FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: 'Even a stopped clock is right twice a day'...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
“…we have to admit…that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus’, and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.” ( Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church)


Possibly my favorite quote of him  LOL
You mean that the Fathers wouldn't have attended Assisi? 
(04-10-2013, 12:25 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote: [ -> ]“…we have to admit…that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus’, and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.” ( Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church)


Possibly my favorite quote of him  LOL

Any idea where St. Augustine expressed such an opinion? I'm a bit confused about it as it almost strikes me as determinism after a fashion
But the opposite problem is pelagianism.
(04-10-2013, 08:51 PM)Reichsjager Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-10-2013, 12:25 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote: [ -> ]“…we have to admit…that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus’, and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.” ( Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church)


Possibly my favorite quote of him  LOL

Any idea where St. Augustine expressed such an opinion? I'm a bit confused about it as it almost strikes me as determinism after a fashion

It could be in his Retractations, I don't know exactly. It is either that or Rahner saw later quotes of St. Augustine that contradicted his earlier ones.

To your concern on determinism, I'll direct you to this thread http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...286.0.html where I posted an article that relates to the subject.
(04-10-2013, 12:25 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote: [ -> ]“…we have to admit…that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus’, and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.” ( Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church)


Possibly my favorite quote of him  LOL

Sorry, I don't have a favorite quote from Karl Rahner. His remark that "we have to throw out the Marian Schema proposed at the beginning of the council, because it would be stumbling block for our "separated brethren", just about did it for me. He got his way, of course, & for years following the council.........Mary was pretty much cast aside.

From Rorate Caeli:


The Schema constitutionis dogmaticae de [Beata] Maria [Virgine] was sent to the Fathers during the month of May [1963]. Neither the decision, nor the approved text, pleased Father Rahner, who in a written text addressed to all of the participants at the Fulda conference [of German-speaking Council Fathers and their experts] in August 1963, expressed his great concern regarding the document. These (concerns) – he assured – were shared by Fathers Grillmeier and Semmelroth. If the text were adopted, he affirmed “it would cause unimaginable harm from the ecumenical point of view regarding both the Orientals and the Protestants" [154]. Certainly, Rahner added, it could not be expected that the schema would be rejected like the one on the sources of Revelation. To reduce its importance, it was necessary to push, with all the insistence possible, for the schema to become a chapter, or the epilogue, of the schema on the Church. This, to his mind, would have been “the easiest means to suppress from the schema the affirmations that theologically, are not sufficiently developed ( ]the perpetual virginity of Mary, the role she played in the salvation of mankind, etc.) and would do nothing other than create incalculable harm from an ecumenical point of view. Thus, bitter discussions would be avoided”[155].

The words in blue are my own.
(04-10-2013, 07:57 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]You mean that the Fathers wouldn't have attended Assisi? 

Perhaps to convert those there and show them the error of their ways.  Maybe St. Nicholas would start punching people... 
It is highly debatable how many of these ancients even knew anything about people outside their known world. That could well have changed their views. Did God created Indians just to play around in fields in Ecuador until Europeans came to them? It makes no sense. He has worked out things to display His majesty, but that doesn't mean the people were left with no provision to go to heaven. Unless you worship a sadomasochist god.
Scriptorium, in your opinion, how many people do you estimate did not hear and see what Noah and his family were doing in regards to the ark, and yet died anyway by not being in it?
(04-11-2013, 08:39 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]It is highly debatable how many of these ancients even knew anything about people outside their known world. That could well have changed their views. Did God created Indians just to play around in fields in Ecuador until Europeans came to them? It makes no sense. He has worked out things to display His majesty, but that doesn't mean the people were left with no provision to go to heaven. Unless you worship a sadomasochist god.
It is not God's fault that people choose to sin. Many Indians participated in child sacrifice; is that not a big deal or not their fault since they were not evangelized yet?

Your condescension toward "ancients" - which in reality are sainted Fathers of the Church - is disgusting. Your suggestion that Catholics who believe that unbaptized pagans do not go to Heaven really worship a sadomasochist god is absolutely deplorable.
Pages: 1 2