Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: Ladislaus on April 07, 2014, 02:00:27 PM
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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,
“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.”
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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".
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.
-
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).
-
Nice. Likewise, Lad, it's a pleasure having a discussing with you.
Before we go on to more specifics, I'm presuming you would disagree with this authoritative explanation of the Baltimore Catechism? Bowler just posted it in another thread.
Please tell me yes or no, and we'll go further.
The Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism Concerning the Salvation of Non-Catholics orginally published in 1891
by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead
from Lesson 11: On the Church
* 121. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.
Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.
In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.
Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never—even in the past—had the slightest doubt of that fact—what will become of him?
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister—not being a true priest—has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act?
What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition—that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic—with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts—might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.
I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.
I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.
-
Yes, I disagree with it. I'll try to get into why when I have some more time later.
-
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.
What about this infallible statement?
* Pope Boniface VIII, (Unam Sanctam, 1302):
"We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff".
This means, and has always meant, that salvation and unity exist only within the Catholic Church, and that members of heretical groups cannot be considered as "part" of the Church of Christ.
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.
According to this, he cannot be saved, even if he had and Act of Perfect Contrition. Unless he expressly wished to be part of the Catholic Church at the moment of death? I wonder how would that work?.
-
Is the teaching on last minute "Act of Perfect Contrition" even infallible?
I am very interested in learning this because then this would necessarily mean an exception to the Sacrament of Penance.
Can someone point out to me a reliable source I can read about "Act of Perfect Contrition" right before death? Obviously if this were an infallible truth, it could only be remotely possible for Baptized people (non Catholic Christians: protestants and schimatics).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :popcorn:
:sleep:
On second thought reading error and slurs bores me. So I bid you later much.
Have at it. :cheers:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
This was a nice thread and now risks getting derailed into broader BoD issues.
I was enjoying the discussion with Nishant until the usual suspects jumped on with their usual non-answers.
I'll spin off other thread topics based on various things that have come up during this thread, but let's stick to analyzing the quote in the OP.
-
Is it just me or did I miss the part where it denies the infallible doctrine of BOB/D.
Yes, you clearly missed it, because you obviously have zero theological training and have not even the slightest competence to discuss such matters, much less to be blogging about them online.
The implications of the quote are obvious, if you can speak English and have basic analytical skills.
Vatican I is saying that supernatural faith (as opposed to natural knowledge) REQUIRES (by definition) a supernatural object, i.e. one which can ONLY be known by revelation. This rules out saying that it's sufficient for supernatural faith to believe in a truth that can be known by natural reason (i.e. the existence of a rewarder God).
-
I'm not sure how one can assume or wish the above proves anything in regards to contradicting the infallible doctrine of BOB/D.
As you may have been able to deduce (i.e. read) from subsequent posts, the implications vis-a-vis BoD is that Vatican I thereby condemns the application of BoD to infidels, pagans, Muslims, Jews, etc.
:popcorn:
:sleep:
Enjoy snack time and nap time. I really have fond memories of those from when I was in kindergarten.
-
Yes, you clearly missed it, because you obviously have zero theological training and have not even the slightest competence to discuss such matters, much less to be blogging about them online.
The implications of the quote are obvious, if you can speak English and have basic analytical skills.
Again with the desperate false accusations. The actions of a defeated man.
Vatican I is saying that supernatural faith (as opposed to natural knowledge) REQUIRES (by definition) a supernatural object, i.e. one which can ONLY be known by revelation.
Feel free to tell me something I do not know.
This rules out saying that it's sufficient for supernatural faith to believe in a truth that can be known by natural reason (i.e. the existence of a rewarder God).
According to you. I am aware that the existence of God can be deduced by reason alone. But this is also so in regards to His rewarding good and punishing evil? Can you show me where it is asserted that knowing God and rewards good and punishes evil is not a matter of supernatural faith and even if it was this would merely convince those on the fence to go with the majority opinion that we must also believe in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity for BOB/D to be possible.
So how does this refute the infallible doctrine of BOB/D which you deny?
-
I'm not sure how one can assume or wish the above proves anything in regards to contradicting the infallible doctrine of BOB/D.
As you may have been able to deduce (i.e. read) from subsequent posts, the implications vis-a-vis BoD is that Vatican I thereby condemns the application of BoD to infidels, pagans, Muslims, Jews, etc.
:popcorn:
:sleep:
Enjoy snack time and nap time. I really have fond memories of those from when I was in kindergarten.
I'm sorry I don't generally read your posts. I truly do not try to deduce anything from your posts or those of some others who have clearly been proven to be in grave error and a danger to the faith of others. No offense intended. Continue sleeping my friend. :cheers:
-
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.
What about this infallible statement?
* Pope Boniface VIII, (Unam Sanctam, 1302):
"We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff".
This means, and has always meant, that salvation and unity exist only within the Catholic Church, and that members of heretical groups cannot be considered as "part" of the Church of Christ.
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.
According to this, he cannot be saved, even if he had and Act of Perfect Contrition. Unless he expressly wished to be part of the Catholic Church at the moment of death? I wonder how would that work?.
If he is not bad willed and he is following the natural law to the best of his ability, has supernatural faith and perfect charity and is in a state of sanctifying grace he has an implicit desire to do all that is necessary such as formerly join the Church which means being subject to the Roman Pontiff. That is why it is called Baptism of "Desire".
It is alot of ifs BTW. The Catholic infallible doctrine on BOD/B is not teaching universal salvation here. Anything but. It is just realistic, logical and Divinely protected from erring when it teaches this infallible truth. As actual members we merely have to be subject to it and accept it.
-
Is the teaching on last minute "Act of Perfect Contrition" even infallible?
I am very interested in learning this because then this would necessarily mean an exception to the Sacrament of Penance.
Can someone point out to me a reliable source I can read about "Act of Perfect Contrition" right before death? Obviously if this were an infallible truth, it could only be remotely possible for Baptized people (non Catholic Christians: protestants and schimatics).
Hopefully someone can point this out to you. A perfect act of contrition is possible. But very unlikely for the hardened sinner. Those of good will who tried their best to follow the natural law is a different story according to Saint Alponsus. Members within the Church should never depend on this or a death-bed conversion. God is not mocked. And our souls are not a game. But it is possible. And if one did make a perfect act of contrition on his death bed and recovered he would be obligated to go to sacramental Confession.
But again the hardened sinner or habitual sinner better not depend on this. According to Aquinas his heart can be hardened and by the time he dies he may not even realize he is culpable of mortal sin and since God is not mocked he may have a sudden and tragic death where he won't have time for a perfect act of contrition. And according to Alphonsus such a person is not likely to be truly sorry for his sin at death for love of God but merely for fear of Hell and this will not save him.
But again a perfect act of contrition is possible but like BOB/D we do not know who benefits from such possibilities we merely know of the possibility.
-
I am aware that the existence of God can be deduced by reason alone. But this is also so in regards to His rewarding good and punishing evil?
Yep. God and all His natural attributes can be known by natural reason (i.e. that he's infinite, all-powerful, all-just, perfect, etc.).
-
I am aware that the existence of God can be deduced by reason alone. But this is also so in regards to His rewarding good and punishing evil?
Yep. God and all His natural attributes can be known by natural reason (i.e. that he's infinite, all-powerful, all-just, perfect, etc.).
I won't argue that point simply because I am not sure and believe you could be correct.
Not sure how this undermines BOD/B though.
-
I am aware that the existence of God can be deduced by reason alone. But this is also so in regards to His rewarding good and punishing evil?
Yep. God and all His natural attributes can be known by natural reason (i.e. that he's infinite, all-powerful, all-just, perfect, etc.).
I won't argue that point simply because I am not sure and believe you could be correct.
Not sure how this undermines BOD/B though.
Here's some reading material from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the matter.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm
See the part about God as known through natural reason
I explained the implications for BoD above. Vatican I teaches that supernatural knowledge (=faith) requires a supernatural object by definition, one that can ONLY be known through revelation. Consequently, it's no longer tenable to say that one can have supernatural faith while having explicit belief only in the existence of a rewarder God. Consequently, the majority opinion that explicit knowledge of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary for the possession of supernatural faith (and salvation) is now the only permissible opinion.
-
I am aware that the existence of God can be deduced by reason alone. But this is also so in regards to His rewarding good and punishing evil?
Yep. God and all His natural attributes can be known by natural reason (i.e. that he's infinite, all-powerful, all-just, perfect, etc.).
I won't argue that point simply because I am not sure and believe you could be correct.
Not sure how this undermines BOD/B though.
Here's some reading material from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the matter.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm
See the part about God as known through natural reason
I explained the implications for BoD above. Vatican I teaches that supernatural knowledge (=faith) requires a supernatural object by definition, one that can ONLY be known through revelation. Consequently, it's no longer tenable to say that one can have supernatural faith while having explicit belief only in the existence of a rewarder God. Consequently, the majority opinion that explicit knowledge of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary for the possession of supernatural faith (and salvation) is now the only permissible opinion.
You do not deny BOB/D completely?
-
LoT, explain to me again why you reject and don't follow the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the central mysteries of the Incarnation are required for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation?
-
You do not deny BOB/D completely?
That's not the topic of this thread. BoB/BoD can mean about half a dozen different things depending on how one defines it or extends it.
What I'm doing on this thread is to show that the extension of BoD for salvation to pagans, infidels, Muslims, Jews, etc. is condemned and cannot be held by Catholics.
-
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.
So everything boils down to: Can the Protestant or Orthodox have a last minute Perfect Act of Contrition and thus be saved?
-
LoT, explain to me again why you reject and don't follow the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the central mysteries of the Incarnation are required for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation?
In the hopes that you will answer whether you reject BOB/D completely or not I will try.
The Church herself leaves the question unresolved. That is the only reason why. The point you make is well taken and cannot be denied. Especially if we can know through reason alone that God is also the rewarder of good and punisher of evil which I do not deny.
But we may be missing something that some theologians did not miss. The Church has not condemned their view and neither can I. I say this not taking a position either way because I simply do not know. You make a strong case for the majority view but the Church has not condemned the minority view.
Following the Divine Law as best as possible, perfect charity and sanctifying grace cannot be obtained apart from supernatural faith, the issue has not been settled by the Church so it is not settled in my mind either.
-
Baptism renders people subject to the Roman Pontiff. He would cease to be a member once he ceased to profess the Catholic Faith or professed something other than the Catholic Faith.
Agreed.
You can't lose the faith until you consciously reject a part of it. A validly baptized person, with a protestant baptizer and protestant parents is Catholic until he rejects some aspect of the faith.
There is BOB/D and there is a Confession of desire. And even a spiritual Communion or Communion of desire in a manner of speaking. Of course none of the above take the place of the real sacraments and those who refuse to avail themselves of them despite being aware of their necessity will not be saved.
This is why there are "two sets of rules" for the those below the age of reason and those above and for those inculpable ignorant who have all the other prerequisites and those who are not. God judges the heart. We left the Mosiac law, where people go through the motions, doting the i's and crossing their t's while leaving their heart behind, some time ago.
God can sanctify the soul apart from water. He does not damn or save unjustly. He is perfectly Just (and Merciful).
-
You do not deny BOB/D completely?
That's not the topic of this thread. BoB/BoD can mean about half a dozen different things depending on how one defines it or extends it.
What I'm doing on this thread is to show that the extension of BoD for salvation to pagans, infidels, Muslims, Jews, etc. is condemned and cannot be held by Catholics.
So you won't affirm or deny. I take that as an affirmation. Welcome. :cheers:
I'm am not afraid to state my beliefs plainly nor to be legitimately corrected and informed. I'm sure your not afraid either but I am trying to figure out why you will not state your beliefs either way on the BOB/D thread.
-
If he is not bad willed and he is following the natural law to the best of his ability, has supernatural faith and perfect charity and is in a state of sanctifying grace he has an implicit desire to do all that is necessary such as formerly join the Church which means being subject to the Roman Pontiff. That is why it is called Baptism of "Desire".
I am not talking about "Baptism of "Desire". I do not believe in BOD under any circuмstances, not even for catechumens. I was asking if it is remotely possible for an already baptized Christian, Protestant or Orthodox, to have a last minute Perfect Act of Contrition and thus be saved? why yes? or why not?
Where this idea of last minute Perfect Act of Contrition is found originally? This would mean that the Sacrament of Penance is optional for some.
-
Can someone point out to me a reliable source ...
I have this stored on my desktop, I remember reading it perhaps many years ago, written in 1930. It's a quite basic description of perfect contrition.
Now, coming back, Ladislaus, let's examine what St. Thomas says and how it would apply to the situations you mention,
"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."
As all theologians teach, two things are necessary for supernatural faith,
1. That the primary objects of faith be explicitly identified by the intellect, and firmly and unhesitatingly adhered to,
2. That the secondary objects of faith be assented to at least implicitly, by the will purposing to believe whatever authority reveals.
This Scripture calls living faith, or faith that works by charity. Theologians who hold the majority opinion usually say it is insufficient to love God above all things in a general way [for baptism of desire (which we are not discussing) or perfect contrition (which we are, but is very much like it, since perfect contrition is nothing other than receiving the grace proper to the sacrament of penance by way of desire)] but to love Christ above all things in particular.
Hence, in your example, of a child who does not believe even the primary points of faith, we must certainly affirm, not only would he lose the faith, but he has committed a sin against faith as well (and it is not possible to lose the state of grace, and membership in the Church, without sin, so yes, the child certainly sinned). With baptism came grave responsibilities, and if someone was culpable for leaving him uneducated, they too would bear guilt for this.
Now, in the example of the Protestant, it is possible that he can sin against the faith, even before it is proposed to him, either 1. By disbelieving in the central mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation 2. By lacking the universal will to believe everything that God has revealed.
So, if he lacks either of the two, then when the faith is proposed to him, his already existing unbelief becomes manifest. Or, if he does not, his good faith is manifest, when he embraces the Faith as soon as it is sufficiently proposed.
St. Thomas says elsewhere that the true rule of Faith is the authority of the Church, for a book, any Book, even Holy Writ, is incapable of resolving disputes. The Angelic Doctor points out that Scripture already shows (Mat 18:15-18) that all Christians must subject themselves to the judgment of a visible Church, a Church built on St. Peter.
But nonetheless, if a Protestant is invincibly ignorant of the true rule of Faith, he may be able to retain supernatural faith, provided he has the universal will to believe all that God reveals.
-
If he is not bad willed and he is following the natural law to the best of his ability, has supernatural faith and perfect charity and is in a state of sanctifying grace he has an implicit desire to do all that is necessary such as formerly join the Church which means being subject to the Roman Pontiff. That is why it is called Baptism of "Desire".
I am not talking about "Baptism of "Desire". I do not believe in BOD under any circuмstances, not even for catechumens. I was asking if it is remotely possible for an already baptized Christian, Protestant or Orthodox, to have a last minute Perfect Act of Contrition and thus be saved? why yes? or why not?
Where this idea of last minute Perfect Act of Contrition is found originally? This would mean that the Sacrament of Penance is optional for some.
I explained in the entire quote. It does not mean it is optional. Those who are aware of the necessity of Confession must confess their mortal sins UNLESS it is impossible for them to do so, say when they are laying paralyzed on their beds.
Can you read the above and tell me what that means? I want to figure out what you are missing here.
-
If he is not bad willed and he is following the natural law to the best of his ability, has supernatural faith and perfect charity and is in a state of sanctifying grace he has an implicit desire to do all that is necessary such as formerly join the Church which means being subject to the Roman Pontiff. That is why it is called Baptism of "Desire".
I am not talking about "Baptism of "Desire". I do not believe in BOD under any circuмstances, not even for catechumens. I was asking if it is remotely possible for an already baptized Christian, Protestant or Orthodox, to have a last minute Perfect Act of Contrition and thus be saved? why yes? or why not?
Where this idea of last minute Perfect Act of Contrition is found originally? This would mean that the Sacrament of Penance is optional for some.
But the Sermons from Saint Alphonsus" and do a search on the internet under Aquinas and perfect contrition. It is there for you if you really are seeking the truth.
-
You make a strong case for the majority view but the Church has not condemned the minority view.
OK, there are two separate issues here, as Nishant earlier distinguished.
1) Which view you consider to be the correct one?
2) Whether or not the other view should be condemned / rejected.
You answered the second question, obviously.
Which view do YOU believe / adhere to / follow?
-
1. That the primary objects of faith be explicitly identified by the intellect, and firmly and unhesitatingly adhered to,
2. That the secondary objects of faith be assented to at least implicitly, by the will purposing to believe whatever authority reveals.
Those secondary objects can be believed implicitly, but the key in your quote is what i have bolded; they do so because they have what's called the formal motive of faith, the authority of God revealing.
My contention is that while this can suffice for Catholics (who do not know one or another article of Faith), the Protestant formal motive of faith is inherently defective and does not suffice for supernatural faith ... as per what you cited later from St. Thomas.
St. Thomas says elsewhere that the true rule of Faith is the authority of the Church, for a book, any Book, even Holy Writ, is incapable of resolving disputes. The Angelic Doctor points out that Scripture already shows (Mat 18:15-18) that all Christians must subject themselves to the judgment of a visible Church, a Church built on St. Peter.
This is why the formal motive of faith is inherently defective for Protestants. In order for us to know a supernatural truth with the certainty of faith, our formal motive must have the certainty of faith, and just because a Protestant says he believes some truth based on the authority of God in the Scripture, for instance, that is still a fallible rule which ultimately reduces to private judgment and therefore lacks the certitude of faith. If the formal motive does not have the certitude of faith, the object of that faith (i.e. the supernatural truths) are not themselves believed with supernatural faith, but based on human knowledge and human certitude.
Let's take a Catholic who rejects a dogma of the Church, just one. Let's say he does it with complete sincere conviction, honestly believing that the Protestants were right about one thing or another and the Church got it wrong. That person loses the supernatural virtue of faith. He believes in EVERY OTHER dogma except for the one he denied, but he loses faith because he no longer believes them with a supernatural formal motive of faith, the infallible authority of the Church. Protestants, however, believe maybe 50% of what Catholics do (just to throw a number out there), but they can have a supernatural motive of faith whereas this aforementioned individual cannot? There's no difference. Protestants similarly lack the supernatural formal motive of faith.
Formal / material heresy is a related subject that I'll come back to later (as per the St. Augustine quote).
-
You make a strong case for the majority view but the Church has not condemned the minority view.
OK, there are two separate issues here, as Nishant earlier distinguished.
1) Which view you consider to be the correct one?
2) Whether or not the other view should be condemned / rejected.
You answered the second question, obviously.
Which view do YOU believe / adhere to / follow?
Let me add this. We know that the Church does not explicitly condemn EVERY error that might be out there. Based on various prudential considerations, the authorities (assuming that they are diligent defenders of the faith and not some Borgia pope more interested in mistresses than the duties of the office) intervene and make judgments based on various circuмstances and historical contexts. In fact, there are usually so MANY errors floating around out there at any given time that they usually prioritize going after the ones they consider most dangerous or prevalent or whatever. So just because the Church hasn't explicitly condemned something doesn't mean that it's tenable by Catholics and not at least implicitly erroneous or even implicitly heretical. Sometimes the error is just one logical step removed from some other error the Church HAS condemned, which is enough to make it not explicitly condemned but one can argue that it's at least IMPLICITLY condemned by the Church.
That's the argument I'm making from Vatican I, that the Vatican I passage I cited implicitly condemns the notion that belief in the rewarder God can be suffice for supernatural faith and salvation. This position can therefore be condemned by way of syllogism (which I'll explicitly lay out later this evening when I have some time).
-
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? When does a Catholic child have to make his explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity? How does he accomplish this?
-
Derailing again I see...
-
Derailing again I see...
Asking for a source is derailing? :confused1:
-
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.
Next objection please.
-
You make a strong case for the majority view but the Church has not condemned the minority view.
OK, there are two separate issues here, as Nishant earlier distinguished.
1) Which view you consider to be the correct one?
2) Whether or not the other view should be condemned / rejected.
You answered the second question, obviously.
Which view do YOU believe / adhere to / follow?
My view is I don't know because the Church hasn't settled it. That is the God's honest truth.
-
If he is not bad willed and he is following the natural law to the best of his ability, has supernatural faith and perfect charity and is in a state of sanctifying grace he has an implicit desire to do all that is necessary such as formerly join the Church which means being subject to the Roman Pontiff. That is why it is called Baptism of "Desire".
I am not talking about "Baptism of "Desire". I do not believe in BOD under any circuмstances, not even for catechumens. I was asking if it is remotely possible for an already baptized Christian, Protestant or Orthodox, to have a last minute Perfect Act of Contrition and thus be saved? why yes? or why not?
Where this idea of last minute Perfect Act of Contrition is found originally? This would mean that the Sacrament of Penance is optional for some.
When you speak of the sacrament of Confession being "optional" you miss the fact that it may not be an option for the person on his deathbed with no available Priest. You are very mistaken when you accuse the Church of teaching that Sacramental Confession is optional because a perfect act of Contrition can suffice when sacramental Confession is optional. It is not like the Church teaches you do either when sacramental Confession is obtainable. Do you understand.
You have not been brainwashed on this issue as you have by the traditional modernists on BOD/B so there might be hope you get this issue right.
There is a correlation BTW. The desire for the sacrament of baptism and penance, when legitimate and when the one cannot or does not obtain the sacrament through no fault of his own can suffice. This is the difference between Heaven and Hell and the just and merciful Judge looks to the heart and judges accordingly, He is not trapped by His sacramental system and He does not need water to cleanse a soul from Original Sin. He punishes those culpable of sin not those who are not culpable.
Stay away from the Feeneyite heretics who twist Church teaching to their own destruction.
-
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.
Next objection please.
Come on, LoT. That's PRECISELY the point addressed by the quote from Vatican I. It states that supernatural faith must necessarily (by definition) have a supernatural OBJECT.
-
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.
-
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.
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).
How does he accomplish this?
I guess the same way anyone else accomplishes this? I have no idea what you mean.
-
Next objection please.
Yes, you thoroughly refuted that one by just saying the exact opposite of what Vatican I taught.
-
Here's the syllogism I promised yesterday.
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.
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 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 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?
You do not believe anyone with the supernatural Faith, simply takes it on the Word of God?
The minority view was never condemned because they were more than bloggers like you, stubborn or bowler. You do not believe the theologians who teach the view and all the Saints and doctors who admit it is a possible view are aware of the fact that the existence of God can be arrived at by reason alone? Give them some credit.
Pride is at the root of heresy. Some people think they know more than the Church and her greatest minds and her authoritative and infallible statements. I content myself to say no more and no less on the issue than the Church teaches.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
Now, in an attempt to wrestle this thread back on topic after LoT's attempt to derail it with ad hominem attacks:
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.
-
In the above syllogism, I'm rolling the Conclusion into the second syllogism as it's Major.
-
Do you deny that it is possible to believe God exists with a supernatural faith based upon divine revelation?
This is not the first time you have not answered a question on the topic you bring up? Certainly you would answer it honestly even if it showed you to be wrong wouldn't. I'll continue to wait for your response.
Instead you allude it and personally attack me by claiming I'm attacking you when I do no such thing.
Carry on. :cheers:
-
Clearly you do not read English, LoT.
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).
-
Now, in [another] attempt to wrestle this thread back on topic after LoT's attempt to derail it with ad hominem attacks:
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.
-
In the matter of explicit and implicit faith in Christ, the Church allows Her theologians, and also Her other children who learn about these matters, to advance arguments and proofs in favor of their theological perspective, to convince others of the truth of one position over the other, so long as they do not call those who disagree heretics.
It is the same, for example, with Thomism and Molinism (on the controversies on free will and grace). Thomists think their position is better supported by the Second Council of Orange and that of Trent, as well as Scripture, Tradition and theological reason, and are entirely free to argue the same, in favor of their cause. But they are not free to call the Molinists heretics, because the Church has permitted Molinism. The same should be our rule here.
But in doing this, Catholics are obliged to respect those who are teachers of the faith, to revere and accept universal Catechisms and other works pertaining to the ordinary magisterium of the Church, must not discard the universal consensus of theologians regarding truths taught by the Magisterium etc. Sacred theology is not a private enterprise where any man believes and teaches whatever he likes, with no regard for what other theologians teach, especially when these are approved and authorized by the Church for use in Her seminaries etc.
In order for us to know a supernatural truth with the certainty of faith, our formal motive must have the certainty of faith
True, but what you are calling the formal motive of faith for the Protestant is the authority of Scripture. Now, is it really necessary that private interpretation of Scripture in itself be capable as a practical rule of engendering infallible certitude (we are agreed that, as such, it is not), or is it sufficient that Scripture itself contain truths of infallible certainty?
I would say, if we follow the Doctors, it seems clear that the latter suffices, when the person in question is invincibly ignorant of the true rule of Faith. (i.e. He is invincibly ignorant that Scripture tells him to be subject to the Church, but is internally willing to be subject to everything Scripture says, and so in God's eyes is willing to be subject to the Church)
I enlisted the two conditions necessary and sufficient to make an act of faith, Ladislaus, if you think more are required, can you enlist conditions necessary and sufficient for the same? I don't think you will be able to do that, because in the case of invincible ignorance of the rule of Faith, mistaking the authority of Scripture as the "formal motive of faith" suffices to make an act of faith.
So, which nominal Protestants are heretics, and which are not Protestants, but really Christians in good faith? It is only if a man is unwilling to believe all that is contained in what is inculpably recognized as his "formal motive of faith", then he becomes a heretic.
Of such a man, St. Augustine says, "Tell us straight out that you do not believe in the Gospel of Christ; for you believe what you want in the Gospel and disbelieve what you want. You believe in yourself rather than in the Gospel."
Now, the man who is such is indeed a heretic.
You have no argument from me that the rule of faith for the Protestant is inherently defective. Indeed, it is, which is why the person in good faith who is sufficiently instructed on this, will see that Christianity is impossible without a visible Church, and become Catholic.
We've seen that this view is supported by many authorities, ancient and modern, I will show more specifically that (1) Authority of Scripture can suffice for a formal motive of faith, in one invincibly ignorant of what is truly such (2) Material heresy is possible in the adherents of a heretical sect, in the next post
Please explain also, if it is as you say, how it is possible that the authorities are of a different mind on this question than you. Remember there is Canon Law and Catechisms to account for, and more in fact, as I will come to.
-
Even though St. Thomas proves that the authority of the Church is the only real, true and workable rule of Faith, he nonetheless in treating belief of the secondary articles of faith says these can be believed
"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"
Likewise, St. Augustine after saying what we saw earlier, immediately continues, "... such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you"
hence he makes it evident that even a man in a separated sect can be in material heresy.
Hence (1) and (2) above.
I'd like to state three more principles in particular, please tell me where precisely you disagree.
(i) Material heresy of the secondary objects of faith, being a privation in the intellect alone, [lacking the form of pertinacity in the will] is not a sin, and has no internal effect,
(ii) A person who is "guilty" of only material heresy in this way still has supernatural faith, he has not even lost grace. Consequently, he has not ceased to be a Christian, and to be inside the Church, whose child he remains.
(iii) Material heresy is possible in the adherents of separated sects.
Moreover, theologians also point out it seems certain that according to the mind of the Church, some of those separated from the Apostolic See, and this is true in particular of those in schismatic sects, are in good faith. For this reason, they can be called Christians, whereas if they were guilty, they could not, and would only be called schismatics, or heretics, as indeed others are.
For example, Pius IX and Benedict XV refer expressly to them as Christians, although separated from the Apostolic See, a separation of course that is only material. Most of the Popes also, while referring to the leaders of the schismatic sects with greater severity, nonetheless frankly treat the faithful attached to them as being invincibly ignorant, therefore not guilty of the sin of heresy or schism, and therefore Christians.
She thus makes it evident Her condemnations are of those who remain stubbornly separated from Her, even as Her exhortations to return to the only true fold are to all. So, then, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, some of these are certainly Christians in good faith i.e. in merely material heresy. They are sometimes called in other Magisterial docuмents "separated children of the Apostolic See" etc.
Pius Ix wrote, "We send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which We exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ"
And Benedict XV, "it concerns Us greatly, that Christians who have, unfortunately, withdrawn from the Catholic Religion should at length be recalled to Us as to a forsaken Mother"
-
The minority view was never condemned because they were more than bloggers like you, stubborn or bowler. You do not believe the theologians who teach the view and all the Saints and doctors who admit it is a possible view are aware of the fact that the existence of God can be arrived at by reason alone? Give them some credit.
So everyone believes that God exists does so through natural deduction in the way Thomas presents. TV and all the other nonsense does not prevent them from thinking on these things and no one at all believes in God because of divine revelation apart from deductions they make on their own through natural reason. Can you show me where VI teaches this? Can you show where anyone teaches this?
Explain to me why the Church never condemned the view that only the two beliefs are necessary? Again, like most anti-boders you put yourself above the Church.
If the non-condemned alternate view is so condemnable why has the Church never condemned it?
Because it is not Ladislaus.
-
Can you show me where VI teaches this?
I did. It's the OP in this thread. Address the syllogism I presented about this or please get off the thread. Your gratuitous assertions to the contrary are not helpful towards any rational discussion. I have duly noted that you do not believe this. You do not need to keep interjecting in this thread only to reiterate your beliefs. If you want to discuss the topic of the OP, then you are more than welcome to do so. But if you just want to post every page or so that you gratuitously reject it, then please get off the thread. You refused to answer the question about why it's OK for you to think that it's possible St. Thomas got this wrong.
-
(iii) Material heresy is possible in the adherents of separated sects.
I'll come back to a fuller discussion, Nishant, but here is where I disagree. I'll get into more detail when I have more time.
-
Can you show me where VI teaches this?
I did. It's the OP in this thread. Address the syllogism I presented about this or please get off the thread. Your gratuitous assertions to the contrary are not helpful towards any rational discussion. I have duly noted that you do not believe this. You do not need to keep interjecting in this thread only to reiterate your beliefs. If you want to discuss the topic of the OP, then you are more than welcome to do so. But if you just want to post every page or so that you gratuitously reject it, then please get off the thread. You refused to answer the question about why it's OK for you to think that it's possible St. Thomas got this wrong.
Saint Thomas did not get it wrong. We can conclude that God exists through natural reason. We can also conclude that God exists based upon Divine Revelation.
By the time one reaches the age of reason one can take for granted what surrounds him and not give God a though. One can accept the big bang theory because one smarter than him told him it was so.
That same person can be shown that it is a historical fact that Jesus existed and that he rose from the dead and that he claimed to be God. A person who comes to believe that Jesus Christ is God based upon Divine Revelation has a supernatural faith. He did not conclude that God exists because of the organization of ants or because he gave thought to the fact that nothing comes from nothing. He came to this realization based upon DIVINE REVELATION.
Do you affirm or deny this is a possibility? It is a rhetorical question but I'm curious as to how you will respond anyway.
-
Can you show me where VI teaches this?
I did. It's the OP in this thread. Address the syllogism I presented about this or please get off the thread. Your gratuitous assertions to the contrary are not helpful towards any rational discussion. I have duly noted that you do not believe this. You do not need to keep interjecting in this thread only to reiterate your beliefs. If you want to discuss the topic of the OP, then you are more than welcome to do so. But if you just want to post every page or so that you gratuitously reject it, then please get off the thread. You refused to answer the question about why it's OK for you to think that it's possible St. Thomas got this wrong.
Saint Thomas did not get it wrong. We can conclude that God exists through natural reason. We can also conclude that God exists based upon Divine Revelation.
By the time one reaches the age of reason one can take for granted what surrounds him and not give God a though. One can accept the big bang theory because one smarter than him told him it was so.
That same person can be shown that it is a historical fact that Jesus existed and that he rose from the dead and that he claimed to be God. A person who comes to believe that Jesus Christ is God based upon Divine Revelation has a supernatural faith. He did not conclude that God exists because of the organization of ants or because he gave thought to the fact that nothing comes from nothing. He came to this realization based upon DIVINE REVELATION.
Do you affirm or deny this is a possibility? It is a rhetorical question but I'm curious as to how you will respond anyway.
If and when you can't refute
Thumb it down to make it mute.
-
We can conclude that God exists through natural reason. We can also conclude that God exists based upon Divine Revelation.
You just believe what you want to believe. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Vatican I teaches otherwise; it teaches that supernatural faith MUST have a supernatural OBJECT, i.e. the THING KNOWN must be such that it CANNOT be known through natural reason. Vatican I specifically says that the principle or mode of belief isn't enough, but that the object must be knowable only through revelation. Because of your first sentence above, then, the existence of God, cannot suffice for supernatural faith.
-
Saint Thomas did not get it wrong.
Then you believe that explicit belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary for salvation?
When you say that it's "possible" that the existence of God as rewarder suffices for salvation, you're saying that it's "possible" that St. Thomas' opinion was WRONG. It's just simple Logic 101, the law of non-contradiction.
-
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.
-
We can conclude that God exists through natural reason. We can also conclude that God exists based upon Divine Revelation.
You just believe what you want to believe. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Vatican I teaches otherwise; it teaches that supernatural faith MUST have a supernatural OBJECT, i.e. the THING KNOWN must be such that it CANNOT be known through natural reason. Vatican I specifically says that the principle or mode of belief isn't enough, but that the object must be knowable only through revelation. Because of your first sentence above, then, the existence of God, cannot suffice for supernatural faith.
God is a supernatural object. Faith is believing in that which cannot be seen. God cannot be seen but He can be believed in based upon divine revelation. The Jews of the old covenant would be examples of believing in God because of Divine Revelation.
I have not read all the way through this thread. I read one quote from Vatican I which you provide.
Where does it say that a supernatural object cannot be known through natural reason or that God is not a supernatural object? Isn't God above nature? I'll readily grant your point if you can prove it. But I can't grant that the Church has condemned the possibility that the minimal beliefs can be the existence of God and the fact that he is rewards the good and punishes evil. Can you show me where it is taught that the fact that He punishes evil and rewards good is attainable through natural reason alone apart from divine revelation? Not where you read it into the text but where the text itself actually says it.
Vatican I specifically says that the principle or mode of belief isn't enough, but that the object must be knowable only through revelation.
Do you affirm or deny that God can be known through natural reason apart from supernatural faith and through divine revelation and a supernatural faith apart from reason? Many never thought of God until it was divinely revealed to them. The fact that the human mind is capable of deducing that God exists does not mean that it can also believe that he exists through a supernatural faith.
Is not the Resurrection of Christ an object of supernatural faith? Isn't it also a historical fact that can be known through reading an accurate history book?
Are you claiming anything deducible from reason alone, no matter how rare it is in fact deduced by reason alone, cannot be a part of divine revelation?
-
God is a supernatural object. Faith is believing in that which cannot be seen.
You need to stop defending your position because you're only discrediting it through your display of crass ignorance.
God is both natural and supernatural. We can know the natural aspect of God (His existence and His attributes) through natural reason.
Faith is believing in that which cannot be KNOWN (not seen). But even that's wrong, since the Holy Trinity can be KNOWN, through supernatural knowledge, = faith. Holy Trinity just cannot be known with NATURAL knowledge or reason.
Secondly, there's human / fallible faith (accepting something that's not known directly by the intellect based on human non-infallible authority) and there's supernatural faith (accepting something that's not knowable by the intellect based on infallible divine authority).
-
I'll readily grant your point if you can prove it. But I can't grant that the Church has condemned the possibility that the minimal beliefs can be the existence of God and the fact that he is rewards the good and punishes evil.
You'll grant my point even though you can't grant my point; the latter IS my point. You've already decided up front from that you "can't grant it". Here you put your bad will on display. It's obvious that you are driven by purely emotion reasons into your errors, both through this expression, and from the obvious fact that you have zero training in philosophy or theology or even logic.
Can you show me where it is taught that the fact that He punishes evil and rewards good is attainable through natural reason alone apart from divine revelation?
I already cited the Catholic Encyclopedia article for you to read. This is well known to anyone who's studied even a little bit of scholastic philosophy.
-
Do you affirm or deny that God can be known through natural reason apart from supernatural faith and through divine revelation and a supernatural faith apart from reason? Many never thought of God until it was divinely revealed to them. The fact that the human mind is capable of deducing that God exists does not mean that it can also believe that he exists through a supernatural faith.
Again, please use your knowledge of English to read the quote from Vatican I. It doesn't matter whether the existence of God is actually accepted by authority from revelation; what matters is whether or not it's "attainable" by natural reason vs. whether it can be known ONLY through revelation. These truths CAN by known by natural reason and so cannot suffice for supernatural knowledge or faith. This is not my interpretation of anything, it's just my reading of the basic English word "ONLY".
-
Do you affirm or deny that God can be known through natural reason apart from supernatural faith
Affirm; that's taught dogmatically by Vatican I.
Do you affirm or deny that [the existence of] God can be known ... through ... a supernatural faith apart from reason?
Deny; this now makes four times that I have answer this question. Denial is based on Vatican I. It's the entire point of this thread.
-
It's obvious, LoT, that you don't even know what the word "supernatural" means.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Again, and this now makes five, the Church is NOT open to the "first two" opinion. That's the entire point of this thread.
-
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.
-
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.
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).
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
I'm not sure that saying something CAN be known through natural reason excludes supernatural faith.
Again, please read the Vatican I quote; that's exactly what it says. Feel free to try interpreting it away as you usually do, but that's what Vatican I teaches, that supernatural faith by definition requires an object that can ONLY be known through revelation.
-
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.
If I said "I declare, decree and define that all Catholics must except that Aquinas did not err on this point" would all good Catholics be obliged to accept interiorly as a belief of their own? If not why do you need my approval.
That being said I am flattered that you put so much weight on my opinion.
-
Is it just me or did I miss the part where it denies the infallible doctrine of BOB/D.
Yes, you clearly missed it, because you obviously have zero theological training and have not even the slightest competence to discuss such matters, much less to be blogging about them online.
The implications of the quote are obvious, if you can speak English and have basic analytical skills.
Vatican I is saying that supernatural faith (as opposed to natural knowledge) REQUIRES (by definition) a supernatural object, i.e. one which can ONLY be known by revelation. This rules out saying that it's sufficient for supernatural faith to believe in a truth that can be known by natural reason (i.e. the existence of a rewarder God).
Ladi, we've all heard of your self-proclaimed intellectual prowess and extensive theological training, yet all of the truly intelligent and trained (in a real pre-V2 Catholic education) people I know do not do their own theology. They DESPISE those who do this.
-
I'm not sure that saying something CAN be known through natural reason excludes supernatural faith.
Again, please read the Vatican I quote; that's exactly what it says. Feel free to try interpreting it away as you usually do, but that's what Vatican I teaches, that supernatural faith by definition requires an object that can ONLY be known through revelation.
Surely, somebody has explained this. Please quote them or get out.
-
Surely, somebody has explained this. Please quote them or get out.
If you are incapable of commenting on the quote in the OP, please get off the thread. You needn't keep spamming the thread every page or so with your demands for docuмentation. Your demand for proof has been noted. Now move along. I started this thread, so YOU get off it.
-
Surely, somebody has explained this. Please quote them or get out.
If you are incapable of commenting on the quote in the OP, please get off the thread. You needn't keep spamming the thread every page or so with your demands for docuмentation. Your demand for proof has been noted. Now move along. I started this thread, so YOU get off it.
Listen Ladi, you are arrogant and way too proud to admit you don't have any sources other than yourself. So cut the crap and quit whining about "I started the thread" and back up what you say. I don't think you can, that's why I'll continue to demand you docuмent your positions.
-
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.)
-
And then the idiot bowler quotes his own post to prove once again he is lost in the forest.
-
And then the idiot bowler quotes his own post to prove once again he is lost in the forest.
Hey BoZo the Frustrated, what exactly are you defending now? When was the last time you laughed at anything? Loosen up, go get drunk or something. You are a perpetual pest. Break away from being a poster boy for constipation. Get a life!
(http://media.steampowered.com/steamcommunity/public/images/avatars/e2/e2996a6622630c071c60f3d68bce8bd2b12ab345_full.jpg)
-
Listen Ladi, you are arrogant and way too proud to admit you don't have any sources other than yourself. So cut the crap and quit whining about "I started the thread" and back up what you say. I don't think you can, that's why I'll continue to demand you docuмent your positions.
I agree with bowler. You need to go have a beer or something. You are a very bitter and angry man.
I am not aware of any commentary on this passage, nor do I have the library you seem to have. If you have a quote that understands this passage differently than how it actually reads, then YOU produce it. I'm simply looking at the passage at face value and reading it word for word. You are obviously not competent to engage in any theological discussion whatsoever. Instead you just bark in on every page with some insult or demand for proof. Again, if you want to interpret this passage away to mean something OTHER than it actually says, then the burden of proof is on you. If I were to cite the dogmatic pronouncement of Pius IX that Our Lady was conceived without original sin, you would demand that I prove that this passage didn't mean that Our Lady was conceived WITH original sin. Go get a life.
-
Listen Ladi, you are arrogant and way too proud to admit you don't have any sources other than yourself. So cut the crap and quit whining about "I started the thread" and back up what you say. I don't think you can, that's why I'll continue to demand you docuмent your positions.
I agree with bowler. You need to go have a beer or something. You are a very bitter and angry man.
I am not aware of any commentary on this passage, nor do I have the library you seem to have. If you have a quote that understands this passage differently than how it actually reads, then YOU produce it. I'm simply looking at the passage at face value and reading it word for word. You are obviously not competent to engage in any theological discussion whatsoever. Instead you just bark in on every page with some insult or demand for proof. Again, if you want to interpret this passage away to mean something OTHER than it actually says, then the burden of proof is on you. If I were to cite the dogmatic pronouncement of Pius IX that Our Lady was conceived without original sin, you would demand that I prove that this passage didn't mean that Our Lady was conceived WITH original sin. Go get a life.
He didn't say to have a beer, he said to get drunk! :fryingpan:
The reason you people have a problem with SJB is because you and he live in two different worlds. He behaves as a Catholic, all of you act as Protestants, you think you have the right and the power to is peak for the magisterium or explain points of the Faith.
The only cure is humility. Until you realize that, you will wallow in heresy and error.
-
The reason you people have a problem with SJB is because you and he live in two different worlds. He behaves as a Catholic, all of you act as Protestants, you think you have the right and the power to is peak for the magisterium or explain points of the Faith.
The only cure is humility. Until you realize that, you will wallow in heresy and error.
You know this is not true. Anyone who pays attention to this forum knows that the reason people have a problem with SJB is because in many of his posts he insults people and calls them names, most frequently "idiot."
-
In my last post I should have said "You should know" instead of "you know"
-
Ambrose and SJB the kings of smokescreen. Add up everything they've said on this thread, it's all smokescreen. NOTHING said nothing contributed! All smokescreen. If everyone would put you on hide in this thread, they would miss NOTHING!
(http://bluejacket.com/usn/images/sp/oth/w1_destroyer_smoke-screen.jpg)
This was the best thread on BOD on CI ever, till you two showed up with your empty remarks.
-
If everyone would put you two (SJB & Ambrose) on HIDE in this thread, they would miss NOTHING!
Excellent discussion points on this thread Ladislaus....Nishant....Ladislaus....Nishant.... Ladisalus .... Nishant...ect.
-
Carry on Ladi and Nishant. I'll go back to just reading what you two are writing on this thread and stay out.
-
The reason you people have a problem with SJB is because you and he live in two different worlds. He behaves as a Catholic, all of you act as Protestants, you think you have the right and the power to is peak for the magisterium or explain points of the Faith.
The only cure is humility. Until you realize that, you will wallow in heresy and error.
You know this is not true. Anyone who pays attention to this forum knows that the reason people have a problem with SJB is because in many of his posts he insults people and calls them names, most frequently "idiot."
The reason that they do not like SJB is because he posts approved sources that stand against them. He posts constantly from approved texts, they then proceed to ignore them, and pretend they are theologians who know better.
Then, they post all of their theological musings, and SJB calls them out on it, and they get annoyed that he asks for sources.
These people are playing a dangerous game by playing theologian. The Church forbids such activities for a reason, but they don't seem to care. In the absence of authority, anarchy soon rules.
-
Ambrose and SJB the kings of smokescreen. Add up everything they've said on this thread, it's all smokescreen. NOTHING said nothing contributed! All smokescreen. If everyone would put you on hide in this thread, they would miss NOTHING!
(http://bluejacket.com/usn/images/sp/oth/w1_destroyer_smoke-screen.jpg)
This was the best thread on BOD on CI ever, till you two showed up with your empty remarks.
From the man who advocates drunkenness, I take it as a complement.
-
And then the idiot bowler quotes his own post to prove once again he is lost in the forest.
Hey BoZo the Frustrated, what exactly are you defending now? When was the last time you laughed at anything? Loosen up, go get drunk or something. You are a perpetual pest. Break away from being a poster boy for constipation. Get a life!
(http://media.steampowered.com/steamcommunity/public/images/avatars/e2/e2996a6622630c071c60f3d68bce8bd2b12ab345_full.jpg)
What does "laughing at anything" have to do with this discussion? The above post speaks volumes about who you are and more importantly, what you are not; a serious person.
-
The reason you people have a problem with SJB is because you and he live in two different worlds. He behaves as a Catholic, all of you act as Protestants, you think you have the right and the power to is peak for the magisterium or explain points of the Faith.
The only cure is humility. Until you realize that, you will wallow in heresy and error.
You know this is not true. Anyone who pays attention to this forum knows that the reason people have a problem with SJB is because in many of his posts he insults people and calls them names, most frequently "idiot."
Are you really offended by the word "idiot," especially when idiotic things are being said? All of this talk is just a diversion from the fact that your leader, Ladi, has no source for what he posts here. For a man who claims superior education, then says he has no library of sources (many are free books on-line, btw), he seems a bit of a fraud. He boasts that he can read Latin and Hebrew, but can't find a Catholic source for his musings here???
This is precisely why Matthew should ban members from posting their own "theological" ideas. Provide a source or be quiet. The arguments should be from approved sources. This is something Ladi can't tolerate, because HE HAS NO SOURCES.
-
If you have a quote that understands this passage differently than how it actually reads, then YOU produce it. I'm simply looking at the passage at face value and reading it word for word. You are obviously not competent to engage in any theological discussion whatsoever. Instead you just bark in on every page with some insult or demand for proof. Again, if you want to interpret this passage away to mean something OTHER than it actually says, then the burden of proof is on you. If I were to cite the dogmatic pronouncement of Pius IX that Our Lady was conceived without original sin, you would demand that I prove that this passage didn't mean that Our Lady was conceived WITH original sin.
-
Are you really offended by the word "idiot," especially when idiotic things are being said?
I think we should treat each other with respect, not insults. Of course you were reminded several times that Christ said calling you fellow man a "fool" was a damnable sin. But of course it is no sin for you because you know better than Christ.
-
Are you really offended by the word "idiot," especially when idiotic things are being said?
I think we should treat each other with respect, not insults. Of course you were reminded several times that Christ said calling you fellow man a "fool" was a damnable sin. But of course it is no sin for you because you know better than Christ.
No, I just truly believe the reproach is necessary given the gravity of the offense, and as such, isn't sinful at all.
-
False BODers like SJB just can't believe that anyone "good" can be lost. They may say that to be saved one must at a minimum explicitly believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity, however, they will defend it seems to the death, the opposite teaching too:
From the thread "St. Thomas on Implicit faith:
You and Nishant just believe what you want to believe. Like I keep telling you & Nishant, you are denying the clearest dogma on EENS from The Council of Florence, the unanimous opinion of the Fathers (considered infallible) as expounded in the ancient Athanasian Creed, the clear teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the dogmatic decree of Vatican I, to name a few, and you can quote no Father, Doctor or Saint or council that teaches what you and Nishant are defending here :
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contradictory teaching. They "say" they believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously they teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):
I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
That's what that False BODer teaching is in the raw, unmasked and naked, that is what they are teaching, a contradiction:
(http://images.clipartof.com/thumbnails/1048403-Royalty-Free-RF-Clip-Art-Illustration-Of-A-Cartoon-Sun-Burned-Man-In-A-Speedo.jpg)
DOGMA -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
[b]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;
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved. [/b]
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.)
Dogma 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".
-
Very good, Nishant. ... 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'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.
This is ALL that SJB is saying, and yet Vatican II precisely teaches the "opposing view", and SJB rejects Vatican II, and all the modern theologians that teach the same.
He condemns Vatican II for teaching proposition two which he will not condemn, and he condemns all the "idiots", as he says he righteously calls them, because they believe in John 3:15 and all the dogmas on EENS and baptism, as they are written.
SJB teaches and defends and will not condemn the contradictory belief that ALL false BODers defend. They "say" they believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously they teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):
I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
That's what that False BODer teaching is in the raw, unmasked and naked, that is what they are teaching, a contradiction.
SJB and all false BODers like him are mentally handicapped, they are progressivist and modernists on this subject. They teach/defend/do not condemn a direct contradiction.
-
Very good, Nishant. ... 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'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.
This is ALL that SJB is saying, and yet Vatican II precisely teaches the "opposing view", and SJB rejects Vatican II, and all the modern theologians that teach the same.
No, Vatican II, in it's aftermath, has implied that nothing really matters except in agreeing that nothing matters. They don't merely teach a minority view, as you erroneously state.
-
No, Vatican II, in it's aftermath, has implied that nothing really matters except in agreeing that nothing matters. They don't merely teach a minority view, as you erroneously state.
You're always demanding proof but then completely make stuff up (like the above ludicrous statement). Ridiculous. Demonstrate where Vatican II teaches this.
-
No, Vatican II, in it's aftermath, has implied that nothing really matters except in agreeing that nothing matters. They don't merely teach a minority view, as you erroneously state.
You're always demanding proof but then completely make stuff up (like the above ludicrous statement). Ridiculous. Demonstrate where Vatican II teaches this.
Vatican II is a series of docuмents. I'm saying what was being taught by those who appear to be in positions of authority after Vatican II is something else.
-
No, Vatican II, in it's aftermath, has implied that nothing really matters except in agreeing that nothing matters. They don't merely teach a minority view, as you erroneously state.
You're always demanding proof but then completely make stuff up (like the above ludicrous statement). Ridiculous. Demonstrate where Vatican II teaches this.
Vatican II is a series of docuмents. I'm saying what was being taught by those who appear to be in positions of authority after Vatican II is something else.
That's right "your saying" what was being taught. We are not asking for what you are saying, but what Vatican II says about salvation by implicit faith that is different from what you are teaching here.
-
No, Vatican II, in it's aftermath, has implied that nothing really matters except in agreeing that nothing matters. They don't merely teach a minority view, as you erroneously state.
You're always demanding proof but then completely make stuff up (like the above ludicrous statement). Ridiculous. Demonstrate where Vatican II teaches this.
Vatican II is a series of docuмents. I'm saying what was being taught by those who appear to be in positions of authority after Vatican II is something else.
That's right "your saying" what was being taught. We are not asking for what you are saying, but what Vatican II says about salvation by implicit faith that is different from what you are teaching here.
Catholics are not taught by reading Council docuмents. There are living breathing teachers instructing them (or failing to instruct them.)
-
No, Vatican II, in it's aftermath, has implied that nothing really matters except in agreeing that nothing matters. They don't merely teach a minority view, as you erroneously state.
You're always demanding proof but then completely make stuff up (like the above ludicrous statement). Ridiculous. Demonstrate where Vatican II teaches this.
Vatican II is a series of docuмents. I'm saying what was being taught by those who appear to be in positions of authority after Vatican II is something else.
That's right "your saying" what was being taught. We are not asking for what you are saying, but what Vatican II says about salvation by implicit faith that is different from what you are teaching here.
Catholics are not taught by reading Council docuмents. There are living breathing teachers instructing them (or failing to instruct them.)
So, you say that Vatican II taught error, but you don't know where because you've never read it, and you declare the living breathing teachers of the Church to be heretics and anti-popes cardinals bishops because you don't like what they do. Yeah, that makes sense. NOT!
That makes as much sense as the BODer belief that:
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):
I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
-
So, you say that Vatican II taught error, but you don't know where because you've never read it, and you declare the living breathing teachers of the Church to be heretics and anti-popes cardinals bishops because you don't like what they do. Yeah, that makes sense. NOT!
I didn't say that at all, all I said was the aftermath of Vatican II, many errors were spread and taught. Btw, I have read the docuмents.
You actually spread one of those errors with your "dogmas only" approach to doctrine.
-
Does Vatican II endorse the minority view? Clearly, it goes further than the Holy Office Letter.
Compare:
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire ...
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, Singulari quadam, in Denzinger, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, Quanto conficiamur moerore, in Denzinger, n. 1677).
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
336 LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.
337 LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.
338 AG 7; cf. Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16.
-
I consider the CCC as part of the aftermath of the Council.
-
There's no difference between what is taught at Vatican II and what you BODers believe, along with SH and Garrigou-LaGrange and all the rest. All of you have not a leg to stand on in your hair splitting with the progressivist. In this subject you are no different than they, a progressivist, pluralist, double speak clone of them.
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):
I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
-
There's no difference between what is taught at Vatican II and what you BODers believe, along with SH and Garrigou-LaGrange and all the rest. All of you have not a leg to stand on in your hair splitting with the progressivist. In this subject you are no different than they, a progressivist, pluralist, double speak clone of them.
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):
I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
But you believe that both Vatican II was a true Council AND true councils can teach errors of all sorts. Isn't that true, bowler?
-
There's no difference between what is taught at Vatican II and what you BODers believe, along with SH and Garrigou-LaGrange and all the rest. All of you have not a leg to stand on in your hair splitting with the progressivist. In this subject you are no different than they, a progressivist, pluralist, double speak clone of them.
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):
I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
But you believe that both Vatican II was a true Council AND true councils can teach errors of all sorts. Isn't that true, bowler?
All my proofs for EENS and John 3:5 as it is written, are dogmas from infallible councils read as they are written. If I thought that "councils teach error", I would do as you do, and ignore and deny all the clear dogmas and quote all theological speculations so as to conclude as you do that:
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):
I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.
I reject Vatican II precisely because it teaches what you believe. Though it never declared it infallible.