-searching and you need to pray for enlightenment. In holding such things, you're barely hanging on to the Catholic Faith with the skin of your teeth and risk losing it altogether.

We need to heed the popes who taught that there is one Faith and one Church, outside of which there can be no salvation. We need to stop "emptying" the Cross of Christ of its meaning. We need to stop propagating the pernicious error that it's possible for someone to be saved in the profession of any religion. We need to stop "dissolving Christ".

Stubborn · « **Reply #9 on:** April 08, 2014, 03:24:15 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

No response for ANY of the BoDers?

Excellent thread Ladislaus!

But you mistake the BODers here for sincere people honestly seeking truth.

LoT just created another anti-sacrament thread, the others have their heads buried in the dirt, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Nishant · « **Reply #10 on:** April 09, 2014, 06:14:21 AM »

Well!

I'll say this, because of the insinuation in the second to last post above. For my part, I believe everything verbatim what I have been taught. I'm mentally ready to believe anything, even that only 1% of water baptized Catholics are saved, if indeed it was properly proved from authority first, and argument only second. On these particular questions, the traditional teaching has been uniform for centuries.

Considering the second question first, the possibility of material heresy in the adherents of a heretical sect, let us begin with authorities, before we go to the theological explanations.

First, we have Canon Law, which speaks of "heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith" (canon 731 §2). The same is taught in practically every Catechism that treats the subject (St. Pius X, Baltimore Catechism etc come to mind), and universally and unanimously by all theologians. How likely is it that all of these together have erred, or failed to notice what the Church really teaches?

The Catholic student of theology who wishes to teach the Faith to others is not in any way free to teach a theology all his own, he is rather under the obligation to show that the doctrine he teaches is taught by other approved Catholic teachers.

Some much earlier authorities (and these could be indefinitely multiplied), through the ages, explaining the relevant doctrine,

Quote from: Cardinal De Lugo

“One who is baptized as an infant by heretics, and is brought up by them in false doctrine, when he reaches adulthood, could for some time not be guilty of sin against the Catholic faith, as long as this had not been proposed to him in a way sufficient to oblige him to embrace it. However, if the Catholic faith were subsequently proposed to him in a way sufficient to oblige him to embrace it and to abandon errors contrary to it, and he still persisted in his errors, then he would be a heretic.”

Quote from: St. Thomas

Therefore, as regards the primary points or articles of faith, man is bound to believe them, just as he is bound to have faith; but as to other points of faith, man is not bound to believe them explicitly, but only implicitly, or to be ready to believe them, in so far as he is prepared to believe whatever is contained in the Divine Scriptures. Then alone is he bound to believe such things explicitly, when it is clear to him that they are contained in the doctrine of faith.

Quote from: St. Augustine

But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.

By the way, you cite the CE, I haven't gone through the CE article entirely, but I'm certain from past memory that the CE recognizes and teaches this as well. In fact, I think the CE authors believe in the minority opinion of salvation by implicit faith, unlike St. Thomas, whom I follow.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** April 09, 2014, 06:24:28 AM »

Very good, Nishant. You know that I've excluded you very specifically from those I think are being dishonest about this issue. You seem here to accept the need for explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the mysteries of the Incarnation for salvation. To me that's a major step ... in the right direction.

I'll come back to the specifics of your post later today.

Nishant · « **Reply #12 on:** April 09, 2014, 06:41:51 AM »

Great, Ladislaus. Personally, I would like to see every single Catholic, not only traditional Catholics, but also Catholics in the mainstream Church believe that no one at all is saved today without explicit faith in Jesus Christ, i.e. in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. That would IMHO put an end once and for all to false ecuмenism, with Jews and Muslims, and would get Church authorities back in the business of trying to win their souls to Christ. Msgr. Fenton tells us this was still the majority teaching in his day.

I've told Bowler a hundred times that this is what we should be arguing, because on this matter, every authority is on our side (although I won't agree with you if you call those believing in salvation by implicit faith heretics, and would argue against you in that case), I absolutely think we should argue in favor of explicit faith in Christ being necessary as a means without which no adult is saved. No one can possibly be condemned for believing this, and everyone is free, arguably obliged on the weight of the greater authorities, to hold and "teach" it.

When you have the time later on, let's see if we can begin with this common ground, all baptized heretics and schismatics, after the age of reason, as a matter of law since the Church judges only in the external forum, are presumed to be in culpable ignorance, and therefore to have lost the membership in the Church that they acquired in baptism. Likewise, even those who believe in the possibility of salvation by implicit faith should concede, and I think you'll find most traditional Catholics would concede, that likewise all of those raised in infidelity past the age of reason should be presumed to be culpably ignorant, and therefore on the road to damnation.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** April 09, 2014, 08:00:50 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Great, Ladislaus. Personally, I would like to see every single Catholic, not only traditional Catholics, but also Catholics in the mainstream Church believe that no one at all is saved today without explicit faith in Jesus Christ, i.e. in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. That would IMHO put an end once and for all to false ecuмenism, with Jews and Muslims, and would get Church authorities back in the business of trying to win their souls to Christ. Msgr. Fenton tells us this was still the majority teaching in his day.

Amen to that, Nishant (at risk of sounding Protestant LOL). It's this idea that one can be saved without belief in the core mysteries revealed by God in His Son that has led directly to religious indifferentism and to Vatican II. It's this idea put forth in Suprema Haec that some vague "good disposition" can be salvific that absolutely needs to be put to bed. From there we can argue about specifics, but I believe that we ALL must affirm this truth. What I find disconcerting is that even most Protestants would hold that it's heretical to say that one can be saved without explicit belief in Jesus, yet most Traditional Catholics today think people can be saved that way.

Quote

I've told Bowler a hundred times that this is what we should be arguing, because on this matter, every authority is on our side (although I won't agree with you if you call those believing in salvation by implicit faith heretics, and would argue against you in that case), I absolutely think we should argue in favor of explicit faith in Christ being necessary as a means without which no adult is saved. No one can possibly be condemned for believing this, and everyone is free, arguably obliged on the weight of the greater authorities, to hold and "teach" it.

bowler and I have both realized that fighting about BoD proper is the WRONG fight. bowler kept referring to the real problem as "Heroin BoD", the extension of BoD to the point where any nice guy can be saved by some "good disposition".

Quote

When you have the time later on, let's see if we can begin with this common ground, all baptized heretics and schismatics, after the age of reason, as a matter of law since the Church judges only in the external forum, are presumed to be in culpable ignorance, and therefore to have lost the membership in the Church that they acquired in baptism. Likewise, even those who believe in the possibility of salvation by implicit faith should concede, and I think you'll find most traditional Catholics would concede, that likewise all of those raised in infidelity past the age of reason should be presumed to be culpably ignorant, and therefore on the road to damnation.

Perfect, Nishant. I enjoy exchanging posts with you. As you know, I have rejected the Dimonds' assertion that believing in BoD for catechumens is heretical. I consider that view to be borderline schismatic.

I'll get back to the Protestant (material heretic question) later. Let me leave it at this for now. Protestants cannot be saved. If there are some who are beginning to reach the age of reason who retain the Catholic faith (based on the criteria for faith), they are still CATHOLIC, and they are WITHIN the Church and are saved because they are Catholics, not despite being Protestants. It may seem like word games, but it's not and it's essential to view it this way in order to safeguard the dogma of EENS.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** April 09, 2014, 08:35:15 AM »

I do not believe, first of all, that one has to commit an active sin against the faith to lose the faith.

Let's take the following example. Some missionary priest baptizes an infant in the jungle. At some point, his parents die, and the infant gets raised by some atheistic natives. Through Baptism, this child is a Catholic. At some point this child reaches the age of reason without believing in anything really. Since all those who have reached the age of reason must believe in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation by a necessity of means, these infused theological virtues (including the infused virtue of faith) cease or whither away or atrophy. In those who have reached the age of reason, faith cannot continue to exist as a MERELY INFUSED theological virtue; it requires positive affirmation of the intellect and the will, just as someone who doesn't affirm the faith cannot be justified by way of Baptism. If I perform Baptism on an atheist, that person does not thereby receive the infused supernatural virtue of faith. On the very same principle, one who grows up having the infused supernatural virtue of faith via Baptism in infancy loses it upon not affirming it with acts of the will and intellect at the age of reason. That, IMO, on a side note (but I don't want to spend too much time on it here), is what I believe that Trent was teaching with regard to the "desire" or votum for Baptism.

So faith can be lost in such a case just by its mere absence, without any active sin against faith.

Obviously in the case of a Protestant, this transition to loss of faith is more nebulous and only God knows at exactly what point it happens. As we know, children (even Catholic children) have vague notions regarding the Faith even after they have reached the age of reason, so the exact point at which they may have embraced an ideology that cannot yield supernatural faith (i..e Protestantism) remains unclear. That's why Cardinal De Lugo uses the expression "could for some time"; it's unclear exactly when that happens. Of course, up until the point that this DOES happen, the child remains a Catholic and remains within the Catholic Church. Once, however, the child has embraced the Protestant ideology, which by its definition excludes having the necessary formal motive of faith (as I detailed above), the child cease to be a Catholic. Obviously in the external forum they are presumed non Catholic, but it's only a presumption, and if they are Catholic they are Catholic. Protestants cannot be saved. Only Catholics can be saved.

I disagree with Cardinal De Lugo regarding the fact that such people have to be presented with Catholic truth and then actively reject it in order to lose the faith. As in the case of the child raised among pagans (as I outlined above), the faith can be lost simply by lack of affirmation in those reaching the age of reason.

So the question becomes whether or not Protestants as such, based on their ideology, CAN have supernatural faith. I argue that they cannot (and I'll come back to that point). It's related to the notion of formal heresy vs. material heresy (as per the St. Augustine quote).