Author Topic: Loss of Faith (Read 2036 times)

Caminus · « **on:** June 01, 2011, 07:37:47 PM »

It appears that one can mortally sin against faith and consequently extinguish this virtue in the intellect without being a formal heretic. In other words, heresy is not the only sin by which the theological virtue of faith is lost. Therefore, a man can be faithless and still remain a member of the Church.

http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html

DecemRationis · « **Reply #1 on:** June 01, 2011, 08:47:39 PM »

Ok. Here's what I'm getting at in another thread.

The linked chart, at the highest theological note, "Dogma," which is defined as "[a] truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God," gives as an example "all the contents of the Athanasian Creed."

Of course, the AC talks about various beliefs of the Catholic faith, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. It says, "[w]hosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic Faith," and "[t]his [i.e, belief in the Trinity, Incarnation, etc.] is the catholic Faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved."

The chart says that to deny dogma, hence to contradict "all the contents of the Athanasian Creed," is "heresy," which is a "[m]ortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited."

Kindly tell me how what JPII says below doesn't deny the contents of the AC, and how it isn't therefore "heresy" which, by his outward profession, incurred his excommunication:

Quote

Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).

JPaul · « **Reply #2 on:** June 01, 2011, 09:19:56 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis

Ok. Here's what I'm getting at in another thread.

The linked chart, at the highest theological note, "Dogma," which is defined as "[a] truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God," gives as an example "all the contents of the Athanasian Creed."

Of course, the AC talks about various beliefs of the Catholic faith, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. It says, "[w]hosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic Faith," and "[t]his [i.e, belief in the Trinity, Incarnation, etc.] is the catholic Faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved."

The chart says that to deny dogma, hence to contradict "all the contents of the Athanasian Creed," is "heresy," which is a "[m]ortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited."

Kindly tell me how what JPII says below doesn't deny the contents of the AC, and how it isn't therefore "heresy" which, by his outward profession, incurred his excommunication:

Quote
Normally, “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).

This Pope is attempting to teach that salvation can be had outside of Christ's Holy Church. He is in serious error and pronouncing an heretical proposition.
Clearly material heresy. Did he actually believe what he was saying leading to formal heresy? It is likely that he did, however, we cannot know his interior disposition so we can only judge what is manifest in the written or spoken material. But then, these sorts of heterodox statements are common in the Conciliar religion.

JMJ

DecemRationis · « **Reply #3 on:** June 02, 2011, 08:55:10 AM »

J. Paul,

Quote

This Pope is attempting to teach that salvation can be had outside of Christ's Holy Church. He is in serious error and pronouncing an heretical proposition.

Does he need to be attempting it (intent)? I don't think so. He is publicly (here, and repeatedly throughout his pontificate) pronouncing what seems to be heresy - a denial of one of the infallible propositions of the Athanasian Creed.

Unless Lane is wrong, or Van Nort is wrong (a respected theologian who says it is the "common opinion" that the public heresy of only a material heretic forfeits that member's membership in the Church), JPII lost (if he ever had) his pontificate.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #4 on:** June 02, 2011, 09:00:20 AM »

To rephrase: I do not think we even need to go there - whether he "intends" to teach salvation outside the Church.

He says some are saved "even while they do not recognize or acknowledge" Christ as their Savior. I say this publicly denies or contradicts the Athanasian Creed, and "intent" is a non-issue. Of course, you can make a good argument that the intent is there, as J.Paul indicates.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #5 on:** June 02, 2011, 09:15:13 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Therefore, a man can be faithless and still remain a member of the Church.

No one doubts this, Matthew. [Heck, an utterly faithless priest still validly consecrates, etc!]

The debate centers around public defection from the Faith by those who claim to possess offices which exist to protect and promote the very same Faith they have rejected/perverted/etc. FWIW, I would hope we are all sufficiently informed to realize that this debate is not about private infidelity.

SJB · « **Reply #6 on:** June 02, 2011, 09:34:48 AM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Caminus
Therefore, a man can be faithless and still remain a member of the Church.

No one doubts this, Matthew. [Heck, an utterly faithless priest still validly consecrates, etc!]

The debate centers around public defection from the Faith by those who claim to possess offices which exist to protect and promote the very same Faith they have rejected/perverted/etc. FWIW, I would hope we are all sufficiently informed to realize that this debate is not about private infidelity.

This is continually being pointed out and ignored.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #7 on:** June 02, 2011, 10:34:11 AM »

Indeed, SJB. Well, perhaps it will eventually register and positively affect the discussion.

Caminus · « **Reply #8 on:** June 03, 2011, 02:05:37 PM »

According to the chart, public manifestation pertains to heresy, whereas public manifestations of qualitatively differing errors have no consequence regarding membership in the Church, but the error destroys the virtue of faith nevertheless.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #9 on:** June 03, 2011, 04:07:27 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

According to the chart, public manifestation pertains to heresy, whereas public manifestations of qualitatively differing errors have no consequence regarding membership in the Church, but the error destroys the virtue of faith nevertheless.

Do you REALLY believe the Catholic word has been utterly decimated by the public manifestation of "qualitatively differing errors"?

In such a scenario, the effect is entirely out of proportion with the posited cause.

Caminus · « **Reply #10 on:** June 03, 2011, 04:35:16 PM »

Parvus error in principio magnus est in fine. No doubt many are heretics. But painting with such a broad stroke while relying upon a dubious cause and effect analysis isn't very helpful.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #11 on:** June 03, 2011, 04:43:25 PM »

The small error does not remain small, Matthew -- and all that maxim is saying is something like "Every oak tree grows from an acorn." You cannot have hundreds of millions lose the faith without someone teaching things that are, in fact, contrary to the faith. Over the course of these fifty years, if a man still cannot see the now-rampant heresy, he never will.

It is a simple fact that every effect is proportional to its cause. In fact, every cause must be, in a sense, greater than its effect.

Frankly, to act like the V2 pontiffs have NOT uttered actual heresy is, put kindly, incomprehensible -- and contrary to what most of the SSPX bishops say.

Caminus · « **Reply #12 on:** June 03, 2011, 08:20:24 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

The small error does not remain small, Matthew -- and all that maxim is saying is something like "Every oak tree grows from an acorn." You cannot have hundreds of millions lose the faith without someone teaching things that are, in fact, contrary to the faith. Over the course of these fifty years, if a man still cannot see the now-rampant heresy, he never will.

It is a simple fact that every effect is proportional to its cause. In fact, every cause must be, in a sense, greater than its effect.

Frankly, to act like the V2 pontiffs have NOT uttered actual heresy is, put kindly, incomprehensible -- and contrary to what most of the SSPX bishops say.

Right, a small error in principle does not remain small. Even a small deviation in the principles of Thomistic Metaphysics has the potential to cause great harm. When one assesses the destruction of the faith and its causes, heresy is certainly involved, but it is evidently not the only cause. But the point of this thread was to point out simply that one need not embrace formal heresy in order to sin and thus destroy the virtue of divine faith.