Author Topic: Vatican I on the object of supernatural faith (Read 9500 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #90 on:** April 10, 2014, 01:35:52 PM »

It's obvious, LoT, that you don't even know what the word "supernatural" means.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #91 on:** April 10, 2014, 01:57:49 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

It's obvious, LoT, that you don't even know what the word "supernatural" means.

Above nature.

Remember I have not really followed the thread as I tend not to be interested in your posts. But I know for a fact that belief in the first 2 alone is something the Church is open to accepting as a minimum and that she has not condemned the above.

I know the theologians that accept only the first two beliefs as being necessary know more than me and you combined. I'm merely trying to figure out how they came to this conclusion even though Lasidius disagrees with them. Perhaps the mere fact that you disagree with them should be enough but I have not gotten to that point yet.

I try to fit myself to what the Church teaches whereas it seems you try to conform the Church to your beliefs.

You cannot even admit whether you believe BOD is possible or not? Why? Are you embarrassed of your belief? One can only guess.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #92 on:** April 10, 2014, 02:02:22 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

But I know for a fact that belief in the first 2 alone is something the Church is open to accepting as a minimum and that she has not condemned the above.

Again, see my post about how the Church simply does not condemn every error that happens to be out there at any given time. That doesn't mean it's not erroneous. That's where theology comes in. Vatican I does in fact condemn this opinion. See my syllogism. But you refuse to analyze that; instead you just keep SAYING the same thing over and over again.

Bottom line, LoT: You simply do not WANT to believe in EENS.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #93 on:** April 10, 2014, 02:06:57 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
But I know for a fact that belief in the first 2 alone is something the Church is open to accepting as a minimum and that she has not condemned the above.

Again, see my post about how the Church simply does not condemn every error that happens to be out there at any given time. That doesn't mean it's not erroneous. That's where theology comes in. Vatican I does in fact condemn this opinion. See my syllogism. But you refuse to analyze that; instead you just keep SAYING the same thing over and over again.

Bottom line, LoT: You simply do not WANT to believe in EENS.

Bottom line I neither want to err with the Feeneyites or V2 and I don't.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #94 on:** April 10, 2014, 02:08:10 PM »

Accepting the first two is not only not condemned but the Church is open to accepting it. If the Church is I am. Others think they are above the Church, if not in their own minds then at least in what they teach.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #95 on:** April 10, 2014, 02:36:59 PM »

Again, and this now makes five, the Church is NOT open to the "first two" opinion. That's the entire point of this thread.

SJB · « **Reply #96 on:** April 10, 2014, 04:22:27 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Do you affirm or deny this is a possibility?

How many times do I have to answer this? I've already answered it twice. This post makes it thrice. Denying this is the ENTIRE POINT of the thread. I deny it based upon the teaching of Vatican I which you either do not understand or refuse to accept.

This is your opinion. You yourself stated it that way. The opposing view isn't condemned but it is certainly not preferred.

SJB · « **Reply #97 on:** April 10, 2014, 04:25:56 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: SJB
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.

Wrong. In "adults", i.e. those who have reached the age of reason, explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity is necessary in order to have supernatural faith and therefore salvation. I even took that off the table when in the example I said the child was raised an atheist, so that he didn't even have any explicit belief in the existence of God.

Who teaches this?

Uhm, Trent. St. Thomas. All the theologians who hold that explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for those who have reached the age of reason.

Quote
When does a Catholic child have to make his explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity?

Obviously only God knows exactly when this child has reached the age of reason. To, say, however, that the baptized child who grew up atheist in my previous example can have supernatural faith without explicit belief in at least the rewarder God is to contradict EVERY theologian who has written on the subject (majority and minority opinion).

Quote
How does he accomplish this?

I guess the same way anyone else accomplishes this? I have no idea what you mean.

Ladi, the view is not condemned. That's just a fact. Yes the baptized child will be learning and then making choices. But you are assuming what choice has been made by everybody who doesn't end up on the doorstep of a Catholic Church.

SJB · « **Reply #98 on:** April 10, 2014, 04:29:58 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: SJB
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 your opinion, Ladi. You said it yourself.

Until I found that quote.

Address the actual substance of the quote or else get off the thread.

Show us an authority that sees this quote as actually condemning the contrary view, as in saying it cannot be knowingly held without sin.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #99 on:** April 10, 2014, 07:11:56 PM »

Major: (Vatican I) Supernatural knowledge (=faith) by very definition (=as "distinguished from" natural knowledge) must have a supernatural object (i.e. an object that CAN be known ONLY through revelation).

Minor: But knowledge of God's existence as rewarder CAN be known through natural reason. (also Vatican I, which states that the existence of God and His natural attributes can be know with "certainty" through natural reason).

Conclusion: Believing in the existence of God as rewarder does not suffice for supernatural faith.

Minor: Supernatural faith is required for salvation.

Conclusion: Believing in the existence of God as rewarder does not suffice for salvation.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #100 on:** April 11, 2014, 05:26:57 AM »

Thanks SJB for jumping in here. I felt like I was on an island. I knew since holding the two is not condemned that it is possible. Since they are two of possibly for aspects necessary for supernatural faith am I wrong in deducing that the first two can in fact believed with a supernatural faith based upon divine revelation despite Ladi's insistence this not possible? If not, why are they listed as aspects that must be believe in order to have supernatural faith?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #101 on:** April 11, 2014, 06:12:32 AM »

Let me remind you, LoT, of a question that you have dodged.

You say that the minority opinion is possible. That means that it's possible that the majority opinion is wrong. St. Thomas held the majority opinion. Therefore, you're saying that it's possible St. Thomas was wrong. I want to hear you admit that in the interests of honesty, especially since you're always excoriating us for rejecting the authority of this Doctor of the Church.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #102 on:** April 11, 2014, 07:13:46 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Let me remind you, LoT, of a question that you have dodged.

You say that the minority opinion is possible. That means that it's possible that the majority opinion is wrong. St. Thomas held the majority opinion. Therefore, you're saying that it's possible St. Thomas was wrong. I want to hear you admit that in the interests of honesty, especially since you're always excoriating us for rejecting the authority of this Doctor of the Church.

I hold the majority opinion since Thomas does. I was not sure if Thomas did or not until someone reliable told me.

But, with the Church, I do not deny that the minority opinion is possible. I will not condemn it until the Church condemns it.

The Church infallibly teaches BOD. She also teaches infallibly that AT LEAST the first two are necessary for having a supernatural faith.

What is open for debate, however slightly, is whether all four beliefs are absolutely necessary or not. That AT LEAST the first two are absolutely necessary is not open for debate. The Church has not infallibly or authoritatively spoken either way. I do not presume to do so for her. I merely acknowledge that is it probably pretty safe to agree with Aquinas and the others who taught the majority view. I am reasonably sure that Thomas was correct, but cannot condemn the opposing view without being absolutely sure. I have not the authority to condemn the opposing view even if I wanted to. I do not presume myself to know more than those who held the minority view. If they were so obviously erroneous on such an important issue they would easily have been refuted, but the Church has left open, for now, the possibility, no matter how unlikely, that they could be correct.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #103 on:** April 11, 2014, 09:11:37 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

But, with the Church, I do not deny that the minority opinion is possible.

Therefore you believe it possible that St. Thomas Aquinas was wrong.

For once I agree with you. Of course elsewhere you've declared it impious to suggest that this Doctor of the Church could possibly be mistaken about anything.

SJB · « **Reply #104 on:** April 11, 2014, 10:22:18 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Major: (Vatican I) Supernatural knowledge (=faith) by very definition (=as "distinguished from" natural knowledge) must have a supernatural object (i.e. an object that CAN be known ONLY through revelation).

Minor: But knowledge of God's existence as rewarder CAN be known through natural reason. (also Vatican I, which states that the existence of God and His natural attributes can be know with "certainty" through natural reason).

Conclusion: Believing in the existence of God as rewarder does not suffice for supernatural faith.

Minor: Supernatural faith is required for salvation.

Conclusion: Believing in the existence of God as rewarder does not suffice for salvation.

I'm not sure that saying something CAN be known through natural reason excludes supernatural faith. If one only knew truths through natural reason, I don't see how that could be considered supernatural, but that's assuming the truths are known only through natural reason. Again, it would help if you actually learned this from a teaching source who has explained it, but I know that's not how you "learn."