Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 87 88 [89] 90 91 ... 134

Author Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?  (Read 56071 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #440 on: May 31, 2023, 12:37:00 PM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 31, 2023, 12:32:25 PM
it sounds like because the libs want to exaggerate the extent of invincible ignorance, Fr. Watgen was denying its existence altogether?
It’s a stupid argument because it has nothing to do worth anything 

the invincible ignorance argument in and of itself is just about a hypothetical.  IF there are people who are genuinely can’t know, AND they have faith in God and that he will reward and punish AND they have perfect contrition THEN they could be saved

Whether there really are such people at the moment is a separate question than what fate those people would have if they did exist

one could think that theoretically they would be saved but actually think there are none.  I suspect ladislaus would think that they do exist but that they would go to limbo.  So the questions aren’t related 
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #441 on: May 31, 2023, 12:38:24 PM »
The idea of invincible ignorance came about around the 1500s, due to the explorers discovering America and questioning how so many "innocent natives" could be damned.  St Thomas rejects the notion that an adult could die in such ignorance - before they die, they will either accept or reject the Truth.  Most people's ignorance is culpable, so says St Thomas.
Logged

Offline SeanJohnson

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #442 on: May 31, 2023, 12:42:17 PM »
Quote from: ByzCat3000 on May 31, 2023, 12:37:00 PM
It’s a stupid argument because it has nothing to do worth anything

the invincible ignorance argument in and of itself is just about a hypothetical.  IF there are people who are genuinely can’t know, AND they have faith in God and that he will reward and punish AND they have perfect contrition THEN they could be saved

Whether there really are such people at the moment is a separate question than what fate those people would have if they did exist

one could think that theoretically they would be saved but actually think there are none.  I suspect ladislaus would think that they do exist but that they would go to limbo.  So the questions aren’t related

A limbo if the justified who died in the state of grace?

Yes, that unheard of novelty sounds exactly like something he would invent.

But I do thank you for conceding the argument that those who die invincibly ignorant in the state of grace are saved.
Logged

Offline Marulus Fidelis

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #443 on: May 31, 2023, 12:43:20 PM »
Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 31, 2023, 12:32:25 PM
it sounds like because the libs want to exaggerate the extent of invincible ignorance, Fr. Watgen was denying its existence altogether?
I've never heard of anyone who denies people in invincible ignorance are not guilty of the sin of unbelief.

What people dispute is that there are certain mysteries of faith that must be known and believed by a necessity of means.


Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905: “And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”
"We pray and entreat you to reflect on the great loss of souls due solely to ignorance of divine things."
 
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832:  “Now we consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism.  This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained.  Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care.  With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.  They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him.  Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).


In other words, one must possess the Catholic faith.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity... Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Notie the word "wishes", volunt in the Latin. Only those above the age of reason can will to be saved and those need to believe these essential mysteries, not only receive the faith through baptism as infants do.

And before people start the debate about Quanto Conficiamur, etc. I'd like to bring up that Pius IX cites that very same encyclical as the source for condemning the following error:

Syllabus of Errors: 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. —Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

Referring to: Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (# 7), To Bishops of Italy, 1863: "Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching." 


Logged

Offline Marulus Fidelis

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?
« Reply #444 on: May 31, 2023, 12:44:53 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 31, 2023, 12:38:24 PM
Most people's ignorance is culpable, so says St Thomas.
All*

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

St. Thomas Aquinas: When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without the faith, but not because of their sin of unbelief.

St. Prosper of Aquitaine: It may be true that there are, in the remotest parts of the world, some people who have not yet seen the light of the Savior. Certainly, God's manifold and ineffable goodness has always provided, and still provides, for all mankind in such a way that not one of the reprobates can find an excuse as though he had been refused the light of truth. 




Logged
Pages: 1 ... 87 88 [89] 90 91 ... 134
« previous next »