Author Topic: Vatican I on the object of supernatural faith (Read 11127 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #60 on:** April 10, 2014, 06:08:25 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: SJB
Who teaches this? Anyway, the fact that a validly baptized child has the infused virtue of faith means that he can only lose it by an personal act.

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

Who teaches this?

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

Quote

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

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

Quote

How does he accomplish this?

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

Ladislaus · « **Reply #61 on:** April 10, 2014, 06:09:27 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Next objection please.

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

Ladislaus · « **Reply #62 on:** April 10, 2014, 06:17:34 AM »

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #63 on:** April 10, 2014, 06:22:52 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

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

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

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

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

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

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #64 on:** April 10, 2014, 07:50:02 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.