Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Pelele on October 29, 2013, 08:57:16 PM
-
The 1917 CIC says that a heretic is one who doubts or denies any dogma, but isnt the whole speculation of whether someone can be saved outside the Church or without supernatural faith, doubting the Athanasian Creed and the dogma itself?
The Athanasian Creed clearly and emphatically says no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith, but how can these theologians speculate the direct opposite with impunity?
Isnt all theorizing and speculation closed for good once a dogma is defined? And is not the salvation dogma one of the most defined dogmas? So how come there is so much speculation going on?
It makes it seem like we dont have the truth about the dogma after all and we still dont know what the truth is.
-
If the doubt is willful, yes.
-
If the doubt is willful, yes.
How can it not be in the case of many theologians from the 15th century onwards? Were they perchance ignorant about this?
The dogma began to be chipped at since then.
Why not just teach what the dogma itself says? Why not just teach what St. Thomas and many other Saints say about those in invincible ignorance, viz. that if they are good willed they will come to the truth and leave it at that? Why write a whole book which only undermines and waters it down?
-
If the doubt is willful, yes.
How can it not be in the case of many theologians from the 15th century onwards? Were they perchance ignorant about this?
The dogma began to be chipped at since then.
Why not just teach what the dogma itself says? Why not just teach what St. Thomas and many other Saints say about those in invincible ignorance, viz. that if they are good willed they will come to the truth and leave it at that? Why write a whole book which only undermines and waters it down?
I think you hit it spot on... If hundreds of brilliant minds, hundreds of years and the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium has not seen a contradiction, chances are you are wrong on your "observation." Quit pretending to be more clever and intelligent then everyone before you, no one doubted Dogma for if you even for one second believe this it would logically lead to many canonized Saints going straight to Hell. Then its your belief against the word of your Mother the Catholic Church the Immaculate Spouse of Christ.
This is one of those dead dogs that just never goes back to rest, poor old yeller! Just because some wanna be "Catholics" who are really modernist in disguise hi-jacked certain Catholic terms does not somehow change anything.
Invincible ignorance = native savages who are judged by the natural law. Any other interpretation is foreign to that of the real approved theologians of Holy Mother Church.
This is the teaching of the Saints, now the more recent theological speculations are just that theological speculations. They do not have any sort of unanimity and have no precedent in the teaching authority of the Church. You are safe to believe as the great Doctors have believed, especially when the authority of the Church has specifically never even remotely condemned them in any way shape or form, for those opinions.
Its funny how many people are so concerned about those savages, when the reality is that the Church has almost reached the 4 corners of the world. Sure there are certain regions that might not have access, but it is safe to say that one way or another they will hear of the teachings of Our Blessed Saviour. Even if through Muhammadans or some other false religion, but they will hear about it. They will then have to make a choice at some point, God makes no mistakes. He gives EVERYONE a chance at salvation, O ye of little faith.
-
I think you hit it spot on... If hundreds of brilliant minds, hundreds of years and the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium has not seen a contradiction, chances are you are wrong on your "observation." Quit pretending to be more clever and intelligent then everyone before you, no one doubted Dogma for if you even for one second believe this it would logically lead to many canonized Saints going straight to Hell. Then its your belief against the word of your Mother the Catholic Church the Immaculate Spouse of Christ.
You didn't really address what i said: the Athanasian Creed says whoever wishes to be saved needs to hold the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled and except they do that they will be condemned, but then theologians go around theorizing how someone might be saved WITHOUT holding the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled and WITHOUT belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation.
If you don't have any problem with that, then you have a problem.
Don't get me wrong: i know that all the canonized Saints and Doctors of the Church preached and believed in this absolute necessity, and that is something i wonder about: how come the canonized Saints and Doctors all believed in and taught this, but all the non-canonized and non-Saint theologians didn't?
Invincible ignorance = native savages who are judged by the natural law. Any other interpretation is foreign to that of the real approved theologians of Holy Mother Church.
Are you saying here that if they perfectly follow the natural law they will be saved, without any belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation? Are you saying they are completely dispensed from holding the Catholic Faith?
-
If the doubt is willful, yes.
How can it not be in the case of many theologians from the 15th century onwards? Were they perchance ignorant about this?
The dogma began to be chipped at since then.
Why not just teach what the dogma itself says? Why not just teach what St. Thomas and many other Saints say about those in invincible ignorance, viz. that if they are good willed they will come to the truth and leave it at that? Why write a whole book which only undermines and waters it down?
The EENS dogma is the Foundational Dogma of the Catholic Church and it has been chipped away at since the founding of the Church and most likely will continue to be chipped away at and watered down till the end of time.
We know that since the First Vatican Council's decree (1869-1870): "Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." that dogmatic definitions by their very nature are to define what we believe. Since V1 and per V1, it is the the infallible teaching of the Church that one doesn't interpret a dogmatic definition, one either accepts it or rejects it.
The very nature of dogmatic definitions guarantees that unless one accept it without exceptions, "in all it's momentous absoluteness", one rejects it.
Perhaps if this decree were made many centuries earlier, the great saints and fathers who taught salvation without the sacrament or outside the Church would never have done so?
The Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation is described as fundamental or "foundational" to Catholic theology. It is called the "Dogma of Faith," because, of a truth, unless a person accepts it in all its momentous absoluteness, he really does not accept the Catholic Faith, howsoever he protests that he does. Conversely, he who dilutes this doctrine to any degree, so radically distorts the Faith that he renders it null and void, and his own faith in the bargain. For he who denies this doctrine makes Catholicity hardly more than a nicety, as if membership in the Church were like the first-class compartment on a commercial airliner, in which the majority of others will arrive at the same destination, really none the worse for their second-class transport. - from his book: Who Shall Ascend?
-
Pelele, do you understand the difference between a necessity of precept and a necessity of means?
Fr. Michael Mueller puts it in simple terms, quoting St. Alphonsus, "Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved."
So some theologians think the necessity the Athanasian Creed expresses is the latter, which is a permitted opinion.
-
If the doubt is willful, yes.
How can it not be in the case of many theologians from the 15th century onwards? Were they perchance ignorant about this?
The dogma began to be chipped at since then.
Why not just teach what the dogma itself says? Why not just teach what St. Thomas and many other Saints say about those in invincible ignorance, viz. that if they are good willed they will come to the truth and leave it at that? Why write a whole book which only undermines and waters it down?
I think you hit it spot on... If hundreds of brilliant minds, hundreds of years and the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium has not seen a contradiction, chances are you are wrong on your "observation." Quit pretending to be more clever and intelligent then everyone before you, no one doubted Dogma for if you even for one second believe this it would logically lead to many canonized Saints going straight to Hell. Then its your belief against the word of your Mother the Catholic Church the Immaculate Spouse of Christ.
This is one of those dead dogs that just never goes back to rest, poor old yeller! Just because some wanna be "Catholics" who are really modernist in disguise hi-jacked certain Catholic terms does not somehow change anything.
Invincible ignorance = native savages who are judged by the natural law. Any other interpretation is foreign to that of the real approved theologians of Holy Mother Church.
This is the teaching of the Saints, now the more recent theological speculations are just that theological speculations. They do not have any sort of unanimity and have no precedent in the teaching authority of the Church. You are safe to believe as the great Doctors have believed, especially when the authority of the Church has specifically never even remotely condemned them in any way shape or form, for those opinions.
Its funny how many people are so concerned about those savages, when the reality is that the Church has almost reached the 4 corners of the world. Sure there are certain regions that might not have access, but it is safe to say that one way or another they will hear of the teachings of Our Blessed Saviour. Even if through Muhammadans or some other false religion, but they will hear about it. They will then have to make a choice at some point, God makes no mistakes. He gives EVERYONE a chance at salvation, O ye of little faith.
That is right. All those who go to Hell go there because of their own choice, because they are guilty of some grave evil. Those who go to Heaven have accepted truth and adhered to it in their actions, and to the extent that they err or act in a way that is contrary to truth, if they do this inculpably they will not be damned for that reason. God does not damn to the punishment of Hell anyone for something they are not culpable of.
He prevents unbaptized before the age of reason from obtaining the Beatific Vision but he does not damn them to Eternal Hellfire for something they are not culpable of.
-
Pelele, do you understand the difference between a necessity of precept and a necessity of means?
Yes, and i have read several things which say that the main mysteries are necessary by necessity of means, not precept.
Fr. Michael Mueller puts it in simple terms, quoting St. Alphonsus, "Some theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved."
This is what i wonder how it can be tolerated? St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine and all the other Saints didn't believe this was a mere "truer opinion"; they said they were absolutely necessary to be saved as the Creed says.
How is it that they let these things linger around there for so long and took no action?
So now someone can tell you the Athanasian Creed may actually not be true when it says the Faith is necessary and you can't even tell him anything? How could you if there were theologians who thought it wasn't and nobody did anything?
So in the end, people can say there is salvation outside the Church without falling into heresy and you can't tell them anything.
How in the world can all this be done against the salvation dogma?
What would happen if they did the same with any other dogma?
Imagine this: the Church already defined the Assumption, but then some theologians come along and start theorizing how maybe part of her was assumed but part stayed here on earth.
That has never been specifically condemned by the Church, but would anyone tolerate that for one second?
-
The 1917 CIC says that a heretic is one who doubts or denies any dogma, but isnt the whole speculation of whether someone can be saved outside the Church or without supernatural faith, doubting the Athanasian Creed and the dogma itself?
The Athanasian Creed clearly and emphatically says no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith, but how can these theologians speculate the direct opposite with impunity?
Isnt all theorizing and speculation closed for good once a dogma is defined? And is not the salvation dogma one of the most defined dogmas? So how come there is so much speculation going on?
It makes it seem like we dont have the truth about the dogma after all and we still dont know what the truth is.
No one cane be saved outside the Church?
What is the 1917 CIC? Does it use the words "can be saved outside the Church"?
-
How in the world can all this be done against the salvation dogma?
Most people who call themselves Catholics do not believe that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. They prefer to believe that everyone goes to heaven, except Hitler. Yes, everyone is in heaven who died except Hitler.
-
No one cane be saved outside the Church?
What is the 1917 CIC? Does it use the words "can be saved outside the Church"?
What are you talking about? Did i say the 1917 code said anything about salvation?
I presented the definition of a heretic from the Code and then presented the dogma and the Athanasian Creed and asked how is believing someone can be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation not doubting the dogma.
This is driving me nuts. I don't know what to believe anymore.
It is a defined dogma that without Faith it is impossible to please God and be justified and yet this whole thing about being saved without Faith is all over the place and the Popes did jack nothing about it...
-
The 1917 CIC says that a heretic is one who doubts or denies any dogma, but isnt the whole speculation of whether someone can be saved outside the Church or without supernatural faith, doubting the Athanasian Creed and the dogma itself?
The Athanasian Creed clearly and emphatically says no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith, but how can these theologians speculate the direct opposite with impunity?
Isnt all theorizing and speculation closed for good once a dogma is defined? And is not the salvation dogma one of the most defined dogmas? So how come there is so much speculation going on?
It makes it seem like we dont have the truth about the dogma after all and we still dont know what the truth is.
Please clarify both if the 1917 CIC is the code of canon law and if they actually worded as quoted above. It would be surprised if the code made such a statement, in rereading it seems someone is speculating as to whether someone can be saved outside the Church, I hope it does not say that, perhaps it seems to speculate whether someone can be saved WITHIN the Church without supernatural faith, but that is impossible as well, one must have supernatural faith for salvation to be possible.
Can someone share the direct quote again?
-
The 1917 CIC says that a heretic is one who doubts or denies any dogma, but isnt the whole speculation of whether someone can be saved outside the Church or without supernatural faith, doubting the Athanasian Creed and the dogma itself?
The Athanasian Creed clearly and emphatically says no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith, but how can these theologians speculate the direct opposite with impunity?
Isnt all theorizing and speculation closed for good once a dogma is defined? And is not the salvation dogma one of the most defined dogmas? So how come there is so much speculation going on?
It makes it seem like we dont have the truth about the dogma after all and we still dont know what the truth is.
Please clarify both if the 1917 CIC is the code of canon law and if they actually worded as quoted above. It would be surprised if the code made such a statement, in rereading it seems someone is speculating as to whether someone can be saved outside the Church, I hope it does not say that, perhaps it seems to speculate whether someone can be saved WITHIN the Church without supernatural faith, but that is impossible as well, one must have supernatural faith for salvation to be possible.
Can someone share the direct quote again?
Yes of course it is the Code of Canon law, Codex Iuris Canonici.
Canon 1325: Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the Divine and Catholic Faith [is a heretic].
-
No one cane be saved outside the Church?
What is the 1917 CIC? Does it use the words "can be saved outside the Church"?
What are you talking about? Did i say the 1917 code said anything about salvation?
I presented the definition of a heretic from the Code and then presented the dogma and the Athanasian Creed and asked how is believing someone can be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation not doubting the dogma.
This is driving me nuts. I don't know what to believe anymore.
It is a defined dogma that without Faith it is impossible to please God and be justified and yet this whole thing about being saved without Faith is all over the place and the Popes did jack nothing about it...
At the very least one must have supernatural faith in God who both rewards good and punishes evil and have, at the very least an implicit faith in the incarnation and Holy Trinity though explicit faith in these later two may also be necessary. The must have perfect charity, love God above all things, and try to do their best to do His will. The must not willfully reject any truth they become aware of or avoid looking for the truth for fear of having to change their lives or for any other reason. The must die in a state of sanctifying grace and only those within the Church can die in such a state as sanctifying grace cannot be found outside the Church. But non-members of the Church can be within the Church by desire and share the inner bonds of unity within the Church which are supernatural faith, hope and charity and the rest of the virtues and gifts.
God knows the particulars we are just aware of the possibility.
Rest assured of the following.
No one is saved outside the Church.
Non-members can be within the Church by desire even if that desire is implicit. But it has to be an effective desire. They must not only will to do God's will but must also try to do God's will.
One must have a supernatural faith for salvation to be possible.
Additionally one must have supernatural charity for salvation to be possible.
One must believe with a supernatural faith, based on His own Revelation, that God exists and rewards good and punishes evil, and believe, at least implicitly, though possibly explicitly in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity for salvation to be possible.
They must die in a state of sanctifying grace. This last is not possible without all of the previous.
Non of the above takes into consideration if anyone alive today can be inculpably ignorant of the Catholic Church's necessity for salvation.
If no one alive today can be inculpably ignorant of the Catholic Church's necessity for salvation then everything above does not play a role.
I tend to believe their are sincere good willed non-Catholics who were raised in non-Catholic denominations who believe what they were taught and are not willfully blind and biased against the Church and they cannot be damned for something they are not culpable of.
They are either of good will or not. They are either trying their best to do God's will or not.
But their are numerous prerequisites necessary for it to be possible to die within the Church as a non-member. But this is not something we need to bust our brains over, that is a God thing. We are only responsible for saving ourselves, and our family. We must try to help convert others to the extent possible as well.
But God did not say we must figure which individuals can be saved or not. Not us. Even those in authority can only lay out the basic parameters. That is no one is saved outside the Church and non-members can be saved within the Church. This needs to be understood correctly so as not to reduce the salvation dogma to an empty formula. The salvation dogma is not empty at all. But it is not simplistic either. Their are distinctions to be made but we are not obliged to be high-flying theologians but to be good Catholics. We can study the faith but most of us are not called to clarify the mysteries the most profound theologians had problems with. It all gets sorted out in a perfectly just and merciful way in the end.
-
The 1917 CIC says that a heretic is one who doubts or denies any dogma, but isnt the whole speculation of whether someone can be saved outside the Church or without supernatural faith, doubting the Athanasian Creed and the dogma itself?
The Athanasian Creed clearly and emphatically says no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith, but how can these theologians speculate the direct opposite with impunity?
Isnt all theorizing and speculation closed for good once a dogma is defined? And is not the salvation dogma one of the most defined dogmas? So how come there is so much speculation going on?
It makes it seem like we dont have the truth about the dogma after all and we still dont know what the truth is.
Please clarify both if the 1917 CIC is the code of canon law and if they actually worded as quoted above. It would be surprised if the code made such a statement, in rereading it seems someone is speculating as to whether someone can be saved outside the Church, I hope it does not say that, perhaps it seems to speculate whether someone can be saved WITHIN the Church without supernatural faith, but that is impossible as well, one must have supernatural faith for salvation to be possible.
Can someone share the direct quote again?
Yes of course it is the Code of Canon law, Codex Iuris Canonici.
Canon 1325: Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the Divine and Catholic Faith [is a heretic].
Good thank you. I don't see anything wrong with that. It would be crazy if it was speculating on whether anyone can be saved outside the Church or without the faith.
At a minimum by Divine and Catholic Faith is meant the following.
1. Belief, base on His own Revelation, that God exists.
2. That He rewards good and punishes evil.
At least implicitly but possibly explicitly:
3. The Incarnation
4. The Holy Trinity
They have to believe these things as the Catholic Church presents them but they do not have to have a full grasp of the mysteries in a scholastic way for salvation to be possible. They have to accept God's revelation on the above with a supernatural faith and they must also have perfect charity. And the must not be culpably ignorant or guilty for not joining the Church as a member. Anyone aware of the Church's necessity for salvation who rejects or needlessly puts off becoming a member will be damned.
-
The 1917 CIC says that a heretic is one who doubts or denies any dogma, but isnt the whole speculation of whether someone can be saved outside the Church or without supernatural faith, doubting the Athanasian Creed and the dogma itself?
The Athanasian Creed clearly and emphatically says no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith, but how can these theologians speculate the direct opposite with impunity?
Isnt all theorizing and speculation closed for good once a dogma is defined? And is not the salvation dogma one of the most defined dogmas? So how come there is so much speculation going on?
It makes it seem like we dont have the truth about the dogma after all and we still dont know what the truth is.
Please clarify both if the 1917 CIC is the code of canon law and if they actually worded as quoted above. It would be surprised if the code made such a statement, in rereading it seems someone is speculating as to whether someone can be saved outside the Church, I hope it does not say that, perhaps it seems to speculate whether someone can be saved WITHIN the Church without supernatural faith, but that is impossible as well, one must have supernatural faith for salvation to be possible.
Can someone share the direct quote again?
Yes of course it is the Code of Canon law, Codex Iuris Canonici.
Canon 1325: Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the Divine and Catholic Faith [is a heretic].
Good thank you. I don't see anything wrong with that. It would be crazy if it was speculating on whether anyone can be saved outside the Church or without the faith.
At a minimum by Divine and Catholic Faith is meant the following.
1. Belief, base on His own Revelation, that God exists.
2. That He rewards good and punishes evil.
At least implicitly but possibly explicitly:
3. The Incarnation
4. The Holy Trinity
They have to believe these things as the Catholic Church presents them but they do not have to have a full grasp of the mysteries in a scholastic way for salvation to be possible. They have to accept God's revelation on the above with a supernatural faith and they must also have perfect charity. And the must not be culpably ignorant or guilty for not joining the Church as a member. Anyone aware of the Church's necessity for salvation who rejects or needlessly puts off becoming a member will be damned.
"Well then," as St. Augustine said, "Christ died in vain".
Saint Augustine, Doctor, (died A.D. 430): "No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honour, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church." (Sermon to the People of Caesaria)
""But I say," adds he, "have they not heard? "Yea, verily; their sounds went out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world."" Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth - because there are some remote nations still (although it is said that they are very few) to whom the preached gospel has not found its way, - what must human nature do, or what has it done - for it has either not heard that all this was to take place, or has not yet learned that it was accomplished - but believe in God who made heaven and earth, by whom also it perceived by nature that it had been created, and lead a right life, and thus accomplish His will, uninstructed with any faith in the death and resurrection of Christ? Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: "Then Christ died in vain." For if he said this about the law, which only the nation of the Jєωs received, how much more justly may it be said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received, "If righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain." If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God's most righteous wrath - in a word, from punishment - except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ." (On Nature and Grace)
-
But God did not say we must figure which individuals can be saved or not. Not us. Even those in authority can only lay out the basic parameters. That is no one is saved outside the Church and non-members can be saved within the Church. This needs to be understood correctly so as not to reduce the salvation dogma to an empty formula. The salvation dogma is not empty at all. But it is not simplistic either. Their are distinctions to be made but we are not obliged to be high-flying theologians but to be good Catholics. We can study the faith but most of us are not called to clarify the mysteries the most profound theologians had problems with. It all gets sorted out in a perfectly just and merciful way in the end.
The No salvation dogma means what it says. Non members not only do not go to heaven, non-members go to hell - the dogma, in fact all dogmas leaves no room for any exceptions whatsoever.
What LOT is demonstrating is precisely what Pelele is disputing - there will be no ground gained by either one this way.
This dogma rules out the possibility of simple invincible ignorance concerning the matter of salvation; those who die in ignorance of the Church as the only course of salvific grace must be adjudged to have been culpably so. In a word, they did not know because they did not want to know. In a word, non-members are outside the Church because that is where they choose to be.
The only reason that God does not succeed in getting non-members into the Church must be found in the reluctant will of those who do not enter it. If God can arrange for you to be in the Church, by the very same Providence He can arrange for anyone else who desires or is willing to enter it. There is absolutely no obstacle to the invincible God's achieving His designs, except the intractable wills of His children.
Make no mistake about it, saying that non-members can be saved is diabolical double talk because it mocks the dogma which teaches the exact opposite.
-
At the very least one must have supernatural faith in God who both rewards good and punishes evil
Who says this?
and have, at the very least an implicit faith in the incarnation and Holy Trinity
Not according to the Athanasian Creed, the Church Councils, and all the Saints and Doctors.
How will they have contrition for sin if they don't even know Jesus suffered and died for them? Or is contrition not necessary?
though explicit faith in these later two may also be necessary.
May?
Bishop Hay said:
...the Son of God became man and appeared among men, in order to instruct them in the knowledge of those Divine truths on which their salvation depends; and therefore that He absolutely requires true Faith in Him, and, in the sacred truths which He revealed, as a necessary condition of salvation. There also we learn that He instituted a holy Church on earth, to be the depository of these truths, and that He absolutely requires all to be united with that Church in order to be saved.
...true Faith in Jesus Christ and His words-----namely, that Faith, without which it is impossible to please God-----is absolutely required by Almighty God as a condition of salvation.
...the knowledge and belief of God, and of Jesus Christ, and obedience to His Gospel, are absolutely required by Him as essential conditions of salvation.
Those are just a few.
Was he dead wrong?
The must have perfect charity, love God above all things, and try to do their best to do His will. The must not willfully reject any truth they become aware of or avoid looking for the truth for fear of having to change their lives or for any other reason. The must die in a state of sanctifying grace and only those within the Church can die in such a state as sanctifying grace cannot be found outside the Church.
If all this happens and these people in invincible ignorance can do all this, why doesn't God simply bring them in? Why let them die in that state?
But non-members of the Church can be within the Church by desire and share the inner bonds of unity within the Church which are supernatural faith, hope and charity and the rest of the virtues and gifts.
This is where it starts to get muddy. How can they desire something they don't know about? Remember we are talking about people in invincible ignorance.
-
If the doubt is willful, yes.
How can it not be in the case of many theologians from the 15th century onwards? Were they perchance ignorant about this?
The dogma began to be chipped at since then.
Why not just teach what the dogma itself says? Why not just teach what St. Thomas and many other Saints say about those in invincible ignorance, viz. that if they are good willed they will come to the truth and leave it at that? Why write a whole book which only undermines and waters it down?
A faithful person might experience doubt as a temptation, but refuse to give any consent of the will to this. That's all I am saying.
-
Not according to the Athanasian Creed, the Church Councils, and all the Saints and Doctors.
and Bellarmine?
-
Not according to the Athanasian Creed, the Church Councils, and all the Saints and Doctors.
and Bellarmine?
What about him?
-
The 1917 CIC says that a heretic is one who doubts or denies any dogma, but isnt the whole speculation of whether someone can be saved outside the Church or without supernatural faith, doubting the Athanasian Creed and the dogma itself?
The Athanasian Creed clearly and emphatically says no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith, but how can these theologians speculate the direct opposite with impunity?
Isnt all theorizing and speculation closed for good once a dogma is defined? And is not the salvation dogma one of the most defined dogmas? So how come there is so much speculation going on?
It makes it seem like we dont have the truth about the dogma after all and we still dont know what the truth is.
Please clarify both if the 1917 CIC is the code of canon law and if they actually worded as quoted above. It would be surprised if the code made such a statement, in rereading it seems someone is speculating as to whether someone can be saved outside the Church, I hope it does not say that, perhaps it seems to speculate whether someone can be saved WITHIN the Church without supernatural faith, but that is impossible as well, one must have supernatural faith for salvation to be possible.
Can someone share the direct quote again?
Yes of course it is the Code of Canon law, Codex Iuris Canonici.
Canon 1325: Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the Divine and Catholic Faith [is a heretic].
Good thank you. I don't see anything wrong with that. It would be crazy if it was speculating on whether anyone can be saved outside the Church or without the faith.
At a minimum by Divine and Catholic Faith is meant the following.
1. Belief, base on His own Revelation, that God exists.
2. That He rewards good and punishes evil.
At least implicitly but possibly explicitly:
3. The Incarnation
4. The Holy Trinity
They have to believe these things as the Catholic Church presents them but they do not have to have a full grasp of the mysteries in a scholastic way for salvation to be possible. They have to accept God's revelation on the above with a supernatural faith and they must also have perfect charity. And the must not be culpably ignorant or guilty for not joining the Church as a member. Anyone aware of the Church's necessity for salvation who rejects or needlessly puts off becoming a member will be damned.
"Well then," as St. Augustine said, "Christ died in vain".
Saint Augustine, Doctor, (died A.D. 430): "No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honour, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church." (Sermon to the People of Caesaria)
""But I say," adds he, "have they not heard? "Yea, verily; their sounds went out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world."" Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth - because there are some remote nations still (although it is said that they are very few) to whom the preached gospel has not found its way, - what must human nature do, or what has it done - for it has either not heard that all this was to take place, or has not yet learned that it was accomplished - but believe in God who made heaven and earth, by whom also it perceived by nature that it had been created, and lead a right life, and thus accomplish His will, uninstructed with any faith in the death and resurrection of Christ? Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: "Then Christ died in vain." For if he said this about the law, which only the nation of the Jєωs received, how much more justly may it be said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received, "If righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain." If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God's most righteous wrath - in a word, from punishment - except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ." (On Nature and Grace)
It all comes down to whether one is in our outside the Church. Only God can judge in some instances. The great doctors and all who spoke to the issue teaching that non-members can be saved within the Church died not claim Christ died in vain and they were fully aware and understood the quotes you present.
-
Yes of course it is the Code of Canon law, Codex Iuris Canonici.
Canon 1325: Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the Divine and Catholic Faith [is a heretic].
In reality, and in context, the canon cited is as follows
PARS QUARTA.
DE MAGISTERIO ECCLESIASTICO.
CAN. 1322.
§ 1. Christus Dominus fidei depositum Ecclesiae concredidit, ut ipsa, Spiritu Sancto iugiter assistente, doctrinam revelatam sancte custodiret et fideliter exponeret.
§ 2. Ecclesiae, independenter a qualibet civili potestate, ius est et officium gentes omnes evangelicam doctrinam docendi: hanc vero rite ediscere veramque Dei Ecclesiam amplecti omnes divina lege tenentur.
CAN. 1323.
§ 1. Fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenda sunt quae verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continentur et ab Ecclesia sive sollemni iudicio sive ordinario et universali magisterio tanquam divinitus revelata credenda proponuntur.
§ 2. Sollemne huiusmodi iudicium pronuntiare proprium est tum Oecuмenici Concilii tum Romani Pontificis ex cathedra loquentis.
§ 3. Declarata seu definita dogmatice res nulla intelligitur, nisi id manifeste constiterit.
CAN. 1324.
Satis non est haereticam pravitatem devitare, sed oportet illos quoque errores diligenter fugere, qui ad illam plus minusve accedunt; quare omnes debent etiam constitutiones et decreta servare quibus pravae huiusmodi opiniones a Sancta Sede proscriptae et prohibitae sunt.
CAN. 1325.
§ 1. Fideles Christi fidem aperte profiteri tenentur quoties eorum silentium, tergiversatio aut ratio agendi secuмferrent implicitam fidei negationem, contemptum religionis, iniuriam Dei vel scandalum proximi.
§ 2. Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquam ex veritatibus fide divina et catholica credendis denegat aut de ea dubitat, haereticus; si a fide christiana totaliter recedit, apostata; si denique subesse renuit Summo Pontifici aut cuм membris Ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare recusat, schismaticus est.
§ 3. Caveant catholici ne disputationes vel collationes, publicas praesertim, cuм acatholicis habeant, sine venia Sanctae Sedis aut, si casus urgeat, loci Ordinarii.
with the following commentary
Our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted the deposit of faith to the Church, that under the constant guidance and assistance of the Holy Spirit, she might sacredly guard and faithfully explain this divine revelation. The Church has therefore the right and the duty, independently of any civil power, to teach all nations the full evangelical doctrine; and all men are bound by the law of God to learn this doctrine properly and to embrace the true Church of God (c. 1322).
The Church guards and explains this deposit of faith. She does not add to it, for it was completed and closed with the death of the last Apostle, Saint John. To guard means to keep and defend; in doing this the Church must sometimes declare truths which are not contained in revelation but which are necessary to keep revealed truth. To explain means to make clear what is obscure. The so-called developments of doctrine through dogmatic definitions may be compared to the sharpening of the focus on a film which is projected on a screen. The details which become discernible with clear focus are not new; they were all in the original picture, but they are now brought out more clearly.
All those truths must be believed fide divina et catholica, which are contained in the written word of God or in tradition and which the Church proposes for acceptance as revealed by God, either by solemn definition or through her ordinary and universal teaching. To pronounce a solemn definition is the part of an Ecuмenical Council or of the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra. No doctrine is to be considered as dogmatically defined unless this is evidently proved (c. 1323).
It is not enough to avoid heresy, but one must also carefully shun all errors which more or less approach it; hence all must observe the constitutions and decrees by which the Holy See has proscribed and forbidden opinions of that sort (c. 1324).
The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circuмstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor (c. 1325, §1).
One who after baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously (that is, with conscious and intentional resistance to the authority of God and the Church) denies or doubts any one of the truths which must be believed de fide divina et catholica, is a heretic; if he falls away entirely from the Christian faith, he is an apostate; finally if he rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic (c. 1325, §2).
Catholics are to avoid disputations or conferences about matters of faith with non-Catholics, especially in public, unless the Holy See, or in case of emergency the Ordinary of the place, has given permission (c. 1325, §3).
-
Yes of course it is the Code of Canon law, Codex Iuris Canonici.
Canon 1325: Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the Divine and Catholic Faith [is a heretic].
In reality, and in context, the canon cited is as follows
PARS QUARTA.
DE MAGISTERIO ECCLESIASTICO.
CAN. 1322.
§ 1. Christus Dominus fidei depositum Ecclesiae concredidit, ut ipsa, Spiritu Sancto iugiter assistente, doctrinam revelatam sancte custodiret et fideliter exponeret.
§ 2. Ecclesiae, independenter a qualibet civili potestate, ius est et officium gentes omnes evangelicam doctrinam docendi: hanc vero rite ediscere veramque Dei Ecclesiam amplecti omnes divina lege tenentur.
CAN. 1323.
§ 1. Fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenda sunt quae verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continentur et ab Ecclesia sive sollemni iudicio sive ordinario et universali magisterio tanquam divinitus revelata credenda proponuntur.
§ 2. Sollemne huiusmodi iudicium pronuntiare proprium est tum Oecuмenici Concilii tum Romani Pontificis ex cathedra loquentis.
§ 3. Declarata seu definita dogmatice res nulla intelligitur, nisi id manifeste constiterit.
CAN. 1324.
Satis non est haereticam pravitatem devitare, sed oportet illos quoque errores diligenter fugere, qui ad illam plus minusve accedunt; quare omnes debent etiam constitutiones et decreta servare quibus pravae huiusmodi opiniones a Sancta Sede proscriptae et prohibitae sunt.
CAN. 1325.
§ 1. Fideles Christi fidem aperte profiteri tenentur quoties eorum silentium, tergiversatio aut ratio agendi secuмferrent implicitam fidei negationem, contemptum religionis, iniuriam Dei vel scandalum proximi.
§ 2. Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquam ex veritatibus fide divina et catholica credendis denegat aut de ea dubitat, haereticus; si a fide christiana totaliter recedit, apostata; si denique subesse renuit Summo Pontifici aut cuм membris Ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare recusat, schismaticus est.
§ 3. Caveant catholici ne disputationes vel collationes, publicas praesertim, cuм acatholicis habeant, sine venia Sanctae Sedis aut, si casus urgeat, loci Ordinarii.
with the following commentary
Our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted the deposit of faith to the Church, that under the constant guidance and assistance of the Holy Spirit, she might sacredly guard and faithfully explain this divine revelation. The Church has therefore the right and the duty, independently of any civil power, to teach all nations the full evangelical doctrine; and all men are bound by the law of God to learn this doctrine properly and to embrace the true Church of God (c. 1322).
The Church guards and explains this deposit of faith. She does not add to it, for it was completed and closed with the death of the last Apostle, Saint John. To guard means to keep and defend; in doing this the Church must sometimes declare truths which are not contained in revelation but which are necessary to keep revealed truth. To explain means to make clear what is obscure. The so-called developments of doctrine through dogmatic definitions may be compared to the sharpening of the focus on a film which is projected on a screen. The details which become discernible with clear focus are not new; they were all in the original picture, but they are now brought out more clearly.
All those truths must be believed fide divina et catholica, which are contained in the written word of God or in tradition and which the Church proposes for acceptance as revealed by God, either by solemn definition or through her ordinary and universal teaching. To pronounce a solemn definition is the part of an Ecuмenical Council or of the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra. No doctrine is to be considered as dogmatically defined unless this is evidently proved (c. 1323).
It is not enough to avoid heresy, but one must also carefully shun all errors which more or less approach it; hence all must observe the constitutions and decrees by which the Holy See has proscribed and forbidden opinions of that sort (c. 1324).
The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circuмstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor (c. 1325, §1).
One who after baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously (that is, with conscious and intentional resistance to the authority of God and the Church) denies or doubts any one of the truths which must be believed de fide divina et catholica, is a heretic; if he falls away entirely from the Christian faith, he is an apostate; finally if he rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic (c. 1325, §2).
Catholics are to avoid disputations or conferences about matters of faith with non-Catholics, especially in public, unless the Holy See, or in case of emergency the Ordinary of the place, has given permission (c. 1325, §3).
Nice post.
-
I think you hit it spot on... If hundreds of brilliant minds, hundreds of years and the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium has not seen a contradiction, chances are you are wrong on your "observation."
Not necessarily. For example the first galaxy outside of the Milky Way was only discovered in 1923. Now, thanks to the Hubble Telescope we know there are 100s of billions of other galaxies in every direction one cares to look.
I doubt a lot of scientific theories (like Evolution) but it is pretty difficult to doubt that these galaxies are out there because they are based on direct observations. There is no difference between viewing them through the Hubble telescope and viewing the moon through a telescope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei97pr5Yc9k (watch from 1:30mins in)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE8yHySiJ4A
Those hundreds of brilliant minds did not have access to the knowledge we have today.
-
I think you hit it spot on... If hundreds of brilliant minds, hundreds of years and the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium has not seen a contradiction, chances are you are wrong on your "observation."
Not necessarily. For example the first galaxy outside of the Milky Way was only discovered in 1923. Now, thanks to the Hubble Telescope we know there are 100s of billions of other galaxies in every direction one cares to look.
I doubt a lot of scientific theories (like Evolution) but it is pretty difficult to doubt that these galaxies are out there because they are based on direct observations. There is no difference between viewing them through the Hubble telescope and viewing the moon through a telescope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei97pr5Yc9k (watch from 1:30mins in)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE8yHySiJ4A
Those hundreds of brilliant minds did not have access to the knowledge we have today.
Brilliant [minds] theologians in regard to doctrine pertaining to salvation as opposed to science I think.
I'm sure many scientists have an opinion on salvation but I'll stick with the Catholic theologians on that one.
-
Dogmas are about more than just salvation though.
The is some overlap and where science and religious belief clash (as they do on evolutionary theory). It is double minded to pretend that one can still believe in Original Sin and Polygenism and yet many Churchmen and lay-people claim these two ideas can live side by side.
There is no generally accepted scientific theory that would account for two original parents of the human race living at the same time. What DNA and genome evidence there is points to bottlenecks where the Adam and Eve lived tens of thousands of years apart from each other.
Practically speaking the Church insisted, for a very long time, on Christians believing the essential story of the bible and in two original parents and indeed it is very difficult to see how Original Sin could have been committed by any more than two parents and, justly, passed on to the rest of humanity.
Today it has dropped the ball and the Pope and high ranking members of the Vatican are all evolutionists. I have no idea of their concept of Original Sin, but I know it cannot be the same as mine.
If science is perceived as leading the Church to the truth, with the Church dropping dogmas and beliefs 100 years after the general acceptance of scientific truth then the Church is a follower and a student, not a leader and a teacher.
Let's get real here. In effect, Darwinism or some close derivative of it has been adopted by Churchmen and Original Sin so mangled, twisted and fogged up as to lose all meaning.
-
Dogmas are about more than just salvation though.
The is some overlap and where science and religious belief clash (as they do on evolutionary theory). It is double minded to pretend that one can still believe in Original Sin and Polygenism and yet many Churchmen and lay-people claim these two ideas can live side by side.
There is no generally accepted scientific theory that would account for two original parents of the human race living at the same time. What DNA and genome evidence there is points to bottlenecks where the Adam and Eve lived tens of thousands of years apart from each other.
Practically speaking the Church insisted, for a very long time, on Christians believing the essential story of the bible and in two original parents and indeed it is very difficult to see how Original Sin could have been committed by any more than two parents and, justly, passed on to the rest of humanity.
Today it has dropped the ball and the Pope and high ranking members of the Vatican are all evolutionists. I have no idea of their concept of Original Sin, but I know it cannot be the same as mine.
If science is perceived as leading the Church to the truth, with the Church dropping dogmas and beliefs 100 years after the general acceptance of scientific truth then the Church is a follower and a student, not a leader and a teacher.
Let's get real here. In effect, Darwinism or some close derivative of it has been adopted by Churchmen and Original Sin so mangled, twisted and fogged up as to lose all meaning.
To start I would say not to look at the conciliar institution for the Catholic view. They are evolutionists but the Catholic Church is not.
You should get The Four Marks periodical, most months they have a scientist who posts an article on the age of the world and he has touched on evolution as well.
Also from a scientific perspective two white people can have a dark child. This has happened and is proved scientifically. All the created human beings that ever existed, exist and will ever exist are the result of the Original Pair. Science has not disproved this and cannot disprove it.
If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches on the issues please do not look to the Novus Ordo Church. Check official docuмents from before 1958. Then see if science disproves any of it. Many scientists are atheist by nature. They live by the mentality that if they cannot see it it is not there. They start from a presupposition that God does not exist and that there is no mystery that cannot be unraveled by the human mind (which is a result of the big bang?).
But what they teach that contradicts Catholic teaching is theory, they have yet to prove evolution despite what they claim. Just ask a good intellectually honest scientist. This is true with carbon dating as well as you will be able to see in back issues and probably future issues of The Four Marks periodical.
It ultimately comes down to the fact that God exists and He revealed truth to us through the Scriptures and through His Church in an infallible way. The intended teaching of God through His Church cannot be disputed though it can be misunderstood.
-
Dogmas are about more than just salvation though.
The is some overlap and where science and religious belief clash (as they do on evolutionary theory). It is double minded to pretend that one can still believe in Original Sin and Polygenism and yet many Churchmen and lay-people claim these two ideas can live side by side.
There is no generally accepted scientific theory that would account for two original parents of the human race living at the same time. What DNA and genome evidence there is points to bottlenecks where the Adam and Eve lived tens of thousands of years apart from each other.
Practically speaking the Church insisted, for a very long time, on Christians believing the essential story of the bible and in two original parents and indeed it is very difficult to see how Original Sin could have been committed by any more than two parents and, justly, passed on to the rest of humanity.
Today it has dropped the ball and the Pope and high ranking members of the Vatican are all evolutionists. I have no idea of their concept of Original Sin, but I know it cannot be the same as mine.
If science is perceived as leading the Church to the truth, with the Church dropping dogmas and beliefs 100 years after the general acceptance of scientific truth then the Church is a follower and a student, not a leader and a teacher.
Let's get real here. In effect, Darwinism or some close derivative of it has been adopted by Churchmen and Original Sin so mangled, twisted and fogged up as to lose all meaning.
Yeah, let's get VERY real here: the Bogus Ordo sect is not the Catholic Church, so what are you talking about?
The Bogus Ordo sect is the one guilty of all the things you said, not the Catholic Church.
-
I think you hit it spot on... If hundreds of brilliant minds, hundreds of years and the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium has not seen a contradiction, chances are you are wrong on your "observation."
Not necessarily. For example the first galaxy outside of the Milky Way was only discovered in 1923. Now, thanks to the Hubble Telescope we know there are 100s of billions of other galaxies in every direction one cares to look.
I doubt a lot of scientific theories (like Evolution) but it is pretty difficult to doubt that these galaxies are out there because they are based on direct observations. There is no difference between viewing them through the Hubble telescope and viewing the moon through a telescope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei97pr5Yc9k (watch from 1:30mins in)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE8yHySiJ4A
Those hundreds of brilliant minds did not have access to the knowledge we have today.
It is savouring if heresy to think that it is somehow comparable to use science as an example for sacred theology... I have no idea what was the whole point of your post... Seriously. We are talking about the most basic fundamental truth of the faith. Who constitutes a member of the Church, and whether or not it is necessary to believe in the Trinity for salvation, "hardly the knowledge we have today."
It shows how confused you are by "doubting" Evolution. You should reject it, 100% not 99%. If you are doubt is wilful then I would be worried about the state of your soul. Stay away from topics that will only add to your confusion, Saint Thomas advices, "Because you have asked me, my brother John, most dear to me in Christ, how to set about aquiring the treasure of knowledge, this is the advice I pass on to you: that you should choose to enter by the small rivers, and not go right away into the sea, because you should move from easy things to difficult things."
We are talking about Dogma it completely goes together with Divine Revelation, all of which was given to us and has nothing to do with scientific discoveries or technology. :geezer:
-
I think you hit it spot on... If hundreds of brilliant minds, hundreds of years and the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium has not seen a contradiction, chances are you are wrong on your "observation." Quit pretending to be more clever and intelligent then everyone before you, no one doubted Dogma for if you even for one second believe this it would logically lead to many canonized Saints going straight to Hell. Then its your belief against the word of your Mother the Catholic Church the Immaculate Spouse of Christ.
This is one of those dead dogs that just never goes back to rest, poor old yeller! Just because some wanna be "Catholics" who are really modernist in disguise hi-jacked certain Catholic terms does not somehow change anything.
Invincible ignorance = native savages who are judged by the natural law. Any other interpretation is foreign to that of the real approved theologians of Holy Mother Church.
This is the teaching of the Saints, now the more recent theological speculations are just that theological speculations. They do not have any sort of unanimity and have no precedent in the teaching authority of the Church. You are safe to believe as the great Doctors have believed, especially when the authority of the Church has specifically never even remotely condemned them in any way shape or form, for those opinions.
Its funny how many people are so concerned about those savages, when the reality is that the Church has almost reached the 4 corners of the world. Sure there are certain regions that might not have access, but it is safe to say that one way or another they will hear of the teachings of Our Blessed Saviour. Even if through Muhammadans or some other false religion, but they will hear about it. They will then have to make a choice at some point, God makes no mistakes. He gives EVERYONE a chance at salvation, O ye of little faith.
Indeed, as you say: "how could hundreds of brilliant minds, hundreds of years and the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium has not seen a contradiction, chances are you are wrong on your "observation". HOWEVER, it is you ThomisticPhilosopher who you are describing and not Pelele, for no Fathers, Saint, Doctor, Council, or catechism taught that salvation could be achieved by people with no explicit desire to be Catholics or belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. That theory did not exist till the 1500's, and did not become widespread till the 20th century. Therefore by your own analysis you have condemned your own belief.
P.S.- your definition of invincible ignorance is just that, your own, for the theologians have never limited it to your "native savages".
-
I think you hit it spot on... If hundreds of brilliant minds, hundreds of years and the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium has not seen a contradiction, chances are you are wrong on your "observation." Quit pretending to be more clever and intelligent then everyone before you, no one doubted Dogma for if you even for one second believe this it would logically lead to many canonized Saints going straight to Hell. Then its your belief against the word of your Mother the Catholic Church the Immaculate Spouse of Christ.
This is one of those dead dogs that just never goes back to rest, poor old yeller! Just because some wanna be "Catholics" who are really modernist in disguise hi-jacked certain Catholic terms does not somehow change anything.
Invincible ignorance = native savages who are judged by the natural law. Any other interpretation is foreign to that of the real approved theologians of Holy Mother Church.
This is the teaching of the Saints, now the more recent theological speculations are just that theological speculations. They do not have any sort of unanimity and have no precedent in the teaching authority of the Church. You are safe to believe as the great Doctors have believed, especially when the authority of the Church has specifically never even remotely condemned them in any way shape or form, for those opinions.
Its funny how many people are so concerned about those savages, when the reality is that the Church has almost reached the 4 corners of the world. Sure there are certain regions that might not have access, but it is safe to say that one way or another they will hear of the teachings of Our Blessed Saviour. Even if through Muhammadans or some other false religion, but they will hear about it. They will then have to make a choice at some point, God makes no mistakes. He gives EVERYONE a chance at salvation, O ye of little faith.
Indeed, as you say: "If hundreds of brilliant minds, hundreds of years and the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium has not seen a contradiction, chances are you are wrong on your "observation." HOWEVER, it is you ThomisticPhilosopher who you are describing, for no Father, Saint, Doctor, Council, or catechism before the 20th century taught that salvation could be achieved by people with no explicit desire to be Catholics or belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. That theory did not exist till the 1500's, and did not become widespread till the 20th century. Therefore by your own analysis you have condemned your own belief.
P.S.- your definition of invincible ignorance is just that, your own, for the theologians have never limited it to your "native savages".
-
0
-
The 1917 CIC says that a heretic is one who doubts or denies any dogma, but isnt the whole speculation of whether someone can be saved outside the Church or without supernatural faith, doubting the Athanasian Creed and the dogma itself?
The Athanasian Creed clearly and emphatically says no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith, but how can these theologians speculate the direct opposite with impunity?
Isnt all theorizing and speculation closed for good once a dogma is defined? And is not the salvation dogma one of the most defined dogmas? So how come there is so much speculation going on?
It makes it seem like we dont have the truth about the dogma after all and we still dont know what the truth is.
The Athanasian Creed, taught and believed by all the Fathers, Saints, Doctors, Councils and catechisms (before the 20th century):
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The theological speculation which came into existence in the 1500's, and was foisted upon the faithful in the 20th century and believed by Lover of Truth and others here:
The truth is that once the Catholic has fully digested Lover of Truth’s “theology” and his treatment of the dogma, all that remains of the defined dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation is: unless you believe in God, and that He rewards good and punishes evil, you cannot be saved. The necessity of having the “Catholic Faith” is gone; people who have the “Faith” of Jєωs and Muslims can be “inside” the Church without being members.
-
To start I would say not to look at the conciliar institution for the Catholic view. They are evolutionists but the Catholic Church is not.
Well, I do not believe in evolution, but I thought that it was Pope Pius XII of the true Catholic Church (not a member of the conciliar sect or an antipope) who first allowed Catholic schools to teach evolution. Do you think that allowing Catholic schools to teach evolution was a mortal sin?