Author Topic: Isnt doubting a dogma heretical (Read 2998 times)

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.

Sigismund · « **Reply #1 on:** October 29, 2013, 09:02:50 PM »

If the doubt is willful, yes.

Pelele · « **Reply #2 on:** October 29, 2013, 09:11:31 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

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?

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #3 on:** October 29, 2013, 10:43:23 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

Quote from: Sigismund
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.

Pelele · « **Reply #4 on:** October 30, 2013, 12:11:06 AM »

Quote from: ThomisticPhilosopher

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?

Quote from: ThomisticPhilosopher

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?

Stubborn · « **Reply #5 on:** October 30, 2013, 05:30:46 AM »

Quote from: Pelele

Quote from: Sigismund
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?

Quote from: Fr. Wathen

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?

Nishant · « **Reply #6 on:** October 30, 2013, 12:20:52 PM »

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.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #7 on:** October 30, 2013, 12:29:36 PM »

Quote from: ThomisticPhilosopher

Quote from: Pelele
Quote from: Sigismund
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 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 30, 2013, 01:19:47 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Quote from: Nishant

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?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #9 on:** October 30, 2013, 01:51:52 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

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"?

Matto · « **Reply #10 on:** October 30, 2013, 01:55:28 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

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.

Pelele · « **Reply #11 on:** October 30, 2013, 02:00:04 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

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...

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #12 on:** October 30, 2013, 02:16:50 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

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?

Pelele · « **Reply #13 on:** October 30, 2013, 02:23:26 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Pelele
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].

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #14 on:** October 30, 2013, 02:35:48 PM »

Quote from: Pelele

Quote from: Lover of Truth
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.