Author Topic: Vatican I on the object of supernatural faith (Read 11117 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #65 on:** April 10, 2014, 07:57:58 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
My view is I don't know because the Church hasn't settled it. That is the God's honest truth.

Do you believe that pagans can be saved? If so, you must necessarily hold the minority view.

If you're saying that this minority view is possible, then you admit that St. Thomas could have been wrong on this.

If the Church officially condemns it I will agree with you. If the Church officially accepts it I will disagree with you. For now I say no more than the Church. Those who have spoken for her have said, despite what their opinion might be, that the minority view is a possible one. We are not talking about Novus Ordites or Protestants but true Catholics who had more knowledge in their pinkies than you can ever hope to obtain in this life.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #66 on:** April 10, 2014, 08:00:00 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Next objection please.

Yes, you thoroughly refuted that one by just saying the exact opposite of what Vatican I taught.

Ladislaus. Take a break from the blog and go read interpretations of VI from those qualified to interpret it and come back and show us what you have learned.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #67 on:** April 10, 2014, 08:27:25 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

If the Church officially condemns it I will agree with you. If the Church officially accepts it I will disagree with you. For now I say no more than the Church. Those who have spoken for her have said, despite what their opinion might be, that the minority view is a possible one.

Since you say that the minority opinion is "possible" that logically means that you consider it "possible" that St. Thomas Aquinas was wrong on this matter.

I want to know WHICH position you hold to be the correct one. You're clearly evading. Why? It's because you want to desperately cling to your belief that any pagan, infidel, Muslim, or Jew can be saved and not because theological considerations drive you to that conclusion. You are basing all that one what's at the very least a minority theological opinion. My argument, however, from syllogism is that this minority theological opinion is condemned with certainty and that the requirement for explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation for supernatural faith and therefore salvation is at least theologically certain.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #68 on:** April 10, 2014, 08:29:34 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Next objection please.

Yes, you thoroughly refuted that one by just saying the exact opposite of what Vatican I taught.

Ladislaus. Take a break from the blog and go read interpretations of VI from those qualified to interpret it and come back and show us what you have learned.

If you have nothing to offer but ad hominen attacks (usually the sign of one who has nothing else left to stand on), please drop off this thread.

Your disdain for logic and theological argument has been noted. Now, unless you want to address the syllogism and show where it's faulty, please stop posting. That's the topic of this thread, and we need to stay on topic. I don't want this thread to turn into yet another endless BoD thread. I started the topic deliberately with a very specific and narrowly defined scope for exactly that reason.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #69 on:** April 10, 2014, 08:33:27 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Lover of Truth
I don't know if this has been addressed yet. But just because the existence of God can be known through reason alone does not mean that His existence cannot be believed through a supernatural faith based upon divine revelation.

So your refutation is just to word for word deny the teaching of Vatican I. Brilliant. We can all just move along now. Nothing to see here.

What do you mean whether "this has been addressed yet"? It's the ENTIRE POINT of the thread and the OP.

I found the Vatican I quote after Nishant had raised the question of whether someone can believe a natural truth with a supernatural motive of faith.

This teaching from Vatican I completely blows that out of the water, stating that supernatural truth by definition requires a supernatural object.

I deny nothing. You read into quotes anti-Catholic "doctrine".

Do you deny that it is possible to believe God exists with a supernatural faith based upon divine revelation?

Do you not speak English? That's exactly what I'm denying. That's the ENTIRE POINT of the thread and of the OP. I'm arguing that Vatican I teaches this. Address the syllogism or drop off the thread. You clearly lack the theological training and basic analytical skills to engage in theological argument.

That's what theology IS, LoT; it's the drawing of conclusions from known truths using logic (thus the syllogisms of the scholastics).