Author Topic: Vatican I on the object of supernatural faith (Read 11105 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #20 on:** April 09, 2014, 12:55:08 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Ladislaus
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.

I've said this many times, yet one must admit the opposing view is not condemned. You say it is condemned, but that is on your own authority, which isn't any kind of authority at all.

See the OP and address THAT. It's based on Vatican I that I reject that view as untenable.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #21 on:** April 09, 2014, 12:59:03 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.

I'm not sure how one can assume or wish the above proves anything in regards to contradicting the infallible doctrine of BOB/D.

It is talking about "the twofold order of knowledge". Then it goes on to say "Divine faith is mysteries hidden in God but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation.

Is it just me or did I miss the part where it denies the infallible doctrine of BOB/D. Also where does it point out what the minimal beliefs must be in order to have a supernatural faith? Perhaps I mistakenly put on the wrong pair of reading glasses.

I'll wait for the response, obviously without holding my breath.

On second thought reading error and slurs bores me. So I bid you later much.

Have at it. :cheers:

SJB · « **Reply #22 on:** April 09, 2014, 01:03:36 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

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).

Who teaches this? Anyway, the fact that a validly baptized child has the infused virtue of faith means that he can only lose it by an personal act. The same way a Catholic can only become a true heretic by a personal act. The same way an un-baptized adult can only embrace the faith by a personal act. All of this should be obvious from the very definition of heresy.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** April 09, 2014, 01:05:40 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

The Protestant is not subject to the Roman Pontiff. He is baptized and therefore will not be damned on account of original sin, but even he were not to commit any other sin during his life, he is not member of the Catholic Church, meaning not part of Christ, and thus unable to enter Heaven.

Baptism renders people subject to the Roman Pontiff (which, on a separate note in which I do not want to digress, is one of the strongest argument against BoD for catechumens). He would cease to be a member once he ceased to profess the Catholic Faith or professed something other than the Catholic Faith.

SJB · « **Reply #24 on:** April 09, 2014, 01:06:22 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Ladislaus
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.

I've said this many times, yet one must admit the opposing view is not condemned. You say it is condemned, but that is on your own authority, which isn't any kind of authority at all.

See the OP and address THAT. It's based on Vatican I that I reject that view as untenable.

Right, and that is your opinion. The fact is it wasn't condemned, at least not yet, if ever. That's just a fact, regardless of who and how it is extrapolated into universal salvation.